Home - List All Discussions

New poll: Parental consent for abortion favored by 73%

The Pew Research Center survey on abortion and terror suspects

by: yoda

"A consistent majority of Americans (65%) are opposed to overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman's right to abortion. But most Americans also favor restrictions on abortion. Nearly three-quarters (73%) favor requiring women under age 18 to get parental consent before being allowed to get an abortion.

This ambivalence is reflected in opinions on the overall availability of abortion. About a third (35%) say abortion should be generally available, but 23% favor stricter limits on abortion and 31% favor making it illegal except in cases of rape, incest or to save a woman's life. Only about one-in-ten (9%) say abortion should never be permitted. Moreover, while nearly six-in-ten (59%) think it would be a good thing to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., one-third (33%) say they don't feel this way. "

full article: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=253

reply from: scopia1982

I most defianltly favor parental consent for abortions, although IMHO parental consent goes just beyond the abortion debate. I feel the same way about parental consent on ALL medical procedures or treatments. I would not want nobody doing anything on my minor child, save the exception of a life or death situation. A school cannot give my son an asprin without my say so and if I had a daughter if she could not get her ears pierced without my say so she sure as heck is not entilted to an abortion without my consent. It is just a matter of common sense, the parents are usually the only ones who know a minors complete medical history, stuff the girl herself might not know that is criticial for any medical care or treatment. If a minor can abort without paretnal consent, than there is a chance that something in her medical historty, such as drug alllergies or physical abnormalities could be contraindicated with the abortion itself or the anestesha used during the procedure.

reply from: ForLife

The source for your quote must be many decades old, or a century or two. I believe this quote is out of date and does not accurately describe many pulpits today.

I've also seen a tremendous deterioration in TV programming standards. From the wholesome early 60s shows when I was growing up, to the obscene, profane, sexually suggestive and/or blatant shows of today.

Previously, it was honorable to be decent and cleancut. Now TV programmers seem totally mad; portraying indecent behavior as something to laugh at seems to be all the rage.

reply from: scopia1982

That quote was from Alexis de Tocqueville a Frenchman who came here in 1830. I put the whole quote in the siggy but it didnt capture the last words whihc are if America ceases to be good she will cease to be great, I have not had the chance to change it. Not all churches are like FL, a lot of the mainstream churches have went to hell , but alot of independent fundamentalists churches have not and that is why many are leaving the main denominations. There are many churches in this nation that righteosness is preached from the puplits and I attend one of them.

reply from: galen

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!

no child... [( under 18) and some over that age], is mature enogh to handle any surgical procedure alone. NO MATTER WHAT. Even in a life or death situation the parents are notified, and if God forbid they are deceased then the child is appointed a gaurdian.
I cannot think why anyone would need no consent except maybe in an incest case.... that family would need extreme counciling though and the offender a life sentence.
Maybe if teenagers could not walk into a facility without having to face a parent, then we would as a society be forced to talk with them about sex. And maybe the teens would not feel the need for such promicuity.

reply from: scopia1982

Galen in cases of a life or death sitiation say a car accident or something of that nature, if a parent or guardin cannot be reached, and time is of the essence than by law in most states and ethically, they must do whatever is nessecary to stabilize the minor pateint at the least. They only do what is nessecary to stabilize the person, any other treatment they wait until the parents can be reached.

reply from: scopia1982

"I cannot think why anyone would need no consent except maybe in an incest case.... that family would need extreme counciling though and the offender a life sentence."

Pro aborts love to use the incest abusive argument to argue against parental consent for abortions. IMO if a child cannot talk to the parent about obtaining an abortion, there are much deeper issues that lie below the surface. An a secret abortion will do the girl more harm than good. But if the reason for a minor wanting an abortion is incest on the part of a parent or relative, then a guardian at litem should be appointed for that minor. It is often done in child abuse cases or custody cases.

reply from: yoda

Abortion destroys the "evidence" in cases of incest (or rape), so the perpetrator may be eager to push the victim into an abortion. The abortion itself is nothing more than another attack on the victim, and leaves her with the knowledge of having killed her own child.

reply from: galen

Yoda,
yes but we all know how I waver on this particular subject....( incest and or rape.) However I do feel that parental notification is necessary in the issue of rape; it just gets stickier when the rapist is one of the child's parents and/or guardians.

Scopia,
I have not seen a time where stabilization and life or death treatment were not the same thing. Even a broken arm and sutures can only wait up to 6hrs before there is tissue loss and/ or disfigurement as a possible consequence. I have yet to meet any physician in even those minor cases, such as a broken finger or cut on the forehead, that won't go for that extra signature from another physician and treat the child, even if it is only for relief of pain and suffering. I have also not yet seen a parent object ( though I am sure there are those who do).
I think you and I maybe crossed meanings on this.... My point was that life and death situations always trump notification when parents are not reachable. That is the point of the guardian and/or social worker... to look after the best intrests of the child.

Therefore I can say that we definately need parental notification laws in order to obtain consent for abortions, maybe even a court order for a minor should be needed... if there was a life and death situation calling for the termination of a pregnancy ( such as malignant hypertension, toxemia, etc.) then I can not see a self respecting doctor making any patient wait. IMHO there is no shame in such cases and they should be labled as they are , a terrible trick of nature.

reply from: yoda

"Waver"? No, I don't recall.... would you care to state your "wavering" position?

reply from: galen

My opinion on wether or not abortion should be allowed in cases of incest and or rape.....I thought that was clear...
?

reply from: yoda

Take pity on my poor memory, and tell me again.....??

reply from: galen

Go back to abortion after rape.... the 11yo girl....

reply from: yoda

What I recall about that episode was that you demanded to know where we were when she was raped, and told us we spent too much money on signs.

If you support abortion in rape and incest cases, how does the baby of such situations differ from other babies?

reply from: galen

That was a rehtorical question.
And I state again.... I waver on the subject of rape and incest....
For an 11 yo girl, I have to say that I still fell pretty strongly that incest and rape possibly could be grounds for abortion. In an older woman with possibly more rescources.... I don't know.
However I do say that in the case of any minor child a guardian should be assigned if the child has no credible family member to help her. That person should always be there to look after the girl's best intrest. If that means helping her find a crisis house then so be it. I am not against every underage girl having thier pregnancy carried to term, I am against using a law to make black and white distinctions for every case.
Murder is wrong, but we do murder people every day in war... does that make the murder unjust or the killing unnecessary??
What if it was your child being murdered? These are not black and white issues in our legal system...
Why is murder wrong but state sanctioned killing ok?
And why does one child have to live with repeated trauma brought on by an incestous relative... do we compound the issue by forcing her to give birth?
All of these I waver on.....Yes I get angry about it... the whole thing breaks my heart.
Back to parental consent ....
The only time that I can see this being a problem is in the case of incest.... If parental consent was required for abortion, and the father is the girl's relative(parent) then presumably the parent could force the girl to have an abortion, and in this case the law would not serve its intended purpose.

Question for you though.... what about a law requireing a court order? Something that would force a woman to explain her reasosn....?

reply from: yoda

A court order for what?

As far as comparing war, capital punishment and abortion, I don't see the comparisons. Unborn babies do not take up arms, nor kill anyone on purpose

And "compounding" the trauma of rape and/or incest is exactly what an abortion would do, it would make a murderer out of a victim.

BTW, to get back to my question, what's the difference, moral or otherwise, between a baby concieved by rape or incest and any other baby?

reply from: scopia1982

Yoda IMO there no difference between the two. It says in Scripture that we are not to punish the child for the sins of the father, that applies here as well. A child should not be sentenced to death b/c its father is a rapist or sexual deviant.

reply from: galen

Court order to preform an abortion in extreme cases.

As far as the diffrence ... genetically they are both Homo Sapiens. How they are concieved is the matter that distubs me....I have no pity for the offender. Only for what the girl who is pregnant goes through. In my experience I have seen it both ways, girls who are happy they went through the pregnancy and girls who are not happy they went through it. They have about a 60- 40 split in favor of keeping the pregnancy to term. But what happens to the other group?(the ones who are unhappy they did not terminate) My experience has been that society would like them to "get over it quicker" or "find closure", none of wich are realistic for many of these women, and they find no comfort in the fact that the child is out there somewhere... to them it is not only thier baby but the rapists child also.

As for the younger children, physiologicaly it is not in thier best intrest to be pregnant at the age of 10 or 11...and I have yet to find an OBGYN to disagree... yes she might carry the baby to term, but there is also a good chance depending on her state of health that the pregnancy might kill her. Please remember that grown women die in childbirth everyday, the risks are greater in the extremes of age, either younger or older. Do we force that child to carry to term in the hopes that the baby might be saved?

These arguments also go back to my earlier question to you, about whether or not a court order should be required if seeking an abortion, if required to explain themselves we would most likely not get many women using it as a form of BC after the fact, and save the procedure for only the truely extreme cases.

I think I've answered your question.... at least from my point of view.



reply from: yoda

[deleted for duplication]

reply from: Alexandra

Forget parental consent laws...I'd rather abortion just be banned--period!

