This is an open thread. Post what you want, when you want to. Self-linking pleases the powers that be.
- The Joys and Sorrows of Being a Fat Foreign Girl in China | xoJane
- Scott Alexander writes: “Bad Catholic has responded to my post on contraception and abortion rates, defending his position that contraception increases or at least doesn’t decrease abortions. See his Part One and Part Two, with my replies buried in the comments.”
- All Leaks Are Illegal, but Some Leaks Are More Illegal Than Others – Conor Friedersdorf
- Safety Tips For Ladies.
- On Being an Octopus | Boston Review What does it feel like to be an Octopus?
- Study: The Earned Income Tax Credit is a Very Good Investment in Infant Health
- Marriage is Over: Live With It
- Consciousness science and ethics: Abortion, animal rights, and vegetative-state debates.
- A Response to Objections on My Pro-Life Movement Post
- The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties
- Skinny White Girls are Exhausting My Eyes | Bitter Gertrude
- Defending the Purely Instrumental Account of Democratic Legitimacy (pdf file)
- Why I Ultimately Have Rejected Modesty Teachings
- Oh, let’s pile on a little more » Pharyngula
- David Brooks: The last Stalinist
- Edward Snowden and the selective targeting of leaks. Somehow, when the administration illegally leaks classified information, that’s not a crime.
- Official Recognition for Australians who identify as neither sex
- Richard O’Brien: ‘I’m 70% man’
- Russian Parliament Passes Bills to Punish Those Who Offend ‘Religious Feelings’ or Promote Homosexuality
- Fundimentalist Christians in Georgia (the country, not the state) attack gay rights marchers
- Cholesterol-lowering drug may reduce exercise benefits for obese adults. Hmmm… maybe I should stop taking statin?
- Maggie Gallagher’s arguments regarding infertile heterosexuals and marriage fail yet again.
- Judging the Case Against Same-Sex Marriage by Andrew Koppelman. Long, but really excellent and thorough.
- Life’s More Complicated than the Non-Aggression Principle | Libertarianism.org
- A Priorism in Libertarianism
- Coming Up Aces A smart autobiographical comic about being asexual. I like the way she draws facial expressions.
- The Ketchup Conundrum by ~Shira-chan on deviantART Brilliant large-format comic about all the possibilities that arise if you squirt ketchup on your friend.
- How Texas Made Ezekiel Gilbert’s Aquittal Possible
- Barely In Time: Confessions of a SIT Extra The head of the “Somewhere In Time” society explains, at length, how she stumbled into being an extra in the 1980 movie, and how it changed her life. Charming and surprisingly entertaining.
- Vintage Safety Posters
- On “Geek” Versus “Nerd” | Slackpropagation
- This Game Of Thrones poster by Richey Beckett is waaaay too expensive for me to ever get a copy, but wow is it gorgeous. (Click on it to see it bigger.)
If you’re going to compare driver license training to weapon license training, I’d love to see what the comparison of deaths due to misuse of a gun by a CCW permit holder compared to deaths due to misuse of a car by a drivers’ license holder. Per capita, of course.
The difference is, Ron, it is literally impossible for the US to maintain a modern economy without cars.
And car usage is MUCH more severely limited than gun usage – even in Illinois, it requires much more to get a driver’s license than it does to get a gun license.
If every car disappeared permanently from the US tomorrow, and could not be replaced, that would be an economic and social cataclysm causing a massive social change. The US would have to become an entirely different society to survive. If every gun disappeared permanently from the US tomorrow, that would cause a minor economic contraction (due to the loss of a profitable industry), but the only long-term effect would be that the US’s murder rate would plummet.
That said, there’s no way every gun could be made to disappear, practically or legally, so it’s off the table. But to pretend that the consequences to regulating cars and guns are the same, so that we face a similar cost/benefit analysis when considering regulations, is so completely ludicrous that it’s hard to even respond to. You might as well argue that car accidents kill more people than plane accidents per capita, therefore it should be just as easy to become a plane pilot as it is to get a driver’s license.
Finally, the issue with IDs is simply that Republican legislators know that the more black people vote, the less likely Republicans are to win. There are
a hundredmany ways to verify citizenship that aren’t as intrusive and harmful as what Republicans typically propose – including some better-designed voter ID laws, by the way. Furthermore, there is no question that the tiny, irrelevant number of purposeful non-citizen votes taking place are irrelevant compared to the number of citizens who could be deterred from voting by the voting laws Republicans favor (including voter ID laws, but also including laws about when and where people can vote).Republican voter ID laws, and other laws intended to make it harder for Democratic leaning demographics to vote, are exactly like poll taxes and literacy exams – they are racist and partisan, and they are motivated by the desire to win elections.
Let’s have a look at the “ZOMG if concealed carry is permitted we’ll have the Wild West and blood in the streets and vigilantes gunning down innocent people in the streets”.
In 1986:
No Carry States = 16
May Issue = 25
Shall Issue = 8
Unrestricted = 1
Currently:
No Carry States = 0
May Issue = 8
Shall Issue = 37
Unrestricted = 5
These numbers are from here, where I see that you can also pick up a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy secret decoder ring. I may have to order one, I’ve got a pretty big backlog of undecoded messages.
Where’s the blood in the streets? Where is the fulfillment of the dire predictions being made?
Now that’s an argument I haven’t seen. What ways would you propose to verify citizenship that differ from what you see in current Voter ID laws that you think are too restrictive?
Yes. Which is pretty much the law right now. I don’t know of any States that require training before you can buy a gun. Do you propose that gun owners should be required to get training in gun use before buying a gun? If so, that would be a pretty radical position compared to current policy. I haven’t heard anyone propose that before. Again, if you are proposing such, on what basis can you demonstrate a need for such training?
If every gun disappeared permanently from the US tomorrow, that would cause a minor economic contraction (due to the loss of a profitable industry), but the only long-term effect would be that the US’s murder rate would plummet.
The economic impact of exercising a civil right is not – or at least, should not be – a factor in whether or not or to what degree licensing restrictions should be placed on it.
There’s a few other effects. Millions of people who put meat on the table by hunting would have to spend money to buy it instead. And millions of people would very likely be subjected to rapes, break-ins, strong-arm robberies, beatings and murders and other violent crimes because they would have no way to defend themselves against someone bigger and stronger. That would have some manner of economic impact, but I’m not sure how to calculate it.
History demonstrates that permitting untrained drivers to use cars results in a lot of accidents and deaths, which is where the whole system of licensing drivers came from. On the other hand, the FBI estimates that there are 300,000,000 guns in civilian hands in the U.S. Very few of them are owned by people who have had to pass a government-approved training course to buy them, and yet there are very few gun-related deaths in the U.S. that can be ascribed to a lack of training. The vast majority of deaths are either homicides or suicides, where it seems to me that it’s reasonable to presume that training or a lack thereof would have had no effect. The FBI does keep track of accidental deaths. Those might involve a lack of training, but by no means all.
RonF:
Massachusetts does, according to a friend of mine who went through the process so that he could legally own a flintlock in order to do Revolutionary War reenactment. I can’t remember how many hours of training it was – either 8 or 16. He has to renew at intervals. The renewal includes a VERY basic qualification on an indoor range with a .22-caliber gun of some sort.
Grace
Connecticut also required a firearms safety course.
CT has the toughest laws in the country, post-Sandy Hook. IANAL but it seems extremely likely to me that their current law would fail a court challenge post-Heller.
MA does not require a safety course before purchase of an ordinary firearm. The requirement of a class before Grace’s friend could get a flintlock comes from the fact that flintlocks are a “very rare” type of weapon, and as such the permit-issuing chief of police has a wide discretion in what requirements there may be. Flintlocks are many times as dangerous as modern firearms, because you’re actually handling gun powder and deciding on the charge to be used for each shot; a safety class before allowing the ownership of a weapon with that design is not unreasonable. But nobody outside of historical recreation buffs and some serious survivalist types (who would easily pass the class) uses that kind of weapon anymore.
Now that I think on it, I vaguely recall that my friend mentioned that he could, technically, own a flintlock without the card, but to carry one around at public venues, or at the Patriots’ stadium, a FOID card made things a lot easier. I’m not certain of this; I’ll ask him next I talk to him.
So, Robert may be correct, strictly, that MA does not require training before a simple purchase.
Grace
As long as we’ve got the car/gun comparison/analogy going, I’m going to point out that one does not need to be licensed to buy a car. You only need a license to operate a car.
I don’t want to say “I knew this was coming” but, well… I knew this was coming. It’s an excellent reminder for the “let’s make this illegal, too!” folks among us: laws transcend politics.
If you combine (a) a statute that requires equal treatment without regard to gender: and (b) a love for disparate impact analysis, especially in a lot of the claims and case law for that statute; and (c) application of relatively new rules that enable a relative change in rights between genders…
Well, you end up with a suit by a guy who was expelled from college as a result of an accusation of sexual assault*, who is alleging that the process by which he was expelled violates Title IX.
I doubt he’ll win. And I don’t think he is innocent: I am sure he’s not being entirely truthful; I haven’t heard her side; and I am confident that she thinks he’s guilty (since he was, after all, expelled.) But I sure as heck don’t trust the conclusions of the school.
That’s why I’m ignoring the facts and focusing only on the process.
No confrontation.
Hearsay.
No cross-examination, even of hearsay witnesses.
No counsel.
Punishment before ruling (see # 73.)
Use of the same panel after appeal.
Oy.
Is this what y’all think is reasonable? Do the folks who are defending poor old “I chose to make public statements many times and they piss people off” Orson somehow manage to classify this as “acceptable damage?” Do you think that “believing women” should prevent us from doing things like, you know, questioning them when they make an accusation? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t be quite so trusting of a college’s promises to follow due process?
It is hard for me to believe that folks on this board would view this sort of process as acceptable. Do you?
**I say “as the result of an accusation of assault” and not “as the result of an assault” for a simple reason: college board members aren’t fact finders. Courts are. If he got sued in civil court for assault or rape (which is possible under the preponderance of the evidence standard, BTW) and then got kicked out as a result, then I’d be saying “…as a result of sexual assault.” But then again, he wouldn’t have had a right to sue.
gin-and-whiskey:
Nope.
Grace
Unless the State of Illinois decides to appeal to the Supreme Court, Illinois’ Abortion Parental Notification act is now law. Abortions may not be provided to young women 17 years of age or less until the physician performing it notifies her parents at least 48 hours in advance and receives a signed permission form from them permitting the procedure. There is an avenue for appeal to a judge in cases of possible abuse (that either caused the pregnancy or that might result from providing that information to the parents).
RonF:
What a pity.
Sure there is.
Grace
Re: Unless the State of Illinois decides to appeal to the Supreme Court, Illinois’ Abortion Parental Notification act is now law. Abortions may not be provided to young women 17 years of age or less until the physician performing it notifies her parents at least 48 hours in advance and receives a signed permission form from them permitting the procedure.
Good. It’s impressive to see that the law passed in Illinois. I’d hope that there’s an exception for serious medical danger to the mother, but in all other cases, the fewer abortions the better.
Yes, if you think an absolutely mindless being who has no preferences at all is much more important and valuable than girls and women are, that view makes perfect sense.
The law was passed in 1995. Lawsuits and appeals and inaction by the Illinois Supreme Court held it up for this long.
I think that if your actions create an innocent life you have a responsibility to protect it until it can protect itself. To value one is not to devalue the other.
Well, we’ll have to see what happens in Illinois and how those hypothetical issues you legitimately raise are dealt with in reality.
Welcome to one of the major conflicts between the left and the right in this country. Usually it’s the left that tends to classify people into groups and the right that wants people treated as individuals. Kind of like lumping George Zimmerman into the “white racist” group and Trayvon Martin into the “innocent black kid” group (or the “black thug” group) regardless of the actual individual circumstances of the incident and then claiming it was all about race.
RonF:
Ron, are you aware that the person whose post inspired that post was speaking from personal experience of dealing with exactly that system, in her jurisdiction? Those were hypotheticals only as necessary to protect her anonymity. I was not making up the existence of those barriers, or the fact that they functioned that way in at least one jurisdiction. I was just fuzzing the details to protect the reporter I learned from.
I really hope that it works well in Illinois, because the alternative is human suffering. But for all the reasons I tried to lay out in my post, I don’t think that law is going to lead to less suffering.
Grace
No, I was not.
Having said that, I’m not going to pretend that this or any other law is going to be an unalloyed good. There’s a tradeoff here. Kids under 18 should not be getting medical procedures of this nature without their parents knowing. If they’re pregnant, their parents should know that as well. I understand the possibilities of abuse. But consider that abuse – from outside the parents – could be the precise reason the kid got pregnant in the first place. It’s the judgement of the Illinois government and I believe a majority of the other States’ governments (and mine as well) that the general good of parents knowing that their daughter is pregnant and is considering or getting an abortion is worth dealing with the cases where parental notification would create a potential for abuse that would require judicial intervention.
There are parents who will beat their children if the children bring home a bad report card. There are children who have been murdered by their parents, who cited that (however unreasonably) as a justification.
That is not an argument for not sending home report cards; it is an argument for ensuring that some entity (be it state or private) is tasked with the job of preventing parental beating and murder of children.
Re: But for all the reasons I tried to lay out in my post, I don’t think that law is going to lead to less suffering.
You laid out pretty well how the law is going to make it more difficult for some teen mothers to get abortions. Some of us think of that as a *good* thing, not a bad thing.
But consider that abuse – from outside the parents – could be the precise reason the kid got pregnant in the first place.
I just did. Maybe there will be a few cases where the girl was afraid to tell her parents about the abuse but the need for an abortion pushes her to do so anyway. Or maybe there will be a few cases where instead of being abused and getting an abortion, the girl will still be abused, feel she still can’t tell her parents, and throw her baby in a dumpster–or bring it to a hospital in a Safe Haven state, if we’re lucky. Or get an unsafe illegal abortion resulting in both her own and her baby’s death, if we’re really unlucky. And maybe in a few cases, the girl was afraid to tell her parents about the abuse for good reason, took the risk anyway in order to get the abortion, and the girl and/or her parents are killed. Or maybe her parents don’t believe her, become angry at her for getting pregnant, and kick her out of the house.
I don’t really know how likely the various possibilities are. Maybe the girls involved have a better idea than I do.
Closet Puritan,
Last I checked, we operated on the presumption that people under 18 lack the judgment and maturity to know what’s best for them. I’m unclear why you would make a special case out of abortion. I certainly don’t agree that ‘the girls involved have a better idea than [i do].”
I mean, I don’t think adults should have the right to an abortion either, but the case is especially clear in the case of minors.
Beyond that, of course, to the extent that parental and/or spousal consent laws are likely to reduce the number of abortions, that’s an outcome I would welcome.
Hector,
You are wrong. If a teen goes to a doctor to get diagnosed and treated for an illness, the doctor is free to treat them without contacting their parents. If this were not the case, there would be no need for a law specifically interfering in the doctor-patient relationship for abortion. It is ridiculous to ask why we want to make a special case for abortion when you are arguing in favor of treating abortion as a special case, and the law we are arguing against treats abortion as a special case.
Do you realize how ridiculous your claim here is? Do you even understand what you just claimed? How could you possibly have a better idea (or even an equal idea) of what will happen if some girl you’ve never even heard of tells her parents she is pregnant than the girl herself does? Do you really think that teenagers have a worse than random chance of correctly guessing their own situations? Quick, there is some girl named Jane who is pregnant, will her parents kick her out of the house if she tells them she is pregnant? You have no idea.
That’s exactly why they shouldn’t become parents. I don’t think it makes sense to say they should take on all the responsibilities of adults, that they are ready to become parents, but not the responsibility of deciding whether to continue a pregnancy. That seems incredibly illogical to me, as well as infuriating. If you don’t think she’s ready to make that kind of decision, you have no business forcing her to be a parent. Of all the prolife arguments, I think this is the worst.
Closet Puritan,
If a young mother lacks the maturity to make her own decision about ‘abortion vs. pregnancy’, then (at a minimum) it’s the role of the state to decide for her. At which point, we have to decide if the default position (in cases where the mother can’t decide for herself) is ‘having an abortion would be the better option’ or ‘giving birth would be the better option’. I of course think that the default should be for the mother to give birth.
Re: That’s exactly why they shouldn’t become parents.
Do I understand you to mean that you think teen moms should be *encouraged* to have abortions rather than keep their baby?
If so, that’s quite a startling admision from you. I was under the impression that the classic talking point on your side was ‘we are pro-choice, not pro-abortion’.
We do not, as a society, believe that teen-agers are not capable of making medical decisions for themselves (in consultation with a doctor). This is demonstrated by the fact that a teen-ager is able to go to a doctor and get treated for an illness without getting their parents’ approval.
Charles S,
Very well, I was wrong. I think abortion should be a special case, then, because it’s frought with moral implications.
Note that I do not speak for all pro-choice people. And I do not think that the state should have a role in the decision whatsoever. So to the extent that “should be encouraged” implies some sort of official government position, no. Remember, your views on the role of the state are a lot more… expansive than mine.
But if a teenager asked me for advice, I would advise them to have an abortion rather than becoming a parent while they were still the responsibility of their own parents and had never lived on their own.
Also note that this is somewhat different from the strawman you allude to, that pro-choice people want all pregnant women [women, not girls] to have abortions. (And for that matter, there are some situations where, if asked for advice, I would advise a woman to keep her pregnancy.)
I’m not in favor of forcing anyone, including minors, to make what I think is the right decision about whether to have an abortion.
Which brings me to another problem with the parental permission argument (not the parental notification argument): I think it’s dishonest. Pro-lifers don’t think that the parents of the pregnant minor should decide. They think the parents should decide if they are also pro-life. If the parents agree with them, the parents should overrule the minor. If the minor agrees with them and the parents disagree, the minor should overrule the parents. But they pretend that it’s about minors not being able to make decisions. More parents believe their teenage daughter should get an abortion than believe she should continue the pregnancy (at least in the last study I heard about), but none of the people arguing for parental permission says that if the parents think their daughter should get an abortion, she should be forced to have one. It’s just a way to sneak in the state’s judgment while disguising it as the parents’ judgment.
If a young mother lacks the maturity to make her own decision about ‘abortion vs. pregnancy’
How are you defining “lacks the maturity”? I take it from your other comments that this includes anyone under 18 in your opinion? I’d be happier if girls under 18 didn’t have to make those decisions, but if they’re in that situation, I believe that it’s their responsibility, because it’s their life that will be most affected. (And the child’s life if they continue the pregnancy, but as the child cannot be consulted there’s nothing to be done about that. Since it is my view that the child does not yet exist, I don’t give a fertilized egg more “right to exist” than an unfertilized egg that is prevented from being fertilized by abstinence or natural family planning.)
If “lacks the maturity” implies some sort of subjective judgment, I’m even more uncomfortable with it. It puts the state in a position of deciding who is mature, and is a good way to sneak in all sorts of biases, even if official state policy does not include these biases. (Are some races going to be judged more mature than others on average, purely because of the prejudices of the government employee? Are girls with, say, bipolar disorder going to even get a fair hearing?)
Closet Puritan,
People under 18 lack the maturity to be allowed to take certain dangerous jobs, work more than a certain number of hours (IIRC), to marry, to have sex, to vote, to drink, to take certain medications, etc.. So why is it a stretch that they also lack the maturity to make decisions about abortion?
Re: Remember, your views on the role of the state are a lot more… expansive than mine.
True, but we aren’t discussing the merits of democracy here, we’re assuming that the overall American political structure is here to stay for the time being. I’m glad to hear that you don’t want the state encouraging teen moms to have abortions, though.
Re: More parents believe their teenage daughter should get an abortion than believe she should continue the pregnancy (at least in the last study I heard about),
If that’s true, that’s pretty depressing.
So if a 17 year old wants to give birth, but her parents want her to have an abortion, would you still say it should be her parents’ decision?
Re: So if a 17 year old wants to give birth, but her parents want her to have an abortion, would you still say it should be her parents’ decision?
No. But I can justify that (legally) by saying that *both* the consent of the girl and the parents should be required for an abortion.
People under 18 lack the maturity to be allowed to take certain dangerous jobs, work more than a certain number of hours (IIRC), to marry, to have sex, to vote, to drink, to take certain medications, etc.. So why is it a stretch that they also lack the maturity to make decisions about abortion?
Legally, in most states the age of consent is 16, not 18. The only medications I’m aware of that have ever been restricted to those over 18–at least the only ones that are based on maturity rather than side effects, and at least in the US–are morning-after pills.
And it’s just mind-boggling that you’re so hung up on the inability of minors to make decisions, but you think they’re capable of becoming parents. I don’t have nearly as pessimistic a view of the ability of minors to make decisions as you seem to, and yet you seem to have a much more optimistic view of their parenting abilities.
No. But I can justify that (legally) by saying that *both* the consent of the girl and the parents should be required for an abortion.
This gets at the dishonesty/insincerity I was talking about earlier. You only care about consent when it’s consent to an abortion, not consent to continue the pregnancy. Even the phrasing–“I can justify that.” It’s just a tactic. Just like you really are concerned about the maturity of teens when it comes to making decisions on abortion–no, only when it comes to making a decision to have an abortion, not to not have one–not when it comes to raising a child. You don’t really care about the judgment of the parents because you’ve already said that you want all minors–and all adults–to be forbidden to have abortions.
True, but we aren’t discussing the merits of democracy here, we’re assuming that the overall American political structure is here to stay for the time being.
Not having parental-permission laws doesn’t assume some radical change in the American political structure. There are some states with no parental notification/consent laws, and even more where one or both parents must be notified but don’t need to consent. Even if there were no states without parental consent, laws can change without changing the overall political structure.
“It’s just a tactic.”
Yes. Hector is, broadly speaking, anti-abortion. All of his subsidiary positions are, to the extent he is personally capable of consistency and rationality, consistent with his primary goal.
Are you under the impression that in this, he is a stark contrast to the other side of the argument, which is populated entirely by Platonist philosopher-gods living on a plane of pure thought and following the logic wherever it may lead them?
“You don’t really care about the judgment of the parents because you’ve already said that you want all minors–and all adults–to be forbidden to have abortions.”
No, he hasn’t. He has explicitly stated that he believes there should be exceptions when the life of the mother is clearly at stake. Most != all.
Re: Legally, in most states the age of consent is 16, not 18.
The *federal* age of consent is 18. And I’m pretty sure there are some psychotropic medications that are, at least, strongly discouraged for people under 18.
Obviously, I’m no logic god. But I attempt to be consistent and to argue in good faith, even if it sometimes brings me to conclusions I’d rather not hold (such as “I’d vote not guilty if I were on the Zimmerman jury” or “it’s wrong to boycott OSC for being a vicious bigot”). All people, to some extent, use logical argument as a process in which we rationalize believing what we wanted to believe anyhow. It is only by trying to hold ourselves to some degree of consistency that we can fight against this tendency at all.
There is a middle zone between “I’m a total opportunist wasting other people’s time with positions and premises I’ll discard the moment they limit me” and “I’m a philosopher god with inhuman abilities.” (Many of Hector’s past arguments appear to be in that middle.) It’s not unreasonable to expect people to aim for that middle zone.
Basically, what Amp said.
I don’t believe that everyone on “my side” refrains from making bad-faith/dishonest/cynical arguments, no. In fact, in the OSC thread I criticized the idea of “Supreme Court says money is speech, why shouldn’t I?” for basically the same reason. Or, I guess that was arguably not “my side” on that particular debate, but a fellow liberal, does that still count?… Anyway, I try not to make such arguments, and I think my own behavior is more relevant to whether I have standing to criticize such arguments than what my ideological allies have done. To mangle a saying, if my friends all jump off a bridge, that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t criticize other people’s arguments when they start talking about how much fun jumping off a bridge would be.
And that was sloppy of me to say “all women”–sorry.
“And I’m pretty sure there are some psychotropic medications that are, at least, strongly discouraged for people under 18.”
Well, if you come up with more specific information, let me know. The only thing that comes to mind for me is SSRIs, and that is about how they react with minors’ brain chemistry, not about minors’ ability to take them responsibly. Although I suppose the specifics don’t matter too much since the broad point is that minors aren’t treated the same as adults. But at this point I’m curious.
I was searching to try to see if I could turn up anything about medications that minors cannot take. (I even made sure to use “medications” and not “prescription drugs” because it has the word “drugs” in it, but a bunch of recreational drug stuff came up anyway.) I didn’t find anything about medications that minors are not allowed to take or not recommended to take due to minors’ maturity levels (vs. the medication itself works differently on a minor or has greater risks, e.g. no cough and cold medicines for small children). But I did find something about minors donating bone marrow that I think might be food for thought:
In some ways donating bone marrow parallels the decision to continue a pregnancy*. In both cases, the risk is low but real. In the case of both continuing an unwanted pregnancy and donating bone marrow, it is in order to benefit another–and it is a life or death matter to that other person. In the case of bone marrow donation, whether that person will live or die due to the actions of the donor is less clear-cut–but in the case of abortion, of course, not everyone agrees that the fetus or embryo affected is a person. 1.3% of marrow donors experience a serious complication, but there hasn’t been a single donor death. I’m not sure of the rate of “serious complications” for pregnancy, or even if it’s a well-defined term in the case of pregnancy. But obviously the number of deaths due to pregnancy is more than zero–about 650 per year in the United States.
Oh wait, I did find one source for the number of severe complications during birth (not sure if including complications leading up to birth would change the numbers much)–they found 129 per 10,000 women. Which is… 1.3 percent, basically the same as the percent of bone marrow donors who experience serious complications. That seems almost too weird to be a coincidence, but I didn’t cherry-pick to get that number; that was the only study I found that addressed serious complications.
*I realize that the obvious difference is that bone marrow donation is having a procedure, and continuing a pregnancy is not having a procedure. This matters less to me than the practical impacts of abortion vs pregnancy. Pregnancy has a much greater impact on a person’s body and greater risk to a person’s life or health than (legal) abortion does. Also, in theory, a person going through a pregnancy could refuse all procedures, but in practice, pregnancy involves multiple medical procedures, and exactly which procedures will be medically indicated is not possible to predict with certainty beforehand.
Closet Puritan, ‘
Wow, you have an uncanny ability to read my mind.
Yes, I was thinking specifically about Paxil and other SSRI’s which are sometimes not permitted for children and adolescents. I realise the grounds aren’t ‘intellectual maturity’ or ‘cognitive capacity’ per se, but rather the details of brain chemistry. However, since our neurochemistry affects our cognitive and intellectual maturity, I don’t see that as a super important distinction. And I was also thinking of the ‘active/passive’ distinction between donating bone marrow and carrying a pregnancy to term. (In one case, as you point out, you’re actively doing something, in the other you’re choosing *not* to acctively do something). I realise you don’t think that’s an important distinction, but I do.
Having said that, perhaps I should retract the stuff about teenagers, maturity and medical decisions, since it doesn’t appear to be the case more generally. Let’s leave it at this. I think abortion is morally problematic, and I’d like to use the law to suppress them. I *particularly* think it would be terrible if a teenager allows her parents, boyfriend or schoolteacher to talk her into having an abortion, and then lives for the rest of her life with the guilt of (to her) having killed a baby.
However, since our neurochemistry affects our cognitive and intellectual maturity, I don’t see that as a super important distinction.
I find that surprising, but if that’s what you believe, that’s what you believe. (Similarly, I also see “minors should not drink alcohol because they’re not mature enough” and “alcohol is particularly damaging to minors’ brains” as two distinct arguments.)
And I was also thinking of the ‘active/passive’ distinction between donating bone marrow and carrying a pregnancy to term. (In one case, as you point out, you’re actively doing something, in the other you’re choosing *not* to acctively do something). I realise you don’t think that’s an important distinction, but I do.
Maybe a better way to put it is that I see having a baby as “doing something” and not having a baby as “not doing something”. Or I see both, but I think the level with the more practical impact is more important. I was initially thinking of this as a deontological vs. utilitarian difference (and pro-lifers do seem to lean more deontological than pro-choicers), but when you put it that way, some of it could be whether you’re a details person vs. a big-picture person.
I *particularly* think it would be terrible if a teenager allows her parents, boyfriend or schoolteacher to talk her into having an abortion, and then lives for the rest of her life with the guilt of (to her) having killed a baby.
I actually agree–but I think that would also be true if they talked her out of an abortion and she came to regret it. I think that, while normal regrets are bad enough, regrets that come from going against one’s better judgment are particularly painful. (I would also note that, in the case of the parents talking her out of it at least, parental permission laws do nothing to prevent this.)
I think that there’s also something here that goes beyond just the “regrets that come from going against one’s better judgment.” Maybe we could codify it as “it’s particularly vile to force someone else to deal with the lifelong consequences of a decision you force upon them.”
Really, this is why parental notification/consent laws are crap. Teenagers may make crappy decisions sometimes, but at least they’re the ones who will have to deal with either “being a teenage parent” or “having an abortion,” not me, you, or their parents.
Some things lie outside parental authority, and ought to. I think it’s precisely as creepy to force your daughter to stay pregnant as it is to make her pregnant in the first place. Of course the Catholic Church, which has a long history of ignoring the bodily autonomy of children, disagrees.
—Myca
I agree with your codification, Myca. Also, regret over one’s own decisions is bad, regret and anger at oneself for going against one’s better judgment is worse, but anger and resentment at one’s parents and at society may be the worst of all. And it has the potential to severely damage the girl’s relationship with her parents.
I said before that parental permission laws usually wouldn’t affect the situation Hector described, but thinking more about it, it seems like they almost never would. I mean, obviously these laws will never affect it if it’s the parents who are convincing their daughter to have an abortion. (So I assume Hector was going back to the idea that many parents would prefer that their daughters terminate the pregnancy, not making a comment on parental permission laws.) But it’s hard to picture a situation where both a girl and her parents would be in favor of continuing the pregnancy–with the parents so in favor of it that they are willing to override the girl’s decision and refuse permission for the abortion–and her boyfriend/someone else wants her to have an abortion, and manages to convince her to go against her own wishes despite the influence of her parents, so the only way the parents have of preventing the abortion is refusing their permission. I don’t think it’s likely unless she has a very bad or nonexistent relationship with her parents.
USC investigated by feds for alleged failure to investigate reported rapes including one where they determined it didn’t happen because the rapist didn’t climax.
Lovely.
Myca,
As you note, not everyone agrees that it’s ‘vile’ to require a person to carry their pregnancy to term. *You* may think it’s ‘vile’ or ‘creepy’ but I assure you many of us don’t.
As I’ve made clear, I don’t really make a distinction between teens and adults here, it’s just that parental/spousal notification and/or consent laws are among the few restrictions that are politically feasible.