This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 9th, 2005 at 7:46 and is filed under News & Articles, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Site Search:
Wednesday, November 9, 2005
Wow, I am stunned that the majority of Californian’s find it fine that a minor can have a surgical procedure without notifying their parents of this procedure first. In a state where a school nurse can’t even issue an aspirin for a headache to a Junior in high school, we can now allow an Eighth grader to suck out a life from her womb. Incredible.
And on the other side of murder, San Franciscans voted to ban all hand guns within the city limits. All owners will have to turn in their guns by April if this gets past the NRA’s legal battle. So now only the gangs will have guns and no one will be able to protect themselves after a major disaster such as we saw in New Orleans. But if that’s what the radical left want in their fare city, then write this off as “clean up” I guess. Sad.
California doesn’t need “The Big One” to shove us into the ocean, we’re already sliding politically into the Pacific. I am so stunned that people feel it is fine for a minor, a child, to get an abortion without letting their parents know. I know the lame argument, “What if it was incest?” Come on, how often does that happen? Of all the girls I knew in high school that got abortions, not ONE was due to incest. All was due to “birth control” reasons.
It’s sick to see people say they want to protect life with stupid laws like San Francisco’s hand gun ban and then at the same stroke of the pen vote no against parent notification for abortions. In this sue-happy nation, I can see Planned Parenthood having some more court cases to defend when unhappy parents take them to court for complications from a procedure they where not made aware of.
Amazing, minors can’t vote, can’t drink, can’t serve in the military but can kill babies without telling mommy and daddy. Yes, Texas IS looking better now. Pathetic!
November 9th, 2005 at 11:38
I think the 1st problem is parental notification does not equal parental consent. The girl does not need permision to get it done, she just has to tell her parents. I liked this bill a lot. I mean, being male, they can just slide by. There is nothing for the father to stand next to or be accounted for. This prop in no way illegalizes abortion. It seems more of a way to try to embaress girls from having sex. And yes, there are caese when a parent will beat there child over being pregnant. There was even (hear say of corse) a girl in my JR High that allowed her boyfriend to kick her in the stomach to help abort the baby (again, I restate it is hear say)
I am not saying I am for or against abortion. I am just saying they could have done a much better job drawing up the prop.
November 9th, 2005 at 12:12
I really like how when it is a Conservative backing and giving group like the NRA it is a legal battle. If it is Liberal group it is just suing. I guess there is a difference, but in the end both just go to court and waste more of the tax payers money.
btw…you might not have know a girl that was impregnated by incest or rape. Then again you went to an upper/middle class high school.
November 9th, 2005 at 16:31
I’ve heard this argument of girls being beat and impregnated by brothers or fathers. The problem with this argument is that is taking a very rare thing and painting over the majority with a wide brush. So it’s saying, “It’s alright to kill all the babies because just a few where made by cruddy fathers.” That’s a very poor argument and it like saying, since 19 of the hijackers where Arab, we should arrest all Arab’s to be safe against another attack.
I agree, this bill could have been better written, but it was a start and for the majority of the public to vote no on it is a sad statement on our citizens. It makes no sense.
Suing or legal battle, same words to me. Our Constitution allows the right to bear arms and San Francisco is in immediate violation with that. These are the same citizens who’s beloved former mayor and Senator now is making a critical vote for the next Justice that interprets that very Constitution who have proven they live in a different nation then that of the United States of America.
November 9th, 2005 at 16:47
I think a consistently pro-life position would oppose abortion and handguns. Saying that handguns are used for protection is kind of like saying that abortion should be permitted without parental consent because of the possibility of incest. It happens, but its very rare. It is more likely that a gun in the home will be used against a resident of the home than against an invader. The only case I can think of when a gun was used successfully against an intruder turned out to be a case of a bad guy breaking into a drug house to steal some cash. After getting lots of local publicity, the resident was arrested as the police investigation continued. Of course, the NRA isn’t jumping up and down to promote that story. In the end, both the incest argument and the self-defense argument fail because “the problem with this argument is that is taking a very rare thing and painting over the majority with a wide brush.”
November 9th, 2005 at 17:21
Only difference, Bob, between the two arguments is one is specifically protected in the Constitution (the right to bear arms) and one isn’t. I think that is an extreme difference.
As to your point of the “broad brush,” yes you’re right there. But, protecting life (your own from an intruder) is the same as protecting life in stopping abortion. Gun control can help improve the senseless killing we see. Note that this law the City by the Bay passed will only keep handguns from law abiding citizens and the gangs will continue to kill at the rate they are now. Stupid is as stupid does.
November 9th, 2005 at 17:51
The Constitution is what defines morality? Just because something is legal does not mean that it is right. Also remember that handgun bans have withstood legal appeals. Just because the Constitution states that we have the right to bear arms does not mean that we have the right to own any type of gun. There are a lot of people who are very grateful that their ex-spouse is not allowed to own an AK-47.
November 9th, 2005 at 17:59
Should abortion be legal, I do not believe so. But I do not think I should be able to control everyone and what they do, no I don’t. Those people have to live with there decisions.
The courts have said abortion is legal. Just like we have the right to bear arms. There are not many people who use guns to protect themselves. If we lost the right to bear arms and ended all manufacturing of guns eventually they would all be gone. Not really, but if we made abortion illegal they would not disappear either.
Just becasue the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms does not make it morally correct. I hear of a lot more 7 years killing each other with hand guns then giving each other abortions. Ok, ok, if the guns are put away then that would not happen. Of course then you would not be able to defend yourself with that gun either.
It is a sad state of our counrty when people are no longer thought about but political gains are. I would say we should try to redo the Constitution but that would just be a waste of time and money since we (political parties) are constantly agreeing to disagree on everything.
November 11th, 2005 at 20:25
I confess to being a member of the “Radical Left” 53% who voted no to prop 73. I understand abortion is a very sensitive topic, and I certainly sympathise and understand why people are opposed to it. As the father of a son who was born prematurely, 10 weeks early, I understand that life begins well before a womans due date. (Thankfully, my son is now 3 1/2 and doing very well). I would never seek to have my spouse or anyone else I know to have one, and I do not consider myself a fan of abortions.
But unfortunately, making abortions illegal does not stop abortions. People, and especially teenagers, make bad decisions at times. As history can tell us: if safe, legal abortions are not accessable, determined would be mothers who don’t wish to be so will seek alternate unsafe methods of aborting: coathangers, baseball bats, or other back alley procedures. It’s sad, yes. But that is reality. That is why I voted no. I don’t want to see any teens dead in Tiajuana for their bad decision.
My advise: talk to your kids.
November 13th, 2005 at 17:49
TOS, I’m glad to hear that your son is doing well. Praise God. That’s so neat to hear. Wow, 10 weeks early. He must have been tiny!
As to your opening line in the second paragraph, “But unfortunately, making abortions illegal does not stop abortions,” I reply this way: Making homicide illegal does not stop murder. Heck, look at San Francisco and their passing of making hand guns illegal. Guess stopping homicide didn’t work so they’re trying the next step, huh? Just because making something illegal doesn’t stop it isn’t a reason to allow it, TOS. Come on, that’s some really poor logic. It is morally wrong to kill the innocent, period.
November 14th, 2005 at 10:18
Thanks for clearing that up Sven, I totally understand now. When a abortion happens it is morally wrong and murder. When innocent people die during war it is just part of war. I guess we can tell that to the 40 some people that died on May 24 2004 when the US Armed Forces decided to attack a Iraqi wedding.
November 14th, 2005 at 19:57
I don’t see abortion as a black-and-white issue as svenrox seems to be portraying it as. Abortion is not the same issue as homicide, and does not call for the same solutions. Criminalizing abortions will be as successful as prohibition was in the 20′s, or the war on drugs has been in our lifetimes. In making these societal problems illegal, more problems are actually created. We should seek real solutions, not band-aids that make us feel better about ourselves. It would be great if we lived in a perfect world, with no abortions. For that we need to focus on the root of the problem: unwanted pregnancies. Educating and our children openly about sexual issues. There are many in the “Pro-Life” camp who would rather not discuss these issues with their children, preaching only abstinance as the solution. Teaching things like: “condoms cause cancer” if anything only increases the likelyhood of teen-pregnancy, and therefore increased likelyhood of abortions.
As for my son: he is quite the miracle. At 3 pounds 14 ounces at birth, he wasn’t as small as many of the miracles out there, however. It’s quite amazing what modern medicine can accomplish. My son was born at 30 weeks (40 weeks being normal). There are babies born at a mere 23 1/2 weeks that survive and grow up healthy. Which touches on another important part of abortion, that I would think even svenrox would agree with (at least, to some degree). IF abortion is to be legal as it now is (a big IF here svenrox), the goal should be important to have it done as early as possible. If prop 73 were to have passed, it would have only DELAYED the abortion procedure to later in the pregnancy by requiring parantel notification. That is, if the girl is brave enough to tell her parents about it in the first place, and not take matters into her own hands illegally. But if my not wanting to see young ladies left for dead in some back alley in TJ labels me “pathetic” in your view, then so be it.
November 15th, 2005 at 0:35
TOS, I think you perfectly demonstrate the problem with the abortion debate with your opening in comment 11. I do see it as black-and-white. Murder is murder and taking a life from the womb is plain and simple, murder. Just has walking up to a person fully grown and shooting them in the head. Murder is murder.
You on the other hand show how the other side sees it. It’s not felt has murder but the ugly word is covered and massaged as “choice”. We have dumbed a lot of things down in the last few decades and it’s sad to see murder as one of them.
I know it is difficult to convince those who desire to use abortions as birth control that it is not a choice but murder and education to the hilt will never change that attitude. I was in high school and I remember hearing all the guys, and gals, say that condoms weren’t the same as without. These comments came from very well educated people who knew all the facts and still would end the debate with, “Doesn’t matter. If she (I) get pregnant, we’ll just get an abortion.” We first need to educate the procedure is murder before the rest really filters in, TOS.
November 15th, 2005 at 0:39
Brian, war is a tough one to tackle, I’ll give you that. But the difference is what the person knows. People living in Iraq know they live in a war zone and risk is involved. They can move to more secure areas and attempt to avoid death. There is a degree of responsibilty there. However, an unborn child can do nothing to avoid it’s death. Nothing. That’s the difference.
November 15th, 2005 at 4:48
You are kidding me right? So maybe Saddam is not that bad. I mean, I am sure he gave a warning signal to all residents that they were going to be attacked and they should leave the country and find a safer place to live. I am sure Iran would have taken in all the Iraqi refugees.
Of course if the Iraqi people are only getting Iraqi news then they believe they are winning and have no reason to leave.
November 15th, 2005 at 4:49
though you did admit that war is a tough one and I respect that.
November 15th, 2005 at 8:24
So bombing and murder of women and children in Iraq is “a tough one”, but abortion is a black and white issue to you? That’s mighty hypocritical of you. I’m not expecting to change your mind about this sensitive issue, only to explain “the other side.” In the end, I think we both really want the same thing: making abortions unneccessary, and a thing of the past. We just see different routes to getting there. You’d be content to make abortions illegal, and ignore the dead young girl in the alley. But hey, that’s her fault for making the wrong decision to get an abortion, right? You choose to live in your black-and-white world of right and wrong, while I live in the real world where things are more complicated.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:17
I like apples but don’t like oranges. Gosh, how hypocritical of me since both are fruit! TOS, just because war is a tougher one to deal with doesn’t make me hypocritical, just honest. I don’t want innocent women, children, and men should die in war. It’s a sad state caused by our sin and disobedience to the ONE and true God. If we wouldn’t sin, then there would be no war thus no death. War is not a black-and-white issue as abortion is. War involves much more then just two people having sex. I think it’s mighty irresponsible of you to equate the two.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:25
Brian, the Iraqi people lived in fear of Saddam, at least the ones that weren’t his hench men. They wanted him out.
Know the U.S. was behind the bombings, they knew they were winning the war. Many told soldiers as they came in to Bagdad that they would be liberated.
You’re arguement here is turning from your original point of equating death in war and death in Planned Parenthood.
November 15th, 2005 at 9:26
” though you did admit that war is a tough one and I respect that.” Thanx, Brian. And I am glad to hear both you and TOS in the end don’t want abortions either. Sounds like we want the same ends, just our means differ.