King George Government

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, this is a great example of how fake news starts.

You're arguing that pregnant people should be denied rights we even grant to corpses. This seems pretty hateful to me. My question stands.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You probably would have denied the holocaust when it was first being reported . But I understand why... you can't imagine that people would actually stoop so low... but they do.

But Ken, you can't imagine that parents don't automatically become saint-like on becoming a parent...but you know what, they don't necessarily. There are some bad, bad parents out there, and a girl's life might just be safer in the hands of the court than in the hands of those very bad parents when something like a pregnancy rears its ugly head.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That would be a great idea. There are thousands who can't have babies who would love to adopt them.

And there are thousands of unwanted children who would love to be adopted...and aren't.

 

[Kenny]

Exception to the rule: The law provides an exception, however, so that a minor who objects to the consent requirement or whose parent, guardian, or custodian refuses to consent may petition a juvenile court for a waiver of the consent requirement.

• Known as a judicial bypass, this procedure permits the minor to obtain an abortion without parental consent if the court finds either that she is mature enough to make the abortion decision independently or that an abortion is in her best interests.

Your quote just supports my position...

"the Court" decides if she is mature enough???? Since when does a "Court" decide if she is mature enough to have an abortion? Is any youth (male or female) mature enough to produce a baby that they can't support, have no financial capacity to rear etc have any demonstration of being "mature enough"? A "mature enough" boy and girl would have used contraceptives on both bodies. (Now, that is just good old common sense.

Best interest? What does that mean? What is "best interest"?

 

[Kenny]

But Ken, you can't imagine that parents don't automatically become saint-like on becoming a parent...but you know what, they don't necessarily. There are some bad, bad parents out there, and a girl's life might just be safer in the hands of the court than in the hands of those very bad parents when something like a pregnancy rears its ugly head.

Yes... but the exception should be the rule. There is a good reason our founders wanted "LIMITED" government. Did I just shout? If a girls' life is in danger, there are already laws to protect her. But having abortions without parental consent is not the answer IMV

 

[Kenny]

And there are thousands of unwanted children who would love to be adopted...and aren't.

Not because the couldn't but "governments" have made it only available for the rich and well off.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That would be a great idea. There are thousands who can't have babies who would love to adopt them.

So if it were up to you, you would force children to give birth? Yuck.

 

[Kenny]

So if it were up to you, you would force children to give birth? Yuck.

So, if it were up to you, you would let Planned Parenthood continue the prostitution of the "children"?????? YUCK! Along with the selling of baby parts? YUCK! YUCK!!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So if it were up to you, you would force children to give birth? Yuck.

Yes, but only in a loving way...

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, if it were up to you, you would let Planned Parenthood continue the prostitution of the "children"?????? YUCK! Along with the selling of baby parts? YUCK! YUCK!!

LOL No, Planned Parenthood doesn't prostitute children nor do they sell "baby parts" as a number of investigations have found.

If it were up to me, people would be free to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

Way to avoid the question though. Good job!

 

[Kenny]

LOL No, Planned Parenthood doesn't prostitute children nor do they sell "baby parts" as a number of investigations have found.

If it were up to me, people would be free to make their own decisions about their own bodies.

Way to avoid the question though. Good job!

That's because you changed what we are talking about. We are talking about PARENTAL CONSENT. Nice moving of goal posts.

And, yes, Planned Parenthood FACILITATES the prostitution and videos show they do sell "baby parts" as it is also being admitted in the court proceedings that are currently being held in California.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's because you changed what we are talking about. We are talking about PARENTAL CONSENT. Nice moving of goal posts.

Uh, yeah, I know. My question was about forcing children to have children, as you seemed to indicate would be your preference.

And, yes, Planned Parenthood FACILITATES the prostitution and videos show they do sell "baby parts" as it is also being admitted in the court proceedings that are currently being held in California.

Court proceedings and several investigations (including Congressional investigations) have already cleared them of the things you claim about them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your quote just supports my position...

"the Court" decides if she is mature enough???? Since when does a "Court" decide if she is mature enough to have an abortion? Is any youth (male or female) mature enough to produce a baby that they can't support, have no financial capacity to rear etc have any demonstration of being "mature enough"? A "mature enough" boy and girl would have used contraceptives on both bodies. (Now, that is just good old common sense.

Best interest? What does that mean? What is "best interest"?

Though the courts are not perfect they tend to have a better record than parents do when it comes to matters such as this. Like it or not when a child is old enough to have sex (whether your approve or not) they are old enough to have a degree of privacy when it comes to their own body. A parent has to let go sooner or later. Like it or not this is a case of "sooner".

 

[Kenny]

Uh, yeah, I know. My question was about forcing children to have children, as you seemed to indicate would be your preference.

Uh, yeah, I know. My question was about you permitting the facilitation of ongoing prostitution of children and the selling of body parts by Planned Parenthood

Court proceedings and several investigations (including Congressional investigations) have already cleared them of the things you claim about them.

Not really... it's ongoing.

 

[Kenny]

Though the courts are not perfect they tend to have a better record than parents do when it comes to matters such as this. Like it or not when a child is old enough to have sex (whether your approve or not) they are old enough to have a degree of privacy when it comes to their own body. A parent has to let go sooner or later. Like it or not this is a case of "sooner".

"Children's" privacy should be later and not sooner unless you don't have a problem with sex-trafficking.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Where did the Idea come from that parent OWN their children.

When my grand father was a child he was an extremely bright student and won a scholarship to a grammar school.
His farther, a wealth farmer in Norfolk UK wanted him to leave school and help on the farm.
With the help of the local school he took his father to court, who ruled that he should take up his place in the Grammar school.( his father disinherited him)
He ended his career as the most successful electrical Engineer in the UK and fellow of both the IEE of the UK and America and Honary member and past president of the IEE. with many patents and inventions to his name including working on Asdic and inventing the anti magnetic buoyant cable used against mines in WW1 and 2. and chief scientific adviser to the Admiralty. He was deputy chairman and director of BICC the largest cable maker and construction company then in the UK ( now known as Balfour Beatty) As a side line he was president of the British Ice hockey association and was responsible for employing Bertie Aherne when England won the Olympic title from the Canadians.
(When I wanted to study photography, against the wishes of my parents, he supported me through college)


If it were not for the courts he would have been a farmers boy.
Parents are not always the best people to make decisions for their children

 

[Terry Sampson]

Your quote just supports my position...

I seriously doubt that, but let's see if it does.

(1) First question: What is your position?

• (a) No unemancipated minor should be allowed to lawfully get an abortion without one parent's (or one legal guardian's) consent, given that consent cannot be obtained without notifying said parent?
• (b) No unemancipated minor should be allowed to lawfully get an abortion, without both parents' (or all legal guardians') consents, given that consent cannot be obtained without notifying said parents (or legal guardians)?
• (c) No unemancipated minor should be allowed to lawfully get an abortion?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Uh, yeah, I know. My question was about you permitting the facilitation of ongoing prostitution of children and the selling of body parts by Planned Parenthood

As myself and several others have pointed out, such claims have long ago been debunked.
Why are you repeating them still?

And your questions from your OP were:
"So, who is King over our children?

Since WHEN does the government decide that a parent "doesn't need to know" when their child is going through a MAJOR operation?"

It seems you are the one veering away from the thread topic.

Not really... it's ongoing.

Several now CLOSED investigations prove you wrong. Sorry.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Children's" privacy should be later and not sooner unless you don't have a problem with sex-trafficking.

Why?
What does sex trafficking have to do with children's privacy?

 

[Valjean]

It's the Socialist Democrats garnering even more control over people's lives to the point where a parents own children are not exempt.

I think it all started getting implemented shortly after Hillary Clinton's , "It takes a village to raise a child" which started the inquisition to remove parenthood from the home, and place it directly into the hands of the socialist state.

So what are your thoughts about such socialist impositions as child labor laws, compulsory education and age of consent regulations?