From: tjoa@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Tjoa)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Chaney's argument FOR choice! (Was Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion?)
Summary: Get out of my house! (Chaney gets buried)
Keywords: abortion house punishment get out forced removal sex
Date: 29 Jul 92 03:35:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: You see, Burke Lee

It's long, but he ends up on the side of parental choice...

In article <1992Jul29.003446.28628@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.145831.657@pwcs.stpaul.gov> (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>Somewhere else (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>That (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>>>That (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. 

Yes, but the daughter is the one being pushed out of the family.  This
is a very one-sided case, as I don't think that sons would be kicked out
for getting pregnant.  (And if the son got someone pregnant, then would
the family throw him out for not coercing his girlfriend to have the baby?)

>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!

No, I can see how you are concerned for the fetus.  We [you and I] place
different values on those who are here in this world vs those who haven't
had the opportunity to be here yet.

>>> 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. 

You're right.  We can't force people to accept responsibility, whether
it be for their daughter or her actions.  In addition, there would probably
be very deep negative consequences in sending a child back to a home in
which she was not welcome.

>>> 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? 

It never got to the point where it was a threat of being removed from the
household.  It would seem to me that if someone got to be trouble to
your parents, your parents have the choice to remove them from their
abode.

>>>> 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. 

Uh-huh.

>>>>> 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.

(Is that all?)

>>>> 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.  

Do your damnedest not to get caught?  Sounds like an anti-parental
notification stand.
Do your parents look like idiots for kicking your brother out?  I have no
basis on which to make a decision.  However, it looks like understanding is
just brimming from all corners of your household.
Also, if parents have the right to "kick people out", then why shouldn't
that right apply to, say, your mother and any unborn siblings?

>>>>> 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. 

Getting rid of unwanted children can be done on demand?  (See any abortion
parallel?)

>>>>> 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. 

Maybe your brother didn't respect your parents, but it also sounds like
your parents didn't respect your brother.  Quite a vicious circle, eh?

>>>>> 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.

Who is the parent in our abortion case?  The parents of the woman carrying
child, or the woman, as a "parent" of her fetus?
By the way, Mr. Chaney, "war", as you so love to put it, has its
casualties.

>>>>> 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. 

(Mayve, but I wold expect them to be limited.)

>>> 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?

I don't think authority would.  By the same token, what authority
is going to keep an unborn in a place that does not want him/her?

[...spousal consent, Geraldo, being on USENET,
    Dan Bredy being gone (who?)]

>			No regard for the enemy. 

There is no greather enemy than the enemy within.

===============================================================================
Subject: Re: One sure way to prevent a teen abortion? (was Re: Governor Casey for '96 President?

In article <1992Jul29.003759.28783@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.181259.2757@wuecl.wustl.edu> (Don Porter) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul28.011150.14456@csus.edu> (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>> 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.
>>
>>In article <1992Jul28.145831.657@pwcs.stpaul.gov> (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>> 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? 
>>
>>I can't say one way or the other, but let's assume you're right
>>and parents of teenagers have more than trivial hoops to
>>jump through in order to rid themselves of their parental obligations.
>>Do you have any opinion about such an anti-choice government
>>policy that forces parents to conform to a state-imposed moral
>>view of their duties to their children?
>
>What is your view of an anti-choice society that forces parents to
>keep unwanted children in the home after the children have done
>something they don't want done in the parents' home? 
>
>Do you think it's _smart_ to force parents to keep them? I mean, let's
>_USE_ your reasoning here, Mr. Porter. 

No, I don't think it is smart to force parents to take care of unwanted
children.  For the same reason, I don't think it is smart to force someone
to become a parent.


-Richard
Try not to choke.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion