California Prop 73 - abortion fanatics vs. god freaks

[natedogg]

A minor is the responsiblity of a guardian. No one can touch that minor without the guardian's permission.

In california, there is a law exempting abortion from this very reasonable and important rule. If a minor wants an abortion, they are treated like an adult. 12, 13 years old, no problem.

Now, abortion fanatics have tunnel vision. All they care about is abortion, and anything that expands abortions is good. For some people, there's nothing they won't be willing to sacrifice or overturn in their cause for more abortions.

So they're willing to give up their own authority as a guardian of their children just to keep push abortion. They think, "hey, I wouldn't stop my own child from getting one, so no parent should be allowed to. In fact, let's make it so that no parent even has to know about it!"

This is a foolish and selfish way to approach public policy. But the abortion tunnel-vision they possess stops them from seeing clearly.

I'm a big fan of Roe v. Wade. But abortion is not the be all end all of public policy.

NO ONE should be able to secretly render medical treatment on my child without my permission MUCH LESS without even my knowledge. I don't care what kind of treatment it is. Making abortion special here is a mistake. A terrible mistake.

Today a bunch of busy-body righteous do-gooders have decided that your child's abortion is none of your business. Why? Why is abortion so special? What is next?

I can imagine a very slipper slope where any vocal nanny-group can push through a new law exempting your guardianship of your own children in the case of things like their weight, their mental health, etc. After all, they can perform abortions on your child in secret, why not open it up to other less invasive treatments?

Imagine how you'd feel if you found out some teacher had pushed Ritalin onto your child and taken them to a doctor to get prescriptions for it behind your back. After all, you're just a meddling parent who doesn't know what's best for your child. Even if you have no problem with Ritalin, as a parent you should be very interested in being part of that medical decision and talking with the doctor. The same scenario could play out for all kinds of medical questions such as:

weight treatments
elective surgeries
anti-depressants
vaccines you are wary of

Abortion is not a special case. A minor doesn't get to make their own health care decisions. That's the parent's job. Undermining that role and responsibility of the parent only increases the ever-tightening grip of state over family. It's a recipe for disaster.

Vote yes on prop73 if you live in CA. It's not about abortion.

natedogg

[Jedster]

Following your logic, it seems that if a parent of a minor wished for their child to have an abortion, the law should allow them to force their daughter to have an abortion? If not, why do you agree with the converse?

Anyway, I don't think you understand Prop 73, which requires parental notification plus a 48 hour waiting period, not consent. It also requires a bunch of other red tape and bureaucratic stuff. You seem to think Prop 73 requires parental consent. As by my reading of it, it does not. Just notification followed by a 48 hour waiting period.

Which raises another question. Why do you think it is the government's responsibility to foster improved family communications?

[Jedster]

The proponents of 93 argue that "When parents are involved and minors cannot anticipate secret access to free abortions they more often avoid the reckless behavior which leads to pregnancies. Older men, including Internet predators, are deterred from impregnating minors when secret abortions are not available to conceal their crimes." The first part may be true and the second part sounds silly, but doesn't passing laws to achieve such behavior modification sound a little like a nanny-state to you?

I'm not arguing for or against 93, I'm just arguing that supporting 93 is consistent with supporting an activist government.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think it is the government's responsibility to foster improved family communications?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice attempt to shift the focus of the debate.

This is like saying "since when is it the government's responsibility to give you money" to people that want a tax cut.

[ QUOTE ]
NO ONE should be able to secretly render medical treatment on my child without my permission MUCH LESS without even my knowledge. I don't care what kind of treatment it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a 16 year old gets into a car accident, then the hospital should have to wait to get parental consent before accepting the patient?

[Easy E]

I lean slightly towards the pro-abortion side of the fence, despite my many misgivings about it, but on this topic I'm definately on your side.

What to do with pregnant baby-teens is a whole other topic/mess to discuss.

(edit) I should have read the rest first.
<font color="blue">Anyway, I don't think you understand Prop 73, which requires parental notification plus a 48 hour waiting period, not consent. It also requires a bunch of other red tape and bureaucratic stuff. You seem to think Prop 73 requires parental consent. As by my reading of it, it does not. Just notification followed by a 48 hour waiting period.</font>

Before I open my yap again, can someone clearly state what Prop 73 is requiring? Is it exactly the above, or is this another partial interpretation?

Not that it matters, as I'm 3000 miles from having any influence.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
So if a 16 year old gets into a car accident, then the hospital should have to wait to get parental consent before accepting the patient?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see that as "secretly"- do you?

[Beer and Pizza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NO ONE should be able to secretly render medical treatment on my child without my permission MUCH LESS without even my knowledge. I don't care what kind of treatment it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a 16 year old gets into a car accident, then the hospital should have to wait to get parental consent before accepting the patient?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a 16 year old has a non-life threatening non-urgent medical condition caused by a car accident that can wait 2 days before being treated, then yes, the parents should be consulted and permission received before the procedure is done. Isn't that obvious?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NO ONE should be able to secretly render medical treatment on my child without my permission MUCH LESS without even my knowledge. I don't care what kind of treatment it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a 16 year old gets into a car accident, then the hospital should have to wait to get parental consent before accepting the patient?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure natedogg will make an excpetion if a case an abortion is needed in a life threatening time-critical circumstance.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see that as "secretly"- do you?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, this example does not involve covert action.

What if a 16 year old kid goes to a pharmacy to get a box of condoms? Is it the store’s responsibility to notify the parents?