propostion 73

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?

Yes newdad they would be notified.

I'm sure that most minors who are pregnent do talk to their parents about their situation.

However, if a 13 year old girl believes she will be beaten by her parents you can understand her not wanting to tell them.

If she is unlucky enough to have an anti -abortion parent, who does not believe is sex before marrige she may be very scared.

In this instance it is surely desirable that the young person recieves good sensible adult advice and support. If it is her phyician, a family member or family planning specialist it does not matter. As long as she is supported and all her options are given to her in a clear, unbiased manner.

Originally posted by invigorate
Yes newdad they would be notified.

I'm sure that most minors who are pregnent do talk to their parents about their situation.

However, if a 13 year old girl believes she will be beaten by her parents you can understand her not wanting to tell them.

If she is unlucky enough to have an anti -abortion parent, who does not believe is sex before marr ...[text shortened]... r. As long as she is supported and all her options are given to her in a clear, unbiased manner.

again a point brought up that is completley irrelevant. If the girl is scared of her parents hurting her she can have the notification waived, there is no valid reason to not pass this proposition, but since it's not going to pass anyway i guess the point is moot now.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Uh, dude.

Bush does lie. Bush lied about Iraq's efforts to obtain uranium from Niger. Bush may not personally have known about the lies, but Cheney did. And, as Truman said, "the buck stops here". Bush's administration distorted the facts regarding the health of the social security system. The Bush administration's statements were di ...[text shortened]... tures.

Tell me how the truth is "radical left propaganda", as you put it.

Bush tortures.

nothing you said illustrates a lie by Bush.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Yeah it does! Uh, yeah it does! You might as well deny the sky is blue if you're going to deny that Bush lied about Iraq's WMD and social security! That's a flat out lie! What the hell is wrong with you?

please prove his intent, which is required to lie. Just because you end up being wrong does not mean you lied. Just prove to me he lied. You won't because you can't.

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 pretty sure that you are missing the point on this.

A Proposition is not a Government proposal.

A Proposition is a political proposal "by the people." A group of citizens .. parents or whatever are outraged by events down at the local Abortion Factory are get together and come up with a Petition to change the way things are done.
A Proposition could be about almost anything you might think of, from leash laws for dogs all the way thru parental rights with their minor children..
A Proposition on the Ballot couldn't be more American. It's one of the ways we address our Government .. that's what makes it "by the people, for the people."

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Prove his intent.

The Central Intelligence Agency produced masses of reports that left in doubt, at best, Saddam's capability to produce NBC weapons of any sort. The CIA was certain that Iraq had no nuclear capability. UN weapons inspectors, despite an intense search, found no evidence whatsoever of a chemical or biological program.

Not happy w ...[text shortened]... king Bush up to a lie detector, I don't know how the "proof" can get more concrete than that.

You are just wrong. You create to try to prove what you want to believe, instead of looking at the facts objectively to form your opinion. That is why you are a radical. All the intelligence agencies prior to the invasion believed Saddam had WMDs. The clinton's believed he had them, Gore, Kerry, etc all believed they had them. Hillary gave a speech saying Saddam and his weapons posed an imminent danger. You can say they were going off of bad intelligence and I will give you that, but the president was going by the same intelligence. Woodward reported in his book the cia and Rumsfeld advised the president wmd's are a "slam dunk". Russian, MI5, British intel, and several other intel. agencies all agreed too that Saddam had them. So you believe Bush should of done nothing with that info? With all that intel., the democrats I mentioned who all publicly stated there were wmds, and his own intel. advisors saying wmds were a "slam dunk" Bush had to do something. That may not be the only reason he went to Iraq but to say all the inel prior said there were no wmds is simply a lie.

also: documents found in Iraq have indicated that Saddam believed that France and Russia would aid him if the U.S. invaded. Those countries were being bribed via Oil for Food program. If France, for instance, had of supported the U.S. prior to the war the entire conflict might of been avoided and Saddam may have started to comply with the weapons inspectors. Where is your condemnation of France?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Prove his intent.

The Central Intelligence Agency produced masses of reports that left in doubt, at best, Saddam's capability to produce NBC weapons of any sort. The CIA was certain that Iraq had no nuclear capability. UN weapons inspectors, despite an intense search, found no evidence whatsoever of a chemical or biological program.

Not happy w ...[text shortened]... king Bush up to a lie detector, I don't know how the "proof" can get more concrete than that.

I seem to remember several prominent democrats all saying there were wmd's in Iraq prior to the war. Were they all lying too?

Originally posted by jammer
I'm pretty sure that you are missing the point on this.

A Proposition is not a Government proposal.

A Proposition is a political proposal "by the people." A group of citizens .. parents or whatever are outraged by events down at the local Abortion Factory are get together and come up with a Petition to change the way things are done.
A Proposition ...[text shortened]... f the ways we address our Government .. that's what makes it "by the people, for the people."

A Proposition or any other proposed law that severely restricts fundamental rights is as un-American as it gets. You right-wingers never seem to understand that the very purpose of a Madsonian democracy based on Lockean principles is to have a limited government who's main purpose is to protect the people's natural rights. Try reading Tom Paine instead of listening to Rush Limbaugh and you might figure it out.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Which facts am I ignoring, newdad? Am I making up the OSP? Am I making up that the intelligence the OSP received had already been discredited by the CIA and MI6 (MI6 is British, by the way there, momo). Am I making up the fact that UN weapons inspectors found no WMD leading up to the war, despite an exhaustive search? Or am I making up the fact that ...[text shortened]... ay if Bush was wrong too" cuts the legs right out from under your already tattered credibility.

go here then, momo: http://www.mi5.gov.uk/

enough said, really, but Bush feeding/creating intellegence. Come on now, you really expect me to by your propaganda? This first point/web sight should discount anything future posts by you though.