Certainly, the pregnant woman’s moral beliefs should be a factor. But this situation should only come up when the pregnant woman herself chooses abortion, which presumably means she is not morally opposed.
If the pregnant women is not morally opposed to abortion, and wants to have one, how can it be in her best interests to be denied ? Sure, abortion has medical risks. So does pregnancy. In this particular case (and perhaps a few others), the incompetent person’s morals and desires really are controlling, because that’s the real basis for the decison being made by competent people.
Nope, abortion isn’t the only best option for all pregnant incompetent women. It is ,however, the best option for pregnant incompetent women who aren’t morally opposed to abortion and who don’t wish to be pregnant. It is not the best option for mentally incompetent women who are morally opposed to abortion or who wish to give birth. If the third party gets to make the decision based on the decision-makers own morals, then there will be mentally incompetent people having abortions forced on them.
I can’t tell if we have definitely established that this notion of “no age of consent for abortion” applies to the decision on whether or not to have sex - i.e. any child who can become pregnant is presumed to be legally and morally competent. “Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed”, in other words. So reaching menarche is enough to provide a defense against statutory rape.
I am also not clear - do the consequences of the decision whether or not to abort automatically devolve onto the presumably emancipated minor? Are her parents going to be required to pay for her abortions, or does she have to come up with the cash herself? Are we going to force people who choose against abortion to pay for it, in other words?
I might be willing to go along with your view that says minors aren’t responsible for their decisions… so long as the parents of the minor will have to raise their grandchild until the grandchild is 18. After all, why should someone be held accountable for an act (having sex) they performed as a minor if they truly weren’t morally competant to decide to engage in it in the first place? Since our hypothetical minor was prohibited from making a choice on abortion, why shouldn’t the people who made the choice for her (her parents) have to live with the consequences of their decision? Would you agree with that?
You trivialze them every time you state that anyone else is more qualified to make the decision than the person who will have to undergo them. You can call it grandstanding if you like, but I argue from that position because, as far as I am concerned, NOTHING else is relevant.
I didn’t answer it because it’s ridiculous. The last time I checked, sex with a minor is illegal. As such, I would, of course, prevent my daughter from having sex with an adult, preferably by prosecuting the adult in question.
Having an abortion (or a baby) is *not * illegal, and as such, since the pregnant person is the one who will have to live with the consequences of either choice, she’s the one who gets to decide.
And it’s an even sadder fact that there are people in the world who believe that they have a moral and ethical imperative to impose their will on these women in such an incredibly personal matter. I’ll ask you again, if the woman wants an abortion, who has the right to deny it to her and force her to carry to term? If she wants the baby, who has the right to strap her down and perform an abortion? How is either of these options morally or ethically superior to the choice she herself made?
And while (or, more accurately, much later than) the rest of us are discussing who should be responsible for for the babies, you’re worried about who’s going to pay for the abortions?
Do you feel that if the parents prevent their child from aborting, they should be legally responsible for her baby?
At this point I’ll assume it is beyond your ability to comprehend what mental incompetence means. I can’t expend any more effort in an exchange where you’re unwilling or unable to to acknowledge something that is inarguable by definition.
So you would have no problem if the laws were repealed regarding sex with minors, I take it. If these laws were repealed, would you be untroubled by the fact that a 14-year-old girl could choose to have a sexual relationship with a 30-year-old man? Is it really only the legality of this that’s an issue for you? Interesting if that’s the case, but I doubt it.
Just as a matter of curiousity, do you ever post anything that is not completely stupid?
Nothing else? Even if the person who has to undergo the operation is clearly not competent? So far, your argument seems to be boiling down to “incompetent people are competent”.
So, would it be fair to characterize your position as “anti-choice” when it comes to sex with minors?
And again, your little dodge about illegality does not address the issue - why is a child a competent adult when it comes to deciding about abortion, but not when it comes driving a car or drinking beer or deciding with whom to perform that activity that makes abortion necessary in the first place?
It doesn’t make any sense. She isn’t competent to decide whether or not to have sex responsibly. But when she does it anyway, and is stupid and/or irresponsible and/or unlucky enough to become pregnant as a result - that in and of itself is enough to prove that she is a mature and responsible adult?
She’s a big girl now. Because she couldn’t figure out how to get the condom unwrapped.
Well, I assume you are not ruling out adoption. But yes, parents are generally held responsible for their childrens’ acts.
Flip the question around. Do you believe that if a girl decides to abort against her parent’s wishes, they would be legally and morally justified in kicking her out the front door and telling her to fend for herself? Since she is now a grown-up, after all.
Legally justified? If she’s 18, yes. Morally justified? In my view, no. Neither would I support parents cutting off their kids college funds in retaliation even though it also would be “legal” to do.
Of course not, IMO. Just because the serious and critical consequences of pregnancy inadvertently place a minor in a situation where she has to assume the responsibilities of an adult (whether that involves choosing an abortion or bearing a child) doesn’t mean that we have to treat all **non-**pregnant minors as adults.
Seems pretty obvious to me that since we’re objecting to parental-consent and parental-notification requirements largely on the grounds that some parents cannot be safely trusted with the knowledge that their child is seeking/has had an abortion, it would be foolish and counterproductive to hand them that knowledge by sending them a bill for the procedure.
I was talking about age of consent for sex. If I understand you correctly, statutory rape laws would remain in place under your proposed system, but a pregnant minor could decide about abortion.
That is to say, children could not be considered competent when deciding to have sex, but if they went ahead and did so anyway, and were foolish enough to become pregnant as a result, then that would establish them as competent adults.
So they can’t have sex because they presumably can’t deal with the consequences. But once the consequences hit them, then they can deal with it.
Is that what you mean?
Fair enough.
No, I was talking about minors. I thought you were too.
I think it’s obvious that a parent can’t throw their underage children out on to the street. I don’t know what you were getting at. They have an obligation to take care of them.
Once “consequences” in the form of pregnancy hit them, then they have to deal with it. A pregnant girl is facing the responsibilities of an adult, and there is NO WAY OUT OF IT. Nobody can wave a wand and magically make her un-pregnant. She has absolutely no recourse other than having an abortion or bearing a child, both of which are serious and major experiences that are pretty heavy-duty even for mature adults.
We can’t resolve this difficult situation by just saying “well, she’s still legally a child, she’s not legally considered competent to make her own decisions about sexual activity, we must be consistent about this” and handing over the decision to her parents. Sorry, doesn’t work. The minor in this case is inescapably facing the burdens and experiences of a grown woman, no matter what the law says or what her parents would want to force her to do.
I would hope, and in fact I’m quite sure, that most minors in such a situation would be able to trust and turn to their parent(s) for advice and help in how to deal with it. However, I’m not willing to advocate forcing her to yield to her parents’ decision about what to do. She’s the one who has to confront these adult responsibilities in her own body, RIGHT NOW. She should be the only one with the legal right to make the choice.
This in no way invalidates the rationale for statutory-rape laws or parental-consent laws for things like body piercings or elective surgery. As pointed out previously, minors don’t have to have sex or get body piercings or nose jobs; they can wait until they reach the legal age of adulthood or consent and then take on the consequences of deciding to do those things.
But a pregnant girl CANNOT say “well, I’ll wait till I’m 18 to deal with this pregnancy, and then I’ll be able to make my own decision”. She has to have either (a) an abortion or (b) a baby, both of which are serious adult responsibilities, so she needs to have an adult’s right to make the choice between them.
That doesn’t mean that she earns the right to be treated like an adult in every circumstance, just in the circumstance where she’s unavoidably dealing with adult responsibilities. I see no ethical problem at all with allowing a 15-year-old girl to make her own choice about abortion while simultaneously forbidding her to get a tattoo without parental permission. Just because biology relentlessly confronts her with adulthood in one case doesn’t mean that we have to shove her (or allow her to rush) into adult autonomy in every other case.
Which is no different from any other moral quandary in which a minor might find herself.
Apply the same reasoning to, for instance, being arrested. A minor has made a stupid decision, which could have life-altering consequences. Should she therefore be charged as an adult?
Which, again, seems pretty much the same as the decision to consent to sex.
In the same way, they can’t wait until they are 18 to be charged as an adult. And yet, that doesn’t compel us as a society to treat a fourteen year old as an adult.
I would say that the decision to have sex sure as hell makes it unavoidable that you deal with adult responsibilities. Especially if you wind up pregnant, thus demonstrating that you are exceptionally poorly qualified to make responsible moral decisions.
I don’t see the principle. Being pregnant has serious consequences, no doubt about that. So does driving a car, or having sex, or getting arrested, or drinking liquor, or signing a contract. Treating any of these irresponsibly can get you into big trouble.
But it seems only in the special case of abortion do we say, exactly at the moment when the poor dumb child has screwed up royally and is facing a very tough decision about the consequences of that screw up - 'Tough it out, sweetheart - you’re on your own."
Doesn’t make sense to me. The more she shows she is not qualified, the more she is responsible.
