Bethyaga's Manifesto.

[Serious Paul]

Animalball really pissed meoff, I won't lie. I took my ball and went home. I now do not, and willnot read most of the forums there. I do however read one, and that's where I found this. And this is truly worthy, and worthy of discussion.

[Wounded Ronin]

Bah, a typical conservative, he is.



See, the thing that he dosen't understand about parental notifications of abortions is that in principle, when you have youth reproductive health clinics to deal with problems concering youth reproductive health in areas where there are a lot of problems, one very important thing is that the youth feel that it exists for them and them alone. Having it be something where parents can swoop in and find out what you were doing entirely defeats the purpose. From a public health perspective, notifying parents of anything when some scared kid goes to your clinic would undermine the effectiveness of your program and destroy the outreach to at-risk individuals that you were trying to create.


So, like, people can be like, "RAARH! ETHICS! CONSERVATIVISM! RAAAH!" and bash my point, but no amount of bashing would change the fact that that is the current paradigm by which these programs operate them. If you undermine them, on either faulty or correct ethical principles, the immediate result is that you will be causing problems for everyone who could have benefitted from them in their current form.


That's the problem with conservatives. They think that their standards of decency can be applied to every walk of life, without necessarily understanding all the things that they're messing with.



EDIT: As I read farther, I see my comment was in error. He actually has some non-conservative positions and is therefore not a typical conservative or anything. I take that part of my post back.

[Elldren]

That's the problem with conservatives. They think that their standards of decency can be applied to every walk of life, without necessarily understanding all the things that they're messing with.

Tangential, but wondering how you'd apply that statement to a conservative with no standards of decency, if such a beast exists.

[Artemis Frog]

[nevermind]

[Bethyaga]

Bah, a typical conservative, he is. [followed by retraction]

See that's the problem with being a moderate. Alphabetically, Abortion and Affirmative Action came first in my list of issues and when liberals see "anti-abortion, anti-affirmative action, pro-"Family Values", control spending, free trader" the knee-jerk reaction is to assume I'm a blind rabid conservative.

Conservatives see "anti-death penalty, repeal the second ammendment, gay rights, selective increases in social spending" and they assume I'm a pinko nutjob.

I'm voting for Bush this time, but only as the lesser of two evils. Lieberman would have been my absolute first choice, but that's not to be, eh.

See, the thing that he dosen't understand about parental notifications of abortions is that in principle, when you have youth reproductive health clinics to deal with problems concering youth reproductive health in areas where there are a lot of problems, one very important thing is that the youth feel that it exists for them and them alone. Having it be something where parents can swoop in and find out what you were doing entirely defeats the purpose. From a public health perspective, notifying parents of anything when some scared kid goes to your clinic would undermine the effectiveness of your program and destroy the outreach to at-risk individuals that you were trying to create.

It sounds so noble when you say it, but there's a reason that minors can't vote. There's a reason that minors may not enter into a legal contract until the age of 19. There's reasons that we have age limits for drinking, smoking, driving, marriage, working. There's reasons that all minors are REQUIRED BY LAW to have a legal parent or guardian unless a court of law pronounces them competent to make their own decisions. And that's because society in general and the law in particular recognize that minors are notoriously poor decision makers and therefore, there are certain decisions that they absolutely should not make without parental guidance and consent.

Your argument is that we should discount all of that and allow minor children to have major invasive surgical procedures without guardian awareness (much less consent), because you want them to feel safe when they go to the clinic.

That's the problem with conservatives. They think that their standards of decency can be applied to every walk of life, without necessarily understanding all the things that they're messing with.

This has nothing to do with anyone's "standards of decency" and everything to do with consistency under the law. The law makes very clear that unless determined otherwise by the courts, minor children are required to have a responsible designee (parent or guardian) to approve of all major decisions. The only reason that abortion is considered differently is because of the agenda of the pro-choice movement.

[Bethyaga]

Just to add on:

In fact, the full weight of law in the US assumes that minors are incompetent to make their own decisions unless proven competent in a court of law. It still amazes me that anyone would assume that doesn't apply to something as major as abortion.

And you obviously didn't read my original post very well or were blinded by your assumptions about me. I don't say anywhere that minors shouldn't be able to go to clinics and get advice and even acquire birth control without parental consent. They should be able to do all of that with an assurance of privacy. In fact, they should even be able to come in and consult about abortion options in private. However, when she actually makes the decision to go through with it, that's when parental notification kicks in. And as I stated before, if at that point, she says that she can't go to her parents for whatever reason, then that is the red flag that causes the medical professional to refer her to someone who can help her... either help her to address abuse or other issues, or to help her persue medical emancipation through the courts if that is appropriate for her.

[Elldren]

There's a reason that minors may not enter into a legal contract until the age of 19.

Sorry to nit-pick, but 18, Bethy, not 19.

[Bethyaga]

And thanks for the notice Paul.

My only regret is that I wish I hadn't gone alphabetical. Most everyone seems to have the most to say about abortion, when actually my position there is very moderate. Yes, I am opposed to it, but I know calling for its banning is non-productive at this point. I would rather focus on reasonable solutions for reducing the need for them.

But abortion is only a small part of my manifesto.

[Wounded Ronin]

Just to add on:

In fact, the full weight of law in the US assumes that minors are incompetent to make their own decisions unless proven competent in a court of law. It still amazes me that anyone would assume that doesn't apply to something as major as abortion.

And you obviously didn't read my original post very well or were blinded by your assumptions about me. I don't say anywhere that minors shouldn't be able to go to clinics and get advice and even acquire birth control without parental consent. They should be able to do all of that with an assurance of privacy. In fact, they should even be able to come in and consult about abortion options in private. However, when she actually makes the decision to go through with it, that's when parental notification kicks in. And as I stated before, if at that point, she says that she can't go to her parents for whatever reason, then that is the red flag that causes the medical professional to refer her to someone who can help her... either help her to address abuse or other issues, or to help her persue medical emancipation through the courts if that is appropriate for her.

Right, but see, as I explained in my post, this is not the principle that youth clinics and public health people usually espouse. Could you make a *legal* case against it? Sure. Would implementing this legally consistient logic to it actually help the kiddies in question? Most public health people would say absolutley not.

Considering that public health people and youth clinics often play an important role in the health of disadvantaged populations, is it smart to force them to do things in ways that they don't want to do it? Probably not. Especially when the particular type of work they do (i.e. operate a free youth clinic) isn't really the first place you would go to work if you were trying to get rich in some unscrupulous way.

[kyle]

There's a reason that minors may not enter into a legal contract until the age of 19.

Sorry to nit-pick, but 18, Bethy, not 19.

In Nebraska (where Bethyaga is from) it's 19-- or was when I lived there ten years ago.

[kyle]

And thanks for the notice Paul.

My only regret is that I wish I hadn't gone alphabetical. Most everyone seems to have the most to say about abortion, when actually my position there is very moderate. Yes, I am opposed to it, but I know calling for its banning is non-productive at this point. I would rather focus on reasonable solutions for reducing the need for them.

But abortion is only a small part of my manifesto.

See, Mike. You've let Paul's plan work. He's mad at animalball- although I'm still not clear why. Even though he's mad- he can't stay away from the hypnotizing power of The Sink. He'd like to engage in the discussion, but can't on principle. So he discusses it here and you find it and now the both of you (and other bulldrekers) are discussing it here. You've been sucked in. I've got an idea, Mike-- if you want to defend your ideas, do it here.

[Rev]

Actually I would say you are a mild liberal.

You are "anti-abortion" in the sense that ideally there would be no abortions because of ethical concerns of one degree or another, virtually everybody agrees with that. The political distinction is whether a person thinks it should be illegal under various circumstances. Fundementalists like Bush say it should be illegal under all or nearly all circumstances. Liberals generally advocate programs that reduce abortion without coercion, councling, education, contraception, etc.

Also being against affirmative action does not make one a conservative. Many 'liberals' think that affermative action programs are a temporary measure to give disadvantaged groups a chance to catch up and that they should be constantly evolving to stay focused on the groups that actually need the help rather than remaining aimed at groups that needed it decades ago. By saying affirmative action should be refocused to be class rather than race, etc based you fit right in to a very progressive viewpoint.

What is wierd is that you like Bush. He isnt a moderate, he is a right wing fundamentalist extreemist. Kerry is quite moderate and even more his party will not control both houses of congress if he is elected, so his policies will be even more moderate than he is in reality. He only looks like a 'liberal' in the far right skewed american politics of today.

By the way it isnt just Kerry who says there are 45 million uninsured, it is the US Census bureau. The Cato Institute actually seems to agree with that number but tries to spin it down to 20 million here for instance. In that article they say that the number of people at any time uninsured is indeed about 40m (in 2002), but only 21 mllion went the entire year without insurance. A usefull fact, but hardly a non-problem. A persons odds of having a serious health problem do not drop when they loose coverage for a few months. And though as they point out healthy people are more likely to be lackluster about getting coverage it is also very common for americans to loose coverage after loosing thier jobs as a result of illness. Also health care is all about preventative care being cheaper the earlier it happens. If a person is without health insurance even for a few weeks they are likely to delay care until either they get insurance, or their condition worsens enough that they get care without it and often the cost ends up being distributed to the rest of the system after cleaning them out. Either way the care ends up costing more.

[Elldren]

There's a reason that minors may not enter into a legal contract until the age of 19.

Sorry to nit-pick, but 18, Bethy, not 19.

In Nebraska (where Bethyaga is from) it's 19-- or was when I lived there ten years ago.

Huh... Most everywhere I've been it's 18 (that's when you start getting those credit card applications in the mail)

[Arethusa]

See that's the problem with being a moderate. Alphabetically, Abortion and Affirmative Action came first in my list of issues and when liberals see "anti-abortion, anti-affirmative action, pro-"Family Values", control spending, free trader" the knee-jerk reaction is to assume I'm a blind rabid conservative.

Conservatives see "anti-death penalty, repeal the second ammendment, gay rights, selective increases in social spending" and they assume I'm a pinko nutjob.

Actually, I read it and see that you're a moderate who's taken many of the most insane and flatly wrong positions of each party and combined them into a sticky mess of political shit.

This has nothing to do with anyone's "standards of decency" and everything to do with consistency under the law. The law makes very clear that unless determined otherwise by the courts, minor children are required to have a responsible designee (parent or guardian) to approve of all major decisions. The only reason that abortion is considered differently is because of the agenda of the pro-choice movement.

Here's the thing: I'm 19, and I'm pretty sure it's been at least a little while since you were 19, much less 16. What those opposed to the pro-choice movement have always myopically ignored while ranting about family values and Jesus (though I realize these last two qualifications do not apply to you) is that when their proposed restrictions had last been in place, all they did was create a wonderful market for wire hangers and basement abortion clinics. When you remove the ability of a pregnant girl to got discreetly to a clinic, I hope you can live with yourself when more and more girls kill themselves or die or permanently damage themselves thanks to the joys of wire hangers and basement clinics. Consistency of the law is a nice concept, but in the real world, problems are not so convenient, and it's not so simple as saying, "big decision? Parents!" This type of nearsighted thinking is extraordinarily dangerous.

[Cash]

Ahhhh, to be 19 again.

[Kai]

So following your logic there, just about everything should be legal simply because people are stupid and try things at home? That's the whole thing about illegal, that generally means people are less likely to try it. Just because people kill themselves off making meth in their basements is no reason to make it legal. You can't say everyone, hell I don't think you could say most, that look at abortion as a viable option would go looking for coat hangers.

As for age, pfft. Irresponsible is irresponsible, maybe if the idea is girls not being pregnant, lets try teaching birth control, I'm hard pressed to imagine most abertions aren't retroactive birth control on the part of a woman whe didn't think to get some pills or thought her partner really didn't need a condom.

[TheScamp]

I'm hard pressed to imagine most abertions aren't retroactive birth control on the part of a woman whe didn't think to get some pills or thought her partner really didn't need a condom.

So, your assertion is that most abortions are performed as retroactive birth control, for the reasons you listed?

[Arethusa]

So following your logic there, just about everything should be legal simply because people are stupid and try things at home? That's the whole thing about illegal, that generally means people are less likely to try it. Just because people kill themselves off making meth in their basements is no reason to make it legal. You can't say everyone, hell I don't think you could say most, that look at abortion as a viable option would go looking for coat hangers.

As for age, pfft. Irresponsible is irresponsible, maybe if the idea is girls not being pregnant, lets try teaching birth control, I'm hard pressed to imagine most abertions aren't retroactive birth control on the part of a woman whe didn't think to get some pills or thought her partner really didn't need a condom.

The analogy with cooking meth in a basement is just specous, at best. No one's saying it isn't often the result of irresponsibility. These are kids, after all, and it comes with the territory. I have no problem with teaching birth control and responsibility, but, then again, neither does the government. Walk into a high school health class some time and you'll see them teaching exactly what you want them to. Seems to be working really well, right?

Look, there is obviously room to improve. Education as the first line of defense, so to speak, needs to be worked on, but it's not as simple asying we just need to teach them. The issue of teen pregnancy is really an expression of a deeper and far greater social pathology affecting America, and that needs to be dealt with. But I can say that historically, all attempts to legislate against abortions have simply forced the disenfranchised to seek marginally safe to simply dangerous means of securing an abortion. Illegalizing abortions doesn't do a goddamn thing about sex and teen pregnancy; it just means you get more suicides, more coat hanger abortiosn, more children out of wedlock, and more mothers without anyone supporting them. Ultimately, this problem cannot be solved by blindly legislating against abortion because you believe in family values, Jesus, the damnation of sinners, consistency under the law, or some combination thereof; it is bigger than that, and to ignore this fundamental fact is inviting social disaster.

[Bethyaga]

There's a reason that minors may not enter into a legal contract until the age of 19.

Sorry to nit-pick, but 18, Bethy, not 19.

Not in Nebraska.

[Bethyaga]

I'm hard pressed to imagine most abertions aren't retroactive birth control on the part of a woman whe didn't think to get some pills or thought her partner really didn't need a condom.

So, your assertion is that most abortions are performed as retroactive birth control, for the reasons you listed?

I would say that most pregnancies that end in abortion resulted from sex without birth control or with improperly applied birth control. Actually, I think that's most pregnancies period. I'm sure there are plenty of people who got pregnant while taking all due precautions, but I am willing to go out on a limb and say they are a small small minority of the total number of pregnancies.

[Serious Paul]

Actually, I read it and see that you're a moderate who's taken many of the most insane and flatly wrong positions of each party and combined them into a sticky mess of political shit.

Huh? Are you serious? Okay Arethusa let me explain something to you.

First, welcome to Bulldrek.

Second everyone here, nearly everyone here anyways, is way above the normal internet poster. Maybe you're used to the quality control at DSF, or maybe even the good natured close knit community that Underworld is-but here things work a little differently.

Next, Bethyaga is a respected memebr of this community because he has earned that respect by repeatedly illustrating that he is indeed worthy of our praise. When we say Bethyaga is smarter than the average bear, we're not kidding.

Now I know you're 19, well I assume you were telling us the truth-and will assume you are being honest with us until such time as you present reason not to-and 19 is an age where we all feel we posess an infinite amount of kick ass wisdom, certainly more than anybodt we know. And maybe where you come from, or in your circle of friends you're the smartest guy. You're the Alpha male.

Well unfortunately that means less than nothing here, at least to those of us who don't know you. We're all Alpha males here kid. We're all the smart guys in our close circle of friends. We're all that guy. So don't expect us to be surpised by anything you say or do. We're not easily shocked. We've seen the Elephant, so to speak.

So when you make a really crap ass statement like that, don't expect us to buy it. Why? you have yet to earn a lot of peoples respect in this community. That's certainly not to say that you won't, or that everyone here feels exactly like I do. (I, in fact, speak only for my own feelings, regardless of how much of the royal we I use.)

Until you give me a reason to think of you as anything other than a mouthy kid, you're labeled by me as such. Frankly I hope you prove em wrong. We always welcome new blood, especially people who bring something to the table. But until you establish your "credentials" (To coin a phrase) you're not a major leaguer here guy.

Here's the thing: I'm 19, and I'm pretty sure it's been at least a little while since you were 19, much less 16.

Because the teenage experience is so unique, riiiiighhhhtttt.....

What those opposed to the pro-choice movement have always myopically ignored while ranting about family values and Jesus (though I realize these last two qualifications do not apply to you) is that when their proposed restrictions had last been in place, all they did was create a wonderful market for wire hangers and basement abortion clinics.

Which you realize is their right. Your bias is quite telling though. I am certainly not a religous man of any sort, nor am I opposed to abortion in any tangible way, but people like you make me embarassed to be prochoice. You're as bad as the people you are slamming.

When you remove the ability of a pregnant girl to got discreetly to a clinic, I hope you can live with yourself when more and more girls kill themselves or die or permanently damage themselves thanks to the joys of wire hangers and basement clinics.

Which you haven't shown is related in anydiscernable way to anything. AT least back your opinion with some evidence guy. We can all give our opinions. I do it all the time.

Consistency of the law is a nice concept, but in the real world, problems are not so convenient, and it's not so simple as saying, "big decision? Parents!" This type of nearsighted thinking is extraordinarily dangerous.

Discretion of course in no way something any parent is capable of. Yeah, no parent should have any sort of legal rights when their underage children are invovled...riiigghhhhttt.


Come back when you have something more than knee jerk teen agnst.

[Johnny the Bull]

We're all the smart guys in our close circle of friends. We're all that guy. So don't expect us to be surpised by anything you say or do. We're not easily shocked. We've seen the Elephant, so to speak.

I'm the dumb gym junkie in my real life circle of friends. But here, yeah, I'm the smartest in my circle of friends.

[Arethusa]

Huh? Are you serious? Okay Arethusa let me explain something to you.

Let me get this out there before it causes any more of a mess: while I may have overstated slightly and I will say you took it a bit more seriously than I intended— your fault or mine— I don't have anything to prove, and I can't help but find your statement on the nature of the community bothersomly pretentious.

Because the teenage experience is so unique, riiiiighhhhtttt.....

It isn't about uniqueness so much as knowledge of the problems and outlooks that currently dominate the age group. Society is not static, and I find it exceedingly difficult to believe anyone who understands the current state of the youth in this country could come to such an asinine conclusion as banning teenage abortion in order to fix things.

Which you realize is their right. Your bias is quite telling though. I am certainly not a religous man of any sort, nor am I opposed to abortion in any tangible way, but people like you make me embarassed to be prochoice. You're as bad as the people you are slamming.

Be embarrassed all you like; I have no problem insulting fundie Christians more in love with themselves than god. Anything beyond that— say, a bias against christianity in general, or whatever Hot Topic standard opinion you probably have ascribed to me— is neither applicable nor pertinent.

Which you haven't shown is related in anydiscernable way to anything. AT least back your opinion with some evidence guy. We can all give our opinions. I do it all the time.

You mean the entire history of the women's lib pro choice movement?

Discretion of course in no way something any parent is capable of. Yeah, no parent should have any sort of legal rights when their underage children are invovled...riiigghhhhttt.

Stop straw manning me. Discretion, in this case, acts as protection against families that will severely punish, abuse, or disown their children. It's a serious problem, and while I acknowledge that there is danger in allowing kids to seek serious medical procedures without parental consent, there is also significant danger in removing this right. The solution to the problem is not to remove it, nor is the solution to leave everything as is. This is my point, and I would appreciate it if you could contend this argument instead of making into whatever is most convenient to knock over.

Come back when you have something more than knee jerk teen agnst.

Thursday Night Internet Fight! Leave the ad hominem attacks at home. I'm not interested.

[Arethusa]

[edit: double post]

[Johnny the Bull]

Which you haven't shown is related in anydiscernable way to anything. AT least back your opinion with some evidence guy. We can all give our opinions. I do it all the time.

You mean the entire history of the women's lib pro choice movement?

Source it.

Come back when you have something more than knee jerk teen agnst.

Thursday Night Internet Fight! Leave the ad hominem attacks at home. I'm not interested.

[/quote]

I don't think too many of us are interested either.

[WillyGilligan]

and I find it exceedingly difficult to believe anyone who understands the current state of the youth in this country could come to such an asinine conclusion as banning teenage abortion in order to fix things.

First, I see no mention of 'ban' until you said it. Bethyaga even explicity stated that an outright ban isn't possible now. His position is only that parental notification needs to be
there, with a proviso for kids that don't feel that they can safely talk to their parents about it. It seems, at least to me, a fairly balanced approach. If it's not done in a vaccuum, specifically if it's combined with improvements to sex education, then the potential for back alley abortions should go down as well, in my opinion.

Second, being a teenager means that you're closer to the problem. That's both boon and bane, if you get my drift.

The solution to the problem is not to remove it, nor is the solution to leave everything as is.

So what change would you make, if you don't mind sharing?

[Adam]

Ah, the mark of a new Bulldrek poster: an image in a sig file. Animated, no less.

[lorg]

Which you haven't shown is related in anydiscernable way to anything. AT least back your opinion with some evidence guy. We can all give our opinions. I do it all the time.

Well it is hard to find evidence or the result of illegal abortions in the USA since they are currently legal so you would have to post regarding other countries and these are usually third world countries so one has to wonder how relevant they would be but sure here you go ...

Bush 'killing women' with pro-life aid

IT IS estimated that almost half of the 78,000 women who die each year as a result of unsafe abortions live in Africa.

More that 30,000 women in Africa die every year from complications of abortions that are self-induced or performed by unqualified personnel.

According to the World Health Organisation, in Ethiopia alone more women die in hospitals from complications of unsafe, usually illegal, abortions than from almost any other cause. Some 70% of women brought to hospital suffering from serious problems caused by back-street abortions die.

Illegal abortions 'killing South American women'

Every year four million women in Latin America have an illegal abortion, according to the World Health Organisation.

Preventing illegal abortions, which leave hundreds of thousands of woman dead or seriously injured, has been the focus of the conference in Mexico. Many groups present believe the only way to reduce the numbers is to make the practice legal.

"It is the first to the third cause of maternal death in different countries in Latin America," the chair of the conference, Maria Consuelo Mejilla - director of Catholics For The Right To Decide

Which is not that far away, just south of the border.

[Serious Paul]

Let me get this out there before it causes any more of a mess: while I may have overstated slightly and I will say you took it a bit more seriously than I intended— your fault or mine— I don't have anything to prove, and I can't help but find your statement on the nature of the community bothersomly pretentious.

Pretenious or no, it's all really true. Whether you like it or not, that is how this community operates. Hell its how all communities operate. You build your repuation with people through hard work. So far you have to do any of that.

If I were you. I'd thank Lorg for doing it for you.

It isn't about uniqueness so much as knowledge of the problems and outlooks that currently dominate the age group.

None of which have chnaged in the last sixty years, maybe longer.

Society is not static

In some ways this is true. There are portions of our society that change. Are you suggesting that all of it changes, and none remains? I hope you understand why I think that's silly.

...and I find it exceedingly difficult to believe anyone who understands the current state of the youth in this country could come to such an asinine conclusion as banning teenage abortion in order to fix things.

Of course you do. You're 19. Every kid from 14 to 22 thinks they have life by the ass. You are absolutely no different. Welcome to the club every one here was a member of. Now get in line.

Be embarrassed all you like

Uhm, I will. Permission or not.

I have no problem insulting fundie Christians more in love with themselves than god.

And I will in turn have no problems mentioning that your prejudices show. And I will take everything you type and run in it through your filter. Any one can sound cool and say they hate Jimmy Swaggert, hell I do that. Giving a good reason is much more impressive.

Besides we already have a Crazy Elf.

I know Crazy Elf.

You sir, are no Crazy Elf.

Anything beyond that— say, a bias against christianity in general, or whatever Hot Topic standard opinion you probably have ascribed to me— is neither applicable nor pertinent.

I think we will decide what is pertinent kiddo. But I am glad that you're saying it's not true. It raises my opinion of you. (Don't bother saying it doesn't matter to you. The moment you replied to anything I wrote, it pretty much proved you're as human as the rest of us. Now have fun with it guy!)

You mean the entire history of the women's lib pro choice movement?

Start thanking Lorg. At least he provided me with something other than a campaign slogan or a commercial soundbite.

Stop straw manning me.

No. As long as the shoe fits, I say wear it.

Discretion, in this case, acts as protection against families that will severely punish, abuse, or disown their children.

Which you haven't shown. Appparently you don't get it. I am not disagreeing with you. I am asking you to back your rhetoric up with fact.

It's a serious problem, and while I acknowledge that there is danger in allowing kids to seek serious medical procedures without parental consent, there is also significant danger in removing this right.

In some cases.

The solution to the problem is not to remove it, nor is the solution to leave everything as is. This is my point, and I would appreciate it if you could contend this argument instead of making into whatever is most convenient to knock over.

Okay. But since you have yet to back any of your arguement with fact of any sort, I fail to see anything you've said so far as anything other than entertaining.

Thursday Night Internet Fight! Leave the ad hominem attacks at home. I'm not interested.

Load up on guns and bring your friends
It's fun to lose and to pretend
She's over bored and self assured
Oh no, I know a dirty word

Hello, hello, hello, how low?

(chorus)
With the lights out it's less dangerous
Here we are now, entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now, entertain us
A mulatto
An albino
A mosquito
My Libido
Yay!

I'm worse at what I do best
And for this gift I feel blessed
Our little group has always been
And always will until the end

Hello, hello, hello, how low?

(chorus)

And I forget just why I taste
Oh yeah, I guess it makes me smile
I found it hard, it was hard to find
Oh well, whatever, nevermind

hello, hello, hello, how low?

(chorus)
With the lights out it's less dangerous
Here we are now, entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now, entertain us
A mulatto
An albino
A mosquito
My Libido
A denial...

[DV8]

How very Wendigo of you to quote song lyrics. Even if it is one of the best and most chilling songs of our times.

[Serious Paul]

I was feeling it! Homage all the way! Even if I forgot about ole' Wendigo!

But yeah, I love that album! Came out when I was 17 or 18 I think. Our generation invented Teen angst! (Okay, okay we just mass marketed it!)

[DV8]

But yeah, I love that album! Came out when I was 17 or 18 I think. Our generation invented Teen angst!

Oh, I hated the rest of the album, but what you said...

(Okay, okay we just mass marketed it!)

...says it all about that song.

[Serious Paul]

Can't say you're wrong. I really can't.

[Szechuan]

Ah, the mark of a new Bulldrek poster: an image in a sig file. Animated, no less.

It's okay, baby. I'm scared, too.

[TheScamp]

Hey now!

[Salvation122]

It isn't about uniqueness so much as knowledge of the problems and outlooks that currently dominate the age group. Society is not static, and I find it exceedingly difficult to believe anyone who understands the current state of the youth in this country could come to such an asinine conclusion as banning teenage abortion in order to fix things.

Hi.

'Course, I'd also send collic babies home with kids during sex ed.

Which you haven't shown is related in anydiscernable way to anything. AT least back your opinion with some evidence guy. We can all give our opinions. I do it all the time.

You mean the entire history of the women's lib pro choice movement?

Yeah, he does. State your point with reasonable evidence to back it up. I won't even ask that you cite sources, unless I find your claims utterly outlandish.

Stop straw-manning me.

He didn't. (And, frankly, if you et upset about someone making comments that tame, you probably won't like it here all that much.)

Discretion, in this case, acts as protection against families that will severely punish, abuse, or disown their children.

Good! Maybe kids will use protection or have less sex so that they don't have to deal with their families giving them shit. Fear is probably the single worst motivator for this kind of behavior, but at least it's something.

The solution to the problem is not to remove it, nor is the solution to leave everything as is. This is my point, and I would appreciate it if you could contend this argument instead of making into whatever is most convenient to knock over.

But you haven't stated how you'd like to change it.

[3278]

In a startling display of restraint, I'm only going to talk about the issue.

This is Bethyaga's stated viewpoint:

I don't say anywhere that minors shouldn't be able to go to clinics and get advice and even acquire birth control without parental consent. They should be able to do all of that with an assurance of privacy. In fact, they should even be able to come in and consult about abortion options in private. However, when she actually makes the decision to go through with it, that's when parental notification kicks in. And as I stated before, if at that point, she says that she can't go to her parents for whatever reason, then that is the red flag that causes the medical professional to refer her to someone who can help her... either help her to address abuse or other issues, or to help her persue medical emancipation through the courts if that is appropriate for her.

This is Ronin's stated objection:

Right, but see, as I explained in my post, this is not the principle that youth clinics and public health people usually espouse. Could you make a *legal* case against it? Sure. Would implementing this legally consistient logic to it actually help the kiddies in question? Most public health people would say absolutley not.

Insofar as I can see, the only disagreement is that Ronin believes that parental consent at any point in the youth clinic process would interfere with the principle on which they operate, namely, that of lack of parental involvement. [He also makes the bold statement that most public health employees would agree, which I believe would be a substantive claim if it were supported.]

I am personally unable to see how requiring parental consent of abortions [or, if parental consent is somehow justifiably undesirable, taking legal or interventionary action] would comprimise the entire principle under which youth clinics operate. It is unlikely that youth would stop taking advantage of free counselling, free birth control, free STD tests, and so on, simply because someone would call their parents before they got an abortion. I fail to see how the one would cause lack of faith in all the others. Now, I'm not a teenager, but if, "I'm a teenager so I know it's true," is the only support of this statement, I would find such support lacking.

[Salvation122]

I'm a teenager, so I know it's a load of shit.

[Gunny]

Ah, the mark of a new Bulldrek poster: an image in a sig file. Animated, no less.

...at least mine is dead sexay.

[Gunny]

I'm not so sure I understand why some are getting bent out of shape about Arethusa. I rather like him (assuming Arethusa is a him as everyone seems to refer to this gender and Arethusa hasn't corrected anyone...). He's still getting his feet wet in our little community and is getting some rough bumps already.

He's well spoken, answers questions and seems to keep a fairly level head when backed into a corner. I think Arethusa could bring much to the table and a fresh prospective we sorely need.

That said... Arethusa, don't take anything said here personally. Most of the major posters (you'll figure that out quickly) are swaggering dick swingers, but they get over being pissed off because they enjoy the debate and the bite that comes with it. Otherwise, why else would they keep posting about it? Here's a bit of advice that'll serve you greatly here. No matter how much evidence you bring to prove your point, you'll NEVER prove your point to everyone. There will be those who see your proof and shrug it off for one reason or another and it's usually backed up with their own proof (or lack there of, just a mess of well constructed big words) as to why they should completely ignore your proof.

I hope to see you more often in SST. Regardless how much we bicker and take swipes at each other, it's all about learning or expanding what we already know and testing it against ourselves or each other. This is very much a learning community where PC and the hug brigades are met with sodomizing ungamunga trolls and elephant sized tampons for shoving into small holes.

[Serious Paul]

I don't think anyone is bent out of shape yet, or bothered by him. I do not think he has earned the respect level I have for Bethyaga yet. I am familiar with Arethusa from DSF, and his posts there are as well written as they are here. But what they have there that they don't here, is something to them. Soemthing to back it up.

When someone rides in to town and spits on the boots of the Sheriff, whehter they are making a joke or a political statement, guess what? The Sheriff is going to cuff them.

I want to see him back up his statements, ost of which I actaully agree with to some degree, with some sort fo fact.

I hope he stays as well. We'll see.

[Thorn]

Here's a bit of advice that'll serve you greatly here. No matter how much evidence you bring to prove your point, you'll NEVER prove your point to everyone. There will be those who see your proof and shrug it off for one reason or another and it's usually backed up with their own proof (or lack there of, just a mess of well constructed big words) as to why they should completely ignore your proof.

Wow, have you got your finger on the pulse of this place. Very well said, chickadee.

[MooCow]

First, excellent post Bethy. Gives me an idea of all the issues out there.

When you remove the ability of a pregnant girl to got discreetly to a clinic, I hope you can live with yourself when more and more girls kill themselves or die or permanently damage themselves thanks to the joys of wire hangers and basement clinics.

Well I certainly can. This would help guarantee that not only the child, but the mother die as well. Ideally, we'd just shoot the girl when she came in for the abortion, but bleeding heart liberals have made this illegal. This will do in a pinch. This country has absolutely no need for people too stupid to use birth control.

[mrmooky]

...But a definite need to stop them from breeding.

When it becomes technically viable, my stance on abortion will be to forcibly sterilize everyone, until such time as they choose to concieve a child, at which point they will be made fertile again. As such, my current abortion policy is to pour vast amounts of funding into R&D for reliable, reversible sterilisation techniques.

[kyle]

Animalball really pissed meoff, I won't lie. I took my ball and went home. I now do not, and willnot read most of the forums there. I do however read one, and that's where I found this. And this is truly worthy, and worthy of discussion.

You know, I really we've forgotten the most important part of what Paul is trying to say: he can't stay away from the animalball.