Well lets see what you said.
"And finally, girls who reach puberty are in much less danger of being traded off to men old enough to be their fathers and grandfathers, although the danger isn’t over.
83 posted on Thu Jul 31 11:23:26 2008 by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I have a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.))"
You have directly contradicted yourself,and you have the audacity to call me irrational?
I don’t recall saying that the children were in imminent physical danger. Do you have a reference?
Are you now claiming that you didn't support the CPS taking all of the women and children? That was their only justification in taking them.
However, since you bring it up, the danger is teaching the children to lie about their ages, mothers and fathers, the risk to all the children that the elders will decide to rip their families apart to give them to another man, and the further risk that some decree will come from Merrill or Willie that the next set of daughter exchanges. While possibly imminent, it’s not “physical.”
Does that justify taking all the women and children? If it does why aren't you screaming that they be removed now?
As I said, you are irrational.
Noting that “the creepy cultists only rape post-pubescent but under age girls” and that these girls are in “much less danger. . . although the danger isn’t over.” is not contradictory.
You stated that I said something. The burden of proof is on you.