It's never made sense to me why a 14 year old girl would need her parents' permission to get ANY medical procedure other than an abortion. "Sorry, we can't take your tonsils out because you're a minor, but do you need an abortion?"

How nice of them to 'allow' a child (yet grown enough to bear a child herself) the choice when she has been raped or molested (unless of course her parents happen to be fundamentalist Christians) Not like those crazies in South Dakota who have no problem forcing an adult woman to bear the child of man who raped her (bonus: if he is a relative she gets to bear an inbreed child that is also the product of a rape) I agree that Life Equals hope but forcing women to surrender full rights to their bodies is no way to encourage hope or life

How nice of them to 'allow' a child (yet grown enough to bear a child herself) the choice when she has been raped or molested (unless of course her parents happen to be fundamentalist Christians) Not like those crazies in South Dakota who have no problem forcing an adult woman to bear the child of man who raped her (bonus: if he is a relative she gets to bear an inbreed child that is also the product of a rape) I agree that Life Equals hope but forcing women to surrender rights to their bodies is no way to encourage hope or life

I don't mind that someone under 18 needs the permission of their parent, but I do agree with aric that there must be special cases for rape and incest.

BTW...I don't think anyone is pro-abortion, but pro-choice. And if you asked anyone who is pro-choice, most of them would accept a limit on abortions.

What about the pro-choice right? You try to define the GOP as pro-life, but that is wishful thinking. Religious people do not own the GOP. Not only that, but religious people are not pro-life by definition.

WOuld Aric like to provide any actual STATISTICS of just how many children go to get abortions because of rape or incest?

Would Aric also like to provide STATISTICS of how many of these abortions were reported to the police by the provider, and so resulted in jail time for the rapist, instead of being concealed so the offender could continue his victimization?

No, thought not.

aric, let me address a few issues that you brought up, intentionally or not, in your post.

First, allowing a minor child to get an abortion without parental notification has what may be an unintended consequence---that of allowing a rapist to go free. Even if a girl is having consensual sex with a boy her own age, that sex is illegal, but many young girls are impregnated by family members, teachers, or other adults. It's an odd position to take---one which covers up a crime against a young girl.

Secondly, there is a serious problem with young girls who get abortions, at the urging of their families or in a panic because they are afraid of letting their parents know they were pregnant, and later feeling deep and damaging guilt. The taking of a human life is a major, serious, decision. We don't allow 14-year-olds to vote or drive or drink, because we know they are immature and often make bad decisions. It seems bizarre to acknowledge this immaturity but to overlook it when it comes to what is likely to be the biggest and most important decsion in a girl's life.

Part of this problem is the wall of shame and secrecy erected when a child embarks on such a deception. It may seem like an answer at the time, but it cannot lead to a better relationship between the child and her parents. And when it does come out, which is a strong likelyhood, the damage to the family is severe and often permanent.

Third, the straw man technique of inventing a bogus argument so it can be shot down is present here, doubled. One is the insertion of the assumption that bearing a child which is the result of rape would be an unspeakable horror to a woman. The facts do not bear this out. A surprise pregnancy, especially in an unmarried woman, does generate fear and a desire to Just Make It Go Away---but upon reflection, many millions of women throughout the ages have moved to the next stage, which is to accept that no pregnancy lasts longer than 9 months, it is a temporary condition, and the child can't be blamed or punished for something it had nothing to do with. Even if the father was a rapist. Women are just not the weak silly creatures you seem to think they are. For millions of years, women have been carrying and giving birth to children they did not want to carry, and have handled it very well, thank you.

Maybe you should talk to woman who got pregnant in the days before abortion was decreed to be the best answer to a pregnancy, who had children and gave them up for adoption. Talk to them and see the pride they have in having had the strength and the integrity to do something that was not easy, but produced a living human being.

And science does not support your claim that a child of incest or close breeding would automatically be a freak. While close relationships can increase the possibility of some problems, unless the inbreeding has been going on for generations it is probably not a problem.

The easy way out is simply not automatically the best way out.

Lars, the term "pro-choice" is a weasel word, invented to allow people to pretend to a position of open-mindedness while not having to take a position at all.

If the so-called "pro-choice" movement was really FOR choice, they would not have fought so strenuously to halt a state referendum to have the state pay for abortions, IF the pregnant woman would agree to a three day waiting period and go through a counseling program so she truly understood the physical and mental and emotional risks of having an abortion, and the development stage of her baby. Why was this necessary? Because the PRO-ABORTION movement was telling panicky pregnant women that they were not carrying children, but just a "bundle of cells". They were told that abortion had no consequences, no after-effects. In other words, they were lying, in the interests of promoting abortions.

True choice is dependent on being fully informed. A decision made without adequate information is not a choice, it is a guess. So why would any group which is acting for the best interests of women object to a program which would pay for their abortions, as well as ensure that they had all the information they needed to make a true, INFORMED, DECISION. Not a guess.

Do you know how many women breeze through the removal of a "bundle of cells" and later marry and choose to get pregnant, and are stunned to learn, as they see their ultrasound results, that the "bundle of cells" they suctioned out of their bodies and threw in the trash had really had ten fingers and ten toes, was sucking its thumb, was responding to stimulii, had a strong heartbeat and a developing brain, and was really a very tiny person? I don't know that number, exactly, but it is huge, and there are damaged women out there grieving forever for a rash decision made under pressure, with very incomplete information.

Pro-CHOICE?? Not really. Like it or not, there is a strong and vocal pro-ABORTION lobby out there. It is a multi-billion dollar business, and it is fighting to protect itself. With the help of people who call "crazy" those who find the destruction of human life for convenience of another an unacceptable act, and who vote to not allow it in their state. And with the help of people who take a short cut to the Higher Moral Ground by saying that they are in favor of every woman making up her own mind---pro-CHOICE just sounds so noble. But it's really just a way to dodge an issue and avoid taking a position. Weasel words.

Lars, the term "pro-choice" is a weasel word, invented to allow people to pretend to a position of open-mindedness while not having to take a position at all.

No, the position is that abortion should remain safe and legal--and be rare. Which is why pro-choicers tend to also advocate for things that reduce the need for abortion. You know, learning how to use contraceptives and stuff like that. Anti-choicers want neither abortion nor contraceptive education. Explain that contradictory stance. (By the way, before you start preaching about "abstinence-only education, understand that it has been proven to not work. Well, you probably don't understand that and will choose not to, but it's nt my fault if you choose to remain ignorant--after all, it's your choice, right?)

Also, most pro-choicers would be willing to "regulate the fringes," as the saying goes. It's just that the anti-choice right wing--exemplified by people like you--is unwilling and unable to compromise. They want abortion banned in any and all costs and situations and therefore can't be trusted with compromise. It goes against their very position. Witness current attempts to make abortion increasingly difficult to get, for example. All couched in nice cozy (and patently false) moralizing, but the intended consequence is to make abortion pragmatically impossible.

Try not to be too much of a weasel in your sure-to-be-weaselly response, Al.