At the very least, I think the law should be consistent. If killing a viable fetus is murder, then I don’t see how abortion of a viable fetus is not. </p>
<p>Also, the point about those states which have such fetal homicide laws on the books being the most likely to criminalize abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned is mistaken. I can’t see Massachusetts or California, for example, criminalizing abortion.</p>
<p>If the question is the risk to the lives/happiness/reproductive health of a small number of young women who have abortions without proper support and parental notification as a condition precedent to a pregnant girl receiving the procedure, I’d take the risk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have read that the health risk of these procedures ***goes up ***for the young woman the farther into the pregnancy they occur. The parental notification program in my homestate has resulted in repeated court cases that greatly delay the girl receiving the procedure. The notification is not worth this increased risk.</p>
<p>The suicide rate for pregnant teens is higher than for non-pregnant teens. The poverty rate of both the very young mother (especially if unmarried) and the baby is extraordinarily high. The notification is not worth the increased risk of suicide while pregnant and the risk of a “life” of abject poverty for the girl and baby when notification (whether from consent withheld, parental pressure or unwillingness to let parents know) results in more young unwed mothers.</p>
<p>How prevalent are the risks you identify?</p>
<p>The FDA, the threat of products liability and the threat of medical malpractice (and caring and responsible heathcare individuals and groups like Planned Parenthood) does keep the incidence of these problems low.</p>
<p>When I was a kid, we were lined up at school and took the Salk vaccine for polio. Was there iron-clad proof that no one would have horrible side effects from the vaccine? NO. But we knew what polio did to people and we took the vaccine. Medical risk to me is a “red herring.” We know what happens to the vast majority of unwed teen mothers and their children. POVERTY, CRIME and MORE TEEN PREGNANCY.</p>
<p>As I have said, parents of girls who really trust their parents will get notification from their daughter WITHOUT it being required. For those who fear their parents, I’m willing to rely on the checks and balances in the system. The risks you identify do not outweigh having girls have babies they don’t want and are not equipped to care for.</p>
<p>“As I have said, parents of girls who really trust their parents will get notification from their daughter WITHOUT it being required.”</p>
<p>That’s your opinion and without real numbers of girls who would be abused by their parents (which we don’t have), as opposed to girls who either don’t want to tell their parents or are being manipulated by someone else, we can never know how many girls are at risk from either. I have personally known many girls who didn’t want to tell their parents because they didn’t want the parents to be disappointed or because there was something else going on in the home. THat’s not abuse, that’s life. To you it’s a red herring, but it may not be to someone else and what gives you (collectively, I mean) the right to decide for other families what level of risk is acceptable?</p>
<p>“And abortion or RU-486 can be just as deadly, particularly to a young girl who doesn’t know how much bleeding is too much or has a pre-existing condition that a provider should know about. How do you decide which risk to take?”</p>
<p>It doesn’t make sense to compare the medical risks of abortion to the risks experienced by a nonpregnant woman; the fair comparison is the risks of abortion vs. the risks of continued pregnancy and birth. Abortion in the first trimester, by any legal method, is less risky than childbirth. If you believe that young women are too immature to weigh the risks of abortion without parental input, and must be legally prevented from making that decision, then it is curious indeed to allow them to carry to term and give birth without parental involvement…at which point they will be legally empowered to make medical decisions not only for themselves, but for their newborns. If, as you suggest, a young girl is too immature to know that she should tell her gynecologist that she’s allergic to penicillin, is it good idea to give her custody of an infant?</p>
<p>There’s an interesting contrast between this area of law and the trend to try juvenile offenders as adults at ever-younger ages. If you’re old enough to commit an “adult” crime like armed robbery, the thinking goes, then you’re old enough for the state to make you face the consequences as an adult (including extremely sophisticated and thorny questions like whether to accept a plea bargain). Yet there is no parallel trend that if you’re old enough to commit the ultimate adult act (procreation), you’re old enough to face the consequences and the decisions that come with them. My guess is that the gender of the two groups of kids plays a huge role in our collective willingness to treat them like adults.</p>
<p>“If, as you suggest, a young girl is too immature to know that she should tell her gynecologist that she’s allergic to penicillin, is it good idea to give her custody of an infant?”</p>
<p>I’m not sure where that came from. I never said that anyone should be forced to continue a pregnancy. I didn’t and don’t make that argument. My specific point is that in the vast majority of cases, parents are the best source of support for pregnant girls. I have two teenaged girls. The older one couldn’t live with herself if she had had an abortion, so I would have counselled her to give birth. The younger one would be able to deal with the consequences of an abortion, so I’d stand back and allow that to happen, as long as it was early enough not to jeopardize her health. It’s not my decision for them, but it is my right to parent them through their decisions.</p>
<p>I don’t think the parental notification issue matters because I believe Abortion is the killing of an innocent child and should not be allowed in the first place.</p>
<p>I’m a hypocrite because I believe abortion is murder, but I can’t support a total ban because who am I to decide for someone else? The parental notification issue is huge for me, though.</p>
<p>“At the very least, I think the law should be consistent. If killing a viable fetus is murder, then I don’t see how abortion of a viable fetus is not.”<br>
Sjmom–You’ve come back to join us! I knew you couldn’t resist! … Agreed, your above comment points out a true inconsistency, but then, other aspects of thinking are inconsistent as well. If we are to make laws based on total respect for any and all definitions of life, then not only should a milimeter-long piece of fetal tissue be protected, but also the lowest, scummiest pedophiles and murderers sitting today on Death Row. The death penalty in all instances should be null and void, because life, however you define it, is life. And contrary to the war-hawks who believe it was America’s God-given right to invade a sovereign nation and kill many thousands of its citizens, EVEN Iraqis deserve life. So, for those of you who are adamantly pro-life, vehemently anti-death penalty, and horrified at the slaughter of innocents in Iraq these past few years, you have my respect.</p>
<p>“zoosermom, who is a mother to decide for her unborn child the right to live?”</p>
<p>It wouldn’t be my decision to abort, but the core of who I am and all that I support is that I believe that almost every adult is competent to make his or her own decisions and should be free to do so.</p>
<p>“I’m a hypocrite because I believe abortion is murder, but I can’t support a total ban because who am I to decide for someone else?”</p>
<p>While I don’t believe abortion is “murder,” (something to do with my personal definition of “life”), I believe it’s horribly sad–and certainly tragic that it happens as often as it does. Still, as you say, I would be reluctant to make that decision for someone else. While many, like poster #148, oversimplify the issue and seem to give all priority to the fetus, it’s a much more complicated issue than that, and the mother’s needs must also be considered.</p>
<p>“I’m not sure where that came from. I never said that anyone should be forced to continue a pregnancy.”</p>
<p>No, but a parental involvement law that places administrative barriers in the way of a young woman seeking an abortion, and does not place those barriers in the way if she seeks to give birth, has to be based on the idea that the abortion decision requires more parental involvement than the birth decision. Why would that be? And how is it consistent with the idea that these young women are too immature to make major decisions without help?</p>
<p>“No, but a parental involvement law that places administrative barriers in the way of a young woman seeking an abortion, and does not place those barriers in the way if she seeks to give birth, has to be based on the idea that the abortion decision requires more parental involvement than the birth decision. Why would that be? And how is it consistent with the idea that these young women are too immature to make major decisions without help?”</p>
<p>I disagree with your premise because with very few exceptions (I actually know two), pregnancy leading to birth would become apparent and follow-up care would not be ignored where an abortion could be hidden. Nature also makes birth the usual outcome of a pregnance if action is not specifically taken to terminate, so that is the default option. I don’t think most teenagers are mature enough to make life/medical decisions without help and, as I said, giving birth wouldn’t necessarily be the right thing for at least one of my kids. I sincerely believe that children need parents and that the state or strangers can’t do a better job. Yes, there are some exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.</p>
<p>That’s true but please understand that, to those who believe abortion is killing a human, giving a choice to someone to have an abortion is akin to giving a slaveowner the choice to have slaves, or the choice to a young woman to kill her 6-month-old baby. No one should have the choice to harm another.</p>
<p>I’m just trying to explain it from the pro-lifer’s perspective. It all goes back to the question that can never be answered: is the fetus a person?</p>
<p>Until science can conclusively answer that question, it will remain a debate over whose rights are more important: the woman’s or the baby’s. Since prochoicers think the baby has no rights, and the prolifers think the baby does have rights, it can never be settled. The most we can hope for is a compromise.</p>
<p>Well, it might be because childbirth, aside from possible complications, is an inherently natural process, and abortion is not. The possible complications of childbirth are well-known, but the possible complications and long-term effects of abortion are still being studied.</p>
The one thing that I will agree with ardent anti-Choice folks is that there is little in the way of realistic compromise on this. From that, for me it’s fairly simple: a pro-Choice position isn’t forcing anyone to get an abortion and if your D wants to have a discussion with you, nobody is stopping you if your family dynamics are that healthy.</p>
<p>Otherwise, any “compromise” is an unacceptable infringement that I will fight at the ballot boxes and in the courthouses. Losing a few decisions will not make me stop. However the would-be ayahtollahs wish to live for themselves is no concern of mine but I’ll damn them if they try to impose their will on the rest of us.</p>
<p>There might be some wriggle room on some late-term abortions but that’s about it. First two trimesters and parental notification, fuggedhaboutit.
The actual person trumps the potential person every time and the actual person has the right to make decisions that I as an individual don’t like.</p>
<p>I know that mini has commented on the use of this term before, but it seems a little insensitive to continue to use it as a pejorative description. If one were to use the term “rabbi” or “priest”, it would be just as insulting – not really what I think parents should be using in a college admissions forum.</p>
<p>You’re entitled to your opinion. “Ayahtollah,” used in the vernacular to describe the parallels between the Islamists who want to impose their religious interpretations on their society and their Christian counterparts who wish to do the same in this country, evocatively sums up the parallels nicely. If the anti-Choice folks don’t wish the comparison to be made, perhaps they should change their rhetoric and start acting differently.</p>
<p>Reducing the number of abortions performed is probably a shared goal. Let’s start by doing as much as possible to make contraception available and to provide fact-based sex education instead of the feckless “abstinence” approach. </p>