What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Choice devours itself--again

No doubt all in my audience will remember the passage in Slouching Towards Gomorrah where Robert Bork tells about walking down the hall during the Anita Hill hearings and saying to Irving Kristol, "They're showing the end of Western civilization on television."

Well, here's another moment rather like that: Dawn Eden links to a Planned Parenthood worker, a blogger, who openly admits that she provided birth control pills for a 12-year-old girl whom the blogger suspects is being coerced into sexual intercourse by a man much older than herself. And not reporting it, of course, to any authorities, despite the fact that such a "health worker" is legally a mandatory reporter of child abuse.

I call this post "Choice Devours Itself" with reference to this old post of mine at Right Reason from two years ago about the liberal thought process that makes this sort of thing possible. It goes more or less like this:

1) Make "freedom of choice" one of your most important political and moral ideals.

2) Define some particular type of act as an exercise of free choice. (Having sex, having an abortion, and dying are three good candidates.)

3) Become very committed to people's getting the opportunity to exercise that important freedom, free even from the constraints of social disapproval, much less of legal penalty.

4) Ignore or reject evidence that someone is being coerced into that action, and resist attempts to protect people who are thus being coerced, seeing such attempts as mere cover for trying to limit freedom of choice. A variant on this one is to justify such connivance at the eradication of choice for the victim of coercion on consequentialist grounds: At least she won't get pregnant, get a disease, die unpleasantly, etc.

"HPW," the PP worker, is a classic case of a person who is cooperating in a choice devours itself scenario. Supposedly, she is committed to the great importance of personal choice in sexual decisions. That's supposed to be a lodestar for such a person. Yet here she is squelching her own instinctive worries that a child (a child) is being coerced into sex by an adult, and even feeling guilty for having such worries. They are, she says, "patronizing."

To my mind, she was far too young to be having sex, and it was difficult for me to tell exactly what the situation was with her partner. I do not ever ask the age of sexual partners, and she did not reveal the age of hers, but I could not shake the feeling that hers was older, possibly very much so. I could not get it out of my head that she didn't exactly give consent, though I had no reason to believe she didn't. Maybe I was projecting. I try to fight it, but there is some part of me that does not believe that such young girls are able to give consent, particularly if their partners are much older and there is a great imbalance in experience between the two. This part of me undoubtedly borders on patronizing. I don't really know what this girl's situation was, nor do I know what her role in it was. It is presumptive in the highest to assume that she was somehow victimized. But I still feel like she was too young. Clearly, that's my issue, not hers.

HPW talks herself into believing that the young girl was "lucky" because an adult (a woman) came with her to the PP clinic. HPW tells a story to herself according to which this adult is a loving helper to the girl, someone the girl can turn to if she needs counsel, etc., instead of an accomplice of an older man engaging in statutory (or not only statutory) rape. The following line is priceless:

What's lucky is that she has someone to talk to if the gray area of consent becomes less gray.

So we have an admission that "consent" in this case--because of the child's age, if nothing else--is a "grey area," but somehow that's not so bad, because the little girl has an adult woman to talk to if the statutory rapist starts forcing her violently? Have I missed something here? And let's not forget: It's presumptuous and patronizing to worry that she is being victimized.

Meanwhile, the girl goes her way, back into the situation. HPW doesn't say what her evidence was that "she didn't exactly give consent." Dawn Eden has encouraged her readers to make contact with the Oregon DOJ to report a possible case of child rape and a mandatory reporter who ain't reportin' nuthin'.

Whatever else is clear in this story, one thing stands out: It isn't really about choice, is it? It's about sex, the god Eros, before whom all else must fall. And as C.S. Lewis used to say (echoing Denis de Rougemont), when Eros is made a god, he becomes a demon.

Comments (99)

Outstanding post, Lydia. What a loathsome organization PP is.

The problem here is that there was literally nothing but a hunch to report. You have a 12 year old girl who seems to either be sexually active or intends to become so in the near future. The worker has a 'feeling' that maybe her partner is older. Unfortunately nothing was presented to confirm this feeling. While thankfully rare, sexually active 12 year olds are not unprecedented nor are the partners always so much older as to be illegal.

There are, though, other possible scenarios that might have had nothing to do with sexual abuse. For example, perhaps the girls mother was pressuring her to go on the pill because she was sure her daughter would become active soon and she didn't want to see a teenage pregnancy. That might account for the girl being uncomfortable, even giving off a vibe of feeling coerced. Most birth control pills are not prescribed from PP clinics but from confidential doctors offices.

The woman should have asked some follow up questions to rule out or confirm if abuse was present. Additionally she could have informed the girl that consent is ALWAYS required for sexual acts and she always has a right to say no to anyone trying to have sex with her regardless of circumstances.

But, of course, the writer here doesn't really care about the situation as much as about scoring rhetorical points. So we have a tabloid style lead in the second paragraph. We think we're going to be treated to a story where a 40 year old man beings his 12 year old victim to PP to get birth control pills. In reality, though, when the facts are bothered to be presented (and I'm not sure why she does present them, she doesn't really seem to care about them), it turns out to fall pretty far short of the mark. We get a case where the worker thinks something might be wrong but has nothing concrete to go on. This type of thing is encountered all the time. I don't doubt that anyone who is a teacher or works with many kids has had times when they felt something might be wrong but nothing hard was observable to confirm or refute the hunch.

In such cases one is literally stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you start calling in Child Protective Services you can create a hell for a family. If your hunch was wrong you will end up doing a lot of unneeded damage (especially considering many state services have a poor reptutation to begin with, either overreacting or underreacting). IMO there's no easy answer for people stuck in such situations. They can play detective and try to gather more evidence to make the case clearer but there's a limit to how much one can do that....plus that can open up a can of worms in itself. Or you can just keep your mouth shut and try to observe closely to see if anything definite presents itself giving you the justification to file a report.


Actually, Boonton, I think you are wrong about the legal situation. Many people don't know this, but in many states reporting is required for children of particular ages having sexual intercourse *at all*. You may not like that or agree with that, but Dawn states that statutory rape laws apply regardless of the age of the "partner" in Oregon w.r.t. minors under 15. This girl was 12.

Moreover, mandatory reporters are not allowed just to let things go. She was _required_ to inquire about the age of the child's "partner" and to make a report a) because the girl was only 12 (see above), b) all the more so if she had further reason to believe the girl was being coerced and/or her partner was an adult. Even a hunch can be such grounds, especially if the girl appeared to be lying in response to further questions or appeared to be getting cues from the adult woman as to what she should say. Doctors do this sort of thing all the time. In fact, doctors sometimes report things when they have _no_ such hunch, simply because a child has bruises. I'm not saying I approve of doing so if the doctor has clear reason to believe the bruises have a non-abusive cause. I disapprove of it. I'm saying this to indicate how seriously conscientious medical personnel take their mandatory reporter status and the vast gap there is between the attitude of ordinary medical people and PP employees.

Another point: HPW appears to be saying that she took the adult woman not to be the child's mother. You are assuming she was. That would be another question to ask, wouldn't it?

And btw, Planned Parenthood most certainly has been caught in "sting" operations (by private people, in one case on videotape) agreeing to cover up statutory rape. So this is not unprecedented. The "don't ask, don't tell" mentality is extremely strong at PP. This is just another example.

What is shocking about this example is that this HPW had a hunch--presumably for _some_ reason or other--that this wasn't just a case of a girl "in love with" an older man but was an actual case of coercion. Yet she made _no_ attempt to find out more. In fact, she makes it a point of honor not to inquire further. "I never ask the age of their partners." Well, why the heck not? Not only is that legally required given her mandatory reporter status, but even *on her own terms* she is morally required to do so, given the whole issue of "choice" and "consent," which is supposed to be so important to a PP employee.

But as I said, I don't think that's really what is most important to HPW.

Lydia,

I'll defer to you on the various state laws. Mandatory reporting of any act of sex by a minor, though, does not seem like a very rational law. Doctor-patient confidentiality exists even when the patient is a minor and from a pure public policy perspective it seems like a diaster waiting to happen. Minors who are sexually active are better off being able to be open about it to their doctors without automatically causing law enforcement to be notified. Needless to say, prosecuting minors who engage in sex also seems like a bad policy in general....although I would perhaps leave the possibility open for cases where you have extreme age/power differences (in other words, a 17 year old with a 11 year old is a lot different than two 16 year olds).

In fact, doctors sometimes report things when they have _no_ such hunch, simply because a child has bruises.

And no doubt one can spend an hour or two with our friend Google and come up with at least a dozen examples of families tortured by overzealous state agencies that open cases from such reports. If you're going to say that even a 'hunch' is sufficient to trigger a reporting requirement then you're going to cause a lot of needless grief....as well as cause a lot of real abuse to be missed since the impression I get is many states have child abuse agencies that have trouble handling their case load and are not generally staffed by the brightest minds.

It might be fine for someone to report a hunch but at least when it is an option people can rely on their intuition. If you make it a requirement you probably will create the very thing you decry, a 'don't ask don't tell' environment where CYA would dictate that you keep your eyes closed. Needless to say I think it would be amusing to hear how the law would be able to prove someone had a 'hunch' and failed to report it.

And btw, Planned Parenthood most certainly has been caught in "sting" operations (by private people, in one case on videotape) agreeing to cover up statutory rape. So this is not unprecedented.

You mean just like the Catholic Church? Well we know the drill then. Assemble the victims and I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers who would love to take the case for 1/3 of the settlement. Likewise I'm sure obstruction of justice is a crime in all 50 states so simply prosecute such incidents in the judicial system which is designed to hear criminal charges and provide for due process and fair trials.

Boonton, you won't hear me defending over-zealous social workers.

But you seem to have an amazing tin ear about this situation. Have you _no_ curiosity about why HPW asked no questions? Why did she feel positively _guilty_ about worrying about the girl? Why did she accuse herself of being "patronizing"? Why does she boast about never asking the age of clients' partners?

The parallel in the case of an ordinary medical situation would be an emergency room worker who doesn't ask how a child came by a broken arm. No questions at all, and accuses herself of being "patronizing" because she had a hunch that maybe somebody broke the child's arm in the course of a beating. After all, y'know, _maybe_ the child was engaging in voluntary sports. We wouldn't want to "patronize" her by implying to her that she was being "victimized." Better not to ask any questions.

But nobody would do that if we weren't talking about sex, now would they?

You also are quite uninformed about the way that prosecution works when we are talking about abortion and Planned Parenthood. The prosecutorial authorities do ignore evidence of crime. (One striking example of this is the refusal of the local Kansas state's attorney to prosecute Tiller despite the fact that he is performing late-term abortions and not even bothering to lie and say they are for "health" reasons.) And when I'm talking about private "sting" operations, no one has standing to sue, because the girls who said they were underage and their partners were adults were not in fact harmed by PP. They were adults checking to see if PP would in fact help underage girls in covering up statutory rape. And PP was only too happy to help. But there is no lawsuit material there, though there is criminal material. Good luck getting cooperation on that latter.

You obviously know nothing about America's double standard w.r.t. abortion providers and PP in particular.

What is comes down to is taking the easy way out - inaction, to prevent inconvenience. The risk of the inaction is shifted onto the minor who may, or may not, be subjected to non-consentual sex. Am I my brother's (or sister's ) keeper? Rationality says no. So there will be no tears later when I drive by your auto wreck, Booton or others, for I am not a trained emergency medical technician - and frankly making a phone call to the highway patrol is inconvenient and may lead to my having to take time to explain what I saw, etc. While a vague unconnected argument could be made about "decline of society" and such pap - I prefer the "rational" approach - it narrowly serves my interests every time - Ah, rationality - I love you. (Opps! I meant that as a rational expression and not as emotion.)

P.S. laws are fun! The fun lies in explaining my rationale as to why they do not apply to my self-interested actions or how my action/inaction falls within the myrad legal caveats inherent in our legal system.

You may not like that or agree with that, but Dawn states that statutory rape laws apply regardless of the age of the "partner" in Oregon w.r.t. minors under 15. This girl was 12

I know I said I'd let you go on the technical matters of the law but I noticed you neglected to find out:

1. You've neglected to cite exactly what Oregon's reporting laws require medical workers to report and whether they are required to actively investigate rather than simply report what they learn.

2. You've neglected to cite whether Oregon considers statutory rape to be considered abuse reportable under this law. That's an important point because assuming the law covers sex between minors only you have a potent 5th Amendment issue. If the girl's partner is, say 12 or 13 then technically she is guilty of a crime too! Mandatory reporting would then essentially open one up to self-incrimination if one seeks medical treatment or advice. I'm doubtful that's Oregon's intent with the law & I'm doubtful if it would survive constitutional challenge if it was. So I'm a bit leary of your characterization of the law.

The parallel in the case of an ordinary medical situation would be an emergency room worker who doesn't ask how a child came by a broken arm. No questions at all, and accuses herself of being "patronizing" because she had a hunch that maybe somebody broke the child's arm in the course of a beating. After all, y'know, _maybe_ the child was engaging in voluntary sports. We wouldn't want to "patronize" her by implying to her that she was being "victimized." Better not to ask any questions.

Medical workers do often ask about illegal activity without breaking confidentiality. For example, a standard question would be to ask the patient if they use illegal drugs and what type if so. Of course I can see how a minor would not want his honest answer reported to law enforcement but policy wise it would be very foolish to insist on it. If one did then a minor fearful he was experiencing an overdose would be pressured to either lie to the doctor or not seek medical help...options that would cause more trouble than would be averted.

So yes the proper training is very much along the lines of 'don't ask, don't tell' unless it is directly related to the medical treatment.

Have you _no_ curiosity about why HPW asked no questions?....

I do but you do not. Your interest was scoring rhetorical points on PP. That's all well and good but don't pretend you really care about this particular situation. If you did why haven't you contacted her directly and asked her? Her blog is very small and has few comments. Certainly she is not so induated with spam that she cannot 'see' an email or perhaps comment post asking her for more information about what exactly her clinics reporting policies are, what her training says to do, what her state laws are (or what does she think they are) etc.

The prosecutorial authorities do ignore evidence of crime.

Translation: You have been unable to prove guilt in a court of law. Are you seriously telling me with a politicized justice dept., with hundreds of locally elected prosecutors (some from very conservative areas) no prosecutors want to take on a case against PP? Come on.


And when I'm talking about private "sting" operations, no one has standing to sue, because the girls who said they were underage and their partners were adults were not in fact harmed by PP. They were adults checking to see if PP would in fact help underage girls in covering up statutory rape

Indeed but I'm assuming that the purpose of these 'stings' is to demonstrate that PP covers up statutory rapes. If that's true then there are real victims who would make for a very tempting payday for the lawyer who took their case. You wouldn't even need to make the case against PP. EVen a case against a private doctor would be sufficient to send a chill through the area and get other women to come forward with their own stories.

Californio
So there will be no tears later when I drive by your auto wreck, Booton or others, for I am not a trained emergency medical technician - and frankly making a phone call to the highway patrol is inconvenient and may lead to my having to take time to explain what I saw, etc.

You are indeed obligated to phone the highway patrol (at least morally, I have no idea what the law is). You are not obligated to try to pull me from the wreck or engage your secret with to be a doctor by trying to 'treat' me using what you saw on ER or House as a guide. In fact you have a positive obligation not to cause more harm than already exists.

Here inconvenience isn't a factor. This woman's job is conduct interviews with patients and talk to them about medical issues so this isn't a case of...say...overhearing a conversation on an elevator or at a coffee shop. The question is what are the policies and what should the policies be.

I'm being honest when I say I don't know exactly what the law says in Oregon but it seems very obvious that whatever the policy is it's primary impact should be not to do harm. That means some degree of confidentiality will be required in situations that are 'sub-optimal' to put it mildly. Launching a police investigation because a 12 year old girl asks for birth control may indeed uncover child abuse which needs to be stopped and punished. Then again it may end up keeping people from seeking help and one relatively common problem (teens having sex) becomes multiple problems (teens with STDs, teenage births, teenagers giving birth to babies that have STDs etc).

Boonton, I've "neglected" to tell you those things because I've told you what I have good reason to believe--that sex with a twelve-year-old is statutory rape in Oregon and that the "Romeo and Juliet" law apparently kicks only at age 15. Most mandatory reporters certainly would interpret this w.r.t. _other_ forms of abuse to require some curiosity on their part. I'm not going to make other claims I can't back up as to the exact wording of the reportage laws or the degree of investigation required. My strong bet is that HPW is in violation for failure to do any sort of follow-up to her hunch even in conversation with the girl and the adult woman.

