Parental Consent for Tanning

[MrJonno]

Actually a parent can fuck up many people's lives and not be particuarly accountable (ie raise a criminal), governments generally can get sacked for screwing up

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually a parent can fuck up many people's lives and not be particuarly accountable (ie raise a criminal), governments generally can get sacked for screwing up

Politicians can get sacked, but politicians don't do the in loco parentis work. Bureaucrats and ministerial personnel are the ones who are hardly accountable.

[Tyrannical]

Actually a parent can fuck up many people's lives and not be particuarly accountable (ie raise a criminal), governments generally can get sacked for screwing up

Politicians can get sacked, but politicians don't do the in loco parentis work. Bureaucrats and ministerial personnel are the ones who are hardly accountable.

I'm surprised politicians haven't joined unions

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually a parent can fuck up many people's lives and not be particuarly accountable (ie raise a criminal), governments generally can get sacked for screwing up

Politicians can get sacked, but politicians don't do the in loco parentis work. Bureaucrats and ministerial personnel are the ones who are hardly accountable.

I'm surprised politicians haven't joined unions

LOL - I just saw "Senator's Local 142 Rulez!" written on a bathroom wall at local pub the other day....

[MrJonno]

Actually a parent can fuck up many people's lives and not be particuarly accountable (ie raise a criminal), governments generally can get sacked for screwing up

Politicians can get sacked, but politicians don't do the in loco parentis work. Bureaucrats and ministerial personnel are the ones who are hardly accountable.

I'm surprised politicians haven't joined unions

Many are, in fact some political parties were formed out of them

[Coito ergo sum]

Actually a parent can fuck up many people's lives and not be particuarly accountable (ie raise a criminal), governments generally can get sacked for screwing up

Politicians can get sacked, but politicians don't do the in loco parentis work. Bureaucrats and ministerial personnel are the ones who are hardly accountable.

I'm surprised politicians haven't joined unions

Many are, in fact some political parties were formed out of them

Politicians joining unions? How does that work?

You mean the have a union steward represent the politicians in negotiations, with themselves, to negotiate their pay and working conditions?

[MrJonno]

I think its more a case that politicans are representing the unions not the other way around , but many Labour party members are union members.
MP's do get to vote on their own pay through through its linked to civil servants pay. Despite what you may hear from whining Brits they really don't get paid much around $100k + some quite generous expenses which is ok but its no more than the headmaster at a school or a doctor both of which are relatively less responsible jobs.

MP's didnt used to get paid at all which basically meant they were all rich landowners making laws to promote their own financial interests, oh not much has changed then

[Seth]

convenience abortions are just manifestations of the sort of selfish, self-involved, arrogant refusal to use good judgment and accept the consequences of the voluntary act of having sex that are destroying the moral fabric of the world.

But convenience abandonment is just peachy? Or do you think selfish, self-involved, arrogant people are also great parenting material?

We're talking about minor children here, but no, they probably wouldn't be great parents. However, I'm pointing out that the easy access to convenience abortions that relieves women of the consequences of casual sex and the responsibility to raise a child has resulted in two or more generations of women who are not just sexually promiscuous but who are also unable and unwilling to take up the responsibilities of adulthood in many other ways because they have no capacity to understand that actions have consequences and therefore they seem not to understand that self-control is a necessary moral trait for all persons if society is to survive.

This applies to men just as much as women, and it is not at all clear that "sexual freedom" and the license to be promiscuous that both contraception and abortion provide is beneficial to society in the least in the long term. It has lead directly to increases in teen pregnancy and destruction of the family unit and corrosion of the institution of marriage to the point where marriage is the exception not the rule, and it has lead to worse and worse parenting of those children who do manage to survive their mother's ability to kill them at will prior to birth. I'm not at all convinced that contraception, abortion and sexual freedom is beneficial to society or the species as a whole. The evidence seems to point the other way.

[Seth]

As I said, a parent has the authority to judge whether or not it is in the best interests of the child to require the child to have an appendectomy or chemo for cancer or corrective hip surgery for a deformity or plastic surgery to correct a cleft palate.

No you don't , a doctor is, and possibly an older child. It's the parents responsibility to get them to the doctor (but not to pay for it apart from ensuring they pay their taxes). If a doctor thinks that 14 year old understands the consequences of not having chemotherapy then he doesnt get regardless of the parents wishes.

Nonsense.

You can hardly charge a 14 yea old with a serious crime if you don't think they are capable of making medical decisions about their own body

What's all this talk about a "crime?" Nobody's said anything about "crime." But both parents and the courts can compel a child to undergo a medical procedure against their will because they are deemed legally incompetent to make such decisions for themselves.

The ultimate authority for the welfare of any child is society as a whole, normally this is delegated to parents but can be overuled if the state decides its in the best interest of the child

Of course. But that doesn't mean that the parent cannot exercise that delegated authority unless and until it's overruled by the courts.

The point here is that THE CHILD is never in charge of such decisions. The child's wishes may be considered, but there is no legal or moral obligation to respect the wishes of the child if that decision is not in the child's best interests, neither on the part of the parent or the courts.

[hadespussercats]

it's my observation that in most cases, when a woman (including a teen-age woman) has a child, it has a substantial positive effect on focusing her attention on proper child care.

You're saying most mothers are good mothers, in your experience? Or are you saying that getting women focused on child care instead of other interests or needs is positive and proper?

The latter, when one is a parent.

That's what women are for?

That's what parents are for, I would say. Isn't it proper for parents to focus on child care, when they have a child?

You're missing the context, and the point.

Seth was arguing that girls who have children against their will are improved by the experience. And that becoming a mother makes a woman or a girl a better person. As for this last bit, it's a nice idea, and sometimes it's true. But only sometimes.

[hadespussercats]

I say it's not really about a rational distinction being drawn between parental control of one medical procedure or another, I say your argument is solely based in a political and philosophical objection to ANYONE having the power to control whether or not an abortion can be freely procured by ANY member of the female gender, no matter how young, old, competent or incompetent she may be. I see your argument as a continuation of the absolutist, no-compromise, no reason or rationality, mindless defense of the "right to abortion" that radical feminism insists is untouchable and beyond any review or regulation by society for any reason whatsoever.

I'm a radical feminist? That's funny. I feel like I should get to wear a cape or something.

Yeah. I'm a feminist. Hardly a radical one. But, aside from the "no reason or rationality, mindless" bit, I'd say you nailed it.

Are you really uncomromising on abortion? I think most people are not absolutists, even most feminists. Like - 8th month abortions or abortions after the woman has dilated and is in labor? An infant born premature at 7 months -- freely abortable until he or she breaths free air?

But if you want to talk irrational unreason, let's look at your cult of the Parent- whose authority and control over their children's very bodies and futures is total, uncompromising, and unquestionable. And yet...

Seth, why do you think incompetent people should be parents? Particularly when those incompetent people, in your ideal scenario, would then have total control over the bodies and lives of other, unwitting people?

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

Three generations of imbeciles are enough

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr. Buck v Bell, 274 U.S. 200.

Interestingly, as an aside, this is gem of a Supreme Court decision was penned by my least favorite Supreme Court Justice ever -- the same guy who wrote the Schenck v United States case - famous for the oft-quoted rule that the State may ban speech akin to "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" which is another of the top 10 worst Supreme Court monstrosities in American history (along with such gems as Buck v Bell, Dred Scott v Sandford, Plessy v Ferguson, and the Slaughterhouse Cases, and some others - like Korematsu v US, Katzenbach v McClung).

Please don't ascribe to me, particularly through sloppy quote-formatting, a desire to sterilise "incompetents."

Particularly since, given my medical history, I would have been the target of such actions. I'm not exaggerating-- this actually came up during the course of my healthcare.

I just wanted to know why Seth thought that incompetent people (by his own description) who didn't want children should be forced to have them.

[hadespussercats]

When abortion proponents refuse to acknowledge that abortions can be harmful and deadly and that therefore there is legitimate authority on the part of the government to regulate abortion as a part of it's inherent police powers, they marginalize themselves as irrational zealots who should be, and justifiably are, marginalized, rejected, and ignored.

Any number of surgical procedures can be dangerous. The assessment of the dangers should be between the patient and her doctor. Why is abortion a special case in this instance, but not in the analogous surgical interventions you've already introduced in previous discussion? i.e.-- you say that keeping parents involved in the choice to have an abortion is no different from having parents involved in the choice to have an appendectomy, cancer treatment, etc. And yet, abortion IS a special case for you, when you want government to regulate access to the procedure.

Here you are getting your side of the argument in trouble, Hades. It's the side of "no parental consent or notification" that creates a special case for abortion, since in any other non-emergency medical procedure, the assessment is among the doctor, the patient and the patient's legal guardians (usually parents)

I've never argued that abortion isn't a special case. It is a special case, which warrants different policies and practices than other aspects of the parent/child relationship.

I was attempting to illustrate the inconsistency in Seth's argument that abortion and appendectomies (etc.) are analogous.

[Seth]

Of course Seth has not thought it through.
Like so many other things he bangs on about with hardly any understanding.

It's you who bangs on without any understanding, not me.

Does a grandparent have the right to have his grandchild killed, if his daughter is under age?
I don't think so. So why does he have the right to do it, some weeks before it's born?

This is a red herring argument. No one has the right to kill a born child under any circumstances so your question is non sequitur. The question here is one of law. Does the parent of a minor child have the authority under existing law to compel the minor child to undergo an abortion against that child's will if it is in the best medical interests of the child? The answer is found by reference to parental authority as regards a parent compelling a minor child to undergo any surgical procedure that is necessary for the health, safety or welfare of the child, like an appendectomy or reconstructive surgery for a cleft palate or a bone disease or chem for cancer. There is no question in the law that a parent may force a child to undergo such procedures against the will of the child if it's medically necessary to do so. Abortion is just another surgical procedure. You are unable to identify any objective difference between an abortion and an appendectomy that would interfere with the parent's right and authority to compel either procedure over the child's objection. Evidently you think that throwing out asinine red herring arguments about murdering born children somehow addresses the legal issue involved here.

By making that argument, Seth is accepting that a fetus has no rights, and should have no right to life.
If it's ok for the grandfather to have the fetus killed, it must be ok for a mother, if she is of age.

I'm not accepting anything except arguendo for the purposes of analyzing parental authority over children, whether it be for tanning, abortion or appendectomy, in this particular debate.

The law gives parents broad authority to determine what is best for a child and gives a parent authority to consent to, refuse, or compel a surgical procedure that is medically necessary for the child's health. Can a parent demand that a doctor perform any such procedure that's not medically advisable? Of course not, but we're not talking about the doctor's decision, we're discussing parental authority, and abortion only entered this discussion as a tangent to the question of whether parental consent should be required, or can be exercised before a minor child uses a tanning facility.

The whole point is that the answer to that specific question is quite obviously yes. Parents have broad authority to forbid or require children to do things they don't want to do that serve the best interests of the child in all respects, not just medically. The abortion issue is just an extreme example of such authority as between parent and child.

Whether I agree that fetus' have rights in other contexts or arguments is neither admitted nor pertinent to this discussion. We're not discussing the fetus here, we're discussing parental rights.

It's ludicrous that a parent should have the right to have any operation performed on a child, if the child doesn't have a proper medical need. The child has to live a lifetime with the results. Not the parent.

Only a fool would think that I was suggesting anything else. I've never said that a parent has authority to force an unnecessary or harmful medical procedure on a child, and it's stupid to make that assumption. I've stated repeatedly that parents have the authority to compel medical procedures that are in the best interests of the child. It should be obvious to any idiot that no parent (except perhaps a physician parent) makes a medical decision about medical necessity or appropriateness of a medical procedure for a child on their own, they must perforce consult with a physician and get the physician's agreement that the procedure is needed, which automatically limits the ability of a parent to have "any operation performed on a child." This fact should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

The question being addressed here is quite specific, and it's the tension between the authority of the parent to make decisions and the desires or wishes of a child to have some different decision applied. That's the ONLY question being addressed here, not whether or not a particular medical procedure is medically necessary. That's implicit and obvious.

And my entire and sole point is that the child does not get to make these decisions for him or herself. As between parent and child, the parent makes the ultimate decision to say yea or nay to a medically necessary (and therefore axiomatically doctor-approved) medical procedure. On the other hand, a parental denial (or indeed approval) of a procedure may be overruled through the administration of due process by a judge if that parental decision is manifestly unwise and harmful to the child, so there is yet another safeguard in place to prevent abuse that only the stupid overlook.

But as between parent and child, be it homework, household chores, tanning or medical treatment, the parent has all the authority, and the child has none.

That's why circumcision is wrong, except when absolutely necessary medically. And the same goes for abortion. To impose an operation like that on a child for other than medical needs is abuse.

Of course it is, and I've never said otherwise. You have just not been able to discern the nuances in my arguments because you haven't thought carefully about them and instead you've knee-jerked your way into an embarrassing situation.

The child should have the final say, because it's the child that has to live a lifetime with the consequences, not the child's parent.

Children are not competent to make such decisions, which is why they are not given the power or authority to do so and their parents, doctors and the courts are.

What if a father wanted his daughter sterilised? Does he have the right? Him being adult and she a minor? Of course not.

Once again, how embarrassing for you to fail to understand that unless sterilization is medically necessary, and a doctor (and likely a judge) agree with the parent that it's medically necessary, a parent's decision in that regard would not be valid and if performed, would constitute abuse. But if it is medically necessary, it is the parents who ultimately give the go-ahead, and the courts who ultimately do so if the parents refuse to the detriment of the child's health, safety and welfare.

What bollocks.

Yes, you certainly did type a load of bollocks. Perhaps you ought to think more carefully about such things before you blather on about things that you evidently do not understand well. You'll save yourself some embarrassment that way.

[Seth]

When abortion proponents refuse to acknowledge that abortions can be harmful and deadly and that therefore there is legitimate authority on the part of the government to regulate abortion as a part of it's inherent police powers, they marginalize themselves as irrational zealots who should be, and justifiably are, marginalized, rejected, and ignored.

Any number of surgical procedures can be dangerous. The assessment of the dangers should be between the patient and her doctor. Why is abortion a special case in this instance, but not in the analogous surgical interventions you've already introduced in previous discussion? i.e.-- you say that keeping parents involved in the choice to have an abortion is no different from having parents involved in the choice to have an appendectomy, cancer treatment, etc. And yet, abortion IS a special case for you, when you want government to regulate access to the procedure.

Here you are getting your side of the argument in trouble, Hades. It's the side of "no parental consent or notification" that creates a special case for abortion, since in any other non-emergency medical procedure, the assessment is among the doctor, the patient and the patient's legal guardians (usually parents)

I've never argued that abortion isn't a special case. It is a special case, which warrants different policies and practices than other aspects of the parent/child relationship.

Why is it a special case? When it comes to a minor child, why is a decision about an abortion, either pro or con, any different than a decision about an appendectomy, if we remove from the equation the issue of potential fetal "personhood" or rights? What is it about pregnancy and abortion that would change the state of the law regarding parental authority as applied to a minor?

I was attempting to illustrate the inconsistency in Seth's argument that abortion and appendectomies (etc.) are analogous.

They are analogous in the context of this debate, and my argument is not inconsistent.

The assertion of personal privacy upon which the "right to abortion" is founded (at least here in the US as expounded by the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade) only applies to ADULTS, not children.

An ADULT woman has, by law, a constitutionally-protected privacy right regarding pregnancy and abortion that leaves the decision to abort between the woman and her doctor in the first and second trimesters only. In the third trimester, the state has an interest in the developing fetus and may regulate or outlaw abortion entirely.

But this right of privacy does not automatically accrue to minor children as against parental authority and decision making. Minor children do not enjoy the full panoply of civil rights enjoyed by adults because they are children, and therefore are deemed incompetent to make many decisions for themselves. They can't decide to drive, or own a gun, or vote, or marry, or refuse to do schoolwork, or chores at home or drink or any number of other things, including procuring an abortion or using a tanning facility without parental permission, if that's what the law says. And minor children may be compelled by their parents to do any number of things as well, including homework, chores or medically necessary medical treatments and procedures, which includes an abortion if it's medically necessary and in the best interests of the child. The child gets no vote in the matter because the child is incompetent to make such judgments, and therefore the parents, doctors and courts will do it for her and she can be compelled to undergo any procedure that's deemed medically necessary.

Abortion, in the context of parental authority over the child, is no different from an appendectomy. If it's deemed to be in the best interests of the child by her parents and the attending physician, then she can be compelled to undergo the procedure, or she can be DENIED the procedure, irrespective of her desires or wishes, unless the law provides otherwise.

Should the law provide otherwise? Absolutely not. Neither for tanning nor abortions. Parents, or the courts, and doctors must always be in authority over minor children and such decisions.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's what women are for?

That's what parents are for, I would say. Isn't it proper for parents to focus on child care, when they have a child?[/quote]
You're missing the context, and the point. [/quote] In all fairness to Seth, with whom I almost never agree, He did say "the latter, when one is a parent." I think the context did not warrant the implication in your question.

Seth was arguing that girls who have children against their will are improved by the experience. And that becoming a mother makes a woman or a girl a better person. As for this last bit, it's a nice idea, and sometimes it's true. But only sometimes.

[/quote]

Hmm...if that is what he was saying, then I disagree with it, and I missed it.