Abortion and Parental Notification?

[Buttercup]

At some age, whether 13, 16, 18, or some other age, a child should be able to get an abortion without notifying their parents. What age do you think that should be?

I would prefer to see it be 18.

 

[Ðanisty]

No one has yet to answer my question. Why can't a 16 have a tubal ligation?

I believe I answered in another thread. I don't see why a girl of 16 shouldn't be able to make that decision. It's a decision I may have made at 16 and at 27 I can say that I wouldn't have regretted it.

At some age, whether 13, 16, 18, or some other age, a child should be able to get an abortion without notifying their parents. What age do you think that should be?

The way things are now, I would say the same as the age of consent because that's when the law says you can be responsible for your sexual activities. I think a girl as young as 13 should be able to get a court order to have it done without parental permission/notification given certain circumstances. I feel this way because the child has a right to be protected from abusive parents.

 

[lilithu]

You don't think an abortion is invasive? There are potentially lifetime physical and psychological issues that will result from the abortion.

Nutshell, please refrain from reading in things into my statements. I did not say that abortion is not invasive. I said that by comparison, tubal ligation is more invasive. And I wasn't just talking about the physical procedure. As for potential lifetime physical and psychological issues that would be just as true if not more so for forcing the girl to carry the foetus to term.

Nice avoidance.

I think Buttercup's point is that we're willing to control one aspect of a minor's reproductive capability so why not another? Some reasoning would be nice.

Nice accusation.

First of all Buttercup was not talking about our willingness to control a minor's reproductive ability (so please stop reading things into her posts as well); she was talking about a minor being able to decide on surgery.

Second, what you seem to fail to understand is that my point is that the law is unclear. That's what I was saying in the post with the different age limits and that's what I was saying in my post to her. I do not understand why some things are legal and others are not. You seem to be arguing that it's very simple. 18, end of story. I'm saying that it's not so simple.

 

[nutshell]

Nutshell, please refrain from reading in things into my statements. I did not say that abortion is not invasive. I said that by comparison, tubal ligation is more invasive. And I wasn't just talking about the physical procedure. As for potential lifetime physical and psychological issues that would be just as true if not more so for forcing the girl to carry the foetus to term.

Who are you to make this comparison then? Should I call you Dr. Lilithu? My point is you've entered a very subjective element into the analysis and I think that should be avoided.

Nice accusation.

First of all Buttercup was not talking about our willingness to control a minor's reproductive ability (so please stop reading things into her posts as well); she was talking about a minor being able to decide on surgery.

Either way, the question is valid and you avoided it and have yet to offer any sound reasoning.

Second, what you seem to fail to understand is that my point is that the law is unclear. That's what I was saying in the post with the different age limits and that's what I was saying in my post to her. I do not understand why some things are legal and others are not. You seem to be arguing that it's very simple. 18, end of story. I'm saying that it's not so simple.

It's that simple because that is the age a MINOR becomes an adult. I've pointed out in this thread that California attempted to take legal steps to get a handle on what you describe as "unclear" and yet, those steps were voted down.

 

[lilithu]

Who are you to make this comparison then? Should I call you Dr. Lilithu? My point is you've entered a very subjective element into the analysis and I think that should be avoided.

No, your point was to misrepresent what I said.

Either way, the question is valid and you avoided it and have yet to offer any sound reasoning.

I gave my reasoning. That was what the "Who are you to make this comparison then?" thing above is about. If you don't think it's "sound" so be it. That does not justify accusing me of avoiding it.

It's that simple because that is the age a MINOR becomes an adult. I've pointed out in this thread that California attempted to take legal steps to get a handle on what you describe as "unclear" and yet, those steps were voted down.

Well then the voters have spoken then, haven't they?

 

[nutshell]

No, your point was to misrepresent what I said.

No that was not my point. Sorry if you don't recognize that.

I gave my reasoning. That was what the "Who are you to make this comparison then?" thing above is about. If you don't think it's "sound" so be it. That does not justify accusing me of avoiding it.

Fine.

Well then the voters have spoken then, haven't they?

Yes they have. But that doesn't mean they're right. If you think they are then I encourage you to check out the gay marriage amendment threads.

 

[lilithu]

Yes they have. But that doesn't mean they're right. If you think they are then I encourage you to check out the gay marriage amendment threads.

You're the one who brought the election results into this discussion.

I do not think that elections establish what is right. I do think they (partly) establish what is legal. Given that this was the second attempt in Cali to curtail the abortion rights of minors and the second time that it has failed, I think it's pretty much a dead issue politically in Cali; don't you? As for marriage equality rights, that issue is still very much alive nationally and I honestly think that momentum is moving in favor of legalization.

 

[nutshell]

You're the one who brought the election results into this discussion.

So what? I brought them up and said I don't like them. What's your point?

I do not think that elections establish what is right. I do think they (partly) establish what is legal. Given that this was the second attempt in Cali to curtail the abortion rights of minors and the second time that it has failed, I think it's pretty much a dead issue politically in Cali; don't you? As for marriage equality rights, that issue is still very much alive nationally and I honestly think that momentum is moving in favor of legalization.

You're reasoning seems completely out of touch. I agree elections don't necessarily establish what is "right." I don't think it's a dead issue in Cali. Voters just need to understand the issue better. It would have passed if the voters had understood the court waiver portion of this years attempt. Most thought it was just a repeat of last time.

As for marriage equality, how many states have voted against gay marriage and how many have voted for it? The numbers don't support your conclusion on momentum. I'm not saying what the states have done is "right." As far as gay marriage goes, proponents will have a better chance in the legislature and courts than they will with the voters, IMO.

 

[lilithu]

So what? I brought them up and said I don't like them. What's your point?

My point is that I was simply responding to your statement; I was not using the elections as an indicator of what is right.

You're reasoning seems completely out of touch. I agree elections don't necessarily establish what is "right." I don't think it's a dead issue in Cali. Voters just need to understand the issue better. It would have passed if the voters had understood the court waiver portion of this years attempt. Most thought it was just a repeat of last time.

As for marriage equality, how many states have voted against gay marriage and how many have voted for it? The numbers don't support your conclusion on momentum. I'm not saying what the states have done is "right." As far as gay marriage goes, proponents will have a better chance in the legislature and courts than they will with the voters, IMO.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Time will be a better indicator of what's really the case than us arguing about it. Tho I do agree that marriage equality will go faster in the courts in most cases.

 

[nutshell]

My point is that I was simply responding to your statement; I was not using the elections as an indicator of what is right.


We'll just have to agree to disagree. Time will be a better indicator of what's really the case than us arguing about it. Tho I do agree that marriage equality will go faster in the courts in most cases.

OK. Well, I haven't agreed to disagree for quite some time, so it will be nice to do it now.

 

[s2a]

Ozzie said:

Idealism has nothing to do with the context of this debate.

Of course it does.

OF COURSE it does.

Religious IDEALISM has everything to do with this debate. Is abortion simply a matter of pragmatic secular choice, or a righteous matter of morality and ethics founded upon distinct religious dogma, ideology, and [interpretational] dictate from a favored deity?

Let's think about this for just a moment. The Roe v. Wade SCOTUS ruling was predicated upon constitutionally-interpreted personal privacy issues, and the inherent civil liberties such constitutional guarantees and protections are afforded to all citizens in the expectation of personal privacy. That majority-opinion SCOTUS ruling offered no estimations/determinations upon either the moral or ethical implications of a female's [regardless of age] constitutionally protected right to legal--and open access of--reproductive choice and bodily self-determination. NONE. Since this remains true today, then just who takes legitimate issue with this SCOTUS ruling, and upon what presented arguments founded in what source of prospectively overriding authority?

Moral objections to abortion are almost entirely predicated upon moralistic ideals of behavior as mandated/dictated/interpreted in strict adherence to derivational faith-based convictions of "ideal" morality and ethics.

As an atheist, I retain no moral objections or ethical hang-ups in protecting a woman's right (both civil and human) to free and unimpeded access to reproductive health care. "Ideally", neither should anyone else; because it's not their body, and not their consequential destiny to answerably determine or account for themselves.

Unless you are willing to accord minors moral conscience equivalent to their parents, discussing the pros and cons of allowing a choice for minors with respect to abortion is superfluous.

That's crap...and you know it to be so.

Ideally, your premise would hold water within a society beholden to absolutes.

Realistically, this contemporary society is not beyond indicting and prosecuting some 14-year-olds as being murderers and cold-blooded killers; with equal legal attached accountability of requisite adult conscience and consequence for actions/choices made.

Yet within this conflict of accountable adult responsibility, the irony and hypocrisy of contemporary societal jurisprudence and cultural shift towards victimization as acceptable criminal defense, each lends itself to readily rationalize post-pubescent teens as self-conscious murderers...whilst accepting that the consequential actions of a "otherwise good" 20-year-old are simply those "of a child". Impaneled jury decisions provide ample evidential testimony to this dispenastional reality.

The State is a bystander in the debate which is really about developmental equivalence. On these grounds the State must intervene if parental responsibility is abdicated.

The State does intervene...on a case-by-case basis, because it must.

Unfortunately, the State does not test prospective parents for their suitability as being either responsible adults or caretakers of vulnerable minors/infants. There is no "licensing board" of reproductive capacity, favorability, or suitability in matters of responsible (or intentional) human procreation. Any two sexually motivated opposing-sex individuals; absolutely regardless of their suitability, capacity, maturity, or emotional/financial wherewithal--can manifest in but a few moments of hot monkey-love, an entirely unintended and unwelcome "potential" human being...you know...realistically speaking.
As it turns out, teenagers are most likely to act upon prevailing and raging hormonal and primal instincts because they think they're invulnerable (remember that feeling? I know I do...), and that they are safely removed from any lasting injury or consequence.

[I've always wondered why any claimed divine entities never made stupidity immediately painful, like a burn from a lit match. But that's another subject...]

Just for fun...is it "abdication of parental responsibility" when parents deny their minor children access to life-saving medical treatments, when such acts may violate their parenting religious beliefs?
Should the State defer to the religious ideals of the parents (in the care of their minor child) as overriding factor/favor to the most immediate health interests of the minor child in question?
Should the State determine that certain religious beliefs (and decisions derived therefrom) may constitute an abdication of parental responsibility? If so, under what circumstances, and why?
What compelling argument can the government [State] offer against parentally-held faith-based beliefs in best promoting the long-term welfare of a minor child?
Should the State exercise religious bias or prejudice in rendering such determinations? What about religiously-based ceremonies that celebrate ritualistic passage into adulthood?
Shall the State be called upon to examine and rule upon the ritualistic tests and adherent religious ceremonies/indoctrinations practiced by Jews; tribalist/native cultures/beliefs; pagan benchmarks...or pluralistically secular foundational laws?

Ideally, all citizens would abide by (and accept] the same faith-based ideological ideals and beliefs.

Realistically...they don't.

My bottom line?

If a 16-year-old girl has unprotected sex with her 25-year-old "boyfriend", and gets "knocked-up" as a result of momentary poor judgment and lesser discretion...I would rather err in favor of any potential mistake that a pregnant 16-year-old teenage girl might make in electing for an abortion procedure absent any parental consent (or *gasp* yes...even "parental notification"), in circusmstantial favor/consideration of extant parental threats earnestly delivered...most especially egarding the unintended consequences of ill-advised nad unprotected sex--might very well result in shunning/banning/expulsion from any/all familial ties/concern/love. Funny how some "responsible" parents make that threat "real" on a predictable and regular basis.

...and yet our society reels in revulsion and horror when the next "dumpster baby" is recovered...

Funny that I neither place blame at the feet of the frightened teen mother of the day/moment, nor even her "shocked" parents. I instead blame each and every person that insists that "abortion is murder", and each and every person that chastises parents for abdicating their responsibilities as moral authorities.

Hmmmm....

 

[s2a]

Hello Nutshell,

When I said:
I present the previously put question again:
"What prevailing or compelling overriding interest does the State possess in determining (legislating/mandating) the reproductive health or available [health/medical] options of any fertile female, regadless of their age?"


Your provided rebuttal was:

Your analysis is flawed because what you've quoted as the "previously put question" is not the question of the OP, which is what you responded to. It was your response to the OP, not the question you've created above, that I made my response to you.

My analysis is not "flawed" simply because I engaged a tangential aspect of the OP in tendering another inquiry that is totally relevant to the OP inquiry as initially put forward.

Please note the forum classification/header associated with this topic:

"Everything But the Kitchen Sink"
"General Debates"

Absolute conformity in reply to the initial OP is not requisite, nor is ancillary inquiry either disallowed or readily dismissed as a matter of personal discomfort or inconvenience to you as legitimate rebuttal.

Inasmuch, you are (yet again) invited to provide cogent rebuttal/reply to the [repeated] inquiry put of you. The question, within most proper OP context, awaits your considered answer.

The topic, as presented, is a matter of openly invited debate. Your efforts to modify the parameters of the debate to suit your position are noted--but remain neither especially compelling, nor qualitatively merited.