From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: About Parental Consent and Funding too:
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:06:59 GMT


About parental consent, folks:

We have a major consistency problem when it comes to parental consent
abortion laws. 

1) The majority of Americans support parental consent and notification
abortion laws. 
[Traditional pro-choice response can be heard charging up, now.] 
2) If a parent can tell their kids not to go to a football game or
take pills at school, they definitely have a right to deny an abortion
to a minor. 
[Traditional pc juggernaut now spewing a little steam.] 
3) If that right is taken away from a parent, it leaves many other
parental rights that can be easily taken away by the next crowd of
militant anti-famile activists.
[Traditional pro-choice juggernaut now leaving the garage.] 
4) To give a child a right to tell parents that they can do what they
want and the parents have no power to stop them, is a classical
example of anti-family, anti-parental rights legislation. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now the big, great pro-choice counterargument now looms upon us all.
We will undoubtedly hear "But parents can also KEEP their daughters
from giving birth, too." 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Have you pro-lifers been VEXED by this argument? Has it been NAGGING
you? 
Never fear, for this argument will cease to nag you from now on.

Abortion is classified as ELECTIVE surgery. Read your medical
textbooks on that: when it does not have to do with saving the woman's
life, her seeking an abortion is called elective surgery. That means
it is no more necessary than face lifts, liposuction, or nose jobs -
stuff that is NOT considered vital health care by its classification.
Arguing that a parent can force an abortion on their daughter, with
parental consent, is like saying a parent can use parental consent to 
force tatoos or nose jobs on their daughter. 

Sorry, but given the fact that abortion is elective surgery, as is
tatooing and liposuction, it is not something that parents can use
parental consent to force on their kids.

This also means that a comprehensive health care plan, if it is to pay
for abortions, must comprehensively cover all elective surgery.
Meaning Michael Jackson will get a free taxpaid ride the next time he
wants to change his nose, in America. Seeing as that this is neither
feasible, popular nor economically sound... 
Abortion is not a health care right, when judged consistently with the
American definition of health care.  

So why can we then justify paying for childbirth? Because childbirth
is not elective surgery. Abortion is.


Fellow pro-lifers can have fun with this; I'm swamped with midterms
and will only have time to post an article every now and then. 



=============================================================================
Are you ignoring the flamelords? I hope you are. The best way to
defeat them is to act like they don't exist. 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:41055 talk.politics.misc:49937 alt.rush-limbaugh:6713