Notification law cut teen abortions

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:53 pm

Diuretic wrote: That of course makes a lot of sense. I'm thinking here that should the girl be pregnant and, after counselling from disinterested experts and of course medical advice etc she decides to have an abortion why should a parent be able to countermand that?

I don't think a parent should be able to stop or force their daughter to have an abortion if the above applies. So I am opposed to parental consent laws. It's only consistent to argue that a law which seeks to prohibit the daughter gaining an abortion she wants by travelling to another state where she doesn't require parental consent is a bad law.

You pose a tough question. There are situations where I might empathize with your point of view. Just out of curiosity, do you oppose parental consent, legally required or not, in all cases or just in cases of abortion. For instance, if my child wants to go on a school or church organized trip but for whatever reason, he/she's grounded, I refuse to sign the permission slip. Is it your position that I should not be able to prevent him/her from going? I realize my answer requires faith in the good-intentions of parents, but I would answer that the parents have the right to circumvent the wishes of the child simply because the child is a minor. A minor child's parents are legally responsible for him/her until the child reaches the age of consent, so yes, I believe the parents should be the ultimate authority.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:56 pm

Dammit!! :-5 I spent a half hour this morning typing this post then hit transmit. There was such a delay I knew I'd gotten kicked off, and so selected all and copied the text to a doc file. Now I've come back (at the end of the day) to paste it only to find only the second half copied. It was good too. :yh_sigh

Anyway, here's what I salvaged:

Diuretic wrote: You have made the point that officials need to make "safety stop" decisions and that's fair enough. The pimple-faced horndog that knocked her up shouldn't be able to make any decision concerning her wellbeing. It should be up to her to make her own decision. That's why I think I have to say that while I can understand the opposition to abortion laws that don't require parental consent I really think that the girl's wellbeing is the key, not parental wishes. If she wants to have the child after understanding all the implications, or if she wants to have the child and then give the child up for adoption (again after all implications have been explored) or if she wishes an abortion, all should be her informed decision and while a parent can express their wishes they can't treat the child as their property and overbear her will."It should be up to her to make her own decision ... after understanding all the implications" are your words - kept in context, I hope you agree.

At what age is a child able to understand "all the implications"? It varies with each child based on myriad variables, I'd hope would be your answer. So how do we decide? Answer: the decision's already been made. Since a bureaucracy as huge as gov't can't assess each individual case adequately, the arbitrary age of consent has been established (different in different countries). Until she reaches this age, she can't make her own decisions because she can't understand all the implications. Hell, most adults can't understand all the implications, but we can't solves all life's ills. Since she can't make the decision herself, we leave it up to her guardians. We must assume the parents are competent and have the child's wellbeing foremost in mind. Harmony with the child's will in cases this serious is coincidental, at best.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:23 am

Diuretic wrote: (insert body part here):yh_giggle

Diuretic wrote: The strange thing is that the age of consent to sexual activity doesn't always coincide with the age of majority. For example in my jurisdiction the age of majority is 18 (vote, drink and sign contracts etc) but for sexual activity it's 17. You have a law on that? :-2

Then in Australia's case, opportunity for parental consent should stop at 17.

But when a 12-year-old little girl becomes pregnant, she cannot possibly have the brain power or maturity to make such an adult decision, no matter how much information you give her. To force her to make a decision like that is cruel beyond measure. That burden belongs to her loving parents.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:05 pm

Diuretic wrote: I appreciate your point Accountable and I'm not at all inclined to denigrate it, but giving the parents the ultimate right to determine what happens to their pregnant daughter is taking away the right of the daughter to determine what happens to her. That right does not exist.

Diuretic wrote: Now, a question - possibly rhetorical, I'm not throwing it out as some sort of barb. If a law exists that allows a parent to prohibit their daughter from having an abortion, should a law exist which allows a parent to force their daughter to have an abortion? Absolutely. Dispicable as it is. Adults have rights to do all kinds of things I disagree with, even vehemently.

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:25 pm

A parent's decision should be based on what is best for their child. Unfortunately, I don't think that is always the case. To force a child to abort a baby they may want to keep can result in one screwed up, guilt ridden adult. To force a child to NOT have an abortion if that is what they want, may result in another unloved, abused, neglected child in this world. Do parents always consider what is best for their child or do they consent to abortion to save the family name, reputation, etc.? I don't think there is any clear cut answer either way.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:46 am

Love ya, Di, but in this case you are wrong wrong wrong. Tee shirts are far too bland without some kind of statement.

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:17 pm

while I agree to some extent with your sentiments about parental involvement, i vehemently oppose the current efforts of jerrymandering the courts and politcal structure in order force any female, regardless of age, to carry a child she may or may not want. south dakota's current law banning abortion, the very same criminalization-type law the supreme court decided was illegal in texas in 1973, is now going before the voters in south dakota. however one may feel on the issue, if it winds up before the supreme court for final disposition, the current court will probably NOT keep roe, but reverse it. this would not only be a complete loss of choice, but would also eliminate ALL laws of privacy which was the foundation for the roe decision. that would not only affect just a few people, but would GUARANTEE that the patriot act allowing ANY level of government to access any and all personal information on anyone they choose to target. section 129 of the patriot act 2 of 2003, gurantees that they can single you out, destroy you with false information they place into your file and then, at their leisure you will no longer be able to do anything that they decide you should be allowed to do. other sections provide for the loss of citizenship, shipping you to another country and trying you for being a terrorist (which they can label you for anything they decide is -against the public welfare- labeled as a terrorist act) and try you before a -MILITARY TRIBUNAL by US MILITARY personnel. anything sound familiar here? the subject of mlitary tribunals is going on in washington even as we speak(sic). the question is then DO WE ALLOW ROE TO OVERTURNRED IF SO MUCH ELSE IS ALSO LOST? anyone have any thoughts on this?:-5 :-5 :-4 :-4

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:13 pm

Yes, I think you are drastically overreaching.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:49 pm

Roe was a bad and baseless decision. The Constitution does not address the issue, and cannot legally be decided in the Supreme Court.

But that's another thread I'd be glad to participate in once you get your blood pressure pill.

I can't see the link between allowing parents to parent and placing false information in a personal file. :-2

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:34 pm

many of thje privacy legislation was directly from the roe decision since it made the abortion decision a mater of privacy between a woman and her doctor, not the state position that it should be and was a criminal act. that is what the south dakota law does. it criminalizes the act of abortion. the patriot act removes and reverses many of the restrictions on govt gathering of your private information. it seems to me that these can and are tied together in that manner. wwhether parents are or aren't involved in a private decision, why should the govt be allowed to access all your information and thereby reverse so much of what roe established in the area of privacy law? what do they need to know, and what will they do with it? the possible abuses are dangerously close to telling you what uou will and will not do, or they make it public in the form of criminalizing you because youm do something somebody in the govt doen't like or agree with? then what happens to some teen who wants but does not dare get a legal operation for fear of public disclosure of her intentions? or persecution of her parents for what they decide is right for the young woman? it takes but one to cause a total loss for all. you may not agree with my conclusions, but what if the fear is justified? or my interpretation of it proves to be correct? your thoght?:-4 :-4 :-4 :-4

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:35 am

My thoughts are that parents have the right and responsibility to make decisions for their minor children. That means all decisions, even the big ones.

My thoughts are that any government bureaucracy cannot possibly know better in every instance - or any instance - than the typical parent when making decisions for his or her child ... the child he/she conceived, loves, and has a vested interest in its well-being.

My thoughts are that your option gives the very government you fear of getting into our private lives, the right to interfere in our private lives.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:12 am

Adam Zapple wrote: We wink at abortion as if it is a simple procedure. It's not. Girls must take antibiotics after the abortion. They could hemorrhage, they could get a fatal bout of sepsis if not treated properly.

lets not forget the emotional and psychological effects either. They are much worse.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:41 am

JMHO, but the "emotional and physiological" aftereffects have been greatly magnified by people who are anti-choice! I've had an abortion and know many women who have had them, as well. I have NEVER met a woman who suffered any trauma or guilt, etc.

Until you've been in the situation of an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, you cannot understand the terror and worry you experience! Can any of you imagine the feelings of a teenaged girl who's pregnant by rape or incest? Can you not imagine why some pregnancies could not and should not be continued?

It's very easy to hurl stones and impose one's particular views on another person who may not share them.

It's not my intention to begin yet another debate. My intention is to let you know that many women don't share your views and will never stand by quietly when the right to personal choice in matters of reproduction is threatened.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:53 am

Lulu2 wrote: I have NEVER met a woman who suffered any trauma or guilt, etc.

Hmm. Well now you have. Nice to meet you.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:00 am

And nice to meet you. I'm sorry your experience was difficult. Mine was not. We're all different.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:02 am

I just dont want these religious nuts thinking its the answer to all of our prayers (aborters) because it is not an easy decision to make for anyone.

I guess I just want to say: "keep your rosaries off my ovaries".

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:04 am

Taking your arm and standing beside you! It's nobody's business but our own.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:58 am

Lu - where have u bean! Off to Algeria or some such worldly place?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:34 pm

(:wah: Nope! Germany last December...nothing lately and I'm getting an ITCH to go again! How'd you know I've always wanted to go to Algeria? Morocco, too!)

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:46 pm

Lulu, how does your abortion fit into the question of parents giving consent for surgical procedures performed on their children?

Addressing the rape/incest thing, there are already judicial/legal avenues in place to help girls in such situations, but for the typical young teen pregnancy, shouldn't the parents be trusted to make the decision for their child just as they are in any other situation?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:03 am

On paper, that sounds great, ACC'. BUT...suppose the girl is unwilling to tell parents for some reason (say, OH, I DON'T KNOW...maybe INCEST?) and suppose she waits far too long for a safe termination? Suppose she's so terrified by the parental notification law that she seeks an illegal procedure?

Despite the attempts by anti-choice people to paint them as "drooling swine who long to terminate every pregnancy in the land," Planned Parenthood does counsel young women who come to them for help. A girl who is merely too embarassed to tell her parents can get help in approaching them with news of a pregnancy.

Incest and rape, teen-aged immaturity, contraceptive failure and ignorance of contraception all contribute to unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.

Of course, I'd want to believe my daughter could come to me in any of these situations, but, if she could not, I'd want her to have the help she needed to solve the problem and terminate the pregnancy if she chose to do so.

The problem is that teen-pregnancies aren't all "clear cut/black & white" and neither are all parents kind, understanding, rational and helpful.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:52 am

And neither are all agencies or representatives of said agencies. I think benefit of the doubt belongs with the parents. You're examples are already addressed in legislation that allows courts to step in in situations where the home life is not healthy for the minor. This legislation doesn't prevent anyone from getting an abortion. It keeps statutory rapists and manipulators like the family I mentioned above from circumventing the authority of the parents. I think I know LuLu well enough to know her reaction had a group of pro-lifers whisked her minor daughter out-of-state to have the baby - all without LuLu's consent or involvement. I just don't understand why people make exceptions to conditions that would otherwise be reasonable just because abortion is involved. Would anyone here allow a daycare worker to take their child to the doctor and have a procedure performed without their consent? Of course, states don't allow this. But what if your neighboring state didn't require parental consent and the daycare worker crossed state lines because they thought your child should receive a medical treatment without your consent? Would anyone really be okay with this?

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:17 pm

well, if girls would stop having fun and think of the consequences of their actions, and boys have the same problem but not the same effect, teen pregnancy would drop dramatically, but not from abstinence. both party's might wind up demanding some typrof control, but parents sem to think talk will solve the problem. many, however don't even do that. so why should notification be best? all it does is put the prblem into the whole house, not just befor the children. whatever one believes in regard to abortion, parents will act according to their own prejudices, not on the basis of what is good for the children. and that is nothing short of stupidity in action. parents more often than not want to avoid shame on them, and couldn't care less about the affects it may have on the children, or what the children may want.:-5 :-5 :-5

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:59 pm

Then why allow parents any kind of authority in raising their children at all?Perhaps you would prefer the state, or its appointed representatives, make all decisions regarding children. Why not make all children wards of the state at birth and send them to state-run child raising farms? Because "parents will act according to their own prejudices, not on the basis of what is good for the children. and that is nothing short of stupidity in action. parents more often than not want to avoid shame on them, and couldn't care less about the affects it may have on the children, or what the children may want." Certainly the government in all its compassionate wisdom will do so much better. I propose that all children be created in government labs for the purpose of propigation of the species only and that parenting be removed from the equation. Parenthood should be outlawed for the above quoted reason.

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:01 pm

:-4 :-4 you assume i want the government to make decisions. that is incorrect. what i want is for the state to stop requiring that the decision making process be taken from trhe affected girl. she should make the decision, not the parent. it is her body which will bear the child, and she hasa to be the one to decide what she wants, bit the parent who WASN"T there before the act. why should they then be the one after the act. especially when so many of the girls are carrying a parents kid? those states that require notification make no exceptions. if the parents don't allow an abortion, there is none. where is the justice, or the right to make a choice then? it won't be at the courthouse.:-4 :-4

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:12 pm

Lulu2 wrote: On paper, that sounds great, ACC'. BUT...suppose the girl is unwilling to tell parents for some reason (say, OH, I DON'T KNOW...maybe INCEST?) and suppose she waits far too long for a safe termination? Suppose she's so terrified by the parental notification law that she seeks an illegal procedure?Any idea what percentage of teen pregnancy is a result of incest? Betcha it's unbelievably small. Also betcha it doesn't matter to you.

Lulu2 wrote: Despite the attempts by anti-choice people to paint them as "drooling swine who long to terminate every pregnancy in the land," Planned Parenthood does counsel young women who come to them for help. A girl who is merely too embarassed to tell her parents can get help in approaching them with news of a pregnancy. Who are you quoting? Does Planned Parenthood counsel young women to break the law? I doubt it. I'm sure if such a counselor thought the girl was in danger she would take the proper legal steps.

Lulu2 wrote: Incest and rape, teen-aged immaturity, contraceptive failure and ignorance of contraception all contribute to unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.

Of course, I'd want to believe my daughter could come to me in any of these situations, but, if she could not, I'd want her to have the help she needed to solve the problem and terminate the pregnancy if she chose to do so.

The problem is that teen-pregnancies aren't all "clear cut/black & white" and neither are all parents kind, understanding, rational and helpful.

None of your post addresses anything approaching a reason typical parents shouldn't be trusted to make the decision for their child just as they are in any other situation.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:15 pm

Diuretic wrote: Why do some states allow minor females to give consent to abortion and why do some prohibit this? (assuming they do, I'm not at all familiar with various state laws in the US on this).That's the beauty of the USA! :yh_flag

There's no way every American can agree on every issue, so most are decided at the state or local level. That way, if you disagree with the law, you can move, or at least drive, to a place that does things the way you like it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:16 pm

charles_r51 wrote: well, if girls would stop having fun and think of the consequences of their actions, and boys have the same problem but not the same effect, teen pregnancy would drop dramatically, but not from abstinence. both party's might wind up demanding some typrof control, but parents sem to think talk will solve the problem. many, however don't even do that. so why should notification be best? all it does is put the prblem into the whole house, not just befor the children. whatever one believes in regard to abortion, parents will act according to their own prejudices, not on the basis of what is good for the children. and that is nothing short of stupidity in action. parents more often than not want to avoid shame on them, and couldn't care less about the affects it may have on the children, or what the children may want.:-5 :-5 :-5I'm sorry you had such poor parents, Chuck.

You don't have kids, do you?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:10 pm

Accountable, you seem unwilling to accept the idea that not all parents are as "accountable" as you are and that not all girls can or should inform their parent(s) of a pregnancy. I appreciate your position, but... I don't agree.

We don't have any more thoughts to exchange on the issue.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:54 am

Quoted by charles_r51:

bit the parent who WASN"T there before the act. why should they then be the one after the act. especially when so many of the girls are carrying a parents kid? those states that require notification make no exceptions

That is simply wrong. Please provide an example of a state that doesn't make an exception for a child involved in incest. Also, exactly how many is "so many". What state do you live in, for goodness sakes? And lastly, I ask again: If you think parents shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for minors in the case of abortion, do you also extend that to other areas? Do you believe in complete autonomy for minors? If not, why the exception for abortion?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:09 am

Lulu2 wrote: Accountable, you seem unwilling to accept the idea that not all parents are as "accountable" as you are and that not all girls can or should inform their parent(s) of a pregnancy. I appreciate your position, but... I don't agree.

We don't have any more thoughts to exchange on the issue.
I fully accept that not all parents are as accountable as they should be (I'm not a parent).

I do not accept - and vehemently reject - the notion that because a small minority are irresponsible, all parents should have their rights usurped.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:37 am

I agree with the concept that it's irritating as the devil when certain groups withhold something I consider a right because a small group of people might be considered "irresponsible."

An excellent example is the brouhaha around emergency contraceptives or the vaccine which can prevent cervical cancer. Certain groups in this country are lobbying against making these widely available....and you know why.

"WOMEN MIGHT USE THEM INDESCRIMINATELY OR THEY MIGHT ENCOURAGE WOMEN TO HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX."

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:01 pm

just as varied are the opinions expressed here, so are the laws about the controversy of abortion as a whole, and as in specific groups. while i may not agree with anyone, or agree with everyone, who will win the overall battle? the people or the state? the battle will rage on so i have decided to withdraw my troops and charge into battle onm another front, like maybe who builds better cars, but i haven't decided yet. bye to all, and many thanks for the good fight, whoiever decides who wins or loses.:-5 :-5 :-4 :-4

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:59 pm

Lulu2 wrote: I agree with the concept that it's irritating as the devil when certain groups withhold something I consider a right because a small group of people might be considered "irresponsible.":eek: Are you saying what I think you're saying??

Lulu2 wrote: An excellent example is the brouhaha around emergency contraceptives or the vaccine which can prevent cervical cancer. Certain groups in this country are lobbying against making these widely available....and you know why.

"WOMEN MIGHT USE THEM INDESCRIMINATELY OR THEY MIGHT ENCOURAGE WOMEN TO HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX."The slippery slope argument is never valid, except when talking about wet slopes.

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:59 pm

what slope? i just choose to refrain from argueing a point which seems to lead nowhere but further argument. that's the fun of it. i leave when i choose, so as to attack another varied and sundry position on another subject. this one has led only into a quagmire of opinions that cannot be resolved through any further argument, not that it can't be resolved at another time, or under diferent circumstances. i just don't see it getting resolved anytime in the near term. there are just to many variables, and at least as many opinions. one side says this, another that, and some other, another. the argument will go on, and on, and on, so i choose to leave the field. have no fear, though. i'll show up on another forum, for some reason. and then the argument will continue, but on a different tack.:-4 :-4 :-4 :-4

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:01 pm

charles_r51 wrote: what slope? i just choose to refrain from argueing a point which seems to lead nowhere but further argument. that's the fun of it. i leave when i choose, so as to attack another varied and sundry position on another subject. this one has led only into a quagmire of opinions that cannot be resolved through any further argument, not that it can't be resolved at another time, or under diferent circumstances. i just don't see it getting resolved anytime in the near term. there are just to many variables, and at least as many opinions. one side says this, another that, and some other, another. the argument will go on, and on, and on, so i choose to leave the field. have no fear, though. i'll show up on another forum, for some reason. and then the argument will continue, but on a different tack.:-4 :-4 :-4 :-4Um, that was a response to Lulu's post. Sorry.

charles_r51 · Post by **charles_r51** » Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:02 pm

oh well. it'll still be here when lulu sees it.:-4 :-4 :-4 :-4

Felinessa · Post by **Felinessa** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:13 pm

Note: this post is not aimed at anyone in particular, but drawing on a variety of responses.

We've been talking a lot about the parents' rights over the children. Sure, since the minor is your responsibility, you should have certain rights. But there is a major difference between deciding to not allow a kid to go on a school trip and deciding to force a kid to keep her baby. The first decision is not life-altering; the second one is. And the truth is that your kid will have to live with YOUR decision for the rest of her life, which in most cases extends far beyond the 18 years you are responsible for her. This is exactly what would make abortion a reasonable exception from parental consent. For anything else, trips, parties, even marriage, she can safely wait a few years without consequences. But an unwanted baby can't be given back when she is 18. And even if it is placed for adoption, the emotional toll this may take on her can't be given back either.

So I'm with those who suggested that parental influence should be paired with objective counselling, while leaving the final decision to the pregnant girl. While responsible parents who consider the child's best interest first may be the majority, there are many others who are abusive and neglectful, or who put their own beliefs ahead. And since they do not represent an easily neglected percentage, it is dangerous to allow their children to slip through the cracks. After all, if a parent is responsible, caring, and has a good relationship with his/her pregnant child, the child is likely to consider her parent's opinion anyway. Do you need the law to compensate for your own parenting mistakes and lack of a trusting relationship with your children? If you do, then perhaps you are not in that responsible, caring category.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:31 pm

Felinessa wrote: After all, if a parent is responsible, caring, and has a good relationship with his/her pregnant child, the child is likely to consider her parent's opinion anyway. Do you need the law to compensate for your own parenting mistakes and lack of a trusting relationship with your children? If you do, then perhaps you are not in that responsible, caring category.

Let me reiterate; parental consent laws were not born from a need to force kids to consult their parents but to ensure that outside influences don't usurp the authority of the parents and give advice contrary to the values and wishes of the parents, especially since the parents have no opportunity to counter if they are being excluded from the situation. And if someting goes wrong and the child becomes very ill or even dies from complications of this outside advice. What do you tell the parents then - "Oops."? Parental consent laws are there to protect the minor. Read the link I provided on page 5 of this thread for Congressional Testimony on this subject. It clearly illustrates the need for such laws.

Felinessa · Post by **Felinessa** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:46 pm

Adam Zapple wrote: Let me reiterate; parental consent laws were not born from a need to force kids to consult their parents but to ensure that outside influences don't usurp the authority of the parents and give advice contrary to the values and wishes of the parents

So what you are telling me is that these laws were not born from a need to ensure the child's best welfare. They are about the authority, values, and wishes of the PARENTS. What about the values and wishes of the child? Isn't she the one who will have to live with the decision? Surely, it is preposterous to assume that one becomes automatically equipped with unpreviously held values on the same day they turn 18 ...

I do see your point up to a certain extent and I understand that you are focusing on the parents' right to protect their children. That's understable and noble. However, children are not our property, and our ways of protecting them may not turn out to be in their best interest after all, however well intentioned. This is why I think that minors should have access to a variety of resources, including both their parents and independent counselling.

And if someting goes wrong and the child becomes very ill or even dies from complications of this outside advice. What do you tell the parents then - "Oops."?

What if something goes equally wrong following the parents' decision? Is the parents' "oops" more excusable?

Parental consent laws are there to protect the minor.

And what happens to those minors whose parents' decisions will not turn out to protect them?

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:59 pm

Felinessa wrote: So what you are telling me is that these laws were not born from a need to ensure the child's best welfare. They are about the authority, values, and wishes of the PARENTS.

No, I'm saying the laws are meant to ensure the child's best welfare. In the vast majority of the cases, parents are better qualified to know what that is. Certainly better than some pimple-faced boyfriend and/or his parents and more so than some government bureaucrat.

Felinessa wrote: What if something goes equally wrong following the parents' decision? Is the parents' "oops" more excusable?

Parents are legally responsible for that child. However, I never said parents should bully over their child. I said parents should be involved in the decision. Who cares more for the welfare of their child, and knows their child's abilities to handle such things, than the parents?

Felinessa wrote: And what happens to those minors whose parents' decisions will not turn out to protect them?

Parental consent laws make exceptions for girls in abusive and neglectful homes.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:44 am

gmc wrote: posted by accountable

.

Maybe if people just accepted sex as normal and a healthy activity and taught kids about contraceptives and allowed free access to them instead of not talking about it you might stop more getting pregnant in the first place. Knowledge is power and so is being able to talk about things freely.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4584175.stm

Thank you GMC for bringing some sense into this discussion. How many of you "just masturbated" until you were married? My guess is not many. Not everyone retains that sex is only for married people, nor should they. Better to teach responsibility in the form of contraception and intelligent information rather than pretending human nature isn't going to happen or that sex is not a healthy part of growing up.

Down with parental notification. I too, would like to see those studies that Peg named off. There are reasons girls don't tell their parents they are pregnant. Boys have not that worry half as much as girls do because in the end it's still the girl who must pay the piper.

In this day and age when sex is all over the tv, magazines and otherwise in your face, we still have kids who think if they do it standing up, she won't get pregnant. Educate these people!! Put it in their faces!! It's not going to get better by demanding they tell their parents after the fact! That just cuts down on abortion and creates more unwanted human beings.

Adoption is not an option for everyone, since that's been mentioned several times.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:48 am

Adam Zapple wrote: Parental consent laws make exceptions for girls in abusive and neglectful homes.

Mmhmm. They should but they don't always. Who knows their parents better than the child? And what did I just read about "the wishes and values of the parents?" I have news for you- this is not the parent's choice. It is the teen mother's choice and the parents have to live with it. That may be not to anyone's liking but that's the way it is.