Jeez, I'm still pissed after posting this on "Saran Wrap for ‘Safe’ Teen Sex?" that is being recommended by Planned Parenthood for eighth graders so that they can have "safe" oral and anal sex.
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
Excellent points. As I understand it, in states where parental consent is required to get an abortion, a girl can go before a judge who may wave the requirement in those hard cases you named. Myself, I'm for extending this "lower the age at which you can choose whether or not to get an abortion" all the way down -- to before you are born. That way, the baby in the womb gets some say in it, too.
The pro-abortionists love to stress these exceptional cases (incest, rape, life of the mother) until the exception becomes the rule, and we end up with a million abortions a year. We have magnified the hard cases to the point where everything else has gone soft. They've done that with divorce, too. They began with "What if she ends up married to a homicidal maniac?", and now have ended with "Oh, well, people live longer now, so 'till death do you part' is obsolete" -- as if your spouse was stamped with an expiration date. Disgusting, and in the case of abortion, murderous.
Do I sound harsh? Maybe so, folks, maybe so. Conservative? I basically am, more and more so all the time. Conservative Lesbian Individualist Theology. Do I sound like I agree with the Catholic church on some issues? Yes, increasingly so. The Catholic church has stood as a bulwark for some 2000 years. Athanasius Contra Mundum.
Personally I don't think the government has any business legislating child parent relations. The fact a child would be having sex at that age in the first place proves very serious parental-child issues. To then demand the child (which any form of sex with someone under 16 is a CHILD, which makes it PAEDOPHELIA in my opinion) get consent from their parents for an abortion is adding fuel to the fire.
I was raised very staunchly Southern Baptist, but even my upbringing was tame compared to some girls I went to school with. There were those that were raised that to have sex and get an abortion was a permanent ticket to damnation, on top of the permanent ticket to damnation by the mere fact of being female.
As much as I would prefer every child to have caring, loving upbringing in which they are unconditionally accepted and loved, it doesn't happen that way. To in effect punish the young girl (there is never any mention of the MALE required to make a baby...I've noticed that...along with many other GROSS PROBLEMS in the family courts system) for having been raised in a way that considers unerage, unsafe sex to be permissible but not to have her get the right to her own physical health, is not a viable option for me.
Don't ask how many are abused/incest/etc Rose. I don't like heart-string pulling no matter who's doing it. Ask how many under-age girls had children when they themselves were nothing more than children. A child getting an abortion isn't the giant problem, the fact society tolerates young girls getting saddled with children (while guys get off scott free...until they're adults, then they're screwed), and no wants to prevent an impartial judge from granting them the rights to their own bodies is the problem. For me anyway.
Actually, guys don't get off scott free, many of them go to prison. Prison and then tagged a sex-offender for life. For what most times was a consensual act with someone under the state's age of consent.
My problem is that a child shouldn't be making decisions about their body before they are legally responsible for themselves and the State shouldn't adopt rules restricting parents from parenting.
If a child needs permission to get a tattoo on their own body than they should be required to get permission for an abortion. It isn't the governments job, my job or your job to tell someone "how" to parent their child, unless criminal abuse is involved and proved.
Good luck getting the statistics for incest/rape. According the the GR Planned Parenthood director, those numbers are unknown because of the failure to report the crime. The rape statistics I did find about 6 months ago registered reported rape at less than 1 % of all abortions.
Rhianna- a 13 year old can not consent to any other medical procedure (braces, tonsilectomey) without the consent of the parent.I agree with your stance.
I thought, at least in my state, that if the boy and girl are the same age (like 14?), then he didn't get punished. I'm not sure of that but I believe I read that recently. The age of consent is not always 18. I've heard of 16 or 17. Did I dream that? Anybody?
Different states have different ages of consent. I saw an episode of Oprah once where a 17 year old boy went to prison for having sex with a 17 year old girl. She said she consented but her parents screamed rape. It was horrible, the kid got 10 years.
I've been on the parental side of 'statutory rape'. Hubby has the IG paperwork to prove it. It comes up everytime his security clearance is up for review.
I was 16, he was 22. My mother KNEW exactly what was going on (Daddy didn't have a clue, but my mom prevented me seeing my dad at all costs, so he's 'excused'.) She stole a photo he gave me, and a letter I was writing him and started statutory RAPE charges against him via the USAF, AFTER being told that NO CRIME had occured to Texas state law as it was consentual.
Daddy had to deal with the aftermath. He's the one I went to (with several other more personal problems), he's the one who had to SIT THERE as an IG officer asked me questions about type of sex, location, age, pornography, etc... That was the worse experiance in my life, not because I was ashamed, but because I didn't want my Daddy to have to deal with that.
Coming from that place, parental consent seems far different to me. I'm sorry we so strongly disagree, but I can not support mandating parental notification if the girl feels threatened in any way (be it from abuse, be it fear (pain, disappointment, etc), retaliation...).
The vast majority of teenage boys, and adult men, that get under-age girls pregnant get off scott free. Do not quote the exceptions. Laws should not be written to govern exceptions only but to govern society at large. 9 times out of 10 girls are still labled "slut/ho/easy/whore/bitch" etc if she gets pregnant. And conversely 9+ out of 10 times a guy will be labled a "stud/hot/man" by doing so. The family court system does it with legal words, but in effect punishes a girl for getting pregnant but lets the guy off by codifying it into law. Now in effect you want to support banning a girl getting an abortion, legally making her a parent with no forcing of the same for the guy. I can't support that, no matter how good your intentions are.
Actually, Rhianna, I'm quite in favor of forcing the man to be the father, but I want the method to be social suasion (which works, mostly) not the legal system (which won't, unless the overwhelming majority of folks support it wholeheartedly, in which case social suasion is also operating). Men should know: If she gets pregnant, you shold love her, marry her, be her husband and love and be a father to child. If you don't, you are a heel. A man's best friends should tell him this, and look forever less upon him if he fails.
Now in effect you want to support banning a girl getting an abortion, legally making her a parent with no forcing of the same for the guy. I can't support that, no matter how good your intentions are.
Actually, no, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that just because a minority of parents are assholes, doesn't mean that the government should make laws taking away MY RIGHT to parent my child. Requiring parental notification won't stop abortions for minors - it's pretty clear you'd consent for your child if that was in her best interest. I might do so too. My point is that government has no place taking away my parental right or yours because a tiny minority of girls may have been raped by their fathers.
I'm not stating rape by family member Rose. That is the extreme minority, and I don't support laws for the exception rather than the rule.
However, if a girl (consentual most likely) comes up pregnant and her family won't support an aboriton, but she wants one what would you ask the law to do? Follow the demands and dictates of her family or follow what she herself wants? Her body Rose, not her family's, not her parent's, not her partner's. HER body.
I still do not support taking away the impartiality of a judge in the case of a minor wanting an abortion. Be it with, or without parental consent.
As for my children, I'm doing my damndest to raise them to NOT ever need an abortion, but I would do what they would think best, and then stand by them and their decision. I'm sure you do the same.
(Thanks for remaining rational. This is one of those touch-button issues, and it's very nice to be able to discuss it without nasty all around.) :)
Isn't this the same argument as the circumcision one, on multiple levels? Here we have either have an operation (the abortion) forced on a child (the fetus) by its parent (the minor), or we have an operation not allowed on a child (the minor) by its parents.
How about mandating parental notification in cases of abortion for the FATHER of the baby/fetus/embryo/clump-of-cells, if the daddy's a minor?
May not work in all cases, but even in those cases where there is a minimum of parental involvement in a young man's life, I think the fear of palpable parental anger and disappointment would have a salutary effect.
Chris Rock had it right. You want the kids to follow the rules, just use five words: "I'm gonna tell your daddy!"
Thief, interesting idea. However, that would be making a child liable to the whims of a set of parents that aren't even her's by birth or adoption.
I'm all for making young men step up to the plate and face their responsibilities, and for making their parents accept the knowledge their little 'stud muffin' is nothing but a 'slut'. Especially if served with legal papers they can't later deny. However, it still comes down to forcing a child to carry a child she may not want. (I'm all for adoption if she wants to carry the child and then adopt it out. I'm just not for legally mandating a child give birth to another child. I can't support making a victim out of a child - no matter if the sex is consentual or not.)
However, if a girl (consentual most likely) comes up pregnant and her family won't support an aboriton, but she wants one what would you ask the law to do? Follow the demands and dictates of her family or follow what she herself wants? Her body Rose, not her family's, not her parent's, not her partner's. HER body.
For me it all boils down to age of consent. If the law says that she isn't legally responsible for her behavior or her actions because of her age, then I expect the law to give authority to whom it would in any other case, her parents.
Let us change the procedure, using your same parameters. However, if a girl (consentual most likely) comes up addicted to alcohol and her family won't support her habit, but she wants to continue using what would you ask the law to do? Follow the demands and dictates of her family or follow what she herself wants? Her body Rhianna, not her family's, not her parent's, not her partner's. HER body. Remember that alcohol is legal and the only thing in question is her age of consent.
Rose, I would expect the state to take over where the parents failed. This is no different. I can not fathom a parent trying to force a child to have another child, but it happens. The state is supposed to do what is best, in the most non-emotional way possible.
In the case of an abortion if the girl wants one but the parents don't you ere on the side of the child that would be forced to go through 9 months, labor and birth, and then unwanted parenthood for the rest of their life (doesn't matter if they then adopted the child out, the family court system is erroding any protections birth parents have, there is a strong chance the child could pop up decades later and cause the mother untold emotional and physical pain). In the case of alochol addiction you put the child in a safe place to detox them. To not do so would be to risk their health, the same thing that happens when a 14 year-old has a child (or a 12 year-old or a 15-year old...etc.).
I would rather that this not need any form of governmental intervention. However, when it does why do you think a parent should be able to force parental status onto a child. This I can not possibly fathom...
If this were a perfect world we wouldn't have to fanthom any of it. The thing that scares me more than what you or I describe is having the State take over. More often than not they fuck all of it up rather than make it better.
The only thing I see improving anything is if you and I take over the government. You game? ;-)
If this were a perfect world we wouldn't have to fanthom any of it. The thing that scares me more than what you or I describe is having the State take over. More often than not they fuck all of it up rather than make it better.
Rosemary,
This isn't a perfect world. Bad things happen to good kids. Including abuse and rape by relatives. I've seen it happen in my own family. Would you deny the victims of such abuse the right to abort such abominations? If a judge agreed? This isn't about parental rights. To begin with, if I'm a good parent, my child should be able to confide in me if she's made a mistake and gotten pregnant by consensual sex. To deny the victims of abuse the right to abortion without the consent of those that have a vested interest in the act is WRONG.
It doesn't matter what the percentages are. If only one percent fit into this category, they deserve the right, with the consent of a proxy parent, such as a judge (since the original parent may not have done such a BANG-up job).
Are you willing to deny the 1% (an understated percentage on purpose), of 14 yr olds the ability to take control of their bodies? WITH the consent of someone who is suppose to be wise (i.e., a judge)?
