Skip to comments.Illinois Supreme Court: Girls under 17 must inform parents if aborting
Posted on 07/11/2013 5:38:22 PM PDT by SMGFan
The Illinois Supreme Court is allowing the state to enforce a 1995 law that requires doctors to notify parents of girls under 17 years old if their daughter is undergoing an abortion at least two days before the procedure. The law has been disputed since its passage and has been enforceable until now.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This must P.O. the liberals, they have been working for years to take rights away from parents because they believe all children belong to the government.
so a child called Martin gets show and he;s just a 17 year old child but a 14 year old girl is alright to have sex in violation of the law, get a morning after pill with no permission and kill a baby.
When will these dopes understand kids are kids and now pawns for their homo, victim abortion agenda
Did H*ll freeze over..................
If you are thinking of Plan B, it is *not* an abortion pill. It is a rather strong contraceptive meant to be used after unprotected sex.
The abortion pill is RU486, and it is not available over the counter.
i’ve never understood why parental permission is needed for ear piercing, or for a school nurse to administer medication, but it’s okay for a child to have an invasive medical procedure secretly. Never understood the liberal logic on this.
A State SC that doesn't belong to Democrats???
The NARALs will just call one of their pet Federal judges to reverse the state Supreme Court ruling.
It acts like the pill, which means it can stop ovulation, stop fertilization, or stop implantation. The bottom line is that it prevents pregnancy. If, despite taking it, a woman gets pregnant anyway, the pregnancy will be normal. Unless she decides to kill the kid...
I agree, Plan B should not be sold to children. It is a stronger drug than the pill, and may be safe to take once or twice. However, there almost certainly will be some who will take it every time they have intercourse. It is not intended to be taken that way, and I don’t think that kind of usage is safe.
There is no liberal logic.
Girls who know their parents will be told if they want an abortion might not decide to get pregnant. And then the abortion industry won't make money off them. That's why pro-aborts hate the idea of parental notification.
The Illinois Supreme Court is allowing the state to enforce a 1995 law that requires doctors to notify parents of girls under 17 years old if their daughter is undergoing an abortion at least two days before the procedure.
PP will never obey these laws- they never have
its their satanic religion
You should at least acknowledge the distinction even if you don't agree with it.
Being a medical researcher, I'm extremely aware that it takes more than just a unique set of DNA and a diploid cell to make a human being. You need the biological structures that can support awareness and thought--the nervous system. And that doesn't develop until 3 weeks after fertilization. Before then, they are no more aware than a scraping of skin cells that I might want to culture in a dish.
With or without contraceptives, most fertilized ova do not implant. I don't get myself worked up over them.
Liberals were not held accountable for their actions when growing up because Government interfered with discipline in family, schooling & social authority. Now that they are all growed up they have become politicians and want to turn America into a nanny state where Government would directly control discipline in schooling, family and behavior. Just like when mommy was controlled by government by limiting punishment and rewarding failure. These spoiled children who live in adult bodies were never allowed to be disciplined by the authority of family, fear God or learn independence and personal liberty... that is to choose freely and be accountable for those choices and the consequences those choices brought upon them. Because the liberals coddled them with social safety nets, protection from and the eradication of God from the classroom.
All of course for the purpose of making them life-long Democrats and dependent on government. Indoctrinated in the public schools by Marxist teachers from K to 12 to forever embrace the Liberal socialist mantra that says... Government is here to help you, protect you and provide for you...
Liberals resent authority imposed by moral truths and will cry Separation of Church and State! The 10 commandments are born from the creed of fanatics and religious zealots! How dare those right wing nut-jobs try to indoctrinate me with natural law and the virtues of civility and decency?
To a liberal... life is all about what they want, how they feel, and the resentment of being judged. Its always someone elses fault... Blame anyone but me!, they will say. Or ... whos gonna take care of my problem?. Sure I saw the sign that said No trespassing, beware of dogs posted on that 6ft fence... but I climbed over it anyways because the owner should have made the fence higher if he really wanted to keep me out. Now Im suing the owner for shooting me in the leg because he used unnecessary force against me... Of course no way it was the liberals fault.
