Of course the inconsistencies are justified. You just don't agree with the justifications. The reason states differ is because of the US Constitution: powers reserved to the states.Okay, I see where you are confused. The minor gets permission from the state/adult because they have not reached the age of maturity, emancipation. This is why they "don't need emancipation to have an abortion," and why "they don't need it to join the military at 17," and why "they don't need it for gender reassignment surgery." In place of it they get a waiver that the law allows. Why does the law allow this? Because.drifter sorry to say, you ARE doing what you say you are NOT doing: you are arguing about emancipation of minors:I am not talking about emancipation. All of the legal acts a 17 yr can do is not based on emancipation, it's just their legal right to do it. The only thing they seem to not have the right to do is to refuse medical treatment.
It makes no sense.
Why would they be allowed to decide all those other things I listed, some even risky decisions. If the legal argument for forcing medical treatment is because of the state worrying about liability, why isn't that true in abortion? If the legal argument is mature state of mind to understand the decision to refuse treatment, then why isn't that legal argument there when recruiters are trying to sign up 17 yr old for military (risk being they could die in war)
Anyway, you obviously have some different agenda so, I will let you get to it.
Salute
Emancipation of minors"It makes no sense." Yes it does.
All states have laws dealing with the "emancipation" of minors; that is, laws that specify when and under what conditions children become independent of their parents for important legal purposes. A complete reference to statutory provisions for all 50 states, pertaining to termination of parental rights, age of majority or emancipation itself, can be found in the LII State Law pages.
Emancipation of minors Wex Legal Dictionary Encyclopedia LII Legal Information Institute
The rest of your post is about who has custody of a minor -- before they are emancipated
Nope!
Sorry but you don't need emancipation to have an abortion, and you don't need it to join the military at 17, and you don't need it for gender reassignment surgery either.
You need a parent's consent for gender reassignment, and for marriage as a minor.
Not for abortion or military.
But you want to argue about the law in regards to minors legal choices on "low risk" medical treatments.
The key word there is low risk, I doubt there is much legal controversy on that.
I am wanting to know why the law allows minors to decide "life altering" decisions in one instance and not the other.
Since this is not what you are interested in Dante I will unwatch this thread because otherwise I would be hijacking your thread into something else you are not interested in and that is not what I want to do.
and there is the Age of majority which is enumerated in state laws for specific purposes. If you presented your arguments to the court, saying what you do is not a legal arguments and would change nothing. How would you frame the argument? What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Would you demand all things be consistent. too funny
Because why? (shakes my head)
Age of majority is just a fancy way to say 18 or 19 yrs old legal adult.
State Age of Majority
- The "age of majority" is the legal age established under state law at which an individual is no longer a minor and, as a young adult, has the right and responsibility to make certain legal choices that adults make.
Alabama 19
Alaska 18
Arizona 18
Arkansas 18 or graduation from high school, whichever is later
California 18
Colorado 18
Connecticut 18
Delaware 19
District of Columbia 18
What Is the Age of Majority in My State
I am not a law student, but maybe Emily will pop in and take that on.
I simply pointed out the inconsistencies of law especially applied to the 17 yr old and wanted to know the reasons why.
The answers people gave me really don't justify the inconsistencies in the laws.
How would you frame the argument? Asserting Your Right to Give/Withhold Consent, The Right to Choose Your Treatment.
Although the right to refuse medical treatment is universally recognized as a fundamental principle of liberty, this right is not always honored. A refusal can be thwarted either because a patient is unable to competently communicate or because providers insist on continuing treatment. To help enhance the patient's right to refuse treatment, many states have enacted so-called "living will" or "natural death" statutes. We believe the time has come to move beyond these current legislative models, and we therefore propose a Model Act that clearly enunciates an individual's right to refuse treatment, does not limit its exercise to the terminally ill or to heroic measures, and provides a mechanism by which individuals can set forth their wishes in advance and designate another person to enforce them. The right to refuse treatment a model act.
What evidence would you present to show the advantages of granting change? Why does it have to show advantages, why not show the disadvantage someone is at who loses their right to their own choices?
Would you demand all things be consistent. Yes, afterall, ------> absolutist
Minors do not have the Right to Give/Withhold Consent anymore than they have the right to vote or sign legal contracts. You keep confusing minors as equal to adults. Under law, common law, that has never been so.
Then minors shouldn't be allowed to join the military opt for abortion or gender re assignment.