http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2585102&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Prosecutors say that on the morning she was scheduled to give birth, Skinner drove to an auto dealer's parking lot, took a gun, and shot herself in the belly, killing the fetus in an act of self-abortion. Skinner was charged with carrying out an illegal abortion.

This is just totally messed up. Abortion issues aside, why wasn't this woman charged with murder? Why would anyone think this is anything but? At this point she killed a fully viable human being.

Simple. The judge and prosecutor weren't crazed religious zealots, the only types of people who would see this is as "murder" and not what it really is, abortion. (Don't worry, you can look to Aldarion_Shard for solace.)

It also shows why abortions should be publicly financed for those who can't afford it. The woman said that the only reason she carried the fetus so long was that her boyfriend wouldn't pay for an abortion.

Because the baby wasn't born yet? Doing it with a coat hanger or a gun doesn't matter does it?

This is just totally messed up. Abortion issues aside, why wasn't this woman charged with murder? Why would anyone think this is anything but? At this point she killed a fully viable human being.

Regardless of what you want to prosecute her with, I think any person who deliberately shoots herself in the belly deserves a nice long stint with shrinks first.


Eri

Sounds like a botched attempt at a Darwin Award.

Because the baby wasn't born yet? Doing it with a coat hanger or a gun doesn't matter does it?

As I said, abortion issues aside, but if it matters, I'm pro-choice within reason. "aborting" a baby the day of it's birth isn't abortion but murder. Would any clinic perform an abortion on the day the baby was due? I don't think so.

Sounds like a botched attempt at a Darwin Award.

Sure, that too, but the idea that no crime has been committed?

As I said, abortion issues aside, but if it matters, I'm pro-choice within reason. "aborting" a baby the day of it's birth isn't abortion but murder. Would any clinic perform an abortion on the day the baby was due? I don't think so.Looking at the dictionary:

Abortion: "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy."

Embryo: "the young of a viviparous animal, esp. of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month."

Fetus: "the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation."

Sure sounds like an abortion of a fetus to me. Until it comes out of the birth canal and is detached from the mother and starts yapping, it is NOT a "baby," an independent human, period. Whether or not you're against abortion, it <i>is</i> abortion.

I'd definitely say a crime against "reason" has been committed, although perhaps no laws were broken like the court says.

In my state they were always finding newborns in dumpsters. Usually teenagers who had managed to hide their conditions from their parents. But they made it possible for mothers to leave their babies at fire stations or hospitals anonymously and not face criminal prosecution for abandonment.
I think a lot of that nonsense ended.

Just maybe if this Mom had had some sort of support to get out from under an abusive guy like this she could have made a more rational decision to either abort earlier or else to give the baby up for adoption.

I don't think someone would shoot themselves in the stomach unless they were extremely desperate and maybe hoping to die, or else psychologically not all there.

Looking at the dictionary:

Abortion: "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy."


Ah you want to play the dictionary game. That same definition can applie to birth as well.

Embryo: "the young of a viviparous animal, esp. of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month."

Definately not an embryo. Not even remotely.


Fetus: "the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation."
Fetus doesn't indicate anything but the state of being in the womb. Similar to Lava and Magma.

Sure sounds like an abortion of a fetus to me. Until it comes out of the birth canal and is detached from the mother and starts yapping, it is NOT a "baby," an independent human, period. Whether or not you're against abortion, it <i>is</i> abortion.

Opinion and just plain silly. I guess that C-sections are abortion then since they don't come through the birth canal.

And as I said first off. This isn't about abortion this is about Murder. In utero or not, This was a fully developed baby. It was the feakin DUE DATE. The baby was hours from being born. That's like not charging someone with rape because they didn't climax. Absolutely stupid. I can't believe anyone would even think that no crime was commited here.

I'd definitely say a crime against "reason" has been committed, although perhaps no laws were broken like the court says.

There are many people found guilty of murdering unborn children when they murder pregnant woman. It's very common. There is plenty of precidence here.

In my state they were always finding newborns in dumpsters. Usually teenagers who had managed to hide their conditions from their parents. But they made it possible for mothers to leave their babies at fire stations or hospitals anonymously and not face criminal prosecution for abandonment.
I think a lot of that nonsense ended.
Two points here.
1. If your state is California, They are one of the states that have convicted people for murdering unborn children.

2. There is a big difference between this and abandoning a child. You can bet that the courts wouldn't be so kind if that abandoned baby died. The mother would most definately be charged. Mass (my state) has the same policy here on this.


Just maybe if this Mom had had some sort of support to get out from under an abusive guy like this she could have made a more rational decision to either abort earlier or else to give the baby up for adoption.

I agree, but that doesn't justify taking the life of a baby.

I don't think someone would shoot themselves in the stomach unless they were extremely desperate and maybe hoping to die, or else psychologically not all there.[/QUOTE]

I certainly agree that this woman wasn't in her right mind, but that's no excuse to not be charged.

People want to make this about abortion rights, but imho this case is waaaaay past that.

This is no different than a partial birth abortion. Abortions cannot legally be performed this late in the pregnancy. No matter who did this or how, it would have been illegal.

And its murder. The two are synonymous.

There are many people found guilty of murdering unborn children when they murder pregnant woman. It's very common. There is plenty of precidence here.
Right, but the loophole is that they do it to another person. Sounds like if you want her to be guilty of something, you'll need to change the law.


Two points here.
1. If your state is California, They are one of the states that have convicted people for murdering unborn children.

2. There is a big difference between this and abandoning a child. You can bet that the courts wouldn't be so kind if that abandoned baby died. The mother would most definately be charged. Mass (my state) has the same policy here on this.

I don't think you understood why I stated this. I just said it to say it gives women who don't want to the kid another option short of doing something incredibly stupid, like putting the baby in a dumpster or shooting themselves in the stomach.

As I said, abortion issues aside, but if it matters, I'm pro-choice within reason. "aborting" a baby the day of it's birth isn't abortion but murder. Would any clinic perform an abortion on the day the baby was due? I don't think so.

The girl shot herself in the belly.

Its not murder.

She doesn't deserve prison, she deserves psychological help

This isn't about abortion this is about Murder. In utero or not, This was a fully developed baby. It was the feakin DUE DATE. The baby was hours from being born. That's like not charging someone with rape because they didn't climax. Absolutely stupid. I can't believe anyone would even think that no crime was commited here.

The law can only be applied in the manner it is written. If the law says the killing of a child in the womb is abortion, right until the very second the child arrives into the world, then that is how the law is applied. Prosecutors would not succeed in a murder prosecution because of the obvious technicality.

If you want a law that says an abortion is the killing of an unborn child, except when it's sort of really close to almost being born, then you can campaign for a change in the law.

1. If your state is California, They are one of the states that have convicted people for murdering unborn children.In California, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, <b>or a fetus,</b> with malice aforethought." If ever there were a legal declaration that a "fetus" isn't a "human being", this is it. The only reason you can be charged with murder of a fetus in California is that the law specifically includes a fetus, in addition to human beings, as part of the definition.I guess that C-sections are abortion then since they don't come through the birth canal.The point of abortion is death of the fetus. The point of birth/C-section is life of the fetus. Surely you can grasp this obvious difference.In utero or not, This was a fully developed baby. It was the feakin DUE DATE. The baby was hours from being born.It wasn't born. It's not a "baby". It's a fetus. It's a clear cut definition, look it up again if you like.That's like not charging someone with rape because they didn't climax. Absolutely stupid.Rape is defined by penetration, not ejaculation. However, if your penis is still 1mm outside the vagina, it's not rape, even though you're <i>really, really close</i>. It's a bright line, just as in the case of "abortion" versus "murder".

She doesn't deserve prison, she deserves psychological helpShe deserves our help in obtaining birth control. She probably shot herself because she felt she had no other way of terminating her pregnancy. If the state had offered her free birth control (including abortion, if necessary), she would never have been in this predicament. Of course, since the religious zealots put up roadblocks to birth control, scared women such as this one end up resorting to drastic remedies.

The simple fact is that it would have been illegal for anyone -- including trained medical doctors -- to abort this child at this stage of pregnancy. But somehow you think it should be legal for an untrained person to do it with a gun?

Truly, your intellect is dizzying.

I understand that you have a deep-seated hatred for women and children, and this causes you to believe the twisted things you do. But you should understand that not everyone shares your views.

This was illegal, since Roe vs. Wade only allows for 3rd trimester abortions for health-related reasons. She did not consult a health-care professional prior to the self induced abortion to get the "health reason" that Roe vs. Wade provides for, therefore, at the very least, she can be legally charged with performing an illegal abortion, practicing medicine without a license, and dependent on locale when the shot was fired, illegally discharging a firearm. That's the legal side.

orally, she knew it was wrong the moment she did it. And I quote:

"I couldn't sleep that morning, and I got up out of bed. I got dressed and grabbed my gun. I was having contractions — so scared out of my mind," Skinner said in a written statement to authorities.

"I got somebody to load the gun, because I didn't know how. I got in the car. … Sat there for a while and told the Lord that my mind was not right. I pulled the trigger. … The gun went off.

So she was "apologizing to the Lord" before she pulled the trigger. Wonderful. Check, please. The rationales of both her and you who would defend her actions as right and good, escapes me completely.

She should be brought up on murder charges, and only be incarcerated for the rest of her natural life, because according to VA Law,

http://www.vadp.org/info.htm

she would not qualify for the death penalty, because ironically, even though one of the provisions that qualify you for a death penalty is killing a pregnant woman, since she is still alive, she can't be put to death for her heinous crime.

orally speaking though, if she's quoted as appealing to the Lord, I'm assuming she thinks she's Christian, and if that's true, I'm not the One who will be judging her in the long run. Doesn't change the fact she killed a human being, who was only hours from being born.

I believe Roe vs. Wade establishes viability for a fetus at week 24. This was obviously around week 36, since she describes in the above quote as having contractions, which is what prompted this crime.

How any of you can justify this action as legal and right is simply dumbfounding.

If she was in Florida when she did this, the outcome would have been entirely different.

In 1994 Kawana Michele Ashley, a Florida woman, shot herself in the womb as an abortion method. It worked. The infant survived 15 days after an emergency Caesarian section. Ashley was unable to pay for an abortion, which was legal, but because the infant died, she was charged with manslaughter and 3rd-degree murder.

How can the exact action be murder in one state, and completely ok in another? The mind boggles at the legal acrobatics needed to make that happen.

How can the exact action be murder in one state, and completely ok in another? The mind boggles at the legal acrobatics needed to make that happen.

The mind boggles at the thought of states all passing their own laws and yet having identical legal charges.

In this case the actions are not completely ok. I'm sure the woman will face charges. If you want an example of new laws that could change murder into innocence, consider legalised assisted suicide.

I believe Roe vs. Wade establishes viability for a fetus at week 24. This was obviously around week 36, since she describes in the above quote as having contractions, which is what prompted this crime.

How any of you can justify this action as legal and right is simply dumbfounding.You're mixing up several issues. First, <i>Roe v. Wade</i> is not current law, it has been modified. The line is now drawn at "viability," not at any rigid trimester framework.

Second, <i>Roe</i> only defines when it is constitutionally impermissible for the government to deny an abortion; <i>not</i> when abortion is legal or illegal, or whether it's "murder."

Third, I don't think anyone is justifying this action as "legal and right." It <i>was</i>, I suppose, an illegal abortion, and she should be so punished. The greater tragedy, however, is that society failed her by not providing her more sensible birth control methods and causing this situation in the first place. This incident should send a message to the religious zealots to stop placing barriers to birth control (including abortion) for young women.

By the way, I got a good laugh from your "practicing medicine without a license" bit. Funny stuff.In 1994 Kawana Michele Ashley, a Florida woman, shot herself in the womb as an abortion method. It worked. The infant survived <b>15 days after an emergency Caesarian section</b>. Ashley was unable to pay for an abortion, which was legal, but because the infant died, she was charged with manslaughter and 3rd-degree murder.Bingo. C-section = birth. Death after birth = homicide of another human being. Death <i>before</i> birth = <i>not</i> homicide of another human being.How can the exact action be murder in one state, and completely ok in another?Because it wasn't the exact same action. One was death after birth, the other was death before birth. Get it?

I'm not the One who will be judging her in the long run. Doesn't change the fact she killed a human being, who was only hours from being born.
For someone who defers that task to "the One" you sure do a lot of judging.

You're mixing up several issues. First, <i>Roe v. Wade</i> is not current law, it has been modified. The line is now drawn at "viability," not at any rigid trimester framework.

You know, I did state later in my post, that I was aware of the viability issue, and even ventured my best guess as which week they defined it as.

The greater tragedy, however, is that society failed her by not providing her more sensible birth control methods and causing this situation in the first place. This incident should send a message to the religious zealots to stop placing barriers to birth control (including abortion) for young women.

Thanks for stating one of the key issues against abortion out in the open so plainly. If your birth control methods fail, abortion is not "Plan B". (Actually Plan B pill is Plan B. But we already have birth control methods such as the IUD that unsafely do what the pill does, so RU486 is not in the same catagory as sucking the baby's brains out.)

Bingo. C-section = birth. Death after birth = homicide of another human being. Death <i>before</i> birth = <i>not</i> homicide of another human being.Because it wasn't the exact same action. One was death after birth, the other was death before birth. Get it?

No, I don't get it. The two actions were essentially the same. Let me state your position on the matter.
Florida woman had crappy aim when she fired her gun, thus only mortally wounding the baby, rather than immediately killing it, so the doctors performed a C-section, and then her actions led to the death of the infant 15 days later, and became murder.
Virginia woman had more precise aim, thus instantly killing the child, so no C-section was done, thus they extracted a dead baby from her stomach, and so this was not murder.

Do you realize exactly how untenable your distinction between the two situations is? You are essentially "rewarding" the Virginia woman's ability to hit an unseen target with a gun more precisely.

We've already been over this. Birth is not the defining moment of when a living human being exists.
Living = fetuses are alive.
human = fetuses DNA are human, and they aren't anything but human, such as a goat, or dog.
being = This is the sticky wicket, because we don't yet have a handle on when beinghood is conferred. If you define it as being self-aware, then any infant that can't communicate the fact that it thinks to another human being, then it's not a "living human being" years after it's born. If you define it as detectable human brain wave activity, then it's a living human being while still in the womb.

Do you deny all the studies done that infants do learn and imprint on the sound of their mother (and father's) voices while still enwombed? That they already pick up preliminary language skills and identify with the language mainly spoken outside their mother's womb? Like it or not, fetuses can and do learn while in the womb. They are not in a state of suspended animation, nor somehow in a trance like state.

How do you get around the fact that you are essentially declaring a group of people non-persons by their place of residence, rather than say, the color of their skin?
Look up Dred Scott (1856) sometime. They used the same logic you are now.

For someone who defers that task to "the One" you sure do a lot of judging.

rs. Skinner implied that she was a Christian, by her comments, and if she is, then I can't properly assess the correct penalty that should be done to her, since God said that was His domain.

There's also a distinction. Judging someone's net worth as a human being and discerning someone's actions as good or evil are two different things.

I am not saying that she's a horrible person, or an animal deserving of no sympathy, or whatever else a marginal fringe would spew at the woman, given the chance, which would be judging her, herself.

I am saying Skinner committed a horrible, horrible act, and calling the act evil, thus judging and condemning this one action, not the entirety of her life and worth as a human being. Whether or not she is evil herself, is not up to me to judge.

It's a tired old cliche, but true: "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

And yes, I'm sure many of you would interpret this as a universal declaration that I'm saying every abortion ever done is sin. But disregarding the impulse to take the specific to the general, all I am saying is that, in this case, Skinner herself admitted she was doing something that she knew was not right to the Lord, which, after all, is the definition of sin, in Christian theology.

I try to be balanced in my views, and not personally attack the net worth of the person in question for an action, since in Christian theology, we, as human beings, are of infinite worth to God. Our actions however, need either positive or negative reinforcments from time to time. Maybe I'm judging too much, and that would be my sin. But before you write me off as judgmental, ask yourself when you read my statements whether I am judging individual acts, or declaring the person himself or herself to be worthless.

Thanks for stating one of the key issues against abortion out in the open so plainly. If your birth control methods fail, abortion is not "Plan B".Of course it is. But we, as a society, should be promoting the least invasive form of birth control possible. That incident would have never happened if the woman had had free access to pre-conception birth control. And failing that, the incident would not have happened if she had had free access to an abortion early on.

Unfortunately, the religious zealots work hard to ensure that such women have neither, in an attempt to pressure her to give birth. And then something like this happens. A bitter irony indeed.How do you get around the fact that you are essentially declaring a group of people non-persons by their place of residence, rather than say, the color of their skin? Look up Dred Scott (1856) sometime. They used the same logic you are now.Spare me the tortured analogies. They're not "people". Just because we don't agree with <i>Dred Scott</I> today doesn't mean we can't ever label a group of human cells as non-persons. And, most importantly, the right of a woman to control her body is infinitely more important than the religious zealots' right to control it. I don't care whom she's providing life support for.Do you realize exactly how untenable your distinction between the two situations is? You are essentially "rewarding" the Virginia woman's ability to hit an unseen target with a gun more precisely.No, what I'm doing is <i>not</i> rewarding the religious zealots by giving them an excuse to wedge their ideologies into our supposedly secular country.

How many women commit (or attempt to commit) abortions by shooting themselves in the abdomen? Two maybe? But if the religious zealots use these freak cases to establish a policy that a woman isn't allowed to harm the fetus, they'll attempt to control every aspect of a pregnant woman's life in order to force her to give birth every time. No thanks, I will keep my bright line which makes the bodies of normal people off limits to the zealots.

But we, as a society, should be promoting the least invasive form of birth control possible. That incident would have never happened if the woman had had free access to pre-conception birth control.

Unfortunately, the religious zealots work hard to ensure that such women have neither, in an attempt to pressure her to give birth.

Exactly who doesn't agree with birth control? No one I know has the slightest issue with birth control to avoid pregnancy.

They're not "people". Just because we don't agree with <i>Dred Scott</I> today doesn't mean we can't ever label a group of human cells as non-persons.

By that definition, you could label any group of human cells as a non-person. Even ones with brain activity and a heartbeat.

And, most importantly, the right of a woman to control her body is infinitely more important than the religious zealots' right to control it. I don't care whom she's providing life support for.

I agree fully, the woman always has the right to control her body over someone else. That's why she can take any drug she wants freely, walk anywhere she wants, yell at the top of her lungs if she wants, relieve herself anywhere she wants. Oh, wait, I guess other peoples' rights to control certain behaviors can supercede what we can do with our bodies from time to time.

But I still agree with you. She has the right to cut off any part of her body that she wants if she wishes, but only if she doesn't endanger anyone else's life while doing so. Life > liberty, every time. The hard part is defining exactly when the person inside of her is considered to be a human being. Place of residence nonwithstanding.

Do you realize exactly how untenable your distinction between the two situations is? You are essentially "rewarding" the Virginia woman's ability to hit an unseen target with a gun more precisely.

It isn't untentable at all. The law will always reward the poor aim of someone with a gun. Attempted murder is not as serious as murder.

Mrs. Skinner implied that she was a Christian, by her comments, and if she is, then I can't properly assess the correct penalty that should be done to her, since God said that was His domain.
I find this confusing. So if she weren't a Christian then it's up to you to assess the correct penalty?

It's a tired old cliche, but true: "Love the sinner, hate the sin."
That seems to go along with "Love the fetus, hate the child." Which many liberals seem to think the other side of the aisle do a lot of. Force women to carry out fertilization to birth then fail to support the interests of the child after it is born. I realize that isn't what you all do, but certainly from where I stand it seems like Republicans want to increase child birth but decrease health care, nutrition, and every other means of supporting the kid right after it is born.

Exactly who doesn't agree with birth control? No one I know has the slightest issue with birth control to avoid pregnancy.

In 1961, Dr. C. Lee Buxton and Estelle Griswald opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. They were arrested and fined. The Planned Parenthood League appealed the Griswald vs. Ct. case and, in 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the 1879 birth control law. After 86 years, birth control could be used legally in Connecticut, and contraceptive services have become increasingly available to teenagers, including minors. During 1980 and 1981, a number of bills and amendments were entered which attempted to limit the availability of these services to adolescents.
Lets see... pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control.
People objecting to free condom distribution.
The government refusing to pay for birth control to needy women.
FDA dragging their heels on approving new emergency birth control meds.
Ummm... that's just off the top of my head.

It isn't untentable at all. The law will always reward the poor aim of someone with a gun. Attempted murder is not as serious as murder.

The Virginia woman, Skinner, who hit and killed her baby whilst it was in the womb was charged with nothing.
The Florida woman, who hit but didn't immediately kill, her baby whilst it was in the womb, got manslaughter and 3rd degree murder charges.

Thus the law is not rewarding the woman with poor aim, but the woman with accurate and deadly aim. I think the law is supposed to judge on intent, and the women's intent in both cases was exactly the same. Shoot to kill, not shoot to maim.

Lets see... pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control.
People objecting to free condom distribution.
The government refusing to pay for birth control to needy women.
FDA dragging their heels on approving new emergency birth control meds.
Ummm... that's just off the top of my head.

I think the pharmacists, and the FDA are refusing to dispense or dragging their heels approving, the RU486 pill. I don't see a problem with the pill myself, since biologically I know that a rather large percentage (exact % still under debate. Somewhere between 15%-70%) of fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterine wall. As to other means of birth control, I haven't heard of pharmacists refusing to dispense condoms or spermcides to adults.
The government paying for birth control isn't about the birth control. It's about the government. I don't trust it to deliver a bucket of water in a downpour. I'd much rather give my money to a charity that by law, has to have open accountability, so at least the option is there to see where the money goes.
Free condom distribution to whom exactly? You don't specify.
To lower income adult females? All for that.
To poor mothers who don't want another baby to take care of? All for that.

However, if you happen to be specifically referring to underage teenagers in the schools, then it's not about government control, zealot control, or any other people's control over the young girl's body other than parental control over what they want their underage daughter to do. And parents should definitely have full control over their children until they reach the adult age of 18. Barring medically provable physical or sexual abuse, of course. Other than those uncommon incidents, no one gets to tell the parents how to raise their kid.

I find this confusing. So if she weren't a Christian then it's up to you to assess the correct penalty?

That seems to go along with "Love the fetus, hate the child." Which many liberals seem to think the other side of the aisle do a lot of. Force women to carry out fertilization to birth then fail to support the interests of the child after it is born. I realize that isn't what you all do, but certainly from where I stand it seems like Republicans want to increase child birth but decrease health care, nutrition, and every other means of supporting the kid right after it is born.

It's up to me, and everyone like me who's a citizen to vote for the reps who vote for the laws that we wish to enforce upon certain behaviors in our society. Not me, personally, say sitting on a dais somewhere and meteing out unilateral edicts I expect 300 million people to slavishly follow. That wouldn't be how the laws of the country I reside in work. Some say there are black robed lawyers that attempt to do that this very day in this country, but I feel that if that was happening, the good people of this country would rise up in outrage over having their say in the laws silenced by a gavel.

The Virginia woman, Skinner, who hit and killed her baby whilst it was in the womb was charged with nothing.

If this is the woman in the original article, she was actually charged and the case was dismissed by the judge due to the exact wording of the law. The law made it a crime for a third party to perform an unwanted abortion on an unborn child but did not explicitly legislate for a mother performing the abortion herself. The judge said that the woman could not charged under that law.

y personal guess is that the law was badly worded and did not reflect the intent of those who wrote it. Maybe it did. The Virginia legislators will need to sort it out.

However, if you happen to be specifically referring to underage teenagers in the schools, then it's not about government control, zealot control, or any other people's control over the young girl's body other than parental control over what they want their underage daughter to do.Surely you're not suggesting that if their daughter gets pregnant, the fate of the embryo is solely the <i>parents'</i> decision. Or that the parents get to decide whether their child gets infected with HIV or gets pregnant.Exactly who doesn't agree with birth control? No one I know has the slightest issue with birth control to avoid pregnancy.The right-wing Christians. Although they no longer have the power to declare birth control illegal, they do everything they can prevent people (especially young women) from obtaining birth control.

Sex education in schools isn't about sex, it's a Christian abstinence sermon. It ignores the reality that most of the children <i>will</i> have sex, and won't have free access to tools to prevent unwanted pregnancy and spread of STDs. Condom ads are attacked as lewd and obscene. Pharmacists refuse to dispense birth control, or create additional hurdles to women needing it.

Yes, the zealots don't only want to outlaw abortion, they want to control every aspect of sex, including whom we can have sex with, under what circumstances, what type of sex, and what contraception we can use.

Opinion and just plain silly. I guess that C-sections are abortion then since they don't come through the birth canal.

A c-section is still birth and the end of gestation.

There are many people found guilty of murdering unborn children when they murder pregnant woman. It's very common. There is plenty of precidence here.

A precedent that never should have been permitted. If you murder a pregnant woman, you've comitted murder. If the state really finds it necessary to tack on a secondary charge that is still dependant of guilt in the primary charge of murdering the mother, they can charge with illegal abortion.

The notion that killing a fetus is muder is horrible precedent.

The simple fact is that it would have been illegal for anyone -- including trained medical doctors -- to abort this child at this stage of pregnancy. But somehow you think it should be legal for an untrained person to do it with a gun?

Truly, your intellect is dizzying.

I understand that you have a deep-seated hatred for women and children, and this causes you to believe the twisted things you do. But you should understand that not everyone shares your views.


Shouldn't you be on your knees somewhere being gay for God?

This was illegal, since Roe vs. Wade only allows for 3rd trimester abortions for health-related reasons.

Roe v Wade, so far as I know, didn't address the length of pregnancy at all.

I believe Roe vs. Wade establishes viability for a fetus at week 24. This was obviously around week 36, since she describes in the above quote as having contractions, which is what prompted this crime.

Again, I don't think Roe v Wade established any such limit. What it established was that the State has no reasonable claim for limiting abortion in the first trimest. It can enact reasonable regulation which is narrowly limited to maintaining the health of the mother in the second trimest. In the third trimester a State may outlaw abortion so long as there are sufficient exceptions made for the health of the mother.

How any of you can justify this action as legal and right is simply dumbfounding.

What is right and what is legal are frequently two different things...and legality must overcome morality if the legality benefits the accused. Morality, on the other hand, can trump legality in defense of a States charges, in some circumstances.


['quote]How can the exact action be murder in one state, and completely ok in another? The mind boggles at the legal acrobatics needed to make that happen.[/QUOTE]

States have the right to make such laws as they see fit, so long as those laws do not attempt to trump Federal law on the specific issue and do not breech the Constitutional rights of the people.

Thanks for stating one of the key issues against abortion out in the open so plainly. If your birth control methods fail, abortion is not "Plan B". (Actually Plan B pill is Plan B. But we already have birth control methods such as the IUD that unsafely do what the pill does, so RU486 is not in the same catagory as sucking the baby's brains out.)

Except A) for the first trimest, at least, and through the second trimest, the majority of the time, abortion can be Plan B. It is a perfectly fine alternative to bearing a child against your will.

B) You folks fought Plan B for damn near two decades.

We've already been over this. Birth is not the defining moment of when a living human being exists.
Living = fetuses are alive.

No, they are not alive. They are on biological life support. Left to their own devices, without said life support (Mom), they would be incapable of survival.

being = This is the sticky wicket, because we don't yet have a handle on when beinghood is conferred. If you define it as being self-aware, then any infant that can't communicate the fact that it thinks to another human being, then it's not a "living human being" years after it's born. If you define it as detectable human brain wave activity, then it's a living human being while still in the womb.

The human brain can continue to emit electrical wave activity some 35ish hours after death...

Do you deny all the studies done that infants do learn and imprint on the sound of their mother (and father's) voices while still enwombed? That they already pick up preliminary language skills and identify with the language mainly spoken outside their mother's womb? Like it or not, fetuses can and do learn while in the womb. They are not in a state of suspended animation, nor somehow in a trance like state.

I've never seen a study which indicates any such thing with legitimacy. Hell, you can just look at a newborn and realize the lil bastard doesn't understand a thing you say.

How do you get around the fact that you are essentially declaring a group of people non-persons by their place of residence, rather than say, the color of their skin?
Look up Dred Scott (1856) sometime. They used the same logic you are now.[/QUOTE]

Shouldn't you be on your knees somewhere being gay for God?
Dont you have women to batter and children to abuse? Whee, this debate stuff is fun =/

I think the pharmacists, and the FDA are refusing to dispense or dragging their heels approving, the RU486 pill. I don't see a problem with the pill myself,
While a pharmacist is not legally bound to dispense any drug...

They are bound by their professional oath.

I know of a pharmacist here locally who had to change jobs because he would not fill scripts for Plan B. Personally, I think he should lose his license.

B) You folks fought Plan B for damn near two decades.
I could restate the eye rolling frustration at being stereotyped, but sure, there are Christians who fully believe life begins at fertilization. With that view, it's not difficult to see how they would object to something that prevents implantation. I never have seen a protracted explanation on how that view meshes with the completely legal (and uterus damaging) IUD, or Intra-Uterine Device, which also prevents implantation.

I would like to clarify what seems to be an appalling misapprehension about Christians. Most of us, except for Catholics, as far as I know, have no problem with condoms, spermicides, the pill, or any other birth control methods. But I keep seeing "you folks all have a problem with birth control, etc, etc." We don't, but quite a few people have a problem with a subset of the sex education issue, which is another issue.

y take on that is the state does not get to force the parents to accept their timetable on when to educate their kids on sex. That is the parents' responsiblity, and if they want to waive it, they can, but if they don't want to waive it, they shouldn't be forced to by fiat.

No, they are not alive. They are on biological life support. Left to their own devices, without said life support (Mom), they would be incapable of survival.
Biologically speaking, the cells uptake oxygen, produce ATP, perform the Krebs cycle, etc, so they are. You are using a different definition of alive. I am guessing you are defining alive as being able to exist without mom. So they are alive at about age 7, 10, or whenever they can run down their own deer and kill it?


The human brain can continue to emit electrical wave activity some 35ish hours after death... Will this activity read on an EEG? I would have a hard time believing it would. Did you never read the whole UDDA debate? In 42/50 states, according to both medical and legal definitions, humans don't die until brain wave activity and heartbeat irreversibly cease. I'm thinking they didn't wait a day and a half to write the time of death down, so maybe they know something we don't.

Surely you're not suggesting that if their daughter gets pregnant, the fate of the embryo is solely the <i>parents'</i> decision. Or that the parents get to decide whether their child gets infected with HIV or gets pregnant. Well, again, you didn't specify. Are we talking about an underage daughter, or one of legal age? Underage daughters and sons cannot give consent, which is why you have charges of statutory rape between a minor and an adult. They cannot enter into binding contracts, they cannot so much as go on some field trips without the parent or legal guardian signing a permission slip, they can't undergo voluntary surgery* without the guardian signing whole reams of consent forms, so they also wouldn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy** without parental consent, since I believe it is classfied as a surgical procedure. Parents pay the bills, they set the rules. Not the state, not the courts, and certainly not you or I.

*Emergency involuntary surgery done to save the life of the individual is a separate matter.
** If the daughter was young enough that a pregnancy might indeed be fatal, or a blood relative was the father, then the state might have grounds to step in.

The right-wing Christians. Although they no longer have the power to declare birth control illegal, they do everything they can prevent people (especially young women) from obtaining birth control.
As much fun as you're having caricaturing Christians as power hungry, women hating misogynists, I'm going to call shenaginans on this complete fabrication. Women of legal age can obtain all the birth control they want, with anyone's blessing. If the female in question is still legally a minor, you refer to the legal guardian of said minor to get their input on the matter, in most cases, the parents of said minor. Some parents might say yes, some may say maybe if you do your homework and take out the trash, some might say no. Whatever they say, that is their decision. If they say "grab all the RU486 you want honey", then I will respect their decision. If they say "We don't want you experimenting with anything leading to birth control methods", then you will respect their decision. They are the parents. You are not the parents. I am not the parents. If you want to force your particular beliefs on the timing of birth control availability on someone, have some kids and knock yourself out.

Sex education in schools isn't about sex, it's a Christian abstinence sermon. It ignores the reality that most of the children <i>will</i> have sex, and won't have free access to tools to prevent unwanted pregnancy and spread of STDs. Condom ads are attacked as lewd and obscene. Pharmacists refuse to dispense birth control, or create additional hurdles to women needing it. If there's another birth control method as effective as abstinence at preventing STDs and pregnancy, I'm sure we would have heard of it by now. By the way, you did know that condoms, the widely touted means of prevention of HIV infection, have naturally occurring spaces in the plastic of the condom under an electron microscope? And surely you know the size of the spaces (in microns) within the macromolecules? And you also know the diameter of the average HIV protein sheath (in microns)? If you need help on those numbers, there's always Wikipedia. Suffice it to say, condoms do not stop the HIV virus.

Yes, the zealots don't only want to outlaw abortion, they want to control every aspect of sex, including whom we can have sex with, under what circumstances, what type of sex, and what contraception we can use.

Now you're just rambling. Seriously, read over that last bit. I thought I was paranoid. You don't really think the zealots (if they exist at all; I haven't met anyone cackling about controlling all sex on the planet) are going to dictate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes? Enforcement would be a bit difficult I think.

Now circumstances are another thing. There's private, and then there's public. I don't think it's just zealots that don't want to see two naked old hairy men screwing each others' brains out in the lobby of the local theater, or mall food court.

Myth #2: HIV can pass through condoms

A commonly held misperception is that latex condoms contain "holes" that allow passage of HIV. Although this may be true for natural membrane condoms, laboratory studies show that intact latex condoms provide a continuous barrier to microorganisms, including HIV, as well as sperm.
http://www.thebody.com/cdc/factcond.html
which is an article provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

You need to consider the properties of the fluid that HIV is suspended in; it's not like a condom will be exposed to "pure" HIV.

Besides, why should birth control methods have to be 100% as effective as abstinence to be worthwhile?

How do you get around the fact that you are essentially declaring a group of people non-persons by their place of residence, rather than say, the color of their skin?
Look up Dred Scott (1856) sometime. They used the same logic you are now.
Very true, but its gets even worse.

The pre-abolition viewpoint that black people didnt count as human beings, and the notion that children in utero are not people, are both terrible and inaccurate. But at least they are consistent.

The left wing viewpoint is nowhere near this consistent. Instead, the child is a person only if the mother wants to consider it one. Thus, its legal to cut it into pieces and suck it out by vaccuum, without anasthesia. But the second the mother decides she wants it, it becomes a person, and the father is forced to pay 18 years of child support. Oops, five minutes later, she changes her mind. Now its not a person anymore, lets chop it up, and if the father tries to stop her, he cna go to jail for doing so. Cute baby comes on in a commercial on TV, and shes feeling all maternal? Whee, now its a person again!

Being a liberal must be terribly confusing.

Dred Scott was a more reasonable decision than the modern left wing view of the personhood of children in utero.

My take on that is the state does not get to force the parents to accept their timetable on when to educate their kids on sex. That is the parents' responsiblity, and if they want to waive it, they can, but if they don't want to waive it, they shouldn't be forced to by fiat.

Every time our school had sex ed they sent home notices to parents that they can sign something and their kid doesn't have to go.

Pretty sure that all/most public schools do the same thing.

The politics of sex ed has very little to do with teaching your own kids about sex, as it is what people think OTHER peoples kids should be taught about sex.

http://www.thebody.com/cdc/factcond.html
which is an article provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

You need to consider the properties of the fluid that HIV is suspended in; it's not like a condom will be exposed to "pure" HIV.

Besides, why should birth control methods have to be 100% as effective as abstinence to be worthwhile?

For birth control, condoms are very effective. However, in all the studies I've read, a percentage of people apparently lack the brain power to use them correctly. These people are also the ones that probably shouldn't be breeding. The CDC greatly laments the 10%-15% error rate in proper condom usage,
Statistics here http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band50/b50-3.html

and blames idiocy (ok, ok, they didn't use that term, they used "user error")

As to the deadly problem of HIV transmission and latex condom usage, in a peer reviewed scientific journal (you can pull down the complete article on Medline)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1411838&dopt=Abstract

we find:

Physical science researchers tested the ability of 89 undamaged latex condoms . . .Leakage of fluorescent dye occurred in 29 condoms . . These findings demonstrated that use of latex condoms can significantly reduce the risk of HIV transmission, but it does not eliminate that risk

So neither natural membrane condoms, nor latex condoms provide complete protection against a 0.1 micron virus named HIV. Now, don't get me wrong, using a condom is much better than not using one. And if the male and the female are using condoms simultaneously(they make them for females too!) then the HIV transmission rate drops from 1%-2% by a factor of 4 down to around .25%, or 1 in 400 chance you'd contract HIV. Of course, this assumes the condom user is not an idiot, and can properly use the condom each of the 400 times. Again, the CDC complains greatly about the ineptness of most condom users in the study you've linked. What's strange about the CDC link, is that two paragraphs down, I find this:

Preventing HIV Infection And Other STDs
Recommended Prevention Strategies
Abstaining from sexual activity is the most effective HIV prevention strategy. However, for individuals who choose to be sexually active, the following are highly effective:

Engaging in sexual activities that do not involve vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse
Having intercourse only with one uninfected partner
Using latex condoms correctly from start to finish with each act of intercourse

So if you want to follow the CDC's complete advice, rather than just the portion you cherry picked:
No anal sex, oral sex, or vaginal sex.
Use the same uninfected partner over and over (monogamy)
Use condoms, following the instructions to the letter: Spoiler is for those that have no desire to read condom instructions!

1. Carefully open the package so the condom does not tear. (Do not use teeth or a sharp object to open the package.) Do not unroll the condom before putting it on.
2. If you are not circumcised, pull back the foreskin. Put the condom on the end of the hard penis. Note: If the condom is initially placed on the penis backwards, do not turn it around. Throw it away and start with a new one.
3. Pinching the tip of the condom to squeeze out air, roll on the condom until it reaches the base of the penis.
4. Check to make sure there is space at the tip and that the condom is not broken.
5. After ejaculation, hold onto the condom at the base of the penis. Keeping the condom on, slide the condom off without spilling the liquid (semen) inside, before the penis gets soft.
6. Dispose of the used condom.

And you have to do that and precisely that every time you choose to have your non-oral, non-anal, non-vaginal sex encounter with your non-infected, monogamous partner.

(What is that exactly? Heavy petting? Man, the CDC's list doesn't leave much, does it? :) )

Underage daughters and sons cannot give consent, which is why you have charges of statutory rape between a minor and an adult.No, statutory rape is based on the middle ages era concept of daughters as property of their fathers -- property which is spoiled if the daughter has sex. It's a crime against the father, not the daughter, which is why the daughter has no say in it.

It has nothing to do with the ability to give consent, that's just one of the modern justifications for keeping this hopelessly outdated law on the books. Teenagers can freely give consent, and you know that full well. Certainly if they can be forced to fight in a foreign country and die for their country, they can engage in a perfectly natural biological function.so they also wouldn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy** without parental consent,Two words for you: emancipated minor.If you want to force your particular beliefs on the timing of birth control availability on someone, have some kids and knock yourself out.<b>You</b> are the one trying to force <b>your</b> beliefs on everyone. I think it's the teenager's choice. If they're raised as right-wing religious wackos, then I fully support their right to force themselves to not have vaginal sex, or to never have an abortion. It's their choice, not their parents, and certainly not yours or mine.Suffice it to say, condoms do not stop the HIV virus./boggle. Condoms are proven as the most effective method of having sex without transmitting HIV. Studies with mixed couples, with one positive and one negative partner, have shown that they can have sex for years and still not co-infect. No method of having sex is 100% safe, because a condom can break, or can be used improperly, but you have to stupid to believe a condom doesn't block HIV.

This is yet another example of religious zealots inventing false information to pressure young adults not to have sex.You don't really think the zealots (if they exist at all; I haven't met anyone cackling about controlling all sex on the planet) are going to dictate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes?They did for centuries until the separation of church and state. They are <i>still</i> attempting to do so. Gay sex, or oral/anal heterosexual sex, is actually illegal in some states. Guess why.

Dont you have women to batter and children to abuse? Whee, this debate stuff is fun =/

...except I don't have a propensity for battering women and I have no children.

You, on the other hand, are so entrenched in the dogmatic crap which you spew daily, its downright wierd.

Wipe your chin, I think The Holy Ghost slimed you.

I could restate the eye rolling frustration at being stereotyped, but sure, there are Christians who fully believe life begins at fertilization. With that view, it's not difficult to see how they would object to something that prevents implantation. I never have seen a protracted explanation on how that view meshes with the completely legal (and uterus damaging) IUD, or Intra-Uterine Device, which also prevents implantation.

I would like to clarify what seems to be an appalling misapprehension about Christians. Most of us, except for Catholics, as far as I know, have no problem with condoms, spermicides, the pill, or any other birth control methods. But I keep seeing "you folks all have a problem with birth control, etc, etc." We don't, but quite a few people have a problem with a subset of the sex education issue, which is another issue.

That's because it isn't the Catholics who always push to keep birth control out of the hands of anyone they can. Its the Christian far-right. Idiocy like trying to give parents the option of not letting their pre-teen daughters get the HPV vaccine, because if she can get HPV and then cancer, she might not be promiscuous. "Hey baby, Sorry you got that cervical cancer, but that's what you get for being a slore"


Biologically speaking, the cells uptake oxygen, produce ATP, perform the Krebs cycle, etc, so they are. You are using a different definition of alive. I am guessing you are defining alive as being able to exist without mom. So they are alive at about age 7, 10, or whenever they can run down their own deer and kill it?

Technically speaking the bacteria eating my feces after I use the restroom are alive also...

And that's a faulty analogy with the deer ****. Humanity has never required people be able to be completely self sufficient. That's why we created families and societies.

But you know, if you are guaranteed to die upon being removed from mom's belly, I don't think you're really alive.


Will this activity read on an EEG? I would have a hard time believing it would. Did you never read the whole UDDA debate? In 42/50 states, according to both medical and legal definitions, humans don't die until brain wave activity and heartbeat irreversibly cease. I'm thinking they didn't wait a day and a half to write the time of death down, so maybe they know something we don't.

There is a reason why you have to wait at least 24 hours to perform the EEG to confirm brain death...

And generally speaking, after a few minutes of heartbeat irreversibly ceasing, the brain is too oxygen deprived to be viable anymore.

That doesn't mean it doesn't emit brain waves still. To declare a person brain dead (even if they can survive on life-support) there must be an eeg and it is taken at least 24 hours later.

I would like to clarify what seems to be an appalling misapprehension about Christians. Most of us, except for Catholics, as far as I know, have no problem with condoms, spermicides, the pill, or any other birth control methods. But I keep seeing "you folks all have a problem with birth control, etc, etc." We don't, but quite a few people have a problem with a subset of the sex education issue, which is another issue.
ost of you actually have no trouble with abortion either, I'm guessing. Since 70% of the population seems to support it.

And yes, Christians other than catholics did at one time want birth control to be illegal. In fact, it WAS illegal until sometime in the 1960's. And Catholics have always been the minority Christian religion in this country, so you can't blame it on them.

Face it. You guys just want to micro-manage everyone elses reproductive tract according to your intrepretation of your Holy Book.

In fact, it WAS illegal until sometime in the 1960's.

That is not entirely true. 1936.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._One_Package_of_Japanese_Pessaries

There is a reason why you have to wait at least 24 hours to perform the EEG to confirm brain death...

What is that reason?

Honestly, here in California, brain death declaration does not follow anything that you mentioned.

Birth control itself was also still illegal in many states in the 1960s. This infuriated William R. Baird, a man who would devote his life to abolishing laws against birth control and abortion. Born in 1932, one of six children in a poor Brooklyn family, Baird was raised to believe it was crucial never to have sex before marriage. When he married in 1953, both he and his wife were sexually inexperienced. After the Korean War, Baird took a job with a pharmaceutical company, which happened to be in the business of manufacturing contraceptive foam. As clinical director, Baird visited a hospital in Harlem in 1963. There he heard the screams of a woman dying from a self-induced, coat-hanger abortion. "She was covered in blood, and she died in my arms." When Baird found out that contraception was illegal in New York, he went to Planned Parenthood to offer his services, but he was snubbed by organization officials. Accepting the role of lone crusader, Baird began going from town to town violating laws against the display of contraceptives. He used a van, which he decorated on the inside like a living room, to bring birth control to poor communities.
http://www.enotalone.com/article/3960.html

This is yet another example of religious zealots inventing false information to pressure young adults not to have sex.They did for centuries until the separation of church and state. They are <i>still</i> attempting to do so. Gay sex, or oral/anal heterosexual sex, is actually illegal in some states. Guess why.

Fortunately this is not so, any longer. But only for the past, what, two years I think? The Supreme Court finally struck such laws down as unconstitutional (it was specifically a Texas sodomy law), saying that the state has no power to dictate the sexual activities between two consenting adults in the privacy of their home. IIRC it was even a unanimous decision.

What is that reason?

Honestly, here in California, brain death declaration does not follow anything that you mentioned.

Perhaps its only for organ harvesting then, but I know that in most states, after brain death, they take an EEG of the brain...then wait at least 24 hours and take another one, to make absolutely sure that brain is dead. Some places will then wait another 24 hours (if the person is on life support so the organs aren't going rotten in there obviously, especially since organs such as the heart have an 8 hour window from harvest to implantation before they are just so much bad meat).

From This article (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410525)

The authors of the Harvard criteria thought that electrocerebral silence was of great confirmatory value.[2] Thus, the EEG became the first supporting study for the determination of brain death and is still used despite important limitations.[3] Minor transient residual EEG activity can be present in the face of clinical brain death.[4] The EEG is subject to electrical artifacts in the intensive care environment.[3] It has failed to recognize reversibility of coma in patients with drug intoxication.[5,6] More recently, evoked potentials (EPs), the potentials generated by the nervous system in response to sensory stimuli, have been proposed as better tools. Visual EPs, somatosensory EPs, and brain stem auditory EPs (BAEPs) can be used.[

Emphasis added...teh deadified brain still produces EEG activity. Question me not, for my unlying claims are usually correct! I may screw up in the details at times (stupid contradictory medical hoodoo), but I am correctified!

To agree with you, a "brain dead" brain CAN produce electrical signals, which an EEG can pick up. You are correctified on that point, Aidon.

You, on the other hand, are so entrenched in the dogmatic crap which you spew daily, its downright wierd.
There you go, making **** up again. Nothing I've ever posted on this board has a goddam thing to do with religion. You don't agree with my viewpoints, so you, like Tudamorf, decide to accuse me of holding these beliefs for religious reasons. You make **** up.

Well, if we are allowed to make up reasons out of friggin nowhere why our opponents believe the things they do, then I reserve the right to decide that you support abortion only because you love any procedure that kills children and destroys women's psychological well being. Your beliefs are based, at their root, on a deep-seated hatred and distrust of women and children, likely stemming from abuse that happened to you during your own childhood.

Alternatively, we could start taking each other at face value. Your call.

No, statutory rape is based on the middle ages era concept of daughters as property of their fathers -- property which is spoiled if the daughter has sex. It's a crime against the father, not the daughter, which is why the daughter has no say in it. It has nothing to do with the ability to give consent, that's just one of the modern justifications for keeping this hopelessly outdated law on the books. Teenagers can freely give consent, and you know that full well.

Teenagers cannot give legal consent. That's why they have. . . wait for it. .. a legal guardian. Clear?

Certainly if they can be forced to fight in a foreign country and die for their country, they can engage in a perfectly natural biological function.
I agree completely. Draft age is 18. For males only. Women cannot be forced to fight and die for their country. Per your own words above, that's when they can engage in the sexual, perfectly natural, biological function.

Two words for you: emancipated minor.
Two words for you: Legal Guardian. Definition: One who holds the legal rights of the minor in abeyance until the minor reaches the age of his or her majority. Such as the right to enter into a binding contract, which is part and parcel of legally being able to give consent.

<b>You</b> are the one trying to force <b>your</b> beliefs on everyone.
I, by myself, would fail at forcing my beliefs on anyone, even if I was trying to do so. I don't think you're really worried about me. If everyone here on this thread is so sure about the 70% majority support of abortion at any age, without parental consent, then the ideal would be to hold a national referendum and have everyone vote yay or nay, and then ban further legislation on abortion in the US forever, regardless of outcome. That would never happen, of course, because those of you that support abortion at any age know what the results would be..

I think it's the teenager's choice. If they're raised as right-wing religious wackos, then I fully support their right to force themselves to not have vaginal sex, or to never have an abortion. It's their choice, not their parents, and certainly not yours or mine

You can think it's the minor's choice all you want, but legally, it is not, and so far, the US still goes by what's legal, not what Tudamorf thinks.

Condoms are proven as the most effective method of having sex without transmitting HIV. Studies with mixed couples, with one positive and one negative partner, have shown that they can have sex for years and still not co-infect. No method of having sex is 100% safe, because a condom can break, or can be used improperly, but you have to stupid to believe a condom doesn't block HIV.

First, you're wrong; there is a 100% safe sex method, if you're simply referring to catching HIV through it as a transmission vector. If you have only ever had sex with one partner, and that partner has only ever had sex with you, then you won't catch HIV through the sex. You might sit on an HIV needle, or some other foreign vector, but the sex won't be the cause of the HIV. Condoms will not completely, irrevocably block all HIV particles. I guess the scientific journal of Sex Transm Dis is stupid. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1411838&dopt=Abstract

This is yet another example of religious zealots inventing false information to pressure young adults not to have sex.They did for centuries until the separation of church and state. They are <i>still</i> attempting to do so. Gay sex, or oral/anal heterosexual sex, is actually illegal in some states. Guess why.

You display a rather large paranoia at the religious zealots coming to take your sex away. You don't really know me, my religious beliefs, nor my zeal or lack thereof, yet you continually make these ad hominem attacks. You think when those laws were on the books that they were enforced? I tire of the constant, incessant stereotyping of Christians as some sort of cosmic kill-joys, out to cram everyone back into Victorian garb.

Idiocy like trying to give parents the option of not letting their pre-teen daughters get the HPV vaccine, because if she can get HPV and then cancer, she might not be promiscuous. "Hey baby, Sorry you got that cervical cancer, but that's what you get for being a slore"

Parental control over medicine administered to their child has been hotly debated for years. Unless the child will definitely prove to be a health hazard to himself/herself and others, though, non-essential medical treatment has always been in the hands of the parents, or legal guardian. Parents pay the bills, have all the responsibility for taking care of the kids, and are liable for anything the kids do until they turn 18, but you don't want them to have the right to decide what is done to the child?

I may disagree with some of the actions of some of the parents, but that isn't my kid or your kid, it is their kid. I don't have the right to tell them how to raise their kid and you don't either. Unless they are breaking the law. Is it against the law not to get the HPV vaccine?

And that's a faulty analogy with the deer ****. Humanity has never required people be able to be completely self sufficient. That's why we created families and societies.

Yet, if the families decide on a course of action for their families that you disagree with, you want to remove the right from them to decide what's best for their families.

Teenagers cannot give legal consent. That's why they have. . . wait for it. .. a legal guardian. Clear?And that does not apply to an emancipated minor. Clear?Minors Living Separately and Apart
<b>Cal. Fam. Code 6922</b>
A minor may consent to his/her own medical or dental care if:

* the minor is age 15 or older;
* the minor is living separately and apart from his/her parents or guardian with or without the consent of a parent or guardian and regardless of the duration of the separate residence; and
* the minor is managing his/her own financial affairs, regardless of the source of the minor's income.Also, a legal guardian isn't the same as a legal slave owner. Teenagers don't have to ask their parents to have sex, or engage in most other day-to-day activities.You display a rather large paranoia at the religious zealots coming to take your sex away.It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. I see the Christian right constantly attempting to pass laws that take away our rights.You think when those laws were on the books that they were enforced? I tire of the constant, incessant stereotyping of Christians as some sort of cosmic kill-joys, out to cram everyone back into Victorian garb.A stereotype derived from centuries of brutal and oppressive history. And yes, those laws were enforced, in the United States and elsewhere. There have been constant legal challenges to them because they are so unfair.

To agree with you, a "brain dead" brain CAN produce electrical signals, which an EEG can pick up. You are correctified on that point, Aidon.

There is also the electrical waves coming from Mom, though they are supposed to be able filter those.

What I want to know is how they do a reasonable EEG on a fetus? They reach way up there, pierce the placent and stick widdle bitty electrodes on its head?

There you go, making **** up again. Nothing I've ever posted on this board has a goddam thing to do with religion. You don't agree with my viewpoints, so you, like Tudamorf, decide to accuse me of holding these beliefs for religious reasons. You make **** up.

The belief that a fetus is somehow a person is an innately religious belief which is deritive of the notion that the human is possessed of a soul from the moment of conception.

Its not biological. Its been religious folks who have been attempting, for decades, to adjust the biological to fit their religious notions.

"Oh, see, it moved its legs, it must have a soul", essentially.

Well, if we are allowed to make up reasons out of friggin nowhere why our opponents believe the things they do, then I reserve the right to decide that you support abortion only because you love any procedure that kills children and destroys women's psychological well being. Your beliefs are based, at their root, on a deep-seated hatred and distrust of women and children, likely stemming from abuse that happened to you during your own childhood.

Well, as I don't support any procedures which kill children and most women in our nation would not call a male who supported her right to choose a misogynist, I'd have to suggest you're simply wrong. Whereas, your beliefs are religious in nature. They've always been religious in nature. They will always be religious in nature. Because by science, you're wrong. An embryo or fetus is not a viable human being (until perhaps late in the pregnancy).

Teenagers cannot give legal consent. That's why they have. . . wait for it. .. a legal guardian. Clear?

And yet, teenagers can be held legally responsible for criminal acts, as if they were an adult. The double standard is ridiculous.


I agree completely. Draft age is 18. For males only. Women cannot be forced to fight and die for their country. Per your own words above, that's when they can engage in the sexual, perfectly natural, biological function.

Actually, its 17. But you don't have to register for the Selective Service until your 18. But in any situation where they reinstated the draft, they will almost certainly devise a means of getting those 17 y/o's


Two words for you: Legal Guardian. Definition: One who holds the legal rights of the minor in abeyance until the minor reaches the age of his or her majority. Such as the right to enter into a binding contract, which is part and parcel of legally being able to give consent.

Then, by that reasoning, a kid can't hitch a ride with their friends, because their parents haven't given consent. Sexual relations are not a binding contract. And again, I refer back to the double standard mentioned above.


I, by myself, would fail at forcing my beliefs on anyone, even if I was trying to do so. I don't think you're really worried about me. If everyone here on this thread is so sure about the 70% majority support of abortion at any age, without parental consent, then the ideal would be to hold a national referendum and have everyone vote yay or nay, and then ban further legislation on abortion in the US forever, regardless of outcome. That would never happen, of course, because those of you that support abortion at any age know what the results would be..

To be sure, I do not disagree with the notion that the parents must give consent before any medical procedure is performed on a minor. Its the parent's right and their responsibility to know what medical issues their child is having.

But that doesn't mean that the laws of consent aren't idiodic for chiltlin over 14 or so.



You display a rather large paranoia at the religious zealots coming to take your sex away. You don't really know me, my religious beliefs, nor my zeal or lack thereof, yet you continually make these ad hominem attacks. You think when those laws were on the books that they were enforced? I tire of the constant, incessant stereotyping of Christians as some sort of cosmic kill-joys, out to cram everyone back into Victorian garb.

Then I'd suggest the moderate Christians get on the case of the far right evangelicals to stop trying to impose their beliefs on our governmental system...