Tuesday, October 25th 2005
Open Forum: Prop 73
Every couple of days between now and the election, we’ll have an Open Forum post on each of the propositions. I imagine that not everyone shares the same opinion on each one or it’s going to be a very boring election. So in the spirit of constructive debate, here’s the first one.
Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies has a through guide to the propositions, with links to both sides of each issue. I’ll be excerpting from the guide as a starting point.
Proposition 73: Parental Notification of Abortion
This initiative would require doctors to notify a minor’s parent or legal guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion. Parental consent is not required, only a 48-hour waiting period. The minor can apply for a waiver from a judge, and a physician may perform an abortion without notification in a medical emergency. The initiative also requires that physicians report abortions, and that the State compile statistics.
Proponents of the initiative claim that their main concern is the safety of girls, not eliminating abortion. They argue that minors need help to make important health decisions. They claim that the 48-hour waiting period ensures that parents have a realistic opportunity to consult with their daughter and explore her options before she makes an irrevocable decision.
Opponents argue that parental notification laws do nothing to keep teens safe or promote family communication. They hold that the real outcome of these laws is delayed medical care for the most vulnerable teens, putting them at risk for health complications.
Looking out for teen safety or anti-abortion trojan horse? Go.
Hmm… well, we can both look out for teen safety and avoid abortions through the proper use of Trojans.
In my case, though, I both hate kids and hate teens, so either way, I’m voting no.
Comment by Beetle — 10/25/2005 @ 9:01 am
In my opinion 73 is just a crutch for parents who refuse to be strict enough. If they refuse to instill a sense of responsibility onto their children, they deserve the consequences. If the greater risk of their daughter being dead, or sterile, or have complications in future wanted pregnancies is something people are alright with, when they raise little sluts, than so be it. All 73 does is shield the weak and vulnerable underbelly of today’s liberal leaning society. Conservatives should Vote NO, because it won’t necessarily reduce the number of abortions, but will benefit slacker parents.
(PS: just because liberal groups like NOW oppose it does not mean one should automatically support.)
Comment by HB — 10/25/2005 @ 12:37 pm
HB: That’s very laissez-faire of you. I’m left wondering how you support all the other statist measures out there.
In this case, I’m leaning toward Yes on 73. I’m personally against abortion, but since it’s legal in this state, I would think that it would be one of those actions where minors need to have parental permission. Kind of like how you need your parents permission to get a piercing. I mean if our legal system is going to discriminate (not in the bad way) between adults and minors, then you’ve got to admit that getting an abortion is one of those cases.
Comment by patr — 10/25/2005 @ 1:12 pm
The whiny feminists who think that Pro-Choice means “proliferation of abortion” and therefore are up in arms over this Prop are the same ones who support 5-day waiting periods and background checks for purchasing firearms.
It’s not exactly gun control, right? We’re not taking the guns away, right? So why would you 2nd Amendment nuts get all riled up over laws like this?
It’s the same principle. Except that guns are written into our beloved Constitution– even given their own amendment. Whereas murdering babies in the womb? The whole Roe v. Wade stink was meant to be evaluated with the whole tenth amendment, if I’ve done my homework.
In any case, my stockpile of guns versus your unfettered and unadulterated abortions? You wanna slow me down without taking my guns away, fine. Just don’t complain about parental notification then.
go bears,
Jihad Jimmy
Comment by Jihad Jimmy, Minister of War Crimes and Chief Defender of the Faith — 10/25/2005 @ 1:36 pm
I was walking through Sproul today and someone passing out No on 73 fliers handed one to me and said “Under Prop 73 you’d be pregnant”
um…
And apparently there will be this “Maze” tomorrow that will represent how Prop 73 will make it harder to get an abortion.
Comment by patr — 10/25/2005 @ 5:10 pm
The maze is actually supposed to represent the legal loopholes a child is expected to go through to get an abortion without parental notification, making the process much more of an ordeal than it needs to be.
Comment by Donald — 10/25/2005 @ 5:25 pm
I’ve been skipping Sproul of late, Pat. Was it ASUC-funded?
Comment by Beetle — 10/25/2005 @ 5:34 pm
It’s on the Berkeley ACLU flier. Yep *ASUC SPONSORED* and don’t forget *Wheelchair Accessible*
Comment by patr — 10/25/2005 @ 5:47 pm
Patrick,
You realize every event put on by every student group is “ASUC Sponsored”, right?
Comment by Donald — 10/25/2005 @ 5:52 pm
Just answering the question. I assume that if it’s by an ASUC sponsored student group, some ASUC money is going towards holding the event.
Comment by patr — 10/25/2005 @ 6:10 pm
Not necessarily. Every event I’ve ever held for a student group was ASUC Sponsored. It’s just something that comes with being a student group.
The only ASUC money I’ve ever used was to print fliers and buy food, and that came out of student group allocations.
Comment by Donald — 10/25/2005 @ 6:16 pm
Yeah, my question was whether the ASUC was running it directly, as they sometimes do for certain issues.
Comment by Beetle — 10/25/2005 @ 7:09 pm
Yes on 73 of course. However it wont help to save babies from being killed though.
United States must ban or strictly limit abortion in the whole country.
Comment by Yuriy Pasko — 10/25/2005 @ 11:23 pm
Yuriy, now you’re calling for a greater role for the national government? Even opponents of Roe v. Wade aren’t asking for a national ban, they’re proposing letting states decide to what extent abortions hsould be permitted or banned.
Anything at the national level is probably bad policy.
Comment by DTI — 10/26/2005 @ 11:39 am
I have no problem with national government having greater control of some select issues because there are many social and economic issues that they are controlling already. I am sure a person’s life is supposed to be protected no matter what state they’re in. If you leave it up to states it means the states get to interpret what life is. Scientifically life is anything that has a unique dna, therefore a fetus is human life.
Comment by Yuriy Pasko — 10/26/2005 @ 11:46 am
Won’t someone please think of the phytoplankton?!
Comment by Donald — 10/26/2005 @ 11:58 am
I voted yes.. absentee ballot.
They can’t buy smokes or drinks, but they can have an abortion? Egads!
Comment by Zibs the Bowler — 10/26/2005 @ 5:01 pm
I’m with Zibs here, if I couldn’t get pierced without parental consent, they sure as hell shouldn’t have abortions without notification. It’s not consent, its just a piece of paper or a phone call. Kids are minors and their parents responsiblity in every legal sense, why not this one?
Comment by funsize — 10/26/2005 @ 7:20 pm
Oh come on, Donald, who do you expect to buy that bullshit. YOU are the one who wouldn’t hurt plankton, or mice, or flies or any other pests, but you are alright with killing the unborn. That’s the height of hypocricy on your part. Leave it to a crazy hippie vegan to make sense of things, HA!
Comment by HB — 10/26/2005 @ 9:45 pm
I have no problem with killing non-sentient life… like phytoplankton or early pregnancy fetuses (fetusi?).
Comment by Anonymous — 10/27/2005 @ 7:20 am
The above was me obviously.
Comment by Donald — 10/27/2005 @ 7:21 am
I am afraid Donald, that plangton is a sentient being. Here is proof http://ricksaphire.com/Photos/plankton.jpg
On a serious note, non-sentient life such as plangton cannot grow up into a human being. And by distinguishing sentient beings from non-sentient are you suggesting that since mice are sentient they are more valuable than life that is growing into a person within the womb?
Comment by Yuriy Pasko — 10/27/2005 @ 12:24 pm
also how do you know that a developing child does not have any feelings (meaning non-sentient) I am sure they can feel pain in early stages of development while they’re still in the womb.
Comment by Yuriy Pasko — 10/27/2005 @ 12:26 pm
Are we really discussing fetal pain here? I thought that myth was proven bogus ages ago.
And since when has your decision to get or not get a tattoo or piercing completely altered your life? And when have you needed to get a tattoo because your dad raped you?
Comment by !!! — 10/29/2005 @ 1:22 pm
“And by distinguishing sentient beings from non-sentient are you suggesting that since mice are sentient they are more valuable than life that is growing into a person within the womb?”
I am suggesting that a cockroach is more worthy of consideration than a bundle of cells lacking either pain receptors or brain function, a bundle of cells never recognizing its existence.
I would also suggest that the carrier of said bundle of cells (and society as a whole) is substantially more worthy of consideration than either the cockroach or the bundle of cells. An unwanted pregnancy carried to term is tramatic. Furthermore, the parting of the (then sentient) child through adoption proceedings is also cause for much anguish, and unnecessary in a world already plagued with overpopulation. No one should be forced through that.
And while not entirely relevant to the conversation, I am consistently amazed that it’s usually the same people so insistent on bringing unwanted children into the world that refuse to help them once they’re here. Why it’s unacceptable to terminate a 1 month pregnancy but perfectly acceptable to let an 8 year old boy die because the sacred market deemed water pollution a necessary shared cost or let millions of children starve in the world because its just too darn-tootin’ expensive to keep them alive, I’ll never understand.
Comment by Donald — 10/29/2005 @ 3:14 pm
Well Donald, in your case I dont expect you to understand many things anyway.
I do believe that US Government should invest as much money as possible into child care centers and orphanages at least within this country. Once this problem is more or less under control maybe we can consider poor kids in other countries.
Comment by Yuriy Pasko — 10/29/2005 @ 5:40 pm
ie. Iraq (200 billion to the wind, all for a pack of lies)
Comment by HB — 10/29/2005 @ 8:23 pm
“Well Donald, in your case I dont expect you to understand many things anyway.”
Your gift of oratory never ceases to amaze me, Yuriy.
“I do believe that US Government should invest as much money as possible into child care centers and orphanages at least within this country.”
Orphanages? What about guaranteed health care? What about ensuring educational opportunity through subsidized education? Are you, like most conservatives not from Montana, opposed to environmental protection?
If we were to ban abortions, demand for food stamps, welfare, SSI, and other entitlements would increase by an overwhelming amount, as would the property taxes that fund schools in most states. The adoption system would be overrun with children, making it essential to broaden the potential parent pool (something I know you are opposed to). Even then, there probably wouldn’t be enough potential parents to cover the demand, leading to a sharp increase in orphanage populations. Also, the few foreign children who are saved from a life of decrepit poverty in the third world would be cut off from the American lifeline of adoption.
Are you prepared to shoulder those costs? Most American conservatives aren’t, but they can rest comfortably knowing that they can be simultaneously outraged at abortion and never have to see the consequences of what would happen if abortion were outlawed. The revocation of Roe v. Wade would be the single greatest thing that could happen to the Democratic party, and the Republican elite(should) know this.
Comment by Donald — 10/30/2005 @ 12:08 pm
of course I am for public education and environmental protection and some health care. It all depends how much is given and to whom. I think it should be much more limited, there you go.
Comment by Yuriy Pasko — 10/30/2005 @ 1:26 pm
Reasons why aborion is good:
1) Population control
2) Less potential welfare benefit costs
3) Less dumbasses walking around
4) Some races proliferate too much as it is
5) Solution to World Hunger
Comment by Anonymous — 10/30/2005 @ 4:49 pm
More limited environmental protection???
How can you possibly side with every other uncompassionate and selfish “conservative” (Republican) and still claim to be for environment? Would you expect God to single you out and save you from the effects of pollution? especially when you side against the have-nots? I’m sure you know all about places with outrageous pollution levels, and it’s not pretty.
We should spend as much as it takes and we should tax accordingly. We should not let billionaires like Heinz-Kerry get away with paying 14-15% in taxes, because of loopholes, while the poor and middle class is stuck with extra payroll and sales tax.
Comment by HB — 10/30/2005 @ 5:04 pm
Amen to that, HB!
Comment by KTP — 10/30/2005 @ 5:11 pm
A prominent member of BCR once told me that global warming and ozone depletion aren’t problems, because god will fix the environment if things get too bad. That’s the intellectual rigor we’re fighting against here.
Comment by Donald — 10/30/2005 @ 5:40 pm
Donald, it depends on who you consider prominent. If I told you Snehal was a prominent member of SJP, would you believe me?
Comment by RepBast1984 — 10/31/2005 @ 12:44 am
HB, overtaxing the “rich” against their will and giving the money to the “poor” cannot be justified by the Bible because the individuals who are the source of the funds are most of the time not happy about sharing their wealth unless they do it voluntarily by contributing to charities of their choice or giving out alms. If it cannot be justified by the Bible then I would like to see your moral rationale for it. In addition to that, if the government is in charge of utilizing the taxes to help the “poor” how can we be sure it spent wisely?
Comment by Yuriy Pasko — 10/31/2005 @ 2:43 am
“Donald, it depends on who you consider prominent. If I told you Snehal was a prominent member of SJP, would you believe me?”
I’ve heard the name, but I don’t really know who he is.
But I assure you, with regards to the person I’m talking about, there’s no question that they are a major figure in BCR.
Comment by Donald — 10/31/2005 @ 3:07 am
“If it cannot be justified by the Bible then I would like to see your moral rationale for it.”
Yuriy wasn’t the person I was referring to, but it’s all the same. When policy debates feature some Judean scribe from 100 CE battling the forces of legitimate economics and policy deliberation, we have a problem. And that’s increasingly the terrain of the Republican party.
Comment by Donald — 10/31/2005 @ 3:10 am
if it is “the terrain of the republican party” then maybe you should leave Donald. You dont even understand why Bible was brought up in this argument and you have to insert some a cynical criticism of it. Hmm…you are so religio-phobic, you are probably a Christian or a Jew hiding in the closet, maybe you should come out.
Comment by Yuriy Pasko — 10/31/2005 @ 4:58 am
While Yuriy is not a perfect example of the American conservative I fear most (since he is more of a totalitarian peasant theocrat than a vaguely free market theocrat), I think the above is enough to rest my case.
Cheers!
Comment by Donald — 10/31/2005 @ 8:57 am
Wow Donald, I am surprised you concluded that I am totalitarian or theocrat. (how typical of you to change the subject) I think I am pretty far from either of these, especially from theocrat. I actually don’t base any of my politcal stances on the Bible. I may support the values you might associate with totalitarianism, but if we can organize a really efficient direct democracy I would be for it.
Comment by Yuriy Pasko — 10/31/2005 @ 10:33 am
My moral rationale?
Well first of all it’s not about them, it’s about me. I don’t want people sleeping in the street or having their children work at an early age or seniors starving to death. The government has the POWER to cure social ills (that you can’t deny, it’s historically true) and Christians have the WILL (or should have it). Why prevent the two from working together?
If I do nothing, or support policies that do nothing, to alleviate problems than I approve of that suffering and I am to be held RESPONSIBLE for the situation.
And Donald you are an idiot to cause unnecessary division. All this moaning and groaning about theocracy only pushes genuinely good Christians to the Republican Party in a terrible alliance with “get-rich-quit-now” business and “laissez-faire-consequences-damned” libertarians. Thus the greater good is sacrificed in the process.
Comment by HB — 10/31/2005 @ 1:09 pm
HB,
I’m touched you think I wield such great influence, but in all seriousness, my problem is not with religious people, but rather with religious people who expect their myths to be taught in classrooms, their fictional texts to be provided special treatment in public buildings, and their 2500 year old morality to dictate what others do in their own lives. In short, my problem is with religious people who want their religion to be preferred over all others (or none at all). There are plenty of genuinely religious people who are radically in favor of the separation of church and state, and for good reason.
Comment by Donald — 10/31/2005 @ 3:48 pm
“I’m touched you think I wield such great influence”
not sure what you mean there, but the rest contradicted in the last sentence. in any case that kind of rhetoric is at the core of the misunderstanding among your kind.
Comment by HB — 10/31/2005 @ 7:45 pm
hmm..calling the history from religious texts “myths” and the texts “fictional” is very irrational of you Donald.
I would agree that not all of them are verifiable or that the conclusions drawn from them valid, but you have no basis to say that they are fictional. At least, to be fair, you could say “possibly fictional” or “unbeliavable to me” but calling the religious texts outright fictional and mythological is insulting.
Comment by Yuriy Pasko — 10/31/2005 @ 10:20 pm
I’m pretty sure that was the point.
Comment by Beetle — 10/31/2005 @ 11:35 pm
actually, knowing Donald for a long time, I am pretty sure he meant its all fiction.
Comment by Yuriy Pasko — 11/1/2005 @ 12:40 am
“but the rest contradicted in the last sentence”
Where’s the contradiction? I firmly support the right of religious people to practice their faith, and there are many religious groups that agree with me.
Comment by Donald — 11/1/2005 @ 8:43 am
“calling the history from religious texts “myths” and the texts “fictional” is very irrational of you Donald.”
Please explain to me how it is irrational to think that the burden on proof lies with those who suggest that miracles written on parchment 2500 years ago are to be believed as fact.
Is it irrational to think that Zeus didn’t walk the Earth? Or is it irrational to think that Mithra wasn’t born of a virgin, walked on water, or was crucified? What is irrational is accepting for fact something that has no evidence to support it, or, in many instances, a lot of evidence to not support it.
If it makes you feel better, I could say the following…
“their almost exclusively fictional texts”
Since, it is true enough that real historical figures pop up every so often (King Josiah being the first person in the Bible that was an actual person, for example).
Comment by Donald — 11/1/2005 @ 8:50 am
The burden of proof should lie on the person throwing around insults.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 11/1/2005 @ 11:21 am
Since when is it an insult to claim that something isn’t true?
Comment by Donald — 11/1/2005 @ 2:18 pm
And regardless, that’s not where the burden of proof lies, but you already knew that.
Comment by Donald — 11/1/2005 @ 2:29 pm
Donald, I am not saying you have to believe that what Bible says its true. It doesn’t matter what religious texts or stories these are. Just because the other side cannot provide evidence that would match your criteria for truth doesn’t make it untrue. So, the acceptable thing of you to say would be that you don’t know if its true or not, so you choose not let it guide your life.
Comment by yuriyp — 11/1/2005 @ 6:58 pm
You didn’t simply claim that it wasn’t true.
Comment by Michael C. Mikulis — 11/2/2005 @ 11:32 am
I’m voting yes on Prop 73 for several reasons - one of which has not yet been mentioned, and that is statutory rape. The theory runs that parental notification will help bring these crimes to the attention of the law and put sexual predators behind bars. I’m all for that.
The proposition does not deal with consent, but notification and if a girl requests a waiver from a judge, her case is heard and decided within three business days - not a long delay.
I think the answer to the question originally posed (”Looking out for teen safety or anti-abortion trojan horse?”)is teen safety.
Comment by Mary — 11/6/2005 @ 9:43 am