Perspectives
Well, I've had 'Net access at home again for a few days now, but since I didn't really have a worthwhile post, I haven't put anything up. In the interest of keeping the blog alive (gasping for breath as it is), I offer a few thoughts about the recent election. I'm not usually much of a political pundit, but it's been on my mind a bit, so there ya go.
As far as offices go, I'm fairly indifferent. Actually, "resigned" is a better word, or maybe "cynical." While I'm not particularly happy with a Democrat majority in Congress, neither was I particularly happy with the way the Republican majority was running things. Frankly, I think I'm ready for the "two-party system" to collapse in on itself; maybe then we could get around to doing some more government instead of just doing politics. In fact, the sooner we get to the Second Coming, the better for all of us, I think.
I think one of the biggest disappointments for me was the failure of California's Proposition 85. As the description says, Prop 85 would have amended the CA constitution to "prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver." It provided for waivers for children in abusive or otherwise exceptional situations. I think I've mentioned before how much I despise the practice of abortion (aside from cases of saving the mother's life, and even then I'm not comfortable with it), but my disappointment about the defeat of this proposition has little to do with that. I actually agree with one of the primary arguments used by the supporters of the measure.
When I was in elementary school, I was amazed at how much trouble it took to get an aspirin, a dose of Tylenol, or even some antibiotic for a scraped knee. In most cases you needed a parental note giving specific permission for a particular drug/treatment, and even then you had to go to the nurse's office, wait for 3-30 minutes, and then you could get your medicine. You couldn't be caught carrying aspiring, even with a parental note. Don't get me wrong; protecting children is well and good. But come on; aspirin. If you can't trust the school nurse, much less the teachers, to give the kids aspirin, I'm not sure the kids should be around the nurse and teachers to begin with.
Now, as I understand it, an abortion is a fairly major surgery (I've never had one myself and I'm not a doctor, so I guess I can't be considered an expert on the subject). Maybe it's just me, but it seems silly that a child can't get an aspirin without parental permission and five yards of red tape but can have major surgery virtually at will.
Moral issues aside, there's a logical disconnect here: If something as simple and comparitively harmless as an over-the-counter drug requires permission and supervision, why doesn't surgery require the same level of protection? Conversely, if we trust children (and their doctors) to make decisions about something as major as surgery, why don't we trust children (and their doctors/nurses) to make decisions about simple drugs? If the parents must be involved in the administering of common drugs, why don't they need to be involved in decisions about surgery?
Throw in the controversial and powerfully psycho-emotional (neologism alert!) nature of abortive surgery, and I think parents should only be kept "out of the loop" in extreme cases. Since Prop 85 made provisions for such cases, I think it would have been a good thing if it had passed.
But then, I could be wrong. In any case, the majority of voters has spoken. Let's see what happens, shall we?
posted by Martinez at 4:03 PM
10 Comments:
It's interesting how often this country seems to say, "Well, the majority of people have said yes to this. It must be okay." I can't help but think that just because the majority says so on something, doesn't make it right. It just means more people are wrong.
(I'm not ranting at you at all, Martinez. Just making a general observation...)
You're absolutely right; majority agreement does not determine truth. And it is disturbing when people seem to think otherwise.
Just to clarify, in my case, I'm not saying, "The majority said yes, so it must be okay." I'm saying, "The majority said yes, and since I live in a democratic republic, I choose to live with the decision of the majority and see where it leads rather than starting a rebellion or violent protest every time the majority disagrees with me." Because not only do I think such a rebellious attitude would be inappropriate, it would also be darned inconvenient; the majority disagrees with me (or is it the other way around?) rather often.
I figured you weren't saying it was okay. I just needed a chance to express my 2 cents on the matter. ;)
And I do agree with you on not rebelling every time things don't quite go our way.
There is only one reason I personally would be hesitant to see such a requirement be made law: the parents could essentially force the child to have the baby if they disagree with abortion. They would be legally chaining their daughter to a child for at least 18 years and permanently altering her life (unless, of course, she gives it up for adoption). I have a feeling such occurrences would occur too often to be considered "extreme," but I could be wrong.
Should parents have the authority to make such a drastic decision for their teenage daughter? I believe this is where most differences of opinion lie on this matter.
You raise a good point, Randy. Given that abortion is legal, no, I don't think parents should necessarily have the final say in the matter; for better or worse, the child in question should be allowed to make her own decisions and live with them. Things become stickier when the child in question is particularly young or immature.
In any case, I don't think it makes a good argument against this particular amendment, for two reasons:
1) Most importantly, it's false. Prop 85 wouldn't have given parents any authority at all; it simply required that they be notified of the procedure before it happened.
Why notify them at all? Because they're the child's legal guardians. As such, they are responsible for the child's well-being, which includes physical care. (Not to overdo the point, but if the guardians have to be involved in some aspects of their wards' health care, why not all of them?)
2) The measure allowed for exceptions to the notification rule "based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests" (emphasis mine). Admittedly, I'm not exactly sure what constitutes "maturity," but there was a provision for the child's independence.
Then again, that "maturity" thing could've led to all kinds of ugly courtroom drama seeking clarifications...
Alright, but what would prevent a notified parent from, say, refusing to help with college tuition if the daughter chooses to have an abortion? Or, perhaps, revoking any and all privileges the daughter may have? It's not too hard for me to imagine some parents claiming such actions are just punishment for the girl's irresponsibility. The parents wouldn't be literally chaining her to a baby, but they could make life awfully hard for her if she doesn't choose to have the baby.
Theoretically, this is where the waiver would come into play. However, how long would it take to get such a waiver, and how difficult would it be to prove "maturity" or "best interests"?
Some people may think this is a simple and easy issue, but I'm not one of them.
The problem with that example is that there are already parents who 'make life awfully hard' for their kids over things a lot more petty than an abortion. I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.
Another fun rabbit-trail to go down is this one: a minor's legal guardian(s) makes medical decisions for the minor in the case where a minor is unable to. Is it a good idea to make it more difficult to have the minor's complete medical history available?
I have to add, Randy, that it hardly seems more reasonable for a 14-year-old to be making decisions about the next 18 years of her life, than for her parents to. Somebody has to make such decisions if they come up, and in most other cases I can think of, the parents have the ultimate responsibility until the girl turns 18. There are a lot of ways for a 14-year-old to change the rest of her life, and very few of them are recognized by our society as her sovereign domain. And rarer still is it for a 14-year-old to have a legal right to keep those decisions secret from her parents.
If adoption were not possible, you might have a point. But adoption is possible, as you yourself point out. (Unless you think the grand/parents will punish the girl for giving her child up for adoption, of course -- which I find entirely counterintuitive, whether they oppose abortion or not.)
I've not had the time to work up a proper response until today, but Ardith and Wilson basically said what I wanted to get at. Parents could "refuse to help with college tuition" because the daughter chose a college they didn't like, or "revoke any and all privileges the daughter may have" because she got a C on her report card.
Having that kind of authority is a part of what it means to be a guardian. Some guardians will abuse their authority, and that is very sad. But it's impossible to have people in authority without the possibility of abuse. If we legislate (and thereby regulate) parenting too much, it's not parenting anymore: it's baby-sitting (i.e., providing for their basic survival needs and making sure they don't break any laws without any concern for "mentoring" them or helping them grow into mature adults).
I understand Randy's apprehension (I even share it to some extent) and appreciate his contribution. But for now, I stand by my reasoning, Ardith's "rabbit-trail," and Wilson's exposition as the more convincing side of the debate.
Rahrr. I am sad that Prop 85 didn't make it. It's a matter of inconsistency--a child isn't supposed to carry around tylenol to take by themselves at school, even at the age of 16...but can make the decision of a major medical surgery? a surgery that many rare, but more potential complications, than Tylenol?
Besides, I'm of a fully opinion that if a child has consented to having sex, than they are assuming the responsibility thereof of the consequences.
It doesn't matter what the issue, there are always bad parents out there who abuse their authority. but for the sake of a majority of parents (i hope majority...) and consistency in the law, parents should know.
Post a Comment
<< Home