# Court Declines to Review Abortion Law



## ginshun (Mar 29, 2005)

Link to story




> [size=-1]he Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday to reinstate a state law requiring girls under age 18 to get parental consent for abortions except under the most dire of medical emergencies.


 
 Let me premise by saying that I do not think that abortion should be illegal, in most instances, and I am for the death penalty in murder cases.


 So over the past month or so now, we have found that the Supreme Court has stated that a 17 year old does not posess the judgment skills to be responsible enough to face the death penalty, regardless of the situation of the crime, and yet a 17 year old is perfectly capable of deciding that they need an abortion, without even telling her parents.

 Does this seem a little odd to anyone else?  To me, the two decisions seem to totally contradict each other.  

 What do you guys think



 [/size]


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 29, 2005)

It's the girl's life that will be permanently and dramatically altered through having a kid, so it should be the girl's decision.  Also, it is her body that the fetus may or may not be occupying for up to nine months.  If she doesn't want that happening to her body, who are we to force it upon her?

Requiring parental consent to abortion essentially is saying that parents have the right to force their children to give birth.  This means, at the very least, the girl has 9 months of pregnancy, plus the wonderful experience of labor.  At the most, the girl has all that, plus the next 18 years of raising this kid.  All this for what?  The parent's right to decide everything for their kid?  Making sure the parents can punish their kid by not allowing the abortion?  

Would you think allowing the parents to force their child to have a tatoo would be acceptable?


----------



## ginshun (Mar 29, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Would you think allowing the parents to force their child to have a tatoo would be acceptable?


  As far as I know, kids have to get parental consent to get a tatoo.

  I guess getting a tatoo is a more serious issue than having an abortion.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 29, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> As far as I know, kids have to get parental consent to get a tatoo.
> 
> I guess getting a tatoo is a more serious issue than having an abortion.


I don't think it's about seriousness - no-one would say that abortion isn't a serious, serious issue.  It's about control over one's own body, and one's own reproductive future.  

I don't find anything strange about not executing a 17-year-old, but allowing a 17-year-old to decide whether or not they can be a parent.  I would *hope* that the 17-year-old came from a loving home, where she could talk to her own parents about her decision, but that is not always the case, unfortunately.  I know of one family in particular (friend) who let their daughter know in no uncertain terms that if she ever found herself pregnant (and abortion was NOT an option), she would be homeless.

One scenario.


----------



## BrandiJo (Mar 29, 2005)

I would say that the body of a girl is her right and as long as she is mature enough for sex she is mature enough to make the choices that come along with sex. In my house i was always told that should i find myself prg the choice would be mine, abortion would be the last thing they would want but if i chose to go that route i would not be shamed for it.


----------



## Kane (Mar 29, 2005)

We have to first keep in mind that in some countries in the world 16 or 17 is the age of adulthood, not 18. Since most cases of pregnancy of teens are between the age of 16-18, I think the girls should have the right to an abortion without parent's consenst. I still recomend she tell her parents too, but she should have the decision to get one even if her parents deny that she get one. Having a baby this young can ruin everything.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 29, 2005)

So what if the girl isn't 17 then, what if she is 12?  Is it OK for a 12 year old to get an abortion without even telling her parents?  I don't know, but for some reason it just seems wrong to me.  We as a society have pretty much agreed that parents are responsible for there kids until the age of 18.  If you're under 18, you can't get a credit card, open a checking account, get your ears pierced, get a drivers licence, or any number of other things, without your parents OK.  But wait, an abortion?  Sure, no problem.  In essence, you guys (and the Supreme Court) are saying that it should be up to the girl, because it is a *more *serious decision than all of these things.  That just seems backwards to me.


 And I don't know how you can logically agree with both of these, unless I suppose you believe that nobody ever deserves the death penalty.

 It is about responsibility.  To me, the supreme court is saying that someone under 18 is responsible for thier actions, and can be treated like an adult when it comes to abortion, but not when it comes to murder.


----------



## rutherford (Mar 29, 2005)

From my point of view, the death penalty is the ultimate in the removal of rights.  The decision in the abortion case is a right affirmed.

Therefore, I see them as fundamentally different.

In a perfect world, children would always tell their parents and get advice and support on issues of this magnitude.


----------



## Kane (Mar 29, 2005)

I think in all cases the girl should tell her parents, no matter how old. It however should be child's decision to get the abortion or not.

 Well actually a 12 year old is not the same as a 16 or 17 year old thinking and reasoning wise. So I think maybe kids under 14 parent's decision when they are that young. I don't like the whole "under 18" issue, because we can't say an 8 year old has the same reasoning as a 17 year old in any case. Issues like this should be divided into further age groups.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 29, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Link to story
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess they are saying 17 year olds are protected from the death penalty but can kill their babies(who are under 17) without parental consent?

 :idunno:


----------



## rutherford (Mar 29, 2005)

Also, consider the actual case ruling:



			
				http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050328.wabor0328/BNStory/International/ said:
			
		

> At issue was whether the Idaho law was unduly burdensome on young mothers by limiting abortions without consent to sudden and unexpected instances of physical complications.
> 
> The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said yes, saying there was no reasonable explanation for the restriction. Other emergency medical procedures are allowed on minors without parental permission that do not fit the sudden and unexpected category, it said.
> 
> ...



And consider that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case without comment, and the last time they heard an abortion ruling the decision was 5/4.


Lets keep the strawmen to a minimum.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 29, 2005)

From what was quoted, it looks as though it was a technical decision--the law was badly-written, and would've prohibited hospitals and doctors from certain kinds of emergency treatments, even if the parents absolutely could not be reached. Incidentally, one suspects that the law would also require a girl who'd gotten pregnant by her dad or a close family member to go to those people for permission...

And thanks for the, "kill their babies," crack. You're more than entitled to your own religious beliefs, which is what such remarks are based on--but do try to keep it in mind that not everybody shares them.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 29, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> So what if the girl isn't 17 then, what if she is 12? Is it OK for a 12 year old to get an abortion without even telling her parents? I don't know, but for some reason it just seems wrong to me. We as a society have pretty much agreed that parents are responsible for there kids until the age of 18. If you're under 18, you can't get a credit card, open a checking account, get your ears pierced, get a drivers licence, or any number of other things, without your parents OK. But wait, an abortion? Sure, no problem. In essence, you guys (and the Supreme Court) are saying that it should be up to the girl, because it is a *more *serious decision than all of these things. That just seems backwards to me.


Sometimes families, guardians, parents do not react as one would wish in an ideal world.  They may be more than happy to help their little girl open a checking account, learn how to drive, etc., but they may throw her out of the house, force her to continue a pregnancy, etc., if they learn that she has had sex (whether willingly or was raped).  We must also keep in mind that in cases of incest, how would an abusive relative react to the situation?  Would a young terrified girl feel in any way safe in going to her tormentor to ask permission for something?


----------



## ginshun (Mar 29, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Sometimes families, guardians, parents do not react as one would wish in an ideal world. They may be more than happy to help their little girl open a checking account, learn how to drive, etc., but they may throw her out of the house, force her to continue a pregnancy, etc., if they learn that she has had sex (whether willingly or was raped). We must also keep in mind that in cases of incest, how would an abusive relative react to the situation? Would a young terrified girl feel in any way safe in going to her tormentor to ask permission for something?


 Honestly, reagardless of how this decision is made, I don't think that anyone would expect a teen who was raped and got pregnent by her father to get his permission for an abortion.  I would also be willing to bet that there are other laws in place for situations like this.  That is also obviously a case where that father will not be here guardian for much longer, so I really don't think that situation applies here.  At the very least it was not intended as part of the conversations scope when I started the thread.


 And if I am reading your responce right, you think it should be fine for a 12 year old to get an abortion without telling her parents?  Interesting.  I honestly didn't think anyone would go along with that, but then again, it is painfully obvious that I am not much of a judge as to how others in this forum think.

 Incidentally, when is it time to tell the parents?  After her 5th abortion at age 15?  Or is abortion a viable form of birth control in your opinion?


 And just as an aside, agian I am not argueing against abortion.  And really,  I agree with Robert in that this was most likely a technical decision based on a poorly written law, but it still fun to discuss these things, even if they are a bit of a stretch from the original topic.


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 29, 2005)

Why is abortion any different than any other medical/surgical procedure?

For instance, a D & C.
If a 16 y.o. was experiencing a miscarriage, a doctor might decide to do a D & C to remove the pregnancy tissue.  BUt the doctor would have to have parental consent.

That same 16 y.o. has a viable pregnancy, wants a surgical termination, the Dr. does a D & C.  Same exact procedure, same risks, same potential complications. But this time, no parental consent required. Why? 

If the 2nd girl doesn't feel she can tell her parents, for whatever reason, what is she gonna do if after the procedure if she should have problems, eg. bleeding, infection, etc.  Stay at home, tell no one, and die? If she drives herself to a local ER, first thing they do is get financial info.  If she is on her parents' insurance, they will find out what her diagnosis is when the insurance claim is submitted.

I agree with those who posted above and hope that all young women could discuss this with a parent or guardian but I realize it's not always felt to be an acceptable option.

I am not asking this from a pro-choice/pro-life stance, but from a medical stance.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 29, 2005)

Sounds like there wasn't enough written in for frequent things like "daddy" knockin' up sis and emergency abortions while the parents are conveniently unavailable. All frequent stuff - just watch themid morning talk shows. Maybe since they are in re-write mode, they can add in another little ditty for the "oh crap' - 28 days and no period!" emergency too.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 29, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> So what if the girl isn't 17 then, what if she is 12? Is it OK for a 12 year old to get an abortion without even telling her parents? I don't know, but for some reason it just seems wrong to me. We as a society have pretty much agreed that parents are responsible for there kids until the age of 18. If you're under 18, you can't get a credit card, open a checking account, get your ears pierced, get a drivers licence, or any number of other things, without your parents OK. But wait, an abortion? .


I agree with you on this one.  If my son brings friends over and they break into the liquor cabinet, get drunk and drive/get into an accident while I am not home, I can still expect to get charged for negligence as well as facing civil charges/sueing by the other children's parents.

A child under the legal age of adulthood is the ward of a parent or guardian.  Getting an abortion is a medical procedure that should be approved just like any other procedure.  OF COURSE it carries more moral weight than other procedures so I hope that people don't take that idea out of context.

What if the girl were raped/abused/molested/subject to incest, and isn't required to have parental consent?  Baby gone, but the crime/criminal is still unreported too.  Parental reporting opens communication, supports family and protects the right of the parents.

Maybe, just MAYBE, if a girl knows that getting pregnant and trying to get it aborted means a call to Mom and Dad, she will be more careful or even abstain.....thin hope but hope none the less.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 29, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> As far as I know, kids have to get parental consent to get a tatoo.
> 
> I guess getting a tatoo is a more serious issue than having an abortion.


I didn't ask whether an underage girl should have to get parental consent before getting a tattoo, I asked whether parents of an underage girl should be able to force the girl to get a tattoo.

What I'm trying to get at is that, in both situations, the parents are imposing on the daughter in something that should be hers to decide, only in the instance of forcing a pregnancy via not allowing an abortion, the infringment is a lot more drastic.  

Think about it, girl gets pregnant, for whatever reason, and doesn't want to have a baby.  Afraid of giving birth, worried about her health during pregnancy(well, scratch that one), has plans for her future that spending 18 years raising a kid would conflict with, whatever her reason, doesn't matter for our purposes.  The girl doesn't want the baby.  However, by requiring parental consent, the parents are allowed to force on her a permanent change that she rejects.  

It's her decision, her life, her body involved.  If you require parental consent to an abortion, you're allowing the parents to basically force her to get a tatoo, a really big one that could ruin her life (and spits up a lot.)  For what?  What interest of the parents is so fundamental that it trumps a 17-year-old's right to decide what to do with her body and with the next 20 years (at least) of her life?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 29, 2005)

Gee, maybe I think that parents should have a clue about what's going on with their kids, and have established enough trust that they don't need to have an intrusive government pry into their lives at the behest of a gang of self-appointed moral guardians who miss no opportunity to shove their fundamentalist values down everybody else's throats.

And maybe I suspect that the reasons stupid laws like this get passed has a lot to do with moral posturing on the parts of legislators who are also busily attacking programs for contraception, Head Start, and all the others that actually do some good.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 29, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I didn't ask whether an underage girl should have to get parental consent before getting a tattoo, I asked whether parents of an underage girl should be able to force the girl to get a tattoo.
> 
> What I'm trying to get at is that, in both situations, the parents are imposing on the daughter in something that should be hers to decide, only in the instance of forcing a pregnancy via not allowing an abortion, the infringment is a lot more drastic.
> 
> ...


Giving the baby up for adoption is a viable option....

The Parents have the trump because they are full legal/decision making citizens and a minor is not.  

It is a MINOR thing in comparison, but I have told my son that if he wants to keep his long hair, he better keep it groomed and clean just like any girl would do that cared about it...I have taken him to get that hair cut twice because he wasn't doing his part.  Call me an ogre if you want but my job as parent is to keep him healthy, safe and teach him responsibility and character.  What that means in action will change as he gets older but I am still responsible for him as a parent until he is 18 legally.

Of course, I'm 35 and my mother still tries to tell me what to do....

If you think that the civil courts/malpractice insurance is outrageous now, imagine what will happen if someone has a 12 year daughter that gets a revolving door abortion and ends up with complications and the parents only find out after the fact because she collapses at home.

A parent can try to 'force a child to get a tatoo' sure.  But the facility has the right to refuse service if they don't want to do it.  A medical facility can refuse to provide that service (abortion/birth/pre-natal care what ever the case may be) if the don't agree with it, but that would go against the basic foundation of the medical profession.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 29, 2005)

_I didn't ask whether an underage girl should have to get parental consent before getting a tattoo, I asked whether parents of an underage girl should be able to force the girl to get a tattoo.

What I'm trying to get at is that, in both situations, the parents are imposing on the daughter in something that should be hers to decide, only in the instance of forcing a pregnancy via not allowing an abortion, the infringment is a lot more drastic._

I think there is a bif difference.  It's not a case of the parents forcing the child to do something; it's a case of 'forcing', if you wish, the child to live through the consequences of something she has already done.

Unfortunately, life does not have a rewind button and you don't get extra lives by popping a few more quarters in; welcome to adulthood


----------



## Deuce (Mar 29, 2005)

Let's give kids an incentative to have unprotected sex. They'll have no worries, if they get knocked-up they can get an abortion without getting in trouble from their parents. 

The parents should be notified if their 12 or 13 year old girl walks into a clinic for an abortion. I don't think they should have the power to stop them, but should have the right to know what's going on in their under-age child's life, especially something as serious as this. 

Maybe notify the parents after the procedure is done so they can still choose for themselves.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 29, 2005)

What it really amounts to is another way the government is driving a wedge to divide the family unit. Go to the State rather than Mom or Dad. It starts with brainwashing at public schools. Don't like your parents? Report them and then divorce them. Once you remove the idea of family the kiddies have no one to turn to but the virul social programs ready spread through this country like a weed. Which will in turn need your tax money.

Enjoy.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 29, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> What it really amounts to is another way the government is driving a wedge to divide the family unit. Go to the State rather than Mom or Dad. It starts with brainwashing at public schools. Don't like your parents? Report them and then divorce them. Once you remove the idea of family the kiddies have no one to turn to but the virul social programs ready spread through this country like a weed. Which will in turn need your tax money.
> 
> Enjoy.


This sounds pretty paranoidally Thatcherian to me.

ANY young woman I know who was pregnant - happily or not - would go to her parents.  I am lucky enough to know a lot of people who come from good homes.

NOT ALL PARENTS WILL REACT KINDLY to news like this.  Some will (and have) thrown their daughters out into the street.  Driving a wedge into the family?  What if it's a horrible or even abusive family to begin with?  Then what does the young girl do?

For the record, folks - the vast majority of women out there (I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule) do NOT *want* to have an abortion.  They are usually not considered lightly.  Setting up examples of cavalier kids who will have an abortion lightly is a bit much.  

