Discussion: Abortion

[SentinelMind]

Americans? So you have asked every person currently living in America what their thoughts are on the matter and they are all Pro Life? You live in a secular country. Get over it because that will never change, thankfully.

You don't get it. American parents should have a choice on how they want to raise their children instead of being forcefed leftwing, nihilistic doctrine behind their backs. If a parent wants her 15 year old to get the abortion, that's one thing. Not even telling the parent of a medical procedure that has shown to have numerous health and psychological side-effects is disgusting and outrageous. I recall other day of a woman getting an abortion dying during the procedure. There is no reason the school couldn't tell the parent. None.


And yes, I think that the belief that a foetus is alive is a sign of mental illness. It is a delusion. Abortion is not murder.

When we have successful C-section deliveries, anyone who argues that a living, breathing fetus that moves and needs nourishment isn't alive is BSing themselves. Abortion is not 'legally' murder, but if someone believes its killing, we in this free country of ours have a right to that belief, regardless of what YOU think about it.


And I really do not care either way. The world is dangerously over populated. We do not need more brats cluttering it up.

Oh, we're so dangerously overpopulated, that's what I hear the left say all the time. But they thank the day their parents didn't listen to that crap when the choice mattered.

[Addendum]

They can ***** and moan if they're present when the doctor is conversing with the patient. If they're not, doctor/patient privilege is in effect

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Not really. There is a reason we have legal coming of age in this country. A child is not emotionally or mentally mature enough to make such a decision. It all comes down to developmental stages and someone who is 14, 15, 16, or even 17 are not developed enough to make these decisions alone. In fact, most psychiatrists will say that 18 is too young for a child to be making decisions on their own. Even if you want to make the argument about the child making the decision "no matter if mommy and daddy ***** and moan," then one must at least concede that mommy and daddy have the right to know about it in advance so they can ***** and moan. As long as they are financially and phsyically responsible for the child (which is a state mandate unless they can disown the child which is a very difficult to obtain with a minor), then they have the right to know in advance.


Good point. It seems more than fair to tell the parent, since they are still supporting the person...and the individual is probably emotionally strained.

An under 21, tell the parent thing...makes sense.

[Matt]

They can ***** and moan if they're present when the doctor is conversing with the patient. If they're not, doctor/patient privilege is in effect

Only legally doctor/patient confidentiality does not apply to a minor. Parents are legally responsible for a minor's health care. Therefore as an active party in it, they have the legal right to be informed prior to a medical procedure. Minors do not have doctor/patient confidentiality, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating that? :huh:

[Mystirious]

You don't get it. American parents should have a choice on how they want to raise their children instead of being forcefed leftwing, nihilistic doctrine behind their backs.

"Nihilistic doctrine"? Believing that a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body is nhilistic?

A persons body is their personal property. They can do whatever they want to it. Believing otherwise is both foolish and dangerous.

Every day I am thankful that people like you have no power in America and never will

If a parent wants her 15 year old to get the abortion, that's one thing. Not even telling the parent of a medical procedure that has shown to have numerous health and psychological side-effects is disgusting and outrageous. I recall other day of a woman getting an abortion dying during the procedure. There is no reason the school couldn't tell the parent. None.

The parent is pro life. That is an excellent reason not to tell her. These pro life people are often prone to violence

When we have successful C-section deliveries, anyone who argues that a living, breathing fetus that moves and needs nourishment isn't alive is BSing themselves. Abortion is not 'legally' murder, but if someone believes its killing, we in this free country of ours have a right to that belief, regardless of what YOU think about it.

You can believe that there is no such thing as gravity and that your dog is the creator of the universe if you wish too. Just don't force your beliefs on those of us free of such delusions

Oh, we're so dangerously overpopulated, that's what I hear the left say all the time. But they thank the day their parents didn't listen to that crap when the choice mattered.

I don't. I resent being born into this world.

A baby is a baby. A foetus is a foetus. A foetus is not alive. There is no soul. There is no spark of life. There is nothing. Aborting a foetus is no more terrible than stepping on an ant

[Humphrey Bogart]

Just don't force your beliefs on those of us free of such delusions

There should be a counter for each time this phrase, or something akin to it, gets used.

[Mystirious]

There should be a counter for each time this phrase, or something akin to it, gets used.

I have no problem with people practicing their religion in private. I just don't want it affecting the real world.

If someone wishes to play pretend that a foetus is somehow alive I really could not care less. It's when you get these idiots with their sandwhich boards and their pipe bombs, trying to tell women what to do with their own bodies that I lose my tolerance for them. They stop being funny at that point

[Humphrey Bogart]

I have no problem with people practicing their religion in private. I just don't want it affecting the real world.

If someone wishes to play pretend that a foetus is somehow alive I really could not care less. It's when you get these idiots with their sandwhich boards and their pipe bombs, trying to tell women what to do with their own bodies that I lose my tolerance for them. They stop being funny at that point

Many people tend to apply the "don't force it on me" doctrine only when they think they have the moral high-ground. I wish they would apply it across the board.

[Mystirious]

Many people tend to apply the "don't force it on me" doctrine only when they think they have the moral high-ground. I wish they would apply it across the board.

While it may appear big headed for me to say so I feel I can comfortably say that I do have the moral high ground in my belief that all people have the right to do what they will with their bodies.

If a woman does believe in pro life and does not wish to have an abortion then that is fine. I personally would feel her belief is foolish but I would not want her to be forced to get an abortion against her wishes.

Yet the vast majority of the Pro Life crowd want just this. They want all women to have no choice once they become pregnant. That is sexist, misogynistic and wrong headed. And I feel I most assuredly have the moral high ground over people such as that.

[Matt]

Mystirious, how about you quit with the broad generalizations?

[Mystirious]

Mystirious, how about you quit with the broad generalizations?

What generalisation? I did not say that all those who are pro life want all women to be forced not to have abortions. I said that the majority do. And that is the impression I have gotten.

[Matt]

Yet the vast majority of the Pro Life crowd want just this. They want all women to have no choice once they become pregnant. That is sexist, misogynistic and wrong headed.

Broad generalization.

The parent is pro life. That is an excellent reason not to tell her. These pro life people are often prone to violence

To suggest someone would hurt their own child because they are pro-life is a generalization on pro-lifers.

Furthermore, saying things like this is abrassive and offensive to people's belief systems.

You can believe that there is no such thing as gravity and that your dog is the creator of the universe if you wish too. Just don't force your beliefs on those of us free of such delusions

A baby is a baby. A foetus is a foetus. A foetus is not alive. There is no soul. There is no spark of life. There is nothing. Aborting a foetus is no more terrible than stepping on an ant

If someone wishes to play pretend that a foetus is somehow alive I really could not care less.


So either debate like an adult, or stay out of this thread.

[Matt]

Yet the vast majority of the Pro Life crowd want just this. They want all women to have no choice once they become pregnant. That is sexist, misogynistic and wrong headed.

Broad generalization.

The parent is pro life. That is an excellent reason not to tell her. These pro life people are often prone to violence

To suggest someone would hurt their own child because they are pro-life is a generalization on pro-lifers.

Furthermore, saying things like this is abrassive and offensive to people's belief systems.

You can believe that there is no such thing as gravity and that your dog is the creator of the universe if you wish too. Just don't force your beliefs on those of us free of such delusions

A baby is a baby. A foetus is a foetus. A foetus is not alive. There is no soul. There is no spark of life. There is nothing. Aborting a foetus is no more terrible than stepping on an ant

If someone wishes to play pretend that a foetus is somehow alive I really could not care less.


So either debate like an adult, or stay out of this thread.

[Mystirious]

Broad generalization.

So you are saying that everyone who is Pro-Life isperfectly happy for people to have abortions if they so choose?

Because if they are opposed to women having abortions then I feel it is perfectly reasonable to say that it is misognystic and sexist. They wish to take away freedom of choice that women have fought long and hard to gain.

I am not saying that everyone who is pro life is like this. But the vast mjority do certainly appear that way.

To suggest someone would hurt their own child because they are pro-life is a generalization on pro-lifers.

Speaking from personal experience I can say it is a view that has quite some basis in fact

Furthermore, saying things like this is abrassive and offensive to people's belief systems.

So either debate like an adult, or stay out of this thread.

I find the entire Pro Life argument offensive to my beliefs. I notice you did not call out Sentinel for describing supporting a womans right to choose as "Nihilistic leftwing doctrine".

I take it that only the beliefs and feelings of those who are Pro Life matter then?

[Matt]

Its not your business how I handle other users. This is your last warning. Keep your more abrassive opinions to yourself and debate fact or go somewhere else. At any rate, the discussion is over. If I see you make such implications or generalizations again, I will infract you.

[SentinelMind]

"Nihilistic doctrine"? Believing that a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body is nhilistic?

Using the government to coerce a child into getting an abortion without informing parents of this medical operation that has health and psychological side effects is pretty sadistic and nihilistic. Since the procedure is tax-funded and the abortionist gets paid, its in the incentive of those running facility to encourage abortions to a young teenager who is on the fence. Removing the parents and perspective from a loving family member from the discussion is abhorrent.


A persons body is their personal property. They can do whatever they want to it. Believing otherwise is both foolish and dangerous. As I've said before, even if you believe the child should be able to get the abortion without parent's consent, it is ludicrous to believe a parent doesn't have right to know about medical procedures being performed upon her during school hours.

I'm going to ignore the hyperbolic bigoted attacks you've made against pro-life people. Saying people of a certain political or religious viewpoint should not be informed about welbeing of their teenagers is bigoted. Don't lose focus. The issue isn't even whether one is pro-life or not, its whether a parent has a right to know about child's medical procedure during school hours.



I don't. I resent being born into this world. :csad: This saddens me but does not surprise me I guess. I pray you change your outlook on life.

[Mystirious]

Using the government to coerce a child into getting an abortion without informing parents of this medical operation that has health and psychological side effects is pretty sadistic and nihilistic. Since the procedure is tax-funded and the abortionist gets paid, its in the incentive of those running facility to encourage abortions to a young teenager who is on the fence. Removing the parents and perspective from a loving family member from the discussion is abhorrent.


Abortionists do not care whether someon is pro life or pro choice. In this segment of your post you seem to be trying to portray abortionists as a sinister force trying to brainwash all women into having abortions

They are not. They are trained medical professionals who provide a helpful service to those women who do not want to keep their baby.

There is no evidence that the teenager we are discussing was coerced in any way. No one put a gun to her head and forced her to have an abortion. She made a choice, as is her right as a sentient being.

It may not have been your intent to come across this way but you do seem to be trying to paint abortionists as the villain of the piece. They are not. They are ordinary men and women doing an important and difficult job.

As I've said before, even if you believe the child should be able to get the abortion without parent's consent, it is ludicrous to believe a parent doesn't have right to know about medical procedures being performed upon her during school hours.

I believe in the case of a highly sensitive and polarising operation like this it is the best interests of the child that take precedent.

:csad: This saddens me but does not surprise me I guess. I pray you change your outlook on life.

Unless the world changes drastically very soon that will not be happening.

[Marx]

According to the AP, Scott Roeder was senteced to life in prison with the possibility of parole in 50 years for the murder of Dr. Tiller.

[Mystirious]

Nice to see justice done for a change. May he rot in jail for the rest of his days.

[Carcharodon]

You guys keep flapping your gums (or fingers, as the case may be) about what "should" have been done in the school-abortion situation, or what the government's responsibilities are, but nobody seems to be discussing the actual law. Does anybody know what the law says in this particular case?

[Carcharodon]

Only legally doctor/patient confidentiality does not apply to a minor. Parents are legally responsible for a minor's health care. Therefore as an active party in it, they have the legal right to be informed prior to a medical procedure. Minors do not have doctor/patient confidentiality, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating that? :huh:Okay, so the school violated the law?

Remember that episode of House, where the 12 year old girl is pregnant, but House says that under N.J. law that he's obligated to D-PC? How does that work?

[Kelly]

You guys keep flapping your gums (or fingers, as the case may be) about what "should" have been done in the school-abortion situation, or what the government's responsibilities are, but nobody seems to be discussing the actual law. Does anybody know what the law says in this particular case?


Washington State is one of 13 states where a girl of any age can get an abortion without parental consent.

[Carcharodon]

Washington State is one of 13 states where a girl of any age can get an abortion without parental consent.Thanks for that.

[Mystirious]

Washington State is one of 13 states where a girl of any age can get an abortion without parental consent.

At least some states have the correct idea. The sooner the rest of the USA follows their example the better

[Kelly]

Totally disagree, if the parent is responsible for the child's medical care, then they should be informed.

[Mystirious]

Totally disagree, if the parent is responsible for the child's medical care, then they should be informed.

And I disagree with you. And I will tell you for why.

I have heard more than one story in which a girl from a predominantly Pro Life family goes to get an abortion. The family finds out. And they then mistreat the child and in some cases make an attempt on their life.

Does this always happen? No. I cannot speak for how common it may be.

But the fact that there is the potential for such a situation to arise leads me to believe that the parents should not be informed or involved unless the person having the abortion wishes them to. If they do not want their parents in on it than logically they have a very good reason to feel that way.

[Kelly]

I'm not in a debate with you on this....so we can leave it at that.

[StorminNorman]

And I disagree with you. And I will tell you for why.

I have heard more than one story in which a girl from a predominantly Pro Life family goes to get an abortion. The family finds out. And they then mistreat the child and in some cases make an attempt on their life.

Does this always happen? No. I cannot speak for how common it may be.

But the fact that there is the potential for such a situation to arise leads me to believe that the parents should not be informed or involved unless the person having the abortion wishes them to. If they do not want their parents in on it than logically they have a very good reason to feel that way.

Few families will present a problem like this.

No child has the mental faculties to adequately contemplate a decision like abortion.

That's why the family should be involved.

[SentinelMind]

And I disagree with you. And I will tell you for why.

I have heard more than one story in which a girl from a predominantly Pro Life family goes to get an abortion. The family finds out. And they then mistreat the child and in some cases make an attempt on their life.

Does this always happen? No. I cannot speak for how common it may be.

But the fact that there is the potential for such a situation to arise leads me to believe that the parents should not be informed or involved unless the person having the abortion wishes them to. If they do not want their parents in on it than logically they have a very good reason to feel that way.


Uhm, no, unless by 'good reason' you mean they want to hide their actions from their parents to avoid punishment or being held accountable for their behavior,.... such as driving the family car when parents are away, throwing that slumber party when parents out of town, or getting drunk at Bob's, buy cigs with a fake id, going on a date with some in college while you're freshman in high school, or experimented with this drug or that drug.... It's human nature for an immature child to want disobey parents, seek instantaneous pleasure, and hide their actions from parents.. It's not the government's job to interfere with role of parent and to create a level of mistrust between a parent and child. If you can't trust your own parents when you're pregant, when can you trust your parent? This law or rule has dangerous consequences......like the article we just read. What happens when you hide the abortion and the parent found about afterwards? Whether the parent finds out or not, the amount of damage that can do to the parent's relationship with child after that is tremendous. Why get the government involved in that type of deception and encouraging a child not to trust their own parents?

If a parent is not fit to be told about an abortion, then the parent is not fit to raise the child. Period. It's hypocritical to hold any other position. "You can raise child, pay taxes, provide food shelter, clothing, ....but we will take your decision-making responsibility away from you on these life-death decisions. Then you can go back to raising them and carrying the burden."

I can't stand when pro-abortionists argue that a pregnant teenager should first get the abortion because "parent can't be trusted", but then send the teenager back to parent afterwards. If they were consistent, the decision to get the abortion should coincide with removing the parent's position as custodian here on out. But you never hear that part. It's not about protecting child, its about advancing a secularist, statist agenda against families in this country.

[Kelly]

Uhm, no, unless by 'good reason' you mean they want to hide their actions from their parents to avoid punishment or being held accountable for their behavior,.... such as driving the family car when parents are away, throwing that slumber party when parents out of town, or getting drunk at Bob's, buy cigs with a fake id, going on a date with some in college while you're freshman in high school, or experimented with this drug or that drug.... It's human nature for an immature child to want disobey parents, seek instantaneous pleasure, and hide their actions from parents..

Mystirious will see none of that as wrong....

It's not about protecting child, its about advancing a secularist, statist agenda against families in this country.

And could quite possibly believe this is the correct direction to go...


What this particular story shows me more than anything else, is a parent that is extremely uninformed about the policies of the school that her daughter attends, and is extremely ignorant of the laws of her state.

THAT is a far more frequent story to tell than a child receiving an abortion without the parents knowledge.

[Mystirious]

such as driving the family car when parents are away, throwing that slumber party when parents out of town, or getting drunk at Bob's, buy cigs with a fake id, going on a date with some in college while you're freshman in high school, or experimented with this drug or that drug.... It's human nature for an immature child to want disobey parents, seek instantaneous pleasure


I don't see any of that as being immature. That's just having a good time.

Nothing wrong with instantaneous pleasure. It's the best kind.


If a parent is not fit to be told about an abortion, then the parent is not fit to raise the child. Period. It's hypocritical to hold any other position. "You can raise child, pay taxes, provide food shelter, clothing, ....but we will take your decision-making responsibility away from you on these life-death decisions. Then you can go back to raising them and carrying the burden."


I think the majority of parents are not fit to raise children.

In any case I consider a parent little more than a tool to provide a child with food and shelter. I do not believe they should have any power when it comes to life-death decisions.

I would add though that abortion is not a life or death decision anyway.

Mystirious will see none of that as wrong....

Yes you're right. I don't see any problem with any of that.

And could quite possibly believe this is the correct direction to go...

You are correct once again. Well done! :yay:

I find it strange how Setinel repeatedly presents secularism as somehow a bad thing.

I am all for advancing a secularist agenda . That sounds like a great idea to me.

[Addendum]

I see nothing wrong with secularism. All religions are viewed the same, and none receive special treatment.

[Kelly]

It's not the boggy man that some religious people paint it to be, that is for sure.

In fact if Turkey would go back that direction as far as their government, they could get into the EU, instead they have allowed Islamic Fundamentalists to take over, and I think the vote this year will be a resounding NO....from the EU.

[Marx]

I don't see any of that as being immature. That's just having a good time.

Nothing wrong with instantaneous pleasure. It's the best kind.

Underage drinking and buying cigarettes with a fake ID is illegal. Period.


I would add though that abortion is not a life or death decision anyway.
That all depends on when you believe life becomes life. At conception. Or at birth.


Yes you're right. I don't see any problem with any of that.

That really doesn't surprise me Mystirious.

[Addendum]

At birth. No one celebrates "conception day", nor do the privileges that come with citizenship apply at conception.

[Matt]

I think the majority of parents are not fit to raise children.

In any case I consider a parent little more than a tool to provide a child with food and shelter. I do not believe they should have any power when it comes to life-death decisions.


If ever you find someone foolish enough to have a child with you, you'll realize just how damn stupid you sound when you say things like this.

[SentinelMind]

I would add though that abortion is not a life or death decision anyway.

Then you'd be wrong.

http://www.eadshome.com/AbortionDeaths.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5055793/Schoolgirl-15-died-after-abortion-clinic-failed-to-prescribe-antibiotics.html


I find it strange how Setinel repeatedly presents secularism as somehow a bad thing.

I am all for advancing a secularist agenda . That sounds like a great idea to me.

I'm not speaking of narrow definition of secularism of government objectivity of treating between religious doctrines and institutions, but the idea that government must deliberately undermine religious practices in the household, which you seem to unfortunately advocate.

[Mystirious]

Underage drinking and buying cigarettes with a fake ID is illegal. Period.

It may be illegal but there's nothing wrong with it

That really doesn't surprise me Mystirious.

:awesome:

At birth. No one celebrates "conception day", nor do the privileges that come with citizenship apply at conception.

Exactly. The voice of reason there.

A baby is a baby. A foetus is a foetus. Only one is alive and it isn't the latter


I'm not speaking of narrow definition of secularism of government objectivity of treating between religious doctrines and institutions, but the idea that government must deliberately undermine religious practices in the household, which you seem to unfortunately advocate.

That depends entirely what you mean by religious practices. If you're talking about saying grace around the table then I have no issue with that.

If you're talking about indoctrinating and brainwashing children to hate people based on religious, sexual or racial differences using the bible as a tool, as people like Fred Phelps and those like him do, then yes, I do advocate the government undermining those "Religious practices".

[SentinelMind]

No, I'm just talking about allowing families to raise their own children without doctrine from social engineers in the government.

[Kelly]

So Mystirious, this government that you have in your world...

They cannot make you pledge allegiance to their flag, but they can do a medical procedure on your child without you knowing about it...

Damn fine government you have there in your head....

[Addendum]

Why should anyone be forced to have allegiance to a piece of fabric?

[Kelly]

Nor do I believe they should be able to do a medical procedure on your child who is a minor in your care, without you knowing about it....see to me the issue here is not abortion or the right to have one....

Unfortunately, I think the **** won't truly hit the fan on this until a child dies while undergoing this procedure.

Another thing I would like to know, how much of the medical history do they have on these children....where did they get it? If it is just from the school, that medical history is FAR LESS than from their doctor...

I'm wondering why these questions have not been brought up yet.

[Mystirious]

So Mystirious, this government that you have in your world...

They cannot make you pledge allegiance to their flag, but they can do a medical procedure on your child without you knowing about it...

Damn fine government you have there in your head....

This depends. If the child has been hit by a car and is going into the OR then of course I would like to be notified so that I can be there to make sure my child is alright.

If the child...though we're talking about teenagers here, not children...wants a competent and trained medical proffesional to perform an abortion on them and does not want their parents informed then yes, I want the doctors to keep it between them and the teenager, under doctor patient confidentiality.

I don't see what's so wrong about that.


No, I'm just talking about allowing families to raise their own children without doctrine from social engineers in the government.


Again this is all rather vague. Raise their children how?

I mean for example I don't want the government telling parents every little thing they can and cannot do.

But at the same time I don't want psychopaths, Klansman and bible thumping bigots to raise their children to turn out the same way. As I feel it's a form of child abuse and social services should remove children from the care of such people if they are found to be raising their children that way.

[Addendum]

Because there's only a set amount of time devoted to a story on the news, and in-depth questions are only reserved for the "news magazine" shows.

