So if it’s not about competence, then why do you think that minors should be treated differently than adults when it comes to this decision?
Heh. I’d like to see something like that, but EVERYONE gets birth control shots, and only after taking parenting classes and passing an exam are you given the antidote and a license to bear children.
Choosing to have an abortion is taking responsibility for the fallout of deciding to have sex.
And those of you who’d like folks who have sex to not end up managing their responsibility in that manner would do better to push for better contraceptive technologies and sex education.
Sorry, that was directed at Antinor01 from the bottom of page 6.
I like Stoid’s and WhyNot’s ideas. Nonfertile by default. Takes an act of will to become fertile. BOTH sexes.
We are on the same page definitely!
As AHunter3 said, choosing an abortion is taking responsibility. You want to punish the child for a mistake, and punish far more harshly than is deserved.
Perhaps you would like the opposite of Stoid’s suggestion - give them a pill causing a nearly 100% chance of getting pregnant?
Because they are minors. To me, that makes the legal difference.
My point in this has nothing to do with abortion being right or wrong, but simply that I don’t believe minors should be given elective medical procedures without their legal guardians knowledge and consent.
As to the question of possible sexual abuse by a legal guardian, that is a different matter. It is my understanding that medical providers are legally obligated to report suspected abuse and that situation should be handled on its own merits.
We could solve a lot of this mess by making the age of majority equal to the onset of menarche.
The modern institution of childhood is stupid. People are infantilized legally and socially for more than a decade after they are effectively rational and mature. (As a generalization. I’ve known immature and irrational people of all ages).
I agree to some degree. The minor should certainly be part of the process, but I still hold that medical care should be decided between the legal guardian, medical provider with input from the minor considered.
I fully agree with this.
Antinor01:
I’d love to be part of a coalition of both pro-choice and pro-life activists working together for once towards a goal we can agree on! I’m not much of a leader-organizer type person but I can do databases and office-manager type organizational stuff… if anyone wants to help make this happen, count me in…
Okay, very pro-choice, pro birth control education parent checking in.
As pro-choice as I am, I do have reservations with allowing minors to pursue any sort of surgery without parental notification, let alone consent. I understand the ‘special case’ of abortion- could the law work out some sort of compromise?
Admittedly, this may be the worst of all solutions, but why not create a legal loophole that allows for emancipation in the case of pregnancy? Not a forced emancipation, but, given that we’re ready to trust a minor with the responsibilities of a parent in any case, it doesn’t seem a stretch.
That way, no matter what a parent decides, the minor can override them- and the parent is not penalized for a choice their child makes. I just don’t know that the state has a compelling interest in keeping secrets from a minor’s guardian. If you’re going to assume that parents are abusive, etc. then you’ll have to revise a whole LOT of family law to compensate. But I don’t think that a minor’s fear of losing all of the material benefits of living under their parent’s protection is the basis for keeping secrets.
just a thought. But I figure, no mater how you slice it, someone’s going to walk away mad.
Hear, hear.
Problem is, no one wants to think of teenagers as rational and mature, perhaps because they often reach different conclusions than adults would like them to. No one even wants to think about what it means for an individual to be mature. Just look at that question I posed to Stratocaster (which is basically what jsgoddess asked earlier): “if I introduced you to a person, could you determine whether or not she has the capacity to make this decision without asking her age?” I’ll give him time to answer, but I’ll be pleasantly surprised if he actually comes up with a satisfactory answer, because no one ever does in any of these threads.
Then you are open to the thought that a child’s capacity can be a factor in allowing his or her choices?
If he doesn’t have the capacity to make that decision–and, admittedly, the law makes it more difficult to deal with when the person is an adult–then he can’t meaningfully make the decision. It’s pretty straightforward.
I don’t have a daughter, so this will have to be a hypothetical. Let’s suppose I’m reasonably certain she’d later regret making such a tragic and irresponsible choice.
I am honestly nothing but amused by your assertions on this point, so no need to quell my persecuted outrage. And someone who feels teenagers are sub-human and/or who holds human rights in contempt, and as a result, has no compunctions putting a despicable act into play, well, I’d call that person–what’s the word?–I’d call him…damn, I can’t think of it. But you’re right, evil is a stretch.
Interesting. You didn’t even notice what you’ve posed here. So, the more significant the outcome, the more likely we’d restrict the teenagers choices, eh? Interesting concept you’re introducing here. Hmm, you may be on to something.
But, you’re missing the primary point. We’re not comparing “choosing socks” with something more dire in its implications. We’re comparing the universe of “significant medical decisions,” which are, in fact, very similar in that they are all…how do I phrase this?..major medical decisions. So, try to stay focused. This same girl, same age, is deemed to lack the capacity to make a major medical decision. A moment after she becomes pregnant, she is now competent, at least insofar as abortions are concerned.
That’s the incoherent policy I refer to. I have no problem with the societal laxness that permits teenagers to wantonly purchase socks without any parental oversight.
But it’s not at all arbitrary! If I have to, I’ll dig up the cites I provided in prior threads providing medical evidence that the judgment centers of the brain are not fully developed until someone is in his or her twenties. It’s not an insult. It’s not demeaning. It’s a supportable fact that only the most deliberately obtuse would argue against that teenagers–this will shock you–often make horrible decisions, more so than adults, and there’s a biological basis for this. No one who has spent any amount of time with teenagers needs much additional evidence to conclude what is blindingly obvious except, perhaps, to the most zealous of us with a particular agenda.
I suppose I could kill her, conduct an autopsy, and examine her brain, as a start. Again, you’re grasping at straws here. It’s a given that teenagers, as a group, are not yet developed mentally to an extent that gives them the capacity to make major decisions. Could a given teenager? I guess, just as a given adult might lack the capacity. But it’s laughable to suggest that the general assumption should be that a teenage has advanced judgment, when it’s quite clear that the contrary if the better working assumption.
See above.
I’m rabidly pro-choice, and since I have no moral hangups about abortions, I believe that objectively speaking in just about every possible case where a minor gets pregnant, it would be in the best interests of the minor to err on the side of abortion. Sure, abortion carries risks but giving birth even more so.
I also think it’s quite evil for a parent to impose their beliefs on their child, when their children, and not them, are the ones who have to live with the consequences of this for 18 years. I respect Stratocaster for being consistent on this, but as the law stands now a 17 year old pregnant girl who wants an abortion can blocked by her parents, and then give birth at 17 years 11 months, and then her parents would be perfectly entitled under the law to throw her and her baby out on the street at midnight of her 18th birthday.
I am a person who has, at various times in my life, been diagnosed (in decreasing order of shock-value) as paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur, schizo-dependent schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis (now known as bipolar disorder), schizotypal personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and probably a few others that aren’t immediately coming to mind.
I have a personal vested interest in this discussion of competency and decision-making capacity.
Yes, there should be a mechanism by which a person is examined and found to lack it; and upon being found to lack it, should be excluded from responsibilities and accountabilities while being stripped of decision-making authorities and freedoms that others not so disabled do have.
It should be the same mechanism regardless of whether the allegedly incompetent person is 58 year old multibillionaire Burton Wealthmoney III, alleged by his conniving nephew Richworth Sneaklund to have lost his marbles and therefore to be in no shape to continue to run Corporation Inc. or to directly control his own investment portfoliio; Nellie Smith, 11, president of her 5th grade class and child fashion designer, seeking to incorporate so as to business with Sears and Macys; Ronald Chumley Scott, serial killer and practicing cannibal, on trial for murder and biological contamination of waterways with corpse-parts; Winifred Drusilla Penobscot, age 116, who has decided to move out of the nursing home and rent an apartment to be shared with her 91 year old lover George Turpentine and an allegedly opportunistic young home attendant Amelie; and me.
The default assumption, which should have to be eliminated beyond any reasonable doubt, is that a person is competent. “Reasonable doubt” is the standard by which accused criminals are or are not deprived of their freedom, and should be the standard applied here as well.
Tests of mental acuity should be legitimate, but should be broad enough to avoid favoring specific areas of familiarity (and thereby penalizing folks not so familiar therewith). Judgment, not knowledge or computational brilliance or ability/tendency to avoid behaving in unusual or unorthodox ways, should be the focus of what is tested for. Age should not matter, nor should any other conditions alleged to cause or predict behaviors. If there is lack of capacity, demonstrate it before the court, now.
And just to keep everyone honest, one randomly chosen person for every ten people actively alleged to lack capacity should be brought in for testing, with both assessors and subject being kept blind as to whether the case at hand is brought by someone alleging incompetence or by random selection.
Anyone’s capacity can be a factor–that is, if you have a meaningful definition of capacity.
And you think the possibility that your child might regret her choice “relates to that child’s health”? That’s pretty weak, especially when we consider that your perception of what she might regret is inseparably linked to your opinion of that choice.
I didn’t say we should restrict it, only that there probably would be such a law.
Uh huh. Just like one decision is very similar to another in that they’re both decisions. Just like a zebra is very similar to a frog in that they’re both animals. Why, if we ignore the things that make them different, they’re exactly the same!
Nope. She’s always competent to make decisions about her own pregnancy (unless she’s been living under a rock and doesn’t know even the most basic facts about reproduction). Before she becomes pregnant, however, there are no decisions to be made about it.
And yet the law says they’re competent to make some decisions at 16, others at 18, others at 21, others at 25, etc. Sounds arbitrary to me.
Or perhaps you’re suggesting there’s one type of brain cell specialized for making decisions about driving and sex, another for making decisions about signing contracts and voting, another for alcohol, and so on - and those cells happen to develop in different orders in different parts of the world. (And to think some people say there’s no evidence for intelligent design!)
Speaking of “the judgment centers of the brain” as if there’s some lobe that’s required for making decisions is a little silly, don’t you think? We all know how adaptable the brain is. If one part is damaged, or not yet developed, other parts can take over, like a maimed dog walking on three legs - a little slower, but it gets there just the same. Decision making, like multiplication, is a process you can reason through without needing specialized hardware to do it.
What matters is not whether you have some particular tissue in your brain–especially since, as you point out below, there’s no way to test for that–but whether you can ponder your situation, consider the possible outcomes, and make an informed decision.
