Posted on 03/28/2009 5:24:32 AM PDT by radar101
ABORTION: State lawmakers consider compromise requiring parental notification.
By SEAN COCKERHAM scockerham@adn.com
JUNEAU -- State legislators are talking about compromising on a major abortion battle over parental consent, but Gov. Sarah Palin isn't interested in the deal.
The compromise under discussion would be legislation that requires parental notification but not consent. That means parents would have to be told about their teenager's plan to have an abortion but wouldn't have to give their permission for it to happen.
North Pole Republican Rep. John Coghill, with Palin's backing, is still pushing for the full version generally requiring parental consent before girls under age 17 could get an abortion. But the state Senate blocked a similar bill last year and, without the compromise, it's hard to see how that wouldn't happen again.
(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...
You are out of your mind. That is demonic.
LOL! Here's the town's website. Cute city seal...
Ask her that when she announces her presidential run.
How do you feel about the draft, by the way?
“Well, one good positive thing on her side.”
One of a billion.
Not since Reagan...
“If Palin can’t get parental consent to pass, then she should compromise to get parental notification.”
If she can’t get parental consent, she should call out the state militia, arrest the legislators voting against it, and lock them up for conspiracy to commit murder.
Cute indeed....but...outrageous! An infringement on our civil rights! (sarc) Notify the ACLU immediately. That is an official seal of a government entity, and it includes Santa Claus. Santa Claus of course is a characturized version of a real historical person, the famous Bishop and Roman Catholic Saint Nicholas.
One human being cannot take away the God given human rights of another human being. Parents are not God and they are not above God. They cannot deprive their children of basic human rights. There IS a limit.
If you don't believe that then you are not a conservative who respects our founding documents.
Are you a Muslim? You sound like one.
Don’t you need parental consent for other surgeries? Don’t you need parental consent to give aspirin at school? We know the priorities of the abortion-happy folk alright.
Why didn’t you answer my question about the draft?
Because you tried to change the subject and I’m not taking the bait.
You’re wrong. Accept it.
I’m not wrong, but you seem confused.
The Bible is clear, it’s the Fifth of the Ten Commandments, the one’s that lay out the G-d-to-man rules. Parents are G-d’s representatives, G-d’s agents because G-d says they are.
Under Natural Law the parents have a awesome level of authority over their children, and that authority includes the right to sell the child into slavery, at least that form of slavery specified in the Bible. We know that form better, perhaps, under the name “indentured servitude” — or fixed-term slavery. It can also be a stricter form of apprenticeship than we now have. The old school form where a young man is sold to a master as an apprentice for a fixed number of years, or a young woman is let out to be the servant in a rich household for a number of years, for a fixed stipend back to her parents each year.
And that gets to the draft? What is your call on that? Is that immoral? There is a clear relationship between the authority that allows a draft and the authority that allows a parent to sell a child into slavery.
Why do you avoid that discussion, and not only that but call names and throw out vile invective? Can’t you agure your point?
“Why didn’t you answer my question about the draft?”
Probably because any idiot could see that the subject was children, and the draft (in this country) does not pertain to children.
As far as selling someone into slavery, I’d suggest that you just keep thinking about it and studying until you get it.
May I call you an idiot? Thanks! I did!
Wonderful level of argument, eh?
Just keeping it at your level, amigo.
And your thoughts on Elian Gonzalez were?
Good memory!
That (1) The boy’s mother died getting him her to freedom. I would not then return him to slavery or to prison. Cuba is a prison. (2) The claim of fatherhood by the Cuban man should have been proved under US law. (3) The boy’s claim to refugee status should be heard in an honest court.
And consideration must be given to the fact that in Cuba, children are taken from their parents at age eleven of twelve, and thereafter treated as slaves/wards of the state and educated in state training camps and schools, at 18 they are assigned to some state duty assignment — typically military for the young men, Cuba had had a program of making state revenue from rent-an-army. That’s the “draft” Cuban style.
“May I call you an idiot? Thanks! I did!”
I’m sorry to be the one to break this to you, but the fact that you are able to utter a statement doesn’t make it true. You can call me anything you like, but unless it’s true, it is as though nothing was said.
“Wonderful level of argument, eh?”
It’s about the highest level you’re capable of...or deserve.
“Just keeping it at your level, amigo.”
Nah, you’re just floundering around like a chicken with its head cut off. If you were capable of anything worth while, you’d have asked to hear my grounds for calling you a lunatic.
After all, a lunatic is always the last to know that he is a lunatic. Knowing this, a sane person wants to know why he’s being called a lunatic, and wonders if it could be true.
A lunatic, on the other hand, simply lashes out. He lacks the ability to doubt himself.
Plus you reading skills must be dimwacked. Or you'd have taken a bit more from my posts than the edges.
“I’m a lunatic for parent’s authority.”
You said that a parent had a right to sell a child into slavery, and that is indeed a lunatic notion.
“The state’s authority is the lesser, or you get tyranny.”
Which is exactly why the state may not enforce any contractual relationship that holds any human being in involuntary servitude. The state lacks the authority to legalize slavery.
“Plus you reading skills must be dimwacked. Or you’d have taken a bit more from my posts than the edges.”
I took what was there. I originally called you a lunatic for posting that loathesome, vile, idiotic article on the Virgin of Guadalupe. Regarding that article as credible, or even sane, is prima facie evidence of lunacy.
When did post any article about he Virgin of Guadalupe? I am unaware of posting any such article, please provide a link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.