Any girl or young woman I have known who has gotten pregnant unexpectely - or as the result of violence (rape) - has been horrified, and completely distraught.  I would try to trust the individual woman to figure out what she needs to do in her situation.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 29, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Why is abortion any different than any other medical/surgical procedure?
> 
> For instance, a D & C.
> If a 16 y.o. was experiencing a miscarriage, a doctor might decide to do a D & C to remove the pregnancy tissue. BUt the doctor would have to have parental consent.
> ...


Probably one of the most logical statements on the issue here. Which of course nobody has an answer too.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 29, 2005)

So what makes this issue any different in terms of parental responsibility for minor children? Its political issues?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 29, 2005)

I think it's the fear of what will happen to the child - possible retribution from an enraged/heartbroken parent, possibly.  Deciding to terminate a pregnancy - or admitting to a parent that you are, in the first place, pregnant - may result in exceptionally bad things for the child (young woman).  A different case than a young woman/child who does, presumably, have a good relationship with her parents, and then has a pregnancy complication.

I like the talking point, I think it brings to the fore the situational differences in different people's lives.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 29, 2005)

One of the only issues Im aware of where we alter normal legal process for fear of what MAY happen. The parents of kids Ive arrested for shoplifting, drugs etc. are heartbroken/enraged too. I still have to notify them.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 29, 2005)

True, but abortion itself (so far) is not a crime, whereas what you mentioned is.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 29, 2005)

They couldnt operate on my child without my consent (legally). But they can perform this medical procedure without it. My example was more an illustration of what I see as an error in thinking regarding the whole "we cant tell the parents because they MAY do something out of anger". The same risk occurs in my example.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 29, 2005)

Any why 17? Whay not try to be consistant and make one age (18? 21?) the universal age? Its confounding trying to figure out what age a person has to be to do what in this country.....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 29, 2005)

I suspect that what annoys me is that this has very little to do with protecting kids, or reinforcing families. 

It has to do with whittling away at abortion rights, and it has to do with keeping girls and women under control. 

After all, nobody's proposing a law that would require BOYS to notify their parents about sex, about purchasing condoms, about abortion--just (surprise, surprise, surprise) girls. Nobdy's proposing to go after the guys over 18 who are apparently getting the majority of these underage girls pregnant.

But most of the people pushing these "laws," are also trying to censor sex ed classes, cut Planned Parenthood, chop education funding....it's the Big Crackdown.

I also quite liked the cracks and jokes about incest, and about molestation by family members. With something on the order of five million plus abused kids in this country, nothing could be funnier.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 29, 2005)

Boys dont have to go through a medical procedure (all of which have risk) without notifying their parents who would have to foot the bill for any emergency medical costs that could arise....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 29, 2005)

Oh. So it isn't a moral question after all, but a financial one--you're not interested in protecting The Family, but their pocketbook.

OK, fair enough. It's what one expects of capitalism, in which morality becomes a matter of affordability.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 29, 2005)

Its a matter of if Im responsible for my child or not.....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 29, 2005)

I see. I wrote that parents should work to understand what their kids were into as much as humanly possible; you reply that it's a matter of money. 

So I respond that it's a matter of money; you tell us that no, it's a matter of parents taking responsibility.

Was it, "North Dallas Forty," in which the Tooz says, "Whenever we say it's a game, you say it's a business, and whenever we say it's a business, you say it's a game?"


----------



## Tgace (Mar 29, 2005)

Its about responsibility..for welfare, for financial responsibility, for legal liability. This appears to be one of those rare areas where you get to pick and choose. Of course since I dont agree 100% with every issue associated with abortion just means Im a right wing extremist (or Capitolist Pig).

At least thats what Rush and Savage say. 


Thought Id beat you to it there.:shrug:

So why do doctors have to get parental authorization for all other medical procedures then? I must have missed your reply.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 29, 2005)

Name one thing that a man can do that is considered to be something their bodies were designed for that will forever change their health, their bone structure, their immune system, their central nervous system, their livelihood, their entire life as PERMANENTLY as this change affects ALL females who become pregnant.

 I'm sorry, but I am sick and tired of hearing men hash over the woman's right to a safe abortion. If they want to legislate a uterus,then perhaps they should get one.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 30, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Name one thing that a man can do that is considered to be something their bodies were designed for that will forever change their health, their bone structure, their immune system, their central nervous system, their livelihood, their entire life as PERMANENTLY as this change affects ALL females who become pregnant.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I am sick and tired of hearing men hash over the woman's right to a safe abortion. If they want to legislate a uterus,then perhaps they should get one.


 
Last I knew my wife was a woman.... 

Maybe only Mom should get notified then.

Seriously though, no disrespect intended Geo. but IMO (purely IMO) if all parties were concenting then I dont believe facing the consequences is necessarily a bad thing. Thats what happens when you have sex. Should abortion be outlawed? Absolutely not. Im just not a 100%'er. Yes Im a man but I do have the right to an opinion. I havent "forced" that opinion on anybody in any way so I dont feel bad about it.


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 30, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Name one thing that a man can do that is considered to be something their bodies were designed for that will forever change their health, their bone structure, their immune system, their central nervous system, their livelihood, their entire life as PERMANENTLY as this change affects ALL females who become pregnant.


I agree.  but do you think a 13, 14, or even 15 y.o. girl has the maturity   to make a decision about something that will impact her life to such a degree? Do you think they even understand how their life will be affected, either by carrying the baby or aborting it?

IMO, most of them have very little concept of what it means. but not all.  I have known some fairly mature 15 y.o. who were capable of comprehending the results of their decision.  But most kids that age live in the "here and now."  Long term future consequences don't play into their decision making skills.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 30, 2005)

I have known and do know both; women who were forced into some kind decision by their parents at an obscenely young age, and those who were completely informed as to their choices and live with their decision today.

 Guess which ones are NOT in therapy?  The ladies who made their choice of their own 13 and 14 year old accord.

 Look, kids this age have no business having sex - but the Good Lord or the Earth Goddess, Gaia, the Universe, the Big Bang, whatever you want to credit with the creation or evolution of us all, gave every single darned one of us something that seems to toss reason and values right out the ****ing window - hormones.  

 And young girls STILL buy into this falsehood that if they sleep with a guy, they've earned some kind of status.  This mentality will not stop by denying kids condoms, birth control, and young girls abortions.

 Let me make something perfectly clear here:  ABORTIONS HAVE ALWAYS HAPPENED ... AND THEY WILL KEEP ON HAPPENING, LEGAL OR NOT.

 You don't have to like it.  You can think it's evil and wrong.  That is your prerogative as an American.  And it is also the prerogative of other Americans to believe that the welfare of children can be taken into account in a way that does not suit you.

 If you believe that ending any sort of life is wrong, then that must apply across the board - you must oppose abortion, you must oppose euthanasia of domestic animals, you must oppose the death penalty and you must support the extension of life of those who are vegetative and can be kept alive artificially.  

 Spirituality and reality sometimes just don't have a happy medium.

 When all those who stump against abortion, put your money and YOUR life where your mouth is - adopt a child or two and DO NOT reproduce of your physical accord.  When the orphanages and county agencies must close because there are too few unwanted children to warrant an entire facility for, THEN I will support legislation against abortion.


----------



## Lisa (Mar 30, 2005)

I have to admit, my views on abortion have changed since my younger years.  I think having children of your own and having that "I love you so much I would die for you" instinct when you bring them into the world does that for you.  Growing up does that to you.

 I went through what I think is a pretty normal childhood and teenage years.  I watched my friends get pregnant and "disappear" to have their children, have abortions or decide to keep them.  I, like Geo, have found that the ones who at least had a say in their choices, who had parents who listened to them are the ones today who are the happiest.  Now they just wonder what that child would be like or where they are.  It is a whole empty place inside them.

 Abortions are long standing.  They were dirty things in the past (and still are in some circumstances) and cause many women to end up sterile or worse yet to die.  I think the true way to end teenage abortion is educating our children.  Then maybe the debate on whether they are able to make that decision will be a mute point.  Maybe I am an idealist, oh well, so be it.  I was lucky in my day I had a mom who was open and honest with me.  She said "protect yourself, for you are the one in the end who will lose the most beit your youth cause of raising a child or the memory of the abortion".  She refused to put her head in the sand and think that I wasn't going to have premarital sex but instead taught me and showed me ways to protect myself from being in the situation.  Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a free pass by no means.  I truly thank her for her honestly and openess about such a big thing in my teen years.  The pressure to have sex is incredible at that age.  Many a time I dragged friends to the free clinic for birth control.  I had one friend whose mom found out and took them away from her, she ended up pregnant a few months later.  I guess her mom thought if she didn't have the birth control she wouldn't have sex... she was very wrong.

 When the belief that doing it standing up, in the water, or the first time is a free pass is crushed and the kids are educated and birth control is readily available, then unwanted pregnancies should take a huge dive downwards.  Education is truly the key, IMHO.

 Apologies for the thread gank.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 30, 2005)

Nalia said:
			
		

> Education is truly the key, IMHO.


 Truer words were never spoken, Lisa.  The educated derilict cannot say s/he did not know what they were getting into and how to avoid it.

 Unfortunately, most parents will not discuss these sensitive topics with their children and, even when they do, the discussion is usually biased and negative.  This is a good reason why I think Sex Education must be provided by a neutral party and be treated as a HEALTH issue with moral consequences.  Let someone else teach the children the reality of the situation, then parents can instill the value portion of a child's education.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 30, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> I think there is a bif difference. It's not a case of the parents forcing the child to do something; it's a case of 'forcing', if you wish, the child to live through the consequences of something she has already done.
> 
> Unfortunately, life does not have a rewind button and you don't get extra lives by popping a few more quarters in; welcome to adulthood


So in other words, the point is to punish the girl for having had sex. This would be perfectly fine if it was the parents doing it through whatever punishment means they usually employ, but this is the government essentially making the girl ruin the next 20 years of her life. 

Keep in mind, we have no idea why the girl would end up pregnant. Coud be that she's a complete skank, could be that the condom ripped, could be that she was raped. 

Like I said, let the parents teach her to be accountable. I realize there are consequences to actions, and by the way, thanks for the implication that I need to grow up. :321: However, I think that the legislature forcing the girl to commit the next 20 years of her life to something she doesn't want, no matter how she ended up pregnant, isn't justified based only on parental autonomy.


----------



## Deuce (Mar 30, 2005)

Let's say there's a 13 year old girl that gets pregnant. Her parents are very religous and let their children know how strongly they feel about the evils of sex before marriage. So, there's this 13 year old girl who's pregnant and absolutly terrified to tell her parents for fear of them being very dissapointed in her. She knows that she can get an abortion without parental consent. What do you think she's going to do? At 13, many kids will do almost anything to not get caught doing something their parents wouldn't approve of. Do you think all 13 year old girls in this situation will truly think this decision though and do what they believe is the right thing to do for them? I doubt it. Some of them will see abortion as the only way out of this situation without their parents findind out. I think a decision as serious as this should be made after careful consideration and not out of fear.

I think the girl should be able to make her own choice in the end, but the parents should already know she's pregnant so that her decision isn't made for the wrong reasons. Hopefully her parents are understanding and will support her thought-out decision.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 30, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> Hopefully her parents are understanding and will support her thought-out decision.


Here's the problem though: her parents may not be understanding and may not support her decision.  They may decide that abortion is evil, or that she deserves the kid as a punishment for daring to have sex.  Or get raped, we don't know.  The law just said that parental consent was required for abortions, there's no doctrine or subsection that addresses how the pregnancy came about.  According to the law in question, if they decide against it, then she's screwed.  Whatever plans she had go out the window.  It's her body that gets bloated and weighed down and outta whack for 9 months, her legs that are about to pop out a kid when those 9 months are up, and her next 2 decades that get changed, and probably her entire life goals put on hold.  In short, it's her decision, not whether or not to have sex, but whether or not to get the abortion done.  Yet despite the fact that the burden of going through with the pregnancy weighs entirely on the girl, the law says that the choice is up to the parents.  Does this sound right to you?


----------



## Ray (Mar 30, 2005)

Perhaps before venturing an opinion on the specific law that was overturned and subsequently declined for review, we should read the law to see how poorly it was written.  If a law is unsoundly written, it can't stand.

Abortion is a tough subject.  Very touchy, and each incident of it should be well considered by the female and perhaps her guardians.  Of course, society has a voice in what we can and can't do, too.  

In an ideal world, there would be no need for abortions on demand because there would be no unwanted pregnancies.  In a less ideal world, a pregnant minor would be able to speak with her parents.  Obviously we live in a far less ideal world then either.  

As a parent, I understand why a parent might need to be part of the decision making process for a minor.  I also understand why there are times when it would be a mistake for a parent to be involved.  Counseling should take place before a decision is made---but who does the counseling?  If someone has an anti-abortion bias or an abortion bias then they, as counselors, would slant the counseling.

And should a 13 yr girl, alone, really be expected to make the right decision in all cases?  At young ages, an unwanted pregnancy could seem like the end of the world.  Maybe 17 year old girls (young women) can be mature enough to make a good decision for themselves.  

I wished I had more solutions and less questions.


----------



## Deuce (Mar 30, 2005)

I agree that the decision should ultimately be made by the girl, but the choice should be made for the right reasons. Getting an abortion out of fear of their parents finding out dosen't seem like a very well thought out and informed decision. Maybe a counseling session with an unbiased health representative would allow the girl to make a decsion that is best for her. Many of these girls will need guidance to do the proper thing.

How many of you parents out there would be completely comfortable with your daughters getting an abortion without you knowing about it before hand? Especially at a young age 13 or 14 years old?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 30, 2005)

I've decided that I'm going to start pushing for Federal legislation requiring all men over 30, and all men with a family history of prostate cancer or colon cancer, to be required to have full rectal and PSA exams every year and a full colonoscopy every five.

After all, we as a society can no longer afford to pay for men who're irresponsible about fundamental checkups; what's more, it's immoral of men to keep risking their lives when there are simple tests available.

You say that it's your body, not anybody else's, and you'll do what you wish to with it? Oh, dear me, no. You don't have the right to throw away a life in such a thoughtless fashion.


----------



## Lisa (Mar 30, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> I agree that the decision should ultimately be made by the girl, but the choice should be made for the right reasons. Getting an abortion out of fear of their parents finding out dosen't seem like a very well thought out and informed decision. Maybe a counseling session with an unbiased health representative would allow the girl to make a decsion that is best for her. Many of these girls will need guidance to do the proper thing.
> 
> How many of you parents out there would be completely comfortable with your daughters getting an abortion without you knowing about it before hand? Especially at a young age 13 or 14 years old?


 I may be wrong but I highly doubt anyone is going to chime in and say "I would" to that last question of yours, Deuce, and in the same instance what about the 17 year old that will turn 18 in short order.  What difference does one day or a week really make in the maturity of an individual?  I worked in the health care profession for many a year and have friends that are L&D nurses who watch babies having babies.  There are many circumstances and this whole issue is so heated with people's sense of morality and compliled by emotion.  Unfortunately, as with most "heated" discussions, there is no answer that will fully make everyone happy, cause you can't please everyone all of the time.  The best you can do, individually as a parent, is hope and pray that you have instilled a sense of self worth in your daughters (and to and extent your sons) to make this issue not be one that your child is ever faced with.


----------



## Deuce (Mar 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I've decided that I'm going to start pushing for Federal legislation requiring all men over 30, and all men with a family history of prostate cancer or colon cancer, to be required to have full rectal and PSA exams every year and a full colonoscopy every five.
> 
> After all, we as a society can no longer afford to pay for men who're irresponsible about fundamental checkups; what's more, it's immoral of men to keep risking their lives when there are simple tests available.
> 
> You say that it's your body, not anybody else's, and you'll do what you wish to with it? Oh, dear me, no. You don't have the right to throw away a life in such a thoughtless fashion.


If you don't mind me asking, what does this have to do with the issue being discussed? A minor under the age of 18 and a man over 30 isn't a very good comparison. The main issue is the limits placed on minors and where to draw the line for parental intervention. A 30 year old man is soley responsiable for all of his actions. A 13 girl old girls parents are still liable for many of hers.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 30, 2005)

Ah, but anyone who refuses to have basic medical checkups cannot be said to be truly "responsible," for himself. And after all, we as a society must then pay for their care, when they fall ill--to say nothing of the damage that they do to their employers and their families. 

It's completely irresponsible: no man should have the right to control his own body, if it means the right to a kind of self-murder. Life is precious, and must be protected.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 30, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> If you don't mind me asking, what does this have to do with the issue being discussed? A minor under the age of 18 and a man over 30 isn't a very good comparison. The main issue is the limits placed on minors and where to draw the line for parental intervention. A 30 year old man is soley responsiable for all of his actions. A 13 girl old girls parents are still liable for many of hers.


Two things - one, it's about being able to have the final say in what happens to one's own body.  Period.  Two - the 13-year-old girl in question may have made a decision or taken an action actively to have sex - or she may have been raped.  Whenever people talk about abortion, there is a return to a hellfire-and-brimstone "you did the crime, you do the time!" (I'm not trying to imply that you are saying that, Deuce.)  Sometimes (no, not all the time, but sometimes) what happened was not a result of an active choice by the young girl.

I've said it before, I'll say it again - most young women I know would, even if scared, go running to their parents (or a close relative, etc.) if they found out that they were pregnant, regardless.  it's scary and they go to help.  We have to worry, however, about the young girls in "less than optimal" homes, who face serious punshment (physical abuse, homelessness) if they turn to their guardians for "help" in a case like this.


----------



## raedyn (Mar 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Boys dont have to go through a medical procedure (all of which have risk) without notifying their parents who would have to foot the bill for any emergency medical costs that could arise....


Having a (legal) abortion is about nine times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.
See:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact1.htm#risks
These numbers come from Centers for Disesase Control studies. That's a pretty reiable and trusted source.


----------



## raedyn (Mar 30, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> I agree that the decision should ultimately be made by the girl, but the choice should be made for the right reasons.


 So what are the "right" reasons? Why do YOU get to decide what the right reasons are?



			
				deuce said:
			
		

> Maybe a counseling session with an unbiased health representative would allow the girl to make a decsion that is best for her. Many of these girls will need guidance to do the proper thing.


You can't get a legal abortion with out counselling sessions & referrals to social workers beforehand, and there's a mandatory waiting period (at least in Canada -- I can't imagine the US would be _less_ stringent).


----------



## Deuce (Mar 30, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> So what are the "right" reasons? Why do YOU get to decide what the right reasons are?


The "right" reasons are those identified by the individual in question. I never said that I get to decide what the "right" reasons are. I merely stated my opinion on what a wrong reason is, i.e. fear of disappointing parents, getting grounded, etc. Do think getting an abortion based only on fear is the "right" reason? I think other factors should be evaluated. A judgement based only on fear may cause some major issues or regret down the road. If a person doesn't have to hide the fact that they're pregnant (from their parents), I think they will make a better thought-out choice that they may never regret. Maybe the parents won't agree with their daughters choice, but they should still know about it.


----------



## raedyn (Mar 30, 2005)

I believe it is up to the pregnant person to decide if they can continue with the pregnancy or not. Their reasoning for that choice is none of anyone's business. I agree that it *can be* a difficult choice, but I also recognize that there are women that will have the abortion and be absolutely confident that was the right choice and never regret or question it. Equally, there are women who would have the baby no question and never look back.

Then there are times when a woman is not immediately 100% sure what she wants to do, or sometimes a woman feels completely distraught and upset and confused. If that woman goes to contact Planned Parenthood or an abortion clinic, they give her counselling, refer her to social worker, and then send her home with a fat packet of reading material about adoption, parenting, the acutal procedure and risks involved, the words of women who have had abortions and how they felt about it afterwards, and questionarries and charts etc  for the woman to record her own thoughts on the topic. It's not like a woman walks in, says "gimme an abortion" and is sent out on the street 10 minutes later de-pregnated.


----------



## Ray (Mar 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> After all, we as a society can no longer afford to pay for men who're irresponsible about fundamental checkups; what's more, it's immoral of men to keep risking their lives when there are simple tests available.


If this is sacarstic, then it illustrates a dichotomy in your opinions.  On the one hand, society shouldn't limit our freedom to choose because of cost; on the other hand you've pointed out the great cost to society to keep Terry Schiavo {needlessly} alive.  If I've misinterpreted, then I apologize in advance.

However, you probably agree that society does {and should} have a say in what we can {legally} do.  The limits that society allow do ebb and flow with time; sometimes more lenient, sometimes more restrictive.


----------



## raedyn (Mar 30, 2005)

Interesting point to consider:

By age 45, 2 in 5 American women have had at least one abortion.

You know people that have had abortions.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 30, 2005)

So a 35 year old man not getting a prostate exam is now an equivellant situation to a 14 year old girl getting an abortion without telling her parents?

 What world do you live in?



 Bottom line in my mind is that according to the law, kids are a ward of there parents or gaurdians untill they are 18.  To me, this means that the parents should be involved in all major decisions for that child.  Period.  If that is not the case, then change the age at which a person seises to be a minor to 14.  If a 14 year old can decide that she needs an opperation whithout telling here parents, then let him/her vote, drive, buy a gun, and be in a porno too.  While your're at it take statutory rape off the books too.  If she can decide whether or not to have an abortion, then why not let her decide to have sex with a 35 year old too?  As long as it is her decision, then it should be fine right?

 IMO the decision to get an abortion or not requires just as much (if not more) maturity and reasoning ability as any of the other things mentioned, so if a child can be considered able to make that decision, then why not the rest?

 I still haven't heard a good reason as to why parental consent should be required for a 16 to get her appendix taken out, but not to get her baby taken out.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 30, 2005)

I just thought of a discussion I was part of, on another online forum.  Interesting how it relates to this one.  This is kind of related, but somewhat obliquely, so please skip or ignore this if you're not interested.

One woman posted about her current boyfriend.  She and he both have kids (hers - about 19, his - 14).  His daughter went to him, completely distraught - she was pregnant.  It was not mentioned in the thread if she had been assaulted, or had simply engaged in sex very young.  What was interesting to me - and heartbreaking - was that the 14-year-old wanted to have the baby (although she is still a child herself), but her father went and somehow (I have no idea how) obtained "morning-after" pills that he was going to force her to take.  

Again, I have no idea if this young girl would even be a candidate for the "morning-after" pills at that point, etc.  And having a parent decide what meds to dispense, without getting medical attention, scares me.

The woman who posted and her boyfriend ended up getting into a fight, because she wanted him to listen to his daughter's wishes about keeping the baby.  

Sort of the opposite situation - a parent who did not want to be a parent to his daughter's child (would a 14-year-old really be raising her baby on her own? impossible), whereas the daughter wanted to keep her pregnancy, and be a mom at 14 or 15.  

I think she ended up keeping her pregnancy.  I was just relieved that she didn't start taking pills inappropriately.

Anyways, this just occured to me as another example of when a parent's and pregnant child's decisions may conflict - but opposite to the way that has been mentioned here.

Sad, in any case.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 30, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Interesting point to consider:
> 
> By age 45, 2 in 5 American women have had at least one abortion.
> 
> You know people that have had abortions.


 
 Wow.  That seems really high.   What is the source for that?


----------



## ginshun (Mar 30, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I just thought of a discussion I was part of, on another online forum. Interesting how it relates to this one. This is kind of related, but somewhat obliquely, so please skip or ignore this if you're not interested.
> 
> One woman posted about her current boyfriend. She and he both have kids (hers - about 19, his - 14). His daughter went to him, completely distraught - she was pregnant. It was not mentioned in the thread if she had been assaulted, or had simply engaged in sex very young. What was interesting to me - and heartbreaking - was that the 14-year-old wanted to have the baby (although she is still a child herself), but her father went and somehow (I have no idea how) obtained "morning-after" pills that he was going to force her to take.
> 
> ...


 
 I was thinking about that situation all the way through this thread.  Everyone seemed to think that the parents would automatically be predisposted to force her to keep the child.  What happens in the opposite case, such as the one mentioned?  Should a parent be able to force a child into an abortion?  How about an adoption?  If not, then all the things that the people saying whould ruin the next 20 years of the girls life, is actually more applied to ruining the parents.  Like fiesty said, a 14 year old sure isn't going to be raising a child on her own.

 Don't read me wrong here, I don't think an abortion should be able to be forced on a child.  I am not so sure about an adoption though.   Puts an interesting spin on the issue at least.


 An incidentally, if the girl came to her father crying about being pregnant, then I am relatively sure that she is not a candidate for the moring after pill, as it is only an opption for the first 72 (I think) hours after the sexual encounter that would cause pregnancy.  If she is already pregnant, then it is too late.


----------



## raedyn (Mar 30, 2005)

The morning after pill is only effective in the first 72 hours after intercourse. The sooner, the better. It is (approximately) a massive dose of the same stuff in regular birth control pills. In some places (the province of Saskatchewan, for instance) it is available without a presciption from a pharmacist.

There is also an "abortion pill" that is not currently available in the US, but is in use in Canada and much of Europe. It is only usable for 49 - 63 days (depending on what country you are in) after the onset of the last menstrual period.

RE: Feisty's story the other possibility is that the girl was mistaken about her pregnancy. Unfortunately, there are still come very ignorant kids out there who believe that you can become pregnant by kissing or oral sex or various other misinformation. There is a reason we need good sex ed in our schools.

(the 2 in 5 women have had an abortion number comes from The Alan Guttmacher Institute. For more about them go here: http://www.agi-usa.org/about/index.html)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 30, 2005)

If you can deny first to girls and then to women the right to decide whether or not they deliver a baby on the grounds that they a) may not be thinking straight, b) are taking a human life, I don't see why you can't deny first to boys and then to men the right to decide whether or not they have a simple test or two on the grounds that they a) may not be thinking straight, b) will be taking their own life if they skip such testing.

As for the claims that, gee, just a little, "impartial," counseling--would this be the impartial counseling pushed by Hizzoner and his Administration, the one in which counselors aren't allowed to mention abortion or any "morning-after," pill? The impartial counseling you get from sex ed teachers who have been foreced to teach, "abstinence only?" The impartial counseling that directs girls and women only to anti-abortion support agencies? The counseling filled with the lies about health risks? The counseling that isn't even available because of the right-wing attacks on Planned Parenthood, and the more-or-less open right-wing support for all sorts of attacks on women's clinics?

Most of these arguments are just the same old same old that was pointed out by every woman who's posted on this thread: what's really at stake is whether or not men maintain their control over women's reproductive organs.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 30, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> (the 2 in 5 women have had an abortion number comes from The Alan Guttmacher Institute. For more about them go here: http://www.agi-usa.org/about/index.html)


 
 I guess I will have to read further into it, but I am interested in exactly how they came to that stat.  Maybe I am just out of it, but I find it pretty hard to believe that 40% of all American women will have an abortion by age 45.

 Maybe though.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> If you can deny first to girls and then to women the right to decide whether or not they deliver a baby on the grounds that they a) may not be thinking straight, b) are taking a human life, I don't see why you can't deny first to boys and then to men the right to decide whether or not they have a simple test or two on the grounds that they a) may not be thinking straight, b) will be taking their own life if they skip such testing.
> 
> As for the claims that, gee, just a little, "impartial," counseling--would this be the impartial counseling pushed by Hizzoner and his Administration, the one in which counselors aren't allowed to mention abortion or any "morning-after," pill? The impartial counseling you get from sex ed teachers who have been foreced to teach, "abstinence only?" The impartial counseling that directs girls and women only to anti-abortion support agencies? The counseling filled with the lies about health risks? The counseling that isn't even available because of the right-wing attacks on Planned Parenthood, and the more-or-less open right-wing support for all sorts of attacks on women's clinics?
> 
> Most of these arguments are just the same old same old that was pointed out by every woman who's posted on this thread: what's really at stake is whether or not men maintain their control over women's reproductive organs.


 Why must you insist on twisting this issue around?  I don't even think anyone in this thread has said that abortion should not be legal.  All people are saying is that if a 14 year old wants to have an abortion, she should have to get her parents OK, or at the very least tell them.  Not the same thing as outlawing abortion IMO, but I am probably just some right wing, prodastant fundamentalist, kook who can't see what is really happening right?


----------



## raedyn (Mar 30, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Maybe I am just out of it, but I find it pretty hard to believe that 40% of all American women will have an abortion by age 45.


I don't find it very far fetched. Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures performed in the US, but because it's such an emotional firecracker nobody is talking about it. I expect that many women keep it to themselves for fear of social repercussions.
Seriously think about it -  if you had an abortion (pretend you're a woman) would you tell anyone that you didn't absolutely have to? It's a pretty taboo topic.


----------



## Ray (Mar 30, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> By age 45, 2 in 5 American women have had at least one abortion.


Statistics, oh no.  I recently read on a legal site that in America, a woman is raped every two minutes; a comedian once added to that statistic:  "and, boy, is she sore."

While I think it was a terrible joke, it says a lot about statistics.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 30, 2005)

Of the friend(s) I have who have had abortions - no, of course they don't talk about it openly.  I only found out about one friend because she was in dire straits, and told me.  It's not a decision anyone parades around, really. I believe the rates of abortion in some other countries like France are much lower than here, because walk-in clinics do pregnancy tests and dispense "morning-after" pills more readily.  I will have to look for a report, though, to link to.


----------



## raedyn (Mar 30, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> All people are saying is that if a 14 year old wants to have an abortion, she should have to get her parents OK, or at the very least tell them.


But please do no suggest that everyone in this thread is saying that's reasonable. I haven't decided where I fall on this issue. 

Robertson is currently getting you all riled up with a logical fallacy called "slippery slope". He is assuming that if we tell 14 year olds "you can't choose for yourself" then we will tell all women that regardless of their age. It doesn't neccesarily follow. However, while I agree with you that it's not inevitable, I think he makes a valid point that there are people with the agenda to deny girls the right to choose as a step on the way to denying women the right to choose. So it's not _inevitable, _but the idea IS being championed by the same groups that would deny the choice to all women.

I'd like to repeat what Shesulsa said earlier. Abortions happen whether they are legal or not. But they are safer for women when they are in medical clinics done by licenced doctors (IE: legal). When I was in high school I knew a 15 year old girl who got pregnant and was afraid of telling her parents so her boyfriend tried to abort it himself by repeatedly punching her in the stomach as hard as he could. This is dangerous. Deuce is right, having an abortion purely out of fear is probably not right, but neither is trying to Do-It-Yourself purely out of fear.


----------



## raedyn (Mar 30, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Statistics, oh no. I recently read on a legal site that in America, a woman is raped every two minutes; a comedian once added to that statistic: "and, boy, is she sore."
> 
> While I think it was a terrible joke, it says a lot about statistics.


No, it doesn't. It says someone made a tasteless joke, but nothing about statistics.


----------



## Ray (Mar 30, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't. It says someone made a tasteless joke, but nothing about statistics.


I think it highlights the way people sometimes use statistics to bend facts.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 30, 2005)

I didn't mean to imply that everyone thought that way, but I know I do.  


 By the way, I looked it up, and there have been ~34 million abortions in the US since they were leagalized in 1973. I am trying to figure out how many women could have possibly had an abortion in that time period. If you figure that women in who were bewteen 15 and 45 in 1973 could have had abortions, and now anybody 15 and 45 can, so if I find the number of women who are bewteen ages 15 and 75 now, does that give me my total that possibly could have had abortions in that time? As a rough estimate at least?

    I am trying to get it straight in my head, and that seems right, but I am not sure.

   15 is just a random cut-off, and 45 is the upper limit in the stat, so ya, that is just assumptions.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 30, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't. It says someone made a tasteless joke, but nothing about statistics.


Tasteless?  Disgusting.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 30, 2005)

If my assumptions are valid, which I am not really sure they are, but anyway here we go.

 according to the US census

 ~215 million people in the US between 15 and 75, half of wich are women.

 ~107,500,000 women between 15 and 75.  (our possible abortion pool)

 ~34,000,000 abortions = about 32% of them have had abortions. With another assumption of only 1 abortion per women.



 So assuming all my rough numbers and assumptions are right, the 2 in 5 stat (40%) is a little high, but not too bad.  Believable at least, definately within the margin of error allowed for with all my wild assumptions.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 30, 2005)

by the way, 80% of all statistics read on internet web boards are made up by the person posting them.

