NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading the whole "Should men have a say..." I thought... should parents have a say about a minor who is pregnant? If a child gets pregnant and she wants to have an abortion, yet her parents are, let's say, extremely pro-life, should they be able to not have their daughter have that abortion? Or if the girl wants the baby, yet her parents don't want her to have it, should they say "No, abortion time!"

Parents should not (and should not be able to) force pregnancy or abortion on a minor. The young girl who is pregnant may not be legally an adult, but this is one decision she will have to make for herself. She is, after all, the person who will have to live with the consequences of that decision for the rest of her life. A parent who forces their own viewpoints on her at this point is doing nothing but causing harm.

Parents should definitely be informed if their child is in a position where abortion is an option. I think in most cases they should also have something of a say - they are going to be the people who have to deal with the consequences, after all.

Whether that say should extend to a complete veto though, I don't know.

No, no and no. No.

Parents should definitely be informed if their child is in a position where abortion is an option. I think in most cases they should also have something of a say - they are going to be the people who have to deal with the consequences, after all.

Whether that say should extend to a complete veto though, I don't know.

I disagree. Chances are, if an underage girl is trying to get an abortion and hasn't told her parents, there's a good reason. She fears the consequences of telling them. Those consequences might include fear of being tossed out of her home or physical beating. And there could be an additional complication--the father of the fetus could be the girl's father or sibling or other close relative. There are plenty of sick bastards out there, remember. So if an underage girl is willing to go through the harshness of an abortion, then there shouldn't be anyone to stand in her way.

After reading the whole "Should men have a say..." I thought... should parents have a say about a minor who is pregnant? If a child gets pregnant and she wants to have an abortion, yet her parents are, let's say, extremely pro-life, should they be able to not have their daughter have that abortion? Or if the girl wants the baby, yet her parents don't want her to have it, should they say "No, abortion time!"

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of parents not having an opportunity to discuss this with their children, But then again, not all parents are created equal.

As for a 'say', no. The only one that makes the decision is the pregnant woman. But she should be encouraged, certainly, to seek advice from parents etc. if she's a minor. *nod*

No no no no no no no no no!!!!

What actual good can come from it? At best there's tacit concent. At worst there's disowning. But, in nearly every case there's something for the parents to hold over their child for the rest of their life.

Parents should have no right to choose what their daughter has done to them. It's up to her.

I disagree. Chances are, if an underage girl is trying to get an abortion and hasn't told her parents, there's a good reason. She fears the consequences of telling them. Those consequences might include fear of being tossed out of her home or physical beating. And there could be an additional complication--the father of the fetus could be the girl's father or sibling or other close relative. There are plenty of sick bastards out there, remember. So if an underage girl is willing to go through the harshness of an abortion, then there shouldn't be anyone to stand in her way.

Yes, but I was thinking about it the other way round - what if the girl wants to keep the baby? Then it's the parents who are going to end up having to care for it.

In all honesty, the OP is quite an interesting question, and one that I've never thought of in that way before. I'm not entirely sure of my answer to it, and will read the views of others with some interest.

I disagree. Chances are, if an underage girl is trying to get an abortion and hasn't told her parents, there's a good reason. She fears the consequences of telling them. Those consequences might include fear of being tossed out of her home or physical beating. And there could be an additional complication--the father of the fetus could be the girl's father or sibling or other close relative. There are plenty of sick bastards out there, remember. So if an underage girl is willing to go through the harshness of an abortion, then there shouldn't be anyone to stand in her way.

Indeed. While teenagers certainly don't tell their parents everything, this is a huge decision and a horrible thing to have to go through. If a teen who is going through this won't take it to her parents to discuss it, they don't have a proper relationship in the first place.

I am so sick of these topics. No, no one has the right to force an abortion on a woman. However, I as a citizen do have the right to vote on abortion laws.

Right to vote > gender.

And don't tell me that these things DONT lead to "Shut up! You're a man, therefore you can't have an opinion on abortion!" They do.

It's the new sexism. Subtle, but there, and accepted for much the same reasons any kind of sexism is accepted.

People don't question it. It's PC to say that women are more creative, more intelligent, more emotionally sensitive, more diplomatic than men. It's not PC to say that men are anything "more" than women, other than big, dumb, hairy. Most men will agree, not because it's what they think, but because they think that fattening up women with flattery will get them pussy. Same reason they buy flowers for a girlfriend after they fuck up.

I am so sick of these topics. No, no one has the right to force an abortion on a woman. However, I as a citizen do have the right to vote on abortion laws.

Right to vote > gender.

And don't tell me that these things DONT lead to "Shut up! You're a man, therefore you can't have an opinion on abortion!" They do.

It's the new sexism. Subtle, but there, and accepted for much the same reasons any kind of sexism is accepted.