[Kelly]

This depends. If the child has been hit by a car and is going into the OR then of course I would like to be notified so that I can be there to make sure my child is alright.

If the child...though we're talking about teenagers here, not children...wants a competent and trained medical proffesional to perform an abortion on them and does not want their parents informed then yes, I want the doctors to keep it between them and the teenager, under doctor patient confidentiality.

I don't see what's so wrong about that. I teach 13 to 16 year olds, this is not something that their parents should be kept in the dark about.

A medical decision is a medical decision. You are allowing your pro-abortion thinking to totally take over your thought process here. If you hadn't talked about the ER, I wouldn't have caught that.... but the fact that you said you would want to know about that procedure, tells me without a doubt that your issue is with the abortion question, which in reality has nothing to do with this. It is a medical procedure being done on a minor without the parents consent. IF the abortion was done in an ER would you need to know about that? because you need to know about the other incident in the ER. Your thought process doesn't make sense...

[StorminNorman]

I'm 20 years old and I got a girl pregnant when I was 18. I would argue I am more mature than the average bear and I know I certainly wasn't ready to cope with that decision - and that was with the fetus not being in my body and the hormonal consequences of that occupancy.

Teenagers ARE children in may ways - especially 13-16 year old "teen"agers.

[Marx]

Nor do I believe they should be able to do a medical procedure on your child who is a minor in your care, without you knowing about it....see to me the issue here is not abortion or the right to have one....

Unfortunately, I think the **** won't truly hit the fan on this until a child dies while undergoing this procedure.

Another thing I would like to know, how much of the medical history do they have on these children....where did they get it? If it is just from the school, that medical history is FAR LESS than from their doctor...

I'm wondering why these questions have not been brought up yet.
That's what I would like to know as well...

[Mystirious]

I'm 20 years old and I got a girl pregnant when I was 18. I would argue I am more mature than the average bear and I know I certainly wasn't ready to cope with that decision - and that was with the fetus not being in my body and the hormonal consequences of that occupancy.

Teenagers ARE children in may ways - especially 13-16 year old "teen"agers.

That was you personally. That does not mean it is the case for all teens.


It is a medical procedure being done on a minor without the parents consent. IF the abortion was done in an ER would you need to know about that? because you need to know about the other incident in the ER. Your thought process doesn't make sense...


It makes perfect sense. The two cases are very different. If my child were injured I would want to know about it. If my child wanted to have an abortion I feel I should only know about it if they want me to. And I think that should always be the case

[Majic Walrus]

If ever you find someone foolish enough to have a child with you, you'll realize just how damn stupid you sound when you say things like this.

This

I'm 20 years old and I got a girl pregnant when I was 18. I would argue I am more mature than the average bear and I know I certainly wasn't ready to cope with that decision - and that was with the fetus not being in my body and the hormonal consequences of that occupancy.

Teenagers ARE children in may ways - especially 13-16 year old "teen"agers.

And this


That was you personally. That does not mean it is the case for all teens.



It makes perfect sense. The two cases are very different. If my child were injured I would want to know about it. If my child wanted to have an abortion I feel I should only know about it if they want me to. And I think that should always be the case

What if your child was injured and didn't want you to know about it?

[Mystirious]

What if your child was injured and didn't want you to know about it?

I have already said that I consider life or death situations very different to a teenager choosing to have an abortion.

I'll reiterate in an attempt o make my position on the issue as clear as possble.

If a child of mine is hit by a car and is at deaths door I would want to know about it. If my perfectly healthy child makes the sensible decision to get an abortion and does not wish to tell me about them having this entirely voluntary procedure then I consider that their right.

[Kelly]

I'm sorry Mystirious, but I still think that your pro-abortion stance is skewing your ability to understand from a parent's point of view that it doesn't matter what the medical procedure is.....a parent, a good parent....would want to know, doesn't matter if they are pro-life or pro-abortion, that has absolutely nothing to do with a a parent knowing of a major medical procedure where their child is concerned.

[Matt]

I have already said that I consider life or death situations very different to a teenager choosing to have an abortion.

I'll reiterate in an attempt o make my position on the issue as clear as possble.

If a child of mine is hit by a car and is at deaths door I would want to know about it. If my perfectly healthy child makes the sensible decision to get an abortion and does not wish to tell me about them having this entirely voluntary procedure then I consider that their right.

You claim that an abortion is not a life or death matter, but frankly, it is. Its a medical procedure and as is the case with any medical procedure there are risks. Each year women die during abortion procedures or following it due to infection. Certain steps are taken post-abortion to ensure women do not become infected. Being as these teenagers are not responsible enough to keep their legs shut (or at least use protection) why should we assume they are responsible enough to take the necessary antibiotics post-procedure to avoid infection without parental supervision?

[Majic Walrus]

I have already said that I consider life or death situations very different to a teenager choosing to have an abortion.

I'll reiterate in an attempt o make my position on the issue as clear as possble.

If a child of mine is hit by a car and is at deaths door I would want to know about it. If my perfectly healthy child makes the sensible decision to get an abortion and does not wish to tell me about them having this entirely voluntary procedure then I consider that their right.

I figured as much. Here's the real issue then: It's not okay for children, teenagers or not, to keep important things from their parents. Especially medically relevant things.

I won't even begin to go into all the layers of problems that can and will cause, but the bottom line is that kids shouldn't be keeping things from their parents and if kids do decide to keep things from their parents schools and doctor's shouldn't be in the business of helping them do that.

[Mystirious]

I'm sorry Mystirious, but I still think that your pro-abortion stance is skewing your ability to understand from a parent's point of view that it doesn't matter what the medical procedure is.....a parent, a good parent....would want to know, doesn't matter if they are pro-life or pro-abortion, that has absolutely nothing to do with a a parent knowing of a major medical procedure where their child is concerned.

I am not saying that it is wrong for a parent to want to know. I would like to think that if I had a child and they had an abortion they would trust me enough to talk about it.

I am saying that I feel it should be the patients decision whether their parents are notified. It's not my Pro-Choice stance that informs my view on this issue but rather my opinion that matters such as this should fall under doctor/patient confidentiality


You claim that an abortion is not a life or death matter, but frankly, it is. Its a medical procedure and as is the case with any medical procedure there are risks. Each year women die during abortion procedures or following it due to infection. Certain steps are taken post-abortion to ensure women do not become infected. Being as these teenagers are not responsible enough to keep their legs shut (or at least use protection) why should we assume they are responsible enough to take the necessary antibiotics post-procedure to avoid infection without parental supervision?


To imply that teenage pregnancy is solely because of them being irresponsible is to generalise things a tad. There are reasons that the most responsible of teenagers may fall pregnant. Contraception is not always effective. They may be assaulted.

I figured as much. Here's the real issue then: It's not okay for children, teenagers or not, to keep important things from their parents. Especially medically relevant things.

I won't even begin to go into all the layers of problems that can and will cause, but the bottom line is that kids shouldn't be keeping things from their parents and if kids do decide to keep things from their parents schools and doctor's shouldn't be in the business of helping them do that

Well I don't see a problem with kids keeping things from their parents. All kids do that. I find it highly unlikely that you had no secrets from your parents. All children do. Even among the most loving of families

But to focus on the matter at hand I once again wish to say that I feel there are varying levels of "Medical relevance". Keeping the fact you have cancer from your parents? Bad idea. Not telling your parents you had an abortion because you are afraid how they will react or simply do not wish to talk about it? I fail to see anything wrong with that

[Majic Walrus]

Well I don't see a problem with kids keeping things from their parents. All kids do that. I find it highly unlikely that you had no secrets from your parents. All children do. Even among the most loving of families

But to focus on the matter at hand I once again wish to say that I feel there are varying levels of "Medical relevance". Keeping the fact you have cancer from your parents? Bad idea. Not telling your parents you had an abortion because you are afraid how they will react or simply do not wish to talk about it? I fail to see anything wrong with that

What happens when you a rushed to the hospital with acute abdominal pain. It's so bad you've gone into shock and your life is endanger. Your parents they don't know about the abortion and neither do the doctors. They remove your appendix. Your uterus hemorrhages and you die.

Contrary to your belief abortions are dangerous medically relevant procedures every single time they are done, but that's not even my point.

Even if kids do keep secrets from their parents a school shouldn't encourage that behavior.

[StorminNorman]

That was you personally. That does not mean it is the case for all teens.

I'm sorry but if I couldn't handle that sort of problem, 99.9% of teenagers couldn't handle that problem. I don't know if you've noticed, but I am pretty damn amazing.

[Matt]

To imply that teenage pregnancy is solely because of them being irresponsible is to generalise things a tad. There are reasons that the most responsible of teenagers may fall pregnant. Contraception is not always effective. They may be assaulted.


You've generalized pro-life families as willing to disown OR KILL their children yet are claiming I am off by saying that teen pregnancy is usually the result of irresponsibility? Being as contraceptives range from 99.5 to 99.9 % effective when used properly, it is very seldom the result of faulty contraceptives. As for sexual assault, if a teen is sexually assaulted causing pregnancy, they need to be telling their parent for a whole different reason than the abortion.

[SentinelMind]

Nothing we can say is going to change Mystirious's mind, no matter how lunatic it is to argue that schools should encourage mistrust within families, single out abortion from all other medical procedures due to viewpoint discrimination or that government should hide medical information about children from parents. This topic has reached a point to being a very personal issue to Mystirious and all we can do is let Mystirious sit back and reflect about all the arguments made, all our own past life experiences we've shared in this thread, .....pray M comes around in due time (I'm still rooting for this to happen), and in meanwhile....also make sure to vote people who support this out of office.

[Mystirious]

You've generalized pro-life families as willing to disown OR KILL their children yet are claiming I am off by saying that teen pregnancy is usually the result of irresponsibility? Being as contraceptives range from 99.5 to 99.9 % effective when used properly, it is very seldom the result of faulty contraceptives. As for sexual assault, if a teen is sexually assaulted causing pregnancy, they need to be telling their parent for a whole different reason than the abortion.

If you back track and re-read my post you will note that I actually said that some pro-life families have done this. I did not claim that all did it. I said that the potential for that situatiion to arise was there. And for that reason and others I feel abortions should fall under doctor-patient confidentiality regardless of age

And yes I agree that if sexually assaulted a child should inform their parents and the law as well of course. I am sorry if the way I worded my post gave the impression that I was saying that I felt it was something that should be kept secret


I'm sorry but if I couldn't handle that sort of problem, 99.9% of teenagers couldn't handle that problem. I don't know if you've noticed, but I am pretty damn amazing.


Does the 0.1% represent Chuck Norriss?

Because no matter what age he is he can handle any situation. :awesome:

[Kelly]

Here are some other questions I have about this case...

1. Was the procedure done during school hours?
2. Was the parent notified that their child would be transported off campus, if in fact this was done during school hours?
3. Was school transportation used?
4. Was it school personnel that transported the student?
5. Was a permission slip signed for the child to use school transportation to go off campus?
6. If not school personnel, who did the school give permission to in order to transport the student off campus?
7. Did the parent sign anything that gave the school permission to transport or have another individual transport the child off campus?
8. Does the school's auto insurance give them permission to transport students without parent permission?

[Marx]

TEXAN ARRESTED FOR THREATENING TO USE 'DEADLY FORCE' AGAINST ABORTION CLINIC
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/texas-man-arrested-after-filing-lawsuit-threatening-to-use-deadly-force-at-abortion-clinic.php?ref=fpc

Why is it that anti-abortion activists feel that it's appropriate to resort to MURDER to stop institutions and people who perform abortions? I've never understood that. Are these people only pro-life when it suits their agenda?

[Kelly]

In general I don't think they do, but as in all activist groups there are those that are bat **** crazy on the fringe.

[Marx]

In general I don't think they do, but as in all activist groups there are those that are bat **** crazy on the fringe.

There's always the bat**** crazy element to activist groups, but I just cannot wrap my head about that mentality.

You are opposed to the 'murder' of unborn children, yet you believe that it's OK to resort to murder to stop it.

[Mystirious]

You can't apply logic to these people. Their bat-**** insane. That's really the only way to describe a murderous pro-lifer.

At least one more is off the streets. And hopefully on his way to a comfy new home with padded walls and all the electro shock therapy you could want

[StorminNorman]

Does the 0.1% represent Chuck Norriss?

Because no matter what age he is he can handle any situation. :awesome:
Short Answer?

Yes.

[Majic Walrus]

There's always the bat**** crazy element to activist groups, but I just cannot wrap my head about that mentality.

You are opposed to the 'murder' of unborn children, yet you believe that it's OK to resort to murder to stop it.

Doesn't seem that odd to me. There are plenty of death penalty supporters that aren't called bat**** crazy.

[Schlosser85]

Doesn't seem that odd to me. There are plenty of death penalty supporters that aren't called bat**** crazy.


You think executing a tried and convicted murderer is equivalent to gunning down an abortion doctor in his church?

[Kelly]

There's always the bat**** crazy element to activist groups, but I just cannot wrap my head about that mentality.

You are opposed to the 'murder' of unborn children, yet you believe that it's OK to resort to murder to stop it.

You are trying to come up with a rational reason for the actions of irrational people.

[Majic Walrus]

Basically yeah. In the eyes of the person who is killing an abortion doctor he is doing the same thing that we do to convicted murderers. He's killing someone who actively participates in what he feels his murder to prevent future murders.

I should make mention that I do not support the death penalty.

[Kelly]

If they walked up to the murderer etc, with a gun in their hand and pulled the trigger, I would question their desire of "right to life"....

But, if a judge and jury found the person guilty of murder, and under the states statutes he/she will be executed, I do not think their thinking that is the law and is ok is the equivalent of a maniac walking into a church and shooting a man in the head. No where near it, and pretty silly to try and make that comparison.

[Majic Walrus]

How is it silly? Both killings are, by the killers, considered acts of justice. I'm not saying that he is right, I'm just saying that in contrast to what Marx said there are plenty of people in our society who have "gray" feelings on the issue of taking someone's life.

[Kelly]

And that is fine, but to equate the two is silly, sorry....just how I see it.

Justice was served by the Judicial System of the state. IF that person who is pro-life takes justice into their own hands....THEN, and only THEN can you equate the two.

[Majic Walrus]

Isn't that exactly what the person who was pro-life did "take justice into their own hands"?

[Mystirious]

Basically yeah. In the eyes of the person who is killing an abortion doctor he is doing the same thing that we do to convicted murderers. He's killing someone who actively participates in what he feels his murder to prevent future murders.


The important difference is that abortion is not murder. The guy is just completely insane.

[Marx]

The important difference is that abortion is not murder. The guy is just completely insane.

In your opinion.

[Mystirious]

And in the opinion of every law court in the US, the UK and many other countries that I could name. And in the opinion of the vast majority of trained medical proffessionals as well.

[Marx]

According to the AP, a new Nebraska law (expected to be signed by Governor Heineman) would require physical and mental screening for women who seek abortions. Another seperate law (also expected to be signed by Governor Heineman) will ban abortions after the 20 week mark based on the assertion that fetuses can feel pain.

[Marx]

According to the AP, convicted murderer Scott Roeder has filed a petition complaining about his treatment in prison and is seeking a release.

:dry:

[Mystirious]

According to the AP, convicted murderer Scott Roeder has filed a petition complaining about his treatment in prison and is seeking a release.


This would be funny if it were not so very ludicrous. When last I checked, murdering dirt bags were not eligible for release just because people were being mean to them in prison.

[BMM]

For those who don’t know, on Tuesday, the Oklahoma Senate overrode Governor Brad Henry’s vetoes of House Bills 2780 and 2656, enacting some pretty messed up abortion legislation, in my opinion. The first bill requires a woman to undergo an obstetric ultrasound prior to having an abortion, “using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly” (At such early stages of pregnancy, I would imagine a vaginal transducer would be used more frequently, which I hear is a much more invasive procedure than an abdominal ultrasound). The woman is presented the ultrasound, although she is permitted to look away, and is given a detailed description of the fetus, including information such as “cardiac activity” and “the presence of external members and internal organs.”

The second bill prevents a woman from suing her doctor in the event her doctor withholds information from her about her unborn child, should the doctor believe such information would lead to the woman having an abortion. In other words, your doctor can lie to you about your unborn child’s developmental status… Great.


http://newsok.com/new-oklahoma-abortion-law-faces-battle/article/3457384

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&articleid=20100427_17_0_OKLAHO771360&allcom=1 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&articleid=20100427_17_0_OKLAHO771360&allcom=1)


The bills:

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/SB/HB2780_SFLR.RTF (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/SB/HB2780_SFLR.RTF)

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/SB/HB2656_SFLR.RTF (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/SB/HB2656_SFLR.RTF)

[Mystirious]

This is so depressing to hear and a huge blow against the rights of women. This so called "Legislation" is both sexist and misogynistic.

[Majic Walrus]

I don't mind the first part so much, but the withholding part I mind. The "convince someone not to get an abortion" bill is ****ing stupid. I think that if someone is wanting an abortion they should be given ALL available information.

[Mystirious]

Exactly. It's not a Doctors job to act as a tool for some anti-abortion agenda.

[Majic Walrus]

Nor should they. They can refuse to do abortions in most places, but they shouldn't be able to willfully withhold information that may be relevant.

[Mystirious]

They can refuse to do abortions? Good lord. The government really ought to change that. It's a doctors job to follow their patients wishes, no matter what their personal feelings are

I mean you wouldn't want to go in for a major operation and have the doctor say "Sorry, I have personal objections to surgical procedures. So we're going to just let you die"

[Majic Walrus]

Well I'm not as torn on this issue. Doctor's should have the right to refuse treatments for certain things. Many times plastic surgeons refuse treatment based on the fear that the customer is psychologically unstable or that they have a surgery addiction. Furthermore in any case where treatment is dangerous it's up to the doctor to make the determination. If you weight 780 pounds and you need a liver transplant good luck getting it. You're too much of a risk.

For me the same is true of abortions. PRIVATE practices should be able to refuse whomever they choose. However state funded hospitals and clinics that accept medicare, medicaid, and any state or government funding should be able to have a doctor who can and will perform abortions with no moral obligation not to.

[Mystirious]

For me the same is true of abortions. PRIVATE practices should be able to refuse whomever they choose.

I disagree. If someone doesn't want to perform abortions their are many occupations in which they won't be required to perform an abortion. But if someone enters a proffession in which they might be called upon to perform an abortion then as far as I am concerned they should not be given the right to refuse.

[BMM]

I disagree. The government has no business forcing women to endure unwanted pregnancies, nor does it have any business forcing doctors to perform abortions. In the event the government does enact such a policy, you’re simply going to see a large number of doctors quit or switch to other specialties, reducing women’s options even further.

[Mystirious]

If you take a job, you accept the responsibilities of said job. I work at a furniture warehouse. If tomorrow I became a vegetarian I wouldn't start saying "I cannot sell this leather sofa to this couple as animals were killed to make it". I would have to do the job and shelve my personal objections or else get in line at the unemployment office.

Doctors should be no different. If someone enters the field of medicine and takes a job in which they may one day be required to perform an abortion then they had best be willing to perform an abortion. Otherwise they should seek other employment

I'm not saying that their not entitled to have their own opinions on the subject of abortion. But we all have to do things we don't like when we're working. You do the job your paid for.

[SentinelMind]

Since many medical professionals believe some abortions are not medically necessary, it seems reasonable to allow a private doctor to refuse to carry out what they think is a non-medically necessary procedure. I don't see why those outside the medical community think they have a right to dictate what every single medical professional must or must not do.

Forget about abortion, there are many times a doctors may have disagreements on what is the best procedure to treat cancers...some may disagree on experimental operations, some won't. There is risk in carrying out many medical procedures, including surgeries...people have died from surgeries...people have died from abortions. Doctors should be allowed to exercise their own judgment on what procedures they will or will not carry out, especially if the medical community they received their standing respects their decision.

[Kelly]

If you take a job, you accept the responsibilities of said job. I work at a furniture warehouse. If tomorrow I became a vegetarian I wouldn't start saying "I cannot sell this leather sofa to this couple as animals were killed to make it". I would have to do the job and shelve my personal objections or else get in line at the unemployment office.

Doctors should be no different. If someone enters the field of medicine and takes a job in which they may one day be required to perform an abortion then they had best be willing to perform an abortion. Otherwise they should seek other employment

I'm not saying that their not entitled to have their own opinions on the subject of abortion. But we all have to do things we don't like when we're working. You do the job your paid for.

Not necessarily true....if you are the owner of that furniture warehouse, you can choose to not sell leather furniture.

If the doctor is in private practice he/she, should have the choice of performing abortions or not. It is their practice, they own it....their choice.

If it is a Catholic Hospital, funded by Catholic donations/the Catholic Church....they should not have to perform abortions...

If it is a hospital funded by public funds, then there is probably a doctor within that hospital that will perform an abortion, and therefore those that do not feel it is right, do not have to...if I were person in charge of hiring the doctors, I would most certainly employ at least some who perform abortions just for that reason, and those that do, can continue to follow their convictions.

[Mystirious]

I just find it very diturbing, the idea that a doctor can say "I don't want to perform this procedure". I mean fine, if someone is against abortion on religious grounds or personal grounds then that's their opinion. I don't agree with it but their entitled to it. But if their a doctor then their personal beliefs should not be influencing their actions, in my opinion.

There are some people who are opposed to the use of certain drugs and some surgical procedures. If they become doctors, should they be allowed to deny patients these based on personal beliefs? What if the patient life depends upon it?

I mean, I realise it's not exactly the same thing but it's a slippery slope as I see it. A doctor should be completely objective in my opinion. Their personal opinions and beliefs should be left at the door the moment they enter the clinic.

That's how I view things, anyway

[Mystirious]

I just find it very diturbing, the idea that a doctor can say "I don't want to perform this procedure". I mean fine, if someone is against abortion on religious grounds or personal grounds then that's their opinion. I don't agree with it but their entitled to it. But if their a doctor then their personal beliefs should not be influencing their actions, in my opinion.

There are some people who are opposed to the use of certain drugs and some surgical procedures. If they become doctors, should they be allowed to deny patients these based on personal beliefs? What if the patient life depends upon it?

I mean, I realise it's not exactly the same thing but it's a slippery slope as I see it. A doctor should be completely objective in my opinion. Their personal opinions and beliefs should be left at the door the moment they enter the clinic.

That's how I view things, anyway

[BMM]

I just find it very diturbing, the idea that a doctor can say "I don't want to perform this procedure". I mean fine, if someone is against abortion on religious grounds or personal grounds then that's their opinion. I don't agree with it but their entitled to it. But if their a doctor then their personal beliefs should not be influencing their actions, in my opinion.

There are some people who are opposed to the use of certain drugs and some surgical procedures. If they become doctors, should they be allowed to deny patients these based on personal beliefs? What if the patient life depends upon it?

The patient would go to another doctor and probably be the better for it.

[Mystirious]

It sets a worrying precedent, that's all. Like I said, I feel that doctors should be 100% objective

[Majic Walrus]

I just find it very diturbing, the idea that a doctor can say "I don't want to perform this procedure". I mean fine, if someone is against abortion on religious grounds or personal grounds then that's their opinion. I don't agree with it but their entitled to it. But if their a doctor then their personal beliefs should not be influencing their actions, in my opinion.

There are some people who are opposed to the use of certain drugs and some surgical procedures. If they become doctors, should they be allowed to deny patients these based on personal beliefs? What if the patient life depends upon it?

I mean, I realise it's not exactly the same thing but it's a slippery slope as I see it. A doctor should be completely objective in my opinion. Their personal opinions and beliefs should be left at the door the moment they enter the clinic.

That's how I view things, anyway

I certainly understand your point, but what Kel said is true. If someone wants to do whatever with their business... who am I to stop them.

[Mystirious]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree here. My personal opinion is that the government should require private clinics as well as public hosptals to perform abortions if the patient so wishes and the staff are able to, in the sense that they have the needed expertise.

[Addendum]

A paying customer whose money could help pay off a couple bills

[Mystirious]

double post

[SentinelMind]

If a doctor is opposed to carrying out an abortion, I think its in the patient's interest to get a doctor who is ecstatic about carrying out an abortion that having one who is reluctant. Who do you think will more likely make a critical mistake?

And I strongly disagree with the notion that the abortion-on-demand crowd has any authority to dictate every other participant of community must serve to facilitate their agenda, from groups to businesses to institution to families against their own wishes.

[Addendum]

I just think that the final say about getting an abortion lies with the woman who is pregnant and has to decide.

[Kelly]

A paying customer whose money could help pay off a couple bills

If the doctor is willing to forgo that....that should be his/her choice in their privately owned practice...IMO.

[Mystirious]

I just think that the final say about getting an abortion lies with the woman who is pregnant and has to decide.

I agree 100%

[Kelly]

I just think that the final say about getting an abortion lies with the woman who is pregnant and has to decide.

I agree.....which is why I am pro-choice.


A doctor that will not do the abortion is not telling her she doesn't have the right to her choice, but he/she may be telling her to get a second opinion....

[SentinelMind]

I agree.....which is why I am pro-choice.


A doctor that will not do the abortion is not telling her she doesn't have the right to her choice, but he/she may be telling her to get a second opinion....

Exactly. This isn't about "choice" or "freedom"...its about forcing every agent, professional, organization, business, individual in this community to submit to an abortion-on-demand agenda.

[Tally Man]

Exactly. This isn't about "choice" or "freedom"...its about forcing every agent, professional, organization, business, individual in this community to submit to an abortion-on-demand agenda.

Which is about as true as saying the pro-life crowd are simply trying to force women back into the kitchen where they belong...:whatever:

[Mystirious]

I agree.....which is why I am pro-choice.


A doctor that will not do the abortion is not telling her she doesn't have the right to her choice, but he/she may be telling her to get a second opinion....


I don't feel a doctor should be allowed to do that. If a woman wants an abortion then a doctor should be required by law to perform it. I find myself very uncomfortable with the concpt of doctors letting personal feelins intefere with their work.

Yes, I am Pro-Choice but even if I were opposed to abortion I wouldn't want doctors refusing to perform them

[SentinelMind]

Which is about as true as saying the pro-life crowd are simply trying to force women back into the kitchen where they belong...:whatever:

Did you read this thread? No, mines is truer. Requiring tax dollars to pay for abortions for minors, insurance policies covering abortions, boycotting football players for taking about their mother, and requiring doctors to carry out abortions is a pretty statist position to take even if you're pro-choice.

[Addendum]

Boycotting someone isn't statist

[Kelly]

I don't feel a doctor should be allowed to do that. If a woman wants an abortion then a doctor should be required by law to perform it. I find myself very uncomfortable with the concpt of doctors letting personal feelins intefere with their work.

Yes, I am Pro-Choice but even if I were opposed to abortion I wouldn't want doctors refusing to perform them

Do you think a doctor should kill a 1 month old baby if their mother decides that is what she wants to do? Because to a doctor that does not believe in abortion, that is exactly what he is doing....he believes that life begins at conception, you may not....and that's fine, that is a question no one has been able to answer for me....and in my case, I would not have an abortion, but I don't think that my choice, should be the choice of everyone. IF, the mother's life is in danger, then the doctor, I'm sure would do the abortion....if her life is not in danger, she can go find a doctor that will do the abortion.

I guess then if assisted suicide becomes law, and a doctor is against this, they should still have to do it, because they are a doctor?

[Tally Man]

Did you read this thread? No, mines is truer. Requiring tax dollars to pay for abortions for minors, insurance policies covering abortions, boycotting football players for taking about their mother, and requiring doctors to carry out abortions is a pretty statist position to take even if you're pro-choice.

No its really not. Your position is a gross exaggeration of what the pro-choice agenda is about. I could go on about how the pro-life group are trying to criminalize a medical procedure, lock up doctors and other ridiculous things to point out how statist the pro-life group is, but that would be foolish and disregard the actual positions of pro-life people out there. So how about returning the favor eh?

[SentinelMind]

Did I say all pro-choicers support that? No, I said that those who support requiring doctors and middle schools to carry out abortions are using the "choice" rhetoric to hide their statist agenda.

[Tally Man]

Did I say all pro-choicers support that? No, I said that those who support requiring doctors and middle schools to carry out abortions are using the "choice" rhetoric to hide their statist agenda.

I'm curious as to how many people support this "statist agenda" which you seem to be tossing out here? Once again the exaggeration here is on par with those who characterize pro-life groups as trying to take away women's rights with parental control laws.

[Mystirious]

Do you think a doctor should kill a 1 month old baby if their mother decides that is what she wants to do? Because to a doctor that does not believe in abortion, that is exactly what he is doing....he believes that life begins at conception, you may not....and that's fine, that is a question no one has been able to answer for me....and in my case, I would not have an abortion, but I don't think that my choice, should be the choice of everyone. IF, the mother's life is in danger, then the doctor, I'm sure would do the abortion....if her life is not in danger, she can go find a doctor that will do the abortion.


I feel a doctors decisions should be governed solely by hard,scientific and medical fact. And there is no strong scientific proof that life begins at conception. If a doctor wishes to believe that it does then that is their personal opinion and they have every right to it. But I feel it should not govern their decisions when they are on the job

And while I understand where you're coming from in your hypothetical scenario, what would happen if there were no doctors in the womans area willing to perform the abortion? She has effectively been stripped of her right to choose.

It is every womans right to decide what to do with their body. If they wish to have an abortion then they have every right to do so. But if no doctor will agree to perform it then what are they to do?

Allowing doctors to refuse to perform abortions seems like a very bad idea to me.

I guess then if assisted suicide becomes law, and a doctor is against this, they should still have to do it, because they are a doctor?

Personally, I believe they should.

[SentinelMind]

I'm curious as to how many people support this "statist agenda" which you seem to be tossing out here? Once again the exaggeration here is on par with those who characterize pro-life groups as trying to take away women's rights with parental control laws.


I don't have an exact number, but if you read the last 5 pages you'll find posters who do support this and at least one reference to a news article of communities that sanction schools to misinform parents. So the people are out there and I have a right to call it out and debate it when I see it, sir.

[SentinelMind]

I feel a doctors decisions should be governed solely by hard,scientific and medical fact. And there is no strong scientific proof that life begins at conception. If a doctor wishes to believe that it does then that is their personal opinion and they have every right to it. But I feel it should not govern their decisions when they are on the job.

What if they are part of a medical community that does not believe abortion or euthenasia is a valid medically necessary procedure? What is a medical community and code of ethics dictates they do not have to perform an what they believe is an execution?

[Tally Man]

I don't have an exact number, but if you read the last 5 pages you'll find posters who do support this and at least one reference to a news article of communities that sanction schools to misinform parents. So the people are out there and I have a right to call it out and debate it when I see it, sir.

So focusing on a minority of people who in no way have any real influence on the issue and adds nothing constructive to the national discourse is you're way of addressing the abortion issue? You can call them out all you want but that adds nothing to the debate and only helps to perpetuate the stereotypes which unfortunately pervade the issue. I mean geez why worry about exceptions dealing with women's health in laws or finding a way to educate people on abortions when we can call out these "communities" on this pressing issue...

[SentinelMind]

So focusing on a minority of people who in no way have any real influence on the issue and adds nothing constructive to the national discourse is you're way of addressing the abortion issue? You can call them out all you want but that adds nothing to the debate and only helps to perpetuate the stereotypes which unfortunately pervade the issue. I mean geez why worry about exceptions dealing with women's health in laws or finding a way to educate people on abortions when we can call out these "communities" on this pressing issue...

whoa, you're blowing a fuze here. I have a right to debate people have different opinion, no matter how significant you think they are. I have a right to discuss enforcedLAWS that require doctors to misinform parents about child's abortions, regardless of whether you think that focusing on existing laws creates "stereotypes that pervades this issue" :huh:

[Addendum]

Yes, you have that right. Anything else is another matter.

[Mystirious]

What if they are part of a medical community that does not believe abortion or euthenasia is a valid medically necessary procedure?


It's not a matter of whether it is medically necessary or not. If a woman does not want to have a baby she has the right to choose not to do so. Our bodies are our own and we have the right to decide what to do with them.

And if a patient wishes to end their life if they are suffering, from a terminal disease or simmilar then I feel they should be allowed to do so. But that's another discussion altogether and not one that's really connected to the matter at hand

[SentinelMind]

Yes, you have that right. Anything else is another matter.

Like organizing and voting against it? :huh:

[Kelly]

So focusing on a minority of people who in no way have any real influence on the issue and adds nothing constructive to the national discourse is you're way of addressing the abortion issue? You can call them out all you want but that adds nothing to the debate and only helps to perpetuate the stereotypes which unfortunately pervade the issue. I mean geez why worry about exceptions dealing with women's health in laws or finding a way to educate people on abortions when we can call out these "communities" on this pressing issue...

We tend to do this a lot around here....

[Addendum]

Like organizing and voting against it? :huh:

Like "respect" and "not being dismissive". Politics has nothing to do with that.

[Tally Man]

whoa, you're blowing a fuze here. I have a right to debate people have different opinion, no matter how significant you think they are. I have a right to discuss enforcedLAWS that require doctors to misinform parents about child's abortions, regardless of whether you think that focusing on existing laws creates "stereotypes that pervades this issue" :huh:

Of course you have the right to debate. But if your debating topics which deal with a small minority and have no real bearing on the actual debate then your pretty much just wasting time and ending up causing more harm then good. Its one thing to come to a debate with relevant information and bringing something to it, but if you just pull out things like statist agenda and social engineers in the government I don't see how that really helps anybody.

Also got a link to that law that requires doctors to misinform parents? I remember seeing the high school incident posted a few pages back but I must have missed that one.

We tend to do this a lot around here....

That's pretty much why I tend to lurk around here instead of posting a lot these days. There's no real point to getting into such a debate with either side when this happens.

[SentinelMind]

Ok, Tally, you've worn me out, please tell us what the "actual debate" should be.

The high school incident was what I was referring to but its happening lots more places
than you think. I don't think its as rare as you think it is, and even if it was, I have a right to debate it. Unfortunately, I think this will be more common as time passes.

Kentucky
http://www.wlky.com/news/23223953/detail.html

Stargel, a Lakeland Republican, pushed a measure Tuesday to make it harder for a pregnant teenager to get an abortion without parental consent.
Her legislation, and a companion Senate bill, takes particular aim at state court judges, who grant minors waivers from parental notice 95 percent of the time under provisions in a 2005 law.

The measure would require a judge to determine by the elevated standard of ``clear and convincing evidence'' that a minor is ``sufficiently mature'' to choose termination. Another provision prevents so-called judge shopping by requiring a pregnant girl to make the petition only at the local courthouse; requires a parent's signature get notarized for consent; and allows longer delays, up to three weeks, for final approval.


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/14/1578145/bill-will-make-it-harder-for-florida.html#ixzz0mY07H2BY


UK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-484201/Doctors-code-silence-hide-age-sex-parents.html

[Tally Man]

Ok, Tally, you've worn me out, please tell us what the "actual debate" should be.

Clearly not the statist agenda and government social engineering which you've brought up. How about looking at the content of the laws that are being passed around the country or perhaps how to reduce abortions through education and awareness of the consequences of sex along with birth control. Hell I'd just settle for less crazy and more reasonableness from both sides, but that's just me.

The high school incident was what I was referring to but its happening lots more places than you think. I don't think its as rare as you think it is, and even if it was, I have a right to debate it. Unfortunately, I think this will be more common as time passes.

Kentucky
http://www.wlky.com/news/23223953/detail.html

Stargel, a Lakeland Republican, pushed a measure Tuesday to make it harder for a pregnant teenager to get an abortion without parental consent.
Her legislation, and a companion Senate bill, takes particular aim at state court judges, who grant minors waivers from parental notice 95 percent of the time under provisions in a 2005 law.

The measure would require a judge to determine by the elevated standard of ``clear and convincing evidence'' that a minor is ``sufficiently mature'' to choose termination. Another provision prevents so-called judge shopping by requiring a pregnant girl to make the petition only at the local courthouse; requires a parent's signature get notarized for consent; and allows longer delays, up to three weeks, for final approval.


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/14/1578145/bill-will-make-it-harder-for-florida.html#ixzz0mY07H2BY


UK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-484201/Doctors-code-silence-hide-age-sex-parents.html

Sorry but still not seeing this whole trend thing your pointing to. And I'm certainly not seeing any laws which are requiring doctors to mislead parents. I am however certainly seeing the issue of whether parental rights over children conflicting with children's rights to privacy/doctor patient confidentialty comming up. This is what I mean when I talk exaggeration. Its one thing to want to talk about the parental consent issue, but its a whole different thing to paint it as if doctors are going to parents and lying or misenforming them.

[SentinelMind]

Tally, you might not personally think that parental consent laws are that big of deal, but protecting parents ability to know about their child's well-being is an important issue for me and I do not agree that parental consent laws for life-jeapordizing surgical procedures should be dismissed as trivial or "obscuring the real issue." I think the government is doing too much to withhold pertinent information from parents about their child and I don't see why its soo bizarre to push for more notification and autonomy on behalf of parents.

At least 12 state in US have no parental consent laws and others allow courts to bypass parents on many circumstances.
http://parentingteens.about.com/od/teenpregfact/a/abortion_laws_2.htm


If you want to discuss "real issues", start the debate, but you haven't demonstrated to me how pushing for more notification and involvement from parents is "causing" harm in this country.

[Tally Man]

Tally, you might not personally think that parental consent laws are that big of deal, but protecting parents ability to know about their child's well-being is an important issue for me and I do not agree that parental consent laws for life-jeapordizing surgical procedures should be dismissed as trivial or "obscuring the real issue." I think the government is doing too much to withhold pertinent information from parents about their child and I don't see why its soo bizarre to have that ideal.

At least 12 state in US have no parental consent laws and others allow courts to bypass parents.
http://parentingteens.about.com/od/teenpregfact/a/abortion_laws_2.htm


If you want to discuss "real issues", start the debate, but you haven't demonstrated to me how pushing for more notification and involvement from parents is "causing" harm in this country.

I think parental consent laws are also an important part of the debate. However as I said in my last post, which you didn't address in this one, is that doing so in a way which does not exaggerate the situation. Its one thing to talk about the rights of a parent to raise their child versus a child's right to privacy/doctor patient privilege. Its a whole different thing to label this situation as one where there are laws which to quote you are enforced to mislead parents or start talking about a statist agenda. This is unfortunately not a black and white issue and there are legitimate concerns on both sides. So lets not turn the issue into a useless hyperbole which doesn't do it justice.

[SentinelMind]

Excuse me Tally, there are 12 states that have no parental notification laws and states like FL where a teenager can shop around for a judge to bypass parents and you dismissed that as by your own post "minority has no control over anything" and "focusing on trivial". That is blatantly false to depict the status quo that exists in several states as having no impact on vast number of people in this country.

[Tally Man]

Excuse me Tally, there are 12 states that have no parental notification laws and states like FL where a teenager can shop around for a judge to bypass parents and you dismissed that as by your own post "minority has no control over anything" and "focusing on trivial". That is blatantly false to depict the status quo that exists in several states as having no impact on vast number of people in this country.

And this addresses anything in my last post how? I'm talking about hyperbole and not muddling the issue of parental consent versus childrens' right to privacy/doctor patient privilege and all of a sudden its 12 states don't have parental notification laws without any numbers on how many kids actually bypass their parent's consent on getting an abortion? How about actually answering the points about these laws not making doctors mislead parents or the lack of a statist agenda instead of dodging the questions?

Also quick aside I never dismissed the parental consent issue as minor, just your exaggerated version of it about doctors lying to parents and what not as being the little issue there.

[SentinelMind]

First off, I didn't say doctors lied I said they misinformed parents....quite frankly, if a parent is unaware their child received a surgical operation that was necessary from sexual activity ...they're pretty misinformed. Second, reread your own post where you said I was focusing on communities that "had no control over anything". But now you accept that there are 12 states where teenagers can have abortions with no say from parents. Parent finds out after the fact their child got an abortion at their high school. There are abortions clinics who promise teenagers over the phone they will find a government lawyer to hide their abortion from their parents. Finally, we're getting somewhere, its not a small issue as you had easily depicted. If you want me to provide more specific research on the issue and look into answering more questions, ...that's fine, I'm willing to dwell into the issue with you. I can get into more detail on how there is a statist agenda pushing pushing for abortions, profiting from abortions, and coercing others to facilitate it...one piece at a time. On the latter point, I will respond more to this weekend.

[Tally Man]

First off, I didn't say doctors lied I said they misinformed parents....quite frankly, if a parent is unaware their child received a surgical operation that was necessary from sexual activity ...they're pretty misinformed.

Really? That's the best answer you can come up for stating

I have a right to discuss enforcedLAWS that require doctors to misinform parents about child's abortions, regardless of whether you think that focusing on existing laws creates "stereotypes that pervades this issue"

That seems a lot different from the meaning your trying to imply in this post...

Second, reread your own post where you said I was focusing on communities that "had no control over anything".

Find me a post where I say communities and I'll concede this point. But as I see it I never said communities and was referring to the small amount of instances where any doctor would deliberately lie or intentionally mislead parents. So yeah not seeing where you're going with this one...

But now you accept that there are 12 states where teenagers can have abortions with no say from parents. Parent finds out after the fact their child got an abortion at their high school. There are abortions clinics who promise teenagers over the phone they will find a government lawyer to hide their abortion from their parents. Finally, we're getting somewhere, its not a small issue as you had easily depicted. If you want me to provide more specific research on the issue and look into answering more questions, ...that's fine, I'm willing to dwell into the issue with you. I can get into more detail on how there is a statist agenda pushing pushing for abortions, profiting from abortions, and coercing others to facilitate it...one piece at a time. On the latter point, I will respond more to this weekend.

Funny I've never denied that there are places where there aren't parental consent laws. I seem to remember talking about this whole misinforming parents issue which you seem to think is a huge thing and which I keep pointing out is one giant hyperbole in the parental consent issue. Don't bother going more in depth if you aren't going to address my points and go off on a tangent. As I stated before no point in debating when useless hyperbole gets tossed around and I think I've had my fill from you already.

[SentinelMind]

Really? That's the best answer you can come up for stating



That seems a lot different from the meaning your trying to imply in this post...

Are you seriously arguing that a parent who is unaware that their child had an abortion at school is not misinformed at their child's health and well-being? Are you seriously implying that not informing a parent about a child's medical procedure that she wants to hide from her parent is not engaging in deception?


Find me a post where I say communities and I'll concede this point.


So focusing on a minority of people who in no way have any real influence on the issue and adds nothing constructive to the national discourse is you're way of addressing the abortion issue? You can call them out all you want but that adds nothing to the debate and only helps to perpetuate the stereotypes which unfortunately pervade the issue. I mean geez why worry about exceptions dealing with women's health in laws or finding a way to educate people on abortions when we can call out these "communities" on this pressing issue...

How do you go from no minority of people who have no influence and exceptions to acceptance that now accepting that several states in this country had no parental consent laws on books and existence of judges and statutes in place to allow children to circumvent parental notification when getting an abortion? How are all these legal loopholes "pervading the issue?"



Funny I've never denied that there are places where there aren't parental consent laws.

True, you just implied their existence plays a trivial role in the abortion debate which is a subjective and not convincing argument, in my opinion.


I seem to remember talking about this whole misinforming parents issue which you seem to think is a huge thing and which I keep pointing out is one giant hyperbole in the parental consent issue. Don't bother going more in depth if you aren't going to address my points and go off on a tangent. As I stated before no point in debating when useless hyperbole gets tossed around and I think I've had my fill from you already.

So wait.. do you still want to me to discuss the abortion on demand statist agenda with research or not?

[Tally Man]

Are you seriously arguing that a parent who is unaware that their child had an abortion at school is not misinformed at their child's health and well-being? Are you seriously implying that not informing a parent about a child's medical procedure that she wants to hide from her parent is not engaging in deception?

I am arguing that your statement that there was a law which required doctors misinform parents was blatantly false and that now you are trying to twist your words to try and make it appear that wasn't what you were saying.

How do you go from no minority of people who have no influence and exceptions to acceptance that now accepting that several states in this country had no parental consent laws on books and existence of judges and statutes in place to allow children to circumvent parental notification when getting an abortion? How are all these legal loopholes "pervading the issue?"

One no mention of community in there so you missed that one. Two how do you keep taking my statement about a minority of people encouraging deliberate misinformation of parents to mean a minority of places without parental consent laws?

True, you just implied their existence plays a trivial role in the abortion debate which is a subjective and not convincing argument, in my opinion.

Nope I've implied your statements about doctors misleading parents and people with a statist agenda are hyperbole which serve no constructive purpose in the abortion debate.

So wait.. do you still want to me to discuss the abortion on demand statist agenda with research or not?

I don't need to talk about the hyperbole you keep bringing up anymore since that's a non issue. But seeing in this post your statement about a legal loophole, I would like to discuss how a constitutional framework set up by the Supreme Court about parental consent and judicial bypass if consent cannot be acquired is a "legal loophole" when the whole parental consent framework including the bypass was set up by the Court in the first place?

[SentinelMind]

I am arguing that your statement that there was a law which required doctors misinform parents was blatantly false and that now you are trying to twist your words to try and make it appear that wasn't what you were saying.

If a school can provide abortion services during school hours which a child is mandated to attend without consent or notification of the parent, and the abortion procedure is being singled out as one of few procedures that doesn't require notification to parent, the parent is not being properly informed about child's well-being and health and is being taken out discussion of child's health altogether. You have simply not answered the questions whether you think this type of protocol is acceptable or deceptive to the parent.


Nope I've implied your statements about doctors misleading parents and people with a statist agenda are hyperbole which serve no constructive purpose in the abortion debate.

First, I have already answered parents being misinformed, which in other posts you have tangentially accepted. I've responded to your rather flimsy assertion that people who support taking parents out of notification process for abortions are not a bunch of "exceptions" or "people have no control over anything." If the law of the land of both Court and legislature is that a child can get a medical procedure without parental consent, but can't buy a cigarrette, I can't fathom how you can objectively interpret that as "an exception."

If you want me to discuss the argument that there groups of people aggressively pushing for a pro-abortion agenda on folks and groups that don't support it, you have to allow me to elaborate. If you don't want to hear it, that's fine, its circular reasonaing to dismiss something as hyperbole then say I don't want to hear it because I know its hyperbole.

[Tally Man]

If a school can provide abortion services during school hours which a child is mandated to attend without consent or notification of the parent, and the abortion procedure is being singled out as one of few procedures that doesn't require notification to parent, the parent is not being properly informed about child's well-being and health and is being taken out discussion of child's health altogether. You have simply not answered the questions whether you think this type of protocol is acceptable or deceptive to the parent.

Once again you said in your post a LAW to require doctors to misinform parents. That is what I've been addressing. Your blatant exaggerations of statements such as that. I've not been talking about that school incident at all. So why your bringing that up when its not what I've been addressing in terms of posts is more attempting to dodge the question.

Also I think what the school did was pretty stupid and isn't something I'd endorse. If they didn't coerce the kid into doing it as the one article makes it sound like and the kid made the decision with her own free will, then things get a bit muddled as that kid was well within her rights. It isn't against the LAW as Washington does not have parental consent or notification.


First, I have already answered parents being misinformed, which in other posts you have tangentially accepted. I've responded to your rather flimsy assertion that people who support taking parents out of notification process for abortions are not a bunch of "exceptions" or "people have no control over anything." If the law of the land of both Court and legislature is that a child can get a medical procedure without parental consent, but can't buy a cigarrette, I can't fathom how you can objectively interpret that as "an exception."

One I've accepted that there are states that lack parental consent/notification laws. I have not tangentially accepted any of your exaggerations or down right fabrications. Two I haven't seen you provide any proof that there are large groups of people who go around trying to take parental consent away from parents in terms of abortions involving minors. The only thing you've stated is that there are states where there are no parental consent/notification laws. You've proven nothing and only thrown out exaggerations. How many laws are being proposed to undo the parental notification/consent provisions in states that have those? How many instances are there of people actually actively going around hiding kids abortions from parents? When you can provide answers to these questions you can truly say the claims you've been tossing out are not exceptions.

The reason minors can get an abortion without parental consent is something which has long been established by the courts, specifically the Supreme Court. Which is something you haven't even discussed when brought up and have fallen back on these assertions of statists and government family planners.

If you want me to discuss the argument that there groups of people aggressively pushing for a pro-abortion agenda on folks and groups that don't support it, you have to allow me to elaborate. If you don't want to hear it, that's fine, its circular reasonaing to dismiss something as hyperbole then say I don't want to hear it because I know its hyperbole.

1. Circular reasoning is when a proposition that requires proof is assumed to have proof. Me saying debating hyperbole is useless and I'm not going to debate you because you are using hyperbole is not circular logic. If I said you were using hyperbole because what you were saying was hyperbole that would be circular reasoning. If you are going to assert a fallacy at least make sure you're using it correctly.

2. The only aggressively "pro-abortion" agenda out there is the one seeking to make sure that people stop attempting to ban a constitutional right/medical procedure. Your example of people attempting to push a "pro-abortion" agenda is laughable and on par with people who say that liberals are trying to force a "gay agenda" on others or a "Darwinist agenda" on schools.

Honestly if you'd like to debate the finer points of the constitutionality of parental consent and look at the cases that have established the framework for it I'd love to talk about it. But if you are going to keep going on about a "pro-abortion" agenda of statists and government family planners there is no point.

[SentinelMind]

Also I think what the school did was pretty stupid and isn't something I'd endorse. If they didn't coerce the kid into doing it as the one article makes it sound like and the kid made the decision with her own free will, then things get a bit muddled as that kid was well within her rights. It isn't against the LAW as Washington does not have parental consent or notification.

That's the point, the law should not deny parents notification of any medical procedure on their dependents, especially procedures carried on mandatory education facilities.


Two I haven't seen you provide any proof that there are large groups of people who go around trying to take parental consent away from parents in terms of abortions involving minors.


Bill to require courts provide more burden of proof to take away parental notification rights stalls in FL Congress....apparently the bill is dead.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2010/04/senate-just-moderate-enough-to-halt-abortion-measure-for-now.html

Case Worker loses job after refusing to take teenager to get late-term abortion after parental refuses consent.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100503__SHAMEFUL__PRESSURE_.html?page=1&c=y

[Addendum]

So it's on the same level as the "evidence" for the "war" on christmas

[SentinelMind]

The links show bill for strengthening FL parental consent being defeated in Congress. The links show PA DHS sending teenager to another state to get an abortion after her own mother rejected consent.

There have been several bills that have died in US Congress to prevent state agencies from circumventing their own state parental consent laws by sending the child to another state where there is no law.

[Addendum]

Which only shows a series of separate events that share a similar point. They do not prove the existence of a unified movement.

[SentinelMind]

Which only shows a series of separate events that share a similar point. They do not prove the existence of a unified movement.

This does show that several layers of state and federal government has been operating to circumvent state laws in order to allow teenagers to get abortions without parent consent. Whether or not that fits your definition of a "unified movement" doesn't seem relevant. I'll concede all the participants may not have each other on speed dial, but that's like engaging in a semantics game arguing a distinction without a difference.

[Addendum]

You acted like there's a unified movement when there is no evidence for one.

[SentinelMind]

You acted like there's a unified movement when there is no evidence for one.

If you consider a unified movement as one body or organization or consortium of groups dictating or coordinating all these incidents, then yeah that is true, but I never claimed such a thing. You don't have to have one organization in order to advance an a philosophy that believes parental consent and notification laws should be circumvented whenever and however possible to allow teenagers to get abortions. All you have to do is show that the philosophy exists at various level of federal and state government in the various branches and agencies.

And btw, some of these instances are advanced with assistance of a unified group of lobbyists, mostly NARAL, NOW, and ACLU.

[Addendum]

So essentially, just another day in the political realm.

Insert whatever political issue here, sprinkle in some lobbyists, toss in some political groups, and garnish with some opposing views.

Nothing new.

[Tally Man]

That's the point, the law should not deny parents notification of any medical procedure on their dependents, especially procedures carried on mandatory education facilities.

Even if that dependent does want their parents to know about it? How about another hypothetical dealing with parental consent. For instance should a minor have to go to their parents and get consent for STD testing and treatment?

Bill to require courts provide more burden of proof to take away parental notification rights stalls in FL Congress....apparently the bill is dead.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2010/04/senate-just-moderate-enough-to-halt-abortion-measure-for-now.html

The article says the vote was postponed so I'm not sure I'd say the bill is dead. I would also say it is a bit hard to jump from 3 congressional votes to a large movement.

Case Worker loses job after refusing to take teenager to get late-term abortion after parental refuses consent.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20100503__SHAMEFUL__PRESSURE_.html?page=1&c=y

Somehow I doubt this one instance of that occurring represents a large or growing trend in abortions.

[Addendum]

Hey. That's what he landed on his "jump to conclusion" mat

[SentinelMind]

Even if that dependent does want their parents to know about it? How about another hypothetical dealing with parental consent. For instance should a minor have to go to their parents and get consent for STD testing and treatment?

I think the school should notify the parent that minor received treatment. With regard to testing, you could perhaps limit it to positive results. If the minor needs to routinely taking critical drugs, the parent should be aware of that. I don't want the school hiding the fact their child now has the HIV virus for instance.


The article says the vote was postponed so I'm not sure I'd say the bill is dead. I would also say it is a bit hard to jump from 3 congressional votes to a large movement.

When it comes to procedural votes and parliamentarian tactics, all you need is 3 votes to stop a bill in its tracks...the bill doesn't ever have to see the light of day for a floor vote. Politicians and committees "delay" votes on bills they want to kill all the time.

Apparently, the provision did fail, please see 2nd item listed.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/01/1608972/florida-legislative-scorecard.html

Here is a federal bill to prevent states from trafficking minors across borders in order to circumvent their own state's parental consent laws. This bill never made it to Senate despite being introduced in 2005 and having passed the House.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-748


Somehow I doubt this one instance of that occurring represents a large or growing trend in abortions.

These three items do demonstrate there is a significant political force that has been very successful in preventing the implementation of parental consent laws across this country that cannot be ignored or dismissed as irrelevant, which was my initial point.

[Addendum]

Actually, people can ignore it and/or dismiss it as irrelevant.

[SentinelMind]

Actually, people can ignore it and/or dismiss it as irrelevant.

True, but not if they want credibility :cwink:.

[Addendum]

Which is really meaningless on an internet messageboard :awesome:

[Tally Man]

I think the school should notify the parent that minor received treatment. With regard to testing, you could perhaps limit it to positive results. If the minor needs to routinely taking critical drugs, the parent should be aware of that. I don't want the school hiding the fact their child now has the HIV virus for instance.

You do however realize that this is in fact an area in which it has been recognized that the dependent has the right to get these procedures through their own consent. So simply put, a parent's right to consent isn't an absolute right. There have been instances where either by their own rights or by an interest in the public good that it has been recognized that a minor is mature enough to consent by themselves.

When it comes to procedural votes and parliamentarian tactics, all you need is 3 votes to stop a bill in its tracks...the bill doesn't ever have to see the light of day for a floor vote. Politicians and committees "delay" votes on bills they want to kill all the time.

And single politicians do this all the time for a variety of reasons independent of any group politics. Not only that, but this was a bill which dealt with an existing law. I'm not seeing any campaigns in Florida to repeal that law.