 Zing!!


----------



## raedyn (Mar 30, 2005)

as of 1994 in the US:
6.3 million pregnancies per year. of these, 48% are unintended
so
3 million unintended pregnancies per year. of these 47% end in abortion.

in 2000 in the US:
- 1.31 million abortions were performed
- 2.1% of women aged 15 - 44 had an abortion

from
http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf
(their sources are listed here: http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/references.html)

So my question is why are there so many unintended pregnancies? Nearly half! If we could prevent more of those unintended pregnancies we could drastically cut the abortion rate.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 30, 2005)

*Abortion Statistics - World* 

In 54 countries (61% of the world population)   abortions are legal.
In 97 countries (39% of the world population) abortions are illegal.
There are approximately 46 million abortions conducted eacy year, 20 million of them obtained illegally.
There are approximately 126,000 abortions conducted each day. 
 *Abortion Statistics - U.S.*



Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Click here to see the approximate number of abortions in the U.S. per year from 1973-1996. In 2001, 1.31 million abortions took place.
  88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
  47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
  43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 
 *Abortion Statistics - Demographics*  Age - The majority of women getting an abortion are young 

 52% are younger than 25 years old and 19% are teenagers. The abortion rate is highest for those women aged 18 to 19 (56 per 1,000 in 1992.)
 Marriage - 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion. 67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.
Race - 63% of abortion patients are white, however, black women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.
Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion claimed they were Protestant, while 27% claimed they were Catholic. 
 *Abortion  Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)* 



25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
  14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
  12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the   pregnancy.)
  10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
  7.9% of women want no (more) children.
  3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to   maternal health. 
 *Abortion  Statistics - Using Contraception (U.S.)* 



54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.
90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception
8% of women having an abortion say they have never used contraception.
It is possible that up to 43% of the decline in abortion from 1994-2000 can be attributed to using emergency contraception. 
 *Abortion Statistics - Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice*



 According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%. 
  The majority of these statistics were taken from The Alan Guttmacher Institute.


http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm



 Take that!!


----------



## Tgace (Mar 30, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Why must you insist on twisting this issue around? I don't even think anyone in this thread has said that abortion should not be legal. All people are saying is that if a 14 year old wants to have an abortion, she should have to get her parents OK, or at the very least tell them. Not the same thing as outlawing abortion IMO, but I am probably just some right wing, prodastant fundamentalist, kook who can't see what is really happening right?


From: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/chapter3.html

If you find that you are being worsted, you can make a _diversion_that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute, and afforded an argument against your opponent. This may be done without presumption if the diversion has, in fact, some general bearing on the matter; but it is a piece of impudence if it has nothing to do with the case, and is only brought in by way of attacking your opponent.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 30, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> From: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/chapter3.html
> 
> If you find that you are being worsted, you can make a _diversion_that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute, and afforded an argument against your opponent. This may be done without presumption if the diversion has, in fact, some general bearing on the matter; but it is a piece of impudence if it has nothing to do with the case, and is only brought in by way of attacking your opponent.


 
 Oh Snap!!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 30, 2005)

Well, I see none of the boys want to deal with the questions. Much, much easier to claim that somebody else called you names they didn't call you, or to claim that the issue of control of one's own body has nothing to do with the issue of control over one's own body. 

It has nothing to do with any, "slippery slope," argument: I merely asked a hypothetical question based upon an analogy. 

OK, so let's try this one: given the number of unwanted pregnancies in America, let's have a Federal law requiring all unmarried American men over the age of 14 to undergo a reversible vasectomy. Then when they can legitimately have kids, we reverse the surgery. It's a much safer operation than abortion or pregnancy, so gentlemen, you're so worried (morality, it seems, is always a matter of keeping track of the wimmens, ain't it?) about what the girls are doing? Set a better example: step up to the plate. Vasectomies now!

I also note that none of the boys want to take up the issue of Bush and his cronies attacking reproductive rights--including contraception and "morning-after," pills, or their aiding and abetting of attacks on women's clinics. And nobody wanted to deal with the issue of kids gotten pregnant by their dad or a family member.

But in the end, I suspect that the invective doesn't have a thing to do with anything but this: like a traitor, I basically repeated the women's viewpoint explained in other posts here--which is, their body, their decision.

Why bring this up? because the whole unspoken slant of the discussion was that girls should go to their daddy for help.  

As with Terry Schiavo, this is real simple: you only get to choose for yourself, and at times for the people who have entrusted you with the power to make such choices.


----------



## Ray (Mar 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> As with Terry Schiavo, this is real simple: you only get to choose for yourself, and at times for the people who have entrusted you with the power to make such choices.


Yes, you're exactly right.  The abortion debate is much like the Terry Schiavo debate...currently, she is unable to make a decision.  If it was her original wish to be terminated she is unable to change that decision.  In her current (non-living) state, she is unable to make her own decision so someone else makes it for her.  

There are also circumstances where minor females are unable to make mature decisions.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 30, 2005)

Which Is Why They Have To Take The Issue To A Judge.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 30, 2005)

> OK, so let's try this one: given the number of unwanted pregnancies in America, let's have a Federal law requiring all unmarried American men over the age of 14 to undergo a reversible vasectomy. Then when they can legitimately have kids, we reverse the surgery. It's a much safer operation than abortion or pregnancy, so gentlemen, you're so worried (morality, it seems, is always a matter of keeping track of the wimmens, ain't it?) about what the girls are doing? Set a better example: step up to the plate. Vasectomies now!


And this is the same thing because all women require abortions, and we are somehow trying to take that right away through our insistance that 14 year olds need to get there parents OK for them?

Plus I don't think that there has been a procedure established for a reversable vasectomy. Last time I checked there was still a debate on whether they were reversable or not.

Your kockamamy analogies really are not helping your argument.

Hey, what is your argument / point anyway? I have been pretty consistant in trying to discuss why I think an underage girl should be need to have parental consent to get an abortion surgery. All I have seen from you are rants and raves about how us kooky right wingers are trying to take away womens rights or outlaw abortion, or how men are evil or something. I don't even know what you are getting at. Do you even have an opinion on the original topic that we are trying to discuss, or are you just going to keep bringing in random scenarios and telling us how us men are trying to take away the rights of women?

I mean what the heck?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Why bring this up? because the whole unspoken slant of the discussion was that girls should go to their daddy for help.
> 
> As with Terry Schiavo, this is real simple: you only get to choose for yourself, and at times for the people who have entrusted you with the power to make such choices.


<sarcasm>I agree with Robert... A 14 year old girl should make all her own choices without the consent of her parents.  She should be able to Decide to Drink, Smoke, Do drugs, star in Porn Flicks for cash to hang at the mall with her friends, have sex with 30 year old men... She should be able to decide she doesnt wanna go to school...She shouldnt be told what to do... even by her parents... Why should her Daddy be able to tell her these things are wrong for her?

'Cuz, you see, this is real simple: you only get to choose for yourself.</sarcasm>

That makes less sense than usual from you Robert.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Which Is Why They Have To Take The Issue To A Judge.



I thought people took things to the judge because they can't seem to get anything through congress. It's a tactic of the left leaning democrats.


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 30, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I'd like to repeat what Shesulsa said earlier. Abortions happen whether they are legal or not. But they are safer for women when they are in medical clinics done by licenced doctors (IE: legal). When I was in high school I knew a 15 year old girl who got pregnant and was afraid of telling her parents so her boyfriend tried to abort it himself by repeatedly punching her in the stomach as hard as he could. This is dangerous. Deuce is right, having an abortion purely out of fear is probably not right, but neither is trying to Do-It-Yourself purely out of fear.


You are right about abortions happening, legal or not.  Someone posted earlier about  legal medical/surgical abortions being safer than term pregnancies.  That is true, as well.  I am not arguing against legal abortion, my argument is against underage girls having a medical/surgical procedure without their parents consent.

Like your example above, 15 y.o. has her boyfriend punch her in the stomach.  That's shows extremely poor judgment.  But this same girl could nonetheless give consent to a medical surgical procedure?  I don't see the sense in that.

Like the Schiavo case taught us all about the importance of Living wills and  POA, I hope this teaches all parents the importance of frank open honest discussions with your kids, at an early age, about sex and pregnancy, contraception and STD's.  

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## qizmoduis (Mar 31, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I thought people took things to the judge because they can't seem to get anything through congress. It's a tactic of the left leaning democrats.



People take things to judges, especially now, because it's the only way they can protect themselves from right-wing nutcase legislators who seem utterly incapable of understanding the very basis of the government they participate in.  The abortion "debate" and the right's vicious attacks on women's access to contraception and family planning is just one example of this.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 31, 2005)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> People take things to judges, especially now, because it's the only way they can protect themselves from right-wing nutcase legislators who seem utterly incapable of understanding the very basis of the government they participate in. The abortion "debate" and the right's vicious attacks on women's access to contraception and family planning is just one example of this.


 
 Right, because why should people have to deal with legislators that were actually elected to there positions, and you know people who actually have to go through a voting process to change laws?

 Easier to just find a judge that agrees with their point of view and take it to him, seeing as how judges change laws as they see fit nowadays.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 31, 2005)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> People take things to judges, especially now, because it's the only way they can protect themselves from right-wing nutcase legislators who seem utterly incapable of understanding the very basis of the government they participate in.  The abortion "debate" and the right's vicious attacks on women's access to contraception and family planning is just one example of this.




If I recall, Homosexuals are now allowed to "marry" in Massachusetts due to left leaning "Acivists" and "Judges".


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 31, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> If I recall, Homosexuals are now allowed to "marry" in Massachusetts due to left leaning "Acivists" and "Judges".


 And this has what, exactly, to do with young girls and abortions?


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 31, 2005)

At what point does the state/gov recognize a 'girl' as a 'woman' and a legally independent entity from her parents?  

Is someone starts telling me how 'girls mature faster than boys therefore they should have full citizenship sooner' I will say that is a bunch of sexist BS and THAT is hitleresque in nature to define citizenship rights on biology and gender.

Women have been dealt the biological card of childbearing....that is the way it is.  Burden?  Gift?  Depends on mood, perspective, age...

But, how many people here think that making a sweeping policy that a 13/14 or younger girl that is with child is responsible enough to make a life and death decision is a responsible legistative action?

They try child murderers as adults in cases like this (Boy or girl) if it carries the same level of premeditation and follow through as the decision to abort a life.

YES I know it is 'her body' but she is 'someone's child' and is now carrying 'a child' of her own.  People can focus on which element of these things they want, but the truth is that they all still exist.  Her body still carries a life in it that she will decide with her legally recognized minor's decision making power to keep or abort...


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 31, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> At what point does the state/gov recognize a 'girl' as a 'woman' and a legally independent entity from her parents?
> 
> Is someone starts telling me how 'girls mature faster than boys therefore they should have full citizenship sooner' I will say that is a bunch of sexist BS and THAT is hitleresque in nature to define citizenship rights on biology and gender.
> 
> ...


As of now (thank goodness), women - and men - are still entitled to control what happens to their own bodies.

As of now, a pregnancy is veiwed as a potential life, rather than having, post-conception, its own rights as an individual.  Thus a woman who chooses to have an abortion is considered to have had an abortion, not participated in murder.  An individual may think she is "a murderer", but under the law, she has decided what to do with her own body and reproductive abilities.  

So does a 13 or 14 year old girl know what is best for her?  Again, most girls I know would go running to their parents asap, for help, for guidance, for anything.  But some would not.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 31, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> So does a 13 or 14 year old girl know what is best for her? Again, most girls I know would go running to their parents asap, for help, for guidance, for anything. But some would not.


And those that would make the abortion decision because they knew that Mom and Dad would never have to know would most likely be doing that out of fear:  Fear of reaction/consequence/stigma/responsibility...and when is a decision made primarily in fear EVER a good one?

Now, that doesn't mean that different motives and reasons don't lead to the same end - so not all abortions are done out of fear.

Responsibility gets bigger as you get older, it isn't easy.  Having sex means potential pregnancy...that is life.  There are other options besides having/keeping the child and abortion.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

And we are not talking about "women" we are talking about children (as defined by law). Thats the crux of this particular thread.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 31, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And those that would make the abortion decision because they knew that Mom and Dad would never have to know would most likely be doing that out of fear: Fear of reaction/consequence/stigma/responsibility...and when is a decision made primarily in fear EVER a good one?
> 
> Now, that doesn't mean that different motives and reasons don't lead to the same end - so not all abortions are done out of fear.
> 
> Responsibility gets bigger as you get older, it isn't easy. Having sex means potential pregnancy...that is life. There are other options besides having/keeping the child and abortion.


Or the fear that some pretty awful repercussions would face them, like homelessness, or being beaten up by an angry parent.  

And not all young women are selecting to have sex and get pregnant, either.  Some are assaulted.  It's not always a choice (or "accident") she decided to make.

Is a decision based in fear a good one?  Perhaps not the best decision - and I wish no young woman would EVER find herself in that position.  But, sadly, for some kids, fear is something that plays a big part in their lives.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

Not meaning to sound argumentative, but I still dont understand how we can make/argue a policy based on what "might" happen. We cant tell parents becaues they "may" beat, abandon the child? Where else in our society do we follow that policy between children and their parents?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 31, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> There are other options besides having/keeping the child and abortion.


 This is so easy to say - especially for people who can't get pregnant.  I'd like to think parents are open minded and respect their daughter's potential to be any kind of woman with her very own opinions and values ... but that's just not likely.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 31, 2005)

If we're going to limit the fredoms of young girls with the physical ability to reproduce then why don't we do the same for males?  Why don't we delay puberty chemically?  It can be done.  Or mandate the use of medication to suppress sperm production until they're 18?

 It takes two to tango, folks.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

I think the boys family shold be notified too IMO....not that they should have any say in the matter, but they should know what their son was responsible for as well.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 31, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Or the fear that some pretty awful repercussions would face them, like homelessness, or being beaten up by an angry parent.
> 
> And not all young women are selecting to have sex and get pregnant, either. Some are assaulted. It's not always a choice (or "accident") she decided to make.
> 
> Is a decision based in fear a good one? Perhaps not the best decision - and I wish no young woman would EVER find herself in that position. But, sadly, for some kids, fear is something that plays a big part in their lives.


Those circumstances are specific and should be taken into account when making the laws around this issue.  Now the contextual considerations of abuse, abandonment, violence and victim realistically have to be addressed.  I agree.

Fear plays a big part in everyone's life to varying degrees, the lessons on the best way to deal with that fear and the pressure of crisis is what I think is just as important in situations like this.  The tragedy is when life deals some people a really bad hand.

Using rational thought, communcation, problem solving, community/family resources/counsel, and personal stress management skills are things that I try to pass on to students in my public and martial arts classes.

I always tell students in my English class that ELA (English Lang. Arts) are about bending people to your will or recognizing that people are trying to bend you to their will.  Being good at doing that in an ethical way, with solid skills requires all of the above that I mentioned.  Being good at recognizing when it is being done to you (and whether it is ethical or not) requires the same above mentioned.  That way my class isn't just about Reading and Writing but about life application.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> If we're going to limit the fredoms of young girls with the physical ability to reproduce then why don't we do the same for males? Why don't we delay puberty chemically? It can be done. Or mandate the use of medication to suppress sperm production until they're 18?
> 
> It takes two to tango, folks.


All juveniles arleady do have "limited freedoms" they cant vote, drink, drive, get a credit card, get married etc etc.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> All juveniles arleady do have "limited freedoms" they cant vote, drink, drive, get a credit card, get married etc etc.


 Aw, c'mon, Tom. You know my reference. If we're going to tell young girls what they can and can't do with their baby-making bodies, why aren't we telling boys what they can and can't do with their baby-making bodies?

 It seems to me that, since no baby can be produced without a sperm meeting an egg, that sperm should probably be controlled too. So, let's legislate 13-year-old testes at the same time we legislate 13-year-old uterii (gr? sp?).


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

IMO its an issue of where is the line of parental responsibility is drawn. Make it a consistant age. If we are going to say 18 is the age where my kid can make his/her own decisions and I have no legal responsibility or liability for their actions fine.

