California Prop 73 - abortion fanatics vs. god freaks

[lehighguy]

There are already legal provisions for that sort of thing. Do you really think it hasn't come up before.

A non-emergency optional medical procedure is a totally different matter.

[ QUOTE ]
If a 16 year old has a non-life threatening non-urgent medical condition caused by a car accident that can wait 2 days before being treated, then yes, the parents should be consulted and permission received before the procedure is done. Isn't that obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are being sarcastic.

You can’t possibly be saying that a teenager showing symptoms of a sprained back or a fractured bone should have to wait for their parents.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure natedogg will make an excpetion if a case an abortion is needed in a life threatening time-critical circumstance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hope so, but what about preventative medicine? Should parents have the right to deny their pregnant teenager pre-natal care if the girl can pay for it without their help?

[lehighguy]

There are already laws surronding this, and they make a lot more sense then what the proposistion is proposing.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
There are already laws surronding this, and they make a lot more sense then what the proposistion is proposing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Explain these laws. A kid with a pregnancy can say something about the parents, and there are a lot of reasons for a kid to not want to let his/her parents know about it.

[lehighguy]

If you go to the emergency room with a broken bone they can treat you without parental permission. It doesn't have to be life threatening. There are standards by which a court would judge wether a doctor overstepped thier bounds. Some cases (like the examples natedog gave in OP) are ones where such discretion is not allowed, and for good reason.

Posters comparison of getting an abortion to getting a broke bone healed is fundamentally lacking. His all or nothing approach is part of what nate is railing against in OP.

[ QUOTE ]
Posters comparison of getting an abortion to getting a broke bone healed is fundamentally lacking.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of the car accident hypothetical was to respond to the OP statement:

“NO ONE should be able to secretly render medical treatment on my child without my permission MUCH LESS without even my knowledge. I don't care what kind of treatment it is.”

Obviously an emergency room situation is much different than an abortion.

I did compare pre-natal care to abortion in another post on this thread and I think the analogy is valid. Parents should have the right to refuse to pay for their pregnant teenager’s medical care, but that is where parental authority should end. Parents should not have the right to deny their teenagers access to birth control, gynecological exams, STD tests, pre-natal care, or (as long as Roe vs. Wade stands) abortion. As long as the teenager is able to pay, the doctor should be allowed to provide service.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

Which raises another question. Why do you think it is the government's responsibility to foster improved family communications?

[/ QUOTE ]

This talking point has been floating around but it's completely absurd. By that logic, all parental notification laws (regarding anything) are the act of govt taking responsibility to "foster family communication". That's absurd.

The point is that a guardian makes the decisions for a minor's health care. And there is currently an exception to that

Yes, this measure only goes so far as to require notification. That is not far enough in my opion, but I'll take what I can get.. This disgusting law making an exception for abortion allowing children to make their own medical decisions should be repealed entirely. But 73 is a good first step.

Again, the "activist" role of govt here is in the act of stepping in to make a special exception to the laws regarding minors and guardians for abortion. Undoing that is not an intrusion that fosters family communication. It is restoring a legal protection that all parents should have and that was undermined by abortion fanatics.

It's a slight scaling back of the abortion crusade that has gone so far people are willing to give up their own responsibilties and rights in order to pat themselves on back for "protecting the reproductive rights" of 12 year olds without the parents' knowledge, much less consent.



natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure natedogg will make an excpetion if a case an abortion is needed in a life threatening time-critical circumstance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hope so, but what about preventative medicine? Should parents have the right to deny their pregnant teenager pre-natal care if the girl can pay for it without their help?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The same goes for *any* treatment. Abortion is not special. Living in a society that is free and gives responsibility to you means you have to accept that others to make crappy or stupid decisions. The parent's role as a guardian is crucial. Undermining that role leads to tyranny.

Making exceptions to the role just because you don't like some other parents' decisions only means you have now set the precedent to have your OWN decisions undermined by special laws aimed at your beliefs and practices that others find objectionable.

Better to allow some people to act in a way you find objectionable, than to accept the precedent that others can overrule your decisions just because they find them objectionable.

Trust me, this is all going to get played out again very soon around obesity.

natedogg

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think it is the government's responsibility to foster improved family communications?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice attempt to shift the focus of the debate.

This is like saying "since when is it the government's responsibility to give you money" to people that want a tax cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not.