1Elspeth Hansen (evhansen10)// Sep 8, 2008 at 12:38 am
Interesting. I’m not wild about the slavery rhetoric. The use of the ownership concept seems to be intended to provoke a response. I do think he errs in comparing the treatment of minors to the historical mistreatment of other groups. I’m sorry but there is a difference against discriminating against women or blacks and discriminating against minors. We have special rules for a reason.
Part of me understands the idea behind parental consent laws, but the truth of it is that the issue is so charged that the possibility that a parent would prevent their child from having an abortion for moral, not health, reasons is not only possible, but likely. I would have to agree that these laws are intended to allow parents to control their daughter’s actions. I think that it is fair to distinguish abortion as a special kind of medical procedure. When discussing a decision that would force a girl to grow up quickly to meet society’s standards in caring for her child, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to let her exercise her independent judgement. Ideally, she could discuss it with family first, but we can’t just legislate for people in ideal situations, and we shouldn’t put up elaborate barriers for everyone else.
The entire episode is well worth watching (hilarious, incisive, etc etc), but if in a rush, the Sarah Palin part begins at 19:00.
With regards to the greater message of the article–that “maturing minors” are an oppressed group, akin to how blacks and women used to be, that should, effectively, be given the right to make their own decisions and vote–eh. That’s more than slightly problematic. I mean, for one Saletan defines a maturing minor as “someone already in transition to adulthood, as evidenced most clearly by the ability to produce children of her own;” logically, then, this encompasses everyone who is at or past puberty and not infertile. WebMD informs me of the phenomenon called “precocious puberty,” in which puberty begins for some at the age of 8 or 9- should kids entering second grade, then, be given voting and legal rights, except for the infertile ones? Would we also then treat these 2nd graders as adults for other things, like crimes? Even better, how, ah, would society objectively check about the whole puberty and/or infertility deal, anyway?
Obviously 18 as a cut-off for the right to vote and legally make decisions in society is imperfect. But it has been around forever, is generally accepted, seems pretty accurate for the majority of folks and is a quite simple rule. All things considered it shouldn’t be altered, and full legal rights should start at 18. My problem now, though, is that in saying this I’ve backed myself into a corner: my gut is queasy at the idea of parents controlling their 17-year-olds absolutely about such massive decisions as having a baby or not, yet the strict end conclusion of this logic would be to have just that result. Perhaps the law should weight decisions based on their “gravity,” and those that have more “gravity” than others provide more decision-making rights to minors? But then this system, too, would have a slew of problems…sigh. Cognitive dissonance it is.
3Aaron Nathan (anathan10)// Sep 12, 2008 at 2:48 am
My problem is the paradox…you’re not an adult, say the parents, so you may not make the decision the result of which will be: that you will become one, and assume the most difficult and important responsibilities of adulthood…except the power to choose whether or not to do so. That just gnaws and gnaws.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Elspeth Hansen (evhansen10) // Sep 8, 2008 at 12:38 am
Interesting. I’m not wild about the slavery rhetoric. The use of the ownership concept seems to be intended to provoke a response. I do think he errs in comparing the treatment of minors to the historical mistreatment of other groups. I’m sorry but there is a difference against discriminating against women or blacks and discriminating against minors. We have special rules for a reason.
Part of me understands the idea behind parental consent laws, but the truth of it is that the issue is so charged that the possibility that a parent would prevent their child from having an abortion for moral, not health, reasons is not only possible, but likely. I would have to agree that these laws are intended to allow parents to control their daughter’s actions. I think that it is fair to distinguish abortion as a special kind of medical procedure. When discussing a decision that would force a girl to grow up quickly to meet society’s standards in caring for her child, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to let her exercise her independent judgement. Ideally, she could discuss it with family first, but we can’t just legislate for people in ideal situations, and we shouldn’t put up elaborate barriers for everyone else.
2 eandrews09 (eandrews09) // Sep 8, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Well Aaron, what do YOU think?
I agree about the obvious hypocrisy Palin shows with her daughter and her legislation. Incidentally, so too does John Stewart: check out
http://www.hulu.com/watch/33255/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wed-sep-3-2008#s-p1-so-i0 .
The entire episode is well worth watching (hilarious, incisive, etc etc), but if in a rush, the Sarah Palin part begins at 19:00.
With regards to the greater message of the article–that “maturing minors” are an oppressed group, akin to how blacks and women used to be, that should, effectively, be given the right to make their own decisions and vote–eh. That’s more than slightly problematic. I mean, for one Saletan defines a maturing minor as “someone already in transition to adulthood, as evidenced most clearly by the ability to produce children of her own;” logically, then, this encompasses everyone who is at or past puberty and not infertile. WebMD informs me of the phenomenon called “precocious puberty,” in which puberty begins for some at the age of 8 or 9- should kids entering second grade, then, be given voting and legal rights, except for the infertile ones? Would we also then treat these 2nd graders as adults for other things, like crimes? Even better, how, ah, would society objectively check about the whole puberty and/or infertility deal, anyway?
Obviously 18 as a cut-off for the right to vote and legally make decisions in society is imperfect. But it has been around forever, is generally accepted, seems pretty accurate for the majority of folks and is a quite simple rule. All things considered it shouldn’t be altered, and full legal rights should start at 18. My problem now, though, is that in saying this I’ve backed myself into a corner: my gut is queasy at the idea of parents controlling their 17-year-olds absolutely about such massive decisions as having a baby or not, yet the strict end conclusion of this logic would be to have just that result. Perhaps the law should weight decisions based on their “gravity,” and those that have more “gravity” than others provide more decision-making rights to minors? But then this system, too, would have a slew of problems…sigh. Cognitive dissonance it is.
3 Aaron Nathan (anathan10) // Sep 12, 2008 at 2:48 am
My problem is the paradox…you’re not an adult, say the parents, so you may not make the decision the result of which will be: that you will become one, and assume the most difficult and important responsibilities of adulthood…except the power to choose whether or not to do so. That just gnaws and gnaws.
You must log in to post a comment.