Letter: Parental notification for abortion should be the law

By on March 11, 2010

I’m responding to a recent article about the new law that requires teen girls to inform their parents if they are getting an abortion. I strongly support this law for many reasons.

First of all, all medical procedures require parental consent. I don’t see why abortion should be any different. Parents should have the right to know what’s going on with their children. They are minors, and their parents should be able to know about their children’s decisions. Although I don’t support abortions, even people over the age of 18 years old should let their parents know about their abortion.

Not only would a person be killing the parents’ grandchild, but they would also be killing a human being. If people are allowed to get abortions, then I strongly believe that the parents should at least have a say about it. Parents also need to know if their children are having an abortion because there are some major side effects that could put them in danger. Diarrhea, vomiting, spotting or bleeding are just some of the many health risks that are taken. More serious possible side effects include infections, damage to organs, being paralyzed or even death. The guilt and other psychological side effects could also harm someone greatly.

Parents can help protect their children with this new law in place. It provides an option for parents to say no to abortion and to say no to their own children or grandchildren getting hurt.

Emily Carr
Student
Kaneland High School

About Elburn Herald

The Elburn Herald has been serving the Kaneland communities since 1908. To reach our editor, Keith Beebe, email info@elburnherald.com, or call (630) 365-6446, ext. 105. To reach our owner/publisher, Ryan Wells, email RyanWells@elburnherald.com, or call (630) 365-6446, ext. 107.

10 Comments

  1. RM

    March 11, 2010 at 8:24 PM

    Emily – you need to do a little more research. Diarrhea, vomiting, spotting or bleeding are not health risks – just minor common side effects of any number of conditions. Damage to organs during an abortion is extremely rare unless the uterus is perforated. In reality, abortion was much more lethal when performed illegally under unsanitary conditions by people who didn’t know what they were doing. There is zero chance of being paralyzed by having an abortion. Where did you get that information?

    It’s interesting that you think even adults 18 and older should have their parent’s input in making this decision. It’s easy to say that if you aren’t in such a predicament. Too many teens today don’t want their parent’s input on much smaller less complicated issues much less abortion. I’d like to have input on whether or not my teenagers have sex! Fortunately, I’ve raised them right.

  2. Fred

    March 13, 2010 at 1:56 PM

    The death rate for mothers-to-be getting an abortion is reported to be 3x higher than the death rate for carrying to term. Not quite zero chance of any problems Emily. While admittedly a very small risk for the mother, it is 100% mortality for the ‘baby’ – or do you find it easier to say ‘fetus’? What’s the difference again?

  3. RM

    March 13, 2010 at 10:06 PM

    The difference is the ability to survive outside the womb. A few cells doesn’t constitute a person. Is this 3x higher death rate as reported by anti-abortion folks or from a legit source? You need to look at legitimate sources for your info. If you’ve been up on the latest news regarding births – the death rate has been increasing!

    I’m not pro-abortion but I believe it’s not my choice to make for someone else.

  4. oceanbluemomma

    March 16, 2010 at 3:02 PM

    For those of you against abortion….check your vaccine ingredients, many contain aborted fetus tissue! Catholics should be outraged and never vaccinate again, right? They are totally against abortion and so are many others, but it is okay to inject into their kids via vaccines. Educate before you vaccinate folks, because what you are crabbing about, you are using those choice abortions to stick right back into yourself. 95% of kids are immune after one dose of the dangerous MMR (it is) and yet all kids get two ($$$pharma), 2x the aborted fetus tissue – ingredients you say: We also learn that the Rubella part of the vaccine is grown in human diploid lung fibroblasts. Translation: aborted human embryo tissue. (http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf)

    Now that is some dinner conversation!

  5. RM

    March 18, 2010 at 7:14 PM

    OBM makes it sound like all aborted fetuses are being used for vaccines. If you actually read the article, you’ll note the tissue of one fetus (plus later a second for a separate line) is involved with a line of fibroblasts being lab grown in the years since. Nobody is doing abortions just to manufacture vaccines. Vaccinations are a necessity. It is just irresponsible to not vaccinate your children. Yes, there is a small risk but the risks are much greater if you make the wrong choice.

  6. oceanbluemomma

    March 18, 2010 at 8:38 PM

    RM – apparently you haven’t read my posts before. I clearly post my views- no need to put words in my mouth – like “OBM makes it sound like all aborted fetuses are being used for vaccines”. Just an example of what they use aborted fetuses for, stem cells too. I am not about to get into a vaccine/no vaccine debate with you – I have a diagnosed vaccine injured child. It is irresponsible of our government to mandate shots without knowing if your child’s immune system can handle multiple virus attacks, something doctors don’t due prior to vaccinations – starting within 12 hours of birth!

    I have no energy to battle with your ignorance. Go back to Google University RM, you have a lot more reading to do.

  7. RM

    March 19, 2010 at 8:26 PM

    OBM – I have a Master’s degree in Human Physiology and over 30 years of health care experience. I understand the origin of your anger and I’m sorry for your difficulties but calling me ignorant says more about you than me. I’m well aware that a small number of people may have been negatively impacted by vaccinations. I’m also aware millions are alive and healthy because of them. Some of the negative things attributed to vaccines are lies and hysteria which doesn’t make them true. This can be applied to so many areas of health care and life in general. If something benefits 97-99% of the population should you disregard it because it may do harm to a few? Should you not take these negatives, learn from them and come up with solutions instead of taking no risk (other than the risk of unprevented or untreated disease)?

  8. oceanbluemomma

    March 20, 2010 at 9:22 AM

    97-99%…update your numbers. Prior to having the MMR vaccine release, Measles was 97% gone due to increasing cleaning alone. It is a joke. Not one study has been done associating risks and complications from multiple vaccine injections – that is give 4 shots with combinations of live/dead viruses and DNA from aborted fetuses at one time, let alone the inactive disaster of ingredients that are in them as well. 30 years of brainwashing sounds more like it. Autism is one kid on every block in America alone. It is a pandemic with hundreds of thousands of parents stating their kids changed after their vaccinations. Mine was one of them and I have the medical paperwork to prove it. To many too soon and many that shouldn’t be given without knowing what the immune system can handle – again something that has never been studied. There are alot of people alive – healthy?? not so sure on that. How about the diabetes rate, obesity, ADD/ADHD rate, depression, infertility, allergy rate????? Can you name 5 adults who have not had a surgery of some sort, not taken any medication of any kind in a year, within the recommended BMI for their size?? True homeostasis health? 30 years in the health field has shown you the disastrous and costly damage our country is doing to itself and its future.

    Update your information for yourself. Try http://www.14studies.org for one avenue of updated truth….

  9. RM

    March 21, 2010 at 7:32 AM

    Many of the things you allude to have absolutely nothing to do with immunizations and everything to do with lifestyle. Did cleaning irradicate smallpox and polio? There is no dispute that there is always more work to be done but immunizations have without a doubt benefitted far more than they may have harmed. The relationship between vaccination and autism still remains scientifically unproven despite the hype and hysteria. If I walk into traffic and have a heart attack, it doesn’t mean cars are defective.

    Whenever there is money to be made, you can bet that drug companies will cut corners to make a buck at the expense of the gullible public who expects a drug for every ailment – a quick, cheap, easy way to health. You do have to wonder, since we have outsourced practically everything to third world countries to avoid expenses like taxes, wages, benefits or environmental protections – have we done so at the expense of our health and safety and the longevity of the planet? We have totally trashed our environment and global warming is real despite those who will not see. As we abuse the environment with pesticides and chemicals and improperly disposed of drugs, it’s no wonder we reap the effects on our bodies.

    We eat junk instead of real food. Too lazy to be bothered to cook. We want everything now fast and cheap. I’ve known plenty of folks who are completely healthy. They’re usually the ones who didn’t fall for the hype of quick fixes. They worked hard, lived more simple and lived long lives. We wait to have kids until our bodies say it’s too late but do an end run around mother nature anyway. The world is overpopulated and everyone shouldn’t have kids. Alas, this country is all about wants instead of needs. That’s why the economy is in the toilet.

    You need to get your information from legitimate studies, not hype.

  10. RM

    March 21, 2010 at 7:44 AM

    The 14 studies issue certainly does give one pause to think. The question is how do you compare apples to apples without putting children at risk? You can’t do experiments like that. The one thing that does come to mind is comparing how immunizations were done 30-40 years ago with how they are done now. Perhaps the changes in vaccine administration might open a window.

    Your one child on every block being affected with autism isn’t supported by your reference.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login