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 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.

I am arguing a parent's right to *know*, not a parent's right to force or forbid an abortion. Does that make a difference to your view?

[Farren]

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.

I am arguing a parent's right to *know*, not a parent's right to force or forbid an abortion. Does that make a difference to your view?

Thanks for making the distinction because I hadn't considered it seperately. But my reasoning would be similar. The teenagers least likely to want to tell their parents would generally be the teenagers most likely to suffer unreasonable reprisals, so I would still stay the right to inform their parents should reside with the teenager.

And the idea of court cases to determine parental notification is simply unworkable. How does a judge arrive at a well-considered conclusion where no serious investigation has taken place, no people who might cotton on and inform the parents has been questioned and no knowledge of the private relationship the child has with her parents is admissable because the child clearly has bias?

[dave_a]

I am arguing a parent's right to *know*, not a parent's right to force or forbid an abortion. Does that make a difference to your view?

Thanks for making the distinction because I hadn't considered it seperately. But my reasoning would be similar. The teenagers least likely to want to tell their parents would generally be the teenagers most likely to suffer unreasonable reprisals, so I would still stay the right to inform their parents should reside with the teenager.

And the idea of court cases to determine parental notification is simply unworkable. How does a judge arrive at a well-considered conclusion where no serious investigation has taken place, no people who might cotton on and inform the parents has been questioned and no knowledge of the private relationship the child has with her parents is admissable because the child clearly has bias?

I think parental notification with built in exceptions would be the way to go. In other words I would like to see legislation that requires anyone proving abortion services or counseling be required to contact the parents unless conditions were met. What those conditions ought to be is not something I am real clear on. Perhaps it could be something as simple as the girl saying that she believes her parents would kick her out of the house or something.

I am not trying to place an unreasonable burden on the girl, but I am trying to respect the parent's legitimate right to know what is going on with thier kid when it comes to high risk behavior (unprotected sex in some cases where abortions are sought) as well as medical procedures being performed.

In my view you argued well that parents do not enjoy absolute rights over their children. What remains, in my mind, is whether the minor child has absolute rights to herself or whether the parents have any rights based upon a compelling interest/legal responsibility to be informed.

[dave_a]

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.

Ok, but you caring about one thing and not another does not a logically consistent position make.

As for your outburst, well, can't help you there. If you wish to participate in a discussion it's reasonable to assume a give and take in terms of asking questions and answering them.

[Farren]

I think parental notification with built in exceptions would be the way to go. In other words I would like to see legislation that requires anyone proving abortion services or counseling be required to contact the parents unless conditions were met. What those conditions ought to be is not something I am real clear on. Perhaps it could be something as simple as the girl saying that she believes her parents would kick her out of the house or something.

I am not trying to place an unreasonable burden on the girl, but I am trying to respect the parent's legitimate right to know what is going on with thier kid when it comes to high risk behavior (unprotected sex in some cases where abortions are sought) as well as medical procedures being performed.

In my view you argued well that parents do not enjoy absolute rights over their children. What remains, in my mind, is whether the minor child has absolute rights to herself or whether the parents have any rights based upon a compelling interest/legal responsibility to be informed.

That's a reasonable position, I think. The fairness of such law, of course, would reside in the details. I would lean towards provisions that

a) Make such notification elective rather than prescriptive. i.e. A doctor or counseller must feel there is a compelling reason.

b) Restrict who can bring such an action so that a religious nut in the beaurocratic machinery who has no qualification to comment can't (comment).

c) Require some evidence of probable high medical risk (if parental consent rather than simple notification is being argued for).

Those are things I can think of off the cuff.

[viscousmemories]

You're kidding, right? You're about as bad as vm when it comes to not reading what I've written.
Don't you ever get tired of repeating this lie?

[viscousmemories]

I'm torn on this issue. I understand abortion to be a fairly serious medical procedure with a certain amount of risk (although I confess I don't know what amount) and I would almost certainly want to know if my 13 yr. old daughter was going to have one. However there have been good arguments raised about the very real possibility (probability, I would say) that forced notification would influence the girls choice. It is comforting to know that some adults would have to be involved, but then again we're talking about adults who have a financial investment in performing the procedure and no real emotional investment in my daughter. So I would definitely be suspect of the level of care they would provide.

I don't know. It's a very tough issue and some good points have been made on both sides, I think.

[dave_a]

I'm torn on this issue. I understand abortion to be a fairly serious medical procedure with a certain amount of risk (although I confess I don't know what amount) and I would almost certainly want to know if my 13 yr. old daughter was going to have one. =

Holy shit you gun hating, duck loving in a PETA way son of a bitch, do we at last almost in a kinda sorta way agree on something?

I think I see some sort of pinkish, oinking animal flying about. :D

[viscousmemories]

I'm torn on this issue. I understand abortion to be a fairly serious medical procedure with a certain amount of risk (although I confess I don't know what amount) and I would almost certainly want to know if my 13 yr. old daughter was going to have one. =

Holy shit you gun hating, duck loving in a PETA way son of a bitch, do we at last almost in a kinda sorta way agree on something?

I think I see some sort of pinkish, oinking animal flying about. :D
Don't think I'm not scared too. :D

[LadyShea]

VM, if you read the Alan Guttmacher link I posted on the previous page, you will find that early (first trimester) abortions are very very safe. Planned Parenthood doesn't even use anesthesia (or at least they didn't use to), which reduces the risk even more, as that is a big risk factor in surgeries of all kinds.

[beyelzu]

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.


fuck your attitude problem.

I could give fuck all about your paranoia.

or your goddamn persecution complex.

I am done responding to you in this thread, it is just too goddamn frustrating.

which is why I avoided posting in response to you in this thread at first. I realized at the time that you would fail to take into account the ramifications of your point of view and then we would end up having a conversation about semantics. Fuck that.



ps sorry everyone for this little rant.

[beyelzu]

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.

you know right now, I definitely reciprocate this statement right now.


and this is definitely my last response to you in this thread.

[viscousmemories]

VM, if you read the Alan Guttmacher link I posted on the previous page, you will find that early (first trimester) abortions are very very safe. Planned Parenthood doesn't even use anesthesia (or at least they didn't use to), which reduces the risk even more, as that is a big risk factor in surgeries of all kinds.
Thanks for the info, LadyShea. That was an informative slideshow, and I went to Planned Parenthood to get a little more info about the medical risks. It definitely does make a difference (IMHO) that it's such a low risk procedure, although I have to admit I still think I'd be pretty freaked out to find out my 13 yr. old daughter might have any elective surgery without my knowing about it. I think I'd be more okay with setting it at 16 though, which is closer to the average age of consent if I recall correctly.

[LadyShea]

Thanks for the info, LadyShea. That was an informative slideshow, and I went to Planned Parenthood to get a little more info about the medical risks. It definitely does make a difference (IMHO) that it's such a low risk procedure, although I have to admit I still think I'd be pretty freaked out to find out my 13 yr. old daughter might have any elective surgery without my knowing about it. I think I'd be more okay with setting it at 16 though, which is closer to the average age of consent if I recall correctly.

Oh I totally agree on a personal, emotional, freak out level and will do everything in my power to ensure my daughter (should I acquire one) never be in a position where she would have to wonder about my reaction. I simply cannot justify that into supporting legislation because I don't know how other people will deal with the issue.

[beyelzu]

Thanks for the info, LadyShea. That was an informative slideshow, and I went to Planned Parenthood to get a little more info about the medical risks. It definitely does make a difference (IMHO) that it's such a low risk procedure, although I have to admit I still think I'd be pretty freaked out to find out my 13 yr. old daughter might have any elective surgery without my knowing about it. I think I'd be more okay with setting it at 16 though, which is closer to the average age of consent if I recall correctly.

Oh I totally agree on a personal, emotional, freak out level and will do everything in my power to ensure my daughter (should I acquire one) never be in a position where she would have to wonder about my reaction. I simply cannot justify that into supporting legislation because I don't know how other people will deal with the issue.
but the thing is, we are talking about an elective surgery. I dont feel comfortable allowing children to have elective surgery. and the status quo is requirement of parental consent. and parental notification is actually a lower standard and sort of a compromise.

[LadyShea]

I know beyelzu, but having been there, I can't describe the stress these girls are already under. Some would rather kill themselves then tell their parents. It's just hard for me, NOW, as a wannabe parent....my feelings are conflicting.

[Beth]

I know beyelzu, but having been there, I can't describe the stress these girls are already under. Some would rather kill themselves then tell their parents. It's just hard for me, NOW, as a wannabe parent....my feelings are conflicting.
Suicide was a very real option for me. If I had been forced to keep the baby, it would have been my only choice.

edited to add: A little before this time, the state was trying to bring a parental consent law into legislature, or actually did. I remember that the state supreme court struck it down. I am not sure if the law passed before my surgery or if it was after. I just remember being terrified. I felt helpless. I asked this woman about abortion and if there was a parental consent law. During this time, I only saw two options:one was to run away, the other was to commit suicide since I thought I must have consent. I was going to try to get to another state, anyway I could, but I had no vehicle and I would have had to hitch rides. So I asked the only adult I could trust for help.

I had called Crisis Pregnancy Center for help, but when I said I wanted to abort, I was belittled. The woman actually implied it was my fault for walking in a neighborhood after dark, alone. I knew nothing about Planned Parenthood. If I had, I would not have felt so trapped. Because of my experience, I think it is good that the school officials do say that they can talk to PP for help. Some girls see no way out. Some girls see no options other than running away, or suicide. I was just very lucky the law allowed me to get it privately.

As a mother of a nine year old, of course I would want to know. I am very involved in my children's lives and openly communicate. I am both a friend and mother and counselor to them. All I can do is hope I never damage that bond so I can be confided in. Do I want to know if my daughter ever became pregnant? Yes. Do I want the amendment to pass as it stands, speaking as a mother and as a former teenage girl, no.

[Sweetie]

Oh Beth, the situations you describe are so difficult and unfortunate but further questions still remain in my mind but I don't have any real information to really draw and conclusions, any best case scenario possibilities, etc.

You describe several events in your life, or have mentioned them. Sexual abuse, not sure if it was continuous, what age it started, what age it ended, who was doing the abusing and if your parents knew. Sexual harassment at different occasions, and in this case you seem to be describing a seperate instance of rape. I'm not sure what age you were, I'm not sure what anybody did about it.

We're talking about children who find themselves in adult situations, whether or not they are able to make adult choices and if they can't, which I would say is generally the case, I mean even in some cases, thirteen year olds try to get pregnant because they think it's fun and cool, and whether or not parent intervention is the best thing to help them with these adult choices.

You basically describe a situation of secrecy, to me it seems, hiding or dying of shame and pain, and telling people who really have no interest in you, or no interest in your best interest.

