... then none of us would be agreeing not to break the laws, even to make a political "point," and to work for change within the system.

Please. The reason most people here don't break the law is because they don't want to go to prison. If there was a high likelihood they wouldn't get caught, I'd wager most everyone here would have sex with kids given half a chance to do so.

And what is your point there, Markie? You seem to take it as a given that it's inherently wrong for us to have full romantic relationships with kids if it wasn't against the law, and we didn't also have to fear our paramours would be hauled off to therapy to convince them that we were only using them.

And saying we don't care about the latter concern, but only our own necks, is a huge insult to the pro-choicers that bears no fruit when much of the objective scientific evidence that even VirPed doesn't regularly try to downplay or ignore makes it clear that MAPs are not typically bereft of a conscience and general concern for others, particularly those we love and respect. Or are you verifying the suspicion many here have that the VirPed's are attempting to demonize pro-choice MAPs in that manner?

If we were truly that bad, we wouldn't have forgiven you numerous times for all the mean-spirited things and constant hostility you have inflicted on us over the years whenever you have a break down, and sometimes even when you don't. And if you truly believed that yourself about us, you would stick to the VirPed headquarters and not associate with us, rather than always coming back and getting welcomed again. So it's my turn to say "Please!" to you, Markie. And seriously, I really don't think you truly believe that deep down.

This is not a principled stand. If the pro-contacters truly cared about standing on their principles, they wouldn't hide their identities. But we've been over all of that before.

Because the majority of us have nothing to fear about the hysteria, including losing our jobs, our families, custody of our kids, having our families targeted by smear campaigns directed at us, etc.? And most anti-choicers do not seem to be revealing their real identities in droves anyway.

(And yes, the VirPeds are different--their moral positions are not in stark contrast to society's with respect to the single most important moral issue pertaining to pedophiles and society, so their anonymity is mostly irrelevant in a way that the pro-contacters' is not--though, for the record, I do think their credibility would be higher if they outed themselves.)

Thank you. Some of us, like me, are out to an extent in the offline world, and well known to those we live with, work with, and associate with on a regular basis. But even I admittedly fear putting a target on my family, friends, and colleagues for daring to accept me. And if you claim that's not a serious concern, then you haven't been paying any attention to the manner in which vigilantes work, especially when they did that very thing to you a few years ago despite you having become loudly anti-choice by then. And I guess you forget the support we gave you, and which you received even from most of those you were constantly quarreling with here at the time.

Big difference there, pal.

Not that big, palsy walsy.

"Palsy walsy"? I haven't heard that used in ages.

Rights--like all values--are human creations and are relative.

Meaning, they never have to stand for anything and can be ignored whenever a majority feels like it. Because they aren't that important to human beings simply because we create them, and nature doesn't. Yet our ability to create such principles to live by are what separates humans from all other members of the animal species.

Granting rights to one group removes rights from another, in this case parents.

No, it does not. It removes near-absolutist parental power, not their rights as human beings. Do not confuse the two. Granting rights to all people never require disempowering another group.

Parents have a legal and moral responsibility to make sure their children are healthy and well-adjusted, since they brought them into the world,

Legality is one of those rules that humans create, and which is not always guided by lofty principles, but sometimes actually defends power imbalances, which are inimical to the notion of civil rights. Again, do not confuse power over with rights.

And too many parents under the current regime do not make sure their kids are healthy and well-adjusted, but instead force them into dependence, ignorance, impose racist & sexist ideologies upon them, and perpetrate the greatest amount of actual abuse of every sort against them. The problem isn't parenthood itself; it's what happens in the isolated confines of the nuclear family household when the greater community is considered to have "no business" showing concern, and parents are given tyrannical power. You know this, but do not care. You defend parental power, deliberately misrepresenting it as "rights," to be popular and accepted. That's what is most important to you.

and because those children represent their parents' genetic legacy,

Again, shared DNA is not the biological equivalent of an owner's license upon one's progeny. They share that DNA with their parents at no fault or choice of their own. It no more gives another person inherent right to power over another than purchasing them with currency does.

which gives them rights over those children until a certain point.

That point being, when the children decide they do not want to follow their parents' ideological legacy at any point after they become cognizant. They have a right to be primary caregivers, but not owners. Big difference that you purposely conflate.

I think it's a fair tradeoff.

I'm sure people who paid money for other people in the past thought so too. I'm sure I can come up with many rationalizations with why I should have a stamp of ownership over you, too. Or at least anyone who is Irish.

Of course, since I support the Epstein system, I am not a hard-ass about it. I think kids who can demonstrate they are ready to be on their own and desire to do so should have that opportunity. THAT is what compromise looks like.

And since I support that too, and do not break the laws, and agree to work within the system to establish respectful dialogue with Non-MAPs... how exactly do I and most other pro-choicers fail to reasonably compromise or understand what it means? The only major difference between us is our views. And many anti-choicers refuse to even consider the Epstein-Dumas Test, and you know that.