Hey Washington State! Protect Our Daughters!

Hey Washington State! Protect Our Daughters! March 9, 2015

Go here to help.

"The Catholic Church is a good deal more reasonable and compassionate now than it used ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"The number of Christian missions isn't an indicator of the health of a society.Good grief."

Dear Prolife Suckers
"Observing history and the magisterium's own teaching isn't "hate."Wow.The Catholic Church did abuse Native Americans. ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Perhaps read the piece on hell by Avery Cardinal Dulles. A quick sound bite simply ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Bud Stupple

    If your 15 year old daughter wanted to have an abortion and the police notified you about it, would you let her, big fella?

    • PalaceGuard

      And it’s your business exactly how, little guy?

      • Kelyn LeGaulle

        No, it’s her business and that’s why it’s a very bad law.

        • PalaceGuard

          If she’s a minor, then it is very much her parents’ business.

          • Kelyn LeGaulle

            ….and there we go, the minor female child as chattel. Can he dress her the way he wants? Can he make her attend his church? Can he spank her? It used to be OK for him to arrange her marriage and keep her locked away in the house if he wanted.

            • Andy, Bad Person

              Bullshit. Parents make decisions for their children all the time. They have to get vaccines, for example. All the Minor Secret Abortion movement does is protect sexual predators.

              • Kelyn LeGaulle

                Weak

              • PalaceGuard

                It’s tiresome to see that the same feminist cowcrap is still being dutifully ingested by the current generation. They will, usually, outgrow it, but, in the meantime, they still keep up the wear and tear on their innocent patellae each time “sex as the greatest good” is even remotely threatened. They are, in a really weird way, the descendants of the apocryphal Edwardian old maid who did not want to share the public swimming pool with men, lest she be rendered pregnant.

            • JM1001

              The question is one of justice, within which is embedded the idea of desert. If parents are primarily responsible for their children’s education and moral development, then that necessarily implies certain rights and duties parents possess with respect to their children. They deserve a certain autonomy in guiding and educating their children to grow into virtuous adults. This does not make children “chattel” to their parents, but merely acknowledges what is due to parents given their role in bringing children into the world.

              Therefore, since parents are responsible for the moral education of their children — and since all human actions chosen as a result of judgment can be morally evaluated — it follows that parents, given the requirements of justice, deserve to be made aware beforehand if their child is considering or being counseled to consider a moral decision as significant as an abortion. Parents cannot abdicate this moral responsibility, and policies which undermine it by keeping parents in the dark about serious moral judgments made by their children (perhaps not entirely with their free will) are wholly unjust.

              • Yasmin Patel

                So, we see that it isn’t about sexual predators. It’s really about coercing Right Wing political reproductive policies onto the young. We already knew this.

                • JM1001

                  Actually, nothing in my argument assumes that the parents in question are right wing. They could, in fact, be left-wing, Democratic Party-voting, Planned Parenthood-donating liberals who attend any and every pro-choice rally in their community.

                  And yet, such parents would still deserve, given the requirements of justice, to be made aware beforehand if their child is considering or being counseled to consider a moral decision as significant as abortion. This is for the simple reason that, once again, parents have the primary responsibility for the moral education of their children, and therefore a certain autonomy is due to them in guiding that moral education — autonomy which is directly undermined by keeping parents in the dark about serious moral judgments children make (again, perhaps not entirely with their free will).

                  It is you — and only you — who is trembling in fear that the parents in question might be people with whom you disagree politically, and therefore want to rob them of the parental autonomy that is due to them as a matter of basic justice.

                  • Yasmin Patel

                    Once again we see clearly. Nothing to do with sexual predators.

                    • JM1001

                      So what? Any given moral position could have any number of reasons that support it. A policy which reduces greenhouse gas emissions could be supported by an environmentalist for one reason, but supported by an economist for a completely different reason, and yet both reasons could be equally valid. Simply saying — over and over again, ad nauseam — that my argument has nothing to do with sexual predators does not serve to refute my argument, nor does it refute the argument of those who do appeal to the very real problem of sexual predators regarding this issue.

            • PalaceGuard

              If her mother is buying her clothes, yes, SHE can dress her the way she wants. I believe, historically, it has been true that, of a set of parents, one is generally female. On your world, apparently not.

        • Artevelde

          You didn’t really upvote this, did you Newp Ort?