Abortion Issues - Mega Thread [MERGED]

[TheHead]

So, you feel that the law of the land supports that all the fetuses that are in the premature baby time frame are not human beings and therefore have no rights that are applied to all other members of the human race?

I don't think that is the case.

In the intersest of full disclosure, I personally agree with TV's opinion on the this issue. I am an RC by birth and upbringing, but am not a practising RC.  Having an adopted child of my own, I am very glad the birth mother made the personal sacrifice to give birth to my son. She is also very glad some 27 years later as she did not have any children later and she appreciates her decision every day.

Jed, under the Criminal Code of Canada

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.


I don't know what it's classified under in the United States though.  If someone has an official link that would be appreciated.

 

[Privateer]

Jed,

I think that that is, in essence, the current law of the land.  One of the more important cases on point is Tremblay v. Daigle, a 1989 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.  The full case report is here: http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii33/1989canlii33.html

The headnote (a summary of the case, which is not prepared by the judges) reads:

The parties ended their relationship after five months of cohabitation.  The appellant was 18 weeks pregnant at the time of the separation and decided to terminate her pregnancy.  The respondent, the father of the unborn child, obtained an interlocutory injunction from the Superior Court preventing her from having the abortion.  The trial judge found that a foetus is a "human being" under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and therefore enjoys a "right to life" under s. 1.  This conclusion, he added, was in harmony with the Civil Code's recognition of the foetus as a juridical person.  He then ruled that the respondent had the necessary "interest" to request the injunction.  The trial judge concluded, after considering the effect of the injunction on the appellant's rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and s. 1 of the Quebec Charter, that the foetus' right to life should prevail in the present case.  The injunction was upheld by a majority of the Court of Appeal.

  Held:  The appeal should be allowed.

  The injunction must be set aside because the substantive rights which are alleged to support it -- the rights accorded to a foetus or a potential father -- do not exist.

  A foetus is not included within the term "human being" in the Quebec Charter and, therefore, does not enjoy the right to life conferred by s. 1.  The Quebec Charter, considered as a whole, does not display any clear intention on the part of its framers to consider the status of a foetus.  It is framed in very general terms and makes no reference to the foetus or foetal rights, nor does it include any definition of the term "human being" or "person".  This lack of an intention to deal with a foetus's status is, in itself, a strong reason for not finding foetal rights under the Quebec Charter.  If the legislature had wished to accord a foetus the right to life, it is unlikely that it would have left the protection of this right in such an uncertain state.  As this case demonstrates, a foetus' alleged right to life will be protected only at the discretionary request of third parties.

  The difficult issue of whether a foetus is a legal person cannot be settled by a purely linguistic argument that the plain meaning of the term "human being" includes foetuses.  Like a purely scientific argument, a purely linguistic argument attempts to settle a legal debate by non‑legal means.  What is required are substantive legal reasons which support a conclusion that the term "human being" has a particular meaning.  As for the differing usage of the terms "human being" and "person" in the Quebec Charter, it does not lead to the conclusion that a foetus is included within the term "human being".  The more plausible explanation is that different terms were used in order to distinguish between physical and moral persons.

  A consideration of the status of the foetus under the Civil Code supports the conclusion that a foetus is not a "human being" under the Quebec Charter.  The provisions of the Code providing for the appointment of a curator for an unborn child and the provisions granting patrimonial interests to such child do not implicitly recognize that a foetus is a juridical person.  Articles 338 and 345, like art. 945, simply provide a mechanism whereby the interests of the foetus described elsewhere in the Code can be protected.  They do not accord the foetus any additional rights or interests.  In addition, the realization of the patrimonial interests of the foetus under arts. 608, 771, 838 and 2543 of the Code is subject to a suspensive condition that the foetus be born alive and viable.  The recognition of the foetus' juridical personality is only a "fiction of the civil law" which is utilized in order to protect the future interests of the foetus.  In view of the treatment of the foetus in the remainder of the Code, the term "human being" in art. 18 of the Code, which provides that "Every human being possesses juridical personality", cannot be construed as including foetuses.  The Civil Code, therefore, does not generally accord a foetus legal personality.  A foetus is treated as a person only where it is necessary to do so in order to protect its interests after it is born.

  While Anglo-Canadian law is not determinative in establishing the meaning to be given to general terms in the Quebec Charter, it is instructive to consider the legal status of a foetus in that body of jurisprudence.  In Anglo‑Canadian law, a foetus must be born alive to enjoy rights.  In light of the treatment of foetal rights in civil law and, in addition, the consistency to be found in the common law jurisdictions, it would be wrong to interpret the vague provisions of the Quebec Charter as conferring legal personhood upon the foetus.

  The Canadian Charter cannot be invoked in this case to support the injunction.  This is a civil action between two private parties and there is no state action which is being impugned.  The respondent pointed to no "law" of any sort which he can claim is infringing his rights or anyone else's rights.  The issue as to whether s. 7 of the Canadian Charter could be used to ground an affirmative claim to protection by the state was not raised.  This Court should generally avoid making any unnecessary constitutional pronouncement.

  Finally, there is nothing in the Quebec legislation or case law, to support the argument that the father's interest in a foetus he helped create gives him the right to veto a woman's decisions in respect of the foetus she is carrying.  The lack of legal basis is fatal to this argument.

 

[armyvern]

So, you feel that the law of the land supports that all the fetuses that are in the premature baby time frame are not human beings and therefore have no rights that are applied to all other members of the human race?

I don't think that is the case.

In the intersest of full disclosure, I personally agree with TV's opinion on the this issue. I am an RC by birth and upbringing, but am not a practising RC.  Having an adopted child of my own, I am very glad the birth mother made the personal sacrifice to give birth to my son. She is also very glad some 27 years later as she did not have any children later and she appreciates her decision every day.

Actually, that is exactly when the law of the land states life has begun. A child born prematurely is considered alive. An abortion at that same stage of the pregnancy is considered to be a "late-term abortion" and therefore quite different rules and requirements must exist to allow for that late-term abortion under the law <--- ie: these are very, very rare and usually only occur if there is immediate risk to life and limb of the mother. A miscarriage in the first trimester is not equal to a premie being born alive.

So, the law does indeed already recognize that a foetus becomes a viable lifeform later in the pregnancy; the point at where a foetus may possibly live outside of the womb (not that they all will, but some will <--- those that do are considered your "premies"). This "life viability" does not occur in the first trimester of the pregnancy. That is why they are two separate things treated by the law in two entirely separate manners.

I'm glad to hear that your child's birth mother's choice has benefited and blessed your lives. I am glad she was able to make the choice that was what she considered best for herself.

 

[cupper]

Jed, under the Criminal Code of Canada

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.


I don't know what it's classified under in the United States though.  If someone has an official link that would be appreciated.

Unlike Canada which has a criminal code that applies across the entire nation, in the US each state has it's own criminal statute, as well as a federal statute.

But essentially they all appear to folow the same concept that a child, under criminal law, does not need to be born to be deemed a person for murder chagres to be proffered if a pregnant woman is killed, and the unborn child is lost.

From the standpoint of abortion law however, it is more nuanced and varies from state to state. Hence why the flavour of the month for the pro-life movement is to have states amend their constitutions to confer personhood from the time of conception. The problem is that the extention of personhood at that point opens up a huge can of worms, particularly with respect to individual rights of both the fetus and the mother, and possibly criminalizes what are legal and moral acts, like using methods of contraception which prevent implantation of the embryo, aborting an ectopic pregnancy, or even smoking during pregnancy.

 

[ttlbmg]

I have found that in my time on Earth, and call me a waffler, that I honestly don't know if I could decide, unequivocally, that I am a complete pro-life or pro-choice person. I've have laid witness to many girls that have chosen to use abortion as a method of birth control. I can remember saying to myself, how could someone that does that to themselves deserve to have a child when they "feel" like it? It is this point that I have stuck in the back of my mind that gives me pause to a pro-choice stance. But there are always people that will abuse anything. I think it also touches a part in me, when I speak to friends that have miscarried over the years. I see the pain from that and I can't help but pause and think, if life does not start at conception, then why would a woman otherwise feel that pain? But I don't know, I have never gone through that, I am lucky.

That being said, you can witness everyday, women who are victims of rape, women that have ectopic pregnancies, women that are unable to mentally or psychologically bear and raise children. And I think, why put someone through that? Who am I to say that a woman has no right over her body. The woman in me looks on legislation, meant to shame and guilt a woman into a pregnancy, and is disgusted that someone else is condescending enough to know what is best for every woman.

That being said, I have always maintained a conscious decision, that planned or not, risk factors, possible complication, and regardless of results of genetic testing, I don't think I could have an abortion. However, I hope that every woman, faced with this choice, really thinks about her options. I think many do, as I don't think that an abortion is a light decision. I guess I am pro-thought then...

 

[armyvern]

Wow! ttlbmg, what town do you live in?

I'm 43 years old and I know a few girls who have had abortions, yet not a single one did so as an act of "birth control". And I only know a few. You must come from some hedonistic place I've never heard of if you know tonnes who use it as a verifiable "birth control method". Holy cow.

But, it does raise a good point. Here in Canada, one does not see "abortion used a routine method of birth control" (unlike, I guess ttlbmg). Nor do we even see a "high" number of abortions occurring for other reasons. This is precisely because Canada has and does provide for sex education in our schools, and access to and availability of affordable birth control (note: I did not say "free" birth control however quite a few jurisdictions' health plans and insurance plans also provide for that). We do this precisely because we actually exercise that separation of Church and State.

Unlike in the United States where many jurisdictions prohibit:
sex education in schools,
any discussion of birth control methods other than abstinence until marriage,
access to or availability of any type of affordable (note again, I didn't say "free") birth control to persons under age of majority.

That's right, no safe sex allowed if you're under 18 in some states - (well, No LEGAL safe sex allowed if you're under 18 anyway)! Can you imagine having to show ID to prove your 18 to buy a condom!!?

The above restrictions are based upon religious morals. For if they were not, discussion of condoms and access to purchase them would certainly be allowed based upon sexual health and the prevention of disease. Unfortunately, this also overlaps with the religious view of contraception is bad and evil as it prevents conception from occurring. So, in some places, that religious view has actually won.

It is estimated that 22% of pregnancies in the United States end in abortion. Texas having one of the highest rates (as does California, but they also rule in population) and states where condom access etc is restricted to legal age. States such as North and South Dakota see the lowest rates - coinciding with states where there actually is a separation of church from state.

Studies have also shown that the abortion rate has dropped an average of 2% per year since the majority of states got rid of laws that restricted access to affordable birth control ~ 1990.

I think that's telling. Anybody want less abortions? Then start teaching kids about birth control and make sure that they can access various forms of affordable birth control. Abstinence is not for everyone (Obviously!! Just look at the abortion stats!). For any state to take the religious stance as law any deny this education, access, and affordability, then further attempt to deny via "having doctors lie to their patients if they think it may make them chose to have an abortion [hey Arizona!]" abortions or make women lay through an ultrasound while the doctor drones on about "life" are ultimately the direct cause of their own statistics! Separate the church from the state and get it over with already.

Unless and until that happens in the US ... politics there will always be this retarded and we'll continue to see 16 and 17 year old American kids posting questions about sex to the internet and asking "what is AIDs?" (yep, just google it) and asking if anybody knows any stores that would sell them a condom without an ID card - or whether anyone knows an 18 year old who is willing to go in and buy condoms for them. That amazes me.

Thank fuck I live in Canada where we keep that religious stuff out of our laws.

 

[ttlbmg]

You would be surprised.

To contradict your statement on sexual education in schools, I would say this. I am a junior high teacher, and have taught health education previously. Where I taught, there was no talk of sexual education classes. In some schools and school districts, if there are a majority of parents that believe that sexual health education should not be taught, it isn't, plain and simple. (and keep in mind this was not a stereotypical rural setting- it was in a larger urban area) There in lies the problem however, in both Canada and the US in regards to this issue. Those that do not believe in educating their children don't. Those children then go on to make poor choices and endure the consequences. That being said, I don't think that I have the right to push my opinion that "birth control and contraceptives are what you're children need." If I do that, I am no less ignorant or condescending.

Abortions are a different thought process, feeling, and decision for all people. To each his own. That being said, I don't look down on someone as ignorant, God-fearing, backwoods, or brainwashed if they do not agree with it.

 

[armyvern]

You would be surprised.

To contradict your statement on sexual education in schools, I would say this. I am a junior high teacher, and have taught health education previously. Where I taught, there was no talk of sexual education classes. In some schools and school districts, if there are a majority of parents that believe that sexual health education should not be taught, it isn't, plain and simple. (and keep in mind this was not a stereotypical rural setting- it was in a larger urban area) There in lies the problem however, in both Canada and the US in regards to this issue. Those that do not believe in educating their children don't. Those children then go on to make poor choices and endure the consequences. That being said, I don't think that I have the right to push my opinion that "birth control and contraceptives are what you're children need." If I do that, I am no less ignorant or condescending.

Abortions are a different thought process, feeling, and decision for all people. To each his own. That being said, I don't look down on someone as ignorant, God-fearing, backwoods, or brainwashed if they do not agree with it.

Here's where we'll differ: educating someone about sexual health, birth control, condoms does not equal "pushing onto them that this is what they need" because we also cover abstinence etc. What that education does is allow those kids to:

Make their own informed decisions of what may/may not be right for them.

In no way whatsoever, do I find that informing those kids of all the choices, abstinence included, makes me ignorant or condescending. Refusing to allow them to be informed of anything except religious 'abstinence until marriage' on the other hand ...

 

[Journeyman]

Abortions.....I don't look down on someone as ignorant, God-fearing, backwoods, or brainwashed if they do not agree with it.

I do.

 

[ttlbmg]

My problem with sexual health education within the school system is the bias that can be held. It is very difficult for a teacher, educating young people, on proper sexual health education. I do not believe, for the most part, that proper sexual health education is being taught in schools. (that is an entirely different topic though!) Inevitably, a teacher, will teach sexual health education, and almost any subject, with a bias. You can present all options, abstinence, birth control, condoms, Plan B, IUDs, but there will always be that kid, that looks at you and says, "but really what do YOU think, what do YOU practice?" Your opinion, is, unfortunately, out there, and that will impact a child's decision. It is a slippery slope.

In my opinion, proper sexual health education should start in the home, but I am not honestly sure if that occurs. However, I am woefully underqualified to pose as the morality police and dictate what parents should and shouldn't share with their children. it is a heavy subject to talk with young people about.

As for people being backwoods or God-fearing because they believe in abortion? There are many people, atheist, agnostic, or otherwise, that do not believe in abortion. I don't look down on them, just as I don't look down on someone choosing to terminate a pregnancy. See, my house is made of glass, and I really don't like rocks.

 

[armyvern]

My problem with sexual health education within the school system is the bias that can be held. It is very difficult for a teacher, educating young people, on proper sexual health education. I do not believe, for the most part, that proper sexual health education is being taught in schools. (that is an entirely different topic though!) Inevitably, a teacher, will teach sexual health education, and almost any subject, with a bias. You can present all options, abstinence, birth control, condoms, Plan B, IUDs, but there will always be that kid, that looks at you and says, "but really what do YOU think, what do YOU practice?" Your opinion, is, unfortunately, out there, and that will impact a child's decision. It is a slippery slope.

In my opinion, proper sexual health education should start in the home, but I am not honestly sure if that occurs. However, I am woefully underqualified to pose as the morality police and dictate what parents should and shouldn't share with their children. it is a heavy subject to talk with young people about.

As for people being backwoods or God-fearing because they believe in abortion? There are many people, atheist, agnostic, or otherwise, that do not believe in abortion. I don't look down on them, just as I don't look down on someone choosing to terminate a pregnancy. See, my house is made of glass, and I really don't like rocks.

You know, teachers are asked their opinions on many matters, probably every day, by their students. I'd think that most teacher's would answer in an honest and forthright manner, "What I choose is my choice; you have to make your own choices based upon what's right for you."

You do not NOT teach something because someone might express an opinion. Nor do you make a law on what can be taught (or not) based on just one opinion. You teach ALL the options and keep the opinions out of it. Failing to allow the teaching of all the options means that you've allowed "an opinion" to determine what you will and will not educate those kids to; clearly, one of those major opinions is religious and allowing that opinion to rule and ensure that kids not be taught any/all the other options is not on.

Yes, I realize that all persons who believe in "abstinence is the best policy" do not feel that way due to religious opinion, but those people are NOT the ones trying to block the teaching of the other options. Don't want to get pregnant or end up with a sexually transmitted disease, then don't have sex. That'd be the obvious choice. But it is just a choice and just my opinion. So, I see no reasons why kids should not be taught all the choices because I know some/most simply are not going to abstain.

Regarding the glass house comment and the comment you also made in your earlier post:
I don't feel those who are anti-abortion are god fearing and backwoods and I certainly haven't said anything close to such in this thread to date ... just as all pro-life people don't think (and call) women who would have abortions godless and/or murdering baby-killers. See? That works both ways doesn't it?

 

[ttlbmg]

Yes, teachers are asked, everyday, on a regular basis, all sorts of opinion based questions on a number of things that most people wouldn't ask their friends and colleagues in social situations. And yes, teachers have to answer. Answering you have to make your own choice to a thirteen year old about their sexual health and contraceptive choices doesn't really satisfy that child. And many times, teachers are disciplined for expressing an opinion to their students or teaching something that they "shouldn't" to their students. However, that is not the point I am making. The point I am making is that the current curriculum for sexual health, equated with the time devoted to health education in general, coupled with the lack of direct monitoring within the education system, has left a great deal of sexual health education an untouched subject within our system. So many parents are left feeling as though the school has taught their child something, when that may not be the case. And in some districts and school systems, parents have actually fought to have their children removed from sexual health education, or to have that portion of health education, not taught in schools. I am saying the system is inadequate. This means that many young women and men are then making decisions about their sexual health without knowing the full story. What I am saying in terms of being a teacher, is that teachers can have a big impact on a child's thoughts and opinions. I don't know what I would hope a teacher would say to my son or daughter on this issue.

Does that mean showing a young woman or man an abortion will "fix" this problem? Does that mean that showing someone an ultrasound will give them a "better" understanding of the decision they have to make? No. Honestly, I think that there is a gap more in the area of possible father rights in terms of abortions. And jump on me if you will, but I think that there should be more of a focus on a prospective father knowing about the pregnancy, so that he may be involved in the decision making process. I'm not saying he should be driving the bus, but I think sometimes the male's feelings are completely disregarded in situations.

In terms of the glass house reference, that was made in regards to the poster below you, who specified looking down on people. Yes it goes both ways. I think that anyone that tries to push their agenda or opinion onto anyone needs to step back from that. We are all entitled to a viewpoint, regardless of that viewpoint. In the same token, we are all owed respect in regards to what our view might be.

 

[armyvern]

Yes, teachers are asked, everyday, on a regular basis, all sorts of opinion based questions on a number of things that most people wouldn't ask their friends and colleagues in social situations. And yes, teachers have to answer. Answering you have to make your own choice to a thirteen year old about their sexual health and contraceptive choices doesn't really satisfy that child. And many times, teachers are disciplined for expressing an opinion to their students or teaching something that they "shouldn't" to their students. However, that is not the point I am making. The point I am making is that the current curriculum for sexual health, equated with the time devoted to health education in general, coupled with the lack of direct monitoring within the education system, has left a great deal of sexual health education an untouched subject within our system. So many parents are left feeling as though the school has taught their child something, when that may not be the case. And in some districts and school systems, parents have actually fought to have their children removed from sexual health education, or to have that portion of health education, not taught in schools. I am saying the system is inadequate. This means that many young women and men are then making decisions about their sexual health without knowing the full story. What I am saying in terms of being a teacher, is that teachers can have a big impact on a child's thoughts and opinions. I don't know what I would hope a teacher would say to my son or daughter on this issue.

Does that mean showing a young woman or man an abortion will "fix" this problem? Does that mean that showing someone an ultrasound will give them a "better" understanding of the decision they have to make? No. Honestly, I think that there is a gap more in the area of possible father rights in terms of abortions. And jump on me if you will, but I think that there should be more of a focus on a prospective father knowing about the pregnancy, so that he may be involved in the decision making process. I'm not saying he should be driving the bus, but I think sometimes the male's feelings are completely disregarded in situations.

In terms of the glass house reference, that was made in regards to the poster below you, who specified looking down on people. Yes it goes both ways. I think that anyone that tries to push their agenda or opinion onto anyone needs to step back from that. We are all entitled to a viewpoint, regardless of that viewpoint. In the same token, we are all owed respect in regards to what our view might be.

First, the poster below me actually only made that comment based upon a quote from you. You brought it up. Why? In relation to what? Who were you speaking to?

Second, sounds like your local education system may be a wee bit skewed; that can be corrected via local, municple, school board elections etc. Where my kids went to school, in many boards, this didn't seem to be a problem. As for a 13 year old NOT being satisfied with a teachers answer of "you need to make your own choices and decide what's right for you" ... too bad for the 13 year old. 13 year old OFTEN do not get answers they like or agree with - ask ANY mom or dad of one, on a wide variety of subjects. It's NOT rocket science although you are trying to make it out to be. It is our jobs to educate kids NOT tell them what decisions I or they must make. It never has been.

WTF!!?? On the yellow bit? Where did you pull this from? Not one person in this thread has said that we should teach girls or boys ANYTHING about abortion, let alone that it will "fix" things. WTF!?

Suggest you need to re-read the thread because you're now pulling things out of your ass.

 

[ttlbmg]

The "problem" the way that many conservative Americans view it, is that by showing someone considering an abortion a video on the procedure, or by requiring someone to have an internal ultrasound to view the fetus, that they will be overtaken by emotion and a sense of bonding, and therefore reconsider having an abortion. I was hoping to simply get back on the topic at hand.

It seems that you are taking my words out of context, and I am sorry you feel that way. The ironic part, I believe that we are on the same or similar sides of the fence, albeit our arguments in favor or against are different. I can tell you are very passionate one way. If nothing else, my minimal life experience has taught me to look at all sides. That is what I am simply trying to accomplish here. Just as I don't want to have someone impress their views upon me, I do not want to impress my opinions and beliefs on someone else.

Also, what you experience, one school system to another varies. Not all districts and provinces are the same. The literature put out by the province, division, or school is the ideal. Not all schools meet up with this for a variety of reasons. Again though, that is off topic, and a lack of education of sexual health and parents' refusal to allow their child that educational experience has nothing to do with anti-abortion or pro-abortion laws currently in the United States. I could rant on for years about the problems of the school system in Canada- but that is for another time and place.

 

[cupper]

and a lack of education of sexual health and parents' refusal to allow their child that educational experience has nothing to do with anti-abortion or pro-abortion laws currently in the United States.

Actually it has more to do with the issue than you may think or be aware.

Sex ed is a very touchy subject when it comes to the religious socially conservative right, who form the vocal majority in the pro-life debate. The majority feel that it should be the responsibility of the parents only to teach their kids about sexuality and related issues. There is a very significant push to have abstinence only education as the only form of sexual education allowed in schools.

As such, it is a lack of information, or misguided information that leads to a large number of unwanted teen pregnancies. Which leads right back to the pro-choice / pro life debate.

 

[armyvern]

It seems that you are taking my words out of context, and I am sorry you feel that way. The ironic part, I believe that we are on the same or similar sides of the fence, albeit our arguments in favor or against are different. I can tell you are very passionate one way. If nothing else, my minimal life experience has taught me to look at all sides. That is what I am simply trying to accomplish here. Just as I don't want to have someone impress their views upon me, I do not want to impress my opinions and beliefs on someone else.
...

You're right. I have already stated that I would never/could never have an abortion. That would never be the right choice for me. That does not mean that it would/could never be the right choice for someone else. As to the other side, I already laid out in my very first post in this thread why I do not agree with the "life from conception" - I have considered it, but for me - science, and survivability of a first trimester foetus have led to a different logical conclusion.

It is a choice. Just as they would never tell or push on me that I must have an abortion, I will not push on them that they must not have an abortion. Two way street - not just on my part. Anything less is hypocritical.

 

[ttlbmg]

I agree with you on that point that it is a slippery slope. In terms of my children, I think it is my responsibility to teach them proper sexual health education. I think this comes easily for me, as I do not have to wrestle with a religious belief, and I think that would be a difficult thing to face. I think it also becomes an issue of access though as well. But then do you inform students about that as well? Teens can, without parental consent, obtain a prescription for contraceptives. And ideally, I would hope that a teen, choosing to have sex, would have the maturity to go out and access birth control. But then does that allotment of privacy out a wedge between parent and child? Would you want to know if your daughter was on birth control? I think I would so that we could talk about that. And again, I always use the example of a young girl, and I wish sometimes that I would put more thought in terms of young men. It is odd, I have two sons, and people always remark that I am lucky because neither will ever come home as a pregnant teen. I would hope that this mindset would change, and that not only would the weight of responsibility shift off the female, perhaps there would be more of a dialogue in terms of male parental rights.

I guess in all this talk, the point I hope to make is that I DON'T want to make that decision for someone else. As awkward as it sounds, for myself, I was pro-life-I felt I would not get an abortion, regardless of the circumstance I was in thankfully I never had to make this decision). For other people, I am pro-choice. I would hope that the choice would be well thought out, but I can't and do not want to dictate what other people do.

 

[PMedMoe]

This is pretty good:  It Matters to Me

 

[ttlbmg]

Interesting, and so relevent. I hope that this image is changing. (I'd love to see shows like Jersey Shore go off the air! That and Sixteen and Pregnant- I was hoping at one point that show would send a better message, but it doesn't seem to, though I will admit I have never sat through an entire episode) Do you think that this is as prevalent in Canada as it is in the US?

 

[PMedMoe]

Do you think that this is as prevalent in Canada as it is in the US?

If the number of young girls I see running around like it's "Dress Like a Hooker" day (thanks JM) every day, is any indication, I'd say yes.