You have it backwards.
If the government wants to override the rights of an individual, such as a parent’s right to make medical decisions for their child, they had better have very good legal reasons as to why this is necessary.
Remember, the minor’s right to make medical decisions is not something you can assume. It has to be earned.
~Max
Not according to the link in the OP. According to that link, “Judges Harvey Jay and Rachel Nordby wrote in the main decision that the trial court found the teen “had not established by clear and convincing evidence that she was sufficiently mature to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.””
The state was not delegating a decision to a guardian, ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES – the state was making the decision for her. Against her wishes, and with not a shred of medical evidence as to why this was necessary.
A more accurate financial parallel is: You own stock options that expire tomorrow. If you exercise them they convert to stock; if you don’t exercise them they simply expire and you own nothing. You call your broker and say you don’t want to exercise the options, but he says nope, sorry, you’re not qualified to make that call, and you have to take possession of the stock.
Of course, that’s where the parallel fails, because you can sell the stock the next day, but this young woman is stuck with a pregnancy for another six months.
I am missing entirely what morality has to do with a medical question or the young woman’s competence. I think that other responses were clear that it doesn’t.
My impression is that their argument is more along the lines that having an abortion is closer to ending a life, and a teenager may not be mature enough to know how they will feel about that. I’m sure that’s not how many people here feel, so let’s consider infanticide as an analogy. I’m not saying that’s the same thing as abortion, but rather using it because the audience here will better relate to it. Infanticide has been a long and widely practiced part of humanity, so it’s not an absurd comparison. But regardless of how you feel about abortion, I’m sure many people would be queasy about infanticide still being allowed by the state. And if it was, I would think many people would want limits on minors making decisions about doing it. Adults would have more maturity to better know how they would feel about doing it because of their life experiences. A teenager has fewer life experiences and may feel more regret than they might expect. Again, I’m not saying abortion is infanticide, but the reasoning as to why you might oppose minors committing infanticide is similar as to why conservatives wouldn’t want teenagers to have an abortion.
The common theme was emotional unstability or other mental incompetence.
If the deceased friend was the father or otherwise was going to help raise the child, that would make sense and I would expect the court to note it if not find it convincing.
So, the girl goes back to court in a week or two.
Moving from how things are to how things should be - I’m not sure if I agree with you on that. In the specific case of abortions, we probably agree, because I don’t particularly value unborn children. But I won’t go and say minors should generally have the right to make medical decisions just because it concerns their bodies.
~Max
The girl had petitioned the state to waive parental consent. It’s called “judicial bypass”. The law sets the bar at clear and convincing evidence that the minor is sufficiently mature, and it directs the judges to consider, among other things, emotional stability. That is the basis for the entire court case. If her guardian signed off, she wouldn’t have to go to court at all.
~Max
Hopefully, she’s mature enough to avoid drugs, smoking, and alcohol during the pregnancy, get regular wellness checks, look out for the signs of pre-eclampsia, check for fetal defects, watch out for gestational diabetes. She’s better be mature enough to know when her pains are Braxton-Hicks contractions or real contractions. Now, what happens if the baby comes early and is in NICU? Is she mature enough to make decisions about how much and what kind of medical treatment? Is she mature enough to take care of a premie?
Seems like she needs a lot more maturity to actually carry fetus to term (leaving aside the question about keeping it or giving it up for adoption) than to make the minor medical decision to abort.
But the parents or guardians of minors who can’t make their own medical decisions are supposed to take the interest of the child into account.
The state is saddling her with a baby. Or, possibly worse, encouraging her to give her baby up for adoption.
An abortion gives you closure. The pregnancy is no more, and you can move on. Most women do so, without incident. Giving up a baby for adoption does not give you that closure. Instead, you have to carry the pregnancy to term, create a full-grown baby, see it, and then give it away. And likely spend the rest of your life wondering what your child is up to, and whether it resents that you.abandoned it. It’s a lifetime of guilt and uncertainty.
Or, alternatively, an immature child, who is unqualified to make a decision to about, has to car for and protect a baby herself. That’s not an appropriate position to put a child into.
Her guardian is the State. The anti-abortion state of Florida.
The also punish them for not cleaning their room.
Mixing and matching moral and legal arguments isn’t very useful.
Right, in this case, the state declined to consent, and the state did so because they felt that their morals overrode someone else’s right to bodily autonomy.
So, she should be punished by forcing her to give birth?
It’s critical to note that the decision at hand does not mean she is stuck carrying the pregnancy to term. She was able to go back to court with a new petition, and she may very well have been told to do just that.
~Max
You’ll forgive me if I don’t take your word for it over the reporting and the judges’ own words.
And EVEN if you’re correct, that doesn’t justify it. It still forced her to make a medical decision, just not the one she wanted to make. If she wasn’t mature enough to make a decision to abort, then she’s not mature enough to make a decision to give birth.
You said that being a minor is like being drunk, and that’s why she’s not able to make decisions for herself. What’s a week going to do? She won’t be an adult by then.
The moral question goes back to iiandyiiii’s post #34, “The government isn’t taking away her ability to make a decision, it’s making the decision for her. The government is forcing her to have a baby, and using an immoral justification (not sure if there’s any moral justification for forcing someone to have a baby, but this justification is profoundly immoral).”
~Max
Absolutely, if I believed in ensoulment of the unborn I would have a much stronger defense of the state here.
~Max
That would be a religious defense. Religious defenses have no place in our court unless the case is specifically about protected religious rights (i.e. the right to worship as one wishes).
These are all responsibilities of the guardian. It would be outragously hyppocritical to prosecute a girl for negligence in these matters after finding that she does not demonstrate maturity necessary to obtain an abortion.
~Max
And I think that your conclusion was correct. The state decided that she acted immorally, and that her punishment should be to be forced to give birth.
Strong disagree.
~Max