What sort of “benefit of the doubt” do you propose? I’d be okay with some sort of court hearing, with a hurdle short of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
It’s not what I want. It’s what an unfortunate circumstance demands logically (IMO).
If there was a magical moment, a switch that was flipped on at a year in the life that marked the difference between “child” and “adult”, then you might have a point, Stratocaster. But there isn’t.
Raising a child is about gradually letting them take more and more responsibility for their own bodies and actions, and the law does reflect that. It’s legal for a 13 year old diabetic to shop in a candy store without parental consent. It’s legal for a 14 year old to get her ears pierced without parental consent. It’s legal for a 15 year old to work. It’s legal for a 16 year old to get a driver’s license. A 17 year old chooses her own college. An 18 year get a tattoo or a body piercing. A 21 year old can drink alcohol.
ALL of those things bear risks - obesity, infection, job injury, car crashes, failure at school or independant living, alcohol poisoning. Most of them could theoretically kill someone. But we recognize that, while they are still legally minors, they should have some say over their own lives.
Would I want to know if my 13 year old got an abortion? Hell, yeah. Would I want her to get a legal, safe medical or surgical abortion, even if it meant I didn’t know about it? Hell, yeah.
Just being realistic, there are kids out there, EVEN if they weren’t abused by their parents, who would rather kill themselves, literally, or try an unsafe herbal or coathanger abortion, or hide the pregnancy and flush the baby or throw it in a dumpster, rather than talk to their parents about being pregnant. And that sucks, it really does, but it’s reality. Do I think we should work to change that reality? Absofuckinglutely. But do I want to sacrifice girls and babies until that happens? Not a single fucking one.
I can’t tell you how many of my friends (when I was 17 and pregnant) were amazed that my mother, though not happy, supported me financially and emotionally. “My parents would KILL me if I got pregnant!” I heard over and over again. Some were being hyperbolic. Some may not have been. But all of them said they would get an abortion, even illegal, rather than talk to their parents about it.
No, i’m agreeing with you. That’s what it would mean, assuming it’s an either-or form. Not having parental consent to have an abortion or to carry the pregnancy to term would be an interesting situation.
From the story;
Now, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the proposers of this law in particular have used the issue of “giving all information” as one of the reasons why it should pass. And really, i’m all for that, assuming an unbiased source of information. I just think that if someone’s motivation is “I want to make abortion harder to get”, they really should just be honest about that, and not say you’re doing it because you want the child to get all the info. or because they aren’t capable of making the decision. Because if the proponents of this were really after the child not being able to make the decision, they’d make carrying a pregnancy to term subject to parental consent, too.
…except carrying the pregnancy to term. It’s a disconnect. The people behind this law are effectively saying, “If a child wants an abortion, they need all the information, parental consent to make sure they make the right decision, a notarized form - but if they want to keep the pregnancy, hey, that’s fine!”.
I guess because you’re not. You’re wrong, of course, but that doesn’t make you a monster. 
I understand this won’t be a terribly satisfying answer for many, but I would say that parents are free to make decisions for their children generally up to the point where someone else’s rights are violated. I can’t decide that my child should commit suicide, even if my state permits assisted suicide and I believe it’s the best choice. I can’t decide my child gets a liver transplant with your liver, not if you disagree. The issue isn’t that parents have unfettered authority to make any type of medical decision as it relates to their children. The limits generally exist where someone else’s rights are affected. And I believe that the right to live is not subject to parental whims.
So, I am completely consistent. No parent, myself included, should be permitted to force someone to have an abortion. 
I agree this is not about getting children information.
But you *can * decide that one is entitled to a nine month stay in someone else’s uterus, even if they disagree? What exactly is the fundamental difference between a liver and a uterus, in terms of ownership?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but short of 18, doesn’t the parent’s decision trump all your examples? I have the right to forbid my child from going into candy stores or driving. The legal right. I realize that there are practical obstacles to enforcing this in every instance. But I have that right nonetheless. Now, in most instances, I’ll permit the freedom. But I needn’t.
Is it conceivable to you that an abortion could be a horrible decision, one that is exactly wrong for a particular child? Who would know best? For me, by definition, it’s not the child. It has to be someone else. Who?
The distinction here isn’t one of ownership. A child owns her uterus. She also owns her teeth. But I can decide she gets braces (or not). I’m not suggesting these are analogous medical acts, except in the sense I’m offering them. I’m her parent and, for good or for bad, I get to decide what’s best for her.
So can you decide that one of your children should donate half her liver (one can, I believe, live with half a liver) to the other, if needed?
But not that this isn’t about children not being able to make their own decisions? It seems pretty clear to me that that’s just as much of an excuse to make abortions harder to get as getting them information is. As I said; if the proponents were serious about kids needing parental consent, they’d have pushed for the same form for carrying the pregnancy to term. That they haven’t just shows that the proponents are all for consulting parents, but only when making a decision they don’t like.
How so? The pro-choice side isn’t trying to force anyone to get an abortion. This makes no sense. Only one side is trying to tell women what decision they have to make. How is *not[/] imposing a decision an imposition on rights?
Okay, I utterly can’t understand that, but I guess we’re not going to agree on it, As long as you acknowledge that it doesn’t seem to be the case in law at present, fair enough. Out of interest, what about the instance in which the daughter doesn’t want an abortion; does she have any rights of parentage in that instance, or does the baby belong to the grandparents regardless?
Also, just a thought, but what about edge cases where a minor is denied an abortion, but brings the child to term after reaching adulthood (unlikely, but quite possible); who then has first dibs on the resulting baby?
No, I believe my position suggests exactly the opposite. I have the right to pursue a needed liver transplant for my child. I don’t have the right to force my other child (or my child’s child) to give up her liver–or her life. My right to make medical decisions for my child is limited by the rights of others, a group of people that also includes my own children. My underage daughter does not have the inviolable right to an abortion. Her unborn child does have the (nearly) inviolable right to live. So, I can’t make any decision I choose. I have never suggested that.
So why is daughter #1’s right to selfishly hold onto half of her liver that she doesn’t really need more inviolable than daughter #2’s right to live, now that she’s ex-uteri?
So you can force her to become a subject for medical experiments - not because she’s sick, but just because you want to ? So you can force her into prostitution, in places where prostitution as legal ? Those things are equivalent to forcing her to bear a child against her will.
If you forbid her an abortion, you are asserting your ownership of her, like she was a dog or pig.
Now, remember I’m answering in the context of the point I was making. You needn’t force someone to kill a human being deserving of the right to live. By permitting it, you are imposing a belief system. It would be more than disingenuous to suggest that no one will have abortions if permitted, correct? You might just as well say that it’s up to mothers whether or not to kill their toddlers. You aren’t forcing the decision. It’s up to them.
Why is your right to keep you property more important than the good it would do if we seized it and used it to pay for operations for the poor? Because I don’t believe we are commanded to actively reduce injury or harm not of our own creation–though that is often a moral choice–but I do believe we are commanded not to create injury or harm (for the most part).
People will get diseases and inadvertent injuries and die. It’s a sad fact of life. We are not compelled by this fact to do everything we can to eliminate that circumstance. We are compelled not to create such a circumstance.
Um, seriously, I’m not sure. I suppose at that point it would be up to the (now) adult mother. Again, an unfortunate situation.
I’m not sure you do. You have the social right, for most of them, but short of physically restraining your teen (which you don’t have the legal right to do, according to most abuse laws), what do you propose? Your consent is not needed for any of them. You may be able to take the chld in front of a judge and convince him that a restraining order is neccesary to prevent your child from doing something legal, but that’s about it.
There’s a fundamental difference, to me, between the law allowing an action, and the parent attempting to prevent it in a single case, and the law preventing and action, and requiring the parent to consent to it in a single case. The burden of proof, so to speak, that something should go against the child’s wishes if it’s legal should be with the parent.
Driving is the legal default for a 16 year old. If you have good reason to present to a judge that your particular 16 year old should not be allowed to get his driver’s license, by all means present it. If the judge is convinced, he can order the State to not let the kid get his license.
I think it should be the same for abortions. If you think your particular child would be harmed by getting an abortion, for specific reasons, then present them to a judge and he can bar an abortion. And yes, there’s a logistical problem that if your daughter doesn’t tell you she’s pregnant, you can’t step in. The same problem exists for any of the other privledges - the kid could get his license without you knowing it, too.
I’ve spent quite a while thinking about this, and I want to answer it honestly and truthfully in my heart and to you. I want to assure you that this isn’t a glib answer: It is inconceivable to me that an abortion could be the WORST decision for a child who requests one. The worst decision would be to be forced to bear a pregnancy to term against her will. I can think of nothing else that would fuck up not only that kid, but her baby and her relationship with her parents, her body and her future lovers or husbands so effectively as being forced to bear a child against her will.
I can conceive that an abortion might not be the BEST option, where it could in fact be a horrible option, but I can’t conceive of a situation where a REQUESTED abortion being denied would be anything less than the worst option.
If it absolutely has to be someone else, then it should be a judge who is presented with the facts of the case - someone the child feels safe with.
Frankly, I don’t care if it’s a stranger on the street, as long as her access to safe abortion isn’t denied if she’s afraid to talk to her parents, simply because I know how many girls and women have historically chosen unsafe abortion or death before talking to their parents.