Why do you call yourself "Democrats"?
*Sigh*
Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad have the senators from North Dakota since 1992 and 1987, respectively. I honestly have no idea how and why, however. I never hear much positive about them, when I actually get into a conversation about politics with the natives (which trust me, does not happen frequently). But, they still get elected, year after year, even though everyone bitches about them all the time.
Dorgan and Conrad are democratic in the sense that they support farm subsidies and that they normally economically liberal (I especially appreciated their support on the Net Nuetrality Act). When it comes to civil rights, however, they are quite soft.
I could go through the list of things that they are against that are important to civil rights, but the latest, and most irritating, is their support of the Orwellian-named Child Custody Protection Act. They both voted for it, and all I can say is "why?"
This act is violating some fundamental rights of a citizen. I know we still treat children like property in the United States, but they still have rights. One of these rights is the right to health care, another is the right to autonomy, and as Americans, we still have the right to be a CITIZEN in our country, not as a foreigner in another state.
If a young woman (and let's kill the misleading gender nuetral language, it's girls that are going to get an abortion: when was the last time a guy got pregnant?) wants an abortion, than I think they should be able to get it without running to her possibly abusive parents. It would be great and wonderful if everyone had a good realitionship with his or her parents, but the reality never works out like that. Girls who have a good relationships with their parerents go to their parents, the law cannot force girls to have a good relationship with their parents. Girls have been abused, thrown out of their houses, and even killed when their parents have found out about their being pregnant (and by extension, their being sexual).
Plus, this is a slippery slope from "notification" to "consent". As soon as you start saying that parents have the right to investigate everything about their childrens' lives, you start going to the premise that parents have the right to control their childrens lives. And that is something we definately should not.
I grew up in an abusive household. If my parents would have known I was pregnant, my father would have beat the every living shit out of me while my mom would have cried about how she failed me and I failed God. I have two little sisters: if one of them decides to become sexual, I am quite sure that it would be me that they would come to with any problems. And I would tell them my advice, let them decide what to do and then help them the best way I could. If they lived with me in Grand Forks, I would drive them, in a heartbeat, to the cities (or better yet, to Winnepeg), if they asked me to to get an abortion. I would do it, and I would do it even if CCPA passes, because I love my little sisters.
This law helps no one. This law is contrary to civil liberties, and honestly far to similar to another law about where and what people could do in other states. So, Conrad, Dorgan: why do you bother to call yourself democrats when you are a so opposed to liberal ideals?
posted by Goddess Cassandra @ 12:15 PM
20 comments
20 Comments:
Children are not adults and are not capable of making major life decisions on their own. This is why there are laws against having sex with children, letting children drive, letting children vote, etc.
You claim that children have a right to autonomy. Are you seriously suggesting that we let children make decisions as though they were adults?
That's a bit naive.
The courts have processes in place to deal with children who are in abusive homes. If an abortion clinic doctor or pastor or whatever has a pregnant girl come to him/her and say that she's pregnant but doesn't want to tell her abusive parents the duty of that person is not to spirit the child across a border to get an abortion, the duty of that person is to report the abuse to the proper authorities.
All arguments to the contrary are simply being made by pro-abortion zealots who can't fathom the idea that perhaps, in some instances, abortion might not be the best choice.
Children may not be adults, but they are capable of making many decisions on their own.
As a teen, I was capable of driving (I recieved my liceanse at 14) I was capable of figuring out my religious beliefs, I was capable of having values, and I was capable deciding if I wanted a boy (my age) to kiss me, among a plethera of other things.
The reason adults cannot have sex with children is the same reason bosses can't have sex with employees and teachers can't have sex with students: it is a varience of power levels. If my saying "yes" or "no" is coerced, or if it makes no difference whether or not I say yes or no, then there is no true consent. It is not that children do not have autonomy, it is merely that no one has autonomy with power levels so drastically different (which is why we have Romeo and Juliet clauses in every state).
I am saying that children have the right to not get the crap beat out of them. I am the government does not have the right to force children to have a good relationship with their parents. I'm saying that we cannot dictate that other states respect individual state laws, because this sets a dangerous precedent (will I no longer be able to get a bikinni wax in Minnesota because I have to respect the North Dakota state law about them)?
It's naive of you to say that the courts do anything to protect children who are in abusive homes. Unless you are starving, or have bruises up and down your body (and maybe not even then) you aren't brought out of that house.
If a child is in a good relationship with her parents, than she would tell them about becoming pregnant. It is simple as that. If a girl has a reason to not want to tell her parents about getting an abortion, I am betting it is a pretty damn good reason.
Criminalizing bad relationships is bad legislation.
Abortion may not always be the best choice, but that is up to each individual female to decide, not some parent, or some individual in DC.
I'm saying that we cannot dictate that other states respect individual state laws, because this sets a dangerous precedent (will I no longer be able to get a bikinni wax in Minnesota because I have to respect the North Dakota state law about them)?
I think that perhaps you don't understand this law. This isn't about forcing Minnesota to follow North Dakota laws. Clearly that is a violation of the sovereignty of the various states, and as a staunch advocate for state's rights I am forcefully against such a thing.
What this is about is letting a parent(s), who is/are in all ways responsible for children, know that a) their child is engaging in underage sex b) is pregnant and c) is seeking an abortion.
As I stated before, the courts have procedures already in place to deal with abusive parents. I think the small minority of underage pregnancies that occur in abusive homes (or occur as the result of molestation from a relative) is no excuse to deny notification to the majority of parents who are not abusive.
If a child is in a good relationship with her parents, than she would tell them about becoming pregnant. It is simple as that. If a girl has a reason to not want to tell her parents about getting an abortion, I am betting it is a pretty damn good reason.
And I'm saying that children, by definition, are not capable of making that sort of decision. Kids do dumb things all the time, and most of the time they try to hide those dumb things from their parents. This is just another example of this.
You spend a lot of time blaming parents for the things that go wrong in their children's lives. It seems to me that if you're going to hold parents responsible in that fashion you should also recognize that they have a right to know what is going on in their child's life.
I think that perhaps you don't understand this law. This isn't about forcing Minnesota to follow North Dakota laws. Clearly that is a violation of the sovereignty of the various states, and as a staunch advocate for state's rights I am forcefully against such a thing.
I think that perhaps you haven't read the text of this law, or maybe didn't understand what I meant. This isn't Minnesota being forced to respect North Dakota's laws, this is about me being forced to be under North Dakota law, even when I'm not in North Dakota.
Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly transports a minor across a State line, with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, and thereby in fact abridges the right of a parent under a law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, in force in the State where the minor resides, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
This states, very clearly, that if, for instance, my baby sister lived in North Dakota (which has a parental consent law) and wanted in abortion, and I drove her to Washington (which doesn't) I would be held to the standard of the North Dakota law, not the Washington one where the actual abortion would be taking place. And I would be charged with a felony, for taking someone across state borders.
They are making it a requirement to follow the laws of the state you live in EVEN when you are not in that state.
And I'm saying that children, by definition, are not capable of making that sort of decision. Kids do dumb things all the time, and most of the time they try to hide those dumb things from their parents. This is just another example of this.
And I'm saying that I'm pretty damn sure that girls can figure out if they want to put their health and their life at risk. If you are old enough to be having sex and getting pregnant, I'm fairly certain you're old enough to know if you want to give birth or not. Having sex isn't necessarily a dumb thing, and having an abortion isn't necessarily a dumb thing either. Since neither of these things are illegal, I don't see why the state has an intrest in legislating a person's life.
You spend a lot of time blaming parents for the things that go wrong in their children's lives. It seems to me that if you're going to hold parents responsible in that fashion you should also recognize that they have a right to know what is going on in their child's life.
When have a blamed parents for anything? And getting an unwanted pregnancy sucks, but obviously if they get an abortion they are taking responsiblity for what happened.
I think that perhaps you haven't read the text of this law, or maybe didn't understand what I meant. This isn't Minnesota being forced to respect North Dakota's laws, this is about me being forced to be under North Dakota law, even when I'm not in North Dakota.
No, it means that if you are a minor you cannot be transported across state lines for an abortion without the permission of your parents. You can still go to Minnesota to get that abortion if you want, but if you're a minor you had better have your parents on board.
This is not about state's rights. Congress, via the Constitution, has all the authority in the world to regulate interstate commerce...which traveling between states for abortions is.
This states, very clearly, that if, for instance, my baby sister lived in North Dakota (which has a parental consent law) and wanted in abortion, and I drove her to Washington (which doesn't) I would be held to the standard of the North Dakota law, not the Washington one where the actual abortion would be taking place. And I would be charged with a felony, for taking someone across state borders.
They are making it a requirement to follow the laws of the state you live in EVEN when you are not in that state.
And again, Congress has all the authority in the world to regulate interstate commerce. This law is explicitly within the purview of Congress. That you don't like the law is neither here nor there.
And I'm saying that I'm pretty damn sure that girls can figure out if they want to put their health and their life at risk. If you are old enough to be having sex and getting pregnant, I'm fairly certain you're old enough to know if you want to give birth or not. Having sex isn't necessarily a dumb thing, and having an abortion isn't necessarily a dumb thing either. Since neither of these things are illegal, I don't see why the state has an intrest in legislating a person's life.
And yet the state has requirements as to the age a person can get married (something you agree with in another post), age requirements for driving, drinking, voting, etc.
Why the double standard in this instance? Other than a fierce determination to allow young girls to be spirited across borders for abortions without their parents knowing?
And getting an unwanted pregnancy sucks, but obviously if they get an abortion they are taking responsiblity for what happened.
Murdering an unborn child is not taking responsibility. That's like saying that by burning down your house you're taking responsibility for keeping it in order.
The responsible thing to do is to at least let the kid live, and then place it up for adoption if you don't feel you can handle the consequences.
Personal responsibility is a bitch, I know, but the fact that it's hard is no reason so shirk it.
No, it means that if you are a minor you cannot be transported across state lines for an abortion without the permission of your parents. You can still go to Minnesota to get that abortion if you want, but if you're a minor you had better have your parents on board.
Yes, you have to follow the laws of YOUR state, whether or not you are actually IN THAT STATE. A girl in Washington doesn't have to worry about this law: she isn't required notification or consent.
This isn't a difficult thing really: follow the laws of the state that you are in, not of the one you are NOT IN.
And yet the state has requirements as to the age a person can get married (something you agree with in another post), age requirements for driving, drinking, voting, etc.
I think the laws on getting consent for marriage is stupid, if you recall correctly, and I think that the age related laws are seriously flawed, if you must know.
Why the double standard in this instance? Other than a fierce determination to allow young girls to be spirited across borders for abortions without their parents knowing?
I don't really see a double standard. You say "spirted" across the border as if the girl in question doesn't actually want to get an abortion. Coercing a girl to get an abortion is immoral and I'm fairly certain illegal. This is about a girl's right to not fuck up her health and life, and not have to deal with abuse from her parents.
Murdering an unborn child is not taking responsibility. That's like saying that by burning down your house you're taking responsibility for keeping it in order.
Dealing with an unwanted pregnancy seems like taking responsibility to me. And, fyi embryo =/= fetus =/= child. This seems like pretty simple knowledge, that you know, the whole nine monthes of LABOR that women put into creating life actually does something to, you know, create life. The magical sperm fairy doesn't just make a child appear. And I love how you think that girls that aren't responsible enough to be trusted with their own bodies are going to be responsible enough to be parents or put their kids up for adoption.
The responsible thing to do is to at least let the kid live, and then place it up for adoption if you don't feel you can handle the consequences.
Oh yes, it's completely responsible to fuck up your health, bring an unwanted child into an already overpopulated world and deal with the social, finacial and legal reprocussions of being an unwed mother. Yep, responsibility.
Personal responsibility is a bitch, I know, but the fact that it's hard is no reason so shirk it.
"Personal responsibility" is dealing with problems. An abortion is a perfectly viable solution to the problem of an unwanted pregnancy: you now have no preganancy, ergo, no problem. I don't see how this shirking anything. It's not like women are having abortion parties, or like this is some really fun night out on the town.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Procreation doesn't harm others. You need to be alive before I can kill you. If you have an ACTUAL arguments as to why my autonomy deserves to be controlled by the state, or why you wish to inflict parenthood as a punishment, I'd be glad to listen to you.
"easiest way for that they think is sex"
WTF does this have to do with ANYTHING? Seriously, this is dumb (and untrue). Why can't a girl just want sex, for I dunno, SEX! It feels good.
I am nothing like the military. I don't kill people.
The screw you wasn't an invitation. But if you are incapable of detecting strong anger, here's another one: piss off.
It's sex, dammit. I don't believe in stupid euphimisms. Love makes sex better, but it not necessary for the action to take place.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
As FACINATING as this exchange has been, I'm going to show you how incredibly easy to fix this problem.
Go away, and don't come back until you're ready to argue in good faith.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Can't anyone post here anymore?
You may have been capable of those things like driving and other choices and what-not. But the decisions you made in these activites were probably worthless and could have been much better with someone older helping you.
Actually, I didn't delete half those posts.
Post a Comment
<< Home