Do you agree with this statement?

[Caveman_Nick]

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.

 

 

I am having a difficult time wading through the sheer lack of insight your post contains. This is not about depending on the government because you are a crappy parent. Because a youg girl makes a mistake and gets pregnant, you are a crappy parent, and the child should be able to get a medical procedure without your knowledge?

 

Notification laws need to embrace the entirety of the situation. These "Planned Parenting" centers already provide counseling for their patients. There isn't any reason that this can not continue, or that social services can not play a role in making certain that the child does not have any outcome 'imposed' upon them. "In reality" there are much better options than cutting a child's parents out of the loop in such an important part of her life.

 

I am not sure I can put this any way but harshly. Anyone that thinks children can and should make informed decisions about their health without the assistance of their parents is a complete moran. Maybe an occasional child is worthy of it, but the majority of children need parental guidance and influence. To take away the opportunity to be a parent in this situation because a child was dumb enough to get pregnant is essentially trying to cover up dumb with dumber.

[yo mama]

Because a youg girl makes a mistake and gets pregnant, you are a crappy parent, and the child should be able to get a medical procedure without your knowledge?

 

That's not what I said. That's certainly not what I meant.

Edited May 9, 2007 by yo mama

[detlef]

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

 

 

My issue is that you were claiming the "if they're illegal people will still do them only they'll be dangerous" was a weak stance. And yes, if that is the beginning and end of you argument then it would be pretty weak 'cause you could apply that to plenty of things. I simply posted that last missive to explain that issue is only one of a number of reasons why abortions should be legal.

[Caveman_Nick]

That's not what I said. That's certainly not what I meant.

 

 

Well, let's try this from another angle:

 

If I were the god of this situation and could send down a law from my reporductive rights governing place in the sky, it would be this:

 

A minor may not have an abortion procedure without a parent or guardian being notified, and then a (TBD...but for the sake of this discussion call it 7 days) waiting period so that the minor's parents or guardian have an opportunity to advise her on the situation. She will meet with a counselor at the planned parenting facility, and the parent or guardian will also have that opportunity to meet with the counselor, with or without the child present to discuss options. Social services will be notified and speak to both the parent and the child in order to prevent parental coercion, but will be strictly prohibited from coercing the child themselves into one choice or another.

 

I think that is the right thing to do for all involved. The parents know and can advise the child, but she is provided additional support externally which will protect her from being coerced as well as it can. In the end she is making a decision with the advice of her parents and of counsel.

 

Would you support this, or would you have some relevant reason why such a scenario does not provide for the necessary care given the seriousness of the situation. Maybe you would have an alternet suggestion to this? I invite Detlef (or anyone really) to comment on the same.

[yo mama]

Would you support this, or would you have some relevant reason why such a scenario does not provide for the necessary care given the seriousness of the situation. Maybe you would have an alternet suggestion to this?

 

If a young woman has already made up her mind that she doesn't want to be pregnant, there's only one reason for parental notice requirements: to give parents an opportunity to force her to remain pregant. The force could be physical, but is more likely to be emotional, economic, religious, or simply authoritarian in nature. And IMO, that is the more repugnant of the two options. However, I am fine with reasonable waiting periods. While I don't believe this sort of decision should be made in haste, I simply feel that people deserve the highest degree of privacy when it comes to their reproductive organs, even if the person is a minor.

 

If we were talking about a child who was committing a crime, parental notice would be necessary. But it's not (even if you believe it "ought" to be). Abortion is a constitutaionally protected right, and constituational rights aren't conditioned on parental approval or notice. Other aspects of a child's life that do require parental notice (like getting a nose job) do not involve constitutionally protected rights, therefore, they are poor comparisons.

 

Not that I'm in favor of it, but the better way through which to limit a minor's access to abortion is to pass a federal law that says you have to be 18 to get one. That's the rule that applies to the purchase of a rifle or shotgun, which clearly involves a different - arguably more firmly established - constitutional right.

Edited May 9, 2007 by yo mama

[Caveman_Nick]

If a young woman has already made up her mind that she doesn't want to be pregnant, there's only one reason for parental notice requirements: to give parents an opportunity to force her to remain pregant. The force could be physical, but is more likely to be emotional, economic, religious, or simply authoritarian in nature. And IMO, that is the more repugnant of the two options. However, I am fine with reasonable waiting periods. While I don't believe this sort of decision should be made in haste, I simply feel that people deserve the highest degree of privacy when it comes to their reproductive organs, even if the person is a minor.

 

So a minor should be making their own medical decisions then? Even a 13 year old? All medical decisions or just this one? Also, if a minor is responsible enough to amke this decision without parental advice, do you not also consider them responsible enough to choose their own sex partners, use alcohol, and do other things associated with reaching adulthood?

 

If we were talking about a child who was committing a crime, parental notice would be necessary. But it's not (even if you believe it "ought" to be). Abortion is a constitutaionally protected right, and constituational rights aren't conditioned on parental approval or notice. Other aspects of a child's life that do require parental notice (like getting a nose job) do not involve constitutionally protected rights, therefore, they are poor comparisons.

 

That's a random direction from my post. Nowhere in my post did I suggest that the child should be denied. merely that, as it is a medical situation, her parents or legal guardians be involved?

 

Not that I'm in favor of it, but the better way through which to limit a minor's access to abortion is to pass a federal law that says you have to be 18 to get one. That's the rule that applies to the purchase of a rifle or shotgun, which clearly involves a different - arguably more firmly established - constitutional right.

 

 

 

How would denying them be better than notification?

[yo mama]

1. So a minor should be making their own medical decisions then? Even a 13 year old? All medical decisions or just this one? Also, if a minor is responsible enough to amke this decision without parental advice, do you not also consider them responsible enough to choose their own sex partners, use alcohol, and do other things associated with reaching adulthood?

 

2. That's a random direction from my post. Nowhere in my post did I suggest that the child should be denied. merely that, as it is a medical situation, her parents or legal guardians be involved?

 

3. How would denying them be better than notification?

 

1. At least the ones that are constitutionally protected. Also, keep in mind that whenever a minor - especially one as young as 13 - is involved, social services gets involved to investigate rape (stautory, or otherwise) and other things parents DO have a right to know about.

 

Regarding sex partners, when have parents in this culture ever had the power to choose that for their kids? Now, if its illegal sex (as stated above) parents and police are required to receive notice.

 

Regarding drugs or booze, those are illegal for a minor. I can't give my permission for my underage child to do something illegal, which makes it an illogical comparison to abortion, which is a constituationally protected right. However, from a practical perspective kids are going to drink or do drugs if they choose to do so. Parents have been trying to prevent kids from doing that kind of stuff for as long as there have been parents and kids. Best case scenario, you have to develop an open, honest, and informed relationship with your kids and just hope for the best... which is what I've been saying all along. If you arm them with the right information, they are less likely to get into trouble in the first place. If you have a relationship of trust, they are more likely to come to you if they do. Again, that's my responsibility to foster that relationship; not the government's.

 

2. That's a fair point. But the unfortunate reality for some young women is that mandating parental consent/notification is the functional equivilent of denying that young woman access all together. Regardless, my comment didn't address anything you said directly, and I didn't mean to imply that it did.

 

3. It wouldn't be better. I was just mindlessly noodling on the legal vulnerability of my own arguments. I figure if the strength of my resolve can't withstand a little self-reflection, it probably wasn't all that strong to begin with.

Edited May 9, 2007 by yo mama

[Clubfoothead]

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 you are fighting for a system similar to China's where the state determines who is and is not born?

 

 

And you think I'm a commie.

 

Go sell that crazy somewhere else.

[Caveman_Nick]

1. At least the ones that are constitutionally protected.

 

 

I am not a lawyer, but I believe your argument to be flawed. I do not believe that a minor holds the same legal, constitutionally protected rights as an adult. As an example, the right to bear arms (own a gun) has an age limitation, which I believe to be 21+.

 

This is not an issue to hide behind the constitution regardless. The side of the argument you are taking is essentially to keep any circumstances from having a pregnant female from having an abortion, and then lumping merely informing the parents into that category, regardless of any legal protections afforded to the minor against parental interference. IMO what you are presenting is enourmously thin in comparison to a parent's rights to care for and help their children grow. Since when do we have the right to take that away, save situations when the parents are abusive?

 

What I am talking about is not only more important, but also more fundamental than the constitution to basic life. Children are not 'free'. They can't be 'free'. They are parented until the law says they are no longer to be parented or a until court decides it's not in their best interest. And there is no precident or reason to separate one possible facet of a child's existence from this basic component of life.

 

What on this earth is our society coming to when it no longer recognizes a parent's right to be involved in major decisions in their under-aged children's lives and be able to look out for their best interests. If we are taking that away, then we are headed down a bad and troubled path.

[muck]

A couple of observations:

1) This is a tough issue. Lots of smart, well-intending people on both sides.

 

2) Just as notifying some parents that their daughter is pregnant will nearly eliminate their ability to have an abortion that they want (due to pressure from the parents), it is also true that without notification, many girls will be pressured into having an abortion that they may not really want for fear of being shunned by their peers. I have no idea how many girls one of these two comments would apply to, but I'd guess they'd be pretty proportional to the number of pregnancies that go to delivery vs. are aborted.

 

3) Nick had an interesting point ... for those of us with kids, we are parents until the state mandates separation, either through reaching the "age of consent", or a court order. Even if we're bad parents. And, if we're REALLY bad parents (abuse, etc), the state holds us accountable. But, if we're not REALLY bad parents (as charged by the state), parents should have an opportunity to help our kids make what is probably the biggest decision they've faced up to that point.

 

4) This is the only medical procedure that a minor can sign up for without consent. People die from having abortions (although, it's not frequent as it was when they were back-alley's or in the early days of legal abortions ... they still do happen, though). It would suck to find out your little girl died having an abortion ... even more so if you didn't know she was pregnant. See point #3 above.

 

5) If parental notification is anathema to you, maybe you could support somone that would legislate that if the girl had no where to turn (she is, say, a street kid, or possibly the kid of some whacko fundies who'd chose their status in the church over their kids well-being), the law said that she had to tell her doctor that an adult (maybe an older sibling, a pastor, a teacher, caseworker, etc) that wasn't the father of the child could be notified inlieu of the parent ... so, hopefully, she would have an older (and hopefully wiser) person act as a sounding board / safe place for her to discuss this with. Everyone faced with a big decision is a moran for not seeking counsel with someone wiser.

 

6) At some point after sex and before the baby's first cry out of the womb, the egg and sperm cell become a life. Not sure where the line should be drawn (again, good, well-intending people are on all sorts of sides on this issue), but it needs to be acknowledged (at a minimum) when considering legislation. Maybe the line should be drawn at the age of the youngest premature baby living (in terms of days from conception to living without permanent complications after delivery) -- which, I'm guessing would probably be more than three months but less than five months from conception -- essentially stating that before this time, this "thing" requires the mother, but after this time experience has shown that this "thing" no longer requires the mother and can live apart from the mother (obviously needing medical attention for some time, but still surviving / growing / developing). [NOTE: I realize that this may create some issues with medical research and trying to bring this "date of viability" closer and closer to the date of conception ... which verges on some of the same sorts of "growing a person in a petrie dish" arguments against human cloning that a wide swath of pro-life / anti-choice people also hold.]

 

7) If fathers are given no role in deciding what babies are carried and which are aborted, it only seems logical that they should be given the opportunity to sign away their rights as parents (which would also include their requirement to provide financially). It seems to me that to hold another view is to, essentially, hold boys/men hostage.

 

8) Adopting babies is better than aborting them. People want to adopt babies. My b-i-l and s-i-l are a month away from adopting. Close friends of mine have adopted babies. My cousin had a boy when she was a SR in HS and gave him up for adoption before she left the hospital (I was in the 4th or 5th grade at the time; it left quite an impression). If a girl / woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be, there aren't really any situations I can think of where her life would be irrevocably ruined by carrying the baby and giving it up for adoption, especially since most young mothers don't know they're pregnant for two or three months (which results in them being 'inconvenienced' for an additional six or seven months).

Edited May 10, 2007 by muck

[detlef]

I can get on board with much of what muck says here (frankly this hardly the first time I felt that way as dude has a very good way of representing a sound logical stance on many issues).

 

I think requiring the woman to have some adult council prior to going through with it that doesn't have to be her parents is a great solution.

 

I, too, agree that adoption is ultimately a better option than abortion. However, I wonder to which degree it takes care of the rather pragmatic issue of minority children being born to unfit or unwilling parents and further taxing the welfare program. From what I understand, the waiting list for inner city kids is not as high as that for those born to white girls from the burbs. Hell, it seems more fashionable to adopt a kid from Burma than it does one from East St. Louis. I could be wrong, but I recall being told that by some rather good sources. It is a rather cold-hearted argument for legal abortions but we can't simply pretend that it isn't an issue in a time when every dollar counts. Once again, those who are anti-choice and anti-welfare need to come to grips with this reality.

[DemonKnight]

This is hot

 

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted...ement.cfm?ID=38

 

 

Bleeding Heart Conservative.

[cre8tiff]

I can get on board with much of what muck says here (frankly this hardly the first time I felt that way as dude has a very good way of representing a sound logical stance on many issues).

 

I think requiring the woman to have some adult council prior to going through with it that doesn't have to be her parents is a great solution.

 

I, too, agree that adoption is ultimately a better option than abortion. However, I wonder to which degree it takes care of the rather pragmatic issue of minority children being born to unfit or unwilling parents and further taxing the welfare program. From what I understand, the waiting list for inner city kids is not as high as that for those born to white girls from the burbs. Hell, it seems more fashionable to adopt a kid from Burma than it does one from East St. Louis. I could be wrong, but I recall being told that by some rather good sources. It is a rather cold-hearted argument for legal abortions but we can't simply pretend that it isn't an issue in a time when every dollar counts. Once again, those who are anti-choice and anti-welfare need to come to grips with this reality.

 

 

Having fostered many and adopted one minority kid from Easy Saint Louis, I can confirm this statement. White or even mixed babies (without birth defects) can usually find homes, but straight minority babies are not as lucky. In the foster community is is maddening that folks go overseas to adopt children, and a lot of knowing looks happen when someone has mentioned they spent many thousands of dollars travelling to Russia, to get a white baby, when the State of Illinois will pay YOU to adopt a minority child. It is a double standard that folks arguing pro-life would rather not be brought to light.

 

Personally, I think free sterilizations to anyone that wants it would help address some of these issues, though I am completely pro-choice. When exposed first-hand to what horrors await unwanted children out there, it is a logical stance.

Edited May 10, 2007 by cre8tiff

[Yukon Cornelius]

Having fostered many and adopted one minority kid from Easy Saint Louis, I can confirm this statement. White or even mixed babies (without birth defects) can usually find homes, but straight minority babies are not as lucky. In the foster community is is maddening that folks go overseas to adopt children, and a lot of knowing looks happen when someone has mentioned they spent many thousands of dollars travelling to Russia, to get a white baby, when the State of Illinois will pay YOU to adopt a minority child. It is a double standard that folks arguing pro-life would rather not be brought to light.

 

Personally, I think free sterilizations to anyone that wants it would help address some of these issues, though I am completely pro-choice. When exposed first-hand to what horrors await unwanted children out there, it is a logical stance.

 

what he said

every baby a wanted baby

[Azazello1313]

I am not a lawyer, but I believe your argument to be flawed. I do not believe that a minor holds the same legal, constitutionally protected rights as an adult. As an example, the right to bear arms (own a gun) has an age limitation, which I believe to be 21+.

 

yeah. as an aside, i have to say i find it pretty interesting that a lot of people will read the constitution to say that:

1) the right to abort an unwanted fetus is guaranteed

2) the right to keep and bear arms is not guaranteed

talk about making the dang thing say whatever you want it to say.

 

back from that aside, i have to agree with pretty much everything muck said.

[Bengal Mania]

Having fostered many and adopted one minority kid from Easy Saint Louis, I can confirm this statement. White or even mixed babies (without birth defects) can usually find homes, but straight minority babies are not as lucky. In the foster community is is maddening that folks go overseas to adopt children, and a lot of knowing looks happen when someone has mentioned they spent many thousands of dollars travelling to Russia, to get a white baby, when the State of Illinois will pay YOU to adopt a minority child. It is a double standard that folks arguing pro-life would rather not be brought to light.

 

Personally, I think free sterilizations to anyone that wants it would help address some of these issues, though I am completely pro-choice. When exposed first-hand to what horrors await unwanted children out there, it is a logical stance.

 

 

You are right that many don't want to discuss this (bolded above) part of the overall issue. Sad, but true. But while it is related, it is a different issue than whether the LIFE is worthy of protecting. Your "logical" pro-choice stance wouldn't allow a parent of an unwanted 2-year old to off it rather than expose it to a sh.tty life, would it? I hope not, because you and I both know that there is a LIFE that must be protected, regardless of the CHOICE of the parent in this example.

