Californians: Can you explain to me what was bad about Prop 73?

[Stojakapimp]

I'm a little interested in hearing exactly what is wrong with Prop 73. It just seems to me that it makes sense that if an unemancipated minor wants to have an abortion, then their parents should no. I know that if I were a father, I would sure like to know if my daughter was getting pregnant and having abortions.

I read through the material and I really just can't find very good arguments against it. It seems like their main point is that the government can't force kids to talk to their parents. That just sounds like a pretty weak excuse to me. So i wanted to hear what the rest of you had to say.

 

[Steeplerot]

because some parents may put their religious beliefs above the welfare of their daughter.

 

[Aegeon]

Another major problem is that children who are afraid to tell their parents may seek abortions from individuals without a medical license who are willing to break the law. They also might try unsafely to terminate a pregnancy on their own, i.e. like the case where the girl had her boyfriend repeatedly hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat to cause the fetus to abort.

 

[Stojakapimp]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
because some parents may put their religious beliefs above the welfare of their daughter.

But all the prop does is notifies them....it doesn't ask for their consent

 

[herkulease]

Originally posted by: Stojakapimp

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
because some parents may put their religious beliefs above the welfare of their daughter.

But all the prop does is notifies them....it doesn't ask for their consent

exactly. Some people either don't read or simply see the word abortion and think its a ban. I've gotten into arguments in this writing class i'm taking in my free time. Even after reading the text of the proposition this person still stuck to their position that its "really" asking for consent.

I personally find it amazing that a minor can elect to get a medical procedure and that its perfectly okay to do so without consent. Doctor, dentist, field trip etc parent knows it and has to sign it. This would have just told them. The abortion will still happen.

but I do like the commericials against it though its quite funny.

In fact did you konw this the only proposition where a total of less than 5 million was spent. every other proposition spent 10+ million dollars.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
because some parents may put their religious beliefs above the welfare of their daughter.

That's a bullsh1t copout. 73 was simple: Parents have to be NOTIFIED 48 hours before their MINOR daughter undergoes an abortion, PERIOD. It didn't give them the right to stop it in ANY way.

This issue above all others was blown WAY out of proportion by both sides. It was a bullsh1t prop that was only put there to bring out the nutty Christian vote. It made SOLID sense and it harmed *NOTHING*, but neither was it particularly useful or important. It was a WASTE of ballot space.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Aegeon
Another major problem is that children who are afraid to tell their parents may seek abortions from individuals without a medical license who are willing to break the law. They also might try unsafely to terminate a pregnancy on their own, i.e. like the case where the girl had her boyfriend repeatedly hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat to cause the fetus to abort.

Not true, children of abusive parents who are afraid had the option to go to the judge, explain it, and get a waiver.

Jason

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Not true, children of abusive parents who are afraid had the option to go to the judge, explain it, and get a waiver.

Jason

The kids don't have to have clearly abusive parents to be afraid to tell them, and those cases were the primary issue my point brought up. Another key issue here is the child is going to have to convince a judge that her parent is abusive in order to get the waiver, and she very well might lose. Going before a judge is also going to take all sorts of time and presumably multiple apearences in court, the child is definately going to be worried about her parents figuring out what is going on at some point. All these concerns might cause the children to seek other ptions than trying to get a waiver.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Not true, children of abusive parents who are afraid had the option to go to the judge, explain it, and get a waiver.

Jason

The kids don't have to have clearly abusive parents to be afraid to tell them, and those cases were the primary issue my point brought up. Another key issue here is the child is going to have to convince a judge that her parent is abusive in order to get the waiver, and she very well might lose. Going before a judge is also going to take all sorts of time and presumably multiple apearences in court, the child is definately going to be worried about her parents figuring out what is going on at some point. All these concerns might cause the children to seek other ptions than trying to get a waiver.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Getting a waiver would take ONE appearance in court, just like getting a restraining order. In both cases, all you have to do is fill out a form--you don't have to PROVE anything.

As for being afraid to tell their parents, of COURSE a kid who got her dumb underage self would be afraid to tell her parents. In many of these cases, the underage child is being sexually taken advantage of by a guy in his 20's, whose ass ought to be in fvcking JAIL for child rape. In any case, assuming her parents are *NOT* abusive, she should still tell her parents, talk it through and try to find the best possible resolution.

An UNDERAGE child, male or female, does NOT have the maturity, the intelligence or the emotional experience to simply toss herself onto an operating table without talking it over with adults, preferably her own family, *first*. Chances are, she's being taken advantage of and criminal charges should be coming for the guy who got her pregnant.

Jason

 

[Ryan]

Notifiying the parents of a minor who is pregnent - in the case where they would oppose the abortion, would most likely end wiht the child not getting the abortion.

What stops the parents from preventing the daughter from getting an abortion in a case where she wants one, and they don't?!

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

An UNDERAGE child, male or female, does NOT have the maturity, the intelligence or the emotional experience to simply toss herself onto an operating table without talking it over with adults, preferably her own family, *first*. Chances are, she's being taken advantage of and criminal charges should be coming for the guy who got her pregnant.

Jason

It is people with this view why it was so important to vote no.

A young woman in this situation is in enough trouble without dragging whacko parents into it.

 

[arsbanned]

It's bad because it's part of the Republican agenda. It will be crushed.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Not true, children of abusive parents who are afraid had the option to go to the judge, explain it, and get a waiver.

Jason

The kids don't have to have clearly abusive parents to be afraid to tell them, and those cases were the primary issue my point brought up. Another key issue here is the child is going to have to convince a judge that her parent is abusive in order to get the waiver, and she very well might lose. Going before a judge is also going to take all sorts of time and presumably multiple apearences in court, the child is definately going to be worried about her parents figuring out what is going on at some point. All these concerns might cause the children to seek other ptions than trying to get a waiver.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Getting a waiver would take ONE appearance in court, just like getting a restraining order. In both cases, all you have to do is fill out a form--you don't have to PROVE anything.

As for being afraid to tell their parents, of COURSE a kid who got her dumb underage self would be afraid to tell her parents. In many of these cases, the underage child is being sexually taken advantage of by a guy in his 20's, whose ass ought to be in fvcking JAIL for child rape. In any case, assuming her parents are *NOT* abusive, she should still tell her parents, talk it through and try to find the best possible resolution.

An UNDERAGE child, male or female, does NOT have the maturity, the intelligence or the emotional experience to simply toss herself onto an operating table without talking it over with adults, preferably her own family, *first*. Chances are, she's being taken advantage of and criminal charges should be coming for the guy who got her pregnant.

Jason

Ok, so a woman has the maturity to decided if she should toss her self onto an operating table remember it isn't consent as you claim, but is to imature to decide on her own if she should tell her family.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

My question is, how can a kid not have to notify(or get concent for that matter) a legal parent/guardian for an invasive surgical proceedure when they are under 18, yet have to get permission to have piercings and tattoos done?

 

[ahurtt]

The sooner the big one hits and California falls into the Pacific Ocean the better.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
The sooner the big one hits and California falls into the Pacific Ocean the better.

/end thread

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
The sooner the big one hits and California falls into the Pacific Ocean the better.

Well, I guess it's obvious that you have the best interests of children at heart.:roll:

 

[Genx87]

It is part of the govts plan to errode the rights of parents.
The same people who complain that kids arent getting the proper parental control are the same people who take away the rights of the parents to use that control.

It just blows my mind the state has eliminated a right of a legal guradians right to know a medical procedure is being conducted.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Ryan
Notifiying the parents of a minor who is pregnent - in the case where they would oppose the abortion, would most likely end wiht the child not getting the abortion.

What stops the parents from preventing the daughter from getting an abortion in a case where she wants one, and they don't?!

Why are you being so reasonable? Don't you know reason is not acceptable when debating the merits of a particular proposal?

The intent of Prop73 was the protection of the parental right to control their child's reproductive life. But no such right exists. They chose 48 hours PRECISELY for the purpose of guaranteeing a parent could intercede.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Ryan
Notifiying the parents of a minor who is pregnent - in the case where they would oppose the abortion, would most likely end wiht the child not getting the abortion.

What stops the parents from preventing the daughter from getting an abortion in a case where she wants one, and they don't?!

Why are you being so reasonable? Don't you know reason is not acceptable when debating the merits of a particular proposal?

The intent of Prop73 was the protection of the parental right to control their child's reproductive life. But no such right exists. They chose 48 hours PRECISELY for the purpose of guaranteeing a parent could intercede.

So what rights would you give parents? Obviously their right to give input on a medical procedure are out the door. I am curious if such a serious action doesnt deserve the right of a parents input then what does?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is part of the govts plan to errode the rights of parents.
The same people who complain that kids arent getting the proper parental control are the same people who take away the rights of the parents to use that control.

It just blows my mind the state has eliminated a right of a legal guradians right to know a medical procedure is being conducted.

Didn't you read Hillary's book, "It Takes a Nanny State"? Government knows best.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Obviously as an MD and parent of a girl (13mo), it's an interesting question.

As a generalization, surgical procedures on minors require parental consent . . . there are exceptions but typically just for emergencies (health or life). There is no general right over a child's mental and physical health though.

As a treating clinician, the child is the patient NOT the parents. In psychiatry, physicians often KNOW things that they never tell the parents. Obviously, if the child is at serious peril the physician has an ethical/moral responsibility to do whatever is necessary to protect the child. The same is true in pediatrics, children that TRUST their physician will tell the truth (which is absolutely necessary to provide appropriate care). Both psychiatrists and pediatricians encourage children to talk to their parents but we will act independent of the parents . . . in the best interest of the child.

Society is doing a terrible job of "keeping it real." Nature has engineered females to reach fertility by 11-12yo. No expert in child development thinks 11-12 yo (hell even 15-16yo) should be having kids . . . in America. Other cultures view it differently b/c they choose to live more harmoniously with the way nature intended reproduction to work. I'm not saying one is better than the other but I certainly prefer our model. Hell, I was 31 when my kid was born and still wasn't ready.

But if we are going to stick with our model of controlling/delaying child reproduction then parents must teach their children well and impose rigorous control over their sexual activity (abstinence to contraception). But once a child chooses sexual activity but declines parenthood, it's quite reasonable to ascribe a degree of autonomy to them.

 

[Genx87]

I know it is an interesting question because I think as a country we need to have a national debate on what exactly are the "rights" of parents.

Right now the govt interferes with many aspects of a childs welfare that should in my opinion be the sole territory of the parent. As nation it appears we are moving away from the two parent household with solid parent participation in the childs life. I wonder if the mixed msg's parents get from our own govt regarding their rights has something to do with it?

I question whether allowing a child who is still under "legal" protection of an adult to make a medical decision is a good one. If we are going to allow them that right I really dont believe allowing them to make it on their own without parental input is a smart move. We are talking about children who we dont allow to vote, drink, smoke, and some not even drive. Yet we are going to allow them to make a decision on elective surgury?

 

[Moonbeam]

Assuming parentage and a pregnant underage daughter, I would never allow her to have an abortion. That is why prop 73 is bad.

I am a liberal and will force my morality on others for their own good. I would outlaw guns and cigarettes and institute a hugely progressive tax. I am wise and sensible and know what is in the best interests of the majority of people. Everybody would be better off if I were in control. Only a no vote can stop me.

 

[shrumpage]

Who is repsonible for the child?

If somethign goes wrong, with the procedure, or any medical procedure and a disabling or crippling affect happens to the child, who has to take care of the child? Who is responible?

If a child commits a civli tort, who has to pay?

Who has a to sign a premission slip for that child to go a on a field trip?

a parent.


It is ironic that something that is invasive, potenial dangerous, and can have serious side affects both emtional and physically yet people want to cut parents out of the picture, when all the responiblity will fall on them.