The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator

Abortion, shmischmortion

I’m not here to weigh in on the abortion debate but the Emerald is.

Towards the end of this op-ed the Emerald claims that they’re in this for logic and reason and that Obama is basically the end of ideological politics. First point, false. Second point, this entire op-ed seems to be pretty ideological. Just saying.

Now then, my two favorite parts of this article:

No one is pro-abortion – one thing both sides of the aisle can agree on is that it would be better if abortions simply weren’t necessary.

I’m not sure if the Emerald has read any pro-choice literature but there are a lot of people out there who are very much pro-abortion. In my thinking let’s also say that people who are pro-choice are also pro-abortion, you know, that whole having a choice to have an abortion or not thing.

In fact, here’s a guy who is very pro-abortion. I mean the title of the post is, “Why I love abortion.” It doesn’t get more pro than that.

And the second piece of the article that has me scratching my head is this one:

Perhaps most significant, and certainly most appropriate, given today’s date, is Obama’s statement that he will sign the “Freedom of Choice Act.” The bill will write Roe v. Wade and its protections into law and eliminate many abortion restrictions the court has allowed over the years, such as parental notification or consent laws.

I’m okay with this act, although I haven’t read enough of it to understand it all, but the problem I have is with the last seven words of the above paragraph. What is with pro-choice people and their adhoc hatred of parental notification and consent?

Young people under the age of 18 still need parental consent/notification for tattoos and certain kinds of piercings. They also need the same for most medical procedures. So I want to know when pro-choicers decided that a) abortion isn’t a medical procedure and b) that abortion was so high and mighty that it deserves special anti-parental consent/notification loopholes.

Seems to me that the Emerald threw logic and reasoning out the window with these two.

  1. B says:

    Instead of enforcing the idea of having to report to parents about everything in their lives, how about enforcing the idea of better education (a novel concept). Mandated abortion counseling should be required, really to all people who are going to get one, and it should be modified for people under 18 to take into account what teens do and don’t consider when making decisions.

  2. Kai Jones says:

    One difference between abortion and piercings/tattoos is timing. If your parents deny your desire to get a piercing, you can wait and have it done when you’re 18. Total damage? Some frustration while you endure the time until you’re recognized as adult. In contrast, if you’re pregnant at 15 or 16 you can’t really put off an abortion until you’re 18. It’s a time-is-of-the-essence contract.

    Another issue is restraint of choice versus compulsion to a particular choice. Not giving permission for piercings and tattoos is a passive restraint on a low-risk choice. Forcing a young woman to endure the risks of pregnancy and childbirth against her will is compelling her to a course of action that may kill her. (Not exaggerating: I almost died in childbirth, and a friend did die in childbirth.)

  3. Josh M. says:

    Not to be too self-righteous, but Margaret Sanger did apparently have a “Negative Eugenics #1!” foam finger. There are definitely people who are pro-abortion as opposed to pro-choice.

  4. Scott says:

    On the Obama note, I think he’s stated the he’s actually pro-life but is in support of Roe v. Wade.

  5. C.T. Behemoth says:

    Seems like it makes sense to have a law that is flexible enough in this situation to be able to deal with things on a case-by-case basis. Hell, you could narrow it down to a doctor being able to void the notification if, with professional help, it is discovered that Jane’s baby is also her brother/sister.

    I don’t know.

    The rest of it I agree with. It’s funny that their argument is not an argument (to them) but common sense or whatever. Sad that they have to drag Obama’s name into the mix too…as if what they’re saying is representative of Obama’s thoughts on the matter.

  6. Timothy says:

    Well, HIPPA protection technically begins at 16, and various states have other privacy protections regarding patient/doctor relationships that begin before the age of majority, so there’s that.

    But, given that the vast proportion of minors who get abortion tell their parents anyway the laws seem both redundant and potentially troublesome for the reasons stated above. Of course I don’t really consider myself pro-abortion so much as anti-fetus.

  7. Scott says:

    I can understand the arguments against parental consent/notification based on those factors. However, if we’re looking at this from a legal standpoint, an abortion is medical procedure and I’m fairly certain that 100% of medical procedures performed on a person under the age of 18 require parental notification and/or consent.

    Now, I’m would not argue for consent, but I think notification needs to stick around. This is just my opinion but I feel that, in general, such a procedure as an abortion is the kind of thing that should be discussed with a guardian of some kind or at least a therapist/counselor of some kind, whether or not one is 18.

    Growing up in the medical community, it’s the kind of thing that I see as requiring consent or notification.

    On the molestation note: I agree that it would be hard, but it’s the kind of thing that would require extra legal rights. It’s similar to rape victims and other kinds of molestation cases that require other medical treatments, just not as extreme.

  8. Betz says:

    The parental notification and consent laws make me feel uneasy when I think of the possibilities of what could be allowed and acceptable in our society, but the three commentators above are right: ultimately, as this is such a divided issue on moral grounds, so much so that the proper care-givers and guardians of a child may refuse to administer this procedure because they feel it is morally “wrong”, abortion should be held to a higher standard, so to speak. After all, these two laws impinge upon the individual’s in question right’s.

    But yea … seems kind of strange of the Emerald to say that people are ready to set aside ideological arguments and get down to real business, but then claim that Obama’s opinions iare the be-all, end-all decider of policy, and more so, that it is the right policy.

    More so than that, any sort of debate in politics is going to be ideological … that’s what 90% of politics is: petty ideological arguments, and then 9% of actual problem-solving (lets not forget the other 1% of having-sex-with-interns … that’s part of politics, too).

  9. B says:

    In the event of molestation, it’d be kind of awkward to get parental consent to abort your child/sibling.

  10. Lil J says:

    I think you misunderstood that first passage you quoted. The writer is saying that pretty much everyone would prefer it if accidental pregnancy just never happened. No one gets excited about having an abortion unless they’re clinically insane or something.

  11. Kai Davis says:

    AFAIK the reason that abortion deserves anti-consent/notification laws is the risk to a girl who wants or needs an abortion against her family’s wishes. They protect the girl.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.