California Prop. 73 RE minors - advice?

[mistermain]

Would you be more pissed if she died because she tried to get an abortion without your knowledge, but couldn't find a safe, legal provider and instead ended up with an unsafe abortion instead? Is your daughter's life a price you are willing to pay?

I would hope I have raised my daughter right, and that she would not end up in this situation in the first place. If she did, however, I believe she would feel comfortable enough to approach me about it. I just hate how California is pushing the envelope with children's rights. That law they attempted to pass (don't know if it did), which would have barred parents from finding out if their children were in school if they called during the school day, is crazy. My child is my responsibility, and in reality owned by me until she is 18. I should have every right to her whereabouts, and her personal life until then.

 

[Elektra]

. Also, not all of these teens come from homes where they could easily ask their parents or they come from broken homes. Not all parents are good parents.

I doubt this law will have any effect on any teens becoming pregnant or not, just what happens after that.

The law does contain a provision that a minor can file a petition with the Juvenile Court in the case that there is some home abuse or something going on. I don't know how likely it is that a juvenile would follow that process through, though.

Exactly his is why we need this law.

 

[Elektra]

Yeah, dead girls vs dead embryos, and your math picks the embryos. Your view truly is disgusting and vile.

And absolutely necesary.Bit it's nothing new that pro-lifers don't value the existing life.

 

[Fantasea]

And absolutely necesary.Bit it's nothing new that pro-lifers don't value the existing life.

An unborn child in the womb of its mother is certainly an existing life, is it not?. Why should it be put to death in order to avoid the embarrassment of an unwed pregnancy?

 

[steen]

Choices have consequences. Consequences have risk. Becky Bell was responsible for her actions.

And you will rather see her dead than having a safe abortion. Yes, your misogyny is well-demonstrated by now.

 

[steen]

I would hope I have raised my daughter right, and that she would not end up in this situation in the first place. If she did, however, I believe she would feel comfortable enough to approach me about it.

Becky Bell's parents believed that as well, and now she is dead. So the queation still stands, the question you so cowardly avoided. Would you be more pissed if she died because she tried to get an abortion without your knowledge, but couldn't find a safe, legal provider and instead ended up with an unsafe abortion instead? Is your daughter's life a price you are willing to pay?

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Choices have consequences. Consequences have risk. Becky Bell was responsible for her actions.

And you will rather see her dead than having a safe abortion. Yes, your misogyny is well-demonstrated by now.

My preference would have been for her to permit the child to live. The life of the mother is no more important than that of the child she is carrying.

 

[steen]

My preference would have been for her to permit the child to live. The life of the mother is no more important than that of the child she is carrying.

I am not surprised of your flagrant misogyny and disregard of women as persons in their own rights. That is how much you have to demean women to justify their enslavement by prolife fundie theocratic oppression, after all.

 

[Fantasea]

I am not surprised of your flagrant misogyny and disregard of women as persons in their own rights. That is how much you have to demean women to justify their enslavement by prolife fundie theocratic oppression, after all.

I did not intend to surprise you. Nothing theocratic here; simply plain old biology, which while you claim to understand, you repeatedly ignore.

 

[vergiss]

Biology doesn't say that floating blobs of cells have more rights than sentient, breathing women and girls.

Teenagers deserve more rights, not less. I know I'm not as wise and mature as I eventually will be, but I'm perfectly capable of making the right decisions about my health and wellbeing. I would want to control what operations I undertake and what medication I'm prescribed. There's no magic epiphany I'll recieve the very moment I turn 18.

 

[mistermain]

Biology doesn't say that floating blobs of cells have more rights than sentient, breathing women and girls.

Teenagers deserve more rights, not less. I know I'm not as wise and mature as I eventually will be, but I'm perfectly capable of making the right decisions about my health and wellbeing. I would want to control what operations I undertake and what medication I'm prescribed. There's no magic epiphany I'll recieve the very moment I turn 18.

No, but your parents won't be responsible for you anymore either. That's the point. Everything you do until you are 18 is your parent's responsibility. If you don't go to school it's your folks fault. If you are a total knucklehead, it is reflective of your parents. You honestly think you lack rights. You are still under the ownership of your parents, as it should be. I personally think teenagers have too many rights. If I ruled the world, or at least Nevada, the legal driving age would be 18, not 16. I remember being 16, and thinking "I am way too crazy to be in control of a motor vehicle, and I am a GOOD driver."

 

[vergiss]

Why is it my parents' fault? If I decided to march in and rob a bank, I'd be the one with a criminal conviction, not them.

You honestly think an 18-year-old is that different from a 16-year-old? Using your example, I've seen 20-year-olds who drive in a deliberately dangerous manner. I'd be a much better driver (when I eventually can be bothered), because there's no way in hell I'd ever go 100 km an hour in a 60 zone.

 

[mistermain]

Why is it my parents' fault? If I decided to march in and rob a bank, I'd be the one with a criminal conviction, not them.

You honestly think an 18-year-old is that different from a 16-year-old? Using your example, I've seen 20-year-olds who drive in a deliberately dangerous manner. I'd be a much better driver (when I eventually can be bothered), because there's no way in hell I'd ever go 100 km an hour in a 60 zone.

I don't know how it is in Austrailia, but where I live the parent is responsible for the child's behavior. In many cases the parent can be tried with a child for their delinquent actions. The law is geared towards making parents responsible. If you take the right to know whether or not there child is in school, or if they are out getting an abortion away from them, it makes them less able to do their job.

In regards to your second question, I do think 18 year olds tend to be more responsible behind the wheel than most 16 year olds. By the time I was 18 I had a couple of friends who were dead from driving irresponsibly, and I began to think more about the future. When I was 16 I never thought about consequences, and rarely drove in a sane matter.

 

[vergiss]

The school thing admittedly is probably a bad idea. However, at what point does parental responsibility need to relax? Can you let them choose when to take asprin or undergo a medical exam of any sort? Can you let them travel to and from school, go to the mall, etc., alone?

Regarding driving - but surely that was experience, not maturation. If you and your friends hadn't started driving at 16, you wouldn't have had the opportunity to wisen up at 18. Personally, I think it's more to do with testosterone than age.

 

[Fantasea]

Biology doesn't say that floating blobs of cells have more rights than sentient, breathing women and girls.

Biology says that what you incorrectly refer to is floating blobs of cells, if they are the product of conception are, indeed, humans in an early stage of life. That men have chosen to ignore biological fact and claim that these lives are aub-standard and deny them rights is simply a matter of the mighty exercising power over the powerless.

Teenagers deserve more rights, not less.

Yet, you would deny all rights to a group of those younger than yourself.

I know I'm not as wise and mature as I eventually will be, but I'm perfectly capable of making the right decisions about my health and wellbeing. I would want to control what operations I undertake and what medication I'm prescribed. There's no magic epiphany I'll recieve the very moment I turn 18.

Every teenager purports to know everything about everything which effects their well being. Perhaps that's why some 25% can't make it through high school. Perhaps that's why so many of them are relegated to minimum wage jobs for life. Perhaps that's why STD are so high among teenagers. Perhaps that's why teenage alcoholism is as rampant as it is. Perhaps that's why teenage drug use is so prevalent. Perhaps that's why auto insurance premiums for teenage drivers are skyrocketing. Perhaps that's why teenage pregnancy and abortion rates are as high as they are.

There are too many know-it-all teenagers with goofy attitudes and big mouths which are disconnected from a functioning brain.

The argument has been made that a fetus is a parasite, totally dependent upon on the mother carrying it. A comparable argument could be made that teenagers are parasites totally dependent upon the parents they abuse.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

 

[steen]

I did not intend to surprise you. Nothing theocratic here; simply plain old biology, which while you claim to understand, you repeatedly ignore.

Actually, you have yet to provide any biological evidence. You have certainly made a lot of claims about biology, claims that have been shown to be outright lies, while ignoring the actual biological evidence provided. That still doesn't justify your claim, and thus only further underscores your inherent dishonesty.

 

[steen]

No, but your parents won't be responsible for you anymore either. ...

Mr. Main, I noted that you once again skipped my question. I am sure it is only an oversight, so I will repost it here for your convenience:

Would you be more pissed if your died because she tried to get an abortion without your knowledge, but couldn't find a safe, legal provider and instead ended up with an unsafe abortion instead? Is your daughter's life a price you are willing to pay?

 

[steen]

Biology says that what you incorrectly refer to is floating blobs of cells, if they are the product of conception are, indeed, humans in an early stage of life.

There you go lying again. Biology says no such thing. Please provide the biological, scientific evidence for that claim, or retract your stupid, ongoing lies.

That men have chosen to ignore biological fact

What "fact"? Your lying is irritating and distracting from the discussion. Discuss if you must, but darn well %Q%$@# don't make lies about science, or I WILL call you on them.

Every teenager purports to know everything about everything which effects their well being. Perhaps that's why some 25% can't make it through high school.

Well, that number at least is true for teen mothers. Sure is a good argument for allowing them an abortion. I am happy you agree that graduation is the most important thing for these teens. An obvious argument FOR allowing them easy access to abortions.

The argument has been made that a fetus is a parasite, totally dependent upon on the mother carrying it. A comparable argument could be made that teenagers are parasites totally dependent upon the parents they abuse.

Actually that is not a comparable argument, certainly not biologically, as they can get help from any source they can line up.

So once again, your argument is false.

 

[Fantasea]

Actually, you have yet to provide any biological evidence. You have certainly made a lot of claims about biology, claims that have been shown to be outright lies, while ignoring the actual biological evidence provided. That still doesn't justify your claim, and thus only further underscores your inherent dishonesty.

You have previously condeded that the product of conception is alive and is human. That's sufficient.

Your argument revolves around the ridiculous idea that somehow there are varying degrees of humanity; that humans in earlier stages are less human than humans in later stages.

This is an attempt to substitute a biological fact with an invented claim, personhood. It falls flat.

 

[mistermain]

Mr. Main, I noted that you once again skipped my question. I am sure it is only an oversight, so I will repost it here for your convenience:

Would you be more pissed if your died because she tried to get an abortion without your knowledge, but couldn't find a safe, legal provider and instead ended up with an unsafe abortion instead? Is your daughter's life a price you are willing to pay?

The response you quoted was to Vergiss, not you. I answered your ridiculous question. If you missed it here you go again:

I would hope I have raised my daughter right, and that she would not end up in this situation in the first place. If she did, however, I believe she would feel comfortable enough to approach me about it. I just hate how California is pushing the envelope with children's rights. That law they attempted to pass (don't know if it did), which would have barred parents from finding out if their children were in school if they called during the school day, is crazy. My child is my responsibility, and in reality owned by me until she is 18. I should have every right to her whereabouts, and her personal life until then.

I will add this. If my daughter got a back alley abortion, and died from complications, I would not blame the government. I believe in what I said. I would blame the person who committed the crime of performing the illegal operation. I still stand behind my statement that passing laws for child rights is retarded.

 

[steen]

You have previously condeded that the product of conception is alive and is human. That's sufficient.

It would be sufficient, if that was all you claimed.

Unfortunately, your claims go much further; outside of any warranted biological definition.

Hence, when you continue to claim biological facts, you are again LYING.

Just as we have come to expect.

Your argument revolves around the ridiculous idea that somehow there are varying degrees of humanity; that humans in earlier stages are less human than humans in later stages.

It is a bit unclear what you mean here. You are mixing nouns and verbs here, and are pushing unwarranted, unsubstantiated word substitutions.

I must conclude that you are either very devious and dishonest or that you are incredibly illiterate and unlearned. Could you please clarify which one you are? Because if you are merely illiterate and unlearned, then it is not fair of me to continue berating you as if you were actually outright dishonest instead.

This is an attempt to substitute a biological fact with an invented claim, personhood. It falls flat.

Well, this is what YOU are doing, anyway, as I have documented and demonstrated. I am pleased that you find your own dishonest behavior to be unacceptable.

So why don't you just stop lying instead, so we can actually look at the facts instead?

 

[steen]

Mr. Main, I noted that you once again skipped my question. I am sure it is only an oversight, so I will repost it here for your convenience:

Would you be more pissed if your died because she tried to get an abortion without your knowledge, but couldn't find a safe, legal provider and instead ended up with an unsafe abortion instead? Is your daughter's life a price you are willing to pay?

I answered your ridiculous question. If you missed it here you go again:

The problem is that what you answered was not my question. So I had to ask it again. And again, you are not actually answering my question. I must begin to conclude that you are to much of a coward to answer my question directly. Am I right in my suspicion?

I would hope I have raised my daughter right, and that she would not end up in this situation in the first place. If she did, however, I believe she would feel comfortable enough to approach me about it.

That's nice. It doesn't answer my question, though. Your avoidance of the question I asked is indicating dishonesty. In case you forgot, here is the question again:
Would you be more pissed if your died because she tried to get an abortion without your knowledge, but couldn't find a safe, legal provider and instead ended up with an unsafe abortion instead? Is your daughter's life a price you are willing to pay?
...

I will add this. If my daughter got a back alley abortion, and died from complications, I would not blame the government. I believe in what I said. I would blame the person who committed the crime of performing the illegal operation. I still stand behind my statement that passing laws for child rights is retarded.

So, if a parental consent law pushes your daughter to die from a backalley abortion, you still don't mind the law!

Thank you for finally answering. I am just surprised that you find the law to be worth your daughter's life.:shock:

But to each their own, I guess.

 

[vergiss]

Every teenager purports to know everything about everything which effects their well being. Perhaps that's why some 25% can't make it through high school. Perhaps that's why so many of them are relegated to minimum wage jobs for life. Perhaps that's why STD are so high among teenagers. Perhaps that's why teenage alcoholism is as rampant as it is. Perhaps that's why teenage drug use is so prevalent. Perhaps that's why auto insurance premiums for teenage drivers are skyrocketing. Perhaps that's why teenage pregnancy and abortion rates are as high as they are.

There are too many know-it-all teenagers with goofy attitudes and big mouths which are disconnected from a functioning brain.

The argument has been made that a fetus is a parasite, totally dependent upon on the mother carrying it. A comparable argument could be made that teenagers are parasites totally dependent upon the parents they abuse.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Gasp! You mean people over 18 never, ever end up accidentally pregnant, substance addicts, infected with STDs, in dead-end jobs, uneducated or the victims of car accidents? Gee, what a mistake for me to have made! :doh