This, to me, is more about all the "politics" around abortion than it is about any consistant principles of the parent/child relationship as seen in the eyes of the law.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 31, 2005)

I'm going to chime in here and say that for once, I'm not sure where I stand on this issue.

For me, the real problem is that in looking at this from the perspective of "these girls aren't mature enough to decide reasonably whether or not they should undergo an abortion", we run into another problem; if they're not mature enough to decide, how can they be mature enough to become a parent?  

Then, to further the dilemma, how can anyone else lay claim to the ability to make that decision for them?  I respect all people's right to decide what happens to their body.

I don't think that this is an issue that can be equitably legislated.  There are too many intracacies to the issue - each individual case will have its own particular and subjective dynamic, creating specific factors that need to be considered.

Ultimately, the best thing that we can do as a society is to provide all the necessary access to education, consultation, and counselling to girls faced with these types of issues, and trust that they will make an informed choice.  Otherwise, we are dictating instead of listening.  We are controlling instead of nurturing.  

There are certainly some things that I know I'm not in favour of.

-We cannot force a child to carry a fetus to term.
-We cannot force a child to undergo an abortion.
-We cannot _enforce _abstaining from intercourse at any age.
-We cannot believe that keeping children in the dark about sexual matters promotes sexual health.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 31, 2005)

Dan, I completely agree.  

 Tom, lLegislating this is so complicated and though I respect you much, I have a really hard time coloring this issue black or white - aligning all decision making and all abilities with one age.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

If we are going to bypass the legal responsibility for a child it should be done in a legal manner...through the court. After doing a little research Ive found that most states do, in fact, require at least one parents permission to perform an abortion. Unless the child obtains a judicial bypass.

http://www.crlp.org/st_law_notification.html


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

One option I do like is allowing the doctor to perform the proceedure if the child states there is abuse involved. However it requires the doctor to report the incident to the authorities.


----------



## Melissa426 (Mar 31, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> -We cannot force a child to carry a fetus to term.
> -We cannot force a child to undergo an abortion.
> -We cannot _enforce _abstaining from intercourse at any age.
> -We cannot believe that keeping children in the dark about sexual matters promotes sexual health.


We absolutely can not, nor should we.

So what's the solution?
1.  Keep abortion legal
2.  All abortions for underage women require parental consent.
     a. Exceptions can be made in event of rape, sexual assault, 
         incest, or fear of harm if parents were to be notified.
        ----In these cases, abortion clinics provde a social worker to ascertain
        the validity of her claims, the level of maturity, and intellectual capacity 
        of the minor, to determine whether the minor fully understands 
        and can consent to the procedure.

Thoughts?

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 31, 2005)

Ah, those left leaning judges! Ah those ranting leftists!! Ah, those "irrelevant," arguments!

Funny how folks are all in favor of personal choice--unless of course it's personal choice for girls and women. Odd that they're against government interference in, say, gun ownership--but boy (and I do mean boy) should somebody gay try to get married, or somebody try to get access to gynecological care and contraception, well HEY! we need some bills passed.

And funny that a simple comparasion seems so invisible to the naked something or other--oh, let's say the, "eye." I'd consider that symptomatic, and revealing of what the real issue is: control of the family, and control of women. 

Heaven forfend--and I do mean the right-wing Protestant "heaven"--that girls, women and families should work this out among themselves, and the government should butt out.

Three questions:

a) shouldn't the boy and his family be loaded with an equal responsibility? assuming that it is a, "boy," and not some adult, or parent, or close relative? (answer: because women are typically held to be the repositories of men's morality in this culture)

b) why's it a good idea to have the government stepping in to ANY reproductive choice issue? (answer: because you've bought into the fundamentalist Christian notion that human life begins at conception)

c) no chance that the currency of this issue has anything to do with the right-wing clowns who're currently running the country, is there? (no, none at all)


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

Everything is a right wing conspiracy...just because youre paranoid dosent mean everybody isnt out to get you..the truth is out there...anybody concerned about their children getting abortions without their knowledge must be some man who wants to control womens bodies....

whatever.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 31, 2005)

You're absolutely right!

I've seen the light! The mere fact that we have a President who's an avowed enemy of Roe V. Wade, that he got elected with total support by fundamentalist and right-wingers who loudly announce every day that they expect him to Do Something about abortion and related issues, that groups like the ACLJ have loudly announced that abortion for minors is one of their "wedge issues," to overturn Roe v. Wade, that all these folks explicitly tell everybody again and again and again that they want to roll back the clock so that women resume their traditional (i.e. mostly fictional) roles, that the issues of reproductive choice have been being fought out between the great majority of American women and fundamentalist and right-wing men for about 150 years now, why NONE of this has the slightest thing to do with passing a law that allows the government to step into individual choices and private family business.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...


----------



## ginshun (Mar 31, 2005)

> If we're going to limit the fredoms of young girls with the physical ability to reproduce then why don't we do the same for males? Why don't we delay puberty chemically? It can be done. Or mandate the use of medication to suppress sperm production until they're 18?


 The only people that I am suggeesting have anything to do with the limiting of a young girls freedoms, are that young girls parents. It is a hard concept to grasp I know. Parents being responsible for there children, oh the humanity!!

  Personally I think Mellisa's ideas on the subject are pretty good.

 But then again I suppose that we could just let the girls do whatever they want, and never have to tell there parents anything. Which seems to pretty much be the opinion of a couple of people in this thread.


 One more time, why should the parents of a girl have to give permission for her to have a knee surgery (or any other surgery), but not for her to have an abortion? I must have missed all the left wingers responses to that one, either that or none of them answered, maybe I have to read a little closer.

 And another thing, why do people keep bringing up a girl getting raped or being sexually abused by her father as a reason not to let parents know about her getting an abortion? In your opinions is just getting a secret abortion and not doing anything else, or telling anyone else about it the best option for the girl in those situations? I sure as heck don't think so. If either of those things happen, I would think the best option would be to go to the police, in which case the parents are sure going to find out about it.

 But I suppose that she might be too embarassed to tell anyone, in which case a secret abortion is the best possible option right?   Especially since she is only 13.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 31, 2005)

> NONE of this has the slightest thing to do with passing a law that allows the government to step into individual choices


 If the individual choice being outlawed is the choice of a 13 year old girl to be able to get an abortion without telling her parents, then I am 100% for that law.  I suppose if that makes me a right wing kook, then so be it.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 31, 2005)

THREAD GANK

I'm exceedingly glad of two facts:

1 - I don't need to tell my parents about my Viagra perscription.

2 - I don't need to go to a 'stand-alone' clinic to pick up my Cialis perscription.

(I wonder how popular these drugs would be in those circumstances)

END THREAD GANK


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 31, 2005)

Beyond pointing out that you're arguing for judicial bypass, WHICH IS WHAT MOST STATES HAVE NOW, because NO surgical procedures can be done on minors without parental consent anyway...


And beyond my actually saying that this was an issue of men wishing to retain control over women and the family...well...if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

I don't suppose you'd care to discuss the points I raised about WHY this issue is even coming up?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

Except for my state which regulates pretty much everything except the right for a minor to have an abortion without a parents knowledge. New York! New York!


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 31, 2005)

Melissa ~ sounds good to me

robertson ~ some - perhaps lots of - folks just don't understand how invasive it is to have other people's - strangers, folks who will never meet them - moral and/or religious decisions weigh on someone else's life and body and future until it actually happens to them.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 31, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Beyond pointing out that you're arguing for judicial bypass, WHICH IS WHAT MOST STATES HAVE NOW, because NO surgical procedures can be done on minors without parental consent anyway...
> 
> 
> And beyond my actually saying that this was an issue of men wishing to retain control over women and the family...well...if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
> ...


 
 I don't think that any surgical procedure *should* be able to be done on a minor without the parents consent (baring a life threatening emergency), abortions included.  All I want to know is why you think that we should separate abortion from the rest.

 I personally don't see a 14 year old girl having to consult her parents before going in for an abortion surgery as a way for men to conrtol women.  If that is how you see it, then fine I guess.  I don't see the connection though.


----------



## raedyn (Mar 31, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Right, because why should people have to deal with legislators that were actually elected to there positions, and you know people who actually have to go through a voting process to change laws?
> 
> Easier to just find a judge that agrees with their point of view and take it to him, seeing as how judges change laws as they see fit nowadays.


This is a common misconception. Anytime a group disagrees with a the descision of a court, they propogate this myth by belly-aching about so-called 'activist judges'. This point of view seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding about how our political system is designed to work.

The following is taught early in Political Science 100 (infact, I think it was introduced in High School)
In Western-Style Democracies there are 3 branches of government
- legislative branch: they make laws (US = House of Representatives & Senate, Canada = House of Commons)
- executive branch: they provide oversight of laws, sometimes called sober second thought (US = President & his Secretariat, Canada = Senate)
- judicial branch: they INTERPRET law

Judges don't write law. They don't decide "hey, I don't like this law, I'm gonna say it doesn't count". They can strike down laws or sections of laws *when they conflict with other laws that take precedence*. In both the US and Canada, the Constitution is the ultimate & overriding law and no laws can be made that conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution could be changed, but is much more difficult to change than any other laws requiring a significantly larger majority to pass amendments. 

(that is all extremely simplified of course, but it's an intro to the concepts) 
/thread-gank


----------



## ginshun (Mar 31, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> This is a common misconception. Anytime a group disagrees with a the descision of a court, they propogate this myth by belly-aching about so-called 'activist judges'. This point of view demonstrates a lack of understanding about how our political system works.
> 
> The following is taught early in Political Science 100 (infact, I think it was introduced in High School)
> In Western-Style Democracies there are 3 branches of government
> ...


 /off topic/

 So basically, as long as a judges interpretation of a law doesn't go against the constitution, then he can do with that law as he sees fit.  That is exactly what my point was.  I think that we are seeing this right now with the whole gay marriage thing.  Some judges say it is unconstitutinal some say its not. The whole thing is up in the air.  Regardless of whether it is or not, it is the law right now that gay people do not have the right ot get married.  Personally I think that is BS, and they should be able to.  However, the right way to get the law changed is not to have a judge declare in unconstitutional, and then just disreguard it and do what you want.  There is a legistlative process in getting laws changed, and last time I checked, having a judge say that he thinks the law is no good wasn't part of it.

 They are fighting for the right thing, but going about it in the wrong way, because this way is easier.

 That is my opinion anyway.


 /sorry for going off topic/


----------



## raedyn (Mar 31, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> So basically, as long as a judges interpretation of a law doesn't go against the constitution, then he can do with that law as he sees fit.


No. The judge may determine that the law goes against the constitution and therefore rule it invalid or portions of it invalid. S/He is supposed to interpret the intent of the law makers.



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> the right way to get the law changed is not to have a judge declare in unconstitutional, and then just disreguard it and do what you want. There is a legistlative process in getting laws changed, and last time I checked, having a judge say that he thinks the law is no good wasn't part of it.


 You misunderstood my post. One right way to get a law changed IS to have a judge declare it unconstitutional. That is the entire purpose of the supreme court. That is why they exist. In the US, they usually strike down state law. It's very rarely than they rule against federal law. There are many checks and balances so that no arm can get too much power. While Judges can rule one way or another, they have no powers of enforcement. This falls to the executive.* There are ways lawmakers could reverse the descions made by the courts. Like change the laws that the judges were interpreting. If a judge says law X is unconstitutional, all the legislators have to do is change the constitution, then the other law can stand. But it's difficult to change the Constitution. On purpose.

(In Canada, governments have the option to use a (_very_ rarely used) clause in the Constitution called the Notwithstanding Clause that allows them to override the Constitution in certain circumstances.)

* ps I realized I made a mistake in my earlier post. In Canada, the Senate is part of the legislative branch, and the executive branch is the Prime Minister and his(her) Cabinet. Mea Culpa.
/sidebar


----------



## ginshun (Mar 31, 2005)

> There are many checks and balances so that no arm can get too much power. While Judges can rule one way or another, they have no powers of enforcement. This falls to the executive.* There are ways lawmakers could reverse the descions made by the courts. Like change the laws that the judges were interpreting. If a judge says law X is unconstitutional, all the legislators have to do is change the constitution, then the other law can stand. But it's difficult to change the Constitution. On purpose.


 I agree with all this, and I think we are pretty much in agreement overall.  The problem comes in, (especially with the gay marraige thing) when people figure that as soon as the judge makes a ruling against a current law, then that law is immediately not valid and so they don't have to follow it anymore.

 Sorry, but that isn't how it works.

 Sorry again for going off topic.  Raeydn, I will be happy to discuss this further if you want, but maybe best that we do it through PM's instead of bogging down and already bogged down tread.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 31, 2005)

or a separate thread?


----------



## ginshun (Mar 31, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> or a separate thread?


 Feel free to make one.


----------



## raedyn (Mar 31, 2005)

To relate these sidebars back to the original topic:



			
				article linked @ start of thread said:
			
		

> The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday to reinstate a state law requiring girls under age 18 to get parental consent for abortions except under the most dire of medical emergencies.
> 
> [size=-1]Without comment, justices let stand a lower court ruling that struck down the Idaho law because its provisions on emergency abortions were too strict.[/size]
> [size=-1]
> ...


So to summarize: The Supreme Court wouldn't hear the case because there was no error in the previous ruling. The previous ruling said that other emergency medical procedures are done on minors without parental consent, and there is no reason this procedure should be treated differently. The law as written in Idaho put an undue burden on the pregnant teen. The Idaho government could enact another law that says abortions cannot be performed on minors without parental consent, but it must be re-written to be less burdensome on the patient. The judiciary struck down the law, and the legislators have an opportunity to make a new one, but it must work around the challenges identified by the court.[/size]


----------



## raedyn (Mar 31, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I agree with all this, and I think we are pretty much in agreement overall. The problem comes in, (especially with the gay marraige thing) when people figure that as soon as the judge makes a ruling against a current law, then that law is immediately not valid and so they don't have to follow it anymore.
> 
> Sorry, but that isn't how it works.


That's EXACTLY how it works, if the judges rule the entire law is invalid. But they have the ability to make other choices. Like say only certain sections are invalid. In this case, the court ruled that the entire law became void without the sections that were deemed 'unduly burdensome'. At other times the courts will do things like deliver a judgement, but suspend the consequences of it for X period of time to allow lawmakers time to react to the decsion. IIRC, This is what Canada's Supreme Court did when it said the denying Marijuana to certain people who could medically benefit from it was unconstitutional. They ruled that the government must allow certain medical patients access to the drug, but allowed the government time to come up with policy and processes for how they would apply this ruling.

It DOES work that way, but if you don't think it SHOULD work that way, what alternate arrangement do you propose? How could citizens challenge unjust laws? It's not a perfect system, but it has stood the test of time pretty well.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 31, 2005)

It still irks me that (robert, stay with me here) no one wants to talk about the boy!

 How about this?  

 If we are going to force underage girls to get parental consent for abortion, some parents will not give that consent and force the girl to have the child.  I think that, if the child is going to be born and kept by the girl or the family then the boy should be immediately placed on GPS tracking and trained for and entered into the military or other Federal job, his wages automatically garnished for child support and insurance benefits garnished for the child and mother.

 Why don't we do that? Huh?  Sure would ease the burden on welfare.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

Well, I would think that if a family decides to "force" the child to carry to term that they intend to help support the baby afterwards. If I was in that situation I would look into the legal process of making the father or his family financially responsible as well.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 31, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> It still irks me that (robert, stay with me here) no one wants to talk about the boy!
> 
> How about this?
> 
> ...


 What world do to people live in!?!?

 We *DO* do that!  How the heck do you think child support works?  Its not like most guys do it for fun. I am sure that if you offered half of those guys nice paying, good benefit government jobs they wouldn't turn there nose up at them.  Not to mention the fact that child support is 17% of your gross, but is taken out of your net.  You can argue about this all day, but that fact is that guys get screwed on the deal if they have a kid and are not together with the mother.  Believe me, I know.

 Insurance benefits are not payed for the mother, but it really makes no difference for the father, as pretty much all companies have either single or family plans.  My daughter and I only on my insurance costs me the same as if I had a wife and 10 kids.

