Wednesday, October 12, 2011

California enacts legislation to protect pale, but not pregnant, teens

Wesley Smith on California's new law outlawing tanning salons for minors:

Abortions Without Parental Consent–But No Tanning Beds Even With–Now California Law
Wesley J. Smith

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill banning minors from using tanning beds. From the Reuters story:
Previously, California had banned minors under the age of 14 from using tanning beds, but allowed those between 14 and 18 years of age to use tanning beds with parental consent. California is the first state in the nation to ban minors from using tanning beds, legislators said.
California [is] also the state that lets minors get abortions without parental notice, obtain contraception and some mental health drugs without parental consent, and soon may be able to receive HPV vaccines on the OK of 12-year-olds.
Well, at least the state is consistent in its determination to subvert parental control over their own children.

New California pro-life legislative strategy:

To protect minors from abortionists, require that if a abortion is performed committed, it must be done in a tanning salon...

10 comments:

  1. Michael,

    Do you really think that a 15 yo should be using a tanning bed?

    Do you really think that a 15 yo who is having sex or who has the money to buy oral contraceptives or pay for abortions is under parental control?

    Do you really think that parents are entitled to prevent their children from having lifesaving immunizations?

    ReplyDelete
  2. @bach:

    1) No

    2) Yes. They are obviously evading control, but by law and right they remain under parental authority.

    3) Depends. Parental authority should be respected to a great degree. Parents don't have the right to gratuitously place their children in clear danger. Whether forgoing one or another vaccination is gratuitous placement in danger is something to be discussed, on an individual basis.

    Herd immunity often protects people who are unvaccinated. The impact of the parents' decision on public health is another matter.

    It's often not a simple matter to balance parents' rights with public health and the state's responsibility to protect children.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a joke, don't take it personally.

    America is a great country; the only problem is that it's full of Americans!

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Michael,

    I disagree with your answer to (3). Refusing to have your children immunized is also placing other people's children at risk. Children who are too young to have started the immunization schedule, or who have clinical conditions precluding immunization (such as impaired immunity, either congenital or acquired due to illness or treatment of illness), or in whom the immunization didn't 'take'.

    Herd immunity requires a high immunization rate to allow for these factors.

    Whether HPV immunization fits argument is another matter. Parents who object that immunization will encourage sexual activity in their children need to consider (2).

    Obviously, if everyone were strictly monogamous; each person's first sexual partner was his or her only sexual partner, then HPV immunization would obviously be unnecessary. However, the best we can hope for is serial monogamy, and even that is a forlorn hope, as shown by the highly publicized cases of infidelity in religious ministers, who are supposed to have higher morals than the rest of us.

    As an aside, I'm about halfway through Peter Singer's 'Practical Ethics'. Everything I've read so far seems to me to be entirely reasonable.

    Would you care to schedule a 'book club' type thread in about a month and encourage others to read it, either to support it or tear it to pieces?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pepe:

    Too often true. We're a quirky lot.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @bach:

    [Would you care to schedule a 'book club' type thread in about a month and encourage others to read it, either to support it or tear it to pieces?]

    Sounds like a great idea. We could even do reviews, and I'll post them for discussion.

    Perhaps we could start with Practical Ethics, and follow with Feser's The Last Superstition. We could take turns selecting books.

    We could go back and forth on book selections, review individual chapters, etc.

    How about a deadline for a chapter (chapter 1) be each of us who is interested in doing it. I'll post all of the reviews submitted, and we can discuss them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Michael,

    Books need to be considered in toto, not one chapter after another. You certainly can discuss what you like about a book and what you hate, but you still need to read the entire book.

    'The Last Superstition' isn't available for me to read, because I only buy books for non-carbon based data retrieval units (Kindles or iPads to other people). It's not available as an eBook.

    I can't read printed books, ordering printed copies of esoteric works as Feser's takes at least 3 months (from experience) to arrive in an Australian store and ordering just one book from Amazon.com is prohibitively expensive.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Re Bach's question:
    1. Yes.
    2. Yes. Legally they are the responsibility of parents. Morally the parents have a duty to REGAIN control.
    3.If you mean inoculations and injections:Yes. I am not a cool aide drinker. BUT, If by 'Life saving' you mean the child is in imminent danger and be saved by a jab, WHY would a loving parent prevent this? I see no sane reason - so in that case NO. In such cases ad a epidemic or pandemic the general good must be considered.

    Re the books:
    I would comment on the books themselves.
    I like the feel of paper. Paper books are the same 100 years after print.
    E-books are WIDE open to censorship and revisionism.
    Besides there is something magical about used book stores and libraries. All that shared knowledge.
    Screens just do not have the same feeling about them. No dog ears, no centuries of must, no 80 year old coffee stains.... just text.
    Besides, if I didn't have all the books lining my walls - I would have to redecorate! :P
    Call me old fashioned, if you like.
    I still enjoy listening to vinyl records too.

    ReplyDelete
  9. CrusadeRex,

    I have got a lot of printed books, but eBooks are much more convenient and easier to read, besides being more environmentally friendly.

    I know where all my eBooks are. If I want to find a particular printed book, it sometimes takes me days to find it (scan 10 separate bookcases ...).

    With eBooks, I can change the font size. Don't know the meaning of a word? No problem, check the installed dictionary. Want further information? No problem, google it or check the Wikipedia article directly from the device I'm reading.

    EBooks can't be edited, unlike Wikipedia.

    ReplyDelete