Do you agree with this statement?

[detlef]

You know many disorders that require an abortion to save the mom's life? My kid's surgeon doesn't know of any, but hey, I mean its not like he is a pediatric surgeon or anything.

Tell me that's not how you read this. The point is simply that making abortions illegal means that people will be doing them themselves, thereby risking their life. Don't be an idiot.

[cre8tiff]

yo momma is gifted at the internets...

Here, the country of liberty and freedom, the supposed good guys (don't ask bear fatty, to him we're the worst country in the universe)... you pro abortion people always bring up this back alley, coat hanger straw man.

 

Today, as we speak... another country has a 'back alley' syndrome.... it's china, there, they have back alley births, in an attempt to subjugate the law of one child per family. Isn't that ironic? One country fights for life.... but people like you? What is it you are fighting for?

So a woman can walk into a clinic and demand to have her breasts removed and a penis sewn into her vagina all before the sun sets? I don't think so.

I don't agree with this either, but I can see it is an easy crutch for someone who has no other means to endorse infanticide.

 

 

1) History shows the back-alley hanger "straw man" is a very real and documented possibility.

 

2) China's governement has put mandates and restrictions on the reproductive process, taking people's choice away from them. Thanks for helping our argument.

 

3) I assume you have done a lot more research on sex change operations than I have, so I will pray you can get an instant one someday.

 

4) Separation of church and state is a corner stone of this country's existance. Why do you hate America?

Edited May 9, 2007 by cre8tiff

[Caveman_Nick]

Sure, children typically are rebellious. But when the chips are down, they either love and trust you, or they don't. If they do, they'll come to you for help regarless of any law. If they don't, they won't, and parental notification laws won't change that. Those kinds of laws amount to little more than shutting the barn door after the horse got out: they don't stop kids from getting a pregnant.

 

 

While that may be the case, minors need parental consent for pretty much any medical procedure. I am not in favor of notification because I am in favor of consent, but if I were forced to compromise I would consider notification.

 

There are reasons that minors are not legally allowed to make many decisions on their own. This is amongst the most serious of decisions a minor can make. Parental involvement is necessary.

 

The argument that "they are going to have sex anyways/get pregnant anyways/get abortions anyways" is flat out stupid. They are going to find cigarettes anyways/alcohol anyways/drugs anyways and do all kinds of stupid stuff while on them or trying to get them. So, should we just make it legal and leave it up to the parents? Heck, no. A hundred examples like this could be paraded forth, and I won't bother because people should be smart enough to figure them out on their own.

 

The fact is that someone suffering a consequence for not following a law should never be a reason to not have the law. Chances are fairly good that the law was there in the first place to protect people from negative consequences.

[DemonKnight]

kill more babies, woo hoo!!

 

 

+1 Mandatory abprtions for anyone H8 knocks up.

[detlef]

#1) Kids will have sex. End of story. The fact that society has arbitrarily set the age at which it is OK several years after the age at which humans naturally decide they want to start having sex is no reason to expect everyone to fall in line.

 

#2) Unless you are prepared to provide adequate sex ed and not make kids fearful of purchasing condoms, etc., then you need to get over the anti-choice deal because you're basically doing nothing more than legislating a penalty for being unlucky. After all, you're doing nothing to help them practice safe sex. Abstinence-only sex-ed policy is the height of stupidity. There is really no valid argument to the contrary.

 

#3) In terms of parental consent, I don't think you can be in favor of legal abortions and think they should require parental consent. If you believe the notion that if they're made illegal, they'll just be done in the back rooms instead (which is exactly how it will go down), this is exactly what will happen in cases where kids are afraid of their parents. If you're relationship with your parents is good, you'd probably tell them anyway, if it is bad, you won't. Making a law of it just means you'll do it secretly. I think there are plenty of optional medical procedures that should require parental consent, but not this one. Carrying a baby to term, even if adoption is an option (which it isn't nearly as often as the anti-choice lobby would want you to believe) can completely derail someone's life. Your parents aren't going to be the ones to pay that price.

 

#4) Nick makes a good point that one should not be pro-choice simply because of the risk of people doing it on their own, but his comparisons are a bit of a stretch IMO. Drugs are a recreational choice, abortion is an attempt to undo a mistake that could have massive consequences on one's life.

Edited May 9, 2007 by detlef

[Kid Cid]

When abortions become illegal I'm going into business selling knitting needles. They don't have that nasty curly section that gets hung up on the cervix.

[Azazello1313]

Sure, children typically are rebellious. But when the chips are down, they either love and trust you, or they don't. If they do, they'll come to you for help regarless of any law. If they don't, they won't, and parental notification laws won't change that. Those kinds of laws amount to little more than shutting the barn door after the horse got out: they don't stop kids from getting a pregnant.

 

 

parental notification...i dunno, i can go either way on that. part of me agrees with you, but part of me says, if you have to have parental consent for a nose job, why not for an abortion?

 

on a moral level, i think the father of the child should always be notified. tough to legislate that though, because a lot of women just don't know who the father is.

 

incest and rape would be obvious exceptions to the above, but that ought to go without saying.

[Yukon Cornelius]

What happened? I am trying to educate myself.

dont really want to go into it but here is the little dude... he is 2 in this video and its the first time he sat up...

 

this is one tuff kid

[detlef]

but part of me says, if you have to have parental consent for a nose job, why not for an abortion?

 

 

'Cause unless your nose is insanely disfigured, it likely won't have a major impact on your life and some punk kid could just be going through some immature vanity issues. That's where the parent steps in and says, $10K 'cause you don't like your nose? No freaking way.

 

It is much easier to argue the long term implications of not having an abortion. Maybe the parents have a hang up about it, but they're not the one's who's life is going to be hugely impacted at the age of 16. This could get in the way of going to college, etc.

[Azazello1313]

'Cause unless your nose is insanely disfigured, it likely won't have a major impact on your life

 

well that would actually seem to argue against requiring parental consent for a nose job but not an abortion. or are you saying parental notification should be required for minor decisions but not major ones?

 

It is much easier to argue the long term implications of not having an abortion. Maybe the parents have a hang up about it, but they're not the one's who's life is going to be hugely impacted at the age of 16. This could get in the way of going to college, etc.

 

man, i would disagree strongly that the lives of parents of a teenage kid aren't hugely impacted by her getting pregnant and deciding what to do about it. especially if they decide to keep the kid, 90% of the time the grandparents in these situations become surrogate parents for the baby, especially early on.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Azazello1313

[cdrudge]

I disagree that RvsW was a couple of justices that substituted the view of 50 state legislatures. I don't think something like having an abortion is something that should be dictated by the moral or ethical beliefs of a state. It should be consistent throughout the country. If we do go down the road of separate laws in different states, why should we divide things up by states. Shouldn't the individual communities be able to decide if they want to allow them or not?

[Perchoutofwater]

Personally I think abortion should only be allowed in cases where the life of the mother is seriously threatened. I'm a believer in adoption, as I have 4 cousins and 2 nephews I would not have had their mother chosen the abortion route. That being said, I don't think we can roll back the clock and out law abortion. What we should do is give men the same option as women though. If a woman has free reign to decide on whether or not to have a child, a man should have the right to abort his parental rights and responsibilities if he doesn't want a child. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either that or the father of theses unborn children must be allowed to sign an authorization form to allow the mother to abort their child.

[Caveman_Nick]

#4) Nick makes a good point that one should not be pro-choice simply because of the risk of people doing it on their own, but his comparisons are a bit of a stretch IMO. Drugs are a recreational choice, abortion is an attempt to undo a mistake that could have massive consequences on one's life.

 

 

That sounds like you missed my point....

 

I am not presenting that thought process as a silly reason to be pro choice. I am presenting it as a silly reason to work around the legal precident to involve parents in medical decisions of their minor status children. allowing minors to have medical procedures without their parents or legal guardians even knowing is very sticky. That's why there are laws dealing with these situations. Why do we circumvent these laws for this one situation? The reasoning given was "because they'll do it anyways, and in a dangerous fashion". Hence the implied correlation to buying substances that are illegal to sell to minors. Why should these things be illegal. For that matter, why should it be legal for a child be able to have an abortion without parental involvement, but illegal in many circumstances for them to choose the sex partners they have? I would be more in favor of the latter being legal than the former.

 

I understand that this can create some sticky legality where a parent could try to force a child to have a baby that was unwanted. I have thought a lot about this, and here is where I have trouble with mandatory parental consent. There is somewhere in between consent and mere notification that I think should be the accepted standard.

 

What I would suggest is notification plus a required waiting period (call it 7 days for now). What this would provide is the opportunity for a parent to discuss the situation with their child and try to help come to the best decision. In the end, there would be an implied consent that would occur at the end of the waiting period.

[Caveman_Nick]

Making a law of it just means you'll do it secretly.

 

Please explain to me how this can ever be a reason not to have a law? You are merely describing what people do when they break laws.

[polksalet]

Tell me that's not how you read this. The point is simply that making abortions illegal means that people will be doing them themselves, thereby risking their life. Don't be an idiot.

 

 

Don't be an idiot. You know that I think if a woman attempts her own abortion she deserves to die. However the child does not.

[detlef]

well that would actually seem to argue against requiring parental consent for a nose job but not an abortion. or are you saying parental notification should be required for minor decisions but not major ones?

man, i would disagree strongly that the lives of parents of a teenage kid aren't hugely impacted by her getting pregnant and deciding what to do about it. especially if they decide to keep the kid, 90% of the time the grandparents in these situations become surrogate parents for the baby, especially early on.

 

As to your first question, I suppose that is what I am saying. Telling my kid that they can't drop a bunch of cash on something like a boob job is one thing, telling them that they have to have a kid is another.

 

As to your second. You've just explained why parents would want to have their kid abort a child. There is no situation where a parents life would be significantly impacted by their child not having a kid other than it not conforming to their ethics. Since I don't agree with people pushing their ethics on others, I obviously don't think this is reason enough.

[detlef]

Don't be an idiot. You know that I think if a woman attempts her own abortion she deserves to die. However the child does not.

 

Well, I guess I just value life more than you do

[Dutch Oven]

I disagree with that statement based simply on the fact that it is ignorant. The Supreme Court substitutes its opinion for state legislatures everyday--that is their job. If a state passes a law that some one deems unconstitutional, that person can challenge it to the ultimate decision maker in our country, the Supreme Court. Whether or not you agree with abortion is another issue, but that statement is ridiculous.

[detlef]

Please explain to me how this can ever be a reason not to have a law? You are merely describing what people do when they break laws.

 

I did say that alone was not reason enough for the law.

 

I am pro choice because I think the woman should have the choice and that many of those in favor of it are not also in favor of all the other needed measures needed to either avoid unwanted pregnancies or how to deal with unplanned children that parents aren't equipped to deal with.

 

I can't get down with those who complain about welfare, don't care about sex ed and yet insist that people not be able to abort pregnancies. It's really a very hollow stance. Once again, it is basically penalizing bad luck.

 

It just so happens that, just as all the other real issues surrounding abortions, they won't magically stop if we make them illegal. Only now, they'll be more dangerous. So to me, it's just the icing on the cake, rather than the basis for my opinion.

[Kid Cid]

I disagree that RvsW was a couple of justices that substituted the view of 50 state legislatures. I don't think something like having an abortion is something that should be dictated by the moral or ethical beliefs of a state. It should be consistent throughout the country. If we do go down the road of separate laws in different states, why should we divide things up by states. Shouldn't the individual communities be able to decide if they want to allow them or not?

 

This goes directly back to states rights as set up by the Constitution.

[Savage Beatings]

Overturning RvW (which will most likely never happen) would not instantly make all abortions illegal. Whoever is trying to run that flag of fear up the pole is just way off base. It would simply allow the States to pass and enforce their own laws regarding abortion (most of which would keep them close to if not exactly as they are now).

[Bengal Mania]

Abortion is an attempt to undo a mistake that could have massive consequences on one's life.

 

 

Pretty massive consequences on the unborn, I'd say.

 

Yet what about the person who doesn't fully feel the weight of those consequences until she actually has a contraction? In the "it's her body" argument, there'd be no call to stop her from deciding on the abortion even in the delivery room, right?

 

Of course, 10 minutes after the birth, no one would argue the mom has any rights to "abort" her new child, yet those "consequences" on her life haven't gone away. It seems to me that somewhere along the line, that little word "life" comes into the issue.

 

I want it to be legal to drink and drive at sixteen. Because no one here is gonna convince me that kids aren't doing it anyway. And I don't want these poor kids to have a DUI arrest and jail time, as that would be a pretty devastating "consequence" on their life.

[Ramhock]

In August of '05, Bush was asked his opinion on Roe v. Wade and he said, "I don't give a f0ck how those people get outta New Orleans."

Edited May 9, 2007 by Ramhock

[Caveman_Nick]

I did say that alone was not reason enough for the law.

 

I am pro choice because I think the woman should have the choice and that many of those in favor of it are not also in favor of all the other needed measures needed to either avoid unwanted pregnancies or how to deal with unplanned children that parents aren't equipped to deal with.

 

I can't get down with those who complain about welfare, don't care about sex ed and yet insist that people not be able to abort pregnancies. It's really a very hollow stance. Once again, it is basically penalizing bad luck.

 

It just so happens that, just as all the other real issues surrounding abortions, they won't magically stop if we make them illegal. Only now, they'll be more dangerous. So to me, it's just the icing on the cake, rather than the basis for my opinion.

 

 

 

And if I were arguing that they should be illegal, then I might see that you have a point.

 

Regardless of age, a pregnant woman has made a fairly adult level choice to have sex, and is making another fairly adult level choice to have an abortion. Her parents should have the opportunity to advise her on these choices. They have her whole life up until they are too late to advise her on sexual choices. At the very least they should be given a window of time to advise her on her reproductive rights choices when her feet are being held to the fire and it is unlikely that she is thinking in a rational or an adult fashion.

 

Are you suggesting that telling mommy and daddy makes the situation more dangerous in general? I would suggest that in the majority of cases it would be more dangerous to a young girl's health and overall life not to be required to have her parents know.

[yo mama]

Her parents should have the opportunity to advise her on these choices.

 

And if parents have good relationships with their children, they'll have that opportunity regardless of what any law says. Heck, responsible parents should be educating/advising their kids on these choices *before* their children ever become sexually active in the first place. IMO, its pretty crappy parenting if you're depending on the government to prompt this conversation only *after* someone gets pregnant.

 

In reality, consent/notification laws don't serve to prompt "discussions" of options. They serve to notify parents so they can impose their will on the child. Ultimatley, some parents thinks that's the way things should be. Some don't. At a minimium, let's not pretend that the issue of notification comes down to anything more than that.