HPW makes it quite clear why she asked no further questions. It's the ideology. I can't believe you can't see that. Sex is supposed to be _different_. It's supposed to be so important (and even to some extent you think this way) that minors can have sex without consequences that we are willing to risk leaving a child to be raped rather than putting a "chill" on the "confidentiality" that would make for the maximum distribution of birth control. It's a matter of priorities, and what's more important to HPW is sex without consequences rather than protecting the child. To that end, she has convinced herself that it's _not good_ for her to feel worried about the child. The child, when it comes to sex, is to be treated as a mini-adult rather than protected, because protection is "patronizing" in the sexual realm. That is her ideology and she's sticking to it. It's there in black and white, about as clear as it can be.

I already gave you a standard medical example. You prefer to ignore it. As I said, no emergency worker would fail even to _ask the child_ how he got injured--a broken arm, black eye, etc. This woman refuses--and _brags_ about refusing (something you continually insist on ignoring)--to ask the child with whom she is having sex, what his age is, and so forth. It is balderdash to say that a medical worker would follow that sort of absolute, and even in a perverted way "principled," "don't ask, don't tell" policy if we were talking about some other type of potential abuse.

Here, by the way, is a link on the evidence that PP covers up statutory rape in other cases. It's apparently pretty much their standard modus operandi.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070515b.html

But I'd guess you won't care much, Boonton. After all, you'd rather assume that all the real girls of this sort--thirteen-year-olds having sex with 22-year-olds and the like--are just exercising their "choice" and congratulate PP on supposedly preventing unwanted consequences. That minor girls are being harmed by this is something you don't want to believe and won't consider.

In fact, you are a standard liberal following the standard liberal line towards a world in which "choice devours itself." Perhaps we should also just encourage child prostitutes to seek "inside work," as I instanced in my old post?

HPW makes it quite clear why she asked no further questions. It's the ideology. I can't believe you can't see that. Sex is supposed to be _different_. It's supposed to be so important (and even to some extent you think this way) that minors can have sex without consequences that we are willing to risk leaving a child to be raped rather than putting a "chill" on the "confidentiality" that would make for the maximum distribution of birth control.

On the other hand I've been in the emergancy room with loved ones when doctors ask the 'personal' questions and I've noticed the same neutral sounding tone when the topic is drug use. And that makes sense. If she asked the 12 year old if she used illegal drugs or smoked she most certainly would not follow those questions up with "and who gives you the drugs" if the answer was yes. But then why not? If she was, say, smoking dope with her father or an older man that too would be child abuse.

She also would probable chide herself for sounding patronizing. The person asking the questions needs to avoid giving the patient any motivation to answer dishonestly.

But I'd guess you won't care much, Boonton. After all, you'd rather assume that all the real girls of this sort--thirteen-year-olds having sex with 22-year-olds and the like--are just exercising their "choice" and congratulate PP on supposedly preventing unwanted consequences. That minor girls are being harmed by this is something you don't want to believe and won't consider.

Sigh, and Zippy described you as a "analytic philosopher of the first order". I'd hate to see the second order! Your style seems to be tabloid sensationalism followed up by not paying attention to the arguments you are refuting topped off with putting words and thoughts in other people's mouths. Yes, yes, my uncertainty about whether this person should have reported the girl to social services must be because I think 12 year olds are 'real women' and want to have sex with 22 year olds.

Actually why do you ignore my suggestion about actually asking this woman for some more information about her clinics reporting policies and such? There's a very real possibility the 12 year old may show up again to renew her script or to get a routine exam. Perhaps you might even achieve some good in the situation by having the woman look at her case more carefully & maybe ask the girl if she understands consent, abuse and the law? Indeed she may not even understand the reporting requirements of her state or even her clinics policy. It would hardly be the first time.

But you make it clear you're not about the real world as much as you are about ideology. Hence you declare that this woman wants the 12 year old to have sex because it fits her ideology. Yet that ignores the down to earth honesty in her post. She isn't sure what to do, isn't sure if her hunch is even correct and clearly feels it is important whether or not the girl is consenting or not. The law likewise follows course, I don't doubt for a second the panalties for a 12-14 year old relationship are trivial compared to, say, 12-22 years old or older. Likewise the penalties for forced sex (rape) are by far harsher as they should be. And why should they be? Because consent is very important, even when consent cannot legally be given.

And of course you only care to listen to this woman's 'hunches' when it fits your ideology. You assume that the adult woman she came with was....what....just in it for the fun of hooking 12 year old girls up with 30 year old men? While strange things like that do happen they are often an exceptional freak story rather than the norm (just like stories about adult teachers who have affairs with young boys get play in the media but in normal life it is usually adult men who seek to seduce underage girls rather than the other way around). In all likelyhood this aunt or family friend was not facilitating rape but trying to give the girl some support and guidance. But at this point ideology demands that you can no longer trust this woman's 'hunch' here because it complicates the narrative you are trying to create which is 30 year old men sending their 12 year old victims to PP for birth control while PP shrugs and doesn't care.

Your thesis is that the ideology is 'have sex' and consent is used as a cover for that until it gets to the point where it 'swallows itself' and ignores nonconsensual sex. That, though, doesn't really jive with the feminist history this woman probably came out of. Recall in addition to advocating abortion rights, birth control rights and so on feminists also challenged nonconsensual sex in the law. Today we hardly even remember that not too long ago it was an accepted legal theory that a husband could not possibly rape his wife or that a rape victim had to prove they were innocenct of any 'bad' sexual behavior.

There is, though, a long tradition of confidentiality and it certainly wasn't invented by NOW in the 1970's. If this girl had gone to a priest in confession, he would be barred from reporting anything to the cops even if she said she was being molested by a 50 year old man. Likewise if a woman calls a battered woman's shelter or hotline they will not report a crime against her will but rather keep the call as confidential as she wants. Why would this be? Certainly that doesn't fit your theory of 'sex' ideology and it sounds like breaking up marriages is something you think feminists like to do.

Boonton, do you seriously believe that if I or anyone else from my side of the political line said to HPW, "You should have asked more questions; and by the way, see here for your state's statutory rape laws," etc., it would make the slightest difference to her practice? Yeah, I guess you seriously believe that. Or else you want to _imply_ that to make it look like I'm some sort of odd "hypocrite" if I don't go and gently try to counsel ol' HPW on her bizarre ideas of honor.

"Hence you declare that this woman wants the 12 year old to have sex because it fits her ideology." What fits her ideology is that the 12-year-old have maximum _freedom_ to have sex, even if this means ignoring evidence that she is having sex un-freely. Look, let's face it: Often pressure--social and legal--has to go one way or another. To use an entirely different example, if you imply to a Middle Eastern girl in conversation that she is covering her entire face except for an eye slit because she is afraid of her male relatives, this may end up putting some pressure, if only sociologically or conversationally, on some girl who really is doing it voluntarily. So when it comes to sex, if you imply disapproval of a 12-year-old's having sex, yeah, that's going to put pressure even on the 12-year-old who is "consenting" as far as a 12-year-old can consent. Why would you do that? Well, because you think that a) 12-year-olds can't give consent in the same way that adults can and/or b) it's more important to prevent rape than to avoid any possibility of making a young sleep-around feel bad. And that's just for starters.

You have to choose your priorities. HPW's are quite clear.

Actually, I _cited_ HPW's implication about the adult woman--that she is not the girl's mother--when you wanted to imply that she was the girl's mother. The business about having "found an adult" in the post is pretty clearly not attributed to a hunch at all. Rhetorically, I think you can tell from the way the post reads that _that_ part is an assumption, whereas she says expressly that she "got the feeling" that the girl "didn't exactly consent" and that her partner was older, perhaps much older. And pro-aborts make that assumption all the time about adults who would bring girls for their services. When Congress was considering legislation making it a crime to transport a minor over state lines to avoid parental consent laws, PP and their ilk wanted non-parental adults to be exempted from the law on the grounds that children _need_ to find non-parental adults to help them obtain abortions, that such adults are kindly, helpful, and have the child's best interests at heart.

If the girl is having sex with an adult and if this woman friend knows it and is covering it up and abetting it, then not only legally but also morally--hopefully by _anyone's_ reckoning--this adult woman is an accomplice to rape, however "nice" she may be and whatever twisted ideas she may have about helping the girl. And she doesn't have the girl's best interests at heart.

For that matter, I think it's pretty clear that HPW doesn't, either. Anyone who thinks of a 12-year-old child in the mini-adult way that she does is so out of touch with reality as not to be able to see the child's best interests.

And btw, you can just keep talking about confidentiality, but mandatory reporters are what they are, and things are set up that way for a reason. Children are supposed to be different from adults and to be protected by society. That's why we have such laws. Are they abused? You bet they are, and I could cite you cases of my own. Do they have a place? Yes, indeed, they do. Children are not mini-adult "clients" who should be treated as independent free agents entitled to a confidentiality that involves enabling abuse of the child and self-destructive behavior of the child. There is a reason why priests are not mandatory reporters, but it's theology, and perhaps you wouldn't understand. But health care workers are, and they should be. Deal with it.

PP and their ilk wanted non-parental adults to be exempted from the law on the grounds that children _need_ to find non-parental adults to help them obtain abortions, that such adults are kindly, helpful, and have the child's best interests at heart.

I believe that the rationale for this was that very often it is the child's own father who has fathered her child, and her mother is too intimidated and submissive to do anything to help her. In those cases, clearly, if the child is going to get help it is going to need to come from some adult outside of the nuclear family.
If you consider abortion to never be "helpful," under any circumstances, this rationale is, of course, negated. If, however, you make an exception for rape and incest, then this exception is necessary.

"C'est la Vie"
"To each his own"
"Mind your own business"
"Am I my brother's (sister's) keeper?"

What is wrong with the world?! Clearly this lady has allowed her better instincts to be squelched and misshapen by the lionization of choice, an ideology that all too easily couples with a "pursue your bliss" mentality" and is reinforced in the hallowed halls of consumerism. This is what happens when moral choice is thought to be grounded in sentiment. When this presupposition is bought into, it becomes hard to argue for better moral decisions, for obviously no one is really going to argue whether chocolate tastes better than vanilla. If our moral instincts are really just a matter of taste, then it would be silly and "patronizing" to inquire about other people's moral actions.

Could it be that the intuitive part of her that set off the alarm bells is somehow connected to her obligation and authority as an adult to look out for children? Naahhh!! We can't accept that because that would meant that there is something more than just cultural conditioning, that would mean that there is some kind of essence and order to the universe, which would mean...

PP and their ilk wanted non-parental adults to be exempted from the law on the grounds that children _need_ to find non-parental adults to help them obtain abortions...
I believe that the rationale for this was that very often it is the child's own father who has fathered her child, and her mother is too intimidated and submissive to do anything to help her.

This is one of those altogether-too-frequent situations where the facts run exactly contrary to claims by abortion providers to be working in the best interest of the victim. The simple fact is that girls impregnated by their fathers almost never want an abortion; in most cases, the child welcomes the pregnancy because it will draw attention to her plight and create the possibility of escape. On the contrary, it's usually the impregnating father who benefits from the child having an abortion, and if there's an intimidated wife, she's intimidated into seeking an abortion for her daughter.

Incest, then, is one of those situations where it benefits the victim to keep abortions difficult to obtain, and require maximum exposure.

Don't expect to read that in a Planned Parenthood brochure, though. They benefit (read "profit financially") from anything that makes abortions easier to obtain.

What is funny is how offended liberals get when you tell them they are setting up a society that is a paradise for unrelated child molesters. But think about the "principles" under which HPW operates. They are very nearly *by definition* helpful to any child molestor who sends a girl in who is too scared to say anything explicit. And add in there what was discovered by the phone callers--that PP employees will tell girls, "Don't tell me that your partner is 22, because it could get him in trouble. Just don't tell me anything about that." What are we looking at? Basically, you're letting the world know the following:

1) If a minor girl comes in here to get an abortion or birth control, we won't report it, even if she is so young that under state law she isn't supposed to be having sex with _anybody_.

2) We will make it a matter of principle not to ask her the age of her sexual partner.

3) If she tries to tell us the age of her partner, we'll shush her up.

4) If an employee has a gut feeling that she is being coerced into sex, we won't follow that up with any questions, even to her.

5) If she is accompanied by an unrelated female, we won't ask who that person is.

Now, this is _asking_ for child molestors to frighten girls into silence and to send them in to PP to get "cover-up" of one sort of another for abuse, sending a female accomplice with the girl to watch that she keeps her mouth shut. The girl would nearly have to scream, "Help me! I am being raped!" to get any attention or legal help. I wonder what HPW would do then.

Oh, btw, Dawn Eden had a link (PP has since taken down the story) to a little "personal stories" spot on a PP web site where a girl says, "I was raped when I was 11 by my 17-year-old boyfriend, but I decided not to tell my parents. Planned Parenthood helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way."

The link to Dawn's quotation is here:

http://www.dawneden.com/2005/12/planned-parenthood-boasts-it-covered.html

They were _proud_ of that story. They _deliberately_ put it up on their web page, until somebody noted it with horror.

Yet liberals will try to deny that there is a major problem here. I don't know if they just think the pro-lifers are lying or if they are just going to go on forever saying, "But you don't really know what the circumstances were," or what. But not only is PP "enabling" child molestation, so too are the "choicers" who keep on making excuses for PP.

I notice the Lydia glided nicely over the possibility of trying to contact this woman and ask her some follow up questions. As expected when push comes to shove the idologue prefers the political narrative over real life complexities.

Well what do we know? Nothing. She had a hunch that maybe the girl was with someone older. Then again she had a hunch she was 'projecting'. She didn't know and there was not enough evidence to tell.

Now out of the blue we get some prattle about 'pro-aborts'. Getting birth control pills, though, would be strange behavior for someone committed to increasing abortions. The woman who came with her was not a friend, not an aunt, not a mother (the woman was not identified so she very well may have even been her mother)....just a woman committed to what exactly? Statutatory rape?

And btw, you can just keep talking about confidentiality, but mandatory reporters are what they are, and things are set up that way for a reason. Children are supposed to be different from adults and to be protected by society

Yet this is what confidentiality does, protects. The priest is not only confidential for theology but protection. By having confidentiality a safe zone is created so the 12 year old to come for help. Without a measure of confidentiality somewhere you don't get protected children, you get no protection at all. If you doubt this then let me ask you, do the lawyers also have confidentiality via theology???

But health care workers are, and they should be. Deal with it.

Great work analytical philosopher. Maybe healthcare workers are, you've burned up your keyboard all day but still haven't bothered to actually ask what the reporting procedures are for health care workers or even indicated that you've thought about this beyond sex (ironic isn't it).

I'll help you again. Let's return to the routine questions asked by healthcare workers about illegal drug use. Reportable? Why not? If the girl said she smoked pot that would beg the question of where she was getting it from and why not 'guess' that her source was an adult? Would they persist in questioning her in depth or leave it at what was needed for treatment?

What is funny is how offended liberals get when you tell them they are setting up a society that is a paradise for unrelated child molesters.

Funny, when I asked you why the victims are simply not assembled and lawsuits filed you answered that there were no real victims of PP....only staged ones who had no basis to sue.

Let's be frank, I seriously doubt any state does not require reporting of known child abuse or child abuse suspected with good cause (no 'hunches' are not the same thing). At the same time, medical workers do not and should not probe their patients to discover abuse. While such an action may uncover a case it can also cover up many cases from those who will be deterred from getting any help at all. At some point, the worker has to stake out a neutral ground where they allow the patient to come to them for help but they do not push it. This is hardly about convenience. No doubt the most inconvenient thing in the world is to have to keep such secrets or not to follow up on questions like the woman in the blog had. I also don't envy the priest who must keep the secrets of the confessional even when he knows if he brings them out in the open he may be able to stop additional abuse or at least bring some to justic. The convenient thing to do is report it, let the police handle it and then (as a result) never have to hear about it again because you won't.