This whole thread is just a not so thinly veiled affront on freedom an personal rights masquerading as parental rights. As the father of 14 and 11 yr old girls, this topic is not without personal relevance to me.
Well Now, maybe we should start our own political party! The Queen of all and the Texan Abroad party. Not very snappy for a name, but pretty clear cut on who does what.
Alex, you'd get a Secretary of ... job. This could work...now only to convince the rest of the 'red states' to elect two women. ; ;)
I knew you were oot as far ar the blog was concerned. I was just ssurprised that noone else had any opinions. Then again, it may just be that it was getting to be several stories down...
Steven Malcolm Anderson 4 GodsSelfSex (mail) (www):
I have to reply to this:
Ron (FormerRepub) wrote:
"Would you deny the victims of such abuse the right to abort such abominations?"
Abort these abominations? Which abominations? The rapists? I'd be happy to electrocute rapists. The babies? No. I see no justification for chopping some child to bits because his father was a rapist. I've concluded that the only justification for an abortion, at least any abortion after the cerebral cortex is formed, is when the mother's own life is in danger.
Abort these abominations? Which abominations? The rapists? I'd be happy to electrocute rapists. The babies? No. I see no justification for chopping some child to bits because his father was a rapist. I've concluded that the only justification for an abortion, at least any abortion after the cerebral cortex is formed, is when the mother's own life is in danger.
This is a basic fundamental difference between those who support and oppose Roe v Wade. As a Physician, I believe that that life begins at the point where a fetus is able to sustain life outside the womb. Generally, this exceeds 24 weeks of gestation.
To believe that life begins at conception is a religious tenet. A ball of cells that might one day form a human being is a given. Wether that ball of cells *constitutes* a human being is the central controversy of this entire discussion. If it can't survive outside the protective environment of the uterus, is it a life?
Religious groups would say so, but this is predicated on their belief that life begins at conception, the moment the egg and sperm unite. What of the untold thousands of lives that are spontaneously aborted? It's a matter of genetics and science. Those lives were not meant to be. Too many errors. The only difference with those that are decided to be aborted are social issues. Are those social issues any less important than the biological ones? Embryos of the same age, a result of rape, are no less human. The issue at hand is wether the RAPED should be forced to carry these unwanted (dare I say emotionally explosive?) pregnancies to term.
Indeed, there is the debate of church vs. state. The church (Christian) is trying to impose their view, i.e., any conceived fetus is a life given the right to live by God. What of those who don't believe in God? They are a significant portion of our society. Should their views be discarded? We are on the dangerous precipice of a theocracy.
I would never support the abortion of an unwanted fetus. My firstborn was a surprise, and one that my wife and I were attemting to prevent, through legitimate means. She was conceived despite our precautions. And noone considered the termination of her life. Yet I defend the right of those with differing ideas to do as they see fit.
The key to this whole debate is the IMPOSITION of a set of moral ideas on society, not all of which agree. I defy you to look the 16 yr old rape victim in the face and tell her that she must bear the child. Do YOU have a daughter? And if so, would you force her to bear a child of rape?
I've concluded that the only justification for an abortion, at least any abortion after the cerebral cortex is formed, is when the mother's own life is in danger.
Forgot to address this.
I'm glad YOU concluded your justification for abortion.
What in the WORLD makes you think YOUR justification is the only one that is justified?
So Ron, if morality is religion, what are ethics? To hear it from you, morality cannot be the foundation of our societal values because the separation of church and state forbids such a relationship. I don't want to debate abortion but I'm curious as to how you believe we should set values in our society if morals can play no part. It seems to me that murder, rape, stealing, lying, bribery and blackmail are all immoral behaviours and we have laws against them without violating the constitution. Some irreligious people have ethical qualms about abortion and other issues regarding the meaning of life.
For instance, not everyone who objected to the removal of Teri Schaivo's feeding tube did so on religious grounds. The issue I believe is actually one of ethics primarily and the convenience of the stronger individual being paramount. That takes in a lot of territory and we should be very cautious about throwing out morality in our society. Such revision of thinking can and often does go too far if history is any example. For instance, in the first half of the 2oth century it was the law that "feeble minded" women should be sterizied for the good of society. Right here in the USA, not just NAZI Germany, did such things happen.
To me the distinction between morals and ethics is non-existent and I believe that the belief in utilitarian ethics is tearing at the fabric of Western society almost to its certain demise. Notice how the UN debates the "meaning" of genocide as respects what is happening in Dafur and what happened in Kosovo
What do you think?
By the way, since you brought it up, what kind of physician are you?
So Ron, if morality is religion, what are ethics? To hear it from you, morality cannot be the foundation of our societal values because the separation of church and state forbids such a relationship.
I'm glad you bring this up. I can see from rereading my last post that there was some ambiguity in this on my part. Morality/religion/ethics... All pretty much intertwined ideas. I would posit that ethics are the foundation of behavior that is right or wrong based upon a secular intellectual discourse. We have ethics review boards to determine wether studies are treating patients fairly.
Morality and religion, in my experience, are harder to peg. "Moral" behavior would seem to equate to "ethical" behavior. Except when it is intertwined with religion. Morality in religion allows for belief or conviction in a principle rather than based on evidence. Faith. I'm sure that the Crusades were seen as moral at the time. And the near excommunication of Galileo for his belief that the Earth moved.
Some irreligious people have ethical qualms about abortion and other issues regarding the meaning of life.
I agree! I grew up in a very religious environment. I was an altar boy, and am a confirmed Catholic. However, I sensed hypocrisy in the church, and in religion in general. I am at present an agnostic who cares about his society.
That does not mean I'm anything but ethical or moral (with the removal of religion from the picture). When my wife told me she was pregnant (something we were actively trying to prevent at the time), there was never a thought of aborting our embryo. This was a part of me. And my wife thought the same way.
HOWEVER: I do not assume that my personal views are the only correct ones, and allow others with different backgrounds to choose their own moral compass.
For instance, not everyone who objected to the removal of Teri Schaivo's feeding tube did so on religious grounds.
Err, I would say the vast majority did. And that the majority of Americans consented to the removal of her feeding tube. I've seen a copy of her brain CT. There is no way she was capable of anything near human thought, and there is no way she would improve. Trust me, imaging is my field. More telling, numerous neurologists that conducted clinical tests agreed. It was a sad case, of which I see all too many. I'm grateful that the judiciary did the right thing, despite partisan politics from the Republicans, hoping to score points with their constituency.
For instance, in the first half of the 2oth century it was the law that "feeble minded" women should be sterizied for the good of society.
Which party introduced that legislation?
I don't know, but would be curious to find out. Do you have any specifics as per dates, bill #, etc?
To me the distinction between morals and ethics is non-existent and I believe that the belief in utilitarian ethics is tearing at the fabric of Western society almost to its certain demise.
I disagree, respectfully. It is the assertion of the religious right that their views on morality are the only acceptable ones which is at the foundation of the controversy. This is a country with the bounty of citizens from multiple or no religious backgrounds, all presumably equal under the law. When the majority attempt to impose their views on the remaining citizens by LAW, there is bound to be conflict. It is my assertion that *that* is what is tearing at the fabric of our society.
Phew... My brain and fingers are getting tired. Former a good thing, latter a bad thing :)
For your final question, I'm a radiologist. I primarily work in mammography and breast biopsies, fellowship trained. I love imaging, it's where all medicine meets. Mammography allows me the benefits of patient contact at a time when patients are at their most needy. I like to think I do my part to make the discussion of abnormal findings as honest and hopeful as possible.
Thanks for your extensive reply. Most interesting. Still we are miles apart in assessment of morality and its place in our society whether based on religious tenets or not. Most of the mores of our society are based on tenets found in religious writings, not soley Christian by any means. Murder, lying, stealing, etc all forbidden by the major faiths and very much intertwined with the laws of many countries.
You completely ignored my comments regarding "utilitarian" ethics...convenience for the most powerful individual in the relationship except for this rejoinder:
"HOWEVER: I do not assume that my personal views are the only correct ones, and allow others with different backgrounds to choose their own moral compass"
Does that belief include any behavior or just on issues such as abortion and assisted suicide? I'm of course not sure what your beliefs are on that subject (assisted suicide). I see some inconsistancy there, not only with you but all those who insist that the objection to abortion is a religious issue only. It is not, at least not for me.
I grew up attending a Protestant church but secretly quite agnostic unbeknownst to my parents (my father was also agnostic although he attended church with the family). Even so, as a teenager, long before abortion was legal in our country, I sided with the Catholic church on this question. I became convinced by logic that human life begins at conception although the question of "the soul" was certainly not settled for me at that time in my life. I just believed that without intervention by mother nature, it was wrong to interfer with the development of a potential real person who left to its natural situation would certainly emerge as a live baby and my beliefs have never changed over the decades even though I did become religious later in adult life, much later - in my fifties.
I don't understand why that concept is so difficult for pro-abortion people to understand about the opposing side of the issue. To me abortion is just as much deliberate killing of a human being as is euthansia for the elderly. In case the questions comes up, yes, I also oppose capital punishment (although I think I could suspend my objections for pedophilic child murders with out to much dithering.)
The reason I object to deliberately taking a human life is not a religious belief (although I am now a practicing (although imperfectly) Christian in every orthodox sense of the word). Almost every civilized society knows that it is immoral and illiberal (if I may use that word) for an individual to be sacrificed for the convenience or advancement of another more powerful individual or simply for the good of society in general. To me it's black and white, no gray whatsoever. It's protection of the weak against the strong and that principle is embodied in our Bill of Rights although somehow along the way, privacy trumped the right to life whether in the womb or in the ICC unit (or it does in a few states and will probably spread ie assisted suicide laws) .
I disagree entirely that we are on the verge of a theocracy here in the US. I respect your opinion but to me that is hyperbolic to say the least. What we are on the verge of is more of what we've already got...weekly amber alerts, weekly child murders, mass murders of families by a family member, 2 out of 3 marriages ending in divorce, a growing number of uncontrollable school children who take over their classrooms on a regular basis, teachers assaulted by students, students sexually molested by teachers, growing numbers of physical abuse of children by parents and caregivers, oral sex common in middle school, homeless mentally ill people. I'm older, in my early sixties. I remember when life was much better, safer and saner. I'm not sure that the society we now live in has improved.
Your question regarding sterilization of "feeble minded" women is actually well documented and publicized. I've read about it in several newspapers. These laws were on the books until recently in many states although the practice was virtually stopped probably by the 1950s. It was a by-product of "eugenics" originating in the 20s and 30s widely practiced even in Europe in the old days.
I second your Phew...I'm brain dead after a long day. I do appreciate learning more about your view of issues but your arguments are not new to me and I remain a pro-life advocate. :)
"HOWEVER: I do not assume that my personal views are the only correct ones, and allow others with different backgrounds to choose their own moral compass"
Does that belief include any behavior or just on issues such as abortion and assisted suicide?
That rejoinder was intended to include any "reasonable" belief or behavior in our current society. The fact that more than 50% of our society supports abortion should include it in the reasonable category. I daresay there are few of us that believe murder is acceptable. Assisted suicide is a scary topic. If I were in the position that suicide was preferable to life, I'd like to think I would have the courage and fortitude to pursue that avenue without "assistance."
Personally, I like to think I would endure.
Wether assistance for those that would like to not endure is a matter for serious debate, and dependant on the amount of personal suffering a human being should be obligated to endure.
I can sympathize with your own view of the "powerful" sacrificing those that are less powerful. However, in terms of abortion, I disagree that those that are "sacrificed" are INDIVIDUALS. Aparrently, so do the majority of Americans.
The *potential* to become a human being does not equate to the *equal* of a human being. Especially when that potential resides in an ACTUAL human being. With her own rights.
Again, to force a woman, or child, to bear a child that was unintended or the result of rape is something I personally believe is wrong. It's ok that we disagree. What's not ok is for us to legislate our own personal views to the detriment of the ACTUAL person.
An extension of this debate focuses on stem cell research.
Is an egg, devoid of nuclear material, and infused with specific DNA, also subject to the same restrictions? Does this constitute a life, or "potential" life? The medical ramifications are beyond revolutionary. Imagine a world where cancer holds no threat of death, where other devastative degenerative diseases are erased.
South Korea has taken an incredible leap forward in combating very real medical diseases. Yet our religiously oriented administration rejects this progress. I'd imagine that if one of the Bush girls came down with Leukemia, and required a stem cell transplant, the laws might change in this country.
"The fact that more than 50% of our society supports abortion should include it in the reasonable category."
Just one last response and then I will move on to other threads. It does appear that to you, believing that the majority of our society agrees with abortion on demand, settles the question of the morality of this practice. Once acceptance reaches 51% on a moral issue, then majority rules. Am I interpreting correctly?
If so, to me that perspective is truly the embodiment of metaphorically standing on the slippery slope. Depending on the rightness of the will of the majority on issues of life and death and the shifting definition of what is reasonable in our society presents the possibility of appalling rationalization for the exploitation of the weakest among us. The measure of a moral society is judged by its care of the most vulnerable of its citizens. I'm not sure which side was in the majority in population, but slavery was fought over bitterly and included similar rationalized thinking on the part of its proponents.
Give me a break, children are not ready for this!
The pro-abortionists love to stress these exceptional cases (incest, rape, life of the mother) until the exception becomes the rule, and we end up with a million abortions a year. We have magnified the hard cases to the point where everything else has gone soft. They've done that with divorce, too. They began with "What if she ends up married to a homicidal maniac?", and now have ended with "Oh, well, people live longer now, so 'till death do you part' is obsolete" -- as if your spouse was stamped with an expiration date. Disgusting, and in the case of abortion, murderous.
Do I sound harsh? Maybe so, folks, maybe so. Conservative? I basically am, more and more so all the time. Conservative Lesbian Individualist Theology. Do I sound like I agree with the Catholic church on some issues? Yes, increasingly so. The Catholic church has stood as a bulwark for some 2000 years. Athanasius Contra Mundum.
I am amazed again. You define the word iconoclast. McCain has nothing on you.
Yours,
Wince
I was raised very staunchly Southern Baptist, but even my upbringing was tame compared to some girls I went to school with. There were those that were raised that to have sex and get an abortion was a permanent ticket to damnation, on top of the permanent ticket to damnation by the mere fact of being female.
As much as I would prefer every child to have caring, loving upbringing in which they are unconditionally accepted and loved, it doesn't happen that way. To in effect punish the young girl (there is never any mention of the MALE required to make a baby...I've noticed that...along with many other GROSS PROBLEMS in the family courts system) for having been raised in a way that considers unerage, unsafe sex to be permissible but not to have her get the right to her own physical health, is not a viable option for me.
Don't ask how many are abused/incest/etc Rose. I don't like heart-string pulling no matter who's doing it. Ask how many under-age girls had children when they themselves were nothing more than children. A child getting an abortion isn't the giant problem, the fact society tolerates young girls getting saddled with children (while guys get off scott free...until they're adults, then they're screwed), and no wants to prevent an impartial judge from granting them the rights to their own bodies is the problem. For me anyway.
My problem is that a child shouldn't be making decisions about their body before they are legally responsible for themselves and the State shouldn't adopt rules restricting parents from parenting.
If a child needs permission to get a tattoo on their own body than they should be required to get permission for an abortion. It isn't the governments job, my job or your job to tell someone "how" to parent their child, unless criminal abuse is involved and proved.
Yours,
Wince, aka Tom Hawkson
Good luck getting the statistics for incest/rape. According the the GR Planned Parenthood director, those numbers are unknown because of the failure to report the crime. The rape statistics I did find about 6 months ago registered reported rape at less than 1 % of all abortions.
I was 16, he was 22. My mother KNEW exactly what was going on (Daddy didn't have a clue, but my mom prevented me seeing my dad at all costs, so he's 'excused'.) She stole a photo he gave me, and a letter I was writing him and started statutory RAPE charges against him via the USAF, AFTER being told that NO CRIME had occured to Texas state law as it was consentual.
Daddy had to deal with the aftermath. He's the one I went to (with several other more personal problems), he's the one who had to SIT THERE as an IG officer asked me questions about type of sex, location, age, pornography, etc... That was the worse experiance in my life, not because I was ashamed, but because I didn't want my Daddy to have to deal with that.
Coming from that place, parental consent seems far different to me. I'm sorry we so strongly disagree, but I can not support mandating parental notification if the girl feels threatened in any way (be it from abuse, be it fear (pain, disappointment, etc), retaliation...).
The vast majority of teenage boys, and adult men, that get under-age girls pregnant get off scott free. Do not quote the exceptions. Laws should not be written to govern exceptions only but to govern society at large. 9 times out of 10 girls are still labled "slut/ho/easy/whore/bitch" etc if she gets pregnant. And conversely 9+ out of 10 times a guy will be labled a "stud/hot/man" by doing so. The family court system does it with legal words, but in effect punishes a girl for getting pregnant but lets the guy off by codifying it into law. Now in effect you want to support banning a girl getting an abortion, legally making her a parent with no forcing of the same for the guy. I can't support that, no matter how good your intentions are.
Yours,
Wince, aka TOm Hawkson
Actually, no, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that just because a minority of parents are assholes, doesn't mean that the government should make laws taking away MY RIGHT to parent my child. Requiring parental notification won't stop abortions for minors - it's pretty clear you'd consent for your child if that was in her best interest. I might do so too. My point is that government has no place taking away my parental right or yours because a tiny minority of girls may have been raped by their fathers.
However, if a girl (consentual most likely) comes up pregnant and her family won't support an aboriton, but she wants one what would you ask the law to do? Follow the demands and dictates of her family or follow what she herself wants? Her body Rose, not her family's, not her parent's, not her partner's. HER body.
I still do not support taking away the impartiality of a judge in the case of a minor wanting an abortion. Be it with, or without parental consent.
As for my children, I'm doing my damndest to raise them to NOT ever need an abortion, but I would do what they would think best, and then stand by them and their decision. I'm sure you do the same.
(Thanks for remaining rational. This is one of those touch-button issues, and it's very nice to be able to discuss it without nasty all around.) :)
Now my head is spinning.
Yours,
Wince, aka Tom Hawkson
How about mandating parental notification in cases of abortion for the FATHER of the baby/fetus/embryo/clump-of-cells, if the daddy's a minor?
May not work in all cases, but even in those cases where there is a minimum of parental involvement in a young man's life, I think the fear of palpable parental anger and disappointment would have a salutary effect.
Chris Rock had it right. You want the kids to follow the rules, just use five words: "I'm gonna tell your daddy!"
I'm all for making young men step up to the plate and face their responsibilities, and for making their parents accept the knowledge their little 'stud muffin' is nothing but a 'slut'. Especially if served with legal papers they can't later deny. However, it still comes down to forcing a child to carry a child she may not want. (I'm all for adoption if she wants to carry the child and then adopt it out. I'm just not for legally mandating a child give birth to another child. I can't support making a victim out of a child - no matter if the sex is consentual or not.)
For me it all boils down to age of consent. If the law says that she isn't legally responsible for her behavior or her actions because of her age, then I expect the law to give authority to whom it would in any other case, her parents.
Let us change the procedure, using your same parameters. However, if a girl (consentual most likely) comes up addicted to alcohol and her family won't support her habit, but she wants to continue using what would you ask the law to do? Follow the demands and dictates of her family or follow what she herself wants? Her body Rhianna, not her family's, not her parent's, not her partner's. HER body. Remember that alcohol is legal and the only thing in question is her age of consent.
In the case of an abortion if the girl wants one but the parents don't you ere on the side of the child that would be forced to go through 9 months, labor and birth, and then unwanted parenthood for the rest of their life (doesn't matter if they then adopted the child out, the family court system is erroding any protections birth parents have, there is a strong chance the child could pop up decades later and cause the mother untold emotional and physical pain). In the case of alochol addiction you put the child in a safe place to detox them. To not do so would be to risk their health, the same thing that happens when a 14 year-old has a child (or a 12 year-old or a 15-year old...etc.).
I would rather that this not need any form of governmental intervention. However, when it does why do you think a parent should be able to force parental status onto a child. This I can not possibly fathom...
Thank you!
If this were a perfect world we wouldn't have to fanthom any of it. The thing that scares me more than what you or I describe is having the State take over. More often than not they fuck all of it up rather than make it better.
The only thing I see improving anything is if you and I take over the government. You game? ;-)
HI Menwith Hill! How's project Eschaelon doing? (little 'inside' joke...)
Pretty please?
Rosemary,
This isn't a perfect world. Bad things happen to good kids. Including abuse and rape by relatives. I've seen it happen in my own family. Would you deny the victims of such abuse the right to abort such abominations? If a judge agreed? This isn't about parental rights. To begin with, if I'm a good parent, my child should be able to confide in me if she's made a mistake and gotten pregnant by consensual sex. To deny the victims of abuse the right to abortion without the consent of those that have a vested interest in the act is WRONG.
It doesn't matter what the percentages are. If only one percent fit into this category, they deserve the right, with the consent of a proxy parent, such as a judge (since the original parent may not have done such a BANG-up job).
Are you willing to deny the 1% (an understated percentage on purpose), of 14 yr olds the ability to take control of their bodies? WITH the consent of someone who is suppose to be wise (i.e., a judge)?
This whole thread is just a not so thinly veiled affront on freedom an personal rights masquerading as parental rights. As the father of 14 and 11 yr old girls, this topic is not without personal relevance to me.
So there.
Ron
Alex, you'd get a Secretary of ... job. This could work...now only to convince the rest of the 'red states' to elect two women. ; ;)
Do we have the holiday weekend to blame for the lack of further discussion? Or is there noone other than the queen with the, um, fortitude for debate?
Cool?
I knew you were oot as far ar the blog was concerned. I was just ssurprised that noone else had any opinions. Then again, it may just be that it was getting to be several stories down...
Ron (FormerRepub) wrote:
"Would you deny the victims of such abuse the right to abort such abominations?"
Abort these abominations? Which abominations? The rapists? I'd be happy to electrocute rapists. The babies? No. I see no justification for chopping some child to bits because his father was a rapist. I've concluded that the only justification for an abortion, at least any abortion after the cerebral cortex is formed, is when the mother's own life is in danger.
This is a basic fundamental difference between those who support and oppose Roe v Wade. As a Physician, I believe that that life begins at the point where a fetus is able to sustain life outside the womb. Generally, this exceeds 24 weeks of gestation.
To believe that life begins at conception is a religious tenet. A ball of cells that might one day form a human being is a given. Wether that ball of cells *constitutes* a human being is the central controversy of this entire discussion. If it can't survive outside the protective environment of the uterus, is it a life?
Religious groups would say so, but this is predicated on their belief that life begins at conception, the moment the egg and sperm unite. What of the untold thousands of lives that are spontaneously aborted? It's a matter of genetics and science. Those lives were not meant to be. Too many errors. The only difference with those that are decided to be aborted are social issues. Are those social issues any less important than the biological ones? Embryos of the same age, a result of rape, are no less human. The issue at hand is wether the RAPED should be forced to carry these unwanted (dare I say emotionally explosive?) pregnancies to term.
Indeed, there is the debate of church vs. state. The church (Christian) is trying to impose their view, i.e., any conceived fetus is a life given the right to live by God. What of those who don't believe in God? They are a significant portion of our society. Should their views be discarded? We are on the dangerous precipice of a theocracy.
I would never support the abortion of an unwanted fetus. My firstborn was a surprise, and one that my wife and I were attemting to prevent, through legitimate means. She was conceived despite our precautions. And noone considered the termination of her life. Yet I defend the right of those with differing ideas to do as they see fit.
The key to this whole debate is the IMPOSITION of a set of moral ideas on society, not all of which agree. I defy you to look the 16 yr old rape victim in the face and tell her that she must bear the child. Do YOU have a daughter? And if so, would you force her to bear a child of rape?
Ron
Forgot to address this.
I'm glad YOU concluded your justification for abortion.
What in the WORLD makes you think YOUR justification is the only one that is justified?
Ron
For instance, not everyone who objected to the removal of Teri Schaivo's feeding tube did so on religious grounds. The issue I believe is actually one of ethics primarily and the convenience of the stronger individual being paramount. That takes in a lot of territory and we should be very cautious about throwing out morality in our society. Such revision of thinking can and often does go too far if history is any example. For instance, in the first half of the 2oth century it was the law that "feeble minded" women should be sterizied for the good of society. Right here in the USA, not just NAZI Germany, did such things happen.
To me the distinction between morals and ethics is non-existent and I believe that the belief in utilitarian ethics is tearing at the fabric of Western society almost to its certain demise. Notice how the UN debates the "meaning" of genocide as respects what is happening in Dafur and what happened in Kosovo
What do you think?
By the way, since you brought it up, what kind of physician are you?
I'm glad you bring this up. I can see from rereading my last post that there was some ambiguity in this on my part. Morality/religion/ethics... All pretty much intertwined ideas. I would posit that ethics are the foundation of behavior that is right or wrong based upon a secular intellectual discourse. We have ethics review boards to determine wether studies are treating patients fairly.
Morality and religion, in my experience, are harder to peg. "Moral" behavior would seem to equate to "ethical" behavior. Except when it is intertwined with religion. Morality in religion allows for belief or conviction in a principle rather than based on evidence. Faith. I'm sure that the Crusades were seen as moral at the time. And the near excommunication of Galileo for his belief that the Earth moved.
I agree! I grew up in a very religious environment. I was an altar boy, and am a confirmed Catholic. However, I sensed hypocrisy in the church, and in religion in general. I am at present an agnostic who cares about his society.
That does not mean I'm anything but ethical or moral (with the removal of religion from the picture). When my wife told me she was pregnant (something we were actively trying to prevent at the time), there was never a thought of aborting our embryo. This was a part of me. And my wife thought the same way.
HOWEVER: I do not assume that my personal views are the only correct ones, and allow others with different backgrounds to choose their own moral compass.
Err, I would say the vast majority did. And that the majority of Americans consented to the removal of her feeding tube. I've seen a copy of her brain CT. There is no way she was capable of anything near human thought, and there is no way she would improve. Trust me, imaging is my field. More telling, numerous neurologists that conducted clinical tests agreed. It was a sad case, of which I see all too many. I'm grateful that the judiciary did the right thing, despite partisan politics from the Republicans, hoping to score points with their constituency.
Which party introduced that legislation?
I don't know, but would be curious to find out. Do you have any specifics as per dates, bill #, etc?
I disagree, respectfully. It is the assertion of the religious right that their views on morality are the only acceptable ones which is at the foundation of the controversy. This is a country with the bounty of citizens from multiple or no religious backgrounds, all presumably equal under the law. When the majority attempt to impose their views on the remaining citizens by LAW, there is bound to be conflict. It is my assertion that *that* is what is tearing at the fabric of our society.
Phew... My brain and fingers are getting tired. Former a good thing, latter a bad thing :)
For your final question, I'm a radiologist. I primarily work in mammography and breast biopsies, fellowship trained. I love imaging, it's where all medicine meets. Mammography allows me the benefits of patient contact at a time when patients are at their most needy. I like to think I do my part to make the discussion of abnormal findings as honest and hopeful as possible.
Ron
Thanks for your extensive reply. Most interesting. Still we are miles apart in assessment of morality and its place in our society whether based on religious tenets or not. Most of the mores of our society are based on tenets found in religious writings, not soley Christian by any means. Murder, lying, stealing, etc all forbidden by the major faiths and very much intertwined with the laws of many countries.
You completely ignored my comments regarding "utilitarian" ethics...convenience for the most powerful individual in the relationship except for this rejoinder:
"HOWEVER: I do not assume that my personal views are the only correct ones, and allow others with different backgrounds to choose their own moral compass"
Does that belief include any behavior or just on issues such as abortion and assisted suicide? I'm of course not sure what your beliefs are on that subject (assisted suicide). I see some inconsistancy there, not only with you but all those who insist that the objection to abortion is a religious issue only. It is not, at least not for me.
I grew up attending a Protestant church but secretly quite agnostic unbeknownst to my parents (my father was also agnostic although he attended church with the family). Even so, as a teenager, long before abortion was legal in our country, I sided with the Catholic church on this question. I became convinced by logic that human life begins at conception although the question of "the soul" was certainly not settled for me at that time in my life. I just believed that without intervention by mother nature, it was wrong to interfer with the development of a potential real person who left to its natural situation would certainly emerge as a live baby and my beliefs have never changed over the decades even though I did become religious later in adult life, much later - in my fifties.
I don't understand why that concept is so difficult for pro-abortion people to understand about the opposing side of the issue. To me abortion is just as much deliberate killing of a human being as is euthansia for the elderly. In case the questions comes up, yes, I also oppose capital punishment (although I think I could suspend my objections for pedophilic child murders with out to much dithering.)
The reason I object to deliberately taking a human life is not a religious belief (although I am now a practicing (although imperfectly) Christian in every orthodox sense of the word). Almost every civilized society knows that it is immoral and illiberal (if I may use that word) for an individual to be sacrificed for the convenience or advancement of another more powerful individual or simply for the good of society in general. To me it's black and white, no gray whatsoever. It's protection of the weak against the strong and that principle is embodied in our Bill of Rights although somehow along the way, privacy trumped the right to life whether in the womb or in the ICC unit (or it does in a few states and will probably spread ie assisted suicide laws) .
I disagree entirely that we are on the verge of a theocracy here in the US. I respect your opinion but to me that is hyperbolic to say the least. What we are on the verge of is more of what we've already got...weekly amber alerts, weekly child murders, mass murders of families by a family member, 2 out of 3 marriages ending in divorce, a growing number of uncontrollable school children who take over their classrooms on a regular basis, teachers assaulted by students, students sexually molested by teachers, growing numbers of physical abuse of children by parents and caregivers, oral sex common in middle school, homeless mentally ill people. I'm older, in my early sixties. I remember when life was much better, safer and saner. I'm not sure that the society we now live in has improved.
Your question regarding sterilization of "feeble minded" women is actually well documented and publicized. I've read about it in several newspapers. These laws were on the books until recently in many states although the practice was virtually stopped probably by the 1950s. It was a by-product of "eugenics" originating in the 20s and 30s widely practiced even in Europe in the old days.
I second your Phew...I'm brain dead after a long day. I do appreciate learning more about your view of issues but your arguments are not new to me and I remain a pro-life advocate. :)
Ron here is URL for more info on sterilization and the psuedoscience of eugenics.
That rejoinder was intended to include any "reasonable" belief or behavior in our current society. The fact that more than 50% of our society supports abortion should include it in the reasonable category. I daresay there are few of us that believe murder is acceptable. Assisted suicide is a scary topic. If I were in the position that suicide was preferable to life, I'd like to think I would have the courage and fortitude to pursue that avenue without "assistance."
Personally, I like to think I would endure.
Wether assistance for those that would like to not endure is a matter for serious debate, and dependant on the amount of personal suffering a human being should be obligated to endure.
I can sympathize with your own view of the "powerful" sacrificing those that are less powerful. However, in terms of abortion, I disagree that those that are "sacrificed" are INDIVIDUALS. Aparrently, so do the majority of Americans.
The *potential* to become a human being does not equate to the *equal* of a human being. Especially when that potential resides in an ACTUAL human being. With her own rights.
Again, to force a woman, or child, to bear a child that was unintended or the result of rape is something I personally believe is wrong. It's ok that we disagree. What's not ok is for us to legislate our own personal views to the detriment of the ACTUAL person.
An extension of this debate focuses on stem cell research.
Is an egg, devoid of nuclear material, and infused with specific DNA, also subject to the same restrictions? Does this constitute a life, or "potential" life? The medical ramifications are beyond revolutionary. Imagine a world where cancer holds no threat of death, where other devastative degenerative diseases are erased.
South Korea has taken an incredible leap forward in combating very real medical diseases. Yet our religiously oriented administration rejects this progress. I'd imagine that if one of the Bush girls came down with Leukemia, and required a stem cell transplant, the laws might change in this country.
And that's a shame.
Ron
Just one last response and then I will move on to other threads. It does appear that to you, believing that the majority of our society agrees with abortion on demand, settles the question of the morality of this practice. Once acceptance reaches 51% on a moral issue, then majority rules. Am I interpreting correctly?
If so, to me that perspective is truly the embodiment of metaphorically standing on the slippery slope. Depending on the rightness of the will of the majority on issues of life and death and the shifting definition of what is reasonable in our society presents the possibility of appalling rationalization for the exploitation of the weakest among us. The measure of a moral society is judged by its care of the most vulnerable of its citizens. I'm not sure which side was in the majority in population, but slavery was fought over bitterly and included similar rationalized thinking on the part of its proponents.