Originally posted by Liberator
I'll say it again. Minors have all kinds of rights, however, the reason we don't hold them accountable for stuff is because they don't know better. This is why it's stupid to cut parents out of the loop of their child's health. The raising and wellbeing of the child is their responsibility.
Also, a note on responsibility, if you do something positive, let's say you pull a person from a burning car after a wreck, you are going to be congratulated and praised. This is the responsiblity you took on when you stopped to help them. It's not a burden because it's a positive event or series of events.
But, the way you talk, it sounds like you believe that, should you do something with negative consequences, that you should be allowed to get away with it, and not take responsibility for you're actions.
In the case in question, the girl is responsible for her actions. She had sex and got pregnant, by having an abortion she is evading the events that she voluntarily accepted culpability for by having sex. This is unacceptable to me, because she will now proceed from the false assumption that she can do whatever she wants and have no negative consequences.
But - you're prejudging her motivations and character. That's not fair; even the court hasn't done that but assigned it to a third party. You're placing your negative opinion of abortion, and using prejudices derived from it to judge right or wrong. You're effectively, IMO, refusing to recognise any decision or course of action which you do not agree with as legitimate; and whilst you have a right to judge that as an individual, the state does not have the right to make these case-by-case moral judgements where doing so circumvents or plain breaks existing laws.
Your moral framework makes you think 'abortion is wrong, so she is wrong, so she is a bad person'. The problem is, that's not a solid basis for establishing this sort of precedent. As has been pointed out multiple times, she made a decision which - under Florida law - was protected for her privacy. The state has stepped in and attempted to change that decision, and thus ignored the same protective laws.
Can this really be fair? Because the state is effectively removing her ability to make this decision, but yet would almost certainly have
not opposed the converse decision. If she is not competent to make the decision to have an abortion, how can she be any more competent to make the decision
not to? Does this mean the state now can claim sole jurisdiction over the decisions made by minors, even if they are tearaways.
If it succeeds, not only does it set a precedent for ignoring existing laws, it also sets a precedent of allowing moral dictat by the state; even if you agree with the morality being espoused, can you really accept that being forced upon others - even a minor?
I'd also point out - she has no parents; she lives in a shelter. The caseworker is not in a position - legally - to give or withold consent.
Oh, and whether or not abortion - in this or any case - has negative consequences is a matter of personal judgement and your definition of 'negative consequences'.
