Parental Consent for Tanning

[mistermack]

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.

That's what make your argument pathetic, and you a troll.
You're quite happy to argue one thing in one debate, and the complete opposite in another.
Your position is contradictory and ridiculous, and you just try to con your way out with acres of pointless text.
Maybe you are actually managing to fool yourself, who can tell? I think you don't really care that what you say is so full of holes.
You just love churning it out.
Good luck with it.

[Warren Dew]

Seth, did you read your own source?

If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year - 30 or more during her lifetime. In fact, most women who have abortions have had no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%).5 Considering that most women are fertile for over 30 years, and that birth control is not perfect, the likelihood of having one or two unintended pregnancies is very high.

In other words, since we don't see women coming in for 30+ abortions in their lifetimes, it's not being used as a primary method of birth control. If you want to target promiscuity, abortion is the wrong target.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm in favor of promiscuity.

[Warren Dew]

With regard to exceptions, I'm pretty sure it's abortion that's made the exception by parental notification laws. I don't think there are any laws prohibiting appendectomies without notifying the parent if a child shows up in the emergency room with appendicitis.

[Coito ergo sum]

With regard to exceptions, I'm pretty sure it's abortion that's made the exception by parental notification laws. I don't think there are any laws prohibiting appendectomies without notifying the parent if a child shows up in the emergency room with appendicitis.

If it's an emergency, then doctors are entitled to do what is necessary. At least in US law, that is a general exception. However, if a child shows up requesting their tonsils out, the doctor can't do it without parental consent. That's why we have parents and/or guardians. They have legal authorities which are spelled out by statute.

[Warren Dew]

I'm in favor of promiscuity.

In that case, you probably want to encourage effective contraception, then. If everyone were sterilized, for example, I think we'd see even more of a jump in promiscuity.

[Warren Dew]

If it's an emergency, then doctors are entitled to do what is necessary. At least in US law, that is a general exception. However, if a child shows up requesting their tonsils out, the doctor can't do it without parental consent. That's why we have parents and/or guardians. They have legal authorities which are spelled out by statute.

Sure. And those laws apply to abortion, too. So why do we need a special law for abortion?

[Coito ergo sum]

If it's an emergency, then doctors are entitled to do what is necessary. At least in US law, that is a general exception. However, if a child shows up requesting their tonsils out, the doctor can't do it without parental consent. That's why we have parents and/or guardians. They have legal authorities which are spelled out by statute.

Sure. And those laws apply to abortion, too. So why do we need a special law for abortion?

I don't know. But, the special law is to allow folks who can't agree to other medical procedures without parental consent to agree to abortions without parental consent. If we didn't have the special law for abortion, then kids would not be able to get abortions without parental notification and consent except in emergency situations.

[Warren Dew]

I'm merely pointing out that there are other options than abortion for the children of incompetent mothers, and that abortion provides an easy way to avoid accepting the consequences of one's actions, and avoidance of the unpleasant consequences of one's own voluntary acts (like having promiscuous, unsafe sex) at the cost of another human being's life is, in my opinion, immoral and unethical. Society can deal with a mother who turns out to be incompetent to raise her child, but I believe that motherhood does indeed improve most mothers when it comes to their propensity for thoughtless and irresponsible behavior simply through the natural instincts of motherhood that most women feel towards their children. Are there exceptions? Of course. But society can always take a child away from an incompetent parent and give it to a competent person. Abortion, on the other hand, is final and forever and the child is dead, and therefore has no chance to grow up to be better than its parents.

Society can only take a child away from an incompetent parent and give it to a competent person as long as the supply of competent people wanting children exceeds the supply of unwanted children.

In our current society, where most unwanted pregnancies end in abortions, that situation is the case, and it's only kids that become older before it's clear they're unwanted that get dumped on the taxpayer. However, before Roe v. Wade, that wasn't the case: there were far more unwanted infants than there were competent adults willing to take them. As a taxpayer, I don't think it's reasonable to require me to support those infants at the cost of the welfare of my own children.

The most responsible thing is to avoid getting pregnant until one is ready to support children, I would agree. However, the least responsible thing is to have children anyway and expect the society - meaning taxpayers - to support those children. Having an abortion is more responsible than that.

[Warren Dew]

But, the special law is to allow folks who can't agree to other medical procedures without parental consent to agree to abortions without parental consent.

I don't think that's accurate. I'm pretty sure it's not accurate in the case of tanning beds. That's more like having a law that requires parental notification before kids can buy a toy at a toy store.

[MrJonno]

If it's an emergency, then doctors are entitled to do what is necessary. At least in US law, that is a general exception. However, if a child shows up requesting their tonsils out, the doctor can't do it without parental consent. That's why we have parents and/or guardians. They have legal authorities which are spelled out by statute.

Sure. And those laws apply to abortion, too. So why do we need a special law for abortion?

Well US law is very silly and is not universal and sticks of religiosity of childrens being the property of parents (especially girls)

UK situation

15 year old walks into doctor says I'm feeling very ill
Doctor says mum or dad around?
Kid says sorry they are busy
Doctor says you should try to bring them next time, but whats the problem
Kid says I think I've got AIDS
Doctor why?
Kid says my girlfriend has been diagnosed with it and I've had unsafe sex
Doctor says I can arrange a test but it would be better if you told you parents
Kid says sorry they would throw me out the house, I don't want them to know
Doctor fair enough you seen mature enough to understand the conseqeucens I will arrange test it should be avaliable this time next year ( socialised medicine remember)

No courts, no police involved

[Coito ergo sum]

But, the special law is to allow folks who can't agree to other medical procedures without parental consent to agree to abortions without parental consent.

I don't think that's accurate. I'm pretty sure it's not accurate in the case of tanning beds. That's more like having a law that requires parental notification before kids can buy a toy at a toy store.

That is accurate. A child can't agree to get plastic surgery or a tattoo without parental consent, but they can agree to an abortion. An emergency appendectomy or other emergency procedure has to be done because it's an emergency.

Tanning is not a medical procedure at all, which is why I cited it because the idea that a 16 year old has the mental acuity to agree to an abortion and to determine the safety and efficacy of birth control pills, but does NOT have have the mental acuity to choose whether or not to go to a tanning salon, seemed difficult to reconcile for me.

The best argument that I've heard to justify it is that a policy decision is made that tanning salons are inherently dangerous and are for vanity purposes only, and therefore people are being protected from themselves, while abortions are different because if parents deny consent they are making a life-long decision for the child which the child will then have to live with long after the parents can wash their hands of the situation.

[MrJonno]

Tanning is not a medical procedure at all, which is why I cited it because the idea that a 16 year old has the mental acuity to agree to an abortion and to determine the safety and efficacy of birth control pills, but does NOT have have the mental acuity to choose whether or not to go to a tanning salon, seemed difficult to reconcile for me.

It's not impossible that some time in the future tanning will be banned for everyone regardless of age, unlikely as tanning only affects the person involved but not inconvievable

[Warren Dew]

But, the special law is to allow folks who can't agree to other medical procedures without parental consent to agree to abortions without parental consent.

I don't think that's accurate. I'm pretty sure it's not accurate in the case of tanning beds. That's more like having a law that requires parental notification before kids can buy a toy at a toy store.

That is accurate. A child can't agree to get plastic surgery or a tattoo without parental consent, but they can agree to an abortion. An emergency appendectomy or other emergency procedure has to be done because it's an emergency.

You're backing off from your claim about "special law" about abortion, then? Because the difference there is just that abortion is not a cosmetic procedure.

[Coito ergo sum]

But, the special law is to allow folks who can't agree to other medical procedures without parental consent to agree to abortions without parental consent.

I don't think that's accurate. I'm pretty sure it's not accurate in the case of tanning beds. That's more like having a law that requires parental notification before kids can buy a toy at a toy store.

That is accurate. A child can't agree to get plastic surgery or a tattoo without parental consent, but they can agree to an abortion. An emergency appendectomy or other emergency procedure has to be done because it's an emergency.

You're backing off from your claim about "special law" to permit that, then? Because the difference there is that abortion is not a cosmetic procedure.

No. Not all plastic surgery is cosmetic, and you can replace cosmetic surgery with tonsilectomy, if you wish.

What is it that you are claiming? That children in the US can go on prescription codeine and get a non-emergency tonsilectomies without parental notification or consent?