georgesbluegirl Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Statistically, there is no single root cause, we only see correlations. If there is something that you are getting at, I wish you would just come out with it. I'm trying to figure out what nebula is getting at as well. Social problems like teen pregnancy are incredibly complex issues to think about and you're right to point out that there is no ONE thing you can point to that if you fix it, it will immediately get better. Something to think about as well: this is a law that would only really affect women. It would be in the public record which women had abortions, but in many situations I'm sure there wouldn't be a man's name attached to it, no matter his relationship with the abortion or influence with the woman. Men could get away blameless and the woman would bear the brunt of public scrutiny. If it came down to it, the man could contest his parenthood, and is the state going to pay for the DNA tests that will prove his position as father? In all honesty, this isn't something that could ever be implemented and that's just one reason why. On a practical level, it would cost the state too much if they really wanted to do it "right." And if they can't do it "right," they really can't do it at all. Not that I think this is a good idea in the first place. I think it's bull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giaour Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 179 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,941 Content Per Day: 0.55 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/28/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/08/1964 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Unless a child is emancipated, the name would have to be blacked out if the death certificate if it became public record. Something else to be noted. If parental notification was enforced then the parents would have to sign the abortion documents hence making the parents responsible for the abortion not the minor girl. The only scarlet letter would be on the parents for authorizing the abortion. They would deserve to wear the letter. Hey if there is nothing wrong with terminating a pregnancy because it is not a person and just a mass of tissue, then what is there to be embarrassed about? Do people whisper and hide the fact that they had a tumor removed? If they are embarassed about having an abortion it just goes to show you that they think it's a wrong thing to do. What is done in the dark will be judged in the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabowd Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 112 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,489 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 15, 2007 In all honesty, this isn't something that could ever be implemented and that's just one reason why. On a practical level, it would cost the state too much if they really wanted to do it "right." And if they can't do it "right," they really can't do it at all. Not that I think this is a good idea in the first place. I think it's bull. Are you saying it would be too expensive to acknowledge human life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted February 15, 2007 No offense, but pretty much everyone I've ever known who's pro-choice will readily agree that getting an abortion is NOT the same thing as "removing a tumor." I think across the board everyone recognizes that it is a significant procedure, and it is true that everyone wants the abortion rates to go down. Not all who are pro-choice would have an abortion themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I was merely pointing out the impracticality and probable injustice of the law on a level of policy-making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 15, 2007 Unless a child is emancipated, the name would have to be blacked out if the death certificate if it became public record. Something else to be noted. If parental notification was enforced then the parents would have to sign the abortion documents hence making the parents responsible for the abortion not the minor girl. The only scarlet letter would be on the parents for authorizing the abortion. They would deserve to wear the letter. Hey if there is nothing wrong with terminating a pregnancy because it is not a person and just a mass of tissue, then what is there to be embarrassed about? Do people whisper and hide the fact that they had a tumor removed? If they are embarassed about having an abortion it just goes to show you that they think it's a wrong thing to do. What is done in the dark will be judged in the light. You don't have to put a name on a death certificate if it is a stillborn child. If we did the same with aborted embryos and fetuses, it would be the same case. You could just put Joe Fetus on it, and all that would in the public record is the name and some personal information on the woman that had the abortion. This is nothing but an attempt at publicly branding women who receive and abortion for any reason. It is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American. It is certainly not a tactic advocated in the Gospels. It is frankly, no ones business but the woman, her spouse if she has one, and her physician. Once again, most people want less abortions. If you want less abortions, then as a society we should work on the root cause, specifically unwanted pregnancies. If there were no unwanted pregnancies, there would be no abortions. However, this is not Iran. This is not some Talibanesque Theocracy. It is wrong to publicly and permanently brand women who have an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 15, 2007 No offense, but pretty much everyone I've ever known who's pro-choice will readily agree that getting an abortion is NOT the same thing as "removing a tumor." I think across the board everyone recognizes that it is a significant procedure, and it is true that everyone wants the abortion rates to go down. Not all who are pro-choice would have an abortion themselves. What does that have to do with anything? Pro-choice is pro-murder...that simple. Even if they've never got it done, they've encouraged people to have the right to kill their own children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabowd Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 112 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,489 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 15, 2007 I was merely pointing out the impracticality and probable injustice of the law on a level of policy-making. Since when does practicality/probability (in other words pragmatism) determine what is right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kabowd Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 112 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 3,489 Content Per Day: 0.48 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 15, 2007 Unless a child is emancipated, the name would have to be blacked out if the death certificate if it became public record. Something else to be noted. If parental notification was enforced then the parents would have to sign the abortion documents hence making the parents responsible for the abortion not the minor girl. The only scarlet letter would be on the parents for authorizing the abortion. They would deserve to wear the letter. Hey if there is nothing wrong with terminating a pregnancy because it is not a person and just a mass of tissue, then what is there to be embarrassed about? Do people whisper and hide the fact that they had a tumor removed? If they are embarassed about having an abortion it just goes to show you that they think it's a wrong thing to do. What is done in the dark will be judged in the light. You don't have to put a name on a death certificate if it is a stillborn child. If we did the same with aborted embryos and fetuses, it would be the same case. You could just put Joe Fetus on it, and all that would in the public record is the name and some personal information on the woman that had the abortion. This is nothing but an attempt at publicly branding women who receive and abortion for any reason. It is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American. It is certainly not a tactic advocated in the Gospels. It is frankly, no ones business but the woman, her spouse if she has one, and her physician. Once again, most people want less abortions. If you want less abortions, then as a society we should work on the root cause, specifically unwanted pregnancies. If there were no unwanted pregnancies, there would be no abortions. However, this is not Iran. This is not some Talibanesque Theocracy. It is wrong to publicly and permanently brand women who have an abortion. My first post has been completely ignored. How is it wrong to acknowledge and validate that someone existed? Our first thought should not be whether it is cost-effective or un-American...it should be what is right. Did God create humans in His image or not? Is life precious or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted February 15, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 15, 2007 No offense, but pretty much everyone I've ever known who's pro-choice will readily agree that getting an abortion is NOT the same thing as "removing a tumor." I think across the board everyone recognizes that it is a significant procedure, and it is true that everyone wants the abortion rates to go down. Not all who are pro-choice would have an abortion themselves. What does that have to do with anything? Pro-choice is pro-murder...that simple. Even if they've never got it done, they've encouraged people to have the right to kill their own children. This is obviously an issue where intelligent and conscionable people disagree. However, I think that just the same, the vast, vast majority of people would agree that this Scarlet Letter Proposal, where women who have an abortion for any reason would be permanently branded and identified in the public record for it, is wrong. Honestly, do you really think that the law that this Tennessee Rep is proposing is a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts