Originally Posted By Beaumandy << At this point, I am having a very difficult time understanding the logic behind your argument, I have been trying very hard to be open minded, but none of your opposing views make sense, especially when the reason for your opposition has been addressed and loop holed for you. >> Welcome to the club. jon has a way of confusing the hell out of everyone only to tell us he expalined himself many times and if you cant't get it you are a waste of his time. Classic. As parents we all need to fight ANY law that would take parental control away from us. This is one reason I HATE the ACLU. They push any and all laws that put parents in the dark about what their kids are doing.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I want to know what is going on with my minor age child." You may consider that a reason, but if the effect is to stifle abortion to those who need or want it, then that is not the effect it will have. "I have been trying very hard to be open minded, but none of your opposing views make sense, especially when the reason for your opposition has been addressed and loop holed for you." I've already discussed the loophole, as have other sites that discuss the issue. The loophole is a very difficult thing for a person who is underage to do. It is extremely intimidating to have to go to court. It is difficult enough to go to an abortion clinic. "Are you viewing this as a Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice kinda thing?" No. I'm viewing it as a public health issue, because my concern is that if a minor becomes intimidated from having an abortion because of this law, and does something like go to a back alley abortion clinic, and becomes ill, mained or dead from it, that is a terrible thing, and not something I would want to have ever voted for.
Originally Posted By jonvn How so? I do think the idea of this law is simply to put a chilling effect on abortions. I don't think it really has anything to do with parental notification. I think that's a cover. I do also think that it is a public health issue, as I described in the last paragraph of #61.
Originally Posted By Big Thunder <"How so?"> well maybe it's just how I am interpreting you but it seems contradicting when on one hand you say how it's it is about a public health issue followed by a statement about you being against it because you think it is actually a cover up and not anything about notification. I interpret that as a hard stance towards something totally unrelated to notification, which is the core of the proposition. ------------------- >>"Are you viewing this as a Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice kinda thing?"<< <<No. I'm viewing it as a public health issue>> ------------------------ followed by... ------------------------ <<"I do think the idea of this law is simply to put a chilling effect on abortions. I don't think it really has anything to do with parental notification. I think that's a cover">>
Originally Posted By jonvn I don't see them as contradictory at all. It is a public health issue. For those intimidating into not having abortions who otherwise would have them in a safe manner. And the law is basically about trying to stifle abortions. I feel it really is about that, and not parental notification. Because what it will try to do is stop people from having an abortion where they might otherwise do so. This isn't contradictory. They are just two different expressions of the same idea.
Originally Posted By Big Thunder >> "the law is basically about trying to stifle abortions. I feel it really is about that, and not parental notification. Because what it will try to do is stop people from having an abortion where they might otherwise do so"<< Jon, are they trying to stifle dental care for children also when they ask for parental consent? Are they trying to save gas by discouraging kids from going on field trips by asking for parental consent? Are they trying to scare kids into avoiding headaches by asking for parental consent for an aspirin. How many kids did NOT get piercings because the law required parental consent? [from what I can see walking around the mall very few] You say that parent notification requirements will cause children to seek unsafe back alley abortions and harm or their death will occur. Thirty US states have instituted parent notification laws. Granted there are less abortions in those states and less occurrence of unplanned teen pregnancy in those states [both positives in my opinion]can you tell us the amount of increase in baby abandonment's and the percentage of increase in death or injury caused by "back alley abortions" that have happened in those states since the laws were instituted?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 see I agree -- I do not buy into the sinister Oliver Stone conspiracy theory on 'real reason' -- I believe it is exactly what it says... let's face it, at 16 most kids are goofs ( I know I was) and can make precious few day to day decisions let alone 'life 'decisions. Parents are responsbible until 18 for their kids-- and good parents are responsible for life....
Originally Posted By jonvn "Jon, are they trying to stifle dental care for children also when they ask for parental consent?" Of course not, but a child is A) Not going to go off to see the dentist by themselves, and B) would not be concerned about having their parents know of a dental procedure. "Thirty US states have instituted parent notification laws" That doesn't make it right. "can you tell us the amount of increase in baby abandonment's and the percentage of increase in death or injury caused by "back alley abortions" that have happened in those states since the laws were instituted?" Nope. However, one is too many. If one has happened. Lower abortions in teenagers because of this law is not a good thing, if it results in an unwanted child. That's simply bad. And your opinion on this is informed by the fact that you stated that you think fewer abortions is a good thing. I'd rather not have unwanted kids running around, and I'd rather not see kids having kids.
Originally Posted By Big Thunder >>"Jon, are they trying to stifle dental care for children also when they ask for parental consent?"<< <<"Of course not, but a child is A) Not going to go off to see the dentist by themselves, and B) would not be concerned about having their parents know of a dental procedure.">> Regarding A) I see kids in the dentist office by themselves all the time, presumably walked there after school? got dropped off?, etc. Regarding B) They may not be concerned about sneaking off and having a tooth pulled behind parents back, but laws were instituted to protect doctors AND inform parents, I believe that ANY procedure, especially an invasion surgery on my child should be treated with the same notification/consent. -------------------------- >>"Thirty US states have instituted parent notification laws"<< <<"That doesn't make it right.">> I didn't say that because 30 states instituted it, that makes it right, but I DO feel parents have a right to know, and I am in agreement with those states. Regardless of my opinion, the number was given as a point of reference for your "back alley abortion" and "botched home abortion" claims. As in... how many deaths occurred to teenage mothers having a "back alley abortion" that you keep referencing. -------------------------------- >>"can you tell us the amount of increase in baby abandonment's and the percentage of increase in death or injury caused by "back alley abortions" that have happened in those states since the laws were instituted?"<< [jonvn] <<"Nope. However, one is too many. If one has happened.">> If you cant even substantiate your claim that it has happened since the laws have been put in place, then it appears to be a scare tactic to drive fear or "stifle" people. ----------------------------------- <<"And your opinion on this is informed by the fact that you stated that you think fewer abortions is a good thing.">> My opinion on the proposition is based on me wanting to be informed of my minor age child, particularly in health and medical issues, and even more particular in invasive surgeries. I realize that is hard for you to understand, but that's just my instinct as a parent, call me wacko if you like, but that's the way I feel and therefore as a parent I think it's my right to know. Especially if the law is going to restrict educators, medical professionals, cosmetologists, and others for much less severe procedures, then common sense kicks in and adds fuel to my fire. As for my opinion that less incidence of unplanned teen pregancy and less abortions are good [which go hand in hand ya see... not pregnant.. no need for abortion... get it?] yes I do believe that is a positive thing. However that is not the entire basis for my opinion on this legislature, it is more about my parental right to know. ---------------------------- <<"I'd rather not have unwanted kids running around, and I'd rather not see kids having kids.">> Well since there is proof that less kids will get pregnant, that should make you happy. And since there is nothing to stop them if they want an abortion, that should also make you happy. Since the child can still have the abortion weather I give permission or not, and since the child can get a waiver from the courts to keep it secret from the parent [be it difficult or easy] then in my opinion it covers all angles and makes sense.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I DO feel parents have a right to know" I think it's best if parents know. But, they don't have a right to know, and if an underage girl needs her parents to not know, for whatever reason, then that's what should be. That's my opinion on it. We'll never get an agreement here, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
