Cancer?

They don't want kids to get tattoos and cancers. They assume parents won't, either. Abortion, on the other hand, has become a matter of social policy. I believe that many have stepped from pro-choice to pro-abortion. They believe that there is a necessity for a reasonable number of abortions, and they don't want people preventing them from happening.

I think parents should have to give permission for their kids to tan or tattoo. I also think parents should have to consent for any medical procedure. I don't really think one has anything to do with the other.

The issue with the Colorado parental notification law is that there was no provision if the abortion was an emergency medical necessity for the health of the woman and there wasn't an alternative to parental notification for girls who thought that they would be abused or thrown out of the home because of the situation. I guess most states with parental notification laws include those provisions.

It's already illegal in Davis County here in Utah without parental permission, and there's a bill in the House to make it illegal statewide without parental permission.

Who do you give the permission slip to if you tan in the yard or at the beach?

I believe you have hit the nail on the head KFC - the marbles have definately disappeared.

Regards from SUNNY down under - it was 89 degrees here today

Beach/yard tanning and tanning bed tanning are two very different things.

Personally I don't really have an opinion one way or the other about the permission slip as I just don't care, but tanning bed tanning is not as harmless and simple and temporary as painting your nails. The damage it can do is lasting.

First there was nanny Britain. Now there's nanny USA!

KFC------Thank you for making these very good points demonstrating there is no consistancy from both the political and medical interests of minor age girls.

LOCAMAMA POSTS: The issue with the Colorado parental notification law is that there was no provision if the abortion was an emergency medical necessity for the health of the woman and there wasn't an alternative to parental notification for girls who thought that they would be abused or thrown out of the home because of the situation. I guess most states with parental notification laws include those provisions.

In my state, a school nurse or counselor can legally take a minor age girl to an abortion clinic for counseling or even an abortion without the girl's parents knowledge or permission.......yet, the same school requires a signed permission slip from the medical doctor as well as from the parents so that they can give her an aspirin!! All I can say is the state legislatures who passed this into law have lost their minds. What this unjust law says is that the minor age girl's so-called 'right' to an abortion trumps parental rights.

I've never once heard or read of an abortion that was a medical necessity for the health of the woman. That's pro-abortion sophistry. If one is considering 'parental notification', it's not for the health of a 'woman'. It's actually a minor age girl whom they're calling a woman.

Don't read or listen much, do ya?

No, this isn't a nanny state issue. This is a parental rights issue.

If our state has this law in place (not sure if they do or not, just speculating) and my daughters want to tan, I would probably let them...but only after educating them to the risks.

Parents SHOULD have the right to make many of these decisions for their children; after all, parents are held liable for the consequences of NOT doing so.

I believe parental consent should be required for both tanning AND abortion. But it would be stating the obvious to say that two wrongs do not make a right here.

I've never once heard or read of an abortion that was a medical necessity for the health of the woman.


TEXAS WAHINE POSTS: Don't read or listen much, do ya?

Let me repeat it, this time in an other way. I've never heard or read of any case where an abortion was performed because the mother's health was in jeopardy due to the pregnancy. In most cases, abortions are performed because (for a myriad of reasons) the baby is an inconvenience and not wanted and not for the so called health of the mother......that's why it's called "abortion on demand"....Abortion--- at any time for any reason up to the moment of birth.

lulapilgrim: To use the quote feature, highlight the text you wish to quote and then click "quote" in the upper right hand corner of the reply box you're quoting.

It's hard to believe you've never read or heard about a situation where pregnancy complications have jeopardized a woman's life.

Many women suffer from severe pre-eclampsia which can ONLY be cured by ending the pregnancy either through emergency c-section or abortion. In the case of emergency c-section, the baby may be still born or not survive long if the pregnancy must be ended very early.

There have been cases where women have developed or discovered cancers during their pregnancies that cannot be treated without causing harm, defect, or death to the fetus.

What do you consider surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy?

You're not aware of these things?

Either way that would be an attempt to save two lives, not killing the child preemptively. Even if it is far too early, a reasonable attempt to save the child's life is not abortion. Pro-choice people paint us as if they think we just want baby and mother to die. That isn't the case, we just want a child to receive the same amount of care before birth as after.

If you have only enough medicine to save one person, and three people are dying, you haven't killed the other two. IN cases where the mother or the child will die, as long as all that can reasonably be done is done, no one faults a doctor who fails to save both.

That said, like Lula, I know of no such situation, and I have been around several women who had abortions. All the cases where women lost a baby due to complications great efforts were given the child. The only abortions I have ever known that were undertaken by people around me were 'convenience' abortions.

My mom had SEVERE Toxemia (pre-eclampsia of the 70's) and was strongly encouraged by her doctors to abort me. She was very, very ill and certainly could have died.

She refused to consider abortion so they gave her large doses of barbituates to treat her condition (explains a lot doesn't it? LOL) which should have (and probably did, haha) caused defects.

Her doctors felt abortion was a safer option and that saving one life was better than losing two. Luckily both my mom and I survived her choice.

I don't know that a very early c-section and an abortion are all that different if the outcome is going to be the same, although I personally don't think I would choose an abortion over waiting it out and having a c-section at the latest date possible and then attempting to save the baby. But I don't get to choose for other people.

There ARE women who are faced with almost certain death if they carry a pregnancy to term, though. I'm very surprised lulapilgrim is unaware of that.

I'm also curious how those who oppose abortion for medical reasons feel about surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy.

Baker: Did you add more while I was replying?

I think statistically waaaaay more abortions are performed for reasons besides saving the life of the mother. I won't argue with you on that.

That doesn't mean that there aren't a small number women out there who have had to choose whether or not to risk their own lives to carry a pregnancy to term.

You seriously haven't read any news reports or seen any TV programs on such women?