[RD] Abortion, once again

[Angst]

My main point in listing the other (fairly arbitrary) ages of "consent" is that they also involve "immensely personal decision"(s). So I don't find that abortion being an immensely personal decision means that it should be left up to the individual to decide.

For example, before age X you can't decide to stop attending school*, despite that being a personal decision. Before age Y you can't run for President*, despite that being an immensely personal decision. So I was simply saying I don't find @Remorseless1's reasoning for allowing someone below age Z to make their own decision about abortion to be persuasive (I don't claim to know what Z should be). Not trying to say I wouldn't find other reasons to be persuasive, but just something being "immensely personal" is not. JMO of course - not trying to set the Law Of The Land According To RobAnybody or anything.

* just to head off anything in this regard: I'm not equating any of these decisions, just saying they are all immensely personal

well ok, but we're getting in abstractions again. my question, just copypasted: if it's to be relevant to the thread, i presume it concerns abortion. so what's your stance there irt age of consent? my idea that irt consenting age, since you cannot consent to getting pregnant, deliberating to abort should be freely available.

 

[RobAnybody]

...so what's your stance there irt age of consent? my idea that irt consenting age, since you cannot consent to getting pregnant, deliberating to abort should be freely available.

Whew, you're asking me questions I'm not really qualified to answer. But I'll give it a shot. Before I start though, I'll quote my answer to @Arwon:

I am not, because the age of "minors" (here in the US) varies from state to state, so it's impossible for me to specify an exact age (nor do I feel like "RobAnybody Declares The Age of Minors To Be X" is in my purview). I'm saying I can't possibly say which state is "correct" in their assessment of the term "minor". So here we sometimes have to be generic & just use that term instead.

OK, that said, & I am not in any way saying I should set policy on any of this, but you asked...

If a 16*-year old is allowed to bang** another 16-year old (which, we can all admit, happens ALL the time), then I don't see why them banging a 19-year old or a 21-year old is different (heading off: not a teacher, not an employer, godforbid not a relative). They can consent to banging someone their own age, but can't consent to banging someone "arbitrary X years older"? Makes no sense to me. If they can consent to bang anyone it should be up to them who they bang. [whew, waiting for the poopstorm on that one, but wait! it gets worse...]

My solution would be to make the age of consent for "sex with anyone" the same as "age to have an abortion without anyone's involvement". So, if you can A) consent to sex then that is B) the same age where you should be able to have an abortion without involving a parent/guardian. To the extent anyone gets to A, then the right to B should come along with it. If they don't meet A, then a parent should be involved with B.

I await the [poopstorm] that is to follow my answer, although I reiterate: I am not saying I should be allowed anywhere near setting policy on such things (& yes, the quoting of just this line - very clever, have at it I suppose). This is just my answer to a hypothetical question asked of me on CFC Off-Topic that has no relevance to my life whatsoever (but that's what we do here) that I tried to answer honestly, knowing the landmines involved.

* I'm not saying that 16 should be "The Answer" - I just used it as an example - I have no idea
** I'm using this term because it's fairly ubiquitous & relatively innocuous, not for any other reason

 

[Angst]

well, alright. i disagree.
(reasoning already outlined, and not responded to in particular, so)

 

[RobAnybody]

Not responded to? I said I thought if you can't consent to sex, then you can't consent to an abortion without parental consent. I mean, it's obvious we disagree, but how can you say it wasn't responded to? I literally responded in particular. Probably too much particular.

 

[CKS]

Alternatively, I'd say that if you can't consent to sex, you can't consent to pregnancy. You should have to jump through many hoops to be allowed to attempt to carry to term, and the default should be an abortion as soon as possible.

 

[JollyRoger]

Additionally, you have to be at least 18 to possess a firearm in Idaho. The woke lawmakers in Idaho completely infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of those under 18. Why should we force someone to give birth when they cannot even possess the means to defend their cub from the predators of the world?

 

[Angst]

Not responded to? I said I thought if you can't consent to sex, then you can't consent to an abortion without parental consent. I mean, it's obvious we disagree, but how can you say it wasn't responded to? I literally responded in particular. Probably too much particular.

@CKS noted what you didn't answer. you didn't at all touch on the idea that if you can't consent to sex, you can't consent to getting pregnant. as such, childbirth should be something you opt into rather than the default. not that it means we're forcing abortions on people, but rather, that it should be the universally available option for people that literally can't legally get pregnant. if you're unable to get your head around how your construction here is detached from the state of affairs, i'll try to extrapolate.

in most of society, the reasoning is like that: if you've been violated, the base idea is that you are guaranteed to have the violation removed. because you have the right to an unviolated state of being. that's the basic gist of having sanctioned rights within a system of laws. i have the right to not get assaulted, so if i do, i by default have the legal option to press charges; i may choose not to, but i have full positive rights for this. now whether the charges are proven can become difficult because another person has the presumption of innocense. in the case of abortion, you are categorically assaulted if you're pregnant at 12, and the fetus is provably inside you.

there's then some - sorry - waffling that you could do (again) about, well when you attains those rights vary by case, right? but the whole idea of age of consent builds on the right not to get raped. the child is not able to consent to sex, the child has the right not to get raped, if you then force pregnancy and childbirth on the child from that basic construction, i think we should have a talk about sex.

(sidenote: then there's qualms about fetal rights or whatever, but in this particular case, that discussion is moot; we're discussion who has the discretion to terminate the pregnancy, and the who does not include the fetus between the given options)

 

[emzie]

If a 16*-year old is allowed to bang** another 16-year old (which, we can all admit, happens ALL the time), then I don't see why them banging a 19-year old or a 21-year old is different (heading off: not a teacher, not an employer, godforbid not a relative). They can consent to banging someone their own age, but can't consent to banging someone "arbitrary X years older"? Makes no sense to me. If they can consent to bang anyone it should be up to them who they bang. [whew, waiting for the poopstorm on that one, but wait! it gets worse...]

My solution would be to make the age of consent for "sex with anyone" the same as "age to have an abortion without anyone's involvement". So, if you can A) consent to sex then that is B) the same age where you should be able to have an abortion without involving a parent/guardian. To the extent anyone gets to A, then the right to B should come along with it. If they don't meet A, then a parent should be involved with B.

I await the [poopstorm] that is to follow my answer, although I reiterate: I am not saying I should be allowed anywhere near setting policy on such things (& yes, the quoting of just this line - very clever, have at it I suppose). This is just my answer to a hypothetical question asked of me on CFC Off-Topic that has no relevance to my life whatsoever (but that's what we do here) that I tried to answer honestly, knowing the landmines involved.

* I'm not saying that 16 should be "The Answer" - I just used it as an example - I have no idea
** I'm using this term because it's fairly ubiquitous & relatively innocuous, not for any other reason

Setting aside your consensual child sex apologetics, what about rape?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Setting aside your consensual child sex apologetics, what about rape?

to answer the question of "why is 16 with 16 okay but not 16 with 21", it's a grooming/influence/trafficking consideration. if it's a teacher or other influential figure then you can tack on conflict of interest and possibly coercion as well.

i don't see how taking away the options for a minor stuck in an obviously bad situation makes the situation better. compelling abortion and compelling taking the pregnancy to term both strike me as barbaric and too likely to ignore nuance of a particular person's circumstances. regardless of how the minor got to that position. i'm also not sure we can exclude one without excluding the other, if the only reason to allow/not allow is the age of the mother. parents saying they won't pay for their daughter's child and coercing abortion when she doesn't want to have the procedure is a pretty brutal situation too. is that better or worse than saying the daughter can't have an abortion? i'm not sure, probably depends on specifics, but i don't think either is justifiable offhand.

i also don't see how it follows logically that someone who is normally incapable of consenting, but is now in a forced choice scenario, should be denied that choice. we acknowledge it's a crappy situation, because we have laws on the books to try to minimize it happening. we have laws like that to try to prevent harm. however, once we're at the stage where the harm has happened, you have to evaluate what policy minimizes further harm. i don't see how denying the minor options *at that point* reduces harm, even if we took steps to prevent the minor making choices that put them in that situation.

 

[Samson]

US Supreme Court upholds access to abortion pill mifepristone

The United States Supreme Court has ruled to block lower-court rulings that would place restrictions on the pill mifepristone, one of the medications used in half of all abortions in the country, while litigation proceeds.

The decision comes in the wake of an appeal by the US Justice Department and the pill’s manufacturer Danco Laboratories.

US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk had granted a request from anti-abortion plaintiffs on April 7 to temporarily suspend mifepristone’s approval while he weighed a case over whether the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) erred in authorising the medication more than two decades ago.

Kacsmaryk’s injunction would have effectively removed mifepristone from the US market. But his decision offered seven days for the Biden administration to appeal before the injunction took effect.

The administration’s appeal took the case to New Orlean’s 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 12, which kept mifepristone available but also upheld restrictions from Kacsmaryk’s decision that would have rolled back access to 2016 standards.

Those restrictions included allowing the use of mifepristone only up to seven weeks of pregnancy, rather than 10 weeks, as the FDA has allowed in recent years. It would also require multiple in-person doctor visits and bar mifepristone from being sent through the mail.

 

[RobAnybody]

Alternatively, I'd say that if you can't consent to sex, you can't consent to pregnancy. You should have to jump through many hoops to be allowed to attempt to carry to term, and the default should be an abortion as soon as possible.

But we all sort of tacitly agree that minors can consent to sex with other minors. Else teens would be raping each other all the time, & no one claims that is the case. Right?

So if a minor teen knocks up another minor teen, do you truly believe the parents shouldn't be involved? That some random stranger, literally anyone, can take the girl across state lines to get an abortion & the parents should never even know about it? That seems absurd to me.

JMO. I'm *not* trying to say I should have any say over this as policy, but I was asked, so I answered, & gave my opinion.

Setting aside your consensual child sex apologetics, what about rape?

Maybe try again, assuming you actually want a discourse.

 

[Remorseless1]

Lots of stuff on the periphery of abortion, but in the end, the age of the pregnant person is irrelevant. If that person wants an abortion, they should get one. Full stop. Age of consent is an interesting legal sidebar but not the main issue. Do we or do we not give women full agency over their own bodies, as we currently do for MEN? Remember the anti-vax slogan of the idiots back in 2020: "my body, my choice." Does mean the government now has precedent to force women to be vaccinated? Will the federal government be able to override a woman's choices on medical care, careers, required number of children???

Remember women have only been able to vote for 103 years,less than half the age of the Republic.

 

[Samson]

But we all sort of tacitly agree that minors can consent to sex with other minors. Else teens would be raping each other all the time, & no one claims that is the case. Right?

I think the law in many places, the UK included, is that is such a case the male child rapes the female child.

So if a minor teen knocks up another minor teen, do you truly believe the parents shouldn't be involved? That some random stranger, literally anyone, can take the girl across state lines to get an abortion & the parents should never even know about it? That seems absurd to me.

There is the world of difference between "the parents should be involved" and "someone should be criminalised". Sure, in a perfect world all such children will have supportive parents that will guide them through the process. In the real world if the person getting the abortion does not want to tell someone else why should they? How many such cases is the parent of the pregnant child also the parent of the foetus?

 

[Samson]

If a 16*-year old is allowed to bang** another 16-year old (which, we can all admit, happens ALL the time), then I don't see why them banging a 19-year old or a 21-year old is different (heading off: not a teacher, not an employer, godforbid not a relative). They can consent to banging someone their own age, but can't consent to banging someone "arbitrary X years older"? Makes no sense to me. If they can consent to bang anyone it should be up to them who they bang.

This seems really odd to me. Two teenagers having sex is a very different thing to a feenager having sex with someone twice their age. I think it really is exposing a fundamental different in point of view, which surprises me as your views, even when I have disagreed with them have always seemed reasonable. If you could explain your reasoning here it would be great, possibly starting with your opinion of the purpose of the criminal justice system?

 

[Farm Boy]

If I roll with that, Samson, I also need to assume that significant chunks of Europe are straight up intentional pedo-enablers. Sure, they might be criminal states that warrant fundamental destruction.

How much do people grow, really, past 16(the age in the quote you posted)? I'm not offering an answer because I haven't thought about it long enough recently, but do you think a 16 year old and a 30 year old are fundamentally different people? One might have greater financial resources. But what if they're broke? Then they don't have that leverage. A 16 year old can quit school and work, here. And sometimes they do. They can be on volunteer fire departments. First in line into a burning house or screeching on the way to you when you're dying on the side of the road.

 

[Angst]

But we all sort of tacitly agree that minors can consent to sex with other minors. Else teens would be raping each other all the time, & no one claims that is the case. Right?

So if a minor teen knocks up another minor teen, do you truly believe the parents shouldn't be involved? That some random stranger, literally anyone, can take the girl across state lines to get an abortion & the parents should never even know about it? That seems absurd to me.

JMO. I'm *not* trying to say I should have any say over this as policy, but I was asked, so I answered, & gave my opinion.

on bolded: people aren't taking the girl across state lines. the girl can opt into it on her own. in the vast majority of the situations, pregnant 12-year olds have more complicated mental faculties than toddlers. so your phrasing here is really, really unfortunate. robs the kid of its agency altogether. again, there's age of adult rights in a bunch of areas, but kids have plenty of rights, and if they're past 10, they have the faculties to not want to have a goddamn baby.

on rest: even if we remove rape from the equation, it doesn't have to be rape to be a violation on the body. you should be able to connect why unwilling pregnancy is a violation on the body. if you don't really grok how this is the case, the very op of mine notes the violinist argument which i'm sure you've read by now. it is a good path into emotionally understanding how unwilling pregnancy can very much feel like a violation on the body. for a lot of men, even the ones sympathetic to abortion rights, they don't really emotionally connect to how involuntary pregnancy feels. among the numerous other things pregnancy is (all the good things, because yes, pregnancy has a lot of good things about it of course), it's being born with the ability to create & host a parasite that'll invade your bodily autonomy and drain your resources for 9 months (and then possibly kill you). again, minor's can't consent to sex, sex is mostly required for pregnancy, so they can't consent to pregnancy.

if you don't believe that, you believe in the equivalent, like... if you think it's illegal for me to do arson on your house, but that you shouldn't ever be compensated for the house actually burning down, if my kindling of your carpet succesfully spreads.

and i'm sure you don't believe in the latter equivalent. which is why i'm trying to outline the disconnect here for you. it's patently absurd to remove agency of pregnancy from a minor when they can't legally opt-in to sex.

 

[RobAnybody]

This seems really odd to me. Two teenagers having sex is a very different thing to a feenager having sex with someone twice their age. I think it really is exposing a fundamental different in point of view, which surprises me as your views, even when I have disagreed with them have always seemed reasonable. If you could explain your reasoning here it would be great, possibly starting with your opinion of the purpose of the criminal justice system?

What I mean is that if a minor (however one defines it, as it varies from place to place, particularly here in the US) can consent to having sex with person A, why are they not then allowed to consent to sex with person B, if the only difference here are the ages of person A & person B? As always, I'm assuming neither person A nor person B has any undue influence (teacher, boss, etc.) of course. I just don't see why one is considered reasonable but the other is not.

I guess I'd turn the question around & ask: why do you say it is a very different thing? You state that it is, but don't say why it is, hence my curiosity.

 

[Samson]

What I mean is that if a minor (however one defines it, as it varies from place to place, particularly here in the US) can consent to having sex with person A, why are they not then allowed to consent to sex with person B, if the only difference here are the ages of person A & person B? As always, I'm assuming neither person A nor person B has any undue influence (teacher, boss, etc.) of course. I just don't see why one is considered reasonable but the other is not.

I guess I'd turn the question around & ask: why do you say it is a very different thing? You state that it is, but don't say why it is, hence my curiosity.

It seems to me the upside and the downside are different. It is not a question of reasonableness. This is why I ask about what you think the criminal justice system is for.

As to the why, when there is a large age difference there is is the potential for inherent power imbalance and exploitation that does not exist when the people are close in age. This means the potential downside of allowing it is greater. Young people have sex with other young people more frequently than they do with older people. This means the potential downside of criminalising it is greater. In such situations where there is a difference in the cost/benefit of criminalisation it seems appropriate for the rules to be different.

 

[RobAnybody]

on bolded: people aren't taking the girl across state lines.

But my initial objection was to exactly that:

While I am solidly pro-choice, I can't really find a logical reason to oppose this part. Take abortion out of the equation for a second: shouldn't it be illegal to provide a minor prescription drugs or transport a minor across state lines without their parents' knowledge & consent? I would have thought that wasn't allowed regardless of the reason.

It was in regards to @Broken_Erika's post here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/abortion-once-again.674891/post-16441832

on rest: [just snipped for brevity]

We're talking about (or at least I am) someone else beside the parents being able to take the minor to have a procedure without their parents' knowledge, much less consent. I'm very much pro-choice, so we don't disagree in regards to the rest of your post. I just have trouble with this one specific aspect of allowing someone (literally anyone?) to transport a minor... well, anywhere without their parents' knowledge. In any other circumstance we'd consider that kidnapping. Divorced parents can't even do that, so why this exception in this specific instance?

 

[Samson]

But my initial objection was to exactly that:


It was in regards to @Broken_Erika's post here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/abortion-once-again.674891/post-16441832


We're talking about (or at least I am) someone else beside the parents being able to take the minor to have a procedure without their parents' knowledge, much less consent. I'm very much pro-choice, so we don't disagree in regards to the rest of your post. I just have trouble with this one specific aspect of allowing someone (literally anyone?) to transport a minor... well, anywhere without their parents' knowledge. In any other circumstance we'd consider that kidnapping. Divorced parents can't even do that, so why this exception in this specific instance?

We are talking about taking them to a doctor to receive medical treatment, right? What is the parent supposed to be doing here?