 

I'd support MANDATORY sterilizations, but then I hate America

 

every baby a wanted baby

 

 

OK, so I have a newborn baby that I realize I don't want. I don't love it, don't want it, and I don't want it to have a sh.tty life of neglect by me. What CHOICES do you Pro-Choicers give me?

 

I always hear the argument "I'm personally against it......but I would never make that CHOICE for someone else" Why would you not take that same stance in the example above? Because there is a definite LIFE there. That little word again. Not "welfare", not "neglect", not "my body" not "freedom", "mistake", "consequences", etc. At some point "life" trumps every other argument and circumstance.

 

 

6) At some point after sex and before the baby's first cry out of the womb, the egg and sperm cell become a life. Not sure where the line should be drawn (again, good, well-intending people are on all sorts of sides on this issue), but it needs to be acknowledged (at a minimum) when considering legislation. Maybe the line should be drawn at the age of the youngest premature baby living (in terms of days from conception to living without permanent complications after delivery) -- which, I'm guessing would probably be more than three months but less than five months from conception -- essentially stating that before this time, this "thing" requires the mother, but after this time experience has shown that this "thing" no longer requires the mother and can live apart from the mother (obviously needing medical attention for some time, but still surviving / growing / developing). [NOTE: I realize that this may create some issues with medical research and trying to bring this "date of viability" closer and closer to the date of conception ... which verges on some of the same sorts of "growing a person in a petrie dish" arguments against human cloning that a wide swath of pro-life / anti-choice people also hold.]

 

 

I believe well-intentioned Pro-Lifers are arguing that "life" trumps all other factors/circumstances, and that the argument itself is about what/when is life. Not the circumstances that make a mom, and only a mom (nobody else in the loop) decide she doesn't want to be a mom. (NOTE: those "other circumstances" are items that absolutely need to be discussed and addressed in our society, I'm just saying they are not the SAME issue).

 

So it's an issue of where the point comes that "life" trumps everything else:

1)-Some say that point is at the second of conception.

2)-Some say its at the second of conception except in cases of rape and incest (the only occurances here where the mom didn't make an earlier CHOICE in her life)

3)-Some say it's in all cases except when the life of the mother is at stake

4)-Some say that point is at "viability" of the fetus.

5)-Some say say it's up until the whole body is out of the birth canal (when just the head is out w/ a vacuum tube in it, that falls on the side of "circumstances")

6)-Some say its after a full-birth.

7)-Yet nobody moves that point any further after birth, even though every circumstance still remains (except for being inside her body)

 

In partially agreeing w/ Muck, I believe "well-intentioned" people have varying beliefs related to items 1,2 and 3 above. There is no "well-intentioned" person, in my opinion, who supports anything other than the "life" side in items 4 and above.

Edited May 10, 2007 by Bengal Mania

[muck]

Having fostered many and adopted one minority kid from Easy Saint Louis, I can confirm this statement. White or even mixed babies (without birth defects) can usually find homes, but straight minority babies are not as lucky. In the foster community is is maddening that folks go overseas to adopt children, and a lot of knowing looks happen when someone has mentioned they spent many thousands of dollars travelling to Russia, to get a white baby, when the State of Illinois will pay YOU to adopt a minority child. It is a double standard that folks arguing pro-life would rather not be brought to light.

 

 

The child my b-i-l and s-i-l are (probably) going to be adopting (the birth mother hasn't decided who she'll pick yet) will be (iirc) 3/4 black and 1/4 hispanic. My in-laws are blond/blue. Their family photos will look different that ours...and, that will make a great dynamic (imo).

[Yukon Cornelius]

I'd support MANDATORY sterilizations, but then I hate America

OK, so I have a newborn baby that I realize I don't want. I don't love it, don't want it, and I don't want it to have a sh.tty life of neglect by me. What CHOICES do you Pro-Choicers give me?

 

 

 

open adoption... but there are hundreds if not thousands of babies that go unadopted

here in the midwest u can just drop of a baby at a hospital... no questions asked...

[Yukon Cornelius]

The child my b-i-l and s-i-l are (probably) going to be adopting (the birth mother hasn't decided who she'll pick yet) will be (iirc) 3/4 black and 1/4 hispanic. My in-laws are blond/blue. Their family photos will look different that ours...and, that will make a great dynamic (imo).

 

thats cool

[alexgaddis]