Vigor in Defense of Parental Abortion Rights

Taking the defense of parental rights when it comes to interstate abortions involving their children to the next level, a Maine couple tied up their 19-year-old daughter and began dragging her to New York, in hopes of procuring for her there an abortion that she didn't want. The daughter escaped and called the cops before the plan came to fruition, or non-fruition. (The white parents' dudgeon over the black father of the fetus is said to have motivated this vigorous application of parents' rights.)

Comments

[KipEsquire]

Since when is there such as thing as "parental rights" over a nineteen-year old (or, alternatively, "grandparental rights" over a fetus)?

[Lamar]

This whole thing would be moot if they would have just aborted her 19 years ago.

[QuietReaderGirl]

I marvel that two people could have the foresight to take their daughter to a state with more liberal abortion laws while completely missing the fact you can't force an adult to undergo unwanted surgical procedures.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

QRG, yes, it doth seem the young lady is an adult.

[bar harbor bob]

I marvel that two people could have the foresight to take their daughter to a state with more liberal abortion laws while completely missing the fact you can't force an adult to undergo unwanted surgical procedures.

Somehow I suspect that a couple trying to force their daughter to abort her nigger fetus are the sharpest tools in the shed.

[Karen]

A friend of mine who works as a DA in a rural county describes her job as "patrolling the intersection of beer and rednecks." I think that applies in this case, too. Lord, what idiots.

[Ken Shultz]

Even if she was 15 years old...

Defending parental rights isn't supporting child abuse any more than defending the Second Amendment is supporting drive by shootings.

[crimethink]

Brian Doherty,

I wasn't aware of anyone supporting parental "rights" to force their children to have abortions. I can understand how it'd be hard to tell the difference, though, since parental notification laws are just the polar opposite.

[Ken Shultz]

When I suggest that we libertarians might gain some ground by projecting ourselves as the champions of parental rights, I get these blank stares from fellow libs like they can't figure out how a religious/culture conservative slipped under their radar for so long. ...well I'm not a religious/culture conservative, but this is exactly the kind of thing I've been talkin' about.

From school choice to teaching evolution/intelligent design in public schools to abortion issues and beyond--the government shouldn't insert itself between parents and their children. ...no, that doesn't mean it's okay to tie children up and forcibly...whatever. The government shouldn't insert itself between money managers and their clients either, which doesn't mean that embezzlement shouldn't be a crime.

I'm tryin' to come up with some libertarian reasoning that makes it okay for the government to protect people who take other people's children across state lines and have surgery performed on them without a parent's knowledge, much less consent, and I'm comin' up blank. Maybe someone here can help me get my arms around that?

[LittleCupcakes]

I'm wondering if race is really an issue. Young Merk seems quite the firecracker, and his history with the law only suggests more prison to come. If Young Merk were instead Barack Obama (this is hypothetical musing only, Mr. Obama!), I bet this wouldn't have happened. If my daughter's sperm-donor were a recidivist criminal (again, please the fates, only a hypothetical musing!), I might be so pissed as to do something stupid myself.

What is truly unfortunate is that this young woman felt this guy was her best reproductive option.

[kevrob]

Ken:

Here's how I would explain it.

Children have all the rights that adults have. However, they are not capable of exercising them immediately after they are born. As children grow, their parents allow them a wider range of liberty and responsibility, as does the law. A toddler can own property, but Mom and/or Dad or a trustee must administer it. When I was 12 I could get a paper route, with my parents' approval. A 16-year-old is allowed to drive, with parental permission, after passing a driving test. {Note: driver's licenses are currently state-issued, but needn't be.} At 18 we let them drink, join the military, sign contracts, and subject them to the adult criminal law. At 21 they can vote.

********wait a minute********************************

It's 21 for drinking, and 18 for voting?! So booze is more important than running the country?! Damn! And, oh yeah, minors can be subjected to the adult criminal law, on the basis of certain mysterious criteria that only make sense to those in the legal clerisy.

*********anyhoo************************************

What I'm trying to say is that parents are the primary trustees of their minor children's rights. If and when the parents are found by the authorities to be negligent, other trustees can be appointed by a court, or parents who know they aren't up to the job can recruit guardians for their kids, but the state imposing its judgment over that of parents who are not found incompetent or dangerous is an anti-liberty action.

Children can ask to be emancipated from their parents, which takes a court ruling. Parental consent laws on abortion that have been found constitutional contain procedures for a judicial out: Ms. Preggers pleads with the court that if Pa and/or Ma find out that she is expecting and/or wants an abortion, that she will be abused in some way. Then the court can order that she needn't seek her parents' permission. So the judicial out is a limited, if temporary, form of emancipation. Once the baby mama has that, her cousin, Girl Scout troop leader or that guy from that band who knocked her up should be in the clear.

Kevin

[jgray]

"What is truly unfortunate is that this young woman felt this guy was her best reproductive option"

way to be racist, littlecupcakes. just b/c you are jealous of the exceptional virility of young black men doesn't mean you can say shit about how they dont represent a good "reproductive option" for a white girl.

[kevrob]

If exceptional virility means "too careless to use a condom", there are plenty of young, dumb white men who can match their African-American counterparts. 🙂 Btw, lighten up, jgray. `cakes said he didn't have a problem with it, except that the Young Mr. Johnson in question is a multiple felon who has spent time in prison, and currently serving a jail sentence. If one of my sisters were hanging with a white kid with that background, it would freak me out.

The father's background is no justification for kidnapping and forced surgery, though.

Kevin

[Ken Shultz]

I get the judge thing, kevrob--there should be an exception for that. ...it's the suggestion that taking other people's children, without a parent's knowledge or a judge's okay, across state lines for surgery is somehow okay. ...that's the part I don't get.

...and I concur, if I had a daughter, multiple felons wouldn't be my first choice regardless of race.