Change in UT abortion law

[helemon]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3446776
Rep. Scott Wyatt, R-Logan, said he wants to make the decision for his three teenage daughters. "I'm as opposed to abortion as anyone. But there are times when it's appropriate," Wyatt said. "I don't want my 14-, 15- or 16-year-old daughter going through life thinking she's the one who murdered her fetus. If she gets an abortion, I want to be there. I want to assure her it's a decision I made, not her."

While this sounds noble that the dad is willing to in a sense take upon himself the "sin" of his daughters, is such an attitude really in the best interest of the girl? Will the dad always go alone with the wishes of the daughter? It's not the father's body that will have to carry the baby for 9 months and go through labor. Nor is it the father's body that would have the fetus sucked out of it. Is it just me or does this sound extremely patronizing? But not a suprising attitude for Utah.

[hamar]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3446776


While this sounds noble that the dad is willing to in a sense take upon himself the "sin" of his daughters, is such an attitude really in the best interest of the girl? Will the dad always go alone with the wishes of the daughter? It's not the father's body that will have to carry the baby for 9 months and go through labor. Nor is it the father's body that would have the fetus sucked out of it. Is it just me or does this sound extremely patronizing? But not a suprising attitude for Utah.

I really can't comment on his intent. It does sound patronizing; however, it may not have been his intent. If I had teenage daughters and one of them experienced an unwanted pregancy, I'm sure I would want to be a part of the decision making process, but I've never believed that one should force their own beliefs on another, just because they think they know what is best, even as TBM.

I'm not a big supporter of abortion either, but I think that the final decision should, in most cases, reside with the person that will suffer the procedure and/or be tasked with caring for the resulting child should they decide to go through with a delivery.

[peter_mary]

Don't be fooled...this is as patronizing as it gets. This comes from the doctrinal idea that the family is saved through a righteous priesthood holder, and women in particular have to rely on someone else to really get them there.

Story. This was the time I told the Elder's Quorum Instructor that what he was teaching was "crap." I wish I'd had the cajones to say, "Bull shit," but I settled for crap.

The instructor was talking about the role of the priesthood in the family, and shared the following, which I'll have to paraphrase, and I appologize for not recalling the name of the GA who told the story...

It goes like this. Elder So and So (we'll call him ESAS) had decided to take his family rafting through the Grand Canyon on a weeklong vacation. The whole family piled in the rafts, and ESAS finds himself in the back of one raft with his wife and his youngest daughter. They are excited about the trip, and everyone is hoping to get wet to help combat the heat.

As they approached the first set of rapids, ESAS tells his wife and daughter, "Hold on to the raft!" and he does likewise. Much to their surprise, the first couple of waves buck the Mrs. and the daughter right off the back of the boat, and they have to perform a white-water rescue to get them back in.

Troubled, ESAS contemplates the long week of fishing his family out of the river, and comes up with a new plan. "Okay, here's what you do. Next time we come to rough water, you hold on to me, and I'LL hold on to the boat." It works, and they never lose one out of the boat again.

ESAS goes on to liken this to the role of the Priesthood in the family. A righteous priesthood holder is the conduit through which his wife and children obtain the blessings of the gospel. They hold to their father/husband, and HE holds on to Christ, and in the end, they get through the rough times together.


That's when I raised my hand. "Sorry, son (he was 20 years my junior), but that's just crap," I said. "I don't want to teach my family that they don't have direct access to diety, and I think it's dangerous doctrine to perpetuate that notion. What about Priesthood holders who lead astray? What about Priesthood holders who can't hold on tight themselves? To teach that the father/husband is responsible for all the goings on in his home is to give him unreasonable responsibility, and teaches his family that they can't stand up for themselves. And that's just crap."

Turns out, you get some pretty nasty looks when you suggest that the teachings of a General Authority are crap. Oh well...I didn't last much longer after that anyway...

[bobcat]

I remember hearing that talk, though I really don't know how. Even when I was a TBM the best I could do with "Gin-rul Con-fernz" was doze off in front of the TV during the Sunday sessions. Maybe it was while I was on my mission... the only times I actually WATCHED the bullshit. Was it Neil A. Maxwell that said the talk? Or Russell M/M Russell? I don't really remember...At any rate, the story reminds me of the whole temple thing (women pledge obedience to the man, who pledges obedience god). Creeps me out, that idea...

That abortion bill is kinda frightening. It's one thing to require that the parents be NOTIFIED, but another thing entirely to give them the final say. The whole "parents's rights" movement (i.e. a return to the days when minors had NO rights) that's been strongly pushing forward here in Utah bothers me. Check this:

Ogden Republican Rep. Kerry Gibson, sponsor of the consent proposal , HB85, said his bill is only "somewhat about abortion." He is more concerned about protecting the rights of parents to make such decisions for their children.
"We have to protect the lives of those babies. We also have to protect the lives of these youth. But we need to protect the rights of the parents," Gibson said. "We're trying to bring the rights and the decision-making process back into the living room. Too many times, these decisions are being made outside of the home."

See, "parents' rights" seems to be the big issue. But, the most disturbing part of the whole abortion movement in Salt Lake has lies elsewhere:

Conservative House members also held off Holladay Democratic Rep. Carol Moss' efforts to cut a section of the fetal pain bill sponsored by Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield. The legislation would require the Utah Department of Health to prepare a "truthful, nonmisleading" brochure on fetal pain.
Despite disagreement among scientists about when fetuses feel pain, Ray's HB222 would require doctors to inform women seeking late-term abortions that their unborn child can feel pain and to provide anesthetic if they ask for it.

So, in addition to the fact that science has no ****ing clue when fetuses begin to feel pain... doctors are going to be required to follow the guidelines set up by someone. Not a panel of medical experts, but by Paul Ray, the very SPONSER of the bill. Anyone else smell a conflict of interest?

PLUS, the fetal anesthetic thing. According to some opponents of the bill that I've talked to, anesthetic for fetuses isn't even a common medical procedure. Even if they have some options, it's not really certain that the mother won't be negatively affected. So we're going to make a law that requires you to offer an option that doesn't exist to someone, and give it to them if they ask for it. I'll say it again... GO UTAH!!

[Born Free]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3446776


While this sounds noble that the dad is willing to in a sense take upon himself the "sin" of his daughters, is such an attitude really in the best interest of the girl? Will the dad always go alone with the wishes of the daughter? It's not the father's body that will have to carry the baby for 9 months and go through labor. Nor is it the father's body that would have the fetus sucked out of it. Is it just me or does this sound extremely patronizing? But not a suprising attitude for Utah.
Helemon,

Mo creates major boundary violations around sexuality and conception, resulting in all sorts of naivety and ignorance, so why should it differ at that end of the deal.

Has this guy thought through what this might look and feel like to a daughter at teh time, and down the road?

It is what it is ................. a major violation of boundaries.

I have been present at 2 of my three daughters births; at their invitation that I be there with their Mum. I would no more insist I be there than fly to the moon. I chose not to be in attendance at the third daughter's (even though invited) because I was not comfortable with that it was going to be a ceasar, and things can get busy and crowded.

I would argue that the original 'sin' might have come about through the fathers inability to facilitate an appropriate sense of boundaries in his daughter.

Daryl