You say “bomb-thrower” as if that’s a good thing; this boards is fortunate to include several distinguished right-wing partisans who manage to be completely in the wrong without having to resort to incendiary tactics. You should try to emulate them.
Amusing. Parents make life-altering decisions for their children all the time; it’s what parents do. This includes things like deciding what form of medical care is most appropriate. Why out of all the things should we remove only abortion from the province of parental authority, even in the absence of any hint of parental misbehavior? Because abortion must be on demand, any time for any reason, for a subset of the true believers. It is simply dogma.
The majority of medical procedures differ from abortion in two extremely significant ways:
-
They are not time dependent, and
-
They don’t involve such violent reactions that people have died over them.
A kid wants a tattoo? Well, if she waits until she’s an adult she can still get one. Same for plastic surgery or other elective operations.
If she wants an abortion, she cannot wait. There is a narrow window of opportunity. The failure to decide to have an abortion is the decision to have a baby.
Other procedures with this narrow window (say life-saving procedures) also skip parental okays in a number of occasions. If the minor is brought to the emergency room, say, or if the parents are religious whackos.
And how many people have ever been killed over other medical procedures? How many one-issue voters are there over piercings or breast implants? Has there ever been a plastic surgeon bombing? Perhaps there has and I don’t know about it.
These factors combine to create a situation that I feel is close to unique.
Hasn’t this already been discussed? Because, the parent might just be the one that god the girl prenant in the first place. If she has to have a note from her abusive father to get an abortion, than . . .
Nonsense. Any medical procedure that is performed for genuine health reasons IS time-dependent.
Moreover, are you suggesting that abortions are so urgent that the girl in question cannot afford to wait for parental input? Time dependency is not the same as extreme urgency.
Would you care to elaborate? In what manner have women died due to violent reactions over the subject of abortion? And with what frequency have such violent deaths occured?
Abusive parents should be dealt with harshly, but why in the world would you structure public policy to assume parental abuse? If this is your rationale, and no parent–none–are permitted to direct their children in this (as they do in virtually all other matters), then that’s the effect.
Some parents beat their children over poor grades. Should we say that no parent can have access to their children’s grades?
To jsgoddess: There are countless other medical procedures that have life threatening implications and that are time dependent; parents are forced to decide upon these for their children, as they should. In fact, every surgery carries with it a risk of death, and many (if not most) have a dependency on time–very few are “have the surgery whenever you want” type matters. Why is only abortion outside the realm of parental authority?
Read back in the thread to the post Dio was answering.
First off, parents actually do not have total medical control over their child. In most states, minors can confidentially consent to treatment for STDs, pregnancy, drug/alcohol abuse, contagious diseases, rape, and some mental health treatments. In all cases, physicans can make medical decisions and keep them confidential when (based soley on their judgment) there is abuse or neglect.
There are many things a parent is not allowed to do. You cannot, for example, practice extreme piercing on your child or get tattoos all over their faces. I’d venture that forcing a minor to go through an unwanted pregnancy is automatically abusive- doubly so since it’s reprecussions go on long after the child will turn 18.
We keep coming back to abuse / neglect. This is curious. Do you believe that most pregnant minors live in abusive homes?
The repercussions go on past 18 regardless. Children often think they know what is best. They are often wrong–they have notoriously bad judgment (speaking as an ex-child). But society knows better than a parent what’s best for that child, eh? And the fact that certain things are rightly prohibited for parents to subject their children to does not logically lead us to conclude then that any prohibition is justified.
Probably, or they wouldn’t be pregnant. That reeks of abuse, neglect or incompetence.
True, but the repercussions of a pregnancy and birth are rather more extreme than those of an abortion.
If a child is incompetent to choose abortion, what makes you think they are competent to choose to not have an abortion, or to raise the resulting child.
And in every case that I’ve ever seen, if the doctors feel that the parents have decided wrongly, and I would assume if the minor decided the parents decided wrongly, they can seek the assistance of the courts. I am very much in favor of this sort of intervention.
Let’s say 10 year old Mary is the child of Christian Scientists. And let’s say that Mary needs a new kidney. Her parents refuse to allow her to undergo treatment. There are legal remedies the hospital can choose to take to save Mary’s life. Are you opposed to them?
Now, let’s say a kidney transplant is a procedure that can be done in an hour, quite safely, and will leave no scars. Mary needs a new kidney. Her parents refuse. Would you oppose Mary secretly having a kidney transplant and not telling her parents? As for me, I would support Mary.
If I believed there was a chance that Mary undergoing the kidney transplant would put her at risk for violent retribution from her parents, I would champion laws that enabled her to keep the procedure secret.
You have got to be kidding.
Not for everyone. There are those who greatly regret having had an abortion, to the point of deep ongoing depression. Do you know what is best for every child in the country? I don’t think so. Parents get to decide what is best (with obvious exceptions–e.g., abusive parents).
What makes you think I believe minors are competent to make any decision this difficult?
But we keep coming back to this! Do you believe the need for parental consent should be set aside only in cases where there is a potential for abuse (say, where a doctor and then a court could then intercede), or do you believe there should never be a need for parental consent? If you believe the former, we’re largely in agreement. If you believe the latter, explain why–you still haven’t answered my question.
No, I’m not. If a minor gets pregnant, the parent has likely failed as a parent in some fashion.
As far as I can tell, that’s 90% right wing propaganda; I see no evidence that it’s that traumatic for most. Pregnancy and birth on the other hand is always hard on the woman/girl, especially when really young or old. It also creates permanent medical problems, like a greater tendency for autoimmune disorders like lupus. Then there’s raising the kid…
Forcing a child to bear a child is abusive.
So you think underage girls are chattel ? Walking wombs for the parent’s grandchildren, whether they want to bear them or not ?
That’s not what you said. You said this circumstance “reeks of abuse, neglect or incompetence.” Let’s not re-write your overstatement when you’re called on it, if you please.
“As far as you can tell,” eh? Well, that’s good enough for me.
According to you. If I believe the reverse is true for my child, who the @#$% are you to intrude?
Um, yeah. You cleverly found me out. :rolleyes:
I believe that certain procedures should be exempt from parental consent. Those procedures would have to meet certain standards:
-
They’d have to be discreet enough where the procedure could remain private (it doesn’t make sense to try to keep a week-long hospitalization secret),
-
They’d have to be time-sensitive enough where the procedure cannot be put off until the minor reaches majority, and
-
They’d have to be controversial or sensitive enough that the patient could have a reasonable fear of backlash from her parents.
Very few procedures fit this bill. If opposition to kidney transplants were common and the procedure could be done without significant “evidence,” then I’d support it for kidney transplants.
As it is, I support it for mental health issues and sexual health issues, because in most cases these issues meet the conditions I listed above. I do not believe any minor should need consent to seek treatment for mental health or sexual issues that meet these conditions.
That’s not a rewrite; “abuse, neglect or incompetence” is a more specific version of “failed as a parent”.
It’s not like you provided hard evidence for all these “traumatized” girls, who are somehow more traumatized by an abortion than being reduced to incubators by force.
I’m the one who doesn’t regard your child as less than human.
Yes I did, didn’t I ?
I should have said “parental consent or notification.” Goofed.
Why would this matter? Does your argument suppose that it is only appropriate to set aside parental consent when we can be sure the parent won’t know about it? Or do I misunderstand?
But isn’t that virtually every non-elective surgery performed?
Just for clarification, do you equate “backlash” with “my parents would not permit this,” or do you require the potential for an abusive response?
Doesn’t this presuppose, then, that certain procedures are inherently “right,” and that parental interference is by definition inappropriate? And if that is your meaning, why is abortion always “right”? If so, then just make abortion on demand–regardless of the possibility of parental “backlash”–a right for minors, period. If it is only sometimes the right choice, why are parents excluded from exercising their normal influence?
I posted a follow-up to amend to notification or consent.
Yes. But the majority won’t meet condition 1.
I equate backlash with, “We don’t know you,” “You’re not going back there again” (psychiatric counseling), “You aren’t taking that medicine” (depression medications), or forms of physical abuse up to and including severe injury or death.
The nature of pregnancy is that a choice has to be made. (Failure to make a choice is also a choice.) Nothing can prevent a minor from seeking guidance from anyone she wishes, but no matter which direction things go, there will be a medical procedure, and it will be excruciatingly traumatic if it isn’t the one the girl would have chosen for herself. It might be traumatic if it is the one she chose, too, but a choice must be made, but neither choice is the choice that must be made. It’s a true choice between two drastic outcomes.
No one should ever undergo any medical procedure against their will–whether it be an abortion, childbirth, plastic surgery, shock therapy, circumcision (ooh, there’s a loaded one), or orthodontia. (There is one exception, but that isn’t relevant to this discussion.)
Abortion isn’t always right. It isn’t right if it isn’t the choice the girl would have made. (No matter that in my opinion a 10 yo should be encouraged, for her own health and wellbeing, to have an abortion.) The thought of forced abortion is disgusting. It horrifies me. Those against abortion rights always assume that the only “choice” to be made is opting for abortion.