the road to hana wrote:the road to hana wrote:Moniker wrote:We're not in your ideal world. So, in the world we are currently living in do you truly support the belief that an adult can make this medical decision (force a teen to get an abortion) for their child? The answer is no. So, in the world we live in you do not support the idea that an adult can make this decision when it goes against the one you would choose.
I'd say that's an oversimplification and mischaracterization of my position. I'll sleep on it and see if I can explain better later.
OK, I've slept on it and here's my (hopefully) clearer statement of position.
I believe as long as the law supports the decisions for minor children being made by their parents or guardians, this should extent to medical care, and parents and guardians should be expected to make the best medical choices possible on behalf of their children. I do not believe children under the age of majority should be making any major medical or surgical decisions on their own behalf, including but not limited to surgery, cosmetic or otherwise, or termination of pregnancy, without parental consent.
If a parent or guardian makes a medical or surgical decision on a minor child's behalf that is ultimately not in their best interest, they should be held responsible.
I think what is confusing, to me, about this is that who would ever deny a teen the option of abortion and choose the teen to endure a pregnancy and live birth if they are TRULY concerned about medical strain on the teen? You have the option of abortion which is by all accounts less medically straining on a teen then carrying a pregnancy to term (for a teen there are more complications usually -- underdeveloped pelvis -- more often they have cesareans, preeclampsia, anemia) and then a live birth. So, it seems that if we always wanted to err on the side of caution, for medical issues for a teen, we would always want them to abort. Right? Which one is more straining for a teen?
I don't believe a child should be "forced" into any medical or surgical procedure that cannot be demonstrated to be in the minor child's best interest, and the child should have recourse to legal action if this is in debate.
Well, if parental consent is required for an abortion and the parents refuse consent then they are forcing the child to carry a pregnancy to term and have a live birth. They're forcing the child to endure childbirth (more strenuous than an abortion) and how could that EVER be in the best interest for the child when looking at it from merely the injury to the teen's body? Not even thinking about the psychological ramifications of any of the choices.
If a child wants a procedure (in this case, an abortion), and the parents deem it is to be done, then the child is not being "forced" into it. The only situation in which a child is "forced" into the procedure is one in which she is unwilling to undergo procured abortion, and the parents impose their will on the child. Again, I believe she should have recourse to the courts if she believes this is unjust or demonstrated to be not in her best interest.
Of course if a child wants an abortion and the parents give consent then that's not "force". Yet, there ARE instances of teens being told they WILL get an abortion, or they WILL carry the child to term. This is done often. Girls are shipped away to give birth, place the baby up for adoption by the pressure of their parents. I wonder if a young teen is told that they can not get parental consent to get an abortion, carry the pregnancy to term, endure a live birth with complications that you would then support that teen suing their parents/guardians?
It sounds like the courts might have their hands full with these scenarios....