[RD] Abortion, once again

[RobAnybody]

This is why I ask about what you think the criminal justice system is for.

This just seems to be too big of a tangent for this thread. If you want to start a different thread on that topic, I'll be happy to contribute what little I can to exploring it.

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.

So what do you consider to be a "large age difference"? Why is X bad, but X-1 is not bad? It seems arbitrary to me. If they can decide, then they can decide. If they can't then they can't.

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

Being aware it's happening, at the very least. Should I be able to take someone else's kid to get vaccinated without their knowledge, for example?

 

[Samson]

So what do you consider to be a "large age difference"? Why is X bad, but X-1 is not bad? It seems arbitrary to me. If they can decide, then they can decide. If they can't then they can't.

Any threshold is going to be arbitrary, and be a balance between harms on both sides. If the harms are different, then the balance will be different.

Being aware it's happening, at the very least.

But why? What practical benefit is this adding to offset the harm of criminalising some people?

 

[RobAnybody]

But why? What practical benefit is this adding to offset the harm of criminalising some people?

Because you shouldn't be able to kidnap people's kids? That's what we're talking about, when you get right down to it. I just can't wrap my mind around why this is controversial - what you're talking about is taking someone's kid without their knowledge or consent. That's not a thing I support, regardless of the reason, & I'm just baffled as to why anyone would think it's OK.

 

[Samson]

Because you shouldn't be able to kidnap people's kids? That's what we're talking about, when you get right down to it. I just can't wrap my mind around why this is controversial - what you're talking about is taking someone's kid without their knowledge or consent. That's not a thing I support, regardless of the reason, & I'm just baffled as to why anyone would think it's OK.

No, we are not. Kidnapping was illegal before this bill. This is very specifically about abortion access.

 

[RobAnybody]

Well, then maybe we've pinpointed the source of our disconnect here. Because that's what I'm talking about:

It makes it illegal to either obtain abortion pills for a minor or to help them leave the state for an abortion without their parents' knowledge and consent.

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.

 

[Samson]

Well, then maybe we've pinpointed the source of our disconnect here. Because that's what I'm talking about:

Then why are we talking about it in the abortion thread? If you want to criminalise interstate travel then that is a whole other thing. It would make most transport companies difficult businesses to run.

Any specific examples of harms you are trying to avoid?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Well, then maybe we've pinpointed the source of our disconnect here. Because that's what I'm talking about:

Good in theory, less than good in practice, 'cause there are a lot of very crappy parents out there.

 

[Arwon]

Yeah it looks like we're back to explaining that there's really good reasons why teenagers can access medical care without their parents again here. Even if they have to travel all the way from New York to New Jersey or whatever.

 

[RobAnybody]

Then why are we talking about it in the abortion thread? If you want to criminalise interstate travel then that is a whole other thing. It would make most transport companies difficult businesses to run.

It's literally in what I quoted. Twice now. No offense meant, & I've found the conversation interesting, but I feel like I've explained my position & we've exhausted this discussion, so I'll bow out at this point. I've asked you several questions to try to understand your point of view that you have ignored, so I'll just go with: agree to disagree at this point.

Good in theory, less than good in practice, 'cause there are a lot of very crappy parents out there.

Yes, but there are vastly many more good parents out there, & random people shouldn't be able to pick up their kids without their knowledge, even for good reasons. I guess I'll ask again just to illustrate: should I be able to take someone else's child to get vaccinated without their consent? I'm pro-choice & pro-vaccination, so I'm not even coming at it from that angle.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So what do you consider to be a "large age difference"? Why is X bad, but X-1 is not bad? It seems arbitrary to me. If they can decide, then they can decide. If they can't then they can't.

Brain development is active and ongoing up until a person is in their mid twenties. Judgment, decision making and other important functions needed by adults today are not fully in place during one's teen years. Big age differences mean substantial differences in brain development. A few years difference in age can mean substantial differences in capabilities that puts the younger person at a disadvantage.

 

[Angst]

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?

i may misread you; are you discussing the parents' knowledge or the parents' approval? you seem to again remove the wishes of the kid from the equation.

as is, the "minors can't abort without parents' consent" thread of logic is the one that's legislated in a lot of places, and it's just awful and bad. completely overrides the integrity of the kid.

i mean, if you're talking, narrowly, about specifically transporting the kid over state lines, sure, inform the parents i guess? if your kid disappears for two weeks without explanation, you might want to know why. parents are still guardians. but it should not be at their discretion whether their kid has a child that it can't consent to. the decision whether to go over state lines (which is an insane situation to begin with and kind of a structural issue not connected to the base dilemma here) should be up to the kid that can't legally get pregnant

 

[Angst]

Should I be able to take someone else's kid to get vaccinated without their knowledge, for example?

should the kid be able to decide to get a vaccination? why not? it's harmless (*). should the parents be informed? why not? they're the kid's parents.

really, the "take someone else's kid" is the whole issue here. the kid is pregnant, and can't consent to that, and is of enough mental deliberation to be able to retain its autonomy. not sure how that equates to vaccinations, but that's honestly a whole other thread irt its construction as an equivalent; i'm not sure it applies, since vaccinations are something you get before you get sick/babyparasites.

(*) some people have ailments that mean they can't vaccinate, and in this case, there are doctors to block it. similarly to abortion, this whole situation is a medical procedure, and requires medical oversight. i'm not arguing for the kid to be able to travel to minnesota to buy an illegal coathanger

 

[RobAnybody]

Here's what I objected to, for the third time:

It makes it illegal to either obtain abortion pills for a minor or to help them leave the state for an abortion without their parents' knowledge and consent.

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.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. You, or I, don't get to just take someone else's kid, without that parent's knowledge or consent. To do anything. For any reason. No matter how much good you intend. You can disagree, sure, but I don't think I can be any clearer in what I'm saying.

 

[Sarin]

Here's what I objected to, for the third time:


I don't know how much clearer I can be. You, or I, don't get to just take someone else's kid, without that parent's knowledge or consent. To do anything. For any reason. No matter how much good you intend. You can disagree, sure, but I don't think I can be any clearer in what I'm saying.

Do you realize that some government agencies have the power to do just that already?

 

[RobAnybody]

Yes, but we're not talking about government agencies. I can quote my objection for a 4th time if you like.

 

[Sarin]

Yes, but we're not talking about government agencies. I can quote my objection for a 4th time if you like.

So who is? I haven't read the bill in detail, but surely it can't be carte blanche for everyone?

 

[Angst]

Here's what I objected to, for the third time:


I don't know how much clearer I can be. You, or I, don't get to just take someone else's kid, without that parent's knowledge or consent. To do anything. For any reason. No matter how much good you intend. You can disagree, sure, but I don't think I can be any clearer in what I'm saying.

but "i" don't "take" the kid. the kid wants an abortion. it should go to "me" (a doctor) about it, not its parents. you aren't really touching on that with your objection or whatever, since that's what i'm talking about.

see, the state borders is a really weird argument here, and i'm not really sure how it matters as to the construction of the principle that the kid is choosing it, it's not being abducted. the borders is a really strange fixation; lack of available abortion is just explicitly bad policy that should be changed anyways.

so, just yes or no.
do you think a kid should freely be able to choose to abort, regardless of its parents wishes
it's not like the kid is jumping into an ice cream truck and disappearing into the woods. it's rather, like, the kid wants to see a doctor about something quite pressing.
i'll reiterate, sure, inform the parents about it.

 

[Samson]

I've asked you several questions to try to understand your point of view that you have ignored

I did not mean to ignore any questions, sorry. I guess you mean this one?

So what do you consider to be a "large age difference"? Why is X bad, but X-1 is not bad? It seems arbitrary to me. If they can decide, then they can decide. If they can't then they can't.

Exactly what any of the thresholds are is another question, and I do not have a good logic to determine the right answer. Intuitively 3 years seems fine, with perhaps an age difference of less than 6 years being non-criminal response.

 

[Arwon]

should I be able to take someone else's child to get vaccinated without their consent? I'm pro-choice & pro-vaccination, so I'm not even coming at it from that angle.

Teenagers eligible for vaccinations that their parents don't consent to absolutely can go get them on their own initiative. This was like a whole thing during covid, kids sneaking behind their antivax parents backs.

If you've got dumbass parents who don't want you getting vaccinated, or aborting your unwanted child, then yeah, you as a teenager should be able to go sort that out without them, and medical staff should facilitate that after being satisfied you're soundly making your own decision. Which in the case of abortion as a teenager yourself, you pretty much definitionally are making the sound decision.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Exactly what any of the thresholds are is another question, and I do not have a good logic to determine the right answer. Intuitively 3 years seems fine, with perhaps an age difference of less than 6 years being non-criminal response.

what we're really trying to avoid is harm via someone more experienced/influential/etc manipulating people who are ill-equipped (possibly incapable outright) to protect themselves.

it's why a 6 year age gap is pretty bad in teens, whereas a 20 year gap, while odd, is fine when it's 30 and 50 for example. it's similar rationale for why conflict of interest laws exist; there too you have potential to use position of power (this time from a different source than age/experience gap) to exert undue influence/manipulate/coerce to the point of harm.

i am uncomfortable with the idea of random strangers directly intervening with minors wrt abortion too. like, it's something we should probably seek to avoid, even if we straight up allow them access to abortion pill/procedure/etc with sole agency. i don't think i'd change my stance if you trade out "abortion" with "elective/cosmetic surgery"...i still don't think, as a matter of process, that random strangers should be encouraging/helping minors get such procedures, even if we'd otherwise allow them.