Beagle, Try holding your thumb next to your line in the script, that way you won’t get confused. I’m sure Doreen can defend her own remarks, but I had to point this out:
**Bob Cos-it seems to me that a 15-year-old who just gave birth is in no position to make decisions for the child she just gave birth to. For the same exact reason that she couldn’t prior to the birth for herself. Because she is still a child. By definition, she cannot exert parental authority–i.e., the ability to make mature decisions for another. **
doreen By definition, she is a parent,
Beagle **Now you’re telling me that the pregnant woman is automatically a “parent”. **
Basically, you’ve trapped her then. She’s been forced to carry a child to term, now she doesn’t even get to make decisions for that child.
I realise you want to act in the best interests of your child. But with something like pregnancy - which let’s face it, is going to affect her ENTIRE life - surely the best course of action - particularly if you hold strong personal or moral beliefs EITHER way - is to send her to an appropriate counseller AND doctor, and let her decide with them what the best course of action is.
Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. Who is to know what the parents’ reaction will be when they’re not given the opportunity to have one? And a teen in a position of having done something that she knows will (at the very least) be very disappointing to her parents is probably not the best judge of just what their response will be
If the parents have been abusive, then I can see keeping them entirely out of the process. But even parents who have made “promises” that a girl who “came home pregnant” would be kicked out of the house can realize that this isn’t a good solution to the situation when it becomes something more than a “what if.”
Exactly, and most parents – the vast majority of parents – work with those girls to find the solution which best suits her life.
I think the question here actually becomes why it’s okay for parents to be taken completely out of the deliberation on this matter when they’re an integral part of any other. The judicial bypass process could still be sought when parents refuse to grant an okay for the procedure when the girl truly believes that it’s the best choice for her.
If the idea of completely disallowing parents to parent hadn’t been made law, I don’t believe that there’d be nearly so much opposition to the process. The fact that a very young girl can make this decision, go to a judge, spin out whatever tale she can make believable, go through the abortion procedure and her parents can be left completely in the dark about the entire thing is distressing to a lot of people on both sides of the abortion debate.
The fact that there are parents who would be abusive to their daughters in such a scenario or parents who would make a decision based entirely on ideology as opposed to a reasonable study of what best suits the girl at the time in question should not mean that all parents are subject to being treated as though they’d fall into either of those categories.
Who said that 16 year olds are capable of making good decisions about those issues either? I can’t think of many women who gave up children in their teens who don’t bear a lot of regret or second thoughts about the situation. And frankly speaking, most teenage girls I’ve met who have chosen to keep their babies are fairly awful parents and they and their children would be in a world of hurt if the girls didn’t have their own parents (or some other adult[s]) to rely upon for all manner of support and advice.
Apparently that does not equate to my liberty to raise my children as I see fit. Also, by sneaking behind my back, how is this not a clear violation of due process? It seems we selectively apply the standard when it suits a political agenda.
Didn’t you already demonstrate your inability to exercise sound judgment by becoming pregnant at 15 or 16? Didn’t your parents already decide a great deal of your fate by determining where you live, where you go to school, who your doctor is, what you eat, etc?
Why is here that we assume that the judgment that has guided your entire life up to this point is now not to be trusted?
I guess nobody in your world has ever gotten pregnant because they were raped. And my parents chose where we lived, but by the time I got to high school I had the final say in where I went to school, I chose my doctor, I decided what foods I’d eat, when I’d eat, etc. Lots of the choices I made then were quite different from the choices made by my parents because they made some piss poor choices.
Abortion might be a risky medical procedure, if you happen to live in Uganda. Get real. Using that as an argument would only hold up where medical care is still primative.
What about compared to an abortion? Is one substantially more dangerous than the other?
**Who said it was illegal? What exactly is your point here? A parent can tell his 12-year-old he is not to eat at McDonald’s after school, and that falls within the province of parental authority. Is it your impression I’m arguing the kid should be arrested if he’s found at McDonald’s? Try reading a little more closely.
**Please provide that evidence. You are begging the question and closing with a “sound bite,” but you’re not actually offering an argument here. I am not arguing that my child’s health is not paramount. This is what we would call a straw man, here in GD.
**Where do you get off telling me I’m being dishonest? Where have I not answered a question directly? Where have I been inconsistent in my response?
And more than that, why would my opposition to abortion make my position dishonest? It’s the very essense of my position, genius. I don’t want an abortion for my kid because I believe that ultimately it will be the worst option for her. I should get to decide. You want to disagree with that value? Fine. But keep your bullshit accusations to yourself. If you want to attack me for my pro-life beliefs, do so. Don’t you be dishonest about it by doing it under the guise of defending “minor’s rights.”
**Wow, that’s as cogent an argument against my belief in that right as I have encountered. “Um, you don’t have that right.” Gotcha. Let’s close up the thread.
Forgive me if I don’t base my child’s future on what you “know.” And please, please forgive me for my complete disregard of your concern for my children.
I think a big part of the reason I don’t have a problem with not requiring parental consent for abortion, etc. is the inconsistency. I might feel differently if we lived in a society where the default was that someone other than the teenage parents was primarily responsible for their children. Although I can’t imagine how it would work with two sixteen year old parents - which grandparents would have the authority and responsibility , suppose none of them wanted it, would they be able to surrender the child against the parents’ wishes ,what happens when the parents reach 18? But in this society for the most part, being a parent emancipates a minor, at least as far as the minor’s child is concerned.
BTW, its not the only way a minor can become emancipated before 18. Marriage and joining the military (if they still take 17 year olds) will generally have the same effect.
Even in the US, abortion has a lower mortality and morbidity rate than childbirth. Childbirth in developed countries may not be highly risky, but it’s not as safe as an abortion. And teenagers face greater risks in childbirth than women whose bodies have finished growing and developing.
By the way, not all states appear to recognize the birth of a child as a moment that defines the age of majority for the parent. Again, IANAL, but Idaho’s law (as an example–and I believe Maryland is another example) defines minors thusly:
**I still agree with Doreen that this appears to be an area of great inconsistency as a matter of law in many (most?) states (and it’s absolutely possible I am misunderstanding the implications of Idaho’s definition of a minor). But my feelings regarding what parental rights ought to encompass remain the same, the confused statutes notwithstanding.
Not true. Such claims are based on specious statistics, which fail to accurately report complications arising from abortion. Moreover, even if we ignore these complications, the alleged increase in risk due to childbirth is not statistically significant, as Dr. Francis Beckwith showed in his book, Politically Correct Death.
The aggregate mortality rate from complications of legal abortions in 13 countries, most of them developed, for which accurate data are available is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions cite
A CDC study found 12 pregnancy-related deaths occurred for every 100,000 live births. cite