Forums

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
There is no slippery slope at all. You are confusing notification and consent.

If the law says that a kid cannot get her ears pierced without parental consent, then we've made a particular judgment, one I have no problem with.

If the law says that a kid needs her parents' consent to get an abortion, then we have made another judgment. One that I do have a problem with, not because I think that abortion is a less significant decision than ear-piercing (I state the obvious there because certain posters will otherwise claim that I do think that), but because I don't think someone should be forced to bear a child because of her parents' religious beliefs. She can get her ears pierced when she's 18, but she can't not have a baby.

If, on the other hand, the law says that a kid can have an abortion without her parents' consent, then having the state jump in and play family counselor ("well, you have to tell your parents, unless you can convince a judge that the family dynamics are such that you should not have to") seems, to me, an unwarranted extension of government into the home.

I am for both notification and consent.