...because when it comes right down to it, the non-choice segment of the greater MAA community has (more or less) the IDENTICAL goals of the general public. They want most of these laws (if not all of them) to continue as they are. They want youths to remain mostly unemancipated. In other words, if their ideology was to win, then we would continue to be subject to most (if not all) of the laws as they exist now. I do not believe it's possible to emancipate our image without getting these laws off our back, because the social stigmas are NEEDED to justify the laws in the eyes of the general public.

As such, the non-choicers among the MAA community need to be opposed as well. Yes, I am well aware that this is not always "nice." It doesn't always contribute to peace and harmony among the greater community. But it's nevertheless necessary if the pro-choice MAA's and youths alike ever want to see themselves free from oppression.

Also, keep this in mind...throughout history, all oppressed groups have had many among their number complicit with the goals of the oppressing majority. So this is not an unusual phenomenon.

Hence, I do not believe that a non-choice opinion is not a "non-choice" opinion simply because the person who holds it is an MAA.