Are people born gay or do they choose to be gay?

[Crazy Ivan]

Absolutely not - the idea of a parent forcing their child to carry to term, is abhorrent to me.

That's not the question. The question is whether or not a person not mature enough to either consent to sex or get a basic medical procedure without their parents' permission is suddenly mature enough to consent to getting an abortion.

Logic says: absolutely, positively not. The logical conclusion necessarily flows from the premises.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Yes. It means that those dealing with their care are both trustworthy and trusted, have excellent training and are motivated be care for the patient not profit. Also policies and regulations need to be clear so that malpractice is identified and stopped. Decisions regarding abortion and transition involve professionals. Decisions regarding whether or not to have sex tend to be more spontaneous. Even then, those who have responsibility for education would seek to prepare young people for this decision, and the advantages of being circumspect. We have discussed sex education previously.

In my experience, the worst thing you can do for mid to late teenagers is treat them like children and forbid them certain activities. Give them the information, guidance and advice if asked for and appropriate, and ensure that the consequences of their actions and decisions are capable of being dealt with.

Well..... is Planned Parenthood motivated by "care for the patient" or by profit? They make more than $700 per abortion in the US - it's a billion dollar industry here. And, as we know, they are also involved in selling of aborted baby parts.

Furthermore, a decision for a child to get a tooth removed presumably involves a trained professional dentist (who is a doctor). Yet we STILL don't let kids get these basic procedures without their parents' permission.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

You are basing your logic on " if they are not old enough to do X, they are not old enough to do Y". This logic falls down if they are permitted to do X and Y at the same age, or if X and Y are not equivalent.

You would need to demonstrate that the difference between X and Y is such that a person who is not mature enough for X suddenly is mature enough for Y.

Narrator: No such demonstration has been shown.

(That is, of course abortion is different than getting a tooth pulled. It's a far different procedure. But it's also way more invasive and involved and is a much bigger life choice. So logically, if a person isn't mature enough to get a tooth pulled by her own volition, she's not mature enough to undergo a more invasive and involved procedure like an abortion by her own volition.)

 

[Eightcrackers]

That's not the question. The question is whether or not a person not mature enough to either consent to sex or get a basic medical procedure without their parents' permission is suddenly mature enough to consent to getting an abortion.

If your answer is "no", the question then moves to "who makes the decision, then?"

And to that, the answer can only be "somebody else", and that is what I find abhorrent.
Letting the child decide is the lesser of two evils.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

Not quite. They are not old enough to get an abortion that is not in their interests.

Are they old enough to get a tooth pulled that is in their interest? If so, why do we in the US not allow kids to make their own informed choices on that? After all, they're being cared for by medical professionals.

It isn't always in their interests for the parents to make that decision, or indeed to be informed. If the young person has capacity, their decision is reasonable in the circumstances and involving parents would make matters worse, then certainly proceed without parental consent. I have been involved in such cases personally, albeit with 18 and 19 year olds. The rights of children to a private life, separate and distinct from their parents, is to be respected. I find it astonishing how much power and influence American parents are able to wield over their children. Perhaps that reinforces the impression that American teenagers are incredibly immature.

Well I agree that American teens tend to be immature. Poor parenting is a huge part of it for sure. Social media is another. We could have a long conversation about this topic for sure. But it's not because we don't allow kids to get abortions without parents' consent - in fact, most states allow that very thing, so that can't be blamed for US kids' immaturity.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

If your answer is "no", the question then moves to "who makes the decision, then?"

And to that, the answer can only be "somebody else", and that is what I find abhorrent.
Letting the child decide is the lesser of two evils.

Well, I go back to the point that the parents have the job of making such decisions on behalf of their children. That's the job of a parent, to be honest - to make decisions for their kids when those decisions are beyond the maturity level of the kids. To make laws that totally circumvent this is abhorrent (to use your word).

Imagine being a parent, and you're raising your kid (say, 13 years old). And the kid comes to you and says he's trans and wants to get his penis removed so he can be a girl. You are like, no way. But the kid goes to the school counselor who agrees with the kid and arranges to have your child taken to the hospital, where, under the care of medical professionals, they remove his penis and start hormone therapy.

And you only discover this later, after the fact.

Do you think you'd have the right to be livid? Do you think your rights as a parent were violated? Do you think this is how the system should work? Do you think these kinds of decisions should be made without your consent as a parent?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Well, I go back to the point that the parents have the job of making such decisions on behalf of their children. That's the job of a parent, to be honest - to make decisions for their kids when those decisions are beyond the maturity level of the kids. To make laws that totally circumvent this is abhorrent (to use your word).

Imagine being a parent, and you're raising your kid (say, 13 years old). And the kid comes to you and says he's trans and wants to get his penis removed so he can be a girl. You are like, no way. But the kid goes to the school counselor who agrees with the kid and arranges to have your child taken to the hospital, where, under the care of medical professionals, they remove his penis and start hormone therapy.

And you only discover this later, after the fact.

Do you think you'd have the right to be livid? Do you think your rights as a parent were violated? Do you think this is how the system should work? Do you think these kinds of decisions should be made without your consent as a parent?

What good reason could a parent have for denying their underage daughter an abortion?

 

[Temujin]

Well..... is Planned Parenthood motivated by "care for the patient" or by profit? They make more than $700 per abortion in the US - it's a billion dollar industry here. And, as we know, they are also involved in selling of aborted baby parts.

Furthermore, a decision for a child to get a tooth removed presumably involves a trained professional dentist (who is a doctor). Yet we STILL don't let kids get these basic procedures without their parents' permission.

I'm not in a position to comment on specific organisations in a different country. I am making a general argument, which doesn't fail just because you don't like the specific circumstances of a specific organisation. The way health care is organised in your country is shambolic. That's what is wrong, not the principles that I am arguing for.

If there was a case where parents refused to allow tooth removal despite it being in the interest of the child, I would expect the removal to still take place. The principle is that the interest of the patient come first. That applies in every case. The interests of the parents are secondary, in every case.

 

[Temujin]

You would need to demonstrate that the difference between X and Y is such that a person who is not mature enough for X suddenly is mature enough for Y.

Narrator: No such demonstration has been shown.

(That is, of course abortion is different than getting a tooth pulled. It's a far different procedure. But it's also way more invasive and involved and is a much bigger life choice. So logically, if a person isn't mature enough to get a tooth pulled by her own volition, she's not mature enough to undergo a more invasive and involved procedure like an abortion by her own volition.)

It isn't just, or even primarily about maturity. It's about what is best for the person concerned. I don't have to imagine circumstances where the best interests of the teenager are served by an abortion without the parents' knowledge. I have actual experience of them.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

What good reason could a parent have for denying their underage daughter an abortion?

Seriously? You can't fathom a good reason why a parent might not want their kid to get an abortion?

1. They don't want their kid to go through a procedure that comes with the potential for anxiety, stress, and other negative (and potentially long-term) psychological effects. Yes, this happens to a not-insignificant percentage of women who get abortions.

2. They don't want their kid to go through a procedure that comes with the potential for negative physical effects.

If you doubt (1) and (2), read this: https://ldh.la.gov/page/1063

Spoiler

Below are descriptions of the risks that have been associated with abortion.

• Pelvic Infection: Bacteria (germs) from the vagina or cervix may enter the uterus and cause an infection. Antibiotics may clear up such an infection. In rare cases, a repeat suction, hospitalization or surgery may be needed. Infection rates are less than 1 percent for suction curettage, 1.5 percent for D&E and 5 percent for labor induction.
• Incomplete abortion: Fetal parts or other products of pregnancy may not be completely emptied from the uterus, requiring further medical procedures. Incomplete abortion may result in infection and bleeding. The reported rate of such complications is less than 1 percent after a D&E; whereas, following a labor induction procedure, the rate may be as high as 36 percent.
• Blood clots in the uterus: Blood clots that cause severe cramping occur in about 1 percent of all abortions. The clots usually are removed by a repeat suction curettage.
• Heavy bleeding: Some amount of bleeding is common following an abortion. Heavy bleeding (hemorrhaging) is not common and may be treated by repeat suction, medication or, rarely, surgery. Ask the doctor to explain heavy bleeding and what to do if it occurs.
• Cut or torn cervix: The opening of the uterus may be torn while it is being stretched open to allow medical instruments to pass through and into the uterus. This happens in less than 1 percent of first trimester abortions.
• Perforation of the uterus wall: A medical instrument may go through the wall of the uterus. The reported rate is one out of every 500 abortions. Depending on the severity, perforation can lead to infection, heavy bleeding or both. Surgery may be required to repair the uterine tissue, and in the most severe cases a hysterectomy may be required.
• Anesthesia-related complications: As with other surgical procedures, anesthesia increases the risk of complications associated with abortion. The reported risks of anesthesia-related complications is around one per 5,000 abortions.
• Rh Immune Globulin Therapy: Genetic material found on the surface of red blood cells is known as the Rh Factor. If a woman and her fetus have different Rh factors, she must receive medication to prevent the development of antibodies that would endanger future pregnancies.

Long-Term Medical Risks of Abortions

Early abortions that are not complicated by infection do not cause infertility, nor do they make it more difficult to carry a later pregnancy to term. Complications associated with an abortion or having multiple abortions may make it difficult to have children.

Women who have had a first full-term pregnancy at an early age have reduced risks of breast, ovarian and endometrial cancer. Furthermore, the risks of these cancers decline with each additional full-term pregnancy. Pregnancies that are terminated afford no protection; thus, a woman who chooses abortion over continuing her pregnancy would lose the protective benefit. ?If you have a family history of breast cancer or clinical findings of breast disease, you should seek medical advice from your physician before deciding whether to remain pregnant or have an abortion. It is always important to tell your doctor about your complete pregnancy history.

Emotional Side of an Abortion

You should know that women experience different emotions after an abortion. Some women may feel guilty, sad or empty, while others may feel relief that the procedure is over. Some women have reported serious psychological effects after their abortion, including depression, grief, anxiety, lowered self-esteem, regret, attachment, flashbacks and substance abuse. These emotions may appear immediately after an abortion or gradually over a longer period of time. These feelings may recur or be felt stronger at the time of another abortion, or a normal birth, or on the anniversary of the abortion. Counseling or support before and after your abortion is very important. If family help and support are not available to you, it may be harder for you to deal with the feelings that appear after an abortion. Talking with a professional counselor before having an abortion can help a woman better understand her decision and the feelings she may experience after the procedure. If counseling is not available to the woman, these feelings may be more difficult to handle. Many pregnancy-resource centers offer pre- and post-abortion counseling services; these centers are listed in the resource directory.

3. They may believe that abortion takes the life of another human being, and they don't favor that. YOU may not think this is a good reason, but THEY might.

4. They may be able to care for the baby themselves.

It's unfathomable to me that you cannot conceive of a good reason why parents might not want their teenage daughter to get an abortion.

 

[Temujin]

Are they old enough to get a tooth pulled that is in their interest? If so, why do we in the US not allow kids to make their own informed choices on that? After all, they're being cared for by medical professionals.



Well I agree that American teens tend to be immature. Poor parenting is a huge part of it for sure. Social media is another. We could have a long conversation about this topic for sure. But it's not because we don't allow kids to get abortions without parents' consent - in fact, most states allow that very thing, so that can't be blamed for US kids' immaturity.

That's because a pregnant child is particularly vulnerable and parental involvement can easily be malign. Do you think legislators make this decision on a whim, or out of ideology? Provision for care outside, or against the wishes of parents is essential in some cases, which are therefore permitted in law. It would be outrageous if this was not the case.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

I'm not in a position to comment on specific organisations in a different country. I am making a general argument, which doesn't fail just because you don't like the specific circumstances of a specific organisation. The way health care is organised in your country is shambolic. That's what is wrong, not the principles that I am arguing for.

Well you're arguing for a principle that simply may look different in your country vs. ours. Here, abortion is absolutely a profitable business. In 2015 in the US, Planned Parenthood took in 1.29 billion dollars - $553 million of which was from the government. They performed 334k abortions at an average cost of about $700 apiece. That's $233 million in income from abortion, or 18% of their income. It's huge business. That's just Planned Parenthood. The idea that abortion (in the US anyway) is some charitable procedure done without profit motive is simply not true in this country.

If there was a case where parents refused to allow tooth removal despite it being in the interest of the child, I would expect the removal to still take place. The principle is that the interest of the patient come first. That applies in every case. The interests of the parents are secondary, in every case.

Maybe. There are lots of things that parents decide that may "not be in the best interest of the child", yet it's still the parents' right to make those decisions.

A parent decides to allow their child to own an iPhone. We now have GOBS of data showing that that's a very, very, very bad decision for the child, especially at younger ages. If we want to discuss this, I'm more than happy to. But it's a really bad decision to allow your kid to have a smart phone at a young age. Really bad for a host of reasons.

Yet we allow parents to make this choice for their kids all the time.

If the parents aren't the one to make these choices for their children, whose right to make them is it? The government's? A doctor's? A school counselor's? The child's? The parents are the primary locus for these decisions. If a child's LIFE is at risk, that's different. But an abortion almost never is about the mother's life being at risk - and of course if it was, even the most adamant pro-lifers would agree with abortion in that case.

 

[Temujin]

Well, I go back to the point that the parents have the job of making such decisions on behalf of their children. That's the job of a parent, to be honest - to make decisions for their kids when those decisions are beyond the maturity level of the kids. To make laws that totally circumvent this is abhorrent (to use your word).

Imagine being a parent, and you're raising your kid (say, 13 years old). And the kid comes to you and says he's trans and wants to get his penis removed so he can be a girl. You are like, no way. But the kid goes to the school counselor who agrees with the kid and arranges to have your child taken to the hospital, where, under the care of medical professionals, they remove his penis and start hormone therapy.

And you only discover this later, after the fact.

Do you think you'd have the right to be livid? Do you think your rights as a parent were violated? Do you think this is how the system should work? Do you think these kinds of decisions should be made without your consent as a parent?

How often does this happen? Can you give an example of it happening once, let alone regularly? I just don't believe it, to be honest. I think this is just one of those ridiculous hypotheticals dreamt up by those who have run out of real arguments. Don't give us what if fairy tales. Just how many 13 year old penises were chopped off last year without parental permission?

 

[Crazy Ivan]

That's because a pregnant child is particularly vulnerable and parental involvement can easily be malign. Do you think legislators make this decision on a whim, or out of ideology? Provision for care outside, or against the wishes of parents is essential in some cases, which are therefore permitted in law. It would be outrageous if this was not the case.

If the child's life was at risk, yes, and we'd all agree with that. It's why we allow for such extreme circumstances like if a parent doesn't believe in a certain medicine that can save the child's life; we'd prefer the child get the medicine anyway over the objections of the parents.

But abortion isn't that, except in exceedingly rare cases, and in those cases, we all agree abortion is allowable.

It's astounding to me that such malevolence can be so easily attributed to parents, as opposed to others who OF COURSE have NOTHING but the best interest of the child in mind, right? It's ONLY the parents who DON'T have these kids' best interests in mind, right?

 

[Temujin]

Seriously? You can't fathom a good reason why a parent might not want their kid to get an abortion?

1. They don't want their kid to go through a procedure that comes with the potential for anxiety, stress, and other negative (and potentially long-term) psychological effects. Yes, this happens to a not-insignificant percentage of women who get abortions.

2. They don't want their kid to go through a procedure that comes with the potential for negative physical effects.

If you doubt (1) and (2), read this: https://ldh.la.gov/page/1063

Spoiler

Below are descriptions of the risks that have been associated with abortion.