But yeah, there's hypocrisy there...as people point out, you need a parent's permission to get y our ears pierced, but not to have something sharp stuck "up there."

All Planned Parenthood does is try to get between teens and their parents.

reply from: Alexandra

BTW as far as a 10 or 11 year old girl giving birth...the youngest girl ever to give birth was nearly 6 years old...you can find the story on Snopes.com. And both she and the baby were fine.

The girl can carry the child as far as she can, and if necessary she can have a C-section. There's no good reason to kill the baby.

reply from: Navynate

That's right Alex, PP only wants to build walls between parents and their children. How can they defend protecting and defending child molesters and rapists? My oldest brother said that it was a lie that PP and NARAL are doing that. Well, if you close your eyes and stick you head in sand, then you won't see the truth of what PP and NARAL are doing. But if you wanted to find out the truth about what's going on you could easily do so. But people like my oldest brother don't want to see the truth about them because to him, they are the picture of virtue and honesty, they are anything but that. There are people who support them so much, that no matter how much proof you have, they will still think that they are wonderful groups. There's a word for that, it's D-E-N-I-A-L. And we see proof of that whenever some prochoicers post here. There might be some things I'm in denial over. I like the sound of crickets when it comes to prochoicers defending child molesters and rapists, the sound of silence is golden then.

reply from: yoda

And no pity at all for the innocent baby? How does the guilt of the offender affect your feelings towards the baby? Why does the trauma of the mother require retribution against the baby? What has it done to deserve death?

Since we're talking about young girls who are already pregnant, that's a moot point. They're already pregnant, and the pregnancy will terminate either in a miscarriage, a live birth, or an abortion. Those are the only possibilities. In my view, abortion is the worst of the three, because it leaves the young girl with the knowledge that she IS a mother of a dead child, one that she herself helped to kill.

I have no problem with that, but legal solutions to abortion are not my main concern. I'm mainly concerned with opening the subject up for public discussion, so that everyone has a clear view of what an abortion really is.

reply from: yoda

Couldn't have said it better myself, scopia, thanks.

reply from: galen

Yoda,
The point I was trying to make about the younger girls, was the death rate for these young mothers....
will you force all girls that age to continue carrying a pregnancy in the hope that maybe they will not die beforehand? In the literature most of the time you do not end up with a live birth and a dead mother... or a live mother and a live child,...both the mother and the child die. Why is that a better solution... or did I miss read you again.
S,
I am very happy that the 6 yo ( and I have to take it with a grain of salt) lived... but talk to your GYN. or any other OBGYN... most children(under the age of 12 or 13) who get pregnant do not make a good end of it. I am of the opinion that we are not supposed to condemn them to death and physiological and/ or mental torture for a life that may or may not be viable. ( talking about a baby that is before 20 weeks old.) Medical miracles aside.We usually hear about the uncommon, because if it was a common outcome it would not make the news.
And if that child's health is in jeapordy... then what do you do ? Let both the mother and baby die... or terminate one to save the other?
y,
Yes I agree the fetus is innocent in all of this.... but no child under the age of 14 can consent to sex... so the mother of the baby is in my opinion innocent also.

Yes I also agree that if there is any was to save the fetus after it is at all viable( usually 20 wks) then every attempt should be made. Most of the cases I have seen and researched, viability of the pregnancy and the health of the mother were established before that date.... most of the ones that tried to come to term did not end in a live baby and some of those also lost the mother.
( go to any medical library and look up risk and high risk out comes in pregnancy... there are dozens of textbooks)

IMO I do not find it acceptable to risk the life of the pregnant child for the slim possibility that you might get a live baby out of it.

reply from: galen

Ok found what I wanted on the 5yo Peruvian girl who was pregnant... I take back my grain of salt. Her Physical Age was 12yo cused by Precociuos pruberty,which is a hormonal disease...the poor thing was menstruating at 8 mo...... this is again a highly unusual case.

I stick to my guns on this one... just because a thing can be done... does not mean it should be done.

I do realize that statement cuts both ways.

reply from: Tam

How about this for an idea--any time a woman (of any age--if she is menstruating, she is a woman, but this would apply not only to very young women but also to very petite women or women with some medical issue that made it difficult to give birth normally) is in a high-risk delivery situation (by high-risk in this case, I simply mean a pregnancy that has a high risk of injuring the woman if she gives birth normally), is automatically given a c-section. When that c-section takes place depends upon the health of the mother and the viability of the child. Every effort is made to save both lives, but if it really comes down to it and the mother needs an immediate, emergency c-section to save her life at a time when the child is pre-viability, you do the c-section anyway and still try to save the child even though the chances are slim.

Now, does anyone find that an unreasonable position (this isn't counting prochoicers who would find it unreasonable simply by virtue of my giving a hot damn about the child in the first place)?

reply from: yoda

If "risk to life" is your only concern, then we are not really on opposite sides here. Trying to generalize about whether a girl can safely gestate at any particular age is pointless, because individual girls have individual medical indications. A competent physican can determine the amount of risk involved, just as in the case of an adult woman. Therefore there is no need for a hard and fast rule for any girl past the age of puberty.

As in a pregnancy of an adult woman, even if the pregnancy presents a clear threat to life, there is no need to intentionally kill the fetus. An early delivery can be accomplished in which the physican makes every effort to protect BOTH his patients.

reply from: yoda

Had I read your post before I posted mine, I could've saved myself the trouble of saying exactly what you said.

reply from: galen

Ok Yoda and Tam, LOL!!!!

two minds that seem to think alike.

The message is the same to both of you...I like your answer, what do you call it then? If the fetus is C-sectioned before 20 weeks....miscarrige... still birth ...abortion... ?
The problem again is with intent...you know the child cannot survive... but you section it to save the life of the mom ( A risky procedure also) isn't that intentional abortion(?), and, if we outlaw all abortions we will swing to the other end of the spectrum and have good physicians, trying to do the right thing, going to jail for murder. As you have not the greatest faith in the USSC do we trust them to uphold the spirit of the law again?

Don't get me wrong.... if it were not for these cases.... I would be all for a ban outright on abortion.... as it is I do think that the more restrictions placed on the procedure, the better.... including parental consent.Because As I've stated before... for the most part, when there is a minor involved, and for a very good reason, there is no parent involved in the child's care, the physician will do what is best for the patient. Lets not turn away all the OBGYNs in this country by having a law that may call them felons if they do.

reply from: yoda

As far as I know, galen, there has never been a law in this country to prevent a doctor from delivering a baby early to save the life of the mother. And there is always a slim chance that it might live, even before 20 weeks. But the point is to TRY to allow it to live, not to know for sure ahead of time.

reply from: galen

Yoda,
If all they did was overturn RvW than I think you would be correct, however, the new laws that many pro-life activists want will not allow even that....

BTW... just wondering, How you would save a 2 week old? or 7 week old fetus ( going from conception)?
There are no rescue measures available for them...
You seem to be pretty reasonable on this subject.. this far down the road, and I am not asking all these questions to raise your ire, I really do carefully consider your answers

reply from: yoda

There are extremists in every political movement, but do you judge the entire movement by them? If you did, you would conclude that all slavery abolitionists were wild eyed, violent killers like John Brown, right? Were they?

No matter what the age of the baby, the procedure is the same. If it threatens the life of the mother, you wait as long as you can and then you deliver it. You then try all life-saving measures available to you, as best you can. There's no controversy about whether it's likely to work or not, you just do your best to save them both.

reply from: galen

So are we resolved? The parents( or guardian), the OBGYN, and the mother of the child, are the only people, who in extreme circumstances, should be the ones making a decision on how to handle the pregnancy?

If so than maybe we are not so far apart from each other on this particular road.

reply from: chooselife

From my understanding procedures that are necessary to truly save the life of a mother have ALWAYS been legal (even before roe v wade). Prior to roe v wade a woman never had to endure an ectopic pregnancy or carry to term if she was being ravaged by cancer or some other disease. Doctors have always been able to save the life of a mother if she really was at risk. Now we think a mom's life is at risk if she isn't going to be able to make her nail appointment. So an outright abortion ban (like before) would still be appropriate.

reply from: Tam

If by "extreme" we mean "life-threatening" then we are getting close. But it's the whole "the ones making a decision" part that still kinda throws me off. Why? Because it seems to imply that this should not be an issue for legislation, but an "issue of personal choice" instead. If the policy is simply "always try to save both mother and child. if a life-threatening emergency requires an early delivery (whether c-section or natural), go ahead with the early delivery, but still try to save both mother and child," then why should that not be a matter of law rather than a matter of "personal choice"? The result is the same, but it eliminates the wiggle room for those situations which are NOT life-threatening.

To some people, "extreme circumstances" means "my boyfriend will dump me if I don't get an abortion" or "I'll get expelled from my school if I'm an unwed mother" or "I'll have to postpone that new job I wanted to accept." None of that warrants an early delivery.

