Parental Consent for Tanning

[Seth]

This was a big assumption you made in your response to my presentation:

Well, as I said, like any individual right, the exercise of the right to abortion is subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest. Knowing full well that you will likely maintain that a fetus is not a "person" and therefore has no rights to be respected or considered in such decisions, I want to point out that "personhood" is not, so far, subject to an objective scientific definition. Instead, it's a moral, ethical and social determination made by a particular society based on the dominant mores and beliefs of the culture involved, and that accordingly the state's interest in protecting the rights of the fetus grows along with fetal development.

While I do think there are points in the course of fetal development where it would be difficult to argue for full personhood, I do actually think the fetus is a baby long before it is born. I experienced a connection to my son long before he was born, thought of him as a person, saw images of him acting like a baby. If I'd lost the pregnancy at eight months I would have mourned it as the loss of a child.

Here's how I see it-- a baby in utero, and the clump of rapidly-dividing cells that might grow into that baby, are living essentially parasitically off a woman. In my case, I was a willing host. But some women aren't. A baby in utero feeds off another person, changes that person's body irrevocably, subjects her to grave physical and mental risks, takes over her health and her life for months. I don't think any person has the right to do that to another person without that other person's consent.

Now I can almost hear you saying, "She consented to that arrangement when she had sex." I don't see it that way-- as I've explained above.

I think a woman has a right to kill that person that's sucking her very life force, in an act of self-defense. But this situation only exists up to the point of birth.

In your scenario, the moment of conception is your hard-and-fast line even though there are nuances (like the moment of implantation, etc.) that muddy the waters. In my scenario, the moment of birth is the hard-and-fast line. in terms of the baby's physical being, not much has necessarily changed. But the relationship between the mother/host and the baby/parasite is irrevocably different.

I just wanted to put that out there for clarity. I'm not sure how important it is to the discussion at hand.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

First, to be precise, as to the moment that a new human being is created, it's not "conception," which is a vague term meaning the moment the sperm penetrates the egg wall and the egg then becomes impervious to other sperm. This is certainly an identifiable instant in time, but at that time the sperm and egg are still only the individual components of the parents, a spermatozoon and an egg. They each perform certain biological processes over the next 24 or so hours, like unzipping their DNA, but it is universally recognized by embryologists that a new human being comes into existence not at fertilization, but at the formation of the zygote, which is when the maternal and paternal chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus and combine to create a new and entirely unique set of genes. This is indisputably the instant of the formation of the first cell of the new organism. From that moment on, until the eventual death of the organism, it is indisputably a unique, living human organism that has achieved the state of "being" or existence. Therefore it is a "human being" at that moment, and at every stage of development both inside and outside the womb. It never changes its nature. It does not mutate from being a clump of monkey or fish cells into a human fetus at some point, it is always and irrevocably human from that moment on.

Everything that happens after that moment in time is nothing more than the natural course of biological development of the zygote into a fully-formed adult human being who eventually ages and dies.

This is objective, scientific fact, not speculation or religious dogma. This is not a muddying of the waters, it's a clarification of the facts of human biological development.

In order to be rational, we must of necessity proceed from those indisputable scientific facts of biology when discussing and analyzing the social, moral, ethical and political aspects of human reproduction. Therefore, as a basic premise from which I argue, it must be recognized that at any time after the zygote has formed, we are discussing the disposition of a living human being. Not necessarily a "person" in the law who is endowed with rights and entitled to constitutional protections, and not necessarily a sentient human being capable of cognition and/or feeling pain, but a human being nonetheless in every factual and material respect.

I point this out specifically because it is very common for abortion advocates to minimize, deny and dismiss the scientific facts by claiming that a fetus is not a human being or a person, it's just a clump of cells. But any rational person, which includes you, recognizes that a fetus in utero ten seconds before natural delivery is not substantially biologically different from that same fetus ten seconds after delivery. And as technology improves, the viability of a fetus outside the womb is being pushed back farther and farther before full natural gestation and birth at 37 weeks. It's not at all unusual for premature babies to survive today at 24 weeks, and the record appears to be 21 weeks and six days, (Amillia Taylor, born October 24, 2006), which further blurs the line that you would choose to mark "personhood."

