Now that the nation's largest Planned Parenthood clinic is operating just outside Naperville's walls, a couple of Naperville City Council members plan to introduce a resolution asking the state to enforce a 1995 law that requires parents be notified before underage girls undergo abortions.
This action expected by Naperville's City Council in December comes on the heels of a similar resolution adopted by the city council this week in neighboring Aurora, where the Planned Parenthood clinic recently opened.
Local citizens have reason to be proud that Naperville and Aurora are at the forefront of this issue by becoming the first towns in the state to approve such resolutions. The parental notification law -- a common-sense piece of legislation that says parents or guardians have to be notified at least 48 hours before a minor can obtain an abortion -- has been tied up in courts for 12 years and is not being enforced. Citizens of Illinois allowed this to happen: There's no clamor for the state judiciary, legislative and executive branches to determine once and for all whether this law is constitutional.
Do you agree the local resolutions are an attempt to raise noise about getting a ruling, and do you think it'll work? Or do you think these are meaningless, symbolic gestures that won't change a thing?
I don't think kids can take medicine at school without parent approval- so they need approval for an aspirin, but not for a surgical procedure?? This is a decision that young girls need help in making- or hopefully not making this mistake. When did we stop caring about our kids or about morals?
At a time when parents are considered liable for just about everything their children do, it is preposterous to me that those very parents would NOT be told if the child for whom they carry health insurance is having an abortion! What if something goes wrong? Do you call the parents and say, "Oops, sorry, but your daughter is here and things didn't go well." To me, the question of whether a parent should be told that their child is undergoing a medical procedure when that parent holds the insurance on that child is not even a valid question. Of course they should be told! They're responsible for everything else. Why not something that is of such obvious importance, and could affect the child's mental health, etc.? Of course the parents need to know. I think the boy's parents should be told also, for some of the same reasons. After all, there would be no pregnancy without his involvement.
There is already something really wrong if the girl can not go to her parents on her own and trust they will help her through the time of need.
Legislating what to do at that point is pretty pointless, IMO. It's already too late.
Our society is so screwed up and our lawmakers are NUTS. It's our fault as voters since we elected them into office. My daughter can't get her ears piereced, take medicine at school, by SOME over-the-counter cold medicines but can get an abortion without me knowing.
Our society is so screwed up and nonexistent of morlas. It's no wonder why teens end up in that situation. Don't even get me started on the abortion issue. Because only in America do we fight harder to keep certain items off menus in our restaurants because of cruelty to animals but we don't think twice about legalizing the death of a human being. One with a functioning heart, brain, nervous system, etc.
The point of not enforcing parental notification is because of the non-trivial number of cases where there in incest/abuse in the home. How is it that you people have all kinds of compassion for embryos and fetuses and yet none for abused teenaged girls? This isn't about MaryJane and Jimmy getting busy in the back seat after choir practice - this is about girls being taken advantage of and raped by relatives or others in their homes. Babies that would never have a stable, loving home - ever. It's what's best for all.
When I was in high school (not too long ago, either!) you couldn't even leave your school campus without parental permission. I understand that some parents don't handle the news very well, and this might be the first time they are hearing their daughter is sexually active, but they need to know. Someone mentioned health insurance. Her parents are paying for hers! And what if there is a problem during the emotionally scarring procedure? What is her equally-immature BFF going to do? Maybe, if necessary, get a counselor to help the daughter tell her parents. And I agree with the fact that the "man" involved should explain this to his parents as well. They will be legally if not financially responsible for this life they have created!
It is none of their business. Our government gets too involved in personal matters already. Abortion and family planning have no place in the public arena.
I have two teen daughters, 16 months apart; both come to me (mom) with all their "personal issues". As much as they love dad, they just feel more comfortable taking to me, as the mother. They trust me and hopefully I have an impact on what I tell them, as they continue to talk to me me about everything. My hope is that this trust would continue if they were ever to be in a situation where birth control, STD's or even abortion needed to be addressed. Let's face it...it is their bodies and they are entitled to what they feel is best for their bodies. If our daughters are not comfortable talking to us (mainly moms), then WE have done something wrong in our parenting that our children don't feel comfortable talking to us. My advice...be open, non-judgemental, offer advice but don't preach...and never tell your child they are "bad". Keep open communication about drugs, sex, etc.; answer questions...Hopefully, you will be the first to know if there is a need for your child to visit planned parenthood. If not, then no, I do not feel we, as parents, need to be called for permission. Our children, even as minature adults, need privacy too...Be proud that they have gone for help, even if you are not aware...vs ending up in a bad situation that could affect their futures. Support these care givers who are their to help, educate and support out children.
Fasteddie brings up a good point, though I disagree with his logic. Most sexual abuse happens in the home and is not reported. If a father rapes his teen daughter and she goes to get an abortion, there ought to be a mandatory reporting law (if there isn't one already, I don't know) that would require the doctor to notify police if child sexual abuse is suspected. Yes, in those cases it wouldn't do any good to tell the parents. But it's not right to terminate the pregnancy without addressing the underlying problem: criminal sexual abuse of a child by a family member. The rapist needs to be brought to justice.
"Be proud that they have gone for help, even if you are not aware...vs ending up in a bad situation that could affect their futures. Support these care givers who are their to help, educate and support out children."
There is nothing to be proud of when a child goes to an abortionist to have him or her kill her unborn baby! These "care givers" are there to make money to put food on their table which is an undeniable conflict of "Be proud that they have gone for help, even if you are not aware...vs ending up in a bad situation that could affect their futures. Support these care givers who are their to help, educate and support out children."
There is nothing to be proud of when a child goes to an abortionist to have him or her kill her unborn baby! These "care givers" are there to make money to put food on their table which is an undeniable conflict of interest. This means that they do not have the best of interests of the pregnant child nor that of the unborn baby in mind when they are "counseling" her. They will "help, educate and support" our children in ways that benefit their bottom line.
Parents have the best interests of their children in mind and if they don't then they are bad parents. There are many, many more good parents than bad parents and parental notification is good, very good, for good parents. So let's get a parental notification law in force to help good parents parent their children and we'll work on turning the bad parents into good parents through other means.
Sounds like some local politicians looking for publicity. If only they spent as much time trying to solve the problems of the people as they did raising our taxes and wasting time on such nonsense.
to whom addressed, negatively...& quoted the comment on "supporting the care givers"...I feel sorry for you in two ways; First; I AM in this buisness. I have helped over a 500+ pregnant teens in my career to get their lives "back in order"...rather that meant having the baby, giving it up for adoption or in some cases, abortion. I have seen teen moms get college educations, even master's degrees and lead respectful, meaningful lives. I have also seen those that chose abortion, get on birth control, learn from their mistakes, stay in school, go on to college...even some that are now married, with children that they can now responsibly care for. It is a teen's ultimate decision; I am there to SUPPORT them and guide them along the way in whatever path they choose. Each individual case is unique. I would like to think I DO have the education and expertise that perhaps you...as the parent, don't have. I am ceraintly NOT in this field for money! And, the food I "put on my kid's table", is often left overs b/c I can't afford a meal every night. But my kid's respect that their mother helped people that day, along with those teens I did make a diffence to that day, is what makes my day...not the pay check. I am sure there are some that are in this field for their own agendas, but the majority of us, are not and I am deeply offended and saddened by your idiotic remarks. There are no "hidden agendas". We are in this field not for money but to help our teens succeed in a troubled world. You need to realize you, as a parent, are not the only person in your teen's life; they have many other role models that teach and guide them daily; teachers, coaches, and yes, us, the "care giver". Advice: You do your job and let us do ours. If you think you know everything...or should know, about your children, you DO NOT and will not, ever. Take that from someone who has worked with teens for 20 years...the good ones and the "bad". Sadly, odds prove, parents like you, are the ones who lose control of their children to early sex, drugs, bad behaviors, etc. Educate yourself, please. Last; If I have helped one "starfish" on a beach of a thousand starfish, to live and succeed...than I have made a difference in that "star fishes" life...even if it is only one.
I am sorry that “Anonymous” is saddened that others cherish God’s creation more than they do. Here is a description of the end result of the work of “Anonymous”:
Today at about 2:30PM, I [Wanda] was standing outside the Planned Parenthood [Aurora] facility, praying and trying my hand at sidewalk counseling, when a big white truck pulled into the facility and on the back of the truck was a sign that said "Medical Waste". My heart dropped as I realized what this truck was really here for and what it meant.
I walked quickly to the back of the Planned Parenthood facility and stood all the way down at the end of the sidewalk where there are no trees and you can still see. I watched as the truck backed in. A worker was standing outside holding open the door waiting for the truck. A man got out and took some folded up boxes out of the truck. He went inside. I fell to my knees and prayed for the babies that were being hauled off as nothing more than 'waste' - and for the people that can throw those babies away like they throw out their garbage.
When I opened my eyes I saw the man throwing the boxes on the back of the truck. I counted five boxes. I know that those babies are already with God but as I watched him throw them onto the truck as if they were trash my heart hurt for what our world has done. I could feel our Christ crying for the innocent blood that was shed and I was reminded of his sacrifice for us. The man at the truck threw in his last box, closed the truck and drove away.
“Anonymous”, many are praying daily that you and the other enablers in the abortion industry will make a decision to choose life. Until that occurs, we must realize that we have the nation’s largest abortion mill sitting on our western border.
As for the issue of parental notification, we need to do whatever it takes to protect our youth from profiteers like Planned Parenthood (Note: The “non-profit” PP made a tidy $54 million profit nationally last year). As a first step, Aurora and hopefully Naperville are merely adopting a resolution that asks the State of Illinois to enforce a law that was passed with overwhelming support 12 YEARS AGO.
The next step would be for these home rule cities to adopt their own parental notification ordinance. First, an ordinance would ensure that parents will be able to offer guidance to their children. As any parent of a teen knows, adolescents don't always make wise decisions. They are still learning how to assess risks, weigh consequences and keep things in the proper perspective. Teens facing such an extreme crisis as an unplanned pregnancy need parental guidance. Secondly, this ordinance would ensure that parents have the information they need to take care of their children. Teenage girls have DIED because their parents didn't know they were suffering from the physical or psychological effects of abortion.
As others have noted, this wisdom is recognized with regard to EVERY OTHER medical procedure. A girl can't get an ear pierced or take an aspirin at school without parental consent, but she can be given contraceptive steroids or get an abortion without her parents' knowledge.
Now, opponents of this measure will say that it's an attempt to "legislate family relationships." They'll tell us that an ordinance can't force parents and teens to communicate. Nonsense. Even teens who have good relationships with their parents will keep things secret at times that they shouldn't. That's to be expected from them as they negotiate their emerging independence. This ordinance would help to ensure that at least on the CRUCIAL subject of medical care, parents stay informed.
Opponents also raise the issue of abusive parents who will harm a daughter who is forced to tell them she's pregnant. But the proposed ordinance in Aurora includes a bypass provision to address that concern. If Aurora and Naperville are to be the abortion capital of the Midwest, we're going to have to take the lead on preserving the right of parents and protecting the health of our children.
With issues such as these, there will never be a consensus. Society consists of individuals with various levels of morals and various levels of religious beliefs (the two central points in this debate). However, when analyzing legislation such as this, public officials should put aside their own viewpoints and approach this as objectively as possible. Granted, this is "easier said than done," even with journalism (and Naperville Sun, I understand you cater towards a Republican community, however professional journalism requires you to be as unbiased as possible. Text such as "a common-sense piece of legislation" is not unbiased.). Personally, I feel that the government should not become involved in parental issues. If a parent has raised their child to the best of their ability and formed a strong bond, their child most likely will not be in this predicament, and if they are, they will be able to come and talk to the parent. A girl should have a right to make her own decisions; barring the rape argument, if the girl got pregnant from consensual unprotected sex, then she was mature enough to make that decision and should be mature enough to handle the possible consequences. And it is the parents responsibility to be aware of their child's behavior. If their child is suffering from depression following the abortion, a parent should be perceptive enough to realize something is wrong, and either talk to their child or provide counseling from an outside source.
On a side (but still relevant) note, I also feel the laws against piercings, taking aspirin in school, and regulating birth control prescriptions are stepping too far (perhaps I am just more liberal than the typical Naperville resident). This may help clarify the reasoning behind my position on this topic.
Parents already let the child have the opportunity and make the decision to do something that got her pregnant in the first place, presumably without their consent. Seems like the concern should have been prior and not after it happens.
Although I agree completely with Steve and his excellent post, I want to hightlight a few points.
The argument that parental notification should be prevented because of child abuse is a non-starter. The Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, already requires a means for a young woman in such a situation to bypass parental notification. The argument to keep secrets from parents fails.
Ultimately, this law is not a Pro-Life or Pro-Choice law, it is a common sense law which empowers families to work as they should and ensures that young women will have the benefit of parental wisdom, maturity, and resources if they find themselves pregnant. It also ensures that parents will know what is happening to their teenaged daughter in terms of her sexual activity. With all the STDs out there, there is a significant public health interest in parents having such information. No one here has posted a persuasive argument as to why parents should be kept in the dark on these issues. No one has put forth a solid argument that immature teenagers in crisis should be able to keep this secret, especially given the risks involved in keeping this secret, and in light of the requirement for parental notification for other medical services. Let common sense prevail!
JW,
The problem w/ this law is that the supporting reasons of prevention are all after the fact.
Closing the barn door after the horse already ran away...
A 15 year old girl who has sex and gets pregnant is NOT old enough to make the decision to have an abortion without parental consent and advice. Arguing that this is her body and she should be able to make the choice is absurd.
Anyone who thinks that it is good to help girls "get their lives "back in order"...rather [sic] that meant having the baby, giving it up for adoption or in some cases, abortion" does not understand that when it comes to abortion the ends don't justify the means. All of the anecdotal evidence about how some girls "learn from their mistakes, stay in school, go on to college...even some that are now married, with children that they can now responsibly care for" does not change the fact that other human beings were killed as the means to those ends. If one human being is killed so that someone else's life is better then that is one human being too many!
How many people on the blog with anti-abortion inclinations will also go on record and say they are anti-war as well because it involves killing and are also anti-capital punishment?
Killing a human being is murder in every case, is it not?
I zigged when I should have zagged. TJ post at 4:27PM above was from Joe, not TJ. I started typing in the wrong box. Did not mean to confuse or allude anyone. If the Mod can correct, that would be great. Otherwise, this post should clear that up. Sorry.
Killing a human being is not murder in every case. Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another human. This leaves open the possibility for lawful killing of one human by another, e.g. killing an aggressor in self defense is lawful killing.
When it comes to war some people with anti-abortion inclinations hold to the Just War Theory (some wars are ok and others are not ok) while some are against all wars.
When it comes to capital punishment some people with anti-abortion inclinations hold that the State may use it to safeguard society but not for revenge or punishment or closure, etc., while some are against capital punishment in all cases.
I am one of those with anti-abortion inclinations that hold to the Just War Theory (anti some wars/pro other wars) and feel that the State may use capital punishment to protect society (anti some uses/pro other uses of capital punishment).
More could be said...
I am anti abortion and also believe in capital punishment and support some wars. Difference is a person who enslists does so knowing that they may be called to put themselves in harms way. It is a choice they made way they enlisted and took the oathe. No one forced it upon them.
As for capital punishment again it was a choice they made to do whatever it is that put them their. It's simple, follow the law and you won't be put to death.
But unfortunately a child in it's mother's womb cannot speak for him/herself. And if they could they wouldn't ask to be killed by the hands of another human being in such a horrific way.
See the difference.
While I think this is well off the topic, I just want to point out a serious flaw in the logic of some posters here. If you are pro-abortion and anti-war and anti-capital punishment, that means you are in favor of killing the innocent, who have committed no crime save for being inconvenient, but leaving alive the Nazis and serial killers. Nice. The Pro-Life philosophical position does not lead to such upside-down logic.
Also, daughters are not horses and a true parent would never abandon a daughter who was in crisis, but would help her through the crisis. That's the logic of the "closing the barn door" postition--abandon because it's just too late. Moreover, parental guidance could help a daughter avoid a repeat of the crisis as well as cut down the possibilty of STDs in the future. The "closing the barn door" analogy is inapt, inhuman, and inane. If there are no further arguments for keeping secrets from parents and undermining the family, then let's end the reign of secrets now! Far better to expose problems to the light than to let them fester in the dark.
Parental notification will not build a parent/child bond that is already evidenced to not be there. If the girl did not want to face her parents, try looking at the root problem of that relationship: The parents. Don't pin the blame on a clinic because the girl feels like she can not face her parents because of a lack of unconditional love.
There is also a flaw in one's "pro-abortion" definition. One can be pro-choice for everyone to make their own decision yet be 'anti-abortion' as their own personal choice. Somehow, JW assumes that someone who is not an anti-abortion proponent somehow wants others to obtain an abortion. This is categorically false.
So, the anti-abortionist / Pro-Capital Punishment / Just-War person has no problem doling out retribution in the form of killing... but we'll just call it 'justified'.
The pro-choice (but not personally for me) / anti-war / anti-capital punishment person doesn't advocate killing ANY person... Yet, everyone is still free to make their own personal choice of killing and they can 'justify' it to themselves however they need to so they can sleep at night.
Enjoy your Wednesday, folks.
First, keeping secrets from parents will undermine the family. An immature young person in crisis may make many bad choices, including cutting herself off from her own support group, i.e., her parents. Joe's position endorses the right of immature young people in crisis to make dangerous decisions without parental guidance. It is the wrong position, as is evidenced by so many of our laws which do not recognize a juvenile's rights to do a great many things until they are of age. The point you attempt to make does not evidence a flaw in every family, nor does it justify your weak position. I am at least glad to see you have abandoned the lame "closing the barn door" argument.
Second, I repeat, the whole Pro-Life/Pro-choice discussion is a red herring here. However, I will state, for argument's sake, that if one thinks deeply enough through the pro-choice position, one realizes it is a pro-abortion position and the "choice" is really window dressing--much like changing War Department to Defense Department. What is this "choice" we are all talking about? It is the choice to kill the inconvenient. Is there some other choice on the table for discussion? Do you support another's choice to commit murder or rape? No. So let no one be deluded by semantics.
Moreover, if someone really takes the position that abortion is wrong, even if only for him or her personally, one should examine carefully why he or she has reached that conclusion. Is it because life is sacred? If so, should anyone be able to destroy life simply because it is inconvenient? Should one not attempt to persuade people that there are better alternatives than killing the inconvenient; maybe even work to change the law to end the killing? If you stand silently by while others kill the inconvenient, something you know to be wrong, what does that make you? Are you, in the end, tacitly supporting what you know to be wrong?
By the way is that really your position, that you find abortion morally wrong but support another's choice to kill the inconvenient? Then why did you launch an ad hominem attack on a Pro-Lifer who discussed her revulsion to abortion in the August blog about the clinic, Joe? Why? Shouldn't you sympathize with her position, at least to an extent? Shouldn't that sympathy have been reflected in your posts to her? Your posts here and elsewhere reflect confusion or some degree of self-deception. I ask you to really meditate over your positions on these vital issues and articulate your true position. Take your time. Rushing to type frivolous arguments or to respond simply for the sake of responding serves no purpose.
Finally, please don't distort my positions. I'm not sure who that serves--certainly not the Truth. I am not in favor of doling out death in retribution. My position is, in essence, no killing unless it is justified, meaning, in order to save life against one who intentionally and unjustifiably kills. No killing at all for any lesser reason. Hence, "just war." "Justified" has a fixed meaning, it is not a cover for rationalizing whatever killing I happen to support at the moment. I do respect and admire the no killing ever for any reason position(which includes no abortions), and hope that humanity adopts that position someday. Let's all work for that.
JW,
You've already stated you support a 'just war' but what is overlooked is that thousands of innocent men, women and children have been killed. Yet, you support it. So please, get off the moral ground. Any war kills the innocent, but you 'justify' it, call it acceptable, to 'get the bad guys'.
You have nothing else to stand on. As for personally, I never chose abortion, but those were MY situations. I don't presume to make that choice for another. That's between them, their doctor and whatever deity they worship (if any). I'm sorry if you can't see it as being that simple, but it is. They are the ones who have to live with the consequences of their decisions, just as those who carry out a 'just war' have to live with the consequences of their decisions to allow for the 'acceptable collateral damage' of killing innocents to achieve their 'goal'.
Sorry for being off topic...
From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Our Founding Fathers broke away from Great Britain to create a better place to live. A place where human (unalienable) rights are secured by the government. In order to perform its intended function the government at times must repel with force an aggressor attempting to take away the human rights of the governed. If the government does not do that then we do not have a situation, a place to live, that was hoped for by our Founding Fathers. We would be in a place where our human rights are not secure. Is that the kind of place one would desire to be in? Without the proper use of war and capital punishment our human rights are not totally secure. Our human rights would be always at risk of being taken away from us. War and capital punishment can be considered "just powers" of government when used to secure the human rights of the governed. If war and capital punishment cannot be considered "just powers" then the Founding Fathers would say that government should not have them but then the government would be weakened to the point that it could not secure the human rights of the governed which is not what the Founding Fathers were attempting to create in the first place. If one does not agree that war and capital punishment can be considered "just powers" of government then one does not have the same vision for this country that our Founding Fathers had for it with regards to the notion of human rights and government's duty to secure those rights.
Also, it would be good if war could be conducted with no collateral damage but government cannot wait until war can be waged in that manner because again, as "instituted", government would not be performing its intended function of securing the human rights of the governed.
Also, with our prison system it is practically not necessary for our government to use capital punishment to secure our human rights. But if the only viable alternative was capital punishment in a situation then its use would be the proper action by the government.
TJ,
(I'm going to go off tangent again too, but loop in what you said)
Very good points of view w/ the founding document.
It does beg the question though: What 'rights' are our govt securing when we bomb a country back into the stone age and kill thousands of innocent men women and children in the process, namely Iraq?
Is this for out 'pursuit of happiness'?
They were not a threat to our 'life' or our 'liberty' but possibly the black gold under their sand was a threat to our 'pursuit of happiness'.
Perhaps a woman getting pregnant (and her doctor) might find that a threat to her 'life' or even simply a threat to her 'pursuit of happiness'.
Why the double standard? Further, what business is it of mine or yours if someone's dysfunctional family next door has a daughter who winds up pregnant (due to too many reasons to list here, not that any of them matter to you or me or anyone else outside of the situation) and wishes to seek a termination of that pregnancy as early as possible with or without her parents being notified? It's not my problem, it's not your problem. Why do people care about their situation when they'll stick a flag on their vehicle, cry to a country song and pat themselves on the back and convince themselves that thousands had to die on the other side of the world so they can feel some sort of misplaced retribution upon a people who did nothing to deserve it but chalk it up to it being "for our freedom" or "for their freedom" or whatever the convenient excuse becomes the next time the last excuse is proven to be false?
I obviously don't share that point of view and I really don't care what happens within someone else's family. That's their situation to deal or not deal with. My opinion about what they should do matters not one bit, and neither does yours. If it ever happens in your family, that's your situation to deal with. Not mine, not the Govts, and not the people of Iraq's, no one else's... Yours.
If you're worried about you yourself being notified then fix whatever rift exists that might lead to someone thinking they have to hide it from you.
If Bob and Marge next door think their daughter would go seek an abortion and not tell them, that's their problem. That's not yours, not mine and not the Govt's problem.
Joe,
You said:
"It does beg the question though: What 'rights' are our govt securing when we bomb a country back into the stone age and kill thousands of innocent men women and children in the process, namely Iraq?"
The war in Iraq may be an unjust war; government overstepping its bounds. This is a topic for another time. But after what has been said about the legitimate use of war do you still hold the view that all war is wrong?
You said:
"Perhaps a woman getting pregnant (and her doctor) might find that a threat to her 'life' or even simply a threat to her 'pursuit of happiness'."
Our human rights are not absolute, not unconstrained. One person's right to the pursuit of happiness ends when it infringes on another person's right to the pursuit of happiness. For example, happiness to one might be to not get a bloody nose while another's happiness might be to punch someone in the nose so that he can see blood come out of that nose. Do you think that government can legitimately step in to constrain the puncher's right to the pursuit of happiness in this case?
You said:
"If Bob and Marge next door think their daughter would go seek an abortion and not tell them, that's their problem. That's not yours, not mine and not the Govt's problem."
I agree that it's not our problem if a girl does not want to tell her parents about an abortion. But it is our problem and the government's to protect the rights of the unborn.
In Roe v. Wade (1973) the Supreme Court recognized the State's legitimate interest in protecting the rights of the unborn. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) the Supreme Court recognized that Parental Consent and Parental Notification were legitimate means for the State to express its interest in the rights of the unborn by doing what it can to reduce the number of abortions thereby ensuring that more babies are born with all of their rights preserved. I don't think that the Supreme Court ruled that Parental Consent and Parental Notification were constitutional for the purpose of improving family communication. The Founding Fathers did not create the Judicial branch of the government to find ways to help parents and their children have better relationships.
Parental Consent and Parental Notification reduce the number of abortions which is in the State's recognized interest (Casey, 1992), is of great interest to all prolife minded people, is in the best interest of all parents with pregnant girls and is claimed to be of great interest to abortion providers (although their sincerity is dubious in many cases).
So again, parental involvement laws are not meant to force or improve communication between girls and their parents but are meant to reduce the number of abortions committed. A good goal that we all should have and work towards. If one is not for reducing the number of abortions then one probably does not think that abortion is a bad thing.
TJ
TJ,
To paraphrase an old saying:
We've already both established that killing of the innocent is, at times, 'ok'. Now we're just haggling over the 'circumstances'.
"If one is not for reducing the number of abortions then one probably does not think that abortion is a bad thing."
Likewise, if you are not trying to stop the current unjust war that has killed tens of thousands of innocent people and will continue to kill many more innocent people, then you must not think killing tens of thousands of innocent people who have been alive for years is a bad thing.
That makes the same little conclusive sense that your logic does.
Someone can think it's a bad thing and never choose it for themselves. I understand that may be a very hard concept to grasp, but people often do not choose that which they do not want or believe in.
Whether or not someone gets an abortion or carries their pregnancy to term is not my problem and it's not my decision because it's not my responsibility. It's theirs. Reducing the number of abortions may be your ongoing goal, but it's not mine because I'm not a part of the 'problem' to begin with. I have my kids and never chose abortion. So, I did my part, thank you very much missing that fact. Perhaps the attempted jab with your inaccurate IF/THEN statement above caused you to overlook that fact.
I support freedom of choice and I exercise my choice to not actively try to put my nose into someone else's personal business or limit their right to privacy when it comes to a medical procedure as upheld by the 1973 decision that you referenced.
Also remember that it wasn't very long ago that when a teenage girl became pregnant, her parents were likely to either beat her or throw her out of the house. My parents took in one such girl in 1972. Otherwise, she would have been on the street. That warped parental attitude stems from the same ethic of non-involvement in a child's growth and development that we see in the cases of teens who rule the roost and do what they please. Parental notification (I prefer "consultation")seems like the common sense approach to family planning, but if we have to legislate it, our society is in big trouble.
Joe:
I was not attempting to jab you or anyone when I said "If one is not for reducing the number of abortions then one probably does not think that abortion is a bad thing." I understand that you think abortion is bad and that you did not and would not choose it in your own circumstances. I apologize for implying otherwise. The point that I was trying to make is that a person who is not for reducing abortions or who is not against abortion altogether probably does not think that abortion is a bad enough thing. In other words if someone thinks something is bad enough they will work to stop it. For example, if a woman is being raped and one thinks that rape is a bad enough thing then they will do their best to stop the rape and support the government's involvement in stopping the rape.
You said:
"I support freedom of choice and I exercise my choice to not actively try to put my nose into someone else's personal business or limit their right to privacy when it comes to a medical procedure as upheld by the 1973 decision..."
I am not jabbing you when I say that my contention is that you do not think the "medical procedure" of abortion is a bad enough thing to prevent or outlaw. Is my contention correct? If so then all we would have to do then is to change your perspective with respect to just how bad the killing of a human being in the womb of its mother really is and then you'll have to switch camps and begin to work to stop abortion rather than allow for it. I say that that is all that is left to do because I'm sure there are some (many?) things that you think are horrendous, abominable, completely unacceptable, bad enough, etc. for which personal choice and privacy do not allow for and for which you do not support choice. So abortion would just be added to that list if you came to the conclusion that I and many others have that abortion is absolutely unacceptable because it is such a bad thing.
TJ
TJ,
I think mass killings in Africa are a bad horrible thing too, but I'm not putting myself on a plane to go tell them to stop.
If you're here posting and not over in Africa personally putting an end to the millions of deaths over there that have plagued the region over the years and continue to happen then I really don't see how you've made any point.
Perhaps those killings are just not "bad enough" for you to care about.
I know where my line of personal responsibility starts and stops, and it ends before it gets inside someone else's house to tell them what choices they have to make in their life so that I can sleep better at night. Now, if there's a law being broken or a disturbance being made, then I'll call the police to investigate and see if they need to do something. But, being that a woman considering an abortion is not a reason to call the cops, there's really nothing for me to do about the situation. She knows far better than I do if she's up for the responsibility of being a mother and her doctor certainly knows far better than I do what her health risks may be. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.
Joe,
You said:
"I think mass killings in Africa are a bad horrible thing too, but I'm not putting myself on a plane to go tell them to stop."
Even though you are not going on a plane to Africa do you still hold that the killings being bad and horrible are also illegal and that the perpetrators do not have the legal choice to commit the killings? Your comments make me think that to be true for you. Correct me if I am wrong. My point is that you can hold to a position whether you act or not.
I guess that in my previous posts I equated holding a certain position on an issue with taking action based on one's position. From that you seemed to imply that one's involvement or non-involvement was an indication of one's position. One cannot know someone's position based on their involvement simply because of the large number of issues that are out there. We cannot be actively and effectively involved in all matters but we can hold positions on all matters. So just because I am not in Africa "putting an end to the millions of deaths over there" doesn't give you a clue as to what my position is on the situation there.
More to come...
TJ,
You said: "In other words if someone thinks something is bad enough they will work to stop it. "
Now you're saying: "One cannot know someone's position based on their involvement simply because of the large number of issues that are out there. We cannot be actively and effectively involved in all matters but we can hold positions on all matters."
You now contradict yourself. That's good, because you're now starting to see my point of view.
For this matter, I really don't care what someone else chooses. That's their problem, not mine. So, I do not work to stop it.
Joe,
You are right. I did contradict myself.
I erred when I said "...if someone thinks something is bad enough they will work to stop it" in the sense that I implied that that applied to all people in all cases.
It is true that some can and will work to stop something if they think it is bad enough while there are others that cannot or will not work to stop something (e.g. not physically able, not financially able, chose some other issue deemed by them to be higher in priority, etc.) even though they think it is bad enough to work to stop and given other circumstances would do otherwise. So given that accurate observation then it's safe to say that "you can't tell a book by its cover". Whether someone works or does not work at stopping something by itself is no indication of whether they think something is bad enough to work to stop or not.
Now I've "uncontradicted" myself. :)
Joe,
Here are just some of the reasons you have given for your support of legalized abortion on demand:
"She knows far better than I do if she's up for the responsibility of being a mother..."
"...right to privacy when it comes to a medical procedure as upheld by the 1973 decision."
"...a threat to her 'pursuit of happiness'."
Here's a snippet of an article at Stand to Reason Blog that sums up why all of your reasons for legalized abortion on demand are inadequate.
"Regarding abortion, there is no proportionality between a mother’s claim to her own privacy/choice/freedom from responsibility or duress (or medical procedure)/etc. and the value of her child’s life that can even begin to justify the mother killing her child to gain any of those personal benefits."
TJ, The three cherry-picked reasons you cite are not my real reason (which you either did not see repeated many times in my posts or purposely left out).
That reason is: It is not my job or place to choose for someone else who is not related to me or legally bound in any capacity to my responsibility what they should or should not do with their own situation. For that reason, I will not stop them from doing what they are legally allowed to do.
I would like to see more people against it step up to the plate and bring down the 6 figure number of children in this country who are actually awaiting adoption by actually going out and adopting a child or two themselves. If support for outlawing abortion is supposedly so huge, there should be NO child awaiting adoption. Unfortunately, that is not the case either and it's easy to keep people apathetic about the whole situation while that statistic is so dreadedly lopsided.
Joe,
I understand why you would not stop anyone from having a legal abortion. Thanks for clarifying that.
Now let's say you were on the Supreme Court of the U.S. and had to decide if abortion on demand should be legal or not. How would you vote and why?
TJ
TJ,
Good question but you might not like my answer, but it's the truth.
I would not put myself into a position of power where I had to make that call for another. It's not a responsibility I want nor is it one that I seek.
If you insist that I make the leap of faith that I've done such an endeavor and am on the court, then it would depend on the exact case and law being presented for constitutional challenge at the time. Being on that court means one *SHOULD* approach things with the blind eyes of justice and not bring into it preconceived 'opinions' about cases. Unfortunately, that's not how most Justices operate.
Joe,
The only reason I don't like your answer is that you didn't answer the question. Do you think abortion on demand should be legal or not and why?
TJ
TJ, That's a better direct question, and here is your answer:
I believe the 'on demand' portion should be in the event of a medical emergency or within the time period that a 'pill' aka non surgical procedure can be performed. This gives latitude to the quick 'Oh crap' incidents before things go too far along but also reigns in the ones done past becoming viable.
The rape/incest arguments are covered by the pill form above providing they are reported and wished to be acted upon ASAP. I think that balance best allows both sides to declare a 'victory' of some sort. That happens to be my opinion, but I seriously doubt the vehement supporters on either side of the issue would support anything that looks like a 'compromise' because they seem to be more wrapped up in 'winning' with an all or nothing approach. (Pretty much like the Pro/Anti gun fanatics).
Hi Joe,
Sorry for not responding for so long. I have been otherwise occupied during the Christmas and New Year holiday season.
Are you interested in continuing this discussion? I am eager to delve into the topic further with you here.
Let me know.
Happy New Year,
TJ
I'm still here and always interested in spinning the noodle :)
Hi Joe,
From your last post it seems that you think that some abortions should be illegal. Why should some abortions be illegal?
TJ
TJ,
It's called compromise. One side still has an 'out' and the other side still has a reduction in the pure numbers due to the tighter time frame.
Otherwise, without compromise, nothing significant ever gets accomplished.
Joe,
I'm interested in your position regarding abortion on demand. The compromise you speak of is a way to appease everyone but it's not the answer I was looking for. But I'll work with it.
For those cases in the compromise that would allow for an abortion to be performed do you feel abortion is ok or not ok for some reason or principle or conviction? And from earlier posts of yours I know that it is not ok for you or anyone you might be involved with. Please frame your answer in terms of human rights or morality or something along the lines of what's best for the common good.
And likewise for those cases in the compromise that would not allow for an abortion to be performed do you feel abortion is ok or not ok for some reason or principle or conviction?
For example, you might say that pre-viable humans have no right to life so abortion is ok in those cases. Or you might say first trimester fetuses are not human so abortion is ok in those cases. Or you might say that third trimester humans are pretty much fully developed and are much like new born infants so abortion is not ok in those cases. I'm looking for your reasoning behind your position on abortion not what should be done to assuage the intense abortion debate.
TJ
TJ,
I don't really believe too much or base my stance on any morality or right to life. Its more of a jello salad mix of lots of things, all of which make up the stance and none of which encompass it on their own.
I understand the biological and medical side of the combining of 2 genetic encoded cells and the 'magic' that happens from that point forward.
My own conscious says never have any part of an abortion, but that's a personal reason of knowing I would forever regret that decision. Not everyone has regrets and not everyone actually wants to be a parent. I can certainly understand that. It's not easy and many times people really are not in the position to actually do it. Yes, they can physically give birth but they really can't "parent". There are unfortunately way too many kids awaiting adoption and also many who go through life in the most hellacious conditions you can imagine both physically and emotionally all because of parents who 'have' them but really do not 'want' them. Once a child is here, they're here; we need to do what we have to for them... But if someone wants to stop that train right after it started to budge down the track just a touch and pull it back into the station, I don't really have a problem with that because they know better than I do if they are ready for the road ahead or not.
Joe,
You have a deep awareness of the suffering of children coupled with the wish to relieve it. This is very evident from many of your previous comments. Having compassion for another is very honorable. Were it that everyone shared your compassion.
Child abuse is absolutely unacceptable. It is "hellacious". And the most horrendous child abuse ends in the death of a child. A fitting definition for the abortions that you do not think are ok, those that occur when the train is too far down the tracks. I applaud you for opposing most abortions.
But you feel that if the train is not too far down the tracks then abortion is ok. You feel that one minute the child is killable (to prevent possible future abuse of the child) and the next minute they are not killable (because that would be the most horrendous form of child abuse). What is the qualitative difference in the child? I say there is none. What do you say?
You said "Once a child is here, they're here; we need to do what we have to for them". Well if, as you say, you "understand the biological and medical side" of human reproduction then you know that they are here at conception. At conception they exist, they are distinct from any other human being and they are alive. They are definitely "here". To borrow your phrase then "we need to do what we have to for them" from conception on. Where does your beautiful compassion go between conception and some point "down the tracks"?
