A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
That's all very well and good, but the study I cited suggests that parental notification laws and erosion of confidentiality regarding reproductive rights increases teenage pregnancy (hi hello!) and abortion rates.

We should be on the same side here.

Is that surprising to you?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Is that surprising to you?

Not in the least.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by sgtclub
...that limited restrictions like parental notification with judical review are appropriate.

It has always amazed me that people could so lazily view parental notification as a "limited restriction." That's a big fucking restriction and the only purpose behind it is to hope that a teenager who is knocked up will be too scared her parents will find out she will abort, so she doesn't. Or that the teen who gets preggers and wants to abort will have a pro-life Mom and Dad who will pressure her not to abort. Aborted fetuses don't care whether the aborter's parents have been told, unless the notification is going to change the outcome. It's a shameful restriction that preys on a teen's fears of her parents and reputation, and pits teens and parents against eachother. There is no legitimate reason to narc on a girl getting an abortion. It's not a "middle ground". Just a cheap way to infringe on the right to choose. You can choose, but we're totally going to tell your Dad and Mom. Some fucking limited restriction.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
That's a big fucking restriction and the only purpose behind it is to hope that a teenager who is knocked up will be too scared her parents will find out she will abort, so she doesn't. Or that the teen who gets preggers and wants to abort will have a pro-life Mom and Dad who will pressure her not to abort. .

Yeah, it's terrible that we might expect a person under 18, with respect to whom in nearly all aspects of life we assume is too young and immature to make fully informed decisions, also to have to consult with her parents on one of the more difficult and gut-wrenching decisions anyone might make.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yeah, it's terrible that we might expect a person under 18, with respect to whom in nearly all aspects of life we assume is too young and immature to make fully informed decisions, also to have to consult with her parents on one of the more difficult and gut-wrenching decisions anyone might make.

If she wants to abort, then what is the point of requiring her to "consult with her parents"?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
If she wants to abort, then what is the point of requiring her to "consult with her parents"?

To ensure that the basis for her desire is informed. She can't sign a contract, she can't vote, she can't drink, she in many cases can't legally have sex (nor can the guy). Why should this be an area where she can't at least be required to gain further information, particularly from her parents, whom in many other respects the law still imposes a parenting obligation?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yeah, it's terrible that we might expect a person under 18, with respect to whom in nearly all aspects of life we assume is too young and immature to make fully informed decisions, also to have to consult with her parents on one of the more difficult and gut-wrenching decisions anyone might make.

It's not unreasonable at all.

But it seems a little intrusive of the government to require it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why should this be an area where she can't at least be required to gain further information, particularly from her parents, whom in many other respects the law still imposes a parenting obligation?

Because the law typically makes no allowance for those whose parents are violent, or drug-addicted, or responsible for the pregnancy, or so many other things. A pregnant teen who won't tell her parents may have very good reasons not to.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch


But it seems a little intrusive of the government to require it.

sure. and there are many intrusions by the government that I, if given the power, would eliminate. this would be neither the first nor the last one.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
To ensure that the basis for her desire is informed. She can't sign a contract, she can't vote, she can't drink, she in many cases can't legally have sex (nor can the guy). Why should this be an area where she can't at least be required to gain further information, particularly from her parents, whom in many other respects the law still imposes a parenting obligation?

To ensure that the "basis for her desire" is "informed"? She's getting an abortion b/c she wants a fetus vacuumed out of her uterus which means she doesn't want to parent it or go full term and have someone else parent it. If she wanted input from the parents or advice she would ask for it. This is imposing parental input when the daughter does NOT want it. You have a person who wants the fetus OUT, and also does NOT wish to discuss it with her parents. That should be the end of the story.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
It has always amazed me that people could so lazily view parental notification as a "limited restriction." That's a big fucking restriction and the only purpose behind it is to hope that a teenager who is knocked up will be too scared her parents will find out she will abort, so she doesn't. Or that the teen who gets preggers and wants to abort will have a pro-life Mom and Dad who will pressure her not to abort. Aborted fetuses don't care whether the aborter's parents have been told, unless the notification is going to change the outcome. It's a shameful restriction that preys on a teen's fears of her parents and reputation, and pits teens and parents against eachother. There is no legitimate reason to narc on a girl getting an abortion. It's not a "middle ground". Just a cheap way to infringe on the right to choose. You can choose, but we're totally going to tell your Dad and Mom. Some fucking limited restriction.

What Burger said, plus the following:

I'm not a parent, but I suspect if I was, and some stranger performed an abortion on my daughter without my knowledge, I'd have to break out the 12 gauge.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
To ensure that the "basis for her desire" is "informed"? She's getting an abortion b/c she wants a fetus vacuumed out of her uterus which means she doesn't want to parent it or go full term and have someone else parent it. If she wanted input from the parents or advice she would ask for it. This is imposing parental input when the daughter does NOT want it. You have a person who wants the fetus OUT, and also does NOT wish to discuss it with her parents. That should be the end of the story.

Why aren't you as up in arms about ear piercing?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Because the law typically makes no allowance for those whose parents are violent, or drug-addicted, or responsible for the pregnancy, or so many other things. A pregnant teen who won't tell her parents may have very good reasons not to.

To the contrary, all butone of these laws has a judicial bypass option, and (as the chart shows), in many states one is not limited to parents (let alone both of them). (In fact, I thought that some case held the lack of a bypass was unconstitutional, so I'm surprised Utah can do it, but maybe it was a circuit case.)

But what you're really arguing is that these laws should have more exceptions for certain cases. What's the problem if it's paigow, with her greenwich upbringing and solid family situation? That we can presume a minor can informedly consent to abortion, but not other medical procedures (not to mention a presumed inability to enter into all sorts of other contractual arrangements affecting the person's life in less serious ways)?

What if the law simply said there was mandatory counseling in lieu of parental consent (with specifics as to what the counseling consisted of)? Still too intrusive?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub

I'm not a parent, but I suspect if I was, and some stranger performed an abortion on my daughter without my knowledge, I'd have to break out the 12 gauge.

But at whom would you point it? I'd probably go after the impregnor first.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
This is imposing parental input when the daughter does NOT want it. You have a person who wants the fetus OUT, and also does NOT wish to discuss it with her parents. That should be the end of the story.

You're still assuming that she's competent to decide not to get input. I'm waiting for a basis for that assumption, when we don't make it with respect to so many other aspects of minors' lives.

If anything, given the impetuousness of youth, anyone's refusal to obtain further information about an important decision to me demonstrates that they absolutely ought to be required to get further information.

I'll repeat the earlier question though--what if it's counseling from any source (and not a pro-lifer, but someone who presents all options in a balanced way)? Would that still be too intrusive?