People is reporting that Michelle Duggar miscarried MERGED

[meda]

I see, so by some unseen feminist consensus it is okay to have conflicting moral views regarding parental notification or consent .. BUT ..not okay to have conflicting moral views regarding the father's right to have input.

Maybe you all could make a handy list for what is approved for dissenting views.

Why is disagreeing with you a feminist conspiracy? You suggested something that would delay a woman's access to medical services, clog the family court system, and create a paternal "right" to a fetus that contradicts several Supreme court cases. It's just a bad idea. You don't really need a feminist cabal to figure that out.

[Jesus Camp Counselor]

Thanks gustava and lilwriter85. I think "Jesus Camp" was one of the scariest movies I've ever seen!

[Aurora]

I see, so by some unseen feminist consensus it is okay to have conflicting moral views regarding parental notification or consent .. BUT ..not okay to have conflicting moral views regarding the father's right to have input.

Maybe you all could make a handy list for what is approved for dissenting views.

That is not an accurate summary of this afternoon's posts.

[treemom]

I see, so by some unseen feminist consensus it is okay to have conflicting moral views regarding parental notification or consent .. BUT ..not okay to have conflicting moral views regarding the father's right to have input.

Maybe you all could make a handy list for what is approved for dissenting views.

I don't think anyone said that. In fact I read a lot of father's should have input, but legally compelled input isn't going to work,

But also, my point was regardless there is ample evidence that the scotus would rule this unconstitutional.

[Witsec1]

I see, so by some unseen feminist consensus it is okay to have conflicting moral views regarding parental notification or consent .. BUT ..not okay to have conflicting moral views regarding the father's right to have input.

Maybe you all could make a handy list for what is approved for dissenting views.

Unseen feminist consensus? I believe I showed my work there, but just in case, the moral dilemma with parental notification/consent is between individual parents' duty of care to dependent children and society's duty of care to vulnerable populations, including dependent children with shitty parents.

Whereas your moral dilemma with "father's right to have input" is totally manufactured in your own head, because he has a perfect right to say whatever he wants and ask his partner to go to counseling. You think he needs a right to force his partner to listen to him, which is unconstitutional, counter-productive to your own stated goal, etc, etc. That's the argument, why don't you address it, instead of complaining about an "unseen consensus" and how we are excluding you arbitrarily from our feminist sewing bee? Because this is not an arbitrary line, and we've supported that with actual argument instead of whining.

ETA: about the shitty parents comment - I remembered the case mentioned earlier with the parents whose child died - I don't think they were shitty parents. But, as they pointed out, you can't enforce good communication in relationships with laws. Most of the time, the best you can hope for with legal enforcement is harm reduction. Not perfect fairness or harmony.

[Mama Mia]

The feminist consensus remark was based on the posters saying I must not be a 'real woman' since I you know, disagreed with their smug little selves.

Seriously, if you can't see how saying a "real woman" wouldn't think x y or z because it is different than your view isn't completely the same as the misogynist fundies you complain about - but with a different script.. you really are just too stupid to argue with. Really.

I'm not "whining" about anything. You seem to think the grandparents should have some sort of decision making capability for their minor daughter who is pregnant ( even though at least here a minor can receive medical care for confidential services without her parent's knowledge or consent ).... but the father of the actual fetus/child should not have that same right.

So in essence what you are saying is that the Grandfather should be informed / and even have the right to refuse consent to an abortion of a fetus (or at the very least, it is ok to be 'morally conflicted' about this)-- but the Father of said fetus should not... Wow, that is some brilliant fucking reasoning there.

[formergothardite]

You are the one who wants to give men the power to put women's lives in danger by using the whole mediation idea.

[treemom]

The feminist consensus remark was based on the posters saying I must not be a 'real woman' since I you know, disagreed with their smug little selves.

Seriously, if you can't see how saying a "real woman" wouldn't think x y or z because it is different than your view isn't completely the same as the misogynist fundies you complain about - but with a different script.. you really are just too stupid to argue with. Really.

I'm not "whining" about anything. You seem to think the grandparents should have some sort of decision making capability for their minor daughter who is pregnant ( even though at least here a minor can receive medical care for confidential services without her parent's knowledge or consent ).... but the father of the actual fetus/child should not have that same right.

So in essence what you are saying is that the Grandfather should be informed / and even have the right to refuse consent to an abortion of a fetus (or at the very least, it is ok to be 'morally conflicted' about this)-- but the Father of said fetus should not... Wow, that is some brilliant fucking reasoning there.

I am not a big fan of parental involvement laws because I haven't seen evidence they save lives. But a minor getting consent for a medical procedure from their parents is quite a bit different than an adult needing consent from another, possibly unrelated adult.

[Mama Mia]

So should the grandparents/parents have the ability to put their daughters lives in danger by requiring notification and/or consent ? That would seem far riskier wouldn't it ?

Since mediation would not require either mandatory notification or consent for the procedure --- but parental notification laws require one or both of those things. Even with the judicial bypass, which obviously must take weeks and weeks ( since nothing can be done quickly in the court according to the arguments against mediation )... wouldn't this increase the health risks to the young woman ?

[treemom]

So should the grandparents/parents have the ability to put their daughters lives in danger by requiring notification and/or consent ? That would seem far riskier wouldn't it ?

Since mediation would not require either mandatory notification or consent for the procedure --- but parental notification laws require one or both of those things. Even with the judicial bypass, which obviously must take weeks and weeks ( since nothing can be done quickly in the court according to the arguments against mediation )... wouldn't this increase the health risks to the young woman ?

I am not going to argue something I don't agree with. I am saying you can't compare a minor needing consent from a parent or guardian to an adult needed consent (in order to skip mediation) from another adult)

[Witsec1]

One poster said that about "not being a real woman." One. Hardly a conspiracy or consensus. Unfortunately, the anti-feminist woman is not a novelty or surprise to most of us around here. I agree, gender essentialism is crap.

Re: the parental consent issue - can you not read? The conflict is between the duty of care parents have to minor children - parents need to give permission for most medical procedures because they have a legal duty of care. Parents also have a moral duty to guide their children's choices around sexuality and reproduction because they have a responsibility for that child's well-being. That's the source of the conflict. Not because the fetus has their DNA. They do not have ownership rights over the daughter's uterus because it carries their "seed". A man does not have that same legal responsibility of custodial care toward his sexual partner. Do you understand?

[treemom]

One poster said that about "not being a real woman." One. Hardly a conspiracy or consensus. Unfortunately, the anti-feminist woman is not a novelty or surprise to most of us around here. I agree, gender essentialism is crap.

Re: the parental consent issue - can you not read? The conflict is between the duty of care parents have to minor children - parents need to give permission for most medical procedures because they have a legal duty of care. Parents also have a moral duty to guide their children's choices around sexuality and reproduction because they have a responsibility for that child's well-being. That's the source of the conflict. Not because the fetus has their DNA. They do not have ownership rights over the daughter's uterus because it carries their "seed". A man does not have that same legal responsibility of custodial care toward his sexual partner. Do you understand?

I think we have a case of someone being obtuse for obtuse's sake.

[Austin]

[Witsec1]

So should the grandparents/parents have the ability to put their daughters lives in danger by requiring notification and/or consent ? That would seem far riskier wouldn't it ?

Since mediation would not require either mandatory notification or consent for the procedure --- but parental notification laws require one or both of those things. Even with the judicial bypass, which obviously must take weeks and weeks ( since nothing can be done quickly in the court according to the arguments against mediation )... wouldn't this increase the health risks to the young woman ?

Yes, this is why I'm against it, fuckwit. I showed my work as to how I understand why it rises to the level of a moral dilemma. I think ethically the decision comes down on the side against parental consent, and I showed my work there, too.

[treemom]

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying you are obtuse Floraposte.

[Witsec1]

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying you are obtuse Floraposte.

I'm not so sure, since I keep re-stating the same thing, hoping it will get through.

The model MrsS seems to be working from is that parental rights = ownership rights, and she can't get past that.

[treemom]

I still was hoping she would respond to the court cases i gave her demonstrating why mediation would be ruled unconstitutional.

[emmiedahl]

I expressed some ambivalence about parental notification, but I am against it in general. I can see why parents might feel a desire to be involved in their minor child's health decisions; I just don't think it is more important than a young woman's right to choose. I think many parents would interfere with a young woman's right to choose (Choice goes both ways; I have a friend who was basically dragged down to an abortion clinic by her parents when she was 14, and I don't consider that "choice".)

A man does have the right to express his opinion. He has a 1st amendment right to show up at the girls' door with flowers and apologies and say he will marry her and raise the baby. In fact, my oldest son was an unplanned pregnancy in which this happened. I was not going to abort, I was considering adoption, but the principle applies to any pregnancy situation. The would-be father probably has a good idea of why the mother would think keeping the baby was not a good option and can certainly offer a level of support that would change the nature of the situation.

[Austin]

I expressed some ambivalence about parental notification, but I am against it in general.

I am against parental notification. If a daughter does not wish to tell her parents, then I trust that there's a reason for that. It doesn't mean anything bad about the parents, per se, but the young woman is afraid of something, whether that be being thrown out or forced to carry a pregnancy to term, or even just that she just feels that a pregnancy means she has failed to meet her parents' expectations (which is the reason for a lot of young women, I think).

[Linnea]

The feminist consensus remark was based on the posters saying I must not be a 'real woman' since I you know, disagreed with their smug little selves.

Seriously, if you can't see how saying a "real woman" wouldn't think x y or z because it is different than your view isn't completely the same as the misogynist fundies you complain about - but with a different script.. you really are just too stupid to argue with. Really.

I'm not "whining" about anything. You seem to think the grandparents should have some sort of decision making capability for their minor daughter who is pregnant ( even though at least here a minor can receive medical care for confidential services without her parent's knowledge or consent ).... but the father of the actual fetus/child should not have that same right.

So in essence what you are saying is that the Grandfather should be informed / and even have the right to refuse consent to an abortion of a fetus (or at the very least, it is ok to be 'morally conflicted' about this)-- but the Father of said fetus should not... Wow, that is some brilliant fucking reasoning there.

ETA: sorry, hit submit before typing my comment. See below.

[Angri-la]

[Linnea]

The feminist consensus remark was based on the posters saying I must not be a 'real woman' since I you know, disagreed with their smug little selves.

Seriously, if you can't see how saying a "real woman" wouldn't think x y or z because it is different than your view isn't completely the same as the misogynist fundies you complain about - but with a different script.. you really are just too stupid to argue with. Really.

I'm not "whining" about anything. You seem to think the grandparents should have some sort of decision making capability for their minor daughter who is pregnant ( even though at least here a minor can receive medical care for confidential services without her parent's knowledge or consent ).... but the father of the actual fetus/child should not have that same right.

So in essence what you are saying is that the Grandfather should be informed / and even have the right to refuse consent to an abortion of a fetus (or at the very least, it is ok to be 'morally conflicted' about this)-- but the Father of said fetus should not... Wow, that is some brilliant fucking reasoning there.

No one is saying they think grandparents (or for that matter, aunts and uncles) should have notification rights because they share DNA with the fetus. What they are doing is pointing out the logical extension of your idea that sharing DNA gives one some rights in this matter. If it applies to fathers, why not grandparents?

What those-who-disagree-with-Mrs.S (a/k/a the "unseen feminist conspiracy*") argue is that a woman's right to chose has nothing to do with DNA, and everything to do with her right to determine what goes on in her body. And *if* parents of a minor child have a say in whether she gets an abortion (which, FTR, I don't think they should), it is not because they share her (and the fetus's) DNA. It is because they have legal rights over her medical care. After all, parental notification/consent laws apply whether or not the pregnant minor is the parents' biological child.

ETA: *I mean, consensus.

[Nothing2CHere]

When a possible outcome is for the woman to be able to transfer the embry to the man for the duration of its gestation, then maybe there would be some grounds to discuss mediation.

Can we please hurry up the scientific research in this area? Because I've been carrying Little Baby Nothing for 4 months now, and I think it's time my husband get a turn sharing this load with me. What I wouldn't give to have him be the one carrying this baby!

[valsa]

So should the grandparents/parents have the ability to put their daughters lives in danger by requiring notification and/or consent ?

No. Next strawman.

[gustava]

What the............