Some on the rabid fringe of the pro-life movement might refer to that case as a very late term abortion of convenience
During the recent debate in California, the pro-notification side had public arguments much as listed here. But there were also two underlying arguments.
First, notification would reduce the number of abortions. Thus, the anti-choice side was tied into the notification side, though not all pro-notification people were anti-choice.
Second, they appealed to their generally good and nice audience, implying that since you as mothers and fathers would never beat your child, no one would. A billboard showed a scuzzball leading a pregnant girl to an abortion clinic, with the message that this would only happen when evil men seduced a girl from the bosom of the ideal family. Arnold said he was pro-notification because his kids should tell him.
The assumption is not that all parents are abusive, but that when this is an issue the chance of problems is much greater than for the population at large. Most kids would tell, without (much) fear, and most parents would be supportive. I think the ones that are really, really scared might have a reason. I don’t think social services has such a great record of preventing abuse that a girl should reasonably expect an over-worked social worker to defend her.
I must admit that I never thought of the argument that the impact of this decision goes well beyond the girl’s 18th year. I think that is an excellent reason not to require notification.
I’ve lurked here for years, but **Saint Cad ** finally drew me out of hiding.
There isn’t. There’s an acknowledgment that it’s possible.
I really don’t know. Personally, I would hope that if I forgot to pack sunscreen for my daughter, the school would provide it rather than let her burn.
A delayed tonsillectomy results in a sore throat that lasts longer than necessary, whereas a delayed abortion results in a baby. A baby whom someone has to be responsible for.
And if they aren’t mature enough to make the decision, where is the corresponding law making the grandparents legally responsible for the baby? If they aren’t responsible enough to make the decision, they surely aren’t responsible enough to parent.
There’s a world of difference between denying someone a choice and merely delaying it. The opportunity to join the military will still be there when the child is of age. Pregnancy requires a relatively quick decision.
In the extraordinarily unlikely event that an abortion performed by a licensed physician in an accredited medical facility were to be fatal, I’d explain it with sorrow and regret, the same way I’d describe her death from an abortion they did know about.
Why deny the parents the right to send their daughter to a guidance counselor who’ll tell her that if she has a baby, it will ruin her life, and she’ll never get into Harvard? (Admittedly, this assumes that having a baby will, in fact, prevent a girl from pursuing her own dreams, which is certainly not a given.)
And it’s all about controlling girls’ sexual behavior, isn’t it?
For the record, let me tell you something about abortions. They’re expensive. And they hurt. No one is using them as birth control.
To sum up:
-
The only person who should be able to decide what is to be done about a pregnancy is the pregnant person, with the advice of her doctor.
-
Parental consent laws would, in my opinion, result in as many (or more!) forced abortions as forced births. Many people who consider themselves “Pro-life” have changed their mind when confronted with an inconvenient pregnancy. People have plans, hopes, and dreams for their children that mostly don’t include adolescent reproduction, and plenty of parents aren’t going to accommodate any deviation from the plan, if they can help it.
-
I can’t think of a more ridiculous argument than “You are not mature enough to make your own decisions. Therefore you should have a baby.”
I have a fourteen year old daughter. It would break my heart to see her have a baby or an abortion. My natural inclination as a parent would be to want to “help” her by doing what I think is best. But she is the only person who has the right to decide whether or not she will bear a child.
Sure, but there are probably plenty of other situations where a parent might react badly to something or other, yet, oddly, this seems to be the only one that demands an exception.
Sure; my point though is that, since there seems to be a good deal of speculation being bandied about, perhaps we could speculate that for every girl that gets beaten up by her stupid angry dad, maybe there’s another that soldiers on alone and miserable, misses out on the support of her family, as well as the counselling they could arrange, falls into guilty depression and knocks back a bottle of sleeping tablets washed down with half a pint of vodka.
I don’t know; I got my wings clipped over precisely this kind of issue in a thread about infant circumcision. Parents are supposed to be responsible for their kids; that means they apply their conscience to the task; that means they’re going to make decisions that other folks might not like the sound of or might consider unfair.
And apologies to SaintCad, as I burdened him with an extraneous space in his user name. And after I spell-checked, triple-checked my coding, and previewed twice! :smack:
Why are you sure it wouldn’t be? In fact, why would there even need to be a new law? AFAIK, certain medical treatments (STD, birth control, abortion and prenatal care,drug and mental health treatment) for minors do not require parental consent because there are laws exempting them from the normal requirement of parental consent. Remove the exemption, and abortion gets treated just like an appendectomy- parental consent is needed and the child’s consent is not required. My fifteen year old son had an appendectomy this past summer- no one even asked him if he agreed to it. Why would abortion be different and allow a parent to make the decision in one direction and not the other ( to forbid the abortion but not to mandate it) if the supposed reason is because parents are better suited to make such decisions than the minor is ? There would only be a new law if abortion were to become the one and only medical procedure which legally required consent from both the parent and the child
I’m not really worrried about the abusive parents who would beat their daughter for becoming pregnant or having an abortion. They exist, but there will always be a judicial bypass of some sort for those girls. I’m much more worried about the other parents- the ones who will believe they are making the right decision but who will not in fact be the ones who have to live with the consequences of that decison. The ones who believe that their daughter in January cannot be trusted to make her own decision regarding an abortion, but who will have to allow her to make medical decisions for her newborn in June. The ones who will force her to have an abortion, either not realizing or not caring that she will feel guilty for the rest of her life because she believes it’s murder even though her parents don’t
What if the judge is anti-choice ?
In order to get to the point of needing an abortion, a girl has already made the choice to have sex (or had that choice forced on her, as the case may be) which in itself is a maturing experience. Then, after becoming pregnant, if she wishes to have the baby all she has to do is hide it for long enough to make an abortion impossible. Whether or not we as a society approve of her choices and actions is moot–the situation is as it is and time can’t be turned back. She has made irrevocable decisions which have effected permanent changes to her being. She cannot revert to her former state. At this point, it has to be acknowledged that what we have is a woman who is responsible for her actions and she needs to have the full spectrum of choice available to her the same as any other woman. Her age is irrelevant at this point, because she has already made adult choices which now absolutely require that more choices be made. We can’t make her be a child again because of a legal fiction–she is an adult by the most basic definition of the word and shouldn’t require any other person’s consent to dictate her fate. Additionally, it is repugnant to use that legal fiction that this woman is a child to force her to become a parent against her will. That is so twisted it doesn’t bear thinking–“Yes, you are my most precious and beloved daughter who I love so very much that I am going to force you to be an unwilling incubator for my grandchild.” Realistically speaking, that’s the only outcome “parental consent” could realize that requiring consent only of the affected woman could not.
Well, that depends on your point of view.
Wouldn’t the chance that the number of abortions might decrease mean that the pro-abortion types would be eager to prevent parental notification/consent laws?
As long as we are bandying around epithets for the other side and questioning their motives…
I have never heard any proponent of parental notification/consent laws say that no one would ever react abusively. That is the reason for the option of notification or consent from a judge.
This is the second time this claim has been made, and no supporting cite has been provided. What is the evidence that telling your parents you want an abortion is more likely to trigger abuse than telling them some bad news of equivalent import?
I can see a parent reacting badly to someone coming home drunk, but that doesn’t strike me as an argument for allowing underage drinking.
Well, I hope you don’t take this personally, but this does not sound very much like your father would be abusive. Simply refusing you permission to abort is not abuse. And I don’t see any reason why laws should be set up such that girls can always get abortions if they want to.
For minors, decisions about medical procedures like abortion are not solely theirs to make. And it is entirely possible for a parent to decide that an abortion is not in the best interests of his daughter - and not be wrong.
Maybe you really, really think an abortion is the only option. And if you are denied what you want, your life will be ruined forever. And it might even be true - or possibly not. But I have heard the same sort of argument in favor of all sorts of things that teenagers are quite sure are unassailably true, but which a more mature or experienced person might not necessarily agree.
“But daddy, we are so much in love!”
“But high school is so booooorrrring, and I can make a lot more at the warehouse!”
“But these people really know God - they’re so spiritual, and I could grow so much if I gave them my college money and moved into the commune!”
And so on.
And that stuff about “I’ll do anything, legal or not” sounds like the sort of self-dramatization that a fairly immature teen-ager would say.
I guess what you need to understand is this - it is not impossible that an abortion really is the wrong decision. Maybe you really, really think it is. But there’s a quote -
No matter how strongly you feel on the subject, you don’t have the right to overrule someone whose beliefs are different. And parents are responsible for their children, unless you can show that their childrens’ life or health is at risk.
We have a judicial opt-out to protect children from abuse. But simply refusing to give in is not abuse.
Regards,
Shodan
There are no pro-abortion people, to my knowledge.
And if the judge is anti-choice ?
Abortion clinic bombings, assassinations of doctors - the anti-abortion movement has plenty of thuggish types. When was the last time a tattoo artist was assassinated, or his tattoo parlor bombed ?
Yes it is; at least as bad as child molesting.
Because the alternative is forcing them to serve as incubaters, and suffer lifelong damage.
If he/she is agreeing with the child, yes.
Doesn’t that argue against parents having a say ?
Something which applies to every-single-pregnancy.
Originally posted by Shodan:
It sounds like something I would say if I were being forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy, and I’m an adult.
Originally posted by Shodan:
If it’s not the pregnant woman’s decision, than it’s the wrong decision. Do you really believe that there’s anything particularly moral or ethical or *right * about a parent legally forcing a girl to carry and bear a child she doesn’t want?
And just out of curiosity, how are we to address the care of the child once it’s born? Is the girl responsible? Are her parents responsible? Are they able to force her to care for the child? Are they able to force her to give it up for adoption? Since she’s now a parent, but still a minor, where do we draw *that * line?
Originally posted by Shodan:
Pregnancy and childbirth certainly qualify as health risks. Why would you force anyone who is unwilling to assume those risks?
As would having 4 abortions in high school thus ruining her uterus for ever bringing a baby to term (a girl I knew in high school did this).
So what you are saying is that a girl who has sex knowing full well she could get pregnant is somehow victimized when there are consequences for that choice? Interesting and completely in line with the “I should not be accountable for my actions” mentality in the US today.
What about a guy who gets a girl pregnant and she does not get an abortion? He had no choice and is faced with child support payments the next 18 years. Is this fair?
Yes. What percentage of teenage pregnancies are due to incest? Is this large enough to take away all parents’ rights for consenting to medical procedures for their minor children?
This is a fallicious argument that we should take away parental rights because because of what some parents may do or the possible parentage of the child. Here’s an idea: let’s allow students to prevent their parents from having access to their grades since they may get beaten for getting an F. Let also prevent parents from knowing if their child has been arrested due to the potential abuse at home.
So what **you ** are saying is that an unwanted baby is a consequence commensurate with having sex? Having had both sex and a baby, I beg to differ.
And no, it’s not fair to make a father out of an unwilling boy or man. If men could get pregnant, I’d be in favor of abortion as an option for them as well. But as it currently stands, they **do ** have choices. There are many, many men who don’t parent their children or pay child support. There are laws to prevent that, certainly. But they don’t seem to be quite as determinedly enforced as I imagine parental consent laws would be.
When schools are bombed and teachers are murdered for handing out Fs, your analogy will work. Right now, it doesn’t.
It is not about controlling girls’ behavior - it is about denying parental consent for a medical procedure for their child.
I personally know at least three women who have had multiple abortions that were on no other birth control. So yes, some women use abortions as birth control.
- Advise of the doctor but not the parents?
- How do you get more forced abortions out of this argument? Parents would only be notified if the daughter were planning on already getting an abortion.
- I’m stupified by this whole idea like the girl got pregnant from a toilet seat. We have sex education at our school along with free condoms from 4 different sources on campus. Despite this, I actually buget money to buy flowers for my female students who have babies (3 last year, more this year). I admit that it is pretty fucked up (no pun intended) to be 16 and have to decide between an abortion and a baby, but that is the result is a conscious decision the girl made to have sex and there maybe consequences for those decisions (viz. pregnancy).
I still refuse to believe that the desire of society to protect a girl from the consequences of her actions should outweigh my rights as her parent.
Tell that to Barry Gurnow.
Yes! Doctors, on the whole, have more expertise in medical training than parents do. They can advise the patient as to the medical aspects of going through with the pregnancy or terminating it. Please note, I’m talking about the advice of the doctor, not doctorial consent. If the doctor doesn’t want the patient to have an abortion, he or she can step aside and let another trained professional complete the operation. Parental consent puts the wishes of the parent ahead of the wishes of the patient.
You have a right to force her to bear a child she doesn’t want to carry? Really? A right?
And why pray tell do you think “pro-abortion” types (which is a lie in many or most cases) what to increase abortions? If so, we would be against birth control, while it is the so-called anti-abortion types who are for abstinence only education, and against birth control education, which can lead to more pregnancies and more abortions. I just don’t understand why some people don’t get that being personally against something doesn’t mean you have to inflict your preference on someone else.
The absurdity of the judicial option came up frequently in the debate. Sure, a poor and perhaps abused 15 year old is going to march herself down to the court and get this approved. Not to mention that there is a bias for parental control of children (a good thing, but sometimes fatal) so the kid has no assurance the judge will decide that the parents are just fine, and tell them. You don’t think that abusive parents act like outstanding citizens when the cops come?
But the arguments of the pro-notification side definitely appealed to the fact that almost all the voters would never abuse their kid, and they viewed the issue as if their daughters were the ones affected. Like it or not, that’s the way they presented the issue. I’m surprised it didn’t work, actually. Or maybe it did, but the proposition went down on the coattails of Arnold’s disaster.
That is not what I meant. Say 90% of pregnant kids come from supportive families, and tell their parents. The proposition, though theoretically affecting them, actually doesn’t. Say 10% of kids from non-supportive families are at actual risk. That’s 1% of the population at large, but 10% of the affected population.
The natural next step after parental notification before abortion is parental notification after sex, right? Make it the law the child has to notify her parents whenever she screws. Should hold the old promiscuity rate right down. It affects her body, which it seems you think is owned by the parents, right? Good idea, or maybe there is a privacy right in here somewhere? As for enforcement, kids often get caught, so the penalty can kick in then. Cops finding kids doing it in cars will notify also, of course.
No one is saying underage sex laws should be liberalized. We’re just dealing with the consequences, made worse by the right’s opposition to sex education. And the abuse is probably a pre-existing condition, which is what makes the girl not want to notify the parents. No one is saying notification is the abuse.
I’m sick of this whole “consequences” business. Getting an abortion is a consequence. And at that age, I think it damn well is taking responsibility. Beyond that, it’s not your business to take it upon youself to legislate different consequences for young women that choose to have sex because you think the natural ones aren’t quite stern enough. If it really matters, the guy in the sky can take care of that when it’s time.
That said, I don’t have a reasonable stance in this argument. I find the thought of some future daughter hiding a pregnancy into the advanced stages much more horrifying than the thought of her getting an abortion on her own. Try as I might, I can’t think of a situation where getting an abortion isn’t the best option for a pregnant minor who knows what one is, wants one, and seeks it out. At that point she’s pretty much proven she’s not naive, has given the situation some thought, and knows what she wants. How can you argue against that? What could parents possibly have to add to that?
Say what you will, it’s usually not that hard a decision. You either want a baby or you don’t. Most women are pretty aware of what their feelings are about the subject- it only takes being a week late with your period once to have spent an seven long days and nights figuring out where you stand. The most common feeling reported after an abortion is “relief.”
In any case, even the worst case of “post abortion syndrome” has got to be a piece of cake compared to the mental, financial, social, career, and moral pain that comes with having the next eighteen years of your life devoted to an unwanted child because you parents were worried about your “immortal soul.”