I guess my question is--what would you have a law say, if not what I've suggested above? Because having no law at all, obviously, opens the door to abortions for the most frivolous of reasons--in fact, I'm sure there are women who have aborted simply to wave their abortions in the face of prolifers, whom they see as bigoted control freaks. So don't you think there's a way a law can be worded to protect the lives of moms for whom delivering a full-term baby would be a threat to their lives, and yet forbid abortions for reasons other than life-threatening emergencies? (And I DO mean "emergencies"--not stuff like "I want to take this drug that will kill my baby"--unless that drug is needed for some immediate life-saving reason, it's not an emergency.)

reply from: galen

Yes extreme meaning "life threatening".
I guess anyone can twist anything they want, to make it say whatever they want....
That is the problem with all of our laws I guess.... but we don't do without them, so, hmmmm
I guess what I fear most is the extremist view on anything... I do not see a whole lot in this world as black and white anymore. Not even in this issue. And having swung the pendulum this far ... how far to the other side are we willing to let it swing before we hit another extreme... there has got to be a common ground that 99% or even 90% of us can live with.

reply from: scopia1982

The only time I can ever condone a pregnancy termination is in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or in the case of a mother in the 1st three months of pregnancy who has been in a terrible accident and is hemmoraging in the uterus and they know for sure that the baby is either dead already or the only way they can stop the bleeding to save the woman is by abortiong the child, but this happens very rarely and every effort should be made to save both. After the procedure the remains of the child should be given to the parents so they may have some sort of funeral. Laws were already on the books before 1973 for these cases. However, if the baby is 20 weeks or beyond all they have to do is a Csection and take the baby and put it on machines not kill it. Partial birth procedures are NEVER needed to save the life of the mother, all that is needed is a cscetion if she cant carry the pregnancy any longer. The partial birth procedure is only supposed to be used in cases of a trauma where the baby is ALREADY dead inutero and in those cases they fix the child so the parents can see it after birth.

reply from: Alexandra

If a pregnancy is terminated to save the life of the mother--such as ectopic pregnancy--then it's no longer an issue of CHOICE, is it? There really is no other viable choice!

It would be nice if, in a case of ectopic pregnancy, they could go in there and re-implant the baby where he/she belongs...in the uterus instead of the tube.

reply from: Tam

Hey, that's a really good idea.

reply from: yoda

I don't take any position on who should have the legal authority to authorize abortions. My focus is on the morality involved in the decision. If the doctor and the mother both believe that her pregnancy is likely to cause her life-threatening harm, and the mother doesn't want to take that chance, I think we ought not to say that it is immoral of her to ask for an early delivery. No, I don't think we can call that "moral", I think that self-preservation is such a basic instinct that it transcends morality. A "moral" decision would be if a mother decided to risk her life for her child's sake.

reply from: yoda

Hey, that's a really good idea.
Yes, it is. Unfortunately it's way beyond what medical science can even envision right now. Once the embryo is implanted anywhere, it apparently doesn't have the ability to relocate.

reply from: Tam

Hey, that's a really good idea.
Yes, it is. Unfortunately it's way beyond what medical science can even envision right now. Once the embryo is implanted anywhere, it apparently doesn't have the ability to relocate.

Well, there are advances made all the time in this area. I hope someday soon even children who improperly implant can be saved.

reply from: galen

scopia,
I completely agree with you on the PBA issue.... there is a lot of in utero technology that can be preformed on a baby, in order to reduce head circumfrence... many without killing the child,or the mom. When I was in school(ancient history) we were told in ethics class and in OB class, that the procedure was institued in the 1800's for the sole purpose of removing what they felt was a non-viable child ( usually hydrocephalic) from a woman's pelvis after she had either parially delivered a breech baby, or there was such a large decrepancy in head size, that after several days of labor, and several other interventions, there was no other choice, most of these infants were already deceased at that point. We have such better technology now.
I can also tell you that at my particular college... anyone who was even suspected of attending a PBA for money or any other reason was considered a pariah, and I knew enough Med school students, to know that if they were in on such a deal, of even suspected of it, they were shunned and in one case asked to leave.

reply from: scopia1982

I like the idea of being able to reiimplant the baby . In Star Trek Deep Space Nine one of the actressesNana Visitor was pregnant in real life, but her charachter allowed no room for becoming a mother. So they wrote that one of the officers wives Rosiland Chao was pregnant an in a terrible accident and the doctor transplanted the baby in Nana Vistor who was pregnant in real life and she was a surrogate for the baby. I would love to see technology that would allow a baby to be transpalnted into another womb in cases of terrible accidents or if the mother uterus is unable to sustain a pregnancy, it is better than aborting it.

reply from: Alexandra

That reminds me...what about those frozen embryos? They're implanted in women, aren't they? How young are they, typically?

I know very little on the subject, so pardon my ignorance here.

reply from: galen

back to the original topic here... the SCOUS just made a ruling on this case that was before them on wether or not a state could have these types of laws. While they did not make a definative rule on the law itself, they did say you could not take a law and throw out the whole thing for a few lines that may or may not constitutional. There for it seems to me a move in the right direction.
If my child can not get its ear pierced w/ out my consent why should they be able to consent to ANY medical procedure w/ out me there.

Mary

reply from: RePit

My two cents...

I would prefer any pregnant minor to be legally required to get professional counselling and be strongly encouraged to tell her parents of her pregnancy - regardless if she is thinking of an abortion or not. The minor along with the counsellor can together make a decision as to whether the parents should be informed. Informing of parents should not be required by law because this may have a conflict of interest. Parents can have a huge influence and may have a vested interest. Eg. parents may not want to bring the family shame and may force the girl to have an abortion. They may also force the girl to have the baby, especially if they are religious, and may disown their daughter if they found she is pregnant. The decision will be one that affects her the most - so she should be the one who makes it, and it is of the utmost importance that she is not coerced. The pregnant girl knows her parents. She with the help of the counseller would be able to judge if her parents would be likely to unfairly coerce her. In the case the girl feels she cannot trust her parents, some adult that the minor feels they can trust should be informed (perhaps this informing be legally required) for example an aunt or teacher, so that they can be a guide through a difficult decision. A pregnant minor is vulnerable and needs an adult to protect her interests. The adult protector should be one who can provide her with the information she needs, talk and listen to her without judging, respect her privacy and most importantly ensure she is making the decision for the right reasons. The job of the adult protector is a big responsibility. Ideally it would be her parents who do this, but not all parents will be capable of such a task.

While I think a responsible adult (whether it be her parent or someone else) should be informed of the pregnancy, the girl should not require consent from anyone, as she is the one who has to live with her decision.

reply from: Connersmom

I definately agree with parental consent laws. If a girl feels she can't talk to her parents about being pregnant then there is obviously something wrong with her. And if it stops one baby from being slaughtered it's all worth it.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

great, connersmom. lets infringe on EVERYONE'S rights to ensure that ONE PERSON maintains theirs, as well as maintains the ability to infringe on rights himself.
fetuses have NO RIGHTS. especially not to the mother's body.

reply from: yoda

Every living human being has, IMO, the moral right not to be electively killed before being born. To say otherwise is to council the slaughter of babies.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

more rhetoric, yoda.
use words like "abortion" when discussing abortion. "murder" is an intentional dysphemism, and you know it. so is "slaughter". the term "babies" is medically inconsistent with most pre-natal care. it is a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus.
likewise, to use words like "parasite" or "choice" is misleading, and should be avoided.
in conclusion, abortion is abortion, and it aborts pregnancies at the will of the mother, resulting in the (mostly) undisputed death of a zygote, embryo, or fetus.

reply from: yoda

You are so full of proabort propaganda I'm surprised you have room inside you to eat. The medical/scientific terms have no claim whatsoever to being the exclusive labels for unborn humans. They are the proper terms for a medical/scientific discussion of human gestates, nothng more and nothing less. The vernacular of english has centuries old terms that have been applied to human gestates for as long as anyone has used them.

Abortion KILLS BABIES........ get used to hearing that, because it's the truth.

MSN-Encarta Online: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby ) ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb

Dictionary.com ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby ) ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus.

iNFOPLEASE.com ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html ) ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus.

INTELLIHEALTH: "Month 2: Measures 14-20mm from crown to rump. The baby's heart, although not fully formed, begins to beat and is visible. Medical content reviewed by the Faculty of the Harvard Medical School. Last updated August 14, 2004.
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?t=25666&p=~br,RNM|~st,331|~r,WSRNM000|~b,*|

reply from: dasjuggernaut

right. abortion has been around as long as any of those definitions. but you wouldn't think of permitting me to use the age or frequency of the practice to justify it, would you? get consistent.

reply from: yoda

So has murder. You point?

reply from: dasjuggernaut

would you permit me to argue validity based solely on age or frequency of an act?

reply from: yoda

In the case of semantics, absolutely. Next question?

reply from: dasjuggernaut

i do not consider my argument to be BASED in the semantics, but your refusal to use neutral terms shows that yours is. semantic-based arguments are weaker because they depend not on facts, but on connotative meanings and emotions of the audience.
be that as it may, your semantics based argument is now exempt? do i get to exempt the basis of my argument from attack?
what gives you a free pass, and not me?

reply from: yoda

There is no free pass in this debate. Nor is there any refree who tells everyone which terms to use. He who controls the terms of a debate controls the debate, and I will not allow you or anyone else to control my use of the vernacular. It is the plain, honest language of the people and it best expresses the ideas I describe in this debate.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

"plain honest language of the people"? are you trying to get a job in the bush administration?
regardless, no one should CONTROLL the terms, which is why i do not agree with calling fetuses "parasites" or "choices". i use neutral terms. if you refuse to use neutral terms, your arguments will never be regarded as unbiased. unless bias can be discounted, it is extremely difficult to determine truth-value.
therefore, neutral terms, even if you disagree with them, are the best way to convince most people.

reply from: yoda

I disagree that the vernacular is not "neutral". As the common tongue, it is the terminology most likely to be neutral, because everyone brings their own attitudes to the words of the vernacular. For example, when a proabort hears the word "baby", they usually feel something negative.

reply from: dasjuggernaut

proabort is more dysphemism, just as pro-choice is a euphamism. how about "individuals who support abortion as a right"?

reply from: yoda

That's way too long, and you know it. Read this and think upon it:
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813

pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a·bor·tion PRONUNCIATIONr-bôrshn ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting legalized abortion. http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html

Main Entry: pro·abor·tion Pronunciation: (')prO-&-'bor-sh&n Function: adjective : favoring the legalization of abortion -pro·abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)n&st/ noun http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion

reply from: dasjuggernaut

proabort has additional connotative value. i ask that you refrain from using non-neutral terms when discussing it.

reply from: yoda

No thanks, proabort. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

reply from: Sigma

dasjuggernaut, this issue has been argued over before. More recently in http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=1069&enterthread=y thread. Yodavater does not seem to think the implication of the term he uses exists. He cannot think outside of the dictionary definition

reply from: RePit

Pleeease yoda....

Pro-choicers are stupid. They don't know that abortion is killing a human which is murder. You can tell them a thousand times and they just don't get it.

Please don't feed them by picking on definitions. You have told them in probably half the threads on this forum. And you never get anywhere. Please just give up. Please don't hijack threads with definition of pro-abort etc. You know what it means. Pro-choicers never will.

reply from: RePit

Uh, oh. You're not a parent, huh.

Actually I am. I may be only 22, but my youngest is my 16-year-old "daughter", and I also have two "sons". Obviously I did not rear them from birth; but for most of my sisters teenage years I am and will be her legal guardian and parent.

My point exactly.

I do not wish to make decision for a pregnant teen. The most important thing is that she makes the decision herself. Would you let her make her own decision or would you force your decision on her?

reply from: RePit

Okay!

Cheers!

reply from: galen

RP,
if I had a nickle for every time i have heard a pregnant teen tell me or someone else that she " couldn't possibly tell her parents 'cause they'd kill me' i would be a rich woman. I do agree in getting an adult to counsel her, however without the notification laws and the guidelines they provide we will never get to that point. the problem with the way many clinics are set up, the girl does not even have to leave with a reponsible adult, after what is a surgical procedure... you can not even have teeth pulled under anesthesia without someone to drive you home and watch over you untill you wake up. Whay would you want a teenage girl to be able to go home w/ out a responsible adult to take care of her. What happens when her parents came home and find her septic? you loose precious time in the ER when you do not have a history on a patient. this scenario happens more often than you think w/ teenagers, because they are more apt to continue to hide the problem so the parents do not find out what they did. Sorry but a teenager is not allowed to drink, vote or go to war ( untill age 18 ) why then allow them to undergo an invasive surgical procedure, that could lead to many complications, including death?

mary

reply from: RePit

Galen,

I can totally understand what you are saying. I think it is disguisting to let a teenager (or any woman for that matter) who has just had an abortion left out in the cold on her own. She needs someone to look after her. If I had my way, everyone who had an abortion would have someone look after and fuss over them throughout their ordeal.

And I know what you mean about "my parents will kill me". I would think 90% of pregnant girls would feel this way. Hence why I propose the initial counselling session - to determine whether there is a real danger in telling the parents. I think in a much smaller portion of cases, telling her parents would put her at risk of a forced decision. The parents may also force her to have an abortion - it goes both ways. Sometimes parents do not have their childrens best interests at heart, and may be thinking only for themselves. Eg. a Jehovah's Witness parent of a 14-year-old, refusing to give consent for the childs blood transfusion? Or herbavore, nature-loving, hippy parents refuse to give consent to "un-natural" drugs to their child?

We don't live in a perfect world. Some teens have parents who are drug and alcohol abusers, there may be domestic violence or sex abuse in the house, and other such problems. Unfortunately, teens from such families are more likely to search for love elsewhere, and this can mean they have sex before they otherwise would and are at more risk of pregnancy. The parents of such families may not be contactable, or may not act rationally in such a situation. They may not be able to provide the support the girl requires. They may not come down to the clinic to sign the consent form, or even understand the situation because they are too busy getting high. I know from first-hand experience - it's very difficult to live a normal teenage life when your parent/s are not there for you. To have to go through the fright of getting pregnant with such parents I couldn't imagine. This is what I mean by circumstances where parental consent be waived. I don't mean in cases where the pregnant girl has decent parents. I mean when the parents really aren't capable. I certainly think the parents should be notified where reasonable.

I think the most important thing is that the pregnant teen makes her own decision without coersion. Also she should have decent info on each of her options. I would not be against showing her pictures of aborted foetuses, because I would be worried she would be horrified/scarred to see them after she already had the abortion. I would also like her to meet a teen parent, or perhaps get her to look after a baby for a few days to see what it is like. I would want her to know what it is to be a parent - not just as a 14-year-old with a newborn, but also as a 22-year-old with an 8-year-old.

I am worried telling parents with strong views will put unfair pressure on her to do what the parents want. The parents will certainly be affected by the decision so they should have a say - afterall they will be the ones left to pick up the pieces if she has an abortion but finds later she is not emotionally capable. They will be the ones looking after the baby if it is born and she is not capable or even doesn't want to care for it. If she chooses an abortion the parents may also suffer emotionally due to the loss of a grandchild. But the decision will affect her the most, so she should be the one who makes it.

I'm not really sure about some things. Notification or compulsory consent. But I know that at the bare minimum, a pregnant teen should have some responsible adult be there the whole way. To accompany her to important clinic visits whatever she decides with the pregnancy. Much like a rape advocate. She needs someone to represent her interests. And it is a good idea for adult woman to have the same.

Best you just put BC in your teenage daughters cornflakes me thinks.

reply from: yoda

My sentiments exactly, cp. Of course, PP would violently disagree with you, they are quite sure they know much better how to raise your child than you do.

reply from: Sigma

How far does parental authority extend? In all things in every way? Are there times that father doesn't know best, in your mind? Is there any time that we as a society can decide what the parent wants is not in the daughter's best interest?

reply from: bradensmommy

How far does parental authority extend? In all things in every way? Are there times that father doesn't know best, in your mind? Is there any time that we as a society can decide what the parent wants is not in the daughter's best interest?

Society shouldn't have to help me raise my child, I'm doing a pretty damn good job of it myself. Society should not have to tell me that killing a human being is okay either.

reply from: Sigma

How far does this extend? Should society stay out of every aspect of parenting?

reply from: Sigma

Who decides whether what the parent wishes constitutes harm? Society at large, or the parent in question?

reply from: Sigma

So, then, the parent does not have absolute authority. If what the parent wishes is injurious or harmful then the parent should be taken out of the decisionmaking process. Is this a valid representation of your view?

I must know what you believe before I can "twist" anything, if you mean "draw a conclusion that is logically allowable".

reply from: Sigma

I'm not sure why you put "wishes" in quotes. Are you saying that nothing is harmful if the parent wishes it?

So anything besides death is allowable by the parent, or the parent should be involved in the decisionmaking process for any other decision?

I don't even know what it is you believe about this subject. Please do me the courtesy.

reply from: Sigma

I have.
You said: Under no circumstances will you tell me what is best for my daughters.
and
If I feel it is in her best interest that I make the decision for her, I will. Nobody can give my daughter the right to override my parental authority. I will always do what is best for my daughter, and if you don't agree with my idea of what is "best" for her, you can have a coke and a smile and sit down and STFU.
then said:
Obviously the line is drawn where the child is intentionally harmed or neglected
and
I think we can agree that killing the child is harmful, and that can not be disputed

So far, you have said parents have ultimate authority over their children, then pulled back to in all cases except for intentional harm or neglect.

Who decides if what the parent decides (what I mean by "what the parent wishes", btw) constitutes harm?

Now you're just being stupid.

reply from: Sigma

Then society may intervene between you and your daughter, usurp your parental authority and remove you from the decisionmaking process if society believes what you wish to do or decide to do will harm your daughter.

Is this a fair representation of your view? Would this not allow society to say "you cannot make certain decisions for your daugher"?

No, only those who have proven themselves so. If I show a contradiction, it is because your beliefs are contradictory. You gave a wide generalization which was obviously false, so I wanted to get at what you actually believed parental authority allowed.

reply from: yoda

Yes, I can just see "Sigma the flea" crawling up that elephant's leg now.......


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics