A Parents Right in a Minors' Abortion...

[Dis]

I thought the whole point was to protect girls from their incestuous fathers.

In cases of incest, I support abortions without parental knowledge.

[Jon Miller]

but I thought the whole point was that you could still get an abortion without parental consent

you just had to go to a court first (needed for incestial fathers)

I thought we were talking about free right to abortion without consent

JM

[Sava]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Abortions, like any other medical procedure, should require parental consent <18. Any other argument is just politics. (Or Ozzy, but he's allowed his ... opinions.)

And that is your opinion.


Let's say this wasn't about abortion.

Let's say this was about some fundamentalists religionistas (any religion... pick one) who didn't believe in medical care. Let's say their CHILD, not them, was dying but needed a simple procedure... and the child was begging to have the procedure done, contrary to the parent's wishes.

Should the parents be able to let the child die just because they are the parents and medical care is against their wishes?

Do you think parental authority trumps everything?

Especially when we are dealing with 14-17 year olds?

I'm just curious.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Actually, as I understand it, abortion has been normalized in pretty much every other western democracy -- which is why there's nothing like the crazed US debate in places like Canada, the UK, and Sweden.

This is the kicker right here. Despite most of America's belief in a "culture war" in which certain issues - abortion, gay rights, gun control, and others - are crucial issues that must be fought for (or against) tooth and nail, many people in the world (specifically in Europe, but certainly larger than just that continent) don't have the same conception of these issues as "special cases." Abortion in particular can be a nonissue - but the people who oppose it want as much as possible to keep it central in the "culture war" discourse. To not oppose abortion entirely, as 100% evil and immoral, would be in their minds an acknowledgement that the issue is not as critically important as they claim. The mistake of the pro-choice element is in using the same logic, that any retreat on abortion protections would somehow betray the cause. As I said before, the only lasting pro-choice victory will be one that makes abortion a non-issue, and to do that the pro-choice element needs to make the conception of abortion that of a routine medical procedure that is subject to the same laws, protections, and societal norms as any other surgery.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Everyone who's pro-choice should be pro-parental notification. Why? Because the best pro-choice strategy is to normalize abortion, treating it as just one more surgical procedure. If my daughter can't have a kidney removed without my consent, she shouldn't be able to have a fetus removed without my consent.

I'm both and agree completely. There are legal remedies for abusive parents.

[Krill]

Age of consent in Britain is 16, and at that age all of the doctor/patient confidentiality comes into force. Other than that, everything is the same.

I don't know what elsse I could say really. I am on the side that it is the patients body.

---

But the judge also warned that abortions should not be made available if the young person lacked the maturity to understand all the advice they were given.

The thing is, IIRC, to have an abortion, two doctors have to agree it is in the girls best interests. Now, I'm not a doctor, obviously, but I would think that this, at least, is a step in the right direction.

[Arrian]

Rufus I agree.

No policy, by the way, is going to be perfect.

-Arrian

p.s. By the way, I hope I see the day when this issue is no longer central to American politics. What a waste of ****ing time & energy! Obviously, I'm "pro-choice."

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Everyone who's pro-choice should be pro-parental notification. Why? Because the best pro-choice strategy is to normalize abortion, treating it as just one more surgical procedure. If my daughter can't have a kidney removed without my consent, she shouldn't be able to have a fetus removed without my consent.

In the UK she can. Any medical treatment is between a doctor and a patient, unless the patient says otherwise. Moreover, this wasn't about whether or not her daughter had an abortion, it was about whether or not she was receiving advice about abortion. Anything said in a doctor's consultation is private, between the doctor and the patient, whatever the age of the patient.

Originally posted by snoopy369
Abortions, like any other medical procedure, should require parental consent <18. Any other argument is just politics.

So if a child is being treated for depression, their parents should be told? Sure, that's going to mean depressed kids go and see a doctor about it, rather than bottle it up on their own. Making parents required to find out means kids don't seek help.

Any medical procedure is between a patient and a doctor. Parents may be legally responsible, but someone's body is their own, and not subject to the will of anyone else. Should parents be able to force medical procedures onto their child? Or just deny them to them? Should parents who refuse medication based for religious reasons be allowed to deny medication to their non-religious teenage child?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Krill
Age of consent in Britain is 16, and at that age all of the doctor/patient confidentiality comes into force.

Not quite, doctor/patient confidentiality is in force at any age.

[Krill]

[q=Drogue]Not quite, doctor/patient confidentiality is in force at any age.[/q]

I asked my doctor that a few years ago, when I was under 16, and he said that my parents had to be informed. I must admit it was a fair while ago though...

Should parents who refuse medication based for religious reasons be allowed to deny medication to their non-religious teenage child?

I'm just so happy that I live in a country where one is allowed to openly ridicule religious beliefs...now if only we could get a decent government...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

This case is slightly odd. The women made a decision which, in later life, she regretted.

So she wants to change the law to ensure that parents are informed when minors seek abortions. Would that have stopped her taking the action she regretted, had the laws been in place at the time?

Nope. She was about 30 when she had the abortion, after all.

[Jon Miller]

It's a big deal because it is a mass killing of humans unparralleled throughout earth's history.

Jon Miller

[Odin]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
It's a big deal because it is a mass killing of humans unparralleled throughout earth's history.

Jon Miller

4 out of ten conceptions fail to survive the first few days, they either fail to implant, or are spontaneously aborted. If God hands out the souls at conception then he is the biggest mass killer of them all.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
This case is slightly odd. The women made a decision which, in later life, she regretted.

So she wants to change the law to ensure that parents are informed when minors seek abortions. Would that have stopped her taking the action she regretted, had the laws been in place at the time?

Nope. She was about 30 when she had the abortion, after all.

She is probably being used by the Anti-Choice people. This is about letting religionista parents force thier pregnant teenage daughters to have the kid, even though the teen doesn't want the kid.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I wish I could knock up more peoples' teenage daughters.

Your avatar makes that statement at least 34.73 times as funny.