Is there a legitimate reason abortion defenders fight to limit or eliminate parental notification laws?
Comments
Trackbacks
-
[…] If the kids can have consensual sex with other 12-13 year olds, why not 15? Or 18? or 28? — Sifting Reality asked, “Is there a legitimate reason abortion defenders fight to limit or eliminate parental […]
Sifting Reality 
No. The typical argument I’ve heard is that the girl might get hurt by her parents. But we have laws for that. And take it to its logical conclusion: Kids “might” get abused for getting in trouble at school, or getting bad grades, or getting in trouble with the police, etc. So using the pro-abortion logic of insisting that the risk of getting abused means you don’t have a right to know that your child is having a physically and emotionally dangerous medical procedure to kill your grandchild, then you would to give every kid all A’s, you couldn’t discipline or arrest them, etc.
It is only the depraved desire to be able to kill unwanted human beings that would make someone even consider that stupid argument.
I wish I could argue with you eMatters, but you’re right. It seems that with the political left, they wont stop until abortion is completely unrestricted.
Speaking only for myself (well, and the many people like me), I am opposed to rules that keep parents from knowing about an underage child seeking any operation without their knowledge, including having an abortion. Unless there is some direct and pretty strong evidence that doing so would place the child in eminent harm (which I’m sure there are instances of that, but such instances must be extremely rare) from her parents, I’m opposed to keeping the parents uninformed.
Put another way, I’m opposed to keeping the 99% of parents who would NEVER harm their daughters, even if they were pregnant, UN-informed just because in 1% of situations, informing the parents would result in possible harm to the daughter. That is irrational.
So, look, Neil, John and Dan, all in agreement! Time to change your minds…?
~Dan
Dan
Thats good to hear seeing as how you otherwise support abortion. Apparently you’re not totally gone.
Just to be clear: I support keeping abortion as a legal medical procedure, for appropriate times. I oppose criminalizing it.
I support parents and families making medical decisions – even and especially difficult ones – not gov’t.
Having said that, I fear that too often abortions have been performed for less-than-serious reasons. “Inconvience” is not, to me, a serious or compelling medical rationale for having an abortion. “I wanted a girl, not a boy” is not a serious or compelling medical rationale.
Now, do I think that the majority or even “many” abortions are performed for frivolous reasons? I tend to think not, but I do support efforts at keeping abortions rare and taken quite seriously, only for the most serious of reasons.
My only point is I want families to make those calls, not gov’t and thus, I want to keep it legal.
~Dan
Just changing the wording of the discussion from abortion to “medical decidions” doesnt change the fact that your views on abortion are best defined as “pro choice”.
Yes, I am pro-choice. But that is not the same as a blind “otherwise support abortion.” In fact, I don’t “otherwise support abortion” open-endedly. I support families deciding for themselves if the medical procedure is appropriate for them.
Again, just a point of clarification. I would suggest that if the “pro-life” side would be less dogmatic and militaristic in their views, they might find some allies where now they find enemies… some common ground where now there is only battle ground.
~Dan
I love the euphemism “medical procedure.” I guess anytime I want to murder someone I could just get a syringe full of poison to inject him with and call it a “medical procedure.”
I think families should decide for themselves if they want slaves, and keep the government out of it. I think families should decide for themselves if they want to sell their children and keep government out of it.
I think the pro-aborts should be less dogmatic and militaristic in THEIR views. Even though they will never find common ground with anti-abortion people as long as they support abortion for ANY reason.
Sometimes, those who agree with you are your own worst enemies…
“It seems that with the political left, they wont stop until abortion is completely unrestricted.”
That’s what their platform says, along with their desire to force taxpayers to pay to kill more unwanted human beings.
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
The Democrats are pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
Dan,
First of all, abortion is not a “medical decision” except in those comparatively rare instances when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. Otherwise, it’s no more of a “medical decision” than choosing to put on a condom. It’s a form of contraception. People make poor choices and refuse to accept responsibility for those choices. It’s a way out, a bloody chuck of one’s responsibilities. You know it and I know it. So let’s quit pretending we’re talking about a cholecystectomy or something.
Additionally, your view is totally at odds with Roe v. Wade. You say abortion is a medical decision that government should stay out of, but current law says otherwise. From Roe v. Wade:
How gruesome would that be, I wonder, for current law to reflect your view. If abortion is merely a “medical decision” that government should stay out of, then any abortion, logically speaking, should be legal, even late-term.
See, that’s the problem with you liberals. You never think shit out. You guys are knee-jerk citizens. You support and oppose things by the seat of your pants. Whatever “feels good,” right?
Oh, but then you say abortion should only be permitted for “serious” reasons, yet curiously you leave “serious” undefined.
You contradict yourself on a regular basis, I’ve noticed. You got nothing but double-talk and jive.
This is a tough one.
I think the abortion thing is more akin to letting a child with cancer choosing to live out their days or undergo treatment. But even in this situation I think the parent has the final say.
Overall, I think children who become pregnant should probably need parental consent to receive the morning after pill. Sure kids don’t want to – they don’t want to face their parents – but maybe they need to. The family unit is important and at 15 I doubt you really understand what type of decision you are making. And even if you do it’s probably not one you should have to deal with alone.
Perhaps a better law would be “a parent cannot deny a child the right to have an abortion, but must be notified.” That way they can at least offer their advice.
Bad analogy Atticus.
Pregnancy isn’t a disease. Abortion is murder.
I agree. I am against abortion. I just thought that IF you are going to give children access to abortions the parents should be involved, if for no other reason than guidance. I wrote a post on this blog about my stance on abortion: http://wp.me/p158IY-1Yk
Atticus,
If parents MUST permit their children to undergo an abortion, regardless their own feelings, then what guidance could exist? Unless the parent supports the decision, I don’t see what type of guidance they could offer.
Also, would you be okay with children getting tattoos and facelifts without consent from their parents? I only ask because the ramifications of abortion are usually quite a bit more serious, so if children are capable of making that decision on their own, then why not other decisions typically reserved for parents?