ABORTION

Catholic Citizens of Illinois ^ | 12-16-03 | Barbara Kralis

[TheAngryClam]

The state also defines "underage" and "age of consent"- they're not born of natural law, or parental discretion. Since it does, it has the power to define special cases of age of consent, such as procuring an abortion.

You might not like it, and I've never known a prolifer to let things like truth or the Constitution (specifically, the Tenth Amendment, with the attempts to federalize abortion bans. Do NOT bring up Roe v. Wade- that had nothing to do with the Constitution, regardless of what some Justices say) get in the way of their agenda.

[TheAngryClam]

Really?

You should tell that to all the doctors who've gotten quite wealthy marketing plastic surgery.

[jwalsh07]

The state also defines "underage" and "age of consent"- they're not born of natural law, or parental discretion. Since it does, it has the power to define special cases of age of consent, such as procuring an abortion.

Spoken like a true statist.

You might not like it, and I've never known a prolifer to let things like truth or the Constitution (specifically, the Tenth Amendment, with the attempts to federalize abortion bans. Do NOT bring up Roe v. Wade- that had nothing to do with the Constitution, regardless of what some Justices say) get in the way of their agenda.

What tenth amendment? You mean the one that didn't obtain in Lawrence v Texas? That tenth amendment? Don't make me laugh. Sodomy is a right but life isn't. Tell the truth now, are you Harry Browne?

[hocndoc]

It is wrong to intentionally act to kill innocent human beings, no matter who their fathers are or what their parents did.

There is no incrementalism potential, here, if the protocols are able to prevent implantation of an embryo, they are abortifaceints, not contraceptives.

Where is the research that proves one or the other? I haven't found anything that's clear cut.

[hocndoc]

The children who are "out there now" should not be killed, either, because they are unwanted.
In Texas, we have the "Baby Moses Law" which allows a mother to leave her child at a fire station, a hospital ER or other safe place if she finds that she doesn't want him or her after birth.

[hocndoc]

Where have you heard that Pregancy Centers are "overloaded helping adopt out"?

[Torie]

Morning after pills, contraception, age of majority, underage, parental permission, parental notification, law, the Constitution, policy; they are all mixed up on this thread in one steaming mass. Moving to the most outstretched limb, do you think there are any circumstances where an underage individual should be allowed to obtain birth control devices or medicine without parental permission?

[TheAngryClam]

Oh really, then?

What do you use as your yardstick of natural law?

"Old enough to bleed is old enough to breed" won't cut it, because then all these so-called minors still would be able to go out and get abortions, much to your consternation.

Likewise, the bar mitzvah and its associated ascent into manhood, is for twelve year olds.

I'd be really curious to know where you find, either physiologically or religiously, support for a "18 or older is better than 12, 14, or 16 or older" argument.

[tkathy]

To fuss about birth control makes no sense at all.

[jwalsh07]

Yes but not without parental knowledge absent clear evidence of an abusive situation.

[Torie]

That's rather sensible. Now tell me what the hell is bothering Angry Clam. I can't seem to understand what he is getting at. It seems be be something to do with it being improper for the state to treat adults and children differently (and one has to draw the line somewhere as to where that is), but surely that is wrong.

[jwalsh07]

I'd be really curious to know where you find, either physiologically or religiously, support for a "18 or older is better than 12, 14, or 16 or older" argument.

You're a statist on steroids. The state requires parents to care for their children until the age of majority, which is different in different states. On the other hand the state while insisting on parental support of those children usurps their parental rights by providing major medical services absent parental knowledge or permission. And what's more, you support all that.

[hocndoc]

""Did you know that I find preventing implantation of a fertilized egg far less morally upsetting than interefering with it after implantation?""

This is your own personal belief, based on your willingness to allow some people to kill other human beings due to some arbitrary line you've drawn. Whether you prevent them from implanting or take them after they've implanted, they're still human beings, by a strict species definition, growing, and developing as they should at that stage of their lives.

There is no justification for infringing on the right not to be killed that can not be extrapolated to other human beings that are now considered legal persons.

[drjimmy]

Yes but not without parental knowledge absent clear evidence of an abusive situation.
So a 16 year old guy shouldn't be able to buy condoms and a 16 year old girl shouldn't be able to buy the sponge without parental knowledge (unless they have been abused by that parent)?

[jwalsh07]

Now tell me what the hell is bothering Angry Clam.

Dunno, but I suspect the mollusk has been out of the bay for too long.

[kcvl]

Are you comparing plastic surgery with "emergency contraception"? Since when did a plastic surgeon lobby elected officials to "research", advertise(allocate $10 million annually for five years to educate health care providers and the public about emergency contraception) and then become the distributer of THE product?

[Torie]

There is a rather compelling case to make that the state should encourage and foster non abusive parents knowing what their underage children are up to. But that is just my own little bias.

[TheAngryClam]

No, simply that any attempts to use the "but kids can do X without being able to do Y without parents' permission" argument is specious, due to the way that the law defines the impaired capacity of children, and thus, the ward powers of their parents.

[Torie]

Really? You don't think it reasonable that the state can deem it wise that the law encourage that parents know what their kids are up to about some things, and about others, it would just be a silly waste of resources, such as requiring permission slips for kids to buy bubble gum? This whole discussion seems ludicrous to me. Clearly, I am not getting it.

[cpforlife.org]

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.