Why should consensual sex between two underage partners be reported as abuse? One thing to mandate reporting of statutory rape (and even that has to be weighed against the right to privacy of medical records), but this is way overboard.
Lisa | 07.18.07 - 11:20 pm | #

Why should consensual sex between two underage partners be reported as abuse?

Now, Lisa, do you really, truly, and honestly believe that an 11-year-old child has the emotional and intellectual capacity to give her free, voluntary, and knowing consent to engage in sex, with a full understanding of the nature and consequences of the act?
Bender | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 12:50 am | #

Also, let's say that the 11-year-old girl is being taken advantage of by a 15-year-old boy. They are both underage. However, that doesn't mean the situation isn't abusive.
Susan B. | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 1:47 am | #

A child who isn't being abused won't be brought to PP for pregnancy tests, STD testing, etc. A child who isnt' beign brought into PP is one they're not making any money from.

Maybe we need to start paying PP a stipend for every chaste teenager in their cachement areas. The trouble is, the stipend would have to be more than what they get from the government for providing "services" to a sexually active (or sexually abused) child.
Christina | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 6:23 am | #

This is nonsense. As a church worker and mandated reporter, we have been trained to report EVERYTHING that gives indications of abuse.

If a 15-year-old girl were beaten up by her 30-year-old father, is there a center she can be treated that won't report the incident? Planned Parenthood seems to be the exception to all rape law.
Andy | 07.19.07 - 7:29 am | #

The first link isn't working.

[Fixed, thanks - Ed.]
Athos | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 7:31 am | #

& our tax dollars support these policies?
Faith | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 7:54 am | #

I got one-third of the way through it, and I couldn't watch it anymore. Too damned obnoxious. One more reason to hope that California slides into the ocean after an earthquake.

Or maybe just the Bay Area. Whatever.
David L Alexander | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 10:34 am | #

Their hypocrisy is simply unbelievable. I'm old enough to remember when PP claimed to be working to help women resist the abusive behavior of men. It's interesting, isn't it, that it appears to be in their financial interest to maintain the anonymity of men who molest little girls and then take them to PP to be vacuumed out and got ready to be used again.
Elinor | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 11:08 am | #

Then again, consensual sex between 2 14- or 15-year-olds, although it might not meet with your approval, can hardly be described as "child rape."

This law seems to need some tweaking to protect those who actually need it.
Terezia | 07.19.07 - 11:20 am | #

Why should consensual sex between two underage people be reported? And the 11-year old/15-year old example doesn't hold up with me -- who would you prosecute, if they're both underage? Both? The older one, by default? I don't think sex among very young teenagers is necessarily desirable, but I certainly don't think it should be criminal. And if it's not a crime, why should it be reported?

Also, it's not clear exactly what the course of action PP took in the case of the 11-year old rape victim, nor what the victim told PP. I believe PP should be required to report cases of statuatory rape, as well as forcible rape in any age group. But if I had been raped at 11, my parents were the LAST people on earth I would have told about it, since they have a blame-the-victim mentality, and believe that nice girls who dress/act modestly don't get raped, and those who do usually "ask for it." I would have sought medical help and counseling at a place like PP and would not have revealed any information that might have gotten back to my parents in any way.
L. | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 11:30 am | #

"A child who isn't being abused won't be brought to PP for pregnancy tests, STD testing, etc. A child who isnt' beign brought into PP is one they're not making any money from."

I guess that's one way of looking at it, Christina.

But hasn't L just brought up the crucial problem?

If you can put the funding part aside for a moment, where do you go for knowledgable help as a sexually active under age individual if you don't want the authorities involved?
jody tresidder | 07.19.07 - 12:42 pm | #

The very fact that they need "knowledgeable help" is proof positive that they lack the requisite knowledge that is necessary to make an informed decision and thereby give effective consent to engage in sex in the first place. The fact that they need additional sexual knowledge and education proves that we are not talking about "consensual sex," but about sexual exploitation.
Bender | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 2:23 pm | #

By all means, keep the parents out of it; why they created the "problem" in the first place - no one asked the poor dears whether they even wanted to be born... so PP gets'em before and after they're born..sounds like a win-win...

"I would have sought medical help and counseling at a place like PP..."

Exactly what I told my girls: "Don't trust your mother and I; we might disagree with you - go get advice from the professionals at PP." Sheesh...
Tom G | 07.19.07 - 2:30 pm | #

There is a reason that we do not hold minors bound to the contacts that they enter into. There is a reason that we do not let minors purchase and drink alcohol. There is a reason that we do not let minors purchase and smoke cigarettes. There is a reason why we place age restrictions on who can and cannot drive. There is a reason why minors are not allowed to decide for themselves to get a tatoo. There is a reason why minors are not allowed to get an apartment for themselves.

Due to their limited age, minors have limited knowledge, limited experience, and limited emotional formation so as to make effective decisions and to give authentic consent, that is, decisions that are made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, with a full understanding and appreciation of the nature and consequence of the decision. And they are extremely vulnerable to be exploited and taken advantage of. Not only to children lack the capacity and competency to give sexual consent, they lack the effective ability to say "no" when someone seeks to engage in sexual activity with them.

Such conduct with children is not "consensual" in any sense of the term. It is sexual exploitation. It is sexual abuse. It is no less exploitive or abusive when the other person involved is himself or herself a child. And it furthers that abuse when one, such as PP, turns a blind eye to it and refuses to protect that child by reporting the abuse.
Bender | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 2:50 pm | #

Faith, Family & Education have always been anathema to the business professionals at PP.

They do offer a disordered version of the above to their clients though.
Tom G | 07.19.07 - 3:31 pm | #

Bender,

The tough question remains though - doesn't it?

Isn't it better to have PP's eye - blind, as it is in your phrase, to the legal and moral aspects of these wretched cases- than no eye whatsoever?
jody tresidder | 07.19.07 - 3:55 pm | #

Jody,

I'm not sure I see your point. Why is it better to have a blind eye than none at all? Could you please expand on that?
Kasia | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 4:13 pm | #

The question also remains -- who to prosecute? Which minor? Prosecute BOTH for statuatory rape, because ALL sex involiving a minor is "exploitation" and "abuse?"

This is not just a rhetorical question for me -- I was once a sexually active minor teenager, and obtained birth control at PP when I was having consensual sex with another minor (though I believe we were both above the age of consent -- I forget now what the age was in my home state). Should PP be required to report my case to the authorities, "just in case" I was having sex with a legal adult? And should the authorities then be required to involve my parents, because their daughter was having underage sex?
L. | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 4:21 pm | #

"Don't trust your mother and I; we might disagree with you - go get advice from the professionals at PP."

Tom G., this is EXACTLY what I am telling my now 10-year old daughter, because it was certainly true in my own case. If it weren't for a birth control counselor at PP, I would have thought that withdrawal was an effective form of contraception -- I remain convinced that PP saved me from an unwanted pregnancy, because I would have had sex no matter what.

My daughter has friends in her Catholic school class who are already "dating" boys -- meaning, holding hands at recess when the teachers aren't looking. But that's where it all begins.

I have been a major donor to PP over the years, though I now give all my charitable donations to another cause overseas.
L. | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 4:28 pm | #

It is possible that no "prosecution" is needed, but merely "intervention."

It seems very reasonable that PP should not be permitted to treat minor children without the consent of the parents.

However, the culture of Death won court cases, allowing children to seek sexual advice and products from commercial providers, and protected from disclosure to any authority, including the parents.
Del | 07.19.07 - 4:30 pm | #

L,

Notification of proper authorities by a mandated reporter does not mean automatic prosecution; more often than not, proper authorities investigate the reports to find that no abuse has taken place. The fact is that minors with an STD or pregnancy show symptoms of abuse just as much as the boy in class with a black eye. Could it be from another minor? Sure, and I doubt a charge of statutory rape would be filed. I would still rather have that stopgap there for the 30 year old child rapist that brings his victim to PP to cover up his crime, no questions asked.
Andy | 07.19.07 - 4:47 pm | #

I followed the link to PP. (It goes to a pre-formulated email you can send to your representative)

I cannot figure out why PP calls this a move by the "anti-choice" movement.

I also find it interesting that they raise the first objection (as quoted by Dawn) by talking about how much *money* it will cost. The taxpayers. For them to make a report.
corita | 07.19.07 - 5:21 pm | #

"I'm not sure I see your point. Why is it better to have a blind eye than none at all? Could you please expand on that?"


Fair question, Kasia!

I was clumsily trying to extend Bender's metaphor.

So that in my awkward construction PP has one blind eye (legally/morally) - and one that at least sees what IS going on and can give knowledgable advice (now we have moved to the mouth - the metaphor is getting even ghastlier!) - or at least better advice, anyway, than say the friend of someone's sister.

Andy, you wrote: "Notification of proper authorities by a mandated reporter does not mean automatic prosecution; more often than not, proper authorities investigate the reports to find that no abuse has taken place."

It is the investigation by proper authorities that is precisely what the minor will be trying to avoid.

Minors often have an unclear idea of who is going to "get into trouble" in these situations. Hence, sadly, the huge intial unwillingness to risk any involvement at all with the authorities.
jody tresidder | 07.19.07 - 5:21 pm | #

I also find it interesting that they raise the first objection (as quoted by Dawn) by talking about how much *money* it will cost. The taxpayers. For them to make a report.

Corita,
I agree. I found that obnoxious and hollow,even though I am pro-choice.
jody tresidder | 07.19.07 - 5:26 pm | #

Also, L., and others.

I can see the problem. The potentially reportable scenario could mean stopping a child predator... or becoming the sex police.

Lots of people feel that children should have someone helping them to make decisions that are so life-altering. (Bender argues well, I think.) But the highly personal nature of sex makes it a different category from, say, tatoos or cigarettes.)

Anyone have any ideas about how to sell this "more responsible" role for PP without turning them into the teen sex police?

Not that I think much of PP, btw. I actually despise them as an institution, despite the good (as L. has pointed out) they do for other medical care for women.

But why can't this initiative help hold PP accountable, and get money out of the way in their figuring? AND I wonder if it isn't time for some other organizations to help out -- be PP- without-hypocrisy?
corita | 07.19.07 - 5:29 pm | #

The Cartoon: interesting that the Super character is dressed like a devil and calls herself DIE-anisis.
Also the little fellow rightly responds to her saying ,"I was just telling the Truth," whereby she fills a bucket with some type of killing fluid and puts the human in- similar to a saline abortion procedure.
Anne | 07.19.07 - 7:08 pm | #

Jody, I lived in a rural area where there were no "family planning clinics." The few kids that WERE sexually involved with each other knew that you could get condoms in gas station vending machines. They didn't involve "the authorities" or any organization that would help them elude "the authorities".

On the other hand, what a rape victim or sexual abuse victim needs isn't a way to continue the abuse without "the authorities" catching on. She needs help. Vacuuming her out or putting her on the pill doesn't address the rape or the abuse. In fact, it teats her as if she's a willing participant who needs to take some responsibility for her role!
Christina | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 7:43 pm | #

L., considering that PP has been caught coaching girls on how to blame a peer for what an older man is doing to them, YES, you need to call in the authorities, if only to make sure that the "My boyfriend is my age" story really is true.

How often does CPS do an investigation and find out that all is well, that somebody just misunderstood? The kid really did fall off the swing, or really did have brittle bone syndrome, or whatever. But just because often what the parents say is true doesn't mean that you don't investigate suspicious circumstances to make sure the child isn't in danger. Investigate, double check, and if all is well move on. But the cost to the child of failing to investigate, if there really is abuse, is appallingly high.
Christina | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 7:47 pm | #

Why should consensual sex between two underage people be reported?

Because how do you know it was consensual? And how do you know it was between two underaged people? And given those two, how do you know it was not as a result of criminal neglect on the parents' part?

PP, like all manadatory reporters, must report even the suspicion of child abuse, and it has already been established that pregnancy in a girl under the age of consent creates such a suspicion.
Mary | 07.19.07 - 8:07 pm | #

If PP started reporting EVERY single underage girl who was pregnant or had an STD, then underaged sexually active girls would just stop going to Planned Parenthood. My guess is that the overwhelming majority would not, however, stop having sex. They would keep having sex, buy OTC pregnancy tests and condoms, and just put off getting tested for STDs until they were older. I am not sure how that is better.
Lisa | 07.19.07 - 9:56 pm | #

Well, according to the "investigation/intervention required," if the goal were to rule out "even the mere suspicion," then PP would be obligated to report minors who came in for contraception, too, because surely the minor's intent is to use what she came in to get! See what I mean? Where to draw the line?
L. | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 10:06 pm | #

As for PP harping on the costs to taxpayers --- the bottom line is all that matters to many folks. Sad, but true (says a business/financial reporter).
L. | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 10:08 pm | #

I find this "they're going to have sex anyway" argument to be inconsistent at best and illogical on its face.

We don't say, "they're going to get a weapon anyway so we should offer firing range training for teens without parental consent" (i.e., to encourage safe shooting).

We don't say, "they're going to drink alcoholic beverages anyway, so we need to give teens breathalizer tests without parental consent to let them know if they're becoming intoxicated" (i.e., to encourage safe drinking).

We don't say, "they're going to smoke anyway, so we should give teens free low-nicotine cigarettes without parental consent" (i.e., to encourage safe smoking).

No. Because they are below the age of majority, we have decided that there is no such thing as safe shooting, safe drinking or safe smoking for teenagers. What's so different about sex? Other than, of course, Planned Parenthoods genitalcentric view of the universe. Sorry, but it simply fails the logic test.

As for the comment above that "the highly personal nature of sex makes it a different category from, say, tattoos or cigarettes" -- how so, when it comes to society's requirement to protect minors?
C.J. | 07.19.07 - 10:14 pm | #

It seems very reasonable that PP should not be permitted to treat minor children without the consent of the parents.

That doesn't seem reasonable to me, personally, because my parents would never have give their consent to PP to treat me -- and I would surely have had sex, anyway, probably using only withdrawal.

PP was very much my safety net. I should add, I was raised very strictly Catholic. I mistakenly assumed I was automatically excommunicated when I was 15, due to a misunderstanding, and therefore, I figured "the rules no longer applied." I'm only adding this part in case someone insists that children who are raised properly don't need PP -- I was, and I did.
L. | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 10:14 pm | #

L.,
I understand that that is what people care about, but should it be what PP stresses? Why try to manipulate their supporters into giving the support and voicing an objection to the bill? Shoudln't they be able to make a decent argument, as some have tried to do here, and let that be - at least - the MAIN argument to being with?
corita | 07.19.07 - 10:15 pm | #

What's so different about sex?

Heh heh. Where to begin answering that?
L. | Homepage | 07.19.07 - 10:15 pm | #

C.J.,
I said that about tattoos and cigarettes. I am in agreement that we have an obligation, as a society, to help protect the weaker, more innocent members-- even from themselves.

But I was trying to make the point that, for much of our culture, PP is seen as generally benign, even a godsend. And no matter what you think sex is for, it IS way different!

In order to make an argument against these PP mind techniques, we have to acknowledge that the larger culture has a plurality of views on the purposes of the body and sexual identity. So there has got to be some way to hold PP morally accountable, call it to some kind of integrity, and monitor it for its profiteering. And yet recognize and allow there be freedom from a dnagerous kind of intrusion into all private life by the government. There has to be a line. Where is it?

And anyone got some other ideas about alternatives to Planned Parenthood for low-cost women's health care?
corita | 07.19.07 - 10:27 pm | #

Did anyone else notice the rather ironic costume of the superheroine? Particularly the sunglasses? I'm not sure if it was intentional, but when you think that this is a pro-abortion, pro-'safe-sex', murderous superheroine, the outfit is a perfect fit.

But about the law - I have no problem with sex under 16 being considered 'child abuse', although it is somewhat extreme considering in the young people were considered 'men' and 'women' at 14 and even married at that age. I think the emphasis on that part of the proposed law is just a bit of PP's expert misdirection; exaggerate one part of the law to render the rest redundant by default.
Colm | Homepage | 07.20.07 - 3:33 am | #

The part of that video that cracked me up was the Senator saying he was making "I-do-just-what-I-wanna-do" stew. This from an organization asking to be excepted from existing laws.

Not to mention that "I-do-just-what-I-wanna-do" seems to be a pretty fair description of PP's sexual ethic, complete with the damn-the-consequences air attached (by implication) to the Senator.

Peace,
--Peter
Peter Brown | 07.20.07 - 9:41 am | #

C.J.,
Protecting teens WHEN they decide to have sex is completely different than say, getting consent to get a tattoo because of the fact that sex is a BIOLOGICAL desire that EVERY SINGLE PERSON has. You have no inherent NEED to get a tattoo, smoke a cigarette or shoot a gun.
Completely different.
Amanda | 07.20.07 - 1:12 pm | #

Nope.
Andy | 07.20.07 - 2:00 pm | #

Yup:)
jody tresidder | 07.20.07 - 2:11 pm | #

Amanda said: "You have no inherent NEED to get a tattoo, smoke a cigarette or shoot a gun."

Uh--you have no inherent "NEED" to have teenage sex, either. Desire, sure! Need, no. Look at the statistics; plenty of teens reach adulthood as virgins with no obvious ill effects (indeed, arguably the reverse).

Of course, plenty of teens do have sex, too. But that doesn't demonstrate that it's a NEED, only that lots of kids do it. Equally of course, lots of teens do smoke, get tattoos, and shoot guns. (Particularly around where I live.)

So--if you want to demonstrate a difference, please try again. (I'm not saying that you can't demonstrate a difference, only that you didn't.)

Peace,
--Peter
Peter Brown | 07.20.07 - 4:35 pm | #

Peter,
I didn't say sex was a need. I said it was a biological desire. And it is. We are sexual creatures, which is why one of God's first mandates was, "Go forth and multiply." We are biologically driven to have sex. No one needs sex to survive. It's not water or air. But the human body sure does make an awfully strong case to have it on a regular basis anyway.
Amanda | 07.20.07 - 4:52 pm | #

Well, according to the "investigation/intervention required," if the goal were to rule out "even the mere suspicion," then PP would be obligated to report minors who came in for contraception, too, because surely the minor's intent is to use what she came in to get! See what I mean? Where to draw the line?

Yes, they should be reporting children who seek contraception. There are child abusers who bring their victims to such clinics and get them injected with Depo-Provera because they are tired of using condoms.
Mary | 07.20.07 - 8:25 pm | #

But the human body sure does make an awfully strong case to have it on a regular basis anyway.

Anyone who has sexual intercourse on that basis belongs in the lunatic asylumm, along with the other people who can't control their behavior and pose a risk to themselves or others.
Mary | 07.20.07 - 8:26 pm | #

It seems very reasonable that PP should not be permitted to treat minor children without the consent of the parents.

That doesn't seem reasonable to me, personally, because my parents would never have give their consent to PP to treat me -- and I would surely have had sex, anyway, probably using only withdrawal.

By the same token, it is unreasonable to have an age limit for buy alcohol on the grounds your parents wouldn't give you any and you would have drunk it anyway.
Mary | 07.20.07 - 8:33 pm | #

Amanda:

Good! We're agreed that sex isn't a need.

So how exactly is sex "completely different" from smoking, tattoos and guns?

It looks like you're arguing that the biological desire for sex (again, we agree that people have that desire) makes the difference, but:

1. I want to be sure that's where you're going, rather than putting my own guesses into your mouth, and

2. If that is the line of argument you're pursuing, I want to see how you nail down the "completely different" thing, because I really don't see how that follows.

Peace,
--Peter
Peter Brown | 07.20.07 - 9:01 pm | #

By the same token, it is unreasonable to have an age limit for buy alcohol on the grounds your parents wouldn't give you any and you would have drunk it anyway.

To make your analogy work, Mary, PP would somehow have given me something that enabled me to drink without the dire physical consequences of drunkedness. PP did not give me the opportunity to have sex -- it merely mitigated the risks of doing it.
L. | Homepage | 07.20.07 - 9:07 pm | #

Yes, they should be reporting children who seek contraception.

I assume you define "child" as legal minor. However, the age of sexual consent in many states is younger than the voting age -- and far younger than the drinking age.

I admit I hate the idea of a 12-year old, the same age as my oldest son, obtaining contraception. But I don't think it should be criminalized, nor do I think the child's parents should be notified. I simply don't see how that would possibly make the situation any better, for anyone involved.
L. | Homepage | 07.20.07 - 9:11 pm | #

So, let me get this straight. We shouldn't eliminate legal loopholes in mandatory reporting laws; loopholes which risk abandoning vulnerable, exploited, abused children to the hands of their abusers. We shouldn't do this because we don't want to put mandatory reporters like Planned Parenthood in a position of having to crimp the style of mature, sophisticated, under-aged kids who want to have sex with each other behind the backs of the adults in their lives. Hmmm. Which child is in greater need of the protection/intervention of the state? The 12 year old who suffers molestation and rape at the hands of a 16 year old neighbor? or the 12 year old who thinks she's with it enough to have sex with her 12 year old 'boyfriend'? Given that anyone can go to the PP website and find out the withdrawal isn't terribly effective, and not recommended for teenagers because of the control and experience needed to use it, and that condoms are recommended because they protect you from STD's; and that anyone can walk into any corner drugstore and buy said condoms with no questions asked; and that the PP website happily explains how to use said condoms effectively, my money is on child #1 as the one we should be looking out for. I'm sorry, but this seems like a real no brainer to me. L, you come at this debate from the perspective of child #2; you appreciated and remain grateful to that 'blind eye'. But child #2 is in a position to be able to help themselves. Personally, I was child #1; I couldn't save myself. And the people who should have, well, they were blind. No loopholes for mandatory reporters.
J | 07.21.07 - 1:17 am | #

J., there was no Internet when I was a teenager, and plenty of teens lack computer access -- or have it only at school, where they're not free to read Web sites with intimate information. Anyone can walk into any corner drugstore and buy condoms with no questions asked? Not in my town, and not in many other small towns todayy.

As I said, I would have had sex with or without PP, and I surely would not have obtained contraception if I had not been able to so confidentially. Should the price of saving girls like you from your undoubtedly horrible situations really be removing the means of saving girls like me from the consequences of ignorance? Isn't there some way to accept that not all sex between minors is abusive or exploitive?
L. | Homepage | 07.21.07 - 1:42 am | #

Yes, Teens could care for each other very much and make love, but I think the whole concept of being a teenager should be abolished and we should be marrying much earlier in life as we did just a few generations ago.

The only thing boys gossip about is having sex and with who. If you're willing to lower your standard and have sex with just any guy you've been hanging around with, you will be judge by that choice. Guys don't think highly of a young lady, because she has sex with him with the Pill or used a condom.

When I went chaste in college, I notice I was getting a lot more positive attention from my male peers. Rather then being vulgar, they talked about class material or even politics. At first it was a bit lonely, but while in the dorm a guy completely drunk stopped me in the hall way. He didn't want sex, instead he confessed his major crush he had on me.

Horrible analogy... I read in Stephen Rhoads book, Taking Sex Difference Seriously, he mentioned the young men see a girl they've slept with like a video game they know how to win. When a young man knows how to win the video game, he shelves it. That is how men work, no Pill or condom is going to change it.

When a lady goes chaste, the inability not to have her makes men do crazy things. My husband lied to a co-worker that I already had a boyfriend, when he knew I wasn't dating anyone before he asked me out. Every woman should have the joy experiencing two men fighting over her, not today when women are desperate for a man to commit.
Renee A. | Homepage | 07.21.07 - 3:23 am | #

"If you're willing to lower your standard and have sex with just any guy you've been hanging around with, you will be judge by that choice."

Renee,
Mindful that there's some truth in that, I've given slightly different advice to my teenage niece (she is 15, strong-willed and hates advice, so one has to measure this stuff out carefully!).

I've suggested she make it a habit to never, ever date a boy she hears trashing certain girls as "sluts".

That goes for older men speaking about older women as well, but it's a handy rule to avoid those guys like the plague right from the start.
Jody Tresidder | 07.21.07 - 10:44 am | #

As for PP harping on the costs to taxpayers --- the bottom line is all that matters to many folks. Sad, but true (says a business/financial reporter).

I have a way for them to never have to spend another taxpayer nickel. Stop giving them government funds.
Tony | Homepage | 07.22.07 - 1:15 am | #

As for PP harping on the costs to taxpayers --- the bottom line is all that matters to many folks. Sad, but true (says a business/financial reporter).

I have a way for them to never have to spend another taxpayer nickel. Stop giving them government funds.>>>

Yes, because without PP teenage sex will magically go away and no one will ever want an abortion again!
Neil C. | 07.22.07 - 11:51 am | #

Dear L:
1) Regarding this: "this is EXACTLY what I am telling my now 10-year old daughter, because it was certainly true in my own case. If it weren't for a birth control counselor at PP, I would have thought that withdrawal was an effective form of contraception -- I remain convinced that PP saved me from an unwanted pregnancy, because I would have had sex no matter what."

So your point is that PP enabled you to "practice" sex without consequences? How thoroughly modern of you. Maybe your 10 year old daughter will discover the difference between a receptacle and a union. One hopes.

2) And this: "My daughter has friends in her Catholic school class who are already "dating" boys -- meaning, holding hands at recess when the teachers aren't looking. But that's where it all begins."

And here's your proposed solution: consult the folks who make it their business to keep us doing the things we like - "And if you get pregnant because you a) demand your sexual "rights" or b) can't control yourself or circumstances, there's always the cheery folks at PP to a)counsel you on how to gratify yourself without guilt or b) destroy any unintended progeny. Quite a plan there, L. Why is your child in Catholic School? Are you waiting for the church to "catch up"?

3) And this piece de resistance: "I have been a major donor to PP over the years, though I now give all my charitable donations to another cause overseas." L, is your point that you're a shill for Planned Parenthood? So if I said, "I have been a major donor to Hezbollah & Al Aksa Martyr's Bde over the years...", you'd probably swoon. But they're amateurs in the killing business compared to your PP, arent they? Again from my earlier..sheesh...
Tom G | 07.22.07 - 9:21 pm | #

PP helped me, Tom. They were they for me. I want them to be there for my daughter, too.

So your point is that PP enabled you to "practice" sex without consequences?

Exactly! Or would you prefer that I had been punished with a pregnancy? Is that how it ought to work?

Maybe your 10 year old daughter will discover the difference between a receptacle and a union.

Well, if you truly believe that her mother is merely a "receptacle," then I suppose my daughter is a receptacle, too.

...can't control yourself... Oh, believe me -- I can certainly control myself, Tom. But you'll have to take my word for it.

Why is your child in Catholic School? Are you waiting for the church to "catch up"?

Nope -- the Church is what it is. The kids are in their school because I think it's the right place for them to be right now (though my husband remains adamantly opposed to it). Of course, I won't know for sure until they're grown, and perhaps I will regret it, but it's a chance I'm willing to take.
L. | Homepage | 07.22.07 - 9:49 pm | #

By the same token, it is unreasonable to have an age limit for buy alcohol on the grounds your parents wouldn't give you any and you would have drunk it anyway.

To make your analogy work, Mary, PP would somehow have given me something that enabled me to drink without the dire physical consequences of drunkedness. PP did not give me the opportunity to have sex -- it merely mitigated the risks of doing it.

Children who buy alcohol may buy bootleg booze, which can be badly made and blind, or even kill. The analogy is, in fact, exact.
Mary | 07.23.07 - 9:40 pm | #

"Children who buy alcohol may buy bootleg booze, which can be badly made and blind, or even kill. The analogy is, in fact, exact."

On the contrary. Your analogy, Mary, put me immediately in mind of a backstreet abortion.

PP provides professional services - not the bootleg or backstreet sort.
Jody Tresidder | 07.23.07 - 10:41 pm | #

Jody, I think that's exactly Mary's point. Legal alcohol kills far too many teenage drivers, which is one prime reason why society restricts teenage drinking. In the same way, PP doesn't have to be backstreet to be destructive.

Did I misunderstand you, Mary?

Peace,
--Peter
Peter Brown | 07.23.07 - 11:06 pm | #

Wait -- I am trying to understand Mary's metaphor here.

Does alcohol represent the sex itself, or the contraception -- the means to enable it? PP didn't give me "bootleg" contraception -- it gave me the real stuff. The sex part I did on my own, and the contraception reduced, not raised, my risks.

Legal alcohol does in fact kill far too many teenage drivers, which is indeed one prime reason why society restricts teenage drinking -- but what PP did was equivalent to a controversial pledge at my high school. After the alcohol-related death of a student, the school asked parents to pledge to tell their teens, "If you are too drunk to drive, CALL ME, and I will come and pick you up, and I promise not to punish you." The idea was that the dead teen avoided making such a call precisely because he was afraid of his parents' punishment. Giving a drunk teen a ride home, with no consequences, can be compared to giving a sexually active teen contraception.

However, many parents (including mine) refused to make the pledge, because they believed removing the punishment aspect was tantamount to enabling and even encouraging drinking.
L. | Homepage | 07.23.07 - 11:54 pm | #

Your analogy, Mary, put me immediately in mind of a backstreet abortion.

Exactly.

Unless you give the underage children alcohol, some of them will go out to get their own. They may get bootleg liquor and end up blind or dead.

If L does not regard this as an argument for removing all drinking age laws, she is lying when she says that people are justified when they dispense contraception to minors and ignore mandatory reporting.
Mary | 07.24.07 - 8:06 pm | #

I am "lying," Mary?

Excuse me, but I have never lied in anything I've ever said on this blog (or anywhere else, for that matter). I'm not even sure you read what I say anymore, before you disagree with it.
L. | Homepage | 07.24.07 - 8:58 pm | #

Mary,
This comment of yours doesn't work as an analogy:
"Unless you give the underage children alcohol, some of them will go out to get their own."

There is no "unless you give" with sex. It is not provided by an outside supplier.

That is the stunning difference which becomes apparent to our young with their bodies developing faster than their grasp of all the consequences.
Jody Tresidder | 07.25.07 - 9:22 am | #

There is no "unless you give" with sex. It is not provided by an outside supplier.

Drinking is not provided by an outside supplier, either. You have to do it yourself.
Mary | 07.25.07 - 6:50 pm | #

Drinking is not provided by an outside supplier, either. You have to do it yourself.

Okay, then Mary:)

Two people can have sex together with nothing else supplied.

But two people cannot have a drink together with nothing else supplied!
Jody Tresidder | 07.25.07 - 7:48 pm | #

Actually, whether two people can have sex with nothing else supplied depends on the people in question, but this is getting off track, anyway—sex "with nothing else supplied" can't be talking about PP any more, since PP is a provider of goods and services.

My understanding of Mary's original analogy was that PP supplies goods andsimilarly services to teenagers in an attempt to make teenage sex safe, just as Mary's hypothetical alcohol provider is supplying (legal) alcohol to teens in an attempt to make teenage drinking safe. The problem with giving kids access to alcohol in an attempt to make teenage drinking safe is that the common negative outcomes for teen drinking really have very little to do with the quality of the alcohol. Those negative outcomes are really tied to the fact that teens, as a population, don't yet have the judgment to drink responsibly; trying to make teenage drinking "safe" just doesn't work, which is why we have legal drinking ages.

I think the point of Mary's argument is that trying to make teen sex "safe" doesn't work either, in roughly the same way that making teenage drinking "safe" doesn't work. I think, in fact, that that's the basic disagreement between Jody and L., who are seeing the primary dangers of teen sex as pregnancy and STD's, and Mary (and me) who just don't buy that whole understanding of sex.

Before launching off into why I don't buy PP's view of sex, do y'all agree that I have the right question here? (Answering different questions is a quick way to talking past each other, so I want to check before pontificating :-).)

Peace,
--Peter
Peter Brown | 07.25.07 - 9:01 pm | #

Peter, you make a good point. Instead of getting bogged down in exactly what is represented in the metaphor, because we should clarify what the metaphor represents.

If underage sex is in fact just like underage drinking, should ALL underage sex be against the law in the interest of the public good, the way underage drinking is? Should the age of consent be set a uniform 18, or even 21, the way it is for drinking? Should all evidence of sex under this age of consent be investigated, and the violators (defined as anyone under the age of consent who becomes sexually active) be placed into treatment programs for their own good and the good of society at large?

I (and I daresay, Jody as well) do not see underage sex in this particular light.

Even laws regarding underage drinking are quite inconsistent with other "underage" laws. Young people can vote and serve in the armed forces before they can legally drink, which honestly makes no sense to me. Then again, I am from a family that did not observe underage drinking laws in the privacay of our own home.
L. | Homepage | 07.25.07 - 11:28 pm | #

Cartoon: I figured the name of the character was taken from the ancient greek god of drunkenness, since it is pronounced the same and we don't get a spelling for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus
mrofone | 07.27.07 - 2:40 pm | #