Parental Consent for Tanning

[Warren Dew]

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?

Absent parental notification laws, I don't think there are any laws that single out abortion for being more available to minors. The fact that abortion is different from some other surgical procedures is just a result of the normal differences between various surgical procedures.

[PsychoSerenity]

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?

I would hope that no doctor would perform non-cosmetic surgery or prescribe drugs without there being a medical reason for it - first do no harm, and all that. But if there is a medical reason for it, whether it's considered an emergency or not, and a child/teen goes to the doctor and can explain/convince the doctor that if the parents are brought in they are likely to use intimidation/coercion/threats of disownment to prevent the child from having the procedure because of their kooky beliefs about medicine, then I don't think the doctor should have to inform the parents.

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

I would hope that no doctor would perform non-cosmetic surgery or prescribe drugs without there being a medical reason for it -

I don't. Non medically necessary abortions are just fine.

first do no harm, and all that. But if there is a medical reason for it, whether it's considered an emergency or not, and a child/teen goes to the doctor and can explain/convince the doctor that if the parents are brought in they are likely to use intimidation/coercion/threats of disownment to prevent the child from having the procedure because of their kooky beliefs about medicine, then I don't think the doctor should have to inform the parents.

Lots of underlying assumptions in that statement.

1. that doctors are obliged to ensure that parents won't use "threats of disownment" etc.
2. that a child's ability to convince a doctor of such ought to be the difference between getting or not getting a medical procedure
3. That medically necessary means there are no options, or that doing nothing is also not an option.
4. That the parents might reasonably seek a second or third opinion.
5. that the parents' beliefs are likely to be kooky
Among others...

[PsychoSerenity]

I would hope that no doctor would perform non-cosmetic surgery or prescribe drugs without there being a medical reason for it -

I don't. Non medically necessary abortions are just fine.

If a pregnancy isn't stopped it will result in bringing another child into the world. I didn't say it had to be necessary, but there are clearly some serious biological consequences to pregnancy, which means there is a medical reason.

first do no harm, and all that. But if there is a medical reason for it, whether it's considered an emergency or not, and a child/teen goes to the doctor and can explain/convince the doctor that if the parents are brought in they are likely to use intimidation/coercion/threats of disownment to prevent the child from having the procedure because of their kooky beliefs about medicine, then I don't think the doctor should have to inform the parents.

Lots of underlying assumptions in that statement.

1. that doctors are obliged to ensure that parents won't use "threats of disownment" etc.

Society as a whole has a duty to protect children, from their own parents if necessary. For medical issues part of that duty falls to doctors.

2. that a child's ability to convince a doctor of such ought to be the difference between getting or not getting a medical procedure

Obviously it would be better if it didn't have to rely on a child's convincingness, but sometimes that may be all they have. In some cases social services could be brought in to help.

3. That medically necessary means there are no options, or that doing nothing is also not an option.
4. That the parents might reasonably seek a second or third opinion.

Doctors themselves are best placed to to discuss all the different options with their patients, given individual circumstances, and are expected to do so, including putting patients in touch with other people they can talk to.

5. that the parents' beliefs are likely to be kooky.

They're not likely to be. And in most cases the matter of informing the parents will not even be an issue. But in some cases it quite clearly is, and people have suffered unnecessarily, and children have died unnecessarily as a result. I think it's important that society has measures in place to protect the vulnerable in the most difficult circumstances.

[Seth]

It's your womb. Use it wisely or suffer the consequences, and quit trying to shuffle the consequences off on the fetus, who is not at fault.

Listen. Abortion can be a part of using one's womb wisely. And I don't think a child should be used to inflict punishment.

That's part of the problem, that you would consider having to endure the ordinary and natural consequences of having sex and gestating a child to be "punishment" when it's nothing more than accepting the consequences of one's own actions.

You think promiscuity is bad. You posit that promiscuity is bad on faith. In other words, you take it as a given that promiscuous behavior is undesirable and should be punished.
You think the appropriate punishment for promiscuity is to have to bear an unwanted child-- as you'd put it, "Suffer the consequences." To bring us round to my original point, stated in stronger terms: you think an unwanted child is an appropriate punishment for a slut.

No, I think promiscuity is irresponsible and potentially dangerous for any number of very good reasons, pregnancy being the least among them. And I ask why it is that you believe that society is obligated to free a promiscuous woman from one of the natural, ordinary, expected consequences of having sex, which is pregnancy? The same question applies to another important aspect of promiscuous sex, which is the transmission of STDs. But there is a rational public policy answer regarding promiscuous sex and STDs, and that's the public health issue. The law states that a person who is infected with STDs in certain cases can be prohibited from having unprotected sex with others on pain of criminal prosecution, and they can be quarantined and required to undergo medical treatment if they wish to be released. This is government regulation of irresponsible sexual behavior that threatens the health, safety and welfare of others and is in the public interest. The state is not obligated to respect anyone's putative "right to privacy" in that regard, and it may inconvenience such a person to the point of removing their liberty in order to protect the public health.

So, I'm asking you to justify why it is that society is under an obligation to respect a woman's putative right to privacy when it comes to pregnancy by allowing the decision to abort a fetus to go without state review or intervention? Why is the state obligated to allow, or in some cases facilitate a woman's desire to have an abortion of convenience that constitutes little more than the state facilitating the woman's desire to avoid the known, natural and ordinary consequences of having sex?

If you walk to the edge of a cliff and step off, the force of gravity will impose a natural, expected and ordinary consequence upon your irresponsible and potentially dangerous actions. Is the state obligated to put up a fence at the edge of every cliff to relieve imprudent and irresponsible people from the natural consequences of falling off of them?

Or, for that matter, is the state prohibited from regulating your approach to the edge of a cliff by putting up a fence, or a sign and imposing criminal liability upon you if you violate that law because doing so results in undesirable consequences for the public, such as the expenditure of public money to recover your body or rescue you?

In other words, why should the state be prevented from intervening in the abortion decision if the state decides that there are justifiable public policy issues that require it to do so?

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade found a "right to privacy" in gestational decisions that is not in fact found in the Constitution, and that is diminished by the fact that there are many other intensely personal decisions in which the Court has found exactly the opposite, that there is no right to personal privacy, such as the decision to terminate one's OWN life. A woman may freely terminate the life of a fetus, but not her own. This is highly inconsistent reasoning on the part of the Court, and while I acknowledge the state of the law, I'm asking you to go deeper and philosophically and ethically justify why it is you believe that women (right down to minors, since that's the OP) should have an unlimited and absolute right to have an abortion not subject to any regulation by society merely because it is convenient for her not to be pregnant? Why should society not have the authority to hold women responsible for the consequences of their actions just as gravity holds them responsible when they step off a cliff?

Assuming arguendo that if the state interferes with the ability to procure an abortion, the state then becomes the defacto and dejure parent of the child once born and is required to take custody of the infant at birth and is responsible for the costs of pre-natal care and delivery, why should society accept the argument that a woman who chose to voluntarily have sex, and therefore voluntarily accepted any and all risks associated with that act, including STDs and pregnancy, should be permitted to act even more irresponsibly by having an abortion, and in the process terminating a human life (and future tax-paying citizen), merely because she wishes to evade the natural consequences of her actions and the equally natural process of gestating and delivering a child?

There is no reason for promiscuity to be seen as negative. There's an argument that promiscuity is in fact a positive trait. I'm not going to get into that at the moment, because it's beside the point that I'm trying to make, which is that you have an outdated moral sense of what behaviors are appropriate for men and women sexually. Smart men and women may avail themselves of modern medical technology as part of making smart decisions about their bodies and their sex lives.

I'll be very interested to hear your argument for promiscuity, but yes, smart people enjoy their sexuality wisely. That fails to answer the question of why even smart people should be relieved of the consequences of their actions even when the consequences are unwanted. Not unplanned or unanticipated consequences because the production of a child is ALWAYS an anticipated result of two fertile people of the opposite sex having sexual relations. The only forms of birth control that are 100 percent effective are abstinence and sterilization by surgery, and the failure rates of modern contraceptives are well known, so even when using them there is a finite and identifiable risk of pregnancy. That means that there is automatically an acceptance of the risk of pregnancy on the part of both partners in every case. The question I'm asking is why should society facilitate relieving the participants in the sex act of the natural and freely-accepted consequences of that finite risk? Why should society not hold the participants accountable for their actions and require that they abide by the implied contract they accepted by having sex together under a known risk of pregnancy? Why must society free them from that risk and obligation?

You point out that the fetus "is not at fault"-- I don't see this as an issue of fault. I am a free individual who lives in a nation that values liberty-- I have a right to kick out any tenant who is sucking up resources I need to live and isn't paying a dime of rent. Particularly when said tenant has taken up lodgings right in my body. No person has the right to dominate another person so completely without that other person's consent.

I would agree, except for the fact that when you agreed voluntarily to have sex with a fertile male, you accepted the risk that a living human being would be created and would take up temporary residency in your womb. In other words, by voluntarily having sex with a fertile male, regardless of the form of contraception that you used, you accepted the risk of pregnancy and you entered into a contract with the child that results. You invited the sperm to unite with the egg and create a zygote, and if we're going to talk about contracts, I say you created a contract for a 9 months tenancy by doing so. And just as the law can prohibit you from kicking out a tenant, even one who is not paying rent, without following the letter of the law regarding the process of eviction, I see no reason why society cannot impose the same sort of legal obligation regarding the occupant of your womb, whom you invited in. If you're renting a room to someone, around here you have to give them written notice of eviction, and the time they have varies with the length of occupancy, and they have a right of appeal to the courts and can challenge your eviction. I know of one case in which a man was allowed to use a pool house as a residence while doing some renovations on the couple's home, and it took them THREE YEARS to finally evict him.

So, yes, you are a free individual, but you are also free to impose upon yourself contractual obligations for the performance of specific duties for specified periods, and I ask you why society should not rule that when you have voluntary sex with a fertile male and the result is pregnancy, that you have voluntarily obligated yourself to nine months of pregnancy and a delivery?

And having sex is not consent to becoming a parent. In this day and age, when sex and reproduction can be separated by any number of means, the sex act is the sex act. Deciding to become a parent is separate.

I disagree. The only reason that things are as you claim is precisely because at present, society has decided to give women this choice by allowing them to abort their children if they become pregnant. But there is no reason why society is obligated to maintain this policy position, is there? The biological purpose of the sex act is procreation, and pregnancy is a known, natural and obvious risk associated with the sex act. No form of contraception is infallible other than abstinence or sterilization (and even sterilization has been know to fail) and therefore having sex can be construed by society as being consent to be a parent, if society decides that is appropriate. Why should society not so decide, in the interests of the child and the supply of future taxpayers?

You also seem to think only the promiscuous need abortions. This simply isn't true. But then, even if it were, so what? I think it's bizarre that a man who so values individual choice and self-sufficient behavior and who touts the beauty and morality of a small government has such a blind spot on this issue. Why shouldn't we be a nation of people who get to choose our own sex lives?

Well, first of all I'm discussion convenience abortion, not medically necessary abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother or abortions after rape. Second, I do value choice and liberty and self-sufficient behavior, but I also value personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions and the acceptance without complaint of the consequences of one's actions. If I step off a cliff and get hurt, I'm not going to sue the owner of the cliff or the state for failing to protect me from that consequence or to compensate me for my assumption of risk that harmed me.

If I have sex with my girlfriend and she gets pregnant, I'm not going to demand that she have an abortion merely because I do not want to become a father. I'm going to accept my part in the fiasco and I'm going to step up and accept my responsibilities as a parent because I was a participant in the sex act and therefore I am as responsible for the outcome as she is. And while I respect her liberty interest, I would argue against her having an abortion for exactly the same reasons.

This is not about whether you get to choose your own sex life, it's about whether or not it's in the best interests of society to require that you accept without complaint the consequences of your decisions about your sex life rather than giving you an easy way to evade that responsibility to suit your personal and selfish convenience. You can have all the sex you like, but I do not see that it's society's obligation to allow you to evade the consequences at the expense of the child you created and at the expense of society and it's moral and ethical structures that keep it functioning smoothly. Irresponsibility in sex is just a symptom of irresponsibility in life, and I never favor facilitating or approving of irresponsibility. I think you should be very careful about your sex life and should take responsibility for the consequences without demanding that the rest of society accommodate your desire for convenience and pleasure.

Really, it boggles the mind.

Only because your mind is not flexing very far in thinking critically about this issue.

Incidentally, I don't think teenagers never should become parents. Two movies I really enjoy are "Saved" and "Juno"-- both of which feature girls who choose to carry to term. Well, Juno decides to give the child up for adoption, but still. But I'd point out that in these two dramatized cases, both girls were smart, well-educated, middle-class students with a large network of friends and family ready to support them with their decisions. Not everyone is that lucky, and our public policy should reflect that.

Indeed. I go one step further with my belief in liberty. I say that while I believe that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of the unborn (to what degree we can discuss further if you like) I also believe that if and when the state chooses to intervene in such matters against the will of the woman, just like the state owes just compensation for a physical taking or occupation of property, the state would owe just compensation for the expenses associated with requiring a woman to gestate a child to term, and would be required to take custody of the child at delivery, thereby removing the most common complaint and excuse that women give (see the Guttmacher data) for having an abortion; they can't afford to raise the child.

It's a balancing of rights; the right of the state to protect a human life versus the temporary imposition on the mother to gestate and deliver the child to the state that was the result of her voluntary act of having sex. So, in short, in this view a woman would always have to keep in mind that if she gets pregnant she could potentially be obligated by the state to a nine-month employment at state expense to gestate and deliver the child. The state (meaning the taxpayers) gets to decide if it wants to pay for that term of employment and the expenses of raising the child or whether it will decline to intervene in the abortion decision by the woman.

I see that as a rational balancing of risks on both sides that preserves both the necessary acceptance of consequences by the woman and the legitimate interests of the state in human life.

[hadespussercats]

Seth, you dropped the quotes of your own words in this rebuttal, then denied saying them.

And your argument that natural=good or right, is crap. Think it through for five minutes and you'll see why.

[Seth]

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.

This falsely assumes that a promiscuous woman will get pregnant once a year. And I didn't say "primary birth control," I said "birth control." Promiscuity while using contraception has a known risk of failure for all forms of contraception. Only abstinence is 100 percent effective at preventing pregnancy. Therefore, having a convenience abortion (one not medically necessary for other reasons) is in fact being used as a form of birth control in that it's the backup to a failure of other forms of contraception. You'll note that the word "primary" is seen in the original quote, and this is an evasion on the part of the author that is extremely common with pro-abortion rhetoric because it deliberately minimizes the truth, which is that the VAST MAJORITY of abortions in this country (and likely everywhere else) are precisely and exactly being used as a method of birth control because they are abortions of convenience not medical necessity. It's utterly irrelevant that the woman may also be using other forms of contraception. Unless an abortion is medically necessary to protect the mother's health, it's axiomatically being used as "birth control."

You are assuming that I meant that ONLY ABORTION was being used as the primary method of birth control, but that's not at all what I meant. And the fact is that 25 percent of 20-29 year old women who procure abortions ARE using abortion as their ONLY and therefore primary method of birth control, many of them more than once in their lifetime.

[Rum]

It's your womb. Use it wisely or suffer the consequences, and quit trying to shuffle the consequences off on the fetus, who is not at fault.

Listen. Abortion can be a part of using one's womb wisely. And I don't think a child should be used to inflict punishment.

That's part of the problem, that you would consider having to endure the ordinary and natural consequences of having sex and gestating a child to be "punishment" when it's nothing more than accepting the consequences of one's own actions.

You think promiscuity is bad. You posit that promiscuity is bad on faith. In other words, you take it as a given that promiscuous behavior is undesirable and should be punished.
You think the appropriate punishment for promiscuity is to have to bear an unwanted child-- as you'd put it, "Suffer the consequences." To bring us round to my original point, stated in stronger terms: you think an unwanted child is an appropriate punishment for a slut.

No, I think promiscuity is irresponsible and potentially dangerous for any number of very good reasons, pregnancy being the least among them. And I ask why it is that you believe that society is obligated to free a promiscuous woman from one of the natural, ordinary, expected consequences of having sex, which is pregnancy? The same question applies to another important aspect of promiscuous sex, which is the transmission of STDs. But there is a rational public policy answer regarding promiscuous sex and STDs, and that's the public health issue. The law states that a person who is infected with STDs in certain cases can be prohibited from having unprotected sex with others on pain of criminal prosecution, and they can be quarantined and required to undergo medical treatment if they wish to be released. This is government regulation of irresponsible sexual behavior that threatens the health, safety and welfare of others and is in the public interest. The state is not obligated to respect anyone's putative "right to privacy" in that regard, and it may inconvenience such a person to the point of removing their liberty in order to protect the public health.

So, I'm asking you to justify why it is that society is under an obligation to respect a woman's putative right to privacy when it comes to pregnancy by allowing the decision to abort a fetus to go without state review or intervention? Why is the state obligated to allow, or in some cases facilitate a woman's desire to have an abortion of convenience that constitutes little more than the state facilitating the woman's desire to avoid the known, natural and ordinary consequences of having sex?

If you walk to the edge of a cliff and step off, the force of gravity will impose a natural, expected and ordinary consequence upon your irresponsible and potentially dangerous actions. Is the state obligated to put up a fence at the edge of every cliff to relieve imprudent and irresponsible people from the natural consequences of falling off of them?

Or, for that matter, is the state prohibited from regulating your approach to the edge of a cliff by putting up a fence, or a sign and imposing criminal liability upon you if you violate that law because doing so results in undesirable consequences for the public, such as the expenditure of public money to recover your body or rescue you?

In other words, why should the state be prevented from intervening in the abortion decision if the state decides that there are justifiable public policy issues that require it to do so?

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade found a "right to privacy" in gestational decisions that is not in fact found in the Constitution, and that is diminished by the fact that there are many other intensely personal decisions in which the Court has found exactly the opposite, that there is no right to personal privacy, such as the decision to terminate one's OWN life. A woman may freely terminate the life of a fetus, but not her own. This is highly inconsistent reasoning on the part of the Court, and while I acknowledge the state of the law, I'm asking you to go deeper and philosophically and ethically justify why it is you believe that women (right down to minors, since that's the OP) should have an unlimited and absolute right to have an abortion not subject to any regulation by society merely because it is convenient for her not to be pregnant? Why should society not have the authority to hold women responsible for the consequences of their actions just as gravity holds them responsible when they step off a cliff?

Assuming arguendo that if the state interferes with the ability to procure an abortion, the state then becomes the defacto and dejure parent of the child once born and is required to take custody of the infant at birth and is responsible for the costs of pre-natal care and delivery, why should society accept the argument that a woman who chose to voluntarily have sex, and therefore voluntarily accepted any and all risks associated with that act, including STDs and pregnancy, should be permitted to act even more irresponsibly by having an abortion, and in the process terminating a human life (and future tax-paying citizen), merely because she wishes to evade the natural consequences of her actions and the equally natural process of gestating and delivering a child?

There is no reason for promiscuity to be seen as negative. There's an argument that promiscuity is in fact a positive trait. I'm not going to get into that at the moment, because it's beside the point that I'm trying to make, which is that you have an outdated moral sense of what behaviors are appropriate for men and women sexually. Smart men and women may avail themselves of modern medical technology as part of making smart decisions about their bodies and their sex lives.

I'll be very interested to hear your argument for promiscuity, but yes, smart people enjoy their sexuality wisely. That fails to answer the question of why even smart people should be relieved of the consequences of their actions even when the consequences are unwanted. Not unplanned or unanticipated consequences because the production of a child is ALWAYS an anticipated result of two fertile people of the opposite sex having sexual relations. The only forms of birth control that are 100 percent effective are abstinence and sterilization by surgery, and the failure rates of modern contraceptives are well known, so even when using them there is a finite and identifiable risk of pregnancy. That means that there is automatically an acceptance of the risk of pregnancy on the part of both partners in every case. The question I'm asking is why should society facilitate relieving the participants in the sex act of the natural and freely-accepted consequences of that finite risk? Why should society not hold the participants accountable for their actions and require that they abide by the implied contract they accepted by having sex together under a known risk of pregnancy? Why must society free them from that risk and obligation?

You point out that the fetus "is not at fault"-- I don't see this as an issue of fault. I am a free individual who lives in a nation that values liberty-- I have a right to kick out any tenant who is sucking up resources I need to live and isn't paying a dime of rent. Particularly when said tenant has taken up lodgings right in my body. No person has the right to dominate another person so completely without that other person's consent.

I would agree, except for the fact that when you agreed voluntarily to have sex with a fertile male, you accepted the risk that a living human being would be created and would take up temporary residency in your womb. In other words, by voluntarily having sex with a fertile male, regardless of the form of contraception that you used, you accepted the risk of pregnancy and you entered into a contract with the child that results. You invited the sperm to unite with the egg and create a zygote, and if we're going to talk about contracts, I say you created a contract for a 9 months tenancy by doing so. And just as the law can prohibit you from kicking out a tenant, even one who is not paying rent, without following the letter of the law regarding the process of eviction, I see no reason why society cannot impose the same sort of legal obligation regarding the occupant of your womb, whom you invited in. If you're renting a room to someone, around here you have to give them written notice of eviction, and the time they have varies with the length of occupancy, and they have a right of appeal to the courts and can challenge your eviction. I know of one case in which a man was allowed to use a pool house as a residence while doing some renovations on the couple's home, and it took them THREE YEARS to finally evict him.

So, yes, you are a free individual, but you are also free to impose upon yourself contractual obligations for the performance of specific duties for specified periods, and I ask you why society should not rule that when you have voluntary sex with a fertile male and the result is pregnancy, that you have voluntarily obligated yourself to nine months of pregnancy and a delivery?

And having sex is not consent to becoming a parent. In this day and age, when sex and reproduction can be separated by any number of means, the sex act is the sex act. Deciding to become a parent is separate.

I disagree. The only reason that things are as you claim is precisely because at present, society has decided to give women this choice by allowing them to abort their children if they become pregnant. But there is no reason why society is obligated to maintain this policy position, is there? The biological purpose of the sex act is procreation, and pregnancy is a known, natural and obvious risk associated with the sex act. No form of contraception is infallible other than abstinence or sterilization (and even sterilization has been know to fail) and therefore having sex can be construed by society as being consent to be a parent, if society decides that is appropriate. Why should society not so decide, in the interests of the child and the supply of future taxpayers?

You also seem to think only the promiscuous need abortions. This simply isn't true. But then, even if it were, so what? I think it's bizarre that a man who so values individual choice and self-sufficient behavior and who touts the beauty and morality of a small government has such a blind spot on this issue. Why shouldn't we be a nation of people who get to choose our own sex lives?

Well, first of all I'm discussion convenience abortion, not medically necessary abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother or abortions after rape. Second, I do value choice and liberty and self-sufficient behavior, but I also value personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions and the acceptance without complaint of the consequences of one's actions. If I step off a cliff and get hurt, I'm not going to sue the owner of the cliff or the state for failing to protect me from that consequence or to compensate me for my assumption of risk that harmed me.

If I have sex with my girlfriend and she gets pregnant, I'm not going to demand that she have an abortion merely because I do not want to become a father. I'm going to accept my part in the fiasco and I'm going to step up and accept my responsibilities as a parent because I was a participant in the sex act and therefore I am as responsible for the outcome as she is. And while I respect her liberty interest, I would argue against her having an abortion for exactly the same reasons.

This is not about whether you get to choose your own sex life, it's about whether or not it's in the best interests of society to require that you accept without complaint the consequences of your decisions about your sex life rather than giving you an easy way to evade that responsibility to suit your personal and selfish convenience. You can have all the sex you like, but I do not see that it's society's obligation to allow you to evade the consequences at the expense of the child you created and at the expense of society and it's moral and ethical structures that keep it functioning smoothly. Irresponsibility in sex is just a symptom of irresponsibility in life, and I never favor facilitating or approving of irresponsibility. I think you should be very careful about your sex life and should take responsibility for the consequences without demanding that the rest of society accommodate your desire for convenience and pleasure.

Really, it boggles the mind.

Only because your mind is not flexing very far in thinking critically about this issue.

Incidentally, I don't think teenagers never should become parents. Two movies I really enjoy are "Saved" and "Juno"-- both of which feature girls who choose to carry to term. Well, Juno decides to give the child up for adoption, but still. But I'd point out that in these two dramatized cases, both girls were smart, well-educated, middle-class students with a large network of friends and family ready to support them with their decisions. Not everyone is that lucky, and our public policy should reflect that.

Indeed. I go one step further with my belief in liberty. I say that while I believe that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of the unborn (to what degree we can discuss further if you like) I also believe that if and when the state chooses to intervene in such matters against the will of the woman, just like the state owes just compensation for a physical taking or occupation of property, the state would owe just compensation for the expenses associated with requiring a woman to gestate a child to term, and would be required to take custody of the child at delivery, thereby removing the most common complaint and excuse that women give (see the Guttmacher data) for having an abortion; they can't afford to raise the child.

It's a balancing of rights; the right of the state to protect a human life versus the temporary imposition on the mother to gestate and deliver the child to the state that was the result of her voluntary act of having sex. So, in short, in this view a woman would always have to keep in mind that if she gets pregnant she could potentially be obligated by the state to a nine-month employment at state expense to gestate and deliver the child. The state (meaning the taxpayers) gets to decide if it wants to pay for that term of employment and the expenses of raising the child or whether it will decline to intervene in the abortion decision by the woman.

I see that as a rational balancing of risks on both sides that preserves both the necessary acceptance of consequences by the woman and the legitimate interests of the state in human life.

Jesus.

..not that I read it.

[Seth]

Seth, you dropped the quotes of your own words in this rebuttal, then denied saying them.

Where? Please be specific, because if I did, it was an editing error. Please point it out so I can correct it.

And your argument that natural=good or right, is crap. Think it through for five minutes and you'll see why.

I never made that claim, so I don't really need to think it through. I said "natural" in the context of "not unusual, expected, ordinary, predictable, not a surprise." The meaning is that no woman can argue that she got "unexpectedly pregnant" even if she's using birth control because pregnancy is a known risk of having sex...every single time no matter what, unless she has been sterilized by having her ovaries and/or uterus removed. I say it's "irresponsibly pregnant" because it's the woman's absolute and unquestioned responsibility to know what's going into her womb and what the results might be, and its her absolute and unquestioned responsibility to deal with the consequences of allowing sperm into her womb, since she has legally obtain absolute sovereignty over her womb and has full and plenary authority to control absolutely what goes into it.

[Seth]

Jesus.

..not that I read it.

By this premature ejaculation are you suggesting that someone who responds as if they have the attention span of a flea and the intellect of a newt should be taken seriously?

If you're not up to the intellectual challenge, why don't you just sit quietly in the peanut gallery and watch instead?

[Seth]

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.

Yup. I said so when I joined the group. I find that capacity an indication of a superior intellect that's all too rarely found here, and I find those who insist on dogmatically clinging to their own ill-considered and ineptly presented preconceptions and ideologies who are incapable of arguing points from varied positions to be intellectually ossified and of inferior intellect.

So there!

[Seth]

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.

Tanning is increasingly being proven to be exactly a medical procedure in that it radically increases, and may indeed be the cause of skin cancer decades down the road. Current research is finding that bad sunburns in young children are responsible for melanoma later in life, which is why tanning is being seen as an inherently harmful activity to minor children who may make a bad decision of favoring a deep tan over a future that includes cancer.

While adults should be free to take such risks, it's perfectly rational for the state to regulate commerce (not lying on the beach) by requiring that minors get parental consent to use a known source of skin cancer.

[Coito ergo sum]

I would hope that no doctor would perform non-cosmetic surgery or prescribe drugs without there being a medical reason for it -

I don't. Non medically necessary abortions are just fine.

If a pregnancy isn't stopped it will result in bringing another child into the world. I didn't say it had to be necessary, but there are clearly some serious biological consequences to pregnancy, which means there is a medical reason.

There are medical "reasons" for some cosmetic surgery too.

first do no harm, and all that. But if there is a medical reason for it, whether it's considered an emergency or not, and a child/teen goes to the doctor and can explain/convince the doctor that if the parents are brought in they are likely to use intimidation/coercion/threats of disownment to prevent the child from having the procedure because of their kooky beliefs about medicine, then I don't think the doctor should have to inform the parents.

Lots of underlying assumptions in that statement.

1. that doctors are obliged to ensure that parents won't use "threats of disownment" etc.

Society as a whole has a duty to protect children, from their own parents if necessary. For medical issues part of that duty falls to doctors.

That doesn't mean doctors are obliged to ensure that parents won't use "threats of disownment" etc. Doctors have no such duty, and that explains why they make no such inquiries on any routine basis.

2. that a child's ability to convince a doctor of such ought to be the difference between getting or not getting a medical procedure

Obviously it would be better if it didn't have to rely on a child's convincingness, but sometimes that may be all they have. In some cases social services could be brought in to help.

You're making this up as you go along, what seems to feel right to you. At least that is the impression I get. None of that is anything doctors have any obligation to do.

3. That medically necessary means there are no options, or that doing nothing is also not an option.
4. That the parents might reasonably seek a second or third opinion.

Doctors themselves are best placed to to discuss all the different options with their patients, given individual circumstances, and are expected to do so, including putting patients in touch with other people they can talk to.

The patient and the patient's legal guardian has the right to decide what treatment they get, and whether to follow a particular doctor's advice. That's what second and third opinions are for.

5. that the parents' beliefs are likely to be kooky.

They're not likely to be. And in most cases the matter of informing the parents will not even be an issue. But in some cases it quite clearly is, and people have suffered unnecessarily, and children have died unnecessarily as a result. I think it's important that society has measures in place to protect the vulnerable in the most difficult circumstances.

And people, including children, have died as a result of decisions made by doctors and the State too. We still have autonomy, though, I guess for the time being, and there is still such a thing as parents and legal guardians.

[Ronja]

Coito, if the young patient was very distressed about her parents' potential reactions, would it not be doing harm to the patient if the doctor failed to ensure confidentiality?

First do no harm is a powerful rule of professional ethics. IMO it covers protecting a patient from her parents, if that appears to be the least traumatic course of action of all the realistically available ones.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, if the young patient was very distressed about her parents' potential reactions, would it not be doing harm to the patient if the doctor failed to ensure confidentiality?

Possibly.

Might it not also possibly be doing harm if the legal guardians are not consulted, given the possibility that they may have other and further information concerning health issue and medical history of the child patient that the child patient hasn't provided to the doctor?

First do no harm is a powerful rule of professional ethics. IMO it covers protecting a patient from her parents, if that appears to be the least traumatic course of action of all the realistically available ones.

"First do no harm" is the same principle that has folks against pulling life support plugs, and abortions. "Do no harm" used preclude the administering of abortificants.