Wrong again Steve...
You said: If I understand it correctly, prop 70 (I believe you meant 73)
increases the level of government intervention. It brings the government
between people seeking abortions and their doctor.
Mike: The government has already decided that they can intervene in
private family business by providing "bogus" privacy to minor children
regarding this one issue. Prop 73 simply makes sure the government can't
do that.
Let's look at the two situations:
1. don't require parent's consent
- some number abortions by qualified doctors performed on women under 18
Mike: So here you are saying it's OK for the government to intervene in
private family business.
2. require parent's consent
- a decrease in abortions by qualified doctors performed on women under
18
Mike: This isn't the issue unless abortion is something you are
advocating for or against. It's not the government's business. If the
government wasn't already intervening, it would be an issue
- an increase in gin and hot bath, coat hanger, etc and other dangerous
Abortions
Mike: Once again, this isn't the issue. This measure doesn't restrict
abortions at all for anyone who wants it except for parents who want it
and their child doesn't. What you are suggesting is that getting an
abortion is important enough that it's OK for government to intervene in
a family issue.
- an increase in children that are the result of incest, rape, abuse,
Etc
Mike: Once again, this isn't the issue. This measure doesn't restrict
abortions at all for anyone who wants it except for parents who want it
and their child doesn't. What you are suggesting is that getting an
abortion is important enough that it's OK for government to intervene in
a family issue.
This is actually pretty silly because the parents of incest, rape and
abuse usually don't care whether an abortion occurs or not.
- an increase in the number of children born to people who lack the
maturity and financial means to care for them
Mike: Once again, this isn't the issue. This measure doesn't restrict
abortions at all for anyone who wants it except for parents who want it
and their child doesn't. What you are suggesting is that getting an
abortion is important enough that it's OK for government to intervene in
a family issue.
It seems to me that 2 clearly increases human suffering and I don't see
how anyone can want. What am I missing?
Mike: OK Steve, we understand your position and it is most
UN-Libertarian. You are saying you believe government can decrease the
world's pain and suffering by intervening in private family matters. So
despite thousands of years of tradition in natural law regarding the
role of parents and minors and their relationships to outside
institutions, you think government can improve on this by intervening.
I have nothing else to say to you.
-- Steve