A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What would she notify her parents of? Simply that she's pregnant?

If she does not abort, the parents will be constructively notified soon enough.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
...anyone's refusal to obtain further information

What further information? How fast the zygote will fly through the tube? I have not heard anyone articulate what further information a parent would have on the abortion. And whoever on here said he'd shoot the person who gave his daughter an abortion without first asking his permission: it's a little late for the shotgun unless you are planning a shotgun wedding. Get used to the idea that your kids may go and do something legal (yes, abortion is legal) without your permission. You can't force your daughter to bear a child full term so your "permission" is futile. It sucks not having 100% rights over your property, but that's how it is (in states with no parental consent requirement). If you really want your kids to have some sort of additional information about abortion which you claim is so important that they have -- so much that you support parental notification for this reason -- then sit her down now and tell her everything you want her to know about abortion. Renew the discussion every year so it's fresh. Then when and if she ever decides to go for an abortion she'll have all this knowledge already.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What would she notify her parents of? Simply that she's pregnant?

This is an entirely different question, closely akin to whether men should be able to force women to get abortions if they don't want the child and aren't willing to support it. Get BRC here before we start up with that one.

I'm really backward. I think a woman's place is in the cave.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What would she notify her parents of? Simply that she's pregnant?

This is an entirely different question, closely akin to whether men should be able to force women to get abortions if they don't want the child and aren't willing to support it. Get BRC here before we start up with that one.

Surely a 14 year old is not, and should not be, capable of consenting to raising a child, right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
What further information? How fast the zygote will fly through the tube? I have not heard anyone articulate what further information a parent would have on the abortion. And whoever on here said he'd shoot the person who gave his daughter an abortion without first asking his permission: it's a little late for the shotgun unless you are planning a shotgun wedding. Get used to the idea that your kids may go and do something legal (yes, abortion is legal) without your permission. You can't force your daughter to bear a child full term so your "permission" is futile. It sucks not having 100% rights over your property, but that's how it is (in states with no parental consent requirement). If you really want your kids to have some sort of additional information about abortion which you claim is so important that they have -- so much that you support parental notification for this reason -- then sit her down now and tell her everything you want her to know about abortion. Renew the discussion every year so it's fresh. Then when and if she ever decides to go for an abortion she'll have all this knowledge already.

I like this idea best of all. Let's require that all parents have the conversation they want to have with their kids if their kids get pregnant, whether or not the kids are pregnant. Then when a minor gets pregnant, we can just assume that they have had the benefits of parental advice, and skip the notification step.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I like this idea best of all. Let's require that all parents have the conversation they want to have with their kids if their kids get pregnant, whether or not the kids are pregnant. Then when a minor gets pregnant, we can just assume that they have had the benefits of parental advice, and skip the notification step.

Um....whiff. But that's ok.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
What further information?

Well, my concerns about child labor in asia have been mollified by this debate.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What would she notify her parents of? Simply that she's pregnant?

This is an entirely different question, closely akin to whether men should be able to force women to get abortions if they don't want the child and aren't willing to support it. Get BRC here before we start up with that one.

Nah - with paper abortions, men can be free of unwanted children without the woman having to get an abortion. (Sidd, have you had the opportunity to use the phrase with a assoc. yet?) That sidesteps the question of whether people should have a right to control whether they have biological offspring, regardless of their parental responsibilities thereto, but nevermind.

ty
I like this idea best of all. Let's require that all parents have the conversation they want to have with their kids if their kids get pregnant, whether or not the kids are pregnant. Then when a minor gets pregnant, we can just assume that they have had the benefits of parental advice, and skip the notification step.

2. In fact, you can skip the requirement. The discussion should be presumed. If it hasn't occurred, we can determine conclusively that the parents are bad parents and should have their parental rights terminated, meaning they wouldn't get notification anyhow.

FWIW, I seem to recall reading that, back in the day when abortions were generally illegal but for the health of the mother, a not uncommon "health issue" was the mother being suicidal at the idea of being pregnant & having a kid. So in some cases women could get abortions by asserting that they thought they just might kill themselves if they had to stay pregnant. I wonder if a kid can be excused from current notification requirements on the grounds that they'd rather kill themselves? In any event, it would seem to be a possible escape hatch - until you get the busy-body who then decides that what you need is involuntary incarceration in the looney hatch because you are a danger to yourself instead of an abortion. Given the number of deaths pre-Roe from botched illegal, unprofessional or self-induced abortions, I suspect that escape hatch wasn't very useful, anyhow.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
She's getting an abortion b/c she wants a fetus vacuumed out of her uterus which means she doesn't want to parent it or go full term and have someone else parent it. If she wanted input from the parents or advice she would ask for it. This is imposing parental input when the daughter does NOT want it. You have a person who wants the fetus OUT, and also does NOT wish to discuss it with her parents. That should be the end of the story.

This is lame, and is primarily the kind of viewpoint Hilary Clinton wants to overshadow in order to remove abortion as the Achilles heel of the Dems. This all-out devotion to the idea of "choice" at the expense of logic leaves you looking fanatical and unrealistic.

You have a minor who wants a medical procedure performed on her, which can have long-lasting consequences both emotional and physical. Many states don't allow her to get her ears pierced without parental permission, but your blind service to "choice" warrants an exception here? I think not.

As a law student, I clerked for the only judge around who would hear the bypass motions. We did about forty per year. He would ask why they needed to keep this from their parents. Generally, the answer was "well, like, my mom and dad would be really pissed at me". He'd ask them about violence - past, present, fear of - and there would be nothing. (Believe me - the very few times when there was a real danger, the accompanying PP social worker would be all over it - "father has been reported to the police in the past for screaming at daughter", "father has been accused of slapping daughter" - so, it's not that the judge just wasn't getting a response.) He'd almost always sign off on the request. My impression was usually that, if the parents got notified, the kid would simply accept it and move on, but the PP worker would have a flaming cow.

They're kids. There are adequate safeguards for when they have good reason not to go to their parents. We don't nudge the parents out of the picture merely to serve your social causes. It was dangerous, back in junior high, to tell your parents that you got caught with a joint - but they didn't give us the secrecy option for that. I think you value this "choice" concept higher than you value the lives of all the kids who need parental presence in this situation.

(ETA - I should have STPed before posting. Looks like all this ground got covered yesterday. Never mind.)

[Replaced_Texan]

Outreach, my friends.

Hillary Clinton is reaching out to pro-life voters by softening her rhetoric on abortion, and the Medium Lobster can only applaud her ingenuity and sharp-witted political calculation. Indeed, if there's any constituency that stands to warm to Senator Clinton, it has to be single issue pro-life conservatives, who are finally ready to embrace the senator after over a decade of believing her to be a radical Communist demon queen who murdered Vince Foster in cold blood to prevent him from telling the truth about her secret coven of lesbian witches. With their Hillary-hatred nearly exhausted, social conservatives are now a fertile new demographic waiting for exploration! But how long will it take for the rest of the Democratic Party to figure it out? If Barbara Boxer starts denouncing the menace of illegal immigration and Ted Kennedy promises to clamp down on the gay agenda, it could save this party yet!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Ted Kennedy promises to clamp down

Is it true the Kennedy family lobbied for a Supreme Court ruling that passengers are not "alive" until they leave your vehicle?

[sgtclub]

• French President Jacques Chirac called for an "experimental" international tax to help fund the war against AIDS, suggesting it could be raised via a levy on airline tickets, some fuels or financial transactions

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• French President Jacques Chirac called for an "experimental" international tax to help fund the war against AIDS, suggesting it could be raised via a levy on airline tickets, some fuels or financial transactions

I take it you admire his bold vision and his willingness to try new solutions involving internation cooperation to solve international problems?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• French President Jacques Chirac called for an "experimental" international tax to help fund the war against AIDS, suggesting it could be raised via a levy on airline tickets, some fuels or financial transactions

The Committee is taking up the appeal made by Jacques Chirac to defend the values of the French Republic in the face of an outbreak of racist and anti-Semitic acts in France. "As I speak to you today," declared the French President on 8 July, in a speech given in Chambon-Lignon, "acts motivated by hatred, of a loathsome and despicable nature, are sullying our country. Discrimination, anti-Semitism, and racism in all of its shapes and forms are again spreading insidiously."

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by bilmore
This is lame, and is primarily the kind of viewpoint Hilary Clinton wants to overshadow in order to remove abortion as the Achilles heel of the Dems. This all-out devotion to the idea of "choice" at the expense of logic leaves you looking fanatical and unrealistic.

You have a minor who wants a medical procedure performed on her, which can have long-lasting consequences both emotional and physical. Many states don't allow her to get her ears pierced without parental permission, but your blind service to "choice" warrants an exception here? I think not.

As a law student, I clerked for the only judge around who would hear the bypass motions. We did about forty per year. He would ask why they needed to keep this from their parents. Generally, the answer was "well, like, my mom and dad would be really pissed at me". He'd ask them about violence - past, present, fear of - and there would be nothing. (Believe me - the very few times when there was a real danger, the accompanying PP social worker would be all over it - "father has been reported to the police in the past for screaming at daughter", "father has been accused of slapping daughter" - so, it's not that the judge just wasn't getting a response.) He'd almost always sign off on the request. My impression was usually that, if the parents got notified, the kid would simply accept it and move on, but the PP worker would have a flaming cow.

They're kids. There are adequate safeguards for when they have good reason not to go to their parents. We don't nudge the parents out of the picture merely to serve your social causes. It was dangerous, back in junior high, to tell your parents that you got caught with a joint - but they didn't give us the secrecy option for that. I think you value this "choice" concept higher than you value the lives of all the kids who need parental presence in this situation.

(ETA - I should have STPed before posting. Looks like all this ground got covered yesterday. Never mind.)

If I'm 17 and want an abortion, who is some stodgy Legislator to tell me I need to go tell some old judge who will then decide whether narc'ing to my parents is a good idea and whether my reasons are "adequate" for wanting to keep it from them. If my parents cannot overrule my decision then what's the point? And knock it off with the "getting caught with a joint" stuff. Smoking dope is illegal; abortion is not. And I don't get what you mean by: "We don't nudge the parents out of the picture merely to serve your social causes." Did I miss the law that prohibited kids from talking about their abortions with the parents? Who is the "we" that you contend are nudging parents out of the picture?

The pregnant person should decide whether they want to discuss the issue with the parent. And if I don't want to tell my parents that I will be getting an abortion for the reason that they will be "really really pissed", fuck your old judge if he thinks that is not a "good enough" reason. Maybe I think that apprising my parents that I got pregnant and aborted will negatively affect my relationship with my parents for the rest of my life and I don't want that to happen. If so, who are you to second guess me? And do you really think picking up the phone and calling a parent to say ,

"Hi. Your kid is going to get an abortion and there's nothing you can do about it. Just callin, Mr. Smith, to let y'all know that, eh?"

is going to help in the parent-child relationship, you're smoking dope (NTTAWWT). And as I (and Ty) have said before, if you are so concerned about a parent being able to provide info to a kid about abortion, why not do it now?