Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on November 02, 2005, 12:38:42 AM
-
So... I'm going over the book and these are my first thoughts...
73- No. I figure a girl that's old enough to engage in sexual activity is also old enough to decide what to do about it if she gets pregnant. If communication is lacking with the family, I don't see it as a state's responsibility to enforce.
74. No. My next door neighbor is a teacher. She just became one and she busted her bellybutton for over six years to do it. New teachers need a lot of dedication and hard work just to get the job. If the problem with our education system is the teachers, I'll bet it's not the young ones. It's the ones that have been on the job for 20 plus years. This prop won't do anything about them.
75. No. Was leaning towards yes... but I really don't care much about unions and Funked's case is compelling.
76. No. Arnie will have to find other places to cut funding. I like all the doom and gloom about schools being part of the reason we're $22 Billion in debt. From the look of things around our schools, they are short on cash.
77. No. I'll generally vote no on anything that costs more money. 1.4 million to some retired judges seems wasteful.
78. No. The money thing again. No on more spending.
79. No. See above.
80. No. Every time our state decides to legislate energy, I get nervous.
Thoughts?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
...Thoughts?
Oregon is better than California
-
Originally posted by Debonair
Oregon is better than California
Careful, we might have to buy your state. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Careful, we might have to buy your state. ;)
All sales final. No refunds, returns or exchanges.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Careful, we might have to buy your state. ;)
Careful, we might send back all the interlopers.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Careful, we might send back all the interlopers.
They can't make you leave SOB
-
on 73 yes...
it is unbelievable that anyone would agree that a minor child should not be able to get an aspirin from her school for a headache but be sent to an abortion clinic to get an abortion.. There is no good reason why a parent should not be notified that a child is getting a serious medical procedure that may effect the rest of her life. No parent I know wants the state to be their daughters parents.
on 74 yes..
I think that the system must be broken and that 74 will allow us to look at it. I have explained how in legal fair evaluations it is impossible for anyone who is even mildly competent to get two bad legal evaluations...(in the other thread) I am a little torn on this because the system is so screwed up at present... but it needs some real rules.. I think fair evaluations are better in the long run for the teachers than contiueing with this mish mash of protectionist current unevenly applied policies.
on 75 yes.
obviously.. there really is no good arguement for extortion. I don't see that funked has any case at all...
76 yes...
It doesn't cut funding... it cuts the amount of INCREASE to and average of the INCREASE of the last three years if we are not meeting the budget... school funding would still continue to go up at an astronomical rate.
77... yes...
but not real concerned... just like to take some of the power away from the old time hack entrenched politicos.
78, 79, 80 probly no.
sandie.... you still claim that you are not a liberal?
lazs
-
while I wont be voting because I am not considered a resident. I'd have to say
73. Yes, Last time I checked kids don't have alot of rights. If she wants to see a doctor about somthing the parents need to know about it
74 Yes. What can it hurt?
75 yes I think FUNK'S union propaganda got to him but that's just my opinion.
77. Sandy have you read what this does besides the costs? Currently politicians have a re-election rate of around 96% because the repubs and dems get together and draw their own districts. I don't think this is ethical.
-
Well it doesn't happen often, but I'm voting with lazs on this one.
Especially 77. It may not solve the problem, but there is most definitely a problem. for example... we recalled our Governor due to the horrible mess the State was in... but 153 out of 153 assemblymen and state senators were re-elected. Something is way wrong.
76 - Why not? We don't have the money. Stands to reason that we stop spending it.
75 - If you think unions need help to get their message out.... you aren't looking at who is funding the "no" commercials.
(edit.. except 73.... Sandy's right on that one.)
-
Yeah...
Funked didn't really make a point in the Union post. Nor did he make a good case either.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Careful, we might send back all the interlopers.
God no.... Please take more. Take the whole city of San francisco!
-
So you guys that are for 73, you would be OK with your minor daughter having an abortion without your consent?
No teen girl given the choice is going to face her parents and tell them she made that kind of mistake.
Not even if the parents are saints and would have nothing but loving concern for the kid.
What a wonderfull way to teach personal responsibility! Yeah, no owning up to something you messed up on, just hide it.
If you could have gotten away with getting out of getting in major trouble as a kid you tell me with a strait face that you would not have taken it no mater how nice or cool your parents were?
Children under 18 are minors, the parents have the right to know when ANY medical procedure is done to their kids. I guess it would be ok with you guys to have the school offer the birth control they inject into the kids arm without consent or them getting tatoos or having a boob job too?
These kids don't have the right to vote, or drink or in many cases drive but you guys are ok with them having a major medical procedure? We are not talking about late teens in many cases here, these could be 12 year old kids.
Why don't you just give the rest of your parental rights to the nannystate too.
-
I am with Laz on the rest.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
Hey Mr.! You just be happy with the fact that I agree with some of what you wrote and learn to accept the rest.
:cool:
-
believe me.... I am exstatic that your wife has allowed you even this much....
honestly.... It is more than I could have ever hoped for.
I know I should try to act grateful and n.. ni...nuh.... nice... but... well, you know... it's just not my nature.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The school has no right to arrange an abortion for someones 14 year old girl and then transport her to the abortion clinic and hide the whole thing from the parents. This is just unbelievable behavior.
If 14 years old girl gets pregnant, than parents have obviously failed...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
believe me.... I am exstatic that your wife has allowed you even this much....
honestly.... It is more than I could have ever hoped for.
I know I should try to act grateful and n.. ni...nuh.... nice... but... well, you know... it's just not my nature.
lazs
Maybe on the 73 thing it’s a head in the sand approach?
IE, if you don't know your 13 year old is humping every kid on the Jr High baseball team and she gets the abortions on her own and you as a parent never hear about it, you can then go on thinking your kid is a good kid and you are a good parent!
Just ignore the 3 or 4 different kids climbing in and out of your daughter’s windows and the open sign on it...
:D
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
77. Sandy have you read what this does besides the costs? Currently politicians have a re-election rate of around 96% because the repubs and dems get together and draw their own districts. I don't think this is ethical.
That makes it worth another look. Thanx.
-
They have elektions in Kalifornia?
-
73 & 74 WOW!
you go girl!!
LOL
-
73 Yes
74 Yes
75 No
76 Yes
77 Yes
78 No
79 No
80 No
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
If 14 years old girl gets pregnant, than parents have obviously failed...
I'm not sure I follow the logic.
Parents have the choice of trying to be with their kids 24hr a day or giving them some space. ie friends house , movies etc etc. Now if you trust your kids(and we all hope we can) you may let them go to the movies with their friends. Either you take them or the friends parents take them and you do what? Do you let them take some personal responsibility and let them stay by themselfs till the movie is over or do you stay with them the whole time?
Say you let them stay and while you are gone they sneak out to do the bouncy bouncy with a boy. Is this really the parents fault?
No matter what you teach your kids if they want to sneak away and play with each others mommy daddy toys then they are going to find a way.
It doesn't mean the parents were bad or that they did something wrong.
On the issue of parents being notified I think since the parents are legally responsible for the kids till they are 18 they have the right to know everything about the kid.
-
Parents failed?
she probly got pregant when she was at school or said she was.
lazs
-
If your kid gets caught smoking a cigarette at age 13, then you have failed as a parent and the state has the right to remove a lung if needed without your knowledge
-
and funked... only one thing I can say to your vote on 75. you are asking to take away my choice. right now my choice is to pay my money to the union and let them use it to fund commies or.... have a reduced membership in the union where I pay them and the onlyway they represent me is through collective barganing... I am not really a "member of the union" or... drop out completely..
75 makes it so that you remain a union member in every way but that you spend your money for political purposes your own way.
I am not sure but I think you are saying that you allready can do so... It appears that you are saying that if you can do so that screw all the other guys who can't.
lazs
-
What if my 13 year old daugher wanted to get breast implants? It's her body.....
Could she go to a clinic and get the breast implants for free and without permission?
Maybe she wants to get her middle finger removed from each hand. It's her body. Why can't she just have the school arange for the surgery?
-
Do our rights begin at age 18? I mean constitutional rights. Can we legally restrict the constitutional rights of someone because they are under 18?
Seems to me 73 is a no brainer for all you nanny state haters. You want your daughter's rights taken away?
And the school can't arrange an abortion that is just nonsense. She would have to do it on her own.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Do our rights begin at age 18? I mean constitutional rights. Can we legally restrict the constitutional rights of someone because they are under 18?
Seems to me 73 is a no brainer for all you nanny state haters. You want your daughter's rights taken away?
And the school can't arrange an abortion that is just nonsense. She would have to do it on her own.
MT, you are blowing smoke. Minors do not have the same rights as adults.
-
I don't know MT.. that is the thing. If you want kids (under 18) to be able to get an abortion without the parents knowing or consenting tho... you would either have to have it court ordered or...
have the sc decide just what age a person was no longer a minor and was subject to ALL rights and laws of an adult.
A parent should not be able to restrict the child from going out with a 50 year old say... the school could even arrange the meet if that is what the child wanted. Tattoos? school could bus a load to the parlor. If they are old enough to decide to have sex and, abortions... they should be able to decide who to date and if they drink or not and to buy a firearm and to vote etc..
any trouble they get into will be treated as an adult and the parents will be held blameless for any property or personal injury that they incur.
not sure what you want.
lazs
-
MT, maybe all humans should have equal rights. That would be fine with me.
Fetuses would have equal rights and all would be well.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Do our rights begin at age 18? I mean constitutional rights. Can we legally restrict the constitutional rights of someone because they are under 18?
Seems to me 73 is a no brainer for all you nanny state haters. You want your daughter's rights taken away?
And the school can't arrange an abortion that is just nonsense. She would have to do it on her own.
Yeah great, they should have all the same rights.
Lets not force them to go to school, it should be their right to choose.
Lets not force them to stay with their parents, it should be their right to choose.
Booze? Hell we are opression kids by not letting them drink at 12, hell, they should have the same rights, right?
Maybe they should vote too?
Hell lets get rid of all age of consent laws because children should have a right to choose when and who they sleep with and if that means your 12 year chooses to shack up with you 40 year old neighbor, well as long as they made the choice on their own they should have that right!
Kid need braces? Well not if he doesnt want them, it should be his right to refuse.
Kid gets bad grades so you want to send them to their room, oh no, that would be unlawfull imprisonment! Hey they have the right to not be locked up without a trial like adults!
There is a reason why parents are supposed to make decisions about a their kids life when they are a minor, the reason being kids are not going to make the right decision in many cases.
But I guess abortion is such a minor thing they should have the only say.
Maybe we should just eliminate those evil opressive parents from the whole deal, the government could do so much better!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Maybe we should just eliminate those evil opressive parents from the whole deal, the government could do so much better!
I'm confused. If we agree to 73 are we not directing the government to ensure that doctors notify parents?
Seems to me that voting no on 73 means keeping the government out of the situation.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm confused. If we agree to 73 are we not directing the government to ensure that doctors notify parents?
Seems to me that voting no on 73 means keeping the government out of the situation.
because it removes rights from parents. It is my RIGHT as a parent to determine what's best for my kids. I view this differently, this is the govt stepping in and telling me what's best for my children.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
because it removes rights from parents. It is my RIGHT as a parent to determine what's best for my kids. I view this differently, this is the govt stepping in and telling me what's best for my children.
Was that the case? Were the clinics ignoring "age of consent" or was there some other applicable statute. I can't recall that clinics have ever been required to notify parents about abortions. Maybe it was simply a loophole in the law? Did the government actually have an active hand in shielding pregnant children from their parents?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm confused. If we agree to 73 are we not directing the government to ensure that doctors notify parents?
Seems to me that voting no on 73 means keeping the government out of the situation.
Yeah by giving a minor adult rights.
Do you think minors should have all the same rights as adults?
Do you think it is ok for minors to have medical procedures done without parental consent?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Was that the case? Were the clinics ignoring "age of consent" or was there some other applicable statute. I can't recall that clinics have ever been required to notify parents about abortions. Maybe it was simply a loophole in the law? Did the government actually have an active hand in shielding pregnant children from their parents?
Right now the law allows a minor to have an abortion without parental consent.
Bet your bellybutton they wont even admit a minor to a hospital for anything else or at least not lay a finger on the kid without parental consent or consent of the gaurdian. (with the exception of the kid dying on the spot without it)
-
Sandy
Would you be ok with your 16 year old kid joining the military without your consent?
-
as usual sandie is avoiding the question.... Of course he doesn't want children to have the same rights as adults... he just want's to protect his precious abortions... he want's to make sure that every abortion possible takes place.
children are not mature enough to make decisions except.... when it comes to abortion? Parents are responsible for their kids except... when it comes to abortion?
you tell me what is the age of consent for children and at that point.... they can make their own decisions. I don't think I should pay for any school employees time or fuel to get em to the clinic tho... the school should have nothing to do with it no matter what happens.
we see two different viewpoints here... the one of the parents who have children and the one of the guys who want to screw that child and not worry about having to pay for the child of the child.
lazs
-
also.... if we allow children to decide if they want an abortion or not without any notification of the parents.... shouldn't they also be able to decide to get sterilized or not without parental notification?
lazs
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Right now the law allows a minor to have an abortion without parental consent.
Back to my question. When did these laws go into effect?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
as usual sandie is avoiding the question.... Of course he doesn't want children to have the same rights as adults... he just want's to protect his precious abortions... he want's to make sure that every abortion possible takes place.
children are not mature enough to make decisions except.... when it comes to abortion? Parents are responsible for their kids except... when it comes to abortion?
you tell me what is the age of consent for children and at that point.... they can make their own decisions. I don't think I should pay for any school employees time or fuel to get em to the clinic tho... the school should have nothing to do with it no matter what happens.
we see two different viewpoints here... the one of the parents who have children and the one of the guys who want to screw that child and not worry about having to pay for the child of the child.
lazs
Well... since you're making my opinion for me, you can answer for me as well. In fact, just go right on ahead and argue your side and the only other side of this issue that you can see. You can just leave me out of it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Back to my question. When did these laws go into effect?
I have no idea, prolly sometime around Roe V Wade?
:D
I do not see why the law being around for any time period has any bearing on the question though.
It still boils down to giving a minor adult rights over a medical procedure.
If your going to give kids adult rights where do you draw the line, why is this right special?
So would you be ok with a law saying any kid 12 and over can sign up for the military, no parental say? Or buy booze? Or drive? Or own guns? Or smoke? All things Minors don't have the right to do now.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well... since you're making my opinion for me, you can answer for me as well. In fact, just go right on ahead and argue your side and the only other side of this issue that you can see. You can just leave me out of it.
Bah, ignore Laz for now! :D
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Yeah by giving a minor adult rights.
Do you think minors should have all the same rights as adults?
Do you think it is ok for minors to have medical procedures done without parental consent?
1. Not entirely. No.
2. Maybe. It depends on the procedure.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sandy
Would you be ok with your 16 year old kid joining the military without your consent?
No, I would not, but I'm not certain that everyone shares my opinion so I'm unwilling to impose my beliefs upon anyone else.
-
Its already law that, they can not join without consent, hell maybe even with consent now(used to be 17 with parents consent).
Right now Minors are severly restricted in what they can do. With the exception of abortion.
We either should not impose restrictions on them and leave it to the parents or we should.
I go with giving the parents the rights to choose what go on in their minor childs life.
-
Sandy
What decisions do you think the average minor of say 12, should be able to make without his parents consent?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Do our rights begin at age 18? I mean constitutional rights. Can we legally restrict the constitutional rights of someone because they are under 18?
Yes...Children have no rights except what their parents grant them. If Children had all the rights as adults then based on that, parents authority can be usurped anytime the child disagrees.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I have no idea, prolly sometime around Roe V Wade?
:D
I do not see why the law being around for any time period has any bearing on the question though.
It still boils down to giving a minor adult rights over a medical procedure.
If your going to give kids adult rights where do you draw the line, why is this right special?
So would you be ok with a law saying any kid 12 and over can sign up for the military, no parental say? Or buy booze? Or drive? Or own guns? Or smoke? All things Minors don't have the right to do now.
Well... that's just it. For as long as I can recall, minors have had that right. I'm wondering how it happened.
As for the military at 12 thing, it's a rather ridiculous question. We do have child labor laws to protect them. Now... as for older teenagers joining the military, I think this should be a family decision. If a teenager is mature enough at even fifteen, I might be inclined to approve of their decision. IIRC, in decades past, people of a relatively young age by our standards got married had children and worked. Sure, the law sets the standard at a particular arbitrary age. You and I and everyone else here should know full well that not all 18 year olds are equally mature. I believe that the gross majority of these type laws were enacted to protect minors from older adults.
My oldest is going to be 18 this year. Legally, he doesn't have to, but I suspect that he will continue to seek my approval of any major decision he may make in the next few years. I do not require the state's assistance for his respect of my decisions.
-
quote: Originally posted by midnight Target
Do our rights begin at age 18? I mean constitutional rights. Can we legally restrict the constitutional rights of someone because they are under 18?
Yes...Children have no rights except what their parents grant them. If Children had all the rights as adults then based on that, parents authority can be usurped anytime the child disagrees.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Yes...Children have no rights except what their parents grant them. If Children had all the rights as adults then based on that, parents authority can be usurped anytime the child disagrees.
You better check your laws. Parental authority over teenagers isn't all that.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You better check your laws. Parental authority over teenagers isn't all that.
Because of unwanted and unchecked meddling by the govt.
-
Sandy
I know my 12 year old in the Military is argument is ridiculous.
But look at it from the 12 year old having an abortion without parental consent point of view and you will see how that seems just as ridiculous to me. It’s a major medical procedure that can have life long negative effects, is a minor, like a 12 year old girl really the right person to make the call?
Some kids may tell their parents. Some wont, no mater how good the parents are.
Has your kid ever made a mistake on the Scale of getting pregnant? I can't think of a bigger mistake other then getting drunk and killing someone that a kid can make.
How many girls, after they go to planed parenthood, and have the counselor tell them they do not need to tell their parents about this are going to face that consequences and do it?
Think about it, think back to when you were a teen and if you had made a bad mistake like that would you have owned up?
I don't think I would have.
But the parents have a right to know what’s going on in the lives of the kid that they are responsible for.
Why is that such a bad thing?
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
quote: Originally posted by midnight Target
Do our rights begin at age 18? I mean constitutional rights. Can we legally restrict the constitutional rights of someone because they are under 18?
Yes...Children have no rights except what their parents grant them. If Children had all the rights as adults then based on that, parents authority can be usurped anytime the child disagrees.
The Supreme Court may disagree with you. I'll look up the ruling, but I believe they stated that minors are in fact "persons" recognized by the constitution. They are protected by the Bill of Rights as much as anyone.
Schools do have the right to limit speech that they deem "dangerous" but they cannot limit political speech that does not affect the safety of the students.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The Supreme Court may disagree with you. I'll look up the ruling, but I believe they stated that minors are in fact "persons" recognized by the constitution. They are protected by the Bill of Rights as much as anyone.
Schools do have the right to limit speech that they deem "dangerous" but they cannot limit political speech that does not affect the safety of the students.
and they probrably do disagree...however, my comment is more of a "how it should be" kind of statement.
-
I can see your point GT, but that's not what Prop73 is going for. A pregnant 17 year old is a vastly different situation than a pregnant 12 year old. This prop treats them both equally.
As to it being a major medical procedure, in the first trimester it's just not. Vacuum aspiration is considered to be a minor surgical procedure.
Think about this GT... on the one hand, you've stated that an abortion can have lifelong negative effects, and then on the other you've stated that having one is avoiding the consequences, and not owning up to a mistake. Sounds like you want it both ways. An abortion is a serious thing. I agree. But I think that the decision to have an abortion is no less an adult one than engaging in sex in the first place. Both a child and an abortion can be considered consequences to engaging in unprotected sex.
All that aside... I'd be more inclined to vote yes on 73 if it were applied differently. I think it would be best if all teenagers had some adult, preferrably parental guidance regarding the decision to abort or not. I'm not so sure it should be mandatory.
If a 12 or even 14 year old gets pregnant, they're young enough that I really have to wonder if they've been victimized in some way.
All in all when it comes right down to it... I'd probably vote yes on a proposition that required parental notification for any child under the age of 15. If this makes me wishy washy, so be it.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Because of unwanted and unchecked meddling by the govt.
Actually, I think it was because of parental abuse. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I can see your point GT, but that's not what Prop73 is going for. A pregnant 17 year old is a vastly different situation than a pregnant 12 year old. This prop treats them both equally.
As to it being a major medical procedure, in the first trimester it's just not. Vacuum aspiration is considered to be a minor surgical procedure.
Think about this GT... on the one hand, you've stated that an abortion can have lifelong negative effects, and then on the other you've stated that having one is avoiding the consequences, and not owning up to a mistake. Sounds like you want it both ways. An abortion is a serious thing. I agree. But I think that the decision to have an abortion is no less an adult one than engaging in sex in the first place. Both a child and an abortion can be considered consequences to engaging in unprotected sex.
All that aside... I'd be more inclined to vote yes on 73 if it were applied differently. I think it would be best if all teenagers had some adult, preferrably parental guidance regarding the decision to abort or not. I'm not so sure it should be mandatory.
If a 12 or even 14 year old gets pregnant, they're young enough that I really have to wonder if they've been victimized in some way.
All in all when it comes right down to it... I'd probably vote yes on a proposition that required parental notification for any child under the age of 15. If this makes me wishy washy, so be it.
I admit it would be better if the law treated 12 to 16 year olds different then 17 and older, but I just can't get past that a 12 year old could go have this done without the parents knowing.
I think to most young teens this would seem like such a easy out, and they prolly wont tell their parents if they can avoid it. Leave the parents out of such a decision really seems wrong.
It is like the government helping kids hide from the problem. Yes in a sense by making the abortion call they are taking responsibility for what they have done, but its like signing up for summer school on their own and going all summer to hide bad grades they got, and the school helps them hide it.
Most parents are not monsters, and even good parents and good kids can make mistakes, as a young teen everything seems so, important at the time, young love seems like it will go on forever, and kids do stuff they shouldn't. Parents should be part of the decison on what to do about it. What if it is a 16 year old girl who doesnt want to tell her parents her 25 year old boyfriend nocked her up, should she be able to hide it?
I am not one for teaching no birth control either, I think the schools should be teaching not having sex is best but if you do it do it with a condom and do not agree with the Bush admins current restrictions on how birth controll is taught. (though I do think parent should be able to op out on having their kids in the sex ed classes on this stuff)
-
sandie and mt... I am not sure what you guys are saying. Are you saying that the child itself 12-17, is mature enough to make a decision that has to do with something like a medical procedure that... even tho rare, can kill or cause lasting problems? That she is mature enough to understand the ramifications and understand how the whole thing may effect the rest of her life?
or... are you saying that even if she isn't... the parents should not be involved (why?) and that the real people who should have a say are the school and the abortion agencies?
A tattoo is a harmless procedure too. so are breast implants or plastic surgery...
I guess I am trying to figure out what possible reason you have for not letting the parent know when you are going to do a medical procedure on their minor child.
None of the parents I know seem to understand your reasoning.
lazs
-
No... I'm saying it's not the governments responsibility to ensure that families communicate with each other. You'll note that Prop 73 is basically about communication. It's not about permission.
As for tattoos, they are illegal with or without parental permission for anyone under the age of 18, so it's not relevant to this discussion.
The pregnant 12-year old scenario get's bandied about pretty freely around here. I've done a bit of seaching for stats and I can't find anything on the rate of 12-year old pregnancies. I'm betting it's miniscule and that it's simply a good number to use if you're looking for an emotional response.
(http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/figures/27-Figure-1.gif)
Teenage abortion rates appear to be on a steady decline anyway. What's with all the handwringing?
source (http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/27TeenAbortions.cfm)
-
Interesting chart.
The reason I use 12 is it is about as young as a girl can get pregnant, and it ilistrates the worst case the law applies to.
I have no doubt it is rare.
A more interesting chart would be one that shows abortions to minors, and how many told their parents. I bet less then 25% do.
But I doubt anyone would do the survey.
I would rather see the government force the minor to inform their legal gaurdians then have the government help a minor hide something they should not.
-
There is nothing good about a minor having an abortion.
This law (73) IMHO is in fact unconstitutional and should never be passed. If a person has a constitutional right to do something then that right should not be infringed. And as long as Roe v Wade is in effect, 73 is bad law.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
There is nothing good about a minor having an abortion.
This law (73) IMHO is in fact unconstitutional and should never be passed. If a person has a constitutional right to do something then that right should not be infringed. And as long as Roe v Wade is in effect, 73 is bad law.
So your for dropping the rest of the restrictions on minors rights as well?
-
All or nothing!
-
It really does not have to be all or nothing, but this seems like a very odd right to give to kids.
Other states have laws just like this MT, why hasnt the SC shut them down?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
So you guys that are for 73, you would be OK with your minor daughter having an abortion without your consent?
No teen girl given the choice is going to face her parents and tell them she made that kind of mistake.
Not even if the parents are saints and would have nothing but loving concern for the kid.
What a wonderfull way to teach personal responsibility! Yeah, no owning up to something you messed up on, just hide it.
If you could have gotten away with getting out of getting in major trouble as a kid you tell me with a strait face that you would not have taken it no mater how nice or cool your parents were?
Children under 18 are minors, the parents have the right to know when ANY medical procedure is done to their kids. I guess it would be ok with you guys to have the school offer the birth control they inject into the kids arm without consent or them getting tatoos or having a boob job too?
These kids don't have the right to vote, or drink or in many cases drive but you guys are ok with them having a major medical procedure? We are not talking about late teens in many cases here, these could be 12 year old kids.
Why don't you just give the rest of your parental rights to the nannystate too.
If you think passing a law is going to force morality on the immoral, you're mistaken. I'd rather that girl that made a mistake be able to get an abortion under regulated medical care rather than through an unsafe method. She's gonna get the abortion no matter what, one way or another. If one's daughter can't come to her parents about serious things as abortion, they've got bigger issues.
Usually minor girls are conned into having unsafe sex that results in pregnancy. After she becomes pregnant, the "father" usually refuses responsibility in the issue.
-
None of this is about Morality for me.
I am not making any moral calls on these kids that get pregnant, I have known good kids who made this stupid mistakea, and it didn't change my view of them being a good kid.
Kids make mistakes, its a fact, and sex it one lots of them make.
Its about Parents having the right to know what their minor child is doing.
The kid is their responsibility, and not every kid getting prego can be blamed on bad parenting but the parent is responsible for everything they do, their kid goes out an wrecks the car and takes out the neighbors house, YOU the parent are responsible for taking care of the damage.
They have a right to know what goes on in the life of the child they are responsible for.
As far as I can tell they have that right in every other aspect of their kids lives, just not in this one.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Its about Parents having the right to know what their minor child is doing.
Well... then you have another issue I believe. I was looking into key loggers and other such software for monitoring computer activity and discovered that you cannot eavesdrop on a fifteen year old without informing them that you're doing so. They have a right to privacy according to the law (in this state at least).
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well... then you have another issue I believe. I was looking into key loggers and other such software for monitoring computer activity and discovered that you cannot eavesdrop on a fifteen year old without informing them that you're doing so. They have a right to privacy according to the law (in this state at least).
You have to be ****ing kidding me?
Got a link?
Not me Sandy.
Now your prolly going to roll your eyes on this.
I do not have kids. Unless something really changes in the way I feel about this I never will.
I do not think I could give enough of myself to a kid to be a good parent. I would prolly end up like my old man. The whole idea of having kids weirds me out.
Still, I don't think I need to be a parent to see this as being a problem.
It has been an interesting and enjoyable conversation though;)
-
I'm amazed that anyone would argue against 73. You really think minors should be allowed to just go get elective surgery done without any parental input?
-
Prop 73 doesn't change the fact that they can do it without parental consent.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
You have to be ****ing kidding me?
Got a link?
I'm going to have to do some digging. It's been a few years since I toyed with such things.
-
hand wringing? good point. what is all the hand wringing about? If a minor has a right to have an abortion then it does no harm to notifiy the parents. It seems the right thing to do.
I guess what it boils down to is that adults will be involved in the thing no matter what. the question is do we only want the views of strangers and the minor?
What is the problem? The prop merely says that in order for a minor child to have a potentialy life threatening and life changing operation that the parents be informed.
What possible reason would there be for anyone to object to that?
If they are a minor then they are a minor... they are under the care of the parents.... you can bet if something goes wrong physicaly or mentaly that the parents will be the ones who will have to deal with it forever.. not the school and not the abortion mill.
we are not talking about weather the child is entitled to the right to have an abortion.... we are talking about the right of the parent to know if some adult is operating on their child.
no handwringing... just taking things one logical step at a time without the lefty hysteria.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hand wringing? good point. what is all the hand wringing about? If a minor has a right to have an abortion then it does no harm to notifiy the parents. It seems the right thing to do.
I guess what it boils down to is that adults will be involved in the thing no matter what. the question is do we only want the views of strangers and the minor?
What is the problem? The prop merely says that in order for a minor child to have a potentialy life threatening and life changing operation that the parents be informed.
What possible reason would there be for anyone to object to that?
If they are a minor then they are a minor... they are under the care of the parents.... you can bet if something goes wrong physicaly or mentaly that the parents will be the ones who will have to deal with it forever.. not the school and not the abortion mill.
we are not talking about weather the child is entitled to the right to have an abortion.... we are talking about the right of the parent to know if some adult is operating on their child.
no handwringing... just taking things one logical step at a time without the lefty hysteria.
lazs
In other words, the conservatives need help from the state to be good parents. Good luck with that.
-
I see... since you can't answer any of the questions or define your belief... you cut to the soundbite?
By your logic... There should be no minor status for children at all... it is merely the state making up for bad parents?
So, a good parent would communicate with children so that they wouldn't smoke or drink or date 50 year olds or get tattoos... the adult that runs the liquor store or tat parlor or dates the 13 year old is not to blame?
Kids don't act impulsively or in an immature way? kids are totally honest with the parent at all times if it is a "good" parent?
What planet are you from? you don't have kids do you?
I ask you tho... should the parents raise children or the state? Should only abortion be worth keeping the parents out of the mix or are there other things that you think children should be able to decide on without the parents knowing? maybe teachers should take the place of parents?
see.... what I think is... I think that you want as many abortions as possible to take place... I think that you want kids to know that if they screw around no big deal... they can allways get an abortion and.. they won't even get grounded... they can continue to see that guy who got em pregnant and the parents will never know...
Worse... the kid goes into a depression over the whole thing.... The parents try to cope but have no idea what is going on... the school and the abortion clinic do but... so what? they are done with the little tramp... let the parents figure it out eh?
lazs
-
Blah blah blah ad hominem blah blah blah non sequitur blah blah blah blah blah
-
So I guess that means you have no answers to the questions? Surely you must know if you have children or not?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
73- No. I figure a girl that's old enough to engage in sexual activity is also old enough to decide what to do about it if she gets pregnant. If communication is lacking with the family, I don't see it as a state's responsibility to enforce.
74. No. My next door neighbor is a teacher. She just became one and she busted her bellybutton for over six years to do it. New teachers need a lot of dedication and hard work just to get the job. If the problem with our education system is the teachers, I'll bet it's not the young ones. It's the ones that have been on the job for 20 plus years. This prop won't do anything about them.
75. No. Was leaning towards yes... but I really don't care much about unions and Funked's case is compelling.
76. No. Arnie will have to find other places to cut funding. I like all the doom and gloom about schools being part of the reason we're $22 Billion in debt. From the look of things around our schools, they are short on cash.
77. No. I'll generally vote no on anything that costs more money. 1.4 million to some retired judges seems wasteful.
78. No. The money thing again. No on more spending.
79. No. See above.
80. No. Every time our state decides to legislate energy, I get nervous.
LOL. All eight failed to pass. (http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=18531&repository=0001_article)
-
Yeah the Govanator didn’t run his campaign very well.
I saw all the anti commercials for weeks. I only saw his very weak commercials this last week.
You can’t counter:
"The governor stole our school money, he is personally going to fire all good teachers, molest your children and make your kids stupid"
With
"Bad teachers are hard to fire because of tenure."
He should have run commercials saying:
"Union hacks are lying to you, wasting your money and to see proof they have infact made your kids stupid, just talk to your kids. Try reading the laws before you let the unions and other special interests make up your mind with their lies!"
:D
-
I paid absolutely no attention to the commercials and I threw every piece of mail away unread.
The only thing I read was the voter guide provided by the state.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I paid absolutely no attention to the commercials and I threw every piece of mail away unread.
The only thing I read was the voter guide provided by the state.
Sure, but how many people are like you sandy?
I have a friend who works for the alameda county water district who was convinced, his union was going to get disbanded, he would lose his health care and teachers were going to get fired in droves. How did he get these false ideas?
Those commercials that lied through their teeth about the props had to convince some people.
I watched them, it was interesting in that, Arnys adds were honest and the counter adds from what I could tell had nothing to do with what the prop was about.
-
As long a people continue to forfiet their brains to propaganda, as long as they flat refuse to identify facts and cull them from fiction, as long as they buy into polarized partisanship politics instead of spending 10 minutes outta their lives to engage their brains before they key in a vote...
Cripes, I wish the entire electorate was like Sandy.. at least he thinks before he votes. I may not agree with his politics, but at least he thinks the situation through.
...unlike the resta the mob minded pinheads that make up the national electorate.. if they even bother to vote at all.
-
Well the baby-killers in the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood got what they wanted I guess..prop 73 defeated from what I hear.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Well the baby-killers in the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood got what they wanted I guess..prop 73 defeated from what I hear.
This just in... Abortion is on the decline. Don't fret.
-
sandie... you did not need the help of leftie propoganda to sway your vote...
Hell... you coulda wrote it tho.... I doubt even you coulda lied so baldfaced so often... not saying you couldn't in order to get such important points across... just giving you the benifiet of the doubt at this point.
lazs
-
From the Planned Parenthood website:
Planned Parenthood affiliates in California are delighted that California voters rejected Prop. 73 which would have put so many teenagers at risk.
What a crock.
here's the rest of their propaganda erm "article"
Link (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/pressreleases/pr-051109-prop-73.xml)