Thanks, Red States! Blue State Economic Boom

[FA_Q2]

Supposed new law in Texas: "The parent of a minor must consent and be notified before an abortion is provided."

Finally! No matter how I feel about abortion, the idea that a minor child can get any medical treatment without the parent's consent or knowledge is horrifying.

There is a difference. Though parents should be required to be informed and part of the decision making process, the person in question is the only one that should be capable of making that decision.

I can’t fathom allowing a parent to FORCE a 15 year old to go through with a pregnancy that they do not want to have. Just because they are a minor does not mean that they lose complete control over their bodies.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Supposed new law in Texas: "The parent of a minor must consent and be notified before an abortion is provided."

Finally! No matter how I feel about abortion, the idea that a minor child can get any medical treatment without the parent's consent or knowledge is horrifying.

Teenage girls who are afraid to tell their parents they are pregnant will resort to secret, dangerous, unsanitary and possibly fatal methods of terminating.

But I hope your fantasy makes you feel good.

 

[Katzndogz]

Here you go, the 21st century far right wingnut's answer to avoiding abortions.
It's soooooo Santorum:

.

The ancient chastity belt was supposed to protect women from rape. Now we know that 21st Century liberals adore rape, it might result in pregnancy and therefore increase abortion. But, not everyone appreciates rape for the abortion support it provides. Therefore the modern day chastity belt has been created - the spiked condom.

Modern chastity belts won't stop rape | Lara Williams | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

The condom was developed five years ago by Dr Sonnet Ehlers after she witnessed firsthand the horrific aftermath of rape, claiming a rape survivor told her "if only it had teeth down there". It has faced criticism from both feminists and those worried women could misuse the device to hurt unsuspecting men, and is to make its debut in South Africa in time for the World Cup, where Ehlers has pledged to give 30,000 away for free. The device is worn by women internally and features a set of barbed "teeth", said to hook on to the penis should it be inserted into anyone wearing the device (though it apparently doesn't draw blood, and so does not hypothetically posses an HIV risk).

This modern-day chastity belt acts as your own personal vagina dentata, like Dawn, the dewy eyed and wholesome protagonist in rape revenge film Teeth, finds herself equipped with. And like Dawn, this device only protects you after you have been forcefully penetrated – cutting the attack short rather than, as it claims, preventing it.

 

[Vox]

Supposed new law in Texas: "The parent of a minor must consent and be notified before an abortion is provided."

Finally! No matter how I feel about abortion, the idea that a minor child can get any medical treatment without the parent's consent or knowledge is horrifying.

There is a difference. Though parents should be required to be informed and part of the decision making process, the person in question is the only one that should be capable of making that decision.

I can’t fathom allowing a parent to FORCE a 15 year old to go through with a pregnancy that they do not want to have. Just because they are a minor does not mean that they lose complete control over their bodies.

No, this is not correct. The person in question is INCAPABLE of making that decision and should not be making it.
If they are capable of making such a decision they should automatically be made able to make decision to consent to sex - therefore abolish all statutory rape laws, right?

 

[Cookie]

LIBERAL adj.
1. Favorable to progress or reform, maximum individual freedom esp. in matters of personal belief or expression.
2. Free from prejudice or bigotry, open-minded, tolerant, not bound by traditional ideas, values, etc., characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.


HA, HA. HA - you disprove yourself with your sanctimonious leaps of assumption about my belief system.

 

[R.C. Christian]

wow, something to be proud of...are all blue states made up of such sick and twisted people?

Hey, it's the Republican way! Just think of all the jobs created and profits to be calculated based on someone else's misery!

If you find this repugnant, then please step up as a private citizen to offer your support of all the unwanted children that will be born out of these new restrictions, because their mommas and daddies won't be able to afford them. Step up or shut up.

Do you have some kind of switch in the back of that small brain of yours that we can just turn off? It's almost embarrassing to listen to your prattle.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Supposed new law in Texas: "The parent of a minor must consent and be notified before an abortion is provided."

Finally! No matter how I feel about abortion, the idea that a minor child can get any medical treatment without the parent's consent or knowledge is horrifying.

Remember in the 80's my 16 year old girlfriend couldnt get the pill with out her parents constent. (I was 17) we had sex anyways wish I knocked her up... she was a Rebecca De Mornay copy hot as hell.. prolly old and fat now.....

 

[FA_Q2]

Then we disagree. What if my example is a 13 year old? Do they have the age and experience to make the decision? To me it's a family's decision, and when they are under the age and living at home, their parents should have a right to help decide in the decision.

Not the state, not the country, but the family. We should not be ordering laws that interfere with Family, PRIVATE MATTERS.

But disagreement is the heart of debate, not much debating without it

No, she does not have the experience or age but that is rather irrelevant to be honest. What is in the balance is the right over one’s self. The age is irrelevant outside of medical necessity. You make the claim that we should not be making laws that interfere with private decisions but that is exactly what this type of law is doing, taking over a private decision.

It seems that you feel the decision is NOT the ‘girls’ (as we are not talking about women here) and that is the crux of the argument. The problem I have with that is essentially you are saying that the parent should have the right to FORCE a 13 year old in your example to have a baby that she does not want to have. THAT, to me, is unacceptable. What you have done is NOT getting the government out of a private matter. Instead, you have used the government to SHIFT the power of that decision to someone else. That is far closer to adding government in that decision than taking it out. This is not and never was a family matter. It is a personal matter.

Now, with that stated, parents in this situation are VERY important. In that, I think and stated that a parent should be informed of the decision. Expanding on that, they should be a PART of that process. I fully agree with that BUT that does not mean they are the final arbiter of getting that abortion. No one, ever, should be allowed to force an abortion or prevent one that is within reasonable regulations. You are advocating the complete removal of control over another’s body. I find that notion abhorrent.

 

[Samson]

You are advocating the complete removal of control over another’s body. I find that notion abhorrent.

"Control over other's bodies" is the purpose of government.

 

[Vox]

Then we disagree. What if my example is a 13 year old? Do they have the age and experience to make the decision? To me it's a family's decision, and when they are under the age and living at home, their parents should have a right to help decide in the decision.

Not the state, not the country, but the family. We should not be ordering laws that interfere with Family, PRIVATE MATTERS.

But disagreement is the heart of debate, not much debating without it

No, she does not have the experience or age but that is rather irrelevant to be honest. What is in the balance is the right over one’s self. The age is irrelevant outside of medical necessity. You make the claim that we should not be making laws that interfere with private decisions but that is exactly what this type of law is doing, taking over a private decision.

It seems that you feel the decision is NOT the ‘girls’ (as we are not talking about women here) and that is the crux of the argument. The problem I have with that is essentially you are saying that the parent should have the right to FORCE a 13 year old in your example to have a baby that she does not want to have. THAT, to me, is unacceptable. What you have done is NOT getting the government out of a private matter. Instead, you have used the government to SHIFT the power of that decision to someone else. That is far closer to adding government in that decision than taking it out. This is not and never was a family matter. It is a personal matter.

Now, with that stated, parents in this situation are VERY important. In that, I think and stated that a parent should be informed of the decision. Expanding on that, they should be a PART of that process. I fully agree with that BUT that does not mean they are the final arbiter of getting that abortion. No one, ever, should be allowed to force an abortion or prevent one that is within reasonable regulations. You are advocating the complete removal of control over another’s body. I find that notion abhorrent.

Why do you feel it is FORCING to have a child and it is NOT FORCING to have an abortion?
Do you even realize that forcing to have an abortion at that age might result in inability to have children for the rest of her life? And that a stupid teenager is not capable to understand this and parents might know better?
Abortion is the one of the most detrimental procedures to the woman's health ( and especially a young girl's health) and it is viewed as totally benign and a natural process of pregnancy is willified - THIS is the extreme and abysmal result of the brainwashing by libtard lies

 

[Vox]

You are advocating the complete removal of control over another’s body. I find that notion abhorrent.

It is not her body. And she is not capable of making informed consent before 18.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

wow, something to be proud of...are all blue states made up of such sick and twisted people?

Hey, it's the Republican way! Just think of all the jobs created and profits to be calculated based on someone else's misery!

If you find this repugnant, then please step up as a private citizen to offer your support of all the unwanted children that will be born out of these new restrictions, because their mommas and daddies won't be able to afford them. Step up or shut up.

Do you have some kind of switch in the back of that small brain of yours that we can just turn off? It's almost embarrassing to listen to your prattle.

Are you willing to take a hike in your taxes to support a flood of unwanted children?
Because people are not going to stop having sex, in case you think that is what is going to happen from these new laws.

 

[Samson]

Are you willing to take a hike in your taxes to support a flood of unwanted children?

Sure; I'm willing to let the taxes rise in New Jersey and New York.

Sounds great.

 

[FA_Q2]

Then we disagree. What if my example is a 13 year old? Do they have the age and experience to make the decision? To me it's a family's decision, and when they are under the age and living at home, their parents should have a right to help decide in the decision.

Not the state, not the country, but the family. We should not be ordering laws that interfere with Family, PRIVATE MATTERS.

But disagreement is the heart of debate, not much debating without it

No, she does not have the experience or age but that is rather irrelevant to be honest. What is in the balance is the right over one’s self. The age is irrelevant outside of medical necessity. You make the claim that we should not be making laws that interfere with private decisions but that is exactly what this type of law is doing, taking over a private decision.

It seems that you feel the decision is NOT the ‘girls’ (as we are not talking about women here) and that is the crux of the argument. The problem I have with that is essentially you are saying that the parent should have the right to FORCE a 13 year old in your example to have a baby that she does not want to have. THAT, to me, is unacceptable. What you have done is NOT getting the government out of a private matter. Instead, you have used the government to SHIFT the power of that decision to someone else. That is far closer to adding government in that decision than taking it out. This is not and never was a family matter. It is a personal matter.

Now, with that stated, parents in this situation are VERY important. In that, I think and stated that a parent should be informed of the decision. Expanding on that, they should be a PART of that process. I fully agree with that BUT that does not mean they are the final arbiter of getting that abortion. No one, ever, should be allowed to force an abortion or prevent one that is within reasonable regulations. You are advocating the complete removal of control over another’s body. I find that notion abhorrent.

Why do you feel it is FORCING to have a child and it is NOT FORCING to have an abortion?
Do you even realize that forcing to have an abortion at that age might result in inability to have children for the rest of her life? And that a stupid teenager is not capable to understand this and parents might know better?
Abortion is the one of the most detrimental procedures to the woman's health ( and especially a young girl's health) and it is viewed as totally benign and a natural process of pregnancy is willified - THIS is the extreme and abysmal result of the brainwashing by libtard lies

And?
What is your point? This law does not allow a parent to force an abortion as far as I know. It requires the parent to sign off on the procedure but I think the girl still has to consent as well. Not sure though.

If that is the case, then the law is even more abhorrent as all the same argument still stand except that we have even more abhorrent possibilities. Imagine a 17 year old that takes care of themselves and has a stable relationship being forced to abort by their parents. That would be crazy.

I was self-sustaining AND in a relationship with my current (and only) wife when I was 17. Her parent was quite capable of making that demand if I had gotten her pregnant as well out of sheer dislike for me. They were upset because I removed her from the abusive home when she was 17 and they lost one of their crutches that kept that house in relative peace.

Fortunately, she did not get pregnant until we decided to have a child but taking that decision away from her would have been absolutely terrible. Though we would never have an abortion, it would have been equally terrible if we sought one and they tried to deny it. The concept might have come from good intentions but the road to hell and all.

 

[BrianH]

Anyone who believes in Late Term Abortion is a complete and utter Idiot.

If a woman can't decide by week 20 to keep a baby then I suggest she may be a Brainless Lib.

Why are you leaping to that extreme when these new laws will make it difficult if not impossible for many when a woman is just 4-5 weeks?

Let me answer for you: Because you are lazy and don't understand the laws that are going into effect:


Restrictions on Abortion
In Texas, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of May 1, 2013:

A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.

The parent of a minor must consent and be notified before an abortion is provided.

Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.*
(Funny how the far right is creating its own future Democratic voting nightmare)

A woman must undergo an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion; the provider must show and describe the image to the woman. If the woman lives within 100 miles of an abortion provider she must obtain the ultrasound at least 24 hours before the abortion.

State Facts About Abortion: Texas

The same reason libs jump to the extreme scenario of a woman getting raped and pregnant to justify laws that give every woman free reign to kill a baby. Followed up by an extreme terminology called "Woman's Choice" and "Woman's Health." All while completely ignoring the fact that in the event a woman is raped and fearful of being pregnant, she can go down to the hospital and recieve instant treatment to prevent a pregnancy (morning after pill, etc...) I'm not understanding why some women would be raped, NOT go to the doctor, NOT prevent the pregnancy, then have an abortion months later....

Of course, all of this is in spite of the fact that most abortion "rights" people argue that a fetus isn't a living thing. These are the same people who will look you straight in the eye and talk about science and how a single-celled Amoeba is microscopic "LIFE" yet a multi-celled fetus with a heartbeat doesn't make the cut...

 

[Vox]

And?
What is your point? This law does not allow a parent to force an abortion as far as I know. It requires the parent to sign off on the procedure but I think the girl still has to consent as well. Not sure though.

My point is that the law is AWESOME - it gives the parents the rights to decide in a situation where a teenager can not decide for herself and SHOULD NOT decide. As they do not decide for themselves in any other medical procedure ( or not even medical) - and getting an abortion is much more detrimental than getting a piercing ( which requires a consent from the parents)

Getting an abortion - is FORCING it on anybody, because it is unnatural and harmful artificial interruption of the physiological process.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

You are advocating the complete removal of control over another’s body. I find that notion abhorrent.

It is not her body. And she is not capable of making informed consent before 18.

But she's mighty capable of having sex with whatever that is below her neck.

 

[Katzndogz]

Hey, it's the Republican way! Just think of all the jobs created and profits to be calculated based on someone else's misery!

If you find this repugnant, then please step up as a private citizen to offer your support of all the unwanted children that will be born out of these new restrictions, because their mommas and daddies won't be able to afford them. Step up or shut up.

Do you have some kind of switch in the back of that small brain of yours that we can just turn off? It's almost embarrassing to listen to your prattle.

Are you willing to take a hike in your taxes to support a flood of unwanted children?
Because people are not going to stop having sex, in case you think that is what is going to happen from these new laws.

Adopt them out to families that want children and those children will grow up to be taxpayers. With an added benefit that we won't have to take in millions of illegal aliens on the basis that they will be tax payers.

 

[FA_Q2]

And?
What is your point? This law does not allow a parent to force an abortion as far as I know. It requires the parent to sign off on the procedure but I think the girl still has to consent as well. Not sure though.

My point is that the law is AWESOME - it gives the parents the rights to decide in a situation where a teenager can not decide for herself and SHOULD NOT decide. As they do not decide for themselves in any other medical procedure ( or not even medical) - and getting an abortion is much more detrimental than getting a piercing ( which requires a consent from the parents)

So you think that a parent should be capable of forcing an abortion on a woman who is 17 and wants the child?

 

[Pop23]

wow, something to be proud of...are all blue states made up of such sick and twisted people?

Hey, it's the Republican way! Just think of all the jobs created and profits to be calculated based on someone else's misery!

If you find this repugnant, then please step up as a private citizen to offer your support of all the unwanted children that will be born out of these new restrictions, because their mommas and daddies won't be able to afford them. Step up or shut up.

Pitiful really.

We might actually be able to teach responsible behavior if profit mongers like you would just step aside and let the grow ups do our jobs.