should parental consent be required for abortions?

[Ebowed]

No.  Mitty & Ebowed summed it up pretty well

No what?

He is saying no to the question in the topic title.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Well first, that's a pretty naive view on teenage sex.  Also, you've fallen into the trap of justifying opposition to abortion on the basis of responsibility, so I'm going to have to ask you two questions:
1.) Why should the government legislate responsibility?
2.) If a girl gets raped, can she have an abortion?  If not, why are you using the idea that there is an inherent responsibility attached to having sex as your main theme to opposing abortions?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Well first, that's a pretty naive view on teenage sex.  Also, you've fallen into the trap of justifying opposition to abortion on the basis of responsibility, so I'm going to have to ask you two questions:
1.) Why should the government legislate responsibility?
2.) If a girl gets raped, can she have an abortion?  If not, why are you using the idea that there is an inherent responsibility attached to having sex as your main theme to opposing abortions?

1.)The shouldn't--the teens should and if they don't, deal w/ it
2.) No=-why punish the BABY for some sick-minded freak's behavior?

[Ebowed]

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education

Smash is entirely correct.  People who advocate and buy into "abstinence only" thinking are less likely and less willing to carry or obtain birth control when they have sex, leading to higher rates of unwanted pregnancies.

Also, you've fallen into the trap of justifying opposition to abortion on the basis of responsibility, so I'm going to have to ask you two questions:
1.) Why should the government legislate responsibility?
2.) If a girl gets raped, can she have an abortion?  If not, why are you using the idea that there is an inherent responsibility attached to having sex as your main theme to opposing abortions?

1.)The shouldn't--the teens should and if they don't, deal w/ it
2.) No=-why punish the BABY for some sick-minded freak's behavior?

But the government legislating responsibility is exactly what you seem to be advocating here.

I could just as easily ask why you should punish the girl for the rapist's behavior.  But if your main mantra is that abortion is a matter of responsibility, why does it suddenly become a matter of humanity (saving the baby's life) when the issue is about rape?  What matters more to you, stopping abortions or keeping people from spreading their legs?

[Smash255]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

[Smash255]

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Well first, that's a pretty naive view on teenage sex.  Also, you've fallen into the trap of justifying opposition to abortion on the basis of responsibility, so I'm going to have to ask you two questions:
1.) Why should the government legislate responsibility?
2.) If a girl gets raped, can she have an abortion?  If not, why are you using the idea that there is an inherent responsibility attached to having sex as your main theme to opposing abortions?

1.)The shouldn't--the teens should and if they don't, deal w/ it
2.) No=-why punish the BABY for some sick-minded freak's behavior?

So you put a bunch of cells and an embryo (something which isn't actually alive) over somerthing that is actually alive & already suffered

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education

Smash is entirely correct.  People who advocate and buy into "abstinence only" thinking are less likely and less willing to carry or obtain birth control when they have sex, leading to higher rates of unwanted pregnancies.

Also, you've fallen into the trap of justifying opposition to abortion on the basis of responsibility, so I'm going to have to ask you two questions:
1.) Why should the government legislate responsibility?
2.) If a girl gets raped, can she have an abortion?  If not, why are you using the idea that there is an inherent responsibility attached to having sex as your main theme to opposing abortions?

1.)The shouldn't--the teens should and if they don't, deal w/ it
2.) No=-why punish the BABY for some sick-minded freak's behavior?

But the government legislating responsibility is exactly what you seem to be advocating here.

I could just as easily ask why you should punish the girl for the rapist's behavior.  But if your main mantra is that abortion is a matter of responsibility, why does it suddenly become a matter of humanity (saving the baby's life) when the issue is about rape?  What matters more to you, stopping abortions or keeping people from spreading their legs?

1. The Government ensures that when the teens aren't responsible, the life of the baby is still kept safe
2. What do you mean saving the baby's life when the issue is rape, and I don't get where you're going w/ teh last sentence.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

Do teens HAVE to have sex--no if they don't want to, they won't--it's a matter of will and if you include this little way out, that says, hey, who cares, lets do it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Well first, that's a pretty naive view on teenage sex.  Also, you've fallen into the trap of justifying opposition to abortion on the basis of responsibility, so I'm going to have to ask you two questions:
1.) Why should the government legislate responsibility?
2.) If a girl gets raped, can she have an abortion?  If not, why are you using the idea that there is an inherent responsibility attached to having sex as your main theme to opposing abortions?

1.)The shouldn't--the teens should and if they don't, deal w/ it
2.) No=-why punish the BABY for some sick-minded freak's behavior?

So you put a bunch of cells and an embryo (something which isn't actually alive) over somerthing that is actually alive & already suffered

Yes (minus the isn't actually alive)--why KILL somebody b/c somebody doesn't want to remember being raped?  KILL or RAPE?  I'd pick rape.

[Smash255]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

Do teens HAVE to have sex--no if they don't want to, they won't--it's a matter of will and if you include this little way out, that says, hey, who cares, lets do it.

the answe is no, but thinking that is the answer to everything so nothing else can be discussed is exactly the reason why the south has MUCH higher teen Pregnancy rates than the northeast.  Simple minded and non realistic thinking about teenagers and sex.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be telling kids not to have sex.  Of course absitence should be part of the equation, buts its not the end all be all argument because well the argument doesn't work in the actual real world of reality we call Earth.

[Smash255]

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Well first, that's a pretty naive view on teenage sex.  Also, you've fallen into the trap of justifying opposition to abortion on the basis of responsibility, so I'm going to have to ask you two questions:
1.) Why should the government legislate responsibility?
2.) If a girl gets raped, can she have an abortion?  If not, why are you using the idea that there is an inherent responsibility attached to having sex as your main theme to opposing abortions?

1.)The shouldn't--the teens should and if they don't, deal w/ it
2.) No=-why punish the BABY for some sick-minded freak's behavior?

So you put a bunch of cells and an embryo (something which isn't actually alive) over somerthing that is actually alive & already suffered

Yes (minus the isn't actually alive)--why KILL somebody b/c somebody doesn't want to remember being raped?  KILL or RAPE?  I'd pick rape.

Your not killing anyone.  Its not even alive,  Its a cell, an embryo, its not a person.  Can't live outside the womb.  Its not a person

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

Do teens HAVE to have sex--no if they don't want to, they won't--it's a matter of will and if you include this little way out, that says, hey, who cares, lets do it.

the answe is no, but thinking that is the answer to everything so nothing else can be discussed is exactly the reason why the south has MUCH higher teen Pregnancy rates than the northeast.  Simple minded and non realistic thinking about teenagers and sex.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be telling kids not to have sex.  Of course absitence should be part of the equation, buts its not the end all be all argument because well the argument doesn't work in the actual real world of reality we call Earth.

But I'm saying if you stopped all condoms, birth control and abortions, teen pregnancies would probably drop 75%.  Suddenly they have a multiple year problem to deal w/ for 4 minutes of fun.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Well first, that's a pretty naive view on teenage sex.  Also, you've fallen into the trap of justifying opposition to abortion on the basis of responsibility, so I'm going to have to ask you two questions:
1.) Why should the government legislate responsibility?
2.) If a girl gets raped, can she have an abortion?  If not, why are you using the idea that there is an inherent responsibility attached to having sex as your main theme to opposing abortions?

1.)The shouldn't--the teens should and if they don't, deal w/ it
2.) No=-why punish the BABY for some sick-minded freak's behavior?

So you put a bunch of cells and an embryo (something which isn't actually alive) over somerthing that is actually alive & already suffered

Yes (minus the isn't actually alive)--why KILL somebody b/c somebody doesn't want to remember being raped?  KILL or RAPE?  I'd pick rape.

Your not killing anyone.  Its not even alive,  Its a cell, an embryo, its not a person.  Can't live outside the womb.  Its not a person

This part is pointless to argue--on this we will never agree.  This is completely separate and I've already debated.

[Smash255]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

Do teens HAVE to have sex--no if they don't want to, they won't--it's a matter of will and if you include this little way out, that says, hey, who cares, lets do it.

the answe is no, but thinking that is the answer to everything so nothing else can be discussed is exactly the reason why the south has MUCH higher teen Pregnancy rates than the northeast.  Simple minded and non realistic thinking about teenagers and sex.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be telling kids not to have sex.  Of course absitence should be part of the equation, buts its not the end all be all argument because well the argument doesn't work in the actual real world of reality we call Earth.

But I'm saying if you stopped all condoms, birth control and abortions, teen pregnancies would probably drop 75%.  Suddenly they have a multiple year problem to deal w/ for 4 minutes of fun.

Thats the biggest pile of crap I ever heard, and their is nothing to back it up.  Teen Pregnancies are MUCh higher in the part of the country where the access, to knowledge of and education about condems, birth control etc are less available than the ares they are more readily available. 

So how exactly does that result in that the ratees would drop by cough 75% if these things aren't avilable at all, when the areas that these things are harder to get are the areas with the higher rates???

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

Do teens HAVE to have sex--no if they don't want to, they won't--it's a matter of will and if you include this little way out, that says, hey, who cares, lets do it.

the answe is no, but thinking that is the answer to everything so nothing else can be discussed is exactly the reason why the south has MUCH higher teen Pregnancy rates than the northeast.  Simple minded and non realistic thinking about teenagers and sex.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be telling kids not to have sex.  Of course absitence should be part of the equation, buts its not the end all be all argument because well the argument doesn't work in the actual real world of reality we call Earth.

But I'm saying if you stopped all condoms, birth control and abortions, teen pregnancies would probably drop 75%.  Suddenly they have a multiple year problem to deal w/ for 4 minutes of fun.

Thats the biggest pile of crap I ever heard, and their is nothing to back it up.  Teen Pregnancies are MUCh higher in the part of the country where the access, to knowledge of and education about condems, birth control etc are less available than the ares they are more readily available. 

So how exactly does that result in that the ratees would drop by cough 75% if these things aren't avilable at all, when the areas that these things are harder to get are the areas with the higher rates???

Because Billy Bob and Betty Lou now know "if we have sex, there's nothing stopping us from getting pregnant, so we'll just wait."  Look at teen pregnancies before and after abortion, or birth control or condoms.

[Smash255]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

Do teens HAVE to have sex--no if they don't want to, they won't--it's a matter of will and if you include this little way out, that says, hey, who cares, lets do it.

the answe is no, but thinking that is the answer to everything so nothing else can be discussed is exactly the reason why the south has MUCH higher teen Pregnancy rates than the northeast.  Simple minded and non realistic thinking about teenagers and sex.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be telling kids not to have sex.  Of course absitence should be part of the equation, buts its not the end all be all argument because well the argument doesn't work in the actual real world of reality we call Earth.

But I'm saying if you stopped all condoms, birth control and abortions, teen pregnancies would probably drop 75%.  Suddenly they have a multiple year problem to deal w/ for 4 minutes of fun.

Thats the biggest pile of crap I ever heard, and their is nothing to back it up.  Teen Pregnancies are MUCh higher in the part of the country where the access, to knowledge of and education about condems, birth control etc are less available than the ares they are more readily available. 

So how exactly does that result in that the ratees would drop by cough 75% if these things aren't avilable at all, when the areas that these things are harder to get are the areas with the higher rates???

Because Billy Bob and Betty Lou now know "if we have sex, there's nothing stopping us from getting pregnant, so we'll just wait."  Look at teen pregnancies before and after abortion, or birth control or condoms.

Its already hard for them to get in many areas of the south, and that is exactly why they have the higher rates of teen pregnancies than the northeast (or anywhere else in the country for that matter)

[Ebowed]

1. The Government ensures that when the teens aren't responsible, the life of the baby is still kept safe
2. What do you mean saving the baby's life when the issue is rape, and I don't get where you're going w/ teh last sentence.

No, the government ensures that when teens aren't what you consider responsible, the parents can choose to allow whether the "baby" dies.  Parental consent doesn't keep babies safe, it either gets teens in trouble or kills babies.  Not all parents will say their teen can't have an abortion.

What I'm saying is that you're arguing against abortion on the basis that it's irresponsible for a teenager to have sex.  When the issue turns to rape, it's about protecting the life of the baby.  So what matters more to you, ensuring responsibility or protecting life?  You only use the latter argument when the first one doesn't apply.

Do teens HAVE to have sex

So you would be opposed to giving birth control to teenagers.  Thus increasing the abortion rate, because people are still going to have sex anyway.  See how this works?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

Do teens HAVE to have sex--no if they don't want to, they won't--it's a matter of will and if you include this little way out, that says, hey, who cares, lets do it.

the answe is no, but thinking that is the answer to everything so nothing else can be discussed is exactly the reason why the south has MUCH higher teen Pregnancy rates than the northeast.  Simple minded and non realistic thinking about teenagers and sex.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be telling kids not to have sex.  Of course absitence should be part of the equation, buts its not the end all be all argument because well the argument doesn't work in the actual real world of reality we call Earth.

But I'm saying if you stopped all condoms, birth control and abortions, teen pregnancies would probably drop 75%.  Suddenly they have a multiple year problem to deal w/ for 4 minutes of fun.

Thats the biggest pile of crap I ever heard, and their is nothing to back it up.  Teen Pregnancies are MUCh higher in the part of the country where the access, to knowledge of and education about condems, birth control etc are less available than the ares they are more readily available. 

So how exactly does that result in that the ratees would drop by cough 75% if these things aren't avilable at all, when the areas that these things are harder to get are the areas with the higher rates???

Because Billy Bob and Betty Lou now know "if we have sex, there's nothing stopping us from getting pregnant, so we'll just wait."  Look at teen pregnancies before and after abortion, or birth control or condoms.

Its already hard for them to get in many areas of the south, and that is exactly why they have the higher rates of teen pregnancies than the northeast (or anywhere else in the country for that matter)

So you go in to those areas and say "You have sex; you have babies" end of story!

[Smash255]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

Do teens HAVE to have sex--no if they don't want to, they won't--it's a matter of will and if you include this little way out, that says, hey, who cares, lets do it.

the answe is no, but thinking that is the answer to everything so nothing else can be discussed is exactly the reason why the south has MUCH higher teen Pregnancy rates than the northeast.  Simple minded and non realistic thinking about teenagers and sex.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be telling kids not to have sex.  Of course absitence should be part of the equation, buts its not the end all be all argument because well the argument doesn't work in the actual real world of reality we call Earth.

But I'm saying if you stopped all condoms, birth control and abortions, teen pregnancies would probably drop 75%.  Suddenly they have a multiple year problem to deal w/ for 4 minutes of fun.

Thats the biggest pile of crap I ever heard, and their is nothing to back it up.  Teen Pregnancies are MUCh higher in the part of the country where the access, to knowledge of and education about condems, birth control etc are less available than the ares they are more readily available. 

So how exactly does that result in that the ratees would drop by cough 75% if these things aren't avilable at all, when the areas that these things are harder to get are the areas with the higher rates???

Because Billy Bob and Betty Lou now know "if we have sex, there's nothing stopping us from getting pregnant, so we'll just wait."  Look at teen pregnancies before and after abortion, or birth control or condoms.

Its already hard for them to get in many areas of the south, and that is exactly why they have the higher rates of teen pregnancies than the northeast (or anywhere else in the country for that matter)

So you go in to those areas and say "You have sex; you have babies" end of story!

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO IN THE SOUTH.   And it doesn't work??  That kind of teaching, results in the highest rates of teenage Pregnancies in the entire country.  It doesn't work.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

1. The Government ensures that when the teens aren't responsible, the life of the baby is still kept safe
2. What do you mean saving the baby's life when the issue is rape, and I don't get where you're going w/ teh last sentence.

No, the government ensures that when teens aren't what you consider responsible, the parents can choose to allow whether the "baby" dies.  Parental consent doesn't keep babies safe, it either gets teens in trouble or kills babies.  Not all parents will say their teen can't have an abortion.

What I'm saying is that you're arguing against abortion on the basis that it's irresponsible for a teenager to have sex.  When the issue turns to rape, it's about protecting the life of the baby.  So what matters more to you, ensuring responsibility or protecting life?  You only use the latter argument when the first one doesn't apply.

No--it's always protecting life.  The teens deserve to be in trouble.  I know parents will sometimes let the kids have the abortion, but it would be less than w/o parental consent.

Do teens HAVE to have sex

So you would be opposed to giving birth control to teenagers.  Thus increasing the abortion rate, because people are still going to have sex anyway.  See how this works?

Yes.  Teens should not be having sex--if we had to take away all forms of protection to accomplish even 1/2 of my goal.  Thats fine.  Teenagers do not have to have sex and can resist if they want to.  it's not that hard.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

Do teens HAVE to have sex--no if they don't want to, they won't--it's a matter of will and if you include this little way out, that says, hey, who cares, lets do it.

the answe is no, but thinking that is the answer to everything so nothing else can be discussed is exactly the reason why the south has MUCH higher teen Pregnancy rates than the northeast.  Simple minded and non realistic thinking about teenagers and sex.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be telling kids not to have sex.  Of course absitence should be part of the equation, buts its not the end all be all argument because well the argument doesn't work in the actual real world of reality we call Earth.

But I'm saying if you stopped all condoms, birth control and abortions, teen pregnancies would probably drop 75%.  Suddenly they have a multiple year problem to deal w/ for 4 minutes of fun.

Thats the biggest pile of crap I ever heard, and their is nothing to back it up.  Teen Pregnancies are MUCh higher in the part of the country where the access, to knowledge of and education about condems, birth control etc are less available than the ares they are more readily available. 

So how exactly does that result in that the ratees would drop by cough 75% if these things aren't avilable at all, when the areas that these things are harder to get are the areas with the higher rates???

Because Billy Bob and Betty Lou now know "if we have sex, there's nothing stopping us from getting pregnant, so we'll just wait."  Look at teen pregnancies before and after abortion, or birth control or condoms.

Its already hard for them to get in many areas of the south, and that is exactly why they have the higher rates of teen pregnancies than the northeast (or anywhere else in the country for that matter)

So you go in to those areas and say "You have sex; you have babies" end of story!

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO IN THE SOUTH.   And it doesn't work??  That kind of teaching, results in the highest rates of teenage Pregnancies in the entire country.  It doesn't work.

BECAUSE TEENS KNOW THAT THERE ARE STILL CONDOMS, THE PILL, AND ABORTIONS.  if you take those away, what you say is actuall 100% (not exactly--illegal/black market stuff, but maybe 95%) true!

[Ebowed]

Yes.  Teens should not be having sex--if we had to take away all forms of protection to accomplish even 1/2 of my goal.  Thats fine.  Teenagers do not have to have sex and can resist if they want to.  it's not that hard.

If we took away all forms of protection, teen abortions and pregnancies would skyrocket.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes.  Teens should not be having sex--if we had to take away all forms of protection to accomplish even 1/2 of my goal.  Thats fine.  Teenagers do not have to have sex and can resist if they want to.  it's not that hard.

If we took away all forms of protection, teen abortions and pregnancies would skyrocket.

I said all protection and abortions.  Teens would either resort to illegal unsafe abortions, or less sex.  True, some would go to black market abortions, but overall less teens would have sex.

[Smash255]

1. The Government ensures that when the teens aren't responsible, the life of the baby is still kept safe
2. What do you mean saving the baby's life when the issue is rape, and I don't get where you're going w/ teh last sentence.

No, the government ensures that when teens aren't what you consider responsible, the parents can choose to allow whether the "baby" dies.  Parental consent doesn't keep babies safe, it either gets teens in trouble or kills babies.  Not all parents will say their teen can't have an abortion.

What I'm saying is that you're arguing against abortion on the basis that it's irresponsible for a teenager to have sex.  When the issue turns to rape, it's about protecting the life of the baby.  So what matters more to you, ensuring responsibility or protecting life?  You only use the latter argument when the first one doesn't apply.

No--it's always protecting life.  The teens deserve to be in trouble.  I know parents will sometimes let the kids have the abortion, but it would be less than w/o parental consent.

Do teens HAVE to have sex

So you would be opposed to giving birth control to teenagers.  Thus increasing the abortion rate, because people are still going to have sex anyway.  See how this works?

Yes.  Teens should not be having sex--if we had to take away all forms of protection to accomplish even 1/2 of my goal.  Thats fine.  Teenagers do not have to have sex and can resist if they want to.  it's not that hard.

Again  what you speak of is not going to stop teens from having sex.  Its not, and the proof is that the areas where the things you want banned are less accesable are te areas which have the higher rates. 

What cuts down on abortions and teen pregnancies is not making abortion illegaal, its not taking away condems and birth control.  That simply doesn't work, and the proof is the south.  What does work to limit these things is comprehensive sex education the avilability to condemns, birth control and the education that comes along with it.  Thats what works.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

1. The Government ensures that when the teens aren't responsible, the life of the baby is still kept safe
2. What do you mean saving the baby's life when the issue is rape, and I don't get where you're going w/ teh last sentence.

No, the government ensures that when teens aren't what you consider responsible, the parents can choose to allow whether the "baby" dies.  Parental consent doesn't keep babies safe, it either gets teens in trouble or kills babies.  Not all parents will say their teen can't have an abortion.

What I'm saying is that you're arguing against abortion on the basis that it's irresponsible for a teenager to have sex.  When the issue turns to rape, it's about protecting the life of the baby.  So what matters more to you, ensuring responsibility or protecting life?  You only use the latter argument when the first one doesn't apply.

No--it's always protecting life.  The teens deserve to be in trouble.  I know parents will sometimes let the kids have the abortion, but it would be less than w/o parental consent.

Do teens HAVE to have sex

So you would be opposed to giving birth control to teenagers.  Thus increasing the abortion rate, because people are still going to have sex anyway.  See how this works?

Yes.  Teens should not be having sex--if we had to take away all forms of protection to accomplish even 1/2 of my goal.  Thats fine.  Teenagers do not have to have sex and can resist if they want to.  it's not that hard.

Again  what you speak of is not going to stop teens from having sex.  Its not, and the proof is that the areas where the things you want banned are less accesable are te areas which have the higher rates. 

What cuts down on abortions and teen pregnancies is not making abortion illegaal, its not taking away condems and birth control.  That simply doesn't work, and the proof is the south.  What does work to limit these things is comprehensive sex education the avilability to condemns, birth control and the education that comes along with it.  Thats what works.

NO!  Sex education, combined w/ sex ed from PARENTS with NO access to legal protection or abortions is what will bring it down.  You cite areas where access is limited--I'm saying NO access.