State measures

Well seems overwhelmingly the country doesn't desire gay marriages, carrying in even a blue state as California...

One that surprises the hell out of me is the failure of CA prop 4, which gave a waiting period of 48 hours before a minor could abort until parental notification was given. Amazing that a state can take away parental rights... it just dumbfounds me that this didn't pass

*edit - didn't read the fine print, only 33% of votes in... so we'll see

EdelBrock wrote: Well seems overwhelmingly the country doesn't desire gay marriages, carrying in even a blue state as California...

Except that San Francisco Bay Area votes haven't been tallied yet...

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Well seems overwhelmingly the country doesn't desire gay marriages, carrying in even a blue state as California...

Except that San Francisco Bay Area votes haven't been tallied yet...

Still standing with over 95% of the vote in, only absentee ballots need to be counted, so looks like its sticking... though I feel this will end up in court and be overturned.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: erm...

who gives a flying fuck about gay marriage???

let 'em get married and be miserable like the rest of us!!!

They won't feel so gay then, eh?

High school debating society ahoy!!!

why anybody would care who marries who is beyond me.

scrimshanker wrote: why anybody would care who marries who is beyond me.

Seperation between Church and State, that's why. Courts give civil unions (even between men/women), only a pastor, priest, rabbi, etc can give a marriage. Its a religious sacrament.

I don't see the need for gays to be married anyways... what's the point? They have civil unions (or PC termed, domestic partnership) which give the same rights as marriage does... its just silly to be fighting over a word.

(and for the record I have a civil union with my wife, it was never done in a church... I get the same benefits as someone that did).

EdelBrock wrote:

scrimshanker wrote: why anybody would care who marries who is beyond me.

Seperation between Church and State, that's why. Courts give civil unions (even between men/women), only a pastor, priest, rabbi, etc can give a marriage. Its a religious sacrament.

Nonsense.

First, in California, it's a marriage, whether its performed by a judge or other civil servant, or by a religious official. You're confusing the civil marriage license (and civil marriage ceremony) with the sacrament of marriage. They're not the same thing, and a church, synagogue, or other religious institution can't be forced to perform the sacrament against its will, even if a couple has a civil marriage license. If a couple in California wants to be married, the only requirement is a marriage license and a civil ceremony; they are not required to have the sacrament performed in order to be married, just as the religious institution is not required to perform the sacrament for anybody with a marriage license. If the couple wish the sacrament to be performed, that is between them and their religious institution.

Second, if you're suggesting that a state must prohibit gay marriage in order to protect religious beliefs, that would be a blurring of the division between church and state.

EdelBrock wrote: I don't see the need for gays to be married anyways...

Well, if you don't see the need for it, it can't possibly be important to gay couples.

EdelBrock wrote: One that surprises the hell out of me is the failure of CA prop 4, which gave a waiting period of 48 hours before a minor could abort until parental notification was given. Amazing that a state can take away parental rights... it just dumbfounds me that this didn't pass

More nonsense.

The state isn't "taking away" parental rights. The voters decided against empowering the state to give parents rights they don't currently enjoy.

You have it completely backwards.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: One that surprises the hell out of me is the failure of CA prop 4, which gave a waiting period of 48 hours before a minor could abort until parental notification was given. Amazing that a state can take away parental rights... it just dumbfounds me that this didn't pass

More nonsense.

The state isn't "taking away" parental rights. The voters decided against empowering the state to give parents rights they don't currently enjoy.

You have it completely backwards.

I don't have it backwards. The parents had parental rights before California was ever even dreamed to be a state. The state took away the rights of parents in this case... its amazing that people can really back this at all.

Youth who can't get confidential access to sexual health services, without the involvement of parents, are more likely to get STIs and to have teenage pregnancy. Do you really want a HIV positive single parent with zero career prospects for a daughter?

The same can be said when infections come from a legal abortion and no one in the family knows about it, so the daughter dies.

The real issue is that pregnancy and abortion are big ticket items in life. They aren't discardable events, like the common cold. Keeping or aborting the baby requires discussion with the family. Minors aren't mature enough to make such decisions on thier own, and it is something that might haunt them for the rest of thier lives.

The real issue is that parents can't make good judgement calls if they are not aware of large issues within thier child's life.

On top of all this, there might be rape, molestation that is taking place, and the parents would never know about it... possibly still allowing the events to happen because they know no better.

(and I'm just waiting for Comrade to come out and use the defense of upset fathers... but that defense makes as much sense as schools not sending home report cards because thier kid might get an ass whooping for bad grades)

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: One that surprises the hell out of me is the failure of CA prop 4, which gave a waiting period of 48 hours before a minor could abort until parental notification was given. Amazing that a state can take away parental rights... it just dumbfounds me that this didn't pass

More nonsense.

The state isn't "taking away" parental rights. The voters decided against empowering the state to give parents rights they don't currently enjoy.

You have it completely backwards.

I don't have it backwards. The parents had parental rights before California was ever even dreamed to be a state. The state took away the rights of parents in this case... its amazing that people can really back this at all.

You still have it backwards. The state constitution recognizes the right to privacy. You're claiming that "takes away" parental right parents held before the state existed. But the state didn't "take away" parental rights when it established the constitution-- it recognized certain pre-existing rights, including, apparently, the right to privacy. Government doesn't "create" rights; rather, it acknowledges rights. The fact that the state recognizes a right to privacy and doesn't recognize certain "parental rights" that trump the right of privacy indicates that, in the states view, those rights either never existed, or if they did exist before the state was established, they did not trump the right to privacy.

EdelBrock wrote: The same can be said when infections come from a legal abortion and no one in the family knows about it, so the daughter dies.

The real issue is that pregnancy and abortion are big ticket items in life. They aren't discardable events, like the common cold. Keeping or aborting the baby requires discussion with the family. Minors aren't mature enough to make such decisions on thier own, and it is something that might haunt them for the rest of thier lives.

The real issue is that parents can't make good judgement calls if they are not aware of large issues within thier child's life.

On top of all this, there might be rape, molestation that is taking place, and the parents would never know about it... possibly still allowing the events to happen because they know no better.

(and I'm just waiting for Comrade to come out and use the defense of upset fathers... but that defense makes as much sense as schools not sending home report cards because thier kid might get an ass whooping for bad grades)

Instead, I'll just observe that in the REAL world (i.e., not the fairy-tale world where all parents resemble Ward and June Cleaver), most kids CAN talk to their families, but some kids CAN'T talk to their families. Your apparently strong desire to use the power of the state to force them to talk to their families doesn't change that basic fact.

I find it repellent that men should feel that it is their place to discuss abortion rights anywhere, never mind here.

Diamond 383 wrote: I find it repellent that men should feel that it is their place to discuss abortion rights anywhere, never mind here.

Men most certainly have a place to discuss abortion "rights". Like it or not, they are 50% of the equation. I think most men who have ever held a child would agree.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: The same can be said when infections come from a legal abortion and no one in the family knows about it, so the daughter dies.

The real issue is that pregnancy and abortion are big ticket items in life. They aren't discardable events, like the common cold. Keeping or aborting the baby requires discussion with the family. Minors aren't mature enough to make such decisions on thier own, and it is something that might haunt them for the rest of thier lives.

The real issue is that parents can't make good judgement calls if they are not aware of large issues within thier child's life.

On top of all this, there might be rape, molestation that is taking place, and the parents would never know about it... possibly still allowing the events to happen because they know no better.

(and I'm just waiting for Comrade to come out and use the defense of upset fathers... but that defense makes as much sense as schools not sending home report cards because thier kid might get an ass whooping for bad grades)

Instead, I'll just observe that in the REAL world (i.e., not the fairy-tale world where all parents resemble Ward and June Cleaver), most kids CAN talk to their families, but some kids CAN'T talk to their families. Your apparently strong desire to use the power of the state to force them to talk to their families doesn't change that basic fact.

Comrade,

You really don't think it's a good idea for parents to be notified before their minor daughter has an abortion? Something that can figuratively and literally leave their child scarred forever?

Tex wrote:

Diamond 383 wrote: I find it repellent that men should feel that it is their place to discuss abortion rights anywhere, never mind here.

Men most certainly have a place to discuss abortion "rights". Like it or not, they are 50% of the equation. I think most men who have ever held a child would agree.

Most women would probably wish to involve the man, or someone else in her decision making process, but you don't need to legislate for that. I would be disappointed if my partner or my daughter didn't feel that she could involve me in her decision, but I would resist any legislation compelling her to do so.

Do you honestly think that any man has the right to insist that any woman should be prevented from terminating an unwanted pregnancy? Or, for that matter, that any man should be entitled to insist that someone has an abortion that she doesn't want?

Abortion doesn't damage women - it's the fucking anti-choice idiots who harp on about it afterwards that damages them.

The same cunts who wouldn't let women make their own mind up about abortion are the ones arguing against proper sex education in schools and the availability of good contraception to everyone. If they could get away with it they'd make the women walk three paces behind them, wear a bag over their head and beat them regularly.

Shit, now I'm debating it on here.

Tex wrote:

You really don't think it's a good idea for parents to be notified before their minor daughter has an abortion? Something that can figuratively and literally leave their child scarred forever?

Crossing the road can leave scars.

The reason people get so excited about abortion is that it's evidence of sex and people don't like to think about their daughters having sex.

Ironically, the sexually-repressed parents who haven't educated their kids properly are more likely to be the ones who's involvement is unwelcome when things go wrong.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: One that surprises the hell out of me is the failure of CA prop 4, which gave a waiting period of 48 hours before a minor could abort until parental notification was given. Amazing that a state can take away parental rights... it just dumbfounds me that this didn't pass

More nonsense.

The state isn't "taking away" parental rights. The voters decided against empowering the state to give parents rights they don't currently enjoy.

You have it completely backwards.

I don't have it backwards. The parents had parental rights before California was ever even dreamed to be a state. The state took away the rights of parents in this case... its amazing that people can really back this at all.

You still have it backwards. The state constitution recognizes the right to privacy. You're claiming that "takes away" parental right parents held before the state existed. But the state didn't "take away" parental rights when it established the constitution-- it recognized certain pre-existing rights, including, apparently, the right to privacy. Government doesn't "create" rights; rather, it acknowledges rights. The fact that the state recognizes a right to privacy and doesn't recognize certain "parental rights" that trump the right of privacy indicates that, in the states view, those rights either never existed, or if they did exist before the state was established, they did not trump the right to privacy.

you don't have any kids do you?

you're voluntarily gagging yourself?! booooooooring.

biggy, you make some excellent points, but it's simplistic to say the reason people get het up about abortion is purely because it's evidence of sex, or that it's anti-choice propaganda that does all the damage (where there is damage) afterwards.

oh, and don't liken it to crossing the road. that's just silly. as well you know.

and now i must away to slave for my two illegitimate brats, the trauma of whose existence is still unravelling.

Tex wrote: Comrade,

You really don't think it's a good idea for parents to be notified before their minor daughter has an abortion? Something that can figuratively and literally leave their child scarred forever?

EdelBrock wrote: you don't have any kids do you?

I think we can all agree that in most families, parents and children should talk. In some families, children can't talk with their parents. In some families, the parents are sexually abusing the children. In some families, the parents are physically abusing the children. In some families, the parents are psychologically and/or emotionally abusing the children.

We have a choice here: Parents in functional families can take on the responsibility to talk about issues like teen pregnancy before they become issues, and to make it clear that the lines of communication are always open, and that the parents will always love their children and be there for them, even if they make mistakes...

...Or parents can take the easy way out, and let the state do the hard work for them, by forcing scared and pregnant teens to talk with their parents. (hmmm, and while we're at it, maybe the state can force teens to get parental permission to buy contraceptives-- that ought to really lower the teen pregnancy rate, eh? )...Even if some parents are sexually, physically, or psychologically abusive. Even if some families believe in honor killings.

It's not that a secret abortion is a good choice for a pregnant minor, it's that sometimes, it's the only best choice she has, and it's not your place, or the state's, to say otherwise. Should children and parents have open lines of communication? Of course they should. Should parents be supportive of their kids when they make mistakes? Of course. Should that be a rationale for the state to compel a scared and pregnant teen to turn to the monsters who are abusing her? Absolutely not.

HEY WE'RE GETTING A HIGH SPEED FUCKING TRAIN

Tristan Jayol wrote: HEY WE'RE GETTING A HIGH SPEED FUCKING TRAIN

Do you have to bring a date, or can you show up stag?