Here is a federal bill to prevent states from trafficking minors across borders in order to circumvent their own state's parental consent laws. This bill never made it to Senate despite being introduced in 2005 and having passed the House.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-748

And all we have here is speculation about a bill that never got to a Senate vote and just got cleared off the books due to the normal time constraints placed on bills.

These three items do demonstrate there is a significant political force that has been very successful in preventing the implementation of parental consent laws across this country that cannot be ignored or dismissed as irrelevant, which was my initial point.

I'm sorry but those three items don't demonstrate anything especially if you actually look at them. The first bill was simply something designed to add on to an already present parental notification law. The failure of that doesn't show a significant political force preventing implementing of a parental consent/notification law since its already there. The second example doesn't even tell us why the bill never was voted on and it died because of the time limit. And the one case worker example is not something which one could say is going on all across the country.

This is of course not taking into account the fact that the majority of States already have parental consent/notification laws on the books. Can you show me the legislative efforts to get those laws removed? Somehow I doubt we'll see that. Face it, parental consent/notification laws are already on the books/constitutional and no one is trying to strip the states of those existing laws. And yet for some reason you consider there to be some "significant" political force stopping implementation of something which is implemented in a majority of the states...

[Marx]

HHS ANNOUNCES 'PREGNANCY ASSISTANCE FUND' TO SUPPORT PREGNANT WOMEN AND TEEN PARENTS
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/02/pregnancy-assistance-fund-tied-to-common-ground-abortion-plan/?fbid=uxLVEsu2a58

[Grievous]

They can refuse to do abortions? Good lord. The government really ought to change that. It's a doctors job to follow their patients wishes, no matter what their personal feelings are

I mean you wouldn't want to go in for a major operation and have the doctor say "Sorry, I have personal objections to surgical procedures. So we're going to just let you die"
I disagree with you so much that it is not even funny. First off if the government forced doctors to do what ever the patient wanted then they would be taking away the doctors's rights to say no. Second your logic about the doc letting you die because he does not want to fix you does not even really fit in with the abortion subject. I believe docs should only have to give a abortion if the women's life depends on it. Any other case I think the doc should have the right to say no.

[Addendum]

Perhaps they should have entered a different field rather than ob/gyn.

[Kelly]

I would hate to think how few OB-GYNs there would be left if they didn't go into that field because they did not want to do abortions. I believe a survey I read about this in Canada put 60% who were polled as not doing elective abortions. I haven't read of a survey here in the US.

[Kelly]

I haven't seen a poll on the # of Ob-gyns here in the US do abortions, but one poll I saw in Canada put 60.6% in Canada do not do abortions, and when asked why 50% said personal beliefs...that is up from 51% when the last poll was done back in 1991. I can assume that in the US they run somewhat more conservative.

I would hate to think how few ob-gyns we would have left if a litmus test was given in order for them to go into this type of medical care...

[Addendum]

It's not always delivering babies and doing the exams. I would rather they know what all ob-gyns face while they're in damned med school, rather than say "oh sorry, I don't feel comfortable having to do an abortion" once they finished their residency and become full doctors.

The same can be said about those pharmacists who refuse to do their job when it comes to filling prescriptions for birth control.

[Kelly]

It's not always delivering babies and doing the exams. I would rather they know what all ob-gyns face while they're in damned med school, rather than say "oh sorry, I don't feel comfortable having to do an abortion" once they finished their residency and become full doctors.

The same can be said about those pharmacists who refuse to do their job when it comes to filling prescriptions for birth control.


That isn't their fault, its not like they choose in "damned med school" to NOT learn about abortion. It isn't taught as a major portion of their curriculum...in some cases if mentioned, maybe in a 45 minute lecture, but it isn't part of their med school experience. In the US 12% of residency programs provide instruction in 1st trimester abortions, only 7% in 2nd trimester abortions....what bothers me about that is the fact that they will be doing abortions in some cases because of the life of the mother, and YES, it would be important that they get that training. In the Canada article I read it said that 50% offer the training as a very small portion of their program, but 50% of that is as an elective. With the fact that it is not a major part of their med school experience, its pretty evident that the med school knows that it is not going to be a major part of their practice. They are going to say no to a profession, because they do not desire to do what ends up probably a small part of their practice, except in situations of the mother's life, of what that profession entails, and knowing that if these women want abortions, they will find a doctor that does them? They are going to say no to that? Again, the numbers of ob gyns would plummet, and we don't have doctors to spare today. Also, once this new health care reform totally kicks in we will have even fewer.

If I wanted to have an abortion, and not able to afford it, or knowing what to do, in high school, etc....I would do one of two things, I would go to my counselor at school, who has numbers to give me of services that can answer my questions...(some schools cannot give out abortion information, but they can send them in the direction to get all alternative information). That place would probably be in touch with Planned Parenthood which would have a list of doctors that perform abortions. So whether my family's doctor believed in abortion or not, it would not matter. If I made that decision as an adult, and I knew that my ob gyn did not do abortions, I would immediately call Planned Parenthood, or other organization in my community that could give me names of those in my community that would do abortions. OR, go online and search... There are ways of finding those that will do abortions, so whether my doctor did or didn't, wouldn't really matter....If I wanted the abortion, I could get it. As far as Pharmacists, I don't know of one pharmacist that has turned down someone when getting their prescription for birth control. Also, damn if one doesn't, go about a mile down the road, the next one probably will.

I would love for ob gyn doctors that feel strongly about doing abortions, would be a part of programs in rural areas, some are. But, I do not agree that doctors should be forced. The trend for abortions in the US is also going down since the 1980s....I would hate to lose doctors....and IMO we would.

[Marx]

TEA PARTIER TO PREGNANT RAPE VICTIMS: 'TURN LEMONS INTO LEMONADE'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/sharron-angles-advice-for_n_639294.html

[VampElvis]

If she truly believes abortion is murder, her position is defensable. Really, if she honestly is convicted in this, could she take another position?

[Addendum]

But I thought the tea party was about smaller government. Outlawing a medical procedure doesn't sound small to me.

[Marx]

But I thought the tea party was about smaller government. Outlawing a medical procedure doesn't sound small to me.

That's something I have never understood - people who preach on and on about how they want smaller government...yet they support outlawing abortion and gay marriage.

[Hobgoblin]

That's something I have never understood - people who preach on and on about how they want smaller government...yet they support outlawing abortion and gay marriage.

They want smaller government and more respect paid to the Constitution....as long as the Bible agrees with the sentiment. If general sentiment or the Const doesnt agree with them, the Bible overrules small government and the Constitution.

[Addendum]

I'll take Dr. Seuss over the bible, but that's just me.

[StorminNorman]

But I thought the tea party was about smaller government. Outlawing a medical procedure doesn't sound small to me.

They want smaller government and more respect paid to the Constitution....as long as the Bible agrees with the sentiment. If general sentiment or the Const doesnt agree with them, the Bible overrules small government and the Constitution.

Come on, you guys are letting your own views getting away of well...logic.

Lets look at this again:

As Vamp said: "If she truly believes abortion is murder, her position is defensible."

Is opposition to MURDER a "Big Government" issue? Of course not. Even to the most extreme small government libertarian, the purpose of government is the protection of individual rights, which includes the defense of citizens from crimes such as murder. If one considers a fetus to be an "individual", which is the lynch pin of the entire anti-abortion debate, than it is the governments job, no matter the "size", to protect the fetus.

Instead of going with the auto-response, bash the Tea Party/Pro Life/opposition - take a second to actually, you know, consider her position. :up:

[Addendum]

The constitution makes no mention of "natural conceived citizens". It's "natural born". Rights occur at birth.

[Marx]

DEAD ANIMALS WITH ANTI-ABORTION MESSAGES LEFT AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD CLINICS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/22/dead-animals-left-at-two_n_656098.html

I hope I'm not the only one to see the irony in a pro-life activist leaving a dead animal at a clinic in protest.

[Marx]

GOP SENATE CANDIDATE ON ABORTION: 'I DON'T BELIEVE IN EXCEPTIONS OF RAPE OR INCEST'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/03/colorado-senate-candidate_n_669432.html

[mclay18]

GOP SENATE CANDIDATE ON ABORTION: 'I DON'T BELIEVE IN EXCEPTIONS OF RAPE OR INCEST'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/03/colorado-senate-candidate_n_669432.html

:doh:

Idiocy knows no bounds.

[hopefuldreamer]

I have a friend who has had three abortions.

The first was when she was 16. Too young to think about having kids, too stupid to think about condoms.

Then when we were in uni together, she got pregnant by her steady boyfriend. We were 20, but she didn't want to have kids. She was pregnant with twins. It really got to me, because she was showing by the time they were aborted.

When we finished uni, she got pregnant again. The third one was a bit more complicated. For one thing, they wouldn't put her under anaesthetic. She was made to watch the whole time, and she called me up in tears afterwards, talking about the blood and the fact they took the foetus into a chapel afterwards and stuff.

I really don't know how I feel about abortion. But I know that all of that makes me feel sick and sad.

[The Warden]

I have a friend who has had three abortions.

I really don't know how I feel about abortion. But I know that all of that makes me feel sick and sad.

I'm on the fence as well. I'm a father of a one year old and I'm so glad we decided to have him. In the beginning we considered an abortion out of fear but ultimately I couldn't do it and almost two years later my son is the best thing to happen to me. If your not going to use protection then I don't think you should be aloud to get an abortion. I think rape should be the only exception to that.

[Kent]

GOP SENATE CANDIDATE ON ABORTION: 'I DON'T BELIEVE IN EXCEPTIONS OF RAPE OR INCEST'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/03/colorado-senate-candidate_n_669432.html

To be fair, I think this seems consistent. If you think abortion is murder I mean.

Pro-lifers who believe in exceptions in the case of rape/incest seem to me like they have to, in the very least, be very confused about the whole thing.

"Abortion is the murder of an innocent, but if you're ever raped, then murdering an innocent is A-OK! :yay::up:"

Though it's a good kind of inconsistency since it means they're less likely to want to make these types of abortions (in case of rape/incest) illegal.

[Marx]

PALIN SAYS ABORTION IS 'KEY ISSUE' IN MIDTERMS
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/06/palin-abortion-essential-issue-in-midterm-elections/

When all else fails...push hot button issues to drive your base to the polls. :whatever:

[Kelly]

She better watch it, because its this kind of stuff that turns Independents OFF....quick.

Stick to the issues at hand stupid, and abortion ISN'T one of them.

JOBS......JOBS...............JOBS.

[Grievous]

I'm on the fence as well. I'm a father of a one year old and I'm so glad we decided to have him. In the beginning we considered an abortion out of fear but ultimately I couldn't do it and almost two years later my son is the best thing to happen to me. If your not going to use protection then I don't think you should be aloud to get an abortion. I think rape should be the only exception to that.
Agree with most :up:

I believe in the case of rape if the women does not want the child then the gov should help her find it a good home. Don't let the child pay for the sins of their farther. Abortion should only be used if the women's life is at risk.

[ghostrider92]

the united states needs to repeal roe v wade .

[Bathead]

Why?

[Marx]

A new bill being proposed in Ohio would limit abortions to just before the first heartbeat of the fetus can be detected. The bill is being called the 'Heartbeat Bill'.

[Thread Manager]

This thread is now closed it has a continuation thread 348215