Parental Consent for Tanning

[mistermack]

Parents are not generally granted the right to force their daughter who wants to carry to term to have an abortion.

They should be. If they have the legal authority to consent to their daughter's desire for an abortion, the legal authority to force the child to have an abortion is implied in the same way that the legal authority to consent to a child having an appendectomy is equivalent to the legal authority to force the child to have an appendectomy against the child's wishes.

At least you're consistent on this.

Only because he doesn't want to look a complete fool. He clearly didn't think it through before posting earlier. His religious buddies wouldn't agree that a parent should be able to force their daughter to have an abortion.

It's all a bronze age mentality. People are indoctrinated with all that stuff as children, and then many don't have the balls to reject it when they grow up.
Like circumcision. This is clearly child abuse, which has endured for thousands of years. In the Bronze age, you could kill an unwanted child, with no comeback. And they did. It was extremely common in the Roman Empire.

We are slowly getting rid of this attitude that parents can do whatever they want to their kids.
Now they have to educate them. They have to feed them. They can't be cruel to them.
All by law. It's progress.
It's about time mutilation was outlawed too, and forced worship of imaginary beings.
And certainly, no parent should have the right to force a daughter to have an abortion.
That is a ludicrous situation, worthy of Roman times.

[Seth]

Parents are not generally granted the right to force their daughter who wants to carry to term to have an abortion.

They should be. If they have the legal authority to consent to their daughter's desire for an abortion, the legal authority to force the child to have an abortion is implied in the same way that the legal authority to consent to a child having an appendectomy is equivalent to the legal authority to force the child to have an appendectomy against the child's wishes.

At least you're consistent on this.

Only because he doesn't want to look a complete fool. He clearly didn't think it through before posting earlier.

Wrong. I knew exactly what I was writing, and I am consistent in my abortion arguments.

His religious buddies wouldn't agree that a parent should be able to force their daughter to have an abortion.

Of course they wouldn't, but that's irrelevant. It remains the fact that parental authority over the health, safety and welfare of their children is extremely broad, and you cannot formulate a rational rebuttal to my statement, so you have to attack me instead. Typical.

It's all a bronze age mentality. People are indoctrinated with all that stuff as children, and then many don't have the balls to reject it when they grow up.

True enough, but that applies to Atheists too.

Like circumcision. This is clearly child abuse, which has endured for thousands of years. In the Bronze age, you could kill an unwanted child, with no comeback. And they did. It was extremely common in the Roman Empire.

Circumcision in the modern age was thought to have health benefits that made it a useful procedure. Even today the evidence is quite clear that circumcision helps reduce HIV infection rates. It's hardly "child abuse" because it's a recognized medical procedure performed by physicians according to their best medical judgment.

We are slowly getting rid of this attitude that parents can do whatever they want to their kids.

That "attitude" has been long gone, at least in the US and most of Europe.

Now they have to educate them. They have to feed them. They can't be cruel to them.
All by law. It's progress.

Yup.

It's about time mutilation was outlawed too, and forced worship of imaginary beings.

I'm of mixed mind about circumcision for religious reasons, but before I'd agree about "forced worship of imaginary beings" you'd have to provide the standard critically robust and falsifiable evidence that these "imaginary beings" you claim children are being "forced to worship" do not actually exist. Until then, it may be that prudence dictates that children be brought up to worship a "god" because the consequences of not doing so are quite horrific and far more harmful than the religious teachings.

And certainly, no parent should have the right to force a daughter to have an abortion.
That is a ludicrous situation, worthy of Roman times.

Why shouldn't they? 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. So what is it, specifically, about an abortion (or refusal to grant an abortion) that makes it any different from any other medical procedure that's deemed to be in the best interests of the child's physical, mental and emotional welfare?

What is the objective criteria that makes a girl's desires sovereign in that situation and not in any other?

Or are you saying that a child can refuse to have a tonsillectomy or cleft-palate surgery as a matter of right and overrule the decision of the parents?

What's your rational argument in support of your claim that it's "ludicrous" and "worthy of Roman times?"

[hadespussercats]

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?

[hadespussercats]

There are legions of stories from women who have had abortions who have suffered severe mental illness as a result, and have publicly stated how much they regret making that decision. No small number of these women have committed suicide or become functionally disabled as a result, and I know one such woman, who had an abortion as a 15 year old, personally. She is now 40 and is still struggling with the aftereffects of that bad, bad decision. It's negatively affected her mental health and ability to function in society her whole life.

Legions? really. Where are these legions? Show me these legions.

Functionally disabled? What exactly do you mean by this?

You supposedly know one woman who's suffered in this way, and you've extrapolated to legions. You also haven't shown that this woman might have been mentally ill in any case.

Incidentally, having an unwanted child can have all those effects, and worse.

[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.

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?

[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?

[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.

Which makes Planned Parenthood (which is only in the abortion business for the money, no matter what anyone cares to say to the contrary), the chief purveyor of abortion-proponent lies, the chief enemy of everyone with reason and nuance of thought.

Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. As I've told you before.

And saying "no matter what anyone says to the contrary" in the same sentence where you uphold the virtues of "reason and nuance of thought" is sadly telling.

[Robert_S]

There are legions of stories from women who have had abortions who have suffered severe mental illness as a result, and have publicly stated how much they regret making that decision. No small number of these women have committed suicide or become functionally disabled as a result, and I know one such woman, who had an abortion as a 15 year old, personally. She is now 40 and is still struggling with the aftereffects of that bad, bad decision. It's negatively affected her mental health and ability to function in society her whole life.

Legions? really. Where are these legions? Show me these legions.

Functionally disabled? What exactly do you mean by this?

You supposedly know one woman who's suffered in this way, and you've extrapolated to legions. You also haven't shown that this woman might have been mentally ill in any case.

Incidentally, having an unwanted child can have all those effects, and worse.

I know a woman who had lingering feelings of guilt and shame about an abortion. She is "spiritual, not religious" but still believes that the holy books of the various religions were in some way "inspired by god". Anyway, we discussed the implications of my moving from that to an atheistic point of view, she said she took a look at her situation from the atheist point of view and was able to reconcile what she did with the situation she was in and finally found peace. She could tell the remnants of authoritarian conception of God to fuck off so she could just look squarely at the ethics of her decision.

[MrJonno]

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. 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

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

[mistermack]

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

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?

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.

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.

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

What bollocks.

[MrJonno]

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.

Actually the state (via courts and doctors) gets the final say, followed by the child and only then the parent. Of course the reality is normally the doctor says this is the best treatment the parent not being a moron says ok and the child trusting their parents doesnt say much and just goes along with it

[Coito ergo sum]

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).

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

[Coito ergo sum]

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)

Government does regulate access to other procedures, by the way, since it is generally not legal to have doctors perform appendectomies at the mere request of a patient.

Which makes Planned Parenthood (which is only in the abortion business for the money, no matter what anyone cares to say to the contrary), the chief purveyor of abortion-proponent lies, the chief enemy of everyone with reason and nuance of thought.

Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. As I've told you before.

And saying "no matter what anyone says to the contrary" in the same sentence where you uphold the virtues of "reason and nuance of thought" is sadly telling.

Nonprofit doesn't mean they don't make money. Lots of nonprofits have piles of money.

[Tyrannical]

Parents are not generally granted the right to force their daughter who wants to carry to term to have an abortion.

They should be. If they have the legal authority to consent to their daughter's desire for an abortion, the legal authority to force the child to have an abortion is implied in the same way that the legal authority to consent to a child having an appendectomy is equivalent to the legal authority to force the child to have an appendectomy against the child's wishes.

At least you're consistent on this.

Only because he doesn't want to look a complete fool. He clearly didn't think it through before posting earlier. His religious buddies wouldn't agree that a parent should be able to force their daughter to have an abortion.

It's all a bronze age mentality. People are indoctrinated with all that stuff as children, and then many don't have the balls to reject it when they grow up.
Like circumcision. This is clearly child abuse, which has endured for thousands of years. In the Bronze age, you could kill an unwanted child, with no comeback. And they did. It was extremely common in the Roman Empire.

We are slowly getting rid of this attitude that parents can do whatever they want to their kids.
Now they have to educate them. They have to feed them. They can't be cruel to them.
All by law. It's progress.
It's about time mutilation was outlawed too, and forced worship of imaginary beings.
And certainly, no parent should have the right to force a daughter to have an abortion.
That is a ludicrous situation, worthy of Roman times.

But you are replacing the parent can do anything with the child with the government can do anything with a child. A parent can only fuck up his own children, the government can fuck up everyone's children.