Ahira's Hangar

For several years in the 1980s and 1990s I worked with a woman, one of the smartest people I have ever worked with. She despised Bill Clinton, believing his marital infidelities before the 1992 election were disqualifying him (not electorally, but since he had cheated on his wife he was unfit to be President) from the Presidency. One time while she was illustrating what a horrible President Clinton was she said "he opposes Parental notification for young women to have abortions, but will not allow Chelsea to have her ears pierced" and this was in early 1993. WTF, how do those two items even go together? She told me the reason I did not understand how those items went together was because I was not a parent myself. WTF!! 'Splain it to me, please. taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Plan C - http://planc.bravepages.com/main.html
Buff_fans_Chicago http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/buffy_fans_chicago/
live journal http://taras-wizard.livejournal.com<i></i>

I'm a parent, and I don't get it either.

I think that's indicative of a certain mindset (one that's generally but not exclusively found in conservatives) that can't see the difference between making a personal choice on what one thinks is correct or a public choice, a law, which one, hopefully, knows is correct.

Let's say I buy my kid rollerblades. I insist he wear knee and elbow pads, wrist guards, and a helmet. It's not the law, it's just what I tell him to do it. Does that mean I should support a law the mandates all kids wear the protective equipment? Hell no. Just as a 'for instance,' what if some families can't afford the cost of the extra gear? Does that mean poor kids can't rollerblade? And to take it a step further, does that mean I have to vote yes on a proposition to ban kids from operating dirtbikes without parental consent (since riding a dirt bike is presumably more serious and likely to result in harm than rollerblading without pads)? No, I don't think so. ________________
I wanna feel the metamorphosis and cleansing I've endured within my shadow. Change is coming. Now is my time. Listen to my muscle memory. Contemplate what I've been clinging to. -Tool, "Forty-Six & Two" <i></i>

Syl and all,
Liking your answers and agreeing with your answers and examples; however, I think there is a little more to be said on this topic. I believe the recent book by John Dean Conservatives without Conscience, has more than slight bearing on the general topic. AFAIK, a major topic of the book is the take over of Republican Party by authoritarian Christian dogmatists.

Within the last few weeks I was in a discussion that included the author Sarah Monette, during which we agreed that a revelatory issue concerning the puritanical nature of American political life was the relentless and unwavering pursuit of Bill Clinton for having oral sex with a woman not his wife. taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Buffy fans Chicago
my livej<i></i>

*shrug* I can see how the comment on which the original question is based works in the person who said it's mind though. There is a logic to it, but it does not take into account Syl's difference between personal and public choices.

And you know, maybe in a sense it shouldn't? I'm not sure...if you believe something to be right, shouldn't you live by that belief? And isn't the president supposed to embody the principles? They certainly expected Clinton to, that's for sure. ( where has that expectation gone... )

As for the puritanical nature of American political life though, it usually seems to me that America in general is a pretty puritanical place. But maybe that's an extension of the politics thereof...

--A ____________________________________

A sense of the sardonic preserves a man from believing in his own pretensions. -The Sayings Of Maud'Dib<i></i>

You said extention! HAW HAW!! *****
Before, you are wise; after, you are wise. In between you are otherwise.
Fravashi saying (from the formularies of Osho the Fool) <i></i>

Oooohhhh...this is that kind of place huh?

--A ____________________________________

A sense of the sardonic preserves a man from believing in his own pretensions. -The Sayings Of Maud'Dib<i></i>

Right or wrong, US society has limited the rights and actions of minors. They can't vote, drive, drink, own firearms, or enter into legal contracts. They also can't have something as trival as getting their ears pierced without having a parent or guardian's approval.

Given all that, it seems wildly inconsistent that minor children should be able to have a serious medical procedure like an abortion without parental notification/consent. There are no other surgical procedures that minors can consent to, why should abortion be any different?

<i></i>

Many people think that such laws should have a clause saying that a girl can approach another responsible adult (most usually a judge) in cases of rape/incest/molestation by a family member for permission for an abortion.

And in case of emergencies, minors can get surgery or other medical procedures without the consent of a parent. Granted, if at all possible an emergency room/hospital will try to get permission from a parent ot guardian; but in cases where the child's life is in danger they will go ahead and do what needs to be done. ******************************************************

Our lives are the songs that sing the universe into existence.~David Zindell
<i></i>

Be that as it may, the rape/incest cases represent a tiny percentage of teen abortions. You're also comparing emergency surgery to elective surgery....Not really the same thing.

But I don't think anyone would have a problem with your exception for incest. Unfortunately this debate has become and all or nothing issue, with neither side willing to concede anything.

<i></i>

Having a clause for incest victims to be able to approach a judge rather than her family is the only objection I have ever heard anyone make towards parental consent for abortion laws. "Objection" as in they want that clause there.

Yes, this is one issue where the two extremes try to drive a huge wedge in the middle of the country. ******************************************************

Our lives are the songs that sing the universe into existence.~David Zindell
<i></i>

Or rather, just another issue in the already incredibly wide gap that appears to seperate the American public.

But yeah, as I said, it's not inconsistent to demand parental permission of a surgical procedure.

Now I certainly agree with Duchess that a responsible alternative should be available. And what about counselling? Young girls making that decision shouldn't just be left to themselves either.

--A ____________________________________

A sense of the sardonic preserves a man from believing in his own pretensions. -The Sayings Of Maud'Dib<i></i>

All good ideas, but neither extreme is going to concede that, and unfortunately the extremes are driving the debate.

<i></i>

Which is why it's up to the people in the middel to make their voices heard damnit!

If we allow the extremes to drive the debate, we're surrendering ourselves to whatever end they manage to achieve.

--A ____________________________________

A sense of the sardonic preserves a man from believing in his own pretensions. -The Sayings Of Maud'Dib<i></i>

Good discussion hope it continues. Two poiints of add: my friend is an active Roman Catholic, but not necessarily a good Catholic since I know in the late 1980s she had a tubal ligation a procedure the Church does not approve of. (if that's an error please inform me; AFAIK, the RC officially disapproves of ligations and vascetomies).

Cail, my oriiginal message was not in any way to focus on the differences between minors and adults or minors general lack of rights. My intent was a narrow focus between Chelsea wanting to get her ears pierced and federal laws regarding parental notificaion of abortions. and as a side issue about how not being a parent prohibited me from seeing the obvious connection (at least to my friend it was obvious). taraswizard
Allan Rosewarne N9SQT/WDX6HQV
Chicago area
W/T forever, always
Buffy fans Chicago
my livej<i></i>

The connection (I think) is relatively self-evident. If Chelsea needed parental consent for something as routine and trivial as ear piercing, doesn't it follow that a major medical procedure (like all other medical procedures) should require the same?

The only thing I'd add about being a parent is that it makes these issues much more personal and really brings the issue home.

<i></i>