Parental Consent for Tanning

[Seth]

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

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

Planned Parenthood is a vast and wealthy criminal enterprise that profits enormously from the tragedy of promiscuity and poverty. It deliberately locates its facilities in minority communities and then persuades poor women to have sex so they will get pregnant and want an abortion, which Planned Parenthood will provide for a fee. Thousands of people profit from Planned Parenthood every day. Just because it's a "non-profit" corporation doesn't mean that the people who work for Planned Parenthood don't profit from their abortion mills.

And they are a criminal enterprise because they have been documented on video and audio illegally advising and providing abortions for underage girls in violation of state and federal laws. That they have not been prosecuted under the RICO Act and various state laws merely points to the massive corruption and graft that is involved in buying off politicians and prosecutors.

Just because you won't see the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

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

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

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

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

O.k., my apologies. I thought you were asking him why he was considering abortion a special case.

[Seth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three generations of imbeciles are enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does not bother me in the least that a woman might be required by law to carry a child to term and deliver it, and then hand it over for adoption or placement in foster care, because that's the natural, expected, ordinary and usual consequence of having sex, and any woman who gets pregnant after voluntarily having sex should be required to experience those consequences so that she will perhaps make better judgments about having sex in the future.

Don't want to get knocked up and have to gestate and deliver that child? Don't have sex. Pretty simple really. After all, women have worked for centuries to obtain legal sovereignty of their wombs, and they can no longer be legally compelled to have sex with their husbands, so with that absolute sovereignty of what goes into a woman's womb comes absolute responsibility for what happens in there and what comes out. Why should society agree to relieve a woman of the consequences and responsibility for what goes on inside her womb as the result of voluntary sexual activity by allowing at-will abortion? Why shouldn't society forbid at-will abortion and demand that women suck it up and suffer the consequences of their voluntary decisions and then turn the healthy child over to someone who will care for it properly after delivery? Why should society not value the interests of the fetus and it's future as a tax-paying citizen over the selfish and arrogant desires of the woman to evade the natural consequences of her voluntary actions by demanding that she endure gestation and deliver to society a healthy child that can be raised up to be a good, productive citizen...hopefully one with better morals and ethics than her mother who will stand up and face the consequences of its actions with dignity and respect for others rather than selfishness and arrogance?

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.

[MrJonno]

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

Wrong wrong and thrice wrong.

We had Victoria Gillick your typical Catholic no contraception, no sex education, no abortions fanatic try that in the 1980's and she was throughly beaten in courts becoming an important part of case law


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence


If you want complete control of a living creatures medical care than get a pet and even then the law might have something to say about animal cruelty

[Coito ergo sum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three generations of imbeciles are enough

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

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

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

I didn't ascribe that to you. However, you did ask this, "why do you think incompetent people should be parents? Particularly when those incompetent people, in your ideal scenario, would then have total control over the bodies and lives of other, unwitting people?" Which brought to mind Buck v Bell, because Justice Holmes said, "of course not -- incompetents should not be parents and the State can step in to prevent it..."

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

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

If someone is incompetent, they aren't capable of deciding what they want in that regard. If they were, they wouldn't be incompetent.

[Warren Dew]

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

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

Abortion is a serious consequence - as you point out elsewhere, it's a surgical procedure, after all. I think you overestimate the degree to which abortion is used as a method of birth control.

Your argument applies much more strongly to contraception. Get rid of contraception, and people will become much more careful about sex again, if that's what you want, even where abortion is available.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not sure they would be much more careful. Back before contraceptives, people just got married much earlier, and had more babies. Contraceptives really didn't take off until the 1950s, and the pill not until the 1960's. Condoms were earlier, but like today, they were left unwrapped and in the package more often than actually used - they're more lip service. When it comes to act, pull and pray is pretty common still.

Back then, though, by the time a girl was 17, she was already scoping out husbands, and if she wasn't married by 20, she was starting have people look at her funny, and by 25 she was spinster material. Guys, of course, much the same only a tad older. Not married by 25 and you're a "confirmed bachelor" (i.e. code for gay). Teenage girls who got pregnant were spirited away and had the baby and it was put up for adoption, or they married their teenage lover, and then they got a job and started their life.

I don't think anyone was more careful. They just lived with it.

[hadespussercats]

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

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

Yes, within the context of the original discussion, that was my sense of things.

I'm sorry-- I just don't have the patience to parse every post either of you makes into individual sentences, responding to each.

And frankly, very few have the patience to read either of your posts when they get to be that dense. And in your case, Coito, I really wish you'd take a look at your quote formatting before hitting the post button-- make sure there are an equal amount of close quote brackets as there are open quote brackets, etc.

Everyone makes formatting errors when they're in the groove of an argument. But since your posts are so very quote-heavy, they become well-nigh unintelligible without a bit of extra care.

I have a lot to say on this subject, but I might duck out early. You and Seth are smart men, but you both can be weary reads.

[Warren Dew]

I'm not sure they would be much more careful. Back before contraceptives, people just got married much earlier, and had more babies. Contraceptives really didn't take off until the 1950s, and the pill not until the 1960's. Condoms were earlier, but like today, they were left unwrapped and in the package more often than actually used - they're more lip service. When it comes to act, pull and pray is pretty common still.

Back then, though, by the time a girl was 17, she was already scoping out husbands, and if she wasn't married by 20, she was starting have people look at her funny, and by 25 she was spinster material. Guys, of course, much the same only a tad older. Not married by 25 and you're a "confirmed bachelor" (i.e. code for gay). Teenage girls who got pregnant were spirited away and had the baby and it was put up for adoption, or they married their teenage lover, and then they got a job and started their life.

You might want to recheck your statistics. The median age at first marriage for men was 26.1 in 1890, the same as it was in 1990, after dropping to a low of 22 in 1956. For women, the trends were similar; the age was lower but the median never fell below 20.1, so more than half have always married after 20. The idea that there has been only a monotonic increase in age of marriage is mistaken.

The vast majority of children were born in wedlock back then, demonstrating that people - granted, probably more the women than the men - were much more reluctant to have sex without commitment before birth control.

[Seth]

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

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

Abortion is a serious consequence - as you point out elsewhere, it's a surgical procedure, after all. I think you overestimate the degree to which abortion is used as a method of birth cont
rol.

I don't think so:

MYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.

In fact, half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant.1 Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time.

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.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion ... n_who.html

So, if half of all women getting abortions report that it was resorted to after failed contraception, what about the other half? And half hand no previous abortion or only one previous abortion, that leaves nearly half that may have had multiple abortions.

The following information from the Guttmacher Institute indicates that horny 20-somethings, from 20 to 29, get 54 percent of the 1.2 million or so abortions every year and that only half of them are using contraceptives, 46 percent were not using contraception, and that 42 percent of women getting abortions are considered low-income (below federal poverty line). Predictably, the stats for women having multiple abortions as a method of birth control is not given.

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
August 2011
INCIDENCE OF ABORTION

• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 67% among blacks and 53% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]

• Each year, two percent of women aged 15–44 have an abortion. Half have had at least one previous abortion.[2,3]

• At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45.[4,5]
Number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44, by year
Abortion rate line chart
WHO HAS ABORTIONS?

• Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain 11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%.[6]

• Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%.[6]

• Non-Hispanic white women account for 36% of abortions, non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and women of other races for 9%.[6]

• Thirty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions identify as Protestant and 28% as Catholic.[6]

• Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions [6]

• About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children. [6]

• Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).[6]

• Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.* [6]

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7]
CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]

• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[8]

• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[9,10]

Your argument applies much more strongly to contraception. Get rid of contraception, and people will become much more careful about sex again, if that's what you want, even where abortion is available.[/quote]

This also from the Guttmacher Institute:

Parental Involvement in Minors’ Abortions
BACKGROUND: A majority of states require parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion. Most of these states require the consent or notification of only one parent, usually 24 or 48 hours before the procedure, but a handful of states require the involvement of both parents. Some states require the parental consent documentation to be notarized. On the other hand, several states allow grandparents or other adult relatives to be involved in place of the minor’s parents. Moreover, because the Supreme Court has ruled that states may not give parents an absolute veto over their daughter’s decision to have an abortion, most state parental involvement requirements include a judicial bypass procedure that allows a minor to receive court approval for an abortion without her parents’ knowledge or consent. Some states require judges to use specific criteria when determining whether to grant a waiver of parental involvement. These criteria vary by state, but can include the minor’s intelligence, emotional stability and understanding of the possible consequences of obtaining an abortion. Also, a significant number of states require the judge to find “clear and convincing evidence” that the minor is sufficiently mature or that the abortion is in her best interest prior to waiving the state’s parental involvement requirement. This is a stricter standard than is generally required in civil cases. Finally, many parental involvement requirements are waived if there is a medical emergency or the minor is the victim of abuse or neglect.
HIGHLIGHTS:
 37 states require parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion.
 22 states require parental consent only, 3 of which require both parents to consent.
 11 states require parental notification only, 1 of which requires that both parents be notified.
 4 states require both parental consent and notification.
 7 states require the parental consent documentation to be notarized.
 36 states that require parental involvement have an alternative process for minors seeking an abortion.
 36 states include a judicial bypass procedure, which allows a minor to obtain approval from a court.
 5 states require judges to use specific criteria, such as a minor’s intelligence or emotional stability, when deciding whether to waive a parental involvement requirement.
 13 states require judges to use the “clear and convincing evidence” standard that the minor is mature and the abortion is in her best interest when deciding whether to waive parental involvement requirement.
 6 states also permit a minor to obtain an abortion if a grandparent or other adult relative is involved in the decision.
 Most states that require parental involvement make exceptions under certain circumstances.
 33 states permit a minor to obtain an abortion in a medical emergency.
 15 states permit a minor to obtain an abortion in cases of abuse, assault, incest or neglect.

http://www.guttmacher.org http://www.guttmacher.org
info@guttmacher.org policyworks@guttmacher.org
© 2012, Guttmacher Institute

All this information points towards 20-29 year old women of lower income strata as a group being irresponsible with their sexuality by not using contraceptives and using abortion as a means of contraception when an irresponsible (not unintended) pregnancy results, and that this group represents nearly 50 percent of the total number of abortions given each year.

So, no, I don't think I'm overstating the problem.

[hadespussercats]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three generations of imbeciles are enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does not bother me in the least that a woman might be required by law to carry a child to term and deliver it, and then hand it over for adoption or placement in foster care, because that's the natural, expected, ordinary and usual consequence of having sex, and any woman who gets pregnant after voluntarily having sex should be required to experience those consequences so that she will perhaps make better judgments about having sex in the future.

Don't want to get knocked up and have to gestate and deliver that child? Don't have sex. Pretty simple really. After all, women have worked for centuries to obtain legal sovereignty of their wombs, and they can no longer be legally compelled to have sex with their husbands, so with that absolute sovereignty of what goes into a woman's womb comes absolute responsibility for what happens in there and what comes out. Why should society agree to relieve a woman of the consequences and responsibility for what goes on inside her womb as the result of voluntary sexual activity by allowing at-will abortion? Why shouldn't society forbid at-will abortion and demand that women suck it up and suffer the consequences of their voluntary decisions and then turn the healthy child over to someone who will care for it properly after delivery? Why should society not value the interests of the fetus and it's future as a tax-paying citizen over the selfish and arrogant desires of the woman to evade the natural consequences of her voluntary actions by demanding that she endure gestation and deliver to society a healthy child that can be raised up to be a good, productive citizen...hopefully one with better morals and ethics than her mother who will stand up and face the consequences of its actions with dignity and respect for others rather than selfishness and arrogance?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Really, it boggles the mind.

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.

[Seth]

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

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

Abortion is a serious consequence - as you point out elsewhere, it's a surgical procedure, after all. I think you overestimate the degree to which abortion is used as a method of birth cont
rol.

I don't think so:

MYTH: Women are using abortion as a method of birth control.

In fact, half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant.1 Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time.

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.

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion ... n_who.html

So, if half of all women getting abortions report that it was resorted to after failed contraception, what about the other half? And half hand no previous abortion or only one previous abortion, that leaves nearly half that may have had multiple abortions.

The following information from the Guttmacher Institute indicates that horny 20-somethings, from 20 to 29, get 54 percent of the 1.2 million or so abortions every year and that only half of them are using contraceptives, 46 percent were not using contraception, and that 42 percent of women getting abortions are considered low-income (below federal poverty line). Predictably, the stats for women having multiple abortions as a method of birth control is not given.

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
August 2011
INCIDENCE OF ABORTION

• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 67% among blacks and 53% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]

• Each year, two percent of women aged 15–44 have an abortion. Half have had at least one previous abortion.[2,3]

• At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45.[4,5]
Number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44, by year
Abortion rate line chart
WHO HAS ABORTIONS?

• Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain 11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%.[6]

• Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%.[6]

• Non-Hispanic white women account for 36% of abortions, non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and women of other races for 9%.[6]

• Thirty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions identify as Protestant and 28% as Catholic.[6]

• Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions [6]

• About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children. [6]

• Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).[6]

• Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.* [6]

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7]
CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]

• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[8]

• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[9,10]

This also from the Guttmacher Institute:

Parental Involvement in Minors’ Abortions
BACKGROUND: A majority of states require parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion. Most of these states require the consent or notification of only one parent, usually 24 or 48 hours before the procedure, but a handful of states require the involvement of both parents. Some states require the parental consent documentation to be notarized. On the other hand, several states allow grandparents or other adult relatives to be involved in place of the minor’s parents. Moreover, because the Supreme Court has ruled that states may not give parents an absolute veto over their daughter’s decision to have an abortion, most state parental involvement requirements include a judicial bypass procedure that allows a minor to receive court approval for an abortion without her parents’ knowledge or consent. Some states require judges to use specific criteria when determining whether to grant a waiver of parental involvement. These criteria vary by state, but can include the minor’s intelligence, emotional stability and understanding of the possible consequences of obtaining an abortion. Also, a significant number of states require the judge to find “clear and convincing evidence” that the minor is sufficiently mature or that the abortion is in her best interest prior to waiving the state’s parental involvement requirement. This is a stricter standard than is generally required in civil cases. Finally, many parental involvement requirements are waived if there is a medical emergency or the minor is the victim of abuse or neglect.
HIGHLIGHTS:
 37 states require parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion.
 22 states require parental consent only, 3 of which require both parents to consent.
 11 states require parental notification only, 1 of which requires that both parents be notified.
 4 states require both parental consent and notification.
 7 states require the parental consent documentation to be notarized.
 36 states that require parental involvement have an alternative process for minors seeking an abortion.
 36 states include a judicial bypass procedure, which allows a minor to obtain approval from a court.
 5 states require judges to use specific criteria, such as a minor’s intelligence or emotional stability, when deciding whether to waive a parental involvement requirement.
 13 states require judges to use the “clear and convincing evidence” standard that the minor is mature and the abortion is in her best interest when deciding whether to waive parental involvement requirement.
 6 states also permit a minor to obtain an abortion if a grandparent or other adult relative is involved in the decision.
 Most states that require parental involvement make exceptions under certain circumstances.
 33 states permit a minor to obtain an abortion in a medical emergency.
 15 states permit a minor to obtain an abortion in cases of abuse, assault, incest or neglect.

http://www.guttmacher.org http://www.guttmacher.org
info@guttmacher.org policyworks@guttmacher.org
© 2012, Guttmacher Institute

All this information points towards 20-29 year old women of lower income strata as a group being irresponsible with their sexuality by not using contraceptives and using abortion as a means of contraception when an irresponsible (not unintended) pregnancy results, and that this group represents nearly 50 percent of the total number of abortions given each year.

So, no, I don't think I'm overstating the problem.

[hadespussercats]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three generations of imbeciles are enough

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

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

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

I didn't ascribe that to you. However, you did ask this, "why do you think incompetent people should be parents? Particularly when those incompetent people, in your ideal scenario, would then have total control over the bodies and lives of other, unwitting people?" Which brought to mind Buck v Bell, because Justice Holmes said, "of course not -- incompetents should not be parents and the State can step in to prevent it..."

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

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

If someone is incompetent, they aren't capable of deciding what they want in that regard. If they were, they wouldn't be incompetent.

Thanks, Seth.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hades - I never meant to bother you - I was just chiming in. To the extent I came across wrong, I apologize, it was not intended.

I'm not sure where I stand on this general issue. It's difficult for me to parse out.

[hadespussercats]

Hades - I never meant to bother you - I was just chiming in. To the extent I came across wrong, I apologize, it was not intended.

I'm not sure where I stand on this general issue. It's difficult for me to parse out.

I'm not mad. Don't worry.

I was starting to write out this big share session about my teen years and an alternate lifetime scenario, but it's not really worth the effort.

Maybe if you just spit out a bunch of pros and cons? I wouldn't mind fighting it out to help you think something through.