The Instigator
HappilyMarried
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Prior to an abortion on a pregnant minor, a parent/guardians must be notified and give consent*.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,197 times Debate No: 5423
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

HappilyMarried

Pro

Argument: Prior to performing an abortion on a minor, medial practitioners MUST give parental notification, and get parental consent, excluding the exceptions outlined below:

*Exceptions:
a) Where incest is claimed by the minor, at which time a court must be consulted and approve abortion w/o parental notification.
b) a physician may perform an abortion without notification/consent in a medical emergency
c) the minor under the age of 18 is an Emancipated Minor.
d) after parental consent is withheld, the minor may go to a court of Jurisdiction and request to over-turn of the parental wishes. The minor will be afforded free legal counsel by the State (guardian ad-litem), and have an immediate hearing scheduled no sooner then waiting 2 court days, and no longer then 5 court days of filing. Parents will be notified by subpoena to appear.

Definitions:

Pregnant = Carrying developing offspring within the body

Parental Consent = signed permission from a parent if you are under age 18*.

Parental Notification = that you will have to tell a parent if you are under age 18*.

Abortion = the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a female known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove an ectopic pregnancy or the products from a spontaneous miscarriage.

Emancipated minor = any minor female who is or has been married or has by court order otherwise been freed from the care, custody, and control of her parents.

Minor = any person under the age of 18 years.

Parent = one parent of the pregnant girl if one is living or the guardian or conservator if the pregnant girl has one.

Medical Emergency = an immediate threat to the life or health of the mother.

Court of Jurisdiction = as defined by state court rules, but may include municipal, family, county or state courts.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

A human, i.e. a rational being, requires certain things for it's existence qua human. It must not be killed, it must not be prevented from taking action toward it's life, and it must not have the products that it's actions create from material in nature stolen from it. So long as this human respects these requirements in others, it is rational of you to respect the same (it is, in short, a "Right."). These rights exist for all humans, not merely those over 18.

Forcing an innocent woman to carry a parasite in the body which she has constructed through years of eating and exercise deprives her of her property rights over that body.

Neither a parent, nor a court, has any claim on any of this unless the "minor" in question has agreed to a contract to the effect that it does.
Debate Round No. 1
HappilyMarried

Pro

A little jumbled here, but I wanted to post it..

We have already abbreviated our children's rights. No minor has the same rights as an adult. We FORCE our children to attend school until 17 yrs of age; We restrict minors from buying real property; we have also restrict a minors right to consent to elective/selective medical procedures.

A child clearly, legally does NOT have the same rights as anyone else. They are not allowed to work at any regular job, nor are they allowed to drive until 16 in most states and some are moving that up to 17. They cannot enlist in the military or marry until they are 17, and then only with parental consent. They do not gain the ultimate right, that of voice in government, until they are 18.

Additionally:
Rights of a Minor to medical procedure
"Courts have held, as a general proposition, that the consent of a minor to a medical or surgical treatment is ineffective and that the physician must secure the the consent of the minors parent someone standing in loco parantis, otherwise, he or she, will risk liability." - Legal aspects of Healthcare Administration - George D. Pozgar

The body of law as it applies to minors is based on the Constitution, however as a minor, you are subject to the instructions and policies set forth by your parents. The law says that your parents are responsible for your education, health, and well being. The authorities will only intervene if there is evidence that you are being neglected or abused. Parental authority in operating an orderly household trumps all else if these conditions are met.

As the old adage goes, a child only has the rights his/her parents choose to give him/her.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
We have already abbreviated our children's rights. No minor has the same rights as an adult. We FORCE our children to attend school until 17 yrs of age; We restrict minors from buying real property; we have also restrict a minors right to consent to elective/selective medical procedures."

All of this is irrelevant as to what must (should) happen. The fact that the law currently enslaves minors is not a demonstration that it should.

"
A child clearly, legally does NOT have the same rights as anyone else. "
And yet morally they do. The source of rights lies in the facts of reality and the pursuit of one's life. If the law contradicts this, the law loses, because law is subordinate to morality in any philosophical system, not the other way around.

"Courts have held, as a general proposition, that the consent of a minor to a medical or surgical treatment is ineffective and that the physician must secure the the consent of the minors parent someone standing in loco parantis, otherwise, he or she, will risk liability."
Again, law subordinate to morality, therefore this is not a valid point.

"
The body of law as it applies to minors is based on the Constitution, however as a minor, you are subject to the instructions and policies set forth by your parents. The law says that your parents are responsible for your education, health, and well being."
Law subordinate to morality, not the other way around. Law loses this contradiction.

"The authorities will only intervene if there is evidence that you are being neglected or abused."
I'd say the extreme pain of childbirth would qualify as "Abuse." :D

"Parental authority in operating an orderly household trumps all else if these conditions are met."

Legally, yes. Morally, no. It is immoral to enslave anyone. Lowering the number of years they have lived to below 18 does not magically change this.

"
As the old adage goes, a child only has the rights his/her parents choose to give him/her."
No, the law will only enforce such rights in general. This does not alter what rights they actually HAVE, i.e. what SHOULD be done. It only alters what occurs. That which actually happens does not equal that which should happen. That which is legal does not equal that which is moral. As an example, I offer the histories of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
Debate Round No. 2
HappilyMarried

Pro

There is a moral foundation for the laws as they exist, and that is to protect minors from themselves. The strong (AKA Parents) have a moral obligation to protect the weak (Minors). (short and brutal version). So in the law is the morality.

By your standard of law subordinate to morality, from the time of birth, no parent should make any decision or take any action, for a minor, where that decision/action may impinge on the rights of the minor. So if a 10 yr old wants to play in the street, the parents can ask for him to come in but if he chooses not to then the parent is to do nothing? If he gets hit by a car then?????

What about the kid who would rather stay home with Mommy at age 5 then go to kindergarden? Should be ‘forced' to go?

The point is while they may have the right, they do not sufficiently possess the needed maturity to make the needed decision to exercise that right. (this is painting with a broad stroke of the brush I know). However, making the decision to Marry, join the army, Have or not have a child, to vote on your governmental leaders, these are life's biggest decisions and a 15 yr old is just not wise nor educated enough to have the freedoms to make these decisions on their own.

The reason for the age barriers is not to enslave a group of people but to protect them from themselves. Some of those ill conceived decisions can not be undone.

Every culture on the word speaks to this, including religious texts,

Quran:
•Children have the right to be fed, clothed, and protected until they reach adulthood.[5]
•Children have the right to enjoy love and affection from their parents.[5]
•Children have the right to be treated equally, vis-a-vis their siblings in terms of financial gifts.
•"A father gives his child nothing better than a good education."
•One day a man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab to complain of disobedient son. So Umar had brought the boy to him and he blamed him for his disobedience. Then the boy addressed Umar by saying "O Commander of the faithful: Are there no rights for boy against his father?". Umar said "yes". Then the boy said "What are these rights O Commander of the Faithful?" Umar said, "To choose a good mother for him, to select good name to him and to teach him the Quran" Then the boy said: "O Commander of the faithful; my father has not accomplished any of these rights. As for my mother, she was a black slave for a Magian; As for my name, he has named me Jual (beetle); and he has not taught me even one letter from the Quran". Then Umar turned round to the man and said "you came to me complaining disobedience on the part of your son, whereas you have not given him his rights. So you have made mistakes against him before he has made mistakes against you"

Bible:
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth (Ephesians 6:1-3).

"Taken to an extreme, dishonoring of parents leads to anarchy, first in the family and then in society, as the decay of this basic component spreads. Eventually, a person will expend much, if not most, of his energies just surviving, effectively destroying the development of spiritual, creative, and intellectual qualities essential to his and society's well-being.

Not honoring parents also causes immaturity. Because children do not respect their parents' advice, they grow up missing the significance of much they encounter, and so wisdom comes to them very slowly. In some cases, they may never learn wisdom. Lack of honor manifests itself in self-willed and self-indulgent people who seem to simmer just beneath the point of rebellion. Their motto in life becomes, "Just do it." So they condemn themselves to learning the lessons of life through hard experience, which may be a good teacher, but a painful one. "
John W. Ritenbaugh
The Fifth Commandment (1997)
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"The strong (AKA Parents) have a moral obligation to protect the weak (Minors)."

What sort of morality is this, which declares the purpose of man is to be a slave, not to something greater, but to whoever comes along who is LESS then themself? What corruption of standards allows you to declare, as another being's claim upon my actions, not their GOOD qualities, what they will trade for it- but the fact that they are an incompetent? Morality is supposed to be a science by which one deduces the principles from which actions can be said to enhance their lives. Yet let us look at the consequences of your view. If everyone who is "Strong" sacrifices themself in the name of whoever is "Weak," what occurs down this road? Obviously, everyone and everything worthwhile dies, and everyone is weak. So the least weak among the weak sacrifice themself to the most weak-the dead. Death is the purpose and standard of that disgusting thing you call your "Morality." It is the ultimate goal toward which you clearly strive- the death of all. No other consequence can come from consistent application of the "principle" you have just advocated.

"So if a 10 yr old wants to play in the street, the parents can ask for him to come in but if he chooses not to then the parent is to do nothing? If he gets hit by a car then?????"
Then justice has occurred. The child took an action, and received the rightful consequences.

"
What about the kid who would rather stay home with Mommy at age 5 then go to kindergarden? Should be ‘forced' to go?
"
No. He may be forced out of the home if he refuses- the home is not his, entering it on any but the owner's terms is trespassing- but he cannot be rightfully forced to go a specific place for any reason but to put a stop to such trespass.

"However, making the decision to Marry, join the army, Have or not have a child, to vote on your governmental leaders, these are life's biggest decisions and a 15 yr old is just not wise nor educated enough to have the freedoms to make these decisions on their own."
First, not all 15 year olds are the same. Second, if they are wise enough, you are wrong, and if they aren't, you are still wrong, because you are impeding justice- you are attempting to shield them from the consequences of their actions.

"
The reason for the age barriers is not to enslave a group of people but to protect them from themselves."
To "Protect" someone from "Themself" is a contradiction. Protection refers to preventing outside things from negatively affecting x. And it does not change the fact of slavery.

"Some of those ill conceived decisions can not be undone."
The ill-conceived decision to rob a human being of several years of their life can never be undone.

"
Every culture on the word speaks to this, including religious texts,"
Ad authoritatem.

And a disgusting ad authoritatem, the Qu'ran (Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91

Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you. 9:123)

and the Bible (
"Thou Shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18

And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18)

are clearly among the WORST places to pull an ad authoritatem on morality from that you could possibly find!

"
Not honoring parents also causes immaturity."
This is absurd. Mature people are far less likely than immature people to honor their parents. Just ask any toddler what they think of their parents, when they aren't throwing a tantrum ("I love mommy and daddy!").

"Because children do not respect their parents' advice, they grow up missing the significance of much they encounter, and so wisdom comes to them very slowly. In some cases, they may never learn wisdom."
Load of nonsense. Blind obedience to another's statement is the opposite of wisdom.

Now, is it possible you could maybe make some arguments based on THIS WORLD, rather than the imaginary world the authors of the Bible and the Qu'ran wrote about?
Debate Round No. 3
HappilyMarried

Pro

You have done nothing to dispute it, but cast rocks at morality and rights of minors, but the stubborn facts remain. Minors are not capable of making decisions on their own and demand a parents guidance. Yes not all minors are alike, hence the ability to be emancipated.

In the mythical world you would live in, a 5 yr old would be thrown into the streets to fend for him/herself, and a 10yr old can do as he pleases, and if he is harmed, so be it, there is no moral obligation of the parent to see no harm comes to their child, and to you the harm to a child is justice for the child actions.

I renew the following:

We have already abbreviated our children's rights. No minor has the same rights as an adult. We FORCE our children to attend school until 17 yrs of age; We restrict minors from buying real property; we have also restrict a minors right to consent to elective/selective medical procedures.

A child clearly, legally does NOT have the same rights as anyone else. They are not allowed to work at any regular job, nor are they allowed to drive until 16 in most states and some are moving that up to 17. They cannot enlist in the military or marry until they are 17, and then only with parental consent. They do not gain the ultimate right, that of voice in government, until they are 18.

Additionally:
Rights of a Minor to medical procedure
"Courts have held, as a general proposition, that the consent of a minor to a medical or surgical treatment is ineffective and that the physician must secure the the consent of the minors parent someone standing in loco parantis, otherwise, he or she, will risk liability." - Legal aspects of Healthcare Administration - George D. Pozgar

The body of law as it applies to minors is based on the Constitution, however as a minor, you are subject to the instructions and policies set forth by your parents. The law says that your parents are responsible for your education, health, and well being. The authorities will only intervene if there is evidence that you are being neglected or abused. Parental authority in operating an orderly household trumps all else if these conditions are met.

PS: the bible references were merely to show through out time, parents have always had the obligation to protect their children, even against their wishes. While the bible is not the best source of morality, I would agree, I was merely stating even back then, people wrote about the rights of a minor and the obligations of the parents.

Do you prefer a Ancient Greek reference? 'Rightly reared by father and mother, children will grow up virtuous, as those who have treated them piously and righteously deserve that they should; but parents who observe not these precepts will be losers thereby.' Aristotle from Oikonomikos, c. 330 BCE
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"You have done nothing to dispute it"

Yes, I have. See my Round1 on the nature of rights.

"Minors are not capable of making decisions on their own and demand a parents guidance. Yes not all minors are alike, hence the ability to be emancipated.
"
In case you haven't noticed, most states require that emancipated minors are financially independent before being emancipated. Unfortunately, if the parents prevent the minor from getting a job... see the problem? Emancipation is not a legitimate out.

"
In the mythical world you would live in, a 5 yr old would be thrown into the streets to fend for him/herself, and a 10yr old can do as he pleases, and if he is harmed, so be it, there is no moral obligation of the parent to see no harm comes to their child, and to you the harm to a child is justice for the child actions.

What is myth about that? That is the nature of justice- the law of causality applied to human beings.

"
We have already abbreviated our children's rights. No minor has the same rights as an adult. We FORCE our children to attend school until 17 yrs of age; We restrict minors from buying real property; we have also restrict a minors right to consent to elective/selective medical procedures.

A child clearly, legally does NOT have the same rights as anyone else. They are not allowed to work at any regular job, nor are they allowed to drive until 16 in most states and some are moving that up to 17. They cannot enlist in the military or marry until they are 17, and then only with parental consent. They do not gain the ultimate right, that of voice in government, until they are 18."
This is an ignoratio elenchi. You cannot disprove the notion that x has a given right by pointing out that the laws do not respect those rights. Hitler did not respect the rights of the Jews to not be slaughtered, when he made the laws. The laws do not change the fact, however, that the Jews- and the minors- have rights.

"
The body of law as it applies to minors is based on the Constitution, however as a minor, you are subject to the instructions and policies set forth by your parents. The law says that your parents are responsible for your education, health, and well being. The authorities will only intervene if there is evidence that you are being neglected or abused. Parental authority in operating an orderly household trumps all else if these conditions are met.
"
Again, ignoratio elenchi. You are not making a moral argument, an argument about should or must be, like the resolution requires. Instead you are making an argument about what currently is- the law. That is not applicable here. The Constitution is not a moral guide- only reason can do that.

"
Do you prefer a Ancient Greek reference? 'Rightly reared by father and mother, children will grow up virtuous, as those who have treated them piously and righteously deserve that they should; but parents who observe not these precepts will be losers thereby.' Aristotle from Oikonomikos, c. 330 BCE"

I prefer that you STOP MAKING THE FALLACY OF ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY. Though as long as you care to do it...

http://oregonstate.edu...

That ought to establish that Aristotle, too, is not a valid reference for the rights of man.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 5 years ago
DylanAsdale
HappilyMarriedRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by spinnerclotho 5 years ago
spinnerclotho
HappilyMarriedRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 5 years ago
Zerosmelt
HappilyMarriedRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07