Parental Notification/Permission for Abortion

[Danoff]

It's a tough topic for sure, one that Californians have been debating for the last two elections. We just recently decided that parents need not be notified before an abortion is performed on an underage girl.

Foolkiller, Swift, and I have all weighed in.

I mean that parents are responsible for the actions of their children while they are minors. Generally speaking. Not to mention the law demands that they take care of them. So, why is it they can get an abortion and not say anything? Especially if they are under the statute limit in that state? Meaning, 12, 14 or whatever.

I get the whole privacy thing. But it's pretty much saying I can do whatever I want and you still HAVE to take care of me, by law.

Well this prop wouldn't have changed that. It was only notification of abortion, not permission. We struck down the parental permission prop last time around.

By law, parents are partially responsible for their children's behavior. If your kid goes to school, grabs a pencil and stabs someone in the eye, you don't go to jail. That being said, parents are responsible for providing food, clothing, education, and housing to their kids. If they can't do that, they shouldn't have them. But this state has decided that abortion is a personal decision, one that can be kept confidential and doesn't require parental consent, even if you're under age.

Maybe it's because some kids get pregnant by their parents. Maybe it's because some parents are pro-life and would pressure their kids to bring the fetus to term. There are a lot of reasons why abortion is personal.

I agree with Swift on this (on an abortion issue - NEVER!). I don't know what the regulations are on medical procedures in California, but I know in Kentucky that a non-emergency medical procedure cannot be performed without parental permission/notification. When I was in seventh grade I got hit under the eye with a tennis racquet and was bleeding like crazy (so it seemed). I wasn't anywhere near bleeding to death or even needing stitches so the ER doctors stood around until my father could be contacted by phone.

The same goes for cosmetic procedures. Parents have to give permission under the age of consent. I think this should apply to abortion as well. If we can't trust a 14-year-old girl to judge whether she needs bigger boobs then why do we trust her to decide if she wants to carry a fetus to term?

But California law may differ on this. I just think the parental involvement in abortion should be the same as it is in any other non-emergency medical procedure. I would even accept someone with legal permission from a parent to grant a medical procedure (I can't remember the legal term). I know my mother handed a bunch of those out to friends and family after my tennis racquet incident.

My question is this: what do parents have the right to do to their children and at what point are the rights of the child violated.

Obviously children are not property. You cannot kill your child without going to jail. Similarly, you cannot refuse medical procedures that would save your child's life. There are many things your child is legally allowed to do (and that others are legally allowed to do to your child) without your consent.

They can get their hair cut/died. They can get piercings. They can buy/wear clothing. They can receive emergency treatment. etc.

This is because children are individuals with right guaranteed under the US consitution. As a parent, do you have the right to:

Prevent your child from taking medication?
Force you child to take medication?
Prevent your child from having plastic surgery?
Force you child to have plastic surgery?
Prevent your child from receiving emergency care?
Force you child to receive emergency care?

How about forcing a child to have an abortion? How about forcing them to bear a child?

Tough questions.

My view is that as children grow older, they should become more and more in control of their bodies. I think carrying a baby is about as personal a decision as can be. If they're old enough to get pregnant, they're old enough to decide whether to keep it. The alternative is to allow the parents to force them to do either one, and I think either way could be torture.

Another argument that's often made in this discussion is that the kids are going to get the abortion done illegally anyway, so don't you want them to get it done by a trained physician? I dismiss this line of reasoning everywhere I see it. Just because people are going to break the law and hurt themselves doesn't reflect what the law should be. If kids are going to have abortions illegally without parental consent, that's on them.

 

[Swift]

I'll hit this in a second. But this would be a GREAT mass-debate topic.

Ok, here's my take on it. It should ALL require parental consent(except in emergency situations) or none should. If a girl wants to get implants, liposuction, a nose job, or almost any plastic surgery she needs consent from the parents. Now, those are mainly done for the sake of appearance. But they also are to help the self image of the person. IS that not the same reason that they would get an abortion? To preserve their self image?

 

[OZZYGT]

My view is that as children grow older, they should become more and more in control of their bodies. I think carrying a baby is about as personal a decision as can be. If they're old enough to get pregnant, they're old enough to decide whether to keep it. The alternative is to allow the parents to force them to do either one, and I think either way could be torture.
.

A good topic indeed. But I disagree with you on this one danoff.
Often, teenagers become pregnant not because they are old enough to decide whether they want a baby or not. It's the complete opposite. I'm gonna come as straight forward as I can: Teenagers like to have sex and most of the time is unprotected; why? because they are not old enough to realize the drawbacks of getting pregnant. Maybe they are taught in sex ed. that having unprotected sex might conduce to pregnancy, but then they are not mature enough to make the right decision at the time of intercourse.

A child MUST ask or tell their parents about their abortion because the parents might help them financially and morally. However, the mere decision lies on the pregnant teenager.

I really can't see humanity getting responsible about their bodies as they grow older. Don't get me wrong though, a person might be aware of its limitations at one point in their life, but it's defenitely not a progressive understanding of it.

Ciao!

 

[FoolKiller]

My view is that as children grow older, they should become more and more in control of their bodies. I think carrying a baby is about as personal a decision as can be. If they're old enough to get pregnant, they're old enough to decide whether to keep it. The alternative is to allow the parents to force them to do either one, and I think either way could be torture.

A girl can become pregnant at 11-12, sometimes even younger. Is a child that young capable of making these decisions? I mean, you sometimes have children that get pregnant at these young ages because they want a baby, like it is a pet. This is obviously someone who is not capable of coming to a mature decision about abortion. Others get pregnant at this age because they are too immature to understand the consequences of sex, but we expect them to be mature enough to understand an abortion?

This is why I think the age of consent needs to be the same for abortion as any other medical procedure. It is a serious decision and I have yet to meet a 14-year-old girl that is mature enough to think it through.

Then what are the legal implications of someone who is not a legal adult having a medical procedure where something goes wrong? Are legal waivers still legal if it is signed by a child without their guardian's permission? What is the legal position it puts the surgeon in?

I'm short on time and will jump into more of this tomorrow.

Another argument that's often made in this discussion is that the kids are going to get the abortion done illegally anyway, so don't you want them to get it done by a trained physician? I dismiss this line of reasoning everywhere I see it. Just because people are going to break the law and hurt themselves doesn't reflect what the law should be. If kids are going to have abortions illegally without parental consent, that's on them.

This I agree with you on.

Even it is legal without parental consent/notification there will be illegal back alley abortions performed due to cost issues and various other reasons. It will never go away.

 

[Danoff]

A girl can become pregnant at 11-12, sometimes even younger. Is a child that young capable of making these decisions? I mean, you sometimes have children that get pregnant at these young ages because they want a baby, like it is a pet.

So you think parents should be allowed to force their child to have an abortion?

Swift,
Would I be correct in assuming that you think parents should be able to prevent an abortion, but not to force one?

IS that not the same reason that they would get an abortion? To preserve their self image?

No. People get abortions for many reasons. Some might be for self image. Some would be because they can't afford to have a child. Others simply don't want to procreate. Still others don't want to take the health risks.

 

[milefile]

My question is this: what do parents have the right to do to their children and at what point are the rights of the child violated.

The rights of the child are violated when the child is harmed. To clarify the question: "Is parental knowledge of an abortion harmful?"

Maybe.

"Is parental prohibition of an abortion harmful?"

Maybe.

Obviously children are not property. You cannot kill your child without going to jail.

Unless the child is unborn. Then, suddenly, breathing air and eating with your mouth makes you a child.

Similarly, you cannot refuse medical procedures that would save your child's life.

Prohibiting an abortion could be seen as preventing an elective medical procedure that may threaten a child's life. The same parental responsibility to preserve the life of the child plays out (unless the child is unborn, then you can kill it).

There are many things your child is legally allowed to do (and that others are legally allowed to do to your child) without your consent.

They are not allowed to have sex with them -minors, that is- which is what is required for them to become pregnant. But it seems that once the line has been crossed it disappears.

You can't get a tattoo if you are under eighteen at all. You can't vote if you are under eighteen, period.

They can get their hair cut/died. They can get piercings. They can buy/wear clothing. They can receive emergency treatment. etc.

All of the things listed are either temporary, frivolous, or life preserving, and none are a good analogy to abortion.

This is because children are individuals with right guaranteed under the US consitution. As a parent, do you have the right to:

Prevent your child from taking medication?

Indeed you do. Many parents have protected their children from the psychiatric drug fad sweeping public schools.

Force you child to take medication?

Yes, if their health/life is dependent on it.

Prevent your child from having plastic surgery?

How bizarre. But yes. Any elective surgical procedure can be permitted or allowed at the parent's judgment. Let me add here that I do not assume all parents have good judgment. But I assume children have good judgment even less.

Force you child to have plastic surgery?

Probably not.

Prevent your child from receiving emergency care?

Probably not. There is the possibility for a lot of gray area. If a child demands emergency care for a skinned knee, and the parent says no, that is one thing. If the child is bleeding out, and the parent says no, that is another thing entirely.

Force you child to receive emergency care?

Sure. If they need it, and you are the caregiver and guardian of that child, you must.

How about forcing a child to have an abortion? How about forcing them to bear a child?

Yes. There is adoption. The pregnancy and subsequent birth are the direct result of the child's actions (or not, in the case of rape or incest, for which different considerations have to be made). The time for choice passed at ejaculation. Children are better off learning that their actions have consequences, sometimes very serious ones. Part of growing up is learning from them and being changed by them. We are, in a way, the sum of the consequences of our actions. Abortion is a consequence, but an utterly synthetic one.

Tough questions.

My view is that as children grow older, they should become more and more in control of their bodies. I think carrying a baby is about as personal a decision as can be. If they're old enough to get pregnant, they're old enough to decide whether to keep it. The alternative is to allow the parents to force them to do either one, and I think either way could be torture.

Another argument that's often made in this discussion is that the kids are going to get the abortion done illegally anyway, so don't you want them to get it done by a trained physician? I dismiss this line of reasoning everywhere I see it. Just because people are going to break the law and hurt themselves doesn't reflect what the law should be. If kids are going to have abortions illegally without parental consent, that's on them.

My view is that the parent should allow the child to choose, but thoroughly infuence their decision as much as possible toward whatever the parent's deepest values dictate. This is one of the parent's greatest responsibilities: to teach right and wrong.

 

[Danoff]

WOW! Milefile!!! When did you return? It's good to see you around here again.

 

[wfooshee]

Anyone that does anything to any child of ours without our knowledge and informed consent is going to have a very hard time continuing his life's work in this state.

It's that simple.

A question, since I don't know how it reads: If they are not required to obtain permission or give notification before the procedure, does that actually mean they are required to perform the procedure without such notification and permission? In other words, does this protect the child or the doctor?

 

[milefile]

WOW! Milefile!!! When did you return? It's good to see you around here again.

Just today. GTP never leaves you completely, and I'm having an uncharacteristicly dull and slow day at work.

Good to see you still here, too.

 

[Swift]

So you think parents should be allowed to force their child to have an abortion?

Swift,
Would I be correct in assuming that you think parents should be able to prevent an abortion, but not to force one?

If they are under the age of consent yes. If not, then just let the parents know.

No. People get abortions for many reasons. Some might be for self image. Some would be because they can't afford to have a child. Others simply don't want to procreate. Still others don't want to take the health risks.

But they take the "risk" of having sex. They can't have it both ways. Either, be prepared for the consequences of your actions or don't do said actions.

 

[Tornado]

But they take the "risk" of having sex. They can't have it both ways. Either, be prepared for the consequences of your actions or don't do said actions.

Just a quicky: While I agree with your reasoning (not necessarily your conclusion) in general, what about rape? And also, what if the child you were to bear would be deformed in some way? What if the child had Down Syndrome? What if something happens in between your wanting of a child and the actual production of one (lets say for the sake of discussion that you are laid off from work)?
Anyways, I must say that I think parents should at the very least be notified after the fact, if not before (but not necessarily be able to prevent the child from doing so). Your parents may be able to help you deal with your problems better than you can by yourself.

 

[Danoff]

I’m going to wait to respond to Foolkiller until he gets back to me on the forced abortion question. Until then…

A child MUST ask or tell their parents about their abortion because the parents might help them financially and morally. However, the mere decision lies on the pregnant teenager.

Why does the first part follow from the second? If the decision lies with the girl, why do the parents HAVE to get involved?

The rights of the child are violated when the child is harmed. To clarify the question: "Is parental knowledge of an abortion harmful?"
Maybe.
"Is parental prohibition of an abortion harmful?"
Maybe.

I’d say the harm is restricted to physical harm in this case. So I’d say parental knowledge of abortion is not against the rights of the child, but prohibition of abortion can be physical abuse if the child does not want it.

Unless the child is unborn. Then, suddenly, breathing air and eating with your mouth makes you a child.

That’s just a jab at pro-choice folks. Yes, I would say the definition of a child is one that is independent from others, one whose rights do not interfere with the rights of its mother.

Prohibiting an abortion could be seen as preventing an elective medical procedure that may threaten a child's life. The same parental responsibility to preserve the life of the child plays out (unless the child is unborn, then you can kill it).

Forcing someone to bring a child to term is also a threat on that person’s life. Probably more so than the threat abortion poses.

