NH repeals anti-abortion law.
By on Mar 7th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
NH repeals anti-abortion law.
The New Hampshire House today voted 226-130 “to repeal the state’s law requiring that a parent be notified before a minor daughter can have an abortion. … The bill, HB 184, moves to over the state Senate next, where it is expected to pass. Gov. John Lynch has said he favors the repeal.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Now that’s progress! Welcome to the 21st century – where a woman, and no one else, should be recognized as the true owner of her own womb…
March 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pmFear of a liberal planet! If New Hampshire can do it….You gotta love the fact that this is driving some people batshit crazy somewhere…Are you listening to the people Dobson, Falwell? Thought not. Enjoy your status as a permanent fringe group.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:05 pmI have mixed views on this one. I am very pro-choice, and I generally trumpet anything that promotes the pro-choice movement. However, I am also the father of two girls, and as a parent, I would want to know if they were having an abortion.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:08 pmUnbelievable,
How the HELL can you conceder a MINOR child a woman. She can not vote, she can not sign a legally binding contract, hell, she can not even legally excuse herself from school to get the abortion. The parents have all LEGAL responsibility for her. So in turn they should have legal AUTHORITY over her as well.
To hell with the parents right to know about the medical status of their child, right?
How can they justify performing a medical procedure on a child with out notification of the parents? They will not even give my child a Tylenol without my approval, but they will perform an abortion. This is absurd.
The ONLY exception to parental notification is for a case of abuse, incest, or emergency.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:12 pmParents are notified if their kids skip class, but not if they have an abortion. Completely crazy.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:13 pmHowever, I am also the father of two girls, and as a parent, I would want to know if they were having an abortion.
Comment by Chris — March 7, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Why? I’m curious as to what you would think it would change, and why it would matter.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:14 pmI have mixed views on this one. I am very pro-choice, and I generally trumpet anything that promotes the pro-choice movement. However, I am also the father of two girls, and as a parent, I would want to know if they were having an abortion.
Comment by Chris — March 7, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Being informed isn’t the same as having a say in it. I’m all for requiring the parents to be notified, but if it’s not illegal for a woman to HAVE sex, then it’s up to her what to do about the consequences.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:15 pmWhy? I’m curious as to what you would think it would change, and why it would matter.
Maybe because a child cannot comprehend the gravity of their actions.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:17 pmYes, I think that a minor that has been raped by her father should need to get his permission in order to abort the fetus.
Caveman 101.
-GSD
March 7th, 2007 at 3:19 pmCome now, you guys can’t be seriously in favor of this? You are cool with doctors performing surgery on your underage daughters without your consent? Holy Sh*t your hardcore. I ain’t cool with a doctor performing any type of surgury on any of my children without my consent unless the situation is an emergency. Regardless of your stance on abortion I would assume every single parent would be outraged by this. Unless surgeury is needed to save my daughters life and in a time frame that doesn’t allow for time to find me and get my consent, it is WRONG.
I don’t care what the law says. You touch my children for any reason other then to save your life and your a very dead man.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:20 pmHow the HELL can you conceder a MINOR child a woman.
Just because our puritanical society calls menstruating and sexually active females under 18 “children” doesn’t make it so.
Clearly, Nature says otherwise… After all, it considers a 12-13 year old old enough to have sex and make a baby. If we as a culture don’t recognize that and teach them to behave like the grown adults their bodies have determined them to be, then a lot more of them will wind up pregnant on accident…
Don’t let reality get in the way of your delusions though…
She can not vote, she can not sign a legally binding contract, hell, she can not even legally excuse herself from school to get the abortion. The parents have all LEGAL responsibility for her. So in turn they should have legal AUTHORITY over her as well.
That’s arbitrary. Our culture has made her a possession. It doesn’t mean that she actually is. There are many other cultures that consider a child an adult AT PUBERTY. I’m sure, they are all wrong and you are right. You really need to get out more… And read something useful.
To hell with the parents right to know about the medical status of their child, right?
You may think you own your child, but you really don’t.
Instead, why don’t you do a better job raising your kids so that they won’t have unprotected sex and wind up with an accident…
How can they justify performing a medical procedure on a child with out notification of the parents? They will not even give my child a Tylenol without my approval, but they will perform an abortion. This is absurd.
No – you are absurd. Can’t give your kid an aspirin without your permission? Boy, you are going to be in for a lot of surprise when your naive offsping join reality…
The ONLY exception to parental notification is for a case of abuse, incest, or emergency.
Comment by hacker bob — March 7, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
You control freaks really are funny. It’s always about YOU. LOL
March 7th, 2007 at 3:25 pmMaybe because a child cannot comprehend the gravity of their actions.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Neither can most adults…
That’s no reason.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:26 pmMaking it easier to kill babies is called progress by the loons. The problem with this killing of people who are inconvenient to have around is they eventually will get to you.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:26 pmCome now, you guys can’t be seriously in favor of this? You are cool with doctors performing surgery on your underage daughters without your consent? Holy Sh*t your hardcore. I ain’t cool with a doctor performing any type of surgury on any of my children without my consent unless the situation is an emergency. Regardless of your stance on abortion I would assume every single parent would be outraged by this. Unless surgeury is needed to save my daughters life and in a time frame that doesn’t allow for time to find me and get my consent, it is WRONG.
I don’t care what the law says. You touch my children for any reason other then to save your life and your a very dead man.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Minor status SHOULD be what says “your parents are responsible for you” but for many things (drinking, owning firearms, getting married) it varies from one state to another. If you want parental consent, then change the age that someone can legally engage in sex. If you’re going to allow them to have sex, then you gotta let them deal with the consequences on their own. I think that’s the problem. We lose control of our children bit by bit, but no one seems to agree on who’s responsible for the consequences.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:27 pmI am as well split on this issue. I have seen a mother send her child away to be adopted while her sister chose to abort at an early stage. The duress is still evident in both women today and neither choice is an easy one to make.
I would not want to make that choice personally, so I leave it for the women to decide what is best for them and their mental and physical health. (Sadly it is also an economical choice today)
I only have one request and that is if a women chooses to abort it is before the quickening.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:28 pm(I can’t explain this exactly, my thought, but it is when the soul/life spirit is transferred)
You are cool with doctors performing surgery on your underage daughters without your consent?
Their bodies, their consent…
So teach them better not to be sluts…
I ain’t cool with a doctor performing any type of surgury on any of my children without my consent unless the situation is an emergency.
It isn’t surgery… it’s a procedure.
I don’t care what the law says. You touch my children for any reason other then to save your life and your a very dead man.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
And then you’re a very jailed man…
You irrational right wingers live in some ridiculous reality.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:28 pmMaking it easier to kill babies is called progress by the loons.
No one is talking about killing babies. They aren’t babies until they are born. Prior, they are blastocysts, embryos and fetuses… Get your terminology straight or no one will take you for a reasonable adult.
The problem with this killing of people who are inconvenient to have around is they eventually will get to you.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 7, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Where do you stand on the Death Penalty?
March 7th, 2007 at 3:31 pmIf you want parental consent, then change the age that someone can legally engage in sex
I have no problem with my daughter not being allowed to have sex until she is 30.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:31 pm#14 I understand where your coming from, but touching my children has without my consent isn’t very smart regardless of the law. I don’t care if a doctor decides to set their broken arm, remove a mole, or perform an abortion. If he didn’t ask me about it first, he better start running or accept his death.
This isn’t debatable. You touch someone’s child without there permission, you are wrong. If our government will not look out for our children with extremely stiff punishments for those that physically mess with others childrens, we the people will certainly take justice into our own hands. Protecting my children is my first responsiblility.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm[...] least “Think Progress” is not shy about their twisted views and [...]
March 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pmIt isn’t surgery… it’s a procedure.
That is a very morbid way to look at the murder of a life.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pmThe same anti-abortion wingnuts are against killing sperm too. According to their logic there is a crusty sock under my bed that is a virtual spermatazoa holocaust.
-GSD
March 7th, 2007 at 3:33 pmI only have one request and that is if a women chooses to abort it is before the quickening.
(I can’t explain this exactly, my thought, but it is when the soul/life spirit is transferred)
Comment by AckSyn JAckSyn — March 7, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
But that isn’t a universal belief, and it certainly isn’t a fact… But, personally, I don’t see why someone who wants to abort can’t do it in the first trimester.
This could contribute to the repeal of law – to allow abortions to ocur earlier, rather than later when it’s more dangerous to have them?
March 7th, 2007 at 3:35 pmSo teach them better not to be sluts…
Please, I went to fairly good schools as a kid and lived in upper middle class neighborhoods. We were having sex in the sixth grade. We were kids that were experimenting with our bodies, the television and magazines of course didn’t help nor did scary stories of getting pregnant thru kissing. It happens all the time even today and even more so because there are so many latch key kids. Hell, I even find used condoms behind my house today (alleyway with a convenient electrical transformer to lay on) and I’m pretty sure not all of these kids (quite young and from good income families) are using condoms. In fact the neighbor across the street came home to find a boy in bed with his teen daughter.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pm#16 Out here in the country we have ways of dealing with those that mess with others children and we certainly won’t be jailed. I understand those of you in Big cities put all your trust in the government to punish those that harm you or your family but sometimes governments fail.
In this situation the government is obviously failing you and your family. If the refuse to protect my children, then I have no choice but to protect them. This isn’t up for arguement. You touch my children without my permission, your 100% out of bounds and you better hope the government is there to arrest you or your problems are just starting.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pmI don’t care if a doctor decides to set their broken arm, remove a mole, or perform an abortion. If he didn’t ask me about it first, he better start running or accept his death.
That’s rather caveman of you…
This isn’t debatable. You touch someone’s child without there permission, you are wrong.
It’s with the woman’s permission Roger. No one is hijacking her against her will and forcing her to abort. It’s something SHE asked for.
You don’t own her… And if you couldn’t keep her from having unprotected sex, you have bigger issues than her seeking an abortion…
Protecting my children is my first responsiblility.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Then teach them about birth control… Which has become more about health control. And teach your daughters that they aren’t second class citizens who should think of themselves as semen recpticles. You want to take responsibility? Then teach them self-esteem and they won’t need to go around looking for love in all the wrong places…
March 7th, 2007 at 3:39 pmThat is a very morbid way to look at the murder of a life.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Is that how you feel about your chicken lunch?
Where do you stand on the Death Penalty?
Feeling like a hypocrite yet? You should…
March 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pmBut if they do? Kill the baby. That is unbelievable.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pmBut that isn’t a universal belief, and it certainly isn’t a fact
I said it was my ‘thought’ (opinion)on the matter. Pay attention please. =)
March 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pmI don’t care if a doctor decides to set their broken arm, remove a mole, or perform an abortion. If he didn’t ask me about it first, he better start running or accept his death.
Thats crazy, what if your kid is in a car crash?
March 7th, 2007 at 3:41 pmComment by unbelievable — March 7, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Just because our puritanical society calls menstruating and sexually active females under 18 “children†doesn’t make it so.
Clearly, Nature says otherwise… After all, it considers a 12-13 year old old enough to have sex and make a baby. If we as a culture don’t recognize that and teach them to behave like the grown adults their bodies have determined them to be, then a lot more of them will wind up pregnant on accident…
Teaching them about protected sex does not eliminate pregnancy, despite what you may think. My wife got pregnant while using birth control. It happens all the time, so quit fooling yourself. As far as teaching them to “behave like the grown adults their bodies”, adults understand cause effect much better than children (do in most cases). It comes with maturity and experience. How many teenagers do you work with every day that have the attitude “It won’t happen to me”. The vast majority of teenagers think they are invincible.
No – you are absurd. Can’t give your kid an aspirin without your permission? Boy, you are going to be in for a lot of surprise when your naive offsping join reality…
Yes, the schools can not give my children an aspirin without my permission. That is not by my request, that is the school policy. That policy has been at every school my children have attended. How is this naive?
You control freaks really are funny. It’s always about YOU. LOL
Comment by unbelievable — March 7, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Who deals with the child when they are sick? Who has to help the child if she has medical or emotional problems after the fact? Who has the legal responsibility and authority of the child? It is not a “control freak” thing, it is about parental responsibility and parental rights.
Would it be ok with you for a 16 year old girl to get breast implants without parental notification? Or better yet, brain surgery?
March 7th, 2007 at 3:42 pmPlease, I went to fairly good schools as a kid and lived in upper middle class neighborhoods. We were having sex in the sixth grade.
This doesn’t happen if your parente are active in your life… I know. I never would have thought about having sex in the sixth grade… because I was getting enough healthy attention at home and didn’t have to go look for it in unhealthy ways at that age.
In fact the neighbor across the street came home to find a boy in bed with his teen daughter.
Comment by AckSyn JAckSyn — March 7, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Doesn’t say much about him as a parent…
March 7th, 2007 at 3:43 pmI said it was my ‘thought’ (opinion)on the matter. Pay attention please. =)
Comment by AckSyn JAckSyn — March 7, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Not really. You said the timing was your opinion, but you referenced a ’soul’ as if it were a fact… That was what I was referencing.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:44 pm“I don’t care if a doctor decides to set their broken arm, remove a mole, or perform an abortion. If he didn’t ask me about it first, he better start running or accept his death.”
Authoritarians think that they rule other peoples lives and would rather let them die than have anything happen without their pathological blessings.
-GSD
March 7th, 2007 at 3:45 pmBut if they do? Kill the baby. That is unbelievable.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 7, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Drop the cliches… No one said anything about babies. We’re talking about embryos…
March 7th, 2007 at 3:45 pmIs that how you feel about your chicken lunch?
Where do you stand on the Death Penalty?
Feeling like a hypocrite yet? You should…
I don’t care about chickens, I care about people and yes I am against the death penalty.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:45 pmYou touch my children without my permission, your 100% out of bounds and you better hope the government is there to arrest you or your problems are just starting.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Clearly you wouldn’t know, since you didn’t know that your under age daughter was screwing around to begin with…
March 7th, 2007 at 3:46 pmDrop the cliches… No one said anything about babies. We’re talking about embryos…
When do you feel they become babies?
March 7th, 2007 at 3:49 pmLet them die? You mean the baby?
March 7th, 2007 at 3:49 pmParemedic; We aren’t able to reach Mr Roger and his kid has stopped breathing. We can’t do anything to save her because he is protecting her.
{later}
Roger; Why didn’t you save my daughters life!!!!!??
Paramedic; You were protecting her by refusing to allow us to help her, it’s what you wanted, remember?
March 7th, 2007 at 3:50 pmLet them die? You mean the baby?
Comment by Patrick1 — March 7, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Just like every time you pull your pud to kiddie porn – freak. You kill your babies! Sinner!
Just like every time you pay your taxes, guess what, you’re funding abortions!!!! That makes you a baby killer!!!
March 7th, 2007 at 3:51 pmGood to hear that this is passing.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:53 pm#33 I clearly stated that if you need to perform surgury on my child to save their life it is ok. If it isn’t to save their life, then it requires permission. This isn’t an anti abortion rant. Like I said, I don’t care what your reason is. If you haven’t got consent from me to touch my children, your wrong (unless it is to save their life). I cannot believe how many on this site are fine with strangers touching and doing things to their children without you consenting or even knowing about it. Maybe this crowd doesn’t have children.
This conversation is so far out there for any parent it is unbelievable. I honestly would think all but the clinicly insane would be against strangers laying their hands on your children and even going so far as to perform operations on them.
Again, Abortion isn’t even the issue here. It doesn’t even come to that. The issue is the government of NH allowing strangers to perform operations on our children without our consent. Holy SH*T that piss’ me off. If this was Minnesota, it would scare the hell out of me.
I guess the parents of NH now have to instill in their children that just because the person is a doctor doesn’t mean they have any right to touch them or operate on them without Mommy and Daddy knowing about it. How scary that some creepy doctor in NH can now legally tell your children that mommy and daddy don’t need to know that creepy doctor man touched them. My God what has America come to.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:53 pmThis doesn’t happen if your parente are active in your life… I know. I never would have thought about having sex in the sixth grade…
But it did happen to kids whose parents were actively involved, I know.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:53 pm#39 I clearly said and its obvious that any doctor can save someone’s life without gaining consent. Outside of that situation, we have a serious serious problem.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:54 pmCalling them embryos helps the members of the death cult sleep at night.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:55 pmThere are reasons behind the bill to repeal.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:55 pmI believe GSD hit on one point – sexual abuse in the home.
Another would be a child who has become pregnant, and belongs to one of the more …. strict religions. She could be shunned from her family or even community.
There are reasons why a child feels they cannot tell a parent about such things. That is why I feel the repeal of notification is a good thing.
Of course, what would be better is that we lived in a world where children never get hurt, parents are 100% reasonable at all times and never judge nor damage their children’s pysche, and that we are all totally in touch with our feelings, sexuality, etc.
Teaching them about protected sex does not eliminate pregnancy, despite what you may think.
I never said it did. But the pregnancies from protected sex are so minimal…
My wife got pregnant while using birth control. It happens all the time, so quit fooling yourself.
It doesn’t happen ALL the time. You’re an idiot. It’s far more likely that your wife either skipped a pill intentionally wanting to get pregnant or she didn’t take them regularly as presecribed. They are 99.7% effective IF taken properly… Not very high odds robert. Bad at math also…
As far as teaching them to “behave like the grown adults their bodiesâ€, adults understand cause effect much better than children (do in most cases). It comes with maturity and experience. How many teenagers do you work with every day that have the attitude “It won’t happen to meâ€. The vast majority of teenagers think they are invincible.
Which is why YOU should be teaching your daughters to value themselevs more than that. Studies show that girls with high self-esteem are unlikely to wind up unintentionally pregnant.
Seriously – go read something…
Yes, the schools can not give my children an aspirin without my permission. That is not by my request, that is the school policy. That policy has been at every school my children have attended. How is this naive?
You said it as if it were your decree…
Who deals with the child when they are sick? Who has to help the child if she has medical or emotional problems after the fact? Who has the legal responsibility and authority of the child? It is not a “control freak†thing, it is about parental responsibility and parental rights.
So, because you care for them when ill, you own them? LOL
There’s a vast difference between your list and what I was talking about…
A control freak is someone who won’t let their child have increasing responsibilities as they grow up so that they will make minor mistakes in small increments, rather than large mistakes when they get drunk on their freedom.
I saw so many peers in college go nuts because they were kept ’safe’ by their parents to the point that they couldn’t manage themselves once they were on their own. A few even managed to wind up dead as a result. Sad…
Would it be ok with you for a 16 year old girl to get breast implants without parental notification? Or better yet, brain surgery?
Comment by hacker bob — March 7, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
An abortion isn’t surgery.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:56 pm#3—I have mixed views on this one. I am very pro-choice, and I generally trumpet anything that promotes the pro-choice movement. However, I am also the father of two girls, and as a parent, I would want to know if they were having an abortion.
Comment by Chris — March 7, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
I hear ya……… but, I don’t think that any parent ought to have the right or the ability to force his/her daughter to carry a pregnancy to term either. It’s HER body.
And, let’s face it— for some girls, disclosing such information to an abusive parent can be fatal.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:56 pmI don’t care about chickens, I care about people and yes I am against the death penalty.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
But chickens are conscious forms of life. Why is it okay to kill them and not allow a woman to abort a potential life that may not even grow to term anyway? Because you say so? You nuts are really so arbitrary in your morality. It’s only okay if it you approve… Jesus…
March 7th, 2007 at 3:58 pmWhen do you feel they become babies?
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Feel? Is that serious?
Medically, they become babies after they are born.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:00 pm#13—–Making it easier to kill babies is called progress by the loons. The problem with this killing of people who are inconvenient to have around is they eventually will get to you.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 7, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Well……… it is merely your OPINION that abortion amounts to “killing babies”.
You are entitled to that opinion, and you are free to govern your own life accordingly.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:00 pmYou are an adult after puberty according to nature!
A female child cannot get pregnant, only an female adult can get pregnant, and what is that so hard to understand?
Modern society invented the “assine” concept of teenagers being children, and there was no such thing just a hundred years ago.
Logical contradictions are an indication of something being “assine”, and the idea that you can go to jail for having sex with a person 1 second before their 16th or 18th birthday, and not go to jail for having sex with a person 1 second after, is as “assine” as you can get!
Please save me the “mental” age argument, because many people aged 10 use more logic and have more common sense than many people aged 65, like G W Bush for example.
This idea of preventing of post-pubescents from having sex by using the law, results in situations of justice by toss of the dice, and its ramifications are far worse than the post-pubescents having sex.
Everybody can tell pre-pubescent from a post-pubescent, but very few people can tell an adult dressed 16 year old from an adult dressed 18 year old, so if we were a LOGICAL society, puberty would be the age of consent just as nature intended, but since we are an ILLOGICAL society and so repressed about sex, we fail to see the this.
Imagine how much better this world would be if we brain-washed childen to be repressed about violence and war, as they are about nudity and sex!
March 7th, 2007 at 4:00 pmI clearly stated that if you need to perform surgury on my child to save their life it is ok.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
And etopic (sp?) pregnancy could lead to death…
And, as I told you – your kid ASKED for the abortion… They aren’t forced (which is why you all should be pro-choice, as it means you can say no to abortion as well… Think about it).
March 7th, 2007 at 4:02 pmOutside of that situation, we have a serious serious problem.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Okay, caveman… You wouldn’t know it happened anyway, because obviouysly, your kid doesn’t feel comfortable coming to you in the first place…
March 7th, 2007 at 4:04 pm#48 Why not sets up laws that allow young girls that are getting abused at home to be able to go to the police that can find them a judge to make decisions for them? In the end, even when children are getting abused they need an adult to help them make valid choices and to protect them.
Having a young girl go to a stranger on her own is completely inappropriate and all kinds of bad could come from that. If a judge was involved at least we have someone looking out for them and their welfare.
The government really has no right to allow strangers to legally touch your children without your permission, end of story. I do not even kinda care what the reason it. Abortion, tooth removal, stitches, or a chiropractic appointment is all wrong without consent from a parent. The “Consent” is really only 25% of the importance. The big reason for me knowing this is happening is that they have an adult looking out for them and watching these strangers perform this stuff. Without parents know, abuse, rape, and even murder are possibilities. Why are you on this site fine with random people engaging and performing things on your children without consent? Do you let your children get in cars with strangers?
March 7th, 2007 at 4:06 pmCalling them embryos helps the members of the death cult sleep at night.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 7, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
It’s not perception… It’s what Science calls them. Oh, that’s right – you nuts reject Science for your feelings… LOL
Pray tell, what would we do with the extra 1 million people each year that would be born when we can’t even take care of the people who are on this planet? Over 100,000 kids are in foster care each year…
You really don’t care about them after they are born anyway…
March 7th, 2007 at 4:07 pmCalling them embryos helps the members of the death cult sleep at night. Comment by Patrick1
Calling them babies, teens, mothers and fathers, collateral damage helps the war party of death sleep at nite.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:07 pmI love my daughters and I would want to be there if they were having a tooth pulled. Children make stupid decisions and a lot of mistakes that they later regret. I’m all for that, it’s what makes us who we are as adults. When my children are over 18 and they want to have an abortion, I will have no say in that, and I’m okay with that. I have no problem with a grown woman (18 or over) having an abortion. However, if a minor child wants to have an abortion, or go to a dentist to get a tooth pulled, I think the parent should be notified. In the extreme cases, such as when a father has raped his daughter, I think the father should be locked away in prison, and they can notify him that his daughter is having an abortion on the way to the jail.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:07 pm#54 And what happens when my child goes to a stranger that abuses, abducts, or murders them? Since I nor any other adult knew they went, we will never know what happened. THIS IS THE MAIN REASON PARENTS NEED TO KNOW WHEN THEIR CHILDREN DO AND SEE STRANGERS.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pmIf the parents were to be more active in their children’s lives, this topic would be moot. But the parents rely on TV to teach their children. Teachers can’t teach kids because of raving lunatics saying “It’s not the teacher’s jobs to be teaching sex ed, it’s mine!”
So, parents, teach your children sex ed. My daughter is 11, hasn’t started menstruating yet, but she knows all about sex, what happens, and the consequences of sex. She knows more about the female and male bodies than a lot of high school kids.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:10 pmWhich is why YOU should be teaching your daughters to value themselevs more than that. Studies show that girls with high self-esteem are unlikely to wind up unintentionally pregnant.
We do agree on this point.
A control freak is someone who won’t let their child have increasing responsibilities as they grow up so that they will make minor mistakes in small increments, rather than large mistakes when they get drunk on their freedom.
Increasing responsibilities is a key phrase here. She can not have TOTAL responsibility. Some 15 y/o girls can handle more responsibility than other. So you can not dictate that all can handle it or that all should be treated equally. That is the reason for parental consent. Not necessarily to talk her out of it, but to make sure she has reviewed the information and understands clearly what is going to take place. Also, if the parents know about it, she is more likely to receive any additional counseling, protection, or education she may need. Again, some will need none, some will need more.
It is not an issue of “ownership” of the child, it is an issue of responsibility of the child and for the child.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:10 pmWhy not sets up laws that allow young girls that are getting abused at home to be able to go to the police that can find them a judge to make decisions for them?
Many women are abused by their husbands even though we have such places for help they are still too scared to go.
A law isn’t going to make them report the abuse. It’s usually a concerned neighbor or friend that calls the police or the authorities.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:11 pm#55—
Again, I understand your side of the debate.
And, it would be great if ALL teens could to talk with their parents openly about important issues like these. But not all teens come from supportive and loving families.
Forcing teens from abusive homes or teens whose pregnancies are the result of incest to tell their parents about their abortion decision will make a bad situation even worse for MANY teens.
The fact is, parents are free to raise children with the values they choose to instill……….. but, in the end– it’s HER body.
And, since carrying a pregnancy to term can potentially result in the death of the pregnant woman/girl— the decision MUST be hers.
If she feels comfortable confiding in her parents, she will.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:11 pmFeel? Is that serious?
Medically, they become babies after they are born.
So you are for abortions up to 39 weeks?
March 7th, 2007 at 4:12 pmWhy are you on this site fine with random people engaging and performing things on your children without consent?
Rogerx2,
Obviously these girls are helped by an adult with their
decisions.
They see counselors. Go over all options.
It’s not like they are strolling into “Dr. Quack’s”, never looking for a diploma and saying, “Take care of it.”
It’s a big deal, and believe me the young women know it.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:12 pmPeople are an asset. Ask a dying Europe.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:12 pmHaving a young girl go to a stranger on her own is completely inappropriate and all kinds of bad could come from that.
One one is talking about young girls… We are talking about sexually active young women…
Do you let your children get in cars with strangers?
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Huh?
March 7th, 2007 at 4:13 pmMake that No one is…
March 7th, 2007 at 4:14 pm#66—- People are an asset. Ask a dying Europe.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 7, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Look—- you are free to keep insisting that an embryo is in fact a “person”, but that is still just your opinion.
Pretending that it is FACT doesn’t make it so.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:15 pmBut chickens are conscious forms of life. Why is it okay to kill them and not allow a woman to abort a potential life that may not even grow to term anyway? Because you say so? You nuts are really so arbitrary in your morality. It’s only okay if it you approve… Jesus…
To compare chickens to babies shows how delusional you actually are. I have heard some rational arguments for abortion, your argument is not one of them. I actually feel sad for you.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:16 pmTHIS IS THE MAIN REASON PARENTS NEED TO KNOW WHEN THEIR CHILDREN DO AND SEE STRANGERS.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Dude, you got off track somewhere… we were talking about abortions not pedophilia. Hmmm….
March 7th, 2007 at 4:16 pmMy daughter is 11, hasn’t started menstruating yet, but she knows all about sex, what happens, and the consequences of sex. She knows more about the female and male bodies than a lot of high school kids.
Comment by proud Dem — March 7, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Good job! :)
March 7th, 2007 at 4:17 pmChris,
Sometimes the girls are just too frightened of their parents.
I totally get where you are coming from, but if you let your kids know, everyday, that you are on their side no matter what, you’ll probably never have to deal with this repeal.
It’s there for the ones who aren’t as fortunate.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:18 pmYou are free to pretend that killing babies is a good thing but that doesn’t change the facts.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:18 pmDude, you got off track somewhere… we were talking about abortions not pedophilia. Hmmm….
Comment by unbelievable — March 7, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
Why do you think Roger_Roger is so concerned about people finding out his daughter is pregnant? Right wingnut and pedophile go hand in hand.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:19 pmLook—- you are free to keep insisting that an embryo is in fact a “personâ€, but that is still just your opinion.
Pretending that it is FACT doesn’t make it so.
Actually a fetus grows from an embryo at about 8 weeks, so I am assuming since you only bring up embryos that you are against abortion after 8 weeks?
March 7th, 2007 at 4:20 pmSobanos,
You beat me to it.
Nice post. (#63)
March 7th, 2007 at 4:20 pmPeople are an asset. Ask a dying Europe.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 7, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
People like you are no asset. You’re a liability to any society. People like you bomb abortion clinics, and run planes into office towers.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:20 pmthat’s a lot of NH House members…jesus.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:21 pmYou are free to pretend that killing babies is a good thing but that doesn’t change the facts.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 7, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
That’s just my point.
I never once advocated the killing of babies.
You are free to characterize abortion in that way, but it is simply your opinion— not fact.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:22 pmActually a fetus grows from an embryo at about 8 weeks, so I am assuming since you only bring up embryos that you are against abortion after 8 weeks?
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
When does a fetus become a ‘baby’ – dum bass?
March 7th, 2007 at 4:22 pm#76—Actually a fetus grows from an embryo at about 8 weeks, so I am assuming since you only bring up embryos that you are against abortion after 8 weeks?
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
One word— VIABILITY.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:23 pmI am for an abortion of Patrick1 right this very minute and he is 14 years old.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:23 pmYou are free to pretend that killing babies is a good thing but that doesn’t change the facts. Comment by Patrick1 — March 7, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
You are free to pretend that aborting a fetus is killing a baby, but that doesn’t change the facts. You dum bass.
Nor does it change the fact that your taxes pay for abortions – so technically you’re an abortionist.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:23 pmOne word— VIABILITY.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
The one word that never describes the ‘argument’ of a conservative ;)
March 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pmProfile of UNBELIEVABLE
Single women in her early 40’s.
Not well respected by her peers.
Not well respected by her students.
Probably has multiple cats.
Her primary social interaction is on a blog.
Probably a Vegan that wears leather on occasion.
Came from a Conservative, Christian family.
Has turned against God and Tradition probably within the past 5 years.
This turning is because of some traumatic life event. She was probably married and her husband left her for someone else, probably a man. That is why she is so vocal about gay rights. She can not conceive of the idea that maybe she did something to cause it to happen. Also she is still a little confused about that lesbian experience she had in college.
Hate, the truly Progressive value.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pmIncreasing responsibilities is a key phrase here. She can not have TOTAL responsibility.
Will you stop it. Stop pushing your absolutes on what I say. I never said that.
Some 15 y/o girls can handle more responsibility than other. So you can not dictate that all can handle it or that all should be treated equally.
See previous comment above…
That is the reason for parental consent. Not necessarily to talk her out of it, but to make sure she has reviewed the information and understands clearly what is going to take place.
Bottom line – if she feels that she can’t go to you to get this, then why should she be punished for not having supportive parents who she can choose to talk with on her own?
My guess is that the majority of ones having them, don’t have parents who really care… Or they wouldn’t be having unprotected sex at 16.
Also, if the parents know about it, she is more likely to receive any additional counseling, protection, or education she may need. Again, some will need none, some will need more.
Where do you get this from? It contradicts logic and everything I’ve read on the subject…
It is not an issue of “ownership†of the child, it is an issue of responsibility of the child and for the child.
Comment by hacker bob — March 7, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Agreed… and if you are responsible as a parent, your kid is less likely to be pregnant in the first place… And more likely to tell you about it.
A friend of mine in high school had an abortion. Her home life was a disaster and she was smart enough to know that at 17 she couldn’t have a baby. My mother offered to take her. After ward, she thanked my mother for being supportive because she couldn’t go to her own mother. In contrast – I have never had an abortion. Mostly because my mother was there for me. And if I had gotten pregnant at 16 (though impossible because I was a virgin), I would have told her. Get my point?
March 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pmSo if you have an abortion you can have a baby a few months later? Wow.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pmSo you are for abortions up to 39 weeks?
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
I am not FOR abortions at any point.
I am for a woman’s choice to have an abortion if she chooses – up to 39 weeks.
There’s a vast difference between the two. Even if you refuse to see it.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pmNo, but if you have a baby, you can drop it on it’s head, like your mommy did 14 years ago.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:28 pmPeople are an asset. Ask a dying Europe.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 7, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
There are almost 6,5 billion people on this plant. Amny are starving and don’t have access to clean water. Others are fighting to the death over land and food.
How many more do you want?
March 7th, 2007 at 4:28 pmMy point is that when children go see strangers and no adult including their parents know about it, it is a situation that can easily lead to problems including abuse, rape, abduction, and even murder. This is the reason we as parents tell our children to never talk or go with a stranger. The reason is because no adult knows where they are or with whom.
I don’t know if this crowd is simply this dillusional to not understand why it isn’t ok for our children to not be with strangers without our permission or your just so pro choice it clowds your judgement.
Look, this isn’t a pro choice or anti abortion issue AT ALL. How can you not see that, honestly I want to know? It is parenting 101 that tells us our children are not safe in the hands of strangers when we don’t know about it or what they are doing.
My child going to a doctor without me knowing about it equates to them getting in a car with a stranger. Sure, nothing bad might happen but bad things certainly could happen and they have no protection from it. Wake up and get off the pro choice/ anti abortion debate for one second and act like a parent. If you still can’t see why strangers should have consent to be with your children, you need help.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:28 pm#88—So if you have an abortion you can have a baby a few months later? Wow.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 7, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Again…….. a z/e/f has the POTENTIAL to EVENTUALLY become a “baby”.
If “A” has the potential to become “B”, then it would logically follow that “A” is NOT “B”.
An acorn is not a tree……………
March 7th, 2007 at 4:29 pmTo compare chickens to babies shows how delusional you actually are.
You only say that because you aren’t a chicken… well, at least not physically.
It’s totally arbitrary to value one life more than any other…
I have heard some rational arguments for abortion, your argument is not one of them.
Of course it is. Just because you’re too stupid to grasp it doesn’t invalidate it.