So, in my view, the moment of delivery is not an objectively identifiable moment in time, based on science and the development of the fetus, at which a fetus is or may be endowed with rights and entitled to protection. That particular moment is highly arbitrary, as we can see, because a fetus may be delivered, either vaginally or by c-section, at any time between 21 weeks and 37 weeks and still be biologically viable outside the womb. Thus, being born is not a standard that a rational person can view as determinative from the scientific perspective. It's essentially making an entirely arbitrary decision that (assuming arguendo a late-term abortion) at 37 weeks minus 1 minute the fetus is something entirely different and biologically distinct in ways that would make it non-human and not a person from the same fetus at 37 weeks plus 1 minute after the fetus has been delivered. To me, this is an entirely irrational and arbitrary decision point.

In point of fact, there is only one difference between a full-term fetus in the birth-canal ready to be delivered and a born infant at the moment after delivery: the physical location of the baby changes from inside the uterus to outside the uterus. In that moment, it is only a location change. The fetus does not change it's biological makeup or nature, it does not change from a fish to a human, it doesn't even change its biological functioning for several moments after birth. It still gets nourishment and oxygen from the placenta just as it did a moment earlier.

Therefore, in my view, particularly in light of fetal viability long before 37 weeks, withholding the endowment of civil rights and personhood from a fetus until the moment of birth is arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational in the extreme. And doing so is nothing more than a useless and immoral remnant of religious belief that has been wrongfully adopted into the law. It is religious tradition that only a born child is a "person" for religious purposes, and indeed some religions wait as long as 30 days AFTER birth before recognizing that an infant is a person for religious purposes. This cultural meme became enshrined in the law long, long ago, but it is now without rational basis and is an entirely arbitrary and irrational demarcation point for determining when an infant is a person.

Science demands that we acknowledge the biological realities of human gestation and development and that we find an objective and scientifically valid stage in fetal development at which it is rational and reasonable to make the claim that a "person" now exists, and that this objective scientific determination be enshrined in our laws for the protection of the new human person, irrespective of that human person's physical location within or without the mother's uterus.

What that objective point in fetal development is can be further discussed. I have identified one specific event as a possible metric, but there may be others and I'm open to discussing them.

And you are absolutely right, I do in fact argue that while it may be technically true that a fetus is parasitical on the mother, it's there by invitation, so from a social policy perspective the mother may be compelled to honor the contract she ratified with the fetus (and the father) by voluntarily engaging in the sex act and allowing the zygote to form. There is no absolute right on the part of the mother to terminate the life of a living human being merely because that living human being is dependent upon the mother for life. The same remains true of the infant after birth, it is helpless and will die without maternal support, so again birth is an arbitrary event not an objective one. The only thing about birth that is different from pre-birth is that once born, the infant may be physically supported (parasitical upon) someone other than the natural mother. But it must be supported both before and after birth, for quite some time, so the "parasite" argument does not weigh very heavily with me when compared to the consequences to the fetus if the mother refuses to provide support.

If the mother refuses to provide support to the "parasite" after birth, she can be put in jail for neglect or worse. But using your argument, if the mother refuses to provide support prior to birth, it's fine because it's a "parasite." But what is in fact different other than the location of the child and the precise form of support that society requires be provided to the child?

If the fetus is delivered at 21 weeks, the mother is obligated (in normal circumstances) to care for the child just as she is if the child is delivered at 37 weeks. So why cannot the mother be required to provide uterine support between 21 and 37 weeks for the same justifiable reasons? I see little by way of objective difference, and little moral difference either, between a fetus of 21 to 24 weeks that's viable outside the womb and a fetus ten seconds after delivery as regards the mother's duty to care for the child.

I am willing to discuss, as I said above, when in the development of the fetus this contract may become enforceable over the objections of the mother. At the moment, under US law, it's at the rather grey zone of "fetal viability." I would prefer to see some other, more objective and determinable specific point in time, but I'm open to discussion.

And once again I want to sincerely thank you for being thoughtful and reasonable in discussing this particularly inflammable topic. It's much appreciated.

[Seth]

Only in the most extraordinary and egregious of circumstances, where there is a clearly demonstrable risk of serious abuse by a parent if the parent finds out about the pregnancy should a child be permitted to apply to a court for permission to bypass parental consent. There are adequate safeguards in most state laws in that regard. Under no circumstances however can a child be allowed to make the decision all on her own without any competent adult authority reviewing her desires and determining that accommodating them is in her best interests.

I don't know how a teen girl could prove that to a legal standard, without her parents being involved. Particularly since people generally have a right to defend themselves from testimony against them.

I think having an adult counselor or counselors that would help her with her decision is a great idea, though.

That certainly is a conundrum isn't it? We know that a minor child is, or at least may be incapable of making a rational decision on her own, and the parents certainly have the right to be heard if for no other reason than to dispel misinformation that the child may be providing, and it would be both imprudent and unfair to the parents (and likely legally impermissible under due process concepts), who will be called upon to support both their child and hers if she carries to term, legally and economically until her majority, to shut them out of the process. This means that in effect there should not be a system that permits a minor child to procure an abortion in secret, without at least the involvement of her parents before a neutral judge.

I can see no legitimate reason why any minor, even one who has abusive parents, should have the authority to simply cut them out of the decision-making loop entirely. If her parents are abusive, then she has legal recourse to the courts to punish them or compel them to perform their parental duties properly, and that is an adequate safeguard.

[hadespussercats]

Seth, we're not going to agree on this. That's pretty clear. Still, for purposes of discussion:

So, in my view, the moment of delivery is not an objectively identifiable moment in time, based on science and the development of the fetus, at which a fetus is or may be endowed with rights and entitled to protection. That particular moment is highly arbitrary, as we can see, because a fetus may be delivered, either vaginally or by c-section, at any time between 21 weeks and 37 weeks and still be biologically viable outside the womb. Thus, being born is not a standard that a rational person can view as determinative from the scientific perspective. It's essentially making an entirely arbitrary decision that (assuming arguendo a late-term abortion) at 37 weeks minus 1 minute the fetus is something entirely different and biologically distinct in ways that would make it non-human and not a person from the same fetus at 37 weeks plus 1 minute after the fetus has been delivered. To me, this is an entirely irrational and arbitrary decision point.

In point of fact, there is only one difference between a full-term fetus in the birth-canal ready to be delivered and a born infant at the moment after delivery: the physical location of the baby changes from inside the uterus to outside the uterus. In that moment, it is only a location change. The fetus does not change it's biological makeup or nature, it does not change from a fish to a human, it doesn't even change its biological functioning for several moments after birth. It still gets nourishment and oxygen from the placenta just as it did a moment earlier.

Of course the moment of birth is variable. You're talking to someone who delivered over half a month late, via induction. My sister's first child was five weeks early, via c-section. It's going to be an individual occasion-- I wasn't suggesting imposing some 40-week timeline. But for every child that's born, there's a moment when they are, well, born-- they're not in their mother's body anymore. If you want to quibble over the placenta, go ahead, but that comes out pretty damn quick afterwards, generally. The cord gets cut.

Before that point, the child is inside the woman's body. And she has a prior claim to the space.

[hadespussercats]

Only in the most extraordinary and egregious of circumstances, where there is a clearly demonstrable risk of serious abuse by a parent if the parent finds out about the pregnancy should a child be permitted to apply to a court for permission to bypass parental consent. There are adequate safeguards in most state laws in that regard. Under no circumstances however can a child be allowed to make the decision all on her own without any competent adult authority reviewing her desires and determining that accommodating them is in her best interests.

I don't know how a teen girl could prove that to a legal standard, without her parents being involved. Particularly since people generally have a right to defend themselves from testimony against them.

I think having an adult counselor or counselors that would help her with her decision is a great idea, though.

That certainly is a conundrum isn't it? We know that a minor child is, or at least may be incapable of making a rational decision on her own, and the parents certainly have the right to be heard if for no other reason than to dispel misinformation that the child may be providing, and it would be both imprudent and unfair to the parents (and likely legally impermissible under due process concepts), who will be called upon to support both their child and hers if she carries to term, legally and economically until her majority, to shut them out of the process. This means that in effect there should not be a system that permits a minor child to procure an abortion in secret, without at least the involvement of her parents before a neutral judge.

I can see no legitimate reason why any minor, even one who has abusive parents, should have the authority to simply cut them out of the decision-making loop entirely. If her parents are abusive, then she has legal recourse to the courts to punish them or compel them to perform their parental duties properly, and that is an adequate safeguard.

No. It really isn't.

[Warren Dew]

Here's how I see it-- a baby in utero, and the clump of rapidly-dividing cells that might grow into that baby, are living essentially parasitically off a woman. In my case, I was a willing host. But some women aren't. A baby in utero feeds off another person, changes that person's body irrevocably, subjects her to grave physical and mental risks, takes over her health and her life for months. I don't think any person has the right to do that to another person without that other person's consent.