Some further questions would be about the men doing these things to you. When you said you were raped, maybe at Planned Pregnancy, even if you were unwilling to go to the police about the incidents, well, maybe it's only in this day and age, did they take a blood sample at least from the fetus for your future, in case in the future you wanted to prosecute or did they just whisk away the evidence (these days DNA) because of the possibility in the future as an adult, of you wanting to take steps having to do with that rape, what I would call generally, an adult choice? Did they further act to get you help in your abuses? If you said you would commit suicide if your parents were told, would they act to restrain you or contact others in order for you to get over that shame that is natural, in order to get help? Did they take any precautions to prevent further abuse, something your parents might have done? Do your parents know now? Are you even over it now? Do you have closure? Was it really in your best interest to keep hiding in shame?

It seems a little like most adults that you dealt with were willing to agree to your "sweep it under the rug" ideas. But should've they?

[Sweetie]

I suppose the question would be that after your experiences and after having grown up, would you do anything differently if you could go back, would you act differently towards them if such a thing were to happen to your children, would you think that something was in their best interest now, than they might think at the time or you did then?

[Beth]

Sweetie, the only person I told I had been raped was at Crisis Pregnancy Center which is rather pro-life (as I later found) and is supported by many churches. Funny, I went to a pro-life organization and they shamed me.

The person I went to for help was not told of the circumstances, only I was in this situation and was desperate. I never told anyone that I had decided to commit suicide. Usually when people make such plans, they keep them rather private and ponder them to make sure it is the only option.

When I went to the clinic, I was given options. I emphatically told them I made my decision and I did not want to hear the other options. But, they had to tell me anyway.

No ID was required. I gave them a false phone number and a false name so that I would not have my mother called at all. I went to a clinic as required a week later for the follow up.

If I had stated it was from a rape, by law, the clinic would have been forced to report the abuse of a minor. So the clinic is not in the least culpable for the cover-up because I kept my mouth shut, sealed tightly shut from the shame a pro-lifer made me feel.

My mom is not responsible for the sexual abuse. People she thought were good and trustworthy failed her and I will not have it implied she is at fault.

[Beth]

I suppose the question would be that after your experiences and after having grown up, would you do anything differently if you could go back, would you act differently towards them if such a thing were to happen to your children, would you think that something was in their best interest now, than they might think at the time or you did then?I am not sure I understand the question. If you are asking me if I would go back and change things, tell, prevent abuse, I think you have no right to ask this. A victim is quite often plagued and haunted by the "what if's".And it seems rather wrong that someone would ask such a question when there is no control to go back and change anything.

In regard to my kids, thus far, what has happened to me has not been carried onto them. They have a very alert, suspicious mother and they trust me, thus far. I am not my mother, so of course things are different and I would react differently than my mother would have. But if my daughter became pregnant and was too ashamed to tell me and saw suicide as an option, well, my rights be damned. I would rather her keep her privacy and have a living daughter.

[livius drusus]

Great posts, Beth.

Sweetie, do you have a source for your claim that some thirteen year olds try to get pregnant because they think it's cool?

[dave_a]

Great posts, Beth.

Sweetie, do you have a source for your claim that some thirteen year olds try to get pregnant because they think it's cool?

I would be interested in a link as well, but it is my understanding the a segment of the black population in the US represents this. Having kids waaay early as well as being arrested or having served time seem to be status symbols of a sort for a segment of this population.

I dont have any sources handy, but I have read this enough times and a black coworker friend indicated she sees it among blacks in the lowest end of the economic spectrum.

[Sweetie]

Great posts, Beth.

Sweetie, do you have a source for your claim that some thirteen year olds try to get pregnant because they think it's cool?

LOL, no. Does Jerry Springer, Montel Williams, Oprah Winfrey, and whatever else count?

I do know, however, that a desire for a baby is often strong in thirteen year olds, it was for me. They generally like to hold them, to babysit, to moon over the babies of relatives if the baby is quiet and such.

[Sweetie]

I am not sure I understand the question. If you are asking me if I would go back and change things, tell, prevent abuse, I think you have no right to ask this. A victim is quite often plagued and haunted by the "what if's".And it seems rather wrong that someone would ask such a question when there is no control to go back and change anything.

In regard to my kids, thus far, what has happened to me has not been carried onto them. They have a very alert, suspicious mother and they trust me, thus far. I am not my mother, so of course things are different and I would react differently than my mother would have. But if my daughter became pregnant and was too ashamed to tell me and saw suicide as an option, well, my rights be damned. I would rather her keep her privacy and have a living daughter.


You are certainly free not to answer, I should have included that in my post. I'm just saying, you are defending the court ruling because of your experience. My question just basically was that from your experience, was it truly in your best interest looking back, that what happened to you or how things happened was truly in your best interest, that's it, that's all. Didn't mean to offend. My question had nothing to do with the abuses themselves, whether or not you could have prevented those, but from the after, what you needed, what could've helped you if you think that something would've helped or should have been done now that you see it as an adult, or whether or not it was the best case scenario of how it did work out and the only way it should have been done based on the feelings you had then.

As far as the suicide aspect, I think it is reasonable to assert that in cases of rape, really the only serious cases that I think would justify your defense of suicide, you are so for it because you wanted to commit suicide if your parents had to be told. I would think it reasonabe to assert that the child in question is under extreme psychological distress, and in that case, an abortion won't really cure the factors that play into that. What I am saying is that further care and therapy dealing with why you would have felt like committing suicide might, and I say might, have been in your best interest. In that case, you may or may not have benefitted from a greater amount of intervention in your life.

[livius drusus]

LOL, no. Does Jerry Springer, Montel Williams, Oprah Winfrey, and whatever else count?

No, but I suspected that was your source because I've seen those shows too. The thing is there's no way of knowing if those girls (and I can't remember seeing any 13 year olds, but certianly teenagers in general) are speaking from the heart or mugging for a camera, looking to get back at their parents, trying to get attention, etc. That's why Spinger et al are useless as any kind of realistic gauge of social reality: people lie, exaggerate, primp, say dumb shit because that's what they're there to do.

I do know, however, that a desire for a baby is often strong in thirteen year olds, it was for me. They generally like to hold them, to babysit, to moon over the babies of relatives if the baby is quiet and such.

Again, I'd be curious to see a statistic for this beyond the extrapolation from your personal experience. Having said that, did you want to get pregnant at 13 because you thought it was cool? Liking babies and wanting to get pregnant are two very, very different things.

[Sweetie]

Sweetie, the only person I told I had been raped was at Crisis Pregnancy Center which is rather pro-life (as I later found) and is supported by many churches. Funny, I went to a pro-life organization and they shamed me.

And the response from the Crisis Center was what I was adressing, their insensitivity. Keep in mind, one person at the Crisis Center though, is not necessarily what the Crisis Center is all about, I really have no idea. One insensitive person at Planned Parenthood is not either. It seems a subjective thing, in other words, not all people at the Crisis Center would be insensitive, and not all at Planned Parenthood would be sensitive. An insenstive person from the Crisis Center does not an insensitive Crisis Center make, and a sensitive person at Planned Parenthood does not a sensitive Planned Parenthood make.

In that case, I was saying, the person you talked to at the Crisis Center did not know you, was insensitive and obviously wasn't really thinking about you, nor do they get to see the after affects on you of what that person had to say to you unlike your parents who do know you, most parents believe what their children tell them, are usually concerned about your general health and well-being, etc.

[Sweetie]

Again, I'd be curious to see a statistic for this beyond the extrapolation from your personal experience. Having said that, did you want to get pregnant at 13 because you thought it was cool? Liking babies and wanting to get pregnant are two very, very different things.

I don't know if there could be stats. I was just even looking for stats yesterday about the pregnancy rates the result of rapes. Those are hard to find, and those would be too weak as well, unless one is willing to guestimate the amount of unreported cases, etc.

In that case, as per the question, it seems that's something that can only be given via the testimony of the teens themselves, and in that case, it does seem that it happens that some teens want babies. I wouldn't say it is common, far from it, but it does seem to happen and I can only take their word for it, but questionably. I am agreeing that it's neither common nor rational for a child to want that and seek it, but at the same time, I am also arguing that young teens aka children in my eyes, don't necessarily make the best decisions for themselves by themselves and oftentimes, don't really know what is in their best interests.

[livius drusus]

I would be interested in a link as well, but it is my understanding the a segment of the black population in the US represents this. Having kids waaay early as well as being arrested or having served time seem to be status symbols of a sort for a segment of this population.

Some evidence for all of these assertions, please.

I dont have any sources handy, but I have read this enough times and a black coworker friend indicated she sees it among blacks in the lowest end of the economic spectrum.

That doesn't cut it, dantonac. Before you repeat such a generalization (particularly one connected to old racist notions of black hypersexuality), I think you should at least make an attempt to back it up with some actual sources.

[dave_a]

That doesn't cut it, dantonac. Before you repeat such a generalization (particularly one connected to old racist notions of black hypersexuality), I think you should at least make an attempt to back it up with some actual sources.

Sorry it doesn't cut it for you. It isn't as if I expected my statement to be viewed as a hardcore fact, just my understanding based upon what I have seen, read and heard from others.

Not everything a person believes to be true can be backed up with a handy web link.

As far as black hypersexuality I never heard of that before.

Have you never heard of ghetto blacks valuing a criminal record as a measure of their toughness or blackness? Hell, just go to the core of Milwaukee and ask anyone there. There's nothing racist about my comments, liv, just culturalist.

[livius drusus]

In that case, as per the question, it seems that's something that can only be given via the testimony of the teens themselves, and in that case, it does seem that it happens that some teens want babies.

That's not what you said, Sweetie. Your claim was that some 13 year olds get pregnant intentionally because they think it's cool. I would like to see even anecdotal evidence of this which did not come from a talk show.

I wouldn't say it is common, far from it, but it does seem to happen and I can only take their word for it, but questionably.

Teenagers wanting some romantic notion of unconditional love and thinking they can get it from a baby, sure, but 13 year olds wanting to get pregnant because they think it's cool is an entirely different claim. That is what I'm questioning.

I am agreeing that it's neither common nor rational for a child to want that and seek it, but at the same time, I am also arguing that young teens aka children in my eyes, don't necessarily make the best decisions for themselves.

I can't imagine anyone would deny that young teens don't necessarily make the best decisions for themselves. The same can be said for adults, and parents don't necessarily make the best decisions for their children. Given all of that, where does it leave us?

[dave_a]

That's not what you said, Sweetie. Your claim was that some 13 year olds get pregnant intentionally because they think it's cool. I would like to see even anecdotal evidence of this which did not come from a talk show.


Here, I dug up a link for you, Liv. linky (http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/structures_of_poverty_in_the_african_american_community/jswafford.html)

While it doesn't necessarily make the point that young black females get pregnant because "it's cool" read the report and judge for yourself.

edit to provide excerpt: Effectively, the black community draws upon itself creating a realm where everyone survives but no one is able to escape the tragedy. Black teen parents continue to remain in a lower socioeconomic status group because they have adapted their paths to fit in the environment in which they grew up. Latino teen parents on the other hand play a much greater role in the responsibility of themselves and their children because the emphasis is on the "new family". Latino teens indeed may have lower rates of pregnancy and lower rates of multiple births because they cannot afford to have multiple children without the support network that is found in black communities. And at the opposite end of the spectrum for white teen parents, the lack of social support leads to higher rates of abortion, less childrearing, and more drug use which in turn leads to less healthy babies, higher rates of infant mortality, and less recurring pregnancy.

[livius drusus]

Sorry it doesn't cut it for you. It isn't as if I expected my statement to be viewed as a hardcore fact, just my understanding based upon what I have seen, read and heard from others.

I'd like to see what you have read, at least. What you have heard from others is, frankly, meaningless, because one person's impressions do not a cultural truth make.

Not everything a person believes to be true can be backed up with a handy web link.

No, but I'd like to think that you would have at least investigated this before believing it. Every statistic I've seen points to a precipitous drop in teen pregnancies for women of every race. I'd like to know where the notion of poor black girls getting pregnant as a badge of honor is based in, given the continual decline in youth birth rates.

Here's the most recent data from the CDC: Teen Birth Rate Continues to Decline; African-American Teens Show Sharpest Drop (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/03facts/teenbirth.htm)

As far as black hypersexuality I never heard of that before.

You've never heard that black men have larger penises than white men? That black women are more passionate than white? These are long-standing stereotypes in this country.

Have you never heard of ghetto blacks valuing a criminal record as a measure of their toughness or blackness?

No more than I've heard of whites doing so. Crime has its own subculture and values; from what I've seen, it is not racially grounded in the least. Where do you get your information?

Hell, just go to the core of Milwaukee and ask anyone there.

Milwaukee? I live in downtown Atlanta, dantonac. I don't have to ask people in Wisconsin. My neighbors should do the trick.

There's nothing racist about my comments, liv, just culturalist.

I didn't say there was. I said given the long, strong history of racist assumptions about black sexuality, it would be a good idea for you to back up your rather vague claims before repeating them as if they were facts.

[Sweetie]

While I would love to give us something to work with, lol, I can't even find a search criteria that comes up with anything even remotely close to the subject. Not testimonies, not rates, not psychologically views on the subject, nothing of import. I narrowed the search to teen deliberate pregnant. I anybody else could come up with anything, I'd be grateful.

[dave_a]

No, but I'd like to think that you would have at least investigated this before believing it. Every statistic I've seen points to a precipitous drop in teen pregnancies for women of every race. I'd like to know where the notion of poor black girls getting pregnant as a badge of honor is based in, given the continual decline in youth birth rates.

On this issue I base my beliefs upon what I have seen firsthand more than anything else. I have never felt the need to research something patently obvious (to me) in an academic manner. I am not saying what is obvious to me ought to be obvious to you, just that it is obvious to me based upon my experiences and interactions. I have chaperoned field trips for an MPS charter school (An inner city school, 100% black in the ghetto of Milwaukee's ghetto). When I have kindergardeners asking my when it's OK to kill someone and I say never and they retort with "what about if they dis(repsect) you it isn't hard to tell you are dealing with a different culture. When the teachers at the school inform me that less than 20% of the females will graduate before having kids it's a striking statement. When there are street walking prostitutes under the age of consent it's obvious what this subculture does and doesn't value.

Getting pregnant is simply the cultural norm for teens in this subculture. There is no shame to it. It's also perfectly acceptable to let these kids get raised by whomever happens to encounter them as a minority of the kids at this school actually have even 1 birth parent living with them.

As far as black hypersexuality I never heard of that before.

You've never heard that black men have larger penises than white men? That black women are more passionate than white? These are long-standing stereotypes in this country.

The bigger penis thing I have heard of, not the more passionate lover thing though. Hypersexuality to me means having sex with excessive frequency so maybe it was just my misunderstanding of your use of the term.


No more than I've heard of whites doing so. Crime has its own subculture and values; from what I've seen, it is not racially grounded in the least. Where do you get your information?

From living. I don't see whites valuing a criminal record as an identifiable subculture. Not saying it doesn't exist, I simply haven't seen it to such an extent I would call it a subculture.

[dave_a]

While I would love to give us something to work with, lol, I can't even find a search criteria that comes up with anything even remotely close to the subject. Not testimonies, not rates, not psychologically views on the subject, nothing of import. I narrowed the search to teen deliberate pregnant. I anybody else could come up with anything, I'd be grateful.


just in case it got missed, I gave a link in post 140

[livius drusus]

Here, I dug up a link for you, Liv. linky (http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/structures_of_poverty_in_the_african_american_community/jswafford.html)

While it doesn't necessarily make the point that young black females get pregnant because "it's cool" read the report and judge for yourself.

It doesn't make any such point at all, from what I could see, nor does it support your claim that poor black teens have children as a badge of honor. Could you quote the segment that you feel supports either your claim or Sweetie's?

Finally, it's a student paper based entirely on secondary sources. None of the sources in the bibliography are recent statistics, and they are almost without exception psychology books. She uses statistics (presumably gleaned from those secondary sources in the biblio) from the 70s and 80s and therefore entirely overlooks the enormours decline in teen pregnancies over the past 15 years (see the CDC stats I cited above). I wonder what grade she got?

[dave_a]

Here, I dug up a link for you, Liv. linky (http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/structures_of_poverty_in_the_african_american_community/jswafford.html)

While it doesn't necessarily make the point that young black females get pregnant because "it's cool" read the report and judge for yourself.

It doesn't make any such point at all, from what I could see, nor does it support your claim that poor black teens have children as a badge of honor. Could you quote the segment that you feel supports either your claim or Sweetie's?



Ok, then here is this one (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/07/study_many_blac.php)

editted to note, the site hosting the article appears to be racist so I dunno that I like that one. I am just googling for stuff and posting what I find. The article is from the associated press though and reports on a study published in the August edition of the journal Health Education & Behavior so it seems legit.

[livius drusus]

On this issue I base my beliefs upon what I have seen firsthand more than anything else. I have never felt the need to research something patently obvious (to me) in an academic manner. I am not saying what is obvious to me ought to be obvious to you, just that it is obvious to me based upon my experiences and interactions.

I see. I would hope that the fact that it is not patently obvious to others would encourage you to investigate further, but so be it.

I have chaperoned field trips for an MPS charter school (An inner city school, 100% black in the ghetto of Milwaukee's ghetto). When I have kindergardeners asking my when it's OK to kill someone and I say never and they retort with "what about if they dis(repsect) you it isn't hard to tell you are dealing with a different culture.

What if they were just jerking you around because you look like a mark?

When the teachers at the school inform me that less than 20% of the females will graduate before having kids it's a striking statement.

Did you ask them to back it up? People aren't necessarily very good at making statistical calls, you know. Counting the hits and not the misses is a pretty common human failing.

When there are street walking prostitutes under the age of consent it's obvious what this subculture does and doesn't value.

Excuse me? Are you suggesting that Milwaukee "ghetto" subculture values teenage prostitution? Even if there weren't plenty of white child prostitutes in countries all over the world - which of course there are - why would you think that was a cultural value instead of a side-effect of poverty or drug abuse?

Getting pregnant is simply the cultural norm for teens in this subculture. There is no shame to it. It's also perfectly acceptable to let these kids get raised by whomever happens to encounter them as a minority of the kids at this school actually have even 1 birth parent living with them.

You can keep asserting it, but your evidence from field trip is meaningless. The CDC belies your claims. My downstairs neighbors belie it as well.

The bigger penis thing I have heard of, not the more passionate lover thing though. Hypersexuality to me means having sex with excessive frequency so maybe it was just my misunderstanding of your use of the term.

It means that as well. Hypersexuality is just the fetishization of black sexuality so that it seems out of all proportion to the "norm", which is, of course, white sexuality. You see that in stereotypes about penis size, sexual desire, promiscuity, among others.


From living. I don't see whites valuing a criminal record as an identifiable subculture. Not saying it doesn't exist, I simply haven't seen it to such an extent I would call it a subculture.

Wait a minute. You said criminal blacks value their records amongst each other, not black people in general value those with longer/meaner records. That's a far bolder statement and one that you would be hard pressed indeed to even begin to prove.

Ex and current cons trade in the severity and length of their records because in criminal society the more violence and experience, the more strength and security. If you haven't seen this among white criminals, then I would guess you haven't really looked into prison culture.

[livius drusus]

Ok, then here is this one (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/07/study_many_blac.php)

editted to note, the site itself appear to be racist so I dunno that I like that one. I am just googling for stuff and posting what I find.

Um, yeah... Op-eds from white supremacist sites weren't quite what I had in mind. Perhaps you should try including CDC or NHS in your search terms.

[dave_a]

What if they were just jerking you around because you look like a mark?


Please. I am sorry that you find my and Sweetie's statements so hard to accept, but suggesting the whole of my experience with inner city black kids is my getting 'jerked' around is lame. Do your own damn research if the topic interests you, Liv. I already gave you 2 links as starting points.

When the teachers at the school inform me that less than 20% of the females will graduate before having kids it's a striking statement.

Did you ask them to back it up? People aren't necessarily very good at making statistical calls, you know. Counting the hits and not the misses is a pretty common human failing.

Another example of denial. Yeah, I asked the teachers who said this for documentation. I always do that in my casual conversations. They work in the school, I would imagine they know the stats for the school.

When there are street walking prostitutes under the age of consent it's obvious what this subculture does and doesn't value.

Excuse me? Are you suggesting that Milwaukee "ghetto" subculture values teenage prostitution?

Values it? No, they simply don't have a problem with it. If they did it wouldn't be observable from the school property.


From living. I don't see whites valuing a criminal record as an identifiable subculture. Not saying it doesn't exist, I simply haven't seen it to such an extent I would call it a subculture.

Wait a minute. You said criminal blacks value their records amongst each other, not black people in general value those with longer/meaner records. That's a far bolder statement and one that you would be hard pressed indeed to even begin to prove.

I said subculture.

Ex and current cons trade in the severity and length of their records because in criminal society the more violence and experience, the more strength and security. If you haven't seen this among white criminals, then I would guess you haven't really looked into prison culture.

No, I haven't 'looked into prison culture". I am talking about observed attitudes among the black subculture I am refering to.

[Beth]

I am not sure I understand the question. If you are asking me if I would go back and change things, tell, prevent abuse, I think you have no right to ask this. A victim is quite often plagued and haunted by the "what if's".And it seems rather wrong that someone would ask such a question when there is no control to go back and change anything.

In regard to my kids, thus far, what has happened to me has not been carried onto them. They have a very alert, suspicious mother and they trust me, thus far. I am not my mother, so of course things are different and I would react differently than my mother would have. But if my daughter became pregnant and was too ashamed to tell me and saw suicide as an option, well, my rights be damned. I would rather her keep her privacy and have a living daughter.


You are certainly free not to answer, I should have included that in my post.Whether or not I am free to answer, some questions are simply rude and best not asked.

I'm just saying, you are defending the court ruling because of your experience. My question just basically was that from your experience, was it truly in your best interest looking back, that what happened to you or how things happened was truly in your best interest, that's it, that's all. [ Didn't mean to offend. My question had nothing to do with the abuses themselves, whether or not you could have prevented those, but from the after, what you needed, what could've helped you if you think that something would've helped or should have been done now that you see it as an adult, or whether or not it was the best case scenario of how it did work out and the only way it should have been done based on the feelings you had then.{/quote] The rape was not in my best interest. What I decided was. I am not, nor was scared from the abortion. I am not tormented at the abortion. I did the right thing. I think I was brave to do it alone and showed maturity.
[quote]
As far as the suicide aspect, I think it is reasonable to assert that in cases of rape, really the only serious cases that I think would justify your defense of suicide, you are so for it because you wanted to commit suicide if your parents had to be told.I wonder what the stats are in suicides of pregnant teenage girls. My only defense dear is not the suicide. I did not bring that up until Lady Shea brought it up later on. My defense is that my daughter has the right to privacy if she wishes to abort. End of story.

I would think it reasonabe to assert that the child in question is under extreme psychological distress, and in that case, an abortion won't really cure the factors that play into that. Abortion got rid of the problem, I cured myself of these issues. I do not look back and try to harp on changing things. I have healed from my childhood. True counseling might work. My mother refused to let me get counseling after I told her I was molested when I was 14. She said they would mess with my head and that their secular teachings would go against god. Lotsa fundamentalists feel the same.



What I am saying is that further care and therapy dealing with why you would have felt like committing suicide might, and I say might, have been in your best interest. You are not making sense. I acted in my best interest. I fixed the problem.
In that case, you may or may not have benefitted from a greater amount of intervention in your life.
Well, true, but you see, there were tricky devils out there. My mom was there and tried to protect me. My mom got in fights for me. My mom fought tooth and nail over the school board for not doing anything about this kid bullying me. My mom and I have issues. I often say the worst. But my mother was a good mother till she had a breakdown and went wacky religious. So, I think that again you are wrong. Bad things happen to children of even great parents.

Oh, my rape, it occured in a neighborhood of multi million dollar homes. My mom thought I was very safe, indeed.

[livius drusus]

Please. I am sorry that you find my and Sweetie's statements so hard to accept, but suggesting the whole of my experience with inner city black kids is my getting 'jerked' around is lame.

First of all, you and Sweetie are not making the same claim and so far neither of you have backed up the ones you've made. Sweetie's still looking, in fact.

Secondly, I made no such suggestion. I was referring to the single instance you gave me of the kids on your field trip asking about when it was right to kill someone. You extrapolated that to a general cultural judgement, and my point was simply that the kids could have been fucking with you.

I don't know anything nor have I suggested anything about the entirety of your experience with inner city black kids. I responded to one anecdote.


Do your own damn research if the topic interests you, Liv. I already gave you 2 links as starting points.


I have done extensive research on the subject, and I have provided you with a strong source for my claims which you have yet to address. The links you have provided were 1. an college paper based on no original or even cited research, and 2. an op-ed from a white supremacist publication.

Another example of denial. Yeah, I asked the teachers who said this for documentation. I always do that in my casual conversations. They work in the school, I would imagine they know the stats for the school.

Okay, fine, dantonac. You once accused me of insulting you in every post. I have no desire to engage you any further on the topic when you have no interest in even questioning your premises and would rather talk shit about me instead of rebutting my points.

[dave_a]

Ok, then here is this one (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/07/study_many_blac.php)

editted to note, the site itself appear to be racist so I dunno that I like that one. I am just googling for stuff and posting what I find.

Um, yeah... Op-eds from white supremacist sites weren't quite what I had in mind. Perhaps you should try including CDC or NHS in your search terms.

Please drop the bitchy attitude and read the damned article. You are the one who wanted to see supporting evidence and I have been trying to provide you with it. I plainly stated in my post that the hosting site was racist, but it's an AP article summarizing a study, it isn't written by the racists.

[livius drusus]

See above. I have nothing further to say to you. Enjoy your beliefs.

[Beth]

In that case, I was saying, the person you talked to at the Crisis Center did not know you, was insensitive and obviously wasn't really thinking about you, nor do they get to see the after affects on you of what that person had to say to you unlike your parents who do know you, most parents believe what their children tell them, are usually concerned about your general health and well-being, etc.How can I make it any more clearer? What happened and what I decided was not and still is not any of my mom's business. Period.

[dave_a]

See above. I have nothing further to say to you. Enjoy your beliefs.

And you continue to enjoy yours. You keep misrepresenting the article I linked to as an oped for a racist site. That's what I get for trying to satisfy your request for links supporting the claim that teen blacks within a distinct subculture view getting pregnant as a positive or cool thing to do.

It's a damn AP news article reporting on a study done by the journal of Health Education & Behavior. That the first site showing up in google hosting the article is a racist site is meaningless.

This is what I mean by your constantly being insulting to me. I didn't link to a racist oped, I linked to a summary article from a legit study and you keep mischaracterizing it.

You obviously don't want to accept any evidence to the contrary of what you wish to believe.

Here it is plainly : The lead author of the study, published in the August edition of the journal Health Education & Behavior, said researchers were shocked by the findings.

“The whole thing took us by surprise,” Susan L. Davies, who teaches public health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said Friday.

Initially, researchers set out to find out why the AIDS virus was spreading so rapidly through inner city areas, which are virtually all black. As part of a 268-question survey administered in 1999, black teens were asked whether they wanted to get pregnant.

Of 455 girls who participated in the study, Davies said 107, or 23.6 percent, responded that they wished they were pregnant. Many of them had their dream come true: Follow-up work found that 80 of the girls, or 18 percent, were expecting within six months of completing the survey.

SUMMARY: They got pregnant because they wanted to.

[livius drusus]

Fair enough, dantonac. I apologize for mischaracterizing the article as an op-ed. You're right that it is does show that there are sexually active black teenage girls in a Birmigham neigborhood who want to get pregnant. I see nothing in the article about 13 year olds nor do the motivations offered by the researches include because it's fun and/or cool, however, so again Sweetie's claim remains unproven.

Whether this article points to a subculture is another matter entirely. In my opinion it does not anymore than the syphyllis epidemic among white teenagers in rich, all-white Rockdale county, Georgia indicates a rich, all-white subculture of reckless promiscuity.

Having said that, I again withdraw from further discussion with you as I am not interested in being mischaracterized as bitchy or in denial based solely on your perceptions of a hostility that does not exist on my end.

[dave_a]

Fair enough, dantonac. I apologize for mischaracterizing the article as an op-ed. You're right that it is does show that there are sexually active black teenage girls in a Birmigham neigborhood who want to get pregnant. I see nothing in the article about 13 year olds, however, so again Sweetie's claim remains unproven.

No, it doesn't specifically mention 13 year olds, just "teens". I really doubt any study exists where 13 year olds were specifically singled out.

Whether this article points to a subculture is another matter entirely. In my opinion it does not anymore than the syphyllis epidemic among white teenagers in rich, all-white Rockdale county, Georgia indicates a rich, all-white subculture of reckless promiscuity.

I see the subculture routinely. That your experience differs is fine. I have simply been doing what I can via google to show you 'official' information regarding what I see routinely trying to satisfy your request for such info.

Having said that, I again withdraw from further discussion with you as I am not interested in being mischaracterized as bitchy or in denial based solely on your perceptions of a hostility that does not exist on my end.

Perhaps in your heart there is no hostility, but read your words and tell me they aren't hostile in tone:

Um, yeah... Op-eds from white supremacist sites weren't quite what I had in mind. Perhaps you should try including CDC or NHS in your search terms.

Thanks for admitting you mischaracterized, but I identifed the hosting site was racist in the OP and I had to point this out 3 or so times before you acknowledged it.

That doesn't cut it, dantonac. Before you repeat such a generalization (particularly one connected to old racist notions of black hypersexuality)

What if they were just jerking you around because you look like a mark?

You can keep asserting it, but your evidence from field trip is meaningless.

The above 2 quotes basically suggest I am a moron manipulated by 5 year olds.

Dunno, Liv, I might be misreading you, but I dont seem to do that with anyone else here or in any other forum.

[Sweetie]

How can I make it any more clearer? What happened and what I decided was not and still is not any of my mom's business. Period.

Beth, that's in your opinion. You are clear, in your opinion it would not have been good for you to have your parents involved no matter what. Not to act to protect, not to act to help, not to act or help in a role and doing things that children cannot do for themselves. That's ok, you are free to have your opinion but from thinking on the subject for myself and from the assertions you have made, the opinions you have offered and the lack of information that would make the subject clearer in order for me to agree with your opinions and assertions, I can only say that I remain in a position of having third party involvement, your claim that it is best because some children in that situation feel like committing suicide has not, as of yet, swayed me. I don't even know if you were past the age of consent in the situation you describe. All I hear is about a girl who was hurting and what she felt like doing out of her hurt, I don't hear about what is best for that hurting child. I am concerned about the best interests of children from an adult perspective, as a hopefully wiser and experienced person who has lived through that stage and remembers it well.

I hope you are ok, in no ways do I mean to offend or bother you, your feelings and pain have been involved in this thread and I hope you won't think badly of me because of my own feelings and thoughts which conflict with your own personal feelings and experience. LOL, is there no such thing as a simple "smile" smilie. I guess I must settle for this.:wave:

[Sweetie]

[QUOTE=Sweetie][quote]I am not sure I understand the question. If you are asking me if I would go back and change things, tell, prevent abuse, I think you have no right to ask this. A victim is quite often plagued and haunted by the "what if's".And it seems rather wrong that someone would ask such a question when there is no control to go back and change anything.

That's because you did not understand the question. I am not asking what you would do differently, I am asking if it was or was not in your best interest to have a greater intervention from the adults in your life. I am asking that as an adult who has been through the experience as a child, if you would not think it was in your child's best interest to do something different than what the adults had done.

Nonetheless, I'll let the question die. You do not understand my question, does anybody? Am I that bad at getting it accross? I don't know.

In regard to my kids, thus far, what has happened to me has not been carried onto them. They have a very alert, suspicious mother and they trust me, thus far. I am not my mother, so of course things are different and I would react differently than my mother would have. But if my daughter became pregnant and was too ashamed to tell me and saw suicide as an option, well, my rights be damned. I would rather her keep her privacy and have a living daughter.

I know you assert that they have the right to privacy, but once again we are talking about 12-15 (maybe a few 16) year olds, you are solely using the committing suicide defense, in other words, if my child wanted to commit suicide because of the pregnancy, then my rights be damned. I wouldn't think that the committing suicide part is all that common. You stipulate time and again, if and if and suicide. You have not addressed the concerns of children having elective surgery, you have not addressed the concerns of what is best for the child regardless of what the child might feel in the moment, and I'm not sure you have taken into consideration that you want something change in effect for all children because of your experience which I would guess would be more or less uncommon. Even if we say 5%, there's still 95% of children that are affected. If we go one way, some children can slip through the cracks, if we go the other way, other children might slip through the cracks and in all of this, we aren't necessarily discussing whether or not the child could have the abortion, but whether or not the parents should be notified after the fact.


Whether or not I am free to answer, some questions are simply rude and best not asked.

Well, I don't necessarily think it's fair to call the question I asked rude, only if you did not understand it and I'll leave it at that. I had to ask it because I needed more information if I was going to factor in your opinions into my own position in the subject. I will not be able to do so which is ok.

[viscousmemories]

I split the subculture discussion to this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=818).

[Beth]

How can I make it any more clearer? What happened and what I decided was not and still is not any of my mom's business. Period.

Beth, that's in your opinion. You are clear, in your opinion it would not have been good for you to have your parents involved no matter what. Not to act to protect, not to act to help, not to act or help in a role and doing things that children cannot do for themselves. That's ok, you are free to have your opinion but from thinking on the subject for myself and from the assertions you have made, the opinions you have offered and the lack of information that would make the subject clearer in order for me to agree with your opinions and assertions, I can only say that I remain in a position of having third party involvement, your claim that it is best because some children in that situation feel like committing suicide has not, as of yet, swayed me. I don't even know if you were past the age of consent in the situation you describe. All I hear is about a girl who was hurting and what she felt like doing out of her hurt, I don't hear about what is best for that hurting child. I am concerned about the best interests of children from an adult perspective, as a hopefully wiser and experienced person who has lived through that stage and remembers it well.

I hope you are ok, in no ways do I mean to offend or bother you, your feelings and pain have been involved in this thread and I hope you won't think badly of me because of my own feelings and thoughts which conflict with your own personal feelings and experience. LOL, is there no such thing as a simple "smile" smilie. I guess I must settle for this.:wave:
No, what seems most upsetting to me is that you felt free to infer things into the discussion that did not exist or that you felt free to ask me several very rude questions.

[Beth]

I know you assert that they have the right to privacy, but once again we are talking about 12-15 (maybe a few 16) year olds, you are solely using the committing suicide defense, in other words, if my child wanted to commit suicide because of the pregnancy, then my rights be damned. I wouldn't think that the committing suicide part is all that common. No, there you are wrong, that did not come up until the fifth or sixth page. We are speaking about the proposed amendment. An amendment that will make all minors be forced to disclose the choice to abort to parents. We are not discussing soley 12-15 year olds. And the sometimes 16 years olds, either. We are speaking of all minor children.

The amendment, if passed, will remove sole privacy of a girl over her body. My opinion or not, it is wrong. It is my job to parent. If I screw up and my child does not trust me, that is my fault and I lost my right to know about such a thing.

And me thinking that my mom had no right and has no right to know about the situation remains fact, not opinion. Just because someone births me, it does not give them exclusive rights to my mind and body from birth to adulthood.


You stipulate time and again, if and if and suicide. You have not addressed the concerns of children having elective surgery, you have not addressed the concerns of what is best for the child regardless of what the child might feel in the moment, and I'm not sure you have taken into consideration that you want something change in effect for all children because of your experience which I would guess would be more or less uncommon.Elective surgery, I think they have that right. There comes a time when my rights and control over my daughter's body does not outweigh hers. And you accuse me of not addressing this. I cannot fathom this. I already have adressed this issue. I made the mistake of bringing up my personal experiences so some asshole could try to twist something to their advantage.


Even if we say 5%, there's still 95% of children that are affected. If we go one way, some children can slip through the cracks, if we go the other way, other children might slip through the cracks and in all of this, we aren't necessarily discussing whether or not the child could have the abortion, but whether or not the parents should be notified after the fact. Slip through the cracks...well, then, if you do not want your child to screw around, make damn sure she does not, but if she becomes sexually active before the age of consent, then I think she should be able to abort. Again, the state is seeming to side with the parents on this issue rather than what is in the best interest of the minor child. Your examnple does not really hold water, if a girl becomes pregnant and her parents get involved, I would think that many more girls than the five percent would then face parental pressures to keep the baby.


Whether or not I am free to answer, some questions are simply rude and best not asked.

Well, I don't necessarily think it's fair to call the question I asked rude, only if you did not understand it and I'll leave it at that. [/quote]Hmmmm... not rude...

"You describe several events in your life, or have mentioned them. Sexual abuse, not sure if it was continuous, what age it started, what age it ended, who was doing the abusing and if your parents knew. Sexual harassment at different occasions, and in this case you seem to be describing a seperate instance of rape. I'm not sure what age you were, I'm not sure what anybody did about it."

"Some further questions would be about the men doing these things to you. When you said you were raped, maybe at Planned Pregnancy, even if you were unwilling to go to the police about the incidents, well, maybe it's only in this day and age, did they take a blood sample at least from the fetus for your future, in case in the future you wanted to prosecute or did they just whisk away the evidence (these days DNA) because of the possibility in the future as an adult, of you wanting to take steps having to do with that rape, what I would call generally, an adult choice? Did they further act to get you help in your abuses? If you said you would commit suicide if your parents were told, would they act to restrain you or contact others in order for you to get over that shame that is natural, in order to get help? Did they take any precautions to prevent further abuse, something your parents might have done? Do your parents know now? Are you even over it now? Do you have closure? Was it really in your best interest to keep hiding in shame?"

Oh, this is the absolute clencher for me, "It seems a little like most adults that you dealt with were willing to agree to your "sweep it under the rug" ideas. But should've they?"

The last statement and question was the worst of all. How dare you to imply that my mother just left me to my defenses when I have only given very sketchy information in this site? How dare you dump such an acusation on my mother or other adults around me who were there for me? I never told you before that thread if I had ever even brought it to light to her about the abuse. I never told you of her reaction or what she did to try to help me. Or whether or not I accepted her help. I told you, nor anyone online such things, ever and you feel you have the right to imply that I was just thrown to the waste side. My issues with my mother do not concentrate on childhood. All that happened, all that she did, her parenting styles, everything can be easily forgiven and accepted because she knew no better and it was the way it was back then and that by the time it was bad, she was different, not the real her. My issues with her are mainly centered in some very serious adulthood issues. And not once in my life have I blamed her for what happened to me.

They look pretty rude to me. Not only were they not in your place to ask in this thread or publicly, you twisted things to fit your image of my life. What right did you have to imply anything in your questions? None. Perhaps you should learn tact.


I had to ask it because I needed more information if I was going to factor in your opinions into my own position in the subject. I will not be able to do so which is ok.You did not have to ask me one goddamn thing about this. This was none of your fucking business unless I offered the information.

[Beth]

Factors supporting mandatory parental involvement:

Religious support: Essentially all Fundamentalist and other Evangelical religious denominations are believed to support parental involvement laws.
Parental rights: Parents have the right to know about any significant activity of their under-age teens. Senatorial candidate John Pinkerton (D-CA) comments: "Parents must give consent before their child can have their ears pierced or a tattoo put on. In fact, in public schools and emergency rooms, parents must give consent before their child can be treated with so much as an aspirin. Most voters agree that it is outrageous to allow a child to undergo any surgical procedure, let alone an invasive, irreversible procedure such as an abortion, without parental notification."
Welfare of the Child: Deciding whether to have an abortion or continue the pregnancy will probably have a major long-term impact on the woman's psychological and emotional well-being, her ability to continue formal education, her future financial status, etc. Notification and consent laws help pregnant teens get support and guidance from their parents in this important decision. California state attorneys stated in a brief: "To deny parents the opportunity...risks or perpetuates estrangement or alienation from the child when she is in the greatest need of parental guidance and support and denies all dignity to the family."
Safety: A woman who has an abortion in secret, and experiences complications may be disinclined to reveal the problem to her parents. Complications, while rare, could conceivably develop to threaten the woman's life.
Criminal activity: There have been situations in which a child molester has secretly taken an under-aged girl to have an abortion, in order to cover up his crime. Parental notification could help expose the sexual abuse.


Factors opposing mandatory parental involvement:

Religious support: Essentially all liberal religious groups are believed to oppose parental consent and notification laws.
Professional Societies: Parental consent laws are opposed by a number of professional medical groups, including: American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the American Medical Women's Association.
Birth Control: The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association believes that if one service at a family planning clinic requires parental consent or notification, that some teens may be disinclined to seek other services at the clinic as well. If true, then young people might not obtain the counseling needed to help them avoid unwanted pregnancies. The total number of abortions could increase as a result of parental notification laws. Other teens might not seek medical attention for a suspected HIV or other STD infection. This could threaten their life or health.
Health Risks:
Delaying an abortion by only a few days, increases the possibility of complications arising from the procedure. Clinic and hospital abortions before the third trimester are far safer than childbirth. Teens are 24 times more likely to die from childbirth than from a legal abortion performed in the first trimester. However, the risk of death or major complications significantly increases for each week into the third trimester.
Judge Nixon of The district court in Tennessee estimated "that even under the best of circumstances, the [judicial] waiver process would take twenty-two days to complete - a significant problem given the time-sensitive nature of pregnancy and the increased risk involved in later abortions."
The American Academy of Pediatrics stated that "Legislation mandating parental involvement does not achieve the intended benefit of promoting family communication, but it does increase the risk of harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medical care...[M]inors should not be compelled or required to involve their parents in their decisions to obtain abortions, although they should be encouraged to discuss their pregnancies with their parents and other responsible adults."
An American Medical Association study in 1992 showed that mandatory parental involvement laws "increase the gestational age at which the induced pregnancy termination occurs, thereby also increasing the risk associated with the procedure."
The American Medical Association noted that because "the need for privacy may be compelling, minors may be driven to desperate measures to maintain the confidentiality of their pregnancies. They may run away from home, obtain a 'back alley' abortion, or resort to self-induced abortion. The desire to maintain secrecy has been one of the leading reasons for illegal abortion deaths since...1973."
Women who go out of state in order to avoid the parental involvement laws in their own state may place themselves at risk during the trip home. It may be a long distance during which medical attention might not be readily available.
Parents who are opposed to abortion might force their daughter to continue with the pregnancy against her wishes, even if remaining pregnant represents a significant risk to her health or life.
Some parents will become physically or emotionally abusive to their daughter, or throw her out on the street if they learn of the pregnancy.
A pregnant woman who is a few months short of her 18th birthday might decide to wait until she is 18 before having an abortion. A delay in scheduling an abortion increases the possibility of medical complications.
"Some young women fear the news will exacerbate a parent's psychiatric or physical illness, drug or alcohol abuse, or troubled relationships with other family members."
Respect for the woman's decision: Some people believe that if a young woman has decided to become sexually active, then she should be allowed to decide whether to have an abortion and whether to choose to involve her parents in the decision about an abortion.
Ineffectiveness of the Judicial Waiver: Women who live in rural areas often have difficulty getting a judicial waiver; they have no easy access to a judge. Courthouses are often more easily accessible to women who live in cities. Confidentiality can not necessarily be assured. Some teens lack the knowledge and experience of court procedures to obtain a waiver. Some cannot attend court if their hearing occurs during school hours. Some judges are strongly pro-life. Although the Supreme Court requires judges to issue a waiver if the teen is mature or if an abortion is in her best interest, some judges routinely deny petitions.
Law contributes to family breakdown: Studies by the Alan Guttmacher Institute show that the vast majority of adolescents, particularly those 15 years of age or younger, involve their parents in an abortion decision. A group which successfully overturned a California consent law said: "The statute operates only on young women who do not consult their parents with the news of pregnancy because the family is unsupportive, in crisis, dysfunctional or abusive...For these young women, the statute tests the already difficult relationship between parent and child, undermining the very goals it purports to promote." Some teens risk physical abuse or abandonment if she tells a parent about her pregnancy.


An ACLU briefing paper states: "...such laws are unnecessary for stable and supportive families, and they are ineffective and cruel for unstable, troubled families. Such laws cannot transform abusive families into supportive ones, nor can they reduce the alarmingly high rate of teenage pregnancy. Instead, they only add to the crushing problems faced by pregnant teenagers: They create delays that increase the medical risks of abortion and effectively eliminate the option of abortion for many minors. Tragically, those minors in greatest need of confidential medical care are often the very ones whose access to care is delayed."

source (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pare.htm)

[LadyShea]

Excellent post Beth. The ACLU said it all right here so it bears repeating

"...such laws are unnecessary for stable and supportive families, and they are ineffective and cruel for unstable, troubled families.

[viscousmemories]

I agree that the evidence against the law, particularly in the brief above, is compelling. If I had to vote on it today I would very probably vote against mandatory notification.

Beth, I think maybe you're being a bit unfair to Sweetie. I realize you feel as though her questions were inappropriate and insensitive, but I really didn't think they were so out of line. She obviously interpreted your comments as an attempt to use your personal experience as a justification for your opposition to this bill, so her pointing out that there are many variables relevant to your situation that we don't know about seemed reasonable to me. Perhaps she could have done so more tactfully - I really don't want to make that call - but I doubt she was intentionally malicious. Just my opinion as a bystander.

[Sweetie]

The last statement and question was the worst of all. How dare you to imply that my mother just left me to my defenses when I have only given very sketchy information in this site?

I wasn't talking about your mother at all. "It seems to me," it would be the fucking easiest thing in the world to say that you may be giving that impression, but that's not the case, easy, short, sweet instead of this unreasonable and irrelevent diatribe. If you were paying attention, you would note that I actually didn't want any answers to the questions mentioned above. They were rhetorical questions to imply that if the adults in your life did not do those things, then they weren't acting in your best interest which is meant to reflect on all the girls who may not get the help they need because of the secrecy of some adults. It is meant to note of all the information, as I have already said, that I do not have in order to really have your thoughts on the subject be of any use to me. I do not even want that information.

How dare you dump such an acusation on my mother or other adults around me who were there for me?

So sorry, I had thought that you had said that you would rather commit suicide then tell anybody about your rape and pregnancy which suggested to me that no one knew, because of course, then you wouldn't be here.

I never told you before that thread if I had ever even brought it to light to her about the abuse.

Right, which lead to my reasonable assumption that no one knew in the case we are discussing, ie: your abortion, parental notification, the rape.

They look pretty rude to me. Not only were they not in your place to ask in this thread or publicly, you twisted things to fit your image of my life. What right did you have to imply anything in your questions? None. Perhaps you should learn tact.

I'm sorry Beth, but you are the one doing the twisting and are having difficulty with reading comprehension.

[Sweetie]

No, what seems most upsetting to me is that you felt free to infer things into the discussion that did not exist or that you felt free to ask me several very rude questions.

Now I'm getting fuckin bitchy and I hate being bitchy. I am not infering anything on you or your parents, je ne comprende pas? You are giving me emotional and defensive responses which have nothing to do with what I'm saying and trying to paint me as the rude bad guy in the process. It's expedient for you, but it's not necessarily true. Get that, everything that you think as so is not necessarily so. In that case, I will defend myself.

I am pointing out in a round about and deliberate way like I usually do, that there are too many things I do not know about your situation up to and including your age at the time of your abortion. I have already stated, if you were sixteen and older, then we have no disagreement as far as that goes. Since you are not saying your age, I'm going to assume that it's because you were sixteen and older and are not saying so because then your experience would not be relevent to the discussion I'm having. I am pointing out that secrecy is not necessarily the best thing for children, and I know from experience, being someone who needs to purge or have things eat at me continuously from the inside, I am pointing out that I want the best thing for MY children.

I am saying that children who are abused oftentimes engage in other destructive behaviors if they don't get help such as: self-mutilation, alcohol and drug abuse, psychological disorders such as depression, anxiety, suffer at school, tend to be promiscuous at an earlier age in a not normal and unhealthy way, a self-destructive way, suicide and others and in that case, I do not now and without something other than your opinions, will be able to agree that silence is the best policy. I am saying that children who are getting pregnant are at risk for STD's. If you want me to agree that adult intervention isn't the best thing, silence is, I mean really, once your child gets AIDS and other such diseases because of the silence of some adults in their life, then maybe you will think differently and I'd get to say I told you so, but I wouldn't because that's a terrible situation. I'm trying to think of what I think is best to avoid those situations. I am also considering that in one of the articles I have encountered, it suggests or the study they took suggests that in most of these cases, the girls are getting pregnant by older boys and I'm saying that that is statuatory rape. Older boys should not be allowed to get away with getting young girls pregnant and leaving them to have to do something about it. I'm saying that a message to these boys needs to be sent, a little fear would work nicely and only the parents can act in this regard, only the parents would act and adults generally do know what is in their best interest regardless of how they are feeling.

I am saying that children who are abused, raped, harassed, who are in high risk situations need help. If you want me to believe that you were sexually abused, raped and sexually harassed in your past and anything having to do with that disappeared after your abortion, I am going to have a hard time accepting that without question. If you want to assert that your abuse, rape and harassment, your subsequent pregnancy and your abortion was none of your parents business, I am going to have to disagree. It is my business, and if another adult knows it, I expect them to tell me so that I can help my children and see to their best interest. I am saying that I do not trust people like you and others to see to the best interest of my child, in other words, I do not agree that everybody but the parents generally have the child's best interest at heart up to and including teachers, doctors who do the deed and be done, people with agendas, and further people who paint all religious people as evil bad guys who want to hurt their children. Fuck, from my experience it is exactly the opposite. You are not trying to protect them from their parents, you are trying to protect them from anybody that disagrees with you because you are right of course, you must be, I'm convinced. That is bigotry pure and simple and that is indeed the first time I have said anything even remotely malicious.

Cat fight anyone?

[MinorityReport]

Now I'm getting fuckin bitchy and I hate being bitchy.

I think it's apparent that your contributions on this thread have been unnecessarily personal from the start. Just stop for a moment, you are causing someone some extreme anguish, recalling memories of a very bad period in her life. STOP.

[Sweetie]

Fucking bad guy no matter what I do. How fucking unfair is that? I can't make any points, bad guy. I can't look at the bigger picture, bad guy. Can't ask any questions relevent to the discussion, bad guy. Can't question assertions, bad guy. Can't question whether or not emotional assertions are reasonable, bad guy. Can't defend myself, bad guy. Can't question whether or not one person's experience is relevent to all children, bad guy. Can't try and clarify, still the bad guy.

The worst assertion is that a sixteen year old dealing with pregnancy and a twelve year old are equivalent. Four years of growth is almost a lifetime of difference between a twelve year old and a sixteen year old. I can't put them into the same category.

Where is that person who thought it was unfair to treat people with handicaps differently when I need him? I was being level-headed and nice until I was attacked. Now that I defend myself, it's still my fucking fault. Backed into a fucking corner pressured not to speak, rarely encounter this sort of fucking unreasonableness.

[MinorityReport]

I was being level-headed and nice until I was attacked.

You were not attacked, you were just asked to stop making unwarranted assumptions about the personal experiences of another person.

Just stop.

[viscousmemories]

Now I'm getting fuckin bitchy and I hate being bitchy.

I think it's apparent that your contributions on this thread have been unnecessarily personal from the start. Just stop for a moment, you are causing someone some extreme anguish, recalling memories of a very bad period in her life. STOP.
I disagree that Sweetie's posts have been unncessarily personal from the start. Beth cited her own personal experience in defense of her position here first, so I don't see why Sweetie should be condemned for pointing out that anedcotal evidence (especially intentionally vague anecdotal evidence) is not compelling.

You were not attacked, you were just asked to stop making unwarranted assumptions about the personal experiences of another person.
I disagree with that, too. Whether Sweetie was as tactful as could be or not, Beth was clearly the first person to start with the cursing and insults. Again I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone for the overall failure to communicate, but I honestly don't think any of Sweetie's questions or comments have been obviously out of line from an objective viewpoint. I think Beth may just be taking some things she said more personally than they were intended.

[Farren]

I agree.

Well, I agree fully with Beth's position on parental notification and consent. I especially agree with her recent excellent post that provides a neat listing of the pros and cons.

But I concur with vm that Sweetie has operated within the boundaries of civil discussion. Beth, I really do sympathise with you and would hate to have gone through what you've gone through, but this was, after all, a discussion about parental notification.

I can understand how it would be very easy to take a lot of the arguments put forth personally, but it has the effect of shutting down discussion and making people insincere in their postings when someone is criticised for speaking sincerely and (IMHO) with more than adequate tact.

I think you've misunderstood some of Sweetie's more general statements to be personal attacks when they weren't.

[Beth]

I can understand how it would be very easy to take a lot of the arguments put forth personally, but it has the effect of shutting down discussion and making people insincere in their postings when someone is criticised for speaking sincerely and (IMHO) with more than adequate tact.

I think you've misunderstood some of Sweetie's more general statements to be personal attacks when they weren't.I never shared information for sympathy, but thank you.

Perhaps I did misunderstand, but I saw no point in bringing up questions as to my age when I was molested and so forth, I did not offer that sort of information in this thread, nor did I speak of sexual harassment. Nor did I think it was apropriate to imply things that simply were not there without knowing more about me.

I made the mistake of agreeing with Brandi that sometimes suicide is a very real and viable option in cases where a girl feels she cannot tell her parents and offering that experience.

You are right, offering personal information is wrong. I think many of us were guilty of it in this thread. I would have been fine being asked questions based soly on my rape, but I do think it was out of place to ask about my childhood experiences. I do not intend to offer anymore personal information.

As far as Sweetie's accusations that I deliberately held out my age, I was not asked that question directly. I was asked the age that I was sexually abused, first and foremost. Since my abuse did not lead to pregnancy, it was not an appropriate question, IMO, nor were some of her following questions.

I have consistantly stated that if I want to know what is going on in my child's life, I need to take steps to have that relationship from early childhood, but I am accused of an agenda of selfishness and of bigotry. Seems to me like the state is just trying to legislate good parenting to make up for the poor parenting skils that I suspect many people are guilty of.

[MinorityReport]

I should have known better than to have anything to do with a forum of this provenance. For the second time, I refuse to countenance the transformation of a forum managed by you into an instrument of licensed torture.

I leave.

[dave_a]

Boy, I have sure been sensing all the love round this place this weekend :D

Must be something in the water.

[beyelzu]

I should have known better than to have anything to do with a forum of this provenance.
what?

For the second time, I refuse to countenance the transformation of a forum managed by you into an instrument of licensed torture. care to explain that?

licensed torture?

vm is a pretty tactful person, he uses phrases like in my opinion, it seems to me, rational discourse, et...., and I have seen neither him nor liv do anything that would show that they supported torturing posters. so what the hell are you talking about?

I leave.
your choice, wish I could understand why.

[livius drusus]

I think Sweetie asked some legitimate questions and some invasive ones. I don't think it's fair or useful to bring information from posts made in other contexts into this discussion, particularly when it's a such a potentially hurtful topic.

I don't see any intent on her part to cause Beth pain, however; more of an impulse to unravel a bunch of knotted up issues without consideration of how sensitive some of those issues are, and how fundamentally irrelevant they are to the issue of parental notification laws.

[viscousmemories]

I think Sweetie asked some legitimate questions and some invasive ones. I don't think it's fair or useful to bring information from posts made in other contexts into this discussion, particularly when it's a such a potentially hurtful topic.
In retrospect, I agree. I missed the fact that it was Sweetie, not Beth, who raised the subject in this thread of past abuse not related to the pregnancy. I definitely think that was inappropriate to bring up and expound on here, especially once Beth expressed a strong interest in not discussing it.

[viscousmemories]

I should have known better than to have anything to do with a forum of this provenance. For the second time, I refuse to countenance the transformation of a forum managed by you into an instrument of licensed torture.

I leave.
As a fellow participant in this thread (not as an Admin) I was trying to provide an objective viewpoint that might improve communication between Beth and Sweetie, instead of pushing them further into opposing positions. I have already acknowledged above that I think I erred in defense of Sweetie, but I stand by everything else I said. I see nothing wrong with my making an effort to help Beth and Sweetie understand each other, and I personally think my approach was much more likely to be effective than your bullying Sweetie into silence.

[Sweetie]

I'm going to reinterpret some of my post in an attempt to have myself understood.
You describe several events in your life, or have mentioned them. Sexual abuse, not sure if it was continuous, what age it started, what age it ended, who was doing the abusing and if your parents knew. Sexual harassment at different occasions, and in this case you seem to be describing a seperate instance of rape. I'm not sure what age you were, I'm not sure what anybody did about it.

These are not questions. This is an assesment from my point of view looking at your case in particular because I felt you were using your case as justification for your position. I do not need answers to these questions, nor do I want answers to these questions, this is once again, an assesment.

Now, my position is that these things need to be dealt with on a case by case basis because truly, what may have been best for you in this case as regards parental notification, would not have been best for me.

We're talking about children who find themselves in adult situations, whether or not they are able to make adult choices and if they can't, which I would say is generally the case, I mean even in some cases, thirteen year olds try to get pregnant because they think it's fun and cool, and whether or not parent intervention is the best thing to help them with these adult choices.

This speaks for itself. The only thing questionable has been questioned, whether or not thirteen year olds want babies because they think it's cool or neat. Now, I stand by that assertion, I think it's true even though I do not have anything to back it up. I think it's true, as for the other information I had difficulty finding, that women who get raped get pregnant, but I have been as of yet to turn up any useful stats yet I know that it is true that some women who are raped get pregnant. However, I am willing to assert that some young teens want babies for other reasons. Some want them for the love aspect, love to give, love they need. Some children want attention. That is what I think is true. You need not agree but I think it's both reasonable that it happens, possible that it happens, and that it does happen. All of that to support my position that thirteen year olds do not regularily or are generally known to be persons who make good adult decisions, how to act in a case where they may be abused, how to handle the situation, this that and the other.

You basically describe a situation of secrecy, to me it seems, hiding or dying of shame and pain,

To me, if a young girl comes up to me and says they are pregnant, they want an abortion, and they threaten suicide, I would not just drive them to a clinic. I would personally, for young and old girls, for young and old men, for adults and children, recommend a psyc consult. That to me, is just the right thing to do for people who are thinking of suicide. No one need agree that it is the right thing to do.

and telling people who really have no interest in you, or no interest in your best interest.

This had to do with the insensitive response from the lady or persons at the Crisis Center which I brought up later.

Some further questions would be about the men doing these things to you. When you said you were raped, maybe at Planned Pregnancy, even if you were unwilling to go to the police about the incidents, well, maybe it's only in this day and age, did they take a blood sample at least from the fetus for your future, in case in the future you wanted to prosecute or did they just whisk away the evidence (these days DNA) because of the possibility in the future as an adult, of you wanting to take steps having to do with that rape, what I would call generally, an adult choice?

This is pretty straight forward. Medically, politically, and municipally (is that a word? I mean as pertains legalities and possible criminal charges later), that seems a rational and realistic thing to do. I am basically just wondering if the clinic does those things actually. That's just a curiousity now that it came to mind. I think it is a responsible thing to do, and as a parent if I was involved with my child in an incident such as that, I would see that it be done.

Did they further act to get you help in your abuses?

This is an appropriate question in my eyes. Was it a wham bam thank-you ma'am for the tissue donation type thing, or was there further counselling to help in the motivations for your abortion, the causes of your pregnancy which has something to do, as I have outlined in further posts, with why I think parental involvement is a good thing, to see to the further care.

If you said you would commit suicide if your parents were told, would they act to restrain you or contact others in order for you to get over that shame that is natural, in order to get help?

I have already explained what I would do to help a girl that was contemplating suicide.

Did they take any precautions to prevent further abuse, something your parents might have done?

This ties in to another of my arguements, that the parents can see to the further care of the child.

Do your parents know now?

This question more or less, is to ask how you feel if your parents know now. Was it as hard as you thought, do they not know, would you feel better about them knowing? That is a personal question, one I think that is relevent, but not necessary. This just ties in to my questions of you as an adult looking back, best interests, etc. I have stated the question three different times, in three different ways. I was not understood either time. It was a simple, not real personal question, I think anyways.

Are you even over it now?

Basically just to ask, if you had gotten help then, how does that affect you now, if you hadn't, how does that affect you now, whether or not there was something that could have helped then that didn't happen, that didn't help that did happen, etc. That is for my sake to formulate best case scenario possibilities. Relevent, but not necessary.

Do you have closure?

That ties in to the above question, and if and if and if, or this that or maybe this and that. It's for me to formulate and analyze, not for any other purpose.

Was it really in your best interest to keep hiding in shame?

A girl that says to someone, if you tell my parents I'll commit suicide, to me I would guess, and that is guess, speculate, would think and could be wrong, that it was out of shame, which I have already argued previously.

It seems a little like most adults that you dealt with were willing to agree to your "sweep it under the rug" ideas. But should've they?

This is just the same question that ties into my assertion that silence is not the best thing.

I also break the teens in question into two groups. I'm going to start at ten because of the fact that nine year olds in this day and age, can and do menstruate. The breakdown that is reasonable in my eyes is 10-15, 16-18. The latter I agree do not need parental notification. The former, in my eyes, unless someone could convince me otherwise, should have parental notification in their best interest.

Does that help anyone, make anything better, am I better understood? This information is relevent to my arguements, even if there is not the information here, this is still the information I need. If you aren't arguing what I am, then of course they wouldn't be relevent to yours.

[Sweetie]

Oh, and I wanted to add something else. To be perfectly honest, not only were the questions not meant or designed to be probing or invasive or mean, they were an act of respect. I am a woman of strong opinions, if it hasn't been noted, lol, that was actually me, who disagrees with you, asking for your insight on the subject from your experience. I was giving you an ear, I was interested in your responses and insights on the subject, to listen to you, to consider and to weigh, to try and see from your perspective in order that I may have another perspective to see through, not just my own. I have said and I really am, sorry if that bothered or offended you.

[dave_a]

Does that help anyone, make anything better, am I better understood?

I never misunderstood to begin with, Sweetie. Y'know, calling a woman other than my wife sweetie just sounds odd :D

At the same time I think you unintentionally hit a sore spot with Beth.

Shit happens. In a day or two it won't matter at all.

[beyelzu]

Does that help anyone, make anything better, am I better understood?

I never misunderstood to begin with, Sweetie. Y'know, calling a woman other than my wife sweetie just sounds odd :D

At the same time I think you unintentionally hit a sore spot with Beth.

Shit happens. In a day or two it won't matter at all.
seconded,

sweetie, I am not a real good judge of tact, so I will leave such judgments to others, however, I dont think you were really out of line. I also dont think Beth was out of line either. Sometimes people just misunderstand and talk around each other.

[viscousmemories]

Sweetie, what I think you are missing is the fact that early on you carried an issue Beth had mentioned on another thread into this discussion. An issue that is deeply personal and in her eyes completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion here. Specifically, in this post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=15830&postcount=126) you said:
You describe several events in your life, or have mentioned them. Sexual abuse, not sure if it was continuous, what age it started, what age it ended, who was doing the abusing and if your parents knew. Sexual harassment at different occasions, and in this case you seem to be describing a seperate instance of rape. I'm not sure what age you were, I'm not sure what anybody did about it.
That is at least three separate situations, only the last of which Beth brought up here. I think she is upset not because you have phrased your questions about her experience with abortion improperly, but because you raised some very sensitive personal subjects that aren't relevant to this particular thread and which she didn't want to discuss here, and appear to be conflating these very separate and hurtful experiences in some of your responses. I'm not sure I'm right about this, but that's what seems to be going on to me.

[Sweetie]

Sweetie, what I think you are missing is the fact that early on you carried an issue Beth had mentioned on another thread into this discussion. An issue that is deeply personal and in her eyes completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion here.

But herein lies the problem. First of all, those weren't questions and I think she did in fact take them as such. Second of all, I was not clear whether or not the pregnancy was due to the previous abuse she mentioned, or a seperate instance of rape, she did not say. She alluded, by mentioning the insensitivity of the woman at the Crisis Center who blamed her for being alone in a back alley, to that it was a seperate instance of rape, though I do not know. She was also, in my eyes, in some way attacking the Crisis Center for that and I think she has an unfair opinion of religious people. I am not inclined to believe that that the Crisis Center is an bad unfeeling organization. Just yesterday in fact, I was talking to a woman who almost lost her pregnant adult daughter because the doctor judged that at seven months, she just wanted the baby out like many do at that stage and was whining or lying to get it out. The fact of the matter is, the placenta was poisoning her. The doctor just about killed her and her baby by his insensitivity. I do not blame the hospital or all older male doctors for his insensitive stupidity.

Thirdly, I did not know her age at the time of the events which is relevent to, like I said, to the discussion I'm having. If it was as per a previous abuse, it sounds like that happened when she was younger, therefore it seems as if the pregnancy would have been to a younger girl. If it was because of a seperate instance of rape, that could have happened at any age and I did not know. I suppose it's simply that we don't need to be disagreeing about her case specifically, well, if we don't disagree. We may in fact disagree on the underlying ie: that all children have the right to privacy, I would argue that sometimes even children need to be protected from themselves (their shame from abuse, from being pregnant, from telling their parents) or further, protected from what has caused the pregnancy to begin with. If the government feels like it is good sometimes to overrule the rights of parents, then I think too that it is good sometimes to overrule the rights and ideas and actions of children. Suicide is a common general instance of this, for instance, and that's just to add because I feel I have provided at least enough preliminary arguement for that. Mostly my whole areguement is based on my opinion that younger girls need help with this, though older girls may not and are generally capable of making responsible adult decisions.

Her case, at least how it is coming accross to me, how I'm perceiving it, is first and foremost that children had the right to do what they want with their own bodies. One the one hand I don't disagree with that, with other considerations in a certain sense, I do disagree with that. I think it has been overlooked that people are saying that the parents may or should have rights, but not in this or that case. It is also fair to say that the child may or should have rights, but not in this or that case in the sense of being temporarily overruled in specific situations and I think it seems as if the court case in particular is suggesting that it not possibly overruled in specific situations.

Further, how I'm perceiving it, is that she is arguing that silence is a good policy because of abuse and rape. Now, as an adult, the opposite strikes me as true. No silence because of abuse and rape.

Now, after all that is said, abuse is relevent to this discussion. Highly relevent. Rape is relevent to this discussion, higly relevent. Harassment that I mentioned may not be though it is important to me because that is something that we share in common, having been sexually harassed. It's something I've experienced, as a child looking back it is something that I can relate to and speak from experience.

I mentioned about a few personal instances in my life, one about a doctor who thought I might have been sexually abused. He was right and he was wrong. My mom took me to the doctor because of my anxiety, she was worried that I was giving myself an ulcer. Now, it was not sexual abuse that caused that, but it was a sexual threat, a predator that had me in his sights, and my instincts were issuing all sorts of warnings and I was terrified and there were other instances like that. My anxiety started one day, that day, when I was eight or nine though nothing specifically was done to me. From that day until I was twenty-three, I suffered, though as I grew I was better able to cope, with anxiety. To know me was not necessarily to know it. I did not realize how much I was suffering until it was gone. To this day I do not know for sure whether or not I was a really imaginative little girl or a really perceptive one. Looking back, I still lean to the latter, I was right in what I thought the boy wanted from me, I was right to be terrified.

The harassment had psychological affects on me, some I've experienced and I am arguing that further psychological care is necessary for some of these girls, I don't know that anybody could really reasonably argue against that opinion to me. Now, that is to say, I have been sexually harassed and this is what I felt, this is what happened to me, this is what silence or uncertainty or shame did to me. It would be indeed, ten times worse, or at least five times worse in the cases of rape or continuous abuse. That does not strengthen her case, it strengthens mine.

In her position, the children that could have been helped by their parents but are too ashamed to tell them, will not be getting that help, these children, to me, and I would've been one of them, will be "slipping through the cracks." Some girls, and it may be in their best interest or not, will be getting the silence they want, and the ingnorance of their parents. If they need continuous psychological treatment, it would be hard to hide that from their parents. Not only might there not be adults convincing them to do so, get treatment, but there are no adults organizing or arranging such things if the girl wants to not do anything about it. What she wants and what is best can be indeed, two entirely different things.

Too, it's not a normal response for young girls who live regular lives, who experiment with sexuality, to want to commit suicide. I know lots of pregnant young girls, and girls when I was young, who were pregnant, and the threat of suicide, in my life, is not common, and nor have I really encountered it at all. A normal response might be depression or a bit of going through hell until they make plans, make decisions, get used to the idea.

I am a serious and contemplative girl, this is a serious subject relevent to me and my life, and to the lives of my children. I don't have many personal things, in fact I can't think of anything, that I'm not willing to discuss and throw in for consideration. Other people are different of course, but if you have questions, well the best questions aren't necessarily the ones that aren't asked. It is reasonable to me to ask realistic relevent questions, civil and fair questions. In my judgement I was being tactful but misunderstood. If anything, since most of what I'm thinking at any given time is so involved and interconnected, I sometimes am not as thorough as I need to be in my explanations. That or I don't feel like writing out a thousand words to ask a question, why I'm asking the question, what someone said, implied or suggested that lead me to that question, etc, or that motivated me to bring up what I have brought up.

I am good with stragic planning, I generally always have my eye on the big picture, and I almost never consider emotional arguements good arguements. The conclusions of emotional arguements are sometimes judged by me to be correct or viable, but the arguements from emotions does not do me any good for the sake of arguement. One might say that it should be because I felt that when it happened. I am inclined to say that you may have felt that, but is that best? I am always gathering information to build better more accurate systems. I want my perceptions to be as accurate as possible, asking questions and gathering data to me is the best way to do that. I have a good memory and I always retain important information. If I'm paying attention, one gets the benefit, lol, like it or not, of my attention. I analyze things constantly, that includes people, but it's not really people, it's more or less possible psychological motives that I'm analyzing.

Now, as per the pros and cons list mentioned, it's a loaded biased dice. If you will note that the pro list has considerations casually stated. There is no professional opinions offered from people who take that side, as if to suggest that there is no professional opinions available or offered from that position. The cons list is packed with supposed professional data, the ACLU, this that and the other. Unless they were willing to be more thorough about the pros list, I cannot credit the cons list. Too, I do not see the list for the reconciliation/compromise, third party involvment, either a social worker, lawyer, psychiatrist, counsellor.

[Sweetie]

I never misunderstood to begin with, Sweetie. Y'know, calling a woman other than my wife sweetie just sounds odd :D

Haha, that was part of the point of picking it, lol. Glad you caught on.

It's a personal name, so people are forced to consider you personally. It's also used oftentimes in a patronizing way, when people get patronizing they'll call you "sweetie", "dear" or "my dear." My friend had the audacity, in the middle of an arguement, to call me "sweetie" in such a patronizing way. I bit her fucking head off, don't call me sweetie like that. It could be seen that by picking the name, I am preventing the eventuality of them being able to use it in that way, because it won't come accross that way even if they tried. When they feel like saying it, they have to rethink. Also, I find it amusing when they do so, in a condescending way. I feel like doing so sometimes, but I have judged it not a very adult or nice thing to do because it gets people's backs up so easily, including mine sometimes, depends who is saying it. Also, I am sweet, sexually speaking and personally speaking. If I seem blustery, I'm actually a sweetheart as anybody who knows me could tell you.

So, the name is deliberate, contradictory, ironic and amusing, all that is me. :wink:

[Sweetie]

You guys want me to shut-up yet, lol?

Actually, I just wanted to add, I think I always have something to add, that to my knowledge I was not abused, to my mother's knowledge I was not abused, but my mother herself left the door open to the possibility because my sister was abused in the house where I lived by one of her friends, they caught him. My sister is about four years older, if she was six and seven, I was two and three. My sister does not remember, and my mother did not tell her or remind her, I don't know if that's a good thing. If I was abused, I would most likely not remember it. The anxiety did start the day of the event I did describe, however sexual experimentation began before that, for me and my sister. She did some sexual things in her life that she was caught at and so did I. Nothing too bad, things terribly embarassing but I don't know if what I did was terribly normal, however, I was exposed, not intentionally, to pornography at an early age so that could account for that.

However, she was promiscuous at an early age and I went the opposite way. I developed a frigid prudish ugly hatred of sex and anything having to do with it. I thought my parents were the dirtiest filthiest pigs for having and enjoying, talking about and laughing about sex. I grew out of it of course, and I don't know if that is normal or not, for girls that age to go through such a phase. I do know, from my cousins about that age, that they are often puritanlike. For instance, they'll sit there and lecture you about smoking and how bad it is, but when they're fifteen or sixteen they will start smoking, lol.

[dave_a]

[quote]I never misunderstood to begin with, Sweetie. Y'know, calling a woman other than my wife sweetie just sounds odd :D

Haha, that was part of the point of picking it, lol. Glad you caught on.

It's a personal name, so people are forced to consider you personally. It's also used oftentimes in a patronizing way, when people get patronizing they'll call you "sweetie", "dear" or "my dear."

Ah, but now that I know a fast way under your skin I could circumvent your defense by using "Sweetie" when calling you by name, and "sweetie" or even "sweety" when trying to ruffle your feathers.

Oh, and about you being sweet sexually I think a statement like that calls for a pic to be posted. Y'know, one of those "show us your boobies" things. :D

Put up or shut up, sweetie :sly:

[viscousmemories]

Just FYI Sweetie I understand and appreciate your comments. I haven't responded only because my primary interest in my last couple of posts was to try to illuminate what I saw as the source of your tension with Beth in an effort to help you both resume a more productive discussion. I don't personally have any problem understanding why you were confused about the relationship between the various incidents and how you might see the big picture as relevant to the discussion, but nor do I have any problem understanding why Beth would be unwilling to continue in that vein at this juncture. At any rate I don't have much else to add on this subject.

[Sweetie]

Ah, but now that I know a fast way under your skin I could circumvent your defense by using "Sweetie" when calling you by name, and "sweetie" or even "sweety" when trying to ruffle your feathers.

Haha, but my reaction is dependent upon whether I care what you say or not. :P

Oh, and about you being sweet sexually I think a statement like that calls for a pic to be posted. Y'know, one of those "show us your boobies" things. :D

Dude, the sweetness needs be experienced. :wink:

LOL, a challenge, hmmmm. I'm thinking, I'm thinking, oh! Halloween: French Maid, gypsy, aha, maybe some spikes. :whup:

Man, I've been working out two hours a day! Gone from a size 6/7 to a size 5, I have to talk some smack, LOL.

Anyways, I'm going to disappear back into the woodwork from whence I came for awhile. Seebs said you guys were a great bunch to hang around and converse with and I agree. If I don't come back, thanks for the conversation and the welcome. :wave:

[dave_a]

If I don't come back, thanks for the conversation and the welcome. :wave:

You darn well better come back. Breaks are allowed, but awol is strictly forbidden. :whup: