[RD] Abortion, once again

[Lexicus]

1) Should I be able to give someone else's minor child Sleeping Pills (or Nyquil I guess, if you prefer) without their parents' knowledge/consent (I don't mean without the minor's knowledge/consent, meaning provide it to them)? Those are both OTC & yet I feel like that shouldn't be allowed.
2) Should I be able to take someone else's minor child out of state to go shopping at a mall/store (or, heck, even an in-state mall/store) without their parents' knowledge/consent?

You are not a medical professional so the situation is not really comparable is it?

 

[Samson]

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.

Why? Would you feel the same if it was antibiotics or a life saving blood transfusion? Why should a parent get a say if someone does not want to carry a pregnancy to term?

 

[Lexicus]

Why? Would you feel the same if it was antibiotics or a life saving blood transfusion? Why should a parent get a say if someone does not want to carry a pregnancy to term?

This is another good point, we have parents who are this dumb:

USA TODAY

Court: Parents who prayed for dying daughter instead of seeking medical treatment were properly convicted of homicide.

www.usatoday.com

This child absolutely should have been given medical treatment, without the parents' knowledge or consent if necessary. But by a medical professional, not some random CFC poster.

 

[RobAnybody]

You are not a medical professional so the situation is not really comparable is it?

But presumably neither is the person who decided to transport the minor or provide them with drugs, correct? So why is that person automatically correct in their assessment?

 

[Gorbles]

Because they're supporting the individual's choice in question.

The actual medical decision (and procedure) will still be made by a professional, it's not like some kind of game console godmode hack that's being activated here.

 

[RobAnybody]

Would you feel the same if it was antibiotics or a life saving blood transfusion? Why should a parent get a say if someone does not want to carry a pregnancy to term?

Would you feel the same if it was transporting a minor to go to a concert their parents didn't want them to go to? I guess I don't find your "life saving" analogy comparable (& you are free to find mine not comparable as well of course).

Why should a parent get a say if someone does not want to carry a pregnancy to term?

Because I don't think some random person should get to take a minor out of state or provide them with drugs (even OTC). Y'all are presuming too much benign intent on this hypothetical other person I feel. That's why I keep saying to take abortion out of the equation & imagine for a moment it was something else - no one seems to be willing to address the Nyquil/shopping question - are those OK as well? If not, why not? Or maybe I can just pick up someone's kid & take them to Disneyland, or give them Ritalin without their parents' knowledge/consent?

 

[Lexicus]

But presumably neither is the person who decided to transport the minor or provide them with drugs, correct? So why is that person automatically correct in their assessment?

Again, this is just not a valid comparison. For the reasons Gorbles said. If I'm giving you a ride to the doctor then I'm not making any decision, I'm supporting the child's decision to seek care, and then the doctor decides what care to give the child (or to give no care if that's indicated in their judgment).

 

[Lexicus]

Y'all are presuming too much benign intent on this hypothetical other person I feel.

And I feel you are presuming too much benign intent on the parents.

 

[RobAnybody]

If I'm giving you a ride to the doctor then I'm not making any decision, I'm supporting the child's decision to seek care, and then the doctor decides what care to give the child (or to give no care if that's indicated in their judgment).

I can accept that point of view. Shall we split the baby & say it's OK to transport the minor *to* a doctor but not to provide them with actual drugs (unless, I suppose, first transporting them to a doctor who prescribes them to that specific minor then taking the minor to pick up the drugs)?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

An abusive parent or deadbeat dad in Idaho could block a loving grandparent helping their 17 year old granddaughter get an abortion, thanks to conservative’s perpetual claim that children are simply the property of parents.

 

[Lexicus]

I can accept that point of view. Shall we split the baby & say it's OK to transport the minor *to* a doctor but not to provide them with actual drugs (unless, I suppose, first transporting them to a doctor who prescribes them to that specific minor then taking the minor to pick up the drugs)?

No one was ever really saying anything else.

An abusive parent or deadbeat dad in Idaho could block a loving grandparent helping their 17 year old granddaughter get an abortion, thanks to conservative’s perpetual claim that children are simply the property of parents

The thing is conservatives bleat about parental rights, and some people do believe it, but they're also making it illegal for parents to help their kids transition so the center of gravity of conservatism in the US is opposed to parental rights, it just sees parental rights as a useful rhetorical cover for what amounts to fascism.

 

[RobAnybody]

No one was ever really saying anything else.

I mean, I think the "provide drugs to" part was up for debate. Although I grant that a large part of this (complicated) question is simply understanding the nuances.

 

[RobAnybody]

An abusive parent or deadbeat dad in Idaho could block a loving grandparent helping their 17 year old granddaughter get an abortion, thanks to conservative’s perpetual claim that children are simply the property of parents.

I think this part (bolding mine) is too often merely assumed to be the case. EDIT: what I mean is that if a parent wants to be informed of what another person wants to do with their kid it's too often assumed that the parent is... /\ the above & the hypothetical "other adult" is benign.

If parents are irresponsible enough to let their minor daughter get pregnant, why should they have a say?

I'm as big a JR fan as anyone & can't always tell when he's joking vs serious, but there's this POV to contend with, which is... I dunno, naive? I guess? Like responsible parents' kids never get unexpectedly pregnant? I'm from a small town in North Carolina & I can attest that is not always the case - even "responsible parents" can find their minor high school kids in that situation (to head anything off: not me, but high school peers - I saw the situation happen).

 

[Gorbles]

I think this part (bolding mine) is too often merely assumed to be the case.

As supposed to assuming a lack of informed consent on behalf of the minor?

It's a very simple piece of logic, to me. If a parent gets to decide, or is allowed to intervene, this allows for bad faith actors. If the person seeking treatment gets to decide, this doesn't. In both scenarios a medical professional(s) is involved, and while not infallible, are kinda the best we have assuming the medical profession continues to exist.

More barriers, even potential ones, are bad. There are already barriers. There's no need for more, especially one as emotionally involved as a minor's parents.

 

[RobAnybody]

As supposed to assuming a lack of informed consent on behalf of the minor?

Minors can consent? You sure you want to go with that?

 

[Gorbles]

Minors can consent? You sure you want to go with that?

Subject to medical approval, depending on the thing in question . . . yes?

This is going to vary by state, and again by country, but you kind of have to assume in a good faith scenario the minor wants the thing they're crossing state lines to get (as per the original comment).

You want to try a less leading question, perhaps?

 

[Arwon]

I'd like to see exactly how "abortion trafficking" (lol) enforcement works. Maybe someone can tell me.
Presumably Idaho authorities are going to dig through someone's trash and find a receipt for an abortion on another state or something. "Aah! caught you!"

I mean it's not like people would ever hide the reasons why they go out of state. That is something that totally never happens.

This would be where things like period tracking app data would be used.

 

[Angst]

Minors can consent? You sure you want to go with that?

doctors can, as they have to be adult, and they should ideally be the core gatekeepers of healthcare. not parents

 

[Arwon]

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.

Assuming by "minor" you mean under 18, autonomous medical consent can often kick in younger as long as the practitioner thinks they are capable of independently consenting.

In this country, by convention people over 16 can usually make their own decisions on health matters. And a person under 16 can go to a Children's Court magistrate to get an order that they can have an abortion without informing parents

 

[RobAnybody]

I admit I am fascinated, seriously, by the hair-splitting that the answer to "can a minor consent?" differs depending on the subject. Not saying I know The One And Only Answer, but the flip-flopping depending on the situation is... well, fascinating to observe.