From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Subject: Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion? (was Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:34:46 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Jul28.145831.657@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>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 daughter ain't being killed; the fetus is. 

So I show more concern for the victim who might die, than I show
concern for the victimizer. Ooooh, gee, that's a _horrible_ principle!

>> 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.

That is irrelevant. They can't _force_ the parents to keep her if
there's a shelter that'll take her. The parents can put up one hell of
a fight to get her removed, until the judges get tired and give in. 

>> 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.

If your parents ever punished you for talking back, that's just as
easily an act of intimidation. 

What's your point? 

>>> 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.

It worked while he was in their house. 

>>>> 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."

Hey, my folks made sure my brother never talked back to them in their
house, "no matter how much damage they do or how deeply they alienate
their son." FACT: You do what you're supposed to, in your parents'
house. Either that or you do your damnedest not to get caught. If not,
they can give you any ultimatum they want: Do it or be grounded, do it
or be kicked out, etc.  

Well, there's the logical fault: If it's a son, it's okay. Sorry I
didn't notice that before.  

>>>> 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? 

It is more complicated, but it can be done on demand. 

>>>> 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. 

I said, he talked back. You know, being disrespectful. 

Something that can regularly get you kicked out of the house. And
their tolerance level was low, and it's still low now. 

>>>> 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.

Tell that 'control' battle to my brother, who now doesn't have a pot
to piss in because my folks snatched it away a few years back. 

There is a such thing as winning and then having nowhere to go home
to, you know. A battle of control will result in such a situation be
it a battle over abortion between parent & daughter - or a battle over
respect between a parent & son. 

>>>> 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? 

What juvenile authority is going to force a daughter back into a home
that vehemently does not want her back? 

>> 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? 

Nope, but it was here on USENET a few weeks back. 

>> 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.

Aw, and if that were true, we don't have to remind you people of the
same act you people tried on me just a few months back. At least Dan
Bredy got reported for something he did, that was a blatant violation
of USENET rules (claiming to represent his site). You people like to
report people for things they're _NOT_ doing, over small shit like
"teacher, teacher, he's posting as someone else!" I believe the word
that describes your people's actions, is a _PRANK_.  

Hell, we watched your hypocritical guns firing off for months and
months, with regards to reporting people for actions. The next time
you accuse anyone of reporting Dan Bredy, we'll remember the Dennis
Hall prank your buddies pulled on us at CSUS.  

>-- 
>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


===============================================================================
			No regard for the enemy. 
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.