RE: [lpsf-discuss] RE: Prop 73

Discussion
1

Thanks Mike...I understand what you are saying. I thought there was a
public school connection because I believe the reason this issue came up
was that public school officials were referring pregnant kids to
abortion clinics without telling the parents.

Regardless, I don't want anyone to initiate any procedure on my children
without my knowledge. When I take my teenagers into Kaiser and they ask
me to leave the room, I refuse and ask them why they want me to leave.
They say the reason is they want to ask my kids "personal" questions. I
tell them they are free to ask them personal questions with me there.
They say the kids might not be honest with me in the room so I tell them
that's fine. I'd rather they lie to me to my face that tell the truth to
a stranger. They say that if my child has some serious "problem" they
don't want to discuss at it leads to a health crisis, I'd say it's a
consequence my child would have to accept as the result of lying. That
seems like a pretty straight forward responsibilities/rights issue to
me.

Once again...regarding children's rights...they have rights that
supersede mine when my responsibility for them ends. It seems that's
when they chose to leave the house and my responsibility and day to day
care for good. Of course I would always care for them. But according to
current law I believe I'm legally liable for their actions until they
are 18 years of age. I would reconsider if the law would be changed so
that it was clear exactly when a parents legal liability for the actions
of their children end. But for now, I believe it is until the child is
18 years old.

Thanks

Mike

2

Mike, If my messages have come across as aggresive, I apologize. I
certainly didn't intend them to be. I am only trying to understand
why I find myself in disagreement with you. I enjoy your insight and
I think you're a very smart cookie.

Maybe "protect" was the wrong word, but I think you know what I was
getting at. Who is responsible for these interactions with kids? The
service provider, or the parent?

Regardless, I don't want anyone to initiate any procedure on my children
without my knowledge.

My first thought here is that what you are asking for, in essance, is
an identification requirement for all medical practitioners. Are you
sure that is what you want?

Regards,
Morey

3

Strike the above sentence. What I meant to say was that such
legislation would require patients to provide proof of age, presumably
meaning an identification card, to the practitioner before any
services could be rendered.

4

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

5

Derek, thanks for your thoughts. I don't have kids, but I can see how
abortion is a moral issue for you, just as any sort of western
medicine is objectionable to some religious sects.

Yes, I reluctantly agree with setting responsibility by age. It seems
to me that a tiered approach might be more sensible. A child who has
reached puberty will make decisions on sex/abstinence, birth control,
and even abortion. They may not be ready for financial contracts or to
be self-sufficient.

Finally, how do you define contracts? Is buying a ticket to the
movies a contract? I would say yes. Are you in favor of requiring
proof of age before admittance? I'm not.

-Morey

Morey:
While I can't speak for Mike, I can provide you my perspective.
As a father of 3, I feel responsible for making major decisions for my
children until they are 18. If some abortionist coerced, harangued, or
otherwise convinced my child into killing their unborn baby, I don't

know

how I would act, but I think I would likely need to be physically

restrained

from attacking the abortionist.
Anyway, I say that just to give you a sense of the emotions around the
issue a parent might face. (I'm not sure if you have children or

not). Of

course, not having them doesn't make your viewpoint less valid.
Here's how I break down the decision tree on this issue, apart from

whether

or not you believe abortion to be murder:
Q1: Should there be an age of majority for entering into contracts?
A1a If you believe there should be, then it comes down to question 2:
Q2: Who gets to decide important issues for minors?
A2a. Statists think the state should, and this is manifested in

such things

as mandatory child safety seats in cars, mandatory PKU testing of

newborns,

drinking ages, mandatory education, and so on and so on.
A2b. Others, (like me), think that parents should make these

decisions on

behalf of their minor children, and that short of severe physical

abuse or

torture, the state should butt out.
  A1b. If you believe there should not be an age of majority and that
children under 18 should be able to enter into contracts on their

own, then

I agree you should not support proposition 73.

>
> Mike, If my messages have come across as aggresive, I apologize. I
> certainly didn't intend them to be. I am only trying to understand
> why I find myself in disagreement with you. I enjoy your insight and
> I think you're a very smart cookie.
>
> Maybe "protect" was the wrong word, but I think you know what I was
> getting at. Who is responsible for these interactions with kids? The
> service provider, or the parent?
>
> > Regardless, I don't want anyone to initiate any procedure on my

children

6

wrote:

Is buying a ticket to the
movies a contract? I would say yes. Are you in favor of requiring
proof of age before admittance? I'm not.

I've got to start proofreading. The above should read "Are you in
favor of a *law* requiring proof of age.." I say the theatre owner's
only job is to sell tickets and show movies. Anything else he does is
voluntary, presumably in the interest of selling more tickets than he
would otherwise.

-Morey

7

My daughter and I had a heartfelt discussion about proposition 73
this afternoon. She is busy distributing flyers against the
propositon on the grounds that this is one salvo on the road to the
demise of Roe vs Wade. She indicated to me that is the view of her
contemporaries. I will be voting in favor of 73, because, as Mike
Denny, I see this proposition as a salvo in the road to government
dictating what used to be family responsibilities -- No on 73 is
*very* Libertarian.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "hd_fxst2000"
<morey.straus@g...> wrote:

Derek, thanks for your thoughts. I don't have kids, but I can see

how

abortion is a moral issue for you, just as any sort of western
medicine is objectionable to some religious sects.

Yes, I reluctantly agree with setting responsibility by age. It

seems

to me that a tiered approach might be more sensible. A child who

has

reached puberty will make decisions on sex/abstinence, birth

control,

and even abortion. They may not be ready for financial contracts or

to

be self-sufficient.

Finally, how do you define contracts? Is buying a ticket to the
movies a contract? I would say yes. Are you in favor of requiring
proof of age before admittance? I'm not.

-Morey

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>

wrote:

>
> Morey:
> While I can't speak for Mike, I can provide you my perspective.
> As a father of 3, I feel responsible for making major decisions

for my

> children until they are 18. If some abortionist coerced,

harangued, or

> otherwise convinced my child into killing their unborn baby, I

don't

know
> how I would act, but I think I would likely need to be physically
restrained
> from attacking the abortionist.
> Anyway, I say that just to give you a sense of the emotions

around the

> issue a parent might face. (I'm not sure if you have children or
not). Of
> course, not having them doesn't make your viewpoint less valid.
> Here's how I break down the decision tree on this issue, apart

from

whether
> or not you believe abortion to be murder:
> Q1: Should there be an age of majority for entering into

contracts?

> A1a If you believe there should be, then it comes down to

question 2:

> Q2: Who gets to decide important issues for minors?
> A2a. Statists think the state should, and this is manifested in
such things
> as mandatory child safety seats in cars, mandatory PKU testing of
newborns,
> drinking ages, mandatory education, and so on and so on.
> A2b. Others, (like me), think that parents should make these
decisions on
> behalf of their minor children, and that short of severe physical
abuse or
> torture, the state should butt out.
> A1b. If you believe there should not be an age of majority and

that

> children under 18 should be able to enter into contracts on their
own, then
> I agree you should not support proposition 73.
>
>
> >
> > Mike, If my messages have come across as aggresive, I

apologize. I

> > certainly didn't intend them to be. I am only trying to

understand

> > why I find myself in disagreement with you. I enjoy your

insight and

> > I think you're a very smart cookie.
> >
> > Maybe "protect" was the wrong word, but I think you know what I

was

> > getting at. Who is responsible for these interactions with

kids? The

> > service provider, or the parent?
> >
> > > Regardless, I don't want anyone to initiate any procedure on

my

children
> > > without my knowledge.
> >
> > My first thought here is that what you are asking for, in

essance, is

> > an identification requirement for all medical practitioners.

Are you

8

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@h...>
wrote:

I see this proposition as a salvo in the road to government
dictating what used to be family responsibilities

So now adding new restrictions is actually providing more freedom? If
I hadn't heard Mike Acree speak up, I would have thought I was going
completely mad. Up is down! Black is white! Dogs and cats living
together! AAAAAAHG!

9

According to my notes from the last ACLU meeting I attended, Proposition
73 was bankrolled by three Catholic millionaires, James Holman,
publisher of the San Diego Reader and San Francisco Faith; Thomas S.
Monaghan, founder of the Domino's Pizza empire; and Don Sebastiani,
owner of the Sebastiani Wine empire, all good Catholics who oppose all
forms of birth control, including abortion. These three "old white men"
(as described by Natalie LeBlanc of NARAL) drafted the proposition
language with the assistance of their attorneys, and carefully worded it
to withstand most legal challenges, since it mandates only notification
of parents by physicians, not the child herself. Should the child not
wish her physician to notify her parents, she can simply go to court to
waive the mandatory physician notification if she can convince a judge
to grant such an exemption. I'm sure plenty of frightened pregnant
teenage girls would gladly go to the trouble to petition a judge for
this kind of action, particularly if the father of their unborn child
happens to be a family member.

The necessary signatures to put this measure on the ballot were
collected largely by paid signature collection campaigns organized
through Catholic church groups and other conservative religious
organizations.

Since Prop. 73 is a constitutional amendment, it codifies into law the
definition of abortion as causing "death of the unborn child, a child
conceived but not yet born." This, according to KGO's Gene Burns,
constitutes a "poison pill" that could lay the foundation for a supreme
court challenge to Roe v. Wade. With the supreme court now stacked with
republican appointees (assuming Harriet Miers sails through the
confirmation hearings as Roberts did), there has never been a better
opportunity for conservatives to overturn Roe. This alone is reason
enough for me to vote against Prop 73.

Terry Floyd

10

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

11

I'm sorry you feel insulted, Derek. My understanding is that there
are some who would be appalled if their children underwent any
treatment by doctors. Maybe I should have used a drug analogy. It's
obviously a big decision with no real equal, but I think the point
still holds.

I also share Mike's view of the possible consequences. I've known
people who attempted dangerous non-surgical methods of abortion
because of the (relatively low) cost barrier. I'm certain we will see
more of that if Prop 73 passes.

I confess that I have been involved in the decision to terminate an
early stage pregnancy in the past. I have never considered myself a
murderer.

Since we're obviously not making any headway with one another, I'll
stop beating the horse now. I'll close with one of my favorite Harry
Browne quotes:

"Given the government's record with the War on Poverty and the War on
Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion would lead within five
years to men having abortions."

I'm sure you can think of a suitable variation for the effects of Prop 73.

-Morey

12

Derek,

  I don't think putting the decision into the hands of the state is really at issue here. The question is whether a pregnant girl under the age of 18 gets to decide for herself to have an abortion, or whether parents must be involved in the decision. In neither case does the government get to decide whether or not she has an abortion.

  Actually as I think about it, it seems to me that far from ending the law's intrusion into parental prerogative, Prop. 73 would further inject the law into parenting. If the law says that parental notification is required for a minor to get an abortion, it is interfering with the parents' prerogative to say to their kids, "You have the right to get an abortion without specifically seeking my approval."

  I'm reminded of something my ex told me about growing up in Nagoya, Japan. At that time, school-age kids were not allowed to be downtown without being accompanied by an adult. It was presumed that parents would not want them there. One time she and her friends were stopped downtown by the authorities, who contacted their parents. Chikako's mom was annoyed with the authorities for detaining her daughter, and bothering her at work -- she told them that it was fine for her child to be downtown, and if she didn't want her there, she would tell her that herself. Of course she was rather more liberal and progressive than the average Japanese mom!

  This is akin to Prop. 73. In both cases, the state's interference with the actions of a minor is only reinforcing parental authority *if* the parents want to exercise their authority in a certain way. That may well be the vast majority of parents, but it still means that the state is infringing on the prerogative of a minority of parents in order to assist the majority in carrying out preferences for their children that it arguably ought to be their responsibility to see to themselves.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

Morey:

While I can't speak for Mike, I can provide you my perspective.

As a father of 3, I feel responsible for making major decisions for my children until they are 18. If some abortionist coerced, harangued, or otherwise convinced my child into killing their unborn baby, I don't know how I would act, but I think I would likely need to be physically restrained from attacking the abortionist.

Anyway, I say that just to give you a sense of the emotions around the issue a parent might face. (I'm not sure if you have children or not). Of course, not having them doesn't make your viewpoint less valid.

Here's how I break down the decision tree on this issue, apart from whether or not you believe abortion to be murder:

Q1: Should there be an age of majority for entering into contracts?

A1a If you believe there should be, then it comes down to question 2:

Q2: Who gets to decide important issues for minors?

A2a. Statists think the state should, and this is manifested in such things as mandatory child safety seats in cars, mandatory PKU testing of newborns, drinking ages, mandatory education, and so on and so on.

A2b. Others, (like me), think that parents should make these decisions on behalf of their minor children, and that short of severe physical abuse or torture, the state should butt out.

A1b. If you believe there should not be an age of majority and that children under 18 should be able to enter into contracts on their own, then I agree you should not support proposition 73.

Mike, If my messages have come across as aggresive, I apologize. I
certainly didn't intend them to be. I am only trying to understand
why I find myself in disagreement with you. I enjoy your insight and
I think you're a very smart cookie.

Maybe "protect" was the wrong word, but I think you know what I was
getting at. Who is responsible for these interactions with kids? The
service provider, or the parent?

> Regardless, I don't want anyone to initiate any procedure on my children
> without my knowledge.

My first thought here is that what you are asking for, in essance, is
an identification requirement for all medical practitioners. Are you
sure that is what you want?

Regards,
Morey

Yahoo! Groups Links

--
View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com

SPONSORED LINKS

<image.tiff>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>