Parental Notification Mess: Teen Boyfriend charged in back-alley abortion

RICHMOND TOWNSHIP - Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith said his hands were tied when it came time to decide whom to charge in the baseball bat beating death of a fetus being carried by a teenage girl.

He decided Tuesday to do the only thing one state statute allowed: charge the boyfriend who wielded the bat, hitting his girlfriend in the stomach repeatedly over a two-week period, but let the girl off the hook, uncharged.

The Richmond Township boy, 16, who may be arraigned as early as today in Macomb County Juvenile Court, is at home with his parents. He was charged as a juvenile with intentional conduct against a pregnancy or stillbirth, which is a felony. If convicted, he could remain in custody until age 21.

But the girl, also from Richmond - who was a willing participant in the induced abortion, law enforcement officials say - cannot be charged under that law because it specifically excludes the mother from criminal liability.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0501/05/A01-50709.htm

Now this is odd. Only the man gets charged? Frankly since the woman was a willing participant I don't think either of them should be charged at all. This wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the bullshit parental notification law.

total SHITHEADS who came up with that squeal law.

Girls who have a good relationship with their parents will tell them, squeal law or no squeal law. Girls who don't have a good home life will be driven to do desperate things like this.

Can you imagine the amount of trauma that poor girl suffered? She's lucky she lived through it.

Expect to see this plus knitting needle and coat hanger abortions in squeal law states.

be charged, along with the idiots who implemented this stupid law. That is murder, plain and simple, and they really shouldn't get off scott-free. For neither one of them to be charged is total nuts.

And THAT is NONSENSE, plain and simple.

Murder is the intentional and unjustified/unexcused killing of A HUMAN BEING.

A fetus is NOT a human being, no matter what any individual's warm and fuzzy feelings about fetuses in general, or any particular fetus, may be.

If the young woman had had her pregnancy aborted by a physician in violation of laws that prohibit the termination of pregnancies at that gestational stage (assuming that her state has such a law, and leaving aside any consideration of the validity of such a law), the charge against the physician would not have been "murder", it would have been a charge of violating the law prohibiting late-term abortions.

In our legal tradition, abortion has NEVER been defined, or punished, as homicide. And that's because abortion is not homicide.

It's a parental consent state.

I think anyone who advocates painting these kids into a corner then punishing them when they have no other way out is totally sadistic and nuts.

This just shows that trying to force someone to give birth only leads to disaster.

Excerpts from copyrighted materials are limited to four paragraphs.

oh I didn't know that. That's different from most forums I post on. I would edit it down but the editing period has expired.

If that provision <only the person assaulting a pregnant woman resulting in a miscarriage is criminally liable> had not been written into the statute, it would have clashed with the federal law that allows abortions under the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S Supreme Court decision, said Pam Sherstad, spokeswoman for Right to Life of Michigan, which worked to pass the 1999 state law.

The problem here is that abortion is a medical procedure, and is therefore something that only physicians are authorized to perform. Laws that prohibit third parties from causing a woman's miscarriage are arguably necessary in order to protect women from unsafe medical procedures.

The whole situation is problematic in societies that do not provide their members with medical care. If an individual cannot afford to pay a physician to perform the procedure that is needed, what is s/he to do?

In the case of a tonsillectomy, there is no urgency and no life-threatening or life-altering consequences from going without treatment. In the case of a pregnancy, there are. A pregnancy isn't something that one can just take a wait-and-see approach to, and hope that it goes away. Women have always taken measures, and will always take measures, to end pregnancies that they do not want, regardless of the risk to themselves if those measures are not safe.

A law prohibiting interference in a pregnancy by anyone other than the woman herself or a physician is generally a good idea, to protect women. Even with abortion being legal in the US, women still resort to unqualified and unregulated abortion providers, whether because they cannot afford to pay a physician or because they do not have ready access to abortion services (because of distance and/or laws that interfere in their access, such as waiting periods and parental notification), or simply because they are not knowledgable about legitimate resources or cannot overcome the cultural taboos and stigma and harassment associated with seeking them out.

That's true of various other medical treatments that people might be tempted to purchase from unqualified providers if they cannot afford proper treatment. It's illegal to sell laetrile to cure cancer, for instance. In many cases, the "cure" would be worse than no treatment at all, or the availability of such "cures" would deter people from obtaining proper treatment even if they had access to it.

In the case of abortion, which is the cure for an unwanted pregnancy -- unlike laetrile which is no cure at all -- surely such laws should focus on punishing people who exploit women for profit or who, by providing services cheaply and easily, for instance, deter women from seeking out legitimate services. Interference in a pregnancy, by someone other than a medical practitioner, should be treated as no different from any other improper performance of some act that is properly a medical procedure to be provided by a physician.

But still, if someone cannot obtain the necessary medical treatment, whether because of inability to pay or because his/her access to it is barred by something like a parental notification law, one has to wonder what business the state has making it a criminal offence for someone else to provide it. If the state is not going to guarantee access to the treatment, the state should refrain from punishing the victims.

An old episode of Law & Order involved charging a hostel operator with sexual assault when he coerced young women into having sex with him by threatening to expel them if they did not. If expelled, they believed their lives were at risk, since the only alternative they saw was living on the streets where they risked assault, drug overdose and HIV infection. The young women did not have the social, economic or personal resources to envision or organize any other alternative.

Young pregnant women living with their parents may also be lacking the resources to organize any alternative, if their parents expel them from the home (or abuse them if they remain in the home). It strikes me that when a state requires that young women notify their parents of their pregnancy and intent to terminate it, when doing so would, as they see it, put their lives in danger, the state is no better than the sexual predator.

Parental notification laws jeopardize young women's well-being solely to satisfy and gratify someone who does not have their best interests at heart -- the anti-choice brigade, which is not interested in protecting vulnerable young women, it simply wants to make it impossible for them to exercise their rights. "Exercise their rights" in this instance is not an abstract notion, any more than it would be if someone were prevented from obtaining any other medical treatment that is necessary for his/her well-being.

that was the best explanation I've heard/seen for why parental notification laws are evil.

Excellent analysis!

Elle
http://www.nophicent.org
for all who love literature
http://geertzian.blogspot.com
a culture and politics blog

Parental consent laws are responsible for this. I do blame the boyfriend, but I also blame parental consent laws. If it wasn't for them, the girl would never have felt that desperate. If it wasn't her boyfriend, she might have used another method like a coathanger.

Oh, coathangers are obviously old hat. What are the new ways for a girl to endanger her own life by having an illegal abortion?

I'm just thinking out loud here. If the boyfriend had unintentionally killed the girlfriend during this "abortion" act, would any of you think he should be held criminally responsible for that? If the fetus was 7 months old, should he or she be held criminally responsible for aborting it?

What about the girls who can't find a boyfriend with a baseball bat until a week before her delivery date...should we hold either one of them criminally responsible for the result?

Go right ahead.

What are your answers?

Perhaps more to the point, and as Miss Manners was fond of saying: Why do you ask?

I'm just trying to see where the line is drawn here. Since there's seems to be a feeling that since the girl wanted him to assault her, that he should not have been charged. What's the stance if she was also hurt in the act? Still no culpability? I thought I read somewhere that her parents were defending him...perhaps they weren't as unapproachable about pregnancy issues as some may think. That's all...just wondering. Didn't mean to offend or be unmannerly.

Doesn't she (or he for that matter) have any responsibility to use birth control? I don't think even Georgia requires parental consent to buy a condom from the drugstore. And why is this any sort of tragedy at all then? Since the fetus is not a person, and both parties consented to the baseball bat incident...and the pregnancy was averted...is there really any reason to be talking about this? Sounds like job well done for both of them.

what about her?
Doesn't she (or he for that matter) have any responsibility to use birth control?

Complete that thought, now.

Responsibility to whom?

... is there really any reason to be talking about this?

Did you miss the point quite that badly?

The young man has been charged. That's what was being talked about. I'd thought that was rather clear.

This is what made me post my thread about wanting to prevent unwanted pregancy.

"what about her?
Doesn't she (or he for that matter) have any responsibility to use birth control?"

I get tired of the myth going around that pro-choicers just want women to be able to be irresponsible and not use birth control. I'm for a woman's right to use abortion and not birth control, but I sure as heck don't promote it. I get tired of that myth.

You're talking about this:

"what about her?
Doesn't she (or he for that matter) have any responsibility to use birth control?"

The plain fact is that neither she nor he had any responsibility to use birth control. Accordingly, the simple and correct answer is "no".

A responsibility can only exist if there is someone to be responsible to. Either of the two parties here, for example, might have had a "responsibility", to the other party, to use birth control if s/he had given the other party an undertaking that s/he would do so. (Or perhaps if they were in the kind of relationship in which each party has agreed to assume some responsibility for the other party's happiness and well-being.) Other than that, there is no one to whom either of them could conceivably have had a responsibility to use birth control.

Like I told that guy in Havana: you can't just emulate! you have to emulate someone! You can't just be responsible for something; you have to be responsible to someone for it.

"I get tired of the myth going around that pro-choicers just want women to be able to be irresponsible and not use birth control."

Then the way to counter it is to say that women have no responsibility to use birth control and to insist that whoever is saying that women who don't use birth control, or who, for any other reason, experience pregnancies that they do not want, stop calling them irresponsible.

I most definitely DO want women to be able to not use birth control, if that is what the women in question want to do. And I want them to have access to abortion services in the event they become pregnant, if that is what they want to have.

If I said that I did not want women to be able to not use birth control, I'd be a rather unpleasant sort of person.

Of course I would not say that I just want women to be able not to use birth control. There are lots of other things I want. World peace.

But I very definitely would not say that I want women to be able to be irresponsible, because that is simple nonsense, spouted for the purpose of demonizing women, and demonizing is a good first step toward denying rights.

I really can't see what you're talking about. If the parental consent laws truly are to blame for this action, then it must be because there was no alternative to preventing the pregnancy. But, since there is an alternative...birth control, I can not in good conscience blame the law for the baseball bat incident. The law did not force them to end the pregnancy in that manner, nor did it force them to have irresponsible sex. But while we're on that subject, since there is nothing wrong with abortions, why should a woman have to use birth control...I don't get it..it's illogical...either abortion is appropriate, a woman's absolute right, or it is not.

You answer Jackie97's question (well, at least you purport to), but you don't answer any of mine. How come?

But while we're on that subject, since there is nothing wrong with abortions, why should a woman have to use birth control ...

Eh?? Who on earth said that a woman had to use birth control??

Loaded question. Why should a woman have to use birth control? Why should you have to eat pizza for breakfast? Mu! You don't! She doesn't!

I don't get it..it's illogical...either abortion is appropriate, a woman's absolute right, or it is not.

But you do get it! Abortion IS a woman's absolute right! Whether it's appropriate or not is, of course, up to her to decide. Whether something is appropriate has exactly fuck all to do with whether it's an absolute right, I'm sure you know.

You see? You're just not as confused as you seem to think you are. But goodness, I suspect you knew that already.

The law did not force them to end the pregnancy in that manner

Of course not. Laws don't force anyone to do anything, do they? But I think you'll have to agree that the effect of some people obeying laws can be to limit other people's choices.

If I obey the law that says that narcotics may not be sold except by pharmacists and on prescription, and everybody else obeys it too, then you won't have the choice of taking codeine if you don't get a prescription and find a pharmacist to dispense it. Your choice is to either go to a physician and a pharmacist or cough -- unless you can find someone who breaks the law, or find some other way of alleviating your cough.

If everybody obeys the law that abortions may not be provided to minors by physicians except after a parent has been notified, then a minor will not have the choice of having an abortion provided by a physician if she doesn't notify her parents. Her choice is to either notify her parents or continue her pregnancy -- unless she can find someone who breaks the law, or find some other way of ending her pregnancy.

Coughs generally go away. Pregnancy doesn't. People are probably more likely to resort to desperate measures to put an end to their pregnancy than they are to put an end to their cough.

... nor did it force them to have irresponsible sex.

When you gonna tell us what this having irresponsible sex stuff is? Having sex when you should be doing your homework?

Nobody forces me to associate with virus-laden people. But nobody tells me I can't get a prescription for codeine when I end up with a cough, either. What's your point?

So many questions, so no answers.

either abortion is appropriate, a woman's absolute right, or it is not.

I give up. Which is it, do ya think?

Responsibility to whom?
To herself, to the boyfriend who is now going to jail after doing her bidding with a baseball bat due to her failure to utilize birth control, to all of the whiners tsk tsking over the "tragic" situation that really could have been averted.

Bafflegab and gobbledygook for breakfast! Yum!

Well, the dogs would like it, I imagine. A fine dog's breakfast indeed.

Her responsibility to herself (a meaningless collection of words, and whatever it might be) is no one else's business. Anyone proposing to hold her accountable for being irresponsible to herself? And we will do that ... how? Ought she to be smiting herself or locking herself up, or maybe paying herself damages?

Her responsibility to the boyfriend would appear to be a matter between them, and thus also no one else's business. But gosh, whither his responsibility to himself? "Doing her bidding"? Does free will come into this someplace?

And she had a responsibility to someone here at this forum, or elsewhere, who is concerned about this situation? (I'm not concerned about it specifically as "tragic", myself, I'm concerned about it as a violation of rights, the sort of thing that brings the justice system into disrepute, and like that.) How did she acquire that one? Did we all sign a contract someplace that made her answerable to us for her actions in respect of herself? I'm not familiar with it.

I presume now that I've answered what appeared to be simply a rhetorical question (as the answer is quite obvious to anyone who recognized personal responsibility) you, and not the generic you, the Ivergles you, should be satisfied.

The "Ivergles" moi? 'Fraid we haven't been introduced ...

I have no idea what appeared rhetorical about my question. A statement that someone is "responsible" necessarily implies an entity to whom the responsibility is owed. You stated none. I asked. Actually, in fact, as I recall it, and I do recall correctly, I see, you asked first:

Doesn't she (or he for that matter) have any responsibility to use birth control?

Since you seem to have thought the question so rhetorical, and the answer so obvious, what on earth were you up to? And why on earth would you be saying to me:

still can't seem to answer the arguments

when I still can't find anything in all your previous posts that I'd remotely characterize as an "argument"?

I thought you wuz just thinking out loud, now it turns out you were asking rhetorical questions (the answers being so obvious that even I should have known them) ...

I'll be looking forward to some arguments! In the meantime, feel free to answer the questions that your present answer has left so all unanswered.

Statements of opinion, which is all I see in the post I am responding to regarding these alleged responsibilities you invoke, even accompanied by assertions that all right-thinking people must surely agree with them, do not argument make.

And my goodness ... whiners. Now there's an argument for us. Commonly known (to those who make an effort not to use exclusionary langauge, anyhow) as the ad personam variety. And we sure wouldn't be wanting any of them around here, would we?

the boyfriend who is now going to jail after doing her bidding with a baseball bat due to her failure to utilize birth control (emphasis added)

I'm missing something here.

What news report did you read that underlined bit in?

There are also safe haven laws in nearly every state now. A woman can dropp off a baby anonymously and no questions asked at hospitals, fire houses or police stations. Some states allow up to 30 days.

"Safe haven" laws (such a charming moniker; nothing at all like "laws that encourage women to abandon their children to strangers").

Yes indeed, they definitely solve the problem of AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY. Yes indeed, a woman who dumps her kid down the chute at a hospital doesn't have a kid. Never did. Never went through a full-term pregnancy and delivery. The chute is really a magical wormhole, taking the baby back into the past where it doesn't exist, and restoring the correct time line and making everything A-OK again.

The young woman in this incident DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A CHILD. Offering her the ability to drop her child somewhere, once she's delivered it, is not a solution to her problem. Her problem is that she is going to have a child she does not want, if she cannot terminate her pregnancy. And dumping the child somewhere, after she has delivered it, just doesn't fix that.

Baby-dump sites are for WOMEN WHO HAVE CHILDREN THEY DON'T WANT, not for women who have pregnancies they don't want. Can you see the difference?

Yes, better to destroy the "fetus", than God forbid have strangers care for and love your child...better that the child never existed so you wouldn't have to live through the pain of knowing he or she grew up without you.

How much choice can we empower and still call it choice?

As of today every woman has many choices:

the choice to have or not have sex

the choice to use or not use birth control

the choice to carry a baby to term

the choice to abort the fetus

the choice to keep and raise the child

the choice to give the child to a loving family

the choice to leave a child with authorities who will see it cared for

At each step the woman has complete liberty over her own choice and her own body -- as it should be.

But now we move from the idea of choice for women and into the idea of choice for children. Choice for children negates choice for adult women.

When we move into the realm of allowing an abortion procedure without any form of parental notification, we're moving away in effect from the idea of choice. Since as a minor she needs the state to act on her behalf to provide the means for the abortion, that means that literally every adult citizen of the United States is no longer offered a choice whether to support her abortion or not, but is mandated to support abortion regardless of their belief on the matter.

There is only so much we can do to manage a problem until we reach the point that in trying to literally solve the problem we end up with something worse.

Since as a minor she needs the state to act on her behalf to provide the means for the abortion ...

Sez who? No minors have money of their own? No organizations exist that provide abortion services on sliding scales or free of charge?

It's a damned funny thing about taxes. I get to pay for your choice to have children and send them to public schools that my taxes pay for (hypothesizing that we belong to the same group of taxpayers), just for instance and for one very small example. Tough bananas, eh?

And just think of all the taxpayers paying for the bullets to kill people in Iraq. Talk about mandating support for imperialist aggression and actual homicide regardless of their belief on the matter. Damn that majority-rule stuff.

And damn that silly liberal idea that individuals are entitled to some minimal supports to meet their basic needs, regardless of anybody's belief about them and their choices.

There is only so much we can do to manage a problem until we reach the point that in trying to literally solve the problem we end up with something worse.

Yes, I know, dear. It's just a horrible thing that you might have to pay something like $0.0000015 toward an abortion for a young woman. My advice: imagine what you would have had to pay for the public schooling of the child she would otherwise have had, and think of how easy you got off.

I'm talking about a denial of the right to due process denied every parent regardless of whether they're good or bad.

The right to make important decisions for one's child is one guaranteed by the constitution as upheld by several supreme court decisions. It's a basic inalienable right.

Since minors can't act on their own behalf to enter into a business contract or to even have a tooth cavity filled, the government then must act in the stead of a parent without any sort of guaranteed due process. Since this is the case, all are made to support abortion rather than to be given a choice.

(though I do agree with you on the comparison regarding war)

The fact of the matter is, every state has a procedure for getting access to abortions for minors -- they simply have to go through due process first.

So in what cases do you think it's correct to deny due process -- just this one? How about the Patriot Act? Do you think it's OK to deny due process in the case of "national security?" Probably not and neither do I. Denial of basic constitutional rights is the "something worse" I was talking about.

So when you said this --

Since as a minor she needs the state to act on her behalf to provide the means for the abortion, that means that literally every adult citizen of the United States is no longer offered a choice whether to support her abortion or not, but is mandated to support abortion regardless of their belief on the matter.

-- what exactly were you talking about? Are there some other "means" that anybody is having to provide ... besides money?

If an adult woman has an abortion for which she pays out of her pocket, nobody else needs to worry about it.

If a minor has an abortion for which public funds are used, suddenly somebody is being "mandated to support abortion". Except nobody is. The public is being required to pay for a health care service that a minor in need cannot afford to pay for (and that is legal in the society whether anybody likes it or not). Like I said, something like $0.0000015 (I may have left out a zero).

The right to make important decisions for one's child is one guaranteed by the constitution as upheld by several supreme court decisions. It's a basic inalienable right.

Yeah, and so are life and liberty. And children have the right to those, too. They're "inalienable", and they're also generally regarded as "inherent" in the human person. They don't get issued with driver's licences at the age of 16.

I'm aware that children's rights are not much respected where you're at (and there are admittedly some gaps in that respect where I'm at, but not quite such gaping ones). I'm aware that the fact that parents have rights in respect of their children largely because the children are human beings who need protection and assistance in exercising their own rights doesn't get much attention there, and that these "rights" that parents have in respect of their children are treated much more like the rights that people have in property. But I don't really care.

Since minors can't act on their own behalf to enter into a business contract or to even have a tooth cavity filled, the government then must act in the stead of a parent without any sort of guaranteed due process.

Yes, children may not buy bubble gum at the corner store. That's a contract of purchase and sale, you know, and they must have a parent present to do it for them.

As far as I know, no one is acting in the stead of any parent when a minor obtains an abortion. Is the government acting in the stead of the parent when the shopkeeper sells gum to the kid?

Really, you know, when the rights of third parties are involved -- and particularly when the safety and well-being of third parties are at risk -- due process requirements are just a tad lower. You've heard of ex parte injunctions and restraining orders?

Since this is the case, all are made to support abortion rather than to be given a choice.

Except that I'm not aware that you've demonstrated that this -- the government (and thus the public) acting in the stead of parents -- is the case at all.

But I'll go back to that majority rule thing. The government, acting on behalf of the public, does quite a lot of things that quite a lot of people don't like. Their internal distress isn't generally regarded as a good basis for impeding the exercise of someone else's rights.

So in what cases do you think it's correct to deny due process -- just this one? How about the Patriot Act? Do you think it's OK to deny due process in the case of "national security?" Probably not and neither do I.

Do the rights that are violated in those instances involve the exercise of control over the exercise of someone else's rights? Can permitting me to exercise a right of free speech, for instance, be expected to result in someone else being unable to exercise a right of, oh, freedom of religion?

The "right" that you assert amounts to a "right" to prevent someone else from exercising rights. It is parents' right to exercise their children's rights on the children's behalf, and in the children's best interests. Since quite a number of parents can very reasonably be expected to attempt to prevent their children from exercising their rights in this respect, in their own interests and *not* in the children's interests, it is very reasonable to take steps to prevent that from happening.

There really are lots of things that people can do that could be characterized as violations of these parental rights of yours. Often, they are done to protect the children (allow them to exercise their rights). This is because we do regard society at large as having some responsibilities and duties to children, and we really just don't regard children as chattel any more.

Denial of basic constitutional rights is the "something worse" I was talking about.

And me, I find the assertion of a constitutional right to prevent someone else from exercising his/her own rights, in a matter that affects the constitutionally protected interests of the latter, but not the constitutionally protected interests of the former in any way other than as a proxy, to be quite distasteful.

It's interesting how any consideration of the interests, rights and welfare of the children in question is entirely absent from your discourse.

"If an adult woman has an abortion for which she pays out of her pocket, nobody else needs to worry about it."
So money is the coin of the realm? If a woman is on welfare and has an abortion, then society has a say? Isn't that discrimination in the worse sense...based upon someone's individual wealth, or lack thereof? What does this possibly have to do with parental consent laws?

"Yeah, and so are life and liberty. And children have the right to those, too. They're "inalienable", and they're also generally regarded as "inherent" in the human person. They don't get issued with driver's licences at the age of 16."
Certain rights don't apply at the age of 16...since when do we take away a person's most basic right...the right to have a family and raise that family how he or she sees fit, within certain bounds? Does a 12 year old child have the right to choose prostitution over her parents' objection? Does a 10 year old have the "right" to decide quit school? Can a 13 year determine that he can drive a car? Why should the government or his parents have the "right" to tell him otherwise? What makes abortion a holy sacrament that should be treated any differently than any of the other "rights" that children do not have?

