So you don’t think any damage at all would be done by denying her an abortion if she does not want to carry the pregnancy to term? You think she’ll just smile and say ‘You’re right, Dad.’ and everything will be fine?
What makes you think she lacks the capacity? Is it just that her age falls on one side of an arbitrary line, or did you not teach her how to make decisions for herself?
My father’s attitude was just like yours. It ensured that I would never have told him, law or not, about any part of my reproductive health. That possibility exists with your daughter, as well.
What if it was your family? You would deny consent, but your wife would give her consent to your daughter. What happens to your daughter then?
And every day, they make decisions that are not only wrong but also detrimental to their kids. The potential for harm in a consent law is just too damn large for my liking.
I already answered it. Only the pregnant woman and her doctor should be making decisions up to the point of extra-utero viability. Beyond that, I think if abortion is medically necessary for the life/health of the pregnant woman, then it should be legal.
Your propensity for crafting straw men is quite well developed, isn’t it? I feel no need to respond in defense of a position I don’t hold. Sorry.
Oh, please! What makes you think she has the capacity, is the better question. There is growing scientific evidence supporting the fact that the centers for judgment in the brain aren’t fully developed until we’re in our twenties, explaining what is already obvious to all but the most deliberately obtuse: teenagers often exercise astoundingly bad judgment. Do you really hold a different belief? Here’s a cite, if you care to read it.
Just to be clear, my “daughter” is currently a hypothetical. While I may someday have a daughter, I currently have a son. Perhaps that will be a comfort to you (Merry Christmas).
I don’t know. Perhaps it would go to the courts when parents hold completely different, unresolvable positions, though I would think that a very unlikely circumstance. Again, this would be no different than countless other scenarios where that potential conflict exists.
And every day parents make decisions that are proper and beneficial for their children. In fact–and I know this will seem like a whacky thought to you–I believe that’s the most common occurence. If your assumption is that “damage” is a given, I can understand your position, however illogically is it arrived at.
Thanks. Then there’s no possible restriction of any type you could envision as reasonable for a first trimester abortion. Am I understanding you correctly?
I’m not catsix, but I feel the same way-I do not believe there should be any restriction on first trimester abortions. Period. It’s between a woman and her doctor.
The only time I would be against it would be if it were a woman forced to have an abortion against her will.
Really? No restrictions whatsoever, even if it weren’t an outright prohibition? What if the woman were mentally retarded? What if the woman is displaying obvious schizophrenic behavior, telling her doctor that the voices in her head want her to have an abortion? What if it were not a teenager at all, but, say, a twelve-year-old girl?
I’m not suggesting these are common scenarios. I’m just interested in where people draw the line, if they do at all, at what could be a reasonable restriction.
And I’m not **catsix ** *or * Guinastasia, but none of those people sound to me like excellent candidates for motherhood, and at least two of them don’t strike me as excellent candidates for adoption. As such, no, I would not restrict them from having abortions.
I would place no restrictions on abortion whatsoever until the stage of extra-uterine viability.
So you keep them from having an abortion, which means you are forcing them to bear children.
Why in the world would that be a better outcome? Yes, fine, I realize that you think it would be a better outcome if every woman were forced to bear children, but for someone like me who considers abortion a safe and ethical choice, why in the world would I consider forcing these women to continue a pregnancy as the better option? I’d be more likely to consider forcing an abortion on them, and I’m absolutely not going to do that. But at least an abortion is quick and safe with few medical complications–something that can never be said for pregnancy!
If an Andrea Yates became pregnant again, I would beg her to have an abortion.
You’re not anwering the specific question posed, where I ask if any restiction–even short of an outright prohibition–can be reasonable in the first trimester. So, try not to respond on a soapbox or with a broad brush. Is there any circumstance where any kind of restriction would be reasonable in the first trimester? Any circumstance at all, any restriction at all, even one that is not an outright prohibition?
DianaG, thanks for responding. So you would not be troubled at all by the schizophrenic woman’s request? The right to choose is so absolute that even a woman with obvious issues with her capacity to make decisions cannot be questioned, cannot even be delayed while her situation is investigated? If that same woman later sued the doctor for complying with a request that was obviously made by a person without the capacity to make a legal decision, would you see the suit as meritless? If so, upon what grounds would you dismiss it? Is there an “abortions cannot be refused, not for any reason” exception to the rules related to diminished capacity?
Would you feel the same way if the same woman requested, say, a tattoo covering her face, or a boob job, or to have her tubes tied? What if someone who recognized her mental issues had sex with her, sex she “agreed” to–is that rape? When should we just ignore the issues with her mental capacity and give her what she wants? Are these situations different in some material way to a request for an abortion?
One more question, for good measure: If a 14-year-old girl wants to have a sexual relationship with a 30-year-old, should we prohibit that activity? On what grounds? What if the girl really, really loves him, and says she knows best as to what is good and proper for her, does that matter?
Of course I’d be troubled by it. I’d be equally troubled by her insistence that the voices tell her to have the baby. I grant you that diminished capacity is a tricky situation, but the fact remains that a decision must be made, and it must be made by her. For that reason, I would hold the doctor blameless, as long as he followed her wishes, whatever they may be.
These situations are **all ** materially different from pregnancy. (Well, except the rape thing, which I frankly can’t see the relevance of, even if I had the necessary details to make such a determination.) A decision on each of them can be delayed if necessary. Also, none of those situations are life-altering in quite the same way as having a baby, are they? In the example of diminished capacity, I can’t imagine how having a baby would be a better outcome than an abortion, if an abortion is what the woman wants.
And again, I’m really trying to see the relevance, but it’s just not there. If your point is simply that I would prevent my 14 year old daughter having sex with adults, if I could… well, course. If it’s that 14 year olds don’t always make the best, most informed decisions? Again, duh.
But again, irrelevant because there is no situation you can compare to the choice to bear and raise a child. It can only be made by the woman in question.
Interesting. A doctor who recognizes that a person does not have the capacity to make a legal decision isn’t held responsible. A decision must be made, but why must the person who by definition (in our hypothetical) be the one to make it? Especially when by definition she is incapable?
I’m not asking in this particular hypothetical whether either option is “better,” only whether or not a woman’s capacity is a factor in complying with her request. You’ve made your position clear. Frankly, it’s a bit incoherent. We should honor a request by someone without the capacity to legally make such a request. OK. A delay of a single day is unacceptable.
And all the other scenarios are absolutely relevant for the question I have on the table–is a woman’s capacity to make a decision a factor in restricting a request? For you it is possible, I think, in all realms except abortion. (And any operation is potentially life-threatening, by the way.)
By the way, I’m giving you the necessary details in the “rape” scenario, IMO. The woman is obviously schizophrenic, and the man she “agrees” to have sex with knows it. Is this rape?
Why can’t the choice of who the 14-year-old has a sexual relationship with be left to her? It is her body, it is her reproductive system that is potentially affected–why doesn’t she know best in this situation?
You’re begging the question. Why? A woman with certain mental conditions can’t decide on where she lives, on what medication she takes, on lots of things. By for abortion, she can? How can a decision be made by an individual who hasn’t the capacity? And why do you assume she’d be forced to raise the child?
Your argument seems to be that because abortion rights can’t be resticted under any circumstance in the first trimester, we can’t deny them in the first trimester, IMO. Any unresolvable obstacle will simply be ignored. Why? Because we can’t deny access to or restrict abortions in the first trimester. Repeat as necessary.
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that there might be rare circumstances where a woman simply doesn’t have the ability to make a real decision? It’s inarguable, frankly.
That’s not what diminished capacity or insanity imply, though. They imply that the person in question doesn’t have the capacity to know what she really wants–i.e., you are not forcing her to do anything, in that sense. If you accept as a given that someone who is by definiton not mentally competent truly knows what she wants (and anything counter to that is equivalent to torture), I don’t believe you’re using the standard definition of mental incompetency. In fact, you’re ignoring it.
This presents the same problem to me as the teenager. Who should make the decision fo the schizophrenic, if not the schizophrenic herself? On what basis should the decision be made? Should it be allowable for the decison to be made based on moral beliefs that the woman doesn’t share? Does the decision maker have the abilty to force an abortion against the woman’s wishes?What about sterilization? Should I be able to decide that my 13 year old doesn’t have the capacity to abstain, use birth control or parent, and therefore consent to her tubes being tied because I’m her parent? How precisely is that different from making the decision for her regarding an abortion?
I think the schizophrenic is a good example. Schizophrenics can actually make their own medical decisions until they are found to be incompetent. The vast majority of them have every legal right to decide where they will live, or if they will take their prescribed medication or cooperate with any other treatment. If the schizpphrenic is foound incompetent, there is no way that the decisonmaker would not consent to an abortion unless it was based on the decisionmaker’s own sense of morality regarding an abortion, (which apparently the schizophrenic doesn’t share) rather than on the best interests of the pregnant schizophrenic. Parental consent to abortion is really a similar situation. The problems are always going to come up where the parent and the pregnant teenager disagree. I imagine that most teenagers have some idea of where their parents stand on abortion- and I imagine most parents are either of the opinion that “no child of mine will have an abortion” or “no child of mine will ruin her life becoming a teenage mother” with damn few falling into the " I’ll support you whatever you decide " group. If I’m right , that means a couple of things - First, the parent’s decison is not being made on an individualized basis- the parent’s decision was made before the girl even became pregnant, perhaps before she herself was born, and there is no possibilty that the individual circumstances of this girl, at this time, will change it. Second, the girl is likely to have an accurate idea of the parent’s position. Third, the issue is really only of importance in those cases where there is disagreement- girls who make the same decison as their parent would have are likely to share it- and even if they don’t , the parents are not likely to be upset that their consent is unnecessary. They are far more likely to be relieved that the necessity for their consent will not cause a delay in the girl having the abortion or receiving prenatal care. If parental notification/consent is required for abortion, it logically must be required for prenatal care as well- if you have the right to find out your daughter want an abortion becaue it’s your right to make the decision for her, then others have the right to find out their daughters are pregnant to make the corresponding decison.
And you’ll receive the same answer as always. Because it’s her body. Because she’s the one who will have to be pregnant for nine months of her life. Because she’s the one who will have to go through childbirth. Because she’s the one who will have to decide what is to be done with the resulting child. You seem to be disregarding of all of these things as a minor inconvenience. They’re not.
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that there is no situation in which there is anyone better to decide whether a woman should have an abortion than the woman herself?
There is no situation analogous to pregnancy. If the woman isn’t qualified to choose, who is? Who *is * qualified to either make her carry a baby to term, *or *terminate her pregnancy, if she herself wishes otherwise? Who else has to live with the consequences?
I’m not ignoring anything. You’re assuming the default should be no abortion. I’m assuming the default should be whatever the woman wants.
Again and again and again, a choice has to be made. No matter what, a choice has to be made. Preventing her from making one choice is forcing a different choice on her. Preventing her from abortion is forcing childbirth. Preventing childbirth is forcing abortion. The best guess is to go with what she thinks, because even in her diminished capacity she’s smarter than you about her own body. Other things can just be put off, delayed until she feels better. Pregnancy cannot be delayed until she’s better. Comparing it to things that can simply be delayed is silly. Comparing it to things that aren’t life threatening is silly. Comparing it to petty things is silly.
Okay, here’s a potential time when I’d be very concerned about abortion. Say Claire always wanted a baby. She starts displaying signs of a serious mental condition at about the same time she becomes pregnant. She decides that she wants an abortion at a time when her doctors fear she’s not rational. The doctors believe that with the right combination of medications, she will improve significantly. The medications won’t hurt the fetus.
If I were asked, I’d say try to delay the abortion as long as possible to see if Claire changes her mind. If she doesn’t change her mind, the abortion should go forward.
And if it’s the wrong decision, that’s sucks. If Claire recovers the day after and is furious and traumatized, that really sucks. But the risk of making the wrong decision will always exist, and the repercussions from strapping some mentally ill woman to a gurney and performing medical procedures on her unwilling body is revolting.
Unless Claire is close to menopause, it’s very probable she has the option to get pregnant again. Having a child is a more irreversable decision. If you aren’t 100% sure about having a kid, my position is to err on the side of abortion.
Also, having a child is more ethically momentous. Someone has to take care of the kid, after all. On the other hand, an abortion is morally trivial.
Yes, I’ve heard the argument that a fetus is “human”, but that just shows a contemptuous view of humanity. If a mindless bit of flesh is human, that just means being human isn’t important, not that the flesh-bit deserves protection.
The woman by definition cannot “know what she wants”! She hasn’t the capacity to do so. Can it really be so diffult to see that you’re contradicting yourself in the space of these three sentences?
And let me be clear. Assume there is no default here. Perhaps there is a court-appointed guardian who will ultimately decide that abortion is the proper choice–or perhaps not. Perhaps the law could demand a resolution within two days. Whatever. Is it really so impossible to admit that some type of a “speed bump” restriction is reasonable in this circumstance?
Why in the world would we–for abortions only, apparently–let a woman make a decision when she is lacking the competency to do so? Well, the real answer seems to become more apparent with every post, I’m afraid, when there is such enthusiastic endorsement of something so patently illogical. It’s inarguable, for Pete’s sake. It’s by definition.
It is silly only because you continue to ignore the point of comparison–the woman’s capacity to make a decision. It is absolutely illogical to accept the fact that a woman may lack the capacity to make a decision, but in circumstances where there is a particular consequence, we’ll simply ignore that fact. It seems to me to simply be a dogmatic reaction to a common sense circumstance. “Again and again and again, a choice must be made,” and it simply cannot result in any possibility that an abortion not take place.
Do you accept the fact that there are women who lack the capacity to make real and meaningful decisions? If you answer yes (and how can anyone deny this fact?), then by definition you either accept the fact that this lack of capacity exists for abortion decisions as well, or you will continue to ignore it–while claiming you are doing no such thing.
I’m not ignoring them. I’m pointing out that as it relates to a woman lacking the capacity to make a decision, they’re not relevant. Try not to grandstand, please. I’m not trivializing these at all, though clearly you’d prefer to argue with that position.
And BTW, does your argument support a 14-year-old girl’s decision to have a sexual relationship with a 30-year-old man? Don’t dodge this question, if you please. Explain why if it’s her body, and she’s the one who’ll be having sex, and she’s the one who will possibly have to be pregnant for nine months of her life, and she’s the one who will have to go through childbirth, and she’s the one who will have to decide what is to be done with the resulting child, why she isn’t in the best position to decide what’s best. Who are you, her parents, the legislature or the courts to decide otherwise?
This has become laughable! Do you really deny that there are women who lack the capacity to make a real, meaningful, informed decision? Please, answer this question.
If you want to take this position, fine. But it’s absolutely ridiculous. It’s a sad fact that such women exist in this world. It’s inarguable.
There might be such rare circumstances. In which case, in all likehood, erring on the side of caution would be to have her abort (and I’m no great fan of abortion), because, if she’s unable to make a decision, she’s also unable to raise a child. And if she’s unable to raise a child, which is the only positive aspect of having one, there’s absolutely no point in having her going through pregnancy and childbirth, which involve a risk, if you have her best interest in mind. And of course, if you’re the one who has to make this decision on her behalf, you have to make it in her best interest. Not on the basis of your moral opinion.
Why does her not having an abortion mean she has to raise the child?
But, interestingly, in an instance (rare though they might be) where the mother does not have the capacity to make a decision–meaning, there can be no real conclusive determination as to what this person would want if competent–the default should be to “force” an abortion. Okay, gotcha. Just mind boggling. So much for choice, I suppose.
Why is a moral opinion not a factor in what’s best for her? Suppose, as an example, you knew her in lucid moments and knew she was morally opposed to abortions. Would that be a factor?
You’ve allowed that a third party might have to make a decision for somone without the capaciity to do so–an inarguable position, despite the reluctance for some to concede this simple point in this thread. But if the only “decision” that third party can make is to have an abortion performed on the incompetent mother–frankly, an astounding position to hold, IMO–it’s not much of a decision, is it? Or do you mean that it’s appropriate for a third party to make the decision, but only if it’s the decision you would make?
Do you really hold that abortion can be the only “best” option for any woman in this circumstance? There’s no other possibility? Do I understand you properly to state that all mentally incompetent people should have abortions “forcefully” performed on them?