I considered placing this in one of two other threads, but decided that it could be construed as thread-jacking and therefore elected to start a new thread.

The issue revolves around the inherent conflict between state authority and the legitimacy of state involvement in very personal decisions, versus the authority of parents. Daphne's post about the parents off the 13 year old who are actively refusing chemo treatment for their child triggered the thought.

For the sake of discussion (although I recognize and respect the many shades of gray), let's simplify the position into a simple Yes-No comparison: You either Favor or Oppose intervention by the state into the affairs of minor adults.

Now let's apply that positioning to two different issues: (1) Rights of parents with an adolescent or younger child and health care treatment where failure to treat will almost certainly result in the death of the child, and (2) the entire abortion rights debate, where the minor adult is really minor.

My impression, drawn simply from observation without any scientific polling data, is that the general pattern would be for those who favor the rights of the state to intervene in saving a fetus (Pro-Life) would tend to be against the right of the state to intervene to save the life of a living but minor adult. Similarly, those who are pro-choice on the abortion debate would probably favor the right of the state to intervene to save a living child.

To my way of thinking, those are logically contradictory positions.

If you fall into one of these two camps, how do you reconcile the logical contradiction?

If you don't fall into these two camps, let me know that as well.

I don't fall into either camp as you have described them.

I am opposed to abortion personally, but I would consider myself "pro-choice" because I don't believe in legislating morality. Mine or anyone else's, about that or any other issue. I believe God gave us free choice to provide us with the opportunity of doing right. If we remove the legality of every option but the "right," we have also removed the possibility of human virtue.

I feel that the only situation where the State has the right to step in is where the danger is conferred from the single child to the masses. The prime example is vaccinations. If the worst that can happen is that the Parent / Child themselves die then so be it. However, if the child and / or parent causes anyone else to be effected then its up to the State to protect the population.

Thank you for your responses, which IMHO are reasoned and logical. I note, without too much surprise, that some of the prolific and distinguished posters to this board who (I suspect) fall into the categories that I outlined have studiously avoided comment on this thread.

I think abortion is killing some one that has no choice. Abortion is final the child never got the chance to chose. This child had a chance to live, the parents are chosing not to prolong agony. Have you heard the childs opinon he may not want the treatment either. You have no idea what the real story is only whats reported in the media.

I think this is a privacy issue. The state has no place to interfere here. Murder is different.

djm2, I agree with you though that most people who say something like "the govt has no right to tell me how to raise my kid" are the same ones who say that the govt should be allowed to tell everyone what to do with a fetus.

I am somewhat the opposite in my views. I do think that people should be allowed to raise their kids the way they wish even if that child does not develop to its full potential. In the same respect I think that people should have the right to end a pregnancy, its their choice. Nothing in this is black & white though, there are issues that comes up all the time that require extra attention to determine the correct choices.

Test54, in my opinion your position is consistent and reasoned, and not at all fraught with the logical inconsistencies. I feel exactly the same way about kathrynhr's stated opinion where she clearly differentiates personal values versus expectations of what can be projected onto the body politic.