CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Yes, it was deleted. Apparently calling someone out on their lack of integrity isn't appreciated here.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Based on your quoted text, you think the subject is about this thread being a flame-fest which you contributed nicely to.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Care to address the subject or are you going to continue to troll? I see the MODs already called you a troll today.
CsG
MidasKnight
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2004
- 3,288
- 0
- 76
As usual for CaD .. a thoughtful post. Thanks for replying in an adult manor in a discussion on P&N.
:thumbsup:
Our laws our challenged all of the time, get over it. Furthermore, the right to an abortion should be tied to the age of consent for each state. In many cases that's 16. I believe in South Caronlina's case, it's 14.
Additionally, I reject the notion that parents should control the medical treatments given to their child. There are various religious sects that reject modern medical care and vaccines that could save a child's life. Allowing these parents to control whether their child receives them or not is tantamount to a death sentence. Medical decisions need to be made between a doctor and the patient, end of story.
what boggles my mind is minors are deemed essentially too stupid to enter into contracts but are free to sign consent forms to have an abortion done. Aren't consent forms in some manner a contract? I think we need uniformity makes things easier.
It's not as simple as parents own their children anymore. Sure, we defer to parents for most things but in a lot of situations these days courts will overide the parents if it's in the interest of the child. This is yet another example.
Uniformity in law isn't as sexy as it sounds. We need exceptions for certain things to make the law more suited to pratical events. An example of this principle is tax credits. Everyone wants a simpler tax code but if we do that we don't let people deduct for medical expenses and the like.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Parents don't "own" their children but they are held legally responsible for them. In this case we have a minor child having an "elective" surgical procedure without the consent of the parent. Now tell me why that would be something the child should have a say in when they don't have a say in other elective procedures. Heck, you have to have parental permission to get a tattoo because of the legal issues.
Parental notification is a must as long as the child is a minor.
CsG
The child's interest generally trumps parental rights. There's a strong interest in reproductive rights, but not as strong as one in a tatoo or an elective surgury.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Ah, so getting a surgical proceedure is a "right" that trumps the parent when getting a tatoo isn't?
CsG
I think it depends on the surgical procedure. If its elective it sounds like the interest to the child wouldn't be great enough to trump the parents' rights. Tatoo is definitely not something a court would bother questioning a parent on-- too trivial.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Abortion is a surgical procedure, an elective one at that. You really don't think a parent should be notified of their minor child doing this? You can't get a tatoo but you can get an abortion with out parental consent
How rediculous.Oh, and if it's too trivial - why is the tattoo law there info?
CsG
Abortion can be distinguished from a lot of elective procedures, which come across as not really important. An abortion is a important and the only way to lose a fetus. I don't think a parent should be notified in certain circumstances. An arbiter needs to decide if its in the best interests of the child to let her make her own decision.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Abortion is a surgical procedure, an elective one at that. You really don't think a parent should be notified of their minor child doing this? You can't get a tatoo but you can get an abortion with out parental consent
I'm not familiar with the tattoo law. I consider it trivial but I can't help it if certain states don't.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Abortion is a surgical procedure, an elective one at that. You really don't think a parent should be notified of their minor child doing this? You can't get a tatoo but you can get an abortion with out parental consent
Oh, and if it's too trivial - why is the tattoo law there info?
CsG
IMHO, the problem here is that many people make judgements about abortion that they don't about other elective procedures, often ones that are not in the best interest of the child. If your daughter is 15 years old, having a kid could quite possibly wreck the rest of her life. But there are still parents who would forbid her from having an abortion, not because they think it's best for her, but because of their beliefs about abortion. They will be hurting their child by sticking by their beliefs.
Obviously the solution is for teenagers to engage in safe sex (or none at all), but many teenagers aren't smart enough to do that, and everyone makes plenty of mistakes as a teenager. I know I did, I'm sure most of you did as well. But parents are willing to sacrafice their kids for this particular mistake, even though there is a solution, simply because they don't agree with the (legal) solution.
I agree, parents should have to approve elective procedures for their kids, EXCEPT when having those elective procedures would be in the child's best interest and the parents still forbid it. Parents who aren't working in their child's best interests should not be given decision making authority. There is lots of case law to back this concept up, a parent does not have unlimited power over their child when they aren't acting in the kid's best interests.
As far as what the kid's best interests are, I think we can all agree that 15 year old girls should not be having children, correct?
Rip -- Once again, you conveniently overlook the complete story because it would get in the way of your particular rant. Everything after the lead sentence explains that the ACLU's position is that the law, as written, is unconstitutionally vague, and that they are working on an alternative provision that would allow a court to determine whether an exception was warranted in a given case.
Leave it to Riprorin to blow smoke where light would be more useful. :light:
Children have the constitutional right to an abortion without parental notification?
Can you point that out to me where I can find that?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Abortion is a surgical procedure, an elective one at that. You really don't think a parent should be notified of their minor child doing this? You can't get a tatoo but you can get an abortion with out parental consent
Oh, and if it's too trivial - why is the tattoo law there info?
CsG
IMHO, the problem here is that many people make judgements about abortion that they don't about other elective procedures, often ones that are not in the best interest of the child. If your daughter is 15 years old, having a kid could quite possibly wreck the rest of her life. But there are still parents who would forbid her from having an abortion, not because they think it's best for her, but because of their beliefs about abortion. They will be hurting their child by sticking by their beliefs.
Obviously the solution is for teenagers to engage in safe sex (or none at all), but many teenagers aren't smart enough to do that, and everyone makes plenty of mistakes as a teenager. I know I did, I'm sure most of you did as well. But parents are willing to sacrafice their kids for this particular mistake, even though there is a solution, simply because they don't agree with the (legal) solution.
I agree, parents should have to approve elective procedures for their kids, EXCEPT when having those elective procedures would be in the child's best interest and the parents still forbid it. Parents who aren't working in their child's best interests should not be given decision making authority. There is lots of case law to back this concept up, a parent does not have unlimited power over their child when they aren't acting in the kid's best interests.
As far as what the kid's best interests are, I think we can all agree that 15 year old girls should not be having children, correct?
15 year old "children" were married and having kids a 100 years ago, so no - I don't necessarily agree with that.
There is no reason that a parent should not be notified and have to give consent for an Abortion - except in the case of incest where the parent is potentially the abuser. Other than that, the parents have discretion over what is in the childs best interest and are the ones who can give consent to have the operation.
CsG
Didn't take long for this topic to be derailed into rip bashing. It seems to me that CsG is the one of the very few peoeple that are actually addressing the original post.
I don't see a problem with that.
I don't see a problem with that.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter