Parental Notification doesn't cut down on abortions.

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari

It already is plenty big and powerful...adding this small change doesnt change anything.

I'm a legal working adult citizen and I can't even go down to a bar and buy a beer.

Has it occured to you that this is silly?

What possible legitimate reason is there that you cannot buy a beer?

I mean I understand having an age limit for alcohol, and since it has to be some arbitrary number, I understand making it high enough to minimize access to alcohol in high school, but 21 is a stupid age to choose.

Surely then, we should minimize high schoolers' access to dangerous elective medical procedures.

Rent the movie Dirty Dancing.

That is what women will be going through thanks to the ilk like you.

 

[BoberFett]

Should a 14 year old be able to get breast implants without parental notification?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Should a 14 year old be able to get breast implants without parental notification?

No.


Does that mean we need a specific law to prevent it ? No.


Unless the Republicans/big business/insurance companies/HMOs win and take away our rights to civil action, that right, coupled with the requirements of doctors to have a license to practice, seems to be keeping this from being a real issue.

btw, I think those same rights would apply to abortion cases, a docotr who performs abortions without parental notification is taking a big risk, if you ask me. If there are laws that shield abortion doctors from lawsuits, I oppose those laws.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Should a 14 year old be able to get breast implants without parental notification?

No.


Does that mean we need a specific law to prevent it ? No.


Unless the Republicans/big business/insurance companies/HMOs win and take away our rights to civil action, that right, coupled with the requirements of doctors to have a license to practice, seems to be keeping this from being a real issue.

btw, I think those same rights would apply to abortion cases, a docotr who performs abortions without parental notification is taking a big risk, if you ask me. If there are laws that shield abortion doctors from lawsuits, I oppose those laws.

OK, it's good to see somebody speaking sensibly instead of throwing up the typical ProChoice/AntiAbortion rhetoric. Thank you for at least being consistent, it's more than can be asked of most people when it comes to the abortion debate.

 

[totalcommand]

allow me to quote myself

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Because a person has any and all rights over their own internal body, regardless of age. No parent or third party can control that.

That's simply not true. No one, regardless of age, has an absolute right to his/her own body. I cannot have elective surgery without my parents' consent when I'm four years old, can I? Of course not. Why would it be different, in the eyes of the law, when I'm a teenager? Abortion is an elective surgery, not one performed for health reasons. As such, it should be treated in the same way as a boob job or a face lift.

Plus, if what you said was true, I could go to work today and have one of the surgeons take out my kidney on a whim. However, this would be very much illegal, because I do not have an absolute right over my internal body.

This goes back to my opinion on the nature of the relationship between a mother and the fetus. It is parasitic. No parent can force their child to to enter such a relationship where one party is sucking the resources of the child and the child receives nothing but pain in return. Only the child has the ability to choose to give up her body to the fetus.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari

It already is plenty big and powerful...adding this small change doesnt change anything.

I'm a legal working adult citizen and I can't even go down to a bar and buy a beer.

Has it occured to you that this is silly?

What possible legitimate reason is there that you cannot buy a beer?

I mean I understand having an age limit for alcohol, and since it has to be some arbitrary number, I understand making it high enough to minimize access to alcohol in high school, but 21 is a stupid age to choose.

Surely then, we should minimize high schoolers' access to dangerous elective medical procedures.

Rent the movie Dirty Dancing.

That is what women will be going through thanks to the ilk like you.

:music:I... had... the time of my liiiiife:music:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

How about they avoid getting injured or killed because of notification?

Who is going to pay for the abortion of, say, a 15yr old girl if not her parents? If your parents are going to pay, well notification is irrelevent isn't it? Perhaps if parents are notified they will take care in ensuring that the daughter gets good medical care in the performance of the proceedure.

I'm just raising the idea that, as a parent myself, I'd like notification -even some level of control here - because I'm legally & finacially reasonable for this person (my daughter).

It seems there are posts in this thread mentioning "goverment control", this has very little if anything to do with "gov control". Its abot parental involvement. As a parent this is a person I not only love very much, but am (again) legally & finacialy responsible for. I beleive I have a right to "help" in the decision process, even if only choosing which doctor performs this proceedure.

I've had too many friends die in unexpected ways from "minor" medical proceedures. God forbid I have to hear about a proceedure gone bad and my child is dead.

Fern

What are you talking about ?

What I am talking about is that I am all for laws which prohibit third parties, however well intentioned they may think they are, from performing medical proceedures on my child without my permission. It's just that simple.

Elsewhere in this thread is mention of civil action against? Really? I mean as a parent who gives a sh1t that I have a right to sue if something goes wrong and my kid is dead. A lawsuit can't bring back a dead kid. Prevention, not retribution, is the point/what is important here.

If not already clear enough, I don't care about the abortion thingy - whether it discourages it or encourages it. As a parent I don't want any medical proceddures performed on my child without my express permission (unless of course in case of dire emergency).

As a parent when taking my child to the hospital seems I've always had a sign a bunch of forms permitting them to treat my child. Seems, up til this law, abortion has enjoyed some special status where that wasn't required.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: techs

You can argue that parents have the right to be informed when their kid wants an abortion. I am in favor of this.
Just don't be under the misconception that it prevents abortions.

on the contrary, yes, it does

In the study, birth rates declined for all ages in the 15- to 18-year-old group. At the same time, the abortion rate among 18-year-olds fell from 27.7 abortions per 1,000 girls before the law to 25.8 afterward. The rate dropped from 18.7 to 14.5 among 17-year-olds; 12.1 to 9.0 among 16-year-olds; and 6.5 to 5.4 among 15-year-olds.

i'm going with 18 as the control group, as they were not affected by the law. so, any change in the other groups that is significant is likely due to the new law.

The New York Times conducted its own analysis of abortion rates in Texas and five other states and concluded in a story Monday that parental involvement laws have had little effect there.

Joyce said that analysis had a different outcome because it included two states with tiny populations, one state where the law was overturned, and two states near areas where abortion is easily accessible without parental involvement.

never trust journalists to make a valid study. those people study page layout in school, not statistics.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: techs

You are quick to pass judgement but are unwilling to stand by your convictions.

Techs - thoughts on the new study? New England Journal of Medicine?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The abortion rate has been falling among all girls since 1991 both nationally and in Texas, as have teen birth rates, for reasons that are believed to include greater use of birth control, more effective methods and a delay in first-time intercourse.

TX is one of those backwards states that doesn't realize the problem is the # of unwanted pregancies NOT the # of abortions.

 

[Jmman]

I guess I have never understood how a teenager can't get their ear pierced or a tattoo without parental involvement, but they can get an abortion? That is like having a law where you cannot get a handgun, but you can get a cruise missile......

 

[GTaudiophile]

I haven't read this thread, but a report on ABC Nightly News last night said the exact opposite of the thread title.

 

[Vic]

Parental Notification doesn't cut down on abortions.

That's not the point or purpose of it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I haven't read this thread, but a report on ABC Nightly News last night said the exact opposite of the thread title.

The study you are referring to involved multiple states and covered 4-5 years BEFORE laws took effect and then several years afterwards.

The study implying a causative relationship covered ONLY Texas and compared two years before the law to three years afterwards.

Apples and oranges . . . but even in TX the results would be less impressive (and probably statistically null) if they extended the study interval back to 1992 b/c abortion rates have been falling in most groups (particularly the teen pregnancy rate).

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I haven't read this thread, but a report on ABC Nightly News last night said the exact opposite of the thread title.

The study you are referring to involved multiple states and covered 4-5 years BEFORE laws took effect and then several years afterwards.

The study implying a causative relationship covered ONLY Texas and compared two years before the law to three years afterwards.

Apples and oranges . . . but even in TX the results would be less impressive (and probably statistically null) if they extended the study interval back to 1992 b/c abortion rates have been falling in most groups (particularly the teen pregnancy rate).

This study?

 

[techs]

Clearly the most valid study indicates the title of my thread and the reasoning behind it is valid.
The anti-abortion people are attempting to use a limited sample to prove their agenda.
Just like when opinion polls show abortion to be overwhelmingly supported by Americans they will cite a poll that asks a leading question and use it to draw an erroneous conclusion.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
This study?

That study is based solely in Tejas. A red state that is also full of Catholic hispanics. Can you say, "BIASED?" Do you think forcing young women to have children is a good thing? Honestly, THINK about it.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: techs
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/06/natio...1f9a750177ef3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

For all the passions they generate, laws that require minors to notify their parents or get permission to have an abortion do not appear to have produced the sharp drop in teenage abortion rates that some advocates hoped for, an analysis by The New York Times shows.

The analysis, which looked at six states that introduced parental involvement laws in the last decade and is believed to be the first study to include data from years after 1999, found instead a scattering of divergent trends.

For instance, in Tennessee, the abortion rate went down when a federal court suspended a parental consent requirement, then rose when the law went back into effect. In Texas, the rate fell after a notification law went into effect, but not as fast as it did in the years before the law. In Virginia, the rate barely moved when the state introduced a notification law in 1998, but fell after the requirement was changed to parental consent in 2003.

Supporters of the laws say they promote better decision-making and reduce teenage abortions; opponents say they chip away at abortion rights and endanger young lives by exposing them to potentially violent reaction from some parents.

But some workers and doctors at abortion clinics said that the laws had little connection with the real lives of most teenagers, and that they more often saw parents pressing their daughters to have abortions than trying to stop them. And many teenagers say they never considered hiding their pregnancies or abortion plans from their mothers.

"I would have told my mother anyway," said a 16-year-old named Nicole, who waited recently at a clinic in Allentown, Pa., a state that requires minors to get the permission of just one parent. Nicole's mother and father are divorced, and it was her mother she went to for permission to have an abortion.



You can argue that parents have the right to be informed when their kid wants an abortion. I am in favor of this.
Just don't be under the misconception that it prevents abortions.

I don't care if it prevents them or not. If its my kid and she's under 18, then you keep your fvcking off hands off unless I've consented. Who the hell do these doctors think they are? She can't even see an R-rated movie without me present, she certainly shouldn't be undergoing invasive medical procedures without my knowledge.

I'm not anti-abortion. I'm anti-fvcking-with-my-legal-and-emotional-responsibility-that-I've-raised-for-18
years. If some charlatan doctor feels differently, then he can kindly pay me for a lifetime of medical, dental, and every other kind of bill including pony-tail holders from when she was 6, and then ram that cold surgical instrument into my daughter to further his own moral and political ends. Until then, his opinion, and that of Planned Parenthood, means less than shyt, and I will decide what is best for my child, thank you very much.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

The abortion rate has been falling among all girls since 1991 both nationally and in Texas, as have teen birth rates, for reasons that are believed to include greater use of birth control, more effective methods and a delay in first-time intercourse.

TX is one of those backwards states that doesn't realize the problem is the # of unwanted pregancies NOT the # of abortions.

by unwanted pregnancies do you mean the ones where the baby is given up for adoption or aborted, or by the father running out and the mother being either working so much she can't do motherly things or simply being a bad mother? it has been very clearly stated that children born out of wedlock (which is usually those younger, teenaged mothers where the father refuses to be a father and the child wasn't planned)) is the biggest problem in texas. lots of other problems stem from it.

so, did you mean something else, or are you just ignorantly trolling and insulting texas because you don't like it?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
This study?

That study is based solely in Tejas. A red state that is also full of Catholic hispanics. Can you say, "BIASED?" Do you think forcing young women to have children is a good thing? Honestly, THINK about it.

at least it is a real study and not an incredibly flawed thing put together by some journalists who probably can't figure tip without resorting to a calculator.

 

[techs]

If parental consent is passed I support a law that says if parents forbid their kids to have abortion than:
The parents must pay all costs for raising the kid and they must also raise the kid if their daughter wants them to raise it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: techs
Clearly the most valid study indicates the title of my thread and the reasoning behind it is valid.
The anti-abortion people are attempting to use a limited sample to prove their agenda.
Just like when opinion polls show abortion to be overwhelmingly supported by Americans they will cite a poll that asks a leading question and use it to draw an erroneous conclusion.

how is the NYT story 'clearly the most valid'? did you not see the flaws pointed out?

texas is a good state to pick because of a) the volume; and b) the real lack of ability to go out of state and avoid the law that way. texas is a much bigger sample than the limited sample used by those amatuers over at the times. this is a full study being published in a medical journal, not something conducted by a couple guys who don't understand what sigma is.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Todd33
Should we require parental notification before sex? At this point the parent has been "subverted", get over it. It's not like any of the anti-abortion people around here have kids, they are a bunch of middle class white boys.

What a stupid response, but coming from you not terribly surprising.

If you dont see the damage in having a govt entity interfere with a family decision you are beyond hope.

hahaha.........Todd33`s response was right on the money.
Only I would go even further with his response....
I would add...It's not like any of the anti-abortion people around here have kids, in fact they are a bunch of middle class white boys who probably are iether unemployed and still living at home or too young to formulate an opinion based on life experiences...rofl...hahahaa

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Todd33
Should we require parental notification before sex? At this point the parent has been "subverted", get over it. It's not like any of the anti-abortion people around here have kids, they are a bunch of middle class white boys.

What a stupid response, but coming from you not terribly surprising.

If you dont see the damage in having a govt entity interfere with a family decision you are beyond hope.

How are notification laws not 'a government entity interfering with a family decision'?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: techs
Clearly the most valid study indicates the title of my thread and the reasoning behind it is valid.
The anti-abortion people are attempting to use a limited sample to prove their agenda.
Just like when opinion polls show abortion to be overwhelmingly supported by Americans they will cite a poll that asks a leading question and use it to draw an erroneous conclusion.

Heh he for some reason I was sure you would come back with this.

Curse that New England Journal of Medicine and their fascist neocon principles!