TJ
TJ,
Fair question. If I had to attach a time frame based on embryonic development I would put it somewhere in the ballpark of 21 days with a slight wiggle room of +- 3 days.
After that point, I feel development is too far along in the nervous system and consciousness.
That's where my personal 'comfort zone' rests. I also understand that while that may be my own zone, that does not necessarily mean it's the right one for anyone else.
Joe,
If it could be shown that abortion does nothing to reduce child abuse or lower the number of children in foster care waiting to be adopted would you abandon your support for abortion?
TJ
It's not just about abuse or foster care. Those contexts are for the kids ALREADY BORN. Having children not born (via abortion or even not fornicating in the first place) will not reduce the number because most of those kids are STUCK there in the system with no one who is a proponent for adoption coming to adopt them.
I'm nor pro-any side as 'right' and the other 'wrong'.
I believe some should not have to be parents if they decide VERY EARLY ON that they do not want to be (abortion within a tight time frame) and I believe some should not have to be parents if they decide they do not want to be after that (adoption).
Joe,
I thought that because you brought up child abuse and children stuck in foster care that you thought that aborting children of parents not ready or able to be good parents would result in fewer cases of child abuse and fewer foster care children in the future. Obviously I know that aborting unborn children does nothing for children being abused as we speak and will not help children already stuck in foster care.
And I am sorry to disagree with you but you are "pro" something in this regard. You are pro-abortion because you are for legal abortion under some circumstances.
How can you not be a parent once you already are a parent? As soon as fertilization occurs the donors of the egg and the sperm are by definition the parents of the new human being. At that point one can only be a good parent or a bad parent but one can't not be a parent. The parents who abort their child are at best misguided and at worst bad parents because as has been previously pointed out killing a child is the worst form of child abuse.
TJ
TB,
I have no trouble if you want to call 'parents' who abort 'bad parents'. They probably already knew they would be before you attached the label. I'm not sure where that gets us.
I am pro-choice. I advocate someone being allowed to make the choice. I do not say they must have an abortion, I do not say they must go for adoption. I do say that they must have the choice.
I've had my choices in my life and we chose to raise each conception into 4 wonderful healthy kids in a very loving home. That was our choice not yours and not my parents and not her parents and not the state's.
Joe,
You may have conveyed this to me already but do you "advocate someone being allowed to make the choice" for everyone?
TJ
TJ:
Yes.
Your next question might be then who decides for the 'child'.
My answer is two fold: 1) The time frame I have set forth is before a brain or any semblance of 'thought' happens. So, there is no capability of choice or knowledge of one's condition. 2) By default that choice falls to the parent since they are responsible for their care and can make the choice to care for them or not to care for them.
Joe,
Where does the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion that you speak of come from? How did she get that right? Did she earn it somehow? Did she always have it? Did she grow bigger and then get it? Did you or the government create it and give it to her?
TJ
TJ,
It comes from biology, human choice and various laws.
Biology and choice: Every species can choose what to do with their offspring. Raise them, not raise them, abuse them, offload them, kill them, abandon them, nurture them, enslave them, etc.
Society then goes on to put a frame of reference around what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' through religion and law for the purposes of 'inclusion' of that society.
Currently, she is legally responsible for that offspring. If you are going to tell her she can or can not do something with it by law then you have to be ready to pony up to the plate and catch it when she lets it fall.
Like it or not, the world does not view all life as 'precious'. Warfare throughout recorded history is testament to that. She's really the only one with the moral authority to make that choice within the scope of the society in which she resides. It's not your choice and it's not mine. She has to take whatever consequences and the responsibility of those consequences come from it.
Now, if you and some lady who wants an abortion can broker some sort of agreement to have her carry her conception to term and you pay for it and raise the child, great. That currently happens today for some lucky ones. There's not always a buyer/seller match up and quite frankly the whole notion of kid-trafficking like they are a commodity is an area I would rather not go down because then we will open up the can of worms where the 'buyers' start getting very 'selective' in the 'child' they want to 'adopt' and 'save' and easily brush aside many as being 'unworthy' of their time, money and resources.
If you want to segway into that, I'm game.
Joe,
You said: Like it or not, the world does not view all life as 'precious'.
You are correct and I say the world is wrong.
From a moral perspective all life is precious. One does not become more morally precious over time. Nor does one become less morally precious over time. Also, one does not have a right to live just because one is alive longer than 21 days plus or minus 3 days. One has a right to live if one is alive.
Abortion does not promote the common good. It is selfish and self serving. It being legal shows that we care nothing about the unborn child.
TJ
TJ,
We do have some common ground. The world sucks. From a moral perspective, I have to agree with you and I do wish that from a moral perspective everyone in the world felt the same way. They don't and realistically, I can not care for and provide for everyone in the world, and neither can any one else.
Nature can seem cruel at times and elsewhere in the animal kingdom parents have to make choices sometimes about which offspring dies so another can live. Cruel, yes. Moral? It's survival. Selfish? Maybe for the one who is picked to survive and the one who had to do the choosing. My problem? Nope. Does it happen all the time? Certainly not.
Joe,
What are you trying to say when you say "...realistically, I can not care for and provide for everyone in the world, and neither can any one else"?
I hope you are not saying that if we either individually or as a society cannot care for and provide for someone then we kill them or allow them to be killed.
TJ