Thursday, August 03, 2006
Plato's Republic
One of the biggest problems I have with the abortion debate is the right for girls under 18 to have an abortion without parental consent. Having sex is an adult decision and terminating a pregnancy is also an adult decision. It is that simple for me. Once we start blurring the lines I think it can open up anything. ACLU supports NAMBLA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I don't understand the correlation between abortion for minors and this sickies actions in Ohio. Having sex with minor boys and providing them drugs does not mirror the actions of underage youth experimenting with their bodies together and making mistake babies. I don't think that lumping the abortion debate with the actions of this sickie is a fair comparison...
Well to say that young girls getting pregnant is just a product between to kids experimenting, well that is wrong. Often times, these girls are getting pregnant from men much older than them. Many cases and I mean many, are from their mothers boyfriends. This is a sex issue. Pregnancy is a sex issue. And we cannot disconnect them. NAMBLA makes the argument that their are many boys who want to have sex with older men. I believe em.
"Often times"? What the hell is that? "Many cases"? You seem to have really done your research, my friend. You need to stop parroting what your peers are blogging about. You and them are comparing apples to oranges on this one and that is that. Sloppy. For shame.
Actually I got that from my Aunt Carol who is a prosecuting attorney and has dealt with these matters. But assume what you want.
The truth of the matter is, a little girl needs permission from her parents to join the girl scouts, go on school trips, cheerlead so on and so forth. But she doesn't need permission form her parents to have an abortion? I find that to be lunacy.
Still, point taken though. I shouldn't use words like "often" and "many". So I will quote my source more.
Yeah, cause a prosecuting attorney is above exaggeration. No offense to your aunt, but people sometimes exaggerate the facts to prove their point. I'm as guilty as anyone else on that. The problem I have is that the article you linked only had a passing reference to abortion in underage girls and you lumped it in with NAMBLA. I just don't see a connection unless you want to talk about how ridiculous the ACLU can be.
I can see how this argument may be inline with "Gay Marriage!? What next? Polygamy?" but the real reason I linked to this ACLU site was that I have made this argument before, but it never stuck. And I finally found a source that agreed with me. Sure, I get a lot of my ideas from the web, but this one I thought of on my own. Honestly. I make the comparison because as far as I am concerned, children are property of their parents until they are 18 and I feel the state is violating that.
The article says nothing about your issue other than that the ACLU supports underage girls getting abortions without parental consent. It doesn't expand on that. It is not the focus of the article at all, and I think it's misleading to even include mention of that issue in an article about man boy love. The article intentionally tries to equate the two, and to me that is an enormous stretch. You are a stupid dummy.
I know that you don't see a correlation between the two. That is clear. So tell me, should little girls be allowed to have an abortion without parental consent? explain your answer.
You want me to show my work too, professor? I think that a case can be made in certain circumstances. For instance, if a girls parents might be prone to kill her for getting pregnant, that could be an issue. I don't pretend to know what the true best answer to this dilemma is, and frankly I haven't given it a great deal of thought. My problem is with the article you posted. Very clearly they are trying to draw parallels between what I consider to be two very different issues.
Ok Ok...Now that I am thinking clearly, I can make my point. I realize I misrepresented my post a little and was being really lazy. That is not a good reason, but I think it is good excuse. Believe me when I say that the article I linked to was just a vessel in order to bring up a subject I think is important. So please, hear me out and allow me to explain what I was trying to say.
I argue that allowing underage abortion without parental consent has nothing to do with protecting the child and has everything to do with protecting a system. First of all, what social class is most likely to experience underage pregnancy? I don’t have the numbers, but is it safe to say that it is the poor and most specifically poor Blacks? And pretending that I am right, is it also safe to say that these girls weren’t impregnated through harmless experimentation? No, in fact I think most of underage pregnancy can be attributed to people who live in conditions where drugs and crime are prevalent and that welfare is the main source of income. In other words, the main reason society wants to allow underage abortion is so that society doesn’t have to raise the children. Which is a good enough reason, but it doesn’t give the state the right to vote on such an issue. A child is the property of its parents until they are 18 and I can’t think of another situation where a child doesn’t need parental consent. Can anyone else?
I also argue that having an abortion is a very adult decision. If you don’t believe me, ask any woman who has had one what her feelings are on the matter. Some may be indifferent, but I think the majority would say it was a rotten experience that they still carry around with them to this day. So now that an underage girl is allowed to have an abortion without parental consent, are they also allowed to receive counseling from a teacher or Doctor before the operation without parental consent? Both would be perceived as authority figures, as well as, experts, so would a girl be coerced into accepting the operation?
Now moving onto NAMBLA and the ACLU. The ACLU has been making a living defending the indefensible and they are very good at it. They can create a scenario that many would never think of and drive it into the ground. I guess the main focus of my post was to do the same thing. First of all, I don’t think society would ever allow NAMBLA to get what it wants, but at the same time, I don’t think that it is totally out of the realm of possibility. U.S. has always been known as being puritanical. But I think Europe has become a little oversexed. With an anything goes attitude. I also think that many people in this country look to Europe for inspiration. We know of the sex tours to Bangkok by Europeans and Japanese where most of the prostitutes are underage. We know about European countries who have given refuge to sex offenders. Just recently, most of us read about the Netherlands new political party that wants to move the age of consent to 12 years old and now I just read that Europe is holding a Masturbate-A-Thon to promote sexual awareness. I think they are out of control. Of course I don’t live there so I don’t know the extent of it. Still, is this mentality crossing our borders?
I realize saying that if by allowing underage abortion without parental consent, it will then open the door for NAMBLA to make their argument is a bit of a leap, but I also say that there are kids who do consent to these creeps. Will NAMBLA argue that if you allow a girl to make an adult decision, why not a boy? I don’t know. I am totally fucked up. This is a gross topic and I will never bring this up again.
Post a Comment