Re: the coat hanger thing. I think the quoted stats for literal coat hanger (or other attempts at amateur surgical abortion) or a bit of a strawman in this debate. We now have pharmacological alternatives which didn’t used to be available in the bad old days. I believe that a black market in pharmacological abortifacients is much more likely than the old. shady, amatuer “abortionists” of old. Pills are much safer to trade in and would afford a greater level of privacy to women who were desperate to terminate pregnancies. The more restrictive abortion laws become, I would predict the greater the market for abortion pills (with all the attendant risks that go along with uncontrolled pharamceuticals).
I agree. Also, as an herbalist, I also have a lot of women - at least a dozen a year - who come to me to ask about safe herbal abortefacients (short answer: there aren’t any.) But there is a lot of misinfomation about “herbal abortions” online that could easily kill people if they tried it. As herbals become more and more mainstream, more and more people are willing to try them. In this case, that’s not at all a good thing.
No, but it does say that women should be allowed to force another human being into death.
So, we’re back to regarding organs as property. And if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that my liver is mine no matter what, but my uterus is only mine until someone else needs it. And again I ask, what is the fundamental difference between a liver and a uterus in terms of ownership? Which of my organs are truly mine?
So… punish the sluts? I’m assuming that’s not what you actually mean, but that’s what you’re saying with all of your “of our own creation” hedging. Unless you believe that daughter #1 should be compelled to give up half of her liver to daughter #2 if daughter #2’s need for a liver is a result of an car accident in which daughter #1 was driving.
But your opinions on the rights of the unborn child are irrelevant to the question of parental consent. In no other instance of legal rights is it necessary for the person in question to gain a third party’s consent for those rights to be operative. You believe that the foetus has an inviolable right to life; this is surely utterly independent of what the parent of it’s mother thinks. The foetus’ rights or lack thereof have no bearing on parental consent, since if it has rights, abortion should be illegal or restricted for all, not just minors. The foetus’s rights should not be predicated on whether it is lucky enough to have an underage mother and pro-life grandparents. And if it has no rights, then we admit that a denial of consent on those grounds is an arbitrary decision, not taken in the interests of the young mother.
The law does not agree with you that the foetus has a right to life. The point of parental consent is that the parents make the best decision for their child, not the best decision for a third party of dubious status which has no rights in law. In forcing a child to bear a baby for pro-life reasons, against her wishes and possibly her interests, the parents are abrogating their responsibility to act in their child’s best interests, and admitting that they are placing their personal beliefs ahead of her wellbeing. This runs contrary to the basic point of parental consent, and to me proves that the debate about the rights of the foetus should be resolved separately, not deceptively intermingled with the question of the young mother’s best interests.
If a fetus is a human being, then yes. Calling it human doesn’t make it any more a person; if a fetus is a human being, then being a human being is of no great value. That’s why calling it “a human life” is an enormous insult to humanity in general. It would be like me calling you a mindless lump of meat; when someone equates a fetus with a full fledged human, they are equating all of humanity with mindless tissue.
Simple. Men and women both have livers; only women have a uterus. Misogyny is a fundamental part of the “pro life” movement, along with the desire to torment children.
Stratocaster, let me turn that question around and ask you: Is it conceivable to you that an abortion could be a good decision, one that is exactly right for a particular child? Is it conceivable that a child might be able to engage in rational thought with proper consideration for future consequences?
Because if you can’t, I’m not sure we can even continue the discussion.* There seems to be an unstated assumption in your argument that having an abortion will always screw a kid up, whereas I’m of the opinion that it can be, if not exactly a good thing, a not-screw-a-person-up thing.
*And that’s cool. We’ve never yet fully agreed in an abortion related thread, and I don’t expect this to be any different. But we can usually identify our respective assumptions and find some common ground to work with. I’m not sure if we can this time.
Sorry, I already answered this. You’re mischaracterizing what I said. I explained why my authority over my children does not mean I own her uterus (or her teeth). It’s a function of my having the capacity to make decisions she does not, though I am obviously not at liberty to make any decision one could conceive.
Let me ask you. Do you own your child’s teeth? Do you believe you have the right to have the child get braces, even if the child would prefer otherwise?
No, that’s not what I mean. It means I don’t necessarily have the obligation to reduce a harmful circumstance. That changes if I created the circumstance. I don’t see how that can be construed to imply that pregnancies are rightful punishments for “slutty behavior.”
Yes, I agree with this.
What makes it arbitrary or necessarily the wrong decision for the girl in question?
So, you know what is best for the child then, eh? The parent is by definition the wrong party in any instance where the choice is not one the child would make?
Well, I’m sure it’s not a surprise to you to hear that I think an abortion is always a poor choice. But it’s not relevant necessarily to a discussion of parental rights. For example, I understand that within the law, the same right I’m discussing currently gives parents the right to consent to an abortion for their child. I think that’s a terrible decision, but one the law permits. Parents sometimes do make terrible decisions.
I’ll defer to the legal eagles on the board. That notwithstanding, this law does require parental consent, as do most major medical decisions.
I guess we’ll have to disagree. I believe there are women who would give anything to go back in time and change that decision.
This is a tad disingenuous. You would never say that parents should be able to make a choice FOR abortion against the wishes of their child. You only recognize one possibility of what is “best for the child,” so it’s not like you really respect the authority of the parents in this regard.
I didn’t say it was necessarily the wrong decision; I said that by definition, a veto on behalf of the foetus is not taken with the girl’s best interests at heart. Sometimes what’s best for the foetus might also be best for the girl, but this would only be a happy accident. I don’t see how it’s possible to say, “my beliefs over the rights of your unborn child trump your desire to have an abortion, so I will force you to bear a child,” while at the same time maintaining that you have the mother’s interests in mind. Therefore, it is mendacious to insist on parental consent with this argument; you are asking to be given a duty of care while simultaneously vowing to violate it.
When did I say anything like this? I said that parental consent is supposed to allow the best decision to be made for the daughter, and that if a parent makes a decision with the rights of the foetus uppermost in their mind, then they are failing in that duty, regardless of what decision they take. If a parent in good faith decides that an abortion would be damaging to their daughter regardless of any other considerations, then I would think they would have fulfilled their duty with respect to the question of consent. I think it’s extraordinarily unlikely that forcing someone to carry a child to term would be anything but damaging in the vast majority of cases, however. Furthermore, it seems pretty plain to me that this consent bill is being pushed almost exclusively by pro-life people who are doing so in the specific hope that parents will indeed take the unborn foetus in to account, contrary to the ostensible purpose of parental consent.
Here’s a question (and I know you’ve been peppered with them :)): could you, as a pro-lifer, ever envisage a circumstance in which you would consent to your daughter having an abortion?
I believe the same could be said for women who’ve declined the abortion. Should we consider *their * regret tragic?
You might if you answered the second part of my question. Daughter #1 drives negligently, resulting in an injury which requires a new liver for daughter #2. You are the person who needs to make their medical decisions. Do you force an unwilling daughter #1 to give up half of her liver to daughter #2, since the accident was her fault, and the situation of her creation?
Show me the fail-safe, timely way you’ll get that done without endangering the teenaged girl, and I’ll look it over. Until then, and until you can show that girls will not otherwise be subject to violence in their homes when their pregnancy is evident to the parents, I can’t support this bill. The whole premise is built on this myth that the parents are fine, upstanding people who care deeply about their daughter and will just do the right thing. My experience in public education and the lives of young people sadly leads me to believe otherwise.
BTW, there is overwhelming support in the country for parental consent laws, so this isn’t just a bunch of Bible thumping Texans. From Zogby:
Couple of questions; what are “abortion back notification laws”? It sounds like laws made to force kids to report if they’ve had an abortion in the past to parents; is that the case? I’m hoping not, since I really can’t see any point to that beyond punishment.
Also, with 55% percent saying parents should be required to approve a minor’s abortion request (in essence, that parental consent should be mandatory if the child wants an abortion) doesn’t that mean that really only 17% percent of people want parents to actually be able to override a child’s decision? It sounds like the form of the questions is bringing up some problems with the poll.
Diogenes, I have laid all my cards on the table in this thread. I don’t think I’ve been disingenuous.
Yes, if it were the only feasible way to save her life.
Well, we would definitely concede that a child does not always know what is best for herself then, correct?
I don’t know. Yes? Is that the right answer? Does this come up much? Has it ever come up? And can you explain how this syllogism leads to my “belief” that pregnancies are punishment for slutty behavior, now that I’ve answered your question?