 As for the GPS tracking, I am not really sure what the purpose of that is.  It goes to show your state of mind though, in the fact that in your mind, once the child is born, the mother should have to pay for nothing, while the father should have to take care of the money, the insurance, and be tracked 24-7 to boot.  Yup totally fair system you have worked out there.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 31, 2005)

Out of curiosity I did a real quick search and found out that in Britain at least the law is that sex with a girl under the 'age of consent' can be tried as statuatory rape, even if she claims she consented and regardless of the age of the male.  I wouldn't be surprised that if the parents of a girl who became pregnant want to, they could have the boy charged legally with something.

I'm surprised that alimony or child support laws are not used here.  I don't know if they are only applied to divorces or not but if the law can require a man to pay child support for his children, then it should be applicable to minors as well, with the added burden on the parents of the boy because he his a minor.  If child support laws do not apply in non-marraiges for adults, then it's hard to bring legal pressure for support against minors, in which case unfortunately it's back to just the girl and her parents.

There are a *lot* of cases where we do not allow minors to make life-altering decisions without parental permission.  Such as credit obligations and military service.  Medical procedures in non-life threatening situations is just one of many cases where the consequences are far reaching and abortion is just one of many such medical procedures.  If the law does not allow for persuit of the boy to live with the consequences of his actions, that's bad and should be changed.  However, I don't think that even if that's the case, it should be allowed as a special circumstance to the laws concerning minors and their parent's responsibilites in just about every other legal, medical, employment, and financial situation.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 31, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> What world do to people live in!?!?
> 
> We *DO* do that! How the heck do you think child support works? Its not like most guys do it for fun. I am sure that if you offered half of those guys nice paying, good benefit government jobs they wouldn't turn there nose up at them. Not to mention the fact that child support is 17% of your gross, but is taken out of your net. You can argue about this all day, but that fact is that guys get screwed on the deal if they have a kid and are not together with the mother. Believe me, I know.
> 
> ...


Excuse me if I'm wrong, but mothers *do* pay for the care of their children. "Child support" is supposed to help them help support the child. And, of course, the time and energy you put into that child is not counted in a money-only system.

As far as the actual cases I've seen where a couple are not together, and one pays child-support, the person who usually "gets screwed" is the person actually doing the day-to-day, often totally thankless task of raising the child. Not all people who are supposed to pay child support do, or pay the full amount. And just because you have a check in the mail doesn't make parenting a breeze.

Since a portion of the above conversations focused on "if the girl decides to have sex, she should understand she may get pregnant", or at least contained that kind of sentiment in the messages. shesulsa was pointing out that it takes two - and young boys (or older skeezy men preying on little girls) are not held to the same level of accountability as a young woman is. If the law is going to *force* her to have a child, shouldn't the young man involved be *forced* to be a parent, too? (Including 2 am feedings)

ETA: True, the guy in question could be sued for statuatory rape.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 31, 2005)

Uh-oh, somebody actually looked up the Idaho law under question--which certainly says some things I hadn't known about, but which also makes it clear that this law has nothing to do with "protecting," anybody, but with CONTROLLING what girls and women do with their own bodies.

Which is precisely the point raised about dragging the boys up to the bar, or even installing GPS trackers on 'em. The very fact that this appears ridiculous to the guys demonstrates my original point: this is all about controlling the wimmins, and thus any idea that men should be dragged in physically becomes utterly unthinkable, an idea that can only be derided--it's outside the mindset of patriarchy.

By the way, it's my understanding that a primary reason for the unquestionable fact that the majority of the poor in this country are women and children is the pervasiveness of the deadbeat dad. And speaking of, "beat," the fact that the overwhelming majority of domestic violence in this country is carried out by men remains, as far as I'm concerned, simply the extreme limit of the desire to keep women in their God-given place.

No, whomping on somebody is not the same thing as denying them abortion rights. However, both--so far as I'm concerned, anyway--are styles of violence against women.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 31, 2005)

There's nothing quite like hearing Dad ***** about paying child support to make a child feel like an unwanted mistake.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh-oh, somebody actually looked up the Idaho law under question--which certainly says some things I hadn't known about, but which also makes it clear that this law has nothing to do with "protecting," anybody, but with CONTROLLING what girls and women do with their own bodies.
> 
> Which is precisely the point raised about dragging the boys up to the bar, or even installing GPS trackers on 'em. The very fact that this appears ridiculous to the guys demonstrates my original point: this is all about controlling the wimmins, and thus any idea that men should be dragged in physically becomes utterly unthinkable, an idea that can only be derided--it's outside the mindset of patriarchy.
> 
> ...





How do you explain "pro-life" women?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> How do you explain "pro-life" women?


They think that women deserve whatever lousy hand they're dealt??

OK, that was flip.  My answer: women (just like men) can want to control what other people do, and feel that certain things are just evil, no matter what.  

What's interesting to watch is a pro-life woman who's just realized that she's been chatting with another woman (or women) who are pro-choice.  Suddenly the latter become monsters.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 31, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> We *DO* do that! How the heck do you think child support works? Its not like most guys do it for fun. I am sure that if you offered half of those guys nice paying, good benefit government jobs they wouldn't turn there nose up at them.


 Well, it sounds like you don't identify with all the non-custodial parents out there who don't pay their child support.  And, NO, we don't automatically garnish wages, that must be petitioned for and approved by the judge in each case.



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> You can argue about this all day, but that fact is that guys get screwed on the deal if they have a kid and are not together with the mother. Believe me, I know.


 As do I.  Really, am I screwed?  Hmmm... Disneyland, the Happiest Place on Earth is one employer who refuses to release their employment records to support enforcement.  How do I know?  My ex works there - and does not pay child support.  In fact, he hasn't in ... oh ... 10 years now.  Oh, and he HAD a government job - and quit it when I left him.  So I have had to provide the insurance, the food, the clothing, the parenting, everything for these children, but ... I'm not screwed?  Actually, I'm not screwed - the kids are.



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> As for the GPS tracking, I am not really sure what the purpose of that is.


 That would serve the purpose of finding him when he runs and works for cash under the table and rents a room from a friend so he doesn't have to pay support.  If you think this is a rarity, think again.  Here's some statistics from one site for you, if that matters.



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> It goes to show your state of mind though, in the fact that in your mind, once the child is born, the mother should have to pay for nothing, while the father should have to take care of the money, the insurance, and be tracked 24-7 to boot. Yup totally fair system you have worked out there.


 The mother has to pay for nothing?  Where did I say that?  Do you honestly think that child support payments support chidlren 100%?  Do you think it's enough to feed children and clothe them and provide school supplies and pay for medical bills and dental bills and vision care bills?  Think it's going to pay for their braces?  Midnight trips to the emergency room?

 And do you think payment only comes from your wallet?  This is the most revealing misconception of the responsibility of pregancy and child-rearing yet.  KIDS ARE NOT FOR RENT!!  They are not little animals you can hole up and toss scraps to.  

 Parenting is a tough, thankless, gut-wrenching job if it's done right - and that means more than the $250 per month some non-custodial parents pay in support.


----------



## raedyn (Mar 31, 2005)

Not only men pay child support. My step-mom, for instance, pays child support. And she shares in the parenting responsibilty (the kids move back and forth between mom's house & dad's house).


----------



## ginshun (Mar 31, 2005)

> If the law is going to *force* her to have a child, shouldn't the young man involved be *forced* to be a parent, too?


 Absolutely.


 And I don't know about anyone else, but please don't get the impression that I am bitching about paying child support.  I do it gladly.   And the time with my daughter is split 50-50 between her mother and I.

 But it does get me a bit riled up when people sympathize completely with single mothers.  Saying how they have the worlds toghest job, and totally forget that some single fathers do just as much of the child raising, plus carry the insurace, plus pay the mother quite a bit of money every month, and yet somehow they are still the bad guy.  

 I pesonally think that deadbeat dads are the lowest scum of the earth.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> My answer: women (just like men) can want to control what other people do, and feel that certain things are just evil, no matter what.


Do those two statements equate? If a woman thinks abortion is "evil". Is that always the same as her "wanting to control what other people do"? Does being "pro-life" (god I hate those two terms. like the issue is black and white) always mean you want abortion outlawed? Are no limits acceptable?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Mar 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Do those two statements equate? If a woman thinks abortion is "evil". Is that always the same as her "wanting to control what other people do"? Does being "pro-life" (god I hate those tow terms. like the issue is black and white) always mean you want abortion outlawed? Are no limits acceptable?


Oh no, I think there is a difference between one's own perspective on abortion, and trying to actively legislate your views that will affect other people.

That's where I see the pro-life/pro-choice divide.  I know many women who would not want to have an abortion unless there was a pressing medical reason why they could not have the baby - but they are also strongly politically pro-choice, because they don't want other people telling them (or other women) what their choices can or cannot be.

So no, they're not the same thing - they sometimes get wrapped up in each other, though.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 31, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Well, it sounds like you don't identify with all the non-custodial parents out there who don't pay their child support. And, NO, we don't automatically garnish wages, that must be petitioned for and approved by the judge in each case.


 So I guess I didn't understand what you were saying? I realize it has to go through the court, but if you want to start garnishing wages, it kind of has to. There has to be confirmation. Some woman just can't make a phone call and say to start garnishing this guy wages, he is my kids dad. Is that really what you are suggesting?



> As do I. Really, am I screwed? Hmmm... Disneyland, the Happiest Place on Earth is one employer who refuses to release their employment records to support enforcement. How do I know? My ex works there - and does not pay child support. In fact, he hasn't in ... oh ... 10 years now. Oh, and he HAD a government job - and quit it when I left him. So I have had to provide the insurance, the food, the clothing, the parenting, everything for these children, but ... I'm not screwed? Actually, I'm not screwed - the kids are.


 That sucks. I guess I know that there are guys out there who somehow get out of child support, but I can't believe there is nothing legal that can be done. If not I am sorry. He is a scumbag, I will give you that.



> That would serve the purpose of finding him when he runs and works for cash under the table and rents a room from a friend so he doesn't have to pay support. If you think this is a rarity, think again. Here's some statistics from one site for you, if that matters.


 As long as the mother gets one too, so that she cannot take the child away as long as he lives up to his end of the deal, I don't have a problem with it I guess.



> The mother has to pay for nothing? Where did I say that? Do you honestly think that child support payments support chidlren 100%? Do you think it's enough to feed children and clothe them and provide school supplies and pay for medical bills and dental bills and vision care bills? Think it's going to pay for their braces? Midnight trips to the emergency room?


 I guess you are basing things on your experience, and I am basing them on mine. All that other stuff is split in my case, after my child support is payed. And it is my insurance that pays all those bills. I am sure it can go the other way, which everyone is more than wlecome to acknowlage. And I will grant you that women probably get the short end quite a bit.




> And do you think payment only comes from your wallet? This is the most revealing misconception of the responsibility of pregancy and child-rearing yet. KIDS ARE NOT FOR RENT!! They are not little animals you can hole up and toss scraps to.
> 
> Parenting is a tough, thankless, gut-wrenching job if it's done right - and that means more than the $250 per month some non-custodial parents pay in support.


 You bet it is. And even when the father does just as much of the work, and pays for most of the bills, he doesn't get as much credit for it as the co-custodial mother.  Not that seeing my child turn out good isn't payment enough, but it gets sickening to constently here how hard it is for single mothers, and nobody even thinks about single fathers who (OH MY GOD) actually take interest and do a good job with there kids.  As if it is unheard of or something.




> Not only men pay child support. My step-mom, for instance, pays child support. And she shares in the parenting responsibilty (the kids move back and forth between mom's house & dad's house).


 granted. In joint custody cases it is based on how muc each parent has the kids and how much each of them makes, not just the generic 17% of oneparent having sole legal custody.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 31, 2005)

OK, back to the topic then......


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 31, 2005)

*Some Thoughts:*

I wonder why no one has mentioned...

An abortion is a medical proceedure.

If a Minor needs a medical proceedure of any other nature, a parent must provide consent.

Why is an abortion different? 
---------------------------------

Also, I dont understand the arguements about "the boy"

Requiring a parents consent for a girl to have an abortion is TOTALY different than saying a boy should have a forced Vasectomy or Hormone injections to keep him from puberty.

How?  One requires permission of a Legal Guardian to do somthing, the other physically affects a person with NO ONES consent, his or his guardian.

My opinion is that It would be closer to the same issue to say an underage Boy needs a parents consent to have his testicles snipped.  

An abortion or a vasectomy are both medical proceedures to prevent a person from having an unwanted child.
------------------------------------

Of course the boy should be responsible.  Its assinine to say otherwise.  He was just as responsible for what they did as the girl.  

I am amused by the weird double standard involved with this argument however, that on one hand "It takes two to tango" and "he has a responsibility"

But its not his Body so he doesnt have a say. 

Hmm.

<shrug>

------------------------------------

Now, my personal opinion?

Abortion is none of my buisness. *BUT*, If I got a girl pregnant and she chose to have an abortion, I would hope that she would talk it over with me... and the same would go for my child.  If I had a daughter who got pregnant, I would hope to hell she would talk to me about it, before going in for a proceedure.  

Why?

Because, it has been my experience that these things are often emotional issues, and I would hate for my Girl, or my child, to have to deal with it alone... I would want to be able to be there for them, if they needed me.

Just some random thoughts after reading this thread


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

Well...we did mention the medical proceedure/abortion issue way up thread. Nobody really addressed it though.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 31, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well...we did mention the medical proceedure/abortion issue way up thread. Nobody really addressed it though.


Right.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Mar 31, 2005)

I'll make a decision about abortion when "I" get pregnant.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 31, 2005)

1. How do I explain, "pro-life," women? a) I remember that some women plain and simple have moral objections to abortion, and my belief that they should be free to make their own choices and teach what they believe to be right; b) I consider the account of Freud's concept of, "reaction formation," as adapted in to the conceptualization of black self-hatred under colonialism in, "Black Skin, White Masks;": c) I reflect upon the fact that Phyllis Schafly is visibly crazy, a female hysteric of Nancy Reagan proportions.

 2. To borrow from Joanna Russ (all martial artists should read, "Alyx," "The Female Man," and, "How To Suppress Women's Writing," the latter of which--nice bit of irony!--was during the 1980s the only one of Russ' many books actually in print), how nice to be an expert on things that never actually happened, when the fact is that there is an epidemic of older men getting girls pregnant, of men beating women, of men ducking out on their kids in this country. Women do call and make these complaints, you know. And they get ignored, or shuffled off by a power structure that's so busy waving its **** around the planet that it has no time for such minor issues.

 3. if you demand that everybody follow YOUR rules about sex, about contraception, about abortion, and then you stick women and kids with the consequences of your demands, what would you call this?

 4. Gary Is Right.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 31, 2005)

Well, that was informative.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

When it comes to abortion its a whole new set of rules apparently. Is abortion an "all or nothing" issue? If you oppose some issues are you cast into the "pro-life" camp??


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

As a man I refuse to be scared off the issue by the whole "youre a man, youre not entitled to an opinion" thing. Part of the issue involves human life (and the debate over when it starts, when its "viable" etc. we all went around that issue on another thread...), male and female. So we are all entitled to an "opinion". Just because I may say "youre wrong" is miles from blocking a clinic or spitting on people going into one.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 31, 2005)

Oh, my goodness no. You're a man--you're certainly entitled to an opinion. And you're entitled to have that opinion explained as the thin veneer over patriarchy it is. Just as women are--inasmuch as so many of these threads rely upon the presumption of investigating women's irresponsibility as the sine qua non of the Decline and Fall of Western Civ.

Or, you might try reading the books mentioned before being so all-fired certain that they're beyond you.

Gotta go--got some new Eastwood movies to watch.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 31, 2005)

Having read many myself (believe it or not), most books on social/political issues are just somebody elses "opinions". Better written and published. I would bet somebody (who cared to) could throw counter books and authors right back at you. Why dont YOU just argue their points as you have obviously read them all? Save the whole "do your own research and come back to me" schitck for the university. Been there, heard that, have the diploma. Read some Ann Coulter and get back to me later......


----------



## Melissa426 (Apr 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Read some Ann Coulter and get back to me later......


1. Tgace, As much as I respect you, that would be more punishment than one stringently left-leaning liberal like McRobertson could bear.
2. He might stroke out, and then MT's study room would suffer an immeasurable loss.
3.  If some believe that allowing 13 y.o.'s to have abortions without their parents consent is supporting women's rights, I appreciate their efforts, however misguided.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Ray (Apr 1, 2005)

I don't recall ever hearing either side in an abortion debate state that abortion was a desirable, good thing.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 1, 2005)

1. Still not a liberal. And don't confuse real argument with unbalanced emotion.

2. Ah yes, Ann Coulter. a) talk about the survival of classical conversion neurosis in contemporary public behavior! not since Camille Paglia...; b) by all means, rely on Ann Coulter for the shape of your arguments and the sources of your "facts." Talk about bringing a scout's penknife to a gunfight....

3. I see it remains a lot easier to reject arguments as "irrelevant," or "digressive," (odd, since digressing into guy stuff like food and beer is so often part of these threads), or to claim that one is being victimized by those CRUEL, America-HATING, man-eating lesbian feminists than it is to actually deal with the discussion.

4. Who exactly was it who argued that 13-year-olds having abortions was a Good Thing? And who argued that it was a Good Thing to have kids running around behind their parents' backs?


----------



## Ray (Apr 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 4. Who exactly was it who argued that 13-year-olds having abortions was a Good Thing? And who argued that it was a Good Thing to have kids running around behind their parents' backs?


Awesome point


----------



## Tgace (Apr 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. Ah yes, Ann Coulter. a) talk about the survival of classical conversion neurosis in contemporary public behavior! not since Camille Paglia...; b) by all means, rely on Ann Coulter for the shape of your arguments and the sources of your "facts." Talk about bringing a scout's penknife to a gunfight....


Uhhh..that was kinda my point. Any knucklehead can write a book. Throwing out "read this book and get back to me" as a debate tactic is kinda silly....


----------



## ginshun (Apr 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson, 

  Nobody ever admits to being a liberal.  Its funny, even liberals think that being called a liberal is an insult.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Apr 1, 2005)

1) Even though I'm pro-choice, I don't think there's necessarily anything intellectually inconsistent with the pro-life position even for people who are not religious.  Clearly many people who are pro-life are religious, and patriarchal and dominant, as Robert as suggested; however, some people simply see human life as beginning at gestation, and the process of abortion as murder.  It's an intellectually consistent position, and many of the extreme acts, up to and including terrorism, that people take to oppose it, are as well (even if I don't happen to agree with them).

 2) Many of us "liberals" are quite proud of the term, actually (as well as of other terms people use as insults, like "socialist").  You see, liberals fought for things that all of us take for granted like time off, and safe food and water and air and medicine, and the end of child labor, and the vote for women, and civil rights for everyone in America, and the end of unjust wars, and continue to struggle everyday for these sorts of things in the face of incalculable pressures.

 Some people simply don't find the label accurate (like, I imagine, Robert); let that be for them to declare.  Others, like so many in the Democrat party, find it inconvenient to tie themselves to a doctrine that has successfully been pigeonholed by the propaganda of the right; this is another example of how poorly led and genuinely useless the Democratic party has become.

 In the end, however, people's reluctance toward the term "liberal" simply shows how other individuals throw the term around as a perjorative instead of simply debating the merits of a topic.


----------



## Ray (Apr 1, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> 1)2)You see, liberals fought for things that all of us take for granted like time off, and safe food and water and air and medicine, and the end of child labor, and the vote for women, and civil rights for everyone in America, and the end of unjust wars, and continue to struggle everyday for these sorts of things in the face of incalculable pressures.


Oy.  Now who can argue with that?  No wait, who can believe that?

Liberals don't fight, they make speeches about injustices while the rest of us fight.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 1, 2005)

You see, all the conservative arguing points are parrotted from Anne Coulter, Rush and Savage. All the stuff that liberals say, well, they all came up with it on their own, didn't ya know?
It was like a global "awakening" - and they all saw the truth together, somehow without the conservatives. But don' y'all go say'n they copy each otha.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 1, 2005)

1. Please read up on what liberals are. I recommend, say, Daniel Bell--but in any case I am not a "liberal," in any strict sense, which traces back to 19th-century England. I am "liberal,' only in the sense that I think snoopy next-door neighbors and the government have no business dictating how (in this case) sex and marriage are handled, and that I think ideas and books are a Good Thing. No doubt you disagree with all this madness.

2. If you'll espouse some ideas different from Coulter, Savage et al, I promise to start believing that your ideas come from some other sources. Yes, I'm sure that you'll respond by claiming that my ideas come from {insert names of supposed "liberals here}--alas, you are wrong. My ideas tend to come from writers like Marx, Freud, Laura Mulvey, Joanna Russ, Raymond Williams, E.P. Thompson, James Baldwin, etc., and none of these people are liberals in any strict sense.

3. The liberals you are decrying there, M&M, often actually have ideas. They got them from hard work studying, from reading, from research, from real life, from looking at facts. Please, tell us ALL ABOUT Savage, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., and their extensive scholarly work. Oh my, yes, their scholarly use of research and fact, their remarkable (I think that's fair--it's certainly remarkable) and careful investigations of reality! C'est bon!! Oh wait---actually, all these people are entertainers, with very little training in the disciplines they claim to know so much about (one would think martial artists would have a little respect at least for how hard it is to actually acquire genuine knowledge, but wotthell), with virtually no facts to support them, and with teams of hired flunkies to do their study (such as it is) for them. Or perhaps you should go read intellectual luminaries like Edward Teller (Star Wars works!), or Geo. Gilder (whites are comitting Sexual Suicide! feminists are responsible for the takeover of America by Colored People!!), or Dinesh d'Souza (what could be funnier than running a photo and article commemorating Hitler in the "Dartmouth Review," on King's Birthday?) Fer crissake, at least go read Buckley or go back to Jackson Bate and Gertrude Himmelfarb! At least they had actual educations!!

3. Kids, the reason those pesky liberals and unions keep getting brought up on this thread--they're the ones who fought for reproductive rights, for decent medical care and pensions and work-weeks for families, for the kinds of basic rights that folks today take for granted.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> If you'll espouse some ideas different from Coulter, Savage et al, I promise to start believing that your ideas come from some other sources.


So if you happen to agree with somebody on a few issues you are with them lock stock and barrel?

:idunno: 

I even agree with you on some issues....God help me I guess.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 1, 2005)

1. Didn't you tell us that you never paid any attention to them?

2. It isn't a point or two of agreement. It's the almost-verbatim repetition of their claims, and the refusal to look at the other sides--of which there are several.

3. Knowldege is democratic. You only have to read.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 1, 2005)

While I have seen a few "Rushlike" statements from a few posters around here, by and large most of the more "conservative" posters here seem fairly tolerant and reasonable. It just seems like "some" people enjoy lumping any opposing views into the "right" side of the aisle..but I digress.

Sorry for the thread gank.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Didn't you tell us that you never paid any attention to them?
> 
> 2. It isn't a point or two of agreement. It's the almost-verbatim repetition of their claims, and the refusal to look at the other sides--of which there are several.
> 
> 3. Knowldege is democratic. You only have to read.


1. Well as I have only listened to Rush a handful of times and never really listened to the rest. (I dont have cable). I guess I dont. Apparently I do share some of their viewpoints as you always seem to point it out.

2. Hmmm thats seems to be a two-way street......

3. I do but apparently nothing you like.....


----------



## ginshun (Apr 1, 2005)

Please point out where I regergitated the viewpoints of Coulter, Limbaugh or Savage in this thread.

 Just because I don't think 13 year olds should have to tell their parents to get an abortion doesn't exactly make me a right wing kook.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 1, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> rmcrobertson,
> 
> Nobody ever admits to being a liberal. Its funny, even liberals think that being called a liberal is an insult.


 
Check my posts ... I gladly and proudly admin to being a liberal.


Liberal = We're all in this together.

Conservative = Hurray for me, and to hell with everyone else.
​Michael Edward Atkinson


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Apr 1, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> 2) Many of us "liberals" are quite proud of the term, actually (as well as of other terms people use as insults, like "socialist"). You see, liberals fought for things that all of us take for granted like time off, and safe food and water and air and medicine, and the end of child labor, and the vote for women, and civil rights for everyone in America, and the end of unjust wars, and continue to struggle everyday for these sorts of things in the face of incalculable pressures.


huz-ZAH!


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 1, 2005)

Liberal = We're all in this together. As long as you belive like us.  Othewise you are a stupid uneducated parrot, and we know whats best for you because we are better. 

 Conservative = Hurray for me, and to hell with everyone else, unless you are also a Conservative in wich case you must support our ideas and opinions anyhow, so Hooray for me and those of you who think like me.

 Left/Right... its all the same ****, just a different side, and a belief that you are better because of the side you are on.

 You are all damning this country, because you are more interested in making others think like you, than working together to make decisions that make sense and will be a genuine benefit.

 And before the Liberals jump in with "But thats what we are doing" It seems that you are so blinded by the cause for the "downtroden" that you dont care about whats right, only how you can spin it so a "minority" becomes championed against the evils of white Middleclass christian males... such as the topic of this thread.  "But she's a woman, your a man, your opinion isnt valid"  "But only a christian wouldnt want an abortion" *Wah wah.* 

*Both sides* make me wanna puke my coco puffs right up.

 And damn I am fuming now.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Apr 1, 2005)

Wow.

Well, I think both "sides" would say that each *does* care what is right - they are just addressing different issues - sometimes legal, sometimes moral or ethical.  
No-one has to be "all one way or the other".  Most folks aren't all one way or the other.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 1, 2005)

1. Please illustrate points at which your ideas are significantly different from Limbaugh, Coulter, et al--who, by the way, are the opposite of intellectuals.

2. There are only two sides to politics, with the truly decent and reasonable man in the middle? Well, that's nonsense. But it is a traditional position from which to deny one's own ideology.

3. Listen up: NOT A LIBERAL, except in the very general sense that I think government is there to help out, to police, and to leave the hell alone. Am something resembling a social democratic lesbian feminist green who likes Gary Snyder, Adrienne Rich, Ted Hughes/Adrienne Rich, Billy what's-'is-name and Milton as poets, E.P. Thompson and T.J. Clarke and Greil Marcus and Mary Ann Doane and Barbara Johnson as critics. 

4. Good luck shoehorning THAT hodge-podge into the "liberal," thermos, as much as Rush and Savage and Coulter insist that anybody who reads books, has a brain, says Afghanistan necessary/Iraq frickin' stupid, doesn't think that this country would look best with a strip mall, a Taco Bell and an oil derrick every five feet, believes that money and capitalism are NOT the proper study of man, and is pretty damn sure that men oughta stay the hell out of women's right to choose, must be a liberal.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 1, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Liberal = We're all in this together. As long as you belive like us. Othewise you are a stupid uneducated parrot, and we know whats best for you because we are better.


 
Not exactly, Mr. Punk sir, Not Exactly.

I have no doubt that there are good people from the 'Conservative' point of view who take principled stands on many issues. But many from the Conservative point of view want to push their beliefs on me ... see the "What's wrong with the 10 commandments" thread. 

I am not trying to convert anyone to an athiest, but many are trying to make me follow *their* 10 Commandments (often, apparently, without even being aware of *what* the actual commandments are).

I am not trying to make anyone who is opposed to abortion have one. Yet, many opposed to abortion are trying to prevent those with dissimilar beliefs from the proceedure.

I am trying to ensure that all members of the community have an opportunity to share in the benefits that community can bring. Others seem to want to structure society so the deck is stacked in their favor, whether through tax policies, education policies or the current social security discussion (there is nothing 'secure' in a 'social' contract based on the stock market).

Look at this thread ... and position it against the 'Conservative' point of view concerning 'courts', 'trial lawyers', and 'activist judges'. Much as on the Shiavo thread, the courts, the judges, and the law, follow what appear to be the 'Conservative' point of view ... and yet the 'Conservatives' seem to be railing against those actions. Measure this against the 'Academic Freedom' thread, where uneducated students are supposed to be protected from the view points of their educated teachers. It is not hyperbolic to describe these actions as beyond hypocritical.

Maybe, when liberals were in the majority, they too acted contrary to their own opinions. But what has gone on over the past two or three months has been true 'Entertainment'; about to upstage Ringling Brothers as the greatest show on earth. 

If I wasn't crying so much, I would be laughing my *** off. 

Michael


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 1, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Please illustrate points at which your ideas are significantly different from Limbaugh, Coulter, et al--who, by the way, are the opposite of intellectuals.


  There ya go again "Squak Squak, Parroting Rush, Squak Squak, Parroting Anne... They are all stupid"

  Your Pseudo intelectuall claptrap is getting old... Do you evre have a point??? 

  yay you can name authors and poets... you amaze us all Robert.  OOH Robert read a book!  

 Now if only you could stop trying to impress everyone with your name dropping maybe you could express a coherant idea that isnt "You should read "blah blah" Rush is an idiot and so are you" maybe I could take you seriously... nah... I dont think thats possible... you are, and will continue to be the biggest joke on the board, Frasier Crane.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 1, 2005)

And for a minute I thought it was just me.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Apr 1, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Link to story
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Parents can be psychotic, hardcore christian ones doubly so.. There would be parents forcing their children to give birth just to punish them (such cases do exest IRL). Another child born without a father and into a family that embraces hate is not what the world needs.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 1, 2005)

If this is the case, thats what judicial bypass and social services are for.

Setting policy because some parents "may be psychotic hardcore christians" isnt the way we do things. Where else do we not tell parents what their children are doing because they MAY get abused? I have to notify parents of what their children do all the time. Maybe doing so resulted in their being beaten/abused at home, I dont know, but thats doesn't change my duty to tell them, unless I have evidence that that is indeed going to happen...if thats so then the parents should be reported and charged. Thats the way the system is.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Apr 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If this is the case, thats what judicial bypass and social services are for.
> 
> Setting policy because some parents "may be psychotic hardcore christians" is stupid. Where else do we not tell parents what their children are doing because they MAY get abused? I have to notify parents of what their children do all the time. Maybe doing so resulted in their being beaten/abused at home, I dont know, but thats doesn't change my duty to tell them, unless I have evidence that that is indeed going to happen...if thats so then the parents should be reported and charged. Thats the way the system is.


Not may be, will be.  It's a serious issue involving their bodies and reality demands that government mandates their control over their bodies when it comes to legal, non-damaging things.  Parents have this notion that children are their property and that is not so.  You're speaking to someone who grew up with a single mother with munchausen bi-proxy.. I know the need to protect children from parents and from christianity's sick dogmas and legacy of hate.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 1, 2005)

Still dosent change the fact that we do not make or change law because of what "may" happen. Thats assuming guilt before making law. Its wrong.

Similar to saying we should just arrest any (race) we find near a crime scene..because we know that all (race) are criminals.....


----------



## Shaolinwind (Apr 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Still dosent change the fact that we do not make or change law because of what "may" happen. Thats assuming guilt before making law. Its wrong.


Oh so you don't believe in preventative legislation at all then?  Think about that for a second.  Are you the type who likes to act only after people are hurt?  Or when you see a situation that people are HIGHLY likely to be hurt do you do something to assure safety?


----------



## Shaolinwind (Apr 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Similar to saying we should just arrest any (race) we find near a crime scene..because we know that all (race) are criminals.....


No it's nothing like that.  You won't be able to come up with a legitimate metaphor for a unique issue like this.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 1, 2005)

So are we to assume ALL parents are religious wackos, therefore we should tell no parents that their kid wants an abortion????

If thats the case should I tell a parent when their kid gets arrested? Perhaps that parent may "flip out" and kill the kid.......


----------



## Shaolinwind (Apr 1, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So we are to ASSUME ALL parents are religious wackos therefore we should tell no parents that their kid wants an abortion????
> 
> If thats the case should I tell a parent when their kid gets arrested? Perhaps that parent may "flip out" and kill the kid.......


If you are simply going to take everything I say out of context, I am finished conversing with you.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 1, 2005)

Chobaja said:
			
		

> Oh so you don't believe in preventative legislation at all then? Think about that for a second. Are you the type who likes to act only after people are hurt? Or when you see a situation that people are HIGHLY likely to be hurt do you do something to assure safety?


If you are going to circumvent a parents legal responsibility, it should be done through a legal channel... the court. If not the court, a Social Worker/Physician should evaluate the case and authorize the procedure. After which that worker should file a legal report to CPS or a similar body......


----------



## Tgace (Apr 1, 2005)

Chobaja said:
			
		

> If you are simply going to take everything I say out of context, I am finished conversing with you.


How is it out of context? You stated we cant tell a parent their child is having an abortion because that parent MAY be a religious nut that would force her to have the baby.....Im saying we shouldnt circumvent a parents responsibility for their child without legal process or evidence that that parent is unfit to be told.


----------



## Adept (Apr 2, 2005)

*dons flame retardant suit and wades into thread*

 If I understand it correctly (and please, correct me if I am wrong) the stance of some is that parents should be notified before a young girl is allowed to have an abortion.

 Again, if I understand it correctly, this is because the parents should have the final say in the matter because it is assumed the girl is too young to make an informed decision.

 The reason I am opposed to this idea is because I do not believe it is the parents place to make that decision for their child, no matter what stage her mental development is at. The parents should not be able to force the child to have a child if the child does not truly want it, nor should they force the child to have an abortion if it is medically sound not to do so.

 Families are unpredictable, loose organisations that often lack the facilities to be objective, caring and supportive.

 I propose a compromise. Lets create an independant third party, in the form of an advisory/medical/counselling board. A girl under 16 would be required to attend said board and be informed as well as possible about the outcomes of her decision. This provides the same role as the family (guidance and support) and (hopefully) eliminates the bias involved in the family.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

I dont fully agree, I think some sort of evidence should be presented before overriding the responsibility of the parents...but your plan is a sound and reasonable suggestion too.

:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. *There are only two sides to politics, with the truly decent and reasonable man in the middle? Well, that's nonsense. But it is a traditional position from which to deny one's own ideology.*


But almost everybody who contradicts you is a Rush/Savage/Hannity'ite?

 :idunno:


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 2, 2005)

Well, I think (and yes this is similar to TGace's comments) that denying a parent their parental rights and responsibilities to their minor child on the basis that they MIGHT deny the child an abortion would be like, oh I dunno,  rounding all of the middle easerners up and tossing them in, say cuba, becuase they MIGHT be terrorists.

 One is right, the other is wrong? :idunno:

 I would have to wonder, also, how many of those abortions by the underage children are to hide the fact that they are sexualy active from their parents?  Can anyone find statistics on this?

 On top of that... if a parent fails in their responsibility to their minor child, and say, neglects to get them medical treatment, DCFS tends to step in and the parents are held responsible... but now we are saying "let the minor child make her own decisions regarding this" and we are creating a double standard... we are also _assuming _that a minor child will be responsible enough to make this decision on her own, but, was she responsible enough when it came to sex not to get pregnant?  Or to make the choice NOT to have sex? 

 I really feel, if we are going to decide that a _child_ has the right to decide what to do with their body... it should be an all or nothing proposal.  Drop the laws regulating Drinking and Smoking ages, Drop the laws regarding drug use, drop the laws against Child Pornography, Drop the Statutory rape laws, drop the laws reglating the age for Tattooing and Body piercing...

 Those things all only affect the minor, right?  And they _are_ responsible enough to decide for themselves...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 2, 2005)

1. I just LOVE intellectual discussion, from people who in no way adopt both the ideas and the tone of Savage et al. Why, they're independent thinkers--it's just a complete, utter accident that they a) distort what they read, b) force everything into liberal evil thoughts from Satan vs. Decency and Conservatism, c) so frequently fall back on insult because they haven't got the goods to argue with, d) try to claim that their position is neutral, unbiased, common sense under attack. Good thing this never, ever happens on Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage et al...

2. Points that keep getting sluffed off: a) the whole court case is part of an explicit, deliberate attack on abortion rights in general, using "protecting kids," as an excuse; b) these are the clowns who've been attacking women's clinics, sex ed programs, services for women and kids (including Head Start)  for two decades now; c) this is one more case of men wanting to use State power to keep control of, "their," women; d) the amount of heat this has generated underscores that point. 

3. Oh. Nobody said nobody else didn't read books. I said the books you're reading aren't very good.


----------



## Melissa426 (Apr 2, 2005)

Chobaja said:
			
		

> Not may be, will be. It's a serious issue involving their bodies and reality demands that government mandates their control over their bodies when it comes to legal, non-damaging things. Parents have this notion that children are their property and that is not so. You're speaking to someone who grew up with a single mother with munchausen bi-proxy.. I know the need to protect children from parents and from christianity's sick dogmas and legacy of hate.


I am truly sorry you grew up in a home with a seriously psychiatrically ill woman.
Munchausen's by proxy is an illness, and has no relationship to Christianity.Your mother could just have well been a fanatical Muslim and she still would have had her illness.   

Your reality may demand governmental intervention, but not mine.
You argue that because some children have bad parents, all children should be entitled to made medical decisions. 
My analogy is this (and others have made it):  Because some parents don't lock up their gun cabinets, no parent should be allowed to have guns in the house in case a child decides to go on a shooting spree.  Because some parents don't monitor their child's internet usage, no household with kids are allowed internet access.

I don't follow the logic here.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Melissa426 (Apr 2, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. Oh. Nobody said nobody else didn't read books. I said the books you're reading aren't very good.


Thank you for your input. 

Melissa


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

Oh yeah...my point here on this thread is just the same as Rush would make.:shrug:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Apr 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So are we to assume ALL parents are religious wackos, therefore we should tell no parents that their kid wants an abortion????
> 
> If thats the case should I tell a parent when their kid gets arrested? Perhaps that parent may "flip out" and kill the kid.......


OK.

Things are getting pretty crazy-heated in here (and I'm not referring to you, tgace - I just wanted to use your comment as a springboard).

First of all, I can understand why parents want to know - and have a right to know - about what their kids are doing, what is happening with them, especially medically.  All the parents out there who care about their kids will want this very much.

Controlling one's own reproductive abilities and future are affected by - and affect - one's family.  But these kinds of control are based, eventually, on each individual.  Particularly in the case that this discussion has come from, the young woman *could not* reach her parents for their consent/approval.  Are we then going to limit what can be done when, in cases like abortion (or other procedures) that are very time-sensitive?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

Well, from my stance thats where the court or social services step in. Or the doctor goes ahead with the procedure due to pressing medical need. As he would with any other procedure.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Apr 2, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well, from my stance thats where the court or social services step in. Or the doctor goes ahead with the procedure due to pressing medical need. As he would with any other procedure.


But in this case, it is time-sensitive, but may not be considered "pressing medical need" if the girl's wishes, apart from her parents', are considered to be invalid.  If she cannot OK an abortion for herself without their approval, a doctor may decide that she will be just fine as a young mother - since this is such an emotional issue.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

Then a social worker at the hospital can evaluate the case and make a decision. I dont know of any pressing need that a doctor wouldnt have to act immediately on.

In a nutshell. You make adaptations for special circumstances. You dont think up special circumstances then set policy because of them.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 2, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> But in this case, it is time-sensitive, but may not be considered "pressing medical need" if the girl's wishes, apart from her parents', are considered to be invalid. If she cannot OK an abortion for herself without their approval, a doctor may decide that she will be just fine as a young mother - since this is such an emotional issue.


I would think that the doctor would explain his decision as legal compliance and the parental consent issue and not his judgement of who is going to be fine as a mother.

Here is a wrench in the cogs of the discussion:  Most abortions are within the first trimester (i believe)  what are realistic options for a girl that hides a pregnancy beyond that trimester, with or without parental invovlement:  Adoption, raising it, ... is there still abortive options if she or the parents decide it is what they want?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Apr 2, 2005)

Well, just logistically speaking, it is very hard for a woman who wants an abortion in the 2nd trimester to *find* one - few places offer it, because of local political pressures.  Usually one has to go to a large metropoolitan area, which is not always possible financially, esp. for younng girls.

So, legally, she should be able to obtain a second-trimester abortion, but logistically speaking, it is very difficult - she'd probably have to have parents or other adult help to get to the clinic or hospital for the procedure.  

Example: A friend of mine here in town was approached by a couple of international students - one of them was pregnant, had wanted to keep the baby initially (hoped things would work out with boyfriend), but that went *very badly*, she had no $, basically, and chose to have an abortion.  She ended up having to rent a car and drive 6-7 hours, into another state, to find a hospital that would perform the procedure, because she was just over the line into the second trimester.


----------



## Shaolinwind (Apr 2, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> I am truly sorry you grew up in a home with a seriously psychiatrically ill woman.
> Munchausen's by proxy is an illness, and has no relationship to Christianity.Your mother could just have well been a fanatical Muslim and she still would have had her illness.
> 
> Your reality may demand governmental intervention, but not mine.
> ...


That's only a part of the reasoning, not the only reasoning and certainly not invalid reasoning. 

Here's another expample of my "keep your hands of your kids bodies" opinions. There are people who don't believe in going to the hospital at all. So do you think they should be allowed to keep their kids from medical treatment if they need to get their tonsils taken out? No. There are LAWS against that. It's a small group of sickos and there is legislation to deal with them.

The general sentiment here seems to be that since there is a supposedly small percentage of children who need protection from fanatically religeous, abusive, or plain crazy parents, they simply aren't entitled to protection.

Furthermore, since the child is already having pre-marital sex it's obvious they haven't been guided properly, haven't been taught how to make appropriate life choices, and are largely unsupervised. So I question the integrity and parenting skills of the parents of a pregnant daughter. They are already falling down on the job, and now they want to curse their child with an albatross around their neck?

Let's turn it around.. Under what circumstances do you think a child should be forced to give birth? What really makes you think children under 18 shouldn't be intelligent enough to choose to abort? And yes, if they choose to abort that would be intelligence. Children are extremely susceptable to the effects of hormones. As you know when you get pregnant maternal hormones kick in and instincts make most people want to keep their baby. To decide to abort is a very lucid decision. 

I would like to mention that though young people are able to get pregnant, they aren't necessarily ready to give birth? Girls still in the early stages of puberty have very difficult and dangerous labors. A parent that would have their daughter endure such risk is deranged. 

Let's not forget that congress agrees with me.

I don't think anyone can give 1 good answer as to why a child should be forced to give birth. And if you think "you make your bed you sleep in it" then you are who I believe they need to be protected from.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

I dont believe anybody is saying the "small percentage" isnt worthy of protection. What some of us are saying is that you make exceptions or provide alternatives for the "small percentage" you dont make policy for them.

And while congress does agree with you, remember that the majority of states do indeed require at least one parents permission or a judicial override.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 2, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. I just LOVE intellectual discussion, from people who in no way adopt both the ideas and the tone of Savage et al. Why, they're independent thinkers--it's just a complete, utter accident that they a) distort what they read, b) force everything into liberal evil thoughts from Satan vs. Decency and Conservatism, c) so frequently fall back on insult because they haven't got the goods to argue with, d) try to claim that their position is neutral, unbiased, common sense under attack. Good thing this never, ever happens on Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage et al...


For the record, Frasier, you can compare me with those people all you want, but 1) I dont have ANY clue who Savage is, 2)I have in the past stated what a moron Rush is, and 3) while I am aware of who Hannity is, Ive never listened to him speak. So if my Ideas are "just like theirs" I dunno what to tell you... Maybe you just like to keep parroting the war cry "you sound like blah blah" because you have no idea what you are actually talking about.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. Points that keep getting sluffed off: a) the whole court case is part of an explicit, deliberate attack on abortion rights in general, using "protecting kids," as an excuse; b) these are the clowns who've been attacking women's clinics, sex ed programs, services for women and kids (including Head Start) for two decades now; c) this is one more case of men wanting to use State power to keep control of, "their," women; d) the amount of heat this has generated underscores that point.


Points that keep getting Sluffed off:

Parents are responsible for thier minor children. Period. Can you honestly argue they are not, without sounding any dumber?




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. Oh. Nobody said nobody else didn't read books. I said the books you're reading aren't very good


Do us a favor, Fraiser... make us a list of approved reading material. We can burn the rest, since you seem to know what reading material is best for us.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I really feel, if we are going to decide that a _child_ has the right to decide what to do with their body... it should be an all or nothing proposal. Drop the laws regulating Drinking and Smoking ages, Drop the laws regarding drug use, drop the laws against Child Pornography, Drop the Statutory rape laws, drop the laws reglating the age for Tattooing and Body piercing...


Good point. My issue too has been the lack of consistancy. Due IMO more to the whole "political atmosphere" surrounding abortion (if you disagree with any abortion issue you must be "pro-life" thing..) than any consistant legal precedent regarding the parent/child relationship.


----------



## Melissa426 (Apr 2, 2005)

Chobaja said:
			
		

> Furthermore, since the child is already having pre-marital sex it's obvious they haven't been guided properly, haven't been taught how to make appropriate life choices, and are largely unsupervised. So I question the integrity and parenting skills of the parents of a pregnant daughter.
> 
> Let's turn it around.. Under what circumstances do you think a child should be forced to give birth? What really makes you think children under 18 shouldn't be intelligent enough to choose to abort? And yes, if they choose to abort that would be intelligence. To decide to abort is a very lucid decision.
> 
> ...


a. If your child has pre-marital sex, it does not necessarily make you a bad parent. Unless, however, you consider 50-70% of the parents of high school seniors to be "bad" parents, cause that is what percentage of those children are or have been sexually active. Who are we to judge unless you know those families personally .

b. "my boyfriend will break up with me if I don't have an abortion"
" I don't want to get fat."
" I'll get kicked off the cheerleading squad."
....wonderful, lucid, intelligent reasons that a 15 y.o. might have for getting an abortion. 
Suppose she says "I want an abortion because I was raped by the man next door, but I don't want to tell anyone cause he said if I did, he would kill me. " Is your answer, go ahead, give her the abortion, but don't tell her parents? Let her continue to live next door to the man who assaulted her? I know this may seem far-fetched, but these are real scenarios.

c. Deranged? You have got to be kidding. So If a 13 y.o. decides NOT to have an abortion, her parents ought to make her, otherwise they would be deranged? By the way, I work in healthcare, have personally taken care of pregnant 12 - 14 y.o.s, and they have had normal pregnancies and deliveries. 

d. No one is saying a child should be forced to give birth. We are saying that parents ought to have a say so in the decision to have an abortion, cause that is what good parents should do, be responsible the well being of their children.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 2, 2005)

1. Ooooh! "Frasier!" That was just a....a...good one! And one that in no way borrows from mass media. 

2. Hey, wait a minute.

3. I don't suppose that it's occured to a couple of you guys that turning everything into belligerent attacks on other GUYS is more than a little symptomatic on a thread discussing whether or not the law should be stepping into sex, reproduction and GIRLS?

4. Sorry to tick you off, Melissa. Genuinely.

5. Among the "irrelevant," issues that some try to suppress: a) why the government should be stepping in to decide on sex, pregnancy and abortion at all; b) why nobody seems interested in pushing law at boys, let alone the  large number of men over 18 who are responsible for underage pregnancies; c) why we can only have laws that intrude into women's bodies, but never, somehow, into men's; d) why it doesn't seem to matter that the guys pushing this issue in the media are explicit in saying that they're only doing this to get rid of Roe v. Wade altogether; e) why there's no problem with a President who's a loudmouth on, say, abortion, but silent about violence against women, and eager to spend 1 trillion on a tax cut for his buddies, 2 trillion plus for the, "Future Army," jesus knows what on Star Wars III--but oh my god, we gotta cut Head Start and every other program for women and kids because There's A Budget Crisis.

6. The fundamental justification for objecting to underage abortion remains a religious one: some people believe that human life begins at contraception, when the soul enters into the dividing egg. Otherwise, who cares?

7. This is STILL really all about men panicking over control of the wimmins.


----------



## Flatlander (Apr 2, 2005)

=================================================
_*Final Moderator Warning*._ 
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile).

This thread has gotten way too hot.  Cool it off *now*.  Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
=================================================


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 3, 2005)

*Moderator Note:

 Thread locked pending Admin. Review

 Georgia Ketchmark
 MartialTalk
 Sr. Moderator*


----------

