And so then my claim that your remark wasn't really relevant is spot-on. I don't see how you're finding something to argue with.
Why does it have to be an argument? The law is reprehensible, we've established that much. Now we're just dancing the Right To Life / Choice Tango for the nth time.
VC does not understand the concept of "discourse". Trying to explain it is a lost cause.
It seems, though, that many teenagers fight for their right to be considered equals, only to grow up, look back, and realize how much more immature they were then than they realized.
Hell, I'm 28 and I still feel like I'm struggling to act in a mature fashion, let alone 10-15 years ago.
This isn't really relevant, though. There are health-reasons why you can't take this decision away from the woman who it pertains to.
Who said anything at all about taking choices away from women?
How exactly did you think the ability of teenagers to act in a mature fashion was relevant in the context of an abortion-law discussion?
I was merely commenting on how little things change 10-15 years later (though of course there is an immense amount of growth between a 15 year old and a 25 year old, in terms of emotional and intellectual maturity, or so one would hope). I'm sure in my late 30's and early 40's I'll look back on my late 20's and wonder what the hell I was thinking half the time.
That wasn't a statement condemning the right of a woman (teenage or otherwise) to make choices about her health and body, just a general observation regarding the more things changing, the more they stay the same in regards to maturity.
And so then my claim that your remark wasn't really relevant is spot-on. I don't see how you're finding something to argue with.
Well, if you are always going to look back and a previous period of your life and say that you were immature, then it becomes impossible to pick an age at which you can be said to be able to make a mature decision. So any age limit then becomes an arbitrary point in time and can be slippery sloped to push it both forward and backward.
So 18 is generally chosen as being the point where you can reasonably expect someone to have fully developed their mental faculties to make a decision and be able to understand the consequences.
That is not to say that you can deny anyone under 18 the ability to make choices for themselves. If the current laws are able to punish minors for things they do, even going so far as to try them as adults, then it is rediculous to claim that they should be unable or not allowed to make the final decision in a choice that will change their life regardless of which decision they make.
And so then my claim that your remark wasn't really relevant is spot-on. I don't see how you're finding something to argue with.
Why does it have to be an argument? The law is reprehensible, we've established that much. Now we're just dancing the Right To Life / Choice Tango for the nth time.
VC does not understand the concept of "discourse". Trying to explain it is a lost cause.
If you're going to ignore each other, baiting is a great start.
I'm a big supporter of contraception over abortion, partly because it makes a lot of this controversy go away.
Oh please, lets not throw that shit into the fan.
If only we could get rapists to wear condoms.
We could always blame rape-babies on the victims, because if they didn't want a rape-baby, they should have been on the pill...
Well, if they didn't want to get sexually assaulted, they wouldn't have worn such revealing clothes and been going around without a male escort, acting like they're full human beings.
If you're going to ignore each other, baiting is a great start.
I'm just trying to help Forar from stepping in to an unended loop, here. I don't want the thread locked down.
Thank you.
And while I agree that it becomes a very complicated situation when dealing with the very young (say around 11 years old; possibly old enough to reproduce, but not even a 'teenager' yet), people (and in this case, women in particular) have a right to choose what they feel is best for them, in mind and body.
So to be perfectly clear, no, I am not in favour of taking that choice away from women. I am in fact very much pro-choice, and it is that belief that leads me to feel this law is so vile, particularly after finding out that the vaginal ultrasound may be painful (and even if it was the least invasive procedure ever, when possibly dealing with rape victims and people under immense stress and trauma, such a blanket statement/approach becomes doubly cruel).
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I'm a big supporter of contraception over abortion, partly because it makes a lot of this controversy go away.
Oh please, lets not throw that shit into the fan.
If only we could get rapists to wear condoms.
We could always blame rape-babies on the victims, because if they didn't want a rape-baby, they should have been on the pill...
Oh, I like that.
I prefer "they were asking for it". It not only implies that the woman is at fault, but she deserved it.
Warning: MMO Forum Joke ahead:
Forar, are you pro-choice? Wouldn't shock me. Your main is a Rogue, so I figure the "Kill it before it has a chance" is your thing ;-).
The Muffin Man would like to remind everyone he is ALSO pro-choice.
If you're going to ignore each other, baiting is a great start.
I'm just trying to help Forar from stepping in to an unended loop, here. I don't want the thread locked down.
Thank you.
And while I agree that it becomes a very complicated situation when dealing with the very young (say around 11 years old; possibly old enough to reproduce, but not even a 'teenager' yet), people (and in this case, women in particular) have a right to choose what they feel is best for them, in mind and body.
So to be perfectly clear, no, I am not in favour of taking that choice away from women. I am in fact very much pro-choice, and it is that belief that leads me to feel this law is so vile, particularly after finding out that the vaginal ultrasound may be painful (and even if it was the least invasive procedure ever, when possibly dealing with rape victims and people under immense stress and trauma, such a blanket statement/approach becomes doubly cruel).
We're on the same page here.
The statement that I took issue with was the idea that the only negative consequence a teeager getting an abortion might end up dealing with is "some regret". Teenage years are difficult ones, and an abortion isn't exactly a fun activity, nor is it emotionally neutral.
I oppose parental consent laws, but I don't think we should blind ourselves to the fact that teenagers recieving abortions need some kind of support structure to make sure that they come out of the ordeal okay. Too often people jump to an extreme, and only end up hurting the folks that they claim to be helping, by denying that there are any other issues at all.
Warning: MMO Forum Joke ahead:
Forar, are you pro-choice? Wouldn't shock me. Your main is a Rogue, so I figure the "Kill it before it has a chance" is your thing ;-).
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
It seems, though, that many teenagers fight for their right to be considered equals, only to grow up, look back, and realize how much more immature they were then than they realized.
Hell, I'm 28 and I still feel like I'm struggling to act in a mature fashion, let alone 10-15 years ago.
This isn't really relevant, though. There are health-reasons why you can't take this decision away from the woman who it pertains to.
Who said anything at all about taking choices away from women?
How exactly did you think the ability of teenagers to act in a mature fashion was relevant in the context of an abortion-law discussion?
I was merely commenting on how little things change 10-15 years later (though of course there is an immense amount of growth between a 15 year old and a 25 year old, in terms of emotional and intellectual maturity, or so one would hope). I'm sure in my late 30's and early 40's I'll look back on my late 20's and wonder what the hell I was thinking half the time.
That wasn't a statement condemning the right of a woman (teenage or otherwise) to make choices about her health and body, just a general observation regarding the more things changing, the more they stay the same in regards to maturity.
And so then my claim that your remark wasn't really relevant is spot-on. I don't see how you're finding something to argue with.
Well, if you are always going to look back and a previous period of your life and say that you were immature, then it becomes impossible to pick an age at which you can be said to be able to make a mature decision. So any age limit then becomes an arbitrary point in time and can be slippery sloped to push it both forward and backward.
So 18 is generally chosen as being the point where you can reasonably expect someone to have fully developed their mental faculties to make a decision and be able to understand the consequences.
That is not to say that you can deny anyone under 18 the ability to make choices for themselves. If the current laws are able to punish minors for things they do, even going so far as to try them as adults, then it is rediculous to claim that they should be unable or not allowed to make the final decision in a choice that will change their life regardless of which decision they make.
Except that we're already in agreement that it makes sense to bar people below a certain age from doing certain things without their parents consent and supervision due to requisite maturity-levels. This law isn't breaking new ground in that regard. To attack it on those grounds makes no sense because you then have to attack the age of consent, the driving age, the smoking age, the "no handgun sales under 21" thing, the parental-consent-for-tattoos bit, etc. That whole angle just doesn't even work as an approach to attacking this law. It can only function as support, if anything at all.
Well, if you are always going to look back and a previous period of your life and say that you were immature, then it becomes impossible to pick an age at which you can be said to be able to make a mature decision. So any age limit then becomes an arbitrary point in time and can be slippery sloped to push it both forward and backward.
So 18 is generally chosen as being the point where you can reasonably expect someone to have fully developed their mental faculties to make a decision and be able to understand the consequences.
That is not to say that you can deny anyone under 18 the ability to make choices for themselves. If the current laws are able to punish minors for things they do, even going so far as to try them as adults, then it is rediculous to claim that they should be unable or not allowed to make the final decision in a choice that will change their life regardless of which decision they make.
Except that we're already in agreement that it makes sense to bar people below a certain age from doing certain things without their parents consent and supervision due to requisite maturity-levels. This law isn't breaking new ground in that regard. To attack it on those grounds makes no sense because you then have to attack the age of consent, the driving age, the smoking age, the "no handgun sales under 21" thing, the parental-consent-for-tattoos bit, etc. That whole angle just doesn't even work as an approach to attacking this law. It can only function as support, if anything at all.
What makes the parents able to make a mature decision? The fact that it is their own child would further cloud their judgement. The mix of feelings of their child most likely going against their wishes by having sex would influence them to wanting to punish them perhaps more so than their own consideration for the best long term choice for their daughter.
When the options are, keep the child, give the child up for adoption, and abort the embryo. All 3 of these will affect their daughters development and personality for the rest of her life. Not just 18 years etc.
It is rediculous for anyone other than the daughter to be making that decision.
Well, if you are always going to look back and a previous period of your life and say that you were immature, then it becomes impossible to pick an age at which you can be said to be able to make a mature decision. So any age limit then becomes an arbitrary point in time and can be slippery sloped to push it both forward and backward.
So 18 is generally chosen as being the point where you can reasonably expect someone to have fully developed their mental faculties to make a decision and be able to understand the consequences.
That is not to say that you can deny anyone under 18 the ability to make choices for themselves. If the current laws are able to punish minors for things they do, even going so far as to try them as adults, then it is rediculous to claim that they should be unable or not allowed to make the final decision in a choice that will change their life regardless of which decision they make.
Except that we're already in agreement that it makes sense to bar people below a certain age from doing certain things without their parents consent and supervision due to requisite maturity-levels. This law isn't breaking new ground in that regard. To attack it on those grounds makes no sense because you then have to attack the age of consent, the driving age, the smoking age, the "no handgun sales under 21" thing, the parental-consent-for-tattoos bit, etc. That whole angle just doesn't even work as an approach to attacking this law. It can only function as support, if anything at all.
What makes the parents able to make a mature decision?
Good question, what makes the parents mature enough to decide to get a tattoo or have a double Johnnie Black and a cigar.
Well, if you are always going to look back and a previous period of your life and say that you were immature, then it becomes impossible to pick an age at which you can be said to be able to make a mature decision. So any age limit then becomes an arbitrary point in time and can be slippery sloped to push it both forward and backward.
So 18 is generally chosen as being the point where you can reasonably expect someone to have fully developed their mental faculties to make a decision and be able to understand the consequences.
That is not to say that you can deny anyone under 18 the ability to make choices for themselves. If the current laws are able to punish minors for things they do, even going so far as to try them as adults, then it is rediculous to claim that they should be unable or not allowed to make the final decision in a choice that will change their life regardless of which decision they make.
Except that we're already in agreement that it makes sense to bar people below a certain age from doing certain things without their parents consent and supervision due to requisite maturity-levels. This law isn't breaking new ground in that regard. To attack it on those grounds makes no sense because you then have to attack the age of consent, the driving age, the smoking age, the "no handgun sales under 21" thing, the parental-consent-for-tattoos bit, etc. That whole angle just doesn't even work as an approach to attacking this law. It can only function as support, if anything at all.
What makes the parents able to make a mature decision?
Good question, what makes the parents mature enough to decide to get a tattoo or have a double Johnnie Black and a cigar.
Well, actually, a more developed frontal lobe seems to contribute to better decision-making, especially long term ones. That's part of why most people tend to start smoking younger. It's overstated usually, but there are definite developmental milestones that it makes sense to acknowledge.
Well, actually, a more developed frontal lobe seems to contribute to better decision-making, especially long term ones. That's part of why most people tend to start smoking younger. It's overstated usually, but there are definite developmental milestones that it makes sense to acknowledge.
Don't forget the "wisdom" that comes with life experience.
The older you are, the more likely you are to have dealt in some way with a situation before, which lends a better insightand understanding of consequences than any ammount of academic study can give.
Well, if you are always going to look back and a previous period of your life and say that you were immature, then it becomes impossible to pick an age at which you can be said to be able to make a mature decision. So any age limit then becomes an arbitrary point in time and can be slippery sloped to push it both forward and backward.
So 18 is generally chosen as being the point where you can reasonably expect someone to have fully developed their mental faculties to make a decision and be able to understand the consequences.
That is not to say that you can deny anyone under 18 the ability to make choices for themselves. If the current laws are able to punish minors for things they do, even going so far as to try them as adults, then it is rediculous to claim that they should be unable or not allowed to make the final decision in a choice that will change their life regardless of which decision they make.
Except that we're already in agreement that it makes sense to bar people below a certain age from doing certain things without their parents consent and supervision due to requisite maturity-levels. This law isn't breaking new ground in that regard. To attack it on those grounds makes no sense because you then have to attack the age of consent, the driving age, the smoking age, the "no handgun sales under 21" thing, the parental-consent-for-tattoos bit, etc. That whole angle just doesn't even work as an approach to attacking this law. It can only function as support, if anything at all.
What makes the parents able to make a mature decision?
Good question, what makes the parents mature enough to decide to get a tattoo or have a double Johnnie Black and a cigar.
Alcohol being a very mild poison, tattoo's being permanent scars (in theory), and cigars containing a number of carcinogens that can contribute to developing cancer. I wouldnt classify any of those as mature decisions, regardless of how much pleasure or enjoyment might be derived from them.
That said it is not my intention or even desire to remove their ability to decide for themselves whether or not to persue them.
EDIT: To bring it back on topic, just like it is not my desire to remove from women even underaged ones the ability to decide for themselves whether or not to undergo an abortion. Quite the opposite in fact, it should always be their choice, regardless of circumstance and situation.
Alcohol being a very mild poison, tattoo's being permanent scars (in theory), and cigars containing a number of carcinogens that can contribute to developing cancer. I wouldnt classify any of those as mature decisions
Sunlight is carcinogenic.
A "mature decision" isn't a judgement on the outcome, in this case, it's a judgement on the ability of the decider to make an informed and logical choice.
Well, actually, a more developed frontal lobe seems to contribute to better decision-making, especially long term ones. That's part of why most people tend to start smoking younger. It's overstated usually, but there are definite developmental milestones that it makes sense to acknowledge.
Don't forget the "wisdom" that comes with life experience.
The older you are, the more likely you are to have dealt in some way with a situation before, which lends a better insightand understanding of consequences than any ammount of academic study can give.
That's debatable, you also might run into ossification, treating new situations as though they are similar to old ones when it's inappropriate.
Point is, there are reasonable defenses for choosing some date as mental milestones. The difference between 20 and 21 year olds might be trivial, but there are some mental differences that can be pointed to that most often occur around the 21st year. The question is whether they're important, and for what.
Well, if you are always going to look back and a previous period of your life and say that you were immature, then it becomes impossible to pick an age at which you can be said to be able to make a mature decision. So any age limit then becomes an arbitrary point in time and can be slippery sloped to push it both forward and backward.
So 18 is generally chosen as being the point where you can reasonably expect someone to have fully developed their mental faculties to make a decision and be able to understand the consequences.
That is not to say that you can deny anyone under 18 the ability to make choices for themselves. If the current laws are able to punish minors for things they do, even going so far as to try them as adults, then it is rediculous to claim that they should be unable or not allowed to make the final decision in a choice that will change their life regardless of which decision they make.
Except that we're already in agreement that it makes sense to bar people below a certain age from doing certain things without their parents consent and supervision due to requisite maturity-levels. This law isn't breaking new ground in that regard. To attack it on those grounds makes no sense because you then have to attack the age of consent, the driving age, the smoking age, the "no handgun sales under 21" thing, the parental-consent-for-tattoos bit, etc. That whole angle just doesn't even work as an approach to attacking this law. It can only function as support, if anything at all.
What makes the parents able to make a mature decision?
Good question, what makes the parents mature enough to decide to get a tattoo or have a double Johnnie Black and a cigar.
Alcohol being a very mild poison, tattoo's being permanent scars (in theory), and cigars containing a number of carcinogens that can contribute to developing cancer. I wouldnt classify any of those as mature decisions, regardless of how much pleasure or enjoyment might be derived from them.
I'm not sure how you think that answers the question. Your attempt to sling insults at people who make choices you disapprove of does not change the fact that the public consensus is that a certain level of maturity is required to be able to make those decisions responsibly. Thus we don't let people under a certain age to make those decisions for themselves.
VC, why dont I just save you a whole lot of typing, for every post someone makes, just quote them and respond with "Why?" because that is effectively your debating style right now.
You put forth no argument, nor do you refute or oppose anyone elses argument.
VC, why dont I just save you a whole lot of typing, for every post someone makes, just quote them and respond with "Why?" because that is effectively your debating style right now.
You put forth no argument, nor do you refute or oppose anyone elses argument.
This also fails to answer the question. It should be very easy for you to illustrate why abortions are different from buying a bottle of scotch. If you find the prospect of having your arguments challenged so objectionable why are you posting them?
The choice to have an abortion or not is one that impacts a persons entire life.
The choice to purchase and consume a bottle of scotch can only impact a persons entire life dependent on what other actions they take.
If I deny someone the ability to purchase a bottle of scotch, they can buy one years down the road and there is little to no consequence of them having gone without it. The same cannot be said for denyone someone an abortion.
The choice to have an abortion or not is one that impacts a persons entire life.
The choice to purchase and consume a bottle of scotch can only impact a persons entire life dependent on what other actions they take.
If I deny someone the ability to purchase a bottle of scotch, they can buy one years down the road and there is little to no consequence of them having gone without it. The same cannot be said for denyone someone an abortion.
And thus any correlation between maturity and age or lack of correlation between maturity and age is irrelevant to whether or not we allow women to decide for themselves whether they have an abortion.
The choice to have an abortion or not is one that impacts a persons entire life.
The choice to purchase and consume a bottle of scotch can only impact a persons entire life dependent on what other actions they take.
If I deny someone the ability to purchase a bottle of scotch, they can buy one years down the road and there is little to no consequence of them having gone without it. The same cannot be said for denyone someone an abortion.
It only impacts a persons life (and here I assume you mean the patient, not the fetus) because of the pressure and stigma society places on the act of getting an abortion. If it were like buying a bottle of Advil, which is should be, there would BE no stigma.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
The choice to have an abortion or not is one that impacts a persons entire life.
The choice to purchase and consume a bottle of scotch can only impact a persons entire life dependent on what other actions they take.
If I deny someone the ability to purchase a bottle of scotch, they can buy one years down the road and there is little to no consequence of them having gone without it. The same cannot be said for denyone someone an abortion.
And thus any correlation between maturity and age or lack of correlation between maturity and age is irrelevant to whether or not we allow women to decide for themselves whether they have an abortion.
Exactly what I've been saying! Hooray we agree! I'm not sure which post gave you the impression that I was of the opinion that abortions should be denied to people in any circumstance.
It only impacts a persons life (and here I assume you mean the patient, not the fetus) because of the pressure and stigma society places on the act of getting an abortion. If it were like buying a bottle of Advil, which is should be, there would BE no stigma.
No, it impacts their life because they will always know they either a)Could have had a child but didnt (there are numerous add on effects to this knowledge), b) had a child that they gave away that is out there in the world without them, c) they have a child they are raising right now and know the things they have given up for the child
The choice to have an abortion or not is one that impacts a persons entire life.
The choice to purchase and consume a bottle of scotch can only impact a persons entire life dependent on what other actions they take.
If I deny someone the ability to purchase a bottle of scotch, they can buy one years down the road and there is little to no consequence of them having gone without it. The same cannot be said for denyone someone an abortion.
And thus any correlation between maturity and age or lack of correlation between maturity and age is irrelevant to whether or not we allow women to decide for themselves whether they have an abortion.
Exactly what I've been saying! Hooray we agree! I'm not sure which post gave you the impression that I was of the opinion that abortions should be denied to people in any circumstance.
I didn't attack your position, I challenged the validity of your argument. It's like if you tell me how you're planning to destroy a tank and I tell you the gun you're using isn't going to work and then you assume I don't think you should destroy the tank.
No, it impacts their life because they will always know they either a)Could have had a child but didnt (there are numerous add on effects to this knowledge), b) had a child that they gave away that is out there in the world without them, c) they have a child they are raising right now and know the things they have given up for the child
Yeah, I feel the same way when I pass up the soup for the salad at Olive Garden.
Regardless, societal pressue plays a big role in how having an abortion will make someone feel about having had an abortion.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
Yeah it was the whole 'we let minors make other decisions' thing or whatever.
Because we also prohibit minors from making some decisions such as alcohol, smoking, blah blah blah.
Your argument SUPPORTED parental consent, even if you weren't trying to.
The choice to have an abortion or not is one that impacts a persons entire life.
The choice to purchase and consume a bottle of scotch can only impact a persons entire life dependent on what other actions they take.
If I deny someone the ability to purchase a bottle of scotch, they can buy one years down the road and there is little to no consequence of them having gone without it. The same cannot be said for denyone someone an abortion.
And thus any correlation between maturity and age or lack of correlation between maturity and age is irrelevant to whether or not we allow women to decide for themselves whether they have an abortion.
Exactly what I've been saying! Hooray we agree! I'm not sure which post gave you the impression that I was of the opinion that abortions should be denied to people in any circumstance.
I didn't attack your position, I challenged the validity of your argument. It's like if you tell me how you're planning to destroy a tank and I tell you the gun you're using isn't going to work and then you assume I don't think you should destroy the tank.
Well I got confused when the crux of the original post that you apparently took issue with was:
That is not to say that you can deny anyone under 18 the ability to make choices for themselves. If the current laws are able to punish minors for things they do, even going so far as to try them as adults, then it is rediculous to claim that they should be unable or not allowed to make the final decision in a choice that will change their life regardless of which decision they make.
Well I got confused when the crux of the original post that you apparently took issue with was:
That is not to say that you can deny anyone under 18 the ability to make choices for themselves. If the current laws are able to punish minors for things they do, even going so far as to try them as adults, then it is rediculous to claim that they should be unable or not allowed to make the final decision in a choice that will change their life regardless of which decision they make.
The bolded part is the problem, because you CAN deny anyone under 18 the ability to make choices for themselves, we do it all the time whether it be what they can buy, what they can do, or where they can go.
Even though I'm a strong proponent of choice and think abortions should be legal and accessible to all, I don't agree that getting an abortion should be like getting a bottle of Advil. I've heard the argument before, and it comes from people trying to remove the stigma of an abortion by painting it as just like any other normal medical procedure, and nothing special or worth stigmatizing.
I agree that abortion as a procedure should be as normalized as possible in order to assuage some of that stigma and make abortions easy to get, but at the same time abortion is different from any other medical procedure, just by definition. It's a decision with far greater psychological ramifications than pretty much any other medical procedure out there, and it's (obviously) particularly hard on women. So while I hope that abortions become legal and safe and easy to get, I hope that the safeguards and support systems that should go along with abortions are never swept aside in the attempt to make abortion just another medical procedure.
I strongly suspect that a lot of the guilt / depression post-abortion women / girls get is because they're constantly told by society that they should feel depressed over it. Same with rape victims.
I strongly suspect that a lot of the guilt / depression post-abortion women / girls get is because they're constantly told by society that they should feel depressed over it. Same with rape victims.
So while I hope that abortions become legal and safe and easy to get-
Luckily they largely are!
Unless it is more similar to post-partem depression, which society says shouldnt exist and until recently didnt even accept as a valid medical condition.
I strongly suspect that a lot of the guilt / depression post-abortion women / girls get is because they're constantly told by society that they should feel depressed over it. Same with rape victims.
Hm, looking at the map on Wikipedia I take that back somewhat.. I didn't realise so many US states required parental consent.
While a majority of Americans support a baseline of choice, a majority of Americans also support pretty much every restriction on that choice, such as paternal notification, parental consent, term limits, etc.
But I doubt a majority of Americans would support this OK thing.
I strongly suspect that a lot of the guilt / depression post-abortion women / girls get is because they're constantly told by society that they should feel depressed over it. Same with rape victims.
Or, you know, the fact that they realize that they just willingly, and purposefully, snuffed out a human life. Abortion IS NOT a wonderful happy thing. It is essentially the definition of a necessary evil. It is understandable why a women would be upset after having one, and we as a society need to support these women in some way, if we want to pretend that we have any kind of compassion at all.
Not to mention that there ARE certain horomonal changes during pregnancy, and losing that pregnancy leaves the body changed for no reason, which has it's own horomonal and emotional backlash.
SOme women become depressed after bringing a healthy pregnancy to full term. There should be ZERO surprise that it occurs when the pregnancy is terminated as well. This SHOULD NOT be minimized. It ALSO should not be used as an argument against abortion, of course. It should be recognized so that society can help.
Posts
VC does not understand the concept of "discourse". Trying to explain it is a lost cause.
Well, if you are always going to look back and a previous period of your life and say that you were immature, then it becomes impossible to pick an age at which you can be said to be able to make a mature decision. So any age limit then becomes an arbitrary point in time and can be slippery sloped to push it both forward and backward.
So 18 is generally chosen as being the point where you can reasonably expect someone to have fully developed their mental faculties to make a decision and be able to understand the consequences.
That is not to say that you can deny anyone under 18 the ability to make choices for themselves. If the current laws are able to punish minors for things they do, even going so far as to try them as adults, then it is rediculous to claim that they should be unable or not allowed to make the final decision in a choice that will change their life regardless of which decision they make.
MWO: Adamski
I'm just trying to help Forar from stepping in to an unended loop, here. I don't want the thread locked down.
Well, if they didn't want to get sexually assaulted, they wouldn't have worn such revealing clothes and been going around without a male escort, acting like they're full human beings.
Thank you.
And while I agree that it becomes a very complicated situation when dealing with the very young (say around 11 years old; possibly old enough to reproduce, but not even a 'teenager' yet), people (and in this case, women in particular) have a right to choose what they feel is best for them, in mind and body.
So to be perfectly clear, no, I am not in favour of taking that choice away from women. I am in fact very much pro-choice, and it is that belief that leads me to feel this law is so vile, particularly after finding out that the vaginal ultrasound may be painful (and even if it was the least invasive procedure ever, when possibly dealing with rape victims and people under immense stress and trauma, such a blanket statement/approach becomes doubly cruel).
I prefer "they were asking for it". It not only implies that the woman is at fault, but she deserved it.
Warning: MMO Forum Joke ahead:
Forar, are you pro-choice? Wouldn't shock me. Your main is a Rogue, so I figure the "Kill it before it has a chance" is your thing ;-).
We're on the same page here.
The statement that I took issue with was the idea that the only negative consequence a teeager getting an abortion might end up dealing with is "some regret". Teenage years are difficult ones, and an abortion isn't exactly a fun activity, nor is it emotionally neutral.
I oppose parental consent laws, but I don't think we should blind ourselves to the fact that teenagers recieving abortions need some kind of support structure to make sure that they come out of the ordeal okay. Too often people jump to an extreme, and only end up hurting the folks that they claim to be helping, by denying that there are any other issues at all.
Except that we're already in agreement that it makes sense to bar people below a certain age from doing certain things without their parents consent and supervision due to requisite maturity-levels. This law isn't breaking new ground in that regard. To attack it on those grounds makes no sense because you then have to attack the age of consent, the driving age, the smoking age, the "no handgun sales under 21" thing, the parental-consent-for-tattoos bit, etc. That whole angle just doesn't even work as an approach to attacking this law. It can only function as support, if anything at all.
What makes the parents able to make a mature decision? The fact that it is their own child would further cloud their judgement. The mix of feelings of their child most likely going against their wishes by having sex would influence them to wanting to punish them perhaps more so than their own consideration for the best long term choice for their daughter.
When the options are, keep the child, give the child up for adoption, and abort the embryo. All 3 of these will affect their daughters development and personality for the rest of her life. Not just 18 years etc.
It is rediculous for anyone other than the daughter to be making that decision.
MWO: Adamski
Good question, what makes the parents mature enough to decide to get a tattoo or have a double Johnnie Black and a cigar.
Well, actually, a more developed frontal lobe seems to contribute to better decision-making, especially long term ones. That's part of why most people tend to start smoking younger. It's overstated usually, but there are definite developmental milestones that it makes sense to acknowledge.
Don't forget the "wisdom" that comes with life experience.
The older you are, the more likely you are to have dealt in some way with a situation before, which lends a better insightand understanding of consequences than any ammount of academic study can give.
Alcohol being a very mild poison, tattoo's being permanent scars (in theory), and cigars containing a number of carcinogens that can contribute to developing cancer. I wouldnt classify any of those as mature decisions, regardless of how much pleasure or enjoyment might be derived from them.
That said it is not my intention or even desire to remove their ability to decide for themselves whether or not to persue them.
EDIT: To bring it back on topic, just like it is not my desire to remove from women even underaged ones the ability to decide for themselves whether or not to undergo an abortion. Quite the opposite in fact, it should always be their choice, regardless of circumstance and situation.
MWO: Adamski
Sunlight is carcinogenic.
A "mature decision" isn't a judgement on the outcome, in this case, it's a judgement on the ability of the decider to make an informed and logical choice.
Point is, there are reasonable defenses for choosing some date as mental milestones. The difference between 20 and 21 year olds might be trivial, but there are some mental differences that can be pointed to that most often occur around the 21st year. The question is whether they're important, and for what.
I'm not sure how you think that answers the question. Your attempt to sling insults at people who make choices you disapprove of does not change the fact that the public consensus is that a certain level of maturity is required to be able to make those decisions responsibly. Thus we don't let people under a certain age to make those decisions for themselves.
You put forth no argument, nor do you refute or oppose anyone elses argument.
MWO: Adamski
This also fails to answer the question. It should be very easy for you to illustrate why abortions are different from buying a bottle of scotch. If you find the prospect of having your arguments challenged so objectionable why are you posting them?
The choice to purchase and consume a bottle of scotch can only impact a persons entire life dependent on what other actions they take.
If I deny someone the ability to purchase a bottle of scotch, they can buy one years down the road and there is little to no consequence of them having gone without it. The same cannot be said for denyone someone an abortion.
MWO: Adamski
And thus any correlation between maturity and age or lack of correlation between maturity and age is irrelevant to whether or not we allow women to decide for themselves whether they have an abortion.
It only impacts a persons life (and here I assume you mean the patient, not the fetus) because of the pressure and stigma society places on the act of getting an abortion. If it were like buying a bottle of Advil, which is should be, there would BE no stigma.
Exactly what I've been saying! Hooray we agree! I'm not sure which post gave you the impression that I was of the opinion that abortions should be denied to people in any circumstance.
No, it impacts their life because they will always know they either a)Could have had a child but didnt (there are numerous add on effects to this knowledge), b) had a child that they gave away that is out there in the world without them, c) they have a child they are raising right now and know the things they have given up for the child
MWO: Adamski
I didn't attack your position, I challenged the validity of your argument. It's like if you tell me how you're planning to destroy a tank and I tell you the gun you're using isn't going to work and then you assume I don't think you should destroy the tank.
Yeah, I feel the same way when I pass up the soup for the salad at Olive Garden.
Regardless, societal pressue plays a big role in how having an abortion will make someone feel about having had an abortion.
Because we also prohibit minors from making some decisions such as alcohol, smoking, blah blah blah.
Your argument SUPPORTED parental consent, even if you weren't trying to.
Well I got confused when the crux of the original post that you apparently took issue with was:
No, it really didnt.
MWO: Adamski
The bolded part is the problem, because you CAN deny anyone under 18 the ability to make choices for themselves, we do it all the time whether it be what they can buy, what they can do, or where they can go.
See how that SUPPORTS parental consent?
I agree that abortion as a procedure should be as normalized as possible in order to assuage some of that stigma and make abortions easy to get, but at the same time abortion is different from any other medical procedure, just by definition. It's a decision with far greater psychological ramifications than pretty much any other medical procedure out there, and it's (obviously) particularly hard on women. So while I hope that abortions become legal and safe and easy to get, I hope that the safeguards and support systems that should go along with abortions are never swept aside in the attempt to make abortion just another medical procedure.
Luckily they largely are!
Unless it is more similar to post-partem depression, which society says shouldnt exist and until recently didnt even accept as a valid medical condition.
MWO: Adamski
Indeed, except they could be easier to get in a lot of places.
Like OKLAHOMA. Grr.
Depends where you are, and how wealthy you are.
But I doubt a majority of Americans would support this OK thing.
If you're going to force ladies to have kids, you'd better be willing to help pay for them.
Or, you know, the fact that they realize that they just willingly, and purposefully, snuffed out a human life. Abortion IS NOT a wonderful happy thing. It is essentially the definition of a necessary evil. It is understandable why a women would be upset after having one, and we as a society need to support these women in some way, if we want to pretend that we have any kind of compassion at all.
Not to mention that there ARE certain horomonal changes during pregnancy, and losing that pregnancy leaves the body changed for no reason, which has it's own horomonal and emotional backlash.
SOme women become depressed after bringing a healthy pregnancy to full term. There should be ZERO surprise that it occurs when the pregnancy is terminated as well. This SHOULD NOT be minimized. It ALSO should not be used as an argument against abortion, of course. It should be recognized so that society can help.
You should know by now that the anti-abortion movement does not consider itself to be forcing anyone to do anything.
Did you read the OP?
We are talking about forcing invasive ultrasounds on women getting abortions, even if BOTH the patient and doctor are opposed.