Abortion Doctor's Killer Expects 'Reward'

[Midnight Son]

See here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&ncid=533&e=5&u=/ap/20030903/ap_on_re_us/abortion_execution

From the article: "Paul Hill, a former minister who gunned down an abortion doctor, said he feels no remorse and suggested the state will be making him a martyr when he becomes the first person executed in the United States for anti-abortion violence."

"The sooner I am executed ... the sooner I am going to heaven," Hill said in a jailhouse interview. "I expect a great reward in heaven. I am looking forward to glory. I don't feel remorse."

"More people should act as I have acted," Hill added.

What a fuckin' nutcase, IMHO.

[quatoria]

He and Osama would have a lot in common, apart from selection of targets.

[Ben Sones]

It's funny how similar religious fanatics are, no matter what religion they practice.

[Dave Markell]

It's funny how similar religious fanatics are, no matter what religion they practice.

Makes perfect sense to me, I'm sorry to say. Religious fanatics are convinced that divine revelation has handed them all the answers, that anyone who thinks different is not just wrong but evil, and that their actions are therefore justified.

And there is literally no way to reason with folks like this. Very, very scary people. I've known several in my time. At one point, my brother and my best friend simultaneously became pretty extreme fundamentalist Christians. They both later reconsidered, thank goodness, but they were just about impossible to talk to for years...

[awdougherty]

"Boy, is my face red." - first words when he steps off the elevator into hell.

[Desslock]

"Boy, is my face red." - first words when he steps off the elevator into hell.

Heh, that reminds me of the great piece in the Onion after 9/11 -- "Terrorists Surprised to Find Themselves in Hell" ... where are the 69 virgins, Mohammad Atto bleated?

[Jason McCullough]

Abortion is so wierd. Only in the US is it a subject of contentious debate; Europe and Japan don't really care.

[Doug Erickson]

Consider that our country was initially settled by many fundamentalist wackos driven out of Europe for their extreme, often cult-like religious views, then. Fundamentalist Christian morality been part of the American meme since the 1500's.

And few of the ones that were too wacko for even the later-generation Puritans migrated to the Midwest (and Utah) to escape persecution.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Abortion is so wierd. Only in the US is it a subject of contentious debate; Europe and Japan don't really care.

And the rest of Asia, and Africa, well, heathens anyway? ;)

But seriously, in the Catholic countries, especially southern Europe, I believe it's rather more of an issue.

[Woolen Horde]

Another theory is that European countries legislated the abortion issue, whereas in the United States it was a judicial decision. That creates the impression (at least on the Right) of yet another example of "liberal judges out of control and out of touch with the American People(tm) and Family Values(tm)." Whereas if the lawmakers actually had to craft a law with the kind of compromises and such that happen when you actually make laws, it would maybe be a bit less contentious. Though on abortion, that's a tricky subject. The religious thing does murk things up considerably.

Yet Congress, in a way, would rather have it settled through the courts. They don't want to touch it with a ten-foot pole (well, aside from the partial-birth/late-term thing). They'd rather just bide their time and just get control of the White House, that way they could appoint (depending on the party's view) liberal/conservative justices to the Supreme Court and let them handle it.

[Jason McCullough]

I meant in the first world, of course.

My theory is that abortion isn't really about abortion; it's just a proxy culture war for yelling at hippies. How dare they have sex without suffering god's appropriate punishment! (kids)

[XPav]

My theory is that abortion isn't really about abortion; it's just a proxy culture war for yelling at hippies. How dare they have sex without suffering god's appropriate punishment! (kids)

I dunno Jason, you'll earn a lot of Koontzes from that remark.

[Jason McCullough]

Huh? Try poking around conservative websites; there's a rather disturbing amount of shrieking about "responsibility-free sex." Seeing how, you know, it's technically supposed to be worries about the murder of fetuses, not who's schlupping who.

A bit like.....hell, come to think of it, it's exactly like gun control types who spend all their time shrieking about the evils of guns rather than focusing on what they should be caring about - murder and accidental death.

The subordinate issue dominates the primary issue in both cases.

[cyborg]

Of course the same people who are most viciously against abortion are most viciously against contraception too.

They're just anti-sex at the end of the day.

[JeffL]

Just do me a favor - don't lump everyone who has a problem with abortion into the looney bin with that doctor killer. Most anti-abortion people I know hate it when a wacko like that does something like that, one, because they abhor what he did, two because it makes it so easy then for small-minded people to start in with their mass generalizations.

Which frankly seems to be a trend around here these days also.

[Ben Sones]

And painting abortion opponents with the "they hate sex" brush is inaccurate, as well. I know that the Catholic Church opposes both abortion and birth control, but frankly, I don't know many Catholics that agree or practice the "no birth control part," even if they oppose abortion.

[Lizard_King]

Huh? Try poking around conservative websites; there's a rather disturbing amount of shrieking about "responsibility-free sex." Seeing how, you know, it's technically supposed to be worries about the murder of fetuses, not who's schlupping who.
Right, but as much as I disagree with the extreme conservative stance on abortion, there is just as much absurdity in the vanguard of the opposite side. You know, where there's all that shit about female oppression and abortion being some sort of inherently good and virtuous act.


A bit like.....hell, come to think of it, it's exactly like gun control types who spend all their time shrieking about the evils of guns rather than focusing on what they should be caring about - murder and accidental death.
But if they started doing that, they'd have to switch sides. :)


The subordinate issue dominates the primary issue in both cases.
That might suggest that it is not in fact a subordinate issue.

[Brad Grenz]

Right, but as much as I disagree with the extreme conservative stance on abortion, there is just as much absurdity in the vanguard of the opposite side. You know, where there's all that shit about female oppression and abortion being some sort of inherently good and virtuous act.

Yeah, it doesn't help when the pro choice side appears to not only want abortion to be legal, but free, convenient and anonymous as many times as you want it, paid for by your tax dollars!

[Jason McCullough]

Dude, there's like 12 people that think abortion is "a virtous act." Compare this to pretty much the entire Southern Baptist Convention getting all red and shakey about kids having sex without getting pregnant.

[quatoria]

Right, but as much as I disagree with the extreme conservative stance on abortion, there is just as much absurdity in the vanguard of the opposite side. You know, where there's all that shit about female oppression and abortion being some sort of inherently good and virtuous act.

Yeah, it doesn't help when the pro choice side appears to not only want abortion to be legal, but free, convenient and anonymous as many times as you want it, paid for by your tax dollars!

Er. So what's your solution? Make abortion cost a hundred thousand dollars, force the women to crawl through barbed wire to reach the one clinic, located in Alaska, and put their faces on the front page of every newspaper? Would that satisfy you?

[Erik]

I'm an abortion agnostic, but this is a pretty great moment in pro-choice nuttiness:

http://thebarristers.com/weblog/2002_11_03_archived.html#84241744

[Ben Sones]

I don't see it as being particularly ironic. That author of that site seems to want me to believe that the decision regarding whether or not a child enters a contest is equivalent to the decision of whether or not a child gets an abortion (thus, requiring parental consent for one and not the other is hypocritical). That does seem nutty, though probably not in the way that the author of that site intended.

[Erik]

I think the whole idea is that they're *not* equivalent. One act is significantly greater than - ah hell, I'm not gonna explain it.

[Rywill]

It's funny, but not really in any meaningful way. PP gives out that permission form because they can get in legal trouble if they don't--the child is incompetent to give their permission to use the artwork, so if PP doesn't get permission from the child's guardian, they have essentially stolen the art, and could be sued. The law doesn't require a similar permission to get an abortion (and obviously, if it did, you'd see similar permission forms going out from abortion clinics).

So if anything is ironic, it's the state of the law, not Planned Parenthood. It's still pretty funny, though--we think a 16 year old can get an abortion but not enter a contract; we think an 18 year old can vote but not drink; etc. This country is wack.

While I'm thinking about it, does anyone know how the abortion clinics handle the contractual and waiver part of the surgery if their patient is 16 with no legal guardian available?

[Lizard_King]

Dude, there's like 12 people that think abortion is "a virtous act." Compare this to pretty much the entire Southern Baptist Convention getting all red and shakey about kids having sex without getting pregnant.

As comical as I find Baptists, I think they are small fry on the absurdity scale compared to NOW and its ilk supporting China with its forced abortion program (http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2002/0205.html). YES WOMEN'S RIGHTS YES!

At least Baptists are consistently stupid. The same cannot be said, of course, for the inimitable Pat Robertson, who in addition to www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,466170,00.html+Pat+Robertson+Liberia+FORTU NE&hl=es&ie=UTF-8]supporting (http://www.google.co.cr/search?q=cache:RhC3e3G4vegJ:[url) Charles Taylor[/url] apparently has no problem with abortion (http://archive.salon.com/politics/red/2001/04/18/blue/) so long as it happens to those expendable yeller people across the sea.

[Ben Sones]

I think the whole idea is that they're *not* equivalent. One act is significantly greater than - ah hell, I'm not gonna explain it.

Yeah, I got that. But the Planned Parenthood's reasons for opposing parental permission for abortions, as described by that site, have little to do with the issue of requiring parental permission for entering a contest. Thus, I fail to see the irony in the fact that they require parental permission for one but not the other.

[Rywill]

I see. In other words, it's the difference between thinking "Abortion is a much bigger deal than an art contest; therefore the parents should definitely have a say in it" or "Abortion is a much bigger deal than an art contest; therefore the parents shouldn't be able to interfere with it the way they can an art contest."

[Ben Sones]

Right. And I'm not supporting one argument or the other, because frankly, I'm undecided. I'm just pointing out that Planned Parenthood's stance is not as hypocritical as that site makes it out to be.

[JeffL]

Right. And I'm not supporting one argument or the other, because frankly, I'm undecided. I'm just pointing out that Planned Parenthood's stance is not as hypocritical as that site makes it out to be.

Now that I have kids (a son and two girls) this is a lot easier for me. ;) Kids aren't the most mature decision makers in the world and our society pretty much recognizes that in almost every facet, from the choices to drink, smoke, enter into a contract of any kind, see certain movies, get your tonsils out, go on a field trip with the school, and so on. I don't think getting an abortion should be the exception. That's not a "right" or "left" opinion, btw, since it seems many here have become unable to think without that crutch, that's a POV of a parent who has watched three kids growing up over the years, who's watched my friend's kids grow up over the years, and who has done social work with kids for about 17 years.

[Rywill]

Jeff, how would you feel about a law that required counseling instead of parental consent? I mean, I tend to agree that a kid is not mature enough to make a decision about abortion on her own, and should have advice from an adult. But I'm leery of saying "and that adult has to be your mom or dad," because lots of kids have awful moms and dads and I can understand them not wanting to involve that person or disclose the pregnancy to them. Not everyone has Jeff Lackey as a dad, you know. :wink:

[Bub, Andrew]

I wish I could call it up but I've seen stats that suggest that kids from "functional" homes involve their parents and kids from "dysfunctional" homes do not.

Ideally, families should be involved, sure. But I don't like the idea of a minor being forced, or compelled, or talked into, carrying a child to term any more than I like the idea of a minor having an abortion.

[Midnight Son]

Ideally, families should be involved, sure. But I don't like the idea of a minor being forced, or compelled, or talked into, carrying a child to term any more than I like the idea of a minor having an abortion.

Such a reasonable stance has no place in the abortion debate! :wink:

[Tyjenks]

Jeff, how would you feel about a law that required counseling instead of parental consent?

One of these talk shows I have blaring in the background while working (read: posting at Qt3) has been talking about a recent law in Florida which will allow children to have abortions without any parental notification. I have a 2.5 year old girl and a 7 year old niece. I cannot imagine the state allowing either to do whatever they want and not having to tell me or my sister, respectively.

Rywill, do you mean counselling in lieu of the abortion or to coincide with the procedure?

I cannot see a decision of that magnitude taken out of a parent's hands. By allowing kids with bad parents to do it without consent, you are taking the raising of a child out of the hands of the parents who are doing it "right".

[Jason McCullough]

As comical as I find Baptists, I think they are small fry on the absurdity scale compared to NOW and its ilk supporting China with its forced abortion program (http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2002/0205.html). YES WOMEN'S RIGHTS YES!

"NOW supports giving the UN population planning money, which the UN gives to lots of countries, one of which forcably sterilizes/aborts children after the mother's second. Therefore, NOW objectively supports involuntary abortion. Oh, and here's two quotes from NOW's president back in 1989 which are probably out of context and aren't anywhere near as bad on their face as we imply."

Give me a break. Rebranding libertarianism as "ifeminism" to get women on board is funny, though.

[Rywill]

Rywill, do you mean counselling in lieu of the abortion or to coincide with the procedure?
I mean before the procedure. In other words, someone who sits down with the girl and talks with her about the pros and cons of abortion, adoption, or keeping the baby, and tries to get her to focus on long-term ramifications rather than short-term ones, but then lets the girl make her own decision about what she wants to do. If the girl still wants to go through with it, okay. If not, fine.

Ideally, it'd be someone without an agenda either way, but practically, that would probably be very hard to guarantee. Still, it seems better to force a girl to talk to a social worker than to force her to notify, or get permission from, a parent who may be abusive or have nothing to do with the girl's life.



I have a 2.5 year old girl and a 7 year old niece. I cannot imagine the state allowing either to do whatever they want and not having to tell me or my sister, respectively.
Again, though, I think you're suffering from Jeff Lackey Syndrome. Sure you would want your daughter or neice to talk to you, and that would probably be good for them and hopefully that's what would happen if the situation ever came up, law or no law. But not everyone has Tyjenks as a dad or uncle. Some people's parents are real, real assholes. Hell, I've had clients where the parent who had to give permission for the abortion might also be the father of the unborn child.

A parental permission law is just a bad idea, in my book. It's one of those ideas that gets passed on the will of voters who are mostly middle-class and above, because it doesn't occur to them that there are some women in situations totally unlike theirs, for whom this law would work an injustice.


Ideally, families should be involved, sure. But I don't like the idea of a minor being forced, or compelled, or talked into, carrying a child to term any more than I like the idea of a minor having an abortion.
Yeah, it's a bad situation that involves some lousy tradeoffs any way you slice it. But although I'd hate to see a minor "talked into" carrying a child to term, I'd also hate to see one abort a baby without thinking about or understanding the magnitude of the decision she's making.

[JeffL]

Jeff, how would you feel about a law that required counseling instead of parental consent? I mean, I tend to agree that a kid is not mature enough to make a decision about abortion on her own, and should have advice from an adult. But I'm leery of saying "and that adult has to be your mom or dad," because lots of kids have awful moms and dads and I can understand them not wanting to involve that person or disclose the pregnancy to them. Not everyone has Jeff Lackey as a dad, you know. :wink:

I'm sure my kids often wish they didn't have me as their Dad. :)

My emotive first response is that I'm really against making this one issue an exception to the general responsibility that parents have for their kids - and authority, for that matter. I know exactly what you're talking about, I've worked with kids who got smacked around by their parents for a lot less. But I've also been a counselor and worked with and around counselors and the quality of their competency and advice varies pretty wildly. The counselor idea for this is one of those things that sounds great in the abstract and on paper or in arguments, but in practice I'm not so sure. What if a kid has great, loving parents but just doesn't want to face them - and most kids, being kids, wouldn't want to. Should the parent be cut out of the picture? I've dealt with young pregnant girls who were scared to death to tell their parents - it is a very scary thing. And there can be a lot of yelling and bad feelings and family problems that have to be worked out. I know the image that the folks who want to cut the parents out of the picture like to paint - the young girl comes home to a poor one room apartment in a bad part of town and gets beaten with a belt by a drunk dad. But I'm not convinced that isn't more of a red herring than anything - the overwhelming majority of abortions of underage girls are from well to do middle class families.

I would be infuriated if I found out my 15 year old daughter had been given an abortion without my knowledge, and some "counselor" had been the one to give permission. If there was some way to identify dysfunctional parents, maybe... but I just don't go for the idea that something this major is something in which parents can be cut out of the picture.

[JeffL]

A parental permission law is just a bad idea, in my book.

See, here's where I think you've got it backwards, and I suspect some folks with major agendas (not here, the folks out there pushing this) are putting their spin on it. There shouldn't be a law passed to force doctors to notify and get permission from the parents to perform an abortion on their girl. Just as they don't have to pass a law that says if a doctor is going to remove the tonsils of a child, they have to notify the parents. The default is that parents are responsible for and have authority over their children. It is a scary thought that suddenly we become a society where a law has to be passed to allow parents to have any say in major decisions and medical procedures on their children.

Like I said - sounds great in abstract debate, (well, not to me, but to many) to have "counselors" taking the place of the parents in this decision - but you really open up a can of worms with that. It's your child, for goodness sakes. If you can find a way to only allow someone to take over the role of the parent in cases where the home is clearly abusive, I might have to chew on it, but I really think that's a red herring argument because when you argue it with most of the actual people actively pushing this, they tend to get very huffy and refuse to accept that ANY parents should have a say.

[Rywill]

But I've also been a counselor and worked with and around counselors and the quality of their competency and advice varies pretty wildly. The counselor idea for this is one of those things that sounds great in the abstract and on paper or in arguments, but in practice I'm not so sure. What if a kid has great, loving parents but just doesn't want to face them - and most kids, being kids, wouldn't want to. Should the parent be cut out of the picture?
All good points. It's a difficult situation no matter which way you go, and no bright-line law is going to do the right thing in all cases. I guess for me, it's just that making the girl with the drunk child-beating dad get permission is a worse injustice than letting the girl with the loving family get an abortion without permission. But I agree that it's a difficult issue all around, and no solution is going to do right in all cases.

[Rywill]

A parental permission law is just a bad idea, in my book.

See, here's where I think you've got it backwards, and I suspect some folks with major agendas (not here, the folks out there pushing this) are putting their spin on it. There shouldn't be a law passed to force doctors to notify and get permission from the parents to perform an abortion on their girl. Just as they don't have to pass a law that says if a doctor is going to remove the tonsils of a child, they have to notify the parents. The default is that parents are responsible for and have authority over their children.
Well, that's a bit disingenuous. Children are not seen as "bad" because they have tonsilitis and few people, children or not, would view the decision whether or not to have a tonsilectomy as a moral one or something you need to think hard about. The reason the law makes a special exception for abortion is because abortion and unwed pregnancy are emotionally charged issues with serious moral concerns both ways, and because the law (reasonably, I think) realizes that a young girl might not want to discuss those issues with her family, depending on what her family is like.

[JeffL]

A parental permission law is just a bad idea, in my book.

See, here's where I think you've got it backwards, and I suspect some folks with major agendas (not here, the folks out there pushing this) are putting their spin on it. There shouldn't be a law passed to force doctors to notify and get permission from the parents to perform an abortion on their girl. Just as they don't have to pass a law that says if a doctor is going to remove the tonsils of a child, they have to notify the parents. The default is that parents are responsible for and have authority over their children.
Well, that's a bit disingenuous. Children are not seen as "bad" because they have tonsilitis and few people, children or not, would view the decision whether or not to have a tonsilectomy as a moral one or something you need to think hard about. The reason the law makes a special exception for abortion is because abortion and unwed pregnancy are emotionally charged issues with serious moral concerns both ways, and because the law (reasonably, I think) realizes that a young girl might not want to discuss those issues with her family, depending on what her family is like.

No - this isn't getting a tattoo. This is a medical procedure. I had a niece die from an abortion (don't know the details other than she was in a clinic, major bleeding started and before they could stop it she bled to death.) My best friend's wife can't have kids as a result of an abortion she had.

Secondly, and I know this will bring out the venomous bigots here, but what about a family, say a Catholic family, who truly feels that this is a major moral problem. Should they just be told "screw you and your beliefs"?

A young girl absolutely would probably not want to face her family with an unwanted pregnancy. Even if she has a great family. She's immature, it IS a difficult situation. My kids don't want to show me a bad grade they get in school. Not because I'll beat them, but because they're kids.

There are a LOT of very difficult issues that families have to face. If you have a family where a kid is going to get beaten I guarantee you that there are other areas where parents get informed where the kid is going to be in trouble. If a kid is being beaten, you've got a child welfare issue and organizations set up to take care of it. And before you tell me how ineffective those offices can be, stop and think about the advocation that we set up similar offices with counselors.

If you could find some way to have the parents removed from having any say in their child getting an abortion only in those cases where there is a dysfunctional and violent family, I'm with you. But in the real world, you're creating a system where a 15 year old middle class girl gets pregnant, is scared to tell her parents (not because she is afraid of being beaten, but because she doesn't want to face them), runs to an office where a "Minor Abortion Counselor" holds her hand, asks her if she's sure she doesn't want to tell her parents, then walks her down to the abortion clinic. And the parents, for all of their love and care and sacrifice that they have put into their child, never get informed or even the chance to counsel their own child. That's what 99.9% of the situations will be.

[Matthew Gallant]

Secondly, and I know this will bring out the venomous bigots here, but what about a family, say a Catholic family, who truly feels that this is a major moral problem. Should they just be told "screw you and your beliefs"?
What about the daughter's beliefs? What if she decides she doesn't want to be Catholic? Are you going to say to the daughter "screw you and your beliefs"?

[Mark Asher]

And painting abortion opponents with the "they hate sex" brush is inaccurate, as well. I know that the Catholic Church opposes both abortion and birth control, but frankly, I don't know many Catholics that agree or practice the "no birth control part," even if they oppose abortion.

Yeah, but there seems to be a lot of overlap between the anti-abortion groups and the anti-sex education in schools groups.

Or to put it another way, do you see anti-abortion groups also advocating easier access to birth-control as a viable strategy for reducing the number of abortions?

[TrodKnee]

Pro-choice: "It's wrong to force a woman to carry and give birth to an unwanted child ".

Pro-life: "It's wrong to kill unborn fetuses".

Simple solution: Dramatically reduce or remove the occurence of unwanted conception.

I have little doubt that modern science is currently capable of solving the abortion problem. Unfortunately, the not-so-hidden agendas of both sides dictate that they not only win, but the other side loses...

Pro-choice: "I demand the right to murder as many unborn fetuses as I like".

Pro-life: "I demand the right to force evil fornicating women to carry a parasite inside them for 9 months".

[JeffL]

Secondly, and I know this will bring out the venomous bigots here, but what about a family, say a Catholic family, who truly feels that this is a major moral problem. Should they just be told "screw you and your beliefs"?
What about the daughter's beliefs? What if she decides she doesn't want to be Catholic? Are you going to say to the daughter "screw you and your beliefs"?

No. I'm going to try to teach her as well as I can, and allow her to grow up so that hopefully when she is a mature woman she can make up her own mind. Answer all the questions a kid has as best I can. (caveat - I'm not Catholic).

And if she becomes pregnant, I want to talk to her about the options. Let her know that yeah, I'm pissed, and upset, and angry, I'm just human, but also let her know that I love her no matter what she ever does or doesn't do. Maybe surprise her - kids always think they know exactly how their parents will react, and PARTICULARLY kids in this age group - and teach her a little bit about how I believe a person should handle these kinds of decisions. Let her know what her options are and my feelings on them, and listen to hers. She is my child, I love her, and I don't want some stranger in an office cutting me out of such a major event/crisis in her life.

[Rywill]

No - this isn't getting a tattoo. This is a medical procedure. I had a niece die from an abortion (don't know the details other than she was in a clinic, major bleeding started and before they could stop it she bled to death.) My best friend's wife can't have kids as a result of an abortion she had.
I'm not sure what your point is here. My understanding is that having an abortion is less dangerous than giving birth (well, to the mother), so if your point is "kids shouldn't be allowed to have abortions without parental consent because abortions are dangerous," I assume you also espouse the view that kids should be given enforced abortions if that's what the parents want, since pregnancy is so dangerous; and that an OB/GYN should have to inform the parents if they see a pregnant minor even if the minor doesn't want an abortion, so that the parents can make an informed abortion decision. To me, that's crazy. I understand it's a dangerous medical procedure, but short of getting into your time machine and stopping the girl from having sex, she's facing medical hazards either way.


Secondly, and I know this will bring out the venomous bigots here, but what about a family, say a Catholic family, who truly feels that this is a major moral problem. Should they just be told "screw you and your beliefs"?
I think exactly what Matthew Gallant thinks.


There are a LOT of very difficult issues that families have to face. If you have a family where a kid is going to get beaten I guarantee you that there are other areas where parents get informed where the kid is going to be in trouble.

Obviously, but that doesn't mean the kid should be forced to endure an extra beating, or an extra beating and a pregnancy that she doesn't want. This is one of those "People will do it anyway, so there's no point in trying to legislate it" arguments that I never understand. I guarantee you that there will be people murdered no matter what the law is, but I still think the law should protect people from being murdered as much as it can.


If you could find some way to have the parents removed from having any say in their child getting an abortion only in those cases where there is a dysfunctional and violent family, I'm with you.
Sure. Who wouldn't be? By the same token, if you can find a way to allow parents a say in the decision only when they're loving and supportive, I'm with you. Since neither of us lives in that sort of fantasyland, though, which injustice do you think is worse? Actually, that's rhetorical, because you clearly think the loving parents who are cut out of the decision suffer a worse injustice. But I don't agree.


That's what 99.9% of the situations will be.
I very much doubt that it's 99.9% of the situations and would be hard-pressed to say that it's more than half (actually, it may be more than half simply because the middle class girl is more likely to have access to money to pay for an abortion, I guess). But at the end of the day, I don't think you know any better than I do.

To me, it looks like you're coming at this from a biased perspective that cares only for the concerns of loving parents. That's understandable considering that you're a (presumably) loving parent yourself. But the child's feelings have to be taken into account, too--especially since many of them might have legitimate reasons for not wanting to tell their parents.

[Rywill]

She is my child, I love her, and I don't want some stranger in an office cutting me out of such a major event/crisis in her life.
It's not the stranger cutting her out of your life. It's your daughter. We're not talking about a law forbidding children from telling their parents; we're just talking about whether there should be a law requiring that, or that plus the parent's permission. If your daughter decides she wants to make this decision without you, shouldn't she be able to? What if your wife is adamantly against an abortion, but your daughter wants it, and you are satisfied that your daughter is making an informed decision? Should one parent's consent be enough? What if your daughter talked to your wife and cut you out of the process? What if your daughter just isn't comfortable talking to any man (including her dad) about it?

I don't mean to make this all personal. I'm just addressing the concerns they way you've laid them out.

[JeffL]

OK - we've both made our opinions known. I can't say you're "wrong" - these are just opinions (except the stats on abortions are pretty easy to see - I used to see them pretty frequently when I did active minor counseling - abortion is pretty much a middle class birth control.) I think it's absolutely wrong to tell me that I not only have no say, but not even the right to know if my child is given an abortion. You think counselors are a viable alternative. I understand your concern about those few kids who would have more than an emotional problem if they come home pregnant - I've picked kids up from abusive homes, so I probably understand it pretty well. And I don't think it's "OK" if that happens to them - I have to take a deep breath to keep from emotively responding to being accused of that.

I don't know of an ideal everybody wins solution for this issue, but I don't believe a blanket "any child can have an abortion without her parents being informed" is it. You do. Life's a bitch. I wish there were easy answers to this stuff.

[JeffL]

She is my child, I love her, and I don't want some stranger in an office cutting me out of such a major event/crisis in her life.
It's not the stranger cutting her out of your life. It's your daughter. We're not talking about a law forbidding children from telling their parents; we're just talking about whether there should be a law requiring that, or that plus the parent's permission. If your daughter decides she wants to make this decision without you, shouldn't she be able to?

I don't mean to make this all personal. I'm just addressing the concerns they way you've laid them out.

I don't take it personally - really. This is a difficult situation, and good people have differences of opinions.

Should a 15 year old be able to decide whether she can have an abortion without telling her parents? Well, that's what we're arguing, right? I say no - believe me, kids that age aren't the best decision makers in the world. They don't get to decide whether to legally smoke or drink or watch any movie they like or go on a field trip or get married or drive a car, etc. etc. etc.

[Rywill]

Fair enough. And I didn't mean it to come out like you're okay with kids being abused. You're obviously not, and I don't think you are and don't think anyone reading this would think you are. We'll just agree to disagree.

[MikeJ]

What about the daughter's beliefs? What if she decides she doesn't want to be Catholic? Are you going to say to the daughter "screw you and your beliefs"?

No. I'm going to try to teach her as well as I can <snip>

I'm sure if you were the girl's father you would deal with the situation as well as possible. In this hypothetical, however, 'you' aren't the father, you are the law, telling the girl that if her parents don't approve for religious reasons (that she doesn't share) she HAS no choice.

[Rywill]

I didn't mean it to come out like you're okay with kids being abused. You're obviously not, and I don't think you are and don't think anyone reading this would think you are. We'll just agree to disagree.
Uh, which is not to say that I disagree with you about kids being abused--that didn't come out right, either. Jeff and Ryan: United Against Child Abuse.

[Tyjenks]

Damn, I missed all the excitement, but, per usual, I agree completely with Jeff Lackey. FWIW, I am completely pro-choice. I am not sure I would counsel a girl to have one, but it is not up to me unless the female in question is my underaged daughter.

My example for the class was going to be the pissed off pregnant 14 year old. She was grounded for having "her friend's" bottle of wine. Her parents do not know she is pregnant. After being grounded, she tells her mom, "I hate you", goes in her room, slams and locks her door. Middle of the night she sneaks out and has an abortion partially because she does not want to have a baby and partially because she knows her mother would hate it. A year, 5 years, 10 years later, she realizes she made a decision when she was 14 that she had no business making on her own and at that age.

My sister did plenty of really mean things to spite my mother after being yelled at, punished, and grounded. I realize calling mom a bitch to spite her and having an abortion to spite her are wildly different things, but I can easily see the above example happening.

Needing permission to have an abortion from shitty parents is a tough one, no doubt, but allowing every teenager free reign to do whatever he/she wants before they have the experience and tools to make those decisions is the wrong way to go. Again, IMO. Allowing the state to tell me what I can and cannot know about my small child just seems insane from my parental perspective.

[cyborg]

I say no - believe me, kids that age aren't the best decision makers in the world.

Adults can be really bad at decision making too.

[JeffL]

I say no - believe me, kids that age aren't the best decision makers in the world.


Adults can be really bad at decision making too.

And so can counselors. People aren't perfect. But kids are immature and confused and have very little life experience.

The perfect world with the easy answers just isn't here, as much as we'd all like it to be. If someone comes up with the right answer to this one, I'll vote for them.

[Dirt]

Don't people like him go to Purgatory?

[Rywill]

Adults can be really bad at decision making too.
And so can counselors.
Okay, I thought I was done with this, but I was thinking about it at lunch (damn you, Jeff Lackey, damn you to hell)...how do you respond to this argument: I agree with you that counselors are subject to imperfect controls and selection criteria and, therefore, some of them are not very good at counseling. But parents are subject to no controls or selection criteria, so I think it's more likely that a random parent will be a bad decisionmaking assistant than it is that a random counselor will. If the goal of the law is to make sure first and foremost that the pregnant girl makes the best possible decision for her, wouldn't a counselor be at least as good as a parent at helping her come to a decision? Although a counselor might lack the intimate knowledge of the girl that the parent has, the counselor has the benefit of training and presumably being motivated to do this sort of work, and the experience of working with other girls.

Of course, that tosses aside any concern the law might have with protecting a parent's legitimate interest in being involved with their kid's life. But isn't it possible that A) the need to make sure the kid makes the best possible decision, and B) the kid's legitimate desire for privacy, especially if her parents are abusive or estranged, outweigh a parent's desire to be involved if their kid doesn't want them to be?

[Jason McCullough]

What the heck? People object to parental notification laws because kids who've been knocked up by a relative (happens way too often) tend to be in hell of a fix when they have to notify family that Dad or an uncle knocked 'em up.

I figure if you're old enough to get pregnant you're old enough to decide how to handle the results. Although, come to think of it, if pregnancy decisionmaking is allocated to the parents because the kids are too young, shouldn't who kids have sex with be the parents decision? "It's ok, officer, I said she could do that guy."

[quatoria]

She is my child, I love her, and I don't want some stranger in an office cutting me out of such a major event/crisis in her life.
It's not the stranger cutting her out of your life. It's your daughter. We're not talking about a law forbidding children from telling their parents; we're just talking about whether there should be a law requiring that, or that plus the parent's permission. If your daughter decides she wants to make this decision without you, shouldn't she be able to?

I don't mean to make this all personal. I'm just addressing the concerns they way you've laid them out.

I don't take it personally - really. This is a difficult situation, and good people have differences of opinions.

Should a 15 year old be able to decide whether she can have an abortion without telling her parents? Well, that's what we're arguing, right? I say no - believe me, kids that age aren't the best decision makers in the world. They don't get to decide whether to legally smoke or drink or watch any movie they like or go on a field trip or get married or drive a car, etc. etc. etc.

You know, there's a pretty relevant point there that's Jeff's overlooking, I think. If you're a loving, supportive parent, and you've raised your child as best as you can, shouldn't you trust them to make the right decision in a situation like this? You seem adamantly certain that children from loving, supportive, fully-functional families are going to invariably decide to run to an abortion clinic without saying a word to their loving, supportive, fully functional folks. Why have you reached that conclusion, and if that's the case, what does it say about the parents that the child felt so shamed and afraid that she couldn't trust her parents with the information?

I really think you're misreading the situation, Jeff.

[JeffL]

You know, there's a pretty relevant point there that's Jeff's overlooking, I think. If you're a loving, supportive parent, and you've raised your child as best as you can, shouldn't you trust them to make the right decision in a situation like this? You seem adamantly certain that children from loving, supportive, fully-functional families are going to invariably decide to run to an abortion clinic without saying a word to their loving, supportive, fully functional folks. Why have you reached that conclusion, and if that's the case, what does it say about the parents that the child felt so shamed and afraid that she couldn't trust her parents with the information?

I really think you're misreading the situation, Jeff.

I'm absolutely predudiced on this issue by two things. One is raising two girls and a boy, all three great kids thank God, and watching them do absolutely wacko things and make absolutely crazy and immature decisions. Any parent of kids these age know exactly what I'm talking about. Your kids can come into your room one day, put their arms around your neck and share some really tough problem they're having one day, then the next be afraid to tell you that they broke the lamp in the den and try to hide the pieces in the fireplace. Put them in a situation as traumatic as being pregnant with an unplanned kid - I'd really hope that my girls would come to me, but panic would be a common feeling. I also think that you might have a number of kids who would ordinarily suck it up and talk to their parents who might not if they thought there was an easy out - go to a counselor and get an abortion without ever telling mom and dad and hope they never find out.

The other reason for my predudice is working with teens in a counselor type role for about 17 years. I've seen really good kids from really great families do some really stupid things. Hell, it's a miracle I'm alive when I look at some of the decisions I made as a teen (and the things I hid from my parents, who were/are wonderful.)

Like I said, I understand where some folks are coming from, I just don't agree. No prob.

[cyborg]

At the end of the day that doesn't solve the problem of who's best placed to make the decision.

My opinion is first and foremost the person most affected is the young girl who is pregnant. That is why I lean to anything that considers her first.

[Midnight Son]

It's time to abort this thread.

[Anders Hallin]

My mom worked in a therapeutic position at a hospital for a while, talking with just about anyone who would have an abortion. So I think that is, if not law, the norm around here.

[JeffL]

At the end of the day that doesn't solve the problem of who's best placed to make the decision.

My opinion is first and foremost the person most affected is the young girl who is pregnant. That is why I lean to anything that considers her first.

A 14 year old pregnant girl is not someone who has a tremendous capability to make a mature and reasonable decision. Don't lose sight of the age and maturity level of who we're talking about.

[cyborg]

The 14 year old is still the one who has to live with it either way - I don't see sidelining the child as the most important thing to do.

[Kalle]

At the end of the day that doesn't solve the problem of who's best placed to make the decision.

My opinion is first and foremost the person most affected is the young girl who is pregnant. That is why I lean to anything that considers her first.

A 14 year old pregnant girl is not someone who has a tremendous capability to make a mature and reasonable decision. Don't lose sight of the age and maturity level of who we're talking about.

No, but it is still her decision to make, and no one elses. Kids that age are dependant on their parents, the possible pressure that could be leveraged against a child from a parent is enormous. That power imbalance can be abused. Remember the story of the Jamaican brainwashing camp for kids that was featured here a couple of months ago? This is not about the well-adjusted teens who make a mistake but have really understanding parents who will support them anyway.

[Machfive]

When did the line that seperated your child and yourself as separate entities become removed? It's almost like some people think children are their personal property.

A child is not an idiot, it's uninformed and inexperienced. Naive. It's your job as a parent to show them how the world is, not shield them from it and make all their decisions for them.

[Tyjenks]

So minors should be allowed to make every decision for themselves if they believe it is in their best interest? I hated school and believed I was getting nowhere so I should have been able to just walk out? Girls should be able to save up and get boob jobs at any age?

You guys are acting like parents treat their children like dogs or tamagotchis. A few do, granted, but most parent's interests are in making their kids the best they can be and every decision from their inception on up is carefully considered if not agonized over. Not with the goal of making them perfect little robots, but maximizing their potential and supporting them in what they want to do.

I am not saying I would tell her "Hell no you are not having an abortion!", but being taken completely out of the loop because the state says she should be free to decide or because a random strannger has decided it is what is best for her simply does not compute.

[JeffL]

Any thing else I would say from here would just be repeating myself, so I'm done. For those of you who feel that children should be able to do anything they like regardless of their parents, you're either kids yourself or adults who will never have a meeting of minds with me, so no need to get into that either.

[Machfive]

Ty - You're certainly taking my comments to the extreme. There's a vast difference between doing your best to influence your children's decisions and letting them make their own mistakes and giving them free reign to do as they please.


A few do, granted, but most parent's interests are in making their kids the best they can be and every decision from their inception on up is carefully considered if not agonized over. Not with the goal of making them perfect little robots, but maximizing their potential and supporting them in what they want to do.

I don't believe that's how most parents think. It's quite unfortunate, but I'd guess a decent majority are, for the most part, bullshitting their way through parenting. This isn't based on any scientific study, but on careful observation of the parenting skills of my own parents, and those I grew up with.

And I'm not basing this on an extreme, I'm basing this on a life growing up living in a mundane, middle-class suburban area.

[voltaic]

Girls should be able to save up and get boob jobs at any age?
I'd vote for that law. I am pro-tit.

[Machfive]

I am anti fake-tit. I'm of the personal opinion that unless you've just had a mastectomy or have some other medical reason that fake tits may be necessary, you shouldn't touch your tits.

All breasts are good ones, small, large, and everywhere in between, as long as they're real.

[Rywill]

I actually kind of like it when women touch their tits.

What was this thread about again? This is sort of like a bizarro-world version of my halter-top thread: it's gotten totally derailed, but this time in a good way. Me am so happy.

[Machfive]

Okay, they shouldn't touch their tits with any sharp objects. Touching their tits with anything else, in public, or in private, as long as it's within my eyeshot, it totally kosher, and is in fact encouraged.

[Lunch of Kong]

unless you've just had a mastectomy

I know 3 women with masectomies. Most waited about year before considering reconstructive surgery because after a masectomy, you've got drainage tubes and stuff sticking out of your sides, and if you were having chemo at the same time, you're mostly concerned about your hair growing back rather than your breasts.

They had to quit smoking, too.