Senate fails to protect girls from abusive parents

[AlonzoMourning23]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A bill that would make it a crime to take a pregnant girl across state lines for an abortion without her parents' knowledge passed the Senate Tuesday, but vast differences with the House version stood between the measure and President Bush's desk.

The 65-34 vote gave the Senate's approval to the bill, which would make taking a pregnant girl to another state for the purposes of evading parental notification laws punishable by fines and up to a year in jail.

The girl and her parents would be exempt from prosecution, and the bill contains an exception for cases when there is a threat to the mother's life.

Struggling to defend their majority this election year, Republican sponsors said the bill supports what a majority of the public believes: that a parent's right to know takes precedence over a young woman's right to have an abortion.

"No parent wants anyone to take their children across state lines or even across the street without their permission," said Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "This is a fundamental right, and the Congress is right to uphold it in law."

Fourteen Democrats and 51 Republicans voted for the bill. Four Republicans voted against it: Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, was absent.

Bush applauded the Senate action and urged the House and Senate to resolve their differences and send him a bill he said he would sign. "Transporting minors across state lines to bypass parental consent laws regarding abortion undermines state law and jeopardizes the lives of young women," he said in a statement.

Bowing to public support for parental notification and the GOP's 55-44-1 majority, Democrats spent the day trying to carve out an exemption for confidants to whom a girl with abusive parents might turn for help. It was rejected in floor negotiations.

Democrats complained that the measure was the latest in a series of bills designed chiefly to energize the GOP's base of conservative voters.

"Congress ought to have higher priorities than turning grandparents into criminals," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts.

Significant differences exist between the Senate bill and a measure passed by the House last year.

Unlike the Senate bill, the House measure sets out a national parental notification law. It would require a physician who knowingly performs or induces an abortion on a minor who is a resident of another state to provide notice of at least 24 hours to a parent of the minor before ending the pregnancy.

Procedural hurdles also stood in the way. Following the vote, Democrats prevented Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, from appointing Senate negotiators to help bridge the differences with the House version. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, objected to the conferees' appointment on the grounds that the bill had not been considered by a committee and that negotiations were premature.

"I hope this is not a sign that they're going to try to obstruct this bill," Frist said.

Polls suggest there is widespread public backing for the bill, with almost three-quarters of respondents saying a parent has the right to give consent before a child under 18 has an abortion.

States that do not have parental notification or consent laws are Washington, Oregon, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island and Connecticut. The District of Columbia also does not have such laws.

No one knows how many girls get abortions in this way, or who helps them. But Democrats say the policy would be dangerous to pregnant teens who have abusive or neglectful parents by discouraging other people from helping them.

"We're going to sacrifice a lot of girls' lives," said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, countered that opponents "want to strip the overwhelming majority of good parents their rightful role and responsibility because of the misbehavior of a few." He pointed out that the judicial bypass provision would help pregnant teens with abusive parents get around the law.

A last-minute deal by Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, would cut off the ability of men who impregnate their daughters from taking them out of state for abortions and from suing those who help get the procedure in other states.

During floor negotiations with Boxer, Ensign rejected a proposal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, to protect from prosecution such confidants as grandparents, clergy and others to whom a girl might turn for help.

Another, sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, would have encouraged the federal government to provide money for more sex education. That bill failed earlier in the day, 48-51.

"If we do nothing about teen pregnancy yet pass this punitive bill, then it proves that this (bill) is only a political charade and not a serious effort to combat the problem," Lautenberg said.

Abstinence is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy, responded Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma.

"How many people really think it's in the best interest of young people to be sexually active outside of marriage? Does anything positive ever come from that?" Coburn asked.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/25/interstate.abortion.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

Though, I do have a suggestion. Since we are going to force some girls to give birth, we should force the parents to pay child support if they do not allow their daughter to have an abortion.

[BoogyMan]

Anyone sneaking a pregnant underaged girl across state lines for an abortion without the knowledge of her parents should be horse whipped in public!

Abusive parents??? Gads Alonzo, you have hit a new low with this one.

Most of these cases that I have seen find the girl living at home and the parents paying for everything without Alonzo's punish the parent ideology.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Anyone sneaking a pregnant underaged girl across state lines for an abortion without the knowledge of her parents should be horse whipped in public!


Well, the issue is some parents will whip the girl in private.

Abusive parents??? Gads Alonzo, you have hit a new low with this one.

Do you want to clarify, or are you really that blind to think abusive parents are almost never a concern?

Most of these cases that I have seen find the girl living at home and the parents paying for everything without Alonzo's punish the parent ideology.

Most of the cases of dating don't involve rape either, but that doesn't mean you don't take steps to protect people when they do.

And if the parent is forcing their daughter to make a lifelong commitment to a child, one the girl may have gotten into due to her own immaturity (assuming it wasn't something like a broken condom, or not worn properly), which isn't the best person to place a kid with to begin with, then the parent should be held partly responsible if they force their daughter to have that child. When that girls 20, 30 etc. they will still have that child, and all the difficulties that come with it.

But Democrats say the policy would be dangerous to pregnant teens who have abusive or neglectful parents by discouraging other people from helping them.

You deny that?

[BoogyMan]

Well, the issue is some parents will whip the girl in private.


Alonzo, this is such a red herring.Â*Â*You are trying to take away the ability of parents to raise their kids in order to deal with a problem that obviously affects a minority of cases.Â*Â*

Do you want to clarify, or are you really that blind to think abusive parents are almost never a concern?

I didn't say that and you know it.Â*Â*This is simply more misdirection.Â*Â*Alonzo, we all know there are horrible cases of abuse out there, but this isn't about abuse, its about parental supervision and the right to know what some libertine whack-job is taking your child across state lines to do.Â*Â*

Most of the cases of dating don't involve rape either, but that doesn't mean you don't take steps to protect people when they do.

And if the parent is forcing their daughter to make a lifelong commitment to a child, one the girl may have gotten into due to her own immaturity (assuming it wasn't something like a broken condom, or not worn properly), which isn't the best person to place a kid with to begin with, then the parent should be held partly responsible if they force their daughter to have that child. When that girls 20, 30 etc. they will still have that child, and all the difficulties that come with it.

Teach them to dodge responsibility for their actions for convenience sake, that is what liberals are all about isn't it?

But Democrats say the policy would be dangerous to pregnant teens who have abusive or neglectful parents by discouraging other people from helping them.

Once again we are legislating the masses for the sake of a minority.Â*Â*I will re-iterate, anyone sneaking an underage girl across state lines to get her an abortion should be publicly flogged at the least!

The foolishness of the title of this thread is akin to stating that the Senate failed to protect US citizens from falling debris by allow jets to fly over their homes.

G A D S . . . .

[AlonzoMourning23]

Alonzo, this is such a red herring. You are trying to take away the ability of parents to raise their kids in order to deal with a problem that obviously affects a minority of cases.

So, in your mind, if something happens in a minority of cases then no easily accessable exceptions should exist for those instances, since they are in the minority?

I didn't say that and you know it. This is simply more misdirection. Alonzo, we all know there are horrible cases of abuse out there, but this isn't about abuse, its about parental supervision and the right to know what some libertine whack-job is taking your child across state lines to do.

It is about ensuring easy access to an exception, one that does not complicate the situation any more than it already is. You, and many in congress, want to cast those issues aside since most do not face them, but a significant enough minority do. This isn't like making an exception for instances as rare as say cannibalism. Abuse of children is common.


I will re-iterate, anyone sneaking an underage girl across state lines to get her an abortion should be publicly flogged at the least!

So, theoretically, if my cousin got pregnant and did not want the child, had a abusive parents and believed they would beat her if they found out anyway, I should be whipped if I helped her get an abortion?

Look, I have my own opinion on parental notification. But I did not post the article for that reason and am not arguing that issue, I'm arguing about ensuring that exceptions are easily obtained by those who need them. These bill does not have provisions to that effect.

The foolishness of the title of this thread is akin to stating that the Senate failed to protect US citizens from falling debris by allow jets to fly over their homes.

Jets flying over homes are almost a necessity of flight. The comparison is only valid if you think that abuse of children is almost a necessity of parenting.

[Nathan Brazil]

Just how retarded can CNN be, anyway? Chaffee isn't a Republican, hasn't been since 2001, when he took off his RINO cloak and confessed to what everyone already knew, that he was a closest communist...er socialist, or whatever the preferred term for Democrat is these days when they don't want to be called Democrats.

Also, why would the PARENTS be liable to legal consequences of taking a child across state lines, for any purpose whatsoever, assuming the parent doing the taking is a custodial parent?

Looks to me like the story is something the Clinton News Network is pushing to polish it's superb-liberal credentials in time for the November elections.

Frankly, an adult taking a child across state lines without the parent's permission should be charged with kidnapping, and if an abortion happens, also, tack on endangering the life of a minor, killing a minor, and adding to the delinquency of a minor.

This does sound like one of many stupid politics-only bills all Congresses spew out to pad the CV's for the next election. The crime committed by the kidnapper would seem to be already covered under current law.

[Nathan Brazil]

Do you want to clarify, or are you really that blind to think abusive parents are almost never a concern?

If "abusive parents" are the concern, shouldn't the proper course be investigation, arrest, and conviction of the parent?Â*Â*Instead, the liberals want to legalize kidnapping on the accusation of abuse by a minor without verification.

Clearly, if the accusation of abuse is valid, there's no need to remove the child from the state to murder it's baby.Â*Â*All that's needed is to remove the offending parent from the home.Â*Â*Then the baby can be murdered locally, keeping the profits available for local Democratic political campaigns.

It's pretty obvious that the problem isn't in the presentation of valid complaints of abuse, but in the presentation of invalid complaints, typically a lie told by the girl upon coaching by a abortionist who needs to go to a neighboring state to evade local age restrictions. Why else would such a law be needed?

Typical liberal lack of thought here.Â*Â*After all, they view the best solution to a teen pregnancy to be the murder of an even younger child.

[AlonzoMourning23]

also, tack on endangering the life of a minor

The risk of death of a first trimester abortion is extremely low (less than 1 in 100,000). A first trimester abortion is 10 times safer than continuing the pregnancy.


http://depts.washington.edu/uwcoe/healthtopics/familyplan/term_facts.html

killing a minor

Legally, the only way a fetus or embryo has any status is when the mother does not want it terminated. It is not in and of itself a person with legal right, and therefore does not legally qualify as a minor. The SC also ruled that a foetus was not a person as defined by the constitution.

[Nathan Brazil]

The risk of a fatality in a first trimester abortion is not zero.Â*Â*If one recognizes, as all intelligent people do, that a fetus is both living and human, then the entire purpose of the procedure is to ensure a fatality.

Also, it's a rationalizing lying immoral SOB that doesn't admit that a fetus is human and hides behind politically motivated Supreme Court rulings to support his case.

And...golly gee whiz, Batman, you've ignored the killing argument that the correct thing to do about a child with abusive parents should be extricated from the parents in the first place, not kidnapped temporarily to be returned to those same parents once the unborn baby is murdered.

That's the key.

[AlonzoMourning23]

How is it a kidnapping when the girl goes to someone and says "take me to X place, so X can be performed, and then return me to X place", and all that happens?

And, considering your declarations that civilians are valid targets in war, you calling anyone immoral is a joke.

I mentioned legal arguments to abortion because they are concrete, not philosophical opinions.

correct thing to do about a child with abusive parents should be extricated from the parents in the first place

Yes, but more often than not that doesn't happen. Be it due to fear or whatever the reason is. And many cases do not go anywhere. A kid used to work at my families store and his father pushed him down the stairs once. He called the police on him, the police came, brought him down for questioning, and then released him. The father beat the kid later that week for calling the cops. Other times there may be a significant danger, without a history of abuse against the girl. My cousin, for example, was married to a guy who beat her and pulled a gun on her, but never harmed the kids. Yet it's hard to say there isn't a legitimate threat there.

The my thing is, whatever the reason, having the abusive parent, guardian etc. taken away is the ideal, but there are many reasons why this does not always happen and cannot be the only safeguard.

Other than that, I said a while ago I don't want to argue morality with you. Your moral arguments fail to go beyond "I said X, therefore I'm right because I said it. You're an idiot for not seeing that". Also, as I said before, I did not post this to argue about parental notification as a whole, and you already know my opinion on abortion itself, and why a foetus/embryo/zygote is/is not a full human life. I will not argue it again with you.

[BoogyMan]

So, in your mind, if something happens in a minority of cases then no easily accessable exceptions should exist for those instances, since they are in the minority?

You want to open a door that most of America doesn't want opened purely for the sake of a minority and based wholly upon a supposition.

It is about ensuring easy access to an exception, one that does not complicate the situation any more than it already is. You, and many in congress, want to cast those issues aside since most do not face them, but a significant enough minority do. This isn't like making an exception for instances as rare as say cannibalism. Abuse of children is common.

No Alonzo, its about your ilk trying to take over the duties of parents to propagate a system of (or lack of) morality.Â*Â*Sneaking a minor across the border for an abortion is abuse of the minor and the parents.

[Nathan Brazil]

How is it a kidnapping when the girl goes to someone and says "take me to X place, so X can be performed, and then return me to X place", and all that happens?

Because the bimbette's a minor child who can't legally give consent and who's being taken across state lines in direct violation of her parent's wishes to perform a medical procedure also in violation of those wishes, that's why.


And, considering your declarations that civilians are valid targets in war, you calling anyone immoral is a joke.

You're a liberal, you don't know what morality is. You're ignorant about war, also. Civilian targets are valid because it's war, and civillians are the people that pay for the enemy's continuance of the war. Reducing their ability to produce is a natural goal of any properly conducted war.

Furthermore, what's moral about murdering unborn children?

I mentioned legal arguments to abortion because they are concrete, not philosophical opinions.

I mentioned reality. A human egg fertilized with a human sperm is....(drum roll please)...a human. If you disagree, can you explain why you think it might be a zebra or an aarvark or anything in-between except a human being? Like I said, citing judges with political agendas don't cut it.

correct thing to do about a child with abusive parents should be extricated from the parents in the first place

Yes, but more often than not that doesn't happen. Be it due to fear or whatever the reason is. And many cases do not go anywhere.

Yeah, that's because most cases don't have a basis in fact. Too bad, I guess the little tramp will have to have the baby, and the abortion clinic will lose a little money.

The my thing is, whatever the reason, having the abusive parent, guardian etc. taken away is the ideal, but there are many reasons why this does not always happen and cannot be the only safeguard.

So, instead of fixing the current problem, you wish to leave that as it is and aggravate it. Wonderful. No wonder liberalism is a dying beast.

Other than that, I said a while ago I don't want to argue morality with you. Your moral arguments fail to go beyond "I said X, therefore I'm right because I said it. You're an idiot for not seeing that".

Hey! That's works pretty good. Can I use it?

Actually, you can't discuss morality with me because liberalism doesn't have any.

Also, as I said before, I did not post this to argue about parental notification as a whole, and you already know my opinion on abortion itself, and why a foetus/embryo/zygote is/is not a full human life. I will not argue it again with you.

A retard isn't a full human life, should we go ahead and kill it? Ron Kovic is only half a man, should he be euthanized also? Speaking of morality, who said you were the arbiter of what a "full human life" is?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Nathan, I'm not even going to bother. You're trying to turn a discussion on what to do with abused girls to an attack on them as "bimbettes". Seriously, you have no respect for women, or anyone for that matter.


You want to open a door that most of America doesn't want opened purely for the sake of a minority and based wholly upon a supposition.

It's a supposition that some girls get abused/kicked out because A. they got pregnant or B. They got an abortion? That's a supposition to you?

Our country does not allow for the total rule of the majority. It is designed to protect the minority. A significant minority of children have been abused, and many have reason to suspect future abuse. Abused children, especially if sexual abuse was present as well, are a high risk group for risky behaviors to begin with. Making an exception for them is essential for their protection. Abused girls, and ones who are pregnant,Â*Â*is not like cannibalism where's you have a miniscule amount of cases. It's a serious issue for a lot of people. And if you have an abusive parent with conservative social opinions (ie. no sex before marriage, abortions are murder etc.) that girl is in a dangerous situation.



No Alonzo, its about your ilk trying to take over the duties of parents to propagate a system of (or lack of) morality.Â*Â*Sneaking a minor across the border for an abortion is abuse of the minor and the parents.


I still want you to answer this:

So, theoretically, if my cousin got pregnant and did not want the child, had a abusive parents and believed they would beat her if they found out anyway, I should be whipped if I helped her get an abortion?

Also, How is it abuse of a minor if abortion is safer than birth, the minor tells you what she wants, and you only do what you were asked to. And how is it abuse of the parents if withholding that info is done solely so they don't go and abuse the girl?

Though, on a side note, if withholding info from parents is "abuse", then how many of us didn't abuse our parents? I see your point, but "abuse" is a bit strong there.

[Nathan Brazil]

Our country does not allow for the total rule of the majority.

It doesn't allow for the conviction of the innocent, either, though it does accept the murder of the innocent absent a conviction to the tune of more than a million executions a year.

Fact of the matter it, the liberals demanding that the state take over the operation of the family (which is all this attempt to legalize kidnapping is) are doing nothing at all to address the underlying issues of child abuse, they're merely using the child as a political pawn in an ages-old power game, and saps are falling for it because it makes the feel good knowing that more babies will be killed as a result.

If abuse is suspected, it demands an investigation. If no investigation is done, there's no evidence to support the allegation of child abuse and thus no basis for dragging the kid out of state. Also, if there is demonstrable child abuse, there's no need to drag the kid away to another state, she should be place in foster care until the situation is resolved.

The mechanisms are already in place. If, as you claim, they aren't working, the correct thing to do is fix them, not create yet another lie bimbettes can use to evade parental authority. Gee, it's not like that would never happen, would it?

So, theoretically, if my cousin got pregnant and did not want the child, had a abusive parents and believed they would beat her if they found out anyway, I should be whipped if I helped her get an abortion?

Yes, it's that simple. If your cousin is suffering real abuse that you've witnessed, your obligation is to contact the authorities. That's what the law is for. And if you're a witness to a real crime, you can be a hero and get your name in the paper. What a bonus!

Otherwise, you're just an accomplice to murder. How about if you tell your cousin that she wouldn't be pregnant if you hadn't slept together, and leave it at that?

Also, How is it abuse of a minor if abortion is safer than birth, the minor tells you what she wants, and you only do what you were asked to.

Because you're not the parent and you don't have the authority? Hmmm??? And not getting pregnant in the first place is safer than birth. Abortions certainly aren't safer for the human baby on the inside.

And how is it abuse of the parents if withholding that info is done solely so they don't go and abuse the girl?

Becuase you've done nothing to ameliorate the real problem.

[Labrocca]

I agreed 100% with Nathan. He has pretty much expressed every rebuttle I would have said.

Sorry Alonzo but there are laws in place already to put parents in jail for excessive abuse of their children. And any prick taking my daughter accross state lines without my consent should be charged with kidnapping...until that kid is 18 she is my responsibility. I got 4 kids and I wouldn't want my 15 year old going to anyone but me if she had a problem like this. Now if kids knew they needed parents to get an abortion they might think twice about doing stupid crap like unprotected sex. Parenting should be in the hands of parents...not the government. Ah..look what you made me do! I went on a rant.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I agreed 100% with Nathan. He has pretty much expressed every rebuttle I would have said.Â*Â*

Sorry Alonzo but there are laws in place already to put parents in jail for excessive abuse of their children. And any prick taking my daughter accross state lines without my consent should be charged with kidnapping...until that kid is 18 she is my responsibility.Â*Â*I got 4 kids and I wouldn't want my 15 year old going to anyone but me if she had a problem like this.Â*Â*Now if kids knew they needed parents to get an abortion they might think twice about doing stupid crap like unprotected sex.Â*Â*Parenting should be in the hands of parents...not the government. Ah..look what you made me do!Â*Â*I went on a rant.


That assumes A. the kid, or myself, can present real evidence, and B. the kid will cooperate (which in and of itself is difficult, since most love the abusive parent). In many instances the most likely thing to happen would be I report it, the cops go down, and the kid denies it because they don't want to put their parents in jail and, in particularly bad cases, the parent may have threatened the child that something would happen to them if they did. When that happens you're worse of than when you started.

It also assumes that the pregnancy was not accidental, and that you actually had a level of maturity in the kid to get them thinking about the possibility, instead of "that can't happen to me" or some other form of birth control they think works, like pulling out or rinsing out the vagina, or using toothpaste as a spermicide.

There are things that should happen in ideal situations, but I'm concerned about the exceptions. Law enforcement does not always work, people do not act solely on unemotional logic, and safeguards cannot depend on the ideal happening.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Let's ask another question.

Would it be wrong to take a child across state lines for the purposes of sexual copulation?

We know the answer.

A medical procedure has just as dire potential consequences if not moreso.

This is a no brainer. Which is why liberals of course don't get it. They have no brains.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The medical procedure being performed has less consequences than the procedure that will occur without it being performed, birth. Having sex with an underage child has many dangers for the child, one of which is pregnancy. It has many more consequences than not doing it.

Sex with a child is illegal, abortion for children is not. Children having abortions is not even what's under attack here.

[Nathan Brazil]

That assumes A. the kid, or myself, can present real evidence, and B. the kid will cooperate (which in and of itself is difficult, since most love the abusive parent). In many instances the most likely thing to happen would be I report it, the cops go down, and the kid denies it because they don't want to put their parents in jail and, in particularly bad cases, the parent may have threatened the child that something would happen to them if they did. When that happens you're worse of than when you started.

Actually, it's a law in almost all states for counselors to report suspected child abuse to the authorities. No exceptions. A person to whom a child is confiding her alleged abuse in who assumes the responsibility of kidnapping the kid across state lines to murder the baby inside should be considered a counselor and jailed for violating state mandatory disclosure laws.


It also assumes that the pregnancy was not accidental,

I've never heard of an accidental pregnancy. I do suppose I could imagine a woman carrying a rack of vials to be deposited at the local sperm bank in her lap while driving and then getting into an accident so that the air bag deploys thereby somehow injecting the vials' contents into her and fertilizing an egg. But most of the time the pregnant chick has volunteered for the hot beef injection which is the way most women get pregnant.

That's no accident, that's just stupid. Innocent babies shouldn't be murdered to cover up someone else's stupidity.

There are things that should happen in ideal situations, but I'm concerned about the exceptions. Law enforcement does not always work, people do not act solely on unemotional logic, and safeguards cannot depend on the ideal happening.

No, law enforcement doesn't always work, and making magical fantasy loopholes like unsubstantiated accusations of abuse to evade state abortion limits on minors only ensures that laws will continue to not work.

[Nathan Brazil]

Children having abortions is not even what's under attack here.

Make a bet? Children shouldn't have abortions, it's bad for them. They shouldn't be getting knocked up, that's bad for them, too.

[BoogyMan]

It's a supposition that some girls get abused/kicked out because A. they got pregnant or B. They got an abortion? That's a supposition to you?

Alonzo, your whole argument is based upon supposition.Â*Â*I will grant you that child abuse goes on and is a terrible thing.Â*Â*Your tying this argument to child abuse shows a character that weighs the value of the emotional argument over the truth.

All you are doing here is trying to frame a sick and disgusting excess of the liberal collective thought process by putting it in the most emotional format possible to try and twist the argument based upon the straw man that you just setup.

Our country does not allow for the total rule of the majority. It is designed to protect the minority. A significant minority of children have been abused, and many have reason to suspect future abuse. Abused children, especially if sexual abuse was present as well, are a high risk group for risky behaviors to begin with. Making an exception for them is essential for their protection. Abused girls, and ones who are pregnant,Â*Â*is not like cannibalism where's you have a miniscule amount of cases. It's a serious issue for a lot of people. And if you have an abusive parent with conservative social opinions (ie. no sex before marriage, abortions are murder etc.) that girl is in a dangerous situation.

We are a majority rule country, not the socialist hegemonist mess that the liberals want to make it into.Â*Â*I will not argue the emotional garbage that you are intent on tying to this discussion.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Alonzo, your whole argument is based upon supposition.Â*Â*I will grant you that child abuse goes on and is a terrible thing.Â*Â*Your tying this argument to child abuse shows a character that weighs the value of the emotional argument over the truth.

Is child abuse a significant problem or not? Is teen pregnancy a significant problem or not? These people exist, we shouldn't ignore that. Wanting to protect a minority of children is hardly an emotional argument.

All you are doing here is trying to frame a sick and disgusting excess of the liberal collective thought process by putting it in the most emotional format possible to try and twist the argument based upon the straw man that you just setup.

Why shouldn't we take steps to protect children from abuse? They refused to allow such exceptions. Passing an amendment to protect a miniscule amount of burned flags a year is emotional, there is more than a miniscule amount of pregnant girls with a history of abuse.

each year, approximately 900,000 American children are victims of abuse and neglect.

in 2001, an estimated 1,300 children were counted by child protection services to have died as a result of abuse and neglect;

many of these children and their families fail to receive adequate protection and treatment; and

slightly less than half of these children (42 percent in 2001) and their families fail to receive adequate protection or treatment;

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws/capta03/sec_I_2.htm


Bullock and McFarlane reported 26% of pregnant teens had experienced physical abuse, and about 65% of the abused, pregnant teens had not told anyone about the abuse. Many teens reported abuse by both partners and parents. Increased abuse was reported in the postpartum period by Gielen et al.


http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=6148&ss=1

You want to ignore these people. Since they only represent about a quarter of pregnant teens, you don't feel exceptions for them are worthwhile.



We are a majority rule country, not the socialist hegemonist mess that the liberals want to make it into.Â*Â*I will not argue the emotional garbage that you are intent on tying to this discussion.


Ensuring the citizens of society are safe is emotional? Casting it as a social/liberal propaganda is emotional.

And we aren't not entirely a majority rule country. Issues like segregation, interracial marriage, voting rights etc. did not depend on the majority to vote for those things. Our country is based on majority rule, but with safeguards for the minority.

[BoogyMan]

Alonzo, I will make one more comment on this point and that is all.Â*Â*Sneaking a child across state lines without consent or knowledge or that minor's parents IS kidnapping and should rate whoever does it a good beating at the least and many many years in jail.Â*Â*Teaching a child that the only way to deal with a poor decision on their part is to murder the child she carries teaches a selfish and disgusting view of life and its value.Â*Â*You keep referencing protection of the minor, abortion is protection?Â*Â*This line of argumentation is sick and the product of a collective of degenerate minds.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Sneaking a child across state lines without consent or knowledge or that minor's parents IS kidnapping and should rate whoever does it a good beating at the least and many many years in jail.

Beginning and end of legal argument.

NEXT!

[Labrocca]

Child abuse is a terrible thing Alonzo but that's not really what this thread is about. It's about the kidnapping of a teenager across state lines in order to perform an abortion. What's next...taking the kid to Canada or Mexico? What happens if the 'trusted person' that is taking your kid actually does something evil to the girl instead? It can happen.

The logic to allow this kidnapping doesn't work. The girl having the abortion isn't getting away from the abuse...she is only patching it and avoiding it. If this trusted person can bring her over the border for an abortion they should also be trusted enough to help in an abusive situation. Parents don't have to go to jail if they are abusive. Often the child is simply taken away and placed in foster care (hopefully a good home).


You also mention that parents should pay child support for the kids baby if they don't allow an abortion...often the parents do support their grandchild. It's a bad situation when your teenager becomes pregnant.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Alonzo, I will make one more comment on this point and that is all. Sneaking a child across state lines without consent or knowledge or that minor's parents IS kidnapping and should rate whoever does it a good beating at the least and many many years in jail. Teaching a child that the only way to deal with a poor decision on their part is to murder the child she carries teaches a selfish and disgusting view of life and its value. You keep referencing protection of the minor, abortion is protection? This line of argumentation is sick and the product of a collective of degenerate minds.

So, in your mind, this has nothing to do with ensuring parents know about the abortion. It seems that you support it primarily because it's an abortion restriction, not for any parental reason. It's simply a soft target for opponents. That's fine, but not very relevant to my point.


Child abuse is a terrible thing Alonzo but that's not really what this thread is about.Â*Â*It's about the kidnapping of a teenager across state lines in order to perform an abortion.Â*Â*What's next...taking the kid to Canada or Mexico?Â*Â*What happens if the 'trusted person' that is taking your kid actually does something evil to the girl instead?Â*Â*It can happen.

The logic to allow this kidnapping doesn't work.Â*Â*The girl having the abortion isn't getting away from the abuse...she is only patching it and avoiding it.Â*Â*If this trusted person can bring her over the border for an abortion they should also be trusted enough to help in an abusive situation.Â*Â*Parents don't have to go to jail if they are abusive.Â*Â*Often the child is simply taken away and placed in foster care (hopefully a good home).

The thread is about pregnant teens at risk of abuse. I created the thread and I know why I created it. The title and comment, and all the follow up comments I made, have focused on that. If I had created for another reason I would be arguing about more than simply an easily accessible exception.

The use of kidnapping is a legal technicality. I don't know what it's like in some areas, but I grew up about 20 minutes from NH. I was "kidnapped" countless times growing up according to the legal definition. And I'm pretty sure that anyone who lives anywhere near a state line has been "kidnapped", likely multiple times. The term is legally accurate, but it is not an actual kidnapping, since you wouldn't normally use the term unless the kid was either very young (6, 7 etc.) or being held against their will.

But domestic abuse is tricky. The person often feels to blame, doesn't want to get the abuser in trouble etc. Many are simply too embarrassed. I'm not sure how much someone can do if the child is not willing to admit to the abuse.

You also mention that parents should pay child support for the kids baby if they don't allow an abortion...often the parents do support their grandchild.Â*Â*It's a bad situation when your teenager becomes pregnant.Â*Â*


They often do, but sometimes they don't. The way I see it is that the girl was denied the ability to terminate the pregnancy. Considering the magnitude of the life consequences, and the fact that it is a legal procedure, if that is forced upon someone then responsibility should be the part of everyone involved (ie. girl, guardian and father).