That’s not how it works around here, sister. If my contribution to this thread is hypocritical, point out how.
Stratocaster, have you anything to say about a young woman in the situation I described, the one I was in when I was a teenager?
CJ
I have. On a couple of occasions. As have others. As did you yourself.
You insist on total control over choices regarding your child’s medical care, but you support a law which would take even the possibilty of the same choice out of the hands of other parents (namely, by banning abortion, the only exception being threat to the mother’s life). That’s hypocracy, plain and simple.
More pointedly: all of your arguments are based on one simple premise: Abortion is evil. You haven’t supported that argument other than that’s what you believe; you are therefore imposing your religious beliefs on other people while hiding behind the justification that you are thinking of the best interest of the children.
As for morality laws: the age of consent varies from state to state, as has been pointed out several times (that should also be corrected, but that’s just my opinion). If a child is considered old enough to have sex without her parents’ consent, she is old enough to make decisions regarding her reproduction.
What if it were her health-what if a pregnancy wasn’t exactly life threatening, but would devastate her health and well-being? What if she were raped by a family member?
Would you force her to keep the child?
Really? Can you point out the instances? And by that I mean where you explained why something is hypocritical, that unassailable logic you constructed that I was unable to overcome–not just an instance where you called something hypocritical. There’s a little difference between the two. I can call you the Queen of England, but that won’t get you into Buckingham Palace.
It is not, and repeating this ad infinitum will not somehow give your posts the aura of truth.
If I were to say I should have the right to decide whether or not my child has an abortion, but no one else should be able to, that’s hypocrisy. I’m not saying that. I’m saying that I do not permit anyone to usurp my duty to keep my daughter from performing an immoral act. I also do not believe I have the moral right to compel my daughter to have an abortion, no matter how expedient that decision might be. I believe all parents have this exact same moral authority–to keep their children from performing immoral acts, but NOT to compel their children to do immoral acts. And by all parents, I mean everyone, including myself. I say this recognizing that the law–which overlaps but is not an equation with morality–may well permit parents to exercise this influence in either direction.
You can disagree with this belief system–I understand that others do–but it is completely consistent.
And I hold that abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent human being, which is a perfectly fine secular argument that others may or may not hold. There are pro-life atheists, you see? I am imposing a restriction on your actions which harm another human being, which has a basis in civil law quite divorced from religion. You may not find the argument compelling–there’s much in law that is open to debate–but to dismiss is as purely religious is a gross over-simplification. I have offered this as my belief when asked about it, but I can offer as much support as you’d like as to why I hold this. But you know what? Beyond a certain point it is reduced to the axiomatic for me–just as your beliefs are. If you believe others have beliefs that can be reduced to axioms while yours are somehow exempt, think again.
And the fact that a child can have sex without her parent’s consent does not mean she’s considered “old enough” to do so with legal impunity. A parent can legally restrict all kinds of behavior. The fact that the child may disobey doesn’t somehow magically transform this act into one of maturity and reason. Are you really suggesting that the ability of a child to disobey her parents by definition makes her equipped to deal with whatever consequences flow from that act? You really are quite the debater, aren’t you?
Siege, I have to admit that I came into the thread late, and there’s much I haven’t read or kept up with. I’ll try to read your earlier posts and provide some comments to you when I can, if you’re interested.
I suppose there could be situations where the decision was a very difficult one, one where I couldn’t be certain. I hope I’m never forced to decide where the line is crossed.
I sincerely hope no one thinks I’m trivializing such a traumatic circumstance, but no, rape wouldn’t change my position.
Would I? No.
You decide if you pay for her braces. You can’t MAKE her wear them. If she really doesn’t want a mouth full of metal, what is stopping her from pitching a screaming fit in the orthodontist’s chair and making it impossible for them to cement the brackets on? You cannot keep her from chewing gum that will loosen the hold, and you cannot force her to wear her retainer. Your decision-making capability is limited to her allowance of your input.
So, you’re going to make all decisions for her until her 18th birthday, and then she’ll automatically inherit the knowledge needed to function in a decision-making capability? …'kay.
Stratocaster, if your teenaged son got his girlfriend pregnant, would you demand that she have the baby?
Yes, she could also shoot me on the way to the orthodontist. That doesn’t change the fact that I have the moral and legal authority to make the decision for her to have braces. That’s the point.
Nice strawman. I never said I needed to make every decision for her until her 18th birthday. I will happily cede more and more autonomy to her as she gets older and demonstrates maturity. It’s part of raising a child, 'kay?
I’m not legally in a position to make that demand. Were it in my power I would not permit an abortion though, if that’s what you’re asking.
Stratocaster, please do read my earlier posts and respond to them. You see, I see your moral position as showing little or no regard for the troubled, suicidal girl I once was. Your position could be seen as treating my life as worthless.
CJ
Siege, I’m very sorry for what you had to endure in high school. No one is worthless, and no one should be made to feel worthless.
I know you’re using abortion as a very specific example of what would have prompted tragedy as a result of a parent’s reaction. But there are countless things that fall within the province of parental authority that have the potential, either through malice or ignorance, for the parent to create an unendurable circumstance for his child. I want every parent to handle his children wisely, to be sensitive to their feelings and concerns, to make sure that they always feeled loved and valued.
But the fact that I know this is not always the case can’t lead me to the conclusion that parental consent should then be abolished for everyone who has a pregnant child. I’m sure there are parents who berate and mistreat their children to the point of suicide because of their children’s grades. That is horrible, and I am saddened by the thought. But it doesn’t lead me to conclude that parents everywhere cannot know their children’s grades without the children’s consent.
We should have options for children who find themselves in such a desperate circumstance, up to and including have courts intervene to remove them. But I do not believe taking away parental authority for everyone is the answer.
I think the point, Stratocaster, is that the person who knows best whether or not her parents will react abusively or inhumanely or without respect to the effects of pregnancy and forced motherhood on her is the girl herself.
The lack of a parental consent law won’t stop a girl who feels safe talking to her parents and wants to from getting their input. What it would do is allow your daughter to decide that her beliefs are different from yours, which they may well be. Mine were different from my father’s, and since he would not consider abortion to be an option, I wouldn’t have told him.
I think every pregnant person should have the freedom to consider all of her options. If that means the law has to deny you the right to say ‘No abortion unless you’re dying.’ to your daughter, then so be it. When you get pregnant, you can choose life. If you daughter gets pregnant, it’s her choice to make. If she wants your input, she’ll ask you for it.
This is the sort of “abortion must never, ever, ever, ever be denied, not anywhere for any reason, and if there’s a conflicting right, tough shit” dogma that makes the discussion impossible.
What conflicting right?
You mean your right to force your daughter to have your grandchild? I don’t think you have that right at all. I also think that if your daughter wants you included in her decision whether or not to be a mother, she will include you.
Why do you think your daughter would be better off by being forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want?
Why do you feel that **catsix’s ** “abortion for any reason” makes discussion impossible, but your “no abortion for any reason that I don’t deem worthy” doesn’t?
Exactly what rights do you feel your daughter has in this situation? And, I’m sorry if anyone thinks I’m being a pest but I’d really like these questions answered. I think they’re a huge aspect of the parental notification/consent debate, because AFAIK, there is no corresponding law making people who would deny their child an abortion responsible for the resulting baby, and IMO there should be. After all, whoever makes the choice should have to live with the consequences.
**If you believe that you should have the legal right to prevent your daughter from having an abortion, what other rights and responsibilities do you believe follow from that?
Do you have the right to force her to keep the baby?
Do you have the right to force her to give it away?
If she keeps the baby, whether by your choice or hers, what do you believe your legal responsibilities to her child should be?**
Do you recognize a right for parents to exercise authority over their children? Does that right exist?
But why can’t that be said of any decision a child could possibly make?
Why is abortion so sacrosanct here? Why is it so impossible to even conceive of a single situation where it is not the child’s best option to have an abortion, even if you believe adults should have unfettered access to abortions, anytime, anywhere? And if you can conceive that, why do you absolutely dismiss out of hand the possibility that in this situation–just as in countless others–the parent might know what is best? Why is that an impossibility?
Is there any circumstance–any at all–where a person desiring an abortion should not be permitted to have one? Would any set of circumstances justify prohibiting an abortion if the mother wanted one?
I think it is always better not to do an egregiously immoral act.
You answered your own question, albeit with slanted wording. I can conceieve of conflicting rights that could possibly permit abortion, however unlikely that circumstance is. I am asking catsix if there is anything, ANYTHING, that would be justification enough for prohibiting an abortion. Perhaps there is from her perspective. If there is not, exploring this particular nuance of the abortion debate is pointless.
I have no problem with such a law.
No.
I suppose I do, if I believed that was best for her, but I don’t think I would.
I believe the child would effectively become my responsibility while she’s a child. If she chose to assume full responsibility as an adult, she’d be free to do so, but I would still feel responsible and would uphold that responsibility unless as an adult parent she refused my offer.
Thank you.
My biggest argument with many anti-choicers is the lack of interest they have in the health and welfare of children *after * they’re born. I think that if some people want to force other people to have babies, then they should have a plan in place for the care of those babies.
Frankly, I still think you’re wrong. But at least you’re wrong with honest intentions.
In my view, that right is not absolute and does not cover forcing your children to become parents.
I believe it shoiuld apply to their medical decisions because those decisions have an impact on life that is much more immediate and lasting than other decisions. To put it bluntly, there is too much potential for harm to not give final sway to the person who risks the harm.
It’s not abortion that’s sacrosanct. Apparently this is what you fail to understand. It’s the right of deciding whether or not to be a parent that, in my opinion, belongs solely to the person who would either be or not be the parent.
I think it’s up to her what her best option is. Not you, not me, not a law. Her.
Then don’t have an abortion. I think your daughter has the right to determine whether or not she will have children, and if so, when. I find it reprehensible for anyone else to make that choice for her. Why is it that you argue against people enforcing their beliefs on others, but see no problem with you forcing your beliefs onto someone else?
In the first trimester? The choice of the pregnant person. If she doesn’t want an abortion, then she won’t have one. The choice should be made by the person whose uterus it is.
Where do you get the idea that I think all pregnant teenage girls should have abortions?
Also, whose decision should overrule if this law is enacted and one parent will give consent but the other won’t?
Who here is advocating “unfettered access to abortions, anytime, anywhere”, even for adults? As far as I can tell, all the pro-choice people here are cool with the reasoning in the Roe v. Wade case, which states that the rights of a fetus increase as pregnancy progresses, so that it’s permissible to ban late-term abortions except when the life or health of the mother is endangered.
The most anybody seems to be arguing for here is unrestricted, at-will access to early-term abortion. And no, speaking for myself, I can see no valid rationale for overriding a pregnant woman’s decision in that situation, under any realistic circumstances.
Of course it’s quite possible that a minor, or an adult for that matter, might choose abortion for the wrong reason when it really isn’t the best option for her, and/or might decide later that her choice had been mistaken. Just as a girl or woman might choose not to have an abortion, for the wrong reasons, and might decide later that she’d been mistaken. People do sometimes make the wrong choices, even about important decisions—that’s a simple fact of life.
But that is not reason enough, IMO, to justify taking the decision about abortion out of the hands of the pregnant person and putting it in the hands of her parents. Just because the child might be making a mistake and the parent might know what is best doesn’t mean that the parent automatically gets the right to make the decision.
That’s been explained several times here already. The most important point, IMO, is that it’s simply absurd to say that a child isn’t mature enough to choose an abortion while simultaneously assuming that she’s mature enough to be a mother. Like it or not, a girl who is pregnant is taking on the role of a responsible adult, whatever happens with her pregnancy. If she can be trusted with carrying and bearing, and perhaps raising, a child, she can be trusted with deciding whether she wants an abortion.
However, I like the consistency of your thinking in acknowledging that if parents have the right to force a minor daughter to bear a child, they also have responsibility for parenting that child. If parental-consent laws were accompanied by laws mandating that a child born to an unwilling minor is the sole responsibility of the parent(s) who forced the minor to give birth, and remains so until the child (not the minor daughter, the grandchild) becomes a legal adult, they would deserve a lot more respect for principled consistency. (They would also get a lot less support from many abortion opponents, but that’s their problem.)