That's how I see it too.

However, that doesn't directly relate to the parental consent issue. Parents are allowed to make some decisions for their children, because the children are thought not to be competent to make their own decisions. For example, parents are allowed to infect children against their will with parasitic organisms in the case of weakened virus vaccines.

I actually think that parents are within their legal rights to prevent a daughter from getting an abortion - for example by refusing to provide transportation - just as in Seth's example of their being within their rights to prevent her from having sex. That doesn't require a notification law, though. If the girl is requesting an abortion without her parents present, her parents have obviously waived any legal right to prevent her from getting to the abortion clinic.

If we're thinking of ethical rights, I actually suspect the law overly simplifies the dynamics of maturation. Teens are not completely children any more, even if they aren't completely adults yet.

That's the same type of thinking that made wife beating legal
The husband had full control over his wife and the State had no business telling him otherwise.

Whatever. Living in the same house isn't the same as living inside someone else's body.

I think Tyrannical's argument is a red herring. What made wife beatings legal was a mistaken legal view that women weren't entitled to full legal rights. And that was a very long time ago.

If someone takes up residence in my house against my will, I absolutely have the right to remove him.

[hadespussercats]

Here's how I see it-- a baby in utero, and the clump of rapidly-dividing cells that might grow into that baby, are living essentially parasitically off a woman. In my case, I was a willing host. But some women aren't. A baby in utero feeds off another person, changes that person's body irrevocably, subjects her to grave physical and mental risks, takes over her health and her life for months. I don't think any person has the right to do that to another person without that other person's consent.

That's how I see it too.

However, that doesn't directly relate to the parental consent issue. Parents are allowed to make some decisions for their children, because the children are thought not to be competent to make their own decisions. For example, parents are allowed to infect children against their will with parasitic organisms in the case of weakened virus vaccines.

I actually think that parents are within their legal rights to prevent a daughter from getting an abortion - for example by refusing to provide transportation - just as in Seth's example of their being within their rights to prevent her from having sex. That doesn't require a notification law, though. If the girl is requesting an abortion without her parents present, her parents have obviously waived any legal right to prevent her from getting to the abortion clinic.

If we're thinking of ethical rights, I actually suspect the law overly simplifies the dynamics of maturation. Teens are not completely children any more, even if they aren't completely adults yet.

This last bit, about teens being semi-adult,is a good one.

I agree that parents have rights over their children, including making some health decisions. Thing is, parents don't need parental notification/consent laws to be involved with their children, and if it's an issue of parents not wanting their children to be sexually active, well, these laws are a great example of closing the barn door after the horse is gone.

My main issue with them is in the case of girls who have something to fear from their parents should this information be known. Seth talked about appearing in court being adequate protection, but I don't see how. Where would the endangered child live during proceedings? How would she retain a lawyer? How could she even prove her case, given it probably happened behind closed doors? And what if she's too inarticulate or ignorant (we are talking children here, right?) to know about her options or avail herself of them?

Sex is a singularly explosive issue, particularly when it's parents being confronted by their children's sexuality. It can be dangerous.

Nothing is stopping parents from keeping watch over their children. I think it's strange that Seth, who's normally such an advocate of personal responsibility, approves parents' abdication of it, in this case.

As a further point, regarding our discussion of adult counselors for girls who want abortions-- it could be a good idea for counselors to discuss with the girl telling her parents, working through pros and cons and encouraging openness if possible.

That's the same type of thinking that made wife beating legal
The husband had full control over his wife and the State had no business telling him otherwise.

Whatever. Living in the same house isn't the same as living inside someone else's body.

I think Tyrannical's argument is a red herring. What made wife beatings legal was a mistaken legal view that women weren't entitled to full legal rights. And that was a very long time ago.

If someone takes up residence in my house against my will, I absolutely have the right to remove him.

Well, I'm not sure what tyrranical was getting at-- I thought he was making a parallel between two situations where people are seen as property. Which was not the point I'd been making, at all.

I agree with you, Warren.

