Well of course no one is *advocating * forced abortions. Be a bit of a hard sell, wouldn’t it? Doesn’t sound very family-friendly at all.
That doesn’t change the fact that they would be a very real result of parents having complete control over they’re daughter’s reproductive options.
If parents have the ultimate rights, they have the ultimate rights.
If parents have the right to deny or force medical treatment they do, no matter if they are going to use those rights in ways you agree with politically.
So, Parent A says, “Little Billy has syphillis, but I refuse to let him seek treatment.”
Parent B says, “Emily likes goth music. I’m going to have her institutionalized.”
Parent C says, “We can make lots of money if Quartnei has a boob job.”
Parent D says, “We wanted a girl, so we’ll just castrate our son and call him Amanda.”
Parent E says, “Bobby doesn’t need a kidney transplant. He needs to trust in the Lord!”
Parent F says, “No daughter of mine is going to have a baby at 13.”
Parent G says, “Depression isn’t a real illness, you slacker.”
If parents are the be all and end all of consent, there isn’t anything wrong with any of the above. Until the child hits 18, they are the personal pet of their parents.
Yet most of us aren’t okay with that. We draw lines somewhere, between this action and that. Between orthodontia and castration, between birthmark removal and a boob job. Because some things are taking those parental rights too far.
And I say that forced childbirth or forced abortion are both taking those rights too far.
Nice little strawman fallacy (as are most of your arguments). As have been repeatedly said, the abortion laws have outs in cases of rape and incest (even Missouri). Why not advocate removing ALL girls from their father’s household because there have been cases of sexual abuse?
Teachers have been murdered for handing out F’s and now a father was murdered so he wouldn’t see his son’s F.
Agreed, but parents currently have complete control over most of their children’s options in general. So far most of the arguments I’ve seen are unconvincing. A parent may abuse the girl when he finds out about the pregnancy? I have seen more parental abuse over grades than pregnancies. Minors have rights over their bodies? Not under most laws as major and minor medical procedure require parental consent even as far as pierced ears and medicine (including sunscreen) in school.
The only argument that I have seen that would remotely convince me to change my mind is that denial of abortion = forced becoming a mother. However, I am still not convinced that the girl is the best party to have the final OK is this case.
One, the girl participated in the activity that resulted in the pregnancy so I think we have an a priori proof that the girl may not anticipate the consequence of her actions.
Second, the girl does not have a wealth of life experiences. She should have to consult with someone who can give her advice. Some have advocated the doctor, but I think that that would be limited to medical advice. A minister? Even if the girl has a religious advisor, I think this would result in more “abortion=murder” and “you’re going to Hell” diatribes than discussion with the parents.
A social worker? Possibly, but then the question is how involved will the county get. Would they be able to give consent or is it still abortion-on-demand? Would they begin investigations of the home under the guise of “Why can’t you tell your parents about this sweetie?” Anytime the government gets involved, I get a little worried. Private advocacy groups? We can’t stop girls from dumping babies in dumpsters despite the ease of anonymously giving up the baby (at least in California) at any police station or fire station in the state. Can we guaranty that the girl would seek out a private organization?
Third, the extreme cases (mostly promulgated by Der Trihs). If this were not such a serious issue, those arguments would be laughable. Allowances would be made for these cases like there are in all abortions laws. No one would require a girl to get consent from her molestor dad in regards to abortion. I believe that this is not equivalent to abortion on demand, but would be part of the process generated when the doctor (as a mandated reporter) hears about the molestation. “Oh, but the girl will be to scared to tell the doctor about the molestation!” So a girl is choosing to be raped by her dad than tell someone who can protect her? See point one about analysing consequences of choices.
Four, the claim that abortion is somehow different than all of the other issues the girl might face and as such the laws that govern parental consent must be thrown out the window. I’ve always agreed that the choice between abortion and pregancy is a difficult one. I wonder how much of our (American) discussion on abortion is completely irrational no matter where on the spectrum we lie, from “abortion is murder” to “just like fixing an ingrown toenail”. I believe that this legalistic argument is a very dangerous argument since American legislators often do go down that slippery slope and pretty soon every issue a teen-ager will face will be somehow different (i.e. no consent needed). I also believe that in this country we have a general belief that people should not suffer consequences for their actions and that a simple “I’m sorry” makes everything better. I’m not saying that abortion is not an easy solution to a complicated problem, but are we willing to give abortions-on-demand to 14 year-olds just so there are no tearful scenes with the parents or a child standing up (more likely an advocate from a non-profit group) and asking a judge for a secret abortion? Some of you say yes - I for one say know.
Oh by the way, I was teaching my daughter to be a lesbian just so I wouldn’t have to deal with this issue. 
Oh, please. Once the antichoice people outlaw abortion for every other reason, they’ll eliminate the exception. After all, if abortion is murder, they make no sense; the exceptions are just a marketing strategy, a foot in the door.
Because it would be a tad impractical, and being a father does not make one an abuser. Opposing a teenage girl’s abortion does make one an abuser, and I would support such a parent losing custody.
Oh ? And is there an international movement behind it ?
The girl is the only party that deserves a say; it’s her body, and her life.
Or she did, and the condom broke. Or she was molested, or raped.
They would and they have; I already mentioned such a case earlier.
Typical right wing garbage; blame the victim. A girl is raped by her father, and your response boils down to “The bitch should’ve kept her legs shut !”.
Completely uncalled for. I have never advocated parental rape of a daughter and in fact I’ve supported non-parental consent and even secrecy when the father has molested the daughter. This is what you’re reduced to? Putting words into my mouth that I do not even agree with?
You are truly pitiful.
Nope, I’m not intersted in what public figures have to say about a political cause. Nor am I interested in speculation by people for whom the situation is theoretical. I’m also not impressed by people twisting words- we all “regret” things we’ve done in our lives, but that doesn’t always mean we don’t also recognize that it was the best thing to do at the time.
I want to hear one doper woman say “As a teenager, I was determined that if I got pregnant I would abort. Now, with my adult wisdom, I realize that what would have been better would be if my parents had forced me to carry the child to term.”
Don’t say that a girl is choosing to be raped by her dad then.
I never equated choosing to have sex with being raped and you know that. Don’t try to weasel out of your immature response by blaming me.
But your response did have one positive result - it clearly demonstrates my claim that Americans have the attitude of “it’s someone else’s fault” when they do/say/type something stupid.
I hit submit rather than enter so this is a continuation of my last post.
My post never blamed the girl for the rape. Rather I was demonstrating that that minors may not make the best decisions. If a girl chooses to keep herself in a situation where she is being raped rather than getting protection, it is reasonable to call in her decision-making under stressful conditions (like facing a pregnancy).
And if you truly understood what I wrote rather than focusing on your petty attacks, you would have realized that what I wrote was not
But rather: when a girl is raped by her father, she should take advantage of protection when offered.
Before the law, AFAICT it means “custodial parent of a minor child”.
Actually, in every other medical matter, it does infer that.
Unfortunately, they’re not imaginary.
[/quote]
Oh, they’re imaginary all right. She is imagining that I am anti-abortion, simply because I think that parents ought to be involved in the important medical decisions regarding their children, and that I allow for the possibility that there might, perhaps, be a set of circumstances where abortion is not the best possible outcome.
Which is the trouble with arguing with extremists. Disagreement on even one point is too much for those who can only think in black and white.
Because somehow they manage it on every other decision. But the instant the issue is abortion vs. anything else, suddenly the parent is presumed to be an abusive monster.
Turn the question around. What makes you think that a child, stupid or careless or unlucky enough to get pregnant, by that alone suddenly becomes a coolly responsible adult capable of making a decision on a matter which has divided the US electorate for the last thirty years?
Right. And we call that responsible adult, “DOCTOR”…
Not for my child, we don’t. Feel free to delegate your parental duties to whomever you want for your kids. I am continually astounded that in circumstances where an adult needs to provide influence for what is best for my child, legions of people have the balls to say they know best, not me. Tell you what, I’ll let you know when I need your assistance, okay?
Here’s my spectrum: The more a medical procedure is commonly held to be the best treatment for a life-threatening condition, the less a parent has a say in it. The courts might rightly decide that a little boy does need to be treated for syphillis, even if the parent prefers otherwise.
The farther the circumstance is to the other end of the spectrum–i.e., there is no one, commonly-supported-by-experts way to deal with a given medical condition, and the condition is not life-threatening–then the more a parent has to say about it. That is the way it should be with abortion, just as it is for any other procedure similar in this regard. If the father is abusive, let the courts terminate or suspend his parental rights, and the other (or proxy) parent will then be forced to decide alone.
Within these confines, parents get to decide what is best, just as they always have. I believe the arguments generally advanced against the need for consent are purely because for some it is absolutely unacceptable for “abortion on the mother’s demand” to be comprimised in any way, for any reason. In other words, if abortion were not an issue, I don’t believe we’d be hearing any widespread movements like this. No calls to eliminate the need for parental consent for any other medical procedure where abuse is not a part of the equation or the parent’s decision does not put the child’s life in imminent danger. Just IMO.
But as a default, they are not. They are only treated as adults in unusual circumstances. The Parental notification/consent laws you oppose also treat girls under 18 as children by default, but allow for unusual circumstances (eg. abusive parents). Are you willing to be consistient? If not, why not?
Are you seriously going to suggest the opposite? Informed and responsible teens are more likely to be pregnant? If so, I’d assume you’re really opposed to sex ed…
I don’t understand this … the governor’s girlfreind was pregnant?
Irrelevant; the law affects all parents, the vast majority of whom are not abortion absolutists of either stripe.
Much like Shodan, I do not see the wisdom or justice in writing laws that assume parents are abusive trolls.
I’m trying to do the least damage that I possibly can.
I do find it interesting that most of the people who are in support of parental consent laws are men who think their daughters are their property.
You made a claim. I’m asking you to prove it.
No, one of the 17 year old guys in this exclusive program for really smart kids who were willing to spend their summer in school had a pregnant girlfriend.
The law treats a pregnant teenager like chattle. There’s no way I would suport it.
This is a idiotic, insulting strawman, and I think you know it.
:rolleyes: IOW, I don’t deny the truth of it, I just want to demand a cite to make you google. fine:
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/report_summaries/no_easy_answers/SumScope.asp
Wonderful. An anecdote.
The whole point of the questions in post #145 (which I assume you missed?) was to see if you are willing to extend your argument to its logical conclusions. By the reasoning you have posted here (it’s her body) the law that says that a ten-year-old cannot choose to donate a kidney or consent to experimental procedures also treats them like chattel. If that’s your position also, well, I guess I respect your position. If not, ISTM that it would benefit everyone if you’d explain what your reasoning is.
Maureen, frex and AFAICT, basically believes that the age of responsibility should be moved lower for evrything – sex and organ donation and abortion and signing a contract and joining the army (and presumably, parental consent would still be needed for abortions below the new, lower age). I don’t share that view but at least its a consistient and defensible one. Is that also yours?
Really? Then why is it that the entire argument for parental consent has been ‘they’re our daughters so damnit we get to decide for them because kids belong to their parents.’?
That is what was expressed in this thread.
I will thank you kindly not to put words in my mouth. You made a claim, and you didn’t back it up. Since your claim is so contrary to my personal experience, I wanted some evidence. I didn’t think a request for a cite was such a big freaking deal in GD.
Merely putting a human face on the situation. It’s easy to talk about making a law when you don’t personally have to see any of the fallout.
I didn’t miss them, I considered them absurd strawmen that are not germane to this thread.
My reasoning is that sex ed, birth control and abortion are moral issues in the way that things like kidney donation and bone marrow transplants are not. It’s disingenuous to claim that abortion is the same as the others, which you have done, and therefore I’m not going to entertain any debates other than the one at hand.
You can either accept that I will never support a law that allows one person to force another into parenthood, or not. I’ve nothing further to say to you.
I disagree. The law does not affect parents who have a healthy relationship with their children. It will not affect parents who are not absolutists. It will affect the picketers, the “no abortions ever!” crowd, and the “no teen births ever!” crowd. It won’t affect the girls from your cite because they attach no stigma to teen birth or abortion.
And the arguments generally advanced for the need for consent are purely because for some it is absolutely unacceptable for abortion to be allowed in any way, for any reason.
I think there are times when the girl should have the baby. I think there are times when the girl should abort. You, on the other hand, think they should all have to carry the child to term.
Which of us is the dogmatic one?
There are other treatments available without parental consent (how many times do I have to repeat this?), and
Yes. There is something historically and socially special about abortion and those other treatments that make them more likely to result in abuse than getting a wart frozen off. That is precisely the point. If 50% of the US were devout Christian Scientists, other treatments would fall under the same umbrella.
Bullshit. Parents are responsible to care for, protect and guide their children. That does not equate to claiming onwership.
It does if you can force them to bear offspring. Besides, reducing a girl to a walking womb does not qualify as “care for, protect and guide”; it qualifies as “violate, subjugate and abuse”.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I disagree. The law does not affect parents who have a healthy relationship with their children. It will not affect parents who are not absolutists. It will affect the picketers, the “no abortions ever!” crowd, and the “no teen births ever!” crowd. It won’t affect the girls from your cite because they attach no stigma to teen birth or abortion.
[QUOTE]
I don’t think so; there are all sorts of “healthy relationships” in varying degrees. I think a lot of kids would think their parents would be less understanding than they really are. My experience working with teen runaways is that 80% of them that think “my parents will kill me” are wrong. Many of them believe that “if they grounded me for getting an F, they’ll freak over this.” More often than not, it isn’t so.
In the case of an unnotified abortion, that means a lot of frightened girls living with a choice that they may feel guilt or remorse or confusion about. Don’t misunderstand me – I’m not necessarily talking about “wish I hadn’t” regret. But in many, perhaps most cases, even girls who “know” it was the right choice for them have mixed feelings; and I think there is a real emotional benefit to girls who have the opportunity to think through the options with their guardians even if the final decision remains unchanged. On the other hand, I don’t think we can ignore the emotional pain experienced by girls forced to make an awful decision and then left living with a secret.
I’m not being snarky, but honest – what are they?
To repeat, I’m open to the idea that maybe “minor” for abortion purposes should be lower – perhaps the same as the age of consent. But from what you’re arguing here, it seems yeu extend the same “it’s 100% her choice” logic to 12 and 13 year olds who get pregnant – indeed to the pregnant 5 year old I cited above – and I just find *that * absurd.