Religion?

[Captain_Bleach]

1196647719[/unixtime]]

1196562741[/unixtime]]Wouldn't the boyfriend still go to jail for being with a minor, despite the results of the abortion?

No, because the great and sacred "right to privacy" grants unto abortions (and only abortions oddly enough) the supreme and ultimate power of secrecy and thus for the sake of the patient the doctor does not have to ever reveal that the underage child ever had an abortion.

Keeping things secret usually justs comes back to bite you in the ass. That is, if it is a secret that will you fear will make others think less of you. It will be in the back of your head until it becomes known. Edit: Or you come to terms with it.

[Crissa]

All medical procedures - including birth - are given the same amount of privacy.

Unfortunately, creation of personhood doesn't come with privacy, as that's a public event. Your birth or immigration records (that you exist) are public record.

Still... You can't prosecute statutory rape based upon a birth any more than upon an abortion. There's DNA evidence, but it is private and you would have to determine that the public had a pressing need to know - aka a warrant from a judge. And you'd need the same warrant for DNA evidence from the pregnant mother as the child (although the prior is more dangerous to the child.)

So, in conclusion, abortions don't have any 'special' right to privacy that an appendectomy doesn't have.

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

So, like, if... 20 years from now it's scientifically proven that appendicitis is caused by a puberty full of excessive fapping, that information (that I had the resulting condition) would then be accessible by anyone, eh?
Brings to mind the recent case of George Clooney's records becoming hospital-wide knowledge, just from one small violation. Damn those nightshift nurses... we need better regulations for hiring people with, literally, your life in their hands other than "can you work the hours?".

[Crissa]

It would not be public knowledge (at least as long as no one photocopies your records surreptitiously in the night, I suppose.)

Err, and it wouldn't be allowed in court unless there was some pressing public need - IE, a warrant - requiring it. That's what judges are for, and all.

-Crissa

[tzor]

1196648825[/unixtime]]All medical procedures - including birth - are given the same amount of privacy.

In practice that is not true. I'm not talking about convictions; I'm talking about reporting. IIRC (I don't have the time right now to even attempt to google the specific laws involved) there are laws on the books that require medical officials to report conditions that might be indicative of child abuse. Note it doesn't mean there was child abuse or that it could be prosecuted based on the evidence, but warning flags are raised never the less. But the right to "privacy" in the case of abortion apparently trumps these requirements.

Yes it could be possible that an etreemely underage child had sex with another underage child. More likely than not this is a case of child abuse of the most grevious order. Flags should be raised and a proper investigation should begin to see if there really is any real evidence one way or another.

So it is not the same as an appendix, it is the same as being in a state of malnurishment, or having excessive bruses, and so forth.

We treat children differently because they are vulnerable. Ironically in the case of abortion we throw blanket rights that adults can use on vulnerable children and in the process make them even more vulnerable.

[Crissa]

Reporting possible child abuse is not reporting the child's specific injuries. The privacy there that is being 'invaded' also isn't the child's.

Ironically, you seem to be suggesting that an individual's safety and privacy should be lower than the safety and privacy of an appendage of that individual.

I'm sorry, but the court isn't going to care if your hand feels abused by you. It's your hand and your problem.

-Crissa

[CalibronXXX]

He's not talking about the aborted fetus at all in that post.

[tzor]

Calibron is correct I was not talking about the fetus in the above post. The fact is that as a result of the procedure any possible warning sign is not reported. The abuse of the child which led to that pregnancy could go on again and again.

Not everything I write is always "anti-abortion." One might argue that abortions should be just like any cosmetic surgery. I might disagree, but were that to be the case I would probably be less angry than I am today. At least with cosmetic surgery there is a strong emphasis to get all the facts to the patient and accountability to the doctors and no one is trying to cover it all up citing a supreme court decision. There is a significant difference between a young girl and an adult woman. This difference is acknowledged in every insistance except abortion.

Consider parential notification. You can't give a girl an asprin in a school without parental notification, but you can take her for an abortion without any notification to anyone, parents, potential authorities who are looking for possible cases of abuse or neglect, and so forth.

And the funny thing about that? This "sacred" treatment of abortions hurts women.

Two centuries ago the great Susan B. Anthony was very much anti-abortion. Her reasons were two fold. The first was that in the 19th century abortions were dangerous procedures; heck any operation was potentially life threatening. The second was that abortions were typically "forced" on women by men who didn't want their infelidelity known in public. One can argue that with very small children there are good medical reasons to have that abortion. (It's a borderline case of the principle of double effect, but I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt.) I do object to the notion that the procedure could be used to hide a possibly serious condition on the part of that child you are treating with the abortion, which is a possible case of child abuse.

[Fuzzy_logic]

If you favor parental notification laws, explain this to me:

who do you think are the ones PERPRETATING the abuse and neglect?

These laws are at least as likely to enanger children as help them.

[tzor]

I didn't say I favor parental notification laws, in part because of the potential problem you cite. You really need a waterfall method. Remember that these children aren't walking into clinics on their own, someone is taking them in.

If there is a good suspicion of possible abuse then the proper people need to be notified just as the case when the girl shows up at the hospital with severe brusing and other signs of possible abuse.

If there is a necessity for the abortion then there is a necessity. If there isn't and there is no need for immediate action then the partents who are the legal guardians of the child should be consulted just as they would any other significant medical procedure.

In any event unless there is a posibility that there might be abuse involved (in which case someone from child welfare should be overseeing this child) then the parents need to be informed after the fact because an abortion is a real medical procedure with real medical complications that can appear later in life and those can cause potential problems if complications develop later and the full patient history is not known to the doctors treating those complications.

EDIT BEFORE POSTING: DAMN YOU VILE BBBOY! GET SOME DECENT SERVERS!

[Crissa]

A broken arm might be abuse. So too could appendicitis.

There is no difference between this and pregnancy. It might be, it might not.

It still has the same level of privacy legally as any other medical condition. I'm not sure what you're recommending...

-Crissa