The Culture War: It's ON!

[Orville Wrong]

Originally Posted by Sovrana

legally? well for now, they are allowed to have sex without parental consent.

In some paradoxical sense, I suppose they may. But in practice, since no one may legally have sex with them without committing statutory rape, they cannot -- with or without parental consent.

[Shlep]

Originally Posted by Sovrana

legally? well for now, they are allowed to have sex without parental consent.

They're allowed to drive cars. They cannot, however, enter into the binding agreement of buying one. I don't think they can even get their own insurance.

[Sovrana]

Originally Posted by Shlep

They're allowed to drive cars. They cannot, however, enter into the binding agreement of buying one. I don't think they can even get their own insurance.

Pardon me, but what the hell are you talking about?

[Sovrana]

Originally Posted by Orville Wrong

In some paradoxical sense, I suppose they may. But in practice, since no one may legally have sex with them without committing statutory rape, they cannot -- with or without parental consent.

So if teenagers have sex with teenagers (a 16 yr old with a 16 yr old for instance) that's considered statutory rape? I didn't know that.

[purple_octopus]

Originally Posted by Sovrana

So if teenagers have sex with teenagers (a 16 yr old with a 16 yr old for instance) that's considered statutory rape? I didn't know that.

And then who raped whom? I guess that would be mutual rape...

While I agree with Sovrana that this is a poor example (again! *feigns heart failure*), I also don't think minors really have the right to do anything at all. If mom and dad say you can't have sex, you can't have sex. You also need a parent's permission to get a driver's license. Without that, you ain't driving. That being said, if a teenager is having sex, gets pregnant, and wants to hide the pregnancy and abortion from the parent, I think that violates the parent's rights to know what is going on in the child's life. That is some key information in raising and guiding that teenager, and the parents deserve to know what their kid is doing.

[tobedawg]

Kerry spent most of his campaign telling people he wasn't Bush; he was trying to appeal to (I can only suppose) the groundswell of people who were highly disenchanted with Bush, particularly in the area of foreign policy. He was dead wrong.

No, he was dead wrong by not coming out and defending himself against "The Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" when the ads came out.. which allowed Karl Rove and the Right Wing Media to paint him as "Unpatriotic"..

He was "Dead Wrong" on his proposed Iraq Plan to get cooperation from the rest of the world? As insurgents are stepping up the attacks, and U.S. Soldiers and Iraqi civilians continue to be killed every day, we won't know what would have happened had Kerry become President..

And how did they do this?

Very simply, by mobilizing the Ultra Socially Conservative Base.. When Karl Rove had Bush endorse a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriage, alot of mobilization was done in swing states and criticial voting states to put propositions on the ballots regarding this issue.. They turned a "Non-Issue" into a "Hot Button Issue"..

While I will agree that Gay Activists and San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom, did more harm than good .. (You DON'T push for these types of changes when there are 1) More Important Issues.. 2) Republicans dominating every branch of government.. You WILL lose)..

People who would have likely turned out to vote for him regardless.

Bush was beatable.. John Kerry COULD have Beaten Bush had he come out swinging and had better people managing his campaign.. plain and simple..
Kerry also needed better speech writers (he'd flip-flop in a sentence.. embarrassing)..
Had Churches not had "Get Out the Vote!" campaigns and had Bush not mobilized the base, I honestly don't think that he'd still be President..

Perhaps...but how does this tranlate into "glorifying" their murders as you previously claimed?

Threats of Retribution at a time when something of the caliber of a judge's family being murdered is happening is distasteful and should be interpreted as a threat on the judges.. BUT what does one expect? Tom Delay hasn't been known for his high moral and ethical standings anyway..

[Shlep]

Originally Posted by Sovrana

Pardon me, but what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about how the law views teenagers' capacity or right to make sound decisions regarding things that have lasting (or permanent) consequences.

[Orville Wrong]

Originally Posted by Sovrana

So if teenagers have sex with teenagers (a 16 yr old with a 16 yr old for instance) that's considered statutory rape? I didn't know that.

Only in a technical sense. Obviously, a little prosecutorial common sense goes a long way here in practice. But the laws are all written to establish an age below which a minor is not capable of consent, without regard to the age of the other party. I was a teenage felon!

[Sovrana]

Originally Posted by purple_octopus

That is some key information in raising and guiding that teenager, and the parents deserve to know what their kid is doing.

Again, while I may agree with this, what happened to the teenage girl taking responsibility for her actions? Either she takes responsibility for her pregnancy or her parents do. Your argument seems to try to have it both ways.

Of course the current and very popular debate strategy against you is to ask, "do you really want the gov't in your bedroom?" The answer I keep hearing though is "no...not in my bedroom, but yes in my child's bedroom."

I simply do not agree.

[purple_octopus]

Originally Posted by Sovrana

Again, while I may agree with this, what happened to the teenage girl taking responsibility for her actions? Either she takes responsibility for her pregnancy or her parents do. Your argument seems to try to have it both ways.

Of course the current and very popular debate strategy against you is to ask, "do you really want the gov't in your bedroom?" The answer I keep hearing though is "no...not in my bedroom, but yes in my child's bedroom."

I simply do not agree.

I think women (grown, adult women) need to be responsible for their actions, and girls (teenagers who will be women in the near future) need to learn how to take responsibility for their actions with the guidance of their parents. If a teenage girl is knocked up, then she either has something severely wrong in the home (incest, molestation -- something that desparately needs to be addressed) or is in dire need of parental guidance. At any rate, I can't imagine a girl old enough to menstruate and have sex not knowing the causes of pregnancy. So in that sense, if she does get pregnant, the blame is on both her shoulders and the shoulders of her sex partner. In either case, sweeping it under the rug helps no one.

And no, I would not want the government in my child's bedroom (or anyone else's for that matter). I'd want me in my child's bedroom (no bad jokes here, okay?). I want the government to recognize my right as a parent to raise my child as I see fit.

[Orville Wrong]

Originally Posted by Sovrana

Again, while I may agree with this, what happened to the teenage girl taking responsibility for her actions? Either she takes responsibility for her pregnancy or her parents do. Your argument seems to try to have it both ways.

Of course the current and very popular debate strategy against you is to ask, "do you really want the gov't in your bedroom?" The answer I keep hearing though is "no...not in my bedroom, but yes in my child's bedroom."

I simply do not agree.

As I understand the original dispute (who's the dumbass for trusting in the withdrawal method?) it has everything to do with assigning blame for substandard contraception practice, and nothing to do with accepting responsibility. The responsibility is the parents' (or ours in a lot of cases) -- financial, medical and otherwise. A mea culpa from the wayward boy or girl is not going to support an infant on the income of a fry-machine operator or golf caddy.

[akip]

look, there are gonna be pregnant kids who are generally hyper-responsible, but slip up the one time. they're gonna be just as pregnant as if they were flagrantly reckless. all parents and schools are supposed to teach kids responsibility. the majority do their best and you can't do anything about the rest.

[the_grusz]

Originally Posted by akip

look, there are gonna be pregnant kids who are generally hyper-responsible, but slip up the one time. they're gonna be just as pregnant as if they were flagrantly reckless. all parents and schools are supposed to teach kids responsibility. the majority do their best and you can't do anything about the rest.

This doesn't change the fact that as legal children, the parents should be involved in the decision making process as to what to do about the unplanned pregnancy. And (as stated umpteen times by p_o and others) if a situation exists where the parents shouldn't be involved (abuse, rape, incest, etc.) then outside forces need to be involved in spite of the pregnancy. The worst thing to do is to let a child make a huge, life altering decision by herself, with no support from anyone.

[markalot]

Very simply, by mobilizing the Ultra Socially Conservative Base.. When Karl Rove had Bush endorse a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriage, alot of mobilization was done in swing states and criticial voting states to put propositions on the ballots regarding this issue.. They turned a "Non-Issue" into a "Hot Button Issue"..

I disagree with this. People wanted a president that would not do more harm, and Kerry did not appear to be that guy. The ultra conservative religious base, if it was as effective as people say it was, would have made this election a landslide. That didn't happen. Give Kerry a few more votes and the media will be talking about how Bush screwed up in iraq with NO talk about the ultra right movement.

[seamus]

funny thing is: teenage pregnancy isn't a problem for ferrets, and yet i'm the one who had his balls cut off when he was still a little kit.

bastards.

[yoshomon]

Originally Posted by the_grusz

This doesn't change the fact that as legal children, the parents should be involved in the decision making process as to what to do about the unplanned pregnancy. And (as stated umpteen times by p_o and others) if a situation exists where the parents shouldn't be involved (abuse, rape, incest, etc.) then outside forces need to be involved in spite of the pregnancy. The worst thing to do is to let a child make a huge, life altering decision by herself, with no support from anyone.

I think that there are outside forces like Planned Parenthood that can help teens make safe decisions about what they want to do with their body. I don't think anyone wants teens making the choice to have an abortion by themself with no support.

Parents should not own and rule over their children's bodies.

[purple_octopus]

Originally Posted by yoshomon

I think that there are outside forces like Planned Parenthood that can help teens make safe decisions about what they want to do with their body. I don't think anyone wants teens making the choice to have an abortion by themself with no support.

Parents should not own and rule over their children's bodies.

Um, yes they should. Last time I checked, Planned Parenthood wasn't responsible for raising kids. Parents were. Planned Parenthood might be a fine resource for adults, but parents are entitled to know what is going on in their kids lives, especially since the parents are the ones responsible for them.

[yoshomon]

If you feel that parents should "own and rule over their children's bodies", then we have totally different ideas of what parenting should be.

I don't think there's any point in arguing over which direction to go when we're headed for different destinations.

[Orville Wrong]

Originally Posted by yoshomon

I think that there are outside forces like Planned Parenthood that can help teens make safe decisions about what they want to do with their body. I don't think anyone wants teens making the choice to have an abortion by themself with no support.

Parents should not own and rule over their children's bodies.

This is a brilliant plan. Assuming a federalist implementation (you're not suggesting a statist diktat, are you yosh?): in New York State and Vermont, it might be Planned Parenthood; but who's it going to be in Alabama and Texas? You won't like the answer, and neither do I.

Very bad idea.

[Orville Wrong]

Originally Posted by yoshomon

If you feel that parents should "own and rule over their children's bodies", then we have totally different ideas of what parenting should be.

You seem to deny the very existence of children. What is a child, if not one incapable of owning and ruling its body? Are you in favor of executing/imprisoning 12 year olds as well?