Parental Notification/Permission for Abortion

[FoolKiller]

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.

But are they required to consent to every other non-emergency medical procedure?

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.

But you are allowing children to make possible life-threatening decisions. How far are you willing to take this freedom?

And setting consent aside for a second, how does notification get affected by this? The child is still making teh decision but they are at least given counseling from their parents, and possibly even pertinent medical information.

Allowing anyone else to make the decision for them (either way) is a horrendous crime.

How amny other things should this apply to?

It was pertinent to the discussion.

I know. I was just trying to be smart. I had an urge to throw odd comments into that last post. I'm still calling you Doogie Howser though, unless you really hate it.

 

[Danoff]

But are they required to consent to every other non-emergency medical procedure?

I see why a child's choice for whether or not to take aspirin or get a shot can and should be left to the parents. But for a decision that so dramatically affects their adult life, I don't see how anyone else can make the decision for them.

But you are allowing children to make possible life-threatening decisions. How far are you willing to take this freedom?

It's potentially life-threatening either way. I'd say bringing the child to term has a slightly higher percentage chance of killing them than the abortion, but for the most part - it's a wash.

So where's the problem?

And setting consent aside for a second, how does notification get affected by this? The child is still making teh decision but they are at least given counseling from their parents, and possibly even pertinent medical information.

Notification is a little different and I can see a lot more strong arguments for why notification should be necessary (though I didn't vote for it).

How amny other things should this apply to?

How many other medical decisions do we allow parents to make that have the potential to become as terrible as being forced to give up, or carry a baby? I can't think fo any.

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

I'm not saying it's going to be intelligent. I'm saying they're the only ones that can make the choice because the alternatives are basically criminal.

 

[ledhed]

I really have to think hard on this..on one hand you have someone who doesn't trust the parents enough and in fact may be afraid of them justfiably so. On the other hand you may have someone trying to just get one over on them...and then you have everything between the two extremes.
My gut says -notify the parents but do not require parental permission or both parents permission. But then whats the use of notifying them. If they have no say ? Do you give the minor child recourse with DHS ? Do I want the government involved in a private issue ? Howw do you protect the child...both children..etc.
I am a dad and I have a daughter and a son...this is a very hard question .
remind me never to have any kids again...


Whomever came up with this thread should be shot ..twice..

 

[Swift]

Whomever came up with this thread should be shot ..twice..

Don't get mad cause it's a tough issue.

 

[ledhed]

Did I mention the two kids ..one 16 the other 25 ...I have had about enough of tough issues ....



By the way would you like to know where I am aiming the shots ?

 

[Danoff]

By the way would you like to know where I am aiming the shots ?

I don't think I want to know... but I just want to say that this was all Swift's idea.

 

[Swift]

I don't think I want to know... but I just want to say that this was all Swift's idea.

Snitch!! You started the thread!

 

[ledhed]

Remember guys ...karma...you will see...just like my dad laughs his fool head off everytime I talk about my son...you will see..

 

[FoolKiller]

I see why a child's choice for whether or not to take aspirin or get a shot can and should be left to the parents. But for a decision that so dramatically affects their adult life, I don't see how anyone else can make the decision for them.

So a pain reliever and a needle should require parental consent but anesthesia and a surgical procedure shouldn't?

It's potentially life-threatening either way. I'd say bringing the child to term has a slightly higher percentage chance of killing them than the abortion, but for the most part - it's a wash.

So where's the problem?

The problem being that factors outside the child's knowledge, such as their own medical background, could have an effect. This goes both ways. A factor could make an abortion a high-risk procedure and the girl and the doctor would both not know. With this knowledge the doctor could be able to prepare differently in order to lower risk. Or a factor could make carrying a pregnancy to term a high risk and the girl wouldn't be aware.

Notification is a little different and I can see a lot more strong arguments for why notification should be necessary (though I didn't vote for it).

Why didn't you vote for it then?

How many other medical decisions do we allow parents to make that have the potential to become as terrible as being forced to give up, or carry a baby? I can't think fo any.

Treatment of a possibly terminal cancer. Many times the treatment can be worse than just letting them die and it just drags out the innevitable, or possibly allows them to live after years of torture.

My point though is to question that you are ignoring the immaturity of the girl. Which leads to:

I'm not saying it's going to be intelligent. I'm saying they're the only ones that can make the choice because the alternatives are basically criminal.

If you admit that they might not be abole to make an intelligent decision what is criminal about applying the same standards as all other medical procedures?

But then whats the use of notifying them. If they have no say ?

They can give medical background that could be pertinent to teh child and it prevents the odd occasion where they would get a call that their child died during a medical procedure that they were unaware of. Plus it gives the doctors a bit more legal protection as he cannot be accused of not having access to any pertinent information.

I am a dad and I have a daughter and a son...this is a very hard question .
remind me never to have any kids again...

And my wife wonders why I don't want kids.

Whomever came up with this thread should be shot ..twice..

Swift and Danoff started it, I just jumped in.

A curse on both your houses!

Remember guys ...karma...you will see...just like my dad laughs his fool head off everytime I talk about my son...you will see..

Once again, why I don't want kids. I'll worry too much about a daughter and I fear a son will be like me. I can't count the number of times I nearly burned down the house in the name of scientific experimentation (age 8: yes bubble gum burns - age 16: yes, hydrogen gas burns).

 

[Danoff]

This isn't really all that complicated. If you give parents complete control over a child's medical care - in other words - they get an up down vote on every single procedure there are two consequences.

A) Parents can force a pregnant child to carry a baby to term
B) Parents can force a pregnant child to have an abortion.

Either one of those constitutes child abuse. It's about as bad as forcing your child to undergo plastic surgery, beating them, or chopping off an arm (none of which we allow parents to do).

It's that simple. The decision for whether or not to have an abortion cannot be made by anyone other than the child or it constitutes abuse. The well being of the child is at similar risk (slightly higher for carrying to term) with both scenarios.

Why didn't you vote for it then?

I didn't vote for notification because I don't feel it's necessary. Why must the parents be notified if they don't get a say in the matter? I don't buy this business about the medical history needing to be provided by the parents. That's an excuse. I don't buy for one instant that it is impossible to get a child's medical history without the parents knowing about it. That's a procedural problem, nothing more. I'm sure doctors can be sued for malpractice for operating on a patient without a proper medical history.

 

[Swift]

This isn't really all that complicated. If you give parents complete control over a child's medical care - in other words - they get an up down vote on every single procedure there are two consequences.

A) Parents can force a pregnant child to carry a baby to term
B) Parents can force a pregnant child to have an abortion.

Either one of those constitutes child abuse. It's about as bad as forcing your child to undergo plastic surgery, beating them, or chopping off an arm (none of which we allow parents to do).

It's that simple. The decision for whether or not to have an abortion cannot be made by anyone other than the child or it constitutes abuse. The well being of the child is at similar risk (slightly higher for carrying to term) with both scenarios.

Uh, wow. You consider it child abuse to let a child live with the consequences of their actions. It's NOT the same as child abuse because the parent didn't initiate the action. The parent(in most cases) didn't tell the child to have sex or impregnate the child. So, to say that it's abuse to let the child live out the consequences isn't a fair statement at all.

I didn't vote for notification because I don't feel it's necessary. Why must the parents be notified if they don't get a say in the matter? I don't buy this business about the medical history needing to be provided by the parents. That's an excuse. I don't buy for one instant that it is impossible to get a child's medical history without the parents knowing about it. That's a procedural problem, nothing more. I'm sure doctors can be sued for malpractice for operating on a patient without a proper medical history.

I feel it's very needed. If the child is in the car of the parents, and comes in with a broken leg, the parents need to be notified right away. If they come to the hospital with a broken nose and need plastic surgery, the parents must be notified. So why if a child comes to the hospital to have a baby taken out of her, the hospital says nothing?

 

[Danoff]

Uh, wow. You consider it child abuse to let a child live with the consequences of their actions. It's NOT the same as child abuse because the parent didn't initiate the action. The parent(in most cases) didn't tell the child to have sex or impregnate the child. So, to say that it's abuse to let the child live out the consequences isn't a fair statement at all.

Because there is an important choice to be made, one that cannot be made by anyone but the child. To make that choice for them is abuse.

I feel it's very needed. If the child is in the car of the parents, and comes in with a broken leg, the parents need to be notified right away. If they come to the hospital with a broken nose and need plastic surgery, the parents must be notified. So why if a child comes to the hospital to have a baby taken out of her, the hospital says nothing?

I already answered.

 

[Swift]

Because there is an important choice to be made, one that cannot be made by anyone but the child. To make that choice for them is abuse.

OK, so the child has no understanding, obviously, of the consequences of sex. Therefore, they can't understand the consequences of an abortion. But they should be the ones that make the decision?

Yeah, we're just going to disagree totally on this one. As this is where it makes no sense. If a 12 year old girl gets pregnant, the father disappears and the the parents WANT an abortion but the child doesn't. That then becomes a lovely burden of the state/federal government. Joy. The opposite situation is just as bad to me. To have the girl get an abortion even if the parents say they'll adopt the child.

I understand how you want the individual to have their rights, but the fact of the matter is they're not a full "citizen" yet. If they get arrested, it's a 99% chance they'll be tried as a minor. Meaning they didn't have full understanding of the consequences of their actions.

I just can't see how leaving this decision with the parents of children under the age of consent(in a particular state) is child abuse. In my view, it's simply part of being a parent.

 

[Danoff]

Since when did deciding whether your children carry a baby to term or get an abortion fall under parental duties?

I'll grant you that the decision isn't going to be informed. I'll grant you that minors don't fully understand the consequences of their actions. But it's simply too perverse in my mind to allow parents to force either child birth, or an abortion on their child. I simply cannot accept that anyone should have that kind of control over anyone else - whether it's a husband, a parent, or an unborn fetus.

That's not a fringe concept. We don't allow parents to do lots of things to their children, many of which fall far short of forcing them to bear a child, or forcing them to kill their unborn child.

In your scenario, where the girl wants to keep the child but that parents don't want her to. The girl can either emancipate herself from her parents and care for the child herself, or she can put it up for adoption.

 

[Swift]

Yeah, we're going to just disagree.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, we're going to just disagree.

How can you be in favor of a parent's ability to force an abortion? Surely you recognize that that is a consequence of your reasoning...

 

[FoolKiller]

How can you be in favor of a parent's ability to force an abortion? Surely you recognize that that is a consequence of your reasoning...

There are plenty of non-emergency procedures that parents can't force but have to consent to.

This would be something that would be hashed out the first time someone tried.

 

[Danoff]

There are plenty of non-emergency procedures that parents can't force but have to consent to.

This would be something that would be hashed out the first time someone tried.

So parents don't actually have complete control over which medical procedures their children get. To me, that means

A) They can't force children to get an abortion
B) They can't force children to carry a child to term

 

[Swift]

So parents don't actually have complete control over which medical procedures their children get. To me, that means

A) They can't force children to get an abortion
B) They can't force children to carry a child to term

But without parental consent, the doctor couldn't perform the operation.

How can you be in favor of a parent's ability to force an abortion? Surely you recognize that that is a consequence of your reasoning...

yep. Oh well. If the parents do a good job with their child it should never come to that. I'm just really sick of parents having their hands tied trying to raise children, then when the children go bad, everyone blames the parent.

If parents are to be held responsible, then they should be influencing all the decisions at the very least.

 

[Danoff]

But without parental consent, the doctor couldn't perform the operation.

That's the same thing as forcing the child to give birth. There is a decision to be made one way or the other. Either it will be had, or not. It is fundamentally wrong for anyone to make that decision for someone else regardless of their age.

yep. Oh well. If the parents do a good job with their child it should never come to that. I'm just really sick of parents having their hands tied trying to raise children, then when the children go bad, everyone blames the parent.

If parents are to be held responsible, then they should be influencing all the decisions at the very least.

Children tie your hands. That's all there is to it. If you don't want your hands tied, don't have children. There are lots of things you're obliged to when you have kids. Suddenly it becomes illegal to not do certain things for them, or to do certain things to them. They're human beings, with a subset of rights. They should be treated accordingly.

 

[Deathclown66]

16. That's my final answer. If they're under 16, they should need notification. And If they're under 13, the parents consent should be required, before it can be done. If the child does not want to have a child, and the parents force them to, at that point, the parents should be forced to assume legal liability/guardianship, of their grandchild, until the biological mother is 18. Obviously, the mother would retain any and all rights to see/visit the child whenever she pleases.
More on abortion, am I the only one on the planet who thinks it's absolutely outrageous that a father has no say in whether or not an abortion takes place? They're expected to have no right to say they want their child, if the mother doesn't want it, but then, if they don't want it, but the mother does, they are legally liable to help pay for the child.....One of the most viscious displays of modern discrimination, of any kind, in America, and possibly other countries to boot.

And as I'm sure the moral side of the issue has been discussed, I must say, the religous side of me thinks abortion is murder, based on my childhood upbringing.
The older, wiser, more scientifically intelligent side says, it's not murder, not any more than the morning after pill. Not any more than contraceptives, not any more than masturbation. Hell, if I may say, women form and rid of how many eggs in their lifetime? Is that a child's death?
Not to mention...... (firestarter) Where in the Bible, (since most Americans that are "religeous", are following the bible), does it state anything that implies that abortions are un-acceptable murder?

I apologize if this was too lewd, due to the graphic nature of the topic, but I think these things need to be said...

@ Swift - Let's try to think of the psychological damage to a 13 year old girl, who considers abortion murder, being forced to murder her unborn child, not just by anybody, but by the very people she's supposed to be able to trust more than anybody else in the world.
And let's try to think of the impending mountains we're creating for a 12 year old girl that parents force to have a baby, despite the fact that this immediately determines her entire life path, or nearly so.

you bring a good point about parental responsibility, but the problem there lies with what society blames parents for, and not what the parents are/are not allowed to do.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's the same thing as forcing the child to give birth.

You make it sound as if they were responsible for her getting pregnant. They didn't force her to have sex, nor did they force her to become pregnant.

 

[Danoff]

More on abortion, am I the only one on the planet who thinks it's absolutely outrageous that a father has no say in whether or not an abortion takes place?

Not by a long shot.

They're expected to have no right to say they want their child, if the mother doesn't want it, but then, if they don't want it, but the mother does, they are legally liable to help pay for the child.....One of the most viscious displays of modern discrimination, of any kind, in America, and possibly other countries to boot.

I agree that it's a double standard. If the mother wants it, and the father does not, he should not have to pay for it. But if the mother wants it and the father does not, she has discrimination over whether she has the child. This is because it's her body, and forcing her to have an abortion would be invasive, and violate a long string of rights. On the flip side, if she doesn not want the child and he does, it still violates her rights to force her to bear a child she does not want.

The father has no say over whether the child is born. That's because it isn't his body. The father should only have a say over whether he wants to accept responsibility for the child.

You make it sound as if they were responsible for her getting pregnant. They didn't force her to have sex, nor did they force her to become pregnant.

Irrelevent. The decision over whether she keeps the child occurs after pregnancy.

 

[FoolKiller]

16. That's my final answer. If they're under 16, they should need notification. And If they're under 13, the parents consent should be required, before it can be done. If the child does not want to have a child, and the parents force them to, at that point, the parents should be forced to assume legal liability/guardianship, of their grandchild, until the biological mother is 18. Obviously, the mother would retain any and all rights to see/visit the child whenever she pleases.

This is a compromise solution that I think many people could agree to. I am sure there would be some debate over the ages however.

The rest of your post would probably be best in the broader abortion thread in order to keep this one more on topic.

Irrelevent. The decision over whether she keeps the child occurs after pregnancy.

I didn't say anything about keeping the child. I was just pointing out that you make it sound as if denying her an abortion is equivelant to forcing her to become pregnant.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't say anything about keeping the child. I was just pointing out that you make it sound as if denying her an abortion is equivelant to forcing her to become pregnant.

Become pregnant? No. Stay pregnant? Yes.

 

[FoolKiller]

Become pregnant? No. Stay pregnant? Yes.

And science forbid a parent make their child live with the consequences of their actions.

 

[Danoff]

And science forbid a parent make their child live with the consequences of their actions.

Science H. Logic!!!

Explain to me exactly what the consequences of getting pregnant are?

 

[FoolKiller]

Science H. Logic!!!

Explain to me exactly what the consequences of getting pregnant are?

Pregnancy is the consequence. Unprotected sex is the action.

 

[Danoff]

Pregnancy is the consequence. Unprotected sex is the action.

If pregnanacy is the consequence then the following doesn't make sense.

And science forbid a parent make their child live with the consequences of their actions.

I'm not saying that the child can't get pregnant. I'm saying that they can't be forced to have a child.

In otherwords forcing them to give birth != making them live with the consequences of their actions.

 

[FoolKiller]

If pregnanacy is the consequence then the following doesn't make sense.



I'm not saying that the child can't get pregnant. I'm saying that they can't be forced to have a child.

In otherwords forcing them to give birth != making them live with the consequences of their actions.

The consequence of having unprotected sex is getting pregnant/having a child. They screwed up and they have to live with it. If teh poarent choose to allow them to have an abortion in order to move on that is fine,but if not then that is the result they must live with.