People don't question it. It's PC to say that women are more creative, more intelligent, more emotionally sensitive, more diplomatic than men. It's not PC to say that men are anything "more" than women, other than big, dumb, hairy. Most men will agree, not because it's what they think, but because they think that fattening up women with flattery will get them pussy. Same reason they buy flowers for a girlfriend after they fuck up.

Quoted For Might Truth. The Equality Scales(TM) have tilted onto the female side.

I am so sick of these topics. No, no one has the right to force an abortion on a woman. However, I as a citizen do have the right to vote on abortion laws.

Thank-you, voice of reason.

I am so sick of these topics. No, no one has the right to force an abortion on a woman. However, I as a citizen do have the right to vote on abortion laws.

Right to vote > gender.

And don't tell me that these things DONT lead to "Shut up! You're a man, therefore you can't have an opinion on abortion!" They do.

It's the new sexism. Subtle, but there, and accepted for much the same reasons any kind of sexism is accepted.

People don't question it. It's PC to say that women are more creative, more intelligent, more emotionally sensitive, more diplomatic than men. It's not PC to say that men are anything "more" than women, other than big, dumb, hairy. Most men will agree, not because it's what they think, but because they think that fattening up women with flattery will get them pussy. Same reason they buy flowers for a girlfriend after they fuck up.

Well said. I couldnt've put it better, even if you offered me a free beer.

After reading the whole "Should men have a say..." I thought... should parents have a say about a minor who is pregnant? If a child gets pregnant and she wants to have an abortion, yet her parents are, let's say, extremely pro-life, should they be able to not have their daughter have that abortion? Or if the girl wants the baby, yet her parents don't want her to have it, should they say "No, abortion time!"

Nope. It's the girl's problem. Her parents didn't help create, so they have no part in it.

I am so sick of these topics. No, no one has the right to force an abortion on a woman. However, I as a citizen do have the right to vote on abortion laws.

Right to vote > gender.

And don't tell me that these things DONT lead to "Shut up! You're a man, therefore you can't have an opinion on abortion!" They do.

It's the new sexism. Subtle, but there, and accepted for much the same reasons any kind of sexism is accepted.

People don't question it. It's PC to say that women are more creative, more intelligent, more emotionally sensitive, more diplomatic than men. It's not PC to say that men are anything "more" than women, other than big, dumb, hairy. Most men will agree, not because it's what they think, but because they think that fattening up women with flattery will get them pussy. Same reason they buy flowers for a girlfriend after they fuck up.
The way I see it, the right to get an abortion shouldn't be up for a vote--it's a direct offshoot of the right to privacy. We don't vote on other human rights--we don't vote as to whether racial discrimination is allowed or not, for example--and this should be no different.

The way I see it, the right to get an abortion shouldn't be up for a vote--it's a direct offshoot of the right to privacy. We don't vote on other human rights--we don't vote as to whether racial discrimination is allowed or not, for example--and this should be no different.

But we do vote on them. And many others, including the right to privacy. Or the right to "unreasonable" search and seizure. They come up in legislature and I have a right to vote on them. Sure, you can argue that they shouldn't come up in legislature to begin with, but that's not the issue. There are lots of things you and I can agree "should" not happen, but do, and the only thing to do is to continue to argue, vociferously, on one's political views. Not attempted silencing on the basis of gender discrimination.

But we do vote on them. And many others, including the right to privacy. Or the right to "unreasonable" search and seizure. They come up in legislature and I have a right to vote on them. Sure, you can argue that they shouldn't come up in legislature to begin with, but that's not the issue. There are lots of things you and I can agree "should" not happen, but do, and the only thing to do is to continue to argue, vociferously, on one's political views. Not attempted silencing on the basis of gender discrimination.

I happen to agree that the silencing on the basis of gender is a bogus issue, but I'm also an absolutist in that I think the only one who should be involved in the decision making over an abortion is the woman having it. Were I a legislator, my argument would be exactly what I said--this is not an issue we should be holding a vote on, and I would do everything in my power to stop said vote from occurring.

The way I see it, the right to get an abortion shouldn't be up for a vote--it's a direct offshoot of the right to privacy. We don't vote on other human rights--we don't vote as to whether racial discrimination is allowed or not, for example--and this should be no different.

The fact that there is a large number of people who classify abortion as murder means that the 'right to abortion' is debatable, and thus subject to voting. You have to classify it as a right first and foremost. Not everyone agrees that abortion is a 'right'. Many think of it as murder.

And other human rights do get voted on. You have to ratify a constitution or bill of rights or charter of freedoms politically. You can also amend them politically.

