Well, like I said, there has been an unfortunate but very clear trend in many parts of the country to make abortions less accessible to the very women who need them the most.
Educate me. I simply cannot fathom how this can POSSIBLY be true. It would be akin to 1870s voting laws regarding blacks. Roe vs. Wade says it's legal, thus it's legal. If it's a late term abortion, then the law says it's illegal. Mid-terms are determined by the state. Since practically EVERY state is within 2 hours of another state, bypassing your state laws on this matter seem trivial. If according to your state, it's illegal to go out of state and get an abortion, that should obviously be challenged in court. It will be struck down or dismissed almost summarily in a federal court.
Again, to reduce this to the one-dimensional issue that revolves entirely around the timing of the procedure is to ignore the humanity of the issue.
What kind of an argument is this? The "humanity of the issue"? A late term fetus is
human, so the humanity of the issue should fall on the side of protecting those that cannot defend themselves. I AGREE
that it's an awful choice, but blame nature. The only options are: kill a human, or partially reduce another humans rights for two months. That's it. I didn't create the system, but NOT killing a human is the lesser of the two evils.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did this forum suddenly turn into the Sean Hannity Program?
Dave, that's a blatant Ad Homenium attack. Because I advocate protecting those that cannot protect themselves, I'm Sean Hannity. Maybe you could work Ann Coulter in there too? Does it simply surprise you than an Atheist values human life? or that an Atheist considers a late-term fetus a human life?
I suppose if you insist on a reduction ad absurdum, if that leads you to a satisfying personal opinion, that's your business. But if the intent or the ultimate result is to inflict your specious opinion of 7.5 months on pregnant women across the country, then I consider that viewpoint unacceptably narrow.
We, as a society, "inflict" our opinion that a stranger cannot walk up to you, put a gun to your head and splatter your brains on the wall. What an unfair society! We "inflict" laws that say that a drug-addict cannot steal and murder to get money because his body needs more "medicine". Obviously we are "controlling" his body in an unfair manner. How dare we! Obviously those are unacceptably narrow viewpoints as well.
In this case, women had over half-a-year to get out of the situation legally, without penalty. This should have been made perfectly clear to them from society, their doctor, from Planned-Parenthood, et al. If it wasn't, that's awful, but "ignorance of the law" is not a legally defensible argument.
If you are going to ignore the difficulties women face in getting abortions, I don't think you can hold them accountable for timeliness. Access to the procedure is nigh-on impossible for many women. If they can manage to get there at "7.5" months, that's fine with me. Eliminate unnecessary obstacles first, then perhaps I'd be willing to revisit the matter of timeliness.
Again, educate me. If this is actually
true and not some perceptional delusion, then yes, obstacles need to be removed IMMEDIATELY. If a woman was barred from having an abort when she was legally entitled to one, then yes, wholeheartedly, no argument from me, it needs to be changed, NOW.
But I suspect you're talking about cases involving women who weren't barred
from abortion, but were disadvantaged (educationally, economically, socially, parentally) and that argument doesn't fly at all. Removing human rights for an entire class of humans so that another class can have a band-aid applied is ridiculous. You know that. Yes, abortion, in those cases, is a band-aid, because it doesn't address the real problem AT ALL. The real problem is getting them out of the disadvantages they are trapped in. This requires significant social change, and I'm all for that. That's not lip service, I am ALL FOR changing whatever we need to economically, politically, socially to bring about more equality in our society. Major change is called for urgently.
No system, ever, anywhere can be "fair" in all situations. But declaring an entire class of humans to be "non-human" for the convenience of another class is ethnic-cleansing.
Obviously not. Ultimately, the pregnant woman is responsible, not her parents. If you'd like to obligate the parents, by law, to care for any and all children their children have before the age of 18, then perhaps we can revisit the question. Until then, though, since the parents have no obligation to the baby, they have no say about it in my book.
Are you from Mars? Parents ARE legally responsible for their children until the age of 18. Period. Parents are sent to prison for child-abuse, incest and, yes, neglect. Where are you getting the idea that they have NO legal obligations to their children? The only possible escape you have here is in the enforcement
of these laws, which is a complete travesty, as is DCFS in practically every state. No argument there, but that needs to be tackled where it's broken. Call to bear whatever force is necessary, but don't break the rest of the system because another part is grossly malfunctioning. Fix what's broken.
You can see that the risk from legal abortion in the United States is roughly 1/10th of the risk of pregnancy and childbirth. If we can decide, as a matter of law, that an individual with a 0.08 BAL is too drunk to drive, then I think we can similarly decide that an underage girl's medical decision to cut risk to her personal health by 90%+ is not something that requires parental notification.
You're right that parents shouldn't be able to override the girls decision, but they should know. They'll notify parent (or next of kin) if I get in a car wreck, or other trauma. The only reason NOT to notify is that there is fear of repercussions on the girl. That is a) grounds for emancipation right there, b) legally actionable in court if it does occur, and c) grounds for non-notification in those cases.
Which will take how long?
I was an emancipated minor. It took about an hour. Counting the paperwork, it took maybe a few days. Your argument fails.
So, your solution to that is to eliminate that avenue for birth control entirely?!
I'm not advocating parental-override of the girls choice. I never said that. Just that parents should be notified, especially if they are legally responsible for the child. Some D.A. will certainly try parents for neglect if the girl dies in the procedure, I guarantee it.
In front of my goal to reduce the number of abortions is my goal to reduce the number of teen mothers who don't want the children they have.
I agree with that goal, and support it entirely. Given that there are a zillion-and-one methods of preventative birth-control, including free condoms, free birth-control pills and even legal early-term abortion, I reject the concept of late-term abortion as birth-control. Education is called for, not the complete declaration of an entire class of humans into "non-humans" to satisfy another class.
That's been tried numerous times, and is common argument against atheism. Way to play into the trap.
You don't reject infanticide either. I hope you realize what a slippery-slope you are on. Next you'll be advocating killing the handicapped, because they place a "burden" on society. Sure. That's how we deal with problems, we just kill the people we perceive as problematic. Blacks? Jews? Women? The uneducated? The poor? The religious?
What if she didn't have a "chance"? What if she lives in some backwater that has no one who could help her? I grew up in very rural Pennsylvania. It is more than likely that a mother couldn't get the help she needed in time.
Oh well, by all means, lets just start killing members of society we don't want. This is 2008, in America! We don't declare entire classes of humans to be "non-human" and therefore kill-able to satisfy another group.
Pennsylvania?!?! Give me a break. She could get in a car and drive to Canada, New York or anywhere where abortion is legal up to the second trimester. "Telephone", "automobiles", "buses", "planes" (we can fly now, if you haven't heard, for a century) You are actually arguing that because a women didn't take what amounts to trivial responsibility for her own health that we should permit murder?
If you find a population of people in America that doesn't know about modern technology, and yet still performs abortions, then I'll grant an exception in that case.
what about when the parent is responsible for the situation? A father molesting his daughter, a mother in self-denial so she won't see it. A mother whoring out her own daughters. There are situations, as much as you would prefer there not to be. You seem to think that the minor should be made to suffer because of her abusive parents. Way to go.
Um, OBVIOUSLY, in that case:
1) The abortion would be granted
2) Notification would NOT be required
3) The parent(s) would go to jail
4) The girl would be emancipated
Please stop the ridiculous arguments.
All teenagers aren't irresponsible. Some have bad situations that they have trouble negotiating themselves out of. You are presenting a strawman with no evidence.
As a class, they are irresponsible enough that they do NOT have the right to:
Buy a gun
View a movie with an NC-17 (X) rating
Drive a car (until16)
Get married (until 16)