No, that's not the same as walking away. She has to pay for it, she has to go to the appointment, she has to attend the counseling sessions, she has to have the surgery itself with whatever pain, complications, etc. might be involved. The man doesn't have to do any of those things ... in fact, except for paying, he couldn't do any of them for her if he wanted to.
It's still walking away from an unwanted pregnancy regardless of all the stuff you have to do afterwards.
Which came first,
the bad idea or me befallen by it?
No, that's not the same as walking away. She has to pay for it, she has to go to the appointment, she has to attend the counseling sessions, she has to have the surgery itself with whatever pain, complications, etc. might be involved. The man doesn't have to do any of those things ... in fact, except for paying, he couldn't do any of them for her if he wanted to.
An abortion in no way should ever be called surgery. The defiition of surgery is: 1. The branch of medicine that deals with the diagnosis and treatment of injury, deformity, and disease by manual and instrumental means. Being pregant is not an injury, deformity or disease. An abortion is almost always an elective medical procedure. Calling it surgery is mis-stating the truth and a dis-service to surgeons.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Usually you are so good but this is so sexist. Guys have the exact same interest, except personal health issues, as the woman. No woman bares the burden of abortion themselves. The man faces nearly the same burdens but with zero authority to take actions.
Really? A person who ends a life that is not their own life to end is responsible for just that. The only person who owns such an action is the woman who takes the action.
There are distinct differences between aborting an unborn life inside of you and between encouraging or to otherwise cause another to abort an unborn life inside of them. I point to this very distinct difference in accountability.
This is further complicated by the fact that women's brains operate for the most part differently than men. Women tend towards being more wired in a caretaker/nurturer sense. Women lean towards relying predominantly on intuitive and emotional intelligences compared to men who lean towards being more "objective". For a woman to feel she has no choice but to go against her own instinct to care for those dependant upon her is a big deal in my mind. A very big deal.
Maybe it's actually sexist to minimise the huge differences that exist in such a situation, in order to expect "fairness" between the sexes. The fact is, the man does not go through even remotely the same situation. This does not minimise his OWN very pertinent experiences in the situation. They are very different and I don't accept the woman's own experience being umbrella'd in with the experience of another.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Maybe it's actually sexist to minimise the huge differences that exist in such a situation, in order to expect "fairness" between the sexes. The fact is, the man does not go through even remotely the same situation. This does not minimise his OWN very pertinent experiences in the situation. They are very different and I don't accept the woman's own experience being umbrella'd in with the experience of another.
Very, very, very well done.
“Equality is not in regarding different things similarly, equality is in regarding different things differently.” -Tom Robbins
Really? A person who ends a life that is not their own life to end is responsible for just that. The only person who owns such an action is the woman who takes the action.
There are distinct differences between aborting an unborn life inside of you and between encouraging or to otherwise cause another to abort an unborn life inside of them. I point to this very distinct difference in accountability.
This is further complicated by the fact that women's brains operate for the most part differently than men. Women tend towards being more wired in a caretaker/nurturer sense. Women lean towards relying predominantly on intuitive and emotional intelligences compared to men who lean towards being more "objective". For a woman to feel she has no choice but to go against her own instinct to care for those dependant upon her is a big deal in my mind. A very big deal.
Maybe it's actually sexist to minimise the huge differences that exist in such a situation, in order to expect "fairness" between the sexes. The fact is, the man does not go through even remotely the same situation. This does not minimise his OWN very pertinent experiences in the situation. They are very different and I don't accept the woman's own experience being umbrella'd in with the experience of another.
Some very good points about recognizing some general differences between men and women. But in the end no person faces burbens alone unless this is the path they've chosen for themselves.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
You really have to wonder about a person who would take a child to another state to get a medical procedure without consulting that child's parents.......but this law is inappropriate and wrong.
i had the same initial thought...but a strikingly different conclusion.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Neither does a man. We have a thing called a conscience.
YOU have one. Not all men do. Not all women do either, but a woman without a conscience has to deal with a pregnancy whether or not she feels like it ... a man does not.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
YOU have one. Not all men do. Not all women do either, but a woman without a conscience has to deal with a pregnancy whether or not she feels like it ... a man does not.
I don't think abortion is dealing with the pregnancy though, abortion is a way of avoiding dealing with the pregnancy.
Which came first,
the bad idea or me befallen by it?
i had the same initial thought...but a strikingly different conclusion.
My conclusion comes from the fact that I also have to wonder about a person who passes a blanket law that disregards the will of two mature parties. It comes from the fact that I think a minor has a fundamental right to get an abortion without their parent's knowledge. And that anyone else has a fundamental right to assist in it. Ethically, it's certainly questionable to take a 16 year old across state lines to have an abortion without informing that 16 year old's parents. But just because something is ethically questionable does not mean it's something that should be considered an illegal action, particularly considering that it does not necessarily harm either party and is completely reflective of their individual wills.
Some very good points about recognizing some general differences between men and women. But in the end no person faces burbens alone unless this is the path they've chosen for themselves.
Thank-you.
In reality we all face our burdens alone. Having support or comfort on our journey in no way negates the fact that in the end, for our every action, we have to face the consequences and our inner demons all by ourselves. No one else can do one iota of it for us.
For those who feel otherwise, I'm willing to guess they have not faced such burdens yet.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
My conclusion comes from the fact that I also have to wonder about a person who passes a blanket law that disregards the will of two mature parties. It comes from the fact that I think a minor has a fundamental right to get an abortion without their parent's knowledge. And that anyone else has a fundamental right to assist in it. Ethically, it's certainly questionable to take a 16 year old across state lines to have an abortion without informing that 16 year old's parents. But just because something is ethically questionable does not mean it's something that should be considered an illegal action, particularly considering that it does not necessarily harm either party and is completely reflective of their individual wills.
I guess we differ on the fundamental right to get an abortion. For me, regardless of my stance on abortion; I don't think any "medical procedure" should be carried out on a minor without parental consent. I realize that there prob are cases where minors would be abused if the parents found out they were pregnant. So it's a tough call...do we pass a blanket law that may affect some negatively, or do we not pass a law and have parents lose their fundamental right to give consent for a minor to get a medical procedure. I know in research and medicine you can't do anything to a minor without assent and consent...to me, it is a great disservice to take away the consent of the parents...if i were a parent i would be livid that a physician would perform surgery (non-life threatening) on my child without my knowledge...more so than if i found out my daughter were pregnant.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
I guess we differ on the fundamental right to get an abortion.
That's fair -- I completely understand why you'd come to the opposite conclusion given a view that says a fetus's life stands on higher grounds than the mother's will. Such a thing is logically defensible, even though I don't necessarily agree with it.
Legally this is strange though. The woman has a right to travel to another state without parental notification, but the accomplice does not. It's very odd. It's kind of like making bank robbery legal, but driving the getaway car illegal
For me, regardless of my stance on abortion; I don't think any "medical procedure" should be carried out on a minor without parental consent.
Ethically, yes. I completely agree. In the concept of legality, however, I will respect the individual's will over the wishes of the parent. If we ignore the dischord on the definition of life vis a vis abortion as you suggest above, the individual is not harming another person, nor is the accomplice.
If a 16 year old gets AIDS, I would understand if they did not wish to inform their parents. And I think that minor should have the right to seek out treatment on his/her own, if that is his/her will. Again, no one is harmed by that situation. The same goes for a minor travelling across state lines to receive an abortion.
I realize that there prob are cases where minors would be abused if the parents found out they were pregnant. So it's a tough call...do we pass a blanket law that may affect some negatively, or do we not pass a law and have parents lose their fundamental right to give consent for a minor to get a medical procedure.
Hehe...no. If any law is to be passed, it is a law against the child abuse. The fact that some minors will be abused within a chain of events is really irrelevant. You could pass a law against sex itself on the same logical ground.
Parents do not have a "fundamental right" to give consent for a minor to get a medical procedure. They have only a "fundamental right" to give consent for their own medical procedure. A child has a will separate from his/her parents'. A parent does not own the body of their child outside of the context of common ethics.
I know in research and medicine you can't do anything to a minor without assent and consent...to me, it is a great disservice to take away the consent of the parents...if i were a parent i would be livid that a physician would perform surgery (non-life threatening) on my child without my knowledge...more so than if i found out my daughter were pregnant.
This law is part of much legal inconsistency and hypocrisy. I'll definitely agree with that. And I can understand your anger at any physician who would do as you described -- I would share such anger. However, I would hope that you would recongnize the child's involvement in the process and the fact that such anger stems from an ethical judgment, rather than a purely logical judgment in the context of "fundamental rights".
In reality we all face our burdens alone. Having support or comfort on our journey in no way negates the fact that in the end, for our every action, we have to face the consequences and our inner demons all by ourselves. No one else can do one iota of it for us.
For those who feel otherwise, I'm willing to guess they have not faced such burdens yet.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. For those who look I truly believe you can find peoples or places where you can share your burdens.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
That's fair -- I completely understand why you'd come to the opposite conclusion given a view that says a fetus's life stands on higher grounds than the mother's will. Such a thing is logically defensible, even though I don't necessarily agree with it.
I should clarify that I disagree on the fundamental right of a minor to get an abortion w/o notification of the mother. But the above is true as well.
Legally this is strange though. The woman has a right to travel to another state without parental notification, but the accomplice does not. It's very odd. It's kind of like making bank robbery legal, but driving the getaway car illegal
It does pose a strange twist, but I think the intent of the law is to curtail abortions performed on teens unbeknownst to the parents. So they eliminated another avenue for this to occurr, or at least attempted to eliminate.
Ethically, yes. I completely agree. In the concept of legality, however, I will respect the individual's will over the wishes of the parent. If we ignore the dischord on the definition of life vis a vis abortion as you suggest above, the individual is not harming another person, nor is the accomplice.
If a 16 year old gets AIDS, I would understand if they did not wish to inform their parents. And I think that minor should have the right to seek out treatment on his/her own, if that is his/her will. Again, no one is harmed by that situation. The same goes for a minor travelling across state lines to receive an abortion.
I would respect the will of individual once the individual has reached the age of majority. The reason we have parental notification / consent laws is to protect children from others and themselves. So what happens if the minor is injured while getting the abortion unbeknownst to the parents? Then someone is hurt. If the kids are still minors could the parents sue the physician for battery?
Hehe...no. If any law is to be passed, it is a law against the child abuse. The fact that some minors will be abused within a chain of events is really irrelevant. You could pass a law against sex itself on the same logical ground.
Parents do not have a "fundamental right" to give consent for a minor to get a medical procedure. They have only a "fundamental right" to give consent for their own medical procedure. A child has a will separate from his/her parents'. A parent does not own the body of their child outside of the context of common ethics.
I'll only agree with you somewhat here. If a parent is forcing a child to get a medical procedure and the child doesn't want it, I would back the child 100%; however, if the child is wanting an elective procedure and the parents don't want them to, i would support the parents until said child is of the legal age of majority.
This law is part of much legal inconsistency and hypocrisy. I'll definitely agree with that. And I can understand your anger at any physician who would do as you described -- I would share such anger. However, I would hope that you would recongnize the child's involvement in the process and the fact that such anger stems from an ethical judgment, rather than a purely logical judgment in the context of "fundamental rights".
You're right the anger is more out of ethical (and some legal) frustration. But again, i don't feel that a child has a fundamental right to an invasive procedure without parental notification. So for me, it's not much of a fundamental rights issue, but i see how it could become one.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Only sometimes??? Even at my worst, I have my charms
do not be bamboozled. i've lived with him for a year and known him for a lot more. and never has there been a man so devoid of charm. he is a devine dancer, however.
"It is never too late to have a happy childhood"
- Tom Robbins
Do you honestly believe that every minor in an abortion clinic who is not accompanied by a parent is doing so because the pregnancy is the result of incest or they would be beaten if the parent found out?
no.
whatever about my post even suggested the idea of such?
do not be bamboozled. i've lived with him for a year and known him for a lot more. and never has there been a man so devoid of charm. he is a devine dancer, however.
I'm honored that you decided to end your trollscapade just to insult me
I should clarify that I disagree on the fundamental right of a minor to get an abortion w/o notification of the mother. But the above is true as well.
Ok.
It does pose a strange twist, but I think the intent of the law is to curtail abortions performed on teens unbeknownst to the parents. So they eliminated another avenue for this to occurr, or at least attempted to eliminate.
That is the point of the law IMO as well.
I would respect the will of individual once the individual has reached the age of majority. The reason we have parental notification / consent laws is to protect children from others and themselves. So what happens if the minor is injured while getting the abortion unbeknownst to the parents? Then someone is hurt. If the kids are still minors could the parents sue the physician for battery?
This would only make good sense if there actually was a true "age of majority". That's my fundamental beef with laws like this. I know lots of 25 year olds who aren't qualified to make wise decisions whereas plenty of 16 year olds are.
Regardless, you can't erase the will of a 17 year old by only legally recognizing the will of an 18 year old. It isn't your business to protect anyone from themselves, and it's only truly your business to protect another from yourself.
If a minor is injured while getting the abortion, I fail to see how parental knowledge is relevant. If it is an accident, no redress should be available. If it is from willful harm on the part of the doctor, redress becomes appropriate.
I'll only agree with you somewhat here. If a parent is forcing a child to get a medical procedure and the child doesn't want it, I would back the child 100%; however, if the child is wanting an elective procedure and the parents don't want them to, i would support the parents until said child is of the legal age of majority.
Again, no such "legal age" can erase the actual maturity of the child. Furthermore, no such "legal age" can erase the actual maturity of the parents. I'd back the child in both cases above if the child can demonstrate a good understanding of both.
You're right the anger is more out of ethical (and some legal) frustration. But again, i don't feel that a child has a fundamental right to an invasive procedure without parental notification. So for me, it's not much of a fundamental rights issue, but i see how it could become one.
A child does have such a fundamental right. The very existence of these laws demonstrates that fact since they are aimed at artificially limiting the excercise of that right.
do not be bamboozled. i've lived with him for a year and known him for a lot more. and never has there been a man so devoid of charm. he is a devine dancer, however.
YIKES! Well, this is a voice I am thrilled to hear out here!
Welcome aboard!
(the dancer thing is a bit hard to swallow, though. )
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
It's still walking away from an unwanted pregnancy regardless of all the stuff you have to do afterwards.
the bad idea or me befallen by it?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Really? A person who ends a life that is not their own life to end is responsible for just that. The only person who owns such an action is the woman who takes the action.
There are distinct differences between aborting an unborn life inside of you and between encouraging or to otherwise cause another to abort an unborn life inside of them. I point to this very distinct difference in accountability.
This is further complicated by the fact that women's brains operate for the most part differently than men. Women tend towards being more wired in a caretaker/nurturer sense. Women lean towards relying predominantly on intuitive and emotional intelligences compared to men who lean towards being more "objective". For a woman to feel she has no choice but to go against her own instinct to care for those dependant upon her is a big deal in my mind. A very big deal.
Maybe it's actually sexist to minimise the huge differences that exist in such a situation, in order to expect "fairness" between the sexes. The fact is, the man does not go through even remotely the same situation. This does not minimise his OWN very pertinent experiences in the situation. They are very different and I don't accept the woman's own experience being umbrella'd in with the experience of another.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Very, very, very well done.
“Equality is not in regarding different things similarly, equality is in regarding different things differently.” -Tom Robbins
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Yes, she is forced to deal with it, I don't understand how that changes the fact abortion is still a way walking away from an unwanted pregnancy.
Beat me to it.
the bad idea or me befallen by it?
i had the same initial thought...but a strikingly different conclusion.
I love this. Is he the author?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I don't think abortion is dealing with the pregnancy though, abortion is a way of avoiding dealing with the pregnancy.
the bad idea or me befallen by it?
My conclusion comes from the fact that I also have to wonder about a person who passes a blanket law that disregards the will of two mature parties. It comes from the fact that I think a minor has a fundamental right to get an abortion without their parent's knowledge. And that anyone else has a fundamental right to assist in it. Ethically, it's certainly questionable to take a 16 year old across state lines to have an abortion without informing that 16 year old's parents. But just because something is ethically questionable does not mean it's something that should be considered an illegal action, particularly considering that it does not necessarily harm either party and is completely reflective of their individual wills.
You are almost too logical this week
Tom Robbins is an author...one of my favorites. "Still life with Woodpecker" should be required reading in high school.
In reality we all face our burdens alone. Having support or comfort on our journey in no way negates the fact that in the end, for our every action, we have to face the consequences and our inner demons all by ourselves. No one else can do one iota of it for us.
For those who feel otherwise, I'm willing to guess they have not faced such burdens yet.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I guess we differ on the fundamental right to get an abortion. For me, regardless of my stance on abortion; I don't think any "medical procedure" should be carried out on a minor without parental consent. I realize that there prob are cases where minors would be abused if the parents found out they were pregnant. So it's a tough call...do we pass a blanket law that may affect some negatively, or do we not pass a law and have parents lose their fundamental right to give consent for a minor to get a medical procedure. I know in research and medicine you can't do anything to a minor without assent and consent...to me, it is a great disservice to take away the consent of the parents...if i were a parent i would be livid that a physician would perform surgery (non-life threatening) on my child without my knowledge...more so than if i found out my daughter were pregnant.
Sometimes I really adore you.
According to Wikipedia, he hails from North Carolina.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's fair -- I completely understand why you'd come to the opposite conclusion given a view that says a fetus's life stands on higher grounds than the mother's will. Such a thing is logically defensible, even though I don't necessarily agree with it.
Legally this is strange though. The woman has a right to travel to another state without parental notification, but the accomplice does not. It's very odd. It's kind of like making bank robbery legal, but driving the getaway car illegal
Ethically, yes. I completely agree. In the concept of legality, however, I will respect the individual's will over the wishes of the parent. If we ignore the dischord on the definition of life vis a vis abortion as you suggest above, the individual is not harming another person, nor is the accomplice.
If a 16 year old gets AIDS, I would understand if they did not wish to inform their parents. And I think that minor should have the right to seek out treatment on his/her own, if that is his/her will. Again, no one is harmed by that situation. The same goes for a minor travelling across state lines to receive an abortion.
Hehe...no. If any law is to be passed, it is a law against the child abuse. The fact that some minors will be abused within a chain of events is really irrelevant. You could pass a law against sex itself on the same logical ground.
Parents do not have a "fundamental right" to give consent for a minor to get a medical procedure. They have only a "fundamental right" to give consent for their own medical procedure. A child has a will separate from his/her parents'. A parent does not own the body of their child outside of the context of common ethics.
This law is part of much legal inconsistency and hypocrisy. I'll definitely agree with that. And I can understand your anger at any physician who would do as you described -- I would share such anger. However, I would hope that you would recongnize the child's involvement in the process and the fact that such anger stems from an ethical judgment, rather than a purely logical judgment in the context of "fundamental rights".
Only sometimes??? Even at my worst, I have my charms
Tom Robbins hails from the universe.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I should clarify that I disagree on the fundamental right of a minor to get an abortion w/o notification of the mother. But the above is true as well.
It does pose a strange twist, but I think the intent of the law is to curtail abortions performed on teens unbeknownst to the parents. So they eliminated another avenue for this to occurr, or at least attempted to eliminate.
I would respect the will of individual once the individual has reached the age of majority. The reason we have parental notification / consent laws is to protect children from others and themselves. So what happens if the minor is injured while getting the abortion unbeknownst to the parents? Then someone is hurt. If the kids are still minors could the parents sue the physician for battery?
I'll only agree with you somewhat here. If a parent is forcing a child to get a medical procedure and the child doesn't want it, I would back the child 100%; however, if the child is wanting an elective procedure and the parents don't want them to, i would support the parents until said child is of the legal age of majority.
You're right the anger is more out of ethical (and some legal) frustration. But again, i don't feel that a child has a fundamental right to an invasive procedure without parental notification. So for me, it's not much of a fundamental rights issue, but i see how it could become one.
do not be bamboozled. i've lived with him for a year and known him for a lot more. and never has there been a man so devoid of charm. he is a devine dancer, however.
- Tom Robbins
no.
whatever about my post even suggested the idea of such?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
What, in your opinion, qualifies as a "good reason" for a minor not inform their parents of their abortion?
I'm honored that you decided to end your trollscapade just to insult me
Keep it up and I'll start collecting rent.
Ok.
That is the point of the law IMO as well.
This would only make good sense if there actually was a true "age of majority". That's my fundamental beef with laws like this. I know lots of 25 year olds who aren't qualified to make wise decisions whereas plenty of 16 year olds are.
Regardless, you can't erase the will of a 17 year old by only legally recognizing the will of an 18 year old. It isn't your business to protect anyone from themselves, and it's only truly your business to protect another from yourself.
If a minor is injured while getting the abortion, I fail to see how parental knowledge is relevant. If it is an accident, no redress should be available. If it is from willful harm on the part of the doctor, redress becomes appropriate.
Again, no such "legal age" can erase the actual maturity of the child. Furthermore, no such "legal age" can erase the actual maturity of the parents. I'd back the child in both cases above if the child can demonstrate a good understanding of both.
A child does have such a fundamental right. The very existence of these laws demonstrates that fact since they are aimed at artificially limiting the excercise of that right.
Welcome aboard!
(the dancer thing is a bit hard to swallow, though.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Tsk, tsk. You can't bleed a turnip sweetheart. You're banished to the tipee.
- Tom Robbins
Yes mother....
Why thank you! Jeff has spoken highly of you. And a friend of is a friend of...or so it goes.
- Tom Robbins