I happen to agree that the silencing on the basis of gender is a bogus issue, but I'm also an absolutist in that I think the only one who should be involved in the decision making over an abortion is the woman having it. Were I a legislator, my argument would be exactly what I said--this is not an issue we should be holding a vote on, and I would do everything in my power to stop said vote from occurring.

Even if the legislation in question was to protect the right of the woman to choose?

You see where this is getting sticky. There are things you don't want a vote on, seemingly because the vote could go against the way you strongly believe. But that's just a common risk we all, unfortunately, take. Personally I'm pro-choice, but I would hate if I couldn't even vote that way.

The fact that there is a large number of people who classify abortion as murder means that the 'right to abortion' is debatable, and thus subject to voting. You have to classify it as a right first and foremost. Not everyone agrees that abortion is a 'right'. Many think of it as murder.

And other human rights do get voted on. You have to ratify a constitution or bill of rights or charter of freedoms politically. You can also amend them politically.
Those people are idiots--and yes, I am impolite about it. It was classified as a right in the US after Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court, which is where issues involving rights should be dealt with, not with voting. Tyranny of the majority and all that.

By the way, I never said that human rights don't get voted on--I said they shouldn't be. There's a big difference.

Even if the legislation in question was to protect the right of the woman to choose?

You see where this is getting sticky. There are things you don't want a vote on, seemingly because the vote could go against the way you strongly believe. But that's just a common risk we all, unfortunately, take. Personally I'm pro-choice, but I would hate if I couldn't even vote that way.

Even if--because that opens up the argument that it ought to be up for a vote. I'm serious on this--just because a vote might go my way doesn't mean that I support voting on it.

Those people are idiots--and yes, I am impolite about it. It was classified as a right in the US after Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court, which is where issues involving rights should be dealt with, not with voting. Tyranny of the majority and all that.

By the way, I never said that human rights don't get voted on--I said they shouldn't be. There's a big difference.

All right, let's put it this way; Let's say that Roe v Wade went the other way, and abortion was classified as murder. And everyone said 'you can't vote on murder!'. Would you say that it shouldn't be subject to voting?

I'm all for parental notification with the possibility of judicial bypass.

I'm against parental consent though. In principle.

F.ck No!

Should the parents be informed? Ideally, yes, but reality says no.

The option should be there, but it shouldn't be forced.

Yes, the girl is a minor, and unable legally sign documents in the eyes of the law. However, being a young woman, she still has the same rights as a age of majority woman when it comes to her body.

Should the boy have a say? Most people would say no, and they would also say that the boy should be able have an opinion because it is his child too...

But then should the boy's parents know?

Or should we treat the girl like a woman and let her make the choice? After all, it becomes very bureaucratic in the process.

I say really, no one should have to know. They girl realises she makes a mistake and an abortion at a young age is better than a child at the same age. The girl isn't forced to go through a pregnancy that may be worse for her in the end than the abortion.

For the same reason, the girl should have access to Plan B.

The girl is a human and has the right to make her own choices.

I am so sick of these topics. No, no one has the right to force an abortion on a woman. However, I as a citizen do have the right to vote on abortion laws.
The way I see it, abortion shouldn't be up for vote. The right to life of the unborn is equal to that of all other humans. We don't vote on other humans rights; abortion should be no exception.

The way I see it, abortion shouldn't be up for vote. The right to life of the unborn is equal to that of all other humans. We don't vote on other humans rights; abortion should be no exception.

The Nazz: Read this post and you'll see where I'm coming from with your whole "this shouldn't be up for a vote" position.

Nothing should be unavailable for the public to vote on. Nothing. Because silencing the vote means all you have left is not what people individually choose, but the utter mercy of the ones in power.

All right, let's put it this way; Let's say that Roe v Wade went the other way, and abortion was classified as murder. And everyone said 'you can't vote on murder!'. Would you say that it shouldn't be subject to voting?

Yes. Here's the problem with your construction, though--Roe was never about murder. It was always about privacy, specifically, a woman's right to make private medical decisions without the interference of the government or other people. The argument over whether or not it's murder is irrelevant--or should be, anyway. The greatest victory anti-choice people have achieved is making this a debate over whether or not the fetus is alive. That's a bogus argument, as far as I'm concerned. Even if there were some way to conclusively define when life begins, I'd still argue for choice, because that's the important issue. And I'd still say that personal choice is too important and personal an issue to be put up to a vote. The closest I'd allow voting to come into it would be to vote for people who would support judges who would uphold that choice.

No. If a parent ever forces a child to be pregnant or have an abortion (Kicking them out of the house if they don't do one or the other, for example.) should probably be charged with something.

Yes. Here's the problem with your construction, though--Roe was never about murder. It was always about privacy, specifically, a woman's right to make private medical decisions without the interference of the government or other people. The argument over whether or not it's murder is irrelevant--or should be, anyway. The greatest victory anti-choice people have achieved is making this a debate over whether or not the fetus is alive. That's a bogus argument, as far as I'm concerned. Even if there were some way to conclusively define when life begins, I'd still argue for choice, because that's the important issue. And I'd still say that personal choice is too important and personal an issue to be put up to a vote. The closest I'd allow voting to come into it would be to vote for people who would support judges who would uphold that choice.

Well, looking under wiki's description of Roe vs Wade, this paragraph pops out.

When weighing the competing interests that the Court had identified, Justice Blackmun also noted that if the fetus was defined as a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment then the fetus would have a specific right to life under that Amendment. However, the Court determined that the original intent of the Constitution (up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868) did not include the unborn. The Court's determination of whether a fetus can enjoy constitutional protection was separate from the notion of when life begins: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.

Amendments are part of a voting process. Hell, the ratification of the fourteenth amendment in the first place was part of a voting process. The nine members of the supreme court judiciary voted 7 to 2. Of course rights are up to vote, because we don't all agree on what constitutes a right.

You're correct; the decision wasn't specifically about murder. But society could most definitely vote on deciding that a fetus is life, and have constitutional protection. Now, that being said, I think the Supreme Court made the right decision in all of this. However, it's kind of rediculous to think that rights are never voted on. The Supreme Court has to evaluate the legality of any decision of course, but the mechanism for determining the supreme law of the land has always been a democratic one.

Her parents didn't help create,

We hope.

parents have nothing to do with it.

Parents should not be able to force abortion or prevent abortion on any of their children.

However, seeing that the kid is mature enough to have a child of their own, the parents should be allowed to kick them out of the house if they decide to, and not have to pay anything for them ever again.

Just because the kids have a right to decide on a abortion, doesn't mean the parents are required to support them.

I am disappointed. I was expecting a thread in which it was argued that parents should not have any say in whether a fetus is aborted, only the fetus should be allowed to make that choice. That could have had amusing results.

No.

Hell no.

The fact that there is a large number of people who classify abortion as murder means that the 'right to abortion' is debatable, and thus subject to voting. You have to classify it as a right first and foremost. Not everyone agrees that abortion is a 'right'. Many think of it as murder.

And other human rights do get voted on. You have to ratify a constitution or bill of rights or charter of freedoms politically. You can also amend them politically.

those that think it is murder are idiots who do not know what "murder" means

Parents should not be able to force abortion or prevent abortion on any of their children.

However, seeing that the kid is mature enough to have a child of their own, the parents should be allowed to kick them out of the house if they decide to, and not have to pay anything for them ever again.

Just because the kids have a right to decide on a abortion, doesn't mean the parents are required to support them.

What sort of horrible parent would do that ... as sad as it is the child in question may be better off if they were to stoop to such levels.

Whatever mistakes the child may have made pale in comparison to such parents.

What sort of horrible parent would do that ... as sad as it is the child in question may be better off if they were to stoop to such levels.

Whatever mistakes the child may have made pale in comparison to such parents.

I'm not saying that it would be a good thing.

I'm just saying that if parents have no say in a certain matter, they should not be forced into dealing with it.

those that think it is murder are idiots who do not know what "murder" means

Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another. The debate is whether or not a fetus is 'human', and whether or not that killing a fetus should therefore be unlawful. It's not an idiotic viewpoint. (And not a viewpoint I share, just to be clear.)

those that think it is murder are idiots who do not know what "murder" means


:rolleyes:

Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another. The debate is whether or not a fetus is 'human', and whether or not that killing a fetus should therefore be unlawful. It's not an idiotic viewpoint. (And not a viewpoint I share, just to be clear.)

Sure it is it is for sure lawful in this country that alone makes it not murder. Wishing it were murder != being murder

Its like saying you have a red car when it is really blue and you are debating on if it should be red next week ... in other words stupid

:rolleyes:

It is lawful in this country at least ... weather it should or not is a different debate ... I dont go around giving incorrect descriptions on purpose for other things why should I hold others to lower standards just because they want to use incorrect emotive language?

No, no and no. No.

if she doesn't have enough common sense to protect herself from pregnancy I highly doubt that she can make reasonable judgements elsewhere:rolleyes:

I happen to agree that the silencing on the basis of gender is a bogus issue, but I'm also an absolutist in that I think the only one who should be involved in the decision making over an abortion is the woman having it. Were I a legislator, my argument would be exactly what I said--this is not an issue we should be holding a vote on, and I would do everything in my power to stop said vote from occurring.

If the vote is hers and hers alone, then if it conflicts with the mans feeling the the consequences should be hers and hers alone also:upyours:

It is lawful in this country at least ... weather it should or not is a different debate ... I dont go around giving incorrect descriptions on purpose for other things why should I hold others to lower standards just because they want to use incorrect emotive language?