So again we come back to making lots of guesses when in reality we know very little. I tried poking around PP site(s) to see what their official rape policies are. Unfortunately it's late, I'm tired and it seems that every PP has its own local web so the pages I land on are specific to particular PP sites rather than a universal policy type site. The sites I did find include:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/northern-adirondack/date-rape-education-and-prevention.htm

and

http://www.ppgg.org/site/c.esJMKZPKJtH/b.1156439/apps/s/content.asp?ct=1607281

Again they seem to be taking a healthy approach to the subject, hardly so enamoured of 'sexual freedom' that they forget that such a thing as nonconsensual rape exists. To be honest I'm very skeptical that any of the rape counseling sites and hotlines (note that PP seems to be referencing them, they aren't PP operations) would report a victim to the police against her will, even if she was a child. If you don't have a zone of confidentiality you're going to loose a lot of victims who will simply not come forward in anyway.

By it's ok Lydia has the solution. Wait until they get pregnant and when they have babies that will prove they were molested. That is, after all, what every incest victim is hoping for according to her.


Speaking of which, what happens when a 12 or 13 year old walks into a hospital in labor having a baby? Is a report made to the police? Anyone have real answers out there?

While I wait for my response to clear the moderation filter, I figured I'd venture over to the site that stated this all and ask some questions. Unfortunately I couldn't locate an email address so I asked them in the comments section. Hopefully the author will see them and take some time to respond. I did note that in her profile she is only 25 years old and a recent college grad. so I suspect she is probably not a doctor or even a nurse but more like a secretary. This would probably have some impact on this debate since we only have her hunches while we have no access to what the 12 year old or her adult companion told the actual doctor or nurse who saw her.

Perhaps this could turn out to be something more than the usual mud slinging whenever abortion or PP is the topic.

Confidentiality is only protected in certain professions in Oregon, specifically:

Psychiatrist, psychologist, clergyman, or attorney shall not be required to report information communicated to him by a person if the communication is privileged under ORS 40.225 to 40.295.

(It would also appear that 40.260 and 40.262 apply in the exemptions, but not all clergy are exempt in all situations.)

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/children/abuse/cps/report.shtm

A licensed clinical social worker doesn't have a protection of confidentiality, nor does a licensed practical nurse or registered nurse. We can only hope she's one of those, giving out prescription medication.

Also it would appear according to Oregon law that sex with a girl aged twelve is a statutory rape in the 2nd degree. As I read it, the Romeo and Juliet clause (3 years, ORS 163.345) may be entered as a defense. A defense against does not constitute an elimination of prosecution.

Source: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/163.html

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

"At the same time, medical workers do not and should not probe their patients to discover abuse. While such an action may uncover a case it can also cover up many cases from those who will be deterred from getting any help at all. At some point, the worker has to stake out a neutral ground where they allow the patient to come to them for help but they do not push it."

Yes, "do no harm" is the first principle of medical ethics. But "staking out a neutral ground" is inconsistent with that principle. For in order to know what harm is to a being I have to know its good, but to know its good means that I am excluding other views as mistaken. That is hardly a "neutral ground."

Here's the "testimony" of the young girl from the PP site (archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20041022181955/http://www.ppgg.org/action/stories.asp?ID=15)

I was raped at 11, by my 17 year old boyfriend. I chose not to tell my parents because I didn't think their involvement would help, that was the right choice for me. Planned Parethood helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way. I was 14 when I decided to start having sex, the day I made that choice I made an appointment to get birth control pills. I'm 17 now, I've been with my current boyfriend for about two years. During that time i've been HIV and STD tested four times. Right now I'm sitting in the waiting room while my boyfriend gets the results for his HIV test. We love each other so we're responsible and Planned Parenthood helps us to do that.

First, 11-year-olds should not have "boyfriends," especially if they are 17! Second, what does it mean to "decide to have sex?" I know what it means to decide to vacation in the Bahamas, or buy a microwave, or watch a Baylor Bears basketball game. The very way in which she writes of sex means she really has no clue of its power or its mystery. Third, she's 17 and her boyfriend and her "love each other." I'm sure that's true. She loves herself, and he loves himself, and they "have sex" to prove it.

Who wants to live in this world?

I notice the Lydia glided nicely over the possibility of trying to contact this woman and ask her some follow up questions. As expected when push comes to shove the idologue prefers the political narrative over real life complexities.

Typical liberalism. We're not allowed to complain about another's moral offense unless we're also willing to clean up after him. Lydia doesn't have enough to do raising her own kids and keeping them safe from the kind of bottom-crawlers PP protects.

We're not allowed to complain about another's moral offense unless we're also willing to clean up after him.

William--
I'm curious as to how you would characterize the group implied by the "we" that is the subject of that sentence?

The simple fact is that girls impregnated by their fathers almost never want an abortion; in most cases, the child welcomes the pregnancy because it will draw attention to her plight and create the possibility of escape.

That does not present itself as "a simple fact" to me. Do you have any citations to support it? I think that the strongest fear of any 12 or 13 year old girl who has been raped by her father, and is pregnant, is that anybody would find out about it. A child's sense of justice is rarely able to overcome a child's sense of shame.

On the contrary, it's usually the impregnating father who benefits from the child having an abortion, and if there's an intimidated wife, she's intimidated into seeking an abortion for her daughter.

That strikes me as a more plausible assertion than the first cited above. Again, however, I wonder if you can site any statistics supporting it? While it certainly seems reasonable, for all the obvious practical reasons, that the incestuous father and the intimidated mother would want to get rid of their abused child's pregnancy, I believe it to be the case that psychologically the guilty parents fear the exposure of their guilt to an authority figure more than they fear the consequences of the pregnancy; the pregnancy that they, of course, blame on the victim.

Todd, I appreciate the link, b'cause I couldn't get the one from Dawn Eden's blog to work.

I notice Boonton can't keep me straight from other commentators. Boonton, don't be rude around here regardless (you're on the edge), but especially don't be rude if you can't even bother to tell what I've said and what other people have said.

Boonton, the laws in question (to which Todd has kindly found working links) say that a report is required in the case of "probable cause." "Probable cause" is actually quite a low legal standard. It isn't anything like "enough evidence to convict." My experience is that when people say they have a "hunch" they often do have evidence but haven't made it explicit. It might be the kind of eye contact the girl was making with the older woman, for example, or the way she referred to "him." But in any event, if HPW was concerned about the girl, even a little more questioning would very likely have elicited evidence that would _easily_ amount to probable cause. The girl would either lie or tell the truth, and unless she was a top-notch liar, even if she lied about the age of her partner, that should itself have been pretty evident.

What category HPW falls into is an additional question. She was apparently making birth control pill prescriptions. In doing so, she was at least representing a physician. Some physician's name went on that prescription, and the strong impression from the post is that HPW is the only person the girl saw. How mandatory reporting works legally when a doctor allows non-doctors to see patients and make prescriptions in his name is an interesting question. Could HPW wriggle out of mandatory reporter status on those grounds, without getting into trouble on the other side for making a prescription without proper physician supervision? One reason I doubt it is because of the many accounts of PP employees all over the country who tell clients *not to tell them* the age of their partner (after the client has already told), or else "he'll have to go to jail." Apparently the PP employees understand themselves to be mandatory reporters but have a highly creative interpretation of "probable cause"! ("I didn't hear that. Now, let's start over again and don't you tell me that.")

(Quick note: It looks from my reading of the Oregon law Todd linked like the "age fifteen" thing is for "sexual misconduct" not for 2nd degree rape. On this point Dawn's summary appears to be incorrect--i.e., it looks like voluntary sex between a 12-year-old and someone less than three years older than herself could at most be prosecuted as sexual misconduct.)

Let's get it straight that the girl _was_ having sex or was soon planning to at a minimum. And as Todd has pointed out, an "affirmative defense" does not necessarily mean that no investigation or prosecution would take place. In any event, _you_ continue to ignore the fact that HPW makes it a point of honor _never_ to ask the age of the girls' partners. In other words, she is committed to avoiding obtaining information that is directly pertinent to whether the "Romeo and Juliet" clause would apply. This is incredibly reckless of the well-being of girls, and should be by HPW's own lights, unless of course she approves of children's having sex with people more than three years older than themselves or at least considers it something other than a very serious matter that should be stopped. (Are you really so morally confused, Boonton, that you think having sex with a child is no more of a problem than providing the child with marijuana? Not that I'm convinced the sort of "confidentiality" you outline there is moral and responsible, either. By no means. But I'm willing to believe that liberal ideology also tries to convince people to connive at children's continuing in a situation where they are being given drugs by adults. Not protecting children from adult-encouraged destructive behaviors is a relevant tie-up, here.)

Why don't I say something to HPW in her comments box? First, because I doubt very seriously that it would do the slightest good. It's very weird that you think it would. Second, because I want her to leave the original post up as evidence for any investigators who do decide to take up the case. Third, because if I take time to do something "real-world" about this, it's going to be contacting the Oregon DOJ, not contacting the thoroughly messed-up young woman who is ideologically committed to treating 12-year-olds as consensual sexual actors. I have been waiting to write the relevant justice departments not only for time but also for access to the relevant legal links, which were not working from Dawn's page. I had put a comment on Dawn's recent post on this telling her the material wouldn't come up. I might mention that Plumb Bob, a gentlemanly and sensible blogger-commentator who has recently posted in this thread, has indeed tried to plead gently with HPW in her comments thread, and if she doesn't change her mind as a result of that, it will only be confirmation of her highly deliberate hardening of the heart. We each make our own contribution to real-world situations in the way we think our actions can be most helpful.

I don't know how much more I will be responding to you, Boonton. You are obviously _aggressively_ committed to the idea that it was some kind of good thing that HPW asked nothing more of this child, as a matter of "confidentiality," in order to keep her coming back for "help"--"help" being defined by you, as by HPW, as getting pills to prevent some of the unwanted consequences of sex at age 12. I think that's a horrifying abdication of adult responsibility. It was also, plausibly, illegal. And a good thing, too.

One of the reasons I remain firmly opposed to legalized abortion is the consistent, unremitting, outright DISHONESTY of abortion's defenders.

Boonton gives me a prime example:

"Getting birth control pills, though, would be strange behavior for someone committed to increasing abortions."

And yet, the same people who believe in giving birth control pills and condoms to children, also believe in free access to abortions for children. Dilemma? Hardly.

In the first place, it's a Straw Man. Their commitment isn't to "more abortions," and nobody ever said it was. Neither is Boonton's. Both are committed to "no restrictions on sex," the banal self-justification underlying so much of the Left's dismantling of Western civilization. I'm not surprised he won't admit it, but it's obvious.

But beyond that obvious deception, Boonton's "dilemma" posits PP workers thinking thus: "I won't tell this 12-year-old about birth control pills, so she'll get pregnant and perhaps get an abortion here, earning me money." Does he really believe that's ordinary, profit-making behavior? Really? So, he also believes fee-for-service doctors "forget" to prescribe antibiotics for sinus infections, hoping the patient will develop bronchitis or pneumonia, requiring more costly care? He believes auto mechanics won't point out a dry ball joint, hoping for a more expensive front-end repair down the road? This is how Boonton thinks free enterprise works?

Poppycock. That's Marxist Dreamland, not the real world. Giving birth control pills isn't strange behavior for a business that also profits from abortions, it's how ordinary businesses work.

An even more egregious falsehood is Boonton's repetition of the nonsense phrase, "we don't have enough information." We have the one piece of information that makes this affair a crime: the sexually active "woman" being counselled is 12 years old. A crime is being committed. This is a fact in every state of the union. But Boonton won't acknowledge this.

And I say that as if the fact that a little girl is sexually active is something that wouldn't be of concern except for statutory rape laws. Laws aside, that's of concern to anybody I care to regard as human.

As I said, it's consistent invention of such thoroughly DISHONEST arguments that convinces me that my opposition to legal abortion is culturally necessary.

"[M]edical workers do not and should not probe their patients to discover abuse." Sez Boonton.

A remarkable position to take. Scenario: A pediatrician has a blog under a pseudonym. He posts the following:

I had a girl come in today with a black eye and a gash on her arm. I had a hunch maybe someone much older had beaten her up, but I asked her nothing at all. I never ask kids how they got injured. They might not come back, especially if they feel loyalty to the person who hurt them. I have to offer them confidentiality--which includes never asking questions about what happened to them--so they'll keep coming to me to get treated. I prefer not to know. If I found out that her dad beat her up, for instance, I might be in a legal dilemma and feel that I had to report it. And then confidentiality would be breached. Can't have that. But she's lucky. She had a woman with her, so if she is indeed being abused by a family member or friend and it gets too serious, she has someone to turn to.

Either Boonton would or wouldn't have a problem with that. If he wouldn't, that's a reductio of his whole approach to such matters. If he would, then presumably he denies the analogy. Why? Because a little girl's having sex (if it's _consensual_, maybe?) isn't injurious to her, in his view? That would make my point for me very well in itself.

Regarding the infrequency of impregnated incest victims seeking abortion:

The only study that's apparently ever addressed the issue is by one G. Maloof, "The Consequences of Incest," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publications of Amer., 1979. I was citing conclusions from his study second-hand. To be thorough, I should read the study itself to be sure it's not being misquoted by my sources -- and I will.

The assessment that incest victims usually view the pregnancy as a means of escaping their situation comes from the book Victims and Victors (Acorn Books, 2000) ed. David Reardon, Amy Sobie and Julie Makimaa. It's a collection of 192 accounts of women impregnated by incest and 55 impregnated by sexual assault. Their near-unanimous assessment is that abortion makes the situation worse.

Also relevant is Maloof's and others' finding that pregnancy very seldom results from incest, apparently in less than 1% of incest cases. Arguments based on incest or rape pregnancy are examples of justification at the margins, almost always a path to bad policy. You write laws to address the majority cases, and make exceptions to cover the marginal cases.

By the way, yes, if a 12 or 13-year-old shows up at a hospital in labor, a crime report should be made. Is this controversial? I guess so, in certain circles.

An even more egregious falsehood is Boonton's repetition of the nonsense phrase, "we don't have enough information." We have the one piece of information that makes this affair a crime: the sexually active "woman" being counselled is 12 years old. A crime is being committed. This is a fact in every state of the union. But Boonton won't acknowledge this.

Maybe NBC's "To Catch a Predator" should set up shop next to a PP "clinic." It would be like shooting fish in a bucket.


Let me see if I understand this right - is what's going on in these comments nothing more than different ideas on the role of statutory rape laws?

That would make sense.

I certainly see how they're useful, but do think they're painted with too large a brush.

Make no mistake, I certainly obey those laws. However, I am not fully convinced that 12 year olds having consensual sex is "rape" just because the state legislature defines at as such. Likewise, I'm disgusted by the exception that some states add that marriage is a defense to statutory rape.

But yes, as a health care provider, if Oregon statute mandates reporting where a law may have been broken - even if reasonable people differ as to whether it is a victimless crime - then it should be reported.

"However, I am not fully convinced that 12 year olds having consensual sex is "rape" just because the state legislature defines at as such. Likewise, I'm disgusted by the exception that some states add that marriage is a defense to statutory rape."

????

Let me see if I understand this: you are not fully convinced that statutory rape is rape if it is defined by statute, except if it has an exception?

Calling it "rape" where they consent is a legal fiction. "Rape", as I understand and use the term, implies no consent whatsoever.

The legal thinking behind it is actually "capacity", which is analogous to the law of minors regarding contracts and motor vehicles. Kids do not have the "capacity" to drive or engage in contracts until 16 or 18 (in general). But they certainly do consent to driving and contracts.

Yes, it is semantical, but I think it underscores what's going on. Hence, to call it "rape" is an improper term.

As for marriage exceptions, where 30 year olds can have sex with 12 years if they are married, a couple things:

1. It's about consistency. If 12 year olds do not have the capacity for sex, then I don't see how they have the capacity to get married, as it necesitates the capacity for sex.

2. The statutory rape laws do protect children, and in many cases, the laws fit the crime (but not always, see "rape" above).

But by allowing the marital exception, what we considered a minute before a child predator is now given legal status. In that, the state is not merely condoning child predation, but given its blessing to it.

Mr. Beckwith--
I read the statements you quote to mean: 1) the writer is not convinced that consensual sex involving 12 year olds is "rape" merely because it is so defined by law; and 2) if, however, such consensual sex should be defined as statuatory rape, then marriage should not be cause for an exception to that definition.

Rodak - in much more succinct fashion, yes.


Here's a great example of why I don't always consider it "rape."

Consider Garnett v. State (Md. App. 1993)

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/garnett%20v%20st.htm


Garnett was a 20 year old mentally retarded man living with his parents. Erica was a 13 year old girl. Erica sneaks into his house by climbing through his window. They engage in intercourse and Erica gets pregnant.

The judge (rightly, in my opinion) said it would be an injustice to apply Maryland's statutory rape laws to imprison Garnett, despite their age difference on account of Garnett being mentally retarded.

Royale writes, just too incredibly,

Calling it "rape" where they consent is a legal fiction. "Rape", as I understand and use the term, implies no consent whatsoever.

No, sir, this is not a legal fiction. This is a recognition of the fact -- and fact, it is -- that before they've reached a certain age, children don't have the experience or cognitive faculties to make certain decisions properly.

Of course adolescent girls and boys can be coaxed into giving their "consent" to have sex. They're curious. They're changing physically. Their hormones are producing unfamiliar feelings. They don't understand why their parents are so touchy about their explorations; can't they see how adult they've become?

It takes an adult perspective to understand the implications of sexual relations, and to manage the attendant emotions. Kids don't have enough information to make those decisions. This is why, even when it's the child who approaches the adult for sex (and this happens more often than you'd think,) it's the adult's responsibility to say "No," because he or she is in the position to know better.

An adult man engaging in sexual intercourse with an adult woman who does not want to do it is exercising his physical power over her. An adult man engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor girl who wants to do it is exercising the power of his experience and stature over her. Both are an inappropriate use of power to obtain sex; in both cases the woman is a victim. Both are rape, in fact as well as in law.

By the way, Royale, I agree with your assessment of Garnet v Maryland. In my mind, this is comparable to two 12-year-olds engaging in sexual relations with each other. It would be inappropriate to prosecute either as a rapist, so long as they both intended to do it. Same with the case of a mentally retarded adult; both parties lack the capacity to commit a criminal culpable act. See my comments about adult responsibility, above.

On the other hand, locking the stupid kids in their rooms for about 4 years wouldn't be a bad idea...

It's the exercise of adult stature to obtain sex from those who haven't full capacity to defend themselves that makes statutory rape, rape.

"This is a recognition of the fact -- and fact, it is -- that before they've reached a certain age, children don't have the experience or cognitive faculties to make certain decisions properly."

This is why I differentiated "consent" from "capacity." Your analysis goes to capacity, in which I agree.

But consent and capacity should not be confused. Hence, I adopt a much more narrow definition of "rape" as consent can be very tricky, whereas "capacity" is much more easier to administer in law.

Consider this, let's say a man and woman meet at a bar. The man lies and convinces her that he is worth $10 million, but in reality he is a penniless pauper who stole some nice clothes and is a great actor.

They sleep together (or get married and sleep together, no difference here). She finds out that he was lying.

She was coerced, lied to, and manipulated. The guy is a scumbag.

She consented to sex (or marriage) with a millionaire. She did not consent to the same with a penniless pauper.

But still, was she "raped"? I say no.

Semantic and legal issues aside, if a twenty year old talked a twelve year old into committing suicide I would treat the twenty year old like a particularly heinous sort of murderer. Off with his head.

Royale, a couple of the several controversies going on here concern the best way to help and protect a minor who is having sex. What I wd. call the "liberal" perspective is that it is best to have a rule that one asks no questions of such minors, not about the age of their partners, not about whether the sex is consensual, nothing, because most of them are engaging in consensual sex anyway (whether with older people or with people their own age), and asking them no questions is the best way to keep them coming back for "help," where "help" means birth control pills, perhaps condoms, and so forth--that is, things that can mitigate various consequences of their sexual activity. The "conservative" position is that this is a horribly reckless rule and that it abandons the children involved to their own devices, even allowing coercive rape to go undiscovered in deference to the "don't ask" rule--in other words, that such a rule perversely prioritizes children's freedom to have sex and the ability of the healthcare worker to mitigate the consequences over the protection of the minors _from_ sexual intercourse, even from unwanted sexual intercourse.

There are other, to some extent unstated, differences as well, such as whether 12-year-olds should be allowed to have sex even with those their own age (my answer is "no," of course), and so forth. But to my mind it is totally out of bounds--crazy, in fact--to defend what HPW did morally on the grounds that this is the best way to "help kids." It betrays a totally messed-up set of priorities, an inability to understand children's incapacity (which Plumb Bob has highlighted) to give meaningful consent, and an irresponsible lack of sufficient concern for discovering, even by a few well-placed questions, even outright rape. In other words, "choice" (quote, unquote) is being treated as more important than choice, where we consider that it's better to risk leaving a 12-year-old in an abusive situation than to risk driving her away from the source of birth control pills

She was coerced, lied to, and manipulated. The guy is a scumbag.

She consented to sex (or marriage) with a millionaire. She did not consent to the same with a penniless pauper.

'Tis a pity; she's a whore. She didn't get raped, she got stiffed.

Reminds me of a joke my mother told me (yes, my mother.) The man says to his female companion, "If I gave you a million dollars, would you sleep with me?" She considers, and slowly says, "yeeeeesss..." wondering where this is going. "How about if I gave you $5?" he continues. "Of course not!" she snaps. "What do you think I am?" "We've already established that," explains the fellow, "and now we're just haggling over the price."

"We've already established that," explains the fellow, "and now we're just haggling over the price."

SSocialist punchlines on WWWtW? Who'da thunk it?

Todd,

Thank you for posting Oregon's law. I notice the reporting rule applies to "information communicated to him by a person...." This would seem to contradict Lydia's assertion that not only does one have to report information reported to them (as in "I'm 12 years old and having sex with a 22 year old man") but also hunches (as in "I'm 12 years old and want birth control" and the secretary suspects she is having sex and having sex with an older man).

Reporting seems to create a larger problem of deterring people from seeking help. For example, I posted two links to resource directories for rape and incest victims. I'm almost 100% certain that none of these hotlines would break confidentiality as doing so would deter a lot of victims from contacting them. Should they be required to do so?

Rodak
I believe it to be the case that psychologically the guilty parents fear the exposure of their guilt to an authority figure more than they fear the consequences of the pregnancy; the pregnancy that they, of course, blame on the victim.

Good point, I would imagine when pregnancy does result from a father who is molesting his daughter the strategy would be to blame the pregnancy on some unidentified 'boyfriend' whether the pregnancy is taken to term or aborted.

Lydia
Boonton, don't be rude around here regardless (you're on the edge), but especially don't be rude if you can't even bother to tell what I've said and what other people have said.

Point taken, I do try to keep the commentators straight out of politeness. It doesn't matter from the point of an argument, either an argument is valid or invalid regardless of who made it. But I apologize if I mixed you up with another commentator and I'll try harder to avoid the error in the future.

Boonton, really: The phrase "information communicated to him by a person" occurs in the section in which it is explaining clergy and other exemptions. It is quite a stretch to say that this means that those not exempt may deliberately ignore their own concerns about a child's safety and deliberately insulate themselves from obtaining any information on the subject. The relevant language (obviously) is this:

"Any public or private official having reasonable cause to believe that any child with whom the official comes in contact has suffered abuse, or that any person with whom the official comes in contact has abused a child shall immediately report or cause a report to be made . . ."

Obviously a lot turns on the meaning of "reasonable cause" and on how far one is allowed, without being in violation, to go in making sure one *does not* get exposed to information amounting to "reasonable cause." But I think a pediatrician not wishing to get in trouble with DHS would be ill-advised to follow the policy I outlined in my example above, to ignore his hunch that a child had been abused, deliberately to ask no questions about the situation, and to trumpet it about on the web.

Lydia
Boonton, the laws in question (to which Todd has kindly found working links) say that a report is required in the case of "probable cause." "Probable cause" is actually quite a low legal standard. It isn't anything like "enough evidence to convict." My experience is that when people say they have a "hunch" they often do have evidence but haven't made it explicit. It might be the kind of eye contact the girl was making with the older woman, for example, or the way she referred to "him."

Please tell us exactly what type of experience you have in this area. Probable cause usually refers to issuing warrants and police conducting searches. I suspect a judge would demand a bit more than "she made eye contact with me" before giving a detective warrant. I'd be happy to hear what your experience is here.

What category HPW falls into is an additional question. She was apparently making birth control pill prescriptions. In doing so, she was at least representing a physician. Some physician's name went on that prescription, and the strong impression from the post is that HPW is the only person the girl saw.

Very doubtful. First she makes min. wage. Yes doctors working in clinics are often paid less than average but I doubt they work for min wage...nurses too. Second, she claims she studied creative writing in college. She must have been an amazing student if she pulled off a major in creative writing AND finished Med School by 25. Last she says she's a 'family planning assistant' which basically means medical assistant. She's the person that makes you fill out the insurance form in the doctors office, maybe will write down your weight and symptoms or ask you some questions from a form.

Hence this girl did see someone else to get her script. True doctors spend very little time with patients nowadays they still have some consultation with new patients.

Let's get it straight that the girl _was_ having sex or was soon planning to at a minimum. And as Todd has pointed out, an "affirmative defense" does not necessarily mean that no investigation or prosecution would take place. In any event, _you_ continue to ignore the fact that HPW makes it a point of honor _never_ to ask the age of the girls' partners. In other words, she is committed to avoiding obtaining information that is directly pertinent to whether the "Romeo and Juliet" clause would apply.

Again let's go to the emergancy room where the doctor asks the patient if they use illegal drugs. If a 12 year old said yes then clearly a crime is going on somewhere but rarely will emergnacy room workers grill the patient about where and how they obtain them. Why? Such grilling on balance will be counter productive in many cases, causing patients to simply lie thereby complicating treatment. Another reason is that it pushes the worker into a legal grey area. This woman is herself only a bit more than a girl. I doubt she has any training to be making calls about the legal status of her patient's behavior, whether various clauses apply etc. It's probably better that the people who deal in more detail with the girl are rape counselors who hopefully have some type of specialized training. I'll say this to you, I think this area here is probably where your argument is strongest and I'll agree I'm on the border. I think the woman should have talked to the girl about consent if only to make her aware of the dangers out there and to give her some resources.

Why don't I say something to HPW in her comments box? First, because I doubt very seriously that it would do the slightest good. It's very weird that you think it would. Second, because I want her to leave the original post up as evidence for any investigators who do decide to take up the case.

This is amusing, you just told us that prosecutors won't go after PP! And why would you think it would do no good? Ohhh ideological reasons. PP is evil, PP supporters are evil therefore nothing can be acknowledge to deviate from your political narrative. But oddly the very post you referenced shows a person conflicted about the situation. As I pointed out the girl may very well return again to this woman for a followup. The opportunity to do something is still there (and it doesn't even have to be the woman reporting, giving the girl the rape hotline numbers alone could do the job).

Third, because if I take time to do something "real-world" about this, it's going to be contacting the Oregon DOJ

Now for all the readers here, who thinks if we all stormed over Lydia's house and started searching through her sent mail on her computer we would see anything going to the Oregon DOJ? For all her poiusness, Lydia's first reaction was not to report anything, not to plead with anyone to 'do the right thing', but instead to craft a blog post arguing some loopy point about 'choice devouring itself'. Let's face it, if this girl is being abused then she is simply cannon fodder for the pro-life groups too.

I don't know how much more I will be responding to you, Boonton. You are obviously _aggressively_ committed to the idea that it was some kind of good thing that HPW asked nothing more of this child, as a matter of "confidentiality," in order to keep her coming back for "help"--"help" being defined by you, as by HPW, as getting pills to prevent some of the unwanted consequences of sex at age 12. I think that's a horrifying abdication of adult responsibility. It was also, plausibly, illegal. And a good thing, too.

I wonder too why I bother. You revert to your talking points at the drop of a hat without even listening to anyone who may disagree with you. A shame really.

A remarkable position to take. Scenario: A pediatrician has a blog under a pseudonym. He posts the following:

Perhaps this argument would have an inch more validity if it wasn't already posted that the law provides for confidentiality when the professional is a doctor.

Plumb Bob
And yet, the same people who believe in giving birth control pills and condoms to children, also believe in free access to abortions for children. Dilemma? Hardly.

Yet the two do kind of cancel themselves out. If you think it would be great to have an abortion taking birth control pills would almost certainly preclude your ability to have an abortion.

In the first place, it's a Straw Man. Their commitment isn't to "more abortions," and nobody ever said it was. Neither is Boonton's. Both are committed to "no restrictions on sex," the banal self-justification underlying so much of the Left's dismantling of Western civilization. I'm not surprised he won't admit it, but it's obvious.

What the hell is a 'proabort' if not someone committed to more abortions then? Let's see, if someone was 'procat' I'd suspect they probably have lots of cats. I would be surprised if they spent their weekends going around shooting wild cats. And exactly where did I say there should be no restrictions on sex? Another lie on your part Mr. Bob. Please try to actually read what you want to criticize.

As for your ranting about 'free enterprise'. I have no idea what you're talking about or even trying to articulate. Why don't you take a few breaths, read what you're responding too and then write.

Poppycock. That's Marxist Dreamland, not the real world. Giving birth control pills isn't strange behavior for a business that also profits from abortions, it's how ordinary businesses work.

Ok, so you're saying that PP 'profits' from abortions? That is indeed true as it also profits from giving general exams, birth control pills and even carrying pregnancies to term. That being said if your agenda was to maximize abortions then birth control pills would be exactly the wrong strategy. If your agenda was to facilitate choice then you provide both.

An even more egregious falsehood is Boonton's repetition of the nonsense phrase, "we don't have enough information." We have the one piece of information that makes this affair a crime: the sexually active "woman" being counselled is 12 years old. A crime is being committed. This is a fact in every state of the union. But Boonton won't acknowledge this.

Actually the women didn't even say that. All we have, in essence, is guesses by a secretary who does not seem to have been present when the doctor spoke with the girl. Hopefully the blog author will respond to some of the questions we raised and will give us some more context but at the moment we have nothing but guesses.

Also relevant is Maloof's and others' finding that pregnancy very seldom results from incest, apparently in less than 1% of incest cases. Arguments based on incest or rape pregnancy are examples of justification at the margins, almost always a path to bad policy. You write laws to address the majority cases, and make exceptions to cover the marginal cases.

As is this. What % of molestors have adult female helpers who bring their victims into doctors offices and PP clinics for birth control pills to facilitate abuse? Also I can see how sometimes abortion may make an incest case worse but that hardly justifies arguing that pregnancy is a positive in such a situation. While it may be a positive if it reveals the molestor and provides uncontested proof of his crime it is hardly a good thing. If we had a choice, it would almost always be better to stop the attacks before a pregnancy occurrs. Needless to say, pro-lifers should actually pay attention to the baby in a pregnancy situation as well. Being the product of incest is hardly a positive.

Royale
Make no mistake, I certainly obey those laws. However, I am not fully convinced that 12 year olds having consensual sex is "rape" just because the state legislature defines at as such. Likewise, I'm disgusted by the exception that some states add that marriage is a defense to statutory rape.

I disagree with you on this. The purpose of statuatory rape laws is to preven relationships with 'uneven power', which often happens when you have an older guy hooking up with a younger girl (and vice versa). The law usually has a higher hurdle for a minor getting married (such as parental consent or a judge's ok). At least in theory that should vet out relationships that are imbalanced. I don't think any states have the "Jerry Lee Lewis" types of laws anymore that allowed him to marry his 13 yr old cousin.

I don't think Lydia is much of a lawyer so while it may be illegal for two 12 year olds to have sex in Oregon I don't think it falls under the statutatory rape laws. If they did then who is guilty of rape? The older one? Both of them?

Plumb Bob overstates his objections to your point too much. It should be remembered it wasn't that long ago that girls were considered women on their first period and got married. In fact, the Juilet in "Romeo and Juliet" that Lydia cites several times was herself 12 years old and Shakespear's audiance didn't see anything odd about the idea of a 12 year old running off, getting married and consumating it. The law is there to prevent what is a bad policy, older men seducing younger women. To insist that consent never takes place among minors, though, is to overstate the case. Your example of the girl who was sneaking into the guys window is a case in point. A more potent case in point is the fact that often the law will try even 12 year olds as adults if the commit heinous crimes. Misguided, ill informed and stupid it is to have sex at 12 years old (male or female) but it is a bit of a fiction to assume they are free of responsibility (or are capable of no responsibility) for decisions to have sex and if they ever do have sex it must be because someone is coercing them.

Regarding the woman who slept with the poor guy pretending to be rich:

I would say it's a bit like buying a hot dog stand. You can make a lot of money or no money and just becuase the guy you are buying it from tells you it's a great business doesn't mean you can assume it will be. As a businessman you are expected to understand there's some risk in anything and taking someone's word for something is no substitute for finding out yourself. Likewise with the woman who hooks up with the 'rich guy' at a bar.

