A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But at whom would you point it? I'd probably go after the impregnor first.

Not me. I'm not old fashion in that way. Kids are going to have sex and it is up to both of them to take precautions. It would be just as much my daughter's fault as the guy's.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why aren't you as up in arms about ear piercing?

Because preventing someone from getting an abortion, or a legal abortion, may have a slightly higher consequence than preventing her from getting her ears pierced.

And while many teens may fear their parents response to the fact that they are having sex, they probably don't have such a great fear to the fact that they want to get their ears pierced.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Because preventing someone from getting an abortion, or a legal abortion, may have a slightly higher consequence than preventing her from getting her ears pierced.

Given the consequence of getting an abortion are also quite high, it's only slightly counterintuitive that one would be less insistent in ensuring that the person be informed about all the risks and consequences of either choice.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Because preventing someone from getting an abortion, or a legal abortion, may have a slightly higher consequence than preventing her from getting her ears pierced.

And while many teens may fear their parents response to the fact that they are having sex, they probably don't have such a great fear to the fact that they want to get their ears pierced.

I think you have this upside down. It is precisely because the consequences are so high that we require consent.

[Replaced_Texan]

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.

It's also quite possible that she did discuss it with her parents.

There's also the consideration that if she can't go to a physician to have an abortion because her parents will find out, she'll try to take care of things herself.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

And shoot your daughter?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Kids are going to have sex and it is up to both of them to take precautions. It would be just as much my daughter's fault as the guy's.

But with that attitude, it seems that there's no need for parental notification of anything sexual. She's dealing with it as best she can.

[Sidd Finch]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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)?

No, I'm really arguing that government -- including courts -- should not intrude so heavily into private life as to tell a person what she must and must not tell her parents. The fact that a judge can grant an exception is not enough comfort in my view. Perhaps my level of trust on the elected state court judges who would handle this sort of thing is too low. Or my belief that requiring a 16 yo girl to initiate and go thru this process is too high.

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?

Not in my view, provided that the counseling is confidential. Obviously it depends on the specifics.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think you have this upside down. It is precisely because the consequences are so high that we require consent.

You were asking why someone bothered by the idea of parental consent for abortion is not equally bothered by the idea of parental consent for ear piercing.

My response was that, if a girl can't get her ears pierced because she's afraid to tell her parents, it's no big deal. If she can't get a safe, legal abortion because she's afraid to tell her parents, it's a much bigger deal.

Explain to me how that is upside down.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Given the consequence of getting an abortion are also quite high, it's only slightly counterintuitive that one would be less insistent in ensuring that the person be informed about all the risks and consequences of either choice.

Given that the health risks of a young girl carrying a pregnancy to term are probably higher than getting an abortion by a licensed, experienced doctor . . .

For people in urban areas, none of the restrictions are very onerous. For someone in a more rural area or small town, going to the local judge can be akin to announcing to the whole town you are pregnant. No, it shouldn't be, but it can be. And there is unlikely to be a practitioner within easy traveling distance, so the "wait a week" or "wait 2 days" requirement is not the relatively simple hurdle it might seem.


oh, fuck it, this is such a pointless argument. No one EVER EVER changes their minds.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
And shoot your daughter?

No - the person that performed the abortion. Most guys would see this as a violation.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But with that attitude, it seems that there's no need for parental notification of anything sexual. She's dealing with it as best she can.

Huh? Because I'm not going to disproportionately blame the guy, there is no need for parental notification?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You were asking why someone bothered by the idea of parental consent for abortion is not equally bothered by the idea of parental consent for ear piercing.

My response was that, if a girl can't get her ears pierced because she's afraid to tell her parents, it's no big deal. If she can't get a safe, legal abortion because she's afraid to tell her parents, it's a much bigger deal.

Explain to me how that is upside down.

Because you suggest that parental notification not be required because the stakes are so high.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

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.

The "under 18" part of this discussion just struck me. I was emancipated from my parents when I was 17. I don't pay that much attention to parental notification requirements, but I didn't talk to my parents from ages 17 - 23 or so (lived 100 miles apart, never saw them). It would have been laughable for me to show up on their doorstep and expect them to assist me with a decision. Would the law have required me to talk to them about an abortion even though they weren't even a part of my life at that time? Or are there exceptions for emancipated teenagers?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

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?

I don't have problems with mandatory counseling for minors.

Also, in Texas minors can consent to a lot without parental involvment. Treatment for reportable communicable diseases, care during pregnancy, drug and alcohol treatment. It's up to the physician's professional judgement on whether or not to tell the parents about what's going on.

From a practical standpoint, it's also a good idea to ask some health questions from kids without a parent knowing the answer. For example, before any female over the age of 12 can get an abdominal X-ray, you absolutely need to know whether or not the patient is pregnant. Having mom in the room when you ask her if there's a possibility that she's pregnant doesn't really help in getting to the answer, because kid will either lie about whether or not she's having sex, or mom will say "of course not" and glare at the kid, daring her to contradict mom. There are hundreds of other reasons that a health care provider might want to know if a patient is pregnant.