So begins the New York Times report, and it's hard not to read this as criticizing Obama, who phrased his support Sebelius in terms of his role "as the father of two daughters."
“And as I understand it, the reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going into a drugstore should be able — alongside bubble gum or batteries — be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect. And I think most parents would probably feel the same way.”...Odd that all the attention is on the child's health. Who is impregnating 10- and 11-year olds? We're talking about serious crimes! One reason very young girls shouldn't be able to purchase this drug on their own is that it prevents criminal behavior from coming to light. The Times quotes James Trussell, director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University saying “Where is an 11-year-old going to get the $50 to buy this product?” What willful blindness! There is a male in the picture somewhere, a male facing a severe criminal penalty.
The NYT refers to "[s]ome Democrats" offering reasons for "avoiding a divisive debate over teenagers’ sexuality." Teenagers' sexuality? When we talk about the Penn State scandal, there's no discussion of the "teenagers' sexuality." What "divisive debate" are these Democrats talking about?
পোস্টগুলি
৬৯টি মন্তব্য:
Bubble gum and batteries shop at drugstores alongside young girls?
as I understand it
Nice to know that he really isn't too sure about his cabinent secretary's position.
It is also comical this idiot is incapable of asking himself who is having sex with 11 year olds prompting them to buy these pills.
But Obama is like so smart and stuff.
“Where is an 11-year-old going to get the $50 to buy this product?”
What an idiot. As if 11-year-olds don't have drug problems. Where do they get the money to but drugs?
When teens and tweens want something badly enough, they are very resourceful at finding money.
That drug gives me the creeps. I've been on hormonal BC for years, and it's heady stuff on its own. This is basically a massive dose of that at one time. I find it incredibly hard to believe that it's just OK for girls that are still going through puberty (or for anyone, really).
Ann's right, too. If 11 year olds are having sex, there's a big problem. That's not just normal teens will be teens; that's someone's doing something wrong.
I was a bit skittish about Bush's war on terror policies. But when Obama, a professed critic of the policies, did the same thing, I said to myself "Well, maybe I need to reconsider my reasons for skittishness"
I would think that if Sibelius and Obama both support a policy that is also liked by pro lifers, it should give the other side pause to say, hey, maybe we're overreaching here, and there are sound policy reasons to go with O and S.
But no, it has to be "politics".
could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going into a drugstore should be able — alongside bubble gum or batteries — be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect
Of course they are free to buy all the Tylenol they want, notwithstanding the fact that an overdose is pretty much a guaranteed dirt nap.
Peter
The over the morning after pill is dangerous, with numerous deaths. Under normal circumstance that would kill these drugs. By allowing it at all the FDA has been putting politics over safety.
“We’re less than a year out from the election, and at this point we really want to be talking to voters, in particular a core segment of women voters, about the president’s strong record on women’s health and freedom,” said Ted Miller, spokesman for Naral Pro-Choice America. A decision like that on Plan B, he said, “makes it much more difficult
Funny, I used to think that Feminists had to be against somebody who was taking advantage of young girls, guess not.
It seems that for some, there are no limits to the politics of it and they are blinded to common sense.
maybe we're overreaching here
One person's overreach is another's general welfare clause.
Wait.
Zero is a liar and a con man?
Who knew?
======================
It's all politics. Zero doesn't pull down his mommy pants and take a s*** without considering whether that will help him get elected.
=======================
CON MAN
DEAD COUNTRY WALKING
Marxist Con Man in the White House.
Dave said...
The over the morning after pill is dangerous, with numerous deaths.
I have no idea about the dosage/weight impacts, but it is hard for me to believe that a dosage that is effective in adult women who could be 150+ pounds, would still be just as safe for 11 y/o. I looked up the age/weight tables. The average 11 y/o girl weights 85lb with 10% at 65lb.
And 10- and 11-year-olds are not "teenagers." Not in the English language, anyway.
We are talking about drugs with potentially serious side effects. As long as we're going to have a prescription regime for anything, these are no-brainer prescription drugs if they are to be used on children.
Ann, I'm not sure that sex with minors is illegal in most states when the other participant is also a minor. So we aren't necessarily talking about statutory rape here; but we are talking about major embarrassment on both sides, and a potential huge financial responsibility for the boy if the girl carries to term. This is how you get boyfriends' parents driving the girlfriend to an abortion clinic, &c. I would imagine this rule would have resulted in not a few boyfriends' parents taking their son's young girlfriends to the friendly neighborhood pharmacy.
