propostion 73

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I'm not sure why you do not get this. How is a law that FORCES a minor child to communicate with her parents not an example of government involving itself in a private family?

Forced communication sure sounds like government involvement to me.

TheSkipper

so you dont think the natural coarse of action for say a hospital or doctor would be to perform medical surgery on a minor child without parental notification? I guess if you believe that then parental notification for an abortion by a minor would be govnt. interferance. On the other hand, those of us with common sense realize doctors would of coarse not only have to have parental notification (as this propostion asks for) but also consent to have a medical procedure performed on a minor. Thus, a minor child notifying their parent prior to an abortion would be the natural/normal action and thus there is no govnt interferance. The gov interferance would take place when they enable a child to circumvent standard practice for an abortion. Why is that so hard to understand??

Originally posted by Algernon
I am not missing the point. You claimed that this proposition was not an act of government intrusion in personal affairs. That is exactly what it is, and it is for reasons you defend as legitimate. Take your position and stick to it.

i'm sorry you are confused, let me try one more time. The passing of this proposition would be, in effect, limiting the government intrustions by returning normal everyday guidlines for actions a minor child can do on there own. Voting down the prop is a vote for More government involvment as that would allow the government to tell children they can do something they could not normally otherwise do. Being "for" a proposition that is being voted on does not necessarily mean you are voting for government involvement, this prop is trying to limit the government involvment and I am for that.

Originally posted by Algernon

Finally, a point you ignored, newdad: the sneaky attempt to define a fetus as an unborn child in state law.

You cannot be intellectually honest and claim that Proposition 73 is not "anti-abortion" legislation.

This has been brought up three times in the thread and yet no one on the pro side has even acknowledged it.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
This has been brought up three times in the thread and yet no one on the pro side has even acknowledged it.

first the point is not relevant to the proposition thus no comment is needed about your paranoia.

second if a fetus is not an unborn child what is it?

Originally posted by newdad27
i'm sorry you are confused, let me try one more time. The passing of this proposition would be, in effect, limiting the government intrustions by returning normal everyday guidlines for actions a minor child can do on there own. Voting down the prop is a vote for More government involvment as that would allow the government to tell children they can do s ...[text shortened]... overnment involvement, this prop is trying to limit the government involvment and I am for that.

I am not confused; your argument does not hold water. This is a proposition that gives government a role in social life that it currently does not have; voting it down does not, as you speciously claim, does mean government is telling children they can do something they would not do otherwise. It is an up or down vote on a piece of legislation; if it gets voted down, there is no law. This is basic civics.

Whereas voting for the proposition means voting for a new law, and in this case, it is for a law that tasks government with enforcing parental notification, collecting data on abortion procedures performed on minors, and defining a fetus in state law as an unborn child.

You cannot honestly or intelligently argue that Proposition 73 is limiting government's role - that's a howler.

Originally posted by newdad27
first the point is not relevant to the proposition thus no comment is needed about your paranoia.

second if a fetus is not an unborn child what is it?

Um, how is a point concerning the language of Proposition 73 "not relevant to the proposition?"

Defining a fetus as an unborn child has legal implications that would be rightfully examined in a legislative session. You are very familiar with the controversy involved - I see in other threads you are well versed in the political debate about abortion.

Originally posted by Algernon
I am not confused; your argument does not hold water. This is a proposition that gives government a role in social life that it currently does not have; voting it down does not, as you speciously claim, does mean government is telling children they can do something they would not do otherwise. It is an up or down vote on a piece of legislation; if it gets ...[text shortened]... ly or intelligently argue that Proposition 73 is limiting government's role - that's a howler.

Just answer me one question: If a doctor is going to perform a surgery (other than an abortion) on a 12 year old will their parents be notified?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Your ideas, while twisted, are more coherent than bf101's, so for that I give you credit. Here's a little help, though:

'S' in so should be capitalized.

It's "course", not "coarse", twice.

There is no 'a' in "interference", three times.

"Propos[b]ition"[/b]

i see you can use spell check in word, congrats. I post in the half minute of time i have while working so I'm not thinking about punctuation. Your grammar is quite good, though, for a jarhead.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
No, jackass, I don't use spellcheck, I paid attention in third grade. And fourth and fith, and all the other ones besides. And because I bothered to educate myself, I'm able to see situations objectively and didn't drink the Bush Kool Aid.

EDIT: And don't call me "jarhead". You haven't earned the right.

No debate on the issue, Jarine?😛

Originally posted by sasquatch672
No, jackass, I don't use spellcheck, I paid attention in third grade. And fourth and fith, and all the other ones besides. And because I bothered to educate myself, I'm able to see situations objectively and didn't drink the Bush Kool Aid.

I guess i missed fith grade, but I did attend fifth grade. I am a college graduate too, so let me pat myself on my back. It's funny, though, how you seem to be radical left propagandist....Bush lies, Bush tortures, etc, but then you accuse me of being on wellfare almost like you are radical righty. I'm glad that I am neither.

Originally posted by newdad27
Just answer me one question: If a doctor is going to perform a surgery (other than an abortion) on a 12 year old will their parents be notified?

Sure. Here is my answer: Proposition 73 expands government's role in civil life.