Parental Notification doesn't cut down on abortions.

[Fern]

Originally posted by: 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'?

Notifications laws, from my point of view as a parent, do not in any way "interfere" with a families decision. What they do interfere with is other people helping my underage child take a decision by themselves, instead of it being a family ddecision.

The restriction is NOT on the family. The restriction IS on third parties who could otherwise provide the procedure without the parents consent.

How bout you guys saying it IS a restriction on families explain how this works (your reasoning).

I mean, how could a family even break this law? If I can't break the law, how can I be subject to it in any meaningful way?

As far as I can see the only people subject to this law are those providing abortions.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 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

This has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with parental rights and responsibilities. I am 31 year old with a 6 year old daughter. I am no anti-abortion. Hell, I'm practically pro-abortion. I think we have too many assholes running around this planet already, let's nip a few of them in the bud.

However, I firmly believe that a parent has a right to know when an invasive medical procedure is going to be performed on the child that I, BY LAW, am required to care for. Why, in the face of a multitude of laws which require me to care for my child in a manner deemed acceptable by society, do people expect to use that same legal system to attempt to thwart my ability to be a parent to my child? The logic of some pro-choicers is so myopic, I'm embarassed for you.

So, take your uninformed opinion and cram up back up your ass where it came from.

Edit: Sorry for bringing this back from the dead. I don't come here much lately.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

However, I firmly believe that a parent has a right to know when an invasive medical procedure is going to be performed on the child that I, BY LAW, am required to care for. Why, in the face of a multitude of laws which require me to care for my child in a manner deemed acceptable by society, do people expect to use that same legal system to attempt to thwart my ability to be a parent to my child? The logic of some pro-choicers is so myopic, I'm embarassed for you.

So, take your uninformed opinion and cram up back up your ass where it came from.

Would you be willing to pass a law stating that in cases where parents prevented their daughters from having an abortion that the parents will become 100% responsible for the welfare and upbringing of the unwanted child, freeing the daugther to live her own life and to escape her monstrous parents?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: 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......

The big difference is...

...the teen can always go have her ear pierced at age 18.

...however...when the infant she was forced to have at age 15 is three years old (when she's 18), she can't retroactively abort it. She can't just go kill the three year old because she doesn't want to take care of it.

So, the abortion issue has an effect that lasts for 18+ years whereas the parents' denial of allowing a tattoo or an earing only lasts until the kid is age 18.

Seems pretty easy to understand.