I wouldn’t mind seeing those cites, though.
Hey, why not? If you did it right, that’d only be slightly less humane than forcing her to give birth.
But really, what you’re saying boils down to “No, there’s no real way to know whether any particular teenager has the capacity, and therefore there’s no way to know whether my generalization is right or wrong. Just take my word for it.” No thanks.
This hilariously wrong statement speaks for itself. But even if it were true, I contend that it’s still better to suffer the consequences of your own half-baked decision than to suffer the consequences of someone else’s.
Given the horrific consequences of overriding her decision in this matter, I have absolutely no problem giving her the benefit of the doubt.
This is not directed at any specific Dopers’ views… just my thoughts on the topic.
Some parents look at it more as “saving a baby’s life”… what about the life of your own daughter? Have you considered the alternatives? There’s always another route to get an abortion. Whether it’s a DIY coat-hanger abortion or some shady clinic - those are very real options if others aren’t legally available. The complications that can arise from a botched abortion are much worse than an abortion itself. The mental/emotional side of it is a whole other story.
Some say “Take responsibility”… I’d say that abortion is a responsible choice in many situations. It’s a big decision but it should be up to the parents of the unborn baby… not the grandparents of the unborn. Also, there are enough bad parents out there - more than most people want to think. Why should they have the right to make such an important decision for their child?
Unbiased education and counselling would be a good idea too… but I don’t think many counsellors would be truly unbiased.
I grew up in a Christian home with abortion regarded as murder and abstinence being the only way. It wasn’t until I had somewhat of a pregnancy scare that the whole pro-life/pro-choice issue was realized. I wasn’t pregnant, but the one thing I learned was that it is very easy to have strong opinions when you’re not facing the situation (from either the parent or the teen’s side).
Can this be that difficult? I am comparing decisions that by definition are similar in the point of comparison–they are major medical decisions. At this point I’ll assume you’re deliberately missing the point.
Okay, stay with me here. Is she competent to make all major medical decisions at that same point in her life? And if not, can you explain why in terms of her capacity? I’m assuming you’ll continue your little dance here and answer something you’d prefer to.
Okay. I probably didn’t mention this before, so forgive me. She’s not competent to make virtually any other major medical decision, per the law. And way to dodge the actual point, which is that there is certainly evidence that teenagers have judgment issues that have a biological basis.
Here’s one I found quickly. Have fun. Feel free to write the scientists about how silly you find their findings, all that nonsense about how parts of the brain work and develop. Pshaw.
No, I stated explicitly that what I meant was that it’s reasonable for the default assumption to be that teenager doesn’t have the capacity, much as you’d really, really, really prefer otherwise. I explicitly told you you needn’t take my word for it, I’d provide a cite. And yet you post this idiocy. Go figure.
Sigh.
Yes, they’re similar in that they’re both major medical decisions. But they’re still different. You are ignoring those differences.
Most of them, yes. I’m sure you’ll disagree, but it’s beside the point anyway, because…
…not all decisions require the same capacity, maturity, or whatever you want to call this magical quality which apparently can only be measured in cadavers.
This one requires less capacity, not because it isn’t a major medical decision (which I’m sure we all realize by now that it is), but because it’s unique in its urgency and its impact on the girl.
I know you have trouble understanding how that interacts with the capacity we require of the girl. Let me give you yet another analogy: suppose you’re having a medical emergency on a deserted highway, and the only person around who can drive you to a hospital is a 12 year old boy. You probably wouldn’t have let him drive you out there, right? But right now, you don’t care if the state would give him a license - as long as he can reach the pedals and turn the wheel at the same time, he’s your best chance of survival. He isn’t any better at driving than he was an hour earlier, but your requirements for his driving skill have changed.
If you tell that boy he’s too young to drive, you die in the middle of nowhere. If you tell the girl she’s too young to get an abortion, she goes through 9 months of physical trauma and has a child she doesn’t want and can’t support, an obligation which will last long into her adult life. The consequences of both are bad enough to warrant lowering your requirements.
No need, I’ll just quote that article:
Members of another camp argue that brain science doesn’t belong in court because there’s no evidence linking specific characteristics of teens’ brains to any legally relevant condition, such as impaired moral judgment or an inability to control murderous impulses.
[…]
“Something about cultural context must be critical here,” Kagan says. “Under the right conditions, 15-year-olds can control their impulses without having fully developed frontal lobes.”
Which is basically what I said earlier. You can point to some region on a chart and say “See? The adult judgment cells are underdeveloped! This person can’t POSSIBLY make any decisions!”, and that’s all fine until you get back into the real world, where they actually can and do make decisions without relying on that part of the brain. You might as well claim that photography was impossible in 1950 because the digital camera hadn’t been invented yet.
Your analogy falls flat, because by definition the scenario we are dealing with has someone equipped to handle the responsibility–the parents. If you want your analogy to be accurate, the boy on the side of the road should be standing there with his parents. Then who would drive?
Wow. That was a very selective read of that article if that’s what you conclude from it. The two sentence rebuttal from the opposing camp. Okee-dokee. There was an honest assessment of the cite provided.