This means war!
 

may i use this in my sig line?

This means war!
 

I would be honored. Hank, would this make Burger my pawn?

How Will This Play and What is Going on Here?
 

The fact that it is an emotionally charged issue is central to my point (as I think you understand.) There are two components here. The first is, you're talking about a serious medical procedure. Parents need to be involved in that. The second lies in the differing attitudes about abortion. Yeah, any pregnant kid who walks into a PP clinic is going to be told about the option in fairly neutral terms, and walked through the process (including, for those worried about it, the whole bypass system.) But, what if the parents think abortion is murder? Do you totally disclaim the right of a parent to pass on those kinds of concepts to their kids? I understand that RvW is in place right now, but our society places the parent into the role of deciding almost all major issues in a kid's life. Yeah, if I let my kid wither from leukemia because "gawd'll sort it out", the state does step in - to save my kid's life when I won't. But this isn't a life-or-death situation we speak of here - well, at least not for the pregnant one.

This means war!
 

Apostle.

Subject lines do count
 

I love Slate's headline regarding Hilary's new take on appeasing the anti-abortion crowd:

"She Favors Abstinence; Are You Surprised?"

How Will This Play and What is Going on Here?
 

It's basically a D&C and takes only a few minutes. Like anything, things can go wrong but I think "serious medical procedure" makes it sound like more than it is. In any event, how would you want a parent to "be involved" in it? Why would they "need" to be involved in the medical aspect of it? What medical need is there? Also, teens can get birth control pills without parental consent and the side effects of bc pills are issues as well. Still, no parental consent is required.


You are right. And if a parent is totally pro-life I see nothing wrong at all with trying to instill these values on a child. The child should already be aware, however, of their parents' views. So these concepts have already been "passed on" to the child.

How Will This Play and What is Going on Here?
 

Same reason I would want to be involved in an appendectomy. Same reason I would want to be involved in therapy. Same reason I would want to be involved in female circumcision. I don't necessarily claim to bring medical expertise to the table. But, there are other issues involved as well.

I want to live in your perfect world.

Another installment
 

in the occassional series entitled "If You Took All the Fools Out of the Legislature, It Wouldn't Be a Representative Body Anymore."

State Senator Proposes Boxing Gloves for Chickens

How Will This Play and What is Going on Here?
 

I think I'm done arguing with someone who equates abortions with the act of pinning a 10 year old girl down and lopping off her clitoris so that she won't be horny when she's older.

As for your perfect world comment -- You complained that a parent should be allowed the opportunity to convey their pro-life views. I said the parent will have already conveyed it (even though the child may not agree with it).

How Will This Play and What is Going on Here?
 

Well, now, that's just weak. I didn't equate. I named appendectomy and therapy too - to illustrate that I am going to be involved in all of my kids' medical/psycho/emotional events, huge or big or just significant. I suppose, though, that I'll let them build their own straw men without my supervision. That seems to be an easy skill to acquire.

But it does strike me as dumb on my part to continue, having made a promise to myself some time ago to NOT do the abortion argument thing. There's just so little common ground, our logic works like ships passing in the night.

How Will This Play and What is Going on Here?
 

Did anyone pass a law requiring you to notify your parents of wha you planned to publish? You seem to be conflating concepts here.

Another installment
 

Hank, can you start another pool for the over/under on how long before this is mentioned on The Daily Show?

How Will This Play and What is Going on Here?
 

It seems to me that middle ground is sort of accomplished through a notification discussion than a "make abortion illegal" discussion. If abortion is going to happen, I think that younger kids, in their pre-teens especially, probably need to have more parental invovlment than older kids. I have more problems with blocks being thrown up for the 17 and 18 year olds that (presumably) have had more education on things sex-related, and have a better grasp on what exactly it is that they're doing. There are some 9 to 11 year olds that have no idea how they got pregnant, much less are able to make choices about what to do about it. Their parents should at least know.

The governor of Texas announced today that he wants to change the notification to consent. I haven't seen the particulars.

How Will This Play and What is Going on Here?
 

I think you miss the point. We have a right to freedom from unreasonable search, too, but this freedom is tempered when applied to children - see the school locker cases. My point was, we may hold that there is a Const. right to have an abortion, but that right is (or should be, IMHO) tempered for children. What is held as a right for adults in our society may not always be appropriate for free exercise by the will of children.

How Will This Play and What is Going on Here?
 

I thought that was possible when I first replied, but I'm not sure that there aren't too many conflicting underlying assumptions to make that leap. In any event, (aside from my reply to Sidd above), I'm going to move on to discussions about {fill in non-abortion topic of choice}. This topic, and even the corrollary topics, generate too much ire.