Libs are the most retarded brain-dead idolizing vile juvenile trash.
The liberal is continually angry, as only a self-important man can be, with his civilization, his culture, his country and his folks back home. His is an infantile world view. At the core of a liberal is the spoiled child -- miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. - P. J. O'Rourke
Fine, “medical researcher”, don’t get worked up over it. You made a blanket statement that is not accepted as fact universally by other medical researchers, doctors, gynecologists, etc..
We do know that the zygote is not the mother, and it is not the father. Stating that a central nervous system is necessary for a human being to be present is arbitrary, and allows for further weaseling, where someone will say that the embryo’s nervous system is less developed at time x than a crustacean’s.
When zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, fetuses, infants, adolescents, etc. die of natural causes there is no moral dimension. I don’t get myself worked up over a fertilized ova that fail to implant either, as long as a human agent isn’t purposefully frustrating the implantation.
To be honest, you should have clearly stated this as your “medical researcher’s” opinion, and not a Universal Truth.
Let’s put it this way: equating prevention of a blastocyst of less than a couple hundred cells from implanting is not the equivalent of dismembering an embryo of five weeks who can feel itself being ripped apart.
Equating the two dilutes the horror of abortion.
I point out that I’m a medical researcher because my perspective gives me a very clear view of what is meaningful life, and what just exists. I can guarantee that placing human cells—which have unique DNA and are unquestionably alive—in a dish will never result in a human being. They will grow indefinitely as long as I feed them, but the qualities that make a clump of human cells into a human being are absent.
There simply is no objective basis on which to say that a zygote of a couple hundred cells is any different than the few million cells in the dish. The only difference comes when that embryo develops to the point of having a nervous system—its interface with the world. Then it becomes aware, which is essential for a human being to exist.
I believe the IL SC is majority Democrat.
I understand very well that many people have a romantic notion that life begins at conception. I do not like this notion, for a number of reasons—one being that it hands pro-aborts a handy argument to use against us. They will point at the formless mass of a few dozen cells, laugh at the notion that anyone could think that is a baby, and extrapolate that out to include a baby at several months, who clearly is a baby by any measure. Another reason is that considering the zygote right after fertilization as a human being is conferring human status to something that only has a potential of becoming human—it doesn’t account for what it is right now. Again, that feeds right into the pro-abortion argument, because it is a much more difficult task to convince someone that a *potential* has equal standing to an existing human—and the idea of *potential* baby is extrapolated out to include the fetus all the way up to birth.
I try to explain very clearly, but it is difficult because my understanding of biology, and what exactly life is, comes from years of growing and observing human cells in flasks.
The idea that life can suddenly exist where there was no life is ludicrous. It is a continuum. I will never say that life “begins” at conception—it doesn’t. All that happens at conception is that two cells fuse together to become a single cell. That is not an unusual event; cells fuse all the time.
There is absolutely no objective criterion that distinguishes a zygote. None. It has no higher order structures (like organs or tissues) and is utterly unaware of its existence. My objective criterion is that an organism has to both be aware of its existence and be human in order to be worth preserving.
You can make a zygote in a petri dish. You can even implant it in a woman. The chance that it has the ability to go on and grow into a human being is actually pretty low.
You can take an adult’s skin cells and put them in a petri dish. You can douse them with the proper growth factors to induce them to start a developmental pathway. The chance that they’ll continue to grow and become a baby is lower than that of the fertilized ovum, but it exists (and this has been done in animals).
People love to insist that the presence of unique DNA has some special significance. But it doesn’t. The DNA affects how the person will look and act, but has nothing to do with the fact of the person being a human being. It’s a trivial matter to make human cells have unique DNA in the lab. On the other hand, one could theoretically make a million identical humans starting with an adult’s skin cells. They won’t be a single person in a million bodies—they will be a million people who look alike.
Identical twins result from a zygote breaking into two parts; they are definitely two separate people.
You can take two zygotes, smush them together, and get one person with two sets of DNA. This happens naturally. The resulting people are called chimeras. In the lab, this is done with mice all the time, as a step in genetic engineering the mice for specific traits.
These biological realities create a huge problem for the notion that fertilization = start of a human being. But if you look at the start of a human being being the point at which a bunch of human cells develop the capacity for self-awareness—beginning at 3 weeks, the same time as the heart beat—there is no problem.
We all know that the brain is the center of our awareness. And that the person ceases to exist when the brain stops functioning (”brain death”, which leads shortly to the rest of the body dying). The concept that a human exists when there is functional brain tissue should not be difficult to understand.
You have packed a lot in afairly short response.
“I understand very well that many people have a romantic notion that life begins at conception.”
I don’t really appreciate the kind of deprecative adjectives you toss at people who disagree with you, including a number of extremely well regarded scientists. I’ll drop just one name, Jérôme Lejeune, as his credentials are utterly beyond reproach and his understanding of life beginning at conception (fertilization) is well-known, and one he had been very vocal about.
If by romantic, you mean a willingness to give consideration for things that may not be measurable or observable by science as it now stands, well, then we must completely part ways. To the degree that it matches up with materialism, it is derivative of the same mindset that leads to Marxism.
In an earlier post, you described something as not being MEANINGFUL human life, because (among other things, it had not developed a cortex). Once you start tossing around words like MEANINGFUL (outside of a statistical setting, as in a meaningfully significant sample size), you are outside of the realm of hard science, as science cannot assign meaning.
You describing a growing human being, only of a few cells, as being “potential” life, is language I have only heard by pro-abort making an emotional plea. If it is growing, it is life.
“There is absolutely no objective criterion that distinguishes a zygote.”
Of course, there is. that is why we have the word “zygote”.
“People love to insist that the presence of unique DNA has some special significance. But it doesnt. [ . . . ] one could theoretically make a million identical humans starting with an adults skin cells. They wont be a single person in a million bodiesthey will be a million people who look alike.”
Yup, and those people who love to insist aren’t assigning teh uniqueness of the DNA to the clones or twins from each other, but to the new being that is neither mother or father. I agree that DNA is not the be-all and end-all, and as you know, the mindset that you are deriding existed before DNA was even discovered, as people had a pretty good idea what has to go where for the generation of new animal or human life for some time.
“Identical twins result from a zygote breaking into two parts; they are definitely two separate people.”
Definitely, I know identical twin men who both have severe autism, only with nearly opposite behavior. One seeks extreme and continual stimulation, the other wants quiet and very little sensory stimulation. The same genes probably contributed to the condition, but they are extremely different from each other. But the question you touch on here is actually an interesting point, but more related to philosophy than science. If you have a fertilized ovum, and it is a new human being, and that human being undergoes twinning, which one is the original? If the answer is neither, what happened to the original? Issues like these would need a thread of their own (actually more) to work through, and some of them may be irresolvable by current human knowledge.
“The idea that life can suddenly exist where there was no life is ludicrous.”
First time I have ever heard a western scientist say that. A Big Bang approach even requires the positing that life came to exist where there was no life.
“We all know that the brain is the center of our awareness. And that the person ceases to exist when the brain stops functioning (brain death, which leads shortly to the rest of the body dying).”
No, we don’t know that a person ceases to exist at anything we can measure as brain death. You certainly are aware that people have come back from brain death, still being the same person. We do not know when death occurs.
“The concept that a human exists when there is functional brain tissue should not be difficult to understand.”
The concept is not difficult to understand, and some who move along that line require a certain level of functioning (or awareness) to award any moral value to such a being. Even we accepted the three week definition that you choose as a starting line, it does not follow that because creatures with functional brain tissue are living human beings, that this is the only criterion to employ. I’m speaking in terms of Aristotelian logic, one of the necessary perecursors of modern scientific method.
Studying cell structures and activity can be an extremely laudable thing, but I am disturbed when the “black box” knowledge gained from the study gets confused with understanding the brain or human life.
I am also disturbed that you assert a unique understanding that almost no one (credentialed hard scientist or other) accepts as practically self-evident.
Without realizing it, you seem to have fallen into many of the same philosophical errors of Descartes, without even being directly exposed to his writings.
My motivation in trying to educate people about the nuances of early development is an effort to counter the pro-aborts. I pay a lot of attention to what pro-aborts say, and how they justify killing babies and dismissing the pro-life position. They become very sophisticated in their techniques: I saw a TV program the other day in which some neuroscientist was claiming to have proof that life doesn't actually start until a kid reaches the age of 5... because younger children presumably don't have a sense of self. In the same program, another neuroscientist claimed that fetuses have no awareness because they do not react to pungent smells or loud noises (I guess the fact that they haven't started making odor receptors or hair cells responsible for hearing isn't a possibility). There are very dedicated efforts to try to "prove" that because certain developmental milestones have not been reached, it's okay to kill the kid--and if they are able to convince enough people, it will become legal to kill up to age 5--or even age 25, because that is when the brain finally matures. I am motivated by the desire to counter these sophisticated arguments by people clearly wishing to establish a "scientific" support of abortion.
In order to counter these clear attempts to push abortion support into legalized infanticide and toddlercide, people who call themselves pro-life absolutely MUST become more sophisticated about the science involved. I'm sorry, but while a simplistic statement like "life begins at conception" is easy to say to someone who does not understand the first thing about biology, it is such an oversimplification of the processes involved that it is incorrect. Life does not suddenly begin at any point--it takes living cells to fuse, and those living cells were produced by a living organism, etc. Biologically speaking, each sperm and ovum is a human being, but it is of the haploid type of human that cannot live independently nor does its life have any meaning. All organisms alternate between haploid and diploid generations... I'm sorry, is this getting too technical for you? My point is that you may have heard that oversimplification many times, and it *is* romantic--a sudden beginning of life has a nice symmetry with the sudden ending of life, etc.--but the reality is far more complex.
Despite the fact that MDs are not trained in life-processes nor do they understand them in nearly the same detail as a biochemist, I would be genuinely surprised if any of them thought that a fertilized ovum is functionally the same or has the same capability of feeling and awareness of a six month old fetus. All of the reasons I gave you previously as to why a fertilized pre-implantation ovum is NOT remarkable in any way from other human cells outside of reproduction are scientific fact: they are not debatable. Cells *do* fuse all over the body. Embryos *do* fuse to make a person who is the product of two fertilization events. Embryos *do* split to make two or three nearly identical people. It truly does *not* affect personhood whether someone has unique DNA, or if their DNA is identical to that of a million other people. A fertilized pre-implantation ovum (and implanted blastocyst for the first couple of weeks) really is *not* aware of existing, because awareness *is* a function of the nervous system. And so on. No, I do not count life as meaningful if it is not aware of itself. I've grown and killed countless millions of human cells with unique DNA in petri dishes--you will have a hard time convincing me that killing them was the equivalent of murdering a person (whether born or not).
I should also point out that once cells differentiate to become nervous system cells, they function as nervous system cells. The idea that a fetus's developing brain is inert until something switches it on like a light is a pro-abortion fiction that has no basis in reality.
Once again, my concern is with saving lives. I'm painfully aware that pro-aborts mock pro-lifers for saying things like "life begins at conception"--haha, that idiot thinks the egg is the same as a newborn baby. I would love to see pro-life advocates take on a more sophisticated message.
BTW, a person who is brain-dead is *not* coming back. Necrotic tissue simply does not suddenly start living again. There are cases where brain activity has been too low to be detected by the EEG, but other tests can show that the brain is still alive. A comatose person is not brain dead, and sometimes wakes up (and I am utterly against hastening the death of a comatose person). Terry Schindler was never brain-dead until her husband-in-name-only got the courts to agree to have the hospice murder her; she was severely brain damaged and otherwise healthy.
P.S. I am not interested in discussing philosophy. I am sure there are other people who would love to discuss that with you; I am not one of them. Also, I am not interested in emotionalism or knee-jerk responses. Please try to make your responses logical, fact-based, and objective if you want to respond.