From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion? (was Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:58:31 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:

>>> Some parents have VERY strong feelings about their daughters not
>>> having abortions. 
>>> Some parents resort to illegal means by issuing threats.

>> Like, "If I ever find out that you're pregnant, I'll kill you?"
>> A kinder, gentler enforcement of wholesome traditional family
>> values, wouldn't you say? 

> That's illegal. And it would prompt her to kill the baby by abortion. 

Of course.  But here you demonstrate more concern for the fetus than
for the daughter.

> The part that's aimed at preventing killing is, "I will help you
> enormously if you become pregnant, to carry the child to term."

> The part that's aimed at preventing killing by a little more force,
> is, "..but if you decide to kill that unborn child, your ass is out of
> the house. Permanently."

I wonder where parents like that could find a judge that would consign
her to a foster home for pursuing her legal rights.

> A huge number of daughters would shrink way back from killing their
> unborn child, then.

Obviously, you approve of intimidation as a tool for keeping the
youngsters in line.  Somehow, I'm not surprised.

>>> But what if they resorted to legal means to circumvent the pro-choice
>>> movement's undying quest to nullify parental authority? 

>>> Why, a parent could, upon being told that their daughter is pregnant,
>>> threaten to drop her off at a home for unwanted children if she has an
>>> abortion.

>> Some parents threaten their teenage children with foster homes for all
>> kinds of transgressions, some of them extremely trivial.  Actually,
>> don't you think those kinds of threats are self-defeating?

> Nope. It worked on my brother.

Obviously it didn't.  Read on.

>>> That's no slight inconvenience for anyone; the daughter would be
>>> devastated, and she would have no legal action against her parents.
>>> She'd just be out of a home.

>> And the parents end up looking like idiots.

> How? They got their way. When you get the job done, you can't look
> like an idiot.

Interesting pipeline there.  Let's see...  If they get their way, they
don't look like idiots.  Sure, Steve.  Now, let's add, "no matter how
much damage they do or how deeply they alienate their daughter."

>>> And where would the NARAL & Planned Parenthood be, then? They won't
>>> house her. She'll be just an insignificant casualty in this war. Or,
>>> as they say, "Another one bites the dust."

>> Blaming the NARAL & Planned Parenthood for the actions of a few stupid
>> parents makes about as much sense as blaming the National Football League
>> for the increase in cheap shots in hockey games.  But when has making
>> sense ever been your strong suit?

> My point is, PP, NARAL & NOW won't, after all their yelling &
> screaming, be there when that daughter faces the sheer might of her
> parents, when directed towards a legal means of removing her if she
> crosses them over this issue. 

> The parents, once again, don't have to strike a single blow: the blow
> they strike is with the pen, signing her into an unwanted children's
> home.

You know, it occurs to me that consigning a teenager to a foster home is
a little more complicated than just signing a form.  Any juvenile law 
experts want to clarify things here? 

>>> But the parents would strike the last and final blow in the issue, and
>>> the next daughter would more likely either not get pregnant or not
>>> even consider abortion.

>> You'd be surprised at the lessons drawn from such parental behavior.

> If it could convince my hard-headed brother, it could convince
> anyone. It was another 10 years before he acted up again, and then he
> lost the family inheritance which now has grown to 2 houses and a
> condo being purchased in Tahoe, NV.

Yeah, I can see that your parents' really changed your brother's behavior.
I could say more, but since you didn't indicate why your brother incurred
your parents' wrath, maybe we should leave it at that. 

>>> Sure, the tactics are heavy handed, but anything is fair in war,

>> What war, Mr. Chaney?

> You have no common sense, do you? 
> Abortion goes way beyond a debate when it divides families and friends. 
> That has all the qualities of a war in the brewing.

If it's a battle over control, every parent loses eventually.  That's the
way it is.  At a certain age, trust becomes a bigger component in the
parent/child relationship equation.  If a parent chooses to make it a war,
he/she is only hastening defeat.  Imo, of course.

>>> and as the pro-choicers like to say, IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL TO DO IT.

>> Actually, I _think_ that the daughter has _some_ legal recourse in many
>> states; that's something that might be interesting to research.

> What? Force her way back into the house? I think not. 

> Better yet, I wonder what it'd be like if a parent put a daughter out
> upon discovering she was pro-choice?

A real interesting fantasy, Steve.  What juvenile authority is going
to place a teenager in a foster home because his/her political views
are different? 

> That wouldn't be any worse than women who threaten to divorce their
> husbands over spousal consent laws.

Is that going to be on Geraldo anytime soon? 

> Dan Bredy is gone and there's not a damned thing you can do when I
> laugh about it, except bitch, gripe and complain!

The more you do that, the more you resemble the smoking gun.

-- 
Chris Lyman -  a personal        /   "I belong to no organized
opinion for every occasion       /   political party.  I am a
email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov    /   Democrat." -- Will Rogers