Parental notification in an abortion. Who has more rights?

[Beth]

I am not sure if this is the right place, but there was an ammendment we were to vote on in the ballot. It was one that required the doctors or clinics notify the parents if their minor daughter has an abortion. Now, I voted no on the bill. I believe that if a parent be forced to know about an abortion, many girls who would otherwise abort would not out of fear.

I believe it is my responsibility to raise my daughter with open communication channels and with the knowledge that I will always respect her choice so that she can come to me. But if I fail to provide that openess and unconditional love to where she feels she must hide from me, then the state has no right to violate her privacy by notifying me. I feel that this is just another attempt to eat at the abortion laws. The state did this once when I was a teen, requiring parental consent, our state Supreme Court overturned it. I think the case that brought that ruling on was because a girl was fighting her parents for the right to abort.

Is there a moral duty that a parent be told, or does the minor child have sole rights to privacy in the matter of an abortion?

[wildernesse]

I think that in many cases minors do have the right to have their medical records kept confidential--including whether or not they have chosen to have an abortion. Ensuring that minors have confidential medical records and procedures--and educating minors that they have that right--would probably help them get medical attention that they need, which they might currently avoid because they are afraid that their parents will find out if they are having gyno visits or on birth control.

You are right that these kinds of laws are simply attempts to prevent abortion. I don't think there is any moral duty for parents to be informed about their child's choices in medical care, once the child is old enough to seek out that care on her own.

We treat minors as adults in other cases--in some criminal cases, and the military can sign 17 year olds up--I'm not sure why we shouldn't treat minors as adults in this case as well.

[MinorityReport]

This reminds me of the Victoria Gillick case in 1983 in the UK. Mrs Gillick took her local health authority to court saying they overstepped their rights in providing contraceptive advice and the like to her daughter without consent.

Public opinion seems to be generally in favor of treating sexually active people as adults requiring help. I think that is reasonable; the parents should try to maintain a dialog, but sometimes it breaks down. The state's obligation to the child is not reduced just because the child is not talking to her (or his) parents.

In Mrs Gillick's case, here argument seems to have been that the health authority was aiding and abetting a crime (underage sex) by providing contraceptives. The judge, Lord Justice Woolf, took a different view, saying that they seemed to be more of the nature of palliatives for the effects of the crime.

[LadyShea]

I wish we lived in a world where all girls could turn to their parents for support in these situations, but we don't. Pregnant teens have been kicked out, beaten, locked up, shipped off and otherwise abused far too often for me to support any mandatory notification or worse permission

How sad that is :(

[dave_a]

I support parental notification. I am OK with a process being in place where the girl could make the argument that her parents would do something harmful to her if they knew she was pregnant and a judge or some other entity could make decisions, but I can't support a defacto no notification process.

Schools generally can't even give a minor aspirin without permission from the parent.

The whole idea is that minors are not legally able to make certain decisions for themselves. This is why they cannot be legally held to any contracts.

What if the girl was raped and gets pregnant? Perhaps she is too afraid to come forward about the rape, but her parents might not be. Some adult really needs to know about this. There are other scenarios as well, but in general I don't see any reason why parents shouldn't be notified unless there is reason to believe the response of the parents would be violent.

Things like "My parents might be disappointed in me" just don't cut it for me.

[Beth]

Things like "My parents might be disappointed in me" just don't cut it for me.As Lady Shea said, it goes beyond a parent disappointing the kid. The child could face serious reprocussions from the parent or a parent could force the girl to carry to term. I do not support this bill. It is taking the right to choice away from this girl, potentially by parental coersion.

[MinorityReport]

Some adult really needs to know about this.

We're discussing a situation where a minor has gone for advice to qualified adults not her parents. Some adult *does* know about this. The question is whether it is in the interests of the minor to bring the parents into the loop in all circumstances. Sometimes it isn't.

[Godless Dave]

We have had a parental notification law in Minnesota for some time. Minors have the option of going before a judge and requesting a waiver. I wish we didn't have the requirement at all, for many of the reasons given above.

Now, I can't remember if this passed or not, but at some point someone wanted to make it illegal for a non-parent to drive a minor to a neighboring state to get an abortion in order to circumvent the parental notification law. I thought that was ridiculous. If I drive to Wisconsin, buy fireworks that are illegal in Minnesota, and shoot them off in Wisconsin, should Minnesota be able to prosecute me?

[LadyShea]

I support parental notification. I am OK with a process being in place where the girl could make the argument that her parents would do something harmful to her if they knew she was pregnant and a judge or some other entity could make decisions, but I can't support a defacto no notification process.

Our family court systems are already overtaxed, and it is in everyone's best interest for an abortion to be performed as early as possible. Why put it off for weeks, and possibly get past the first trimester trying to get before a judge?

Schools generally can't even give a minor aspirin without permission from the parent.

School employees are not MDs

The whole idea is that minors are not legally able to make certain decisions for themselves. This is why they cannot be legally held to any contracts.

The decision to have sex has already been made, the decision on how to handle any consequences of that decision should be left in the hands of the pregnant person.

What if the girl was raped and gets pregnant? Perhaps she is too afraid to come forward about the rape, but her parents might not be. Some adult really needs to know about this.

Planned Parenthood, at least, requires counseling prior to an abortion. They ask about the circumstances of the pregnancy, encourage voluntary parental notification, and if there was a rape I believe would encourage reporting. An adult knows about it if the girl wishes to discuss it. Mandatory notification is no gurantee the girl would report the rape or even talk about it.

There are other scenarios as well, but in general I don't see any reason why parents shouldn't be notified unless there is reason to believe the response of the parents would be violent.

How would one ascertain the risk of violence? It isn't inconceivable to me that a heretofor non-violent parent might overreact or come unglued when faced with a pregnancy; particularly if they are religious or have a standing in the community that might be threatened with the "family shame" or such nonsense. And kicking a pregnant girl out of her home isn't necessarily violent, but still a far too common reaction.

Things like "My parents might be disappointed in me" just don't cut it for me.

I chose not to tell my parents when I was pregnant and had an abortion at 16 because I didn't want to disappoint them. I even knew they would be helpful and supportive. But, I made my decision, and handled the problem on my own. If you had experienced the situation we are discussing, your opinion might be different now.

[Sweetie]

But the question still arises is how well-informed the children will be before an abortion. Do the children know that the parents would adopt the child without question? Do they know their parents would support them completely in raising the child? Do they know that having abortions can damage their potential to conceive again later in life? Do they know that it's not necessarily as scary as they think it is? Do they know that sometimes abortions aren't as simple or as easy an easy-out as they might think it is, more possibly psychologically distressing than they may have been lead to believe? Do they know that the embarassment of it will be over, the boy in question who is the father, the embarassment at school, friends, etc. and their parents can help them in their last stages of growing up, getting through all that? Are they well-informed about open adoptions? I think alot of the time there is an element of shame involved, and I think that is an easy thing to get over with help and growth.

My question would be about the quality and amount of information given the child, and the amount of pros and cons on their lists, a list that may be different were they to have their parents co-operation.

I think in most cases it is in the child's best interest to have parent co-operation but certainly, some parents are assholes.

[Bella]

But the question still arises is how well-informed the children will be before an abortion. Do the children know that the parents would adopt the child without question? Do they know their parents would support them completely in raising the child? Do they know that having abortions can damage their potential to conceive again later in life? Do they know that it's not necessarily as scary as they think it is? Do they know that sometimes abortions aren't as simple or as easy an easy-out as they might think it is, more possibly psychologically distressing than they may have been lead to believe? Do they know that the embarassment of it will be over, the boy in question who is the father, the embarassment at school, friends, etc. and their parents can help them in their last stages of growing up, getting through all that? Are they well-informed about open adoptions?
I think that in most cases the staff of the clinic (including the doctors) discuss possible abortion alternatives, as well as any health risks involved with abortion, with the patient prior to the procedure.

[Sweetie]

I think that in most cases the staff of the clinic (including the doctors) discuss possible abortion alternatives, as well as any health risks involved with abortion, with the patient prior to the procedure.

Yes, I think they do too. My question would still be though, the quality of the information, whether or not there was bias for either side, though I know it is a goal to try and give the best information, I think the potential for bias is great, that there are things about their parents involvement that they don't know unless they talk to their parents, like I said, about more possible pros and cons than they realize, and I don't know if young teens are really good at gauging or taking to heart what the possible ramnifications could mean to them in the future, something I think that can be helped via parental co-operation. Just as in marriage, teens think that oh, they're in love, wouldn't it be nice if we were older, then we wouldn't have to wait so long, or why don't we try and get married now? Not many parents would support that because they know that the teens in question can't really see much farther than what they are feeling in the moment. It's something I think the help, experience and possible wisdom of the parents can help them with.

[Sweetie]

Once again though, some parents are assholes. I wish they weren't so that I had the right to be notified so I could seek to insure the best interests of my child, giving them the best information possible, giving them all the possible options for consideration, and being able to help them in a very traumatic event. I understand why some wouldn't want their parents notified, I really do, but that doesn't change that for me I think in general parental notification is in the best interests of most children. I just have to try to have open communication, that's the only recourse I guess.

[Beth]

Here is an article on Amendment 1 (http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041014/OPINION/41014002/1030/POLITICS10)

The measure, put on the ballot by the Legislature, would authorize lawmakers to mandate parental notification -- a requirement the courts struck down in 2003 as a violation of the explicit privacy rights granted by Florida's constitution: "Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein," says Section 23 of Article I.
Foremost, mandatory notification tends to delay a minor's abortion, increasing the risk of medical complications with each passing week. That's a key reason that the American Medical Association and other health-care organizations oppose such laws. (If you think not having an abortion is safer, think again: It's 10 times riskier for a teen to give birth than to get an early, legal abortion, statistics show. The babies of teen moms also have an elevated risk of infant mortality and low birth weight.)

Another major concern is that some girls will evade the notification requirement by trying dangerous self-induced or illegal abortions. Furthermore, notifying a parent can be distinctly risky for girls who come from violent or abusive families. In these situations, minors can seek a "judicial bypass" that avoids the family confrontation, but the legal process is difficult and daunting, especially for young people.

Some states with parental-notification requirements show a decline in abortions, but that may be because minors are going to neighboring states, instead, for the procedure -- adding to the expense and risk.

[Sweetie]

I was pregnant in High School, another girl got pregnant in my class about the same time. She had an abortion, her parents drove her and supported her, I had a baby, my parents supported me too. It can go both ways with parental notification. The parents could convince the teen in question that it is not in their best interests for the future to have the child, or that it is. Well, I don't know, I made my decision, help from my parents was just a relief for me.

I was ashamed though, nonetheless. It was very, very difficult to tell my parents, and it was very, very difficult to go back to school and I kept my backbone nonetheless, but having the support of my parents helped.

My Dad would tease me about my size or being pregnant, my Mom would say, "it's not funny." My Dad would say, "the deed is done," my Mom would say, "yes, you're right," and life went on, time marches on.

Going to school though, being pregnant and showing, people make you feel ashamed, even though they all don't mean to. Other parents are uncomfortable with it, teachers are uncomfortable with it, other students are uncomfortable with it, the girl in question isn't necessarily comfortable with it either, but, it goes away after awhile. I went into labour at school, lol, swearing a blue streak, terribly embarassing.

I just looked at them like, "Fuck you. Most of you are doing it and I just got caught and it shows."

One of the most meaningful moments of my life though, was when I graduated and parents of a girl from class came up to me and gave me a big hug, I didn't know them well but they just said that they were so proud of me. It was a nice moment, a meaningful moment in my life probably because the support from others was so needed, and their warmth was so welcome and unexpected. They have a special place in my heart.

[LadyShea]

Sweetie, I agree that your scenario is the ideal, but that has to come from the parent/child relationship. You cannot legislate or force good parenting and communication so I don't see how a law would fix the issue.

[Sweetie]

Yes, I know LadyShea. The only thing for consideration left I think is the element of shame, that's the only reason why sometimes it might be necessary for a third party to notify the parents, because the teen is too ashamed to tell them themselves. Like I said, I understand the reasoning behind the law, and I don't want any teens abused, so for me, it should be a case by case basis unfortunately, only because of the element of shame involved. Some children, no matter how open the communication is, just may not be able to take that last step to spit it out. In my case, I had to tell them because I was keeping the child and it would be known eventually, but when you're not, the teen may still be living in shame. I wish in such cases, that their parents are there to help and comfort them, that they don't have to keep such a big secret which I think too in many cases, can be psychologically distressing.

[Beth]

Sweetie, I understand. It took courage. The deal is, you were able to go to your parents, as was that other girl. Some girls simply cannot or simply do not want to. Those girls should not have their right to privacy invaded.

I had an abortion when I was a teen, I was raped. Yes, I hid the rape because after all of the sexual abuse I had dealt with in my life, it felt like confronting this and actually saying this would have split my mind.

I hid it, but also got tested for AIDs every six months, so I was responsible enough to care for myself. I confided in an adult I knew I could trust. She asked me if I was sure and told me I could have the baby, I would make a great mother, she said. She never mention adoption and I never would have gone for that option, anyway. If I had told my mom, she would have forced me to have the baby, my rapist's baby. This topic came up one day months earlier and she let me know just where she stood on all abortion, including children who were concieved in raped.

If a parent wants the right to know their sexually active child's business, then they should start by developing that kind of open relationship from early childhood.

[LadyXoc]

Sweetie, I agree that your scenario is the ideal, but that has to come from the parent/child relationship. You cannot legislate or force good parenting and communication so I don't see how a law would fix the issue.

I don't think there is a law that would fix that issue. My experience was unfortunately the opposite. I was date-raped as a teen. When I confided in my mother, she denounced me to my father, who proceeded to beat me up, call me a whore, and throw me out of the house until I "learned my lesson." They allowed me back in the house two weeks later, but when I learned I was pregnant, I had better sense than to discuss it with them. My friends helped me arrange for an abortion. Frankly, had I been forced to notify them, I would probably have committed suicide.

My personal experience has led me to believe that parental notification laws are not an especially sound idea, and are designed to appeal to parents who want to control the "virtue" of their female children.

[LadyXoc]

If a parent wants the right to know their sexually active child's business, then they should start by developing that kind of open relationship from early childhood.

I couldn't agree more.

[Goliath]

I support parental notification. I am OK with a process being in place where the girl could make the argument that her parents would do something harmful to her if they knew she was pregnant and a judge or some other entity could make decisions, but I can't support a defacto no notification process.



Sorry, but the right of a child to health and well-being is not the decision of any judge. Period.

Your argument makes as much sense as the tired argument spewed out by xians that is of the form "A majority of people in this country are xian, therefore there should be no separation of church and state!"

[Sweetie]

I did say that I understood how it some cases it is good not to notify the parents, but I think in most cases it is not. My understanding was that pregnancies the result of rape are only 1% or less, I could definately have the facts wrong, if you have any other data that suggests otherwise, I'm open to it.

I wanted to add to my post about shame that too, I think teens are so ashamed that that might be a big factor in their reasons to have an abortion, even though they might not ultimately wish to. Social pressures and peer pressure is a big thing in the life of teens who don't necessarily stand solidly on two feet yet. There are some independent and self-assertive teens, certainly, but the majority of them I think are prone to peer pressure and can easily be motivated by shame, that ultimately is a two way street in considering the pressure from peers and school, and then from parents. In my case I think society/school made me feel like it was a dirtier deed to be young and pregnant than to have sex which I found a really weird experience.

I just have my child's best interests at heart. In the case of school counsellors, hopefully a non-biased third party, I would hope they could in many cases, help the child decide if it's in their best interest to notify their parents, or maybe even to be a sort of mediator in the experience, to have the right to notify them if they are very aware of the home life of the child and it was in their best interest, and to oversee that the child is not being abused and to take appropriate measures if they are. Well, they should be doing that anyways, that latter, but I understand that would be alot of power for a third party to have, a big decision and possibly unworkable, but I wish we could at least have something like that.

[dave_a]

I support parental notification. I am OK with a process being in place where the girl could make the argument that her parents would do something harmful to her if they knew she was pregnant and a judge or some other entity could make decisions, but I can't support a defacto no notification process.



Sorry, but the right of a child to health and well-being is not the decision of any judge. Period.

Your argument makes as much sense as the tired argument spewed out by xians that is of the form "A majority of people in this country are xian, therefore there should be no separation of church and state!"

I am not arguing a majority rules opinion.

The argument is that some people have a parent that sucks and would do bad things therefore lets not notify parents what is going on with thier child and just let her have a medical procedure done on her.

Remove abortion as the topic and what is the precedent for this?

In most places (as far as I know) a Jehovah Witness parent can refuse to allow thier child to recieve a blood transfusion necessary to save their life. That would be the legal precedent even though I think it goes too far.

Just because some parents suck doesn't mean all or even most do. I believe the laws are to respect parental rights and society needs to remove itself from family matters *unless* something bad happens or a good argument can be made that something bad will happen.

That is why I can support a process by which a third party makes decisions as to whether or not the criteria to bypass parental notification are met or not, but the default position should be that parents are responsible for thier children and non family members do not have the right to perform medical procedures without parental notification unless it's a life or death matter and parents can't be reached in a timely manner.

I accept that this isn't a perfect solution, but there is no utopian world. It is simply my belief that parents have rights pertaining to their children and being notified of medical procedures is one of them. I don't see any logic in excepting abortions from this view.

[Beth]

Sweetie, not every girl thinks it is in her best interest to have a child as a teen and not every girl who aborts grieves over the decision or regrets the decision. You make it seem like that is an overwhelming part of an abortion. Not every girl who aborts does it out of shame, either and not every girl who aborts does it out of weekness or peer pressure.

Denying these girls the right to privacy could be taking their choice away, forcing them to have a baby they either did not want or was not prepared to raise. Parents can coerce their daughters into forgoing an abortion. I do not think the parents have the right to decide in this issue.

[Beth]

In most places (as far as I know) a Jehovah Witness parent can refuse to allow thier child to recieve a blood transfusion necessary to save their life. That would be the legal precedent even though I think it goes too far.If the transfusion was life saving, no they could not. A parent cannot deny their child the right to live saving care based upon religious belief, under the threat of criminal charges.

[Sweetie]

Sweetie, not every girl thinks it is in her best interest to have a child as a teen and not every girl who aborts grieves over the decision or regrets the decision.

I understand that, but not all don't either.

You make it seem like that is an overwhelming part of an abortion. Not every girl who aborts does it out of shame, either and not every girl who aborts does it out of weekness or peer pressure.

I never said that they did either, but I do think it is an element that is often ignored and I do think parental involvement could help in many or most cases.

Denying these girls the right to privacy could be taking their choice away, forcing them to have a baby they either did not want or was not prepared to raise.

Since I'm just in the process of forming my position on this issue at the moment, what datonac is saying is very similar to what I'm thinking. I would advocate third party involvement to see that the child retains their rights, but that so do the parents, which in most cases, I believe it is in the best interest of the child, parental involvement.

Parents can coerce their daughters into forgoing an abortion.

Also to have one. There is no standard response, no certain reaction, so much so that I'm thinking it can only best be handled on a case by case basis and in questionable cases with third party involvement.

I do not think the parents have the right to decide in this issue.

I never said they did, but I do think they should have the right to know and help if they are so willing. Not all are, that's the way things are, but not all aren't either. Some parents can greatly help their children in this respect, moreso then the child would think, and some can greatly hinder them in this respect, moreso than they would think and I don't necessarily think it is a good thing that to me seemingly all parents have to suffer for the asshole nature of some parents, and ultimately in those cases where parental notification could help, the children would have suffered some too by the absence of family support which is really, really important to some or most children.

[Goliath]

I am not arguing a majority rules opinion.


And I never said that you did...only that your argument makes as much sense as a "majority rules" argument.



Remove abortion as the topic and what is the precedent for this?



Irrelevant. What is under discussion here is abortion.



In most places (as far as I know) a Jehovah Witness parent can refuse to allow thier child to recieve a blood transfusion necessary to save their life.



Unfortunately, you're correct. I wish that each and every single one of them that kill their children that way would be convicted of First Degree Murder and put away for life in prison.



I believe the laws are to respect parental rights and society needs to remove itself from family matters *unless* something bad happens or a good argument can be made that something bad will happen.



Sorry, but IMO the automatic right of a child to health and well-being trumps the right of the parents to know if said child is having an abortion: each and every single fucking time. Again, the right of children to be healthy should not ever be determined on a case-by-case basis by a judge or any other third party. Ever.

[Sweetie]

Sorry, but IMO the automatic right of a child to health and well-being trumps the right of the parents to know if said child is having an abortion: each and every single fucking time. Again, the right of children to be healthy should not ever be determined on a case-by-case basis by a judge or any other third party. Ever.

I think though, that he is saying that the government and school systems are being terribly inconsistent in this regard, and I see it too. You can't give the kid a Tylenol, but you can drive them to have an abortion without another third party involvement possibly in communication with the parents? Why no Tylenol? The child could be harmed by it and the parents would know their children better and what is in their best interests and others such things in almost every case except in such a thing as an abortion, a literal surgery? It's a bit insane I think. I think third party involvement, a lawyer would be an adequate compromise in these situations. Besides, if the parents are going to abuse the child in this one case, abortion, what's the chances of the child already being abused in other ways? In that case, the subsequent abuse is just cause to removing the child from the home and perhaps placing it into a better environment.

[dave_a]

Remove abortion as the topic and what is the precedent for this?



Irrelevant. What is under discussion here is abortion.

It is entirely relevant unless you can show that the abortion procedure is less of a potential risk to the child and less of a concern to parents than taking an aspirin. What I am asking you to do is identify a consistent principle/guideline in handling when parents ought to be notified as to what is happening with their children that doesn't make abortion more of a special case than it warrants. At school my kid fell and bumped his head. Very minor incident. We were called within 30 minutes of it's happening. Yet my mid can go have a medical procedure without my knowing? That's not consistent unless there is some overriding reason that I shouldn't be informed.




Sorry, but IMO the automatic right of a child to health and well-being trumps the right of the parents to know if said child is having an abortion: each and every single fucking time. Again, the right of children to be healthy should not ever be determined on a case-by-case basis by a judge or any other third party. Ever.

You are listing health and well being. Health issues a parent needs to be informed of. Well being??? What exactly is that?

[Goliath]

Sweetie, schools are not clinics.

[Sweetie]

Too, recovery from abortions is like 1-3 days, correct? How can children manage to hide it, now that I'm thinking about it I don't understand. Too, what if there is further complications such as an infection. The parents didn't suspect an infection because they weren't told, and with the high fever thought the child was merely sick with the flu and instead of taking to them to the hospital, treated them with Tylenol or other such medications. If something serious happened to the child because of that, can the parents sue in that regard? I would hope so.

[LadyShea]

I think though, that he is saying that the government and school systems are being terribly inconsistent in this regard, and I see it too. You can't give the kid a Tylenol, but you can drive them to have an abortion without another third party involvement possibly in communication with the parents? Why no Tylenol?

Again, school employees are not doctors. A doctor can give a kid a Tylenol without notifying the parents: my family doctor advised me, gave me birth control pills, and supplied me with prescriptions all the time without telling my folks. I could drive myself to the pharmacy and get antiobiotics or whatever without a problem. An abortion automatically involves a third party....a trained MD and in most cases a trained counselor.

[Sweetie]

Sweetie, schools are not clinics.

But the communication to me would most likely primarily begin at school unless the child had other resources.

[Sweetie]

Again, school employees are not doctors. A doctor can give a kid a Tylenol without notifying the parents: my family doctor advised me, gave me birth control pills, and supplied me with prescriptions all the time without telling my folks. I could drive myself to the pharmacy and get antiobiotics or whatever without a problem. An abortion automatically involves a third party....a trained MD and in most cases a trained counselor.

Sorry, yes, now I see what you guys are meaning.

[Goliath]

It is entirely relevant unless you can show that the abortion procedure is less of a potential risk to the child and less of a concern to parents than taking an aspirin. What I am asking you to do is identify a consistent principle/guideline in handling when parents ought to be notified as to what is happening with their children that doesn't make abortion more of a special case than it warrants. At school my kid fell and bumped his head. Very minor incident. We were called within 30 minutes of it's happening. Yet my mid can go have a medical procedure without my knowing? That's not consistent unless there is some overriding reason that I shouldn't be informed.


If being pregnant were the same act as getting a bump upon one's head, you might have something resembling a point. However, since they are two different events, there is no inconsistency in two different outcomes.



You are listing health and well being. Health issues a parent needs to be informed of.



Not necessarily.


Well being??? What exactly is that?

This definition should suffice. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=well-being)

[LadyShea]

Too, recovery from abortions is like 1-3 days, correct? How can children manage to hide it, now that I'm thinking about it I don't understand.

I was fine after about 6 hours and stayed with the friend who drove me to the clinic. I had to wear a pad for a week afterwards, so it looked like a period to my folks. I was 16 though. Younger girls must arrange for a ride to the clinic and possibly stay with the friend or confidant they chose to help them.

Too, what if there is further complications such as an infection. The parents didn't suspect an infection because they weren't told, and with the high fever thought the child was merely sick with the flu and instead of taking to them to the hospital, treated them with Tylenol or other such medications. If something serious happened to the child because of that, can the parents sue in that regard? I would hope so.

It simply doesn't happen very often. Infections from legal, safe, clinic abortions are quite rare. After an abortion with Planned Parenthood, you must get a post abortion check up at the clinic after about a week. They WILL call your house if you do not show up, so that gets most people back to the clinic to ensure everything is okay. They do a post AB counseling session and prescribe birth control during that appointment as well

[Sweetie]

My reference to serious complications possibly happening after the child got home and was secretely recovering extends to something else that concerns me. Parents often treat children accordingly depending on what they know their child has been through. I call pregancy, abortion and/or keeping the child traumatic events in a child's life that if the parents are unknowing are unable to then respond to the child in various circumstances in the appropriate ways given the circumstances.

[LadyShea]

My reference to serious complications possibly happening after the child got home and was secretely recovering extends to something else that concerns me. Parents often treat children according depending on what they know their child has been through. I call pregancy, abortion and/or keeping the child traumatic events in a child's life that if the parents are unknowing are unable to then respond to the child in various circumstances in the appropriate ways given the circumstances.

This is true. But, if a particular child/parent relationship was such that this level of worrying was happening, I don't think any kid would go to such extraordinary measures to hide the pregnancy and abortion. Rides must be arranged and such, it is not just a one day deal.

I think you don't realize how many parents are so totally uninvolved with their kid's lives that they woin't notice anything amiss at all. I see it all the time, don't you?

[Sweetie]

What age of teens are we talking about? I didn't take note. My concern would primarily be for those 12-16 years old.

[Beth]

In most places (as far as I know) a Jehovah Witness parent can refuse to allow thier child to recieve a blood transfusion necessary to save their life.



Unfortunately, you're correct. I wish that each and every single one of them that kill their children that way would be convicted of First Degree Murder and put away for life in prison.

[/QUOTE]

Ok, I thought that if a parent does do this, deny medical care to the child, they face charges. I thought this was determined years ago.

It is frightening if not.

[LadyShea]

What age of teens are we talking about? I didn't take note. My concern would primarily be for those 12-16 years old.
Thats the age I was thinking. This same age range manages to hide drug use, violence, relationship and friendship woes and a billion other things teens don't want to talk to their parents about....hiding an abortion isn't that hard

[Sweetie]

This is true. But, if a particular child/parent relationship was such that this level of worrying was happening, I don't think any kid would go to such extraordinary measures to hide the pregnancy and abortion. Rides must be arranged and such, it is not just a one day deal.

But even still, shame being what it is. I'm trying to think of if I would've kept the pregnancy hidden if I could've. It was very difficult to tell my parents. I don't think I would've gone to extreme measures to hide a baby and give it up for adoption, but I don't think I would have told them if I was pregnant and had an abortion, but if you would ask me why, the only reason I could think right now was not because it was private, and not because I would've been afraid of some sort of punishment or their disappointment, but it would seem primarily because it would've been too difficult to admit to or let out into the open, not even that it wasn't best that it be out in the open with my family.

I think you don't realize how many parents are so totally uninvolved with their kid's lives that they woin't notice anything amiss at all. I see it all the time, don't you?

Honestly, no. I know a few parents that I'm aware of aren't particularily good parents, but family and children are of primary importance to most people I know.

[Goliath]

Ok, I thought that if a parent does do this, deny medical care to the child, they face charges. I thought this was determined years ago.

It is frightening if not.

Actually, you could be correct (and I hope that you are). I remember a long time ago reading about some court decisions that let JW parents deny their kids blood transfusions....I'd do some digging on it, except for the fact that I really won't have a chance for awhile, as students will be in and out of my office all afternoon (I'm giving an exam tonight).

[dave_a]

My reference to serious complications possibly happening after the child got home and was secretely recovering extends to something else that concerns me. Parents often treat children accordingly depending on what they know their child has been through. I call pregancy, abortion and/or keeping the child traumatic events in a child's life that if the parents are unknowing are unable to then respond to the child in various circumstances in the appropriate ways given the circumstances.


Not to mention a pregnant child is almost certainly not protecting themselves against STDs.

LadyShea, you mentioned that many parents are so uninvolved with their kids that they don't know/care what's going on with them. I wouldn't think notification in such a case would make any difference to those parents.

I operate on the basis that all parents have the right to be regarded as good parents until it is proven otherwise. If a child is pregnant parents should be notified that the child is pregnant. A good parent would care about this, would have legitimate concerns about unsafe sex and a host of other issues and would ultimately talk with their child and support what was in the child's best interest.

I do realize not every parent is a good parent, but from a legal perspective I think we need to assume each parent is a good parent unless shown otherwise.

I don't see the legal precendent for no notification. I see the precedent for notification. Now, with the school/aspirin example it is true the school likely doesn't have a medical doctor on staff, but if that school refered the child to a medical doctor for ANY reason other than abortion parents would immediately be notified. Can anyone think of an exception to this other than abortion?

[Goliath]

but if that school refered the child to a medical doctor for ANY reason other than abortion parents would immediately be notified. Can anyone think of an exception to this other than abortion?

And you miss the point yet again. If abortion were to be even slightly similar to anything else that might get a child sent from the school nurse to an MD (severe injury, epileptic seizure, etc), then you'd have a point.

Your asking for consistency between the notification standards for a kid bumping his head and that for a girl getting an abortion makes as much sense as asking why school staff aren't being consistent for not spreading peanut butter over a bruise...after all, kids can both get hungry and get injured at school, right? :rolleye1:

[LadyShea]

Not to mention a pregnant child is almost certainly not protecting themselves against STDs.

LadyShea, you mentioned that many parents are so uninvolved with their kids that they don't know/care what's going on with them. I wouldn't think notification in such a case would make any difference to those parents.

I operate on the basis that all parents have the right to be regarded as good parents until it is proven otherwise. If a child is pregnant parents should be notified that the child is pregnant. A good parent would care about this, would have legitimate concerns about unsafe sex and a host of other issues and would ultimately talk with their child and support what was in the child's best interest.

The decision to have sex cannot be made by the parents, who would probably disallow it if they could, so the consequences of that decision are also seen as private by me and others : shrug


I don't see the legal precendent for no notification. I see the precedent for notification. Now, with the school/aspirin example it is true the school likely doesn't have a medical doctor on staff, but if that school refered the child to a medical doctor for ANY reason other than abortion parents would immediately be notified. Can anyone think of an exception to this other than abortion?

Schools do not refer kids to abortion clinics, that I am aware of, nor do they refer them to a doctor unless there is an accident or illness ON SCHOOL GROUNDS and they are therefore required to contact the parent. Of course, with older teens, that is not even necessary. If I was ill, I got myself excused and drove to the doctor myself on more than one occasion....my mother was not notified.

[Sweetie]

And you miss the point yet again. If abortion were to be even slightly similar to anything else that might get a child sent from the school nurse to an MD (severe injury, epileptic seizure, etc), then you'd have a point.

One involves more "shameful" elements for the child, the other is just a product of whatever, their physical being but both can be physically and psychologically harmful, even just pregnancy itself insofar as it hadn't progressed to abortion yet. Because one is possibly both harmful and shameful, that makes it ok to keep the parents ignorant of something serious that is going on with their child, something medically serious? I don't think the element of shame is adequate grounds to not notify a parent of something that needs attention by the parents. How about STD's while we're at it? Should doctors inform the parents if their child is sick with an STD and needs further care and attention? Why not? It's not in their best interest because they are ashamed?

[LadyShea]

Honestly, no. I know a few parents that I'm aware of aren't particularily good parents, but family and children are of primary importance to most people I know.

Well, in many areas, parents are too caught up in their careers or personal lives to know what is going on. We had a violent gang videotaping beatings to try to sell that finally got arrested when they tried to murder another teen...all of them from wealthy, white families living in gated communities and college bound every one. The Columbine killers were making frickin bombs in the rooms. There are far more apathetic parents out there, in my observations, than concerned and involved ones.

[LadyShea]

One involves more "shameful" elements for the child, the other is just a product of whatever, their physical being but both can be physically and psychologically harmful, even just pregnancy itself insofar as it hadn't progressed to abortion yet. Because one is possibly both harmful and shameful, that makes it ok to keep the parents ignorant of something serious that is going on with their child, something medically serious? I don't think the element of shame is adequate grounds to not notify a parent of something that needs attention by the parents. How about STD's while we're at it? Should doctors inform the parents if their child is sick with an STD and needs further care and attention? Why not? It's not in their best interest because they are ashamed?

I still don't understand where you are coming from here. My own family doctor when I was a kid, and I lived in a small one-doctor town, did not routinely inform my mother of my diagnoses or prescriptions after age of 12 or 13. The only reason she knew was because she usually was the one driving me to the doctor and pharmacy.

[Goliath]

I still don't understand where you are coming from here. My own family doctor when I was a kid, and I lived in a small one-doctor town, did not routinely inform my mother of my diagnoses or prescriptions after age of 12 or 13. The only reason she knew was because she usually was the one driving me to the doctor and pharmacy.

:yeahthat:

[Sweetie]

I think my mother was still involved in my medical care when I was that age, twelve and thirteen. I had some bad anxiety back then, my doctor was wondering if I wasn't sexually abused and informed and asked my mother of the possibility, and my mother told me about it and I was terribly ashamed. To her knowledge, no abuse, to mine, none. I'm glad my doctor brought up the possibility between me and my mother though, I don't know if I would've mentioned it out of shame if such a thing had occurred to my knowledge. As an adult I have had a doctor give me a PAP without gloves on, I wasn't impressed and was too embarassed to say anything about it, considered it basically silly to say anything, but as a young girl, well the mother might have been there to have that female present.

I don't know though, this whole thing seems so devious. I mean, kids may not want to tell their parents about drug use, relationshisp especially with older boys because they want to do what they're doing, because of peer pressure, because of whatever but I think it is still in the child's best interest that the parents know and respond accordingly. Hopefully the average parent with a fourteen year old girl dating a twenty-one year old boy might respond nicely and say that perhaps he could come sniffing around in another year or so because she's too young, and perhaps the parent who knows that their child is using could help them get treatment or could remind them of the legalities of it all.

In order to agree with the court ruling, I must agree that:

a) anybody but the parents have the child's best interest at heart.
b) that my 12-16 is capable of making an informed decision by herself on the matter.
c) that my child has been given all of the best information on the subject, all the possibilities have been considered.
d) all parents will respond in a bad, illegal, or unfair way as far as the child's rights are concerned.
e) I must consent to allowing the child to find rides to and from the clinic without my knowledge, possibily even a ride from a teacher or counsellor though for any other school excursion they must have written consent.
f) I must consent that the school must only inform me of the child's absence from school if they are not absent because of having an abortion.
g) I must remain ignorant of any recovery period or medication my child is on.
h) I must remain ignorant of any psychological affects of my child due to pregnancy and abortion.
i) I must remain ignorant of my child's sexual activity and the possible dangers or possibility of them having an STD if they indeed had unprotected sex so as to get pregnant.

[LadyShea]

a) anybody but the parents have the child's best interest at heart.
b) that my 12-16 is capable of making an informed decision by herself on the matter.
c) that my child has been given all of the best information on the subject, all the possibilities have been considered.
d) all parents will respond in a bad, illegal, or unfair way as far as the child's rights are concerned.
e) I must consent to allowing the child to find rides to and from the clinic without my knowledge, possibily even a ride from a teacher or counsellor though for any other school excursion they must have written consent.
f) I must consent that the school must only inform me of the child's absence from school if they are not absent because of having an abortion.
g) I must remain ignorant of any recovery period or medication my child is on.
h) I must remain ignorant of any psychological affects of my child due to pregnancy and abortion.
i) I must remain ignorant of my child's sexual activity and the possible dangers or possibility of them having an STD if they indeed had unprotected sex so as to get pregnant.

May I ask where you all are coming up with this school involvement idea? I agree that a counselor or teacher should not be involved in a child's abortion, at all. My abortion was on a Saturday and I missed no school. Most teens do this....again, where are you getting these ideas about school's involvement?

And chances are, you will remain ignorant of your child's sexual activities. Most teens simply do not discuss it with their parents.

[Sweetie]

May I ask where you all are coming up with this school involvement idea? I agree that a counselor or teacher should not be involved in a child's abortion, at all. My abortion was on a Saturday and I missed no school. Most teens do this....again, where are you getting these ideas about school's involvement?

I guess because I think that the majority of adult confidents, those that a child might feel like talking to and are available or around them are primarily from school, it would have been so in my case anyway. I suppose because one of my teachers had asked me if I wanted to have an abortion after I told him I was pregnant, even though I wasn't interested in him becoming involved. I suppose because the school was involved in the abortion of the girl in my class. Just experience I guess.

And chances are, you will remain ignorant of your child's sexual activities. Most teens simply do not discuss it with their parents.

I understand that, but once something serious occurs that requires further anything, treatment, surgery, etc., that's when the child who was secretively sexually active might have to have that come to light in their best interest.

[dave_a]

The decision to have sex cannot be made by the parents, who would probably disallow it if they could, so the consequences of that decision are also seen as private by me and others : shrug


Why do you assume parents would disallow it? I don't understand this idea that parents would disallow it. Statistically the majority of abortions are to poor black females who live in areas where they may not even have parents present. I don't think those parents really care either way. Then there are those persons who come from troubled families with abusive parents. This is a case where skipping parental notification might make sense.

For everyone else it's just a normal home where parents understand kids are going to have sex just like we did. I think it is entirely appropriate for a parent to know that their child is having unprotected intercourse that did lead to pregnancy and could lead to STDs, some life threatening. What responsible parent *wouldn't* want to know this?



[quote]Schools do not refer kids to abortion clinics, that I am aware of, nor do they refer them to a doctor unless there is an accident or illness ON SCHOOL GROUNDS and they are therefore required to contact the parent. Of course, with older teens, that is not even necessary. If I was ill, I got myself excused and drove to the doctor myself on more than one occasion....my mother was not notified.

Schools absolutely do refer pregnant teens to planned parenthood. Planned parenthood then refers to abortion providers. At no point is the parent involved. That's wrong. That suggests the folks in the school and at planned parenthood are more entitled to know of the pregnancy and provide the counseling than the parents. I find that to be insane.

To argue that parents are abusive or too busy to care makes no sense at all in my opinion. Some parents are that way, but in my experience they represent a minority.

[LadyShea]

I guess because I think that the majority of adult confidents, those that a child might feel like talking to and are available or around them are primarily from school, it would have been so in my case anyway. I suppose because one of my teachers had asked me if I wanted to have an abortion after I told him I was pregnant, even though I wasn't interested in him becoming involved. I suppose because the school was involved in the abortion of the girl in my class. Just experience I guess.

My experience, my own and those of my several friends who also got pregant as teens, was that we did not have adult confidantes other than the clinic personnel. Maybe we were unusually sophisticated or something, but I was a straight A student, I had my own car for which I paid gas and insurance, was making over 300.00/month, *had been on the pill for over a year through Planned Parenthood and received routine pap smears*, had been making and keeping my own doctors/dentists/chiroprator/orthodontist appointments since I could drive and even before that I made all arrangements and my mom or dad simply drove me. Heck, I went to the local travel agency and booked and paid for my own vacation when I was 14 (my best friend spent summers at her mothers out of state and I went to visit). Once the school called my dad to get permission to give me an aspirin after I had been hit in the head with a door, and he said "Why are you asking me, Brandi knows what she can take and not take better than I do"

*Yes, I got pregnant on the pill. I had strep throat and took antibiotics the month I got pregnant and the correlation between antibiotics and birth control failure was not really known or publicized at the time. They still don't know if it is causal, but I have to assume that was the case with me as I was very careful in my pill taking*


I understand that, but once something serious occurs that requires further anything, treatment, surgery, etc., that's when the child who was secretively sexually active might have to have that come to light in their best interest.

What if they don't feel any need to come to you? What if, like me, that kid is reasonably independent and able to handle things? My mother and I were very close and she would have supported me, I simply didn't see any need to upset her when I could take care of it myself. In fact, when I told her about it a few years later, she was very upset I had chosen not to share it with her but I just didn't have any motivation to involve her.

[Goliath]

Schools absolutely do refer pregnant teens to planned parenthood.


Evidence, please?

While you're at it, you've left a few of my rebuttals unanswered.


the folks in the school and at planned parenthood are more entitled to know of the pregnancy and provide the counseling than the parents.


Correct. Call me kooky, but I believe that a child's body belongs to the child, and not to the parents of said child. That's why "parenthood" is called parenthood, and not "slave ownership".

[LadyShea]

Why do you assume parents would disallow it? I don't understand this idea that parents would disallow it. Statistically the majority of abortions are to poor black females who live in areas where they may not even have parents present. I don't think those parents really care either way. Then there are those persons who come from troubled families with abusive parents. This is a case where skipping parental notification might make sense.

I haven't met a parent yet who wants their teen having sex.

For everyone else it's just a normal home where parents understand kids are going to have sex just like we did. I think it is entirely appropriate for a parent to know that their child is having unprotected intercourse that did lead to pregnancy and could lead to STDs, some life threatening. What responsible parent *wouldn't* want to know this?

Um, because sex is a private issue. Parents may want to know it on one level, but I don't of any who wouldn't have a emotional problem with their "baby" having sex.

Schools absolutely do refer pregnant teens to planned parenthood. Planned parenthood then refers to abortion providers.

Why does the school even know about it? Do you have any kind of evidence that schools refer kids to Planned Parenthood? Also, Planned Parenthood also refers those with unwanted pregnancies to adoption services, counselors to act as go betweens with the parents if the kid wishes, and resources available for young mothers if the kid chooses to have the baby. PP ALSO provides abortion services at some of their clinics, and a counseling session is required where all the information and options are gone over AGAIN.

At no point is the parent involved. That's wrong. That suggests the folks in the school and at planned parenthood are more entitled to know of the pregnancy and provide the counseling than the parents. I find that to be insane.

They feel the issue is with the pregnant young woman and the doctor, not her parents.

To argue that parents are abusive or too busy to care makes no sense at all in my opinion. Some parents are that way, but in my experience they represent a minority.

Your experience and observations are obviously different than mine.

[MinorityReport]

In most places (as far as I know) a Jehovah Witness parent can refuse to allow thier child to recieve a blood transfusion necessary to save their life.



Unfortunately, you're correct. I wish that each and every single one of them that kill their children that way would be convicted of First Degree Murder and put away for life in prison.



Ok, I thought that if a parent does do this, deny medical care to the child, they face charges. I thought this was determined years ago.

It is frightening if not.

Even in the US, it seems to vary from state to state. The Nevada Supreme Court said:

"While a parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody and management of his child, that interest is not absolute. The state also has an interest in the welfare of children and may limit parental authority, even permanently depriving parents of their children."

A lower court had named a hospital as temporary guardian of a child whose Jehovah's Witness parents had tried to stop the hospital saving the child's life.

In other cases the courts have ruled in favor of the right of the individual, and sometimes even the parent, to refuse life-saving treatment.

[Sweetie]

[QUOTE=Sweetie]
My experience, my own and those of my several friends who also got pregant as teens, was that we did not have adult confidantes other than the clinic personnel. Maybe we were unusually sophisticated or something, but I was a straight A student, I had my own car for which I paid gas and insurance, was making over 300.00/month, *had been on the pill for over a year through Planned Parenthood and received routine pap smears*, had been making and keeping my own doctors/dentists/chiroprator/orthodontist appointments since I could drive and even before that I made all arrangements and my mom or dad simply drove me. Heck, I went to the local travel agency and booked and paid for my own vacation when I was 14 (my best friend spent summers at her mothers out of state and I went to visit). Once the school called my dad to get permission to give me an aspirin after I had been hit in the head with a door, and he said "Why are you asking me, Brandi knows what she can take and not take better than I do"

We don't get licenses here until we are sixteen, nor generally work until sixteen. At sixteen I pretty much took over my own care and operated, with some rules, under my own steam for my own upkeep, working, driving myself, buying my own clothes. Sixteen I think is borderline in this case, 12-15 year olds, I mean, these are children who need help in at least some ways in almost all cases. As a sixteen year old, I think the case is different. Sixteen in the case of parental notification is borderline, seventeen, yes they should be able to do so without consent, eighteen as well and then adulthood where there is no question. That's why I asked what age we are talking about.

[beyelzu]

Schools absolutely do refer pregnant teens to planned parenthood.


Evidence, please?

While you're at it, you've left a few of my rebuttals unanswered.


the folks in the school and at planned parenthood are more entitled to know of the pregnancy and provide the counseling than the parents.


Correct. Call me kooky, but I believe that a child's body belongs to the child, and not to the parents of said child. That's why "parenthood" is called parenthood, and not "slave ownership".


so I suppose you support a child's right to say female circumcision or tattoos?

[Goliath]

so I suppose you support a child's right to say female circumcision or tattoos?

Tattoos? Sure, why not?

Female circumcision? That's illegal (http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm), so no.

[beyelzu]

so I suppose you support a child's right to say female circumcision or tattoos?

Tattoos? Sure, why not?

Female circumcision? That's illegal (http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm), so no.
what the fuck does illegal have to do with anything.

if a parental notification law is in force than abortion would be illegal without parental notification.


also,

If a child wants to be mutilated for life what does legality matter, it is her body right??

[Beth]

I do not think having an abortion is the equivalent to being mutilated for life.

[beyelzu]

I do not think having an abortion is the equivalent to being mutilated for life.
neither do I,

but I think that goliath's "it's her body she can do what she likes with it" is a an overly simplistic point of view which is clearly flawed.

[LadyShea]

Statistically the majority of abortions are to poor black females who live in areas where they may not even have parents present.

What statistics are you looking at? The ones I read show the following for 2003

41% -White
31% -Black
20% -Hispanic
8% - Native American/Asian/Pacific Islander

26% -Below poverty level
30% -Low income
30% -Middle income
24% -Higher income

.7% -under age 15
19% -15-19 years old
33% -20-24 years old
23% -25-29 years old
The rest are over 30

The only reason the poor are overrepresented is because they have a higher rate of unintended pregancies due to lack of resources for birth control

Stats from The Alan Guttmacher Institute (http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/ab_slides.html)

[LadyShea]

Sixteen I think is borderline in this case, 12-15 year olds, I mean, these are children who need help in at least some ways in almost all cases. As a sixteen year old, I think the case is different. Sixteen in the case of parental notification is borderline, seventeen, yes they should be able to do so without consent, eighteen as well and then adulthood where there is no question. That's why I asked what age we are talking about.

Well, my acquaintances who got pregnant <age 16 got help from older friends, older boyfriends, older siblings, boyfriends older siblings, etc. Every one turned to an older teen for money and transportation, certainly not the school.


Also, we really have no idea what we are all arguing in any kind of way. For all we know the majority of the 12-16 year old do, in fact, notify their parents on their own. How can we determine if this law is even necessary?

[Goliath]

what the fuck does illegal have to do with anything.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, abortion isn't illegal.



if a parental notification law is in force than abortion would be illegal without parental notification.



Yes...if...


If a child wants to be mutilated for life what does legality matter, it is her body right??

The law is the law whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

[dave_a]

Statistically the majority of abortions are to poor black females who live in areas where they may not even have parents present.

What statistics are you looking at? The ones I read show the following for 2003

41% -White
31% -Black
20% -Hispanic
8% - Native American/Asian/Pacific Islander


I was incorrect. The statistics are per capita, not absolute numbers. linky (http://www.ms4c.org/update/401who.htm) . As a percentage of the population blacks are 3x as likely as whites, but whites account for more total abortions.

[dave_a]

Also, we really have no idea what we are all arguing in any kind of way. For all we know the majority of the 12-16 year old do, in fact, notify their parents on their own. How can we determine if this law is even necessary?

I think that the age of consent should govern whether parental notification is necessary or not. It does for everything else. We can argue that the age of consent is too old in some states, but I think that it serves as a good point after which parental notification is unnecessary.

[dave_a]

I haven't met a parent yet who wants their teen having sex.

Wants them having sex? Of course not. Accepts they are having sex? I think most parents do.


Um, because sex is a private issue. Parents may want to know it on one level, but I don't of any who wouldn't have a emotional problem with their "baby" having sex.

I don't want to know whether my kid likes the 69 position or not, I do want to know if my kid is behaving responsibly. Use a condom until you are prepared for kids is my feeling on the subject and if a pregnancy occured it's a safe bet condoms aren't being used and STDs are a real possibility. As a parent I want to know this and feel entitled to know it just as I am entitled to know if my kid is engaging in any other high risk activity.

Do you believe that as a parent I have no right to know what is going on with my child as pertains to his/her high risk activity?


Why does the school even know about it? Do you have any kind of evidence that schools refer kids to Planned Parenthood?


Schools know aboutit because kids talk to other kids and it gets to teachers/counselors. Kids sometimes confide in the school counselor, sometimes the school nurse finds out because the girl goes to see the nurse about some nausea without realizing she is pregnant. Do I have any evidence that schools refer kids to planned parenthood? Hmmm.... I doubt it. I know that it happens as it's what happened with my sister in law, but as far as some official documentation I wouldn't know where to find it.

They feel the issue is with the pregnant young woman and the doctor, not her parents.

Well then their feelings are against the law in 44 states which do require parental notification, but make exceptions for certain circumstances. That is how I feel it ought to be. I kind of feel betrayed by pro choicers who want to remove my legal right to know what is going on with my kid. I support choice, but not the interference with parental rights/responsibilities by pro choice groups. That crosses a line I could never support. If this kind of nonsense comes to Wisconsin I will end up on the pro life side of the protest line.

To argue that parents are abusive or too busy to care makes no sense at all in my opinion. Some parents are that way, but in my experience they represent a minority.

Your experience and observations are obviously different than mine.

Which makes me wonder what kind of hell hole you grew up in. I wasn't raised in any special environment so I just can't fathom how your opinion of the typical parent can be so low.

[LadyShea]

I grew up in upper-middle class Western US...totoally normal. Simi Valley, California (consistently one of the top "safest cities" in the US) and a wealthy, all white small town in Colorado just north of the Air Force Academy. With few exceptions (like my parents), my classmates parents were workaholics who spent any free time at the Country Club drinking martinis or gossiping about other people's kids at church. They believed their kid was at the library, or at a movie, or having a sleepover when in reality every last one of us was partying...hard (for the record, I never lied to my mom, she knew where I was and who was there. I chose not to tellher certain things, like that I was having sex). A pregnancy would ruin their reputation, see, so a few girls I heard about ended up moving suddenly or were sent off to "boarding school"....but the vast majority who got pregnant just popped on down to Colorado Springs and had Saturday abortions, then went on to college or whatever after high school. I knew two girls who had their babies, both lived in the trailer park.

I see this amongst the wealthier class in Vegas and when I lived in Denver too. My best friend was a teacher in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma and couldn't get more than 25% of the parents to even have a conference with her because they were too busy, and the kid's education was "her job". Parents on the fast track, working to get expensive cars and bigger houses and no clue what their kids are doing. This happens EVERYWHERE. What kind of Leave it to Beaver land do you live in?

[LadyShea]

I don't want to know whether my kid likes the 69 position or not, I do want to know if my kid is behaving responsibly. Use a condom until you are prepared for kids is my feeling on the subject and if a pregnancy occured it's a safe bet condoms aren't being used and STDs are a real possibility. As a parent I want to know this and feel entitled to know it just as I am entitled to know if my kid is engaging in any other high risk activity.

How do you plan to ascertain this information?

[beyelzu]

what the fuck does illegal have to do with anything.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, abortion isn't illegal.



if a parental notification law is in force than abortion would be illegal without parental notification.



Yes...if...


If a child wants to be mutilated for life what does legality matter, it is her body right??

The law is the law whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.



I refuse to have this conversation with you goliath, I wont derail this thread with you.

You want to start a new thread on this, fine. we can argue about it all you want.

But not here.

I wont fuck this thread up.

[dave_a]

I grew up in upper-middle class Western US...totoally normal. <snip>
I see this amongst the wealthier class in Vegas and when I lived in Denver too. My best friend was a teacher in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma and couldn't get more than 25% of the parents to even have a conference with her because they were too busy, and the kid's education was "her job". Parents on the fast track, working to get expensive cars and bigger houses and no clue what their kids are doing. This happens EVERYWHERE. What kind of Leave it to Beaver land do you live in?

I dunno, I just call it Wisconsin. My experience isn't at all like that. No more than 25% of parents having a parent teacher conference? Hell around here we all show up for it and many parents volunteer in the school to help with labs and field trips.

I guess maybe I am lucky to live where I do. People care about money, but more about their kids. Why the hell have kids if one doesn't wish to make them a priority? Makes no sense to me.

[dave_a]

I don't want to know whether my kid likes the 69 position or not, I do want to know if my kid is behaving responsibly. Use a condom until you are prepared for kids is my feeling on the subject and if a pregnancy occured it's a safe bet condoms aren't being used and STDs are a real possibility. As a parent I want to know this and feel entitled to know it just as I am entitled to know if my kid is engaging in any other high risk activity.

How do you plan to ascertain this information?

If my child ends up pregnant or gets someone pregnant I expect to know. If not from my child, then from any adult who learns of it whether it be a school employee or a planned parenthood employee.

I am feeling very fortunate to live where I do. Minors can't have abortions without parental consent. Not that I would try and force my child to have the baby, but I would want to know. This business of not informing parents so they won't be troubled just seems so shallow and callous I can't describe it. WTF are parents for if not to deal with these kinds of things?

[LadyShea]

If my child ends up pregnant or gets someone pregnant I expect to know. If not from my child, then from any adult who learns of it whether it be a school employee or a planned parenthood employee.


I am feeling very fortunate to live where I do. Minors can't have abortions without parental consent. Not that I would try and force my child to have the baby, but I would want to know. This business of not informing parents so they won't be troubled just seems so shallow and callous I can't describe it.

Do any of the parental notification laws require telling the boy's parents too? They should, as your arguments petain to them as well with regard to knowing your son was involved in an unplanned pregnancy and taking sexual risks. Is minor under 18, or age of consent? I can ALMOST agree with you as far as age of consent....I just see a slippery slope so that's why I am against it overall.

Also, it's not to "not trouble" the parents, it's to not add additional stress to a girl who is already going through a tough time. Think about how that girl might feel being called a whore or stupid or get the silent treatment from her parents because she embarassed them? That's not even counting the people who will simply pack her off to grandmas or kick her on the streets.

I guess maybe I am lucky to live where I do. People care about money, but more about their kids. Why the hell have kids if one doesn't wish to make them a priority? Makes no sense to me.

WTF are parents for if not to deal with these kinds of things?

You know, going through infertility has made me more observant of parents in general. I have found that a frighteningly large number of people have kids simply because they can, or "thats what people do". I am shocked by the lack of thought and discussion that goes into deciding whether or not to raise children.

[Beth]

Also, we really have no idea what we are all arguing in any kind of way. For all we know the majority of the 12-16 year old do, in fact, notify their parents on their own. How can we determine if this law is even necessary?

I think that the age of consent should govern whether parental notification is necessary or not. It does for everything else. We can argue that the age of consent is too old in some states, but I think that it serves as a good point after which parental notification is unnecessary.Ok, I can agree with this to an extent. I would wantto know if someone is using my underage daughter sexually and if that person is endangering her well-being by exposing her to the risk of pregnancy and STD's. There are still situatiuons where I think it would be harmful to notify the parents, I suppose this is where mediation could come into play, or a judge could make a ruling. It still could delay the abortion, thus making it more harmful to the girl.

But anyway, this proposed amendment loops all minor children into this bill. Including girls a day shy of their eighteenth birthday. This is very wrong. I could have voted for parental notification to girls under the age of consent,...no, wait, if I am not mistaken the age of consent in this state is 18, unless the person she is having sex with is 23 or under, then it is sixteen. So, with these guidlines, do they still use the general age of consent, which is 18, or do they use 16 as the age of consent to make the law for parental notification?

794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.--

(1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

(2) The provisions of this section do not apply to a person 16 or 17 years of age who has had the disabilities of nonage removed under chapter 743.

(3) The victim's prior sexual conduct is not a relevant issue in a prosecution under this section.

(4) If an offense under this section directly results in the victim giving birth to a child, paternity of that child shall be established as described in chapter 742. If it is determined that the offender is the father of the child, the offender must pay child support pursuant to the child support guidelines described in chapter 61. History.--RS 2598; s. 1, ch. 4965, 1901; GS 3521; s. 1, ch. 6974, 1915; s. 1, ch. 7732, 1918; RGS 5409; s. 1, ch. 8596, 1921; CGL 7552; s. 1, ch. 61-109; s. 759, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 96-409.





I possibly could have supported the amendment if it allowed total privacy to girls 16 and over and special allowances for girls under 16.

[LadyXoc]

I possibly could have supported the amendment if it allowed total privacy to girls 16 and over and special allowances for girls under 16.

And, as you mentioned earlier, protection against a parent who would force the child to carry the pregnancy to term because of their personal religious beliefs.

[Beth]

I possibly could have supported the amendment if it allowed total privacy to girls 16 and over and special allowances for girls under 16.

And, as you mentioned earlier, protection against a parent who would force the child to carry the pregnancy to term because of their personal religious beliefs.Yes, most definitely. This certainly bothers me. I do not think people realize just how conservative and prolife much of Florida is, especially since we have had Jeb in office and things went neo conservative after 9-11. Parents, especially the southern fundamentalists (I add Southern because I think we have a strange breed of fundamentalists), Catholics(who are usually split, some are liberal and believe in choice, others are staunch pro-life), and some of the non-religious neo-conservatives (yuppers, they are a weird phenomenon here). The parents fitting these groups especially worry me in whether or not they will respect their child's choice. I honestly think it is child abuse to make a kid have the baby if she wants to abort.

[Goliath]

I refuse to have this conversation with you goliath,

So be it.

[LadyShea]

Not that I would try and force my child to have the baby, but I would want to know


Dantonac, we got off on a tangent a bit because of your personal feelings regarding your kids. I would like to know how you feel about what Beth and LadyXoc said. If parental notification is required, what about those parents who are pro-life and would refuse to allow the abortion. Is forcing a girl to carry to term not abuse in your book? Just because YOU might not force a child to have a baby, how many other parents might?

[dave_a]

Not that I would try and force my child to have the baby, but I would want to know


Dantonac, we got off on a tangent a bit because of your personal feelings regarding your kids. I would like to know how you feel about what Beth and LadyXoc said. If parental notification is required, what about those parents who are pro-life and would refuse to allow the abortion. Is forcing a girl to carry to term not abuse in your book? Just because YOU might not force a child to have a baby, how many other parents might?


Hmmm, I replied earlier, but I must have made the mistake of hitting preview and thinking it posted.

Anyway, I don't think it is a parent's place to determine whether the child carries the baby OR aborts it although if the girl is incapable of supporting it and the parents want her to abort and she doesn't I don't really know how to handle that one.

I just want to know that the pregnancy occured so I can appraise the situation to see if there is anything I need to do as a parent. For example do I need to have a talk about safe sex/STD prevention? Who is the guy? Is he 30 years old and screwing my 14 year old daughter? Was this a contraceptive failure or was none used? Is this a simple accident or a symptom of a greater problem in my child's life where other high risk behaviors might be occuring? These kinds of things.

I don't particularly care if an abortion requires parental CONSENT, just notification. If the girl expresses that her parents will flip out and send her off to the ranch and force her to have the baby then I think an exception can be made to provide notification after the fact.

[Goliath]

If the girl expresses that her parents will flip out and send her off to the ranch and force her to have the baby then I think an exception can be made to provide notification after the fact.

But who decides when the exceptions are made? There are still two problems with this (the first of which you have never addressed):

1. Why should the health and safety of a child be decided by a judge (or whomever decides upon whether or not exceptions are made)?

2. If judges are to decide whether or not exceptions are made, then why should extra time be wasted clogging up the courts to decide these matters, and why should extra time be taken when aborting is more dangerous with the longer that the fetus is in the womb?

[beyelzu]

If the girl expresses that her parents will flip out and send her off to the ranch and force her to have the baby then I think an exception can be made to provide notification after the fact.

But who decides when the exceptions are made? There are still two problems with this (the first of which you have never addressed):

1. Why should the health and safety of a child be decided by a judge (or whomever decides upon whether or not exceptions are made)?
why should the health and safety of a child be decided by a child.

2. If judges are to decide whether or not exceptions are made, then why should extra time be wasted clogging up the courts to decide these matters, and why should extra time be taken when aborting is more dangerous with the longer that the fetus is in the womb?

this one is more problematic for me, but surely some sort of streamlined process could be put into place.

[dave_a]

If the girl expresses that her parents will flip out and send her off to the ranch and force her to have the baby then I think an exception can be made to provide notification after the fact.

But who decides when the exceptions are made? There are still two problems with this (the first of which you have never addressed):

1. Why should the health and safety of a child be decided by a judge (or whomever decides upon whether or not exceptions are made)?

2. If judges are to decide whether or not exceptions are made, then why should extra time be wasted clogging up the courts to decide these matters, and why should extra time be taken when aborting is more dangerous with the longer that the fetus is in the womb?

Well in the first case I don't see any reason why it has to be a judge. A state legislature can come up with rules striking a balance between parental rights and the rights of the child. A judge may need to address legal/constitutional issues, but once settled some other entity could simply follow the regulations as is common with a myriad of other things today.

In the second case I don't see that time needs to be wasted. As I stated to LS I don't see that parental consent needs to be a requirement(although legally it might be), I am content with parental notification regardless of consent.

In my view parents have both a right and a responsibility to know what is going on with their child when high risk activities are being engaged in and certainly a medical surgery/procedure is something parents have a vested interest in knowing about.

I guess I don't understand the nature of the objections to parental notification. No system is going to be perfect, but why not have notification be the standard as it is in 44 states and make exceptions when the circumstances warrant it? Why assume all parents are unconcerned, mean, or abusive?

[LadyShea]

In my view parents have both a right and a responsibility to know what is going on with their child when high risk activities are being engaged in and certainly a medical surgery/procedure is something parents have a vested interest in knowing about.

I guess I don't understand the nature of the objections to parental notification. No system is going to be perfect, but why not have notification be the standard as it is in 44 states and make exceptions when the circumstances warrant it? Why assume all parents are unconcerned, mean, or abusive?

Did you find out if notification is required to the boy's parents as well, BTW?

[dave_a]

ncerned, mean, or abusive?

Did you find out if notification is required to the boy's parents as well, BTW?

I don't know, it's beyond my ambition level to read the laws in the 44 states with parental notifcation laws in place. I tend to doubt it though. I think it would be a good idea, but I doubt it's the law.

[Goliath]

why should the health and safety of a child be decided by a child.

How about because a child's body belongs to the child? Of course, very young children won't have even basic knowledge about what's going on with respect to their health, but the young girls that we're talking about (mainly teenagers) are old enough to be able to decide who they want to inform about their pregnancy.

this one is more problematic for me, but surely some sort of streamlined process could be put into place.

But any such system will probably encounter some weird and exceptional cases where the intervention of a judge (or some other authority figure) would be necessary.

[Goliath]

Well in the first case I don't see any reason why it has to be a judge. A state legislature can come up with rules striking a balance between parental rights and the rights of the child.


Yes, but as I mentioned to beyelzu, there would probably be weird and unusual circumstances that would require a judge to make a ruling. Why waste such time with a law that--as LadyShea puts it--may not even be necessary?

Why assume all parents are unconcerned, mean, or abusive?

And where did I state that? Oh, I didn't did I?

It's not that all parents are unconcerned, mean, or abusive, it's that I don't want to further punish those teens whose parents happen to be unconcerned, mean, or abusive.

[LadyShea]

I don't know, it's beyond my ambition level to read the laws in the 44 states with parental notifcation laws in place. I tend to doubt it though. I think it would be a good idea, but I doubt it's the law.

Okay I looked it up, and notification of the boy/father's parents is not required anywhere. If you support mandatory notification, I should think you would also support adding this to those laws. It's not fair as is

Also, only two states have set the age limit at age of consent, all the rest it is under 18. So, the laws as they are currently are not consistent since the age of consent is lower than the age requiring parental notification.

I know not all laws can be perfect, but you don't see any unfairness, danger, or inconsistency with this?

[beyelzu]

why should the health and safety of a child be decided by a child.

How about because a child's body belongs to the child? Of course, very young children won't have even basic knowledge about what's going on with respect to their health, but the young girls that we're talking about (mainly teenagers) are old enough to be able to decide who they want to inform about their pregnancy.
so by the same token, 13 year olds should be able to have elective surgery without parental consent, and of course tatoos, body piercings, female circumcision, and should be allowed to smoke?

this one is more problematic for me, but surely some sort of streamlined process could be put into place.

But any such system will probably encounter some weird and exceptional cases where the intervention of a judge (or some other authority figure) would be necessary.
ok, but why couldnt that be encompassed in the streamlined process?

[beyelzu]

I don't know, it's beyond my ambition level to read the laws in the 44 states with parental notifcation laws in place. I tend to doubt it though. I think it would be a good idea, but I doubt it's the law.

Okay I looked it up, and notification of the boy/father's parents is not required anywhere. If you support mandatory notification, I should think you would also support adding this to those laws. It's not fair as is

Also, only two states have set the age limit at age of consent, all the rest it is under 18. So, the laws as they are currently are not consistent since the age of consent is lower than the age requiring parental notification.

I know not all laws can be perfect, but you don't see any unfairness, danger, or inconsistency with this?


I for one am not in favor of notification of the boy/father's parents, because I dont have a problem with aborting the fetus. I have a problem with a child receiving elective surgery without parental notification.


edited to add that the laws should be consistent with age of consent, otherwise the law really is just another flanking attack on Roe v Wade.

[LadyShea]

It seems to me the answer to all of this is involved, compassionate, and effective parenting. I just don't see how legislating the issue will get that result.

[Goliath]

so by the same token, 13 year olds should be able to have elective surgery without parental consent, and of course tatoos, body piercings, female circumcision, and should be allowed to smoke?


Nope, I didn't say that. Try again.


ok, but why couldnt that be encompassed in the streamlined process?

Because situations may arise that the streamlined process can't handle adequately. The streamlined process (whatever it may be) can't handle those situations by definition.

[Goliath]

It seems to me the answer to all of this is involved, compassionate, and effective parenting. I just don't see how legislating the issue will get that result.

:yeahthat:

[LadyShea]

I for one am not in favor of notification of the boy/father's parents, because I dont have a problem with aborting the fetus. I have a problem with a child receiving elective surgery without parental notification.

Right, but Dantonac favors notification to be informed that his child is having unprotected sex. That would include boys as well.

Again, I can personally agree with the desire to know your kid is having surgery, unfortunately I just see too much opportunity for abuse and further emotional damage to the girl


edited to add that the laws should be consistent with age of consent, otherwise the law really is just another flanking attack on Roe v Wade.

I agree.

[beyelzu]

so by the same token, 13 year olds should be able to have elective surgery without parental consent, and of course tatoos, body piercings, female circumcision, and should be allowed to smoke?


Nope, I didn't say that. Try again. please explain the difference between the things I outlined and abortion, why is it special?
why can a child make an informed decision about that and not the situations I mentioned above.


ok, but why couldnt that be encompassed in the streamlined process?

Because situations may arise that the streamlined process can't handle adequately. The streamlined process (whatever it may be) can't handle those situations by definition.
really??

by definition??

proof please.

[Goliath]

please explain the difference between the things I outlined and abortion,


Because those things are mostly illegal (except for the tattoos, which I don't give a crap about either way).



why can a child make an informed decision about that and not the situations I mentioned above.



Making an informed decision is irrelevant in the things you listed. Legality, however, is.

really??

by definition??


Yes, look at what I said. Any streamlined system to handle parental notification could end up encountering situations that the guidelines don't prepare for. That is part of the reason why we have courts, to interpret laws when they're applied to unusual circumstances.




proof please.

No proof necessary. Please try to read what I've written (as opposed to what I haven't written).

[beyelzu]

I for one am not in favor of notification of the boy/father's parents, because I dont have a problem with aborting the fetus. I have a problem with a child receiving elective surgery without parental notification.

Right, but Dantonac favors notification to be informed that his child is having unprotected sex. That would include boys as well.

Again, I can personally agree with the desire to know your kid is having surgery, unfortunately I just see too much opportunity for abuse and further emotional damage to the girl


my bad, I read the thread but I didnt consider that point. if notification is because of sex then yes the father's parents should also be notified in order to be consistent.
While aware of the inherent problems with notification, I am still worried about letting a child make such a decision. Also, I think that young girls shouldnt have children, lots of health risks with carrying to term.

[Goliath]

I think that young girls shouldnt have children, lots of health risks with carrying to term.

On that we agree.

[beyelzu]

please explain the difference between the things I outlined and abortion,


Because those things are mostly illegal (except for the tattoos, which I don't give a crap about either way).



why can a child make an informed decision about that and not the situations I mentioned above.



Making an informed decision is irrelevant in the things you listed. Legality, however, is.

and yet currently children cant get elective surgery either, so please explain for consistency. and if a child can make informed health decisions, why should it be illegal for a child to smoke. It isnt against the law for adults to smoke or get elective surgery. we are talking apples and apples here, not apples and oranges.



Yes, look at what I said. Any streamlined system to handle parental notification could end up encountering situations that the guidelines don't prepare for. That is part of the reason why we have courts, to interpret laws when they're applied to unusual circumstances.



please prove that some sort of streamlined process would BY DEFINITION be unable to handle the vast majority if not all of the cases

No proof necessary. Please try to read what I've written (as opposed to what I haven't written).I dont think I have read anything into what you have said. I am just trying to point out the logical ramifcations of the point of view that you have outlined in this thread.

[beyelzu]

I think that young girls shouldnt have children, lots of health risks with carrying to term.

On that we agree.
well that's something :D

[Goliath]

and yet currently children cant get elective surgery either,


:eyebrow2: They can't? Are you absolutely sure about that?



and if a child can make informed health decisions, why should it be illegal for a child to smoke.



Because it's inherently harmful. Yes, I'm aware that smoking is legal for adults, but then again, I'm not claiming that the legal system is consistent.



please prove that some sort of streamlined process would BY DEFINITION be unable to handle the vast majority if not all of the cases



You know, if I had said that a streamlined process would be unable to handle the vast majority of cases, then you might have had something that maybe, in some alternate universe, some millions of years ago, might've been a point. Maybe.

However, since you didn't read what I wrote, you are again wasting my time.



I dont think I have read anything into what you have said.



:roflmao: You're kidding, right? You're about as bad as vm when it comes to not reading what I've written.


I am just trying to point out the logical ramifcations of the point of view that you have outlined in this thread.

You know, I'd absolutely love to see you point out any logical ramifications of anything that I've said whatsoever in this thread. I haven't seen you do that yet, though.

[dave_a]

I dont think I have read anything into what you have said. I am just trying to point out the logical ramifcations of the point of view that you have outlined in this thread.

I would agree. Goliath, right or wrong I am reading you to be arguing that 12 and 13 year old kids should be able to make their own decisions regarding their bodies. If a person of that age *should* be able to make decisions regarding abortion without parental involvement then why not other forms of surgery/body modifications, drug/cigarette/alcohol use?

Either the kid is able to make fully informed, responsible decisions or the kid is not.

I agree with Beyelzu that your position does not appear consistent.

[Goliath]

I would agree. Goliath, right or wrong I am reading you to be arguing that 12 and 13 year old kids should be able to make their own decisions regarding their bodies.


I think that they should make their own decisions regarding having an abortion and regarding who they tell about any abortions they have.



If a person of that age *should* be able to make decisions regarding abortion without parental involvement then why not other forms of surgery/body modifications, drug/cigarette/alcohol use?



And again, should is kinda irrelevant. The law is the law whether you give a shit or not. I can't change the law.

Now, can all teens make responsible, informed decisions about everything? No. But I believe that they should be given the chance to do so with respect to abortions.

[Farren]

In South Africa a teenager can have an abortion without parental concent and the state will advise and assist her to this end. The law was recently challenged by an irate parent and upheld by the courts. I wholeheartedly agree with such laws.

Its more or less common cause that a civilised society doesn't give parents carte blanche in how they bring up their own children. We don't, for instance let parents beat their children with broken glass bottles for disobedience. We also censure non-violent behaviour. Parents can't, for instance, keep their children permanently confined in a dark room.

I assume that most here agree that its healthy for a society to condemn certain practices as bad or abusive parenting and restrict the parenting privileges people enjoy accordingly.

So the real issue, as far as I'm concerned, is whether parents stopping their children from having abortions constitutes good or bad parenting. The evidence suggests that in the majority of cases its just plain bad parenting, regardless of what tangential arguments are thrown up. In most cases, when a teenager wishes to have an abortion, that abortion will be a positive life choice and preventing it will have a deleterious effect on the rest of the young mother's life.

Before the laws regarding this issue were passed in this country an NGO did a study on reasons parents objected to abortions (I think it was the Center for the Study of Violence against Women and Children) and found that in the majority of cases the primary reason for objection was religious/cultural ideology. Not the child's physical health. Not the child's mental health. Not the family's capacity to support the young mother or raise the child that might result. Just religious/cultural ideology. I suspect the same is true of most countries in the world today.

Conversely, when parents are open-minded and willing to consider either choice (to keep or to abort) as valid, the young mother is likely to have the confidence and trust to discuss the issue with her parents. Its the cases where she's certain of their response in the face of any reasoning when she would most want to hide her choice and in this latter case the reason is most likely unflinching ideological thinking on the part of the parents, regardless of the potential impact on the young mother.

So requiring parental consent is clearly serves the welfare of individuals in a society far worse than prohibiting it without the young mother's express consent.

Arguing from parental rights is foolish. Firstly, its consensual that parental rights don't extend to every possible restriction, else children could be locked in dark cellars their entire youth. Secondly, rights are not first causes. They are consequences of our desire to create a just society that best serves the welfare of its citizens. In this light and in light of the evidence of common ideological bias, its clear the right to be parental notification about something as life-changing as an abortion should reside with the teenager, not the parent.

[dave_a]

If a person of that age *should* be able to make decisions regarding abortion without parental involvement then why not other forms of surgery/body modifications, drug/cigarette/alcohol use?



And again, should is kinda irrelevant. The law is the law whether you give a shit or not. I can't change the law.

Now, can all teens make responsible, informed decisions about everything? No. But I believe that they should be given the chance to do so with respect to abortions.

I don't think should is irrelevant at all. As far as I know none of us here are legislators so we don't make the laws. What we are discussing here is our opinion as to how things should be and why we believe as we do.

Your position with respect to a minor having an abortion without parental knowledge appears logically inconsistent since you don't seem to approve of that minor making other decisions affecting the body.

You say the law is the law, but yet you oppose parental notification which is the law in most states. Not smoking until 18 or 21 or whatever the age is these days is also a law. So the laws aren't relevant to this discussion, but our opinions as to what the laws ought to be are.

I don't see why abortion is a special case, to me it is just another health/wellness type decision. Either the minor should be allowed to make all such decisions on their own or shouldn't. If abortion is a special case then when is it special in your view? If it isn't a special case, then why not support changing the other laws to reflect a consistent view?

[Goliath]

Your position with respect to a minor having an abortion without parental knowledge appears logically inconsistent since you don't seem to approve of that minor making other decisions affecting the body.


Wrong again. Some decisions I don't care about, others I do.

You people are nothing but a waste of my time. I'm outta here.

[dave_a]

Arguing from parental rights is foolish. Firstly, its consensual that parental rights don't extend to every possible restriction, else children could be locked in dark cellars their entire youth. Secondly, rights are not first causes. They are consequences of our desire to create a just society that best serves the welfare of its citizens. In this light and in light of t