Sunday, April 27, 2008
CIANA
posted by Lord Nazh @ 07:42 | View blog reactions
|
The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) will make it a federal offense to transport a minor girl across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion if done to evade a parental notification or parental consent law that is in effect in the girl’s home state. In addition, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act will require, in a state without parental consent laws, that before an abortion provider performs an abortion on a minor girl who is the resident of a different state, that provider must notify a parent. The abortion provider does not have to notify a parent if the minor has already received authorization from a judge in her home state (judicial bypass), or unless she falls into carefully drafted exceptions to cover cases of abuse or medical emergencies.Via Ironic Surrealism, go here to sign.
Tags:
Labels: abortion, law, notification
posted by Lord Nazh @ 07:42 | View blog reactions
|
Monday, September 3, 2007
Pro-Choice Equality
This is for the pro-choice (abortion) people: [note: I am divorced with a child, I support my child willingly and would no matter what the law stated because I feel it is right to do so and I want to do so.]
Since the concept of pro-choice is the basic fact that the female should have the choice of having a child or not, shouldn't this construct be given to the male in the equation also?
Consider, you and your partner become pregnant unexpectedly (wrong time, not trying, etc.). Both of you are pro-choice and both feel that it wouldn't be a good idea to have the child. The husband/boyfriend argues that this wouldn't be good because of [insert good reason here] and you feel roughly the same. After thinking about it, you feel that reason [insert better reason here] would overcome his (and your concerns) and decide (as is your right) to have the child even though he doesn't want to.
A period of time later, you split up (in no relation to said pregnancy). Here's the question: should it be his choice whether to support the child or not? (morally yes and legally yes, in all places I'm aware of, but this is a hypothetical) Why or why not?
Since the decision to have the child was yours and yours alone (in this case, remember his choice was no child), shouldn't he then logically be entitled to the choice of supporting the child or not (that he didn't want and now does not live with).
Also, suppose he wanted the child and you ultimately decided against it (as is your right as you both believe), should he then have legal recompse from you for not having his child? If you have the legal means to get support from someone that didn't want a child (who believed as you that it is your choice) vis-a-vis shouldn't he have the same right to get support (something) from you for not having the child that he wanted?
As I am pro-life, these questions will not keep me up at night, they were just random thoughts that ran through my head and I wanted to get some responses from others on. Feel free to comment and discuss. posted by Lord Nazh @ 00:35 | View blog reactions
|
This is for the pro-choice (abortion) people: [note: I am divorced with a child, I support my child willingly and would no matter what the law stated because I feel it is right to do so and I want to do so.]
Since the concept of pro-choice is the basic fact that the female should have the choice of having a child or not, shouldn't this construct be given to the male in the equation also?
Consider, you and your partner become pregnant unexpectedly (wrong time, not trying, etc.). Both of you are pro-choice and both feel that it wouldn't be a good idea to have the child. The husband/boyfriend argues that this wouldn't be good because of [insert good reason here] and you feel roughly the same. After thinking about it, you feel that reason [insert better reason here] would overcome his (and your concerns) and decide (as is your right) to have the child even though he doesn't want to.
A period of time later, you split up (in no relation to said pregnancy). Here's the question: should it be his choice whether to support the child or not? (morally yes and legally yes, in all places I'm aware of, but this is a hypothetical) Why or why not?
Since the decision to have the child was yours and yours alone (in this case, remember his choice was no child), shouldn't he then logically be entitled to the choice of supporting the child or not (that he didn't want and now does not live with).
Also, suppose he wanted the child and you ultimately decided against it (as is your right as you both believe), should he then have legal recompse from you for not having his child? If you have the legal means to get support from someone that didn't want a child (who believed as you that it is your choice) vis-a-vis shouldn't he have the same right to get support (something) from you for not having the child that he wanted?
As I am pro-life, these questions will not keep me up at night, they were just random thoughts that ran through my head and I wanted to get some responses from others on. Feel free to comment and discuss.
Labels: abortion, choice, hypothetical, support
posted by Lord Nazh @ 00:35 | View blog reactions
|
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Issues
I told James H (from across the pond) that I would attempt to do a good post last night. Alas it was not to be as me and my internet got into a fight. :) Needless to say, I did not post any last night.
Let's touch on a couple (or three) issues that I feel strongly one way or the other about.
GlobalWarming Cooling Climate Change:
Declaring that something is a given requires proof not consensus. The fact that almost every planet in this solar system is in the middle of some kind of 'global' phenomena dealing with the sun leads one to believe that maybe our problem may be related to the sun also. It's not only juvenile to state that the case is closed and there should be no debate, it is also dishonest to not take the rest of the planets into effect when talking about what is happening.
Is the planet warming? According to measurements indeed we have gained about .6 degrees celsius in the past century. What will that mean for the future? NO ONE KNOWS. Of course there are plenty of people that tell you what they THINK it means and what THEIR computer models show them, but these people don't actually KNOW anything. Until they can prove their side, then debate is not only open, it is NEEDED. It is not enough to ruin the economy of most of the countries in the world and to deny the people of the third world their chance at becoming 'industrialized' nations on the thought of people that don't know what will happen next. (In 1975 there was a severe threat of a new ice age...)
----
The non-scandal over the US Attorneys
The power of the President to fire politically appointed people is not in question, this story should be a moot one. The republicans in office today are scarily consistent. If the democrats cry "SCANDAL" then the republicans will jump into a defensive stance and look for a suitable candidate to fire. They don't actually try to defend themselves or laugh off baseless accusations, they simply retreat into a cubby hole and send someone to the firing deck.
----
Abortion
I believe that Abortion is indeed about choice. But I believe the 'choice' that is happening is between the woman's rights of reproduction vs the child's right to life. It's very hard for me to see how anyone could pick the former over the latter.
To be 'pro-choice' to me would imply that the baby has a choice (yes BABY) but it does not. The choice that the woman has (except in cases of rape) was already made when she decided to have sex (sex being the cause of 99% of all known pregnancies) and therefore she has already exercised her reproductive rights.
The press is quick to point out how many U.S. servicemen have died in the Iraqi war (somewhat slower to point out the Iraqi casualties) but you hardly ever see any reports on the number of U.S. children killed due to 'freedom of choice'. It is galling that people would be more concerned with the fate of death-row inmates than they would with the next generation of citizens (considering most of these same people also want to 'fix' the world for the next generation, shouldn't they be more concerned with bringing the next generation into the world o.O)
----
Immigration
Immigration is the greatest thing in the world for EVERY country. Unless you live in the cradle of civilization, your country was founded at some time by immigrants. The 'Native' Americans may have been the first people in this country, but they arrived here from somewhere else too.
Illegal Immigration is the problem. In a running argument with a friend of mine, I support the border fence, he detests it. He says it will not stop the flow of immigrants, is too expensive, etc. I say the point is not it 'stopping' the flow, but slowing it. Trying to divert the people that want to come into this country into the places where they are EXPECTED to cross (legally) and to try to halt some of the 'not known' crossings we have now.
Of course the fence (only being 700 miles) will not stop illegal immigration. To stop it, it would have to be much longer and have people on it 24/7 manning the top at 5-10 foot intervals. We know that won't happen. But if all you have to do now to get into this country illegally is to walk through the desert, then something has to change. Of course, we should also start enforcing the laws we ALREADY have against illegal immigrants, but that of course is another issue.
Notice the MSM will hardly ever put the word illegal in front of immigrant. They want you to think that people that are against illegal immigration are really against immigrants. period. They do not want you to think about the fact that people that are illegal immigrants are already criminals in this country and shouldn't be paid for by the hard working people of this country.
__________
Reason to rant
Filed: posted by Lord Nazh @ 07:02 | View blog reactions
|
Let's touch on a couple (or three) issues that I feel strongly one way or the other about.
Global
This is via Instapundit and one of the guest bloggers there. If anyone wants to know why I strongly dislike people that claim this disaster is imminent, that's one of the reasons.ON GLOBAL WARMING Let me clarify a little my position. I think there are a lot of questions about global warming: how much, and what, should be done. However, I regard two questions as basically no longer worth debating, at least by people with my level of science education:
1) Is AGW happening?
2) Should we do something about it?The first is a technical question that seems to be largely settled; when you've convinced Ron Bailey it's happening, you've convinced me. The second is a moral question that seems obvious: should I drive a huge, empty car many miles when doing so will help flood Bangladesh, merely because the comfy leather seats are right here where I can see them, and the dead future Bangladeshis aren't? . . . this is a question that seemingly only has one right answer. I say this as one who is conscious that I could use less electricity, and should, and am trying to but not as hard as morality should require. But I digress.
Unfortunately, I think that politics renders the questions that are worth arguing, pointless; we won't find a political solution to the problem because . . . mmmmmm, leather seats. I'm hoping instead for a technological breakthrough that renders the question largely moot. Meanwhile, I'm buying real estate in the Canadian hinterlands.
posted at 02:57 PM by Megan McArdle
Declaring that something is a given requires proof not consensus. The fact that almost every planet in this solar system is in the middle of some kind of 'global' phenomena dealing with the sun leads one to believe that maybe our problem may be related to the sun also. It's not only juvenile to state that the case is closed and there should be no debate, it is also dishonest to not take the rest of the planets into effect when talking about what is happening.
Is the planet warming? According to measurements indeed we have gained about .6 degrees celsius in the past century. What will that mean for the future? NO ONE KNOWS. Of course there are plenty of people that tell you what they THINK it means and what THEIR computer models show them, but these people don't actually KNOW anything. Until they can prove their side, then debate is not only open, it is NEEDED. It is not enough to ruin the economy of most of the countries in the world and to deny the people of the third world their chance at becoming 'industrialized' nations on the thought of people that don't know what will happen next. (In 1975 there was a severe threat of a new ice age...)
----
The non-scandal over the US Attorneys
The power of the President to fire politically appointed people is not in question, this story should be a moot one. The republicans in office today are scarily consistent. If the democrats cry "SCANDAL" then the republicans will jump into a defensive stance and look for a suitable candidate to fire. They don't actually try to defend themselves or laugh off baseless accusations, they simply retreat into a cubby hole and send someone to the firing deck.
----
Abortion
I believe that Abortion is indeed about choice. But I believe the 'choice' that is happening is between the woman's rights of reproduction vs the child's right to life. It's very hard for me to see how anyone could pick the former over the latter.
To be 'pro-choice' to me would imply that the baby has a choice (yes BABY) but it does not. The choice that the woman has (except in cases of rape) was already made when she decided to have sex (sex being the cause of 99% of all known pregnancies) and therefore she has already exercised her reproductive rights.
The press is quick to point out how many U.S. servicemen have died in the Iraqi war (somewhat slower to point out the Iraqi casualties) but you hardly ever see any reports on the number of U.S. children killed due to 'freedom of choice'. It is galling that people would be more concerned with the fate of death-row inmates than they would with the next generation of citizens (considering most of these same people also want to 'fix' the world for the next generation, shouldn't they be more concerned with bringing the next generation into the world o.O)
----
Immigration
Immigration is the greatest thing in the world for EVERY country. Unless you live in the cradle of civilization, your country was founded at some time by immigrants. The 'Native' Americans may have been the first people in this country, but they arrived here from somewhere else too.
Illegal Immigration is the problem. In a running argument with a friend of mine, I support the border fence, he detests it. He says it will not stop the flow of immigrants, is too expensive, etc. I say the point is not it 'stopping' the flow, but slowing it. Trying to divert the people that want to come into this country into the places where they are EXPECTED to cross (legally) and to try to halt some of the 'not known' crossings we have now.
Of course the fence (only being 700 miles) will not stop illegal immigration. To stop it, it would have to be much longer and have people on it 24/7 manning the top at 5-10 foot intervals. We know that won't happen. But if all you have to do now to get into this country illegally is to walk through the desert, then something has to change. Of course, we should also start enforcing the laws we ALREADY have against illegal immigrants, but that of course is another issue.
Notice the MSM will hardly ever put the word illegal in front of immigrant. They want you to think that people that are against illegal immigration are really against immigrants. period. They do not want you to think about the fact that people that are illegal immigrants are already criminals in this country and shouldn't be paid for by the hard working people of this country.
__________
Reason to rant
Filed:
Labels: abortion, global climate change, illegal immigration, U.S. President
posted by Lord Nazh @ 07:02 | View blog reactions
|
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Out Damn Spot
In a bizarre case of 'malpractice' a woman is suing because apparently doctor's were unable to kill her unborn child. (yes I can just hear the 'pro-choice' people screaming that it wasn't a child, bite me)
Since there were two failed attempts at an abortion, this lady thinks the state/doctors/hospital et al. should pony up the money to raise a child. I'd bet that she just can't give up the little girl for adoption (that would be 'cruel' and wouldn't get her a payday).
I can hear the conversation now: "Mommy, why do we have all this money?" "Because the doctor's were too stupid to get rid of you before you were born dear."
Yes I could be more sympathetic to the fact that malpractice did occur, but I do not apologize for thinking that children deserve to be born and live. Pro-choice should be about the child, not the parent.
__________
Reason to wonder
Filed: posted by Lord Nazh @ 08:39 | View blog reactions
|
Since there were two failed attempts at an abortion, this lady thinks the state/doctors/hospital et al. should pony up the money to raise a child. I'd bet that she just can't give up the little girl for adoption (that would be 'cruel' and wouldn't get her a payday).
Boston woman sues for child-rearing costs after failed abortionBOSTON --A Boston woman who gave birth after a failed abortion has filed a lawsuit against two doctors and Planned Parenthood seeking the costs of raising her child.
The complaint was filed by Jennifer Raper, 45, last week in Suffolk Superior Court and still must be screened by a special panel before it can proceed to trial.Raper claimed in the three-page medical malpractice suit that she found out she was pregnant in March 2004 and decided to have an abortion for financial reasons.
Dr. Allison Bryant, a physician working for Planned Parenthood at the time, performed the procedure on April 9, 2004, but it "was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant," according to the complaint. (link)
I can hear the conversation now: "Mommy, why do we have all this money?" "Because the doctor's were too stupid to get rid of you before you were born dear."
Yes I could be more sympathetic to the fact that malpractice did occur, but I do not apologize for thinking that children deserve to be born and live. Pro-choice should be about the child, not the parent.
__________
Reason to wonder
Filed:
Labels: abortion, idiocy, litigation
posted by Lord Nazh @ 08:39 | View blog reactions
|
