By requiring parental notification, Prop. 73 would impose a waiting period on the minor seeking the abortion. Shouldn't it be up to the parent whether there is a waiting period or not?
Now I actually have mixed feelings regarding Prop. 73, because some abortions currently allowed under the law fall into a category of abortions that I think should be prohibited whether there is parental consent or not. But I dislike laws that presume parents to have conservative standards. Some parents will *want* their kids to have responsible sex, do drugs responsibly, stay out all night at unlicensed rave parties when they have a mind to, and generally engage in youthful experimentation and enjoyment of life. Should the law discriminate against such parents by helping those in the majority enforce the controls they choose to place on their children?
From:firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf OfStarchild
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 12:48 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Prop 73
I don't think putting the decision into the hands of the state is really at issue here. The question is whether a pregnant girl under the age of 18 gets to decide for herself to have an abortion, or whether parents must be involved in the decision. In neither case does the government get to decide whether or not she has an abortion.
Actually as I think about it, it seems to me that far from ending the law's intrusion into parental prerogative, Prop. 73 would further inject the law into parenting. If the law says that parental notification is required for a minor to get an abortion, it is interfering with the parents' prerogative to say to their kids, "You have the right to get an abortion without specifically seeking my approval."
I'm reminded of something my ex told me about growing up in Nagoya, Japan. At that time, school-age kids were not allowed to be downtown without being accompanied by an adult. It was presumed that parents would not want them there. One time she and her friends were stopped downtown by the authorities, who contacted their parents. Chikako's mom was annoyed with the authorities for detaining her daughter, and bothering her at work -- she told them that it was fine for her child to be downtown, and if she didn't want her there, she would tell her that herself. Of course she was rather more liberal and progressive than the average Japanese mom!
This is akin to Prop. 73. In both cases, the state's interference with the actions of a minor is only reinforcing parental authority *if* the parents want to exercise their authority in a certain way. That may well be the vast majority of parents, but it still means that the state is infringing on the prerogative of a minority of parents in order to assist the majority in carrying out preferences for their children that it arguably ought to be their responsibility to see to themselves.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
While I can't speak for Mike, I can provide you my perspective.
As a father of 3, I feel responsible for making major decisions for my children until they are 18. If some abortionist coerced, harangued, or otherwise convinced my child into killing their unborn baby, I don't know how I would act, but I think I would likely need to be physically restrained from attacking the abortionist.
Anyway, I say that just to give you a sense of the emotions around the issue a parent might face. (I'm not sure if you have children or not). Of course, not having them doesn't make your viewpoint less valid.
Here's how I break down the decision tree on this issue, apart from whether or not you believe abortion to be murder:
Q1: Should there be an age of majority for entering into contracts?
A1a If you believe there should be, then it comes down to question 2:
Q2: Who gets to decide important issues for minors?
A2a. Statists think the state should, and this is manifested in such things as mandatory child safety seats in cars, mandatory PKU testing of newborns, drinking ages, mandatory education, and so on and so on.
A2b. Others, (like me), think that parents should make these decisions on behalf of their minor children, and that short of severe physical abuse or torture, the state should butt out.
A1b. If you believe there should not be an age of majority and that children under 18 should be able to enter into contracts on their own, then I agree you should not support proposition 73.
Mike, If my messages have come across as aggresive, I apologize. I
certainly didn't intend them to be. I am only trying to understand
why I find myself in disagreement with you. I enjoy your insight and
I think you're a very smart cookie.
Maybe "protect" was the wrong word, but I think you know what I was
getting at. Who is responsible for these interactions with kids? The
service provider, or the parent?
> Regardless, I don't want anyone to initiate any procedure on my children
> without my knowledge.
My first thought here is that what you are asking for, in essance, is
an identification requirement for all medical practitioners. Are you
sure that is what you want?
Yahoo! Groups Links
View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.