NationStates Jolt Archive

Welcome to my first thread-starting.

I was musing over something I learned the other day about abortion laws across the United States, and am still a bit puzzled by it. A guest lecturer in one of my classes was extolling the virtures of eliminating the need for parental consent for abortions on minors.

The arguments she was using were fairly sound, I thought... talking about the ostracization and shame a pregnant 13-year-old girl would go through if denied permission - or even TELLING her parents, the dangerous possibility of "taking matters into her own hands," and such.

On the other hand, I think that this brings a whole new issue to the table: instead of simply dealing with the "where does the woman's right to her own body end and the unborn child's begin" issue, there is now the additional complication of a MINOR's rights to have say over her body vs. the parents' rights to protect and take care of her as they see fit.

I know that if I, as a father, were to find out that my minor daughter had had an abortion without my consent, I would be ... livid, to say the least. A minor needs parental consent for piercings and tattoos, basic immunizations, essentially ANYTHING remotely medical - except, in these cases, abortions. Now, obviously if I had a minor daughter getting an abortion without telling me or seeking my counsel my own parental abilities would be seriously in question, but why is this such a monumentally different kind of operation to where it wouldn't require my consent? An abortion, even in the "best" medical environment possible with trained professionals, can carry all the risks of any major surgery, as well as a greater potential for negative psychological effects. A tattoo is one thing, invasive surgery is quite another, I should think.

What do you think?

If abortion is legal than in certain circumstances I would support non-parental consent abortions for health reasons or something similar. Though I would much prefer the parents know about it and even further perfer the abortion not have to happen in the 1st place.

In Canada, we don't have to have parental consent.

Honestly, if a child is old enough to be having sex, the child is old enough to be having an abortion.

If abortion is legal than in certain circumstances I would support non-parental consent abortions for health reasons or something similar. Though I would much prefer the parents know about it and even further perfer the abortion not have to happen in the 1st place.

I actually agree ... it is a hard to decide subject for me but this seems fairly reasonable

Though personally I would lower the age of decision making for some things down a bit from 18

Given that, as an operation (pardon me, the properly political correct term these days is procedure) there is in fact a significant risk to health and possibly even life involved, the custodian adult (whether parent or other) darn well SHOULD be informed and in on the decision.

What if there are complications later? A responsible adult should know what to look for.

If the minor's parents are somehow unfit as parents and would pose a danger to their child should they find out about the pregnancy, then their minor child should be removed and an advocate assigned to him or her.

I have a problem with consent but not so much with notification........although there should be a legal way out of the notification too, especially if the parents are scary abusive, in the end it's just too hard to legislate it, so I guess I am against notification laws too.

In Canada, we don't have to have parental consent.

Honestly, if a child is old enough to be having sex, the child is old enough to be having an abortion.

But on her own, without a guardian's input? This is stretching your logic WAY too far I know, but it seems like I could say, "If a child is old enough to have appendicitis, the child is old enough to have an appendectomy." Accurate, but... walk into a clinic and have the procedure done without even letting the parents know? No way.

Given that, as an operation (pardon me, the properly political correct term these days is procedure) there is in fact a significant risk to health and possibly even life involved, the custodian adult (whether parent or other) darn well SHOULD be informed and in on the decision.

An adult doesn't have to inform relatives of any operations they may be undergoing. Why does a minor? Simply because of their age?

You mentioned 'responsible adult'. I say that a 'responsible person' would know what to look for.

But on her own, without a guardian's input? This is stretching your logic WAY too far I know, but it seems like I could say, "If a child is old enough to have appendicitis, the child is old enough to have an appendectomy." Accurate, but... walk into a clinic and have the procedure done without even letting the parents know? No way.

Actually, no, you're not stretching my logic too far at all. That's precisely it. Good on you.

An adult doesn't have to inform relatives of any operations they may be undergoing. Why does a minor? Simply because of their age?

You mentioned 'responsible adult'. I say that a 'responsible person' would know what to look for.

I don't think most 13-year-olds out there "having sex" anyway are probably very responsible, inherently. That's the whole idea of someone being a minor.

I have a problem with consent but not so much with notification........although there should be a legal way out of the notification too, especially if the parents are scary abusive, in the end it's just too hard to legislate it, so I guess I am against notification laws too.

Yeah though I would not mind seeing streamlining of the notification of abuse to authorities If the parents are that abusive (and it does happen ...) then they should evaluate the situation and remove her from that home if it is necessary (as well as waving notification and consent because of the time sensitivity of the procedure)

I'm sort of torn, personally. I think that it's one of those things that are really situational and can't be explained in a single cohesive principle. However, I think that there should be parental notification for abortions in general (barring extreme cases like abusive parents and things like that, if possible) and consent required if it's not life-threatening. I just don't feel that a child still under the jurisdiction of her parents is necessarily capable of making a decision about something that serious, especially given the risk of psychological or emotional problems that can come along with an abortion.

At the same time, however, that raises the risk of illegal abortions and the like that could do more damage than the original, medically safe version without notification. It's really something I can't say for sure.

I have a problem with consent but not so much with notification........although there should be a legal way out of the notification too, especially if the parents are scary abusive, in the end it's just too hard to legislate it, so I guess I am against notification laws too.

Yeah though I would not mind seeing streamlining of the notification of abuse to authorities If the parents are that abusive (and it does happen ...) then they should evaluate the situation and remove her from that home if it is necessary (as well as waving notification and consent because of the time sensitivity of the procedure)

I know that if I, as a father, were to find out that my minor daughter had had an abortion without my consent, I would be ... livid, to say the least. A minor needs parental consent for piercings and tattoos, basic immunizations, essentially ANYTHING remotely medical - except, in these cases, abortions. Now, obviously if I had a minor daughter getting an abortion without telling me or seeking my counsel my own parental abilities would be seriously in question, but why is this such a monumentally different kind of operation to where it wouldn't require my consent?

That last sentence pretty much nails it. These types of laws aren't necessary for good parents who are actually involved in their children's lives and who have good relationships with their children. This law is necessary for those who would abuse their child, ostracize their child, or force a decision on their child without considering her wishes on this issue.

Abortion is different from other operations in many ways. For one, it is a situation in which a child is much, much more likely to seek outside help if the parents will not be understanding. It is the same reason that a teenager can get contraceptives or STD treatment without parental consent - if the child feels they cannot discuss this with parents, they are much more likely to do nothing at all, putting themselves at greater medical risk. You aren't going to find many children who wouldn't discuss ulcers, cancer, or appendicitis with their parents. They aren't going to be afraid of their parents' punishment or decision in these cases. Unplanned pregnancy or STDs, on the other hand....

Another problem is that, no matter what is decided, it is a decision that will affect the girl's life (as well as that of any child born) for the rest of her life. She may not be fully an adult yet, but this is an adult decision - and it is one that she has to make. No matter what her parents decide, if she does not agree with it, it will most likely haunt her for the rest of her life. And that goes both ways - parents have essentially forced their teenage daughters to have abortions, as well as forcing them not to. And who deals with the strongest psychological consequences of that forever? It isn't the parents, who have the excuse of, "I was doing what was right for my child." Instead, it is the girl, who is bordering on adulthood anyways, who can be excluded from such a huge life decision.

If she's using her parent's health insurance to pay for it, then sure, she ought to get it.

Otherwise, I don't give a damn either way.

If the minor's parents are somehow unfit as parents and would pose a danger to their child should they find out about the pregnancy, then their minor child should be removed and an advocate assigned to him or her.

The problem here is that it solves nothing. The kids who wouldn't go to get medical treatment because their parents might abuse and ostracize them are even less likely to do it if they might be removed from their homes altogether. And then we end up with the situations, once again, of girls seeking back-alley treatment, or none at all.

An adult doesn't have to inform relatives of any operations they may be undergoing. Why does a minor? Simply because of their age?

You mentioned 'responsible adult'. I say that a 'responsible person' would know what to look for.

So you'd be all for a nine year old getting a nosejob without their parents' knowledge?

So you'd be all for a nine year old getting a nosejob without their parents' knowledge?

And you'd be all for waiting for parental consent in, say, a quickly worsening life-threatening subarachnoid haemorrhage?

Personally, I'd be all for not resorting to strawmen and false comparisons such as comparing an abortion to cosmetic surgery, or cosmetic surgery to life-saving interventions.

Personally, I'd be all for not resorting to strawmen and false comparisons such as comparing an abortion to cosmetic surgery, or cosmetic surgery to life-saving interventions.

But isn't it also true that not all abortions are a life-saving procedure?

There's a difference between an abortion to save the mother's life and abortion because the woman doesn't want the child. I think very few people would support mandatory consent for a life-saving abortion; the primary debate is about situations where it isn't life threatening.

And you'd be all for waiting for parental consent in, say, a quickly worsening life-threatening subarachnoid haemorrhage?

Personally, I'd be all for not resorting to strawmen and false comparisons such as comparing an abortion to cosmetic surgery, or cosmetic surgery to life-saving interventions.

Thank you, Fass.

Kat, the difference between a nosejob and an abortion is that one is an elective procedure, whereas the other is merely cosmetic. As a mod, you should know better than to be intellectually dishonest.

But isn't it also true that not all abortions are a life-saving procedure?

There's a difference between an abortion to save the mother's life and abortion because the woman doesn't want the child. I think very few people would support mandatory consent for a life-saving abortion; the primary debate is about situations where it isn't life threatening.

I presume that you mean 'few people wouldn't support mandatory consent for a life-saving abortion'. But regardless, the only reason parental consent should be required is if the parents are required to raise the baby if the pregnant child does not abort.

And you'd be all for waiting for parental consent in, say, a quickly worsening life-threatening subarachnoid haemorrhage?

Personally, I'd be all for not resorting to strawmen and false comparisons such as comparing an abortion to cosmetic surgery, or cosmetic surgery to life-saving interventions.

So YOU'RE saying then that there is no risk involved in surgery, then, and that a minor child should undertake surgery without the knowledge of their parent.

God knows there's both incompetance and just plain bad luck involved in the thousands of deaths following surgery each year.

http://www.prwebdirect.com/releases/2006/6/prweb394712.php
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/tittletattle/article_21257647.shtml
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/698_surg.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=424739&in_page_id=1770
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12132006/news/regionalnews/tragic_nose_job_teens_ma__sack_doc_regionalnews_jennifer_fermino.htm

It's a very fine line to walk. Normally I am in favor of them as long as there are accessible ways out of it in case of medical emergency and/or parental abuse (Including, sad to say, sexual abuse where the parent/guardian IS the father).

The problem then is one of accessibility. Most teens, especially scared ones wouldn't know how to approach a judge to gain a timely ruling on such an issue, or have the ability to hire a lawyer for such either. If a consent law can cover that adequately, then I would think it acceptable.

Thank you, Fass.

Kat, the difference between a nosejob and an abortion is that one is an elective procedure, whereas the other is merely cosmetic. As a mod, you should know better than to be intellectually dishonest.

You're the one practicing intellectual dishonesty. Surgery -- ANY surgery -- carries with it the danger of death -- it's why they make you sign a waiver when you go under anesthesia stating that you understand you could die from it.

A minor child, whose mental faculties and emotional faculties are not as developed as an adult, who has already demonstrated a lack of judgment, might well be making yet another very poor choice which will put their life at risk. There is a reason we don't let nine year olds drive cars, sign contracts, drink, and do all the things adults are allowed to do.

But of course, it's always MUCH better to attack the person rather than their argument.

I have a problem with consent but not so much with notification........although there should be a legal way out of the notification too, especially if the parents are scary abusive, in the end it's just too hard to legislate it, so I guess I am against notification laws too.

That's really the problem isn't it? The kids who can tell their parents, who have a good enough relationship to say "I fucked up and want an abortion" aren't going to have the problems with consent and notification in the first place. It's the girls who'll be tossed out on the street or, worst case scenario, were impregnated by a family member, whose families are beyond dysfunctional that this sort of law is meant to help and protect. It's not my daughter I'm worried about--she'd come to me to ask me to help pay for the damn thing and I'd give her the money--it's the daughter of the fucked up family down the road I'm looking to protect here.

So YOU'RE saying then that there is no risk involved in surgery, then, and that a minor child should undertake surgery without the knowledge of their parent.

Actually, the majority of abortions are medicinal nowadays (abortifacients), and even when the abortion is a surgical intervention, it is marred with less mortality and morbidity than giving birth. So if you should clasp at freak event straws, you should find birthing a much more repulsive proposition...

You're the one practicing intellectual dishonesty. Surgery -- ANY surgery -- carries with it the danger of death -- it's why they make you sign a waiver when you go under anesthesia stating that you understand you could die from it.

A minor child, whose mental faculties and emotional faculties are not as developed as an adult, who has already demonstrated a lack of judgment, might well be making yet another very poor choice which will put their life at risk. There is a reason we don't let nine year olds drive cars, sign contracts, drink, and do all the things adults are allowed to do.

But of course, it's always MUCH better to attack the person rather than their argument.
Yeah, but don't you think that a kid who's gone to all the trouble to try to get an abortion--who knows the consequences of telling her folks (assuming she even has any who give a shit), who in some parts of the country has to jump other hurdles like finding an abortion provider in the first place and getting the money together for one--don't you think that kid has earned the benefit of the doubt in making up her mind? You live in New York, where it's not all that difficult to find an abortion provider should you need one. That's become the exception rather than the rule in this country, sad to say. In some states, abortion is effectively impossible because providers are only open once a month, and doctors have to shuttle in from neighboring states to perform them. Add in mandatory waiting periods, required pre-abortion counseling sometimes with false information required to be told to women, and you think that a minor who navigates that system isn't smart enough to make up her own mind? Come on.

Actually, the majority of abortions are medicinal nowadays (abortifacients), and even when the abortion is a surgical intervention, it is marred with less mortality and morbidity than giving birth. So if you should clasp at freak event straws, you should find birthing a much more repulsive proposition...
The hell? Kat was noting that ANY surgical procedure carries risks (Not to mention that most abortions in the US are not medicinal due to the FDA having not approved the drugs). It's not a game of which procedure carries more risk, it's noting that all procedures carry risks.

You're the one practicing intellectual dishonesty. Surgery -- ANY surgery -- carries with it the danger of death -- it's why they make you sign a waiver when you go under anesthesia stating that you understand you could die from it.

A minor child, whose mental faculties and emotional faculties are not as developed as an adult, who has already demonstrated a lack of judgment, might well be making yet another very poor choice which will put their life at risk. There is a reason we don't let nine year olds drive cars, sign contracts, drink, and do all the things adults are allowed to do.

But of course, it's always MUCH better to attack the person rather than their argument.

A minor child's mental facilities are not as developed as an adult. However, a minor child doesn't magically go from incompetent at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds and then become competent one second later.

Except in the most extreme of cases, this is a decision that simply cannot be left fully up to anyone but the person who is pregnant.

If the relationship between the daughter and her parents is healthy, then she would tell them anyway.

If she is scared to tell them, perhaps she has good reason to be.

That's really the problem isn't it? The kids who can tell their parents, who have a good enough relationship to say "I fucked up and want an abortion" aren't going to have the problems with consent and notification in the first place. It's the girls who'll be tossed out on the street or, worst case scenario, were impregnated by a family member, whose families are beyond dysfunctional that this sort of law is meant to help and protect. It's not my daughter I'm worried about--she'd come to me to ask me to help pay for the damn thing and I'd give her the money--it's the daughter of the fucked up family down the road I'm looking to protect here.

Beat me to it. Kudos.

If the relationship between the daughter and her parents is healthy, then she would tell them anyway.

If she is scared to tell them, perhaps she has good reason to be.
Uh... Ok... that's an interesting idea. Seriously, when I was in my teens and I screwed up something, I wasn't in all that big of a hurry to inform my mother about it, even though I had a textbook example of a healthy relationship with her.

And we're talking about pregnancy, not getting an F on a test. I think most kids would be scared to tell their folks no matter how close they are.

A minor child's mental facilities are not as developed as an adult. However, a minor child doesn't magically go from incompetent at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds and then become competent one second later.

Except in the most extreme of cases, this is a decision that simply cannot be left fully up to anyone but the person who is pregnant.
How about if the age was lowered to, say 16 then (Playing Devil's advocate here)?

There's also an issue about complications that arise (rare, but have been known to happen). A 13-year-old who suddenly develops an infection in her womb due to an abortion is in a life threatening situation. Would it not be worse for her if her worried parents rush her to an emergency room just to be informed THEN of the reason?

Uh... Ok... that's an interesting idea. Seriously, when I was in my teens and I screwed up something, I wasn't in all that big of a hurry to inform my mother about it, even though I had a textbook example of a healthy relationship with her.

And we're talking about pregnancy, not getting an F on a test. I think most kids would be scared to tell their folks no matter how close they are.

Scared, yes, but when faced with trying to get an abortion on your own, as a minor, in most states, only those with the most fucked relationships are going to try it on their own. Again, I don't think most people realize just how damn near impossible it's getting for anyone to get an abortion in parts of the US, not just minors.

Scared, yes, but when faced with trying to get an abortion on your own, as a minor, in most states, only those with the most fucked relationships are going to try it on their own. Again, I don't think most people realize just how damn near impossible it's getting for anyone to get an abortion in parts of the US, not just minors.
Actually I know quite well how hard it is (Comes to being married to a woman studying to be a social worker and having to proof-read her papers). No, I agree that most kids will eventually go to their parents, I just disagree that it will be an easy step for them. You know, I just don't see it as a "Hi Mom, guess what? I got knocked up and I need an abortion. Oh, and Mary is having a party on Friday night, can I go?"

Actually I know quite well how hard it is (Comes to being married to a woman studying to be a social worker and having to proof-read her papers). No, I agree that most kids will eventually go to their parents, I just disagree that it will be an easy step for them. You know, I just don't see it as a "Hi Mom, guess what? I got knocked up and I need an abortion. Oh, and Mary is having a party on Friday night, can I go?"
If I made it sound like I thought it would be easy, I apologize--I certainly didn't mean that. It would only be easy in comparison to actually trying to navigate that minefield yourself as a teenager.

If I made it sound like I thought it would be easy, I apologize--I certainly didn't mean that. It would only be easy in comparison to actually trying to navigate that minefield yourself as a teenager.
Then my apologies as well.

And thank God I never had to navigate that as a teen (er, not that I could have being a guy, but if I had happened to... I think I'll just shut up now. ;) ).

Uh... Ok... that's an interesting idea. Seriously, when I was in my teens and I screwed up something, I wasn't in all that big of a hurry to inform my mother about it, even though I had a textbook example of a healthy relationship with her.

And we're talking about pregnancy, not getting an F on a test. I think most kids would be scared to tell their folks no matter how close they are.

If you would have felt unable to consult your mother on this type of issue, you didn't have a "textbook example of a healthy relationship with her."

I wouldn't have rushed to tell my mother about any little screw-up, but faced with a decision this big - a problem this big - she would have been the first (or maybe the second) person I went to. Why? I had a good relationship with my mother, I trusted her, and I knew that she would be there for me - no matter how badly I screwed up.


How about if the age was lowered to, say 16 then (Playing Devil's advocate here)?

No static age limit is going to catch it here.

There's also an issue about complications that arise (rare, but have been known to happen). A 13-year-old who suddenly develops an infection in her womb due to an abortion is in a life threatening situation. Would it not be worse for her if her worried parents rush her to an emergency room just to be informed THEN of the reason?

In areas where parental consent or notification is not required, complications due to the girl's pregnancy also cannot be shared with the parents. Health professionals have to tread very carefully in these areas.

But, even if the doctors would have to tell the parents the source of the infection, I think worried parents having to rush their child to the hospital because of sepsis due to an abortion that was not sterile or because of a self-induced miscarriage, or even because their child, who has hidden her pregnancy and received no prenatal care whatsoever, to the hospital would be a much worse situation.

The hell? Kat was noting that ANY surgical procedure carries risks (Not to mention that most abortions in the US are not medicinal due to the FDA having not approved the drugs). It's not a game of which procedure carries more risk, it's noting that all procedures carry risks.

And in this case, the risks of the procedure are lesser than those of not having the procedure. So the relevance of the risk of surgery to the argument of children's rights as patients remains quite spurious in this case, at best, seeing as a girl that has an abortion without telling her parents has a lower risk of complications than a girl that has a dumpster baby (or a baby at all).

A minor child's mental facilities are not as developed as an adult. However, a minor child doesn't magically go from incompetent at 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds and then become competent one second later.

Except in the most extreme of cases, this is a decision that simply cannot be left fully up to anyone but the person who is pregnant.

Another question (maybe I will start a new thread) if parental consent for abortions was mandatory who has responsibility over that child after the age of 18?

The parents can make life changing choices for their child but is it right for them to force a burden upon their kids for the next 18 years? Or should they be the liable party because they were the one that made the choice

If she's using her parent's health insurance to pay for it, then sure, she ought to get it.

Otherwise, I don't give a damn either way.Where the hell do you know of that insurance pays for abortions? Especially an elective one. Most insurance companies won't even pay for birth control, though almost all of them will pay for Viagra.

Where the hell do you know of that insurance pays for abortions?

Umm, many countries. :p

If you would have felt unable to consult your mother on this type of issue, you didn't have a "textbook example of a healthy relationship with her."

I wouldn't have rushed to tell my mother about any little screw-up, but faced with a decision this big - a problem this big - she would have been the first (or maybe the second) person I went to. Why? I had a good relationship with my mother, I trusted her, and I knew that she would be there for me - no matter how badly I screwed up.
Didn't say I wouldn't have consulted her, just said I would have been scared to. Not because I think she would have abused me (Actually quite hard given that by the time I was 13 I was a half a foot taller than her), but because I know she would have been disappointed. It would not have been an easy decision to go to her, even if I knew I had to.

As I said, there's a major difference between going to someone and mentioning it over dinner between asking for someone to pass the salt.

In areas where parental consent or notification is not required, complications due to the girl's pregnancy also cannot be shared with the parents. Health professionals have to tread very carefully in these areas.
And if the girl dies, what then to say to the parents? Where do you draw the line here? At what point do the parents lose all control over being parents and trying their best to guard and guide their child to adulthood?

But, even if the doctors would have to tell the parents the source of the infection, I think worried parents having to rush their child to the hospital because of sepsis due to an abortion that was not sterile or because of a self-induced miscarriage, or even because their child, who has hidden her pregnancy and received no prenatal care whatsoever, to the hospital would be a much worse situation.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

You're the one practicing intellectual dishonesty. Surgery -- ANY surgery -- carries with it the danger of death -- it's why they make you sign a waiver when you go under anesthesia stating that you understand you could die from it.


Few abortions require general anethesia. Many require no anthesia at all. Statistically, abortion is many times safer that childbirth.

Umm, many countries. :pSorry, speaking of the US. It's the only place I'm informed about the abortion laws.

And in this case, the risks of the procedure are lesser than those of not having the procedure. So the relevance of the risk of surgery to the argument of children's rights as patients remains quite spurious in this case, at best, seeing as a girl that has an abortion without telling her parents has a lower risk of complications than a girl that has a dumpster baby (or a baby at all).
The original point though was that it does carry SOME risk, low as it might be. When do parents lose the right to guard their children?

Few abortions require general anethesia. Many require no anthesia at all. Statistically, abortion is many times safer that childbirth.
I thought most required a local for pain control.

But on her own, without a guardian's input? This is stretching your logic WAY too far I know, but it seems like I could say, "If a child is old enough to have appendicitis, the child is old enough to have an appendectomy." Accurate, but... walk into a clinic and have the procedure done without even letting the parents know? No way.

knowing how irrational some parents can be I would agree with no notification...there have been cases of parents killing daughters for even dating without their permission...I agree with you that I would want to know but if my daughter didn't want to consult with me that would be her decision...

The original point though was that it does carry SOME risk, low as it might be. When do parents lose the right to guard their children?When they do a piss-poor job of it. The likelyhood of her getting pregnant in the first place would go way down if they spoke to her honestly about using contraception.

That said, as far as I'm aware all the states with parental consent laws have a judicial bypass system. If the minor can convince the judge that she's mature enough to make the decision or that informing her parents will cause her to be abused or thrown out of the house she can get an abortion without informing her parents.

Unfortunately, that leaves the minor at the mercy of the political climate in her region. There's a judge in Texas who has not consented to a single case of judicial bypass in nearly twenty cases. She's a staunch opponent of abortion and has frequently used the excuse that if the girl were not mature enough to keep from getting pregnant then she was not mature enough to have an abortion. I suppose by default it must make her mature enough to raise a child, or in one case, live on the streets. Presumably with an infant.

I thought most required a local for pain control.Most require a local, but in the earliest stages of pregnancy an abortion can be caused by medication.

The original point though was that it does carry SOME risk, low as it might be. When do parents lose the right to guard their children?

They do that when their actions are no longer in the child's best interests, something which can be very successfully argued with those who would force a girl to go through an unwanted pregnancy she would rather have terminated - those parents being the primary targets of concealment motives on the girl's part.

When they do a piss-poor job of it. The likelyhood of her getting pregnant in the first place would go way down if they spoke to her honestly about using contraception.

That said, as far as I'm aware all the states with parental consent laws have a judicial bypass system. If the minor can convince the judge that she's mature enough to make the decision or that informing her parents will cause her to be abused or thrown out of the house she can get an abortion without informing her parents.

Unfortunately, that leaves the minor at the mercy of the political climate in her region. There's a judge in Texas who has not consented to a single case of judicial bypass in nearly twenty cases. She's a staunch opponent of abortion and has frequently used the excuse that if the girl were not mature enough to keep from getting pregnant then she was not mature enough to have an abortion. I suppose by default it must make her mature enough to raise a child, or in one case, live on the streets. Presumably with an infant.
Which is actually why I am against the parental notification laws as written because they do just that. If there was one that could, quickly, act without dragging politics into it and would allow a child to get an abortion if needed or wanted without needing to be a bloody lawyer to navigate it, I would accept it. Since there isn't though...

Most require a local, but in the earliest stages of pregnancy an abortion can be caused by medication.
Plan B? Yes, I never understood the logic behind the need for parental consent because it needs to be taken within 48 hours. But once implantation has occurred, IIRC the drug that can cause abortion hasn't been approved in the US yet, at which case it's the vacuum.

Sadly though, most girls of that age might not be aware of their chances of getting pregnant or that they are pregnant till they miss their period, or much later, long after Plan B would work. Given some of the silly beliefs you find out there (Can't get pregnant if it's your first time, sneezing after ejaculation will get the sperm out, use coke, etc.) they may not be thinking of Plan B.

Of course that is a different argument for a different thread.

They do that when their actions are no longer in the child's best interests, something which can be very successfully argued with those who would force a girl to go through an unwanted pregnancy she would rather have terminated - those parents being the primary targets of concealment motives on the girl's part.
In that case, yes, I would agree with you. But you're assuming that every parent would fall into that category.

Which is actually why I am against the parental notification laws as written because they do just that. If there was one that could, quickly, act without dragging politics into it and would allow a child to get an abortion if needed or wanted without needing to be a bloody lawyer to navigate it, I would accept it. Since there isn't though...

Thats another thing

Theoretically they should be able to take advantage of the no questions asked drop off policy at hospitals ... but who's responsibility is it for an underage mother

Technically she is not even able to make decisions for her self in its entirety much less for the child she is now caring for... would she be able to adopt a baby that she could not even sign a permission slip for...

Thats another thing

Theoretically they should be able to take advantage of the no questions asked drop off policy at hospitals ... but who's responsibility is it for an underage mother

Technically she is not even able to make decisions for her self in its entirety much less for the child she is now caring for... would she be able to adopt a baby that she could not even sign a permission slip for...
Like I said, a very, very fine line to walk. And a very sad one at that.

However, I do have a legal answer for you (because I found this out when I was looking at student loans), after age 15 if you have a child the government considers you independent of your parents and an adult.

Like I said, a very, very fine line to walk. And a very sad one at that.http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227
General

However, I do have a legal answer for you (because I found this out when I was looking at student loans), after age 15 if you have a child the government considers you independent of your parents and an adult.

And I agree ... in some situations I am on one side and on others I am on the other side ... I just don't think that there is a great solution to it and that in the end I fall on allowing the one pregnant make the decision WITH doctors approval (I don't want some desperate kid taking a marginal or risky procedure(meaning aggravated circumstances with her health causing the procedure to be a higher then average risk) just cause she is desperate)

In that case, yes, I would agree with you. But you're assuming that every parent would fall into that category.

I am assuming that a girl who wants something concealed from her parents has a reason for it.

I am assuming that a girl who wants something concealed from her parents has a reason for it.
Yes, she could be scared for no reason.

Oh well, I think I've played devil's advocate enough because the hairs that we're splitting is getting back into my original position. Since there doesn't seem to be a good way to protect the kids who need the exception in a timely, non-political manner; best not to legislate it in the first place.

Well, that and I have a Marx Brothers collection to watch. ;)

NO NO NO NO. Normally, I don't involve myself in political debates (anymore), but I have to say no to that. What for, seriously? So that some psycho can beat his daughter to death when she gets pregnant? NO NO NO!

Welcome to my first thread-starting.

I was musing over something I learned the other day about abortion laws across the United States, and am still a bit puzzled by it. A guest lecturer in one of my classes was extolling the virtures of eliminating the need for parental consent for abortions on minors.

The arguments she was using were fairly sound, I thought... talking about the ostracization and shame a pregnant 13-year-old girl would go through if denied permission - or even TELLING her parents, the dangerous possibility of "taking matters into her own hands," and such.

On the other hand, I think that this brings a whole new issue to the table: instead of simply dealing with the "where does the woman's right to her own body end and the unborn child's begin" issue, there is now the additional complication of a MINOR's rights to have say over her body vs. the parents' rights to protect and take care of her as they see fit.

I know that if I, as a father, were to find out that my minor daughter had had an abortion without my consent, I would be ... livid, to say the least. A minor needs parental consent for piercings and tattoos, basic immunizations, essentially ANYTHING remotely medical - except, in these cases, abortions. Now, obviously if I had a minor daughter getting an abortion without telling me or seeking my counsel my own parental abilities would be seriously in question, but why is this such a monumentally different kind of operation to where it wouldn't require my consent? An abortion, even in the "best" medical environment possible with trained professionals, can carry all the risks of any major surgery, as well as a greater potential for negative psychological effects. A tattoo is one thing, invasive surgery is quite another, I should think.

What do you think?
I think it is completely hilarious that people debate whether or not a minor should have to get parental consent to have an abortion, but nobody debates whether or not a minor should have to get parental consent to HAVE A FUCKING BABY.

For a 13 year old girl, a safe medical abortion is statistically safer than pregnancy and childbirth. She is less likely to suffer permanent injury or death as a result of an abortion.

The overwhelming majority of abortions performed (at least in countries like the US) are not "invasive surgery" or "major surgery" as you seem to think. They are basically induced miscarriages at very early stages of the pregnancy. The abortion procedures which qualify as "major surgery" are performed in emergency situations at much later stages of the pregnancy.

When we talk about young girls getting abortions, what we should be comparing is a young girl taking a pill (or series of pills) to induce a miscarriage versus a young girl enduring pregnancy and childbirth.

We also should be aware that a significant percentage of the girls in question will have been impregnated by their father or male relative.

Sensible stuff in post 14
/me agrees.

It might be sad that a child wouldn't be able to talk to her parents about such a situation and trust that they'd support her, advise her sensibly, and not impose*/deny an abortion. But that's life, so there you go.

*I'm of the opinion that kids that young shouldn't be having children themselves, want them or not, but I'm also of the opinion that it's none of my business.

I think notification for minors - below the age of consent - is a good idea. It involves the parents and gives them a chance to bring forth any pertinent information they might have. I don't see many problems with this if the law allowed for notification to be disregarded if special circumstances calls for it.

I'm opposed to requiring parental consent, however.

An adult doesn't have to inform relatives of any operations they may be undergoing. Why does a minor? Simply because of their age?
.

So.

Plastic surgery, too?

I am assuming that a girl who wants something concealed from her parents has a reason for it.

Based on?

Based on?

Practically every independent study done on the subject shows that the vast majority of early teen females who are pregnant are impregnated by a male relative. Throw in those girls who live in households where the parents would toss their kid into the street for being a whore--I had a friend in high school that happened to--and I'd say there's plenty of proof that in most cases, girls who don't tell their parents about a pregnancy have a reason.

And even if those cases were the minority, that's enough of a reason to protect them. Jeez--some heartless bastards around here.

Practically every independent study done on the subject shows that the vast majority of early teen females who are pregnant are impregnated by a male relative. Throw in those girls who live in households where the parents would toss their kid into the street for being a whore--I had a friend in high school that happened to--and I'd say there's plenty of proof that in most cases, girls who don't tell their parents about a pregnancy have a reason.

And even if those cases were the minority, that's enough of a reason to protect them. Jeez--some heartless bastards around here.

I definitely agree with this, but my main argument is from a libertarian perspective. :D

And even if those cases were the minority, that's enough of a reason to protect them. Jeez--some heartless bastards around here.
I object to your tarring all heartless bastards with the same brush.

Practically every independent study done on the subject shows that the vast majority of early teen females who are pregnant are impregnated by a male relative. Throw in those girls who live in households where the parents would toss their kid into the street for being a whore--I had a friend in high school that happened to--and I'd say there's plenty of proof that in most cases, girls who don't tell their parents about a pregnancy have a reason.

And even if those cases were the minority, that's enough of a reason to protect them. Jeez--some heartless bastards around here.
And that's why law should allowed for notification to be disregarded if special circumstances calls for it.

Otherwise, it could serve as a wake-up call to parents too. How did the girl get pregnant? Maybe this kind of law even could help stop abuses, since the parents now become aware that their daughter is, in some way, sexually active?

And that's why law should allowed for notification to be disregarded if special circumstances calls for it.

Otherwise, it could serve as a wake-up call to parents too. How did the girl get pregnant? Maybe this kind of law even could help stop abuses, since the parents now become aware that their daughter is, in some way, sexually active?

If someone is cold hearted enough to abuse their kid what makes you think that informing them of her sexual activities will reduce that?

Sure I can see it as a tool for good parents being able to work on the behavior that causes it but I dont see it helping the bad parents

If someone is cold hearted enough to abuse their kid what makes you think that informing them of her sexual activities will reduce that?

It might notify parents that their daughter is being abused by some third (fourth?) party.

It might notify parents that their daughter is being abused by some third (fourth?) party.
Again, let's try playing the odds, here. Statistically speaking, it is far more likely that the girl is being abused by a parent or close family member.

Also, can we please remember that these are laws requiring parental notification/consent for her to get an abortion, but nobody seems to be pushing for the same laws when it comes to her HAVING A BABY. Girls can get pregnant, stay pregnant, and have a baby, all without telling their parents a damn thing, yet everybody makes a stink about a girl being able to NOT have a baby without telling her parents.

And that's why law should allowed for notification to be disregarded if special circumstances calls for it.

Otherwise, it could serve as a wake-up call to parents too. How did the girl get pregnant? Maybe this kind of law even could help stop abuses, since the parents now become aware that their daughter is, in some way, sexually active?
But that doesn't protect the girls from a heartless bastard in a judge's robe, as was noted elsewhere in the thread.

Practically every independent study done on the subject shows that the vast majority of early teen females who are pregnant are impregnated by a male relative.

Cite, source.

And even if those cases were the minority, that's enough of a reason to protect them. Jeez--some heartless bastards around here.


Frankly, here's the thing.

Contemplate the fact all medical procedure is, in most societies, regulated by the State.

We don't consider it a violation of a woman's right to her own body to require a 14-year-old to have a parent's permission before piercing a tongue or nipple - though absolutely no controversy, as far as I know, exists about whether the nipple is a separate sentient being (Janet Jackson aside).

So, umm... why not repeal the parent's permission requirement for plastic surgery?

Again, let's try playing the odds, here. Statistically speaking, it is far more likely that the girl is being abused by a parent or close family member.

I was merely explaining, not endorsing, Gravlen's argument.

It might notify parents that their daughter is being abused by some third (fourth?) party.

Ah I see I was looking at it from physical abuse from parents standpoint rather then sexual abuse standpoint

If someone is cold hearted enough to abuse their kid what makes you think that informing them of her sexual activities will reduce that?

Sure I can see it as a tool for good parents being able to work on the behavior that causes it but I dont see it helping the bad parents
Well, if the dad is the abuser and the mom is informed about her pregnancy, it might help hinder future abuse.
Again, let's try playing the odds, here. Statistically speaking, it is far more likely that the girl is being abused by a parent or close family member.
Yeah, so notification might help stop abuse by a father, uncle, brother...

But that doesn't protect the girls from a heartless bastard in a judge's robe, as was noted elsewhere in the thread.
I... must have missed that part, so excuse me while I go "Huh?" :confused:
I was merely explaining, not endorsing, Gravlen's argument.
And you did a swell job :)

I'd like to say that I'm against the overall use of abortions with a couple of exceptions.

I'm 100% against abortions for minors without parental consent or knowledge. It's a major procedure for starters. Minors are living at home free of charge (in most cases) paid for by the parents. For those who cry "women's right to choose in regards to their bodies", in my eyes, in no way should trump a Parent's Right regarding their child's health and safety. In No Way, should a "minor's right" trump their parents rights, common sense people, come on...I notice a lot of hypocrytes here too. How you constantly bicker about the government involving themselves where it doesn't belong, well, I consider this one of those things.

Too many things can go wrong in an abortion. It's a major procedure that a parent has a right to know. To those claiming the minor's rights as if they're old enough to have sex then they're old enough for abortions, I call Bull Shit. Hell, 10 yr olds can play around and have sex. The government has no place nor no right to trump a parents right to know regarding abortions and their child, period. This is completely absurd. :mad:

There is no reason why anybody needs to be informed of any patient's decision to have an abortion. I wish that all the people who hate abortions had been aborted before they could have reached such a horrible and evil view.

In Canada, we don't have to have parental consent.

Honestly, if a child is old enough to be having sex, the child is old enough to be having an abortion.

Great point.

I... must have missed that part, so excuse me while I go "Huh?" :confused:

It was easy to miss (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12185795&postcount=48), but I knew the story too.
]Unfortunately, that leaves the minor at the mercy of the political climate in her region. There's a judge in Texas who has not consented to a single case of judicial bypass in nearly twenty cases. She's a staunch opponent of abortion and has frequently used the excuse that if the girl were not mature enough to keep from getting pregnant then she was not mature enough to have an abortion. I suppose by default it must make her mature enough to raise a child, or in one case, live on the streets. Presumably with an infant.

I'd like to say that I'm against the overall use of abortions with a couple of exceptions.

I'm 100% against abortions for minors without parental consent or knowledge. It's a major procedure for starters. Minors are living at home free of charge (in most cases) paid for by the parents. For those who cry "women's right to choose in regards to their bodies", in my eyes, in no way should trump a Parent's Right regarding their child's health and safety. In No Way, should a "minor's right" trump their parents rights, common sense people, come on...I notice a lot of hypocrytes here too. How you constantly bicker about the government involving themselves where it doesn't belong, well, I consider this one of those things.

Too many things can go wrong in an abortion. It's a major procedure that a parent has a right to know. To those claiming the minor's rights as if they're old enough to have sex then they're old enough for abortions, I call Bull Shit. Hell, 10 yr olds can play around and have sex. The government has no place nor no right to trump a parents right to know regarding abortions and their child, period. This is completely absurd. :mad:
And if the father of the minor's child is the minor's father, what then? Guess it's better that that father continue that fucked up domination of that child, huh?

Welcome to my first thread-starting.

I was musing over something I learned the other day about abortion laws across the United States, and am still a bit puzzled by it. A guest lecturer in one of my classes was extolling the virtures of eliminating the need for parental consent for abortions on minors.

The arguments she was using were fairly sound, I thought... talking about the ostracization and shame a pregnant 13-year-old girl would go through if denied permission - or even TELLING her parents, the dangerous possibility of "taking matters into her own hands," and such.

On the other hand, I think that this brings a whole new issue to the table: instead of simply dealing with the "where does the woman's right to her own body end and the unborn child's begin" issue, there is now the additional complication of a MINOR's rights to have say over her body vs. the parents' rights to protect and take care of her as they see fit.

I know that if I, as a father, were to find out that my minor daughter had had an abortion without my consent, I would be ... livid, to say the least. A minor needs parental consent for piercings and tattoos, basic immunizations, essentially ANYTHING remotely medical - except, in these cases, abortions. Now, obviously if I had a minor daughter getting an abortion without telling me or seeking my counsel my own parental abilities would be seriously in question, but why is this such a monumentally different kind of operation to where it wouldn't require my consent? An abortion, even in the "best" medical environment possible with trained professionals, can carry all the risks of any major surgery, as well as a greater potential for negative psychological effects. A tattoo is one thing, invasive surgery is quite another, I should think.

What do you think?

I think that they should be allowed to do so. Way I see it, its their choice. However, I think that the age limit should be set at say....16 to 17 at the least. Kids below 16 shouldn't be having sex. Hell! 16 year olds shouldn't be doing it either, but that appears to be the society we live in.

Anyhow, thats my view on the matter....

Didn't say I wouldn't have consulted her, just said I would have been scared to. Not because I think she would have abused me (Actually quite hard given that by the time I was 13 I was a half a foot taller than her), but because I know she would have been disappointed. It would not have been an easy decision to go to her, even if I knew I had to.

As I said, there's a major difference between going to someone and mentioning it over dinner between asking for someone to pass the salt.

Indeed, but irrelevant. This type of law isn't for the girls who are worried that parents might be disappointed. This is for the girls who are worried that they will be out on the street, physically abused, or even forced to carry a pregnancy for their mistakes.

And if the girl dies, what then to say to the parents?

I'm not sure on the regulation here. I would guess that they would simply be told that she died of an infection. If they really wanted to pry further, they could probably find out about the abortion.

Where do you draw the line here? At what point do the parents lose all control over being parents and trying their best to guard and guide their child to adulthood?

They lose all control at 18 or whenever the minor is emancipated. They lose all control over this decision when they don't make sure that their children are able to come to them with problems of this sort.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

At least she seeks safe medical treatment in one of them.

It was easy to miss (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12185795&postcount=48), but I knew the story too.

Ah... I see the problem there.

One could change the system to reduce the danger of ending up in situations such as those, though. Oh well...

They do that when their actions are no longer in the child's best interests, something which can be very successfully argued with those who would force a girl to go through an unwanted pregnancy she would rather have terminated - those parents being the primary targets of concealment motives on the girl's part.

Or when the parents would force a girl to go through an unwanted abortion. IIRC, a minor can also get prenatal care without parental consent for the same reason.


Plan B? Yes, I never understood the logic behind the need for parental consent because it needs to be taken within 48 hours.

Plan B, to my knowledge, can be prescribed to a minor without parental consent (as can birth control pills). It simply is not available to them over-the-counter.

I'd like to say that I'm against the overall use of abortions with a couple of exceptions.

I'm 100% against abortions for minors without parental consent or knowledge. It's a major procedure for starters. Minors are living at home free of charge (in most cases) paid for by the parents. For those who cry "women's right to choose in regards to their bodies", in my eyes, in no way should trump a Parent's Right regarding their child's health and safety. In No Way, should a "minor's right" trump their parents rights, common sense people, come on...I notice a lot of hypocrytes here too. How you constantly bicker about the government involving themselves where it doesn't belong, well, I consider this one of those things.

Too many things can go wrong in an abortion. It's a major procedure that a parent has a right to know. To those claiming the minor's rights as if they're old enough to have sex then they're old enough for abortions, I call Bull Shit. Hell, 10 yr olds can play around and have sex. The government has no place nor no right to trump a parents right to know regarding abortions and their child, period. This is completely absurd. :mad:
The government is creating the parents right to know ... how can they "trump" what they give?

And if the father of the minor's child is the minor's father, what then? Guess it's better that that father continue that fucked up domination of that child, huh?

Bad example, do we not have fucking law enforcement.

If it turns out that the father is found to be his child's child father then the authorities should be notified and the father sentenced to a mandatory 25 years in state prison (Florida state anyways and this why every state needs to get off of their asses and start passing laws that better protect minors, if I could have it my way every fucking pedophile would be sentenced to immediate castration with death following shortly there after) and does the child not have a mother.

What about the consent of an adult instead of just a parent? Why shouldn't a child be able to approach someone she trusts rather than a parent which might involve some extreme negative reaction?

The government is creating the parents right to know ... how can they "trump" what they give?

There should of been no need for the government interference on parental rights. All those who have allowed minors to have abortions without parental consent should have been arrested and tried for atleast endangering the welfare of a child and then the parents sue the hell out of them.

Bad example, do we not have fucking law enforcement.

If it turns out that the father is found to be his child's child father then the authorities should be notified and the father sentenced to a mandatory 25 years in state prison (Florida state anyways and this why every state needs to get off of their asses and start passing laws that better protect minors, if I could have it my way every fucking pedophile would be sentenced to immediate castration with death following shortly there after) and does the child not have a mother.

Of course, if the father has that type of control over his daughter, he might just refuse to have her treated at all, so that she can't alert the authorities. She is very unlikely to report him as the father, out of fear of him, even if she is treated. Of course, in the case where she cannot seek medical treatment without his permission, she's much more likely to simply not seek it at all....

Meanwhile, in this case, we wouldn't be talking about pedophiles. Pederasts, if anything.

There should of been no need for the government interference on parental rights. All those who have allowed minors to have abortions without parental consent should have been arrested and tried for atleast endangering the welfare of a child and then the parents sue the hell out of them.

If the government shouldn't interfere, then it shouldn't provide any penalties for those who treat minors for *anything* without parental consent.

Either the government interferes by recognizing and enforcing certain legal rights and responsibilities of parents, or it doesn't. If it does, it can determine what actions are rights and responsibilities of the parent, and what actions are not.

What about the consent of an adult instead of just a parent? Why shouldn't a child be able to approach someone she trusts rather than a parent which might involve some extreme negative reaction?

Like, say, a doctor?

You know, after all of this posting this arrouses a very interesting question... Why have parents at all? Who needs parents anyways? They have no rights and if they do have a little bit of rights, their child's right supercedes whatever rights the parents do have. Hell, let's allow the kids to do whatever they please, smoke pot, drink at early age, buy and smoke cigarettes, drive, not go to school, let's just treat them as little adults they are. :rolleyes:

What amuses me about all of this is that a lot of you are the same ones who cry about the violations of your rights, how the government is quick to steal your rights, blah, blah, blah...but the lot of you are quick to completely eliminate the parents rights in regards to their child's welfare. When does it end? :(

Like, say, a doctor?

Only if he is a trustworthy doctor...

No, really. I think that would be fine as long as the doctor wasn't the one performing the abortion. I'm pretty much against parental consent for a minor in terms of getting an abortion but I'm just thinking this third party adult thing through. I'm not coming up with very many cons, though somebody out there might have good reason why this is a bad idea.

You know, after all of this posting this arrouses a very interesting question... Why have parents at all? Who needs parents anyways? They have no rights and if they do have a little bit of rights, their child's right supercedes whatever rights the parents do have. Hell, let's allow the kids to do whatever they please, smoke pot, drink at early age, buy and smoke cigarettes, drive, not go to school, let's just treat them as little adults they are. :rolleyes:

What amuses me about all of this is that a lot of you are the same ones who cry about the violations of your rights, how the government is quick to steal your rights, blah, blah, blah...but the lot of you are quick to completely eliminate the parents rights in regards to their child's welfare. When does it end? :(
A parent's rights are limited. Boo hoo hoo.

Parents can't beat the shit out of their kids and say, "Oh, but I decided it's in the kid's best interest, and I'm the parent!" Look at that, we limit some of a parent's "rights" while leaving plenty of others intact.

Nobody on this thread is advocating that we do away with parental rights, so quit squabbling with your own straw man.

You know, after all of this posting this arrouses a very interesting question... Why have parents at all? Who needs parents anyways? They have no rights and if they do have a little bit of rights, their child's right supercedes whatever rights the parents do have. Hell, let's allow the kids to do whatever they please, smoke pot, drink at early age, buy and smoke cigarettes, drive, not go to school, let's just treat them as little adults they are. :rolleyes:

What amuses me about all of this is that a lot of you are the same ones who cry about the violations of your rights, how the government is quick to steal your rights, blah, blah, blah...but the lot of you are quick to completely eliminate the parents rights in regards to their child's welfare. When does it end? :(

Slippery slopes are for penguins.


You...


You...



...penguin.

There should of been no need for the government interference on parental rights. All those who have allowed minors to have abortions without parental consent should have been arrested and tried for atleast endangering the welfare of a child and then the parents sue the hell out of them.

Why is that? Statistically it was more dangerous for them to let the child have the baby then allow them to have the abortion

Why should they be charged with endangerment?

Only if he is a trustworthy doctor...

No, really. I think that would be fine as long as the doctor wasn't the one performing the abortion.

Why? If I trust somebody enough to consult them about my choice to have an abortion, why can't I also trust them to perform the abortion if that is what I decide? Why should I be required to go to some other doctor, if I've already got a doctor who I trust?


I'm pretty much against parental consent for a minor in terms of getting an abortion but I'm just thinking this third party adult thing through. I'm not coming up with very many cons, though somebody out there might have good reason why this is a bad idea.
I think we can all probably agree that it would be great for all kids to have some third-party adult who they can consult about important matters. But do we really want to legally enforce this? How would we do so?

Why? If I trust somebody enough to consult them about my choice to have an abortion, why can't I also trust them to perform the abortion if that is what I decide? Why should I be required to go to some other doctor, if I've already got a doctor who I trust?
Well, it doesn't have to be a doctor, only that it could be. I'm just thinking out loud. I don't know if this really reflect my beliefs.


I think we can all probably agree that it would be great for all kids to have some third-party adult who they can consult about important matters. But do we really want to legally enforce this? How would we do so?

I don't know.

Bottle and Desperate Measures:

Bottle, so I'm a strawman because I strongly side with parents on issues regarding the welfare of their child....grow up.

Desperate Measures, well that name says it all, I understand why you slipped down to the level of a child who feels the need to begin the name calling, how mature...grow up.

Bottle and Desperate Measures:

Bottle, so I'm a strawman because I strongly side with parents on issues regarding the welfare of their child....grow up.

Desperate Measures, well that name says it all, I understand why you slipped down to the level of a child who feels the need to begin the name calling, how mature...grow up.

Are you truly insulted that I called you a penguin? Really?

Are you truly insulted that I called you a penguin? Really?

Not really, just pointing out your maturity level and to point out that it isn't necessary to switch from disagreeing to name calling. Just doesn't seem to be the mature thing to do. I thought NSG was a place for civilized debate not a daycare center, I could be mistaken though where my human nature seems to kick in sometimes regarding mistakes, typos, grammatical errors, and whatnot. Damn the Humans.

Not really, just pointing out your maturity level and to point out that it isn't necessary to switch from disagreeing to name calling. Just doesn't seem to be the mature thing to do.

I am a child in the body of a 27 year old, I grant you that. But you still used a slippery slope argument.

Bottle, so I'm a strawman because I strongly side with parents on issues regarding the welfare of their child....grow up.

No dear, you are arguing a strawman because you are arguing against something that no one has posited.

The suggestion isn't that parents should lose all parental rights. It is that, in certain cases, it may be safer for minors to have a way to get treatment without the consent of parents.

Interestingly enough, a teenage girl can get a pelvic exam, pregnancy test, prescription for birth control pills, counseling, other contraceptives, and even prenatal care without parental consent. On the issue of reproductive health, abortion is generally the only care that ever legally necessitates it. Why?

And do remember that children don't magically turn into adults with a big poof the second they turn 18. They are maturing throughout their development. It makes sense for their legal recognition to mature as well. You aren't fully a child until 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds and then fully an adult one second later.

Desperate Measures, well that name says it all, I understand why you slipped down to the level of a child who feels the need to begin the name calling, how mature...grow up.[/QUOTE]

No dear, you are arguing a strawman because you are arguing against something that no one has posited.

The suggestion isn't that parents should lose all parental rights. It is that, in certain cases, it may be safer for minors to have a way to get treatment without the consent of parents.

Interestingly enough, a teenage girl can get a pelvic exam, pregnancy test, prescription for birth control pills, counseling, other contraceptives, and even prenatal care without parental consent. On the issue of reproductive health, abortion is generally the only care that ever legally necessitates it. Why?

And do remember that children don't magically turn into adults with a big poof the second they turn 18. They are maturing throughout their development. It makes sense for their legal recognition to mature as well. You aren't fully a child until 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds and then fully an adult one second later.

Desperate Measures, well that name says it all, I understand why you slipped down to the level of a child who feels the need to begin the name calling, how mature...grow up.[/QUOTE]

I thought it was a slippery slope... are we both right or is one of us wrong?

Bottle and Desperate Measures:

Bottle, so I'm a strawman because I strongly side with parents on issues regarding the welfare of their child....grow up.
...

Yes, you're a straw man who is also a penguin. That is the take-home message of our posts.

...

Yes, you're a straw man who is also a penguin. That is the take-home message of our posts.

It was the tufts of straw sticking out of his tuxedo that gave it away for me.

No dear, you are arguing a strawman because you are arguing against something that no one has posited.

The suggestion isn't that parents should lose all parental rights. It is that, in certain cases, it may be safer for minors to have a way to get treatment without the consent of parents.

Interestingly enough, a teenage girl can get a pelvic exam, pregnancy test, prescription for birth control pills, counseling, other contraceptives, and even prenatal care without parental consent. On the issue of reproductive health, abortion is generally the only care that ever legally necessitates it. Why?

And do remember that children don't magically turn into adults with a big poof the second they turn 18. They are maturing throughout their development. It makes sense for their legal recognition to mature as well. You aren't fully a child until 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds and then fully an adult one second later.

Desperate Measures, well that name says it all, I understand why you slipped down to the level of a child who feels the need to begin the name calling, how mature...grow up.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for clearing that up... Now I understand that sarcasm=strawman. I'll keep this in mind.

When I posted the "eliminate parental rights" it was done solely for the purpose of sarcasm. I keep forgetting how serious NSG really is...

Thanks for clearing that up... Now I understand that sarcasm=strawman. I'll keep this in mind.

When I posted the "eliminate parental rights" it was done solely for the purpose of sarcasm. I keep forgetting how serious NSG really is...

No, strawman = strawman.

Your entire participation in this thread has been, "ZOMG! YOU'RE TRYING TO REMOVE ALL PARENTAL RIGHTS!!!! GARRRRR!!!!!"

You haven't addressed any of the actual arguments at all.

Thanks for clearing that up... Now I understand that sarcasm=strawman. I'll keep this in mind.

When I posted the "eliminate parental rights" it was done solely for the purpose of sarcasm. I keep forgetting how serious NSG really is...
If that entire post was actually intended to be sarcastic, then that would mean it was essentially intended to be ironic (since that's kind of how sarcasm works). You know, you say, "Oh, that's just terrific," when you really mean that something completely sucks.

So, if you were being sarcastic with that post, then your intent was to express pretty much the same thing I've been saying on this thread, right? In other words, you were using wit to point out that it's stupid to view rejection of parental notification laws as a deadly violation of parental rights. You were taking the "con" position, via sarcasm, and were joining with those of us who oppose parental notification laws.

When I first posted a reply on this thread, I simply stated my position and then from their I was continually attacked. Alot here seemingly forget that when reading typed messeges and whatnot that their are going to be misunderstood or misread posts.

Also, note, NSG has a rap for if you disagree with the basics of the majority here (Ultra Liberal thinking) You are a troll, a strawman, and whatnot.

I did hear a rumor that NSG was once a majority of conservative think tanks but boy did the tide turn... Oh well, I still continue my posts or what I personally believe in and will continue to work on my imperfections of typing and my wording choices to be less extreme than it's supposed to be. I, unlike many realize I have my share of faults but atleast I admit when I know I've made a mistake and am working on correcting it so to not to make the same mistakes or errors.

As for the third party I can agree with that but I still stick to the parents should know of any and all major procedures that their child is fixin' to undergo. If the father/mother is to be known as the parent of their child's baby then I would hope that the authorities are notified and whoever it is is jailed.

When I first posted a reply on this thread, I simply stated my position and then from their I was continually attacked.

Attacked? Where? I don't see any replies to you that even *might* be construed as "attacks" until after you started in on the, "Let's just get rid of all parental rights...." BS. On the other hand, I have yet to see you address any of the points brought up. You stated your opinion, and when others brought up counter-points, your responses pretty much always included the word, "hypocrite." Now, someone might see that as an attack.

Alot here seemingly forget that when reading typed messeges and whatnot that their are going to be misunderstood or misread posts.

So, what was misunderstood? Were we wrong in concluding that you think allowing an abortion without parental consent is a breach of parental rights?

Also, note, NSG has a rap for if you disagree with the basics of the majority here (Ultra Liberal thinking) You are a troll, a strawman, and whatnot.

I've actually seen just as much strong argument against "ultra-liberal thinking" on NSG as I have against "ultra-conservative thinking." The overall leaning of the forum might be somewhat liberal, especially by US standards, but it pretty much spans the spectrum.

As for the third party I can agree with that but I still stick to the parents should know of any and all major procedures that their child is fixin' to undergo.

Even if knowing would mean that they would kick their minor child out on the street? Even if knowing could lead to physical abuse, removal from school, or any number of problems?

In a perfect world where the streets were paved with gold, chocolate rained from the sky, and every parent was a good parent, there would be no need to allow certain medical procedures (ie. treatment for STDs, abortions, pregnancy tests, etc.) without parental consent. Of course, in that world, we wouldn't have to legally mandate parental consent, because minors would feel comfortable going to their parents with their problems.

In the real world, however, there are many reasons that a minor might need to undergo medical procedures without parental consent. To ignore those reasons is to ignore reality. Do you have a better way to address them?

Attacked? Where? I don't see any replies to you that even *might* be construed as "attacks" until after you started in on the, "Let's just get rid of all parental rights...." BS. On the other hand, I have yet to see you address any of the points brought up. You stated your opinion, and when others brought up counter-points, your responses pretty much always included the word, "hypocrite." Now, someone might see that as an attack.



So, what was misunderstood? Were we wrong in concluding that you think allowing an abortion without parental consent is a breach of parental rights?



I've actually seen just as much strong argument against "ultra-liberal thinking" on NSG as I have against "ultra-conservative thinking." The overall leaning of the forum might be somewhat liberal, especially by US standards, but it pretty much spans the spectrum.



Even if knowing would mean that they would kick their minor child out on the street? Even if knowing could lead to physical abuse, removal from school, or any number of problems?

In a perfect world where the streets were paved with gold, chocolate rained from the sky, and every parent was a good parent, there would be no need to allow certain medical procedures (ie. treatment for STDs, abortions, pregnancy tests, etc.) without parental consent. Of course, in that world, we wouldn't have to legally mandate parental consent, because minors would feel comfortable going to their parents with their problems.

In the real world, however, there are many reasons that a minor might need to undergo medical procedures without parental consent. To ignore those reasons is to ignore reality. Do you have a better way to address them?

and like somebody mentioned earlier, what if having the abortion had a complication or whatnot that resulted in Death of the minor, what then?

As you already pointed out about your "if we lived in a perfect world" arguement. Here's a list of a lot of problems that can occur with an abortion and even in the future after having abortions....

http://www.ramahinternational.org/abortion_risks.htm

If you claim it not being any of the parents business in regards to their childs abortion. Is the child informed of any and all of these risk factors? Shouldn't these risk factors be explained to the child and their parents like any juvinile arrested aren't they supposed to be questioned in the presence of a guardian/parent? or should the police and prosecutors proceed without notifying the parents?

and like somebody mentioned earlier, what if having the abortion had a complication or whatnot that resulted in Death of the minor, what then?

Sucks that the parent didn't have open and rational ties of communication with their child.

As you already pointed out about your "if we lived in a perfect world" arguement. Here's a list of a lot of problems that can occur with an abortion and even in the future after having abortions....

http://www.ramahinternational.org/abortion_risks.htm

From the same site:

'Clearly, the post abortive represent a large segment of our society. Yet few confess to this sin - especially to family and friends. Many deny comfort because they fear rejection and/or are unable to confront their own participation in ending their child’s life. Except for a handful of small ministry efforts offered through our nation’s 3‚200 pregnancy care centers and direct ministries, little is being done to reach these hearts with forgiveness and healing comfort available through Jesus Christ."

You couldn't find anything a bit less one sided?

Also, note, NSG has a rap for if you disagree with the basics of the majority here (Ultra Liberal thinking) You are a troll, a strawman, and whatnot.
Strawman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

My point is that anything in life there is practically some sort of risk. Life itself is a risk....

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002912.htm#Risks

and like somebody mentioned earlier, what if having the abortion had a complication or whatnot that resulted in Death of the minor, what then?

What then?

A continued pregnancy and childbirth have a greater possibility of complication or death, especially if the minor does not seek any type of care because she fears backlash from her parents.

If there is a good relationship between parents and daughter, then they are going to know anyways. She isn't going to be so afraid of consulting them that she tries to go it alone. If the relationship is not good, the parents are not really doing their jobs in the first place, and they are less likely to have to deal with complications and/or death if the girl gets an abortion than if she doesn't.

As you already pointed out about your "if we lived in a perfect world" arguement. Here's a list of a lot of problems that can occur with an abortion and even in the future after having abortions....

Indeed, although some of the statistics cited there are incorrect - some based on studies that have been refuted.

If you claim it not being any of the parents business in regards to their childs abortion. Is the child informed of any and all of these risk factors?

Yes. In fact, in many states, it is mandatory that she be informed of all of her options, all of the risks associated, and then have to wait at least 24 hours to think about it.

Shouldn't these risk factors be explained to the child and their parents like any juvinile arrested aren't they supposed to be questioned in the presence of a guardian/parent? or should the police and prosecutors proceed without notifying the parents?

No, the police and prosecutors should not and cannot proceed without notifying the parents. But that is a different situation.

Like I said, in the best possible situatiosn, the risks would be explained to both parents and minor, because the parent would have already cultivated that relationship with their child - would have already made it clear that they would be supportive and would be there for the minor going through all of this.

However, the best possible situation doesn't always happen. Sometimes, parental notification can endanger the minor - in many different ways. All parents are not perfect parents, or even good parents, and we have to ensure that young girls can receive adequate medical care even in those cases.

My point is that anything in life there is practically some sort of risk. Life itself is a risk....

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002912.htm#Risks

Good job on the link. Knew you could do it.


And yeah. That's the horrible thing about life. Life is the number one cause of death.

From the same site:

'Clearly, the post abortive represent a large segment of our society. Yet few confess to this sin - especially to family and friends. Many deny comfort because they fear rejection and/or are unable to confront their own participation in ending their child’s life. Except for a handful of small ministry efforts offered through our nation’s 3‚200 pregnancy care centers and direct ministries, little is being done to reach these hearts with forgiveness and healing comfort available through Jesus Christ."

You couldn't find anything a bit less one sided?
Hey, if you want to argue that having an abortion is more mentally or physically dangerous than pregnancy and childbirth, you're going to have to dig pretty low to find any sources to support you. The actual facts are pretty clear: compared to having an abortion, carrying a pregnancy to term is more physically risky, carries greater risk of permanent injury or death, has longer-lasting medical side effects, and is just as likely (if not more so) to result in mental distress.

Although I suppose that might be part of why anti-choicers want to ban abortion. When abortion is legal and performed safely in good medical facilities, it is something like 7 times safer than childbirth. In countries where abortion is not stigmatized, women almost never report serious emotional distress following their abortion.

However, if you can make sure abortion is illegal then you will also be ensuring that it is very dangerous, and more women will die because of self-performed abortions or the classic "back alley" options. At which point it will be statistically safer for a woman to endure forced childbirth than it is for her to abort her pregnancy. If you stigmatize abortion and make it a shameful or sinful practice, then you can ensure high levels of depression in women who have had abortions.

Hey, if you want to argue that having an abortion is more mentally or physically dangerous than pregnancy and childbirth, you're going to have to dig pretty low to find any sources to support you. The actual facts are pretty clear: compared to having an abortion, carrying a pregnancy to term is more physically risky, carries greater risk of permanent injury or death, has longer-lasting medical side effects, and is just as likely (if not more so) to result in mental distress.

Although I suppose that might be part of why anti-choicers want to ban abortion. When abortion is legal and performed safely in good medical facilities, it is something like 7 times safer than childbirth. However, if you can make sure abortion is illegal then you will also be ensuring that it is very dangerous, and more women will die because of self-performed abortions or the classic "back alley" options. At which point it will be statistically safer for a woman to endure forced childbirth than it is for her to abort her pregnancy.


They have this very well thought out, don't they. Make it less safe so that the facts are on your side... Genius.

They have this very well thought out, don't they. Make it less safe so that the facts are on your side... Genius.
It's like that bit from Flanders and Swann:

"They say it is now safer to fly than to cross the street. Well, I used to live out near the airport, and they had these great airport buses always whizzing about at terrific speeds. I think the drivers had instructions to keep the statistic favorable."

If I got pregnant and had an abortion, I wouldn't want my parents to know (I'm 17 now; this would have been even more true 5 years ago).

If I got pregnant and had an abortion, I wouldn't want my parents to know (I'm 17 now; this would have been even more true 5 years ago).
The funny thing is, if I'd gotten pregnant as a teenager the first thing I would have done would be to tell my parents. I'm extremely close with my parents.

I wish every kid could have parents as awesome as mine. I wish every kid had loving, supportive, trustworthy adults to rely on. But I don't think there's some magic-bullet law we can pass to make this a reality. And I think it is deeply stupid and dangerous to pass laws that assume kids have trustworthy adults in their lives, because a lot of kids don't.

The funny thing is, if I'd gotten pregnant as a teenager the first thing I would have done would be to tell my parents. I'm extremely close with my parents.

I wish every kid could have parents as awesome as mine. I wish every kid had loving, supportive, trustworthy adults to rely on. But I don't think there's some magic-bullet law we can pass to make this a reality. And I think it is deeply stupid and dangerous to pass laws that assume kids have trustworthy adults in their lives, because a lot of kids don't.

It would be interesting to see parental consent law statistics with teen-age homelessness statistics side by side.

My point is that anything in life there is practically some sort of risk. Life itself is a risk....

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002912.htm#Risks

Yes it is ... and giving berth at that age has a higher risk then having an abortion ... yet you were claiming that parents that chose the LOWER risk options should be charged with endangerment

Why? for choosing the safer option ... that hardly sounds like "endangerment"

By the way, here's an overview of Parental Consent and Notification laws pr state (http://www.crlp.org/st_law_notification.html) in the US as of November 15, 2005.

I must admit that I find the laws in West Virginia to be to my personal liking: Notice to one parent required unless physician determines that the minor is mature enough to make the decision independently or that notification would not be in the minor's best interest. Judicial bypass option available.

By the way, here's an overview of Parental Consent and Notification laws pr state (http://www.crlp.org/st_law_notification.html) in the US as of November 15, 2005.

I must admit that I find the laws in West Virginia to be to my personal liking:

I find those laws to my liking as well. I believe that broad parental notification laws that require it in all cases could result in numerous problems for girls in a number of situations, including those who have been raped, have medical problems in relation to their pregnancies, or have been the victims of incest and yet have parents who refuse to give them consent (in the case of the incest victim, deny their part in the pregnancy and blame the girl).

I think it is completely hilarious that people debate whether or not a minor should have to get parental consent to have an abortion, but nobody debates whether or not a minor should have to get parental consent to HAVE A FUCKING BABY.
Um, Bottle, I know you love working up a full head of steam, but given the multiple, and very long, threads we have had on age of consent here... :p

The Nazz: I too am interested in your source that the vast majority of underage (which age too?) pregnancies are due to sexual abuse by a male realative. No, seriously, not challenging here, I want it for the next large abortion debate so I can use it. Thanks!

Frankly, I'll tell you something: Most of the time, In my opinion, the people who get pregnant are NOT the children of people who are pro-choice. They are the children of conservative types and are scared that their parents would find birth control. I live in the people's republic of (some city), my nickname for it, because of how liberal the city in general is. I know of at least a few girls who carry condoms around.

The Nazz: I too am interested in your source that the vast majority of underage (which age too?) pregnancies are due to sexual abuse by a male realative.

Yes, very few underaged pregnancie are caused by abuse by a female relative, I'll tell yah that much.

Yes, very few underaged pregnancie are caused by abuse by a female relative, I'll tell yah that much.
Where the hell is a dead trout when you need it? *Starts looking* :p ;)

My thoughts on the matter:

First, I'm going to disregard parental notification entirely. Due to the parents' near-absolute authority within the home, parental notification and parental consent are effectively the same. Most parents who would not consent to their daughter's abortion would find a way to prevent her from having an abortion after notification, whether that means be mild (denying her a car, threatening to take something precious - say, funds for college - away) or severe (physical abuse, disowning the daughter outright).

Once the issue gets distilled to parental consent, my position becomes much easier to identify. One of the prime axioms of my political beliefs is that people have the right to do whatever they want provided that they do not interfere with the rights of others, with the best grounds for exceptions being that a person is incompetent to make such decisions. (I've commented on my personal distaste with the current "age of majority" system online before, albeit probably not on this forum - the argument is based on the same axiom.) Under this system, abortion (and even cosmetic surgery, though that conclusion is more open to compromise due to the lesser consequences of not having cosmetic surgery and the relative scarcity of teenagers who want cosmetic surgery) are the child's decision, not the parent's, provided that the child is competent to make the decision.

(Note that West Virginia's parental consent law is acceptable when taken outside the political context, as it effectively says that "incompetent minors must have effective parental consent to get an abortion".)

It is also wise to note that, unlike cosmetic surgeries and even non-elective operations, abortion is widely viewed in a political context. As such, restrictions on abortion CANNOT be judged without looking at the political context - namely, that a sizeable percentage of the Americam population would like to make abortion illegal, or else put so many restrictions on it that it is effectively illegal.

In such a political context, I believe that the implications of parental consent as an effective veto on abortion for parents who oppose abortion are more important than the considerations of parental rights. Make no mistake, parental consent laws are not really supposed to support parental rights. The true goal of parental consent law supporters is to give veto power over abortions to authority figures, simultaneously preventing many competent young women who wish to have an abortion from getting one and setting a precedent that authority figures can override a woman's right to have an abortion. What happens when the authority figure is the United States government, and the women whose rights are being overriden are none other than every woman in the United States?

Yes, this is a slippery slope argument. However, it is NOT irrelevant. Indeed, the forces of American theocracy have used such a slippery slope argument as a strategy in the past - a strategy to outlaw abortion, no less. For instance, take a look at a law that I opposed in 2004 and that I oppose now - the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The all-but-stated goal of the theocratic forces behind the bill was to establish that a fetus has the rights of a person (or else how can you charge someone for harming the fetus as well as harming the mother?), hereby attempting to set a precedent that abortion (killing a fetus) is equivalent to murder, and therefore illegal. Why should we think that the goal of parental consent laws is any different?

Where the hell is a dead trout when you need it? *Starts looking* :p ;)


Gah! I'm gonna be smacked with a dead trout! Which is probably the source of the smell in NY!!!

Um, Bottle, I know you love working up a full head of steam, but given the multiple, and very long, threads we have had on age of consent here... :p

The Nazz: I too am interested in your source that the vast majority of underage (which age too?) pregnancies are due to sexual abuse by a male realative. No, seriously, not challenging here, I want it for the next large abortion debate so I can use it. Thanks!
Sorry. I misstated that. What I meant was the specific circumstance of a teen looking for an abortion without parental consent. I was way off with that other statement, and have no excuse. In those unique circumstances, the pregnancy is usually a result of abuse.

If I got pregnant and had an abortion, I wouldn't want my parents to know (I'm 17 now; this would have been even more true 5 years ago).

Yes, but you're under 18 and therefore a retarded immature sex fiend.

Sorry. I misstated that. What I meant was the specific circumstance of a teen looking for an abortion without parental consent. I was way off with that other statement, and have no excuse. In those unique circumstances, the pregnancy is usually a result of abuse.
Dang it, you raise my hopes up and then dash them all to pieces! :p

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

Dang it, you raise my hopes up and then dash them all to pieces! :p

Understood, thanks for the clarification.

I went back and looked and said "what the fuck did I write there?" Sometimes you get caught up in the conversation and what's in your head doesn't come out the fingers.

Here's something for you all: It's either no-notification abortion, or a sharp increase in teenage girls "falling" down the stairs.

A 13-year-old who suddenly develops an infection in her womb due to an abortion is in a life threatening situation. Would it not be worse for her if her worried parents rush her to an emergency room just to be informed THEN of the reason?

Or worse, she continues to hide it from them and, again, is at risk of her life and/or future fertility.

Here's something for you all: It's either no-notification abortion, or a sharp increase in teenage girls "falling" down the stairs.

Again--poor teenage girls falling down the stairs. The rich ones will always be able to get abortions, no matter what the law says.

Where the hell do you know of that insurance pays for abortions? Especially an elective one. Most insurance companies won't even pay for birth control, though almost all of them will pay for Viagra.

Believe it or not, most insurance companies that I know of will pay for an abortion BEFORE they will pay for birth control.

Again--poor teenage girls falling down the stairs. The rich ones will always be able to get abortions, no matter what the law says.

Good point. I hate how the rich tend to support laws that will fuck over the poor and they can basically ignore. "ZOMG no welfare!" "No abortion!"

Good point. I hate how the rich tend to support laws that will fuck over the poor and they can basically ignore. "ZOMG no welfare!" "No abortion!"

Such as it always was, such as it always will be. After all, what's the point of being rich if there's no one to lord it over, right?

Not all rich people are like this, of course--just the assholish ones

Again, let's try playing the odds, here. Statistically speaking, it is far more likely that the girl is being abused by a parent or close family member.

Also, can we please remember that these are laws requiring parental notification/consent for her to get an abortion, but nobody seems to be pushing for the same laws when it comes to her HAVING A BABY. Girls can get pregnant, stay pregnant, and have a baby, all without telling their parents a damn thing, yet everybody makes a stink about a girl being able to NOT have a baby without telling her parents.

But that is, properly, a topic for another thread. This thread concerned abortions and parental notification -- so silly me, that's what I answered.

Do I think kids having kids is a good idea? No. Would I insist that a kid have a baby rather than an abortion? No. Did I allow that in some cases the kid should be removed from abusive parents and given an advocate? Why yes, yes I did. I simply think some adult, whether a blood relative or a court appointed advisor, should be involved in the process.

Such as it always was, such as it always will be. After all, what's the point of being rich if there's no one to lord it over, right?

Not all rich people are like this, of course--just the assholish ones

Which are, unfortunately, the majority.

I'm not sure I expected this to reach 10 pages... if I had suspected, I would have checked in before now. Some very good and very poor points made on both fronts, it seems to me. I'll respond to a few choice ones.

I think it is completely hilarious that people debate whether or not a minor should have to get parental consent to have an abortion, but nobody debates whether or not a minor should have to get parental consent to HAVE A FUCKING BABY.

For a 13 year old girl, a safe medical abortion is statistically safer than pregnancy and childbirth. She is less likely to suffer permanent injury or death as a result of an abortion.

The overwhelming majority of abortions performed (at least in countries like the US) are not "invasive surgery" or "major surgery" as you seem to think. They are basically induced miscarriages at very early stages of the pregnancy. The abortion procedures which qualify as "major surgery" are performed in emergency situations at much later stages of the pregnancy.

It's for a really rather simple reason - giving birth, while potentially deadly, is part of the natural progression of things. Surgery and medications, even if potentially beneficial, are not - and are therefore regulated. Allanea already sort of pointed this out.

And PLEASE cite sources if you have them. This goes for everyone. As I read through the responses, I counted more than a handful of instances where people were chanting statistics, statistics, statistics, and yet none were actually offered. Before I post this I'll see what I can find myself.

Practically every independent study done on the subject shows that the vast majority of early teen females who are pregnant are impregnated by a male relative. Throw in those girls who live in households where the parents would toss their kid into the street for being a whore--I had a friend in high school that happened to--and I'd say there's plenty of proof that in most cases, girls who don't tell their parents about a pregnancy have a reason.

Again, cite your sources, please. This (incestual pregnancies) may well be true, but a faceless voice on the internet isn't going to convince me. As for having REASONS, well, <b>of course</b> a girl will have reasons in her own mind. Their validity, on the other hand, isn't a given. There are certainly girls afraid of abusive parents, but there are certainly girls simply not wanting to face any level of shame - understandable, certainly, but a shoddy reason not to tell the parents about something this huge, in my opinion.

Indeed, but irrelevant. This type of law isn't for the girls who are worried that parents might be disappointed. This is for the girls who are worried that they will be out on the street, physically abused, or even forced to carry a pregnancy for their mistakes.

I agree, but I think that one of the problems with a law... er, lack(?) of law like this is that while it is DESIGNED to protect girls from abuse, it can be ABUSED to protect girls from any perceived threat, fear, or annoyance. Some girls end up protected, and in other cases parents are hurt because of a misunderstanding. If there WERE a law requiring consent at all times, on the other hand, the potential for abuse and the like exists. I wonder if a happy medium can be found. That West Virginia law seemed promising on the surface, though I haven't exactly meditated on it.

Although I suppose that might be part of why anti-choicers want to ban abortion. When abortion is legal and performed safely in good medical facilities, it is something like 7 times safer than childbirth. In countries where abortion is not stigmatized, women almost never report serious emotional distress following their abortion.

However, if you can make sure abortion is illegal then you will also be ensuring that it is very dangerous, and more women will die because of self-performed abortions or the classic "back alley" options. At which point it will be statistically safer for a woman to endure forced childbirth than it is for her to abort her pregnancy. If you stigmatize abortion and make it a shameful or sinful practice, then you can ensure high levels of depression in women who have had abortions.

Maybe seven times safer for the <i>woman</i>, but I'll not get into that. ;)

I agree that if you remove any shame and stigma from abortion or ANY practice, you'll lower guilt and depression levels. It's common sense. However, for many people, stigmatizing abortion is on the same level as stigmatizing rape, or theft, or murder, or anything that most societies DO stigmatize. If you attach shame or a concept of sin to anything, of course it will become a back-alley thing - the same is true of ANY practice. The only debate here is whether there are moral grounds to stigmatize abortion, and that's where people differ.

Strawman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Thanks. I'd puzzled out the meaning, but I'd never heard it used before starting poking around on NSG forums, where it's used like a catchphrase and thrown around a bit indiscriminately. :)

Sucks that the parent didn't have open and rational ties of communication with their child.

Ouch. I think your view of parents in general must be a bit optimistic, because my (perhaps jaded) view is that MOST parents have troubles communicating with their children in some way, especially their teenagers. Truly "open and rational ties of communication" seem rare to me. "Sorry, your relationship with your kid wasn't perfect, sucks for you that she's dead and you had no idea she was in danger." And we're back to what I said in my first post about shoddy parenting, but I think shoddy parenting is really pretty darn common.

*snip*

Well thought-out and verbose post; I appreciate it. I'm not sure I agree with your statement about "competent young women" and authority having the ability to "override" their rights. I may be too judgmental, but most teens who become pregnant are showing very few signs of competency, indeed. As far as the rights themselves go, that's still something very much in debate politically and socially in the United States - where the woman's rights end and the unborn child's begin. That isn't our discussion here (or at least I don't feel it is or should be), but I'm not sure it would be accurate to say that these laws are in place in order that The Man can reach down and snatch away an individual's sacred rights.

As per your use of theocracy, I have to roll my eyes a bit. Use of religion IN politics is just another platform, another tool used by politicians. I actually have strong doubts that even many highly conservative politicians truly want to have a nation legitimately ruled by a divinity - they just want votes, and power, to achieve their own personal ends. While I DO agree that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was largely to set a precedent, I'm not sold that parental consent laws are. There may be political impetus behind them to an extent, but I'd like to think that there's also a degree of "maybe parents should know their child is having invasive surgery or taking powerful medications" belief behind it.

Mac Suibhne, I corrected myself later in the thread. Sorry for the confusion.

I wasn't confused until you said that. Sorry, Nazz, I missed the correction. :)

:confused: I guess I'm just really confused. :confused:

Just to see if I'm understanding the basics here...kids are just that, kids with the exception of having a major and life changing procedure performed on them, then they are adults... :confused: Maybe, I'm just clueless, who knows.....

Here's something for you all: It's either no-notification abortion, or a sharp increase in teenage girls "falling" down the stairs.

Are there any statistics to confirm this theory? I'm curious here. Does rules about notification (especially with the possibility of judicial bypass) significantly increase the risks of "dirty abortions" (I don't know if there is a term for it, so...) for minors that are below the age of consent?

I'd welcome any links on this matter - in my own searches I've yet to come upon any statistics or educated guesses. So far it's all common sense and logic :)

:confused: I guess I'm just really confused. :confused:

Just to see if I'm understanding the basics here...kids are just that, kids with the exception of having a major and life changing procedure performed on them, then they are adults... :confused: Maybe, I'm just clueless, who knows.....

No, kids are human beings on their way to being full adults. A minor at 14 years of age is much further along in that development than a minor at 9 years of age (assuming normal development). As such, it is patently ridiculous to assume that a parent (or the government) should treat a 14-year old the same way that they would have treated that person at 9 years of age or at 5 years of age.

This procedure is life-changing, yes. In fact, it will probably affect the person who chooses to undergo an abortion (or not to) for the rest of her life. As such, only she can be tasked with making the decision. In the best situation, she will have good parents who have made it clear to her that they are supportive of her and wish the best for her. In that case, she will wish to consult them in making her decision. I know that my mother would have been one of the first people I would have talked to if I had ever been faced with it. But if those parents would ostracize her, abuse her, or force her into a decision that is not her own, they are not acting in her best interest, and should be removed from the process. And since she is the one closest to the situation and best able to determine what they would do, she should be the one who decides whether or not to include them.

Edit: And note that this goes both ways. A parent who would attempt to force an abortion upon a young girl is no better than a parent who would attempt to force a continued pregnancy upon her. Both happen, and both are examples of shitty parenting likely to leave scars that she may never be rid of.