Yep. And in other countries it is unlawful. Therefore according to the definition, abortion is murder. For them. So you are basically calling them idiots because they think of it as murder. And calling others the same because they agree.

Yep. And in other countries it is unlawful. Therefore according to the definition, abortion is murder. For them. So you are basically calling them idiots because they think of it as murder. And calling others the same because they agree.

Ok fine I will further specify the Idiots in this country ... in fact I don't think I have heard anyone on this forum from any country where it was not legal call it "murder" it seems to be a term used primary by those wishing emotive rather then accurate language.

Should the parents be informed? Ideally, yes, but reality says no.

The option should be there, but it shouldn't be forced.

Yes, the girl is a minor, and unable legally sign documents in the eyes of the law. However, being a young woman, she still has the same rights as a age of majority woman when it comes to her body.

Should the boy have a say? Most people would say no, and they would also say that the boy should be able have an opinion because it is his child too...

But then should the boy's parents know?

Or should we treat the girl like a woman and let her make the choice? After all, it becomes very bureaucratic in the process.

I say really, no one should have to know. They girl realises she makes a mistake and an abortion at a young age is better than a child at the same age. The girl isn't forced to go through a pregnancy that may be worse for her in the end than the abortion.

For the same reason, the girl should have access to Plan B.

The girl is a human and has the right to make her own choices.

yeah cause I'm sure if the baby had a choice, it would gladly give up it's life to make sure some young tramp had a good childhood, free of the responsibility of owning up to her own inability to use good judgement,and raising the child.:rolleyes:

Ok fine I will further specify the Idiots in this country ... in fact I don't think I have heard anyone on this forum from any country where it was not legal call it "murder" it seems to be a term used primary by those wishing emotive rather then accurate language.

People use emotive rather than accurate alot just to get their point across. Does not make them idiots.

And some people in those countries may not call it murder (and fyi..the entire world population does not post on this forum) but by definition that is what it is.

And some people in those countries may not call it murder (and fyi..the entire world population does not post on this forum) but by definition that is what it is.

Depends on how you define an "alive human being". Considering we say people are dead if there is no brain activity, an embryo can be argued to not fall under this definition.

However, feel free to provide a perfect definition that does include embryos, but not e.g. a human arm or dead people.

Depends on how you define an "alive human being". Considering we say people are dead if there is no brain activity, an embryo can be argued to not fall under this definition.

However, feel free to provide a perfect definition that does include embryos, but not e.g. a human arm or dead people.


damn..was going to say dead people:p

We are not just talking about ebryos but fetuses as well. Some women will choose to abort later in pregnancy. The fetus' brain begins to develop around the 6th month. And people do it later than that. (partial birth abortions).

Now I'm not saying aborting that late is the norm, but it does happen.

Not the parents body, not the parents fetus (we sincerely hope!), not the parents business.

Should the boy have a say? Most people would say no, and they would also say that the boy should be able have an opinion because it is his child too...

He should voice his opinion to the girl but ultimately it should be the girl who makes the choice. No one should be able to either stop her from getting an abortion or force her to get one. The parents of either should be informed by their child or not at all.

The Nazz: Read this post and you'll see where I'm coming from with your whole "this shouldn't be up for a vote" position.

Nothing should be unavailable for the public to vote on. Nothing. Because silencing the vote means all you have left is not what people individually choose, but the utter mercy of the ones in power.

So you're saying we should be able to vote on whether or not to re institute slavery?

yeah cause I'm sure if the baby had a choice, it would gladly give up it's life to make sure some young tramp had a good childhood, free of the responsibility of owning up to her own inability to use good judgement,and raising the child.:rolleyes:

At the point of an abortion there is no baby, only a fetus.

After reading the whole "Should men have a say..." I thought... should parents have a say about a minor who is pregnant? If a child gets pregnant and she wants to have an abortion, yet her parents are, let's say, extremely pro-life, should they be able to not have their daughter have that abortion? Or if the girl wants the baby, yet her parents don't want her to have it, should they say "No, abortion time!"

Well... many countries have parental notification for ear piercings for minors.

So, ear piercings, yes, abortions, no?

the ONLY one who "should" have any say is the pregnant female. the only possible exceptions being her physician and/or pshrinque. and then only under extreme and unusual circumstances such as if she were completely incapacitated from doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

After reading the whole "Should men have a say..." I thought... should parents have a say about a minor who is pregnant? If a child gets pregnant and she wants to have an abortion, yet her parents are, let's say, extremely pro-life, should they be able to not have their daughter have that abortion? Or if the girl wants the baby, yet her parents don't want her to have it, should they say "No, abortion time!"

HELL NO! Hands off, both parents and partners!

Well... many countries have parental notification for ear piercings for minors.

So, ear piercings, yes, abortions, no?

More like "ear piercings, no, abortions, no".

damn..was going to say dead people:p

We are not just talking about ebryos but fetuses as well. Some women will choose to abort later in pregnancy. The fetus' brain begins to develop around the 6th month. And people do it later than that. (partial birth abortions).

Now I'm not saying aborting that late is the norm, but it does happen.

Dilation and extraction is not a procedure used in elective abortion. Women who have abortions that late into the pregnancy are nearly always doing it for a medical reason, or because of serious defects of the fetus. Sometimes, it is even because the fetus is already dead.

Throughout most of the US, Europe, etc. abortion in the later stages of pregnancy can only legally be carried out under very restricted circumstances - generally a threat to the health or life of the mother or a severe defect.

Yes. Here's the problem with your construction, though--Roe was never about murder. It was always about privacy, specifically, a woman's right to make private medical decisions without the interference of the government or other people. The argument over whether or not it's murder is irrelevant--or should be, anyway. The greatest victory anti-choice people have achieved is making this a debate over whether or not the fetus is alive. That's a bogus argument, as far as I'm concerned. Even if there were some way to conclusively define when life begins, I'd still argue for choice, because that's the important issue. And I'd still say that personal choice is too important and personal an issue to be put up to a vote. The closest I'd allow voting to come into it would be to vote for people who would support judges who would uphold that choice.

No. If you could conclusively prove that life begins before the abortion is performed, then it is a child and you are killing it! That's murder!

No. If you could conclusively prove that life begins before the abortion is performed, then it is a child and you are killing it! That's murder!

Assuming your statement was correct for a moment, so what?

We hope.

Well, that girl-dad relationship story you had was very much out of the ordinary.

No. If you could conclusively prove that life begins before the abortion is performed, then it is a child and you are killing it! That's murder!

As of yet that remains un-proven.

Dilation and extraction is not a procedure used in elective abortion. Women who have abortions that late into the pregnancy are nearly always doing it for a medical reason, or because of serious defects of the fetus. Sometimes, it is even because the fetus is already dead.

Throughout most of the US, Europe, etc. abortion in the later stages of pregnancy can only legally be carried out under very restricted circumstances - generally a threat to the health or life of the mother or a severe defect.

Whats your point? That has nothing to do with what I was replying to.

I was told to give an example of why it could be killing if the definition of death means no brain activity.


And it D&E IS a procedure used in elective abortions. D&E is done in the second 12 weeks of gestation.Most women do not know they are pregnant until their second or third month (especially ones who have never been pregnant before). After thay find out some may take time to make the decision to abort. And getting the appointment for evaluation and finally setting up the procedure takes some time too.

Partial birth is a variant of D&E where it is used later in pregnancy.

Whats your point? That has nothing to do with what I was replying to.

You made a point of bringing up "partial birth abortion" as if it has anything to do with a discussion on elective abortion.

I was told to give an example of why it could be killing if the definition of death means no brain activity.

No, you weren't. You were asked for a definition that would include an embryo as living, but wouldn't include various body parts.

Most people don't dispute that late-term abortions kill the fetus. Of course, late-term abortions are usually done as a matter of necessity, not because someone just chooses to have it done.

And it D&E IS a procedure used in elective abortions. D&E is done in the second 12 weeks of gestation.

The second 12 weeks of gestation is a very long period of time. Both D&E (dilation and evacuation) and D&X (intact dilation and extraction) are performed as late-term abortions, beginning in the later portions of the second trimester. Very, very few elective abortions are performed this late. The vast majority of abortions are actually performed on or before week 13.

Partial birth is a variant of D&E where it is used later in pregnancy.

"Partial birth" is not anything but an emotive name that opponents of abortion have coined to make it seem as if women who are advised by medical health professionals to end their pregnancies are monsters. The proper term is "intact dilation and extraction," or, in shortened form, D&X.

yeah cause I'm sure if the baby had a choice, it would gladly give up it's life to make sure some young tramp had a good childhood, free of the responsibility of owning up to her own inability to use good judgement,and raising the child.:rolleyes:

Oh yes, because all pregnancies must be a result of consensual sex. :rolleyes:

Really... there's too many scenarios to say "yes"... all of them stemming from the girl having a bad relationship with her parents.

Look at it this way: "Kate" is 13, and gets pregnant and was raped by a family member. She can't tell her family.

Or, let's say that Kate is 13 but her parents never taught her about sex, because they were fundies. So, Kate knows nothing of contraception or sex, and starts experimenting. She gets pregnant, and wants an abortion, though her mother is very heavily pro-life and Kate needs her parents' consent. She can't get an abortion that would prbably save her physically and emotionally.

I say that parents should not have a say in whether their daughter has an abortion, though I do encourage the daughter to talk to her parents about her options, and possible about birth control so that she doesn't get pregnant to begin with. *nod*

You made a point of bringing up "partial birth abortion" as if it has anything to do with a discussion on elective abortion.

partial birth is an elective abortion. If you choose to have it done-for whatever reason-its elective.



No, you weren't. You were asked for a definition that would include an embryo as living, but wouldn't include various body parts.
My bad. I was going on my discussion as a whole.


"Partial birth" is not anything but an emotive name that opponents of abortion have coined to make it seem as if women who are advised by medical health professionals to end their pregnancies are monsters. The proper term is "intact dilation and extraction," or, in shortened form, D&X.

Partial birth is just a common term for it.
Much like pine tree is a common term for Pinus resinosa. Most of us do not run around calling it the proper name though.

yeah cause I'm sure if the baby had a choice, it would gladly give up it's life to make sure some young tramp had a good childhood, free of the responsibility of owning up to her own inability to use good judgement,and raising the child.:rolleyes:

I knew a girl, my best friend's younger sister, who used proper protection, but in the end the condom broke. She is hardly what one may call a 'tramp'. She had only one boyfriend and she was a couple of months shy of finishing high school. She kept the child, but she could have just as easily aborted it. She made her own choice.

That's the key word, choice. Just as she had the choice as to whether or not she could have sex, she had the choice to keep the child.

But, not all girls want to make the same choice because in the end, the only common factor that girls share is that we have a vagina and a set of tits. Our physical defining qualities are the only true common factor that unite all girls and women.

Beyond that, we all have our lives, experiences and our own beliefs.

We have the choice about how we will seek recourse for our actions, and if a young girl choose an abortion, it is in the end better because she may have not been ready to have a child.

You speak as if she wouldn't be suffering from her choice to have an abortion, but that choice does have consequences. For some women, it lasts a long time. For some, not quite as long. Psychological trauma...

It has also been shown in studies that teens are at a point in there lives where they have the judgement of adults but their behaviour is impulsive and governed by hormones, which are not always in perfect balance.

No one here can sincerely know what's best in the end for anyone else.

Just because you believe she is a tramp for her actions doesn't make her one.

She has the right to make her own choices and this was a good choice for her age because not all teenagers are ready to become parents. They know they aren't always fit to be parents.

At the same time, we shouldn't sexually repress them. They should be educated and given the knowledge they need. They need to have the right to make their own choices.

the only common factor that girls share is that we have a vagina and a set of tits.

Masectomies could change that, no? And then you run into a whole deal of trouble with transgendered people.

partial birth is an elective abortion. If you choose to have it done-for whatever reason-its elective.

Somebody here doesn't know the definition of elective, and it would be.....Damaske.

An elective procedure is one which is not medically necessary. Cosmetic surgery, for instance, is generally an elective procedure. A mastectomy to remove cancerous breast tissue, on the other hand, is not.

An elective abortion is one that is carried out electively - as in, without a medical reason. A woman who simply does not wish to carry to term has an elective abortion - and will almost always (in the US anyways) do so by the 13th week of her pregnancy. An abortion which is carried out for medical reasons is not an elective abortion, anymore than having a burst appendix removed is "elective surgery."

Partial birth is just a common term for it.
Much like pine tree is a common term for Pinus resinosa. Most of us do not run around calling it the proper name though.

No, it isn't. The entire purpose of the term is an attempt to label the procedure as inhuman and unnecessary, ignoring the realities of the situations these women find themselves in. It would be more like calling Pinus resinosa, "Sun stealers," so that you could try and get people to cut them all down. The common term for it is D&X, which, much like "pine" is a shorter term for Pinus resinosa, is a short term for "intact dilation and extraction."

While there may be a tiny fraction of a percentage of cases out there in which women seek an elective abortion when D&X is an option, but they are just that - a tiny fraction. Women who undergo D&X - and even D&E, in the vast majority of cases - are women who wanted to carry to term, but either have health problems that will prevent them from being able to do so or have found that the fetus has severe defects.

Somebody here doesn't know the definition of elective, and it would be.....Damaske.


No that would be you..one who doesn't take in the whole scope of the word. Elective means "permitting a choice".

Taking in a different point of view....you could say that aborting a fetus would be beneficial to your health, but you aren't required to abort. You can choose to abort and save some health risks or you can choose not to.

Should they bee informed of the decision? Yes...should they decide? I don't know and I really don't see the point if that girl is just going to be a rebel.

Should they bee informed of the decision? Yes...should they decide? I don't know and I really don't see the point if that girl is just going to be a rebel.

If a teenage girl is pregnant, I would expect that rebelling would be the least of her priorities.

Unless, of course, she's stupid, in which case it's amazing that she's pregnant at all.

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of parents not having an opportunity to discuss this with their children, But then again, not all parents are created equal.

As for a 'say', no. The only one that makes the decision is the pregnant woman. But she should be encouraged, certainly, to seek advice from parents etc. if she's a minor. *nod*

I do not think mandatory informing of the parents in issues like this is a good idea. As with many medical issues resulting from sexuality many teenagers are reluctant for their parents to know either due to severe embarrasmet or for fear of repocussions. In these instances I suspect many teenagers would for STD issues and the Pill hope for the best rather than get checked out and for pregnancy possibly try less medically sound methods.

I think on these issues they should be able to see their doctor in confidence but that the doctor should gently advise them to speak to their parents.

In an ideal world their parents would be the first person they would want to get advice from for such an important issue, however we do not live in an ideal world.

Sure it is it is for sure lawful in this country that alone makes it not murder. Wishing it were murder != being murder

Its like saying you have a red car when it is really blue and you are debating on if it should be red next week ... in other words stupid

My point being is that the only thing that is stopping the fetus from a right to life is clarification in the constitution that rights inherent to people include children in the development process within the womb. The only thing stopping a fetus being classified as a human is a lack of clarification in the constitution. I imagine a doctor would classify a fetus as human. I imagine most mothers who decided to not abort would classify their coming baby as human. Not fully developed, but it wouldn't be fully developed for years to come anyway.

The current argument is that if the child can't survive on its own once it leaves the uterus, than it isn't human. Theoretically, with aid, a baby in the third trimester will live, and is thus human. (Yet alone the thought brought up in the latest abortion thread; 'what if the fetus could survive with aid from the moment of conception?') These are fine legal distinctions made which could very well have gone another way. It's not unreasonable for a society to decide that it's human on the moment of conception.


All it takes is the political willpower to make an amendment to the constitution. It's a legitimate debate (even if I'm on the pro-choice side.)

if she doesn't have enough common sense to protect herself from pregnancy I highly doubt that she can make reasonable judgements elsewhere:rolleyes:

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Wrong.

Parents who have a good relationship with their children will probably never have to worry about this issue. So we are probably talking about bad parents anyway, so why should bad parents get a say on if their child would or would not make a good parent when they are most likely just following mummy and daddy's example?

I believe that anyone, regardless of their age should be assessed as to their mental capacity before they are allowed to have a child, man or woman. People who are obviously too immature or irresponsible to look after a child should not be allowed to have one. After the age of 25 anyone who is assessed this way should be sterilized.

After reading the whole "Should men have a say..." I thought... should parents have a say about a minor who is pregnant? If a child gets pregnant and she wants to have an abortion, yet her parents are, let's say, extremely pro-life, should they be able to not have their daughter have that abortion? Or if the girl wants the baby, yet her parents don't want her to have it, should they say "No, abortion time!"

it's a medical procedure, and so Parental consent is needed.

you cannot FORCE them to give consent if they don't want to. BUT! on the other hand, they cannot force the procedure on their child if SHE doesn't want it.

it's a medical procedure, and so Parental consent is needed.

you cannot FORCE them to give consent if they don't want to. BUT! on the other hand, they cannot force the procedure on their child if SHE doesn't want it.

It depends on the state. Here in Oregon a the age of consent for medical treatement is somewhere in the early teens (I forget the exact age). I don't think abortion should be any different.

No that would be you..one who doesn't take in the whole scope of the word. Elective means "permitting a choice".

The "whole scope" of the word is irrelevant. We are talking about its scope in a medical sense.

Taking in a different point of view....you could say that aborting a fetus would be beneficial to your health, but you aren't required to abort. You can choose to abort and save some health risks or you can choose not to.

So? You could say that removing a burst appendix or having a liver transplant would be beneficial to your health, but you aren't required to do so. It still wouldn't change the fact that, from a medical perspective, they are not elective procedures.


you cannot FORCE them to give consent if they don't want to.

And the decision should not be theirs to begin with.

BUT! on the other hand, they cannot force the procedure on their child if SHE doesn't want it.

Currently, that is true. However, if the exceptions that are made for reproductive issues were not made, it would not be the case. Currently, a parent can force medical treatment upon a minor who does not want it.

Not to mention the fact that, even if they don't actively force her, they can coerce her into doing it. It's actually rather common in the world of teenage pregnancy.

No.

No. I don't think the parents should have a say. I mean, we're
talking about taking away babies,not cellphones.
And it's the girl's body;she should be able to make
her own decision. If you are going to make
an "adult decision" to have sex then you can make
an adult decision on having an abortion or not.