Assisted Reproductive Technology

[*bfine32*]

(08-17-2016, 12:35 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: ooooooook,
The only parameter the Government should have any say about, is that all parties involved are 18+ and mentally competent. If both of those matters are met, then that's the end of the Government involvement (unless there is some type of laws being violated, such as malpractice etc).

And this is why I brought up the fact that a minor can have an abortion and in many cases without parental consent.

If we we as a society think a child is mature enough to make the decision to abort the child' whay should we regulate the age as which they can receive ART? Both are "her body, her choice".

[GMDino]

(08-17-2016, 02:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And this is why I brought up the fact that a minor can have an abortion and in many cases without parental consent.

If we we as a society think a child is mature enough to make the decision to abort the child' whay should we regulate the age as which they can receive ART? Both are "her body, her choice".

The age varies from state to state and with various ways around it.

Given your stance on the age, and forgive me for asking a question, but what would you do to those who have sex, get birth control or want an abortion below 18?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-17-2016, 02:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And this is why I brought up the fact that a minor can have an abortion and in many cases without parental consent.

If we as a society think a child is mature enough to make the decision to abort the child' why should we regulate the age as which they can receive ART? Both are "her body, her choice".

We can regulate a minimum age for ART because it is a medical procedure. It requires a Dr. and a patient.

[*bfine32*]

(08-17-2016, 04:11 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: We can regulate a minimum age for ART because it is a medical procedure. It requires a Dr. and a patient.

As is an abortion in many cases.

My stance regarding minors is pretty much the same in ART, Gender Identification, Abortion, Consentual Sex, Birth Control, ect.... I don't let the situation dictate the amount the amount of consent we give a child.

[Belsnickel]

(08-17-2016, 04:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As is an abortion in many cases.

My stance regarding minors is pretty much the same in ART, Gender Identification, Abortion, Consentual Sex, Birth Control, ect.... I don't let the situation dictate the amount the amount of consent we give a child.

It's always been interesting to me the arbitrary ages that we place on things for consent. For instance, and I'm not sure if this is still the case here or the case anywhere other than Virginia, but for emergency medical services if a patient is 14 or older they can refuse treatment on their own consent and accept it even if the parent doesn't want it. However, if they are under 14 it is the decision of the parent/guardian. I don't know what requires consent at what age or anything beyond that, I just remember that from my training some 15 years ago.

There are just so many lines drawn in different places for different types of consent for different things that it is kind of a jumbled mess. And in the end it's hard to really justify most of them since the penultimate one is 18, yet an 18 year old really doesn't have much more sense than a 16 or 17 year old.

Just some random thoughts on this.

[GMDino]

(08-17-2016, 04:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As is an abortion in many cases.

My stance regarding minors is pretty much the same in ART, Gender Identification, Abortion, Consentual Sex, Birth Control, ect.... I don't let the situation dictate the amount the amount of consent we give a child.

Which varies from state to state.

[*bfine32*]

(08-17-2016, 04:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's always been interesting to me the arbitrary ages that we place on things for consent. For instance, and I'm not sure if this is still the case here or the case anywhere other than Virginia, but for emergency medical services if a patient is 14 or older they can refuse treatment on their own consent and accept it even if the parent doesn't want it. However, if they are under 14 it is the decision of the parent/guardian. I don't know what requires consent at what age or anything beyond that, I just remember that from my training some 15 years ago.

There are just so many lines drawn in different places for different types of consent for different things that it is kind of a jumbled mess. And in the end it's hard to really justify most of them since the penultimate one is 18, yet an 18 year old really doesn't have much more sense than a 16 or 17 year old.

Just some random thoughts on this.

I agree with this. For instance what makes 21 the age you can drink? I also think different states have different ages for consentual sex. And as Dino keeps bringing up: Age of consent for abortion can vary. I read one I think where it was 16, ect... Why can consent laws/ ages vary from state to state; yet, we get upset when a state want to impose other restrictions?

[GMDino]

(08-17-2016, 04:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree with this. For instance what makes 21 the age you can drink? I also think different states have different ages for consentual sex.

Federal law?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=why%20is%2021%20the%20drinking%20age

Quote:In short, we ended up with a national minimum age of 21 because of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. This law basically told states that they had to enact a minimum drinking age of 21 or lose up to ten percent of their federal highway funding.Aug 25, 2008

Why is the Drinking Age 21? | Mental Floss

[url=http://mentalfloss.com/article/19437/why-drinking-age-21][/url]
Science?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/health/science-drinking-age/

[BmorePat87]

(08-17-2016, 04:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Federal law?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=why%20is%2021%20the%20drinking%20age


[url=http://mentalfloss.com/article/19437/why-drinking-age-21][/url]
Science?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/health/science-drinking-age/

The article actually suggests differently. The reason 21 was chosen is because 16-20 year olds were most responsible for drunk driving. The scientists and researchers quoted, however, suggested that teens began to drink more because of it, but just not driving while drunk. So it would be counterproductive from a scientific standpoint to make the drinking age that high if it causes more binge drinking. They suggest drinking age at 18 and driving age at 21. 

[GMDino]

(08-17-2016, 05:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The article actually suggests differently. The reason 21 was chosen is because 16-20 year olds were most responsible for drunk driving. The scientists and researchers quoted, however, suggested that teens began to drink more because of it, but just not driving while drunk. So it would be counterproductive from a scientific standpoint to make the drinking age that high if it causes more binge drinking. They suggest drinking age at 18 and driving age at 21. 

The second one, yes.  It's possible the age is too high for the wrong reasons.

I shared it anyway since it at least looked at reasons as opposed to the resident bear poker throwing out questions with no substance.

[BmorePat87]

(08-17-2016, 05:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: The second one, yes.  It's possible the age is too high for the wrong reasons.

I shared it anyway since it at least looked at reasons as opposed to the resident bear poker throwing out questions with no substance.

In his defense, it seemed like a rhetorical question aimed at supporting his questioning of why we seem to have arbitrary ages for when minors can engage in "adult" activities. He even cites you bringing up the fact that abortion consent ages vary from state to state with no rhyme or reason.

[*bfine32*]

(08-17-2016, 05:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: In his defense, it seemed like a rhetorical question aimed at supporting his questioning of why we seem to have arbitrary ages for when minors can engage in "adult" activities. He even cites you bringing up the fact that abortion consent ages vary from state to state with no rhyme or reason.

I think it could be a very interesting topic. For instance just doing quick research I found the age of 21 orginally came from old English Law where you became an adult at 21, then FDR lowered it because of the draft age lowering from 21 to 18.

Perhaps WWII is why we commonly consider 18 as the age of consent now.

[BmorePat87]

(08-17-2016, 05:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think it could be a very interesting topic. For instance just doing quick research I found the age of 21 orginally came from old English Law where you became an adult at 21, then FDR lowered it because of the draft age lowering from 21 to 18.

Perhaps WWII is why we commonly consider 18 as the age of consent now.

Definitely interesting. I found this from GMU.
https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230

Seems like laws were around 12-13 from the 1200s to 1700 but raised to 16 in the 1800's and early 1900's when more research was done regarding psychological health. It makes reference to 21 having been an age for being allowed to consent to contractual agreements and having property rights, but sexual consent never aligned because they saw physiological maturity being the more important factor than psychological maturity. 

With changing attitudes surrounding sex and increased sexual activity in young adults, laws changed regarding the age of the person who has sex with a minor to account for teen dating. 

So it looks like 21 was the old psychological maturity age for contractual agreements and that change may very well have been a result of WWII, but sexual consent ages seem to have a separate evolution.

[*PhilHos*]

On a related note, are you guys aware that in many states (if not all), you can't RENT a car until you're 25 years old? Seriously.

[BmorePat87]

(08-17-2016, 06:13 PM)PhilHos Wrote: On a related note, are you guys aware that in many states (if not all), you can't RENT a car until you're 25 years old? Seriously.

I was under the impression that this is an industry policy to protect themselves from losses. 

[GMDino]

(08-17-2016, 05:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Definitely interesting. I found this from GMU.
https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230

Seems like laws were around 12-13 from the 1200s to 1700 but raised to 16 in the 1800's and early 1900's when more research was done regarding psychological health. It makes reference to 21 having been an age for being allowed to consent to contractual agreements and having property rights, but sexual consent never aligned because they saw physiological maturity being the more important factor than psychological maturity. 

With changing attitudes surrounding sex and increased sexual activity in young adults, laws changed regarding the age of the person who has sex with a minor to account for teen dating. 

So it looks like 21 was the old psychological maturity age for contractual agreements and that change may very well have been a result of WWII, but sexual consent ages seem to have a separate evolution.

Because old men always wanted to have sex with young girls...legally.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-17-2016, 06:13 PM)PhilHos Wrote: On a related note, are you guys aware that in many states (if not all), you can't RENT a car until you're 25 years old? Seriously.

(08-17-2016, 06:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was under the impression that this is an industry policy to protect themselves from losses. 

Same here, likely also tied to insurance as most auto insurance rates go down if the primary driver is 25.

[*bfine32*]

(08-17-2016, 06:13 PM)PhilHos Wrote: On a related note, are you guys aware that in many states (if not all), you can't RENT a car until you're 25 years old? Seriously.

More unrelated Rental Car story. When I was in the Military many states didn't make you renew your drivers license as long as you were active duty; Ohio was one of them. I landed at the Cincy airport once with the plan of getting a rental to drive to Ft Knox. Two Rental companies turned me down., but a third was OK with it.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Weird day in the news . . .

Seventy-three year old Mick Jagger celebrates birth of 8th child

Sophia Vergara being sued by ex-fiance for custody of frozen embryos, Emma and Isabella, so he can implant them in a surrogate against her wishes and in contravention to their signed contract

[CKwi88]

(12-08-2016, 07:55 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Weird day in the news . . .

Seventy-three year old Mick Jagger celebrates birth of 8th child

Sophia Vergara being sued by ex-fiance for custody of frozen embryos, Emma and Isabella, so he can implant them in a surrogate against her wishes and in contravention to their signed contract

Wow, that second one is nuts.