The holiday hangout will go online tomorrow! If there's anything in the regular subforums that you're going to want to access over the holidays, copy it now while it's still accessible.
Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

New Oklahoma Abortion Law: Going Too Far

1235789

Posts

  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    And if there were no such things as abusive parents you wouldn't be a bad person for supporting parental consent laws. Sadly this is not the case.

    hahaha okay

    man you are a dick

    Wait, you're endorsing denying young women the right to control their own bodies knowing full well that many of them will face violent consequences if they have to admit to their parents that they're pregnant and I'm the dick? That's fucked up, dude.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Starcross wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Starcross wrote: »
    Do it. I want to see what horrible situations parental consent laws are protecting us from.

    there aren't any, that's my point

    there are reasons to have these laws. there are not any crazy horrifying situations that will realistically happen on any regular basis if we don't have them. teenagers will not begin to use abortions as their primary means of birth control. STD rates won't skyrocket out of control. a giant population of teenagers with fucked up uteruses won't spring up overnight.

    but it's somehow plausible, so i guess it's fodder for this conversation

    I thought you were in favour of parental consent laws. Now you're claiming that they don't protect us from anything and that nothing bad will happen if we don't have them. Exactly what point are you trying to make here?

    i didn't say nothing bad will happen if we don't have them. teenagers are mostly idiots who can't make even most easy decisions for themselves, and parents deserve to have a say in what happens. because like i said before, raising that kid, if that's what they decide, if going to be mostly on them, not the teenager.

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Because there are no goddamn teenagers out there going "OH HELLZ YEAH! This 'free abortions for all, no limit on how many we hand out' thing is AWESOME. I can't wait to be physically and mentally scarred by these surgical tools! Now where's some pot and booze so my underage ass can get all fuckered up!"

    someone, somewhere, is bound to say that, right? i mean it almost never happens but hey, i'm sure it does sometimes so why can't we discuss it at length even though it doesn't have any real bearing on the subject at hand?
    Wait, you're endorsing denying young women the right to control their own bodies knowing full well that many of them will face violent consequences if they have to admit to their parents that they're pregnant and I'm the dick? That's fucked up, dude.

    wait, you mean you're endorsing allowing irrespopnsible youth to have a potentially dangerous medical procedure without having to inform their parents and I'M the dick? that's fucked up dude.

    we could do this all day

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    i didn't say nothing bad will happen if we don't have them. teenagers are mostly idiots who can't make even most easy decisions for themselves, and parents deserve to have a say in what happens. because like i said before, raising that kid, if that's what they decide, if going to be mostly on them, not the teenager.
    Are they going to carry and birth the child?

    PSN: allenquid
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    And if there were no such things as abusive parents you wouldn't be a bad person for supporting parental consent laws. Sadly this is not the case.

    hahaha okay

    man you are a dick

    Wait, you're endorsing denying young women the right to control their own bodies knowing full well that many of them will face violent consequences if they have to admit to their parents that they're pregnant and I'm the dick? That's fucked up, dude.

    Don't be silly.

    Telling your abusive father who might have fathered the child that she went to someone about it against his wishes is definitely the right thing to do.

    There is no negative outcome of telling an abusive person you went against them.

    shamanhealingwave.jpgabilitypaladinshieldofv.png
  • StarcrossStarcross Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Starcross wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Starcross wrote: »
    Do it. I want to see what horrible situations parental consent laws are protecting us from.

    there aren't any, that's my point

    there are reasons to have these laws. there are not any crazy horrifying situations that will realistically happen on any regular basis if we don't have them. teenagers will not begin to use abortions as their primary means of birth control. STD rates won't skyrocket out of control. a giant population of teenagers with fucked up uteruses won't spring up overnight.

    but it's somehow plausible, so i guess it's fodder for this conversation

    I thought you were in favour of parental consent laws. Now you're claiming that they don't protect us from anything and that nothing bad will happen if we don't have them. Exactly what point are you trying to make here?

    i didn't say nothing bad will happen if we don't have them. teenagers are mostly idiots who can't make even most easy decisions for themselves, and parents deserve to have a say in what happens. because like i said before, raising that kid, if that's what they decide, if going to be mostly on them, not the teenager.

    Should the parents be allowed to force them to get an abortion? After all the teenager can't be expected to make decisions for themselves and the parents will be doing most of the work raising the kid.

  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    i didn't say nothing bad will happen if we don't have them. teenagers are mostly idiots who can't make even most easy decisions for themselves, and parents deserve to have a say in what happens. because like i said before, raising that kid, if that's what they decide, if going to be mostly on them, not the teenager.
    Are they going to carry and birth the child?

    nine months > years and years plus most medical and other expenses

    yeah that sounds about right.

    edit:
    Starcross wrote: »
    Should the parents be allowed to force them to get an abortion? After all the teenager can't be expected to make decisions for themselves and the parents will be doing most of the work raising the kid.

    no, it's an invasive and, in most cases, an unecessary medical procedure. you shouldn't be able to force that on anyone

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    i didn't say nothing bad will happen if we don't have them. teenagers are mostly idiots who can't make even most easy decisions for themselves, and parents deserve to have a say in what happens. because like i said before, raising that kid, if that's what they decide, is going to be mostly on them, not the teenager.

    Are they legally required to take any part in raising the kid, either financially or otherwise? No? Then I don't see how they "deserve" a say in the matter.

    Fuck, the father (of the potential child, not the girl, assuming they're different) is generally legally required to take part in the raising of the kid (financially, of nothing else), and he still doesn't get a say in the matter.


    So do me a favor. You make sure that any law requiring parental consent also makes those same parents legally responsible for the care and feeding of the child. Until it's 18. Then we can talk some more.

    Keep in mind that talk will likely still involve me telling you you're an idiot, because there's a thousand other reasons this is a bad idea, but hey maybe it'll shut you up for a few.

    Should the parents be allowed to force them to get an abortion? After all the teenager can't be expected to make decisions for themselves and the parents will be doing most of the work raising the kid.

    Alternately, this.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    nine months > years and years plus most medical and other expenses

    yeah that sounds about right.
    O_o

    How dangerous do you think getting an abortion is? Cause I'm pretty sure it's not as dangerous as actual child birth.

    PSN: allenquid
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    nine months > years and years plus most medical and other expenses

    yeah that sounds about right.
    O_o

    How dangerous do you think getting an abortion is? Cause I'm pretty sure it's not as dangerous as actual child birth.
    It is, in fact, not as dangerous as actual childbirth. Especially in the first trimester, when the vast, vast majority of abortions take place.

  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    nine months > years and years plus most medical and other expenses

    yeah that sounds about right.
    O_o

    How dangerous do you think getting an abortion is? Cause I'm pretty sure it's not as dangerous as actual child birth.

    Nor is "years and years plus most medical expenses" nearly as damaging as "knowing that your child was born out of hatred and fear, and is also unloved because you can't bring yourself to love it, and is probably going to flip if they find out their father raped their mother."

    People who get abortions eventually get better physically, mentally, etc.
    Children born out of rape or who are unwanted (either financially, or due to contraceptive failure) will have to live with this there ENTIRE LIFE.
    And don't tell me "Don't tell the child". The latter is easy enough to avoid. But how do you explain why your son can never meet his father, or why you shudder and dodge questions about who he is?

    shamanhealingwave.jpgabilitypaladinshieldofv.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    nine months > years and years plus most medical and other expenses

    yeah that sounds about right.
    O_o

    How dangerous do you think getting an abortion is? Cause I'm pretty sure it's not as dangerous as actual child birth.
    It is, in fact, not as dangerous as actual childbirth. Especially in the first trimester, when the vast, vast majority of abortions take place.
    This is what I'm figuring. While certainly horribly unpleasant I can't see a fetus being sucked out of the womb being as damaging/traumatizing as hours of labor followed by forcing a human head out of one's vagina.

    PSN: allenquid
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    i didn't say nothing bad will happen if we don't have them. teenagers are mostly idiots who can't make even most easy decisions for themselves, and parents deserve to have a say in what happens. because like i said before, raising that kid, if that's what they decide, if going to be mostly on them, not the teenager.
    Are they going to carry and birth the child?

    nine months > years and years plus most medical and other expenses

    yeah that sounds about right.

    edit:
    Starcross wrote: »
    Should the parents be allowed to force them to get an abortion? After all the teenager can't be expected to make decisions for themselves and the parents will be doing most of the work raising the kid.

    no, it's an invasive and, in most cases, an unecessary medical procedure. you shouldn't be able to force that on anyone

    Childbirth is a significantly more dangerous medical procedure.

  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    nine months > years and years plus most medical and other expenses

    yeah that sounds about right.
    O_o

    How dangerous do you think getting an abortion is? Cause I'm pretty sure it's not as dangerous as actual child birth.

    While we're on the topic, what would be the relative risks of death or serious injury between abortion and pregnancy(and for pregnancy, what serious risks would only appear late-term)?

    I don't think a lot of the pregnancy center sources popping up on Google would be accurate.

    rodq.jpg
  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    i didn't say nothing bad will happen if we don't have them. teenagers are mostly idiots who can't make even most easy decisions for themselves, and parents deserve to have a say in what happens. because like i said before, raising that kid, if that's what they decide, if going to be mostly on them, not the teenager.
    Are they going to carry and birth the child?

    nine months > years and years plus most medical and other expenses

    yeah that sounds about right.

    edit:
    Starcross wrote: »
    Should the parents be allowed to force them to get an abortion? After all the teenager can't be expected to make decisions for themselves and the parents will be doing most of the work raising the kid.

    no, it's an invasive and, in most cases, an unecessary medical procedure. you shouldn't be able to force that on anyone

    Childbirth is a significantly more dangerous medical procedure.

    it's also completely avoidable

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Wait, you're endorsing denying young women the right to control their own bodies knowing full well that many of them will face violent consequences if they have to admit to their parents that they're pregnant and I'm the dick? That's fucked up, dude.

    wait, you mean you're endorsing allowing irrespopnsible youth to have a potentially dangerous medical procedure without having to inform their parents and I'M the dick? that's fucked up dude.

    we could do this all day

    We could but you'd need to try again because that one doesn't work, it rests on the assumption that there's no such thing as abusive parents. In the most extreme case, you are perfectly alright with forcing a rape victim to get permission from their attacker to have an abortion. Sure, why not would require the girl to suffer through a rape-trial in order to get her abortion? Yes, let's kick 'em while they're down, captain, it's the best time to kick 'em! At best girls who are justifiably afraid of what their parents will do if they find out they're pregnant will be driven to resort to back-alley abortions or the ever popular teen-suicide. And, of course, the parents can force their daughters to carry to term with the only exception being a clearly life-threatening medical situation. Other health risks are less important than the parents' wishes, and the woman's wishes don't ever actually enter into it.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • StarcrossStarcross Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    i didn't say nothing bad will happen if we don't have them. teenagers are mostly idiots who can't make even most easy decisions for themselves, and parents deserve to have a say in what happens. because like i said before, raising that kid, if that's what they decide, if going to be mostly on them, not the teenager.
    Are they going to carry and birth the child?

    nine months > years and years plus most medical and other expenses

    yeah that sounds about right.

    edit:
    Starcross wrote: »
    Should the parents be allowed to force them to get an abortion? After all the teenager can't be expected to make decisions for themselves and the parents will be doing most of the work raising the kid.

    no, it's an invasive and, in most cases, an unecessary medical procedure. you shouldn't be able to force that on anyone

    Childbirth is a significantly more dangerous medical procedure.

    it's also completely avoidable

    Through getting an abortion. Nice to see we are in agreement.

  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Wait, you're endorsing denying young women the right to control their own bodies knowing full well that many of them will face violent consequences if they have to admit to their parents that they're pregnant and I'm the dick? That's fucked up, dude.

    wait, you mean you're endorsing allowing irrespopnsible youth to have a potentially dangerous medical procedure without having to inform their parents and I'M the dick? that's fucked up dude.

    we could do this all day

    We could but you'd need to try again because that one doesn't work, it rests on the assumption that there's no such thing as abusive parents.

    and you rest on the assumption that there aren't any kids who use abortion as a means of birth control.
    Starcross wrote: »
    Through getting an abortion. Nice to see we are in agreement.

    or, you know, not having sex.

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    or, you know, not having sex.

    Nooooo!

    I'm seeing things, right?
    Pants Man wrote: »
    and you rest on the assumption that there aren't any kids who use abortion as a means of birth control.

    Better to allow this, than to force the rape victim to confront the rapist.

    rodq.jpg
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    or, you know, not having sex.

    I think that boat already sailed if abortion is an issue.

    sigthree.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Wait, you're endorsing denying young women the right to control their own bodies knowing full well that many of them will face violent consequences if they have to admit to their parents that they're pregnant and I'm the dick? That's fucked up, dude.

    wait, you mean you're endorsing allowing irrespopnsible youth to have a potentially dangerous medical procedure without having to inform their parents and I'M the dick? that's fucked up dude.

    we could do this all day

    We could but you'd need to try again because that one doesn't work, it rests on the assumption that there's no such thing as abusive parents.

    and you rest on the assumption that there aren't any kids who use abortion as a means of birth control.

    No it doesn't. It relies on the assumption that women have the right to control their own bodies. Meanwhile, in the most extreme case, you are perfectly alright with forcing a rape victim to get permission from their attacker to have an abortion. Sure, why not require the girl to suffer through a rape-trial in order to get her abortion? Yes, let's kick 'em while they're down, captain, it's the best time to kick 'em! At best girls who are justifiably afraid of what their parents will do if they find out they're pregnant will be driven to resort to back-alley abortions or the ever popular teen-suicide. And, of course, the parents can force their daughters to carry to term with the only exception being a clearly life-threatening medical situation. Other health risks are less important than the parents' wishes, and the woman's wishes don't ever actually enter into it.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    or, you know, not having sex.

    Nooooo!

    I'm seeing things, right?

    Punish the whores!

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    and you rest on the assumption that there aren't any kids who use abortion as a means of birth control.

    You've yet to really show that this is an objectively bad thing, or something that should be illegal. Aside from some sort of argument regarding the rights of the fetus I fail to see why this need be legislated.
    Starcross wrote: »
    or, you know, not having sex.

    So you're just out to punish those sluts, eh?

    Ignoring, for a moment, the possibility of rape. Because rape is irrelevant anyway, if your point is to protect the fetus. And if your point isn't to protect the fetus, then what does it matter (from a legislative standpoint) if abortion is used as birth control? And the circle is complete.

    Unless you think banning abortion will actually stop teens from having sex, or even do much to stem the tide. In which case I think I'd get a more rewarding debate and/or discourse with one of my wife's second-graders.

  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    or, you know, not having sex.

    Nooooo!

    I'm seeing things, right?
    Pants Man wrote: »
    and you rest on the assumption that there aren't any kids who use abortion as a means of birth control.

    Better to allow this, than to force the rape victim to confront the rapist.

    they're both scenarios that don't have any real bearing on the topic at hand because they both require special circumstances, and no one is going to tell a kid who wants an abortion but got raped by her dad "AW TOO BAD BUT YOU GOTTA TELL EM"

    the ONLY thing that the law requires in that case is for the daughter to come forward to someone that she was raped.


    edit:

    and i love the default "punish the sluts" refrain, it's almost like you've used that default argument before


    edit2:
    You've yet to really show that this is an objectively bad thing, or something that should be illegal. Aside from some sort of argument regarding the rights of the fetus I fail to see why this need be legislated.

    yeah repeated abortions on demand kick ass

    if you can't see why that's an objectively "bad thing," i think it's obvious that we're not going to come to an agreement here

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Wait, you're endorsing denying young women the right to control their own bodies knowing full well that many of them will face violent consequences if they have to admit to their parents that they're pregnant and I'm the dick? That's fucked up, dude.
    wait, you mean you're endorsing allowing irrespopnsible youth to have a potentially dangerous medical procedure without having to inform their parents and I'M the dick? that's fucked up dude.

    we could do this all day

    We could but you'd need to try again because that one doesn't work, it rests on the assumption that there's no such thing as abusive parents.

    and you rest on the assumption that there aren't any kids who use abortion as a means of birth control.
    Starcross wrote: »
    Through getting an abortion. Nice to see we are in agreement.

    or, you know, not having sex.

    Oh christ this is like some sort of double-whammy post.

    Okay first off: I really have to question this "There are people who use abortion as birth control" thing.
    Really?
    Do we have any reliable sources on this? Seriously?

    Secondly: ...I don't think a woman gets much say in the matter when she's raped.
    Especially by her father. Where she gets even less say.

    Third: We could also eliminate drunk driving by never driving again.

    shamanhealingwave.jpgabilitypaladinshieldofv.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    it's also completely avoidable
    So now you want to punish teenagers who have sex? Because that's all that is. It's either don't have sex until you reach this arbitrary age or risk being forced to have a much riskier medical operation because your parents are against abortion. What else do you call that other than punishing teenagers who have sex?

