Anti-life crowd outraged that the unborn are cared for.

[Seeker]

Requiring parental consent is a bad idea.

In my experience in Community Sentencing groups many recent immigrants from certain ethnic groups would literally kill or severely beat a girl who 'defiled their honour' that way (2 cases come to mind: Jamaicans, and Somalis).

I've seen cases where they did it for much less, if they don't want to tell their parents there is often a very good reason.

BTW, I've now completely lost track of what people's positions are:

There seems to be available the extremes:
1. 'Every Zygote is Sacred'
2. 'Even newborns can be 'legally killed''

or
3. Brain activity/sentience which may be the third trimester.

and also the side-issues of circumstances and concerns about frequency and procedure.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by November Adam Only a stupid response if you didn't get what I was geting at. So Gibs WAS it stupid?

Of course I did- it was just a really stupid phrase that you used

[loinburger]

Originally posted by ckweb
Society always regulates potentially self-destructive behaviour! There are fines, restrictions, and regulations for all sorts of dangerous activities.

I ought to have said "I don't consider it the duty of the law to restrict potentially self-destructive behavior." It's one thing to pass a law saying "Doctors administering abortions must be board certified, patients are required to sign a release form declaring that they are fully aware of the risks associated with the procedure, etc." It's another thing entirely to pass a law saying "You may not have an abortion, it is too dangerous"--that's a slippery slope if ever there was one.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by loinburger
I ought to have said "I don't consider it the duty of the law to restrict potentially self-destructive behavior." It's one thing to pass a law saying "Doctors administering abortions must be board certified, patients are required to sign a release form declaring that they are fully aware of the risks associated with the procedure, etc." It's another thing entirely to pass a law saying "You may not have an abortion, it is too dangerous"--that's a slippery slope if ever there was one.

How about rules and regulations governing the use of safety equipment, such as helmets in industrial areas, in sports, and in recreational activities, seatbelts in automobiles, etc.? Or, to go further, you don't think illicit drugs, such as cocaine, and so, should be illegal?

And, if it is not the responsibility of the government to restrict (or at least regulate) potentially self-destructive behaviour, should persons engaging in such behaviour be allowed to purchase insurance or, in the case of Canada, be able to use the health care system as any other citizen? Doesn't potentially self-destructive behaviour always affect others by the very reality that humans choose to live in society?

Personally, I don't see the slippery slope because I think you have simplified my point too much. I would have a law saying, "You can not have an abortion because (a) there are relatively safe methods to prevent pregnancy, (b) there are safer methods to prevent child birth, and (c) abortion poses dangerous risks that are only offset in situations where carrying the child to term is the greater risk." (Which, contrary to che, is not all the time). Such a law is justified because self-destructive behaviour costs not only the person but also society.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Seeker
Requiring parental consent is a bad idea.

In my experience in Community Sentencing groups many recent immigrants from certain ethnic groups would literally kill or severely beat a girl who 'defiled their honour' that way (2 cases come to mind: Jamaicans, and Somalis).

I've seen cases where they did it for much less, if they don't want to tell their parents there is often a very good reason.

Where there is a welfare issue involved, I am agreed. However, in general cases, parental consent should be required because teen pregnancy reflects not only on the decisions of the children but also on the parental responsibilities of the parent. Children, until they reach an age of majority, are under the care, supervision, and responsibility of their parents.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Gibsie


Of course I did- it was just a really stupid phrase that you used

Fair enough.... seems like it was in line with the comment I was refering to though.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by ckweb
How about rules and regulations governing the use of safety equipment, such as helmets in industrial areas, in sports, and in recreational activities, seatbelts in automobiles, etc.?

I'd say that rules/regulations such as these are generally analogous to the rules/regulations regarding abortions with which I had said that I didn't have a problem (requiring that doctors be certified, requiring that patients be given full disclosure regarding the risks of the procedure, etc.).

Or, to go further, you don't think illicit drugs, such as cocaine, and so, should be illegal?

We'd better not get into that. I see a threadjack coming on.

And, if it is not the responsibility of the government to restrict (or at least regulate) potentially self-destructive behaviour, should persons engaging in such behaviour be allowed to purchase insurance or, in the case of Canada, be able to use the health care system as any other citizen?

I'm not completely familiar with the Canadian health care system, but in the States if you engage in certain self-destructive behaviors (driving too fast, smoking, etc.) then your insurance premiums increase.

Doesn't potentially self-destructive behaviour always affect others by the very reality that humans choose to live in society?

Yes, somebody's death is almost always going to affect somebody. It's impossible to live one's life without engaging in some sort of potentially self-destructive behavior, though.

Personally, I don't see the slippery slope because I think you have simplified my point too much. I would have a law saying, "You can not have an abortion because (a) there are relatively safe methods to prevent pregnancy, (b) there are safer methods to prevent child birth, and (c) abortion poses dangerous risks that are only offset in situations where carrying the child to term is the greater risk." (Which, contrary to che, is not all the time). Such a law is justified because self-destructive behaviour costs not only the person but also society.

Not everybody realizes that they're pregnant right away, so sometimes it is impossible to end a pregnancy using a morning-after pill. When you're well into the first trimester or into the second trimester, there are no alternative birth control methods besides abortion.

Furthermore, the slippery slope is that practically all behaviors are self-destructive to one extent or another, and many of these also have alternative behaviors. Ought we to outlaw all cosmetic surgery, for example? Or allergy treatments, since while there are great rewards to many such treatments (such as allergy shots) there are also risks involved (and there is an alternative approach of "doing nothing" that carries no risk)? Or ought we to outlaw the eating of meat, since it isn't as healthy for you as many alternate food sources? Or ought we to outlaw skydiving, since there are safer ways to entertain oneself? Etc.

Laws along the lines of "the risks associated with this produce/service must be made clear to the public" can be applied with an even hand (there can be excesses, such as "I didn't know that this hot coffee was hot because there was no warning label," but such excesses are few and far between). Laws along the lines of "You may not engage in this behavior because there are alternatives" cannot be applied with so even a hand--they need a line arbitrarily drawn in the sand somewhere in order to be applied at all.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by loinburger
I'm not completely familiar with the Canadian health care system, but in the States if you engage in certain self-destructive behaviors (driving too fast, smoking, etc.) then your insurance premiums increase.

Then, how about abortion should not be an insurable service (or in the case of Canada, covered by Gov't health programs)?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by ckweb
Then, how about abortion should not be an insurable service (or in the case of Canada, covered by Gov't health programs)?

Seems reasonable. AFAIK, except in cases in which the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, abortions aren't covered by insurance in the States. Most elective procedures aren't.