In fact, because you cannot argue my points, but just insult me, proves that fact…
Keep digging…
I actually feel sad for you.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
I doubt it. You aren’t capable.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pmYou are free to pretend that killing babies is a good thing but that doesn’t change the facts.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 7, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Alright then – prove they are babies and not embryos or fetuses (just potential life)…
March 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pm#92
The fact is— this issue IS about whether or not parents can force or otherwise coerce a child to carry a pregnancy to term.
THAT is the bottom line here.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:33 pmRoger,
Did you not see my post #65?
Stop beating a dead horse.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:33 pmThey are not alone.
People like you are no asset. You’re a liability to any society. People like you bomb abortion clinics, and run planes into office towers.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 7, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Touche’!
March 7th, 2007 at 4:37 pmWas it just me, or did TP crash for a little while?
March 7th, 2007 at 4:55 pmYou only say that because you aren’t a chicken… well, at least not physically.
It’s totally arbitrary to value one life more than any other…
You don’t honestly believe chicken are as important as people. You can’t come up with a rational argument so you try and pass this one off. Yes I do feel sorry for you.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:57 pmProfile of UNBELIEVABLE
LOL… It’s funny how you can’t debate me on the issues, so you resort to ad hominem. This aught to be amusing…
Single women in her early 40’s.
I’m just one woman. I know spelling is difficult for you dear, but it would help to purchase a dictionary for when you aren’t sure…
Not well respected by her peers.
Not well respected by her students.
That’s funny. I’m guessing that you’re actually describing yourself. My students would also laugh at you. Especially when they are skipping tehir other classes to come to mine…
Probably has multiple cats.
If this is really an insult to you – you’re not even good at the ad hominems.
Her primary social interaction is on a blog.
My primary political conversations are. But unlikeyou, I’m not here on Friday or Saturday nights unless I was just too tired to go out.
Probably a Vegan that wears leather on occasion.
I don’t wear leather.
Came from a Conservative, Christian family.
Has turned against God and Tradition probably within the past 5 years. This turning is because of some traumatic life event.
I left religion because it was absurd. I left the Right because it was also absurd. Had nothing to do with anything traumatic at all.
She was probably married and her husband left her for someone else, probably a man. That is why she is so vocal about gay rights. She can not conceive of the idea that maybe she did something to cause it to happen. Also she is still a little confused about that lesbian experience she had in college.
Miss Cleo, you really need a new day job. Not even close.
I’m vocal about gay rights because, having gay friends, it is the right thing to do for my friends.
Hate, the truly Progressive value.
Comment by Hate — March 7, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
LOL, says the person who just lied about me for what reason? Yep – hate.
Next, I bet you’ll accuse me of changing teh subject to talk about myself. Hilarious!
Get a life…
March 7th, 2007 at 5:00 pmI am not FOR abortions at any point.
I am for a woman’s choice to have an abortion if she chooses – up to 39 weeks.
There’s a vast difference between the two. Even if you refuse to see it.
Even though a 39 week old fetus does not need the mother any more and is fully developed? If taken out it would have the same chances as a 40 week old baby. What you are comparing is the same as killing a 3 day old newborn, congrats on showing your murderous ways. I am proud you are for a woman’s choice to kill a fully developed baby.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:01 pm#96 This issue is NOT about parents forcing a child to carry a fetus to term. A child shouldn’t and doesn’t have that decision anyways.
If children having abortions is that important to you, this is my proposal so we have some oversight and protection of the child:
Make a new rule that allows a judge to rule and monitor a stranger performing an abortion if the parents refuse to consent.
This makes everyone happy. Doctors cannot operate on children without parents or a judges consent. This also forces doctors to be monitored and allows the parents the piece of mind that we are looking out for their children. Not sure how anyone would be against this rule like the last one. You see, it isn’t the abortion thing at all. It is the fact that it is logically wrong for a parent and the government to allow children to be operated on by strangers without proper consent as that creates an insanely dangerous situation.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:02 pmMy child going to a doctor without me knowing about it equates to them getting in a car with a stranger.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
ROTFL…
Roger, give it up – you’ve dug yourself into a doctors=pedophiles corner that you’ll never get your silly self out of…
March 7th, 2007 at 5:04 pmNo one should be for abortion at 39 weeks. That is stupid and irresponsible. The poor baby is perfectly viable. At that point, just deliver it and give it up for adoption. Holy crap that is hardcore evil. I completely see the arguement for abortion rights before a fetus is viable, but at the point you could remove a baby and its viable who is for killing it anyways? Tons of folks wait years to adopt.
The only debate should be about abortions before a fetus is viable and I understand and respect that. After viablity, your just committing murder. Any true human realizes that.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:07 pmROTFL…
Roger, give it up – you’ve dug yourself into a doctors=pedophiles corner that you’ll never get your silly self out of…
Comment by unbelievable — March 7, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Sounds more like the Roger_Roger=pedophile corner to me. ;) He just wants to be the only one – jealous old fcukhead!
March 7th, 2007 at 5:07 pm104 let me guess, you believe the profession of Doctor is immune from evil people? Do you also believe all teachers are immune from being a pedophile?
Have you seen “To Catch a Predetor”? They have caught tons of teachers and doctors. While I am sure 99% are perfectly harmless, you bet I am concerned about the 1% that are a danger to my children. I am scared as hell about them actually. You playing that danger off lightly isn’t even funny. Can you imagine a teacher or doctor wrecking your childs life when all they wanted was help? OMG
March 7th, 2007 at 5:21 pmYou don’t honestly believe chicken are as important as people.
I honestly believe that all life is valuable – none more than any other to the indifferent universe. It is simply because you are a human that you value human life the most.
If a building were on fire and I could save you or a chicken? You’d find out that I think a chicken is actually more important than you…
You can’t come up with a rational argument so you try and pass this one off.
I have plenty of rational arguments. The fact that you can’t debate any of them is proof…
Yes I do feel sorry for you.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
Like that means anything…
LOL
March 7th, 2007 at 5:22 pmI am trying to believe that this crowd in this thread doesn’t speak for the Dem party at large.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:22 pm#96 This issue is NOT about parents forcing a child to carry a fetus to term. A child shouldn’t and doesn’t have that decision anyways. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
If a child is old enough to get pregnant, they’re old enough to decide whether they want to stay pregnant. No matter what a hate filled, bigoted old fcukhead like you says.
If children having abortions is that important to you, this is my proposal so we have some oversight and protection of the child:Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
They already do. The child must have counseling by a professional – something a semi-literate fcukhead like you, that can’t distinguish ‘your’ from ‘you’re’ wouldn’t understand.
Make a new rule that allows a judge to rule and monitor a stranger performing an abortion if the parents refuse to consent. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
Children often require protection ‘from’ their parents. For instance, image oriented bigoted, st*pid old fcukheads like you might throw them out of the house to avoid the ’shame’ of a child that represents your bad parenting. That’s why parents are often not told. To protect the child from being cast onto the street like garbage.
You’re a dum bass..
March 7th, 2007 at 5:22 pm104 let me guess, you believe the profession of Doctor is immune from evil people? Do you also believe all teachers are immune from being a pedophile? Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
That’s why there’s a staff that handles this, including counselors – you fcuking idiot.
Have you seen “To Catch a Predetor� Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Yeah, the men on there remind me of you.
They have caught tons of teachers and doctors. While I am sure 99% are perfectly harmless, you bet I am concerned about the 1% that are a danger to my children. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
If it were so easy for doctors to prey on children, why would they internet predate – you fcuking id*ot!
I am scared as hell about them actually. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
You should be, you are one of them. You should be more upset about what you’ve done to your children – fcukhead!
You playing that danger off lightly isn’t even funny. Can you imagine a teacher or doctor wrecking your childs life when all they wanted was help? OMG Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
It’s even easier to imagine a fcukhead like you destroying your child’s life. Learn to spell, you illiterate old fool!
March 7th, 2007 at 5:25 pmI am trying to believe that this crowd in this thread doesn’t speak for the Dem party at large. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Whereas you being a st*pid old fcukhead speak perfectly well for the GOP – you disgusting pig!
March 7th, 2007 at 5:26 pmEven though a 39 week old fetus does not need the mother any more and is fully developed? If taken out it would have the same chances as a 40 week old baby.
I guess you’re ignoring the fact that fetuses can be and even with modern technology die during the birth process?
I’m also guessing, should it survive the trip, you’re all for putting that 39 week old kid into a home environment to be abused? Or in foster care?
Come to my classroom and meet my students who were abused. Then tell them that they are better off.
What you are comparing is the same as killing a 3 day old newborn, congrats on showing your murderous ways.
No it isn’t. The 3 day old survived birth and those 3 days. Not every 39 week old fetus does…
I am proud you are for a woman’s choice to kill a fully developed baby.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
You seem to be missing the point that I don’t care what you feel…
March 7th, 2007 at 5:27 pm#111 I certainly wouldn’t be fine with some “staff that handles this, including counselors”. This isn’t about someone getting counseling, this is about someone outside the hospital or clinic knowing about it. If not parents, then a judge is fine. Why are you against protectiong of children?
March 7th, 2007 at 5:30 pmI am uneasy about this issue.
As pro-abortion as I am, I do not believe it wise to let a minor make this kind of decisions on their own, without any adult supervision whatsoever.
In the state where I live, it is illegal for minors to get a tattoo, or a piercing without parental consent. It is also illegal for them to drink, smoke, and even be out on the streets past a certain time of the night. Any adult caught helping a minor break the law faces serious consequences.
How do we reconcile placing such restrictions on minors with allowing them to have abortions without parental consent? How do we explain ourselves the belief that kids are not old enough to drink, but it is ok for them to have an abortion unsupervised by a caring adult?
March 7th, 2007 at 5:30 pmI know spelling is difficult for you dear..
Comment by unbelievable — March 7, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Says the “educated” woman who uses words like “tehir”, “unlikeyou”, and “teh”.
Along with the dictionary, buy a space bar. Or are these “mistakes” a symptom of your frustration?
Now, go play with your cats….little girl.
Hate, the truly Progressive value.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:30 pmEven though a 39 week old fetus does not need the mother any more and is fully developed? Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
It’s called child birth at that point – dum bass.
If taken out it would have the same chances as a 40 week old baby. What you are comparing is the same as killing a 3 day old newborn, congrats on showing your murderous ways. I am proud you are for a woman’s choice to kill a fully developed baby. Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Who said anything about kill – you fool? An abortion simply means an ejection from the womb. If the fetus is viable it will live, if not it will die.
Guess what dum bass – Your GOD is the biggest aborter of all. Most abortions occur spontaneously. You’d think a ‘god’ that valued life the way you presume to believe wouldn’t be the biggest abortionist – would you?
Fcuking fool.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:30 pmNo one should be for abortion at 39 weeks. That is stupid and irresponsible.
No one is pro-abortion here – we are pro-choice. Tryto stay awake…
Holy crap that is hardcore evil.
So you’re also a vegan who wears pleather, opposes war, and the Death penalty?
Tons of folks wait years to adopt.
White babies. What do you suggest we do with the rest of them? What’s your address? Can they come stay with you?
The only debate should be about abortions before a fetus is viable and I understand and respect that. After viablity, your just committing murder.
In your mind. In reality, abortion is legal at 39 weeks.
It is rarelt performed at this stage, to save you your falseoutrage – and then to save thelife of teh mother, or in the case of a friend of mine, because it’s already dead. Medically, after a certain point, it’s no longer abortion – but actual labor.
Any true human realizes that.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
LOL… As opposed to faux humans Roger?
Stick with equating doctors to pedophiles. It’s funnier.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:33 pm#103— This issue is NOT about parents forcing a child to carry a fetus to term. A child shouldn’t and doesn’t have that decision anyways.
A teen aged person should have the final say over whether or not she has to carry a pregnancy to term— a potentially life-threatening situation (carrying a pregnancy to term).
And that decision should not be influenced by her parents UNLESS she trusts them enough to tell them about it.
That’s that with that.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:33 pmSounds more like the Roger_Roger=pedophile corner to me. ;)
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 7, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
He doesn’t seem to be denying it…
March 7th, 2007 at 5:34 pm#115—- I am uneasy about this issue.
As pro-abortion as I am, I do not believe it wise to let a minor make this kind of decisions on their own, without any adult supervision whatsoever.
But, that is just NOT the case.
Professional ADULTS are consulted.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:35 pmProfessional ADULTS are consulted.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
Should we do away with parental involvement in any and all medical decisions made by a minor then?
March 7th, 2007 at 5:37 pmI guess you’re ignoring the fact that fetuses can be and even with modern technology die during the birth process?
I’m also guessing, should it survive the trip, you’re all for putting that 39 week old kid into a home environment to be abused? Or in foster care?
Come to my classroom and meet my students who were abused. Then tell them that they are better off.
What you are comparing is the same as killing a 3 day old newborn, congrats on showing your murderous ways.
No it isn’t. The 3 day old survived birth and those 3 days. Not every 39 week old fetus does…
The straw man argument is in full force. You do realize that people can die any different way. Your logic is so faulty, it is like saying it is okay to kill the baby before the drive home but not after because they could die during the trip. So pathetic, since many many more people die in car wrecks than do babies during delivery. You are also saying that it is better to die than be abused. Another straw man, otherwise you would be for killing all abused kids to put them out of their misery. I can’t believe somebody could actually think like this. Totally insane.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:37 pmIt’s too bad that the mothers who carried these people involved in this current administration didn’t have legalized abortion when they were carrying thier demon spawn, back when. Rusty coat hangers were the only recourse then, and it just didn’t do the job right. Maybe that’s what happened to most of this lousy scum.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:38 pmyou believe the profession of Doctor is immune from evil people? Do you also believe all teachers are immune from being a pedophile?
I don’t believe in ‘evil people’.
I think that there are doctors as well as teachers who cross the line. Just as there are police, priests and elected Republican politicians. It doesn’t define the whole.
I am scared as hell about them actually.
Of course. You’re scared of your own shadow.
Don’t you teach them how to defend themselves? Or don’t you like the challenge?
You playing that danger off lightly isn’t even funny. Can you imagine a teacher or doctor wrecking your childs life when all they wanted was help? OMG
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
You are seriously deranged… And paranoid.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:39 pm#117 I agree that we should allow women to go to the hospital and give brith early if they want. I see nothing horribly wrong with a doctor administering drugs to stimulate birth. Of course once the child is in the range that they will be viable, the hospital needs to be prepared to take care of it. They need to take every precaution to protect the child life. Either way, We can agree that Hospitals should be allowed to help a women give birth early.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:39 pm#122—Should we do away with parental involvement in any and all medical decisions made by a minor then?
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 7, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
No.
But how does this broad-brush view apply to, say– a girl who is pregnant because her father raped her, etc?
The bottom line is— no person ought to be able to force or otherwise coerce any female in to carrying a pregnancy to term.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:42 pm#123………….. Again— VIABILITY.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:43 pm#120 I certainly don’t deny wanting to protect my children. Are you denying that doctors have abused their patients? Honestly, you really want to deny that? Are you going to deny that Doctors haven’t had staff help them abuse their patients? Do I really need to site the examples?
March 7th, 2007 at 5:43 pmpatrick1,
I haven’t said this before, but it’s long overdue: You are a moron.
There.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:44 pmHow do we explain ourselves the belief that kids are not old enough to drink, but it is ok for them to have an abortion unsupervised by a caring adult?
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 7, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
In many countries 16 is the age of consent for drinking and sex – as well as abortion. As a result, there are less pregnant 16 year olds in those countries because they are educated along with their responsibility.
Our culture, however, is arbitrary in what it allows 16 year olds to do legally – and as a result lacks giving them proper information and guidance.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:44 pm#125 Your a piece of sh*t if you think a 10-12 year old girl could defend themselves against a full grown man.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:44 pmSays the “educated†woman who uses words like “tehirâ€, “unlikeyouâ€, and “tehâ€.
Bad typing has nothing to do with bad spelling…
Along with the dictionary, buy a space bar. Or are these “mistakes†a symptom of your frustration?
Frustration? Oh, you’re projecting. I meditate. You really should try it.
Now, go play with your cats….little girl.
If you consider 40 to be a little girl, how ancient are you grandpa?
Hate, the truly Progressive value.
Comment by Hate — March 7, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
It’s just as funny the second time you type it…
March 7th, 2007 at 5:47 pmno person ought to be able to force or otherwise coerce any female in to carrying a pregnancy to term.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Absolutely. Nowhere did I say it should be otherwise.
I am a father of three; I want to be involved in the medical decisions that affect them. I would also like to have a saying as to the treatment that are/could/will be provided to them.
For me, it is not a matter of denying them the option but the peace of mind in knowing that we all came to an agreement (wife would be included as well) as to what the best option is.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:50 pmI can’t believe somebody could actually think like this.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
We noticed… You aren’t smart enough.
You can’t even properly point out a strawman…
Yawn…
March 7th, 2007 at 5:50 pmSo pathetic, since many many more people die in car wrecks than do babies during delivery. You are also saying that it is better to die than be abused. Another straw man, otherwise you would be for killing all abused kids to put them out of their misery. I can’t believe somebody could actually think like this. Totally insane. Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
If abortion is so wrong, why is GOD the biggest abortionist? St*pid Fcukhead?
March 7th, 2007 at 5:50 pmDo I really need to site the examples?
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
Knock yourself out (that means yes). I just have to see what you’d come up with…
March 7th, 2007 at 5:53 pmWho said anything about kill – you fool? An abortion simply means an ejection from the womb. If the fetus is viable it will live, if not it will die.
Guess what dum bass – Your GOD is the biggest aborter of all. Most abortions occur spontaneously. You’d think a ‘god’ that valued life the way you presume to believe wouldn’t be the biggest abortionist – would you?
Fcuking fool.
Wow, such hostility. I understand what abortion does. It was to show the point that Unbelievable was making no sense. Why do you say my god? Have I said anything about god?
March 7th, 2007 at 5:54 pmDo I really need to site the examples?
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
I think you mean ‘cite’ examples? Why must you mangle the english language so much Roger? Are you just st*pid or poorly educated? Or is it both?
March 7th, 2007 at 5:54 pmIf you believe abortion is wrong, then you should have already adopted at least one unwanted child, right?
If you believe abortion is wrong, then you should have already taken in at least one unwed mother and helped financially support her thru pregnancy until her return to work?
Since bringing a fetus to term often does kill women, why does the government have the right to make women do something that can kill themselves?
If a woman has a feeling that something is wrong, and she believes she will die if she goes thru with the pregnancy, and people prevent her from aborting, and she dies, then how should those people be punished for murdering her?
March 7th, 2007 at 5:55 pmIf abortion is so wrong, why is GOD the biggest abortionist? St*pid Fcukhead?
Murder is wrong, so why does God murder so many people with natural distasters. So I take it you are for any type of murder? Please make a little sense in your arguments. And when did I mention god? I think abortion is murder, nothing religious about it.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:55 pmSo Right Wingnuts – tell me is your conviction ‘religious’ or just ‘ignorant’ in its basis? If it’s religious, care to ‘cite’ the passages where your religion says abortion is illegal? Also care to explain to me where your religious bigotry gets a decision in a secular society that disagrees with your dum bass superstitions?
March 7th, 2007 at 5:56 pmIn many countries 16 is the age of consent for drinking and sex – as well as abortion.
Comment by unbelievable — March 7, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Yes, I realise “adult age” is arbitrary -for the record, the US’ “you must be 21 before you can legally drink” laws are absolutely ridiculous, in my opinion.
But my point is that, as a society, the US has decided arbitrarily that 18 is the “adult age”. Before that, no tattoos, no piercing, and a long list of other things. Sexual intercourse with a minor can land anyone in jail. The underlying reason is that people under 18 are not considered mature enough to make those decisions on their own, even though it’s their body too.
Shouldn’t parental input be considered -at least- in this case as well?
March 7th, 2007 at 5:56 pmYour a piece of sh*t if you think a 10-12 year old girl could defend themselves against a full grown man.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Any girl of any age, told where to hit, kick or head butt can defend herself. If you aren’t teaching them that, you are teaching them to be victims. And that makes you the piece of shit.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:57 pmIf you believe abortion is wrong, then you should have already adopted at least one unwanted child, right?
If you believe abortion is wrong, then you should have already taken in at least one unwed mother and helped financially support her thru pregnancy until her return to work?
Since bringing a fetus to term often does kill women, why does the government have the right to make women do something that can kill themselves?
If a woman has a feeling that something is wrong, and she believes she will die if she goes thru with the pregnancy, and people prevent her from aborting, and she dies, then how should those people be punished for murdering her?
My second son was adopted. I also have been a foster parent. If a woman’s life is in danger then I am in favor of pro choice, but if not I see it as murder.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:59 pmIt was to show the point that Unbelievable was making no sense.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Of course I’m making sense. Your persistance in trying to debunk me shows that. If you thought I wasn’t making sense, you’d ignore me…
March 7th, 2007 at 6:00 pmOf course I’m making sense. Your persistance in trying to debunk me shows that. If you thought I wasn’t making sense, you’d ignore me…
Call it a morbid fetish of mine to try and point out inconsistencies in statements by the irrational.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:02 pmI think abortion is murder, nothing religious about it.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
Usually a lack of Science and a need to force women to have a babies they don’t want is religiously motivated.
Men who reject god-beliefs and respect women allow women to choose for themselves. And those men raise daughters who, because they are respected, tend not to wind up with unwanted pregnancies. Why you keep ignoring the correlation is rather telling about your real motives here…
March 7th, 2007 at 6:04 pmAny girl of any age, told where to hit, kick or head butt can defend herself. If you aren’t teaching them that, you are teaching them to be victims. And that makes you the piece of shit.
So I guess rapes are the women’s fault because they should be able to defend themselves or the parent’s fault? At what age should a girl be taught to hit, kick and head butt?
March 7th, 2007 at 6:04 pmWith this type of militant thinking when it comes to pro choice we just throw safety of our children out the door. How can an issue be more important that the welfare of children.
I simply asked that an outside source monitor the doctors to garuntee the safety of our children. I didn’t mean a judge could decide whether a child could or couldn’t have an abortion as it doesn’t even get to that point for me. If you want this law, fine. Just add to the law a child needs the consent of EITHER a parent OR a Judge. under this law a Judge must consent to the abortion and must monitor the situation to garuntee the childs safety.
How can anyone be against this? This would garuntee our children’s safety from an outside source that doesn’t have to be tied to the family if the child chooses. It also allows for an outside source outside the clinic to look out for out children. Please tell me how you could be against that? It provides open abortion for all.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:04 pmHow come you “pro-life” right-wingers are so gung ho on killing lots and lots of people in Iraq? The word hypocrite comes to mind.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:05 pm#134—Absolutely. Nowhere did I say it should be otherwise.
I am a father of three; I want to be involved in the medical decisions that affect them. I would also like to have a saying as to the treatment that are/could/will be provided to them.
For me, it is not a matter of denying them the option but the peace of mind in knowing that we all came to an agreement (wife would be included as well) as to what the best option is.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 7, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Well then— what exactly is the point of parental notification, if it is not solely to give the parents the opportunity to impose their will on the minor?
March 7th, 2007 at 6:06 pm#144 As I said, your a piece of human sh*t to believe that. Your reason for allowing strangers to operate on our children without any outside source knowing it is because if anything bad may happen, the 10-12 year girl should be able to defend themselves. We certainly live in a savage world when we expect little girls to be perfectly capable of defense against full grown men. Wake up.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:06 pmShouldn’t parental input be considered -at least- in this case as well?
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 7, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
We discussed that earlier…
Basically, a 16 year old shouldn’t be punished if she doesn’t have supportive parents. Because, really, the girls who have supportive parents go to them. I would have gone to my mother had I gotten pregnant at 16 (which historyically wasn’tpossible). And that the law is more to protect those who need anonymity from their parents who will care less about their daughter’s right than they aught..
You seem like the type of father who will never have to find out… :D
March 7th, 2007 at 6:08 pmbut if not I see it as murder.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
And we know – it’s all about how YOU see it.
Egomaniac…
March 7th, 2007 at 6:10 pm#144 As I said, your a piece of human sh*t to believe that. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Well you’re a piece of human sh*t – period, who’s too fcuking st*pid to tell the difference between your and you’re!!!
Your reason for allowing strangers to operate on our children without any outside source knowing it is because if anything bad may happen, the 10-12 year girl should be able to defend themselves. We certainly live in a savage world when we expect little girls to be perfectly capable of defense against full grown men. Wake up. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
We live in a savage world, because of savages like you, you fcuking pond scum!
March 7th, 2007 at 6:11 pmre#145 rabidbunny
Who determines whether or not the woman’s life is in danger, should the pregnancy be carried to term?
Is it the same doctors who cannot predict whether or not any given pregnancy brought to term will kill the mother?
Who can make a better determination of whether or not your life is in danger other than you and your immune system?
I repeat, what if the women you deny an abortion to dies in child birth, who should pay for her murder?
Why do the abortion discussion never address these areas?
March 7th, 2007 at 6:11 pmComment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
From that perspective, I am continuously “imposing” my will on my sons -whether it’s when to watch TV and what to watch, what to eat, or when to go to sleep.
If I am not allowed to have a say (or “impose” my will as you put it), what is the role of a parent, then?
March 7th, 2007 at 6:11 pmShouldn’t parental input be considered -at least- in this case as well?
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 7, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
WHAT FOR????
The bottom line is— it’s HER body.
Whether or not she feels that she can trust her parents or not is HER issue.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:11 pmCall it a morbid fetish of mine to try and point out inconsistencies in statements by the irrational. Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Yet, all you do is make statements that are inconsistent and irrational. That makes you a fool!
March 7th, 2007 at 6:12 pmSo I guess rapes are the women’s fault because they should be able to defend themselves or the parent’s fault?
You’re an idiot.
At what age should a girl be taught to hit, kick and head butt?
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
Sad that you are a parent…
March 7th, 2007 at 6:12 pmCall it a morbid fetish of mine to try and point out inconsistencies in statements by the irrational.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
You’re not very good – at either identifying or debating.
You should pick a hobby that’s more your speed… Like opening beer bottles with your teeth.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:14 pmAnd that the law is more to protect those who need anonymity from their parents who will care less about their daughter’s right than they aught..
Comment by unbelievable — March 7, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
Good point. I think I will ponder that for a while… food for thought….
You seem like the type of father who will never have to find out… :D
We only have boys. My wife wants a girl, but I already told her I cannot guarantee results ;-)
March 7th, 2007 at 6:15 pmHow about this then.
Doctors require parental notification to perform operations on their children. The Parents cannot refuse to allow the Doctor to perform abortions however. The parent simply has to know about it so they can monitor the situation and garuntee the childs safety. Furthermore, a child has the right to get a judge to act as a parent if the child feels uncomfortable with the parents knowing for whatever reason. The judge then gets notification and is obligated to monitor the situation to garuntee the childs safety.
Now how could you disagree with this? This allows complete abortion rights to all and garuntees the safety of our children.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:15 pm#158— From that perspective, I am continuously “imposing†my will on my sons -whether it’s when to watch TV and what to watch, what to eat, or when to go to sleep.
If I am not allowed to have a say (or “impose†my will as you put it), what is the role of a parent, then?
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 7, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
None of those scenarios are even remotely analogous to this particular situation.
Why should ANY person have a say in whether or nopt to subject another’s body to a potentially life-threatening situation?
And carrying a pregnancy to term IS a potentially life-threatening situation.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:16 pmAs I said, your a piece of human sh*t to believe that.
That’s your ignorant rednecked opinion. Which doesn’t count for anything…
Your reason for allowing strangers to operate on our children without any outside source knowing it is because if anything bad may happen, the 10-12 year girl should be able to defend themselves.
You really are a moron. No one said that – except YOU.
We certainly live in a savage world when we expect little girls to be perfectly capable of defense against full grown men. Wake up.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 7, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Dipshit – we’re talking about 16 year olds. No one said anything about little girls – except YOU. Pervert!
March 7th, 2007 at 6:16 pmI’m quite amazed at all the hate and threats of revenge by right wingers on this issue. Shows you what right wingers are really all about. This also helps to show how and why the U.S. was misled into this horrible mistake of a war in Iraq. It appears like it was mostly about Republican hate and revenge.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:17 pmNow how could you disagree with this? This allows complete abortion rights to all and garuntees the safety of our children.
Because it ignores the fact that the minor will have to live with the parents afterward……….. in a possibly hostile environment.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:19 pmThe bottom line is— it’s HER body.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
And I think this line of reasoning is rather weak.
It is also her body if she decides to smoke, drink, etc. Doing any of that will get her in trouble, along with any adult who facilitates.
I am trying to find a compelling reason why one set of behaviors is not ok for a minor to engage in because “they are not mature enough”, but leaving up to the same minors whether or not to abort is perfectly fine.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:21 pmGood point. I think I will ponder that for a while… food for thought….
As a former female teenager, I think the law is more for the girls who need the system to protect them… :)
We only have boys. My wife wants a girl, but I already told her I cannot guarantee results ;-)
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 7, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
LOL
I read that about 75% of conceptions are boys… And that by 18, the ratio of men to women is about even…
March 7th, 2007 at 6:21 pmre#164 Roger_Roger
What a logical and sensible solution, as long as the judge option is first and only option!
That will ensure the abortion can be kept secret from the parents should the minor want it that way.
I hope you use the logic you have shown here more often in your other posts!
March 7th, 2007 at 6:23 pmThis is ridiculous
March 7th, 2007 at 6:23 pmAnd carrying a pregnancy to term IS a potentially life-threatening situation.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
I have to agree with you here… That when it comes to something this personal (having a baby) – that the decision to tell her parent or not should ultimately be the woman’s.
I think the fact that the right wingers here are refusing to accept the accountability as parents is not surprising. They accept responsibility for nothing they ever do. Their morality is subjective to tehir convenience, and they truly do not care about anything but themselves.
Fortunately, we live in a country where abortion is legal, and they can’t change that (see South Dakota neocons)…
March 7th, 2007 at 6:26 pmNone of those scenarios are even remotely analogous to this particular situation.
So, in some cases it is ok for me to “impose” my will on my children but not in others? Can you elaborate?
Why should ANY person have a say in whether or nopt to subject another’s body to a potentially life-threatening situation?
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
I realise a pregnancy can potentially be life-threatening, but I don’t believe the law was crafted for this kind of scenario only.
Plus your logic also applies in a case of major surgery, or even cancer treatment: Should a parent have no say on whether or not their child should undergo bone marrow transplant? Chemotherapy? Or an organ transplant?
March 7th, 2007 at 6:26 pmAnd I think this line of reasoning is rather weak.
It is also her body if she decides to smoke, drink, etc. Doing any of that will get her in trouble, along with any adult who facilitates.
Reasoning?
YOUR reasoning appears to suggest that parents ought to be able to subject minor dependents to life-threatening situations against their will.
Requiring, forcing, or otherwise coercing a minor to carry a pregnancy to term is just THAT.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:26 pmWho determines whether or not the woman’s life is in danger, should the pregnancy be carried to term?
Is it the same doctors who cannot predict whether or not any given pregnancy brought to term will kill the mother?
Who can make a better determination of whether or not your life is in danger other than you and your immune system?
I repeat, what if the women you deny an abortion to dies in child birth, who should pay for her murder?
Why do the abortion discussion never address these areas
Certainly doctors are the best at determining whether or not a woman’s life is in danger. You can’t go off a person and their immune system for this just like you can’t for diagnosing cancer or any other life threatening illness. As for your question regarding the “murder” of the mother, I don’t believe it is murder if there were no signs of difficulty. The mother’s life is not more important than the baby’s.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:27 pmFortunately, we live in a country where abortion is legal, and they can’t change that (see South Dakota neocons)…
For now…the supreme court is looking more and more conservative.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:28 pmI am trying to find a compelling reason why one set of behaviors is not ok for a minor to engage in because “they are not mature enoughâ€, but leaving up to the same minors whether or not to abort is perfectly fine.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 7, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
I think preventing them from smoking or drinking is in the interest of preserving their health. Forcing them to have a baby they truly do not want is not preserving their health – either physical or mental. That’s where I see a clear distinction between the two.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:30 pm#172— I have a pretty strong feeling here that many right wingnuts are only interested in “parental notification” because they want to be able to influence the decision beforehand.
And since the minor is dependent upon them for food, shelter, etc., influencing the decision amounts to COERCION or FORCE in most cases.
I doubt that they would be much interested in a law requiring parental notification AFTER the fact.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:32 pmFor now…the supreme court is looking more and more conservative. Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
And if it changes, it will be a great time to leave the soul sucking redstates for civilization. You fcukheads can wallow in your own sewage, as it should be.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:32 pmThe mother’s life is not more important than the baby’s.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Actually, it is. It’s why so few people are against abortions to save the life of the mother.
Also… If a paramedic arrives at the scene of a car crash where a mother and her children are in serious condition, they are told to first administer aid to the mother, even if the children will die.
For now…the supreme court is looking more and more conservative.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Keep telling yourself that… It really is the illusions that you cling to with all your might.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:34 pmReasoning?
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
This would be the first time someone takes exception when I say they are reasoning. I guess there is always a first time for everything. Aren’t you reasoning?
YOUR reasoning appears to suggest that parents ought to be able to subject minor dependents to life-threatening situations against their will.
Er, no. Not all pregnancies are life-threatening, so that is not remotely what I am saying at all. And any medical procedure is potentially life-threatening.
I don’t believe you read the rest of my post.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:35 pm#178—- dayumn!
March 7th, 2007 at 6:36 pmI see the trolls realized they’ve been soundly defeated and went in search of new talking points… LOL
Good time to break for dinner…
March 7th, 2007 at 6:37 pm#180—This would be the first time someone takes exception when I say they are reasoning.
Well, you didn’t.
You described my reasoning as being “weak”—- and I set you straight.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:39 pmThe mother’s life is not more important than the baby’s.
Comment by rabidbunny — March 7, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
I actually had to read this one twice. wow.
In addition to what Unbelievable said: In my mind, at any time during my wife’s deliveries, her health and life were above anyone else’s in the room -including myself.
You are not married, are you?
March 7th, 2007 at 6:40 pm#180— Er, no. Not all pregnancies are life-threatening
ALL pregnancies are potentially life-threatening.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:40 pmI don’t believe you read the rest of my post.
Actually, I did.
And, your defense is pathetic.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:41 pmALL pregnancies are potentially life-threatening.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
The law we are discussing isn’t just for life-threatening pregnancies.
And, your defense is pathetic.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Defence of what, exactly?
March 7th, 2007 at 6:44 pmALL pregnancies are potentially life-threatening.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
All living is potentially life threatening.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:46 pmYou are not married, are you?
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 7, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
It’s always the one that hate women that have a hard time with abortions. If they trusted women, and their judgment, they would be such misogynistic fcukheads.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:47 pmThe law we are discussing isn’t just for life-threatening pregnancies.
So what?
The point is— no person ought to be able to require another to subject herself to a life-threatening situation through force, coercion, etc.
And ANY pregnancy is just that.
Furthermore, no person should be able to force any female to carry a pregnancy to term.
Defence of what, exactly?
Of your stated position.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:50 pmAll living is potentially life threatening.
Fair enough.
So, what’s your point?
March 7th, 2007 at 6:51 pmComment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — March 7, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
No kidding.
Like rabidbunny and his wanting to controll his daughter’s sex life until she’s 30. What a creep.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:51 pmSo what?
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
That mentioning “life-threatening” in this context smacks of scare tactic because the law applies to all pregnancies, as I mentioned before, not just to those who threaten the mother’s life.
And ANY pregnancy is just that.
See? You did it again. And I will have to say, again: Not all pregnancies are life threatening.
So quit beating this dead horse.
Furthermore, no person should be able to force any female to carry a pregnancy to term.
Agreed.
Of your stated position.
Wha? What is my position? What have I stated besides “I am uneasy about this issue.”?
March 7th, 2007 at 6:56 pmThat mentioning “life-threatening†in this context smacks of scare tactic because the law applies to all pregnancies, as I mentioned before, not just to those who threaten the mother’s life.
Absolutely not.
I’m merely emphasizing my point— that the female (although a minor) shouldn’t have to sign over the rights to her body to ANY other person.
Her parents don’t OWN her.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:58 pmSee? You did it again. And I will have to say, again: Not all pregnancies are life threatening.
I never said ALL pregnancies were life-threatening.
The point is—- no parent ought to be able to override a minor’s right to safeguard her own body, no matter the “probability” of harm or fatality………. and based solely on the parents’ own particular moral values, etc..
March 7th, 2007 at 7:02 pmWha? What is my position? What have I stated besides “I am uneasy about this issue.�
That position EXACTLY.
It doesn’t matter whether YOU are uneasy with the issue.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:03 pmThat position EXACTLY.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
Now Sobanos, you are making no sense.
My defence of my “I am uneasy” was pathetic? How is being undecided “pathetic”? Was I defending my “undecisiveness”? Sshheeesshhh….
It doesn’t matter whether YOU are uneasy with the issue.
It does matter. I am a voter and a parent. So now I don’t get to say anything at all on this issue?
March 7th, 2007 at 7:09 pmNow Sobanos, you are making no sense.
My defence of my “I am uneasy†was pathetic?
No………. your defence of said position was weak—- at best.
You know— your reasons for being “uneasy” with it all.
Pure crap.
And I showed OVER AND OVER again why.
That’s about the sum total of it.
Don’t get me wrong……….. I appreciate your concerns.
But NONE outweigh the rights of the minor in this case.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:14 pmIt does matter. I am a voter and a parent. So now I don’t get to say anything at all on this issue?
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, to be sure…………
You just don’t seem to be able to back it up very well, that’s all.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:15 pmMany excellent comments by caring parents today. Good for you, being so involved in your childrens’ lives!
Has it occurred to any of the parents here that some parents actually don’t have the best interests of their children at heart? Not all parents are wonderful and caring. Not all parents even know how to be parents.
Most sexual abuse takes place in the child’s own home, or within their family circle.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that those families would be dysfunctional, and the girl would probably be safer being able to get an abortion without parental consent.
Please consider that not all parents care the way you do. Not all children have that going for them.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:16 pmZooey, well said. The trolls will be too st*pid to understand what you wrote – but that doesn’t detract from it’s message.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:19 pm#200— EXACTLY.
And the minors that have solid relationships with their parents will likely talk to them about it anyway.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:25 pmFor Gregor Samsa:
Look— no hard feelings.
We differ in our opinions, and that’s fine—right? We can certainly agree to disagree.
It’s been good exchanging ideas, etc………
Have a good night.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:27 pmI appreciate your concerns.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
Gee, thanks. I don’t believe my reasons for being uneasy about this issue are “pure crap” -in no way have you shown it once, let alone “over and over again”. My reasons are borne out of concern, and I can understand why other parents would be concerned as well.
My uneasiness is not related to the abortion per se (as I mentioned before I am all in favor of a woman’s right to choose, so that is not the issue), but to the fact that it seems to me this a rather big decision to make for a minor.
I realise doctors are involved. I also realise it is a woman’s body. In no way am I advocating a woman should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.
My point is this: If we don’t trust minors with other things (such as voting, or deciding on their own whether to undergo surgery), how do we think it is ok to let minor decide on a abortion? Should we make parental consent a thing of the past altogether?
March 7th, 2007 at 7:27 pmYou just don’t seem to be able to back it up very well, that’s all.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
You are making even less sense now.
I have an opinion. What should I back it up with?
March 7th, 2007 at 7:28 pmbut to the fact that it seems to me this a rather big decision to make for a minor.
Other professional adults are involved in the decision though.
It’s not like the minor is making the decision without competent adult guidance.
Anyway— I do take your points seriously.
But, the bottom line is— I think that YOUR concerns regarding parental rights are trumped by the rights of pregnant minor females.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:30 pmYou are making even less sense now.
I have an opinion. What should I back it up with?
The point is— you back up your opinion with facts and reason. The quality of which is always in question.
I simply believe that you’ve made no solid case.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:32 pmI simply believe that you’ve made no solid case.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
Nor was I trying to.
I was expressing my opinion, not advocating anything.
Which is why you haven’t shown anything “over and over again”.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:34 pmNor was I trying to.
I was expressing my opinion, not advocating anything.
And I was expressing my views.
Your views don’t seem to be able to stand up to much critical analyses though.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:36 pmOther professional adults are involved in the decision though.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
Your logic also applies in a case of major surgery, or even cancer treatment: Should a parent have no say on whether or not their child should undergo bone marrow transplant? Chemotherapy? An organ transplant?
But, the bottom line is— I think that YOUR concerns regarding parental rights are trumped by the rights of pregnant minor females.
Would parental rights be trumped by the rigths of patients who happen to be minors then? Should we make parental rights a thing of the past?
March 7th, 2007 at 7:36 pmMy point is this: If we don’t trust minors with other things (such as voting, or deciding on their own whether to undergo surgery), how do we think it is ok to let minor decide on a abortion? Should we make parental consent a thing of the past altogether?
We should simply allow the female in question to decide— with the help of the objective adult professionals available to her—- whether or not to terminate the pregnancy.
Furthermore, it is not “surgery”……… it’s a “procedure”.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:39 pmAhain— abortion is NOT surgery.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:40 pmWould parental rights be trumped by the rigths of patients who happen to be minors then? Should we make parental rights a thing of the past?
What does this even mean?
Obviously, a teen capable of making the decision to have sex is capable of deciding whether or not she wants to carry a pregnancy to term.
Why should the parents have ANY influence if the teen doesn’t want them to be involved?
March 7th, 2007 at 7:43 pmAhain— abortion is NOT surgery.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
a) this is why I used surgery in contraposition to abortion (re-read my post), and b) abortion can be surgically done.
But thanks for the unnecessary clarification. Twice.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:48 pmWhy should the parents have ANY influence if the teen doesn’t want them to be involved?
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
And how is it that the answer to this question cannot have implications to every aspect of a teen’s life? (which was my point when I mentioned major surgery)
March 7th, 2007 at 7:53 pm#213
Regardless………… what does the definition of surgery have to do with anything in this case?
Your “parental notification” concerns seem to rely on the notion that all parents are somehow kind and loving—- and that they will act in the best interests of the minor, even if it means going against their own selfish beliefs.
Pure hogwash.
Furthermore, I would submit to you (yet again) that teens who have solid relationships with their parents will confide in them should such a situation arise.
Weighing that against requiring a minor to inform, say— ABUSIVE parents, I would say that the proper decision is quite clear here.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:57 pm#214—And how is it that the answer to this question cannot have implications to every aspect of a teen’s life?
What world of “absolutes” are you living in?
No parent has an absolute right with regard to what he/she can subject his/her child’s body to.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:59 pm#6
Why? I’m curious as to what you would think it would change, and why it would matter.
Comment by unbelievable
This is one of the brighter educated/ idiots on this site.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:01 pmHeaven help this one.
#6
Why? I’m curious as to what you would think it would change, and why it would matter.
Comment by unbelievable
This one claims to be a critical thinker.
Heh
Still believes we came from apes that is so 18th century.
The Indoctrinator
March 7th, 2007 at 8:06 pm#220—Still believes we came from apes that is so 18th century.
It’s probably a better guess than something derived from some book that a bunch of guys who lived in an ignorant and unenlightened era wrote……….
March 7th, 2007 at 8:10 pmThis is where moonbat libs and common sense people part ways.
Moonbats think your kids are theirs not yours. They want you to STFU and do as they say. Very elite of them
March 7th, 2007 at 8:13 pmwhat does the definition of surgery have to do with anything in this case?
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
You brought it up, I didn’t. Answer your own question.
Your “parental notification†concerns seem to rely on the notion that all parents are somehow kind and loving
My concerns rely on the notion that all parents (yes, that’s an absolute) are responsible for the well-being of their offspring.
That they might not live up to that responsibility is a separate issue.
Weighing that against requiring a minor to inform, say— ABUSIVE parents, I would say that the proper decision is quite clear here.
Maybe my peeve is that allowing teenagers access to abortion without parental notification seems to me like a cheap cop-put by all of us.
If the pregnant minor is indeed living in an abusive home (where rape takes place) then the solution is not just abortion. That minor should be removed from their parents’ custody, at a minimum. The responsible parties should be punished and, yes, the abortion terminated -if the minor wants it.
But leaving it up to her to decide on the abortion without providing any further guidance is cheap. It’s like putting a band aid on a bullet wound.
What world of “absolutes†are you living in?
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
Wha? What are you talking about? Explain to me how answering “Why should the parents have ANY influence if the teen doesn’t want them to be involved?” does not have repercussions on every other aspect of a teen’s life -since the logic can be applied to every other aspect of a teen’s life.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:15 pmVery elite of them
Yes…… elite.
Like self-righteous right wingers that yammer on about being part of the the party of “values”, while their actions suggest an entirely different agenda.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:16 pmWhat world of “absolutes†are you living in?
Comment by Sobanos
Hey do not give Slobanus a hard time.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:18 pmHe is absolutely correct!
My concerns rely on the notion that all parents (yes, that’s an absolute) are responsible for the well-being of their offspring.
Yet, their particular opinion of what constitutes “well-being” is somewhat irrelevant, given child abuse laws, etc.
Parents are responsible for their care—- but they are REGULATED in doing so.
End of story.
Sorry to have rendered your lengthly post “impotent” so quickly.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:19 pmMaybe my peeve is that allowing teenagers access to abortion without parental notification seems to me like a cheap cop-put by all of us.
Raise your kid in a healthy, loving environment— then you’ll have nothing to worry about.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:21 pmYet, their particular opinion of what constitutes “well-being†is somewhat irrelevant, given child abuse laws, etc.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
You should have read it in its entirety.
The reason for the existence of those laws is to punish those parents who do not live up to the expectation of caring for the well-being of their children.
If that expectation didn’t exist, nobody would see those laws as necessary.
Sorry to have rendered your lengthly post “impotent†so quickly.
Again, you should have read it instead of nitpicking.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:25 pmYou should have read it in its entirety.
I did……. thanks for paying attention though.
The bottom line is— the idea of requiring parental notification relies on the naive notion that all minors can trust their parents.
The fact is— NOT requiring such a thing protects those in danger, while NOT harming minors from healthy, loving families by and large.
At least— the respective alternatives are not even proportional in magnetide.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:30 pmRaise your kid in a healthy, loving environment— then you’ll have nothing to worry about.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
Now you really have me scratching my head. The world would be a much better place if all homes were like that.
But we were talking about homes where that does not happen -which is why a teenager need to hide a pregnancy from their parents. No?
March 7th, 2007 at 8:31 pmNow you really have me scratching my head. The world would be a much better place if all homes were like that.
But we were talking about homes where that does not happen -which is why a teenager need to hide a pregnancy from their parents. No?
Point being— why should a teen from a troubled home be required to inform a potentially abusive parent?
Why is the obvious dancing away from you?
March 7th, 2007 at 8:33 pmMy only comment, would be the case of the young girl in Florida I believe, who was basically denied an abortion, because of the parental notification laws. Her parents could not be found. As a parent, I have to say that the idea of not informing the parents for a minor to have this procedure is out of bounds, but I also realize, that in some cases, hopefully a rare few, the parents either cannot be notified, or should not be notified.
It may be that such laws should not exist, not because the parents, should or shouldn’t know, but it may be more apropriate for a case by case.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:41 pmWhy is the obvious dancing away from you?
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
Let’s see if you can read beyond the first paragraph.
First, the law applies to everyone -not just to teens in abusive homes. That is one obvious that seems to have escaped you.
Two, as I said before in a post you dismissed with a cutesy description of a family life where people will “have nothing to worry about”, giving teenagers access to abortion without taking further steps to remediate their situation at home is cheap -that is another obvious that also seems to have escaped you.
If that is the case for most of these pregnancies, then these teens clearly need help beyond a visit to an abortion clinic. Granting them access to the procedure with no further involvement amounts to little more than a collective feel-good “look at me I am so wonderful” kind of measure.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:43 pm#231—-Let’s see if you can read beyond the first paragraph……..Comment by Gregor Samsa
OHHHHHH!!!!!
NOW I get it.
Your first few attempts at condescension flew right by me.
I’ve read your drivel, and I see how wrong I was.
I now agree with you 100%.
Thanks for setting me straight.
Good night.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:57 pmThis is one of the brighter educated/ idiots on this site.
Heaven help this one.
Comment by Flaco — March 7, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
You’ve really got the hots for me. All these comments and you go straight to mine… Don’t be SO obvious…
March 7th, 2007 at 9:36 pmStill believes we came from apes that is so 18th century.
Comment by Flaco — March 7, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
Evolution doesn’t show that we came from apes… It shows that we have a common ancestor with the apes. We not only share 86.4% ofour DNA with chimpanzees, but we share the same pseudogenes (genes that exist but don’t actually turn ‘on’ to make proteins). That’s not a sign of intent – but one of evolution.
But, I know – logic like that is just crazy to you, while “poof! you exist” is totally rational…
Get a brain scan. I think yours is missing…
March 7th, 2007 at 9:42 pmSobanos — Hitler would have loves to have someone as evil as you.
Just think of all the misfits, throwaway, abused children you could save by killing them you evil genius.
Keep us informed of your utopian plan for all us of damage people.
Typical moonbat drivel
March 7th, 2007 at 9:43 pmYour first few attempts at condescension flew right by me.
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
Says the twit who called my opinion “pure crap”.
If you cannot stand the heat, please leave the kitchen.
Speaking of drivel, it’s “magnitude” not “magnetide”.
I now agree with you 100%.
Ah, now I can finally get some sleep.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:43 pm#234
March 7th, 2007 at 10:30 pmEvolution doesn’t show that we came from apes… It shows that we have a common ancestor with the apes.
more BS
More stupidity u r just unbelievable
Well then— what exactly is the point of parental notification, if it is not solely to give the parents the opportunity to impose their will on the minor?
Comment by Sobanos — March 7, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Are you aware that parents “impose their will on minors” every day? It is part of being a parent. You obviously are not a parent.
Dipshit – we’re talking about 16 year olds. No one said anything about little girls – except YOU. Pervert!
Comment by unbelievable — March 7, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
But, because nature will allow a female of the species to menstruate at 12 (trust me on this one), you consider her a woman, not a little girl. Therefore you would allow a 12 y/o woman to make this decision?
March 7th, 2007 at 10:54 pmRobert,
See my comment at #200.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:13 pmComment by Zooey — March 7, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
I saw that comment. Nicely put
March 7th, 2007 at 11:24 pmRobert,
Sometimes 12 year old “women” have to make the hard decisions for themselves. The unlucky ones.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:43 pmI would also add to Greg, actually this would make sense, because often, not always, young women who are pregnant are treated as though they are emancipated. Most states have no parental involvement laws regarding contraception, STD treatment, prenatal care, and in some cases, young women can have the cesarean secection done if they are carrying the pregnancy to term, and that poses greater risks than an abortion. Only a few states have parental involvement laws for adoption when it’s a minor.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:35 amAbortion isn’t just a social/moral issue, it’s a medical one, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the Society of Adolescent Medicine, the American College of OBGYNs, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Public Health association oppose parental notification. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, “mandating parental notification does not achieve the intended benefit of promoting family communication, but it does increase the risk of harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate care.â€
When parental notification is implemented, young women who do not want to tell their parents, often wait for months to the point that less safe procedures have to be used. You really do have to consider the health and safety of the young women.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:56 am#66 People are an asset. Ask a dying Europe.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 7, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
LOOOOOOL.
Start learning Spanish, amigo. The greatest share of growth of the USA population is hispanics, not WASP.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:37 am#170, Of course the girl has the right to see the judge first and not have her parents know.
My law would be simple:
A girl has the right to go to a judge OR her parents. Doctors would be not allowed to perform any operation on a child unless a judge or a parent knows about it. The Judge in this case simply needs to know about it so they can monitor and garuntee the childs safety. The parents are the same. They also don’t get a say in yes or no over the operation. They or a Judge simply has to know so the girl is protected.
This type of law at least is rational. It provides abortion rights to all and gartuntees the safety of our children. Furthermore, it allows our children to not tell their parents if they choose. Lastly, if forces all doctors, nurses, etc. to provide notification to either a parent or a judge (whatever the girl chooses) before laying their hands on our children.
Come now. How couldn’t you be for this type of rule? I can see no reason in the world anyone would frown on this.
March 8th, 2007 at 9:16 amhttp://www.peace-action.org/
———————————-
We give ordinary people
the tools to change the world.
About Peace Action
Peace Action, the merger of SANE and The Nuclear Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for nearly fifty years.
As the nation’s largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries, and eliminating funding for new nuclear weapons, Peace Action and its 100,000 members have been, and continue to be, at the forefront of the international movement for peace.
At Peace Action we believe…
…that war is not a suitable response to conflict.
For nearly 50 years Peace Action has worked for an environment where all are free from violence and war. We understand that long standing global conflicts require long-term solutions, and that US foreign policy has a lasting effect on the world. We are working to promote a new US foreign policy that is based on peaceful support for human rights and democracy, reducing the threat from weapons of mass destruction, and cooperation with the world community. We are against pre-emptive war, and call for a full withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
…that every person has the right to live without the threat from nuclear weapons.
There are still over 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The US and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons, on hair trigger alert—ready to launch in minutes. While the Cold War may have ended, the nuclear threat has not. The only way to ensure that nuclear weapons will never be used – whether purposefully, or accidentally – is global abolition. The U.S. must lead the way to a safer world by taking our weapons off hair trigger alert, halting our research and development of new nuclear weapons and disarming and demilitarizing our warhead stockpile of over 10,000 nuclear warheads. We can reduce the threat to the world posed by nuclear weapons, but we must start by getting serious about getting rid of our own weapons of mass destruction.
…that America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.
As the Pentagon’s budget soars to $400 billion, 17% of American children live in poverty. Basic infrastructure is crumbling, school are using outdated textbooks, and millions of Americans are without basic health insurance.
For what the US will spend on the War in Iraq, 26,701,621 children could have attended a year of Head Start, we could have built 1,815,194 additional housing units for the poor, we could have hired 3,493,706 additional public school teachers for one year, and we could have provided 9,772,998 students four-year scholarships at public universities(source – National Priorities Project). We believe that these are priorities that should come before war.
What we do at Peace Action…
We are the nation’s largest grassroots Peace network, with over 28 state affiliates, and over 100 local chapters. We organize our grassroots network to place pressure on Congress and the Administration through write-in campaigns, internet actions, citizens lobbying and direct action. Through a close relationship with progressive members of Congress, we play a key role in devising strategies to move forward peace legislation, and, as a leading organizing member of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War coalition, we lend our expertise and large network to achieving common goals.
Through our Peace Voter awareness campaigns, we inform citizens about their choices for both local and national campaigns, by highlighting different candidates’ stances on issues relating to peace. Our annual Congressional Voter Guide gives credit to those in Congress who voted for a peaceful future, while holding accountable those who voted for larger Pentagon budgets, spending tax dollars on nuclear weapons, and voted for wars of aggression and occupation.
Given the right tools, ordinary people can change the world.
At Peace Action, we recognize that real change comes from the bottom up and we are committed to educating and organizing at the grassroots level.
When you join Peace Action you become part of an effective citizen movement. We work hard to keep you informed through our quarterly newsletter and publications about the most important news and issues in the peace movement. As a member you can join our Action Alert Network which allows citizens throughout the country to rapidly respond to important legislation online. As a member, you can become an important part of a fast growing national movement, and help us change the direction of our country and the world towards a more sustainable, peaceful future.
Together, we have the power to change the world.
Support Peace.
http://www.peace-action.org/
March 8th, 2007 at 5:49 pmmore BS
More stupidity u r just unbelievable
Comment by Flaco — March 7, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
And yet you cannot prove this.
Your opinions actually do stink more than everyone else, by the way…
March 8th, 2007 at 6:08 pmBut, because nature will allow a female of the species to menstruate at 12 (trust me on this one), you consider her a woman, not a little girl.
I don’t trust you. However, since I reached puberty at 12 myself, I know that thia happens. I also know that if girls are having sex at that age, it isn’t by choice, and clearly, they don’t have responsible parents in thefirst place…
This mostly applies to 15-17 year old young women who are sexually active.
Therefore you would allow a 12 y/o woman to make this decision?
Comment by hacker bob — March 7, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
Yes. At that age, she’s already endured a lot, and should e be forced to endure much more.
Maybe when you grow a vagina, you’ll also grow some empathy. Otherwise, your egocentric opinions really aren’t credible.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:13 pmshould not
March 8th, 2007 at 6:15 pmRemarkable how these repugnant-repub rightwingnut crank fudge-pachyderm LOONIES and TROLLS with their QUAINT TROGLODYTE IDEAS OF KEEPING THEIR DAUGHTERS LOCKED UP WITH CHASTITY BELTS AND IRON CHAINS AROUND THEIR NECKS, OR ENSCONSED IN AN INPENETRABLE TOWER LIKE RAPUNZEL THINK THAT THEIR OWN KIDS ARE SO IRRESPONSIBLE AS TO GET INTO SUCH DILEMMAS–GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR MORE THAN THAT–TREAT THEM AS INDIVIDUAL BEINGS AND YOUNG ADULTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTS AND DEEDS, AND IF THEY GET INTO TROUBLE, PERISH THE THOUGHT, GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND THE TOOLS TO RECTIFY THEIR OWN MISDEEDS–IN SHORT, ACT LIKE A F*CKING ADULT, YA PEABRAIN OVERGROWN KIDS YOURSELVES!!!!!
March 8th, 2007 at 9:06 pm