    PSN: allenquid
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
    McD just to center your point in the reality of abortion legislation (because your point that "pro-life" people should really only support abortion bans is a good one), the fact is that abortion bans are clearly not possible in most states. So what they do is pass a ballot measure that says girls under 18 have to inform parents if they get an abortion. Then next they pass a ballot measure that says it has to be consent, not information only. Then next the move on to forcing ultrasounds or other medical procedures on women, and moving to ban abortion in certain rare situations, etc. etc. and onward in stepping stones, hopefully finally arriving at a point where abortion is effectively prohibited, even if not by law.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    How about instead of a law requiring girls tell their parents they're getting an abortion you have a law requiring parents not be so shitty that the girl doesn't trust them enough to tell them that?

    PSN: allenquid
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Okay first off: I really have to question this "There are people who use abortion as birth control" thing.
    Really?
    Do we have any reliable sources on this? Seriously?

    Well, I don't think any non-trivial number of teenagers are actively thinking "fuck birth control, I can just have an abortion instead." However, I'd argue that there does probably exist some non-trivial number of teenagers who are generally lackadaisical about birth control simply because they're irresponsible, but who might put more thought into the consequences if the safety net of abortion were used.

    Well, maybe.

    Then again, if the threat of HIV or a host of other less deadly but still unpleasant STDs isn't enough to scare those kids into responsibility, I'm thinking that the risk of a kid won't fare much better. You know, because of the irresponsibility.

    And even assuming that you would convince some non-zero number not to have sex (or to use birth control) by removing abortion of an option, I fail to see how that small gain really balances out the loss of personal freedom across the board (and the incredibly negative impacts in some other limited circumstances), unless you're placing some actual value on the life of the fetus.

    Which, if you are, then parental consent is a non-issue anyway, so you'd not be arguing for it.

  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Okay first off: I really have to question this "There are people who use abortion as birth control" thing.
    Really?
    Do we have any reliable sources on this? Seriously?

    do we have reliable sources on women who are raped by their dads and then get an abortion? seriously?
    So now you want to punish teenagers who have sex? Because that's all that is. It's either don't have sex until you reach this arbitrary age or risk being forced to have a much riskier medical operation because your parents are against abortion. What else do you call that other than punishing teenagers who have sex?

    it's not punishing anyone. kids take the risk and make the choice to have intercourse. whatever follows can be completely avoided by them in the first place. if they want to take that risk, that's their choice

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    they're both scenarios that don't have any real bearing on the topic at hand because they both require special circumstances, and no one is going to tell a kid who wants an abortion but got raped by her dad "AW TOO BAD BUT YOU GOTTA TELL EM"

    the ONLY thing that the law requires in that case is for the daughter to come forward to someone that she was raped.

    So then we are ignoring "and you rest on the assumption that there aren't any kids who use abortion as a means of birth control."?
    Pants Man wrote: »
    You've yet to really show that this is an objectively bad thing, or something that should be illegal. Aside from some sort of argument regarding the rights of the fetus I fail to see why this need be legislated.

    yeah repeated abortions on demand kick ass

    if you can't see why that's an objectively "bad thing," i think it's obvious that we're not going to come to an agreement here

    He's not saying it's kick ass. I'm going to have to agree that I don't feel there should be any legal business pertaining to a women terminating a group of cells that are not a person but could potentially become a person. But yeah, this is an entirely separate argument.

    rodq.jpg
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    it's also completely avoidable
    So now you want to punish teenagers who have sex? Because that's all that is. It's either don't have sex until you reach this arbitrary age or risk being forced to have a much riskier medical operation because your parents are against abortion. What else do you call that other than punishing teenagers who have sex?

    Well...he's saying that there's too much value in a fetus to destroy them willy-nilly.

    rodq.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Medopine wrote: »
    McD just to center your point in the reality of abortion legislation (because your point that "pro-life" people should really only support abortion bans is a good one), the fact is that abortion bans are clearly not possible in most states. So what they do is pass a ballot measure that says girls under 18 have to inform parents if they get an abortion. Then next they pass a ballot measure that says it has to be consent, not information only. Then next the move on to forcing ultrasounds or other medical procedures on women, and moving to ban abortion in certain rare situations, etc. etc. and onward in stepping stones, hopefully finally arriving at a point where abortion is effectively prohibited, even if not by law.

    Oh, I know. That's pretty much what I was getting at. I'm saying such people should be taken out back and beaten to death with a ball-peen hammer. I'm strongly in favor of abortions up through the 300th trimester or so in such cases.

  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    they're both scenarios that don't have any real bearing on the topic at hand because they both require special circumstances, and no one is going to tell a kid who wants an abortion but got raped by her dad "AW TOO BAD BUT YOU GOTTA TELL EM"

    the ONLY thing that the law requires in that case is for the daughter to come forward to someone that she was raped.

    So then we are ignoring "and you rest on the assumption that there aren't any kids who use abortion as a means of birth control."?

    only if we're ignoring the scenario of a dad raping the daughter, which probably happens much less than kids thinking they can just get an abortion if they get pregnant

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    it's not punishing anyone. kids take the risk and make the choice to have intercourse. whatever follows can be completely avoided by them in the first place. if they want to take that risk, that's their choice
    As is an abortion. Because you still haven't shown what, exactly, is so dangerous about it that it should require parental consent and instead require them to deal with a much more dangerous operation.

    Nor have you shown this source showing all these people prefer abortion as their means of birth control.

    PSN: allenquid
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Septus wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    they're both scenarios that don't have any real bearing on the topic at hand because they both require special circumstances, and no one is going to tell a kid who wants an abortion but got raped by her dad "AW TOO BAD BUT YOU GOTTA TELL EM"

    the ONLY thing that the law requires in that case is for the daughter to come forward to someone that she was raped.

    So then we are ignoring "and you rest on the assumption that there aren't any kids who use abortion as a means of birth control."?

    only if we're ignoring the scenario of a dad raping the daughter, which probably happens much less than kids thinking they can just get an abortion if they get pregnant

    You sure about that? Got any stats to back it up?

  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    Septus wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    they're both scenarios that don't have any real bearing on the topic at hand because they both require special circumstances, and no one is going to tell a kid who wants an abortion but got raped by her dad "AW TOO BAD BUT YOU GOTTA TELL EM"

    the ONLY thing that the law requires in that case is for the daughter to come forward to someone that she was raped.

    So then we are ignoring "and you rest on the assumption that there aren't any kids who use abortion as a means of birth control."?

    only if we're ignoring the scenario of a dad raping the daughter, which probably happens much less than kids thinking they can just get an abortion if they get pregnant

    I'm positive that there are concrete numbers out there, that also include nationwide estimates based on surveys, of the number of fathers who rape their daughters.

    I doubt there are any sort of numbers, or that even approach the legitimacy or size of the rape-case, of how many women just think "screw it, I'll have sex with this guy and I can just get an expensive and invasive procedure to reverse the consequences."

    rodq.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    You've yet to really show that this is an objectively bad thing, or something that should be illegal. Aside from some sort of argument regarding the rights of the fetus I fail to see why this need be legislated.

    yeah repeated abortions on demand kick ass

    if you can't see why that's an objectively "bad thing," i think it's obvious that we're not going to come to an agreement here

    Okay, is your issue the destruction of the fetuses or the potential trauma to the woman/girl having the abortions? Why don't you narrow that down, and we can go on (destroying whatever arguments you come up with) from there.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Pants Man wrote: »
    So now you want to punish teenagers who have sex? Because that's all that is. It's either don't have sex until you reach this arbitrary age or risk being forced to have a much riskier medical operation because your parents are against abortion. What else do you call that other than punishing teenagers who have sex?
    it's not punishing anyone. kids take the risk and make the choice to have intercourse. whatever follows can be completely avoided by them in the first place. if they want to take that risk, that's their choice
    Yes, and teenagers are rational individuals, who we always hold to the same standards of behavior as adults.

  • Pants ManPants Man Registered User
    edited April 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Pants Man wrote: »
    it's not punishing anyone. kids take the risk and make the choice to have intercourse. whatever follows can be completely avoided by them in the first place. if they want to take that risk, that's their choice
    As is an abortion. Because you still haven't shown what, exactly, is so dangerous about it that it should require parental consent and instead require them to deal with a much more dangerous operation.

    Nor have you shown this source showing all these people prefer abortion as their means of birth control.

    no one had shown jack shit. this is all rampant speculation without anything to back it up. i state i like consent laws because of the right of a parent to have a say in a medical procedure. the board offers nihtmare scenarios as a rebut. i offer another nightmare scenario. board says mine is ridiculous, wheras theirs is perfectly valid. and round and round we go.

    "okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
Sign In or Register to comment.