"...But do you agree that parents should have the power, via their genetic relationship to their kids, to control them, and even force them to live with their parents if the youths are unhappy there? Straightforward question...."

"power" "control" "force"
That question is so chock full of loaded terms that it would be disqualified from the "Most Loaded Terms In A Sentence World Championships" for being too fucking loaded!

Power= the legally enforced ability to prevent someone from doing what they wish with their lives, or to impose your own will upon others against their volition.

Control= having the power to incite certain people in doing what you think they should do, rather than allowing them choices under their own volition.

Force= disallowing someone from leaving someplace in which they are not happy against their wishes.

This is how I used all of them, and these terms weren't loaded; rather, unlike you, I wasn't mincing any words, as you try to do with your euphemisms. Anything to avoid a straightforward question, eh, Taffy?

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH MEANS WHAT IT SAYS, THERE ARE NO E**HEMIS*MS CONTAINED THEIRIN. DO NOT MISINTERPRET ANY WORDS. IF YOU NEED ANY CLARIFICATION OR DEFINITIONS, PLEASE VISIT WWW.DICTIONARY.COM.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD YOU TAKE THE DEFINITIONS OF A MR. D. ISSIDENT AS HE KEEPS CHANGING THE MEANINGS TO SUIT HIS OWN SECRET AGENDA, WHICH IS TO "LIBERATE" THE "YOUTHS" SO HE CAN GET INSIDE THEIR KNICKERS. A NOBLE CAUSE, BUT HONESTY IS REQUIRED!

For starters, Taffy, if you actually used the words as they are defined in the dictionary, then checking them wouldn't be a waste of time in your case ;)

Secondly, you have revealed a VERY telling aspect of yourself to the pro-choicers. You think the only reason that any "reasonable" MAA would challenge youth rights is because we want to have sex with them. You greatly simplify us by implying that the only people who truly care about them would oppose their rights, because it could serve no purpose other than to let adults have sexual access to them. So it seems like you have a STRONG moral agenda outside of your other obvious agenda of maintaining parental control: you DO NOT want youths having sex, because you think it's immoral!! Nice one, Taffy ;) And when have I ever been dishonest about my desire to have mutually consentual relationships with AG's, which WOULD include sex if it was mutually desired? I have ALWAYS been honest about that. Rather, I challenge your ignorant, moralistic notion that this is the ONLY thing that motivates pro-choice MAA's. If this was the ONLY POSSIBLE thing to motivate us against your Victorian moral precepts, then how do you explain ASFAR, NYRA, and other youth liberation organizations? Since most of the membership doesn't consist of MAA's, and there are many youths that belong to these orgs that likewise challenge the AOC laws (along with all the OTHER things that we pro-choicers challenge regarding youth oppression), it would seem you have A LOT more rationalizing to do, Taffy ;) You're all about moral imperatives against youth sexuality, you despise and loathe your own sexual attraction to youths, and you want parents to keep full control of their children...it will be hilarious to see how your fellow underhanded non-choicers come to your rescue on THIS one ;) I love inciting you to 'fess up about the things you do not have the nerve to state directly, including your self-loathing as an MAA and insecurities as a parent.

I agree that parents have the responsibility to look after their own children from birth to aged 16, a reponsibility which includes feeding, clothing, keeping safe from danger, teaching, guiding, nurturing.

Define "responsibility" in the context that you are using it (not a dictionary definition). Would this mean that the youth would have the right to absolve the parents of their responsbility, and move elsewhere if they were not happy under the "custody" of their parents? Would they have the right to make decisions for themselves that may go against the moral beliefs of the parents (e.g., studying a different religion, forming different political affiliations than their parents, reading material that their parents may not approve of, and yes, choosing to have sex even if their parents think it is morally reprehensible for youths to do that)? I think you need to answer these questions if you want us to believe that you are using the dictionary definition if "responsibility."

This responsibilty is coupled with a gradual letting go, as the child becomes more independant and grows to adulthood.

Suppose a youth proves their ability to be independent prior to, say, age 16, and desires to move on. Since you say that the terms "power," "control," and "force" have no place in the definitions you are using, but were only loaded terms that I was wrongfully ascribing to you, then the parents would have nothing to say about it if their children proved themselves competent at an earlier age than 16 and expressed a desire to move out and make their own moral decisions before then, correct? Or, if they didn't necessarily prove themselves competent, but simply announced that they were not emotionally happy living with their genetic forebears, and announced they would be moving to, say, a community living center set up for youths, or with other adults...this would be no problem also, correct?

Note that the above questions were NOT loaded, but straightforward.

--Dissident