Plumb Bob goes a bit too far in calling her a whore. Why not change the story and say the man was a real con artist who fooled the woman into thinking he was unmarried and a nice guy but as soon as the wedding day was over he revealed he was a jerk and a bigamist. Can the woman charge rape because the man she slept with on her wedding night wasn't the man she 'consented' to sleep with? I don' t think so. She could, of course, sue him for his deception

"The purpose of statuatory rape laws is to prevent relationships with 'uneven power'."

If that's the case, then the president of the United States cannot have intercourse with a person of any age unless its another president or prime minister.

Under this reasoning, a 12 year-old Prince Harry would be "raping" a 30 year-old London homeless man if the former sought out the latter for an afternoon of royal underage sodomy.

All kidding aside, "uneven power" is not the dispositive consideration in statutory rape laws. It is the fact that the law reflects the community's understanding that human beings below a particular age lack the ability to truly consent. The law presupposes an understanding of what constitute's a person's good and who ought to be punished for violating that good. THis is why two 12-year-olds having sex will result in no punishment, even though a wrong has been to the other. For the very same understanding that says that the 12-year-old can't consent means that neither is as morally culpable as an adult predator who can consent.

When I first read Boonton's "uneven power" suggestion, I thought to myself, "He or she seems to believe that the statutory rape laws were written by late 20th century left-wing social work professors."

"All we have, in essence, is guesses by a secretary who does not seem to have been present when the doctor spoke with the girl."

I just love, Boonton, the way you construct this stuff. HPW says _she_ "HOPED" the girl--which means giving hormones with optional pelvic exam. Yet Boonton creates out of the back of his head the idea that HPW is a "secretary" and that the girl spent some sort of quality time (though maybe not quantity) with a doctor. I just love that. But then, we all _know_ what careful medical protocols are followed by PP, don't we? Am I saying she's a doctor or a nurse? Of course not. I'm saying a physician probably puts his name on the scripts without seeing the patients. Heck, at many a large medical practice, the doctor's name that goes on your prescription _is_ somebody who's never laid eyes on you. There you see a "physician's assistant," who at least has to have medical qualifications, which probably HPW doesn't, but what world are you living in, Boonton, where you have to see the doctor who writes your script? Not even at a reputable medical practice is that true, much less PP.

"Perhaps this argument would have an inch more validity if it wasn't already posted that the law provides for confidentiality when the professional is a doctor."

Hello, excuse me? What page are you looking at??? I have the Oregon DHS page right up, this minute, in a separate tab,

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/children/abuse/cps/report.shtml

and psychiatrists and psychologists are exempt from reporting communications if they are "privileged" under some specific other numbered laws, and that's jolly well _it_ w.r.t. anyone even like a physician. In fact, physicians are _explicitly_ named, the only times a search turns the word up on the page, as mandatory reporters. In fact, it goes on about it to expressly say "including resident or intern." Nurses are also named. They even stick in "naturopathic physicians" in there. So what in the world are you talking about?

I received an "out of office" reply e-mail from the Oregon DOJ. I also CC'ed the Eugene police department, smart guy. I did so yesterday in the daytime, long, long before this most recent post of yours in which you decide to shoot off your mouth to the effect that I am doing no such thing. I was waiting (as I thought I already explained) for access to the relevant legal pages, to see them for myself. I was hoping Dawn Eden would fix her links, as I'd asked her to do in the latest thread there, but after Todd found them instead, I read them and then, when I got a few more minutes to spare, wrote my e-mail with those in mind as helpful material that I had seen myself. The e-mail addresses were provided courtesy of Dawn Eden's blog, and I hereby thank her for the information and the idea, which she put up some days back.

You'd better pull in your horns, sir. I realize you believe yourself to be God's Gift to Conservative Blogs for purposes of playing Clever Devil's Advocate and teaching everyone else a lesson, but you've overreached on this one, and your tone is not appreciated.

Boonton is a troll. In a previous thread attached to one of my posts he/she/it was insinuating that he/she/it didn't have to respond to what I actually said because he/she/it knew my hidden thoughts and agenda; at which point my interest in interacting with he/she/it became highly attenuated. If Boonton says anything actually interesting and original it might be worth responding to; but I have yet to see evidence for any significant capacity to do so, despite the volume of ascii production.

I'd have much more respect for the argument that yes, PP flagrantly violates the reporting laws, but that it ought to do so on principle. That at least would be principled; badly wrong, but principled.

Yeah, good point, Zippy. At that point we could start saying, "Okay, _which_ reporting laws, according to the liberal ethos, should they violate? Should they ignore them even when they have a hunch that non-consensual acts are going on or only when they have reason to think it's a 'boyfriend'? Is it right to assume as a default with a 12-year-old that this is consensual with a boyfriend close to her own age? Should one ask and _then_ blow off the reporting law?" etc. In other words, to explore the liberal's principles and to see just when and where those principles start justifying ignoring one's gut feeling that a 12-year-old is being forced to have sex against her will, whether it justifies that, or what.

If that's the case, then the president of the United States cannot have intercourse with a person of any age unless its another president or prime minister.

Unequal power does not mean Constitutional power. Likewise it does not mean unequal gravitational power...so yes the very fat may have sex with the very thin. Good job though.

All kidding aside, "uneven power" is not the dispositive consideration in statutory rape laws. It is the fact that the law reflects the community's understanding that human beings below a particular age lack the ability to truly consent.

Except as was just pointed out many of those same states make provisions and exceptions for marriage. If it was just about inability to consent then a marriage exception would be absurd.

When I first read Boonton's "uneven power" suggestion, I thought to myself, "He or she seems to believe that the statutory rape laws were written by late 20th century left-wing social work professors."

Actually I think they were written by people who noticed human nature is such that men tend to be attracted to younger women, younger women to older men and that sets the stage for younger women to be taken advantage of by older men hence the legal mechanism to prevent that.

Lydia
I just love, Boonton, the way you construct this stuff. HPW says _she_ "HOPED" the girl--which means giving hormones with optional pelvic exam. Yet Boonton creates out of the back of his head the idea that HPW is a "secretary" and that the girl spent some sort of quality time (though maybe not quantity) with a doctor.

Well Lydia we don't really know do we but the fact remains it is highly unlikely a 25 yr old creative writing major making min. wage is a med school graduate. It is also unlikely that Oregon's AMA has been so lax as to let the most lucrative legal monopoly doctors have, the ability to write scripts, be given to people with zero medical credentials. It is almost certain, then, that someone beyond this woman talked to the girl.

There you see a "physician's assistant," who at least has to have medical qualifications, which probably HPW doesn't, but what world are you living in, Boonton, where you have to see the doctor who writes your script? Not even at a reputable medical practice is that true, much less PP.

Perhaps I just don't get out much but I've never seen a medical practice where the scripts are not written by doctors. I have seen doctors give patients maybe 5 minutes after having everyone else do the busy work.

Hello, excuse me? What page are you looking at??? I have the Oregon DHS page right up, this minute, in a separate tab,

See Todd's post at 1:24AM 1/26/08

I received an "out of office" reply e-mail from the Oregon DOJ. I also CC'ed the Eugene police department, smart guy. I did so yesterday in the daytime, long, long before this most recent post of yours in which you decide to shoot off your mouth to the effect that I am doing no such thing.

YOu seem to forget on 1/26 you wrote:

Third, because if I take time to do something "real-world" about this, it's going to be contacting the Oregon DOJ,

My charge stands. Your first reaction to this was to sit and compose your blog entry. You took a lot of time to do a lot of things with this story rather than report it yourself.


Zippy
Boonton is a troll. In a previous thread attached to one of my posts he/she/it was insinuating that he/she/it didn't have to respond to what I actually said because he/she/it knew my hidden thoughts and agenda; at which point my interest in interacting with he/she/it became highly attenuated. If Boonton says anything actually interesting and original it might be worth responding to; but I have yet to see evidence for any significant capacity to do so, despite the volume of ascii production.

Tsk tsk, you neglected to mention that I provided my reasons for suspecting you had a hidden agenda and when you objected I retracted my accusation.

See Todd's post at 1:24AM 1/26/08

The post and linked pages which still don't say that in such a case that a physician has any semblance of confidentiality but are on the list of mandatory reporters. Unless I'm way off on that list in the first link...

... you neglected to mention that I provided my reasons for suspecting you had a hidden agenda ...

Troll.

Boonton's "charge stands"--you mean where he implied that if everybody came and checked my e-mail they'd find I hadn't written to the DOJ? That one? When I had already e-mailed well before he wrote that? Admit it, Boonton, you said something snotty and have been pwned. (This is my first usage of the word 'pwned', so I'll accept correction on its accurate usage.) Unless, of course, you're going to imply I lied about my actions two days go.

Oh, gee, that wasn't the _first_ thing I did. Shocka. No, I publicized it and waited a couple days until I could get personal access to the legal docs. Never know. Might get even more people writing to the DOJ that way. (I mention Dawn's suggestion to this effect in the main post.)

Thanks, Todd. :-)

So let me get this straight. If someone happens to have an agenda they choose to not reveal but someone else figures that out then they are obligated to remain silent or else be a troll? Why is that exactly? It would also seem this works in two directions now doesn't it? The anti-trolls should refrain from, ohhh, calling people 'proaborts' unless they explicitly say "I'm a proabort".

I'm disappointed in you Zippy. I thought we had left the 'hidden agenda' issue behind us on the previous thread where we crossed keyboards. I suppose now your tactic will be to dodge the issues

Todd,

I see your point. On reading the link it looks like Oregon allows doctors to keep confidentiality but as an alternative they are supposed to file a "assessment of a suspected incident of abuse or neglect"....in other words ask child services to check on the situation but, I suppose, not revealing any specifics.

We are left with three or so problems:

1. We don't have a report of abuse, only a hunch that the girl may have a partner that is too old.

2. In the FAQ's one question is what to do if a child reports abuse directly to you. The answer is, "Tell the child that you believe them and that you are going to contact people who can help. Respect the privacy of the child. The child will need to tell their story in detail later, so don't press the child for details. Remember, you need only suspect abuse to make a report." Before you all go crazy over the last sentence, keep in mind it is only the threshold for making a report, not the threshold for being required to make a report. What's interesting is that Oregon itself says don't conduct your own investigation trying to get details.

3. Illegal activity is NOT the same as abuse. It may be illegal for a 12 year old to have sex with a 13 year old but I don't think it should be viewed as child abuse. Likewise it is also illegal for a 12 year old to smoke pot but I don't think the physician is obligated to report that as abuse if a 12 year old tells him she has smoked pot unless there's something more (such as "my dad gives me pot" or "Bob Smith, the guy who works down the street gives me pot to smoke").

The last point is important because there's a wider world than Lydia & co's anti-PP agenda. Two of the PP 'resources' pages I linked two included a host of 'rape hotlines' and other support services. You can't apply a rule only against PP because you don't like them. If PP is obligated to report essentially everything including consentual sex by minors then so is everyone else. Yet the rape hotlines and support groups explicitly tell their clients that they will only go to the police if they are given permission too by the victims. That's hardly because they are 'pro-rapist' but because experience has demonstrated to them that the best results happen when the victim is psychologically prepared.

Needless to say I don't see any reason why Lydia's assertion would be limited only to sex. NA, AA, and any type of drug abuse support group or hotline would likewise be committing a crime if they fail to inform on their underage clients. Again, think about it, if a 16 year old told a support group he had been using crack....I'm sure many of the other members would have a 'hunch' he had purchased or been given it by someone over 18. That too would be child abuse (unless you want to argue giving a child illegal nacrotics is not abuse).

Boonton, you said something snotty and have been pwned. (This is my first usage of the word 'pwned', so I'll accept correction on its accurate usage.)

Sadly this is my first time encountering the term so I'll be unable to correct you on its usage. I suspect it means something like "I've on upped you, hahaha". Perhaps there's an in house neologist who can step in with more detail.

But I accused you upon seeing this "crime" of opting to craft it into a blog post for your ideological reasons rather than doing anything to address what may be real life abuse. Your post later on confirmed that when you said if you did anything it would be to contact the DOJ, which confirms that your first instincts were to exploit the situation.

In contrast, let's imagine you were looking out your window and saw a well known pro-choicer....let's say Gloria Steinem, running over a little kid playing ball in the street with her SUV. Do you "publicized it and waited a couple days " or do you contact law enforcement immediately? If this girl is indeed being raped will she appreciate it that you waited for the weekend ?

You've put forth an incredibly sensitive 'trigger' for mandatory reporting. Why would it not apply to supposedly secondary players in this drama such as ourselves?

"...have been pwned. (This is my first usage of the word 'pwned', so I'll accept correction on its accurate usage.)"

Yep, that's right. If you want to ratchet it up a notch, you can say, "you got pwnz0rd!!11!"

"You've put forth an incredibly sensitive 'trigger' for mandatory reporting. Why would it not apply to supposedly secondary players in this drama such as ourselves?"

Because (I'm resisting the urge to add stronger language), you very dense person, she has the evidence from the contact with the child. That's one reason _why_ she's a mandatory reporter. And believe me, if she'd made a report about the matter even as fast as I--with only secondary evidence--did, I'd be a heck of a lot happier. But even with access to the evidence of the contact with the child, she didn't. And won't, that's pretty darned clear.

Your interpretation of the mandatory reporter page is laughable. Really laughable. Where do you get that the doctor has the option not to report and that reporting is an "alternative"? Which part of "shall immediately cause a report to be made" do you not understand? You are one of the worst cases of a troll who doesn't like to admit he's been careless, foolish, and dead wrong that I've come across. Maybe I should get out more, though. I know trolls come in worse styles than yours, but yours is silly enough.

Giving a child pot certainly isn't abuse in the same sense that having sex with a child is. Not morally. If you think the two are on a par, you have even more problems than you've revealed heretofore. I think however that morally giving a child drugs should be reported and stopped, though. What it counts as in Oregon law is something I simply don't know. I'd guess it's a crime under their drug laws. In our state even purchasing alcohol or cigarettes for a minor is a crime.

Yes, any rape hotline group that does not report the fact that a child has been raped because the child does not give them permission (you have to have permission to report child rape?) is doing something heinously immoral. Whether it is also illegal depends on whether the people running the rape hotlines are legally mandatory reporters. "The best results happen when the victim is psychologically prepared"--prepared to go back into the situation and keep being raped while the people at the hotline hide it from the authorities, you mean? So if Sally calls and says, "I'm a 13-year-old prostitute and my pimp and his accomplices will find a way to get me if you report this to the police, so I don't want you to" what does the rape hotline do? Meet with her, give her condoms, and teach her negotiating techniques? That's what they did for the prostitutes in one of the stories linked from my old RR post. Yeah, I'd say that's way, way too close to being "pro-rape." This idea that you have to leave people--much less children--in horrific situations, not rescue them, and just find disgustingly around-the-edges ways to try to mitigate the consequences is one of the worst aspects of our modern culture. Really, really horrible.

I'm disappointed in you Zippy.

I wonder if my self esteem will ever recover.

Your interpretation of the mandatory reporter page is laughable. Really laughable. Where do you get that the doctor has the option not to report and that reporting is an "alternative"?

Very simple, Todd's quote stated physicians are exempt from the required reporting. Reading it again, though, I saw that it sent physicians and others with professional confidentiality through an alternative process that requests the state confirm abuse doesn't exist.

Giving a child pot certainly isn't abuse in the same sense that having sex with a child is. Not morally. If you think the two are on a par, you have even more problems than you've revealed heretofore.

I notice you use this tactic quite often. I've called it going for the tabloid angle ("Boonton thinks pot is equal to child molesting! Story at 11!") but it's more like simply lying. Or it could simply be your're amazingly bad at language, which is odd given your career as a philosopher but hey, stranger things have happened.

To put it in simple terms: The law requires reporting child abuse. It does not require one to figure out how bad the child abuse is. Hence it doesn't matter that Joe Drug down the street is slightly better than Joe Perv around the block, both should be reported if a 12 year old child reports abuse to you from either.

So back up and look at the standard you've presented. Any minor that reports anywhere (or even hints) they've done something illegal will trigger a mandatory reporting requirement. Hence a 14 year old stating she is sexually active in group therapy, a rape victim calling a hotline (unless she can confirm she is not a minor), someone attending an NA meeting etc. will mandate required reporting.

Yes, any rape hotline group that does not report the fact that a child has been raped because the child does not give them permission (you have to have permission to report child rape?) is doing something heinously immoral. Whether it is also illegal depends on whether the people running the rape hotlines are legally mandatory reporters. "The best results happen when the victim is psychologically prepared"--prepared to go back into the situation and keep being raped while the people at the hotline hide it from the authorities, you mean? So if Sally calls and says, "I'm a 13-year-old prostitute and my pimp and his accomplices will find a way to get me if you report this to the police, so I don't want you to" what does the rape hotline do?

Now here's a question for you, since almost all rape hotlines guarantee confidentiality what do you think they do? Honestly? What does a battered woman hotline do when someone calls and says their husband beats them but doesn't want to go to the police. Obviously the person called for a reason. Most likely looking for encouragement to take the step of fighting back or perhaps information on how to do it (like "where will I live if I have to leave his house?"). If confronted with your melodramatic scenaro they would have to encourage her to report it and hopefully be able to demonstrate that she could do so in a way that would preserve her safety. If they couldn't convince her of that they probably would try to convince her to at least call on regular occassions to report on her status thereby giving additional opportunities to pull her out of the situation she is in. Perhaps confidentiality should be violated if she leads them to believe she is being held captive but that would be an unusual captor who allows his victim to call anonymous hotlines all day but no one else

Meet with her, give her condoms, and teach her negotiating techniques? That's what they did for the prostitutes in one of the stories linked from my old RR post. Yeah, I'd say that's way, way too close to being "pro-rape."

I'm curious to know what it is you think people who try to reach out to prostitutes actually do? Do they walk around with cops demanding to see birth certificates and making everyone write down their pimps, customers and so on? Or do you think they do what's described above in such mocking tones by you? Try to help them to deal with their lives day by day in the hope that trust will lead at least some of them to leave the streets entirely. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure if they stumbled upon a 12 year old on the streets they would call the cops and they should....but it's deeply disturbing that you would describe their efforts as 'pro-rape'. One doesn't need condoms or negotiating techniques to be a rape victim or a prostitution victim. If they do keep a victim alive an extra day, though, they keep the window of opportunity for helping them open that much longer. You, though, in your ideological frenzy against PP, would shut all those windows making the perfect the arch enemy of the good.

This appears to be the relevant section of Todd's post:

Confidentiality is only protected in certain professions in Oregon, specifically:

Psychiatrist, psychologist, clergyman, or attorney shall not be required to report information communicated to him by a person if the communication is privileged under ORS 40.225 to 40.295.

(It would also appear that 40.260 and 40.262 apply in the exemptions, but not all clergy are exempt in all situations.)

Where you get from that that "physicians are exempt from the required reporting" is totally beyond me, or where you get from any of it ("shall immediately cause a report to be made" with "physicians" expressly listed as being included in the mandate) that reporting suspected abuse is optional for physicians is a mystery. Perhaps you need some work on reading comprehension? But I suspect we're dealing here with willful obtusity or the pretense thereof, rather than with real ignorance.

"What does a battered woman hotline do when someone calls and says their husband beats them but doesn't want to go to the police."

You don't think it makes a difference--morally--whether we're talking about an adult woman or a child?

As for prostitutes and what is done, perhaps you shd. go read the link from my earlier posts. A surprising number of prostitutes are quite literally slaves, afraid to escape. "Aid" workers promise the pimps they will not report them and will not tell the girls *how to escape* if the pimps will let them have access to the girls--slaves, we're talking about here, literally--with health care and condoms. But I won't be surprised if you defend this. It fits with your whole oeuvre. "Hey, help people where they are, don't rescue them. Just help them to accept their lot and make it not so bad." That's what it comes to.

Here, I'll help you with quotes and a couple of links:

Maybe they heard about the seven-year (1997-2003) project on working with pimps run by AIDS Infoshare (Russia), an NGO which receives funding from the Global AIDS Program of the WHO and USAID. According to a published conference summary of a presentation entitled "To Pimp or Not to Pimp--That is the Question,"a Moscow aid worker describes working with pimps from Ukraine, Moldova, and other regions of Russia. The pimps are described as men with criminal pasts who "own" a certain territory in Moscow, and "own a group of sex workers, and normally get all the money." The AIDS Infoshare worker reports that these pimps are "usually involved in trafficking women" and "often travel to other regions to recruit new girls for the sex industry." In other words, they are modern-day slave traders.

Working with Pimps

The aid workers motivate the pimps to work with them to distribute condoms by enlisting the pimps' interests in "providing a good service and getting more clientele," and "ensuring their products, 'the girls,' have good personal hygiene and are in good condition health wise." The aid worker said the advantage of collaborating with pimps is that it gives them "easier access to sex workers and others involved in the industry for research purposes." The aid worker does acknowledge that they have a serious ethical dilemma and conflict of interest by working with pimps: "A question of loyalty! 'Who are we working for' 'How is the organization perceived by sex workers if pimps are also becoming our clients'" The aid worker also ponders whether "pimps are perhaps our gatekeepers."

Found here:

http://www.pop.org/main.cfm?id=218&r1=1.00&r2=3.00&r3=95.00&r4=7.00&level=4&eid=529

And here is a truly horrific article about, inter alia, healthcare worker complicity in the U.S. with a ring of Mexican sex slavers that trafficked girls as young as ten:

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/condoms_sex_slaves.pdf

It also includes this quotation:

For instance, in Kerala State in India, where organized crime groups and corrupt political officials control the red light districts, a former police commissioner tells me that social workers must get permission from the pimps to give condoms to the women. In return, the social workers agree to ignore the presence of children and never to tell the women how to get out of prostitution. It should be obvious that if health educators can't gain access to women and children in brothels without making deals with pimps, the women and children are not free to leave, and are, in the truest sense of the word, enslaved.

I’m losing my bearings in this lengthy string of comments. I feel I understand Lydia’s position: 12 year olds having sex is a moral outrage.

I’m not sure I understand the main point of the ongoing discussion. Boonton is your fundamental position that:

a)It’s OK for 12 year olds to have sex in certain circumstances

b)It’s bad for 12 year olds to have sex but groups like Planned Parenthood do “the best they can”, and what was done in this case is a good thing

c)It’s not about 12 year olds, it’s over understanding the details of the law.

Thanks for your patience

Lydia,

I'll go through it again. I reread Todd's post and then looked at the site he linked. The site said professions with confidentiality are not required to report via the mechanism mandated for other professions (like teachers). What they are required to do is to request that the state check up on the child.

In other words, they don't have to report the details of their consultations with their patients or clients (for lawyers). Instead they ask the state to check out the situation to make sure that sexual abuse or physical abuse or whatever type of abuse is not present. Since they are not reporting the details of their confidential consultations confidentiality is maintained but reporting is also required.

You don't think it makes a difference--morally--whether we're talking about an adult woman or a child?

Of course it does but you are presenting an argument here that if you don't bring the matter immediately to prosecution you are enabling the attack. In that regard not insisting the adult battered women report the crime and instead trying to give her emotional support is enabling the abuser. Likewise not forcing the adult prostitute off the street immediately but instead giving her information to at least allow her to be marginally safer is enabling her pimp. This warped reasoning fits your ideological need to mount a case against planned parenthood but it totally against the interest of those groups who do sincerely attempt to aid people in such situations.

In response you point out one particular group working in Russia that may have gotten too close to the pimps. I'm not sure what that has to do with keeping confidentialities. Yes yes ethical questions are to be found all over the place. If they weren't philosophers would be suffering even more unemployment than they currently do. The perfect still cannot become the enemy of the good. Don't you think that law enforcement, for example, faces the same question when they cut breaks to informants? At what point does a just compromise become too much?

Boonton, I swear, you are either incredibly stupid or incredibly stubborn. The site _lists_ those professions that "have confidentiality" and "physicians" isn't among them. Instead, it's in the list of mandatory reporters up above (along with teachers). I have no idea what you think you are talking about. Get it through your head once for all: This whole idea of yours that doctors are being distinguished from teachers is being made up by you, unless you are looking at some totally different site from the one I'm looking at. It's all in your head. Doctors *are not* listed as having some different process. Indeed, the whole "different process" thing is your idea, too. I think _that_ part arises from the fact that the asterisked footnote contains more than one piece of added information. But in any event it applies only to the listed professions (not to physicians) and only to some communications. I can hardly believe you're trying to keep this one up. Are you sincerely confused here by your assumption that the law _must_ be the way you think it should be, or are you just trying to wear me down with repeated obfuscations?

If a woman is a sex slave, then, yes, giving her "information" and making her life "marginally better" but not helping her to escape the pimp is enabling the pimp/sex slaver. The fact that you can't get that supports the point in my main post and in my older post and shows that it is the opposite of "loopy." Liberals have messed up their consciences in these areas, big-time, so that they do not even live by their own lights concerning the great importance of "choice" in the area of sex.

At what point does a just compromise become too much?

When facilitating the rape of a 12 year old. Just a guess.

Step2,

I don't often agree with you, but here I think you're exactly right. Let's celebrate the moment!

Yeah, hooray, Step2!

Lydia,

You're crazy. Enough of this harping about confidentiality. I can't believe I concede a point to you and you still are pressing it.

Last time, look at http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/children/abuse/cps/report.shtml

Psychiatrist, psychologist, clergyman, or attorney shall not be required to report information communicated to him by a person if the communication is privileged under ORS 40.225 to 40.295. Reporting should be considered a request for an assessment of a suspected incident of abuse or neglect. A report is not an already established fact, but rather the request for assessment into the safety and condition of a child.

In other words, if a teacher is told by a 12 year old that she is being abused by her father the teacher must report that. If the 12 year old tells a priest in the confessional he does NOT report what he heard in the confessional. Instead he requests that the child be "assessed". In the first one the teacher passes on the details of what to investigate while in the second the priest does not because of confidentiality.

Back up and look at the post I wrote. I didn't say doctors, I said:

"professions with confidentiality are not required to report via the mechanism mandated for other professions (like teachers). "

and

"In other words, they don't have to report the details of their consultations with their patients or clients (for lawyers)."

You are correct that doctors are not included but only doctors who are not also psychiatrists or psychologists so yes it is perfectly valid to use "patients" in addition to "clients" for lawyers.

This, though, is a really big sideshow. Going any deeper into who is or isn't a mandatory reporter probably requires a lawyer. The question is what has to be reported. That is "reasonable cause to believe that any child with whom the official comes in contact has suffered abuse"

This does not include:

* A child that admits to engaging in illegal activity

* A 'hunch' that is not backed up by anything real. Yes there's no law saying you can't report a hunch but that's different than saying you must report a hunch.

You would rewrite the law to say that in order to 'get' PP. Yet by doing so you would end up doing a huge amount of damage well beyond your target. You, of course, don't care which is fine but at least admit that. Instead you resort to childish smear attempts (such as claiming I equated drug use with child molesting).

If a woman is a sex slave, then, yes, giving her "information" and making her life "marginally better" but not helping her to escape the pimp is enabling the pimp/sex slaver.

No it isn't. Look at late night TV at the endless commercials for aid groups that feed hungry kids in developing countries. It's a pretty open secret that many of those countries are corrupt and cruel. Don't you think those aid groups have to hold back and, say, not agitate for religious freedom or not demand free and fair elections in order to be allowed to feed the hungry? Or should those groups demand perfection and produce nothing but failure as people starve because those gov'ts will not let them in?

Step2 actually gets it here:

"When facilitating the rape of a 12 year old. Just a guess."


I would say the line is drawn when you're actually doing something to aid the wrong side. In your India example, if the underworld lets the aid agency save 10 women in exchange for providing condoms to 1,000 then no line has been crossed. On the other hand, if the pimps say you can rescue 10 women but you have to help us recruit 1 then the answer should probably be no even though from a strictly utilitarian view more good has been done than harm (10 saved to 1 lost). Law enforcement probably follows a similiar policy, they will forgive or go lighter on past crimes in exchange for help and information but they won't give the criminal permission for new crimes. I'm not sure they always draw the line there, I think they sometimes might even let a criminal continue to commit some types of crime (such as selling drugs) while he is providing help on supposedly bigger criminals. (Boston, I think, had a big scandal a while ago when it was revealed a mob informant was more or less allowed to continue his job as a hitman while he was feeding the cops info.)

Would providing condoms and birth control pills facilitate a rape? Explain how exactly? The rapist does not need either (and if he wanted to use condoms to protect against STD's he could easily get them himself). A woman who fears she may be raped isn't making it any easier on the rapist by using birth control pills herself. And no I don't buy the idea that a significant portion of raped woman want to get pregnant so they can "prove" the rape, of course if they did they could simply not take birth control pills.

Most birth control pills are not prescribed from PP clinics but from confidential doctors offices.... Boonton | January 25, 2008 12:18 PM


On reading the link it looks like Oregon allows doctors to keep confidentiality but as an alternative they are supposed to file a "assessment of a suspected incident of abuse or neglect" ...
Boonton | January 28, 2008 9:56 AM


Lydia, You're crazy....
Back up and look at the post I wrote. I didn't say doctors ...
Boonton | January 29, 2008 11:14 AM

Tim,

You are correct, I read Todd's original post too quickly stopping at the clause about confidentiality but without reading the further portion. Additionally, I garbled the psychiatrist/clergy/lawyer group as doctor when indeed doctor was listed underneath as not being part of the confidential group. For that I apologize to Lydia as I also apologized for attributing posts to the wrong commentors earlier.

Regardless, in the post Lydia last responded too I specified only patients & clients and did not cite doctors as having the special type of reporting that confidential professions have.

Reading it again, though, I saw that it sent physicians and others with professional confidentiality through an alternative process that requests the state confirm abuse doesn't exist.

2:28 p.m. yesterday, Boonton, and supposedly as an expression of your new and improved understanding after re-reading. I asked where the heck you got this idea, and you never "conceded" anything. In your 5:27 response, it's true, you didn't name doctors again (though you'd just named them three hours before and repeatedly--and rather snottily--earlier), but you certainly didn't say, "Yeah, you're right. I've re-read it yet another time, and now I realize that I was still confused after the first re-reading. Doctors don't have special confidentiality provisions." Instead, you supposedly "went through it again"--which, one would think, would be not a correction of what you'd just said but rather a clearer repetition. There is no concession visible to the naked eye, nor even to a microscope, until your most recent post. Basically, your idea when you've made a blatant and foolish mistake is not to admit it clearly until you're absolutely forced to do so, just to quietly stop saying it over and over again, and then to call people "crazy" who don't recognize your "concession." That's charming.

By the way, in the case in India, they didn't rescue anybody. Not ten people, nor one. As you can see from the quote, they had to promise not to. I have no idea where this deal with the devil would fall in your utilitarian calculus. I'd guess you'd defend it, since they weren't actually recruiting anyone to sex slavery and were at least getting out the Great Condom Solution to some of the slaves. That's pretty much a proof of the point I've been making all along: Liberals really don't care nearly as much about privacy and choice in sexual relations as they make out and as one would expect from all the talk about choice and privacy, and when the worship of Eros in a society results in people's being raped and victimized sexually, the liberal's first inclination is to hand out condoms and birth control pills while leaving the victim in bondage.

Re India,

Lydia apparantly feels that if the women who work as prostitutes die of AIDS the pimps will take good care of their kids.

We've ventured into a different type of discussion here so Lydia should take care to pay attention. I know it's hard and none of us are perfect (as I'm willing to concede) but try. The 'Condom Solution' she decries in India and the old USSR is anything but, it is an attempt to at limit harm as much as possible. As the aid workers she mocks know, foreign regimes are often quite unfriendly and trying to do good can be very dangerous. So the question comes down to what can and cannot be done. I doubt the groups she attacks have the ability to overthrow Russia's criminal underworld or turn back the massive corruption in India's poor communities or defeat an organized crime operation. If they do then yes they should do all those things then they wouldn't have to do things like cut deals to get limited access to the people they try to help.

Lydia has taken us to this new territory by putting setting the perfect against the good (or at least less bad). If you can't achieve perfection then anything short is actually aiding the bad. If you can't stop prostitution, if you can't even break one person away from a pimp then to at least keep them free of disease is to betray their freedom. NH's motto is "live free or die" but that's usually taken to be a personal declaration (as in "I choose to be free or die")....not as a directive to apply to others ("sorry, can't free you so I'll let you die").

We are fortunate that Lydia is a philosopher. Philosophers can be happily ignored 95% of the time so their ability to harm society is limited to wasting paper (if they get published) and drawing unjustified salaries off educational institutions...but there are occassions where the fools actually get some of the power that Plato felt they should so we gotta pay at least some attention to their ideas least they do some real harm. In not even 50 comments Lydia has waged a war against not only every type of social service group but also self-help groups like NA and now has taken on maybe 2000 years of charity, just about all foreign aid, foreign missionary work, everything. If her ideas were every actually implemented she'd rival Stalin in her casualities.

So since we are still under 100 comments (no blog thread has ever been known not to jump the shark in more than 100 comments), I'll put it simply. The line should be drawn at actual facilitation of the crime. If you need to deal with the pimp to get limited access it is better to do so than not. If the pimp wants direct help it's probably better not to even if that prevents you from doing some good. There might be times when the line is drawn a bit differently. Maybe the CIA or FBI may have to let the hitman hit to prevent something far worse...maybe. But there is dangerous ground and even if I'm not quite absolute about it I'd say I'd be skeptical that the line could venture there.

This falls back to what is facilitation. Lydia seems to think that prostitution would not happen in India if prostitutes did not have birth control pills or latex condoms. No, sorry, despite what we may want to believe looking at our parents, sex did exist before 1960...even before 1950! Or perhaps Lydia believes that bondage first appeared in the world with the election of Bill Clinton in the early 90's.

"If you need to deal with the pimp to get limited access it is better to do so than not."

"Deal with" meaning promise not to help the girls get information on how to escape? And keep that promise? Would you do that, and keep the promise, if there were some information you could give when left alone with them that might actually help them to escape? What if they wanted to escape and whispered to you, pleading for help? Do you shake your head and go on with the condom lecture? Would you do that if the girls were twelve years old? Younger? Or would you only promise to leave the adult women in slavery to the traffickers? We're talking slaves, here. Rape slaves. No question of consent. Does that matter?

Boonton,

For you to suggest that Lydia needs to "take care to pay attention" is really rich.

You have now wasted about ten times the bandwidth of the original post with your comments. In the course of those comments you have patronized and insulted Lydia repeatedly -- sneering at her standing as a philosopher (as though you would know), lecturing her on what she has "neglected to find out" (and getting it spectacularly wrong, and maintaining that long after everybody else saw it), telling her that she is "not about the real world" as much as she is "about ideology" (which seems like an absolutely classic case of projection), and recently telling her that she is "crazy."

I realize that you like being a troll on conservative sites. But your behavior here is simply outrageous. You've been nailed on the facts. And you're still trying to act as if Lydia isn't as smart or as careful as you are.

Nobody else here can figure out why you think you're so clever.

We are fortunate that Lydia is a philosopher. Philosophers can be happily ignored 95% of the time so their ability to harm society is limited to wasting paper (if they get published) and drawing unjustified salaries off educational institutions...but there are occassions where the fools actually get some of the power that Plato felt they should so we gotta pay at least some attention to their ideas least they do some real harm.

Who's that trip-trapping over Boonton's bridge?

Zippy,

Really, truly, ROFLM*O!!

It is only I, the littlest Conservative Philosopher Gruff. :-)

The brassbound polemicist crept up onto the bridge and much to his surprise
The billy goat gave one big kick and the troll met his demise.

Beware, beware, of what lurks 'neath Parsippany Blvd.

Lydia,

"Deal with" meaning promise not to help the girls get information on how to escape? And keep that promise? Would you do that, and keep the promise, if there were some information you could give when left alone with them that might actually help them to escape?

I probably would, provided there was at least a halfway chance that I could get away with it. But aren't you really just admitting my point? In order to 'get away with it' you will have to at least sometimes make a show of abiding by the terms of the agreement which means while you may be able to whisper to a few, you won't be able to whisper to everyone. And even the whisper is a compromise. You can whisper so much information, that's hardly as good as, say, handing out written information or escorting them to a safe house and so on. You've essentially surrendered your argument. Now you're just demonstrating that you can come up with an infinite number of hypotheticals that fall all along the spectrum.

Perhaps a more muscle bound aid organization could do a bit better than the one that exists. Even then they would only be able to do a fraction of what they could do if they had a developed country’s culture, law enforcement and material on their side. Again I don’t see you recruiting one so why bash the one that exists?

In developed countries you usually have law enforcement that is strong enough and honest enough to keep organized crime from being so powerful as to force such concessions. You are still suck with the limits that individual free will imposes. It may very well be illegal for a teenager to drink, you still can’t force him into AA against his will and expect productive results. (Nor would it be helpful to take a page from Lydia and use teens that do attend AA meetings to launch a jihad against those who provide them with alcohol…even though those people are no doubt breaking the law and endangering the welfare of minors). You give the help people are willing to take in the hope that maybe they will eventually take a little bit more. Whatever the situation, it is absurd to call this approach ‘helping’ the evil.

Tim,

Thanks for cross linking to my blog, neglected as it ever is. You haven't really said I was wrong about much of anything really important. I'm sorry if you're bothered by my sneering at Lydia's standing as a philosopher. No doubt you were equally bothered by Lydia’s snide attempt to assert that I equated smoking pot with molesting kids. Pot_kettle_black…you can fill in the blanks.

"I probably would, provided there was at least a halfway chance that I could get away with it."

Clarify, please. Do you mean you would promise to give no such information and keep the promise--refuse to give the information and help the girl escape--or that you would make such a promise and break it--try to help the girl escape on the sly? Remember, the slavers have no reason to extract such a promise if there's nothing the aid workers can do anyway. There must be something the slavers are afraid they will do to help the girls escape.

Then again, y'know: If you broke your promise, helped one girl, and the slavers found out, you might help one person to escape but not be allowed to hand out condoms to 100 others. Perhaps you shouldn't take the risk of losing your access to the "girls." That, evidently, is what the aid workers thought, and the premise on which they acted. That is despicable, btw, in my opinion. Do you defend that behavior?

I'd appreciate your sticking to the subject, by the way. All the charities for the last 2000 years have not made pacts with sex slavers not to help slaves escape. I think we can leave the vast majority of "charities" out of this whole question of refusing to help those being raped and turning a blind eye if you know it or suspect it. Like HPW's blind eye, by the way, to connect this back to the original post.

Boonton,

My mistake, so here it is in very short words so you won't miss it: You have been wrong about just about everything important in this discussion. Morally wrong, factually mistaken, and arrogant as sin.

And you're still spinning the discussion in order to get some traction. You wrote:

On the other hand I've been in the emergancy room with loved ones when doctors ask the 'personal' questions and I've noticed the same neutral sounding tone when the topic is drug use. And that makes sense. If she asked the 12 year old if she used illegal drugs or smoked she most certainly would not follow those questions up with "and who gives you the drugs" if the answer was yes. But then why not? If she was, say, smoking dope with her father or an older man that too would be child abuse. Boonton | January 25, 2008 4:40 PM

This is supposed to be your counter-argument to Lydia’s claim that instances of an adult having sex with a child should be reported. It works only if you are claiming that there is a relevant parallel here.

Lydia responded:

Giving a child pot certainly isn't abuse in the same sense that having sex with a child is. Not morally. If you think the two are on a par, you have even more problems than you've revealed heretofore. Lydia | January 28, 2008 12:12 PM

This was your response:

I notice you use this tactic quite often. I've called it going for the tabloid angle ("Boonton thinks pot is equal to child molesting! Story at 11!") but it's more like simply lying. Or it could simply be your're amazingly bad at language, which is odd given your career as a philosopher but hey, stranger things have happened. Boonton | January 28, 2008 2:28 PM

Now, I’m going to be charitable and assume that you’re amazingly bad at understanding simple English – not an unreasonable position given your blunder regarding the wording of the Oregon law. Look at the actual wording of Lydia’s statement. Search for the word “if” in the middle of it. This is the signal that the sentence is a conditional. There is no categorical assertion here. The only bit of tabloid sensationalism is in your response, which puts words in Lydia’s mouth and then attacks her for them. I’ve noticed that you use this tactic quite often. It’s a lot like simply lying.

Maybe you should try to get clear on the meanings of these little words – the sorts of words philosophers care about – before you try to interact any further with people who are more careful in their use of words than you are. It would spare others the embarrassment of having to refute you.

Clarify, please. Do you mean you would promise to give no such information and keep the promise--refuse to give the information and help the girl escape--or that you would make such a promise and break it--try to help the girl escape on the sly? Remember, the slavers have no reason to extract such a promise if there's nothing the aid workers can do anyway. There must be something the slavers are afraid they will do to help the girls escape.

Very simple, I would do what I could. If the promise could be broken, I would break it. If it couldn't, then I wouldn't. To make it challenging, assume the slavers are hip enough to make it almost impossible to break the promise without being promptly detected. What should be done is what every aid agency, charity or support group does...keep the promise.

The reason the slavers are extracting the promise is probably because they are willing to accept a lose-lose situation or a win-win situation but not a win-lose where they are the losers. STDs, AIDS, unwanted pregnancies are lose-lose situations for both the slavers and aid agencies. Helping people escape are wins for the agencies but losses for the slavers. Minimizing STDs, AIDS, and unwanted pregnancies are win-wins for both. It's a question of who has bargaining power and it shouldn't be surprising that far away from home, in a hostile environment you have very little.

The same question comes up close to home, only the line is drawn differently. What would cops do if a serial killer was killing prostitutes? They probably would try talking to pimps. Would they arrest the pimps they talk to for pimping? Probably not. Why? Because the pimps wouldn't accept that 'deal' as it's a win-lose. They would refuse to talk and the cops would not have any information. So cops accept a win-win where the pimps talk but are not arrested and the cops hopefully find the killer. Does that make the pimp's life easier? Sure it does, after all a killer on the loose means less business for him plus the risk that one of his 'workers' will be killed.

Then again, y'know: If you broke your promise, helped one girl, and the slavers found out, you might help one person to escape but not be allowed to hand out condoms to 100 others. Perhaps you shouldn't take the risk of losing your access to the "girls." That, evidently, is what the aid workers thought, and the premise on which they acted. That is despicable, btw, in my opinion. Do you defend that behavior?

You have to ask yourself several things:

1. How much good is done by distributing to 100 people you can't save?

2. How much good will you be able to do in the future by maintaining a presence in the area? (After all, you are probably going to get kicked out after getting caught once so that will be the end of you doing anything else there).

2.1 You should probably also consider how this will impact the future efforts of others to help. If you create a bad reputation for aid agencies then future efforts by other agencies to go in will also be complicated. Your attempt to do good may also lead to reprisals against others in the area who have nothing to do with your actions but will be blamed fairly or not.

3. How much good will you do by 'saving' one person? In other words, what exactly do you mean by saving? Do you mean bring her to the US where she can start a new life? Do you mean finding her a safe long term situation in India or do you simply mean getting her out of town with a month's rent in her pocket and few other options?

Naturally these are questions that are highly judgmental but not very difficult ethically. The only place where you really risk being despicable is when you have to weigh the morality of 'crossing the line'...directly helping the slavers...i.e. actually becoming part of their actions. In other words, the first place to look to place the line is between omission and commission. The cop not arresting the pimp is omission. The cop telling customers that the pimp on block 12 is a "safe spot" to get prostitutes without being arrested is commission as would be the cop giving the pimp drugs from the evidence room to help him 'pay' his prostitutes. There might be situations where it is even ethical to put the line somewhere in the commission zone but I think the odds of being wrong are so high that it's probably easier to just assume the line should be between the two.

I'd appreciate your sticking to the subject, by the way. All the charities for the last 2000 years have not made pacts with sex slavers not to help slaves escape. I think we can leave the vast majority of "charities" out of this whole question of refusing to help those being raped and turning a blind eye if you know it or suspect it.

As I pointed out just about every charity that does anything in developing countries has to make pacts like this, either explicitly or implicitly. Almost all developing countries have a lot of corruption and authoritarian gov’ts or rule by local ‘strongmen’. There’s a lot that could be done to directly help people free themselves but is not. The charity knows that if they started encouraging people to demand free elections or to end local corruption or to respect free speech, freedom of religion etc. the result will be that they will be promptly kicked out and none of those things will be achieved AND thousands will die. It’s little wonder that many of them decide that priorities such as fighting famine are higher and they make such implicit deals.

I appreciate that you think you’re sticking to the subject but you’re not. You don’t get to make up rules that just apply to PP or to condoms and nothing else. If ‘deals’ like this are over the line then that applies to food as well as condoms and everything else whether the actor is a charity, a gov’t agency or even just an individual trying to make the world a bit nicer.

Tim
Search for the word “if” in the middle of it. This is the signal that the sentence is a conditional.

If Tim likes beating his wife, raping his daughter and killing little puppies, then he’s a very bad person.

That too is saved by the wonderfully strategic us of the conditional ‘if’. There’s a difference between rhetoric and logic. Logically I can defend the bold statement by claiming it is conditional. Tim has no reason to be upset because he doesn’t like those things and IF he did he can hardly blame people for saying he is bad.

Rhetorically we have a very different animal. “If” is used to imply an accusation without actually making it. If you make an accusation you have to be prepared to defend it. If you imply it you can enjoy the effect of tarnishing your victim without actually having to defend yourself (IF your audience is not in a mood for being very logical and IF you have the ability to pull it off).

Lydia’s tactic would have been more honest IF my argument was along the lines of “giving a kid drugs is just as bad as child molesting so you need to make doctors report any drug use by minors”. My argument was not that both were equal, though, only that they were both abuse. Neither the law cited nor any arguments made here called for the people reporting abuse to try to determine what was bad abuse and what was really bad abuse and only report one type. So the question would be why not? If the doctor has to report that a 12 or 13 year old is having sex because maybe it is with an older person why shouldn’t he have to report that they used drugs? If he does wouldn’t you create a potentially dangerous situation where everyone simply clams up?

As a matter of fact, what is worse depends on the situation. A 13 year old having an affair with a 19 year old is probably not worse than a 13 year old getting heroin from a 44 year old man if for no other reason then the fact that in the latter the 13 year old is risking instant death from an overdose (low but real probability) as well as a lifetime of a vicious physical dependence (high probability).

Since we are talking about a situation where the doctor doesn’t know the details (or even if there are details) he cannot determine what is worse or better. If he is required to report based on the possibility that the 12 year old’s sexual partner may be an adult he is likewise obligated to report the possibility that an adult is giving the 12 year old drugs. The child welfare agency would have to decide what is worse based on their investigation.

Boonton,

Stop being an ass. You made the comparison between giving pot to a minor and raping her, in respect to their both being forms of abuse and to the morality and reasonableness of not reporting them. That makes all the difference between Lydia's conditional and yours. She points out that the condition under which your parallel would apply is obviously false. Yet you maintained that it applies. In view of your claim, it was entirely appropriate for her to confront you with a disjunction: either you do not really believe that these cases are morally on a par in a sense that would make it relevant to talk about one in the context of a discussion of the other, or you have even greater problems than hitherto revealed.

Neither the law cited nor any arguments made here called for the people reporting abuse to try to determine what was bad abuse and what was really bad abuse and only report one type. Boonton | January 30, 2008 2:39 PM

This is just bluster. The law cited specifies mandatory reporting for rape. That one falls under "bad abuse" any way you slice it.

As a matter of fact, what is worse depends on the situation. A 13 year old having an affair with a 19 year old is probably not worse than a 13 year old getting heroin from a 44 year old man if for no other reason then the fact that in the latter the 13 year old is risking instant death from an overdose (low but real probability) as well as a lifetime of a vicious physical dependence (high probability). Boonton | January 30, 2008 2:39 PM

I realize you can't see it, but paragraphs like this do give the strong impression that you're downplaying the moral seriousness of the rape of a 12 year old vis a vis other sorts of non-violent crimes.

"If the promise could be broken, I would break it. If it couldn't, then I wouldn't."

Well, actually, your points 1-3 below that make it pretty clear that this isn't true. For example, if you cd. break your promise not to help a slave escape, but the most you could do would be to get a woman out of being repeatedly raped by customers of her owners, away from the power of her owners, but could only "get her out of town with a month's rent in her pocket, and if this would harm your organization's future ability to "do good" (distribute more condoms, for example), perhaps not allowing you to "maintain a presence" there anymore, then it sure sounds like you wouldn't break that promise. So the woman whispers to you, "Please, I didn't know this was the kind of job I was getting into. They won't let me go! Help me!" And you, realizing that you will at most be able to get her out of town with a month's rent in her pocket, and realizing all the rest of these things, shake your head and hand her condoms. And leave her to be raped by the next customer.

Oh, and if I now say that in your next paragraph you are making a ridiculous analogy between having free elections and being free from being raped several times a day, I suppose you will say that this is some sort of invidious rhetorical ploy on my part? I wish also to second Tim's point about your very strange head-scratching over a 19-year-old's "having an affair" (such a nice phrase) with a 13-year-old.

Well, that pretty much winds it up for me. I appreciate your being as clear as you have been in these most recent comments, Boonton. Take care, and enjoy the river. (The reference is to "The Three Billy Goats Gruff.")

Tim,

Again the law and the arguments presented here make no distinction between levels of abuse. If giving pot to a kid is abuse (and everyone here agreed it is) then it's supposed to be reported. You don't not report it because it isn't as bad as molesting as if there was some limit on the number of reports you can make so you have to save them for only the really serious cases.

I realize you can't see it, but paragraphs like this do give the strong impression that you're downplaying the moral seriousness of the rape of a 12 year old vis a vis other sorts of non-violent crimes.

It's interesting when it is someone you agree with you'll cling to the most rigerously tight reading of their stuff to keep them in the clear but play pretty loose with words when doing so aids your case. I presented two different cases (you are aware we've gone through a huge array of different cases here...going all the way to the Russian and Indian underworlds?).

Case: A 44 year old man gives a 13 year old a hard drug like herion.

Case: A 19 year old man is having a consensual affair with a 13 year old.

Both cases are illegal but the law would pounce on the first one much, much harder. Especially if the first one resulted in the 13yr old's death, the man in question could easily be looking at a life sentence. The second one would be illegal but not nearly as heavily punished (that's not to say the punishment would be slap on the wrist).

So are you going to tell me that the law itself downplays the seriousness of child rape? Or do we ripe quotes out of context, ignore the context and spin them as if we were political candidates in a tight election?

Lydia

So the woman whispers to you, "Please, I didn't know this was the kind of job I was getting into. They won't let me go! Help me!" And you, realizing that you will at most be able to get her out of town with a month's rent in her pocket, and realizing all the rest of these things, shake your head and hand her condoms. And leave her to be raped by the next customer.

Question: If the program was limited to condoms how much good will the condoms do in themselves? Out of 1,000 women will you reduce AIDS cases by 5? By 10? (Being conservative, consider fewer AIDS cases among customers, their innocent spouses, kids born to them etc.).

If you had to say no would any good be coming from it? Even though those 5 or 10 women or even children aren't whispering in your ear is a slow and gruesome death in a country with limited medical services any less painful for them? On the other hand, if everyone already uses condoms and the program will do no good you can just tell the pimps to screw off and concentrate your efforts in other countries. Then that woman stays where she is....but you sleep better at night because she can't even whisper in your ear.

Oh, and if I now say that in your next paragraph you are making a ridiculous analogy between having free elections and being free from being raped several times a day, I suppose you will say that this is some sort of invidious rhetorical ploy on my part? I wish also to second Tim's point about your very strange head-scratching over a 19-year-old's "having an affair" (such a nice phrase) with a 13-year-old.

And that has nothing to do with it? Because you save one woman who whispers in your ear that's all that counts? What about the thousands who can't whisper in your ear because they don't speak your language, because they didn't get a chance to meet you, or because your ear was occupied by the one you choose to save? Why are they in such a bind? Because the list of things wrong with their society is huge and everything needs to be improved before real change happens. Free elections, free speech, an end to corrupt law enforcement all together would liberate thousands of those women along with economic growth, respect for women as equal to men and so on. If you happen to have an army at your disposal and a lot of resources to play at nation building you could probably work miracles (IF you're a policy genius...which would mean your mind would be more impressive than the many smart people who've tried to do this before you). But you don't so you compromise and do what you can. If it means doing a lot for one person that's great, if it means doing a little for 100 people that's great as well.


You've already surrendered your point, right now the work is in demonstrating what you've done. We can spin the hypotheticals all day long. What if you're a journalist in Taliban territory....what do you do beyond reporting the story of the woman whispering in your ear? What if your're a diplomat? What if you're in any situation where someone cries for help but you lack the ability to help them? The answer that everyone but you seems to know almost instictively is you do your best with what you have. Your answer seems to be fix everything or nothing...anything in between is just helping the problem.

A 19 year old man is having a consensual affair with a 13 year old.

Do not for a minute confuse 'consensual' in this thread's context with 'willingness'. Consensual is very much a legal term and a legal concept to which a 13 year old, under Oregon law, is simply not privy. A person who takes the moral stance that a 13 year old can in any way, shape or form give consent (especially to such an act) is venturing down a path that I (and likely others here) have a very hard time fathoming.

Especially if the first one resulted in the 13yr old's death, the man in question could easily be looking at a life sentence.

You redefine your first case as murder, don't do the same for the second case and then claim the punishment would be even more harsh for the first crime, which you've redefined as an entirely different crime with perhaps aggravating circumstances(but again, I point out, have not done so for the second)? I wouldn't set much on top of that argument, honestly.

Here's a hypothetical that may illustrate what we are talking about better:

You work for a famine relief agency. Your job is to pass out bags of rice to hungry people. You are not a manager or leader of the organization, simply a volunteer seeking to help others and do good rather than evil.

North Korea is suffering a massive famine. Estimates range from 500,000 to 1.5million in danger of death. AFter much negotiation, your agency is allowed in on the condition that you only distribute food and do nothing to engage the population in any other way. While your agency cannot feed everyone, there are hopes that this will be the foot in the door that will allow more agencies in eventually and maybe eventually open the regime to considering some reforms that may bring them in line with the rest of the civilized world.

After a few weeks in NK you become familiar with how things operate. You notice the gov't soldiers who monitor you let you engage in minor conversation with the civilians but are keen enough to notice you either passing things to them other than food (money, cell phones, literature) or trying to 'sneak' them out or anything like that. You are approached by a young woman. She whispers in your ear that the gov't has killed her parents because they were caught listening to Voice of America on an illegally modified radio set. She has learned from a friend that they plan to arrest her soon on trumped up charges and send her to a military base where she will certainly be raped, probably even killed. She says if you can sneak her to a northern town (your next scheduled stop), she has connections there that will sneak her accross the border into China where she will probably be safe.

What do you do?


I would say that given the situation you would have to consider the impact of your actions beyond the woman. As unjust and horrible as her rape and murder will be, you cannot dismiss the 500K people who may die if trying to help her results not only in your agency being kicked out but all relief agencies being kicked out. Simply because you won't see or hear of those people doesn't make their suffering any less worthy. In fact, I would submit that choosing to help the girl might even be postively immoral as you know it will almost certainly result in a great deal of suffering. The good it does you to sleep better at night may even be termed selfishness. Those who end up dead because of you don't get to sleep at all.

[Note to self: next time I take off from Runway 5 at Morristown, remember to vent the relief tube out the left hand side.]

Todd,

The point of the two cases is to illustrate how even if we were trying to measure cases by how bad they are, we are left with uncertainty without having the full facts. In some states the affair might actually be legal as some jurisdictions define statutory rape by the age difference (in other words 13-25 may be illegal but not 13-19 or 13-18).

I didn’t redefine the first case as murder, I showed how the results and hence punishment could end up being a lot more severe. Again I’m not a lawyer but even if both situations resulted in no long term harm I suspect the older man would still be in more trouble than the 19 year old.

In some states the affair might actually be legal as some jurisdictions define statutory rape by the age difference (in other words 13-25 may be illegal but not 13-19 or 13-18).

But... but wait...

The second one would be illegal

You'd already established that it (19-13) was illegal (there was no contingency in ^^ that post).

I didn’t redefine the first case as murder

Yes, you did...

Especially if the first one resulted in the 13yr old's death, the man in question could easily be looking at a life sentence.

Unless you either have an interesting definition of a '13yr old's death' or we're to ignore the terms 'resulted in' and 'man in question could easily be looking at [longer sentence than original]'. I'll concede it may imply 'manslaughter', but the crime was redefined from 'distributing drugs'.

Todd,

It's not just you. Boonton changes vectors like Imelda Marcos changes shoes; his examples morph without warning to suit the needs of the moment. Perhaps it's that Emerson thing --

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, and philosophers, and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do."

Speaking for myself, I always did prefer Andrews Norton to Emerson.

Todd, do you have an actual disagreement on substance or do you just want to deal with one and only one hypothetical with all of its details fully fleshed out?

I have my doubts I'd ever get past your inability to construct such a hypothetical.

There's a large part of me that feels for someone who must always consider the fate of 1.5 million Koreans when trying to determine what a moral action is when reasonably suspicious of a 12-year old being raped.

I'm simply so far from anything remotely utilitarian and consequentialist that your pattern of thinking is as foreign to me as any of many languages I do not know.

I do however believe that any position should be defended with some type of consistency. I'm all well for people adjusting their positions as their points are challenged or refuted, but down this slippery logic path of incomplete semantics and we'll just never know if the little green man on the exact opposite side of the sun really likes grilled cheese sandwiches or not.

I need no analogies to Russian prostitutes, Indian sex slaves or starving Koreans to conclude that out of the one blog post by HPW that HPW was morally and ethically in the wrong, or to recognize Lydia's original point that HPW's blind trumpeting of choice in the name of sexual freedom is at the cost of an innocent child's freedom of choice being taken from her forcefully.

Todd,

This will hopefully reduce the dueling hypotheticals to their bare bones:

Let A be the set of all possible cases where a 13 year old has had sex at least once with someone older.

Let B be the set of all possible cases where a 13 year old has used an illegal drug provided by someone older.

If A is always worse than B, then you don’t need to know any details. You could be consistent and say if A then you must report, if B then you may or may not have to report. Why? Because A is always bad and B is always less bad so two different policies may make sense.

If A is not always worse than B then it is inconsistent to demand reporting always for A but not always for B. Without knowing the facts, you need always report either A or B. Why? Because there’s no way to know ahead of time which is the worse case therefore it makes no sense to have two different policies.

If you only know a 13 year old has had sex, then Lydia says you must report it. Therefore, if you only know a 13 year old has used an illegal drug, then Lydia’s argument would demand you must report it. Goodbye not only to HPW’s PP clinic, goodbye to NA, AA, group therapy, and lots of other things that it would probably be a very bad idea to say goodbye too.

Hopefully we can now stop trying to reinvent the hypothetical first imagining an adult offering crack to a kid, then pot, then a simple cigar or a 13 year old with a 19 yr old, 25 yr old, 44 year old and so on. All possible combinations may be described now as the sets A and B.

“HPW's blind trumpeting of choice in the name of sexual freedom is at the cost of an innocent child's freedom of choice being taken from her forcefully.”

HPW was clearly conflicted about her patient’s ability to freely choose. (At this point let’s leave aside the legal question of consent). On one hand she says she doubts choice could be free when the age difference is great, on the other hand she feels that position is patronizing. Her inability to make up her mind may be annoying to you but can’t be blamed as the source of the problem. The 12 year old wasn’t a mind reader and didn’t show up at the clinic because HPW is a wishy washy creative writing major rather than a rock solid philosophy major.

She showed up at the clinic because she either is, will or may have sex and no matter how you cut it there’s very few plausible scenarios where her getting pregnant or not having some type of STD protection is a good idea….we are not a peasant culture where 12 year old brides and having a full family before you hit 20 is common place. That being the case is it:
1. A good idea to do mandatory reporting just because she shows up?

2. A good idea to interrogate her in detail to see if we can detect evidence of abuse that we can then report as opposed to a non-abusive scenario (such as her partner being another kid or simply getting birth control because she thinks she may give into temptation at some unspecified date in the future…BTW, I wasn’t there but I tend to suspect this more than anything else. I suspect the truth of the matter is probably more along the lines of the girl growing rather fast for her age and the older woman who came with her felt putting her on the pill would be insurance against a teenage pregnancy. The unease HPW was picking up probably had less to do with pressure to have sex than with pressure to go on the pill).

I think the answer to 1 & 2 is no.

Reporting just because she shows up will most likely have the effect of her not showing up. Her not showing up wouldn’t stop any abuse that is happening to her. On the contrary, even at the PP clinic she could be exposed to the various hotlines and other literature about rape counseling, incest help groups etc. that might trigger her to report on abuse (either at the moment or in the future). A sophisticated pedophile or incestuous father or uncle could quite easily procure condoms himself. Likewise if she is not in an abusive situation…if she is fooling around with someone her own age or whatnot it remains better that she not get pregnant or an STD for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

Sticking with #1, if we are consistent then reporting needs to not only be applied to PP clinics or when talking about sex but also drugs and just about everything else. (See the beginning of this post). While rape hotlines, AA, NA, group therapy and so on are not perfect we do know they have had a positive record on balance in helping people in bad situations. It would be very destructive to mess up what we know has some measure of working. And like I said you don’t get to make rules simply to ‘get’ PP because you don’t like them.

With #2 I would lean against interrogation for the same reasons I cited in #1 but I wouldn’t be against asking questions in a non-confrontational way to see if that leads to anything. In other words “how old is the guy you are having sex with?” would probably not be a great idea but “do you feel someone is pressuring you” or “you should be aware that you can call these crises hotlines if you ever feel like you’re being forced to do something against your will”.

There's a large part of me that feels for someone who must always consider the fate of 1.5 million Koreans when trying to determine what a moral action is when reasonably suspicious of a 12-year old being raped.

I'm simply so far from anything remotely utilitarian and consequentialist that your pattern of thinking is as foreign to me as any of many languages I do not know.

Tsk tsk, I’m not the person that brought the Russian mafia and Indian pimps into the mix here. Then again it’s not exactly a fantasy now is it? Yes you and I don’t have to worry about Koreans, Russians or Indians because we live very comfortable lives. But the world is better that some people do and even if our involvement is never going to be more than deciding which charity to write the check out too it’s a valid I ssue to address.
I would disagree with you about my thinking being utilitarian. Utilitarian thinking would limit itself to finding the greatest good. A utilitarian would say if North Korea would let your aid agency save 1m people instead of 500K IF you helped them track down political dissidents then you should do it. I draw the line pretty firmly at dirtying your own hands. You can refrain from arresting the pimp but if you start doing the pimp’s work for him you’re entering an ethical black hole even if you’re doing so in such a way as to create more good than harm in a strictly utilitarian sense.
I’m consequentialist only in the sense that consequences matter. When you do something you are obligated to make a reasonable attempt to forecast what its consequences are and act accordingly. I wouldn’t say, though, that good consequences always equals right and bad always equals wrong. I could drive my car up on the sidewalk and maim some people at random. One of them might be a serial killer about to kill again, a good consequence doesn’t make my action right. Likewise, if passing out bags of rice sets off a complicated set of political consequences that cause an evil dictator to take power I wouldn’t say those bad consequences made your attempt to alleviate hunger unethical.

I think the answer to 1 & 2 is no.

And there is where we differ. Morally and ethically she is bound to 1 regardless of the consequences, and she should, for much the same justification, ask more questions. Of course you set up a very nice straw man in the process:

2. A good idea to interrogate her in detail to see if we can detect evidence

With #2 I would lean against interrogation ... but I wouldn’t be against asking questions in a non-confrontational way

I think we've exhausted our ability to connect on this for any further meaningful discussion, Boonton.


Since you support #1 (reporting just because she shows up), how far would you go? Would a drug store have to report a 12 or 13 year old buying condoms? Wal-Mart? What about buying a pregnancy test? What about saying she has tried pot or some other drug?

... and once again Boonton veers away from the question of the rape of 12 year olds, as if one couldn't have a principled position on reporting there without having a definite position on her buying condoms at Wal-Mart ...

If you don't have a definite position then feel free to say so if you must. I think I've done anything but veer away from the "question of rape of 12 year olds". I've written plenty about it.

Would a drug store have to report a 12 or 13 year old buying condoms? Wal-Mart? What about buying a pregnancy test? What about saying she has tried pot or some other drug?

For everyone covered by mandatory reporting laws, yes. Even without that obligation, they should refuse to provide material toward behavior they can unequivocally determine is illegal. The alternative is that no laws are binding. You may not agree that statutory rape should apply in this case, but I hope that at some very young age you will concede that it is a valid prohibition. Since you should admit to that much, don't pretend like enforcement (with its attending disruptions and detriments) must be worse than acquiescence. When the law was created, or revised, or whatever legal path led to its current incarnation, those factors were included in the deliberative process.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.