• Pelvic Infection: Bacteria (germs) from the vagina or cervix may enter the uterus and cause an infection. Antibiotics may clear up such an infection. In rare cases, a repeat suction, hospitalization or surgery may be needed. Infection rates are less than 1 percent for suction curettage, 1.5 percent for D&E and 5 percent for labor induction.
• Incomplete abortion: Fetal parts or other products of pregnancy may not be completely emptied from the uterus, requiring further medical procedures. Incomplete abortion may result in infection and bleeding. The reported rate of such complications is less than 1 percent after a D&E; whereas, following a labor induction procedure, the rate may be as high as 36 percent.
• Blood clots in the uterus: Blood clots that cause severe cramping occur in about 1 percent of all abortions. The clots usually are removed by a repeat suction curettage.
• Heavy bleeding: Some amount of bleeding is common following an abortion. Heavy bleeding (hemorrhaging) is not common and may be treated by repeat suction, medication or, rarely, surgery. Ask the doctor to explain heavy bleeding and what to do if it occurs.
• Cut or torn cervix: The opening of the uterus may be torn while it is being stretched open to allow medical instruments to pass through and into the uterus. This happens in less than 1 percent of first trimester abortions.
• Perforation of the uterus wall: A medical instrument may go through the wall of the uterus. The reported rate is one out of every 500 abortions. Depending on the severity, perforation can lead to infection, heavy bleeding or both. Surgery may be required to repair the uterine tissue, and in the most severe cases a hysterectomy may be required.
• Anesthesia-related complications: As with other surgical procedures, anesthesia increases the risk of complications associated with abortion. The reported risks of anesthesia-related complications is around one per 5,000 abortions.
• Rh Immune Globulin Therapy: Genetic material found on the surface of red blood cells is known as the Rh Factor. If a woman and her fetus have different Rh factors, she must receive medication to prevent the development of antibodies that would endanger future pregnancies.

Long-Term Medical Risks of Abortions

Early abortions that are not complicated by infection do not cause infertility, nor do they make it more difficult to carry a later pregnancy to term. Complications associated with an abortion or having multiple abortions may make it difficult to have children.

Women who have had a first full-term pregnancy at an early age have reduced risks of breast, ovarian and endometrial cancer. Furthermore, the risks of these cancers decline with each additional full-term pregnancy. Pregnancies that are terminated afford no protection; thus, a woman who chooses abortion over continuing her pregnancy would lose the protective benefit. ?If you have a family history of breast cancer or clinical findings of breast disease, you should seek medical advice from your physician before deciding whether to remain pregnant or have an abortion. It is always important to tell your doctor about your complete pregnancy history.

Emotional Side of an Abortion

You should know that women experience different emotions after an abortion. Some women may feel guilty, sad or empty, while others may feel relief that the procedure is over. Some women have reported serious psychological effects after their abortion, including depression, grief, anxiety, lowered self-esteem, regret, attachment, flashbacks and substance abuse. These emotions may appear immediately after an abortion or gradually over a longer period of time. These feelings may recur or be felt stronger at the time of another abortion, or a normal birth, or on the anniversary of the abortion. Counseling or support before and after your abortion is very important. If family help and support are not available to you, it may be harder for you to deal with the feelings that appear after an abortion. Talking with a professional counselor before having an abortion can help a woman better understand her decision and the feelings she may experience after the procedure. If counseling is not available to the woman, these feelings may be more difficult to handle. Many pregnancy-resource centers offer pre- and post-abortion counseling services; these centers are listed in the resource directory.

3. They may believe that abortion takes the life of another human being, and they don't favor that. YOU may not think this is a good reason, but THEY might.

4. They may be able to care for the baby themselves.

It's unfathomable to me that you cannot conceive of a good reason why parents might not want their teenage daughter to get an abortion.

There are also many bad reasons, including coercive control. There's also the question of whether a parent should have the right to make such life choices against the wishes of their offspring. Refusing to remove a tooth isn't going to blight a life. Refusing an abortion may well do

 

[Crazy Ivan]

How often does this happen? Can you give an example of it happening once, let alone regularly? I just don't believe it, to be honest. I think this is just one of those ridiculous hypotheticals dreamt up by those who have run out of real arguments. Don't give us what if fairy tales. Just how many 13 year old penises were chopped off last year without parental permission?

This isn't the point. I mean, obviously I have no idea how often this happens. It's the principle of the thing we are discussing. If it happens once, it's too often.

The point is the principle - we should not allow a child to make these kinds of life-altering decisions without the parents being involved. They (the kids) aren't even mature enough to consent to sex, for crying out loud. We think they're mature enough to consent to transitioning to another gender? It's insanity.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

There are also many bad reasons, including coercive control. There's also the question of whether a parent should have the right to make such life choices against the wishes of their offspring. Refusing to remove a tooth isn't going to blight a life. Refusing an abortion may well do

This is indeed tricky stuff. But the primary decision-making power for underage kids goes to the parents, by default. It's how it ought to be. Why should some school counselor have decision making power over my child over and against MY wishes? Why should some random government bureaucrat have decision making power over my child over and against my wishes as the parent? You think that other people can't also be coercive and controlling and manipulative? You think it's ONLY the parents who possess this attribute?

It's absolutely INSANE to me that anyone would advocate that these decisions ought to be made without the parents even being involved. Totally, utterly insane.

 

[Temujin]

Well you're arguing for a principle that simply may look different in your country vs. ours. Here, abortion is absolutely a profitable business. In 2015 in the US, Planned Parenthood took in 1.29 billion dollars - $553 million of which was from the government. They performed 334k abortions at an average cost of about $700 apiece. That's $233 million in income from abortion, or 18% of their income. It's huge business. That's just Planned Parenthood. The idea that abortion (in the US anyway) is some charitable procedure done without profit motive is simply not true in this country.



Maybe. There are lots of things that parents decide that may "not be in the best interest of the child", yet it's still the parents' right to make those decisions.

A parent decides to allow their child to own an iPhone. We now have GOBS of data showing that that's a very, very, very bad decision for the child, especially at younger ages. If we want to discuss this, I'm more than happy to. But it's a really bad decision to allow your kid to have a smart phone at a young age. Really bad for a host of reasons.

Yet we allow parents to make this choice for their kids all the time.

If the parents aren't the one to make these choices for their children, whose right to make them is it? The government's? A doctor's? A school counselor's? The child's? The parents are the primary locus for these decisions. If a child's LIFE is at risk, that's different. But an abortion almost never is about the mother's life being at risk - and of course if it was, even the most adamant pro-lifers would agree with abortion in that case.

The child's life is at stake. The remaining lifetime of the child will be tainted, one way or another by an unwanted pregnancy. I would argue the same way if the parents were urging abortion against the wishes of the child. In this case, parents are not always the best people to make this decision. It's a simple fact.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

But back to the point - the logic has not been refuted. Like, not even close.

If a child is not mature enough to consent to sex, how can she be mature enough to consent to an abortion or to change her gender?
If a child is not mature enough to get even a basic medical procedure for herself (i.e., without her parents' involvement), how can she be mature enough to consent to an abortion or transition to another gender?

The answers are: she can't, and she can't. Period, full stop. All we are doing is coming up with OTHER reasons to allow it, not because she is suddenly mature enough to make these decisions for herself.

 

[Temujin]

This isn't the point. I mean, obviously I have no idea how often this happens. It's the principle of the thing we are discussing. If it happens once, it's too often.

The point is the principle - we should not allow a child to make these kinds of life-altering decisions without the parents being involved. They (the kids) aren't even mature enough to consent to sex, for crying out loud. We think they're mature enough to consent to transitioning to another gender? It's insanity.

I don't think it does happen. I can't see that it ever would happen. We can all dream up hypothetical reasons why anything and everything should be disallowed. If it doesn't happen, it isn't a problem. Certainly, coercive control of young vulnerable people by their parents does happen, all to frequently. That is something that can and is prevented by appropriate legislation. Your proposed cure for a non-existent problem would make a real problem worse.