Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I still have not heard one reasonable objection why this proposition should not pass." I thought you weren't going to pass judgment on anyone's opinion here.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder As many here know, I have no children. However, I'm employed as a child support enforcement attorney. I see far too many babies having babies. I see far too many of these babies from babies end up on welfare or foster care. Abortion is a volatile topic obviously, but nonetheless, given the alternatives, if a pregnant girl below the age of 18 makes a unilateral decision to abort, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that her decision should be honored, no matter what her parent(s) might think. Often, in retrospect, it is the best decision that could be made, for a multitude of reasons.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Often, in retrospect, it is the best decision that could be made, for a multitude of reasons.>> Society would also undoubtedly be better off if the offspring of any unwed mother were euthanized at the time of birth. All statistics show that these children have little chance of success and will more than likely follow their mother's footsteps into a life of dependence on welfare. So logically, euthanasia would make complete sense. It just wouldn't be the proper choice or the moral one.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Society would also undoubtedly be better off if the offspring of any unwed mother were euthanized at the time of birth." What the hell kind of statement is this?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<What the hell kind of statement is this?>> Pretty much the same one you made.
Originally Posted By jonvn No, not really. A baby has as much right to live as anyone else. An embryo does not.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ As usual, where do you draw the line in the sand? If you can't state where, when and why is should be drawn, it shouldn't be drawn. By the way... I DO NOT support making abortion illegal. It should remain an option for those who want it. But it is not a justifiable moral choice and never will be. That's OK. Lot's of stuff is legal in America that isn't moral. Like preemptive war.
Originally Posted By jonvn where do you draw the line in the sand? Well, of course, that's the tough question isn't it. It's a question of competing rights, viability, and public health. It's not cut and dried, and it's a bit fuzzy. You have to do what is in the best interests of everyone involved. And you just have to make a personal judgement call about what is really the right thing.
Originally Posted By jonvn And what I say above is why it is neccessary for it to remain legal and easily obtainable, even by minors. It's not the same thing as getting an aspirin. There are many more factors involved in this, and the state takes an interest in protecting the rights of everyone involved. Children have rights, and some of them are of higher import than those of parents.
Originally Posted By Big Thunder <<"I still have not heard one reasonable objection why this proposition should not pass.">> >"I thought you weren't going to pass judgment on anyone's opinion here."< I'm not passing judgement, I am stating *my* opinion that I have not heard anything thus far that would suggest to me that this is not a good law. I am still open minded, and still willing to hear others' opinions. So far however I am gaining more reasons to lean toward it passing, ironically from those who oppose it.
Originally Posted By jonvn I gave you several reasons as to why this is not a good law. I don't think that there would be any reason given to you that would cause you to change your already formed opinion.
Originally Posted By Big Thunder >>I gave you several reasons as to why this is not a good law. I don't think that there would be any reason given to you that would cause you to change your already formed opinion.<< jovn As best I can tell the only reason you gave against the measure is that you are concerned that a minor girl will be too afraid to tell her parents and that may cause her to seek an unsafe abortion or cause a new born abandonment. Nobody wants that I'm sure, but the proposition has a clause in there for that. If a girl feels she simply cant inform her parents she can get a waiver from the courts. To me that solves your problem right there. However you state that probably wont happen and planned parenthood would have to have a legal counselor on site. I can almost guarantee you that a company as profitable as planned parenthood can and will have that option available. So again, i dont see a problem for a fearful teenager. So yes, I stand firm that thus far I have not heard a reasonable objection to this proposition. You seem to want to label me that I wont accept any reasonable opposition but that is closed minded, I am open to anything, however so far my opinion is that your objection doesn't carry any weight. Is that all you got?
Originally Posted By Big Thunder for the record... I am not trying to debate weather abortion is right or wrong, should it be legal or not. I'm not saying that a teenager should not be able to obtain an abortion. This discussion is about weather or not a parent should be aware of their minor age child having a significant medical procedure and should the parent have the right of consent. To the best of my knowledge it is the only medical procedure that is allowed to be kept a secret from the parent.
Originally Posted By barboy "a minor girl will be too afraid to tell her parents and that may cause her to seek an unsafe abortion or cause a new born abandonment." This is a pitiful "reason" against parental notification.
Originally Posted By jonvn "the proposition has a clause in there" It is an unrealistic clause. A young girl would have to go up to a judge and file a legal motion. Like that's going to happen. On top of that, then the judge would have to make a decision on it, and it could go so that the parents were notified anyway. Planned Parenthood, as I mentioed, would have to take these things to court, and get a ruling every time. So the law would amount to nothing, IF the girl involved knew what to do. If not, and she was intimidated into not doing anything, you end up with trouble. "You seem to want to label me" No. I gave you very reasonable reasons. You said you hadn't heard any. So I then must assume that nothing you will hear is reasonable. I suggest you go read some articles on the subject by the reproduction rights center. I googled it up for you, and here's a lot of articles on it: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=reproductive+rights+parental+notification" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/search?h l=en&q=reproductive+rights+parental+notification</a> I'm not filtering it out, just exactly what google gives me on it. So you can read up what you may like on the subject, if you want. But basically it boils down to pretty much what I said on it. More or less.
Originally Posted By Big Thunder <<"No. I gave you very reasonable reasons. You said you hadn't heard any. So I then must assume that nothing you will hear is reasonable.">> Thanks for the Google link Jon. Most of the websites from that search result were about parental notification of contraceptives, not abortion, but I did visit one which also had links opposing Proposition 85 and I read the views. The opponents views there were the same as yours... fear that a child would be be afraid of parent's knowledge of the pregnancy and might cause her to seek an unsafe method of terminating the pregnancy. I still feel that since there is a clause for any minor to get a waiver so that they can get around the parent notification [presumably if there is evidence of abuse, harm, or trauma] then that doesn't carry much weight, but OK I will be open minded and reasonable and consider that a *possible* reason, but I still feel it's weak since there are measures to avoid that. Also, knowing what Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics have at their resources, I'm sure that they will find a way to make it less a hassle to obtain that legal waiver. OK so I have heard one possible reason opposing the proposition. I have many reasons in favor of the proposition, so it hasn't tipped my scale yet. Anybody have any other reasons or comments?
Originally Posted By nancyan2 I say no more hurting the womb babies because they have a right to live like you and me
Originally Posted By Beaumandy You notify the parents, end of story. The situation jon is talking about where the kid is so scared to tell their parents that they have the ever famous botched back alley abortion is a scare tactic that his side has used for years. I just don't see this happening very often in rhe real world. They are in favor of a child lying to the parents? Nice. Common sense says the parents need to know everything that their kid is doing until that kid is 18. Certain groups of people can't rip parent authority away fast enough from our children.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal What about birth control? Minors can legally obtain contraceptives without a parent's permission. Where do those who agree that parents should be notified if a minor wants an abortion stand on parental notification of contraception?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I think parents should also be notified about contraception. After all, the parents get alerted when their kids get an aspirin. Why are people so eager to take the parents authority away?