They are not allowed to have sex with them -minors, that is- which is what is required for them to become pregnant. But it seems that once the line has been crossed it disappears.

Actually I believe minors are legally allowed to have sex with minors. I don’t know of any cases where a 16 year old has gone to jail for having sex with a 15 year old. Who wronged who in that case? Neither was over the age of consent.

All of the things listed are either temporary, frivolous, or life preserving, and none are a good analogy to abortion.

I’m all ears for a good analogy.

Indeed you do. Many parents have protected their children from the psychiatric drug fad sweeping public schools.

I agree. Parents have the right to prevent their child from taking medication, unless not taking it will cause them great harm, in which case I disagree.

Yes, if their health/life is dependent on it.

I also agree with this. You can force your child to take medication if their life depends on it.

Probably not.

I also agree with this. You cannot force your child to have plastic surgery. Because, like all elective surgery, it does damage to/alters your body and it is not required to save your life. Abortion/No Abortion also does damage to/alters your body and is also not required (in most circumstance) to save your life.

I see the “force plastic surgery” as a good analogy to either the “forced abortion” or “forced pregnancy” situation. (Minus the additional consequences of having and being responsible for a child)

Children are better off learning that their actions have consequences, sometimes very serious ones. Part of growing up is learning from them and being changed by them. We are, in a way, the sum of the consequences of our actions. Abortion is a consequence, but an utterly synthetic one.

But they take the "risk" of having sex. They can't have it both ways. Either, be prepared for the consequences of your actions or don't do said actions.

Being forced to have a baby (which I recognize Milefile is not arguing) is not necessarily the only consequence of having sex. An alternative consequence is abortion. Swift, you assume that having a child is a consequence of having sex. But we have this wonderful procedure called abortion which allows us to not face that consequence. Therefore, children are not necessarily a consequence of sex.

Granted, they would be if abortion were illegal. But if abortion were illegal, this discussion is moot.

 

[Swift]

Just a quicky: While I agree with your reasoning (not necessarily your conclusion) in general, what about rape? And also, what if the child you were to bear would be deformed in some way? What if the child had Down Syndrome? What if something happens in between your wanting of a child and the actual production of one (lets say for the sake of discussion that you are laid off from work)?

What does any of that have to do with a minor notifying the parents about an abortion? Except obviously the forced sex things.

Being forced to have a baby (which I recognize Milefile is not arguing) is not necessarily the only consequence of having sex. An alternative consequence is abortion. Swift, you assume that having a child is a consequence of having sex. But we have this wonderful procedure called abortion which allows us to not face that consequence. Therefore, children are not necessarily a consequence of sex.

Granted, they would be if abortion were illegal. But if abortion were illegal, this discussion is moot.

Right, but it's a very logical and fairly probably that unprotected sex will result in pregnancy. Just because it's not a one to one ratio doesn't mean that you shouldn't consider the consequences. Abortion is borderline unneeded if people think about the consequences of the actions. Going back to the argument I made way back when.

I just don't see a reason for abortion outside of forced sex. It simply should be part of the consequence. Like gambling, if you're willing to put your body on the line, you should be prepared to deal with how ever the dice lay.

 

[FoolKiller]

So you think parents should be allowed to force their child to have an abortion?

I hope you know me well enough to know the answer to that.

Just in case: The answer is no.

I was merely trying to point out that just because a child is old enough to become pregnant it does not mean that she is old enough to maturely think through an abortion.

A parent cannot force a procedure and this should be the same. If I had a child I wouldn't be able to make her go get her tubes tied, but I would have to be notified if she were considering it. This should be the same way.

I am sure that if a parent tried to force an abortion or any other similar medical procedure that is not for the welfare of the child that it would create a great case for emancipation, and in some cases, removal by the state.

In all honesty, while I am opposed to abortion in general, I feel that if it is legal there should be an age range where a parent has to consent (under 16 maybe?) and then from there until 18 the parent has to be notified.

I do have one sidebar question: With allowing abortions without parental notification/consent are doctors now required to perform the procedure without that? Can a doctor that has no issues performing abortion say he refuses to perform one on a minor without parental consent?



And I have seen where a couple of people have tried making this into a debate about abortion itself.....that is not the point of this thread. I feel this creates its own issue in a world with legalized abortion. I know plenty of pro-choice people who argue opposite sides of this issue, so it can stand as a separate issue from whether abortion should be legal. Let's keep this thread on topic and not get into a debate about abortion itself. There is a separate thread for that.

 

[Danoff]

I just don't see a reason for abortion outside of forced sex. It simply should be part of the consequence. Like gambling, if you're willing to put your body on the line, you should be prepared to deal with how ever the dice lay.

That's what would happen if abortion weren't a viable alternative. But it is, so that's simply not the case. We have a medical procedure to end pregnancy. I don't see any reason why that medical procedure shouldn't be considered among the list of potential consequences for getting pregnant.

In all honesty, while I am opposed to abortion in general, I feel that if it is legal there should be an age range where a parent has to consent (under 16 maybe?) and then from there until 18 the parent has to be notified.

So you're telling me that it's ok with you if a 15 year old gets pregnant that her parents can FORCE her to bear a child against her will.

I do have one sidebar question: With allowing abortions without parental notification/consent are doctors now required to perform the procedure without that? Can a doctor that has no issues performing abortion say he refuses to perform one on a minor without parental consent?

I'm sure the doctors are not legally forced to perform them. They're simply not required to notify parents or get parental consent before performing one.

 

[Swift]

That's what would happen if abortion weren't a viable alternative. But it is, so that's simply not the case. We have a medical procedure to end pregnancy. I don't see any reason why that medical procedure shouldn't be considered among the list of potential consequences for getting pregnant.

We have a medical procedure to end a lot of STD's as well, does that mean you should just go around and have sex until you get one?

Why does the "escape" give justification for the cause?

So you're telling me that it's OK with you if a 15 year old gets pregnant that her parents can FORCE her to bear a child against her will.

They can make her do a lot of other things against her will too. Like chores, school, bathing, hygiene, church, sports and the like. How is this so much different? Maybe it's a way the parents use to show their daughter the consequences of sex.

 

[Danoff]

We have a medical procedure to end a lot of STD's as well, does that mean you should just go around and have sex until you get one?

Why does the "escape" give justification for the cause?

It doesn't. What justification do you need to have sex? Who is wronged in that act? The "escape" provides one thing and one thing only... an "escape" from the consequences.

They can make her do a lot of other things against her will too. Like chores, school, bathing, hygiene, church, sports and the like. How is this so much different? Maybe it's a way the parents use to show their daughter the consequences of sex.

How is forcing someone to bear a child different from forcing them to bathe? I don't know... that's a toughie. They're really similar. Especially if you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Swift]

It doesn't. What justification do you need to have sex? Who is wronged in that act? The "escape" provides one thing and one thing only... an "escape" from the consequences.

I'm not saying sex is wrong. I'm saying, like everything else in life, it has consequences. Both positive and potentially negative.

How is forcing someone to bear a child different from forcing them to bathe? I don't know... that's a toughie. They're really similar. Especially if you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You're forcing them to do many other things that will have a direct effect on their life. But forcing them to live out the consequences of their actions is wrong? To me, it's just like making a young child that's trying to be cool and smoke, smoke a whole pack of cigars or cigarettes just so they know how bad it is.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not saying sex is wrong. I'm saying, like everything else in life, it has consequences. Both positive and potentially negative.

Yea... like having to get an abortion.

You're forcing them to do many other things that will have a direct effect on their life. But forcing them to live out the consequences of their actions is wrong?

You mean like having an abortion? Because that's a consequence of pregnancy.

To me, it's just like making a young child that's trying to be cool and smoke, smoke a whole pack of cigars or cigarettes just so they know how bad it is.

Uh... no. Making them bear a child is not even close to the same thing as making them smoke a pack of cigarettes. I don't know how you can make that comparison.

 

[Swift]

Yea... like having to get an abortion.

No, like getting pregnant when you don't want to. That's the problem. an abortion is a fix to a problem that shouldn't have to exist if personal responsibility is taken.

For example, except for blood transfusion mistakes, it's impossible to get AIDS unless you have sex with someone that has it or shares a needle. It's totally impossible. But, the people that do get it from their own actions want all kinds of help in finding a cure. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to find a cure. What I'm saying is that if people take personal responsibility, AIDS wouldn't be even close to the challenge that it is today.

Some people even have the thought of "if I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion" To you, that's fine because you hold no value to a fetus. Or at least a young fetus. I on the other hand believe that life should have a chance to emerge.

You mean like having an abortion? Because that's a consequence of pregnancy.

Pregnancy is a consequence of sex(and sometimes a very welcomed consequence). Abortion is a solution to the consequence. Not a consequence itself.

Uh... no. Making them bear a child is not even close to the same thing as making them smoke a pack of cigarettes. I don't know how you can make that comparison.

How is smoking that much different, health wise, from bringing a child to term? They both have serious health risks, can cause your death and have possible life long ramifications.

 

[Danoff]

No, like getting pregnant when you don't want to. That's the problem. an abortion is a fix to a problem that shouldn't have to exist if personal responsibility is taken.

How is it more responsible to have a child than to have an abortion? Personal responsibility can mean having an abortion.

For example, except for blood transfusion mistakes, it's impossible to get AIDS unless you have sex with someone that has it or shares a needle. It's totally impossible. But, the people that do get it from their own actions want all kinds of help in finding a cure. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to find a cure. What I'm saying is that if people take personal responsibility, AIDS wouldn't be even close to the challenge that it is today.

Nice play! I think you know that AIDS funding is a pet peeve of mine because we already have a solution to the problem. But funding AIDS research publicly and funding AIDS research privately are two very different things. Same for abortions. I've got no problem with people funding their own abortions as a way of taking responsibility for getting pregnant.

Some people even have the thought of "if I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion" To you, that's fine because you hold no value to a fetus. Or at least a young fetus. I on the other hand believe that life should have a chance to emerge.

This discussion assumes that abortion is legal. In otherwords, it assumes that abortion is not better than or worse than having a child. If abortion were illegal, this discussion would not take place.

How is smoking that much different, health wise, from bringing a child to term? They both have serious health risks, can cause your death and have possible life long ramifications.

Aside from a greater chance of death, irreversable physiological changes, and having a child for the rest of your life? Not really different at all.

 

[Swift]

How is it more responsible to have a child than to have an abortion? Personal responsibility can mean having an abortion.

Do you have any idea how many American couples are looking to adopt?

Nice play! I think you know that AIDS funding is a pet peeve of mine because we already have a solution to the problem. But funding AIDS research publicly and funding AIDS research privately are two very different things. Same for abortions. I've got no problem with people funding their own abortions as a way of taking responsibility for getting pregnant.

Thanks. I agree on the public/private issue as far as funding goes.

This discussion assumes that abortion is legal. In otherwords, it assumes that abortion is not better than or worse than having a child. If abortion were illegal, this discussion would not take place.

Right, so we're having the discussion.

Aside from a greater chance of death, irreversible physiological changes, and having a child for the rest of your life? Not really different at all.

Who said you have to keep the child. Infact, in this entire discussion you have been assuming that the mother must keep the child. This is certainly not the case.

Also, it's a comparison. I realize that there is nothing that comes close to having a child as far as the physical side goes. But it is a willful act in most cases to have sex. Just like it is to smoke. And that act can result in pregnancy just like smoking can result in all kinds of cancer problems.

My main point is actually very simple. As far as parental permission/notification goes. If the young person is question is still in custody of their parents for all other medical procedures, how is it logical that they be kept in the dark on this medical procedure?

 

[FoolKiller]

So you're telling me that it's ok with you if a 15 year old gets pregnant that her parents can FORCE her to bear a child against her will.

Word it how you will, but yes. The parents can refuse to allow their 15-year-old daughter to have an abortion/force her to bear a child.

Pregnancy is one possible consequence of unprotected sex. I was also told that if I broke the law I would sit in jail until my arraignment because it was a consequence of my actions. If that is how a parent chooses to raise their child then so be it.

Is it OK for a parent to force a child to deal with the emotional and mental stress of having a physical deformity? The parents have to consent before webbed fingers can be fixed or many other odd situations.

A parent can deny an unnecessary medical procedure to their child for many reasons under law. Why does parental control over their child suddenly change in your mind when it comes to abortion?

I'm sure the doctors are not legally forced to perform them. They're simply not required to notify parents or get parental consent before performing one.

I was just curious because I know I've heard of lawsuits when a pharmacy didn't want to carry the morning after pill.

 

[Danoff]

Do you have any idea how many American couples are looking to adopt?

So then it follows that the responsible thing to do is to get pregnant in the first place with the goal of offering the baby for adoption. I guess I'd better get to work getting my wife pregnant then, because we're wasting valuable time that could be used to give people children to adopt.

Who said you have to keep the child. Infact, in this entire discussion you have been assuming that the mother must keep the child. This is certainly not the case.

You have a child for the rest of it's life. Even if someone else takes responsibility and you never see it again. You still have a child, it's out there, and you have to live with that for the rest of your life.

My main point is actually very simple. As far as parental permission/notification goes. If the young person is question is still in custody of their parents for all other medical procedures, how is it logical that they be kept in the dark on this medical procedure?

I think the argument for notification is significantly stronger than for permission. That's what you're arguing here (I think). But let's tackle permission first, then we can get to notification.

The parents can refuse to allow their 15-year-old daughter to have an abortion/force her to bear a child.

I see this as a special kind of unecessary torture.

Pregnancy is one possible consequence of unprotected sex. I was also told that if I broke the law I would sit in jail until my arraignment because it was a consequence of my actions. If that is how a parent chooses to raise their child then so be it.

That's right, pregnancy is a possible consequence. But having a child is not the only consequence of getting pregnant.

Is it OK for a parent to force a child to deal with the emotional and mental stress of having a physical deformity? The parents have to consent before webbed fingers can be fixed or many other odd situations.

Reversible once the child becomes an adult.

A parent can deny an unnecessary medical procedure to their child for many reasons under law. Why does parental control over their child suddenly change in your mind when it comes to abortion?

Because it isn't simply an unnecessary medical procedure. It's a personal life decision.

 

[FoolKiller]

I see this as a special kind of unecessary torture.

I think torture is a strong word. Tying someone to a bed and beating them to within an inch of their life is torture. Making them pass through a natural life process that they brought on themselves is not.

That's right, pregnancy is a possible consequence. But having a child is not the only consequence of getting pregnant.

Pregnancy is the consequence of pregnancy that is being dealt with by having an abortion. A parent can choose to let their child face the consequences of their actions or choose to pay for them to get around it and go on with life like nothing happened.

Reversible once the child becomes an adult.

And a child can be put up for adoption. Carrying it to termn does not make it permanent.

[QUOTEBecause it isn't simply an unnecessary medical procedure. It's a personal life decision.[/QUOTE]
And like all personal life decisions, the parents have to give consent. Find me any girl under the age of 16 that can truly weigh the long-term consequences of personal life decisions.

This is also a medical procedure that requires signing legal forms that many adults have trouble understanding, and you expect a teenage girl to be able to? Then you are also expecting these young girls to understand that there is a chance they can die. They are freaking out, obviously too scared to tell their parents, and are reacting out of fear. You expect this girl to completely understand the medical risks that go along with any medical procedure as well as the few risks that go along with abortions?

There is a maturity level at issue here and if they aren't mature enough to get a tattoo, see certrain movies, smoke, drink, vote, or select any other medical procedures then why would they be mature enough to make this decision?

 

[Danoff]

I think torture is a strong word. Tying someone to a bed and beating them to within an inch of their life is torture. Making them pass through a natural life process that they brought on themselves is not.

I don't think you're properly envisioning a person who is forced against their will to bring a child to term.

Pregnancy is the consequence of pregnancy that is being dealt with by having an abortion. A parent can choose to let their child face the consequences of their actions or choose to pay for them to get around it and go on with life like nothing happened.

Abortion is a tool available to everyone to avoid bearing a child after pregnancy. There is no reason to claim that this tool is not available and that the consequence of getting pregnant is necessarily bearing a child.

That's like saying that he consequence of getting sick is death. We have a tool called medicine that can remove that consequence in many cases.

And a child can be put up for adoption. Carrying it to termn does not make it permanent.

As I explained above. Having a child is even more permanent than the phyiological effects that come with it, even if you give it up.

And like all personal life decisions, the parents have to give consent.

Really? I don't remember asking my parents for permission to go to a particular college (even though I was 15 when I applied and 16 when I attended). That's what I'd call a personal life decision that minors can make. One that has many consequences for the rest of their life - and so it is one that must be made by them and cannot be made for them.

Find me any girl under the age of 16 that can truly weigh the long-term consequences of personal life decisions.

It doesn't matter, she's the only one that can make the decision. For anyone else, it isn't their decision to make because it isn't their life.

This is also a medical procedure that requires signing legal forms that many adults have trouble understanding, and you expect a teenage girl to be able to? Then you are also expecting these young girls to understand that there is a chance they can die. They are freaking out, obviously too scared to tell their parents, and are reacting out of fear. You expect this girl to completely understand the medical risks that go along with any medical procedure as well as the few risks that go along with abortions?

See above.

There is a maturity level at issue here and if they aren't mature enough to get a tattoo, see certrain movies, smoke, drink, vote, or select any other medical procedures then why would they be mature enough to make this decision?

See above.

 

[Pupik]

I may be running over old ground here, but I think parents ought to know (especially since they're paying for it) if their child is getting surgery. It clears a legal hurdle for doctors (malpractice insurance is quite high, enough to force doctors to look elsewhere for practice) to have a procedure done by licensed medical doctor.

Abortion is a form of surgery, medication is required before and after the proceedure, anesthesia is required during the proceedure, and there is the potential to have complications from abortion, physical and (very likely) mental.

I hate to get all emotionally wishy-washy, but I'd like to know if my daughter having an abortion. That won't stop me from letting her make that choice, but I damn well want to know when she's being checked out by a doctor for the removal of anything from her body.

I don't buy the excuses that parental notifications will cause "the kid will just have it done somewhere else" and "poor quality of 'private' abortions might make the proceedure more dangerous" or "they'll just kill the baby/themselves/both". If a teenager thinks they can be an adult, then they have to face the consequences of their actions. I feel if doctors aren't notifying the parents, they're running into greater risks if the patient gets harmed (I'm talking about the one expecting).

Of course, all of this is moot if the kids just get the form forged and cheat the system, and then the system might as well remain the way it is.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't think you're properly envisioning a person who is forced against their will to bring a child to term.

Possibly not, but I don't think that you are properly envisioning the foolishness in allowing someone who isn't old enough to drive to make personal life-changing medical decisions on their own.

You are talking about their rights, but why don't we grant them all these other rights at this age? Because they don't have the mental capacity and maturity to handle these things by themselves. What if this girl has the abortion out of fear and then feels bad about it and deals with mental/emotional trauma for the rest of her life? That is a consequence she didn't consider and cannot take away. It is most likely a consequence a decent parent would have presented.

An even worse scenario would be that the girl doesn't know if she is allergic to certain medications and makes a decision that kills her. While I am sure you knew your entire medical history at 15 most teenagers don't.

Abortion is a tool available to everyone to avoid bearing a child after pregnancy. There is no reason to claim that this tool is not available and that the consequence of getting pregnant is necessarily bearing a child.

That's like saying that he consequence of getting sick is death. We have a tool called medicine that can remove that consequence in many cases.

Who decides to get sick and then have to face the consequence? No one. Consenting to have sex is deciding to take that action in light of the consequence. Would you hand a gambler that lost everything more money so he can keep on going with his life or let him face bankruptcy? Would you build a homeless drunk a house so he can live in it at no expense without a job?

As I explained above. Having a child is even more permanent than the phyiological effects that come with it, even if you give it up.

So is an abortion if it isn't performed very early.

Really? I don't remember asking my parents for permission to go to a particular college (even though I was 15 when I applied and 16 when I attended).

I'm calling you Doogie Howser from now on. Pardon me if I choose not to whip my brain out to measure it.

That's what I'd call a personal life decision that minors can make. One that has many consequences for the rest of their life - and so it is one that must be made by them and cannot be made for them.

Perhaps I used too lose of a phrasing. I am sure that you couldn't go get medical procedures performed. My experience of many, many, many doctor visits and procedures I had to have a parent signature on every medical form. The only way to get around that would be to have been emancipated. Why is this medical procedure different? My parents actually did have the choice of making me go through risky heart procedures or not because it was experimental, but the only option I had at the time.

It may be cruel for a parent to make a child go through a pregnancy, but as the parent of a minor that is their decision, just as it is their decision to determine whether they can get fake boobs, rhinoplasty, liposuction, or attach a third arm and a second head.

 

[Danoff]

It may be cruel for a parent to make a child go through a pregnancy, but as the parent of a minor that is their decision, just as it is their decision to determine whether they can get fake boobs, rhinoplasty, liposuction, or attach a third arm and a second head.

Parents cannot force their children to get fake boobs, rhinoplasty, liposuction, or attach a third arm or a second head and in California at least they can't force their child to bring a fetus to term.

Yes, some children who will have abortions are too young to make the decision proeprly. But there is nothing we can do about that. They're the ONLY ones who can make the decision. Allowing anyone else to make the decision for them (either way) is a horrendous crime.

I'm calling you Doogie Howser from now on. Pardon me if I choose not to whip my brain out to measure it.

It was pertinent to the discussion.

 

[Swift]

Parents cannot force their children to get fake boobs, rhinoplasty, liposuction, or attach a third arm or a second head and in California at least they can't force their child to bring a fetus to term.

Yes, some children who will have abortions are too young to make the decision properly. But there is nothing we can do about that. They're the ONLY ones who can make the decision. Allowing anyone else to make the decision for them (either way) is a horrendous crime.

There's an inconsistency there. If you say they are too young to understand the decision, how can they make an intelligent one?