"Since quite a number of parents can very reasonably be expected to attempt to prevent their children from exercising their rights in this respect, in their own interests and *not* in the children's interests, it is very reasonable to take steps to prevent that from happening."

Why do you make such an assumption? Are only 13 year olds "enlight
ened" enough to know that an abortion is right for them? D40 that prohibits a right thinking person from seeing the wisdom of a pregnancy termination? Seems to me that most of the pro-choice activists are well beyond the age of 13 and think pregnancy termination is a good thing. Why would only the parents of those pregnant 13 year olds think differently? Your argument here is not supported by any statistical or factual data. Please point me to it.

And why do you assume that a Planned Parenthood representive, who knows the 13 year old for all of an hour has the child's best interest at heart, more so than the child's parents?

Or perhaps not.

If an adult woman has an abortion for which she pays out of her pocket, nobody else needs to worry about it.
So money is the coin of the realm? If a woman is on welfare and has an abortion, then society has a say?

I give up. Why are you asking me? I said nobody needed to worry in Case A. Is there a reason that you would suggest that I meant that somebody needed to worry in Case B?

I say: the sky is blue.
You say: are you saying that the ocean is yellow?

I don't think so.

What does this possibly have to do with parental consent laws?

An excellent question. Why don't you try asking it of the person who dragged the herring into the discussion? 'Tweren't I.

Does a 12 year old child have the right to choose prostitution over her parents' objection?

I dunno. Why would you ask me this?

Could you not read what I wrote -- in the post you are replying to and seem to have had no trouble copying and pasting from ... say ...

It is parents' right to exercise their children's rights on the children's behalf, and in the children's best interests.

... and maybe take a pretty educated guess at my answer?

Seems to me that most of the pro-choice activists are well beyond the age of 13 and think pregnancy termination is a good thing.

Seems to me that you wouldn't know a fact, or a candid statement, if you fell over one. But I shall assume nothing; would you know one if you did?

And why do you assume that a Planned Parenthood representive, who knows the 13 year old for all of an hour has the child's best interest at heart, more so than the child's parents?

Why do you ask such infernally moronic questions?

Remember ... I'll answer your questions once you start answering mine.

Quelle farce we're out in, eh?

I apologize if I am not setting up the thread properly and that I am asking you personal questions, or am putting my questions to you specifically. I am not. As you can see, I am new here and have not quite figured out quite how the message forums work (I am not nearly as talented as you are at bolding the text I wish to copy...but I'll keep trying!)

In the mean time, it's interesting that you choose only to personally attack me, without addressing the issues or supporting your arguments with any facts. That may be a great tactic in a bar, but I thought this group desired a higher level of discussion, rather than "you're stupid...no, you're stupid"...apparently I am mistaken in that assumption.

What exactly are your questions?

But all I have done is ask questions!

"What exactly are your questions?"

Allow me to field that one.

If you click on the posts with my name attached to them, and run through them looking for the punctuation thingies known as "question marks", I think you should be able to find my questions.

Maybe you'll even be able to answer them. I don't think they're actually terribly difficult. Most of them aren't even loaded with false premises. Hardly any assume facts not in evidence for the purpose of conveying an impression that a state of affairs exists that I couldn't actually prove exists, and that in fact I know perfectly well does not exist.


"I apologize if I am not setting up the thread properly and that I am asking you personal questions, or am putting my questions to you specifically. I am not."

Gosh. How odd that you -- say, for example, here --
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=217&topic_id=587&mesg_id=928&page=
-- would have copied and pasted bits of my posts and, to all appearances, written in response to them. I mean, when you copied and pasted something I'd written, and then said:

Why do you make such an assumption? Are only 13 year olds enlight
ened" enough to know that an abortion is right for them?"

... were you speaking to the world at large? I mean, it would seem you were speaking to someone other than me, since you appear to have been asking me why I'd done something I hadn't done, that's true. But dog knows why you'd have bothered with that copying and pasting stuff if that were the case. Not to mention clicking on the reply link in my post, just as you've done with other people's posts that you've apparently responded directly to -- you know, things like "No I don't" (don't what? refus global perhaps?); and in my case, things like "yes...thinking". "Yes" and "no", seemingly in response to something ...

There's a good question in post 16, the first thing with a question mark in that post. You didn't respond to the post at all. Here's your chance, now.

Sarcasm and insults could cure the ills of the world, I know someone who'd be a messiah!

And there you have it. I've run into you before on these boards and always you do the same thing: insult, attack, denigrate.

You're an excellent ambassador for the learned and morally superior.

So who do you think does a better job at taking care of children -- parents or the government? I guess I know the answer to that since it takes a village to raise an idiot.

And before you go criticizing the ideas of inalienable rights in the US, why don't you go to work in your own country and see about maybe removing the clause from your own bill of rights that recognizes "the supremacy of God."

Well, I doubt you'd win that way, either.

Please try addressing the points raised rather resorting to these lame attempts to divert attention away from your demolished arguments.

"demolished arguments "...nice that egos sometimes make up for the lack of intellectual depth.

demagoguery never makes up for declining to engage in (small d) democratic discourse.

Democratic discourse ... transparent, candid, good will discussion in the agora of issues important to the body politic, by advocates of different positions on the issues, never appealing to prejudices or seeking to demonize the adversary, always making full disclosure of interests and objectives. It's a beautiful thing to see, on the rare occasions it occurs.

Well, that is certainly true here.

Well, that is certainly true here.

You read my mind.

Now perhaps you could read something else, if for some reason you haven't already. You could pick most anything with my name attached to it, but I'll suggest this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=217&topic_id=132&mesg_id=851&page=
or maybe this one
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=217&topic_id=132&mesg_id=167&page=

Just look at that hidden agenda, that subtle obfuscation, that failure to ever quite come out and say what is meant, the plain evidence of failing to mean what is said ...

Just don't be following that example, now. After all the whining about no arguments being made ... and the complete failure to make any arguments at all ... the shock might be fatal to some who would read.

But hey, I'm wearing my rubber boots. I can take it. Gimme an argument. Bring 'em on, I say.

And before you go criticizing the ideas of inalienable rights in the US, ...

Goldarn it, you seem to be wanting someone to believe that I was "criticizing the ideas of inalienable rights in the US".

One might almost even think that you had some basis for insinuating that I was "criticizing the ideas of inalienable rights in the US".

Wouldn't it be nice if you could tell us what it was?

Before you go beating your wife again ...

... see about maybe removing the clause from your own bill of rights that recognizes "the supremacy of God."

Well, I have a Bill of Rights, but it's kinda old and passé at this point. I think you might be referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the one that New Zealand and the new South Africa and a few other places have modeled their own constitutional rights instruments on. That one?

Yeah, that's an icky bit. It means that us Canadians have to pray every day on waking up, or the guy in the scarlet tunic watching us on that video monitor will come round and smite us.

I see that the Supreme Court of Canada has considered that bit of the Constitution:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1992/vol1/html/1992scr1_0236.html
(Appellants were the Canadian Council of Churches et al., but they weren't concerned with that god stuff; they were acting on behalf of refugee claimants. Canadian churches tend to do that kind of stuff quite a bit.)

The rule of law is recognized in the preamble of the Charter which reads:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

The rule of law is thus recognized as a corner stone of our democratic form of government.

Oh, oops, they ignored it.

And I see that an applicant for leave to appeal tried relying on it:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/bul/2001/html/01-09-14.bul.html

Constitutional grounds: Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s.139(2) "Obstructing Justice", & on whatever else ensures the supremacy of God & the rule of law rather than the opposite, the supremacy of Satan, in symmetrical terms, & the rule of fraud, eg cover-up disguised as justice & paid for by taxpayers.

... but didn't get that leave. (Guess the Court considered "Whether lower-level 'relief' is cover-up of part genocide of Applicant & of sort violent putsch not per Canada's democratically legislated selection by merit" and decided it wasn't.)

Check it out if you like.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=+site:www.lexum.umontreal.ca+lexum+%22supremacy+of+god%22
Search results for "supremacy of god" on the SCC decisions site. Slim pickins.

I'd be thrilled to remove that phrase from the 1982 constitution. Lots of things would thrill me. Most of them I don't spend a lot of time fretting about, if the absence of them isn't causing me or anybody else any harm. I think I'll let you do the worrying about this one, just like so many of your buddies seem to worry so much about Canada's head of state, even though she hasn't been known to lift a finger to do anything but wave politely in living memory ... and certainly has never claimed that god has sent her on a mission to exterminate little brown people in various places around the world.

But anyhow, given that I wasn't "criticizing the ideas of inalienable rights in the US" and that I can't for the life of me imagine why you would think or insinuate that I was, I guess I can just go back to my fretless and worryfree pondering of actual meaningful stuff.

But hey, thanks for all the kind remarks, and if you ever actually feel like saying something meaningful about anything I actually did say, y'all feel inalienably free to do it, eh?

funny...you still can't seem to answer the arguments, only the questioner...perhaps your debate skills are not quite up to snuff...or do the facts fail you?

just hit the alert link within the post, and send a message to the moderator.

Since you're new and all, just thought I'd clue you in.

So money is the coin of the realm?

I wanna walk into a store and start grabbing items off the shelf:

A dollar twenty-five for this! Eighty-nine cents for that! Three bucks off with coupon? Oh, gawd... is MONEY the coin of the realm?

I like you, Sweetbutterfly. You funny!

"Since as a minor she needs the state to act on her behalf to provide the means for the abortion, that means that literally every adult citizen of the United States is no longer offered a choice whether to support her abortion or not, but is mandated to support abortion regardless of their belief on the matter."

Sniff. Adults are being forced to "support abortion" by allowing a minor to have a choice. Give me a break. I'd like to know why parents need the government to do their darn job with their kids. Why do parents need the government to make their kids tell them stuff? Are parents not doing their job in making it clear to their kids that they can always come to them? If you want your kids to come to you, then do your job as a parent. Stop trying to get the government to do your job.

As it turns out, most kids do tell their parents about their pregnacies and so forth.

Yes, better to destroy the "fetus", than God forbid have strangers care for and love your child

If you say so -- if that "you" is generic, and you're actually talking to yourself, and if you're pregnant and you're saying this about your fetus, and your life, and your actions, and your non-existent "child".

If you're saying so about someone else's fetus, and someone else's life, and someone else's actions, I'd say you're overstepping. You'd likely have no way of knowing what's better in that instance, so I have no idea why you'd have or express an opinion.

better that the child never existed so you wouldn't have to live through the pain of knowing he or she grew up without you.

And once again, if you say so, etc. Far be it from me to butt into a conversation you're having with yourself about your options. Just as far be it from you to butt into anyone else's internal conversation, as I would trust you're not trying to do.

Me, I say that there is no such thing as "humane" abandonment. I also say that the kid has a right not to be abandoned and that parents who abandon their children probably belong in the slammer. And I think that those who advocate making abandonment easier are smarmy, amoral twits who oughtta be stuffed down the babychute themselves.

But, shucks -- maybe that's just me!

If the fetus was actually a person and if it wasn't living off of a girl/woman, I'd better sympathize with your position. However, it's not. I see the life of a girl and a woman to be far more important than the life of a fetus.

If people want to adopt so badly, then they need to start adopting the kids we have. I'm tired of all this crying a river for the people who can't have children when many of them could adopt. It's just they don't want an older child. Boohoo!

They could still try to adopt from the international community. Word has it that China's adopting out their girls. It's like a black market in my opinion, but those kids will end up without a family at all if nobody adopts them.

that the boyfriend was responsible.

As for your questions about late trimester ones, I don't think that it should make a difference. The fetus is not a person, and only what a person does to the born person (a girl in this case) should matter. I would still say that parental consent laws are responsible for the whole thing in any case, no matter what the result. Parental consent laws lead out to this.

a self induced abortion:

Michigan state Rep. Bill Van Regenmorter (R) has said he plans to propose a measure that would amend state law so that a pregnant woman who purposefully participates in a violent act that causes her to miscarry could be charged with a crime.

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=2&DR_ID=28022

What exactly constitutes "purposeful" and "violent act"???

So how on earth will they enforce this?

Investigate every miscarriage for possible "purposeful" and "violent" cause?

Investigate every pregnant woman that falls down the stairs?

Under this law, will pregnant women be charged for not leaving an abusive partner?

And isn't that just exactly what all the proponents of "fetal homicide" laws (which at present exempt the pregnant woman from prosecution) told you would NOT happen??

US states' "fetal homicide" laws at present exempt physicians who perform abortions that comply with state abortion laws from prosecution, too ...

Meanwhile, exempting the woman from prosecution in cases like this still constitutes denying the other party involved in the act the equal protection of the law.

It's all or nothing: either all abortions are treated in the law as if they were homicide, or none are. There ain't no middle ground possible.

Is there *NO* compassion left under the law? These poor kids
have been through too much already. Now the boy could be jailed
until he's 21?

Where is the justice in this? Have people no sense of mercy?

Yes, it all sounds very logical. What parent would not want to know when their child had medical treatment? Yes, we can agree to that, but we need to look DEEPER into this. What are the REAL motives behind Parental Notifications Laws.

I was watching a show a while ago (CNN) where they were interviewing some woman from Concerned Women for America regarding Parental Notification Laws. If you have never heard of this group, they are a very right wing Christian family organization. You can almost be assured any organization with the word "family" in their title is right wing.

At any rate, this spokesperson was talking about this law and saying that it is NOT working out as THEY planned. Host asked her what did she mean by that. Parents weren't being notified? Oh, yes, she said they were. But the parents were GIVING their permission for abortions for their underage daughters. She said, "We never foresaw so many parents killing their own grandchildren". I guess they assumed that if you have given birth you cannot possibly be pro choice?

Just as an aside, if you go on their website you will find many transcripts of dear Senator Santorum appearing before this group and lecturing on Christian Family Values and Legislation which can further their cause.

...when ya get everything ya want and it still SUCKS :D

We'll see a lot more of this kind of thing if current trends continue.

On the other hand, when people see the R's true colors, it will probably be good for dems.