Or, of course, older guys taking the girlfriends themselves. In which case they would be getting rid of evidence of a crime.
And as I understand it, the reason Kathleen made this decision was
Why is he passing the buck to his cabinet secretary? Why isn't anything his decision? What a wimp!
and everything else you said.
The average 11 y/o girl weights 85lb with 10% at 65lb.
I don't know much of anything about this, but, as far as I understand it, the normal pill is effective in any sized woman. I'd also question that source. I was around 100lbs at 11, and I've always been really skinny and average hight. Most girls are almost grown (hight-wise) by 11.
Pimping 10 year old girls is only a Thailand family custom practiced in the inner cities.
So is it Constitutional to impose Judeo-Christian religious morality issues which interfere in the free exercise of sexual cultures of others ?
Seriously, Obama and his minion Sebeilius finally did one single thing right.
We should declare a national Holiday and erect (if you can use that sexist word) a monument in DC to such a monumental event occurring in our lifetimes.
I'd also question that source. I was around 100lbs at 11
You have to consider the demographics, though. American citizenship seems to add 10-20 pounds these days.
Good point SGT
Dosage would definitely matter, but this whole issue is bizarre. What fraction of 10-11 yr olds are physiologocally capable of conceiving at all? Further , as Ann points out, if they do isn't it a criminal matter (unless the "father" is also a child)?
This is all about Abortion Uber Alles and the spin that the MBM is giving it is actually frightening. I saw NBC nightly new 2 nights ago and they made it a point to avoid interviewing parents who don't support letting Tweens have access to RU 486. It was naked pro-abortion propagandizing. No mention of known health issues of the drug. Not to mention that I bet their are zero studies on the safety of this drug given to little girls.
Because thats what the abortion uber ales perverts want: to give potentially dangerous drug to little girls who have had sex and not tell their parents.
Sandusky should have chosen to rape little girls. That way, he would hav had a network of people he could have used to help shield him if they got pregnant called Planned Parenthood.
Sex without consequences.
Life without parents.
The dosage question can be complex. I don't like most appeals to authority, but this is one where I'd (1) tend to defer to medical professionals and (2) be extremely hesitant to judge before I had read a great deal about the medicine in question.
"Pimping 10 year old girls is only a Thailand family custom practiced in the inner cities."
Okay, I can't let this disgusting comment pass without saying something. "Pimping 10 year old girls" is certainly not a "Thailand family custom." Most Thais are socially conservative and are disgusted that their country has become haven for balding white guys and their yen for underage prostitutes. Here's a Lonely Planet discussion on the subject.
With a whole list of characters getting 11 year olds pregnant - classmates, neighbors, family members, friends of family, how do we get these girls talking about who did this to them? How and with whom do we create that environment? To me, this is where the hard lifting is.
Roman Polanski is pretty bummed ...
Why is he passing the buck to his cabinet secretary? Why isn't anything his decision?
Even the stuff that's below his pay grade is above his pay grade.
Even the stuff that's below his pay grade is above his pay grade.
Thread-winner. Administration-Encapsulater.
"When we talk about the Penn State scandal, there's no discussion of the "teenagers' sexuality.""
The argument holding that little girls shouldn't need parental permission to self-regulate their sexuality and reproductive rights is simply the natural outgrowth of the feminist paradigm of breaking females free of the oppressive patriarchal power structure.
Thus, the little boy getting nailed in the shower by Coach can fend for himself, seeing as how he'll be turning into another male exploiter of women soon anyway.
This is an argument spawned, not to protect little girls, but to support an overall consistency with the feminists' theme of the complete and unfair male domination of, and empowerment throughout, life.
'What "divisive debate" are these Democrats talking about?'
Abortion uber alles. Sex uber alles. Never having to take responsibility for anything. Destroying the family. Destroying parent's ability to supervise and control their children. Blurring the difference between 25 year old "children" on their parent's health care plans, and 11 year old children getting abortions after having sex.
Or, to put it at it's most basic level: If something is destructive to our current society, the National Democrat Party favors it. If it helps to support or promote our current society, the National Democrat Party is against it.
The distinction there is important. There are a lot of decent human beings who don't want to destroy America, yet, sadly, still vote for democrats. The problem is that the activists and leaders of the National Democrat Party (the state Democrat Parties are not all as bad, although CA and NY lead the way) do wish to destroy America as it is currently constituted, since America proves their fantasies wrong (if the Left was actually correct, Europe would be leading the world, the strongest, richest, best place. It's not, because the Left is consistently wrong).
This is just another example of their destructive urges: give real children the powers of adults, with the sure and certain knowledge that many will screw up, and thus create more excuses for more government power. It's disgusting. It's evil.
It's the basic pattern of the Left.
Paul Zrimsek: Even the stuff that's below his pay grade is above his pay grade.
I'm with Scott. Paul Zrimsek's comment is a brilliant encapsulation of a good chunk of what is wrong w/ President Obama. I'm going to be stealing that line liberally.
@Lyssa
Nope. The birth control dose is calibrated for the "average" woman, weight-wise, which means that half of women get less than they need for effective control, and half don't. When most women in the patient population are in the same narrow weight band, it's not a problem.
EC is a massive dose of birth control. When you flood your body with hormones, the complications can be more severe. You have less room for error.
The developmental chart for 11 year olds show the weight for the 50th percentile at about 85 pounds.
How can anyone support the idea of giving an 85 pound girl the same amount of hormone designed to flood the body of a 150#+ woman.
From a medical perspective, this cannot and should not be done without a doctor to calibrate the dose.
From a moral perspective, how can anyone think its a good thing to expose young girls to these risks.
I'm not sure that sex with minors is illegal in most states when the other participant is also a minor
__________________
In many cases, while not a "criminal" act, it does constitute delinquency. And if not a delinquent act, then it is grounds for a finding that the minor is a "child in need of services."
Whether there is a delinquency finding or a CHINS finding, it puts the kid into the juvenile court system, together with probation officers and child protective services, including removal from the home, etc.
“Where is an 11-year-old going to get the $50 to buy this product?”
For many, the exact same way they came about needing this product.
"Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
Ann, I'm not sure that sex with minors is illegal in most states when the other participant is also a minor. So we aren't necessarily talking about statutory rape here; but we are talking about major embarrassment on both sides, and a potential huge financial responsibility for the boy if the girl carries to term. This is how you get boyfriends' parents driving the girlfriend to an abortion clinic, &c. I would imagine this rule would have resulted in not a few boyfriends' parents taking their son's young girlfriends to the friendly neighborhood pharmacy.
Or, of course, older guys taking the girlfriends themselves. In which case they would be getting rid of evidence of a crime."
This doesn't hold water. This is a morning after pill, not a "ooops I missed my period I'm pregnant pill. I can't imagine many scenarios where parents would know soon enough, or "boyfriends" would care enough.
d-day, if it sounded like I was criticizing you for not citing a source, that wasn't what I meant. I just mean that I don't think that source is accurate (not for Americans, at least).
I agree with your conclusion (that it's crazy to think that these kinds of hormones are OK), I'm just not sure that it's strictly because of weight - I'd be more worried about interference with the hormonal process that is ongoing due to puberty.
The push for "Plan B," the morning after pill, or RU-486, the abortion pill, should not be surprising.
This Administration's number one priority is pushing abortion on demand and contraception, especially in cases of those persons who are at risk of abuse.
Just look at what they are doing with Catholic organizations that have done some much needed work in the area of human trafficking. The Administration cut them off because the Church refuses to go along with the left's paramount policy of taking a sex victim to the abortion clinic and then throwing condoms and powerful hormones at them so that they can continue to be victimized.
Keep in mind the Lefties want 10 year olds to have sex so they can get into that whole single mother cycle of poverty and dependence as soon as possible.
pm317 said...
And as I understand it, the reason Kathleen made this decision was
Why is he passing the buck to his cabinet secretary? Why isn't anything his decision? What a wimp!
It's called, "Voting 'Present'", and it's about the only thing he does well.
If a democrat could actually arrange for a baby to abort HER baby while still in utero, they would not be happy.
@Andrea
Yes, you are right. They are so disgusted by it, that it is a cottage industry in their country.
"This doesn't hold water. This is a morning after pill, not a "ooops I missed my period I'm pregnant pill. I can't imagine many scenarios where parents would know soon enough, or "boyfriends" would care enough."
Then your imagination is hideously defective. The condom broke. He meant to pull out in time, but didn't. Parents caught the two of them in bed w/o birth control.
Turn the question around: when would an 11 - 13 year old be using this?
I'm surprised the Foucauldians haven't jumped into the debate on the side of Sandusky. They've argued for years that there should be no such separate thing as a sexual crime, and Foucault himself appears to argue that childhood prostitution is no big deal. You'd think that there would be many Foucauldians weighing in on this, but there's been almost complete silence. Ok, it's been complete silence, from what I have been able to tell.
Michel Foucault has been in distribution in English for forty years, but has reached an apogee of hegemonic status (The Times Higher Education Supplement for 26 March 2009, lists Foucault as the single most-cited author in the Humanities for 2007, found on the web at http://www.timeshighereducatio....
Michel Foucault’s dictum in The History of Sexuality that sexual policing requires an enormous apparatus of power that we would be better to reject plays a major role in his work, and might be said to be the point at which all his work is directed. Foucault’s description of a child prostitute in the village of Lapcourt, and the “pettiness” (History of Sexuality Part 1, 31) with which the priests and gendarmes prosecuted the village idiot Jouy for “these inconsequential bucolic pleasures” became a new kind of rallying cry in the 80s, as now the lynch mobs turned on anyone who wanted to propose sexual ethics as a repressive reactionary and was accused of “intolerance” (Foucault 31). Many Foucauldians insist that children have a sexuality, and many insist that therefore they have the right and some even imply the duty to employ it. Foucault downplays the child prostitute's victimization at the hands of Monsieur Jouy, exactly as I think he would have downplayed the victimization of those serially abused by Jerry Sandusky. Their screams would not have been heard by him. Foucault’s argument relies on an implicit assumption that any apparatus of power will always be abused by the police force and government that administrate it, and therefore should be removed. The idea that there could be a responsible police force with a legitimate role to play in protecting children and the powerless is eschewed in favor of a deregulation of sex that has its foundation in the French modernist and postmodernist lionization of the Marquis de Sade. Child prostitution is not a serious concern for Foucault, and thus the crimes of Sandusky, to Foucault and for Foucauldians, would not be crimes at all. The headline of all the Foucauldian quarterlies should be, "Ceci n'est pas une crime."
Any parent who thinks their daughter should have access to this could buy it and have it in the house.
"Honey, there's plan B in mommy's bathroom cabinet. Help yourself".
Whether to sell potentially dangerous drugs to minor children without their parents knowledge is not a question of science. Shame on the NYT for pretending it is. It's a question of values and societal priorities and science has no answer for that question. Even assuming the drug is 100% safe in all cases, it is still not solely within the realm of science to decide whether they should be sold to 11-year-olds with no questions asked. Does the NYT really think science can take the place of moral values and human judgment?
So what about mandatory reporter laws?
If a teen or pre-teen seeks to buy this, clearly indicating that someone has had sex with her, is the seller excluded from laws requiring that child sex abuse be reported to authorities?
If, instead of seeing them in the act, the graduate assistant had been asked by kid in the shower for some KY for his tender rear-end, would he then not have to report it?
Of course, it is the policy of Planned Parenthood and most abortion clinics to not report the child sex abuse of young minors who are taken by their abusers to get an abortion.
Whether to sell potentially dangerous drugs to minor children without their parents knowledge is not a question of science. Shame on the NYT for pretending it is. It's a question of values and societal priorities and science has no answer for that question. Even assuming the drug is 100% safe in all cases, it is still not solely within the realm of science to decide whether they should be sold to 11-year-olds with no questions asked. Does the NYT really think science can somehow take the place of moral values and human judgment in a complex social system?
"One reason very young girls shouldn't be able to purchase this drug on their own is that it prevents criminal behavior from coming to light."
Right, because when someone has been a victim it's more important to bring the crime to light than to help the victim. Even if it's, you know, a child. And there's no conceivable (no pun intended) way that the crime could come to light that doesn't involve forcing a child to go through an incredibly dangerous pregnancy. According to the WHO girls "under 15" are 5x as likely to suffer maternal mortality than women over 20 and I honestly don't know if they even had data as far down the scale as 10 or 11.
But hey what's a little "intentionally-letting-children-die" so long as your pro-life credentials are pristine?
I'm kind of confused why everyone is talking about 10-12 year old girls. Many of them can't get pregnant for obvious reasons.
Do people want to prosecute high school boys for consensual sex with other high school kids?
I think that's a bad idea unless the boy is MUCH older then his partner.
But hey what's a little "intentionally-letting-children-die" so long as your pro-life credentials are pristine?
Well, I suppose we can let them continue to be victimized afterward to make sure your pro-choice credentials remain unsullied.
Dosage stuff is interesting.
However, Doctors don't adjust the dose of birth control based on weight.
Lots of 14, 15 and 16 year olds are on the pill for painful periods and acne. Those girls take the same pill as 30 year olds.
It's probably more dangerous for a kid to regularly take too many Ibuprofen. Not good for the liver.
Does the NYT really think science can take the place of moral values and human judgment?
Very good point.
Obama made a joke out of the whole science ahead of politics thing early in his administration, when he declared embryonic stem cell research ok but not for cloning. Everybody knows cloning is unacceptable, he said.
Could anyone imagine girls buying this medication in the hopes that it will help them mature faster?
The question really isn't whether it would do that, but whether they think it would do that. And if young girls start taking it for that reason (or worse, their mothers give it to them), what are the consequences?
I would think the mechanical abortion industry wouldn't want all these chemical abortificants easily available.
This sounds like a fake trial balloon to make Obama look like a responsible person.
I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.
---President Barack Obama March 2009
That's not science.
I would think the mechanical abortion industry wouldn't want all these chemical abortificants easily available.
_______________
One of the major dangers of RU-486, the abortion pill, is that, while causing embryo/fetal death, it does not necessarily expel the entirety of the uterine contents. That is, bits of tissue can remain behind. This leads to toxic shock, potentially fatal to the mother.
The only way to ensure a complete abortion when using RU-486 is by visual examination (at a surgical abortion clinic).
... by endorsing his health secretary’s decision to block over-the-counter sales of an after-sex contraceptive pill to girls under age 17.
Triangulation
http://tinyurl.com/eo68a
If he really supports science or ideology/religion, he would open up Yuca mt for nuclear waste.
Does putting science ahead of politics require over-the-counter sales of an after-sex contraceptive pill to girls under age 17?
I would not have thought so necessarily.
When teens and tweens want something badly enough, they are very resourceful at finding money.
Meaning they do the only thing they can - whore themselves.
Plan B is the only form of birth control pill available over the counter, even if you're over the age of 17. I understand and support the exception for adult, consenting women, particularly because of the way it works (which means I consider it vastly preferable to abortion). I do not support its availability OTC for minors who may not understand or even consider the health risks, and also for the array of other reasons already stated here by various commenters.
By the way, does anyone else think it's weird that we could consider it OK for minors, including those who aren't even teens yet, to buy and self-administer Plan B, but that a grown woman, say 30 years old, who has been using birth control pills knowledgeably for years can't be trusted to buy regular, old-fashioned birth control over the counter (or over the Internet, even!)? We seem to believe that these grown women need medical permission, approval and control--because, essentially, that's what ALL prescription drugs require--to use what is now a very standard and ubiquitous drug. Yet somehow it can be see as OK for even a young minor to take Plan B on her own. Can she buy one every month, every week? Would she? What if she's very sexually active? Any problem with repeated use of the Plan B throughout adolescence? Does anyone know?
Bender, so they can still get $ for a pelvic exam. What about Plan B? Are they counting on it being too expensive for widespread use?
At what age do boys become fertile enough to impregnate others? I'm sure it varies, but L&O SVU claimed it was not at the onset of puberty, more like 14. So the 11-12 y.o. may not actually need the drug if she's doing it with peers, and if she does need it, it's likely someone committed a crime.
Meaning they do the only thing they can - whore themselves.
Wow, Alex, I hope you don't have kids. You have no idea.
I'm kind of confused why everyone is talking about 10-12 year old girls. Many of them can't get pregnant for obvious reasons.
The problem is that many of them can get pregnant. I have seen stuff indicating that menarche has dropped a couple of years over the last couple of decades, and know several (now) young women who went through this at about eight years old.
At least two things may be in play. First, body fat tends to accelerate this, and bad eating habits/food combined with less exercise may be working adversely here.
Another factor may be that most of the milk drunk in this country contains bovine hormones to increase yield. That is, female bovine hormones. And, some of those end up in the milk, and, while not identical to female human hormones, may be similar enough to accelerate menarche.
Let me add to my last post, that another factor seems to be socio-economic status, with some positive correlation between age of menarche and family income. This may be a result of the previous factors: eating habits, exercise, and drinking milk containing bovine hormones.
I wasn't fat at 10, and yet I started my period in early fifth grade 40 years ago. There have always been girls who started younger; most of the women in my mother's family did, going back generations (maybe due to evolution? that side of the family is of solid peasant, farming stock going back to the Old Country). There's always been a range in the standard starting point, though I gather it's true that there's a trend to younger these days.
The tv ad for Plan B cracks me up every time. A woman gets out of bed one morning, her male husband/boyfriend sleeping peacefully next to her. She leaves the house to get some plan B, then comes home to him cluelesly and happily making her coffee in their kitchen. She smiles pleasantly at him.
He had a restful night's sleep, even if she had to fret and spend her morning running around town.
Too bad the OTC for all ages thing didn't work out. I'd love to see the ad with the middle school girl running in to grab some at the 7-11 on the way home from "spending the night at Susie's".
"Right, because when someone has been a victim it's more important to bring the crime to light than to help the victim."
Wow, Tlaloc, words just fail me. A child gets sexually abused, and you're more interested in terminating her pregnancy quickly than you are in stopping the sexual abuse?
Really?
What is it that goes on in that mind of yours? Do you have any concept of cause and effect at all?
Just curious. Appalled, but curious.
Wouldn't the garden hose and a thumb be just as effective, if a little chilly?
You guys, including you, Professor, underestimate our President.
The reduction from 18 to 17 for OTC purchase of Plan B in 2009 was based on a decision by a federal judge. That ruling, which came about because of a request by the drug maker for the reduction to 17, overruled the FDA because its decision was political, not scientific. So said the judge.
So we will soon see a judicial ruling that the rejection of the 17year old age limit decision was political not scientific and Obama will be "forced " to allow 11 year old OTC purchase. The pro-abortion base will be satisfied and he will have made a moral stand to appease the anti-abortionists.
The Times set it up in the first sentence of its article.
See how smart he is.
As I've said before in another context, to understand Obama you just have to understand that he doesn't care a whit about pregnant 11 year olds or abortion or socialism or free markets. He cares about Obama.
Tlaloc said...
"One reason very young girls shouldn't be able to purchase this drug on their own is that it prevents criminal behavior from coming to light."
Right, because when someone has been a victim it's more important to bring the crime to light than to help the victim. Even if it's, you know, a child. And there's no conceivable (no pun intended) way that the crime could come to light that doesn't involve forcing a child to go through an incredibly dangerous pregnancy. According to the WHO girls "under 15" are 5x as likely to suffer maternal mortality than women over 20 and I honestly don't know if they even had data as far down the scale as 10 or 11.
But hey what's a little "intentionally-letting-children-die" so long as your pro-life credentials are pristine?
12/9/11 10:44 AM
Now that is heavy industrial strength stupid. Where do you get your stupid pill prescription filled?
I support Obama and Sebelius on this.
But I don't think the opponents of their decision are talking about 11 year olds. They are talking about 15, 16 and 17 year olds. A number of whom - let's admit it - are sexually active.
And the Penn St scandal is about an adult essentially raping young boys not about teenagers having sex with each other. Big difference.
pduggie: "I was a bit skittish about Bush's war on terror policies. But when Obama, a professed critic of the policies, did the same thing, I said to myself 'Well, maybe I need to reconsider my reasons for skittishness.'"
I'm trying to figure out if this comment is clever satire that I'm just not getting because it's a Friday afternoon and I'm cranky. But I don't think it is. So...
You might try looking at both sides of an issue and then forming an opinion, rather than basing your position on whether you like or dislike the people espousing it. It would require actual thought, but then you'd have the pride of accomplishment at having thought for yourself instead of letting other people think for you.
Just a suggestion.
But I don't think the opponents of their decision are talking about 11 year olds. They are talking about 15, 16 and 17 year olds. A number of whom - let's admit it - are sexually active.
They have to realize they are talking about both groups, even if they think they are only talking about older teens.
"And there's no conceivable (no pun intended) way that the crime could come to light that doesn't involve forcing a child to go through an incredibly dangerous pregnancy."
That's a ridiculous statement.
It doesn't even qualify as a *sneaky* false dichotomy.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন