[RD] Abortion, once again

To address all the above without a whole bunch of quotes, I'll just try to go with bullet points, some of which will be specifically addressed to individual posters, but are also meant generally:

- @Sarin: The Bill appears to me to apply to "literally anyone". That's *my* main concern as well - "carte blanche" as you put it. It then it goes on to specify "across state lines". It appears you are as incredulous to that as I am, but that was my reading of what @Broken_Erika quoted about the Bill. That does not seem to be a controversial position to me. Like you (it sounds like) if the Bill is saying something different, that could totally change my POV, but I think you may be understanding my objection.

- @Angst: you say "I don't take the kid." Then who does? Do you envision the Doctor coming & picking the kid up, like an Uber? The state borders thing is because that's also literally in the Bill. I quoted that in my original objection (& my subsequent quotings of it). It criminalizes taking someone else's child across state lines for the purpose an abortion without the parents' knowledge (& also providing them with prescription medicine). Have we been discussing this from two entirely different POVs? That could explain a lot.
- (also I'll answer your specific questions down below)

@Samson: I mean, if you can't give a logical reason for different age thresholds (nor can I) then why do they exist? "Intuitively" just doesn't seem like the basis for setting laws to me. Person A can consent to sex with Person B as long as they are "intuitively" X years older? And they could consent yesterday, but today is Person B's birthday, then Person B is suddenly a criminal? I completely respect you as a poster, & really like how you bring hard facts & links to any discussion but well, what I was referring to was not just this question but also the "can I go vaccinate other people's kids without their parents' knowledge?" question, which I felt like you have dodged/ignored.

@Angst:
so, just yes or no.
do you think a kid should freely be able to choose to abort, regardless of its parents wishes
No. [I know you said "just yes or no", but...] I guess I really need more clarification on your question, but could amend my answer depending. Make the choice without the parent's knowledge? No, absolutely not. Some random person, like you or me takes them to the Doctor? No, absolutely not (goes back to my: random people don't get to take other people's kids, anywhere, for any reason). But if they are at a hospital, & the minor child wants to abort & the parents oppose it, I'd support the kid's choice (assuming the Doctor supported it as well), regardless of the parents' wishes. That just seems too contrived though, & is highly unlikely to be a real world situation (not saying it *never* happens, just not applicable to what we're discussing).
it's not like the kid is jumping into an ice cream truck and disappearing into the woods. it's rather, like, the kid wants to see a doctor about something quite pressing.
i'll reiterate, sure, inform the parents about it.
I think where we disagree is the whole getting from A to B part. Jumping into an ice cream truck to me reads like "anyone can take your kid" without the parents' knowledge. Which is what this Bill exactly says isn't allowed & I said I didn't see anything wrong with. So it actually sounds like we don't fundamentally disagree in regards to this Bill: You, nor I, nor an ice cream truck, can just take someone's kid. I mean... right? Even if we "mean well"? Did we solve it?
 
Last edited:
- @Angst: you say "I don't take the kid." Then who does? Do you envision the Doctor coming & picking the kid up, like an Uber? The state borders thing is because that's also literally in the Bill. I quoted that in my original objection (& my subsequent quotings of it). It criminalizes taking someone else's child across state lines for the purpose an abortion without the parents' knowledge (& also providing them with prescription medicine). Have we been discussing this from two entirely different POVs? That could explain a lot.
- (also I'll answer your specific questions down below)
i've outlined what i meant several times, i don't think i was unclear.
i believe the kid should be able to be able to decide on its own that it wants an abortion.
the parents can be told, sure, but they shouldn't have a say in it.
this is not an abduction. this is a kid reaching out to a doctor and getting appropriate treatment.
if abortion treatment is not available in the state, it's bonkers to block the kid from traveling for it.
if you or the parents feel uncomfortable about the kid traveling for a week, i have news for you about how long pregnancy usually lasts (and how more likely it is to be dangerous or fatal)
@Angst:

No. [I know you said "just yes or no", but...] I guess I really need more clarification on your question, but could amend my answer depending. Make the choice without the parent's knowledge? No, absolutely not. Some random person, like you or me takes them to the Doctor? No. But if they are at a hospital, & the minor child wants to abort & the parents oppose it, I'd support the kid's choice, regardless of the parents' wishes. That just seems too contrived though, & is highly unlikely to be a real world situation.
it's not contrived, nor too unlikely (at least in the states); the fact that parents have the discretion over whether the kid has access to abortion is a real issue.
I think where we disagree is the whole getting from A to B part. Jumping into an ice cream truck to me reads like "anyone can take your kid" without the parents' knowledge. Which is what this Bill exactly says isn't allowed & I said I didn't see anything wrong with. So it actually sounds like we don't fundamentally disagree in regards to this Bill: You, nor I, nor an ice cream truck, can just take someone's kid. I mean... right? Even if we "mean well"? Did we solve it?
we agree that you can't abduct kids.
we maybe disagree on whether the kid seeking help and being driven somewhere is abduction. i don't believe it is, no. the ice cream truck thing was because your framing of the situation is weir; the ice cream truck's a shorthand of what the situation isn't, in my opinion.
the kid can't drive, after all, and yea, the doctor can't usually travel across state lines for one patient.
there's a reason patients usually go to doctors and not the other way around. more patients than doctors and all.
 
i've outlined what i meant several times, i don't think i was unclear.
You have, & you were not unclear, but here's where we have a "problem":
i believe the kid should be able to be able to decide on its own that it wants an abortion.
the parents can be told, sure, but they shouldn't have a say in it.
this is not an abduction. this is a kid reaching out to a doctor and getting appropriate treatment.
How is this happening? Who takes them to the Doctor [EDIT: Hospital is much more likely - I should have said that]? My position is it can't be you or I (just any random person), for example. Who can it be? And, furthermore, what if that Doctor is out of state?

we agree that you can't abduct kids.
See, I'm not sure we do agree. See above /\.
we maybe disagree on whether the kid seeking help and being driven somewhere is abduction. i don't believe it is, no. the ice cream truck thing was because your framing of the situation is weir; the ice cream truck's a shorthand of what the situation isn't, in my opinion.
the kid can't drive, after all, and yea, the doctor can't usually travel across state lines for one patient.
there's a reason patients usually go to doctors and not the other way around. more patients than doctors and all.
Right, so who *does* get to just take someone else's kid? And why/when is it not abduction?
 
Last edited:
You have, & you were not unclear, but here's where we have a "problem":

How is this happening? Who takes them to the Doctor [EDIT: Hospital is much more likely - I should have said that]? My position is it can't be you or I (just any random person), for example. Who can it be? And, furthermore, what if that Doctor is out of state?


See, I'm not sure we do agree. See above /\.

Right, so who *does* get to just take someone else's kid? And why/when is it not abduction?
cab and uber and whatever (which you somehow find horrendous iirc) are both fine, problem then is economic barriers for the kid, since crossing state lines will be too expensive. as far as i understand, these are pretty good; i don't know if they have the resources to transport everyone, but they allocate their resources appropriately. other organizations of that probably exist. (and their practice is illegal in some states yea; it shouldn't be.) any family member is fine. all of this naturally comes from the fact that resources to get access to healthcare is universally restricted in the states, meaning that people rely on private options to cross state lines, rather than the more appropriate governmental behavior of paying for transportation, but yea this ain't gonna happen, so the options will necessarily be private. ideally (not as it is currently), if the parents are able to & refuse to drive the kid, there should be repercussions for that; for the parents, specifically.

if i drove my neighbour's kid across state lines if the parents were unwilling to approve of the abortion? yes, sorry, i believe that if the law should actually punish anyone, it should be the parents. or the government itself for restricting access to care, whatever.

we're still talking hypotheticals though, and i believe the phrasing "just take a kid" is still a misnomer. they aren't being taken against their will, they want medical care that their parents (and government) refuse them.

i'm not advocating for them to be hurt either, the chances for kids to be abducted/hurt/etc is a moral panic particular to the states, highly overestimating the actual frequency & severity, and therefore danger, of this problem. it's ideal you'd rather not mislead yourself about this. the invasive aspect and danger of pregnancy massively outweighs potential harm in allowing your neighbour, older brother, teacher, a cab, or an NGO to drive or fly you.

but let's completely remove acquaintency from the equation. if i were driving on the road, and a random kid was hitchhiking at the roadside, i asked what was up, and the kid needed & asked for transportation to get access to healthcare, the moral thing for me would be to drive the kid there (and sure, i'd inform the kid's parents; if they did not want the kid to get treatment, they're overriding the kid's basic rights). now, it's not the legal thing, but there's a lot of legislation in the states, eg abortion restriction, that's not particularly moral.

and again, this is not an ice cream truck. this is someone driving someone to the doctor.

-

if you want to classify that as abduction, you do you. but it's the same issue as classifying taxes as theft. you don't denigrate taxes, you soften theft; you make abduction look better here. it's then a less damnable thing to do; rather than being near intrinsically awful, you make it a helpful thing.

like, "i drove a kid to the hospital."
"but that's abduction!"
i mean, sure, congratulations, you just made abductions a good thing.

-

(maybe it's just me that finds it creepy to insist on parents having authority over their daughter's uterus)
 
Last edited:
Look, I've explained my position on this subject, & have hoped I'm just done with it. Several times. But sometimes I come back here & there are like 4-5 people asking me questions & I feel like it'd be rude to just ignore them. But here, you lobbed up some softballs, so I guess I'll hit them:
cab and uber and whatever (which you somehow find horrendous iirc) are both fine
Where did you get that impression? Uber is awesome. Just, not, well, for taking minors... anywhere without their parents' permission. I'm pretty sure even Uber says they won't do that. EDIT: yep, looked it up: https://www.ridester.com/uber-age-limit/
if i drove my neighbour's kid across state lines if the parents were unwilling to approve of the abortion? yes, sorry, i believe that if the law should actually punish anyone, it should be the parents. or the government itself for restricting access to care, whatever.
I dunno. Try taking your neighbor's kid to a mall (or anywhere really, like maybe a Burger King) in the next state, I guess? See how that works out for you. Go ahead: Take some random minor kid across state lines, & then try to explain how you were doing it for "their own good" because they, like, totally consented to it.
 
Last edited:
If kidnapping is already a crime why do you think these red-state legislatures are passing laws to make helping someone get an abortion out of state a separate crime? I think maybe this question gets at why the hill you're dying on is so far away from the point.
 
Look, I've explained my position on this subject, & have hoped I'm just done with it. Several times. But sometimes I come back here & there are like 4-5 people asking me questions & I feel like it'd be rude to just ignore them. But here, you lobbed up some softballs, so I guess I'll hit them:

Where did you get that impression? Uber is awesome. Just, not, well, for taking minors... anywhere without their parents' permission. I'm pretty sure even Uber says they won't do that. EDIT: yep, looked it up: https://www.ridester.com/uber-age-limit/

I dunno. Try taking your neighbor's kid to a mall (or anywhere really, like maybe a Burger King) in the next state, I guess? See how that works out for you. Go ahead: Take some random minor kid across state lines, & then try to explain how you were doing it for "their own good" because they, like, totally consented to it.
how do you not get the vast canyon between driving a strange kid to burger king and escorting it to medical attention?
 
how do you not get the vast canyon between driving a strange kid to burger king and escorting it to medical attention?

It's about being able to control other people's bodies hth, specifically cis girls and women (but also trans boys and men as well)
 
If kidnapping is already a crime why do you think these red-state legislatures are passing laws to make helping someone get an abortion out of state a separate crime? I think maybe this question gets at why the hill you're dying on is so far away from the point.
i'll add a few more notes to this besides your point (that there's a point in this being criminalization separate from abduction, specifically targeting one reason of transport).

where i live, there's a legal requirement to assure that someone in particular danger gets help (if you're able to). stuff like giving water to a guy you find collapsed in the desert; at least calling the fire department if a nearby house is ablaze; stuff like that. there's of course a difference between acute need for help (like, someone needing water now) and long-term need for medical attention (depending on the stage of pregnancy, the rush is less severe), but the point remains; where i live, you are expected to help out people in danger.

for myself, a few months ago, someone was plown through in front of me on a road crossing. it was a big bang, the pedestrian just rolled over the car, and fell on the middle of the road into his own blood. (the light was green for the pedestrian, and the car was speeding; the pedestrian did not break any laws; not relevant, but just wanted to mention it.) then i did my due; i walked straight into the empty road (was the middle of the night), carefully watching for cars, but i was not paying particular attention to whether the light was red or green; green was optimal, but not necessary at this point to get the guy out of the empty road. i made sure to help the guy to the sidewalk, called the equivalent of 911, and waited with him. a lot of random people showed up then to gather and help him out as much as possible, asking him questions (he should not fall asleep here). when the police and ambulance showed up, i answered as many questions as i could, and after he got into the ambulance and i had answered the necessary questions, i left. i think they found the car somewhere (windshield must have been bloody & broken), but i'm not aware of the outcome of the situation, since past me providing help, it's none of my business.

this is not to pat myself on the back, as my behavior was not great or special. there's two points here; i'm legally, if not morally, required to provide basic help for someone in need. and at that point, red/green lights matter less than getting a bone-fractured, bleeding person to the sidewalk. of course it's probably ideal to make precautions for myself in regards to the light, but the ambivalency of red or green or whatever light is a sidenote of the major point that i think the right thing is to help.

there's always a limit in these cases; how acute the problem is; how severe the problem is; and how much the helper is expected&able to reasonably help. but most people draw the line somewhere, if not a legal line, then a moral one; that it's the right thing to help out people in need. there's a difference between the acute problem of a road collision and the long term (but still extremely severe) ailment of pregnancy, but if a 12-year old hollered me on the street and asked me to get to a hospital, i would not ask questions besides asking the kid to call its parents and inform them of what was going on. then i would get the kid to care. in the context of abortion past state lines, i guess i would think the moral thing would be civil disobedience. (not that i'm asking people to break the law; i'm simply denoting what the moral thing is to do, not the legal thing.)

incidentally, the pedestrian was maybe 17 years old. i remember that he was obviously a teen. he might've been a legal adult. i didn't ask, because it didn't matter.

so, anyways. the relation of out-of-state abortions to my note above (the plight to assure people basic help) is not particularly novel: red states understand the principle of helping out people in danger, but they do not consider abortion a medical issue. so there's no legal sanction of gray-area space where you're supposed to help out (in this case helping out kids who want to opt out of something invasive and dangerous). the law often sanctions areas where you're allowed (and particularly, supposed to) break other laws in order to ensure public good, or safety for yourself; if you're getting shot at while driving, you're allowed to run a red light (within some reason). rather, they want to double down and remove sanctions to do public good, eg to criminalize private transport for medical reasons and/or expand the definition of abductions, i guess.
 
@Samson: I mean, if you can't give a logical reason for different age thresholds (nor can I) then why do they exist? "Intuitively" just doesn't seem like the basis for setting laws to me. Person A can consent to sex with Person B as long as they are "intuitively" X years older? And they could consent yesterday, but today is Person B's birthday, then Person B is suddenly a criminal?
When I say logic I mean logic, ie. axioms and conclusions joined together by a progression of logical steps. I have never heard anyone try to apply that sort of rigour to the details of the criminal justice system. If you think you can go from a vaguely acceptable set of axioms to the current punitive criminal justice system we have I would love to hear it.

If I was actually in a position to determine these thresholds I would try and use real data, things like effect of such criminalisation on rates of punishment, pregnancy rates, educational outcomes in areas with different laws. Without the time or ability to do that, and if asked a question I will do my best, which in this situation is intuition. I acknowledged that I did not really know.

Any such threshold will end up with a change from illegal to legal at some specified point in time.
I completely respect you as a poster, & really like how you bring hard facts & links to any discussion but well, what I was referring to was not just this question but also the "can I go vaccinate other people's kids without their parents' knowledge?" question, which I felt like you have dodged/ignored.
It certainly was not intentional ignoring or dodging. The literal answer is easy, if you are not a qualified medical doctor with a patient under your care vaccinating someone is illegal in most places and I approve of that. If you are a qualified medical doctor with a patient under your care then there are rules you have to follow. In this country the rule for medical attention related to sex between 13 and 16 it not to tell the parents and provide the care, given no evidence of "risk to the health, safety or welfare of a young person or others which is so serious as to outweigh the young person's right to privacy" and the child is Gillick competent - that is, that they are capable of consenting to medical treatment without the need for parental permission or knowledge. That seems reasonable to me.

However I suspect what you actually mean is "can I help a child get to a doctor so they can vaccinate other people's kids without their parents' knowledge?" This I can answer with a categorical yes given the child asked me. I cannot think of a situation where someone was capable of expressing their desire to go to a doctor and I would think it wrong to do so.

What you avoided was how this applies to other medical treatment that children die from when their parents deny them access. If a 15 year old child asked you to take them to the doctor to receive life saving medical care that their parents thought was the work of the devil and would consign the child to an eternity of damnation should it be a crime for you to take them to a doctor? What if it was not life saving, but would keep them out of a wheelchair? What about a nasty 9 month acute phase and an 18 year chronic phase of impairment of life?
 
Last edited:
And, furthermore, what if that Doctor is out of state?
Why the focus on this specific thing, as if most US states aren't small and easily traversed and right next to each other lol. American state borders aren't some uncrossable moral boundary, you can go there for donuts if you want.

The only reason it matters in this context is the fanatic arseholes governing some jurisdictions are trying to make it matter.

The broader question is nothing to do with US state borders, it's just helping young people who want to access abortion regardless of their parents opposition, which is strictly a good thing to do. Even if they have to cross the river from Kansas City to other Kansas City to do it.
 
Last edited:
*sigh* I'll try to be brief, although I doubt I'll succeed, but... I've explained my position: you don't get to take someone else's kid anywhere, for any reason. Yes, there are exceptions, like a literal imminent medical emergency, but I don't feel like that's what we're discussing.
If kidnapping is already a crime why do you think these red-state legislatures are passing laws to make helping someone get an abortion out of state a separate crime? I think maybe this question gets at why the hill you're dying on is so far away from the point.
But that was my original objection - what they were criminalizing *was* already in the statutes - you can't kidnap someone else's kid. For good or ill intentions. I didn't see why someone would object to that particular aspect of the Bill. I still don't. Sure, it seems redundant with current laws, but that's exactly why I don't see a problem with it - you already can't do that. It just seemed odd to me that anyone actually would oppose that particular part. Also, you use the "hill you're dying on" expression way too often. :)

how do you not get the vast canyon between driving a strange kid to burger king and escorting it to medical attention?
See above - this is not about receiving imminent medical attention, like a wound or an injury. At least IMO, & bringing that in is not useful to the actual discussion.

When I say logic I mean logic, ie. axioms and conclusions joined together by a progression of logical steps. I have never heard anyone try to apply that sort of rigour to the details of the criminal justice system. If you think you can go from a vaguely acceptable set of axioms to the current punitive criminal justice system we have I would love to hear it.

If I was actually in a position to determine these thresholds I would try and use real data, things like effect of such criminalisation on rates of punishment, pregnancy rates, educational outcomes in areas with different laws. Without the time or ability to do that, and if asked a question I will do my best, which in this situation is intuition. I acknowledged that I did not really know.

Any such threshold will end up with a change from illegal to legal at some specified point in time.
That is a fair critique. But what I'm objecting to is that this doesn't work like any other "point in time" rule. Most of the time, we grant additional rights, choices, & ability to consent to things as one gets older. This one takes away the ability to consent when Person A or Person B hits a (fairly random, & variable by place) age. Person A & Person B can, today, consent to having sex with each other. Tomorrow, when Person B has a birthday, it suddenly becomes illegal, a felony even, for Person B to engage in the same act they are allowed to do today. Similarly, we say that Person A can no longer consent to an act with Person B that they could consent to today with Person B. No other "right" works that way - taking away consent when some other person has a birthday.

And I intentionally didn't assign genders to either Person.

It certainly was not intentional ignoring or dodging. The literal answer is easy, if you are not a qualified medical doctor with a patient under your care vaccinating someone is illegal in most places and I approve of that.
Well, I'm not really sure we disagree on that aspect in regards to what I'm saying (& I know you weren't intentionally ignoring my questions, but I felt it was relevant to point out that you hadn't addressed them).

If you are a qualified medical doctor with a patient under your care then there are rules you have to follow. In this country the rule for medical attention related to sex between 13 and 16 it not to tell the parents and provide the care, given no evidence of "risk to the health, safety or welfare of a young person or others which is so serious as to outweigh the young person's right to privacy" and the child is Gillick competent - that is, that they are capable of consenting to medical treatment without the need for parental permission or knowledge. That seems reasonable to me.
That seems reasonable to me as well.
However I suspect what you actually mean is "can I help a child get to a doctor so they can vaccinate other people's kids without their parents' knowledge?" This I can answer with a categorical yes given the child asked me. I cannot think of a situation where someone was capable of expressing their desire to go to a doctor and I would think it wrong to do so.
And here you are correct in what I mean, & this is the point where we well, we simply disagree - I answer it with a categorical No. I'm not saying I'm right & you're wrong, just that we disagree on whether I, some random person, can take someone else's child.
What you avoided was how this applies to other medical treatment that children die from when their parents deny them access. If a 15 year old child asked you to take them to the doctor to receive life saving medical care that their parents thought was the work of the devil and would consign the child to an eternity of damnation should it be a crime for you to take them to a doctor? What if it was not life saving, but would keep them out of a wheelchair? What about a nasty 9 month acute phase and an 18 year chronic phase of impairment of life?
Like you, I did not mean to avoid it - I'm getting a lot of questions & am doing my best to address them all, so I certainly don't mean to avoid any (although I do look forward to just being done with this after clarifying my position to peoples' varying levels of satisfaction/just getting fed up with me :)). I view what you described as an entirely different circumstance. Completely, entirely, fundamentally different. Again, we can disagree on this, doesn't mean I think I'm right & you're wrong, just that we disagree, but that's my POV: You, or I, or any random person, simply should not be able to take someone else's child without their parents' knowledge when what you described above is not the case: i.e. no imminent threat of harm.

We (the people I just listed) can certainly report the situation to authorities who can do that (Child Services, maybe?). But random people, strangers even, taking someone else's kid? My answer is still No.

Why the focus on this specific thing, as if most US states aren't small and easily traversed and right next to each other lol. American state borders aren't some uncrossable moral boundary, you can go there for donuts if you want.
Because that was the initial "thing" in the Bill that I said I simply didn't see the problem with & was wondering why anyone would find it objectionable (as @Lexicus said, there are already laws against such things, so why is this part objectionable if you already can't do that?). Although, I will point out: "most US states" aren't actually small. Our state of Oregon is bigger than the entire United Kingdom for example.
 
But that was my original objection - what they were criminalizing *was* already in the statutes - you can't kidnap someone else's kid. For good or ill intentions. I didn't see why someone would object to that particular aspect of the Bill. I still don't. Sure, it seems redundant with current laws, but that's exactly why I don't see a problem with it - you already can't do that. It just seemed odd to me that anyone actually would oppose that particular part. Also, you use the "hill you're dying on" expression way too often. :)

Do I. Or. Do you keep dying on hills? :think::cowboy::think:
 
See above - this is not about receiving imminent medical attention, like a wound or an injury. At least IMO, & bringing that in is not useful to the actual discussion.
we're dealing with a case of the kid specifically being unable to get to the hospital. no, the birth is not imminent, but the wait for treatment is reasonably infinite (since you're leaving the discretion of the kid getting treatment to the parents, whose denial necessiates the spooky transportation to begin with). therefore, same logic holds. if you don't find this comparison useful, i don't really know what to tell you. it's if anything not the equivalent of burger king, like... huh.

what's going on here is a mixture of the below:
- you overstate the dangers of "abduction", probably unwillingly, but that's what it is.
- you understate the seriousness of pregnancy
- you remove the agency for the kid to get access to its own healthcare.
- you grant that agency to the parents, which, again, is kind of iffy to me; i don't like parents controlling their kids' uteruses.

this, whatever your intention, is what you do when you claim the situation is "taking" someone else's child. you rob it of its medical rights and medical agency over something preventable.

otherwise, idk. you do you. it's pretty clear you fear abduction more than you are alarmed by the significant percentage of american parents that believe that abortion is an absolute evil. i know which of the two cause more harm, and in the abstract, i trust the agency and integrity of a thinking human kid about its own potential pregnancy, particularly because it's by default not able to consent to it.

i guess we're done? i know a lot of people are asking you, but you're skipping past a lot of what i'm saying and not really substantiating your fear much beyond "it's technically abduction", which, again, then makes abduction a good thing in that case. regardless of what you call it.
 
Last edited:
Like you, I did not mean to avoid it - I'm getting a lot of questions & am doing my best to address them all, so I certainly don't mean to avoid any (although I do look forward to just being done with this after clarifying my position to peoples' varying levels of satisfaction/just getting fed up with me :)). I view what you described as an entirely different circumstance. Completely, entirely, fundamentally different. Again, we can disagree on this, doesn't mean I think I'm right & you're wrong, just that we disagree, but that's my POV: You, or I, or any random person, simply should not be able to take someone else's child without their parents' knowledge when what you described above is not the case: i.e. no imminent threat of harm.
I will point out you still have not answered the question. A couple more questions come up though. First to confirm you do not consider a child having to carry an unwanted pregnancy as harmful. What sort of evidence of harm could change your mind? Or perhaps you do not consider an actual extant pregnancy as imminent? That I cannot see.

The real question however is what do you do if someone asks for help to get to a doctor but says the reason is private? Usual rules of medical confidentiality would mean it was inappropriate to ask .
That is a fair critique. But what I'm objecting to is that this doesn't work like any other "point in time" rule. Most of the time, we grant additional rights, choices, & ability to consent to things as one gets older. This one takes away the ability to consent when Person A or Person B hits a (fairly random, & variable by place) age. Person A & Person B can, today, consent to having sex with each other. Tomorrow, when Person B has a birthday, it suddenly becomes illegal, a felony even, for Person B to engage in the same act they are allowed to do today. Similarly, we say that Person A can no longer consent to an act with Person B that they could consent to today with Person B. No other "right" works that way - taking away consent when some other person has a birthday.
If the rules were "If one persons age is under X, the max age difference is Y" then this would not be a problem.
 
Last edited:

Why the Pro-Life Alberta party is chasing donations, not votes​

Once the Socreds, this single-issue group now 3rd-largest fundraiser in Alberta politics

It's hard to find out much about the leader of Alberta's third-wealthiest political party.

Murray Ruhl appears to have no presence on social media. He's not been quoted in any Alberta media outlet, despite leading the Pro-Life Alberta Political Association for five years.

No photo online, seemingly anywhere. If you looked on the party's website recently, there's no sign of Ruhl, who's also its president.

In fact, the party won't share any details about who the leader is, or even where in Alberta he lives. (Calgary, according to campaign finance documents.) It's inconsequential, because Pro-Life Alberta is a team without emphasis on individuals, executive director Richard Dur said in an interview.

This is just one of the many things that makes Ruhl's party irregular.

It runs political ads on its single issue — opposing abortion rights — but they sound more like third-party advocacy marketing than anything else on the partisan landscape.

There's no mention of candidates or the looming election on the group's website, and Pro-Life Alberta has actually advocated how to participate in the governing UCP's leadership race.

Party time

One thing makes it quite similar to other parties: the prominence of the DONATE button on its website. The party mentions that its donations count for tax credits — up to 75 per cent of a contribution's value — on most of its web pages.

That, the party boasts, gives it a huge competitive edge over Alberta's other anti-abortion groups. "Pro-Life Alberta is Alberta's only political pro-life organization that can issue tax receipts and engage in politics — including during provincial elections," the group's website states.

It's become a fundraising powerhouse, through this appeal to anti-abortion activists, and lack of any mention of candidates, the leader or anything else a normal party might promote.

Pro-Life Alberta raised $672,000 between 2021 and 2022.

While this is peanuts compared to the millions the NDP and UCP haul in, it's far more than any of the other smaller parties. In fact, it's almost as much as the once-strong Alberta Party and the provincial Liberals combined raised over that period.

Ahead of this spring's election, everything Pro-Life Alberta has done appears to be within the letter of Alberta's election and political finance laws, even if no other party functions like this.

But to a longtime political organizer, it's exploiting the rules of the party system and political contribution tax deductions, for the benefit of a group that's more interested in influencing politics than joining the electoral fray itself.

"I think it is a mockery of what the good people of Alberta that are volunteering in political parties are meant to do," said Troy Wason, former executive director of both the Alberta Party and Progressive Conservatives.

Pro-Life Alberta readily admits it's not a typical party. It's a single-issue group with no intent to form government, Dur said.

But as a party, it's legally allowed to push its single issue during the coming campaign, and intends to. Without an intent to win, it will define success differently.

"The second-best thing to having your own people elected is to influence those who are elected to advocate for those issues that you yourself would advocate for if you were elected," Dur said.

There's a reason other single-issue groups likely do not launch their own parties: the bar is set high to do so. A new party must either have three elected MLAs, run candidates in half the 87 ridings, or gather a petition of more than 8,400 voting-eligible Albertans — then be ready for all the paperwork necessary to launch and maintain such a party.

The Pro-Life Alberta Political Association sidestepped these chores. Its founders simply took over an existing party.

It was formerly the Social Credit party, which governed Alberta from 1935 until 1971, when the Alberta PC dynasty swept them out of power.

The Socreds quickly went from government titan to political non-entity. They hadn't won a seat since 1979, but kept running election candidates, usually getting less than one per cent of the popular vote.

After leading the party through elections in 2008, 2012 and 2015, Calgarian Len Skowronski started up the party's annual general meeting in early 2016, like all the humdrum affairs before it. He was surprised by who came in the door, along with a clique of social conservative activists.

"All of a sudden, they brought in a whole slew of young people, mostly university students who were pro-life," Skowronski recalled in an interview

It didn't take many of them — about 20 to 30 party members. They replaced Skowronski and the board with former Social Credit candidate Jeremy Fraser as leader and a new board, with the intent of making abortion the party's sole interest.

"It was a neat takeover. We weren't prepared for it at all," Skowronski said.

Dur, a former provincial candidate for the Wildrose Alliance and a political operations specialist, also calls it "the takeover." He said he was there when it began.

In 2017, Elections Alberta granted Social Credit's name change request to the Pro-Life Alberta Political Association. Ruhl became its titular leader one year later.

Cheques in, tax credits out

This reborn party lay largely dormant for several years, raising virtually no money through 2020, and with only $32.31 in the bank, the group's disclosures show.

In the first quarter of 2021, the cheques and e-transfers began rolling in, totalling $33,384. The proceeds kept growing, reaching $345,187 in total income by year's end.

To hear Dur explain it, an unsolicited $20 contribution inspired Pro-Life Alberta to start this "concerted effort" to fundraise. By 2021's end, a new website assertively promoted the opportunity for donors to claim tax credits, which run as high as 75 per cent for small political contributions, and up to $1,000 for larger ones.

As a party, it enjoys multiple advantages no comparable group has.

"Charitable pro-life organizations can issue tax receipts, but can't engage in politics (they would lose their charitable status)," its website has stated since late 2021. "Other political pro-life organizations can't issue tax receipts, and can only engage in politics outside of provincial elections. Only Pro-Life Alberta can do both."

Elections Alberta law also regulates the contributions and activities of various third-party advertisers, including ones which are organized around single issues like policing, injury law and post-secondary education. Some can only advertise during election periods, and others only outside of them — and neither type can issue tax credits.

But as a party, Pro-Life Alberta gets to do all three. In the last couple of years, the provincial revenue system has given a few hundred thousand dollars in tax deductions to this party's donors.

Asked about the ability to grant tax credits while advocating politically, Dur said: "It's helpful, obviously." And he reasoned that it's unfair other anti-abortion groups are barred from communicating during the campaign, and that's "another of the principal advantages that Pro-Life Alberta has over other political pro-life organizations."

Last year, the party raised $327,590 and spent $324,907. Most of it went to advertising, according to Dur, who said he receives no salary for his role as executive director.

Party commercials run on private radio stations throughout Alberta, with different versions for faith-based stations. On the party's website, they solicit donations with samples of their generic anti-abortion ad about the "preborn" (the group's term for fetuses) and another with New Testament quotes.

"Help build Alberta's most effective pro-life movement at prolifealberta.com … and let the beat go on," the general-audience ad says, with a heartbeat sound effect in the background. (The Christian radio ad's sound effect is a thunder crack.)

Nothing in the radio spots or their online ads suggest this is a political party that runs candidates.

As of now, nobody is registered to run for Pro-Life Alberta. Dur would not directly answer how many will be.

"I can't say too much except to confirm that Pro-Life Alberta will be on the ballot, and we trust it's going to be an impactful campaign for the pro-life cause," he told CBC News.

If a registered party fails to run a single candidate in a general election, Elections Alberta can deregister it.

The 0.003%

In the 2019 election, Pro-Life Alberta did the bare minimum the law requires. A single candidate, Lucas Hernandez, ran in Calgary–Currie.

Without any campaign activity, or materials like his photograph shared with local media — a mere 60 voters chose him. That's the fifth-smallest vote total among all the 492 independent or party-affiliated candidates that ran in Alberta ridings that election — and gave Pro-Life Alberta 0.003 per cent of the provincial popular vote, according to the chief electoral officer's report.

Records show Hernandez only spent $500, the amount for the required nomination deposit. Nothing else. Campaign filings show his party didn't raise or spend a single cent on the 2019 election.

This cycle could be different. Thanks to fundraising, the party entered this year with $156,710 in the bank, and a desire to have impact for "the cause," as Dur said.

Party-hopping

While there's long been anti-abortion contingents within Alberta's conservative parties, they've lately had no success getting politicians to endorse or enact any rollbacks of provincial abortion services and rights. Leaders tend to be concerned about blowback from a broader public that backs abortion rights, and they refuse to even discuss the issue politically — much to the chagrin of anti-abortion groups.

"Pro-lifers are often exploited for their vote or financial support by politicians who choose to ignore life issues after an election," Pro-Life Alberta's website says. "But our dedication to right-to-life issues can swing elections, especially in competitive ridings, and in party nominations (internal party elections deciding who will run for a particular political party; when the party candidate is selected)."

As is often the case, Pro-Life Alberta isn't talking about itself as a party there.

Anti-abortion organizations routinely offer supporters their recommendations on how to vote in federal and provincial party leaderships, based on their abortion-related stances. Pro-Life Alberta did the same in last fall's contest to crown Jason Kenney's successor — even though that's one ostensible party encouraging others how to be active in another party, one it's notionally competing with.

A message to the party's email list last fall ranked Todd Loewen, the current tourism minister, as first choice for UCP leader because of his stances on Pro-Life Alberta priorities. It recommended supporters mark Danielle Smith (who identifies as pro-choice) fourth out of the seven candidates on the leadership ballot.

Influencing other parties to embrace abortion issues is a key role of this party, Dur said, "because there's such an absence of advocacy, otherwise, especially by mainstream political parties, on behalf of our pre-born or their moms."

While Dur has a volunteer role with Pro-Life Alberta, he runs a Calgary-based firm called Blue Direct, which offers fundraising and other phone services to conservative political campaigns. Records show Blue Direct has worked with federal Conservative MPs and the provincial Saskatchewan Party, but Dur declined to answer questions about whether he's done contract work for Alberta parties other than Pro-Life Alberta.

(The UCP confirmed Blue Direct is not on its preferred list of vendors, but that does not mean candidates are barred from purchasing services from Dur's firm.)

If Pro-Life Alberta runs at least one candidate, which it stated an intention to do, and stays on top of compulsory annual and quarterly disclosure, it steers clear of the main reasons a party may lose its registered status. However, there is a section in Alberta elections law that permits the chief electoral officer to cancel a party's registration if she or he is "for any reason of the opinion" that a party "is no longer qualified to be registered."

An Elections Alberta spokesperson would not say if that clause had ever been exercised, but noted in an email that any decisions "incorporate a holistic application of the legislation" and would be published online if a penalty or reprimand is administered.

On the other side of one of politics' most impassioned debates, pro-choice advocates in Alberta have some small charities and non-profit advocacy groups. There are no registered third-party advertisers focused on political messages to defend or expand abortion rights — and certainly no political party that can solicit tax-deductible donations to spread those messages.

"It is essentially a political action committee masquerading as a party. They want the best of both worlds," said Autumn Reinhardt-Simpson, founder of the Alberta Abortion Access Network.

"Probably what they are doing is attempting to goad the UCP further to the right on social issues."

The Pro-Life Alberta Political Association has a six-figure war chest to try to do so in this campaign if it wants. And given how unlikely it is they'd use that to direct votes to their own party, it's worth watching what they do with their donations windfall, built with what in almost any other circumstance wouldn't have come with tax receipts.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-in-depth-pro-life-political-party-1.6821605
 
Why the focus on this specific thing, as if most US states aren't small and easily traversed and right next to each other lol. American state borders aren't some uncrossable moral boundary, you can go there for donuts if you want.

The only reason it matters in this context is the fanatic arseholes governing some jurisdictions are trying to make it matter.

The broader question is nothing to do with US state borders, it's just helping young people who want to access abortion regardless of their parents opposition, which is strictly a good thing to do. Even if they have to cross the river from Kansas City to other Kansas City to do it.
The monumentalness of state borders is a convenience of argument thing. First, they're relatively solid lines, they don't move with gerrymandering. 2nd, it's where the statehouses give way to each other and while the borders are mutable, sometimes things very much change. Say a 10% tax rate on something in Missouri is taxed at 30%+ in IL and is flat prohibited in the 7 other states surrounding MO. But yes, most of the time, people flow back and forth across them without even thinking. Unless of course whoever is writing the article wants to make them sound like an "import" then the same might be said of somebody in WI from WA or from 30 miles down a beaten path into MN. Happens all the time.
 
what's going on here is a mixture of the below:
- you overstate the dangers of "abduction", probably unwillingly, but that's what it is.
- you understate the seriousness of pregnancy
- you remove the agency for the kid to get access to its own healthcare.
- you grant that agency to the parents, which, again, is kind of iffy to me; i don't like parents controlling their kids' uteruses.
You have fairly stated my position on this (I mean, we obviously disagree on the "overstate" & "understate" parts, but that's fine) - we can disagree on that & our perceptions of how things should work. I don't set laws, so my opinion means nothing. fwiw, I vote for the Democrat candidate the vast majority of the time, locally & nationally. & I am very much pro-choice. I simply have a hard time allowing kids to make their own medical decisions without their parents' knowledge, much less consent. And it's fine that we disagree on this. No one will ever be affected by my opinion.
i guess we're done? i know a lot of people are asking you, but you're skipping past a lot of what i'm saying and not really substantiating your fear much beyond "it's technically abduction", which, again, then makes abduction a good thing in that case. regardless of what you call it.
You do tend to make long posts :) at least in reply to me, so I admit I have skipped over a lot of it in my replies (not that I didn't read it all), & addressed only what I considered the crucial areas where we disagree that you asked me to clarify. And it does seem like we have arrived at a point where it seems like we can just agree to disagree. I appreciate the discussion & your POV though. I'm really not trying to convince anyone I'm right, just to explain how I view Parental Rights in regards to their children's health care. Also I hope disagreement on a particular topic doesn't mean (like it too often does on Teh Internet) that We Are Enemies now. :blush:

I will point out you still have not answered the question. A couple more questions come up though. First to confirm you do not consider a child having to carry an unwanted pregnancy as harmful. What sort of evidence of harm could change your mind? Or perhaps you do not consider an actual extant pregnancy as imminent? That I cannot see.

The real question however is what do you do if someone asks for help to get to a doctor but says the reason is private? Usual rules of medical confidentiality would mean it was inappropriate to ask .
I am not sure at this point what the question (bolding mine) was that I haven't answered. Could you re-state it? I'll certainly try, although I do like that this is dying down/[much more likely] people have just gotten fed up with asking me stuff.

To your specific questions though: 1) A child having to carry an unwanted pregnancy certainly can be harmful. And in that exigent circumstance, my position is you (or I or anyone) should alert the authorities (e.g. Child Services) to deal with it. What we shouldn't be allowed to do is take it upon ourselves to deal with it. 2) If someone, & here I assume you specifically mean a minor child, asks me for help to get to a doctor, then it entirely does depend on why*. Entirely. So, if I'm being asked that (as always, assuming they are not obviously bleeding out in front of me), then I do get to ask why, & I do get decide whether or not to take them to a doctor/hospital. If they won't tell me why, then I will absolutely say No.

* A bit of a tangent, but "medical confidentiality" (assuming you're talking about HIPAA) only applies to your doctor & your health insurance company. They are not allowed to disclose to a third party, even a family member, your medical situation without your permission. It does not in any way apply to, for example, me & you, or you & your neighbor, or me & the mailman. You can ask a friend for example anything you want about their medical situation (they can clearly tell you to f-off, but you haven't done anything wrong by asking). HIPAA doesn't apply in those cases.
 
Last edited:
@RobAnybody yea we're good no worries.

ftr loosely connected to this discussion; i have a quite restrictive view of parental rights to most people; a lot of parents consider their kids foundationally their property, instead of foundationally living breathing beings they forced into the world. which is fine when it doesn't hurt anybody, but having seen some of the bleaker versions of parenthood firsthand, beside what else i know is out there, i think it's ideal to leave some choices up for other parties; teachers, pedagogues, doctors, child psychologists, etc., and of course the kids themselves. there's a difference between regular parental mistakes and then the lasting damage parents can do on kids (which pregnancy entails), and it has echoes in a lot of society besides just abortion discretion (which sadly is also parent-side in denmark, although here it's less of a real issue because of our nationally proportionate views on abortion; i think 97-98% is for rights to abort). parental mistakes go past assorted cruelty you can probably easily imagine, violence and such, it can also be to act despicably, but out of love. parents, compared to doctors and teachers, are not generally educated to perform medicine or teach.

so that's my general perspective going in. but even removing my position from the equation, i think my logic still holds. there's plenty of "pro-parent" people who would dismay if parents had the rights to restrict abortion from their kids.
 
Back
Top Bottom