Well, this would have to be called endangerment (I think) and a court order would have to be obtained by a doctor. I don't know if this's ever happened. I expect some research could turn up some information. I know doctors can override parents' wishes in the case of blood transfusions, but I'm not sure of the legal…

I agree, sort of. The court is ruling in this case because at the moment this girl had no legal guardian capable of approving the procedure, as far as I understand. The law created this legally gray area and that's a problem on its own - there shouldn't be legally gray areas in our laws.

So, the thing is, medically speaking, invasive implies a procedure. A natural birth doesn't require medical procedures, so it isn't necessarily invasive. Modern birth can definitely include invasive procedures like c-sections and paracentesis, and if you're having a baby, probably should include invasive procedures…

Exactly my point. Those are traumatic, but not invasive. Right? Invasive implies a procedure by a medical professional. So, actually, even just cotton-swabbing your cheek is invasive then. It's just a definition then, and I don't think it's useful, which is why I'm pretty sure we should be talking about how…

Yeahhhh, it's been unfortunate. I liked visibilite's post so much, I was hoping this was the kind of discussion that'd happen. Not so much though.

Thanks so much. This is exactly what I've been thinking about, and exactly the response I was hoping for.

But can you elaborate? I don't know which people you're talking about, and I don't know who to trust. Can you point me at some resource that clarifies what "medically invasive" is?

Hey, thanks. It's not always easy. You're literally the second person to be nice about it. It's funny, I don't actually have an agenda on this one, which makes it infinitely easier to deal with the people who are convinced I do and want to flay me for it.

I'd still be very concerned about medical issues. I keep bringing up one example - what happens if the girl is too young to understand how dangerous it is for a young girl to try to bring a pregnancy to term? Informed consent seems nearly impossible, because it's unclear to me at what point you'd be informing versus…

So... I agree with you. I did even say that I thought, at 16, a girl should be able to choose.

Ah I missed all the good comments for some reason! I wasn't notified. Something's broken...

Oh, I mean, one might say, "okay, a girl can choose to have an abortion without parental consent/involvement at 7". You might get a *ton* of people on board with that because there's only been a handful of cases of pregnancy at 6 or younger. But then there are still those cases and you haven't really fixed the…

Really? I've never heard it used in that context, and I can't find a separate definition for "medically invasive" vs. "surgically invasive". Can you elaborate? Do you have medical training btw? It sounds like you might, I'm just wondering where you got that from. It'd be cool to have a more precise understanding…

Oh... should have responded at the tip of the thread. Well, it's a good analogy anyways, it actually is accurate, because again, "invasive" has a specific technical meaning involving a doctor having contact with mucosa or cutting past the skin, etc. A live birth doesn't need a doctor or anybody else in fact, so it's…

It's actually not, because "invasive" implies a procedure. So a live birth wouldn't be invasive because it doesn't involve a procedure, but a c-section would be.

Absolutely true. What do you think we as a society should do?

"...your analogies were so shit..."

You are quite vitriolic - but you have a full name and an avatar, so I'll give you the courtesy of a response.

I think you're being confrontational - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment.

Right, but the medical definition of invasive is for procedures - it doesn't apply to live birth because it isn't a procedure. A c-section, on the other hand, is.