[Seth]

Seth, we're not going to agree on this. That's pretty clear. Still, for purposes of discussion:

So, in my view, the moment of delivery is not an objectively identifiable moment in time, based on science and the development of the fetus, at which a fetus is or may be endowed with rights and entitled to protection. That particular moment is highly arbitrary, as we can see, because a fetus may be delivered, either vaginally or by c-section, at any time between 21 weeks and 37 weeks and still be biologically viable outside the womb. Thus, being born is not a standard that a rational person can view as determinative from the scientific perspective. It's essentially making an entirely arbitrary decision that (assuming arguendo a late-term abortion) at 37 weeks minus 1 minute the fetus is something entirely different and biologically distinct in ways that would make it non-human and not a person from the same fetus at 37 weeks plus 1 minute after the fetus has been delivered. To me, this is an entirely irrational and arbitrary decision point.

In point of fact, there is only one difference between a full-term fetus in the birth-canal ready to be delivered and a born infant at the moment after delivery: the physical location of the baby changes from inside the uterus to outside the uterus. In that moment, it is only a location change. The fetus does not change it's biological makeup or nature, it does not change from a fish to a human, it doesn't even change its biological functioning for several moments after birth. It still gets nourishment and oxygen from the placenta just as it did a moment earlier.

Of course the moment of birth is variable. You're talking to someone who delivered over half a month late, via induction. My sister's first child was five weeks early, via c-section. It's going to be an individual occasion-- I wasn't suggesting imposing some 40-week timeline. But for every child that's born, there's a moment when they are, well, born-- they're not in their mother's body anymore. If you want to quibble over the placenta, go ahead, but that comes out pretty damn quick afterwards, generally. The cord gets cut.

Before that point, the child is inside the woman's body. And she has a prior claim to the space.

Only if you presume as a given that the fetus is not a person at any time prior to birth. The point of my argument is that there is very little biological difference between a 36 week and 37 week fetus that would lead to the rational conclusion that at 36 weeks, while inside the womb the fetus is something entirely different in nature than at 37 weeks outside the womb. In fact, it's little more than a matter of location of the fetus, not development, potential, cognition, capability or anything else that distinguishes the fetus at the prior time from the fetus at the latter time. Therefore, there is no rational reason that rights should not attach to the fetus at some point before birth, and since it is true that any adult can obligate themselves to a term of service to another through voluntary contract, society is fully authorized to impose upon a woman a contractual obligation to continue to host a fetus past some point in gestation in order to protect the emerging interests of the living human being within her. No, she does not have "prior claim" to the space if she invites a fetus to reside there for long enough that it becomes in the eyes of society and the law a person who has civil rights that take precedence over the woman's "claim" on her uterus. This is in no small part because while the imposition on the woman is one of service to the fetus and the discomfort of carrying and delivering it, which is a limited period of service, the imposition on the fetus is death, which is a far more serious end result than merely being required to carry the child to term. In a normal pregnancy, the risks to the mother are small, transient and recoverable. Abortion always ends the life of the child. So, the two burdens are not even remotely comparable, any more than a born child's right to sustenance and care by the mother is equivalent to the mother's desire to eat bon-bons and watch TV instead of nursing and caring for her child, or the burden of not running over people in your car is equal to your desire to drive fast and recklessly.

The consequences of the exercise of any right as a matter of imposing on the rights of others must always be considered, and the competing rights carefully examined and balanced when deciding which right prevails. It is perfectly rational to conclude that after some point in gestation, the right of the fetus to life is greater and more important than the right of the woman to exercise sovereignty over her uterus. This militates for making the decision to abort prior to whatever society decides is the point at which the fetus' right to life prevails.

[Seth]

Only in the most extraordinary and egregious of circumstances, where there is a clearly demonstrable risk of serious abuse by a parent if the parent finds out about the pregnancy should a child be permitted to apply to a court for permission to bypass parental consent. There are adequate safeguards in most state laws in that regard. Under no circumstances however can a child be allowed to make the decision all on her own without any competent adult authority reviewing her desires and determining that accommodating them is in her best interests.

I don't know how a teen girl could prove that to a legal standard, without her parents being involved. Particularly since people generally have a right to defend themselves from testimony against them.

I think having an adult counselor or counselors that would help her with her decision is a great idea, though.

That certainly is a conundrum isn't it? We know that a minor child is, or at least may be incapable of making a rational decision on her own, and the parents certainly have the right to be heard if for no other reason than to dispel misinformation that the child may be providing, and it would be both imprudent and unfair to the parents (and likely legally impermissible under due process concepts), who will be called upon to support both their child and hers if she carries to term, legally and economically until her majority, to shut them out of the process. This means that in effect there should not be a system that permits a minor child to procure an abortion in secret, without at least the involvement of her parents before a neutral judge.

I can see no legitimate reason why any minor, even one who has abusive parents, should have the authority to simply cut them out of the decision-making loop entirely. If her parents are abusive, then she has legal recourse to the courts to punish them or compel them to perform their parental duties properly, and that is an adequate safeguard.

No. It really isn't.

Why not? If she's living with abusive parents, she should be protected by the state whether she's pregnant or not, which might include removing her from the home and putting her in a foster home. How does pregnancy change that?

[Seth]

Here's how I see it-- a baby in utero, and the clump of rapidly-dividing cells that might grow into that baby, are living essentially parasitically off a woman. In my case, I was a willing host. But some women aren't. A baby in utero feeds off another person, changes that person's body irrevocably, subjects her to grave physical and mental risks, takes over her health and her life for months. I don't think any person has the right to do that to another person without that other person's consent.

That's how I see it too.

However, that doesn't directly relate to the parental consent issue. Parents are allowed to make some decisions for their children, because the children are thought not to be competent to make their own decisions. For example, parents are allowed to infect children against their will with parasitic organisms in the case of weakened virus vaccines.

I actually think that parents are within their legal rights to prevent a daughter from getting an abortion - for example by refusing to provide transportation - just as in Seth's example of their being within their rights to prevent her from having sex. That doesn't require a notification law, though. If the girl is requesting an abortion without her parents present, her parents have obviously waived any legal right to prevent her from getting to the abortion clinic.

What nonsense. If the parents are not even aware of the pregnancy, and the child is concealing her intent to go to an abortion clinic, which is the usual case I suspect, how can the parents have waived anything? You're assuming that a teenager is under parental surveillance 24/7, and we all know that's not the case.

If we're thinking of ethical rights, I actually suspect the law overly simplifies the dynamics of maturation. Teens are not completely children any more, even if they aren't completely adults yet.

True, but what does that have to do with anything? Are we to assume that just because they have reached their teenage years that they are now competent to make important life choices? We withhold that assumption till they are 18, or perhaps 16 depending on the society, but so long as they are subject to parental authority, then parents have a right and an obligation to be involved in any such decision unless and until the child can convince a court to emancipate them and give them sole control of such decisions, which is always an option. But the point is that the child is never qualified to make the ultimate decision so long as she's legally an unemancipated minor.

That's the same type of thinking that made wife beating legal
The husband had full control over his wife and the State had no business telling him otherwise.

Whatever. Living in the same house isn't the same as living inside someone else's body.

I think Tyrannical's argument is a red herring. What made wife beatings legal was a mistaken legal view that women weren't entitled to full legal rights. And that was a very long time ago.

If someone takes up residence in my house against my will, I absolutely have the right to remove him.

But if you give them permission to take up residence there, and make a contract with them for residency, you do not have any such right. Having voluntary sex and allowing a child to be created, and gestating that child beyond some particular point in its development can be as much a contract as a five-year lease on an apartment. The landlord can be bound to specific performance of that contract.

[Seth]

I agree that parents have rights over their children, including making some health decisions. Thing is, parents don't need parental notification/consent laws to be involved with their children, and if it's an issue of parents not wanting their children to be sexually active, well, these laws are a great example of closing the barn door after the horse is gone.

Parental notification laws regarding abortion are not about keeping kids from being sexually active, except perhaps by way of some peripheral deterrent effect, they are about parents being involved in a major life and health decision of a pregnant child, which is their right.

My main issue with them is in the case of girls who have something to fear from their parents should this information be known. Seth talked about appearing in court being adequate protection, but I don't see how. Where would the endangered child live during proceedings?

Foster care.

How would she retain a lawyer?

Social Services and/or the court will appoint a guardian ad litem at no cost to the girl.

How could she even prove her case, given it probably happened behind closed doors?

If she can't prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she's in physical danger from her parents, why should anyone believe the claim in the first place? You're assuming that a pregnant teen would never lie about her relationship with her parents, or would never exaggerate or simply be irrational about the actual potential consequences of her parents finding out she's pregnant. If there is physical abuse, there will be evidence of physical abuse. If it's just that she's afraid of a tongue-lashing and being grounded and otherwise appropriately punished, well, that's just too bad and it's insufficient justification to bypass parental authority. She might have to actually face the consequences of her misbehavior and bad decision making and suffer reasonable and appropriate consequences and punishment from her parents. Wah. Cry me a river. She decided to have sex and she got pregnant, so I have little sympathy for any reasonable parental discipline that might be the result.

If the situation is so dire that she is legitimately fearful of being physically abused, or she is in fact thrown out of the house, there are plenty of resources available from the state and various charities to help her through the difficulties, including law enforcement and the courts who can prevent or punish any actual physical abuse. But just because a girl FEARS negative consequences from her parents finding out she's been sexually irresponsible is not nearly sufficient justification to allow her to conceal either the pregnancy or the request for abortion from the parents.

And what if she's too inarticulate or ignorant (we are talking children here, right?) to know about her options or avail herself of them?

She'll have to learn quickly. Ignorance is no excuse to cut the parents out of their right to be involved in such matters.

Sex is a singularly explosive issue, particularly when it's parents being confronted by their children's sexuality. It can be dangerous.

Yes, it can be. And there are plenty of safeguards in place. Any child that doesn't know she can call the police if she's being abused shouldn't be making critical health decisions without someone more qualified to make good decisions than she is, and that's either the parents or the courts. One or the other. Certainly it can't be the irresponsible, ignorant child. That's just nonsense.

Nothing is stopping parents from keeping watch over their children. I think it's strange that Seth, who's normally such an advocate of personal responsibility, approves parents' abdication of it, in this case.

Huh? I advocate nothing of the kind. I think parents SHOULD keep close track of their children, girls and boys, to ensure that they do not have the opportunity to get into sexual trouble. But I also acknowledge the obvious fact that parents cannot be physically present 100 percent of the time. I'll let you in on a little secret, my very first sexual experience was in a lockable teacher's bathroom in my junior high school that was imprudently left unlocked from time to time by the staff. It was in a remote dead-end hallway with no traffic next to an exit door that was commonly unlocked as well, and more than a few of my classmates also has assignations in this lavatory as well. I was lucky that it was an embarrassing, fumbling, inept experience on both my and my partner's parts and was ultimately not successful, but it wasn't for lack of trying. I knew better, and so did she, but as the saying goes, a stiff prick has no conscience...nor, I think, does a wet pussy.

So the argument that parents have necessarily fallen down on the job if their girl-child gets pregnant merely because they don't have 24/7 surveillance on them is a vacuous one.

And however the girl gets pregnant, it is YOU who is arguing for parents being cut out of the loop and being denied their right to be consulted and make decisions under circumstances where THEY will ultimately be held legally and financially liable for the product of the assignation in either instance. That's just patently unfair, but I doubt you'd argue that if the child conceals the pregnancy she should be entirely responsible for all costs associated with it, either way.

As a further point, regarding our discussion of adult counselors for girls who want abortions-- it could be a good idea for counselors to discuss with the girl telling her parents, working through pros and cons and encouraging openness if possible.

First, they must obey the law. If the law says notify the parents, then that's what they must do, or face criminal prosecution. And that includes Planned Parenthood employees.

[hadespussercats]

All right, clearly we've reached the point where we'll just go round and round. Particularly considering this:

Only if you presume as a given that the fetus is not a person at any time prior to birth.

I have said several times now I do think the fetus is a person prior to birth. I maintain that a woman is also a person, with a right to control her body and rid it of inhabitants she doesn't want. Those inhabitants may be peaople, as in a baby. Doesn't matter. The woman's right to bodily autonomy trumps the baby'r right to live off the woman's body.

[Coito ergo sum]

There's a sub-theme in this thread that relates directly to this discussion Cunt once started a long time ago: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=322

It's about whether men should be able to abdicate parental responsibility. It never got that much discussion, but I always found the argument put forward fascinating.

I think there was another thread where the issue was discussed in extreme depth. Seth and I were involved, and Seth was on the "yes" side, and I was on the "no" side of that equation. I can't find the thread offhand, though...

[Coito ergo sum]

On the subject of parental consent, there should be a test that you have to pass, to demonstrate competence. Because it doesn't take any life-skills, any intelligence, any wisdom or even the slightest bit of common sense to become a parent.
Why should a complete moron have such power over a child's life, just because she managed to drop her pants for five minutes, or he managed to find the right orifice? Is that good enough?

Make em sit an exam.

Incompetent parenting got humanity where it is today -- top o' the food chain, baby! Why let governments fuck that up with their pointless examinations, which will, as with all competency exams administered by governments, ensure that the process doesn't at all effect the number of incompetents that pass it...

And the answer to tanning machines is not to ban them, but to only allow machines which have been demonstrated to be safe. Good luck with that.

...because we ought not let people do things they want to do because there are safety risks?

One - there is no such thing as "safe." There is only more safe, and less safe. "Safe" is a relative term that does not preclude all risk. So, it is silly to say that something has to be demonstrated as "safe" to be legal. Everything would be illegal, then. Windows aren't "safe." Swimming pools aren't "safe." Automobiles aren't "safe." Bicycles aren't "safe." Piano wire isn't "safe." Guitars are not "safe." "Aspirin" and "Tylenol" is not "safe." Those things all pose risks of harm.

Parachutes are not safe -- therefore, they should only allow parachutes to be marketed when they've been demonstrated to be safe. Good luck with that. Wanna skydive? Nope. Can't be demonstrated to be "safe," so that sport is over.

....nogod, I flippin' hate the nanny mentality....

There is nothing wrong with people doing unsafe things. Some unsafe things are flippin' awesome. Drinking alcohol isn't safe, but fuck the fuck off if folks want to take away my fucking beer!

[Coito ergo sum]

This was a big assumption you made in your response to my presentation:

Well, as I said, like any individual right, the exercise of the right to abortion is subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest. Knowing full well that you will likely maintain that a fetus is not a "person" and therefore has no rights to be respected or considered in such decisions, I want to point out that "personhood" is not, so far, subject to an objective scientific definition. Instead, it's a moral, ethical and social determination made by a particular society based on the dominant mores and beliefs of the culture involved, and that accordingly the state's interest in protecting the rights of the fetus grows along with fetal development.

While I do think there are points in the course of fetal development where it would be difficult to argue for full personhood, I do actually think the fetus is a baby long before it is born. I experienced a connection to my son long before he was born, thought of him as a person, saw images of him acting like a baby. If I'd lost the pregnancy at eight months I would have mourned it as the loss of a child.

To chime in on the issue of personhood -- it's not really the issue, IMHO.

1. Even persons can be killed if the law allows, and there are many instances when the law does allow. So, personhood does not result in abortions ipso facto being unlawful.

2. Even nonperson are protected from harm where the law specifies. One can't just go shoot one's neighbors dog, and the neighbor nowadays can't generally go shoot his own dog. And, even property is protected from harm by the law. Personhood is not required.

So, I think what we're dealing with here is the extent of a woman's right to unrestricted control of this decision, and the interest of the state in protecting whatever it is that is in the womb.

The issue of "my body, my choice" is a nice catch-phrase, but is inadequate to completely decide the issue, because there are many instances where one's choices of what to do with one's own body is limited.

The balance struck in Roe v Wade seems pretty reasonable, albeit imperfect from an absolute, bright-line perspective.

[hadespussercats]

This was a big assumption you made in your response to my presentation:

Well, as I said, like any individual right, the exercise of the right to abortion is subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest. Knowing full well that you will likely maintain that a fetus is not a "person" and therefore has no rights to be respected or considered in such decisions, I want to point out that "personhood" is not, so far, subject to an objective scientific definition. Instead, it's a moral, ethical and social determination made by a particular society based on the dominant mores and beliefs of the culture involved, and that accordingly the state's interest in protecting the rights of the fetus grows along with fetal development.

While I do think there are points in the course of fetal development where it would be difficult to argue for full personhood, I do actually think the fetus is a baby long before it is born. I experienced a connection to my son long before he was born, thought of him as a person, saw images of him acting like a baby. If I'd lost the pregnancy at eight months I would have mourned it as the loss of a child.

To chime in on the issue of personhood -- it's not really the issue, IMHO.

1. Even persons can be killed if the law allows, and there are many instances when the law does allow. So, personhood does not result in abortions ipso facto being unlawful.

2. Even nonperson are protected from harm where the law specifies. One can't just go shoot one's neighbors dog, and the neighbor nowadays can't generally go shoot his own dog. And, even property is protected from harm by the law. Personhood is not required.

So, I think what we're dealing with here is the extent of a woman's right to unrestricted control of this decision, and the interest of the state in protecting whatever it is that is in the womb.

The issue of "my body, my choice" is a nice catch-phrase, but is inadequate to completely decide the issue, because there are many instances where one's choices of what to do with one's own body is limited.

The balance struck in Roe v Wade seems pretty reasonable, albeit imperfect from an absolute, bright-line perspective.

Well, by that token, how many laws, at least in US, satisfy that bright-line criterion?