Parental Consent for Tanning

Post Reply
User avatar
Ronja
Just Another Safety Nut
Posts: 10920
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:13 pm
About me: mother of 2 girls, married to fellow rat MiM, student (SW, HCI, ICT...) , self-employed editor/proofreader/translator
Location: Helsinki, Finland, EU
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by Ronja » Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:12 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote: "First do no harm" is the same principle that has folks against pulling life support plugs, and abortions. "Do no harm" used preclude the administering of abortificants.
If someone cites "First do no harm" regarding an abortion situation, they are essentially saying that the fetus is the patient, not the woman - or at least a more important patient than the woman. Which IMO is totally assbackwards.

And those who are against pulling life support plugs and citing "First do no harm" as their motive do not IMO look at the situation from the patient's POV, with the patient's best interest in mind. Instead, they place some magical absolute value on every moment spent alive, regardless of the quality of that life. How could prolonging suffering not be harm?
"The internet is made of people. People matter. This includes you. Stop trying to sell everything about yourself to everyone. Don’t just hammer away and repeat and talk at people—talk TO people. It’s organic. Make stuff for the internet that matters to you, even if it seems stupid. Do it because it’s good and feels important. Put up more cat pictures. Make more songs. Show your doodles. Give things away and take things that are free." - Maureen J

"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can :pawiz: . And then when they come back, they can :pawiz: again." - Tigger

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by MrJonno » Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:17 pm

The most common natural consequency of sex is normally nothing , then an spotaneous abortion with pregnancy being well down the list
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:20 pm

Ronja wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: "First do no harm" is the same principle that has folks against pulling life support plugs, and abortions. "Do no harm" used preclude the administering of abortificants.
If someone cites "First do no harm" regarding an abortion situation, they are essentially saying that the fetus is the patient, not the woman - or at least a more important patient than the woman. Which IMO is totally assbackwards.

And those who are against pulling life support plugs and citing "First do no harm" as their motive do not IMO look at the situation from the patient's POV, with the patient's best interest in mind. Instead, they place some magical absolute value on every moment spent alive, regardless of the quality of that life. How could prolonging suffering not be harm?
Prolonging suffering can be not harm, if there is a possibility that someone might get better.

And, you've described where the "first do no harm" thing is subject to differing views, based on points of view on the topic.

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by hadespussercats » Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:28 pm

Seth wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:Seth, you dropped the quotes of your own words in this rebuttal, then denied saying them.
Where? Please be specific, because if I did, it was an editing error. Please point it out so I can correct it.
And your argument that natural=good or right, is crap. Think it through for five minutes and you'll see why.
I never made that claim, so I don't really need to think it through. I said "natural" in the context of "not unusual, expected, ordinary, predictable, not a surprise." The meaning is that no woman can argue that she got "unexpectedly pregnant" even if she's using birth control because pregnancy is a known risk of having sex...every single time no matter what, unless she has been sterilized by having her ovaries and/or uterus removed. I say it's "irresponsibly pregnant" because it's the woman's absolute and unquestioned responsibility to know what's going into her womb and what the results might be, and its her absolute and unquestioned responsibility to deal with the consequences of allowing sperm into her womb, since she has legally obtain absolute sovereignty over her womb and has full and plenary authority to control absolutely what goes into it.
If I have time later, I'll go hunt down the quotes in question. In the meantime--

I remember from a previous thread about abortion, your commentary that a woman "has legally obtain [sic] absolute sovereignty over her womb and has full and plenary authority to control absolutely what goes into it."

I agree with you. I think even girls have absolute sovereignty over their wombs. Including what comes out of them.
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

User avatar
Ronja
Just Another Safety Nut
Posts: 10920
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:13 pm
About me: mother of 2 girls, married to fellow rat MiM, student (SW, HCI, ICT...) , self-employed editor/proofreader/translator
Location: Helsinki, Finland, EU
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by Ronja » Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:33 pm

Coito, I don't get what you're trying to say. What are e.g. the practical consequences for a doctor if they take your view? Will they be able to do something for the actual patient actually in the room with them right now, or will they have to consider and reconsider possibilities near endlessly, starting with not believing a word any patient says who appears young and wants an abortion?

You seem to be only questioning, but offering no practical solutions.
"The internet is made of people. People matter. This includes you. Stop trying to sell everything about yourself to everyone. Don’t just hammer away and repeat and talk at people—talk TO people. It’s organic. Make stuff for the internet that matters to you, even if it seems stupid. Do it because it’s good and feels important. Put up more cat pictures. Make more songs. Show your doodles. Give things away and take things that are free." - Maureen J

"...anyone who says it’s “just the Internet” can :pawiz: . And then when they come back, they can :pawiz: again." - Tigger

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by Seth » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:22 pm

hadespussercats wrote:
Seth wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:Seth, you dropped the quotes of your own words in this rebuttal, then denied saying them.
Where? Please be specific, because if I did, it was an editing error. Please point it out so I can correct it.
And your argument that natural=good or right, is crap. Think it through for five minutes and you'll see why.
I never made that claim, so I don't really need to think it through. I said "natural" in the context of "not unusual, expected, ordinary, predictable, not a surprise." The meaning is that no woman can argue that she got "unexpectedly pregnant" even if she's using birth control because pregnancy is a known risk of having sex...every single time no matter what, unless she has been sterilized by having her ovaries and/or uterus removed. I say it's "irresponsibly pregnant" because it's the woman's absolute and unquestioned responsibility to know what's going into her womb and what the results might be, and its her absolute and unquestioned responsibility to deal with the consequences of allowing sperm into her womb, since she has legally obtain absolute sovereignty over her womb and has full and plenary authority to control absolutely what goes into it.
If I have time later, I'll go hunt down the quotes in question. In the meantime--

I remember from a previous thread about abortion, your commentary that a woman "has legally obtain [sic] absolute sovereignty over her womb and has full and plenary authority to control absolutely what goes into it."

I agree with you. I think even girls have absolute sovereignty over their wombs. Including what comes out of them.
That's simply not the case when it comes to minors. Society has always drawn a rational distinction between children and adults when it comes to decision making and who gets to do it. You have not yet provided a well-reasoned argument as to why a 15 year old is competent to make a decision about an abortion but incompetent to make a decision about an appendectomy. What is it about the reproductive tract of a child that makes it so unique and different from the rest of her body when it comes to what goes into it, what comes out of it, and who gets to decide? Is the same 15 year old allowed to take LSD or cyanide? If not, what is your rationally and ethically consistent argument supporting your position?
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by Seth » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:27 pm

Ronja wrote:Coito, if the young patient was very distressed about her parents' potential reactions, would it not be doing harm to the patient if the doctor failed to ensure confidentiality?
Possibly. But in such a situation it's neither the doctor's nor the child's decision to make to proceed or not proceed. Instead, the doctor must, if there is credible evidence the parents will harm the child, turn to the next in line legal guardian; the court. In no case, however, is the child in charge of the final decision.
First do no harm is a powerful rule of professional ethics. IMO it covers protecting a patient from her parents, if that appears to be the least traumatic course of action of all the realistically available ones.
Sorry, but the only thing a doctor can do in such a situation is to either decline to treat the child or appeal to the courts, who are the legal guardians of the child's well-being in the absence of competent parents. He certainly cannot proceed with treatment in violation of a parental notification law on his own authority.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by Seth » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:33 pm

Ronja wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: "First do no harm" is the same principle that has folks against pulling life support plugs, and abortions. "Do no harm" used preclude the administering of abortificants.
If someone cites "First do no harm" regarding an abortion situation, they are essentially saying that the fetus is the patient, not the woman - or at least a more important patient than the woman. Which IMO is totally assbackwards.
Not really. After all, abortions are not 100 percent safe, and there is a risk of permanent harm to a child undergoing an abortion. Therefore, a "do no harm" metric would appropriately preclude a physician from performing such an abortion without informed and authorized consent from a person legally empowered to make such a decision, be it a parent, a guardian ad litem, or a judge.
And those who are against pulling life support plugs and citing "First do no harm" as their motive do not IMO look at the situation from the patient's POV, with the patient's best interest in mind. Instead, they place some magical absolute value on every moment spent alive, regardless of the quality of that life. How could prolonging suffering not be harm?
The distinction is that while it may be ethical for an individual to end their own life, according to medical ethics is is unethical, and prohibited, for a physician to knowingly and intentionally end a human life.

In the present context, while it might be ethical (though illegal) for a 15 year old to give HERSELF an abortion, medical ethics can easily prevent a physician from assisting or performing that procedure.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by hadespussercats » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:42 pm

Seth wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:
Seth wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:Seth, you dropped the quotes of your own words in this rebuttal, then denied saying them.
Where? Please be specific, because if I did, it was an editing error. Please point it out so I can correct it.
And your argument that natural=good or right, is crap. Think it through for five minutes and you'll see why.
I never made that claim, so I don't really need to think it through. I said "natural" in the context of "not unusual, expected, ordinary, predictable, not a surprise." The meaning is that no woman can argue that she got "unexpectedly pregnant" even if she's using birth control because pregnancy is a known risk of having sex...every single time no matter what, unless she has been sterilized by having her ovaries and/or uterus removed. I say it's "irresponsibly pregnant" because it's the woman's absolute and unquestioned responsibility to know what's going into her womb and what the results might be, and its her absolute and unquestioned responsibility to deal with the consequences of allowing sperm into her womb, since she has legally obtain absolute sovereignty over her womb and has full and plenary authority to control absolutely what goes into it.
If I have time later, I'll go hunt down the quotes in question. In the meantime--

I remember from a previous thread about abortion, your commentary that a woman "has legally obtain [sic] absolute sovereignty over her womb and has full and plenary authority to control absolutely what goes into it."

I agree with you. I think even girls have absolute sovereignty over their wombs. Including what comes out of them.
That's simply not the case when it comes to minors. Society has always drawn a rational distinction between children and adults when it comes to decision making and who gets to do it. You have not yet provided a well-reasoned argument as to why a 15 year old is competent to make a decision about an abortion but incompetent to make a decision about an appendectomy. What is it about the reproductive tract of a child that makes it so unique and different from the rest of her body when it comes to what goes into it, what comes out of it, and who gets to decide? Is the same 15 year old allowed to take LSD or cyanide? If not, what is your rationally and ethically consistent argument supporting your position?
Do you think a 15 year old can consent to sex? (I realize that's not an answer-- I'm curious, though.)
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by hadespussercats » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:45 pm

hadespussercats wrote:
Seth wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:
Seth wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:Seth, you dropped the quotes of your own words in this rebuttal, then denied saying them.
Where? Please be specific, because if I did, it was an editing error. Please point it out so I can correct it.
And your argument that natural=good or right, is crap. Think it through for five minutes and you'll see why.
I never made that claim, so I don't really need to think it through. I said "natural" in the context of "not unusual, expected, ordinary, predictable, not a surprise." The meaning is that no woman can argue that she got "unexpectedly pregnant" even if she's using birth control because pregnancy is a known risk of having sex...every single time no matter what, unless she has been sterilized by having her ovaries and/or uterus removed. I say it's "irresponsibly pregnant" because it's the woman's absolute and unquestioned responsibility to know what's going into her womb and what the results might be, and its her absolute and unquestioned responsibility to deal with the consequences of allowing sperm into her womb, since she has legally obtain absolute sovereignty over her womb and has full and plenary authority to control absolutely what goes into it.
If I have time later, I'll go hunt down the quotes in question. In the meantime--

I remember from a previous thread about abortion, your commentary that a woman "has legally obtain [sic] absolute sovereignty over her womb and has full and plenary authority to control absolutely what goes into it."

I agree with you. I think even girls have absolute sovereignty over their wombs. Including what comes out of them.
That's simply not the case when it comes to minors. Society has always drawn a rational distinction between children and adults when it comes to decision making and who gets to do it. You have not yet provided a well-reasoned argument as to why a 15 year old is competent to make a decision about an abortion but incompetent to make a decision about an appendectomy. What is it about the reproductive tract of a child that makes it so unique and different from the rest of her body when it comes to what goes into it, what comes out of it, and who gets to decide? Is the same 15 year old allowed to take LSD or cyanide? If not, what is your rationally and ethically consistent argument supporting your position?
Do you think a 15 year old can consent to sex? (I realize that's not an answer-- I'm curious, though.)
Also, I not that your retort specifically stated that my point was not true "when it comes to minors." Should I surmise that you agree with me when we're discussing adult women?
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by Seth » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:54 pm

hadespussercats wrote:
Seth wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:
Seth wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:Seth, you dropped the quotes of your own words in this rebuttal, then denied saying them.
Where? Please be specific, because if I did, it was an editing error. Please point it out so I can correct it.
And your argument that natural=good or right, is crap. Think it through for five minutes and you'll see why.
I never made that claim, so I don't really need to think it through. I said "natural" in the context of "not unusual, expected, ordinary, predictable, not a surprise." The meaning is that no woman can argue that she got "unexpectedly pregnant" even if she's using birth control because pregnancy is a known risk of having sex...every single time no matter what, unless she has been sterilized by having her ovaries and/or uterus removed. I say it's "irresponsibly pregnant" because it's the woman's absolute and unquestioned responsibility to know what's going into her womb and what the results might be, and its her absolute and unquestioned responsibility to deal with the consequences of allowing sperm into her womb, since she has legally obtain absolute sovereignty over her womb and has full and plenary authority to control absolutely what goes into it.
If I have time later, I'll go hunt down the quotes in question. In the meantime--

I remember from a previous thread about abortion, your commentary that a woman "has legally obtain [sic] absolute sovereignty over her womb and has full and plenary authority to control absolutely what goes into it."

I agree with you. I think even girls have absolute sovereignty over their wombs. Including what comes out of them.
That's simply not the case when it comes to minors. Society has always drawn a rational distinction between children and adults when it comes to decision making and who gets to do it. You have not yet provided a well-reasoned argument as to why a 15 year old is competent to make a decision about an abortion but incompetent to make a decision about an appendectomy. What is it about the reproductive tract of a child that makes it so unique and different from the rest of her body when it comes to what goes into it, what comes out of it, and who gets to decide? Is the same 15 year old allowed to take LSD or cyanide? If not, what is your rationally and ethically consistent argument supporting your position?
Do you think a 15 year old can consent to sex? (I realize that's not an answer-- I'm curious, though.)
Not against the will of the parents. Is a 15 year old physically capable of doing so? Of course. Is it a proper decision on their part absent parental consent? Absolutely not. Can parents properly and lawfully interfere with that decision, including by using physical force to prevent the union? Absolutely.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by Seth » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:03 pm

hadespussercats wrote: Do you think a 15 year old can consent to sex? (I realize that's not an answer-- I'm curious, though.)

Also, I not that your retort specifically stated that my point was not true "when it comes to minors." Should I surmise that you agree with me when we're discussing adult women?
Yes, adult women have legal control of their reproductive tracts. However, like the exercise of any right, it's subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest.

The question remains unanswered by you: Why should society not regulate access to abortion on the basis that permitting convenience abortion is bad public policy which negatively affects the morals of society by facilitating irresponsible sexual behavior and evasion of the consequences of individual actions and responsibility for the outcome of such irresponsible behavior?

Keep in mind another point here, which is that while one may argue that a woman has a privacy right to abort a fetus, society has the authority to regulate commerce to prohibit ANYONE ELSE from performing an abortion on a woman. In other words, it is not automatically true that a woman's right to abort her fetus infers an obligation (or right) on the part of anyone else to provide such services, which are both "commerce" and "medical procedures" that may be regulated by the government. Society may therefore permit "abortion" per se while still outlawing the performing of an abortion by anyone other than the pregnant woman without actually interfering with the woman's right to abort.

That's how things used to be, and still are in some places.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by hadespussercats » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:20 pm

Seth wrote:
hadespussercats wrote: Do you think a 15 year old can consent to sex? (I realize that's not an answer-- I'm curious, though.)

Also, I not that your retort specifically stated that my point was not true "when it comes to minors." Should I surmise that you agree with me when we're discussing adult women?
Yes, adult women have legal control of their reproductive tracts. However, like the exercise of any right, it's subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest.

The question remains unanswered by you: Why should society not regulate access to abortion on the basis that permitting convenience abortion is bad public policy which negatively affects the morals of society by facilitating irresponsible sexual behavior and evasion of the consequences of individual actions and responsibility for the outcome of such irresponsible behavior?

Keep in mind another point here, which is that while one may argue that a woman has a privacy right to abort a fetus, society has the authority to regulate commerce to prohibit ANYONE ELSE from performing an abortion on a woman. In other words, it is not automatically true that a woman's right to abort her fetus infers an obligation (or right) on the part of anyone else to provide such services, which are both "commerce" and "medical procedures" that may be regulated by the government. Society may therefore permit "abortion" per se while still outlawing the performing of an abortion by anyone other than the pregnant woman without actually interfering with the woman's right to abort.

That's how things used to be, and still are in some places.
Well, those are a lot of questions, over and above the on-topic one regarding minors and the issue of parental consent. But I have to dry my hair before the baby wakes up, or I'll miss my chance.

I'll see what I can do later.
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:25 pm

Ronja wrote:Coito, I don't get what you're trying to say. What are e.g. the practical consequences for a doctor if they take your view? Will they be able to do something for the actual patient actually in the room with them right now, or will they have to consider and reconsider possibilities near endlessly, starting with not believing a word any patient says who appears young and wants an abortion?

You seem to be only questioning, but offering no practical solutions.
I don't know what the practical solution is.

I'm torn between not accepting that a doctor, or the State (noGod forbid... <shudder>) knows better than parents what they ought to do. To understanding that doctors do have expertise in these matters.

This is not a cut and dried issue in my mind. Medical decisions are to be between doctor and patient, but patients have parents and guardians for a reason - because they can't make decisions well for themselves. And, doctors are decision makers. Doctors give medical advice and make medical recommendations, and outline options, and the patient (with their parent or guardian) then decides courses of action and treatment.

I do not leave it to doctors to be the end of this discussion. Look at the other conversations we've had when some folks were outraged by doctors advising patients regarding abortions and daring to suggest alternatives, and daring to counsel a patient either against or about abortions. If the matter is between doctor and patient, then it is between doctor and patient, isn't it? Or, must doctors give their medical advice according to a certain orthodoxy that is most friendly to the decision to have an abortion?

You see - some doctors may be staunchly opposed to abortion. What if a child goes in and talks it over, and then "decides" not to get one? And, then she waits to tell her parents until she's too far along? What if a child goes in to a different doctor who is pro abortion, and the child expresses reticence to have an abortion but the doctor counsels her to get one? What if in both cases, the parents are left out of the decision?

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Parental Consent for Tanning

Post by MrJonno » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:34 pm

Why should society not regulate access to abortion on the basis that permitting convenience abortion is bad public policy which negatively affects the morals of society by facilitating irresponsible sexual behavior and evasion of the consequences of individual actions and responsibility for the outcome of such irresponsible behavior?
Having an abortion is about the only moral thing som e people will ever do in their entire lives.

Why would anyone libertarian who hates taxes what to encourage people to have children that they will never pay for or take responsibility for. Children that the taxpayer will have to look after for the rest of their lives.

Now is it pure hypocrisy or not wanting to lose funding from religious freak club?
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests