“She gave it up for adoption because she was 14 freakin’ years old and her hateful Xian parents would have disowned her had they known this was even happening.”
Sean once again illustrates the intellectual superiority of atheism. It’s hard to measure up to such a cerebral opponent, but I’ll try my little best.
1.”Her hateful Christian parents.”
Think about what would happen of the Seans of the world had the final say in public policy.
2.I believe we can all agree that 14 is a little too young to become a mother. That’s one reason that Christians counsel abstinence before marriage.
3.But the issue is not what’s the best age to become a mother. A pregnant woman, whatever her age, is already a mother. So it’s a question of where to take it from there.
4.We don’t believe that a 14-year-old mother should have to raise her child on her own. She should have a supportive community.
5.Notice the duplicity of Sean’s appeal to her age. On the one hand, she’s too immature to have a child. On the other hand, she’s mature enough to have an abortion.
Too young to decide to keep the child, but old enough to decide to abort the child.
6.Suppose we were to ban all abortions except for girls under the age of 16. Would Sean support such a law? Of course not!
He introduces a hard case to justify abortion in a vast number of situations that are not hard cases. So his appeal is disingenuous.
7.Sean hasn’t the slightest idea if her parents would have disowned her. Parents make all sorts of dire threats which they never carry out.
8.Are there unfit parents? Yes.
There are also unfit social workers. Unfit judges. Unfit doctors. Unfit school counselors. And unfit judges. Especially unfit judges.
So why is this an argument against parental consent, or even parental notification?
How does the fact that some parents might overreact justify disempowering parents and empowering strangers to make the decision for a minor?
Why are parents untrustworthy, but strangers are trustworthy?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteParents are untrustworthy because big brother The State knows best, see?
(catch my sarcasm?)
I may be out there to some, but I have been fascinated with the subjects of psychology and history. Not even 100 years ago, it was common to marry A LOT younger (and get pregnant)--my wife's grandmother got married at 16. Now, I'm not for child labor at all, but it seemed that society expected children to grow up a lot faster and take on responsibility (get a job, have a family, etc.) a lot sooner than today. I got married at 21, and I'm considered to have married early!
So, while the culture has now changed, the physical make up of boys and girls have not--they are capable of starting families just as those in the early 1900s did, but they are told they are not old enough or mature enough to do that; however, they still have the desire to have sex, and so the natural consequence of that action (pregnancy) cannot hamper their "freedom".
It's just my opinion that adolescence was a concept that was created by the culture over time, and the State just goes a step further by taking away any responsibility (forcefully or otherwise) from the parents over this time, since they "can't be trusted." Remember, Hillary Clinton wants you to know that it takes a whole village (read: the government) to raise a child.
I have an older cousin who married at 15. She's been married for over 50 years now.
ReplyDeleteBecause, like, it's just so really wrong for parents to make unilateral decisions that affect their children's lives, without, you know, consulting their wishes.
ReplyDeleteThis is why no restrictions on abortion are to be tolerated!
Also because unwanted and disabled children are happier if they're killed ...
For an example of how pro-choicers lose their enthusiasm for prosecuting statutory rape when it might involve going after abortion doctors rather than Catholic priests, see "Smells Like Teen Snogging: Kansas' wacky attorney general smells sex everywhere", by Dahlia Lithwick, in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2135328/).
ReplyDelete