NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/25/interstate.abortion.ap/index.html

So, let's not debate abortion here, pretty please. There are plenty of threads for that. This is more about the idea of an interstate parental notification law (which you can discuss whether you personally agree with abortion or not) and whether or not it is (a) necessary and (b) would prevent things like the case mentioned in the article.

A pregnant 14-year-old from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, decides to keep and raise her baby. Her boyfriend's parents drive her to a New Jersey abortion clinic to get around her home state's parental notification law. They then refuse to take her home until she ends her pregnancy.

It happened -- and a national parental notification law could have stopped it, the girl's mother, Marcia Carroll, told a House panel last year.

Personally, I would say that such a law wouldn't have prevented this case at all. What the boyfriend's parents did is clearly kidnapping and/or false imprisonment - not to mention that the essentially forced her to have medical treatment that she did not want.

If they are willing to to to those lengths, I seriously doubt that an interstate parental notification law would have stopped them. The issue here seems to be one of kidnapping and forced abortion, not of whether or not the girl should have been required to get her parents' permission.

There are also other reasons that I don't necessarily think such a law is a good idea, particularly without the amendments the Democrats are trying to add, but we can get into those later. I figure we'll focus on this story first. =)

I think such a law will be beneficial and her bf's parents should be charged with federal kidnapping.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/25/interstate.abortion.ap/index.html

So, let's not debate abortion here, pretty please. There are plenty of threads for that. This is more about the idea of an interstate parental notification law (which you can discuss whether you personally agree with abortion or not) and whether or not it is (a) necessary and (b) would prevent things like the case mentioned in the article.



Personally, I would say that such a law wouldn't have prevented this case at all. What the boyfriend's parents did is clearly kidnapping and/or false imprisonment - not to mention that the essentially forced her to have medical treatment that she did not want.

If they are willing to to to those lengths, I seriously doubt that an interstate parental notification law would have stopped them. The issue here seems to be one of kidnapping and forced abortion, not of whether or not the girl should have been required to get her parents' permission.

There are also other reasons that I don't necessarily think such a law is a good idea, particularly without the amendments the Democrats are trying to add, but we can get into those later. I figure we'll focus on this story first. =)


Shit thats fucked up. So children under the age of 15 do not need a parents signature for a medical operation in the USA? That does seem a little strange to me.

I think such a law will be beneficial and her bf's parents should be charged with federal kidnapping.


Yep that and assault, agrivated injury, and some sort of assualt of a minor charge too.

Yep that and assault, agrivated injury, and some sort of assualt of a minor charge too.

Could also charge murder but I'm going to be respectful of Dempublicent's request and not start that debate in here.

I think such a law will be beneficial and her bf's parents should be charged with federal kidnapping.

Not to mention murder. While I do not believe a human is a human until they're born and that a woman choosing abortion is not murder, the girl clearly decided she wanted to keep and raise the fetus into a full grown human being. Being forced to terminate is nothing short of murder.

As to the question, I believe parents should be notified about anything involving their children until said child is of adult age. Whether its a pregnancy or having a wart removed from their feet.

Shit thats fucked up. So children under the age of 15 do not need a parents signature for a medical operation in the USA? That does seem a little strange to me.

It varies state to state. Some states require parental notification, some do not. All are required to have some sort of arrangement in which an underage person can petition the court for the right to make their own decision.

Could also charge murder but I'm going to be respectful of Dempublicent's request and not start that debate in here.

Hehe not to mention what should happen to the medical staff who done this without permision. Should they be struck off, yep.

Haha, that fetus got pwnd!
The parents of that boy saved their kid years of expenses. They should be comended.

Hehe not to mention what should happen to the medical staff who done this without permision. Should they be struck off, yep.

They were in a state that does not require parental notification. They did nothing illegal, and probably were not aware that the girl had been coerced (although, if they were aware, I would hold them equally responsible).

Haha, that fetus got pwnd!
The parents of that boy saved their kid years of expenses. They should be comended.

*chuckle*

Haha, that fetus got pwnd!
The parents of that boy saved their kid years of expenses. They should be comended.

Not unless she decides not to have him do so.

Shit thats fucked up. So children under the age of 15 do not need a parents signature for a medical operation in the USA? That does seem a little strange to me.
Usually only in the case of abortion. Too many parents would deny their child the right.

They were in a state that does not require parental notification. They did nothing illegal, and probably were not aware that the girl had been coerced (although, if they were aware, I would hold them equally responsible).

That still doesn't negate a kidnapping charge, and a federal one to boot as it crossed state lines.

Not unless she decides not to have him do so.
Tell me something, has there ever been an experience in your life that would leave to beleive that a women would turn down something free from a man? Ever?

Tell me something, has there ever been an experience in your life that would leave to beleive that a women would turn down something free from a man? Ever?

Actually yes.

Haha, that fetus got pwnd!
The parents of that boy saved their kid years of expenses. They should be comended.

You honestly think that someone should be commended for kidnapping and essentially forcing someone to have an abortion?

That's disgusting.

Meanwhile, testimony from the mother:
http://judiciary.house.gov/HearingTestimony.aspx?ID=254

They were in a state that does not require parental notification. They did nothing illegal, and probably were not aware that the girl had been coerced (although, if they were aware, I would hold them equally responsible).


Granted, but was the question not one of parental notifacation? In that respect there should be law. As a parent myself, I would be horrified, mortified, and then fuckin' angry if something similar was to happen to one of my children.

Heh So I guess my answer to your original question would have to go a long the lines of what are you fookin' mad, of course yes, why are you even asking such a dumbarse question. Or words to that effect.:)

Oh, by the way, in actuallity, I do consider what the parents of that boy did to be underhanded, but I still think parental notifications are a bad idea. Too many Puritans.

Actually yes.
:eek:

Tell me something, has there ever been an experience in your life that would leave to beleive that a women would turn down something free from a man? Ever?
Actually.... my boyfriend offered to pay for my cab ride to an appointment he was driving me too after his car broke down, I turned down the offer and paid for it myself. :D

Tell me something, has there ever been an experience in your life that would leave to beleive that a women would turn down something free from a man? Ever?

I keep getting turned down on my offers of free sex. The "You blow me twice for the price of once" coupons didn't go over so well either.

That still doesn't negate a kidnapping charge, and a federal one to boot as it crossed state lines.

Unless the medical professionals were part of the coercion, they didn't kidnap anyone. It was the parents of the boy who did that.


Granted, but was the question not one of parental notifacation? In that respect there should be law. As a parent myself, I would be horrified, mortified, and then fuckin' angry if something similar was to happen to one of my children.

Heh So I guess my answer to your original question would have to go a long the lines of what are you fookin' mad, of course yes, why are you even asking such a dumbarse question. Or words to that effect.

I'm iffy on the idea of parental notification. I've seen way too many parents who don't make decisions that are in the best interest of their child, and don't give a minor who is becoming an adult any say whatsoever in their own treatment.

Unless the medical professionals were part of the coercion, they didn't kidnap anyone. It was the parents of the boy who did that.

That was what I was talking about.

I don't know the people involved and this is the first I'm hearing of the incident, but this girl didn't say anything to the staff at the clinic in New Jersey? And if she did, they just ignored her? I'm sorry, but that does not make sense to me. If the story happened as written and as testified to before Congress, the boyfriend's parents clearly kidnapped this girl, and the clinic's staff, if the girl said anything at all to them about not wanting the procedure, are equally culpable. But I am having a lot of trouble believing that the girl was so controlled by the adults involved that she couldn't say a word to anyone else through the entire incident. Sorry, but it doesn't sit well.

i don't think it would have helped this girl. if her boyfriends parents were going to resort to kidnapping to to force the girl to get an abortion then such a law would just make them consider some other way of aborting the baby, like a coathanger. the other reason why this law is probably being pushed for is cuz parents don't want their daughters deciding to have abortions without their knowledge and/or consent. to be honest, if the girl doesn't feel able or willing to tell her parents that she is pregnant and wants an abortion herself then they probably don't deserve to know.

i don't think it would have helped this girl. if her boyfriends parents were going to resort to kidnapping to to force the girl to get an abortion then such a law would just make them consider some other way of aborting the baby, like a coathanger. the other reason why this law is probably being pushed for is cuz parents don't want their daughters deciding to have abortions without their knowledge and/or consent. to be honest, if the girl doesn't feel able or willing to tell her parents that she is pregnant and wants an abortion herself then they probably don't deserve to know.
Agreed ... this is disgusting but forcing kids into hiding over something so important is bad


Though if it is just notification it COULD be worse ... this is the one case where I think parental CONCENT would be a deffinate bad thing

I'm iffy on the idea of parental notification. I've seen way too many parents who don't make decisions that are in the best interest of their child, and don't give a minor who is becoming an adult any say whatsoever in their own treatment.


I can understand this, but whatever happens though a parent is in a better position to make a better desicion than a child.

Saying that you don't like the idea because some parents may make bad choices then negates the need for parents doesn't it. Either as a parent you are responisble for your children up until a certian age or you are not. If you are then you are in all areas and aspects of thier lives, and if you are not, then you are not fit to call your self a parent. Wether we consider it right or wrong it is the way of things, and it is as it should be.

I was watching some sort of wild bear program the other day and in every case whe na baby bear was in trouble the mother bear was there protecting it, should we be then less than bears and shirk our parental responsiblities, in the name of civil liberties for those too young to know yet?

I agree we should let our children be as free as possible, but are you really saying that you would not use your parental veto on the matter of abortion, but what then on the matter of taking drugs?

I think such a law will be beneficial and her bf's parents should be charged with federal kidnapping.
His parents can be charged without such a law. Why is the "solution" to every made-up "problem" to pass a law? Why not just enforce the ones we have? And what about getting rid of a lot of them while we're at it? There are a lot of old, silly laws on the books that just don't get enforced. Non-enforcement of some laws contributes to an attitude of "the only law is don't get caught."

Jeez, did I go OT or what? :eek:

I think such a law will be beneficial and her bf's parents should be charged with federal kidnapping.


I'm not sure about the law. But the parents should definitly be charged with kidnapping and imprisonment of a minor. Even if they were in an emotional state that doesn;t excuse the kidnapping of a child.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/25/interstate.abortion.ap/index.html

So, let's not debate abortion here, pretty please. There are plenty of threads for that. This is more about the idea of an interstate parental notification law (which you can discuss whether you personally agree with abortion or not) and whether or not it is (a) necessary and (b) would prevent things like the case mentioned in the article.

(a) Not only is it not necessary, it is dangerous. It will directly lead to a decrease in the health and well-being of young women. Parental notification is one of the worst ideas anybody has ever come up with, since it will only hurt those young people who are already suffering from having shitty parents.

Example: in high school, I helped transport a minor across state lines to get an abortion. Her parents didn't know. Why? Because her father was the one who'd raped and impregnated her. Parental notification laws specifically and directly hurt the very girls who are already being horribly victimized.

(b) Hell no, it wouldn't prevent such things. There are already OTHER laws that cover why that crap was wrong, and those laws didn't stop it.

[QUOTE=Bottle](a) Not only is it not necessary, it is dangerous. It will directly lead to a decrease in the health and well-being of young women. Parental notification is one of the worst ideas anybody has ever come up with, since it will only hurt those young people who are already suffering from having shitty parents.

Example: in high school, I helped transport a minor across state lines to get an abortion. Her parents didn't know. Why? Because her father was the one who'd raped and impregnated her. Parental notification laws specifically and directly hurt the very girls who are already being horribly victimized.

QUOTE]

WTF? I hope the bastard burns in Hell. Sorry I know its off the point. I just cannot physcially understand why someone would first of all to that but to do it to your own kid? And I bet if she told her mother she'd have a hard time convincing her. The poor girl.

Meanwhile, testimony from the mother:
http://judiciary.house.gov/HearingTestimony.aspx?ID=254


This is sickening. I am totally pro choice but this? It disgusts me. Those parents (of the boy) should be thrown into jail and made pay for the emotional costs of councillors etc.

WTF? I hope the bastard burns in Hell. Sorry I know its off the point. I just cannot physcially understand why someone would first of all to that but to do it to your own kid? And I bet if she told her mother she'd have a hard time convincing her. The poor girl.
My GF was molested and raped from age 7 to age 16. She had 100 percent rheumatoid arthritis sense age 4 before her hip replacement at age 14 she could not even walk.

Yet her dad felt it ok to molest her for years. And these are the sort of people that people want to decide about weather they have a kid or not (she did not get pregnant but she could have)

In the end it should be made EXTREEMLY easy to over ride parental consent in something this touchy and in an area like this where power is often abused by parents.

This is sickening. I am totally pro choice but this? It disgusts me. Those parents (of the boy) should be thrown into jail and made pay for the emotional costs of councillors etc.
This should read, "I am pro-choice, so this disgusts me."

Pro-choice =/= pro-everybody-having-abortions-whether-they-want-to-or-not. Pro-choice = It's her goddam business what she does with her body, fuckwads. Those parents are as anti-choice as the people who want to ban abortion.

Being pro-choice is about recognizing that women and girls have the same rights as male human beings, including the right to assert ownership of their own bodies. Being pro-choice means accepting that an individual human is the one who gets to choose their medical care, and that no other individual or organization gets to over-rule their decisions.

This should read, "I am pro-choice, so this disgusts me."

Pro-choice =/= pro-everybody-having-abortions-whether-they-want-to-or-not. Pro-choice = It's her goddam business what she does with her body, fuckwads. Those parents are as anti-choice as the people who want to ban abortion.

Abortion rights are about recognizing that women and girls have the same rights as male human beings, including the right to assert ownership of their own bodies. Being pro-choice means accepting that an individual human is the one who gets to choose their medical care, and that no other individual or organization gets to over-rule their decisions.
Agreed 150% it is her right to CHOOSE that we fight for

They took away that right as much as anybody could (as much as the anti-choice party wants to)

Tell me something, has there ever been an experience in your life that would leave to beleive that a women would turn down something free from a man? Ever?

Nobody has taken me up on my free sex offer yet. *nods*

This should read, "I am pro-choice, so this disgusts me."

Pro-choice =/= pro-everybody-having-abortions-whether-they-want-to-or-not. Pro-choice = It's her goddam business what she does with her body, fuckwads. Those parents are as anti-choice as the people who want to ban abortion.

Being pro-choice is about recognizing that women and girls have the same rights as male human beings, including the right to assert ownership of their own bodies. Being pro-choice means accepting that an individual human is the one who gets to choose their medical care, and that no other individual or organization gets to over-rule their decisions.
Amen, brother! As Barbara Bush said, abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor. It has no place in a political platform.
And no new laws about interstate parental notification should be allowed to change that. We need fewer laws, not more.

(a) Not only is it not necessary, it is dangerous. It will directly lead to a decrease in the health and well-being of young women. Parental notification is one of the worst ideas anybody has ever come up with, since it will only hurt those young people who are already suffering from having shitty parents.

Example: in high school, I helped transport a minor across state lines to get an abortion. Her parents didn't know. Why? Because her father was the one who'd raped and impregnated her. Parental notification laws specifically and directly hurt the very girls who are already being horribly victimized.

(b) Hell no, it wouldn't prevent such things. There are already OTHER laws that cover why that crap was wrong, and those laws didn't stop it.
If the father raped her, can't he go to prison too?

This issue is more complex than "A=bad; B=good". On the one hand, there are bad parents who would hurt their kids in such cases. On the other, there are good parents who don't want their kids to enter the world of adults with as much real-world knowledge as an egg cell.

By forcing bad parents, who rape their kids, to know that their kids might do something that could get said parents to go to prison, you endanger the kid, often mortally, in the short(sometimes also the long) term. By allowing kids to have unprotected sex and allowing them to escape one of the biggest and most important lessons of life, you risk spoilling the girl. A spoilled kid is worse off than an abused kid. At least the abused kid knows about actual danger and how real it is. They don't have the "I can't get hurt because I'm me. Me. People die because they're not me. I'm freak'n god. You owe me because I'm me and you're you and not me." mentallity that so many kids have.

The issue is a long log on top of a single, thin stone pillar above a lake of lava. Those who's lives are at stake are on top of the log. In both the issue and the example I'm giving, balance is what's keeping those involved safe. If the log is unbalanced, those involved fall into the lava. If the issue is unbalanced. many kids will be in mortal danger.

. A spoilled kid is worse off than an abused kid.
.

OK I know you mean well. But unless you know someone who has been abused. Please don't think that. Nothing is worse than abuse. Even spolitness. That can be gotten rid of.

. A spoilled kid is worse off than an abused kid.
.

OK I know you mean well. But unless you know someone who has been abused. Please don't think that. Nothing is worse than abuse. Even spolitness. That can be gotten rid of.

. A spoilled kid is worse off than an abused kid.
.

OK I know you mean well. But unless you know someone who has been abused. Please don't think that. Nothing is worse than abuse. Even spolitness. That can be gotten rid of.

OK I know you mean well. But unless you know someone who has been abused. Please don't think that. Nothing is worse than abuse. Even spolitness. That can be gotten rid of.
I've known people who were abused and people who are spoiled. Let me tell you, the spoiled ones are much worse off. They have almost no concept of work. The abused ones are much more healed than they were, well the ones with enough balls to get help. Much easier to get stuff done when you try to forget the trauma and focus on healing yourself. I say that as someone who has lost loved ones, especailly those I was very, very close with.

If the father raped her, can't he go to prison too?

This issue is more complex than "A=bad; B=good". On the one hand, there are bad parents who would hurt their kids in such cases. On the other, there are good parents who don't want their kids to enter the world of adults with as much real-world knowledge as an egg cell.

And nobody is proposing that good parents be blocked from talking with their children, or from forming relationships founded on trust and respect which will encourage their children to seek their advice in serious situations (such as the case of an unplanned pregnancy).

The simple fact is that requiring parental notification discourages young people from seeking medical help. It's been shown time and time again. Parental notification laws don't make kids any more likely to tell their parents; these laws make them LESS likely to get help from ANYBODY, for fear that the officials will tell their parents.

I voluteered at a clinic that wrestled with this very subject. I can't tell you the number of young people who would only allow us to help them after we reassured them that we would never tell their parents. We even had young people walk out because they just didn't believe that we would keep their secret, and they would rather face a pregnancy alone and with no help at all than risk that their parents would find out about it.

If our goal is to protect the health and safety of young people, than this issue is as simple as A=good, B=bad. Laws requiring parental notification reduce the number of young people who receive the necessary care in cases of pregnancy and STD infection. It's as simple as that.


By forcing bad parents, who rape their kids, to know that their kids might do something that could get said parents to go to prison, you endanger the kid, often mortally, in the short(sometimes also the long) term.

Quite.


By allowing kids to have unprotected sex and allowing them to escape one of the biggest and most important lessons of life, you risk spoilling the girl.
And what "lesson" is that? A pregnant young girl has only one way of avoiding taking responsibility, and that is for her to pretend that she's not pregnant or that it will go away by itself, and to do nothing until the kid drops out of her.

On the other hand, choosing to abort a pregnancy is often the most responsible choice a woman can make. There is no need to worry that young women will be "escaping a life lesson" if we give them access to reproductive health care. On the contrary; they will be better able to make informed and reasonable decisions.


A spoilled kid is worse off than an abused kid. At least the abused kid knows about actual danger and how real it is.

Yes, a girl who is forced to notify her abusive rapist father is better off than a girl who has access to reproductive health care. Because girls who have access to information and medical care are "spoiled."


They don't have the "I can't get hurt because I'm me. Me. People die because they're not me. I'm freak'n god. You owe me because I'm me and you're you and not me." mentallity that so many kids have.

None of which has the least thing to do with this topic.


The issue is a long log on top of a single, thin stone pillar above a lake of lava. Those who's lives are at stake are on top of the log. In both the issue and the example I'm giving, balance is what's keeping those involved safe. If the log is unbalanced, those involved fall into the lava. If the issue is unbalanced. many kids will be in mortal danger.As I've already said, if we want to reduce the danger to young people then our stance on this issue couldn't be clearer: we should oppose parental notification laws.

Whether or not you think parents should (ideally) be notified if their child is receiving an abortion, the simple reality is that these laws do not acheive what you want. They do NOT make kids more likely to tell their parents. They do NOT make kids more likely to receive safe, responsible care. They DO make kids more likely to hide their pregnancies altogether, and forgo any medical care at all.

Keep in mind, this includes seeking prenatal care! There are many girls who do not want to abort their pregnancy, yet who also don't want Mom and Dad to know they're pregnant. These young women need to be receiving prenatal care, but when there are parental notification laws in place the young women are far less likely to seek such care. They are far more likely to have high-risk pregnancies, and to suffer complications during childbirth.

Regardless of how you feel on the subject of abortion, the issue of parental notification laws is really quite simple. Either you want kids to be healthier and physically safer, or you don't.

Why can't we compromise? Allow the medical staff to decide whether it is appropriate to inform the parents/CPS in each individual case. I feel that a blanket decision either way would be a bad thing.

I've known people who were abused and people who are spoiled. Let me tell you, the spoiled ones are much worse off. They have almost no concept of work. The abused ones are much more healed than they were, well the ones with enough balls to get help. Much easier to get stuff done when you try to forget the trauma and focus on healing yourself. I say that as someone who has lost loved ones, especailly those I was very, very close with.
Forgive me, but your anecdotal evidence doesn't convince me.

I've worked with barely-teenage girls who've been raped by their fathers since they were in diapers, and I can categorically assure you that they are worse off than children who have been "spoiled."

I've worked with girls who ended up living on the streets because their parents threw them out when they found out about their pregnancy; I promise you, they were worse off than kids who were "spoiled" by their parents.

I've seen a girl die in childbirth because she was too afraid to seek help when she went into labor. I think she'd probably have prefered to be "spoiled."

I've seen a 15 year old boy lose both his testicles because he didn't seek medical help with an STD, for fear of his parents finding out. I've never heard of a fellow losing his ability to procreate because his parents were too nice to him.

I've met with a young girl who contracted genital warts and herpes from her step father, and who subsequently had a baby with severe birth defects because of these untreated diseases. Yes, it was his baby.

Forgive me for being a bit emotional on this subject, but to hear somebody blathering on about "spoiled" children in this context is sickening to me. Providing sound medical care is not "spoiling" children. Putting the lives and health of young people first is not "spoiling" them. Allowing young women to make their own decisions about their own pregnancies is not "spoiling" them, nor are they "escaping responsibility" by choosing to abort their pregnancy if that is what they wish to do.

Why can't we compromise? Allow the medical staff to decide whether it is appropriate to inform the parents/CPS in each individual case. I feel that a blanket decision either way would be a bad thing.
What you propose will have the same impact as a blanket notification law; it will discourage young people from seeking care, and will encourage them to hide their medical problems from EVERYBODY.

Honestly, I can't count the number of young people I've talked to who would have flat-out refused to talk to anybody if they knew that their parents might find out. Some of them even asked for a written contract stating that their parents would not be notified. Which would be better: for these kids to get medical advice and care without notifying their parents, or for them to get no care at all? Because that's what the choice boils down to, for them.

Several people have brought up cases where parental notification would have been a disaster, but what about this scenario:

An irresponsible 14 year-old girl gets impreganted by an equally irresponsible 16 year-old BF. The BF, not wanting responsibility, pressures the GF to get an abortion. Her parents are a respectable middle-class Christian couple, which means they'd probably give the girl fire and brimstone speeches, but once they calmed down, they'd probably support their daughter and help her take care of the new baby. Should the girl, knowing that she'll get the speech, but perhaps not realizing that she'll also get the support, be allowed to be pressured into a rash choice that she may regret the rest of her life, without any parental input?

Several people have brought up cases where parental notification would have been a disaster, but what about this scenario:

An irresponsible 14 year-old girl gets impreganted by an equally irresponsible 16 year-old BF. The BF, not wanting responsibility, pressures the GF to get an abortion. Her parents are a respectable middle-class Christian couple, which means they'd probably give the girl fire and brimstone speeches, but once they calmed down, they'd probably support their daughter and help her take care of the new baby. Should the girl, knowing that she'll get the speech, but perhaps not realizing that she'll also get the support, be allowed to be pressured into a rash choice that she may regret the rest of her life, without any parental input?
Perhaps the parental input she needs is to know that she can go to her parents anytime, with any problem, without incurring the Wrath of God. Perhaps her parents need to be more concerned with their child's welfare in this world rather than in the next. In your scenario, they've already alienated their daughter. And probably kept her from knowing about and getting proper information about sex and access to reproductive care, which might have prevented this "irresponsible" pregnancy.

Perhaps the parental input she needs is to know that she can go to her parents anytime, with any problem, without incurring the Wrath of God. Perhaps her parents need to be more concerned with their child's welfare in this world rather than in the next. In your scenario, they've already alienated their daughter. And probably kept her from knowing about and getting proper information about sex and access to reproductive care, which might have prevented this "irresponsible" pregnancy.

In my scenario, the parents are good people, but like many human beings, they can make mistakes. Ideally, they would have communicated to their daughter that she can come to them, even if she makes a mistake, but in reality, that doesn't always happen.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/25/interstate.abortion.ap/index.html

So, let's not debate abortion here, pretty please. There are plenty of threads for that. This is more about the idea of an interstate parental notification law (which you can discuss whether you personally agree with abortion or not) and whether or not it is (a) necessary and (b) would prevent things like the case mentioned in the article.



Personally, I would say that such a law wouldn't have prevented this case at all. What the boyfriend's parents did is clearly kidnapping and/or false imprisonment - not to mention that the essentially forced her to have medical treatment that she did not want.

If they are willing to to to those lengths, I seriously doubt that an interstate parental notification law would have stopped them. The issue here seems to be one of kidnapping and forced abortion, not of whether or not the girl should have been required to get her parents' permission.

There are also other reasons that I don't necessarily think such a law is a good idea, particularly without the amendments the Democrats are trying to add, but we can get into those later. I figure we'll focus on this story first. =)
I see no problem with an interstate notification law. I think that the parents of a female child have the right to decide whether or not she is ready to have such an invasive medical procedure, regardless of its reported safety. Since such laws are Constitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I would see no problem with extending them to the federal level.

EDIT: If incestual abuse lead to the pregnancy, then the girl needs to get out of the house and to the nearest police station.

I can understand this, but whatever happens though a parent is in a better position to make a better desicion than a child.

Not necessarily. I've known people who were technically minors, but were much more responsible and in a much better position to make such a decision than their parents. In the hospital where my fiance's mother works, they regularly see young girls come in carrying their own father's baby. Do you really think he should have any say in what they do?

Saying that you don't like the idea because some parents may make bad choices then negates the need for parents doesn't it.

No.

Either as a parent you are responisble for your children up until a certian age or you are not. If you are then you are in all areas and aspects of thier lives, and if you are not, then you are not fit to call your self a parent. Wether we consider it right or wrong it is the way of things, and it is as it should be.

That is ridiculous. To say that a person is fully a child up until 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds but is then fully an adult 1 second later is completely ridiculous. People mature over time - and children are no different. It is entirely possible for a 15 year old to be able to make his/her own medical decisions. A parent is not fit to call himself a parent if he does not recognize this, and treat his child accordingly.

I agree we should let our children be as free as possible, but are you really saying that you would not use your parental veto on the matter of abortion, but what then on the matter of taking drugs?

If I had a young teen who got pregnant, I would explain to her that she was in an adult situation, and was going to have to make an adult decision. I would advise her in that decision, but would not make it for her. And I would support her in the choice that she made. She is the one who will have to live with that decision for the rest of her life, so I am not going to make it for her.

Taking drugs, on the other hand, is not a medical decision. Your slippery slope suggestion is just as ridiculous as your "fully child one second, fully adult the next" comment.

What you propose will have the same impact as a blanket notification law; it will discourage young people from seeking care, and will encourage them to hide their medical problems from EVERYBODY.

Honestly, I can't count the number of young people I've talked to who would have flat-out refused to talk to anybody if they knew that their parents might find out. Some of them even asked for a written contract stating that their parents would not be notified. Which would be better: for these kids to get medical advice and care without notifying their parents, or for them to get no care at all? Because that's what the choice boils down to, for them.

I had a friend in high school who was sexually active, but afraid to tell her parents. I begged her to let me drive her to Planned Parenthood, where she could get a checkup and get on birth control. Even though they are a clinic which will keep that information secret, she wouldn't let me take her, because she was terrified that her parents might find out.

Several people have brought up cases where parental notification would have been a disaster, but what about this scenario:

An irresponsible 14 year-old girl gets impreganted by an equally irresponsible 16 year-old BF. The BF, not wanting responsibility, pressures the GF to get an abortion. Her parents are a respectable middle-class Christian couple, which means they'd probably give the girl fire and brimstone speeches, but once they calmed down, they'd probably support their daughter and help her take care of the new baby. Should the girl, knowing that she'll get the speech, but perhaps not realizing that she'll also get the support, be allowed to be pressured into a rash choice that she may regret the rest of her life, without any parental input?

Should she get pushed into a choice that she might regret the rest of her life because of parental input? I see that you assume that she *must* continue the pregnancy and keep the baby. What if that is not her choice?


I see no problem with an interstate notification law. I think that the parents of a female child have the right to decide whether or not she is ready to have such an invasive medical procedure, regardless of its reported safety. Since such laws are Constitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I would see no problem with extending them to the federal level.

EDIT: If incestual abuse lead to the pregnancy, then the girl needs to get out of the house and to the nearest police station.

I'm not sure if it was Casey or another case, but the court has also held that there must be a method by which the girl can get around such laws - she must be allowed to petition the court to make the decision without parental notification or consent.

Not necessarily. I've known people who were technically minors, but were much more responsible and in a much better position to make such a decision than their parents. In the hospital where my fiance's mother works, they regularly see young girls come in carrying their own father's baby. Do you really think he should have any say in what they do?



No.



That is ridiculous. To say that a person is fully a child up until 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds but is then fully an adult 1 second later is completely ridiculous. People mature over time - and children are no different. It is entirely possible for a 15 year old to be able to make his/her own medical decisions. A parent is not fit to call himself a parent if he does not recognize this, and treat his child accordingly.



If I had a young teen who got pregnant, I would explain to her that she was in an adult situation, and was going to have to make an adult decision. I would advise her in that decision, but would not make it for her. And I would support her in the choice that she made. She is the one who will have to live with that decision for the rest of her life, so I am not going to make it for her.

Taking drugs, on the other hand, is not a medical decision. Your slippery slope suggestion is just as ridiculous as your "fully child one second, fully adult the next" comment.
As I posted above, if incestual abuse is the root of the pregnancy, the girl needs to get out of the house, to the nearest police station, and with a new guardian who then can give their consent or their objection to her getting an abortion. Allowing children to undergo a medical procedure that may lead to psychological or physical stress, as may any such procedure, without the advice of an adult is wrong. Some children may be mature enough to make the decision and deal with it just fine, but we must remember that children are still children, and there is a reason why there is a driving age, a smoking age, etc. The fact is that many children are not responsible enough and do not have the life experience needed to make a decision of that magnitude by themselves, regardless of how many supposedly mature individuals under 18 there may be.

OK, so let's take the hypothetical that the parents aren't abusive; they're just decent people but tend to overreact to news of their kids' misconduct:

If minors have a "right" to conceal from their parents the fact that they disobeyed their parents advice and did something stupid (in this case, getting pregnant), then should a minor also have a right to conceal from his or her parents the fact

--That he or she was expelled from school for repeatedly cheating?
--That he or she is in the hospital because of a car accident caused by reckless driving?
--That he or she is in jail?

If not, then why is abortion different?

I'm not sure if it was Casey or another case, but the court has also held that there must be a method by which the girl can get around such laws - she must be allowed to petition the court to make the decision without parental notification or consent.
I wasn't aware of a case that allowed this, but if this was established, then we now have a solution the incestual rape issue -- the girl may still get the abortion by petitioning to the court based on the circumstances of her pregnancy.

One last thought, for situations where the pregnancy was caused by a relative:

If a minor female is going to assert enough control over her own body that she's going to destroy a part of it, maybe she should first be required to assert enough control over her own body to get down to a police station and file a police report against the perverted $#%@# who got her pregnant in the first place?

One question:

Who is legally responsible and accountable for the health and well-being of minors?

As I posted above, if incestual abuse is the root of the pregnancy, the girl needs to get out of the house, to the nearest police station, and with a new guardian who then can give their consent or their objection to her getting an abortion.

Of course, by the time she goes through that whole process, it will be too late for an abortion anyways.

Allowing children to undergo a medical procedure that may lead to psychological or physical stress, as may any such procedure, without the advice of an adult is wrong.

No one said anything about "without the advice" of an adult. It is more like, without the force of an adult. Any parent who makes that choice for their daughter, instead of advising her and allowing her to make her own decision, is a poor parent.

And it does swing both ways. A friend of mine was recently in a woman's clinic where she saw a young girl who did not want to have an abortion. She kept saying that she didn't want to go through with it. And her mother kept repeating, "Honey, we decided that this is best for you...." That girl is most likely going to regret doing it for the rest of her life - even if it was "best for her", because she was forced into it and will never know.

Some children may be mature enough to make the decision and deal with it just fine, but we must remember that children are still children, and there is a reason why there is a driving age, a smoking age, etc.

And those ages are fairly arbitrary - based on averages. The question of whether or not a girl can make her own decisions regarding something that, as you said, may lead to psychological or physical stress, should not be left up to an arbitrary age based roughly in an average.

Not to mention that, if the parents were doing their job in the first place, the girl wouldn't be afraid to go to them for advice.

The fact is that many children are not responsible enough and do not have the life experience needed to make a decision of that magnitude by themselves, regardless of how many supposedly mature individuals under 18 there may be.

No one is suggesting that they make a decision by themselves - simply that they make the decision, rather than having it made for them.

One question:

Who is legally responsible and accountable for the health and well-being of minors?

The parents.

One question:

Who is legally responsible and accountable for the health and well-being of minors?

Legally? The parents. Of course, they would not be held responsible for something that was done without their knowledge - especially if it was legal to do so.

Who gets to make the actual decisions? The government, apparently:
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=844640

Of course, by the time she goes through that whole process, it will be too late for an abortion anyways.



No one said anything about "without the advice" of an adult. It is more like, without the force of an adult. Any parent who makes that choice for their daughter, instead of advising her and allowing her to make her own decision, is a poor parent.

And it does swing both ways. A friend of mine was recently in a woman's clinic where she saw a young girl who did not want to have an abortion. She kept saying that she didn't want to go through with it. And her mother kept repeating, "Honey, we decided that this is best for you...." That girl is most likely going to regret doing it for the rest of her life - even if it was "best for her", because she was forced into it and will never know.



And those ages are fairly arbitrary - based on averages. The question of whether or not a girl can make her own decisions regarding something that, as you said, may lead to psychological or physical stress, should not be left up to an arbitrary age based roughly in an average.

Not to mention that, if the parents were doing their job in the first place, the girl wouldn't be afraid to go to them for advice.



No one is suggesting that they make a decision by themselves - simply that they make the decision, rather than having it made for them.
As you mentioned in a later post, the girl can petition the court the get around the parental notificaiton law in situations involving incestual rape.

I didn't say anything about forced abortions -- I simply said that in order to get an abortion, a girl must have parental consent. Even with laws that allowed the girl to make the choice without parental consent, the parents could still force her to get the abortion. The point of laws that allow underage teenagers to get abortions without parental consent is so that they can undergo the procedure without being stopped by a parent. They do nothing to prevent parents from forcing the procedure on the child.

Legally? The parents. Of course, they would not be held responsible for something that was done without their knowledge - especially if it was legal to do so.

Who gets to make the actual decisions? The government, apparently:
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=844640

And knowing how the gov't and lawyers work, you might as well take the "Of Course" out of your statement.

DCFS/Lawyer/LEO:" Why did you allow your child to go across state lines?"

Parents: "We didn't know about it. X took him/her."

DCFS/Lawyer/LEO: " So you were unaware of your childs' wherabouts?"

Etc.

Haha, that fetus got pwnd!
The parents of that boy saved their kid years of expenses. They should be comended.
Sadly, they may well have saved the boy from 18 years of enslavement. Without resorting to criminal activity, this boy had no say in whether he would or would not have had to take care of this baby.

It's not right that people feel they have to resort to such methods just to make a decision about their parental status.

Sadly, they may well have saved the boy from 18 years of enslavement. Without resorting to criminal activity, this boy had no say in whether he would or would not have had to take care of this baby.

It's not right that people feel they have to resort to such methods just to make a decision about their parental status.

The boy had every say in it when he choose to stick his dick in the girl.

W/ the proper safeguards, I support this law. Until the Gov't decides to take all legal responsibility away from parents, it is NOT someone else's decision as to whether the child should or can go through a surgical procedure.

Who here would support someone else being authorized to let their child sign a legal contract w/o thier consent?

As you mentioned in a later post, the girl can petition the court the get around the parental notificaiton law in situations involving incestual rape.

Incestual rape is not the only problem a girl might encounter. Forced religion is another. Loss of support (ie. the girl who got kicked out of the house who Bottle mentioned) is another. And so on...

And there are judges who sit on these committees who never let *any* girl make this decision for herself. The reasons aren't written into the law, just the fact that the girl can petition.

I didn't say anything about forced abortions -- I simply said that in order to get an abortion, a girl must have parental consent. Even with laws that allowed the girl to make the choice without parental consent, the parents could still force her to get the abortion.

No, they couldn't. If the girl is allowed to make the choice without parental consent, the parents cannot force her to do anything - to get an abortion, or not to get one. Interestingly enough, in most states, a girl can receive prenatal care without parental consent. It is only abortion that she must ask about.

If, on the other hand, parental consent is necessary, a girl cannot make her own decision. It is made by the parents.

The point of laws that allow underage teenagers to get abortions without parental consent is so that they can undergo the procedure without being stopped by a parent. They do nothing to prevent parents from forcing the procedure on the child.

If it is recognized that a young girl can make this decision for herself, how exactly are her parents going to force it? Are they going to tie her down and use a coathanger? I'm fairly certain that would be labeled as abuse.


And knowing how the gov't and lawyers work, you might as well take the "Of Course" out of your statement.

DCFS/Lawyer/LEO:" Why did you allow your child to go across state lines?"

Parents: "We didn't know about it. X took him/her."

DCFS/Lawyer/LEO: " So you were unaware of your childs' wherabouts?"

Etc.

We were discussing a state in which no parental consent law was in place. If it is perfectly legal for a minor to get an abortion (or prenatal care - which is generally perfectly legal) without parental consent, then there is no legal way to hold the parent responsible for that choice.

In this case, according to the mother, she thought that the boyfriend's parents were taking them to a prenatal class. It is really no different than if the parents allowed a friend to take their child to the park, but the friend took the child somewhere dangerous instead.


Sadly, they may well have saved the boy from 18 years of enslavement.

Enslavement? :rolleyes:

You're right, kidnapping a young girl and forcing her to undergo a medical procedure she obviously regrets (and didn't want at the time) is ok, so long as you are keeping money in your pockets.

It's not right that people feel they have to resort to such methods just to make a decision about their parental status.

I'm sorry, but you can't justify doing this with, "OMFG! I might have had to pay some money!"

Who here would support someone else being authorized to let their child sign a legal contract w/o thier consent?

If it were in the best interest of the minor to do so, I would be perfectly ok with it.

We were discussing a state in which no parental consent law was in place. If it is perfectly legal for a minor to get an abortion (or prenatal care - which is generally perfectly legal) without parental consent, then there is no legal way to hold the parent responsible for that choice.



Even if it is "legal", that does not negate parental accountability or responsibility if something goes wrong.

All you need is a DA or DCFS official w/ an agenda.

If it were in the best interest of the minor to do so, I would be perfectly ok with it.

Now you get to define the subjective term "Best Interest". Is it what a 15yr old thinks is in their "best interest" or the ones who are legally responsible for that child?

The boy had every say in it when he chose . . .

Careful, now, substitute "girl" for "boy" (and alter a few anatomical references) and you're making a pro-life argument.

The boy's actions were dispicable (I don't think Five Castes was arguing otherwise). But I agree that there's inherent inequality where a mother-to-be gets two choices to avoid a lifelong obligation to support a child (at conception and then during pregnancy, where she might abort) whereas a father-to-be only gets one chance (conception) to avoid a similar obligation.

In fact, a father-to-be recently sued for an injunction that, if granted, would prevent the mother-to-be from seeking child support from him if and when the baby was born.

I think he lost.

Careful, now, substitute "girl" for "boy" (and alter a few anatomical references) and you're making a pro-life argument.

No, I'm pro-choice. She also had the choice not to spread her legs but she didn't have a choice by being forced to get an abortion.

The boy had every say in it when he choose to stick his dick in the girl.

Wasn't the boy also a minor? Didn't you know minors can't be expected to make compotent decisions regarding sex? That's why we have an age of consent.

Anyway, the decision of whether or not he becomes a parent is not something he legally gets to decide after the initial mutual act that creates the potential for a child is concluded. After that point, the decision is entirely in the hands of the female.

Enslavement? :rolleyes:

What would you call it?

You're right, kidnapping a young girl and forcing her to undergo a medical procedure she obviously regrets (and didn't want at the time) is ok, so long as you are keeping money in your pockets.



I'm sorry, but you can't justify doing this with, "OMFG! I might have had to pay some money!"
You don't seem to understand. There is no supporting kidnapping and forced medical procedures. I was simply pointing out that if he'd had a legal out, there wouldn't have been any modivation for his parents to do this to the girl.

No, I'm pro-choice. She also had the choice not to spread her legs but she didn't have a choice by being forced to get an abortion.

Yes, but if she refused to get an abortion and then came after him for child support, then HE's the one not getting a second chance at choice.

Therein lies the problem with our current system.

Incestual rape is not the only problem a girl might encounter. Forced religion is another. Loss of support (ie. the girl who got kicked out of the house who Bottle mentioned) is another. And so on...

No, they couldn't. If the girl is allowed to make the choice without parental consent, the parents cannot force her to do anything - to get an abortion, or not to get one. Interestingly enough, in most states, a girl can receive prenatal care without parental consent. It is only abortion that she must ask about.

If, on the other hand, parental consent is necessary, a girl cannot make her own decision. It is made by the parents.

It would suck if the girl got kicked out of her house...There are women's shelters she could go to, as well as possibly other people she could stay with. Regardless of situations like these, it is still necessary for children to get consent when going to get an abortion, due a child's lack of life experience, likely irresponsibility, and psychological/physical effects of the procedure on the child.

Even if the girl is allowed to get an abortion without consent, her parents may still force her into it. As parents, they have a large say in the issue regardless of what the law says -- they may threaten to disown her if she does not get the abortion, they may psychologically pressure her into getting it, in which case they have a very large amount of sway in the girl's mind considering that from birth children are taught to obey what their parents say, and so on and so forth. These situations can occur in either case. As you said, there's a nothing a parent can do to physically initiate the abortion outside of holding her down and using a coathanger, and this goes for the same in cases of consent. Though the parent may be consenting, the girl may refuse to go under anesthetic, lie down, etc. for the procedure. In the end, it all comes down to the psychological sway of the parents upon the girl, and that can occur with or without parental notification laws.

Wasn't the boy also a minor? Didn't you know minors can't be expected to make compotent decisions regarding sex? That's why we have an age of consent.

That's right, they can't be expected to make competant decisions but, according to some, should be allowed to have a surgical procedure w/o informing those legally responsible.

Yes, but if she refused to get an abortion and then came after him for child support, then HE's the one not getting a second chance at choice.

Therein lies the problem with our current system.

Now you get to the reality of "Sucks to be him". It has nothing to do w/ the "current system" but real life. He made his choice.

Maybe, but why is a "sucks to be him" attitude OK and a "sucks to be her" attitude so horrifically unacceptable?

Maybe, but why is a "sucks to be him" attitude OK and a "sucks to be her" attitude so horrifically unacceptable?

Who says it's "unnacceptable"? I feel little sympathy for her getting pregnant but more for her being effectively forced to end it.

Since you're decrying the "current system", what would you do to change it to make it more "fair"?

That's right, they can't be expected to make competant decisions but, according to some, should be allowed to have a surgical procedure w/o informing those legally responsible.
I'm sorry. I guess I should've used a sarcasm tag. Please see my statements in this thread for my real opinion on the sexual self-determination of minors:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=490483

Who says it's "unnacceptable"? I feel little sympathy for her getting pregnant but more for her being effectively forced to end it.

Since you're decrying the "current system", what would you do to change it to make it more "fair"?

In a perfect world, I'd limit abortions to situations where a police report for rape or incest had been filed, or where a medical professional judged the prospective mother's life or health to be in significant jeopardy. Fathers-to-be would be held fully accountable for child support.

Since that'll never happen, I'd be happy with, in the alternative, a situation where prospective fathers are permitted to disclaim any obligation to child support until the day of birth. If they haven't disclaimed by then, they're stuck. If they disclaim, but then later make contact with the kid, they pay child support from then until the kid reaches 18 and also pay back-support to the mother for the time when they were out of the picture.

I went out to the CNN story linked in the OP, and didn't it refer to the case of the girl being forced to have an abortion? It doesn't any longer. The mother testified (http://judiciary.house.gov/HearingTestimony.aspx?ID=254) in March of '05. According to her (and I have no reason to doubt her), when her daughter informed her she was pregnant on Christmas Eve of '04, "I assured her I would seek out all resources and help that was available. As her parents, her father and I would stand beside her and support any decision she made." Apparently the boy's family didn't feel the same. You can read all the rest of the sordid details in the link, but I'm still wondering if anyone has been prosecuted for this. And the clinic should be charged, as well, because the child (according to her mother) expressed second thoughts and I would imagine was clearly not happy about the entire goings-on.

The whole incident makes my blood boil. That said, I still think it were better to err on the side of making parental notification less required than more, and I certainly don't think the people who help (transport) the minor should be criminalized because it was done to have an abortion. As in this case, if the girl says she doesn't want it, and they take her anyway, that's kidnapping and we already have laws against that.

Now you get to define the subjective term "Best Interest". Is it what a 15yr old thinks is in their "best interest" or the ones who are legally responsible for that child?

In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, it is in the best interest of a 15 year old to make her own decision on what to do about it. She should be able to seek her parents' advice and, if they have been parents up until now, she will be able to do so. However, this decision will affect the rest of her life - and she will likely have some misgivings no matter what she does. Such a decision should not be left to anyone else to make.


The boy's actions were dispicable (I don't think Five Castes was arguing otherwise). But I agree that there's inherent inequality where a mother-to-be gets two choices to avoid a lifelong obligation to support a child (at conception and then during pregnancy, where she might abort) whereas a father-to-be only gets one chance (conception) to avoid a similar obligation.

Of course, this comes from the fact that pregnancy takes place within a woman's body. The minute a guy gets pregnant, he can decide whether or not to abort.


It would suck if the girl got kicked out of her house...There are women's shelters she could go to, as well as possibly other people she could stay with. Regardless of situations like these, it is still necessary for children to get consent when going to get an abortion, due a child's lack of life experience, likely irresponsibility, and psychological/physical effects of the procedure on the child.

That is ridiculous. You're basically saying, "Even if the parents are irresponsible morons, they are better at making decisions than the minor."

Even if the girl is allowed to get an abortion without consent, her parents may still force her into it. As parents, they have a large say in the issue regardless of what the law says -- they may threaten to disown her if she does not get the abortion, they may psychologically pressure her into getting it, in which case they have a very large amount of sway in the girl's mind considering that from birth children are taught to obey what their parents say, and so on and so forth.

*Exactly* the reason that a young girl must have access to medical care, with or without parental consent. In fact, this is one of the many situations in which some states will grant the girl the right to get around parental consent.

Any parent who would do this is a bad parent, and the girl should not have to go to them for such a decision.

What would you call it?

Responsibility. Of course, it would really only be responsibility if he took it on willingly. It is not, however, enslavement.


Since that'll never happen, I'd be happy with, in the alternative, a situation where prospective fathers are permitted to disclaim any obligation to child support until the day of birth, on the condition that they will be required to pay back-support to the mother or her estate if they ever deliberately establish contact with the child at a future time.

If this is supposed to be some sort of equalizing effect to the fact that a woman has the option of abortion, why are you allowing the father to "disclaim any obligation" until the day of birth? A woman cannot get an elective abortion up to that point. It would seem that, even if the proposed "paper abortion" is a balancing option, you are giving the man much more of an option than a woman. Why is that?

I went out to the CNN story linked in the OP, and didn't it refer to the case of the girl being forced to have an abortion? It doesn't any longer.

Sneaky CNN, they changed the article out. However, the OP also quotes the original article.

You can read all the rest of the sordid details in the link, but I'm still wondering if anyone has been prosecuted for this.

From what I can tell, no, no one has been prosecuted. The mother seems to think nothing can be done - which is ridiculous, considering that this is a pretty clear case of kidnapping.

Maybe, but why is a "sucks to be him" attitude OK and a "sucks to be her" attitude so horrifically unacceptable?
Because human biology is unequal.

See, at the time at which an abortion is performed, the female body is physically participating in the pregnancy. The male body is not.

Each human being has the right to decide to what extent their own body participates in reproduction. In the case of the male body, this includes the right to choose whether or not to have a vasectomy, to use "male birth control" options of any sort, and (of course) whether or not to engage in sexual acts with persons who could theoretically become pregnant. The male body's participation in reproduction ends with ejaculation; the male body does not participate in pregnancy.

In contrast, the female body actively participates in pregnancy, and, thus, female human beings continue to have a right to choose how their body participates in reproduction throughout the pregnancy. Males have this choice made for them by Nature, I'm afraid, and there's not much any of us can do about that just yet.

Essentially, it's not really a case of "it sucks to be him." It's a case of, "He has precisely the same rights in regard to reproduction that she has. That is, the right to decide how his own body participates in the reproductive process. Neither party has the right to dictate how the other person's body participates in reproduction." That's equality, my friend.

Now, if we're going to start talking about child care or child support, then once again we already have an equal system. Child support is about one's obligation to the child, remember. If there is no child, for whatever reason, then there is no obligation. However, if there is a child, then both parties are held responsible for it to the same extent under the law. That is to say, women can be prosecuted as deadbeats just as men can. (There is, obviously, inequality in how the laws are ENFORCED in some areas, but that's a whole other topic.)

In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, it is in the best interest of a 15 year old to make her own decision on what to do about it. She should be able to seek her parents' advice and, if they have been parents up until now, she will be able to do so. However, this decision will affect the rest of her life - and she will likely have some misgivings no matter what she does. Such a decision should not be left to anyone else to make.

Once again, legally she cannot make any other decision, but you seem to think that this one is acceptable.


*Exactly* the reason that a young girl must have access to medical care, with or without parental consent. In fact, this is one of the many situations in which some states will grant the girl the right to get around parental consent.

In most cases, a minor cannot recieve any medical care w/o parental consent or a court order.

Minors cannot enter into any legal contract nor recieve medical attention w/o a parents consent. I do not and will not agree to having children make these kinds of decisions w/o their parents informed barring extreme circumstances.

If this is supposed to be some sort of equalizing effect to the fact that a woman has the option of abortion, why are you allowing the father to "disclaim any obligation" until the day of birth? A woman cannot get an elective abortion up to that point. It would seem that, even if the proposed "paper abortion" is a balancing option, you are giving the man much more of an option than a woman. Why is that?

Because giving birth to a baby does not obligate the woman to keep the baby; she can give it up for adoption and thus disclaim any financial liability for the care of the child.

It's not a perfect solution: it doesn't allow for the physical inconvenience and pain that carrying a child to term entails. But it would be an improvement. And you could tweak it a bit--maybe allow the father to disclaim child support, but hold him fully liable for the costs of birth, or something like that--to make the outcome a little more equitable.

If this is supposed to be some sort of equalizing effect to the fact that a woman has the option of abortion, why are you allowing the father to "disclaim any obligation" until the day of birth? A woman cannot get an elective abortion up to that point. It would seem that, even if the proposed "paper abortion" is a balancing option, you are giving the man much more of an option than a woman. Why is that?
Speaking for whoever it was that posted this...
It was thought up on the spot, you can't expect all the bugs to be worked out yet.
Make it until whatever point it is that women can no longer have an abortion, if you want.

Once again, legally she cannot make any other decision, but you seem to think that this one is acceptable.

There are decisions that a minor can make legally. You seem to have this misconception that the law treats minors as 100% children up until the second they turn 18 and 100% adults after. This is not true any more than it should be true that parents or anyone else treat them that way.

Actually, abortion is pretty much the only medical decision a young girl cannot make. In most states, a minor can seek medical treatment without parental consent. She can seek prenatal care, and the doctors legally cannot tell her parents, as that would breach the doctor-patient confidentiality. The law to require parental consent for abortion is actually the odd-man-out. Every other medical decision having to do with reproduction can be made by a minor. She can go and have a pap smear, get on the birth control pill, receive the morning after pill, receive sex counseling, buy condoms, receive treatment for an STD, etc. The only decision we restrict her from making is what to do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. It would seem that it is up to you to justify this break from the norm.

In most cases, a minor cannot recieve any medical care w/o parental consent or a court order.

Not true. In most cases, especially sexually related cases, a minor can seek all sorts of medical care without parental consent. Parental consent laws is actually abnormal - and generally only applied to abortion.

Minors cannot enter into any legal contract nor recieve medical attention w/o a parents consent. I do not and will not agree to having children make these kinds of decisions w/o their parents informed barring extreme circumstances.

It is only in extreme circumstances (ie. shitty parents) that a minor needs such a right. If the parents were actually parenting in the first place, she wouldn't feel the need to hide from them.

Because giving birth to a baby does not obligate the woman to keep the baby; she can give it up for adoption and thus disclaim any financial liability for the care of the child.

Technically, she cannot do this without the father's consent. They are already equal once birth has occurred.

In a perfect world, I'd limit abortions to situations where a police report for rape or incest had been filed . . .
In a perefect world, there's rape and incest?

edit: btw your handle is perfect ;)

Who says it's "unnacceptable"? I feel little sympathy for her getting pregnant but more for her being effectively forced to end it.

Since you're decrying the "current system", what would you do to change it to make it more "fair"?

I recognize that this question is not directed towards me, but it leads into my comment on the matter, so please don't mind if I throw in my two cents:

I would prefer a system where the father has two ways to opt out of the responsibilities of fatherhood. The first option, of course, is to use contraception. The second option would be for the father to forfeit his parental rights (either before birth or within a short time period (say, six weeks) after birth); if he elected to do so, he would forfeit any right to influence the child's development (visitation, advice on schooling, etc.), but would not bear parental responsibilities (e.g, child support), either. If the mother chose to keep the baby and the father forfeited parental rights, then the state would step in if necessary in order to ensure that the mother had the resources to ensure the child's well-being.

In order to keep things fair, the mother would also have the option to opt out of the rights and responsibilities of motherhood (if she elected to do so, then the father could either raise the child himself or put the child up for adoption).

I recognize that this question is not directed towards me, but it leads into my comment on the matter, so please don't mind if I throw in my two cents:

I would prefer a system where the father has two ways to opt out of the responsibilities of fatherhood. The first option, of course, is to use contraception. The second option would be for the father to forfeit his parental rights (either before birth or within a short time period (say, six weeks) after birth); if he elected to do so, he would forfeit any right to influence the child's development (visitation, advice on schooling, etc.), but would not bear parental responsibilities (e.g, child support), either. If the mother chose to keep the baby and the father forfeited parental rights, then the state would step in if necessary in order to ensure that the mother had the resources to ensure the child's well-being.

Side note: Remember, the mother has three ways (contraception, abortion, and adoption) to opt out of parental responsibility, not two. My proposal is a male analogue of putting a child up for adoption, rather than a male analogue for abortion.

The mother has no right to put a child up for adoption without the father's consent. Thus, the mother and father already have equal access to adoption.

Interestingly enough, I do support a "paper abortion" of sorts for a man, but not because of any illusion of equity. It is more that I don't think that a person willing to use such an option should be a part of the child's life in the first place. If any parent - male or female - is not going to step up and take responsibility for their child, I don't think that forcing them to do so is good for the child. It would be better, I think, to remove that person from the child's life entirely.

Meanwhile, neither contraception nor abortion are ways to "get out of parental responsibility." Only adoption actually meets that description.

The mother has no right to put a child up for adoption without the father's consent. Thus, the mother and father already have equal access to adoption.

Interestingly enough, I do support a "paper abortion" of sorts for a man, but not because of any illusion of equity. It is more that I don't think that a person willing to use such an option should be a part of the child's life in the first place. If any parent - male or female - is not going to step up and take responsibility for their child, I don't think that forcing them to do so is good for the child. It would be better, I think, to remove that person from the child's life entirely.

Meanwhile, neither contraception nor abortion are ways to "get out of parental responsibility." Only adoption actually meets that description.

See edit, and note that I used the term "get out of parental responsibility" for lack of a better term (suggestions would be appreciated).

The mother has no right to put a child up for adoption without the father's consent. Thus, the mother and father already have equal access to adoption.

Interestingly enough, I do support a "paper abortion" of sorts for a man, but not because of any illusion of equity. It is more that I don't think that a person willing to use such an option should be a part of the child's life in the first place. If any parent - male or female - is not going to step up and take responsibility for their child, I don't think that forcing them to do so is good for the child. It would be better, I think, to remove that person from the child's life entirely.

Meanwhile, neither contraception nor abortion are ways to "get out of parental responsibility." Only adoption actually meets that description.
Bingo. Couldn't have put it better.

There are decisions that a minor can make legally. You seem to have this misconception that the law treats minors as 100% children up until the second they turn 18 and 100% adults after. This is not true any more than it should be true that parents or anyone else treat them that way.

Actually, abortion is pretty much the only medical decision a young girl cannot make. In most states, a minor can seek medical treatment without parental consent. She can seek prenatal care, and the doctors legally cannot tell her parents, as that would breach the doctor-patient confidentiality. The law to require parental consent for abortion is actually the odd-man-out. Every other medical decision having to do with reproduction can be made by a minor. She can go and have a pap smear, get on the birth control pill, receive the morning after pill, receive sex counseling, buy condoms, receive treatment for an STD, etc. The only decision we restrict her from making is what to do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. It would seem that it is up to you to justify this break from the norm.



Not true. In most cases, especially sexually related cases, a minor can seek all sorts of medical care without parental consent. Parental consent laws is actually abnormal - and generally only applied to abortion.

OK, I'm going to ask you to source this. I've seen a few states that allow non-consent for basic services but I don't see the "majority" allowing major medical procedures except in the case of emergencies.

I'ld like to see the poll modified to include whether or not the responder is a parent or not including who's a minor.

Bingo. Couldn't have put it better.

Quoted for truth (and this from the person who tried and failed to do so).

OK, I'm going to ask you to source this. I've seen a few states that allow non-consent for basic services but I don't see the "majority" allowing major medical procedures except in the case of emergencies.

Define "major medical procedures."

I pointed out that everything else having to do with reproduction is allowed. Of course, most people wouldn't consider most of these things "major medical procedures. For instance, a basic checkup (including a pap smear), the prescription of birth control or the morning after pill, sex couselling, treatment for STDs, or even most prenatal care would not generally be labeled as such.

Quoted for truth (and this from the person who tried and failed to do so).
It also amazes me that the people arguing most strongly against a young girl's ability to make a reasonable decision about her pregnancy are very often the same people who are most eager to force her to carry the pregnancy to term...something about that seems rather backward to me. If she's not mature enough to make a choice about her pregnancy, how can you claim she's mature enough to endure pregnancy, childbirth, and either motherhood or the process of putting a child up for adoption?

I'ld like to see the poll modified to include whether or not the responder is a parent or not including who's a minor.

That's a good idea, but I don't think it can be modified after the fact. Maybe you cuold start a different one? Would that be considered copycatting?

Define "major medical procedures."

I pointed out that everything else having to do with reproduction is allowed. Of course, most people wouldn't consider most of these things "major medical procedures. For instance, a basic checkup (including a pap smear), the prescription of birth control or the morning after pill, sex couselling, treatment for STDs, or even most prenatal care would not generally be labeled as such.

Well, you stated:

Actually, abortion is pretty much the only medical decision a young girl cannot make. In most states, a minor can seek medical treatment without parental consent.


That goes beyond just reproduction issues. Are you just talking those or "medical procedures" as a whole. I would also categorize an abortion as being several levels above the checkups etc.



Edit: Let's keep the discussion going here but if you would, vote in the upgraded poll.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=493501

Not only is this kidnapping, it's federal kidnapping, since they crossed state lines. The boy's family should be in incredibly deep shit if this actually happened.

Well, you stated:

Actually, abortion is pretty much the only medical decision a young girl cannot make. In most states, a minor can seek medical treatment without parental consent.


That goes beyond just reproduction issues. Are you just talking those or "medical procedures" as a whole. I would also categorize an abortion as being several levels above the checkups etc.

Edit: Let's keep the discussion going here but if you would, vote in the upgraded poll.

It was meant to be restricted to reproductive medical decisions. Sorry about that. Later in the paragraph, it is more clear, but that sentence was not.

There is, certainly, all sorts of medical care that can be sought without parental permission, but reproductive issues seem to be more open to this than, say, cancer treatment.

It was meant to be restricted to reproductive medical decisions. Sorry about that. Later in the paragraph, it is more clear, but that sentence was not.

I could probably (grudgingly) accept basic neonatal health w/o consent however, I consider abortion to be a step-above.

If it were possible, they (the medical profession) should encourage parental involvement or have the minors have some sort of strong justification for not having the parents involved.

In a perefect world, there's rape and incest?

Point taken.

Technically, she cannot do this without the father's consent.

Mom would have a couple of options available to her:

1) Some states, including California, Michigan, Oregon, Texas, and Illinois, have "safe haven" or "safe surrender" laws that allow a mother to turn in her newborn to a hospital or fire department for thirty days, no questions asked. The child then goes through the state's social services system.

2) Many states only require an "effort" to find the father. The mother can claim not to know who the father is. Or claim not to know where he is. Or claim that he's abusive, or whatever.


Now, if we're going to start talking about child care or child support, then once again we already have an equal system. Child support is about one's obligation to the child, remember. If there is no child, for whatever reason, then there is no obligation. However, if there is a child, then both parties are held responsible for it to the same extent under the law.

I would respectfully submit that explanations about the natural reproductive roles of males and females have little to do with who should be saddled with financial liablity for any resulting child. The fact that society has seen fit to give people the right to unilaterally control over non-viable tissue is not justification for giving people the right to unilaterally control other people's bank accounts.

At present a woman, knowing she is about to become a parent, can make a rational, informed decision as to whether she wishes to assume the inherent financial liabilities of parenthood. If she wishes to avoid such obligations she may unilaterally do so.

A man, knowing he is about to become a parent, may not.

That is not equality.

That is ridiculous. You're basically saying, "Even if the parents are irresponsible morons, they are better at making decisions than the minor."

*Exactly* the reason that a young girl must have access to medical care, with or without parental consent. In fact, this is one of the many situations in which some states will grant the girl the right to get around parental consent.

First point -- yup. That's why they are the legal guardians of the child. If they are unfit parents, well, that's the reason why CPS exists, and that's the reason why the option to petition the courts to circumvent parental consent laws exist, apparently. I would highly doubt that one of those would deny a girl raped by her father access to an abortion clinic without parental consent.

Second -- so now you've dropped your argument about parental consent laws being inherently connected to forced abortions. Good, we agree on that, as we also clearly agree on the fact that forced abortions by a girl's parents are wrong. It's now become clear that what we disagree upon is the mental capacity of a minor to make such a large decision by herself, and the justifiability of not informing the parents that their child is undergoing such a procedure. I think I've made myself clear on both -- the decision is too large for a child to handle alone, and parents must be informed that their child is undergoing such a procedure due to the possible physical and psychological aftermath of it.

Point taken.



Mom would have a couple of options available to her:

1) Some states, including California, Michigan, Oregon, Texas, and Illinois, have "safe haven" or "safe surrender" laws that allow a mother to turn in her newborn to a hospital or fire department for thirty days, no questions asked. The child then goes through the state's social services system.

2) Many states only require an "effort" to find the father. The mother can claim not to know who the father is. Or claim not to know where he is. Or claim that he's abusive, or whatever.




I would respectfully submit that explanations about the natural reproductive roles of males and females have little to do with who should be saddled with financial liablity for any resulting child. The fact that society has seen fit to give people the right to unilaterally control over non-viable tissue is not justification for giving people the right to unilaterally control other people's bank accounts.

At present a woman, knowing she is about to become a parent, can make a rational, informed decision as to whether she wishes to assume the inherent financial liabilities of parenthood. If she wishes to avoid such obligations she may unilaterally do so.

A man, knowing he is about to become a parent, may not.

That is not equality.
Exactly. A man should have the right to decide whether or not he wishes to be a parent to a child. Given the fact that her partner or the man that she conceived the child with does not want to claim ownership of their child, the woman, being it her choice and her choice alone to bring the child into the world/raise the child, must be held responsible for her decision.

I hate to sound cold, but perhaps we should consider this. If the family left the clinic, as she said, don't you think she'd be able to just tell the doctor that she was being coerced into the abortion and for him to call the cops? I just don't buy this.

I hate to sound cold, but perhaps we should consider this. If the family left the clinic, as she said, don't you think she'd be able to just tell the doctor that she was being coerced into the abortion and for him to call the cops? I just don't buy this.
The family probably wouldn't have gone with the girl into the room where the procedure was to take place. She would have easily had an opportunity then, or at least before they put her under anesthetic and began preparation. I mean, no one's forcing you to lie down and let them do it...

I could probably (grudgingly) accept basic neonatal health w/o consent however, I consider abortion to be a step-above.

If it were possible, they (the medical profession) should encourage parental involvement or have the minors have some sort of strong justification for not having the parents involved.

Medical professionals are able to encourage parental involvement. If the decision is, however, (as it often is) between a minor receiving no healthcare for his/her condition, or receiving healthcare that a parent does not know about, don't you think it is better for the minor to get treated?


Mom would have a couple of options available to her:

1) Some states, including California, Michigan, Oregon, Texas, and Illinois, have "safe haven" or "safe surrender" laws that allow a mother to turn in her newborn to a hospital or fire department for thirty days, no questions asked. The child then goes through the state's social services system.

Of course, this is really just a way to say, "Please don't put a baby in a dumpster. We won't enforce the law on you if you bring the baby to a hospital." Meanwhile, if a woman is willing to do this, it is highly unlikely that the father is looking to be involved.

2) Many states only require an "effort" to find the father. The mother can claim not to know who the father is. Or claim not to know where he is. Or claim that he's abusive, or whatever.

And if he shows up later and demonstrates that she did know, she can be prosecuted. Of course people can break the law - that goes without saying.

First point -- yup. That's why they are the legal guardians of the child.

I can't even respond to something so ridiculous. They are the legal guardians because they are irresponsible morons?

Second -- so now you've dropped your argument about parental consent laws being inherently connected to forced abortions.

Hardly. Consent laws are inherently connected to removing the choice from the person who is pregnant. A girl who must tell her parents that she is pregnant to receive *any* type of medical treatment, and msut get their permission to do so, is being forced to take their decision - whether it is abortion or continued pregnancy. No matter how you look at it, consent laws allow a parent to force a child to take whatever decision they make.

It's now become clear that what we disagree upon is the mental capacity of a minor to make such a large decision by herself, and the justifiability of not informing the parents that their child is undergoing such a procedure. I think I've made myself clear on both -- the decision is too large for a child to handle alone, and parents must be informed that their child is undergoing such a procedure due to the possible physical and psychological aftermath of it.

No, I don't think anyone - minor or otherwise - can make such a decision by herself. Luckily, human beings are social animals, and there are all sorts of avenues through which anyone - minor or not - who becomes pregnant can seek advice. Medical professionals can provide advice. Friends can provide advice. And parents can provide advice. If a parent is doing their job in the first place, there is no reason that a minor would not seek their advice in this situation.

Meanwhile, you still forget that, quite often, the parents are the cause of the psychological (and even the physical) aftermath of whatever decision is made. If they make the decision, or ostracize her for her decision, they are the cause of the problems she encounters. As Bottle pointed out, many girls will forego medical treatment altogether rather than go through the psychological problems their parents will cause.

Medical professionals are able to encourage parental involvement. If the decision is, however, (as it often is) between a minor receiving no healthcare for his/her condition, or receiving healthcare that a parent does not know about, don't you think it is better for the minor to get treated?



Basic/emergency healthcare, most likely. In the case of abortions, no.

Hell, in most schools, minors can't have any prescribed medications w/o parental notification and it being distributed by a nurse. Minors should not have the legal authority to have an elective, serious medical procedure done w/o parental consent.


Upgraded poll:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=493501

I can't even respond to something so ridiculous. They are the legal guardians because they are irresponsible morons?
Yeah, because that's what the context of the response was...You said "even if they are morons...", should they still be able to have the final say in the decision? My response was: yes, because they are the child's parental guardians... If they are unfit parents, as I said, there are protections that exist for the child.

Hardly. Consent laws are inherently connected to removing the choice from the person who is pregnant. A girl who must tell her parents that she is pregnant to receive *any* type of medical treatment, and msut get their permission to do so, is being forced to take their decision - whether it is abortion or continued pregnancy. No matter how you look at it, consent laws allow a parent to force a child to take whatever decision they make.
That's not the point about "choice" was I talking about, but I'll let it go. Parents have a vested interest in doing what they think is best for their child, and this includes determining whether or not the child may have an abortion due to all of the baggage that comes with getting the procedure. Might I point out that this is in no way forcing the child to keep the baby; that whole issue then occurs at the point of giving birth, in which adoption comes into play.

No, I don't think anyone - minor or otherwise - can make such a decision by herself. Luckily, human beings are social animals, and there are all sorts of avenues through which anyone - minor or not - who becomes pregnant can seek advice. Medical professionals can provide advice. Friends can provide advice. And parents can provide advice. If a parent is doing their job in the first place, there is no reason that a minor would not seek their advice in this situation.
But, a parent must be legally informed of the procedure, first of all, and secondly, must have the final say, for reasons that I stated above.
Meanwhile, you still forget that, quite often, the parents are the cause of the psychological (and even the physical) aftermath of whatever decision is made. If they make the decision, or ostracize her for her decision, they are the cause of the problems she encounters. As Bottle pointed out, many girls will forego medical treatment altogether rather than go through the psychological problems their parents will cause.
OK...If the child cannot go through with the procedure, why would anti-abortion parents attack her for anything? If they were pissed about her getting pregnant, what's going to change their mind about being pissed after she gets the abortion? This argument really makes little sense as a way to attack the parental notification side. The "abuse from the parents part" would only come in if the minor got an abortion against their parent's wishes and then her parents discovered what she had done, which would only come into play with the absence of consent laws.

Of course, this is really just a way to say, "Please don't put a baby in a dumpster. We won't enforce the law on you if you bring the baby to a hospital."

No offense, but I fail to see the connection. The point is that the mother can disclaim financial liability for the child.

Meanwhile, if a woman is willing to do this, it is highly unlikely that the father is looking to be involved.

Again, I'm not quite seeing the connection. At this stage of the child's existence, the father CANNOT legally avoid responsibility for the child if the mother wants him to take it. The mother CAN legally avoid responsibility for the child, even if the father wants her to take it. That's the material point.

And if he shows up later and demonstrates that she did know, she can be prosecuted. Of course people can break the law - that goes without saying.

Yes, but that's an EXTREMELY big "if". Proving "knowledge" and "intent" is tricky enough that a DA would think twice about such a case (not to mention the fact that juries don't usually like sending confused young women to jail). And unless the mother were filthy rich there'd be nothing to gained by the father suing her civilly. ;)

Basic/emergency healthcare, most likely. In the case of abortions, no.

So it is better that a desperate young girl go home and conceal her pregnancy, getting no care whatsoever - prenatal or abortion? Or, even worse, that she attempt to take matters into her own hands?


Yeah, because that's what the context of the response was...You said "even if they are morons...", should they still be able to have the final say in the decision? My response was: yes, because they are the child's parental guardians...

And that is a ridiculous statement.

If they are unfit parents, as I said, there are protections that exist for the child.

In this country, a parent can decide to pray rather than seek medical attention for their child, and that is ok since it is a religious choice. In this country, a parent can decide all sorts of things that are not good for the child - but there are no legal protections against them doing so.
]
That's not the point about "choice" was I talking about, but I'll let it go. Parents have a vested interest in doing what they think is best for their child, and this includes determining whether or not the child may have an abortion due to all of the baggage that comes with getting the procedure.

Of course, most of the parents who would make that choice for the minor don't care about "baggage" (note, of course, that there is just as much baggage associated with any of the other choices available). They make that choice because of their own religion (which the girl may or may not subscribe to). They make that choice because they think that, just because a person is not yet exactly 18, they should have full and complete control.

A responsible parent would recognize that there is going to be "baggage" associated with an unplanned pregnancy - period. Their role should be to advise their daughter (or their son if he comes home and tells them that he might become a father). The choice that is made is going to be affect that person for the rest of their lives - and, thus, it should be their own choice, not one that is forced upon them.

But, a parent must be legally informed of the procedure, first of all, and secondly, must have the final say, for reasons that I stated above.

You haven't stated any viable reasons. Your best attempt has been, "They get to do it because they are the parents," which provides no support at all.

OK...If the child cannot go through with the procedure, why would anti-abortion parents attack her for anything? If they were pissed about her getting pregnant, what's going to change their mind about being pissed after she gets the abortion?

I think you are a bit confused as to what was said. If a girl can get an abortion without parental consent, then the parents don't need to know that she had an abortion at all. In other words, she isn't going to be ostracized or suffer psychological harm at her parents' hands because of it - they aren't even going to know.

On the other hand, if a girl is afraid of her parents, but cannot get any kind of medical treatment without parental permission, then she is likely to seek no medical treatment whatsoever - that means no abortion, and no prenatal care either.

This argument really makes little sense as a way to attack the parental notification side. The "abuse from the parents part" would only come in if the minor got an abortion against their parent's wishes and then her parents discovered what she had done, which would only come into play with the absence of consent laws.

Forced pregnancy is an "abuse from the parents."

No offense, but I fail to see the connection. The point is that the mother can disclaim financial liability for the child.

That is the reasoning behind these laws. It isn't that they thought to themselves, "A woman should really be able to give her baby up with no consequences." It is more that they realize that a mother desperate to do so will simply abandon the child anyways. It is better to have her do it somewhere that the child can receive medical care than in a dumpster or on a random doorstep.

To truly disclaim legal responsibility, the woman would have to do so publicly. This is kind of a backdoor, "If you're that desperate, please don't kill anybody..." arrangement.

Yes, but that's an EXTREMELY big "if". Proving "knowledge" and "intent" is tricky enough that a DA would think twice about such a case (not to mention the fact that juries don't usually like sending confused young women to jail). And unless the mother were filthy rich there'd be nothing to gained by the father suing her civilly. ;)

Any crime is only punished if someone brings suit against the criminal. And many crimes are difficult to prove. What is your point? The law still treats both parents equally. Pragmatically, there are problems, but much like the inability for a male to get an abortion, these are based in biological differences. A woman, just after giving birth, has physical custody of the child. A man does not. A woman can demonstrate maternity easily - the infant was born from her womb. A man must carry out genetic tests.


And, in the end, none of it justifies any parent walking out on their responsibility to their children.

I'll just toss in my two cents.

Now, I am EXTREMELY against abortion of any kind, yet I do think this law is pretty retarded.

Yes, they quoted one case of where this law would have helped. One. Just one. I find that this law has a very minute audience where it could actually do any good, aside from simply be there, and further open the door for any future anti-abortion laws to come. Just as the whole argument for abortion based on rape, this is enormously the exception instead of the rule.

Pretty retarded law, if you ask me.

I'll just toss in my two cents.

Now, I am EXTREMELY against abortion of any kind, yet I do think this law is pretty retarded.

Yes, they quoted one case of where this law would have helped. One. Just one. I find that this law has a very minute audience where it could actually do any good, aside from simply be there, and further open the door for any future anti-abortion laws to come. Just as the whole argument for abortion based on rape, this is enormously the exception instead of the rule.

Pretty retarded law, if you ask me.

To tell you the truth, I don't see how this law would have helped. If these parents were willing to go the lengths they did to get her to have an abortion, I seriously doubt this law would have stopped them.

Meh, but it would have been a federal offense and a big deal could be made through the media about it and further the anti-abortion cause.

I'm telling you, we in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy are up to it.

You have to love this......I always thought that these forums were a left wing hive...but now I have proof.

Here is the poll of the nation on parental notifacation on abortion:
Gallup:11/11-13/05
69% say it is a good idea
28% say it is a bad idea
3% are not sure

lets compare that to those who responded to the poll on this thread:
19% say it is a good idea
61% say it is a bad idea
29% are not sure


Every other medical procedure requires parental notifaction and in many cases...permission. At 16 a girl cannot get a tattoo or get treated for a bump on the head without a parent knowing. The abortion lobby wants to keep the parents out because they know that parents know firsthand the beauty of the creation of new life. Take a look on an ultrasound at 20 weeks. You will see what I mean.

Seriously though, that poll proves that the people on here are a bunch of lefties once and for good.

It is more that they realize that a mother desperate to do so will simply abandon the child anyways. It is better to have her do it somewhere that the child can receive medical care than in a dumpster or on a random doorstep.

To truly disclaim legal responsibility, the woman would have to do so publicly. This is kind of a backdoor, "If you're that desperate, please don't kill anybody..." arrangement.

OK, I'm seeing your point, but I still don't think I agree. Later in your post (talking about prosecution of mothers who ignore paternity statutes) you seem to say that what matters is what the law says and not necessarily how the law is applied in the real world. And the law, in this case, gives mothers an "out" that fathers don't get. So statutes exist to provide an alternative for desperate young mothers who would dump a newborn baby out where it would freeze to death. Where are the statutes to provide an alternative for the desperate young fathers who would kidnap the mother and force her to get an abortion?

It's an accepted principle of constitutional law in the US that legislation that is facially neutral but disproportionately burdensome to one class of people may be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause (though granted, it's never been applied to the type of situation we're discussing.) That's not even bringing the Thirteenth Amendment into play, which bars involuntary servitude. (Again, never applied to the situation we're discussing, but in my opinion, it should be!)

And, in the end, none of it justifies any parent walking out on their responsibility to their children.

I agree with you there, from a moral standpoint. But from a legal standpoint, considering that we give women an "escape clause" from the consequences of their irresponsible sexual behavior, I don't see why the same benefit shouldn't be given to men.

OK, I'm seeing your point, but I still don't think I agree. Later in your post (talking about prosecution of mothers who ignore paternity statutes) you seem to say that what matters is what the law says and not necessarily how the law is applied in the real world. And the law, in this case, gives mothers an "out" that fathers don't get. So statutes exist to provide an alternative for desperate young mothers who would dump a newborn baby out where it would freeze to death. Where are the statutes to provide an alternative for the desperate young fathers who would kidnap the mother and force her to get an abortion?

It's an accepted principle of constitutional law in the US that legislation that is facially neutral but disproportionately burdensome to one class of people may be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause (though granted, it's never been applied to the type of situation we're discussing.) That's not even bringing the Thirteenth Amendment into play, which bars involuntary servitude. .

The parental notifacation laws do not but an undue burden on anybody. If you make that claim you make the claim that any operation on a minor puts an undue burden on the kid by telling the parents. The father of the child is not relavent to the discussion because he is taken out of the picture by Roe v. Wade....which establishes (somehow) a right for a woman to choose to kill the child with no thought as to the father's wishes.

You have to love this......I always thought that these forums were a left wing hive...but now I have proof.

...

Seriously though, that poll proves that the people on here are a bunch of lefties once and for good.

...duh.

In this country, a parent can decide to pray rather than seek medical attention for their child, and that is ok since it is a religious choice. In this country, a parent can decide all sorts of things that are not good for the child - but there are no legal protections against them doing so.
The legal protections I was referrering was situations where the child has been a victim of domestic rape.
Of course, most of the parents who would make that choice for the minor don't care about "baggage" (note, of course, that there is just as much baggage associated with any of the other choices available). They make that choice because of their own religion (which the girl may or may not subscribe to). They make that choice because they think that, just because a person is not yet exactly 18, they should have full and complete control.
On the other hand, if a girl is afraid of her parents, but cannot get any kind of medical treatment without parental permission, then she is likely to seek no medical treatment whatsoever - that means no abortion, and no prenatal care either.
As I said, the parent has the duty to protect and guide their child in the way they see most beneficial to the child's life. They, more than anyone else, know their child as a person, and are a good judge of whether or not their child would be able to handle the concept of an abortion. A child may, as children often do, think they are ready for such a procedure, but let us not forget the tendency of children to be naive and think of themselves as invincible, therefore preventing them from making a rational decision in relation to how the procedure will effect them psychologically and physically. Because of these facts, the parents must be involved in their child's decision-making, because they are the adults, have the life experience to understand the weight of the situation, and may decide if the child can handle the mental and physical effects of the procedure. On a side note, the parents will be the ones providing the support as well as footing the bills if the abortion results in physical issues or psychological trauma -- how is it fair for them to be placed with such a burden without them getting any say in the decision in the first place? On a less superficial note, how can the parents ensure the psychological and physical well-being of their child in relation to the abortion procedure if they were never informed of it happening? Who knows what kind of emotional and physical damage could be done to the child due to the procedure, all while she hides it from her parents and causes further pain and harm to herself. For these reasons, parents must be involved in a minor's decision to get an abortion.

The parental notifacation laws do not but an undue burden on anybody. If you make that claim you make the claim that any operation on a minor puts an undue burden on the kid by telling the parents. The father of the child is not relavent to the discussion because he is taken out of the picture by Roe v. Wade....which establishes (somehow) a right for a woman to choose to kill the child with no thought as to the father's wishes.
Its not the fathers body either ... its not his risk and its not his decision

You have to love this......I always thought that these forums were a left wing hive...but now I have proof.

Here is the poll of the nation on parental notifacation on abortion:
Gallup:11/11-13/05
69% say it is a good idea
28% say it is a bad idea
3% are not sure

lets compare that to those who responded to the poll on this thread:
19% say it is a good idea
61% say it is a bad idea
29% are not sure


Every other medical procedure requires parental notifaction and in many cases...permission. At 16 a girl cannot get a tattoo or get treated for a bump on the head without a parent knowing. The abortion lobby wants to keep the parents out because they know that parents know firsthand the beauty of the creation of new life. Take a look on an ultrasound at 20 weeks. You will see what I mean.

Seriously though, that poll proves that the people on here are a bunch of lefties once and for good.


Just goes to show what a quality site this is ... glad to be part of it

The parental notifacation laws do not but an undue burden on anybody. If you make that claim you make the claim that any operation on a minor puts an undue burden on the kid by telling the parents. The father of the child is not relavent to the discussion because he is taken out of the picture by Roe v. Wade....which establishes (somehow) a right for a woman to choose to kill the child with no thought as to the father's wishes.

Actually, Barry, I wasn't talking about the parental notification laws at all. I was talking about the laws that force fathers to pay child support even though (unlike mothers) they get no say in whether the child is actually born once the child is conceived.

Sorry for the confusion.

I think parental notification laws are generally a good idea (with some limitations), though I don't see them preventing the scenario described in the original post.

Its not the fathers body either ... its not his risk and its not his decision

it is the father's child. He should have at least some say in whether he/she gets to live or die.

Just goes to show what a quality site this is ... glad to be part of it

enormous left wing bias makes you happy but it destroyes fair and balanced debate.

Actually, Barry, I wasn't talking about the parental notification laws at all. I was talking about the laws that force fathers to pay child support even though (unlike mothers) they get no say in whether the child is actually born once the child is conceived.

Sorry for the confusion.

I think parental notification laws are generally a good idea (with some limitations), though I don't see them preventing the scenario described in the original post.

ah! my mistake.;)

it is the father's child. He should have at least some say in whether he/she gets to live or die.
Nope at this point it is all about her body

enormous left wing bias makes you happy but it destroyes fair and balanced debate.

Naw we have plenty of good right wing debators around

Imagine a young girl from a very conservative house. She accedentally gets pregnant. She is totally freaking out because if her dad knew she was sexually active he would be furious, maybe violent. What is she supposed to do?

it is the father's child. He should have at least some say in whether he/she gets to live or die.
OK, he gets a 49% say. She still has 51%. It is, and always should be, HER call.

Naw we have plenty of good right wing debators around
And Barry isn't one of them ;)

OK, he gets a 49% say. She still has 51%. It is, and always should be, HER call.
If he can to carry it for 9 months he can go ahead and do so

And Barry isn't one of them ;)
I did not want to get too ad-hominim but hoped it was implied :)

One last thought, for situations where the pregnancy was caused by a relative:

If a minor female is going to assert enough control over her own body that she's going to destroy a part of it, maybe she should first be required to assert enough control over her own body to get down to a police station and file a police report against the perverted $#%@# who got her pregnant in the first place?
A minor girl (it bothers me when people refer to women and girls as females, as if we're not human -- my misogynist grandfather used to do that -- anyway --) gets raped by a family member. If she reports the crime, it will go like this: She's all alone with a bunch of scary, cynical, armed, uniformed strangers who will question her in detail about it, and then bring in more strangers -- doctors who will question her about it and examine her body; photographers who will take pictures of her body for evidence; lawyers who will also question her about it, in a process that may last weeks, even months, maybe even years, if a trial results -- all without any guaranty that she will even be believed in the first place, or that the evidence will be conclusive, that she won't get sent right back where she came from, right back into the custody of her rapist who, like all child abusers, had been exploiting the power he held over her to keep her in fear and submission for who knows how long.

That's the scenario that happens when a rape is reported. This is why even grown women often don't report the crime.

And you seem to be implying that a minor girl who is unable to face up to that doesn't deserve the right to make any decisions about herself at all -- even about whether she wants to carry her rapist's child.

Are you sure you want to seem to be saying that?

it is the father's child. He should have at least some say in whether he/she gets to live or die.
Abortion has nothing to do with "the child." It has to do with each individual's right to decide whether their own body participates in the building of a child. No man has the right to make that decision for any woman, just as no woman has the right to make that decision for any man.

OK, he gets a 49% say. She still has 51%. It is, and always should be, HER call.
Wrong. She gets 100% say in how her body participates in reproduction, just as he gets 100% say in how his body participates in reproduction.

At the time of a pregnancy, his body is participating 0% in the reproductive process. 0 x 100 = 0. He gets 0 say.

At the time of pregnancy, 100% of the participation in the reproductive process is being contributed by her body. 100% of 100% is 100%. All the say is hers. Zero say is his.

Now, if he were pregnant, the situation would be exactly reversed. So if you believe men should have equal say in what happens during pregnancies, then you should be dedicating your efforts to figuring out how to get men pregnant. Because until then, no dice.

Wrong. She gets 100% say in how her body participates in reproduction, just as he gets 100% say in how his body participates in reproduction.

At the time of a pregnancy, his body is participating 0% in the reproductive process. 0 x 100 = 0. He gets 0 say.

At the time of pregnancy, 100% of the participation in the reproductive process is being contributed by her body. 100% of 100% is 100%. All the say is hers. Zero say is his.

Now, if he were pregnant, the situation would be exactly reversed. So if you believe men should have equal say in what happens during pregnancies, then you should be dedicating your efforts to figuring out how to get men pregnant. Because until then, no dice.
But Bottle, it's only because of the blessing of the male seed, which is made in the image of the male God, that the woman is pregnant in the first place, so the choice belongs solely to the man, just as God intended. I can't believe you're having trouble with such simple logic. :p

But Bottle, it's only because of the blessing of the male seed, which is made in the image of the male God, that the woman is pregnant in the first place, so the choice belongs solely to the man, just as God intended. I can't believe you're having trouble with such simple logic. :p
So many men seem to view ejaculation as if they were a dog pissing on a tree. No, dumbasses, you're not marking your territory. No, she doesn't belong to you now that you spooged in her.

On the contrary: you've just given her your sperm, and now it belongs to her. Don't like what she's doing with it? Well, I guess you shouldn't have given her your sperm, then, should you? If you are so very concerned about what happens to your sperm, then maybe you should take more care to keep it inside your own body (which is the only body you have the right to control).

You have to love this......I always thought that these forums were a left wing hive...but now I have proof.

Here is the poll of the nation on parental notifacation on abortion:
Gallup:11/11-13/05
69% say it is a good idea
28% say it is a bad idea
3% are not sure

lets compare that to those who responded to the poll on this thread:
19% say it is a good idea
61% say it is a bad idea
29% are not sure

I love it when people try to compare two dissimilar polls. It is possible for someone to be in favor of parental notification laws, but not in favor of doing it at the federl level.

Every other medical procedure requires parental notifaction and in many cases...permission.

Not true. As has been discussed already in this thread, abortion is actually pretty much the only medical procedure related to reproduction that requires parental notification or consent. A girl can get a pap, get on birth control, get the morning after pill, get treated for an STD, and even receive prenatal care without parental notification or consent. The laws in question refer specifically to abortion. Why?

OK, I'm seeing your point, but I still don't think I agree. Later in your post (talking about prosecution of mothers who ignore paternity statutes) you seem to say that what matters is what the law says and not necessarily how the law is applied in the real world.

Hardly. What I said is that differences in the law based in basic biological differences cannot really be done away with. A woman can get an abortion because she can get pregnant. If a man could get pregnant, he could get an abortion. The difference is based in biological differences. In the case of the law on adoption, it is applied equally. The difference is that, due to the biological difference that women are the ones who give birth, the mother has physical custody of the child after birth, whereas the man generally does not.

And the law, in this case, gives mothers an "out" that fathers don't get.

Do you honestly think that a desperate man who brought an infant to a hospital wouldn't get the same treatment?

It's an accepted principle of constitutional law in the US that legislation that is facially neutral but disproportionately burdensome to one class of people may be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause (though granted, it's never been applied to the type of situation we're discussing.)

When the difference in the law is due to basic biological differences, however, it does not violate the Equal Protection Clause (according to the court). This is the reason that we *can* have different bathrooms for men and women, different sports teams for men and women, etc.

I agree with you there, from a moral standpoint. But from a legal standpoint, considering that we give women an "escape clause" from the consequences of their irresponsible sexual behavior, I don't see why the same benefit shouldn't be given to men.

I've already made it clear that I don't think any person should be legally required to be a parent - in any capacity. But I don't think it has anything at all to do with the rights of people to dump their responsibilities. I think it has to do with the right of a child to receive adequate care - care that they will not receive from an unwilling parent.


The parental notifacation laws do not but an undue burden on anybody. If you make that claim you make the claim that any operation on a minor puts an undue burden on the kid by telling the parents. The father of the child is not relavent to the discussion because he is taken out of the picture by Roe v. Wade....which establishes (somehow) a right for a woman to choose to kill the child with no thought as to the father's wishes.

Ah, I love it when people respond without reading the thread to see where the conversation has gone. Gives me a warm feeling.

I've already made it clear that I don't think any person should be legally required to be a parent - in any capacity. But I don't think it has anything at all to do with the rights of people to dump their responsibilities. I think it has to do with the right of a child to receive adequate care - care that they will not receive from an unwilling parent.

Here's what I don't get:

Some people (both on this thread and in general life) appear to view abortion as having to do with the rights of the fetus. They do not recognize abortion as an issue about the individual's rights regarding their own body and reproductive organs; instead, they view it as being about the "right to life" of the "unborn child."

Yet many of these same people appear to completely reverse their thinking the moment that a child is born. Child custody and child support become all about the PARENT'S right to refuse to support their offspring, instead of being about the child's right to receive adequate care.

That seems a bit off, to me.

The legal protections I was referrering was situations where the child has been a victim of domestic rape.

...which does nothing at all for the girl whose parents would force their religion upon her, or force her to undergo a dangerous pregnancy, or force her to have an abortion that she will regret, or any other number of problems that may be caused.

I know you want to think that all parents are perfect, care about their child's well being more than anything, and always make the right decision. It is not, however, true. A parent who has truly been there for their child won't need parental notification laws - the minor is going to discuss it with them anyways, as there will be no reason to fear doing so. It is only the poor parents - the ones who wish to force a 16 year old girl to either have an abortion or carry a pregnancy to term - who need such a law to keep control.

Why do you ignore the fact that the pscychological and physical problems associated with an unwanted pregnancy can be caused by giving the final decision to the parents? Are you really under the impression that all parents are perfect?

As I said, the parent has the duty to protect and guide their child in the way they see most beneficial to the child's life.

Andrea Yates thought that the most beneficial thing to do for her children was to murder them.

They, more than anyone else, know their child as a person, and are a good judge of whether or not their child would be able to handle the concept of an abortion.

A parent who knows their child this well isn't going to need a parental notification law. Their child isn't going to be terrified of them to the point that she won't discuss the decision with them.

A child may, as children often do, think they are ready for such a procedure, but let us not forget the tendency of children to be naive and think of themselves as invincible, therefore preventing them from making a rational decision in relation to how the procedure will effect them psychologically and physically. Because of these facts, the parents must be involved in their child's decision-making, because they are the adults, have the life experience to understand the weight of the situation, and may decide if the child can handle the mental and physical effects of the procedure.

That doesn't follow. If a minor needs adult help in making a decision, that help does not necessarily need to come from the parents.

Meanwhile, if you think there are not equal psychological and physical effects with carrying a pregnancy to term, you are seriously deluded.

On a side note, the parents will be the ones providing the support as well as footing the bills if the abortion results in physical issues or psychological trauma -- how is it fair for them to be placed with such a burden without them getting any say in the decision in the first place?

Not necessarily. Some of the parents we are talking about would immediately kick a minor out of the house - disowning them - if they found that their child had an abortion, or even was pregnant.

On a less superficial note, how can the parents ensure the psychological and physical well-being of their child in relation to the abortion procedure if they were never informed of it happening?

If they have actually been ensuring the psychological well-being of their child throughout their child's life, then she will not be afraid to discuss this with them voluntarily.

Who knows what kind of emotional and physical damage could be done to the child due to the procedure, all while she hides it from her parents and causes further pain and harm to herself.

In the cases we are discussing - the ones you seem to want to ignore altogether, she would suffer much more emotional harm from telling her parents.

Wrong. She gets 100% say in how her body participates in reproduction, just as he gets 100% say in how his body participates in reproduction.

At the time of a pregnancy, his body is participating 0% in the reproductive process. 0 x 100 = 0. He gets 0 say.

At the time of pregnancy, 100% of the participation in the reproductive process is being contributed by her body. 100% of 100% is 100%. All the say is hers. Zero say is his.

Now, if he were pregnant, the situation would be exactly reversed. So if you believe men should have equal say in what happens during pregnancies, then you should be dedicating your efforts to figuring out how to get men pregnant. Because until then, no dice.
I think the posters original intent was more “you want some say but in the end it don’t make a bit of difference cause she has controlling majority and it is her decision”

I think the posters original intent was more “you want some say but in the end it don’t make a bit of difference cause she has controlling majority and it is her decision”
That may be true, but I still think it is totally unreasonable to entertain the notion that men have ANY percentage of the "say" in what a woman does with her own body. A man may offer his opinion, and a woman may or may not choose to consider that opinion when making her decisions, but he has precisely zero "say" in what she does.

That may be true, but I still think it is totally unreasonable to entertain the notion that men have ANY percentage of the "say" in what a woman does with her own body. A man may offer his opinion, and a woman may or may not choose to consider that opinion when making her decisions, but he has precisely zero "say" in what she does.
Would that not have the same effect I mean I understand and agree with you but not entirely sure the poster should be picked on for just not saying it the same way you agree with

(it bothers me when people refer to women and girls as females, as if we're not human -- my misogynist grandfather used to do that -- anyway --)

Well, it's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you don't thing. "Minor woman" sounds weird, if not grammatically incorrect. And even when I was in high school, I knew enough teenagers of the feminine variety who insisted on being called "women" that I still shy away from using the term "girls".

If she reports the crime, it will go like this: She's all alone with a bunch of scary, cynical, armed, uniformed strangers who will question her in detail about it, and then bring in more strangers -- doctors who will question her about it and examine her body; photographers who will take pictures of her body for evidence; lawyers who will also question her about it . . .
in a process that may last weeks, even months, maybe even years, if a trial results -- all without any guaranty that she will even be believed in the first place, or that the evidence will be conclusive, that she won't get sent right back where she came from, right back into the custody of her rapist who, like all child abusers, had been exploiting the power he held over her to keep her in fear and submission for who knows how long.

That's the scenario that happens when a rape is reported. This is why even grown women often don't report the crime.

I'm not necessarily saying she has to press charges and have to go through the whole trial process--that'd be up to the district attorney (though I agree that DAs--and law enforcement personnel in general--should be trained to demonstrate greater sensitivity in dealing with this type of thing). Heck, maybe we could even make it so that the minor could make a complaint to some kind of legally registered women's aid society rather than going down to a police station.

But I do believe that the minor should be required to somehow report what has happened to her as a prerequisite to an abortion. Either way she's going to undergo a humiliating physical examination (if not at the police station than at the abortion clinic) and recount painful memories (if not at the police station than at the counseling center, assuming she gets the counseling she really needs).

And you seem to be implying that a minor girl who is unable to face up to that doesn't deserve the right to make any decisions about herself at all -- even about whether she wants to carry her rapist's child.

Are you sure you want to seem to be saying that?

Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of psychology: Yes. She's going to have to "face up" to it sooner or later, and the sooner she does, the sooner she can get herself into a state of physical and emotional security.

I always thought that encouraging women in abusive relationships to seek help was a good thing. But maybe that's just because I'm a conservative and my notions of compassion are all skewed. ;)

Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of psychology: Yes. She's going to have to "face up" to it sooner or later, and the sooner she does, the sooner she can get herself into a state of physical and emotional security.

That's not what you were asked. You're also failing to explain how choosing to abort a pregnancy in any way stops a young woman from "facing up" to the fact that she was raped. I would say it's the opposite; she's directly facing the reality of her situation, and is making a decision based on how she feels and what she thinks. You appear to believe she should be prevented from doing this, at least until after she reports the rape.

What you don't seem to understand is...well, anything about what the aftermath of rape is like. You wrote, "If a minor female is going to assert enough control over her own body that she's going to destroy a part of it, maybe she should first be required to assert enough control over her own body to get down to a police station and file a police report against the perverted $#%@# who got her pregnant in the first place?" Think about what you wrote, for a moment...you seem to be defining, "asserting control over her own body" to mean "making the decision that I think she should make." She could very well assert control over her body and decide that she does not want to report the rape. If she's in control of her body, then that's her choice, right? Just as she gets to assert control of her body and decide, for herself, if she wants to abort her pregnancy. Regardless of whether or not YOU like her decision, it's hers to make.

You also seem to think that minors should be held to a higher standard than adults, since adult women are not required to report a rape before they can receive reproductive health care related to the rape.


I always thought that encouraging women in abusive relationships to seek help was a good thing.

Then you oppose parental notification laws, right?


But maybe that's just because I'm a conservative and my notions of compassion are all skewed. ;)
If you assume that all young women will be best off receiving help from their parents, then you're simply choosing to ignore large portions of reality.

A great many young women will NOT benefit from consulting their parents about an unplanned pregnancy. Furthermore, it's silly to pretend as though young women can't get help from adults other than their parents. And it's even sillier (verging on insane) to think that you can use legislation to make young women more willing to talk to their parents.

Young women who have healthy relationships with their parents and elders will choose to seek guidance from them in times of trouble. Good parents will have absolutely no need of laws like the one discussed in this thread. Passing a law requiring parental notification will not increase the number of young women who want to talk to their parents about their pregnancy, it will just increase the number of young women who choose not to seek any help at all.

If you think young women would be better off getting help in situations like the ones discussed in this thread, then parental notification laws would be abhorent to you.

Well, it's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you don't thing. "Minor woman" sounds weird, if not grammatically incorrect. And even when I was in high school, I knew enough teenagers of the feminine variety who insisted on being called "women" that I still shy away from using the term "girls".
I truly sympathize with the terrible discomfort you must suffer every time you attempt to decide what other people should be allowed to do with their own bodies, due to the limitations of the English language. Here's a solution for you: If you will consistently refer to men and boys as "males," then I will not complain if you refer to women and girls as "females."

<snip>
But I do believe that the minor should be required to somehow report what has happened to her as a prerequisite to an abortion. Either way she's going to undergo a humiliating physical examination (if not at the police station than at the abortion clinic) and recount painful memories (if not at the police station than at the counseling center, assuming she gets the counseling she really needs).
So you insist that before a girl can receive medical assistance, she must first be required to undergo some kind of ritualistic humiliation?

Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of psychology: Yes. She's going to have to "face up" to it sooner or later, and the sooner she does, the sooner she can get herself into a state of physical and emotional security.

I always thought that encouraging women in abusive relationships to seek help was a good thing. But maybe that's just because I'm a conservative and my notions of compassion are all skewed. ;)
The two bolded comments sum up the problems with your argument. First, you don't really know what you're talking about. Second, you start from a pre-determined attitude and then allow the attitude to bias your argument rather than taking the time to learn facts and then allowing the facts to adjust your attitude and shape your argument.

If you will consistently refer to men and boys as "males," then I will not complain if you refer to women and girls as "females."

How about I use "young women"? Don't know why I didn't earlier--brain fart, I guess . . .

So you insist that before a girl can receive medical assistance, she must first be required to undergo some kind of ritualistic humiliation?

It need not be ritualistic. But what's the matter with having a rape victim be examined by a doctor? For medical reasons alone, it's a prudent thing to do, and if the doctor happens to make a careful record of his or her findings, what's the matter with that? (I agree, though, that photos would be a bit much).

First, you don't really know what you're talking about. Second, you start from a pre-determined attitude and then allow the attitude to bias your argument rather than taking the time to learn facts and then allowing the facts to adjust your attitude and shape your argument.

Please feel free to educate me. From a psychological point of view, is it a good thing for a teenager to simply pretend that traumatic experiences never happened and then to independently make a decision that may have additional emotional repercussions for years to come? If so, why?

That's not what you were asked.

Well, I was asked a yes-or-no answer, and neither option would have been accurate. :)

You're also failing to explain how choosing to abort a pregnancy in any way stops a young woman from "facing up" to the fact that she was raped.

Because if all the young woman does is get an abortion, then she's just as likely as not to leave the clinic and go right back to the same situation she was in before. Requiring that she get help--through law enforcment, a women's shelter, or whatever--gives her a chance to escape that situation rather than to develop a lifelong pattern of victimhood.

What you don't seem to understand is... Regardless of whether or not YOU like her decision, it's hers to make.

And here, I think, is where we fundamentally differ. I believe that because she's a minor, she does not have the right to conceal such a major action from her parents. (Unless the parents are either abusive or have allowed an abusive situation to continue, in which case they forfeit that right).

You also seem to think that minors should be held to a higher standard than adults, since adult women are not required to report a rape before they can receive reproductive health care related to the rape.

Yep. It's that dadgum parent-child relationship thing.

Then you oppose parental notification laws, right?

Yes, if they don't include some kind of loophole for cases of abuse. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with them.

If you assume that all young women will be best off receiving help from their parents, then you're simply choosing to ignore large portions of reality.

Good heavens, I don't assume that for a second! But I prefer policies that are made around the norm, not around the exception. Now, if you show me a verifiable statistic saying that the majority of teenagers having abortions done come from abusive homes, I may very well be prepared to change my mind.

Young women who have healthy relationships with their parents and elders will choose to seek guidance from them in times of trouble. Good parents will have absolutely no need of laws like the one discussed in this thread.

I don't know about that. Teenagers aren't typically eager to go and volunteer to their parents the fact that they openly disregarded their parents' counsel and have gotten themselves into a situation they can't fix on their own--no matter how healthy the relationship.

Passing a law requiring parental notification will not increase the number of young women who want to talk to their parents about their pregnancy, it will just increase the number of young women who choose not to seek any help at all.

I agree, it won't increase the number of young women who want to talk to their parents about an unwanted pregnancy. I agree that a blanket requirement would be counterproductive, but I think that a requirement with an appropriate exception for abuse cases could actually lead to an increase in young women getting the comprehensive long-term help they need rather than the quick-fix that abortion clinics offer while helping to instill a sense of accountability that is sorely lacking in society.

im 11 And Im Pregnant!

Wrong. She gets 100% say in how her body participates in reproduction, just as he gets 100% say in how his body participates in reproduction.

At the time of a pregnancy, his body is participating 0% in the reproductive process. 0 x 100 = 0. He gets 0 say.

At the time of pregnancy, 100% of the participation in the reproductive process is being contributed by her body. 100% of 100% is 100%. All the say is hers. Zero say is his.

Now, if he were pregnant, the situation would be exactly reversed. So if you believe men should have equal say in what happens during pregnancies, then you should be dedicating your efforts to figuring out how to get men pregnant. Because until then, no dice.

Jeez, Bottle, I'm on your side! WTF ;)
He wanted the man to have a say. I gave him one, but one that doesn't count :eek:

edit: I just caught up with the rest of the posts. UT, thanks for the defense! Bottle, you know, it's probably dangerous as Hell to let a man think he as any say, being as they're so . . . male, and all. 0%. You got it.

So many men seem to view ejaculation as if they were a dog pissing on a tree. No, dumbasses, you're not marking your territory. No, she doesn't belong to you now that you spooged in her.

On the contrary: you've just given her your sperm, and now it belongs to her. Don't like what she's doing with it? Well, I guess you shouldn't have given her your sperm, then, should you? If you are so very concerned about what happens to your sperm, then maybe you should take more care to keep it inside your own body (which is the only body you have the right to control).
But what about the "you poke it, you own it" rule? I mean, it works for burritos and beer bottles, so shouldn't it work for women as well? ;)

(a) Not only is it not necessary, it is dangerous. It will directly lead to a decrease in the health and well-being of young women. Parental notification is one of the worst ideas anybody has ever come up with, since it will only hurt those young people who are already suffering from having shitty parents.

Example: in high school, I helped transport a minor across state lines to get an abortion. Her parents didn't know. Why? Because her father was the one who'd raped and impregnated her. Parental notification laws specifically and directly hurt the very girls who are already being horribly victimized.

(b) Hell no, it wouldn't prevent such things. There are already OTHER laws that cover why that crap was wrong, and those laws didn't stop it.

Most parental notification laws contain provisions, as Dempublicents1 already stated, that allow the minor to petition the courts under just the conditions you outlined.

It boils down to who you trust more to look out for the welfare of the child. On the whole, I believe that most parents are far more attentive to their own child's welfare than anyone else in that child's life. There are exceptions, yes, but those can be overcome by court petitions.

Most parental notification laws contain provisions, as Dempublicents1 already stated, that allow the minor to petition the courts under just the conditions you outlined.

It boils down to who you trust more to look out for the welfare of the child. On the whole, I believe that most parents are far more attentive to their own child's welfare than anyone else in that child's life. There are exceptions, yes, but those can be overcome by court petitions.
Here's where we simply have a fundamental disagreement. You want to make the kid in bad family situation go through even more stress and jump through even more hoops, rather than assuming that the kid in the good family situation is going to be able to talk to her parents in the first place. I happen to feel that we ought to be making every possible allowance for the kid in the fucked-up home, rather than making a girl in a bad situation suffer even more simply so some conservative prigs can act like they give a shit about families.

I'm not necessarily including you in that last bit, Selginius--I'm talking about the public face of the groups that push this kind of crap legislation.

Here's where we simply have a fundamental disagreement. You want to make the kid in bad family situation go through even more stress and jump through even more hoops, rather than assuming that the kid in the good family situation is going to be able to talk to her parents in the first place. I happen to feel that we ought to be making every possible allowance for the kid in the fucked-up home, rather than making a girl in a bad situation suffer even more simply so some conservative prigs can act like they give a shit about families.

I'm not necessarily including you in that last bit, Selginius--I'm talking about the public face of the groups that push this kind of crap legislation.
You make a good point. However, as a parent, I instinctively want to know anything my 3 children might be up to. I had good parents, but I often did rebellious and unwise things in spite of them. The thought that my daughter might get pregnant and then have some outside party talk her into an abortion by crossing state lines chills my heart.

Besides the fact that we probably disagree on the morality of abortion as well, but not here to argue that point.

You make a good point. However, as a parent, I instinctively want to know anything my 3 children might be up to. I had good parents, but I often did rebellious and unwise things in spite of them. The thought that my daughter might get pregnant and then have some outside party talk her into an abortion by crossing state lines chills my heart.

Besides the fact that we probably disagree on the morality of abortion as well, but not here to argue that point.
Yeah, I'm a parent too, of a teenage daughter no less, and I want to know what's happening in her life, and I'm fairly sure I do. But if she got pregnant and wanted an abortion, she could and would come talk to me about it, because we've kept those communication lines open. But she's not the one who'll be adversely affected by this law. It's the girl whose pregnant and whose parents will kick her to the street after they beat her to a pulp who needs this law, and she's now being forced to undergo further trauma at the hands of the state. An abortion is a traumatic experience, especially in the kinds of circumstances we're talking about here--why add to her suffering by forcing her to go before a potentially harmful judge and recount what will happen to her if she's denied control over her own body?

How about I use "young women"? Don't know why I didn't earlier--brain fart, I guess . . .
Fine.

It need not be ritualistic. But what's the matter with having a rape victim be examined by a doctor? For medical reasons alone, it's a prudent thing to do, and if the doctor happens to make a careful record of his or her findings, what's the matter with that? (I agree, though, that photos would be a bit much).
And now you're trying to rewrite your own remarks. FIRST, you insisted that the young rape victim had to be mature, strong, in charge, what-have-you enough to report the rape on her own to the police BEFORE she should be allowed to decide whether to abort the resulting pregnancy or not. NOW you're acting as if you've only been insisting on seeing a doctor. Cute, but not cute enough.

Second, whether she reports the crime or not, whether she sees a doctor at the time the crime is committed or not, neither has anything at all to do with the decision as to whether she should carry the pregnancy or not. They are three different decisions, three independent decisions, and three decisions that should and can only be made by her. Yes, with the advice and guidance of adults, but ultimately, she must decide.

Please feel free to educate me. From a psychological point of view, is it a good thing for a teenager to simply pretend that traumatic experiences never happened and then to independently make a decision that may have additional emotional repercussions for years to come? If so, why?
I'm not interested in educating you. I am satisfied with just pointing out your ignorance of this subject, by your own admission. And in this paragraph you are doing nothing to make yourself seem less ignorant, as you are now making up a scenario that was never part of the discussion, as if it somehow justifies your position.

Let's review: You asserted that if a girl can't face up to reporting to the police that she was raped by a relative, that means she cannot be allowed to make any decisions about whether to carry the resulting pregnancy or not. Then you talk vaguely and ignorantly (to be frank) about what a girl should be required to do before being permitted to decide her own fate. And now you seem to be implying that what she, as a rape victim, may be suffering is somehow her own fault for not being mature enough to do what you think she should do about it. So what's your solution to her failure to deal with her trauma in a way that you approve of? To either make her face up to what has happened to her by forcing her to go through with a pregnancy caused by incest-rape? Or to relieve her of responsibility for her own fate by letting her rapist make the decision for her?

<snip>
I agree, it won't increase the number of young women who want to talk to their parents about an unwanted pregnancy. I agree that a blanket requirement would be counterproductive, but I think that a requirement with an appropriate exception for abuse cases could actually lead to an increase in young women getting the comprehensive long-term help they need rather than the quick-fix that abortion clinics offer while helping to instill a sense of accountability that is sorely lacking in society.
Ah, the bolded phrase. Yes, ladies and gents, it's that perennial favorite, the Filthy Whore(tm) argument, once again.

Please feel free to educate me. From a psychological point of view, is it a good thing for a teenager to simply pretend that traumatic experiences never happened and then to independently make a decision that may have additional emotional repercussions for years to come? If so, why?

Once an unplanned pregnancy occurs, any decision made is likely to have "additional emotional repercussions for years to come." Have someone else make that decision, instead of leaving it up to the person who actually has to deal with it, and all you do is increase said repercussions.

And here, I think, is where we fundamentally differ. I believe that because she's a minor, she does not have the right to conceal such a major action from her parents.

And now we're back to that, "You're 100% child until 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds, and then you are immediately 100% adult." This attitude completely ignores the fact that maturation happens over time, not instantly.

(Unless the parents are either abusive or have allowed an abusive situation to continue, in which case they forfeit that right).

Why are you so convinced that abusive parents are the only possible situation in which a girl might need to go around them? Perhaps they have never been abusive, but are likely to if she tells them. Perhaps they are likely to kick her out of the house if she tells them. Perhaps the parents are going to force her to do something she knows she would regret.

I don't know about that. Teenagers aren't typically eager to go and volunteer to their parents the fact that they openly disregarded their parents' counsel and have gotten themselves into a situation they can't fix on their own--no matter how healthy the relationship.

Yes, actually, they are. If the relationship is healthy, a teen is most likely going to seek counsel from their parents, if not first, then right after a best friend or two. My relationship with my mother was always healthy, and I always went to her with my problems - even when I knew that an "I told you so," would have been in order. I also knew well before I was ever considering a sexual relationship, that I could go to her if I was considering it.


Most parental notification laws contain provisions, as Dempublicents1 already stated, that allow the minor to petition the courts under just the conditions you outlined.

The problem with these, however, is that a pro-life judge can simply decide never to grant such petitions, no matter what the circumstances are. There generally is no method by which a minor can appeal these decisions, nor would there generally be time.

Most parental notification laws contain provisions, as Dempublicents1 already stated, that allow the minor to petition the courts under just the conditions you outlined.

Which cannot be done without alerting the abuser. Which a great many young women are prepared to die to prevent.


It boils down to who you trust more to look out for the welfare of the child. On the whole, I believe that most parents are far more attentive to their own child's welfare than anyone else in that child's life. There are exceptions, yes, but those can be overcome by court petitions.
No, it boils down to how realistically you view the world. For one thing, you grossly underestimate the danger that some parents pose to their offspring. But, for another, you totally ignore the fact that no good parents will ever need these laws...literally THE ONLY parents who need such laws are the parents who least deserve to have that kind of control over their children.

A mandatory national notification law will be an extremely bad thing for society. And the more I think about this case, the more bogus it seems to me. Bottle is 100% right. Such a law will have no effect but to discourage at-risk teens from seeking the medical care and adult guidance they desperately need and to interefere with doctors' ability to treat patients by setting up hoops they have to jump through before they can start.

In addition, the more I think about this supposed test case of the girl being forced into an abortion by her boyfriends' parents, the more bogus it looks. Why wasn't this covered more extensively by the national media? I live in Boston -- not far from New Jersey where this supposedly happened -- and the story is about one of the most divisive issues of our day, AND it features dastardly strangers interfering with a young damsel in distress. Yet I heard nothing of this until now. I would point out that young girls being forced into abortions against their will by malicious abortionists is one of the favorite propaganda bug-bears of the anti-choice movement.

I believe this case has been exagerrated and sensationalized by anti-choice factions in order to use it as leverage to push this national notification law through Congress -- a kind "Megan's Law" for anti-choicers (even though abortion is not a crime).

This is just another case of the right wing being all about states' rights when the federal government won't give them what they want, but then flip-flopping into calls for new and broader federal powers when every single state doesn't immediately jump onto their bandwagon. And as further proof that they are not "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination, they insist on getting new, more restrictive and invasive laws rather than on enforcing the laws that already exist.

These self-righteous bastards will be satisfied to get their way on this point, and the hell with the all the teenage girls who will suffer for it and all the unwanted babies that will be born and abandoned or killed because of it.

All right, I did a little more research on the original story, and I am really starting to believe it may be a flat-out lie. I googled key elements of the story and found NOTHING -- not one news story or police or law source talking about a case in which a pregnant 14 year old girl was kidnapped from Lancaster PA by her boyfriend's parents and taken to New Jersey to be forced into an abortion while avoiding parental notification laws. Not one.

You would think such a thing would have been a major news story. You would think, even if it happened a while ago, news sources would pull up old stories about it to go with the new story about the legislation supposedly based on it. You would think the House hearings would have included testimony from the girl, her boyfriend, the police and/or prosecutor involved in the case.

But all we have is this one woman claiming it happened. Even her testimony before the House contains no facts to prove any of her claims and assertions.

And all two google searches produced was the House of Reps information about the legislation, news about the House of Reps legislation, and anti-abortion sites declaring the story to be absolute truth but also offering no proof that it actually happened.

I'm sorry, but I just plain don't believe it.

Finally, the following quote from the OP's CNN/AP article sums up the nature of this issue perfectly for me:

From Article (emphasis mine)
During floor negotiations with Boxer, Ensign rejected a proposal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, to protect from prosecution such confidants as grandparents, clergy and others to whom a girl might turn for help.

Another, sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, would have encouraged the federal government to provide money for more sex education. That bill failed earlier in the day, 48-51.

"If we do nothing about teen pregnancy yet pass this punitive bill, then it proves that this (bill) is only a political charade and not a serious effort to combat the problem," Lautenberg said.

Abstinence is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy, responded Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma.

"How many people really think it's in the best interest of young people to be sexually active outside of marriage? Does anything positive ever come from that?" Coburn asked.
Protect teens from abuse, my ass. This bill is meant to be nothing more than a scare tactic to make teenage girls afraid to have sex by setting up a terrifying scenario in which they will have nowhere to turn for help. It is clearly tied up with the anti-contraception, anti-sex (and on the basis of that "marraige" remark, anti-gay, too) brigade.

The hell with this bill and the hell with its sponsors.



PS: Here are the links to the google searches I did, if you want to see for yourselves, refine them, do them over, whatever. If anyone out there can come up with some proof that this story is true, I will gladly stand corrected:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&q=marcia+carroll+lancaster+pennsylvania&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=girl+kidnapped+abortion&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Fine.


And now you're trying to rewrite your own remarks. FIRST, you insisted that the young rape victim had to be mature, strong, in charge, what-have-you enough to report the rape on her own to the police BEFORE she should be allowed to decide whether to abort the resulting pregnancy or not. NOW you're acting as if you've only been insisting on seeing a doctor. Cute, but not cute enough.

I thought I was being reasonable and open to compromise, but now that I look back I see that it looks like I was just being evasive. Sorry.

I'm not interested in educating you.

Umm . . . OK.

And in this paragraph you are doing nothing to make yourself seem less ignorant, as you are now making up a scenario that was never part of the discussion, as if it somehow justifies your position.

When you completely shut a parent out of this aspect of their minor daughter's lives, then scenarios such as the one I described cannot help but occur. Therefore, in my view, they are indeed relevant.

And now you seem to be implying that what she, as a rape victim, may be suffering is somehow her own fault for not being mature enough to do what you think she should do about it.

Again, you're attributing ideas to me that are not mine. But I will acknowledge that my initial post on this subject was more strongly worded than it should have been.

So what's your solution to her failure to deal with her trauma in a way that you approve of? To either make her face up to what has happened to her by forcing her to go through with a pregnancy caused by incest-rape? Or to relieve her of responsibility for her own fate by letting her rapist make the decision for her?

I think a middle ground can be sought--one that does not deliberately drive a wedge between parents and their daughters.

Yes, ladies and gents, it's that perennial favorite, the Filthy Whore(tm) argument, once again.

So . . . if I support legislation that will have the effect of encouraging young women in abusive relationships to get out and get help--I'm automatically labeling them "filthy whores"?

And now we're back to that, "You're 100% child until 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds, and then you are immediately 100% adult." This attitude completely ignores the fact that maturation happens over time, not instantly.

There may or may not be merit to that attitude, but it is the one the law currently espouses. Parents are currently required to feed, clothe, house, and pay the medical expenses of their children until those children reach the age of 18 years old--and not a day less. I don't think that a mandate that parents "sit down, shut up and pay up" when it comes to their children is sound public policy. Now, if the minor has been legally emancipated (and most states do have provisions for this), that's another story.

Why are you so convinced that abusive parents are the only possible situation in which a girl might need to go around them? Perhaps they have never been abusive, but are likely to if she tells them. Perhaps they are likely to kick her out of the house if she tells them. Perhaps the parents are going to force her to do something she knows she would regret.

I acknowledge that it's possible for a parent to spend, say, thirteen or fourteen years raising a child and never becoming abusive, but always having that as a looming threat. But I don't think it's likely. And as I said before, I prefer policies crafted around more likely situations, with exceptions carved out for the less-likely ones, rather than the other way around.

Yes, actually, they are. If the relationship is healthy, a teen is most likely going to seek counsel from their parents, if not first, then right after a best friend or two. My relationship with my mother was always healthy, and I always went to her with my problems - even when I knew that an "I told you so," would have been in order. I also knew well before I was ever considering a sexual relationship, that I could go to her if I was considering it.

So, any relationship where a teenager conceals any bad decision from their parents is inherently unhealthy? Or just relationships where parents openly condemn premarital sex?

Either way, it strikes me that you're imposing a rather dubious standard of "healthiness" on parent-child relationships.

Not to mention murder. While I do not believe a human is a human until they're born and that a woman choosing abortion is not murder, the girl clearly decided she wanted to keep and raise the fetus into a full grown human being. Being forced to terminate is nothing short of murder.

As to the question, I believe parents should be notified about anything involving their children until said child is of adult age. Whether its a pregnancy or having a wart removed from their feet.

Seconded, but I'm against abortion as a whole. But even, like you said, if you're not against it, because the woman made the choice to raise it, it's murder.


.....


Holy shit, I'm agreeing with Keruvalia. :eek:

There may or may not be merit to that attitude, but it is the one the law currently espouses. Parents are currently required to feed, clothe, house, and pay the medical expenses of their children until those children reach the age of 18 years old--and not a day less. I don't think that a mandate that parents "sit down, shut up and pay up" when it comes to their children is sound public policy. Now, if the minor has been legally emancipated (and most states do have provisions for this), that's another story.

Correct; legally, the line has to be drawn somewhere.


I acknowledge that it's possible for a parent to spend, say, thirteen or fourteen years raising a child and never becoming abusive, but always having that as a looming threat. But I don't think it's likely. And as I said before, I prefer policies crafted around more likely situations, with exceptions carved out for the less-likely ones, rather than the other way around.

That's kinda the point of legislation. :D

I thought I was being reasonable and open to compromise, but now that I look back I see that it looks like I was just being evasive. Sorry.
Thank you.

When you completely shut a parent out of this aspect of their minor daughter's lives, then scenarios such as the one I described cannot help but occur. Therefore, in my view, they are indeed relevant.
The idea of parents being completely shut out of any aspect of their minor daughter's life IS the scenario you have invented. It is nowhere implied, either in the original story (about which I have grave, grave doubts, btw) or in the supposed "problem" this legislation is supposedly going to fix. There is nothing today that stops parents from being involved in their children's lives. I refer you back to Bottle's comments that the only parents who would need this law to keep them informed and involved are parents who very probably do not deserve to be informed and involved.

Again, you're attributing ideas to me that are not mine. But I will acknowledge that my initial post on this subject was more strongly worded than it should have been.
I suggest you try using your own wording based on your own thoughts, rather than the jargon of the political rightwing, whose talking points, frankly, pepper your posts.

I think a middle ground can be sought--one that does not deliberately drive a wedge between parents and their daughters.
I personally advocate allowing doctors to work out this issue with their minor patients directly. Because of doctor-patient confidentiality protections and because doctors are trained to recognize signs of potential abuse, I believe doctors are especially qualified to be a kind of safe haven for a girl to confide in and to determine whether her decision is reasonable or not, and whether a parent should be notified or whether a different adult advocate -- such as a psychologist or social worker -- should be brought in to consult with the minor patient.

Remember, doctors are required by law to report to the police evidence of physical abuse they may see in patients who are children. If a doctor has reason to suspect that a parent has made a child pregnant and is required by law to report this suspicion to the police, what sense would it make to also require that same doctor to notify the suspected abuser of what his victim is doing?

Note: Despite the doctor's obligation to report suspected abuse, the doctor can still be a safe haven IF the doctor is not required to hand the girl back over to her abuser but has the authority to seek other counsel for the girl. Also, because of doctor-patient confidentiality, girls who got pregnant consenually with their boyfriends but face abuse or hostility in punishment from their parents shoud be able to rely on the doctor as a first line official who can help them avoid that. But that ability vanishes if the doctor is forced by law to notify the parents no matter what.

So . . . if I support legislation that will have the effect of encouraging young women in abusive relationships to get out and get help--I'm automatically labeling them "filthy whores"?
First, this is just another attempt to plaster your scenario on top of the facts. The legislation in question does not encourage girls to seek help to get out of abusive relationships. In fact, it does the opposite, by cutting off all avenues of help, all appeal to authority EXCEPT the potential abusers themselves.

Also, the Filthy Whore(tm) argument was specifically contained within your remark about "accountability." Whose accountability, pray tell? And for what? Are you suggesting that pregnancy is a price young women must pay for the irresponsible decision to have sex? That attaches the Scarlet Letter(tm) argument (in which the pregnancy is a 9-month sentence every woman must be forced to serve every time she has sex) to the Filthy Whore(tm) argument (in which women are at fault for not being virgins).

You see, this is the effect of using talking points and propaganda to make your arguments. "Accountability in today's society" and such like phrases are all part of the official Filthy Whore(tm) and Scarlet Letter(tm) anti-choice arguments, and this is their basic gist. If this is not what you meant to imply, then you really need to think about the way you say what you are trying to say.

The idea of parents being completely shut out of any aspect of their minor daughter's life IS the scenario you have invented. It is nowhere implied, either in the original story (about which I have grave, grave doubts, btw) or in the supposed "problem" this legislation is supposedly going to fix. There is nothing today that stops parents from being involved in their children's lives. I refer you back to Bottle's comments that the only parents who would need this law to keep them informed and involved are parents who very probably do not deserve to be informed and involved.

I believe I did make a few points in response to Bottle and the parent/child relationship. And I'll readily confess that in defending the concept of parental notification laws I've gone far, far beyond the scope of the legislation in question. Which, as I believe I told Barrygoldwater a few pages back, I don't think would have made a difference in the situation cited in the OP (which, I agree with you, is looking more and more dubious). (The more I think about it, the more I also have problems with the legislation on federalism grounds. But anyways . . .)

On your post about the doctor/patient relationship: I really don't have time to digest and analyze them at present, but will consider them and will reply once I've thought about them a bit more.

Also, the Filthy Whore(tm) argument was specifically contained within your remark about "accountability." Whose accountability, pray tell? And for what? Are you suggesting that pregnancy is a price young women must pay for the irresponsible decision to have sex?

Not quite. I'd say that the price a young woman must pay for getting pregnant is letting the people who love her, feed her, clothe her, house her, and pay her bills know that the situation exists. ("Notification" is different than "consent"; I'm not sure how I feel about the latter.) And the medical costs of treating the young woman should be the price the young man pays for the irresponsible decision to have sex (and a 9-month jail sentence if he won't pay) (oh, and notify HIS parents, too).

Even if you use contraception (which I don't necessarily oppose), sex is a calculated risk. If you get away with it, good for you. If you lose: be ready to pay up.

(For clarity: My earlier posts on allowing young men to escape accountability were based on my view that the current system provides loopholes for women that men don't get. But if the loopholes are closed for the women, then I'm good closing them for the men too.)

That attaches the Scarlet Letter(tm) argument (in which the pregnancy is a 9-month sentence every woman must be forced to serve every time she has sex) to the Filthy Whore(tm) argument (in which women are at fault for not being virgins).

That might be the case, if I wanted to completely ban contraception and not hold young men accountable for their role in the pregnancy. But neither is the case. I don't see abortion in general, or parental notification in particular, as an issue of making sure that all people who have sex receive some form of social opprobium. I see it as an issue of how you handle the consequences of sex, if and when they come.

I've avoided this topic before, but I'm going to say this just so you know where I'm coming from:

I'm not so right-wing that I think contraception is of the devil, or that life always begins at conception, or that a cluster of growing cells has equal rights with a fully formed, autonomous human being. I just don't know.

But whatever is in there is potential human life, and as such still ranks a few steps above an unsightly wart. The decision to destroy it shouldn't be made just because "Mom might take away my BMW if she finds out". And I worry (though I would be pleased to find out otherwise) that THAT's the driving motive behind a lot of the anti-notification-in-any-forms crowd.

One final point:

Other than a couple of core principles, my point of view on the topic of parental notification is slowly evolving--which is why it seems like I take conservative-talking-point positions and then abandon them when the going gets tough. Please don't assume I'm being weaselly or trollish--the fact is, to some extent, you've been changing my mind. :)

Not quite. I'd say that the price a young woman must pay for getting pregnant is letting the people who love her, feed her, clothe her, house her, and pay her bills know that the situation exists.

That is quite an assumption - not all parents love and support their children.

And the medical costs of treating the young woman should be the price the young man pays for the irresponsible decision to have sex (and a 9-month jail sentence if he won't pay) (oh, and notify HIS parents, too).

This may come as a shock to you but young women like to have sex too – it is not entirely the guy’s responsibility. Why is the decision to have sex irresponsible? Why should his parents be notified? If a teenager is having sex, and the parents don’t have a clue, I do not think it the government’s duty to spy on teenagers to inform clueless parents.

You seem to be operating from the position that sex is an evil thing and everyone should be forced to abstain until marriage (common problem among the ‘conservative’ type. I don’t blame you; it’s just how you were raised. ;) ).

Face reality – teenagers have sex. Pregnancies can result. Not all households are loving, supporting, and nurturing environments.

The decision to destroy it shouldn't be made just because "Mom might take away my BMW if she finds out". And I worry (though I would be pleased to find out otherwise) that THAT's the driving motive behind a lot of the anti-notification-in-any-forms crowd.

This is obscenely insulting to girls who have to get abortions. I do not have words enough to properly express how incredibly insulting that statement is to anyone who has had to make that decision.

I have had 3 friends of mine (that I know of) who got pregnant in high school.

The first was 14: she asked the school nurse for advice, who (being a devout conservative Christian) immediately informed the girl’s parents. The girl ended up not needing an abortion after all – her father beat her so severely she miscarried before throwing her out on the street.

The second was 16: she talked to a couple friends and a teacher she could trust (she was lucky enough to have an adult she could talk to) before eventually following said advice and talking to her parents. They were very concerned but knew that it was highly traumatic experience for her already so they didn’t become overbearing but were compassionate. After talking about it for a while, with her parents assuring her that they would help her raise the child and support her but did not pressure anything (it was the girl’s body and her life after all), she decided to have an abortion. The parents took her to get an abortion and had her go to counseling for a little while afterward to make sure there was not any lasting emotional harm.

The third was 17: she came from a very controlling household and knew that if her father found out she was even making out with guys that she would be punished. She went to get an abortion but parental notification laws prevented this. She talked to her mother in the hopes that they could do it quietly without her father finding out, but the clinic called to inform him as required by law. The girl was given a choice of either getting thrown out of the house right then and there completely disowned with any future contact between her and any other family member forbidden, or she could agree to basically become a shut-in. She was not allowed to even speak to anyone on the phone, could never have visitors, and could not leave the house unless accompanied by her father.
Given that she had no means of support and had no idea what to do if suddenly thrown out on the street with nothing but the clothes on her back, she hoped that her father would calm down and relent (everyone knew this wouldn’t happen, but she didn’t have much choice). This lasted at least 2 years that I know of (fortunately her brother would pass messages now and then) but don’t know what happened after that.


Now anecdotes are fairly meaningless, but let us use these situations anyway:
The first… well the nurse should have been fired at the least. Had the nurse not ratted her out, and the clinic would have had to inform the parents, it would have had the same result. This is an obvious case where these laws cause severe harm to the child.

The second was a great situation; she had good parents, and some good friends, even a friendly non-parental adult to talk with confidentially. Parental notification was completely unnecessary because she came from a good situation.

The third is a good example of how these laws ruin lives – had she been able to keep this from her parents she would have gone off to college and had a life. While she could have chosen to just walk away from her family, but she did not see that as a viable option.


In an ideal world, every situation would be like the second one. Unfortunately we live in a world where the first and third situations are very common.

Personally, I am greatly opposed to any law with dubious benefit yet has such great potential for massive harm. How many incidences like that of the 14 year old are acceptable?

I have a little more faith in people than some of you seem to – I don’t believe that most teenagers want to run out to get pregnant and have an abortion for a lark. The vast majority of abortions are not taken lightly, and a teenager is more likely to be better able to assess the situation than parents so out of touch they need the government to force the child to seek their consent.

I believe I did make a few points in response to Bottle and the parent/child relationship.
Unfortunately, they read as dismissive comments, not real points in response. All I read in your responses to her were mere repetitions of your original remarks without reference to what she had been saying.

And I'll readily confess that in defending the concept of parental notification laws I've gone far, far beyond the scope of the legislation in question.
You're not the only one. As I quoted from the OP's article, some legislators are clearly seeing this bill as part of a national program to force total abstinence. That is also far beyond its stated scope.

Which, as I believe I told Barrygoldwater a few pages back, I don't think would have made a difference in the situation cited in the OP (which, I agree with you, is looking more and more dubious). (The more I think about it, the more I also have problems with the legislation on federalism grounds. But anyways . . .)

On your post about the doctor/patient relationship: I really don't have time to digest and analyze them at present, but will consider them and will reply once I've thought about them a bit more.
No problem.

Not quite. I'd say that the price a young woman must pay for getting pregnant is letting the people who love her, feed her, clothe her, house her, and pay her bills know that the situation exists. ("Notification" is different than "consent"; I'm not sure how I feel about the latter.) And the medical costs of treating the young woman should be the price the young man pays for the irresponsible decision to have sex (and a 9-month jail sentence if he won't pay) (oh, and notify HIS parents, too).
Again, you refuse to consider the harsh realities of family abuse and violence. You refuse to consider the possibility that if a girl feels she cannot confide in her parents, she may have very good reason for that. You refuse to consider that notification laws will never be an issue for families that do not have such potentially dangerous problems already. And finally, you continue to refuse to consider that none of this is any of the government's business.

Even if you use contraception (which I don't necessarily oppose), sex is a calculated risk. If you get away with it, good for you. If you lose: be ready to pay up.
Oh, so there are circumstances under which you think people should not be permitted to use contraception?

Tell me, is there any area of human life that you don't want to see the government control?

(For clarity: My earlier posts on allowing young men to escape accountability were based on my view that the current system provides loopholes for women that men don't get. But if the loopholes are closed for the women, then I'm good closing them for the men too.)
You consider abortion a loophole for escaping accountability?

First, this leads me to think that you have never had an abortion or a pregnancy.

Second, you have not answered my questions: How are sex and pregnancy matters to which accountability attaches? Who should be held accountable? For what? And most important, to whom?

That might be the case, if I wanted to completely ban contraception and not hold young men accountable for their role in the pregnancy. But neither is the case. I don't see abortion in general, or parental notification in particular, as an issue of making sure that all people who have sex receive some form of social opprobium. I see it as an issue of how you handle the consequences of sex, if and when they come.
You can see it any way you like. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and the effect of such laws are clear in their implementation. They are nothing but tools for attaching social opprobrium.

The bottom line difference between us is that I do not believe it is any business of yours how I handle the consequences of my sex life. Nothing you have said so far has in any way suggested that I might want your advice about it.

I've avoided this topic before, but I'm going to say this just so you know where I'm coming from:

I'm not so right-wing that I think contraception is of the devil, or that life always begins at conception, or that a cluster of growing cells has equal rights with a fully formed, autonomous human being. I just don't know.

But whatever is in there is potential human life, and as such still ranks a few steps above an unsightly wart.
You do not know, but you have apparently made up your mind anyway.

The decision to destroy it shouldn't be made just because "Mom might take away my BMW if she finds out". And I worry (though I would be pleased to find out otherwise) that THAT's the driving motive behind a lot of the anti-notification-in-any-forms crowd.
I agree with Entropic Creation that there are no words to express how profoundly and infuriatingly insulting this remark is to women of all ages.

One final point:

Other than a couple of core principles, my point of view on the topic of parental notification is slowly evolving--which is why it seems like I take conservative-talking-point positions and then abandon them when the going gets tough. Please don't assume I'm being weaselly or trollish--the fact is, to some extent, you've been changing my mind. :)
Excellent! I, for one, am now motivated to keep hammering away at you without mercy. ;)

This may come as a shock to you but young women like to have sex too – it is not entirely the guy’s responsibility. Why is the decision to have sex irresponsible? Why should his parents be notified? If a teenager is having sex, and the parents don’t have a clue, I do not think it the government’s duty to spy on teenagers to inform clueless parents.

I don't think the government has a responsibility to rat out horny young men to their parents. But once a pregnancy happens--as far as the young man's concerned, that's a potential claim on his financial earnings for the next eighteen years. As the legal guardians of a young man's financial estate, parents do need to be aware of this.

You seem to be operating from the position that sex is an evil thing and everyone should be forced to abstain until marriage (common problem among the ‘conservative’ type. I don’t blame you; it’s just how you were raised. ;) ).

I don't think it's evil--far from it, in point of fact. For religious and pragmatic reasons I do think it's best saved for marriage, but legally speaking . . . to each his own, as long as you aren't infringing on anyone else's interests.

This is obscenely insulting to girls who have to get abortions. I do not have words enough to properly express how incredibly insulting that statement is to anyone who has had to make that decision.

As I said, I'd be pleased to find that the situation is otherwise. A formative experience in my thinking on this was reading Sally Tisdale's essay, "We Do Abortions Here". That was some years ago, but Tisdale (a nurse in an abortion clinic) certainly didn't seem to portray the majority of her patients in the most sympathetic light. If it turns out that Tisdale was misstating the case, or if there's hard statistical evidence out there, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Now anecdotes are fairly meaningless, but let us use these situations anyway:
The first… well the nurse should have been fired at the least. Had the nurse not ratted her out, and the clinic would have had to inform the parents, it would have had the same result. This is an obvious case where these laws cause severe harm to the child.

Agreed, which is why I think blanket notification laws are a bad idea.

The second was a great situation; she had good parents, and some good friends, even a friendly non-parental adult to talk with confidentially. Parental notification was completely unnecessary because she came from a good situation.

Granted. But if you will permit me to say so, you (and several others here) almost seem to be hinting that a healthy relationship is predicated on a parents' having no strong convictions against either premarital sex or abortion. How would this situation have come out if, all other things being equal, your friend were aware that her parents a) would have pointedly told her that her behavior had been wrong, even while treating her otherwise with similar love and compassion, and b) were strongly against an abortion in this circumstance, perhaps to the extent that they would not have paid for it?

The third is a good example of how these laws ruin lives – had she been able to keep this from her parents she would have gone off to college and had a life. While she could have chosen to just walk away from her family, but she did not see that as a viable option.

There would be a couple of ways to get a different outcome in this situation while preserving some form of parental notification law.
1) Make it so that only one parent needs to be notified (if the mom really was OK with it).
2) Streamlining the process for allowing judicial oversight in situations like this (and having the judicial record subsequently sealed).
3) Empahsize the existence of women's shelters in middle and high school health classes, so that these young women know that they can get away from parents who are genuinely sociopaths.

I'm not sure what I think about the whole "shut in" thing--sounds like something I might do as a father for the first couple of months, but not in perpetuity like happened to your friend--but one thing you said bothered me. You mention that your friend could have gone off to college had she been able to conceal this from her parents. So, was there some kind of understanding there that they would continue to financially support her as long as she remained a virgin? And if she (at least, after the age of 18 when she has no legal claim on her parents' resources) continued to take their support (college tuition or whatever) even though she was not living up to the conditions they had imposed, that's beginning to smack of fraud--family relationship or not.

Even fundamentalist Christians don't deserve to be defrauded. (Well, OK, a lot of them do--but not by their own kids. ;))

[quote]The vast majority of abortions are not taken lightly. . . [QUOTE]

I hope not. Again, I'm going primarily by Tisdale's essay--feel free to debunk any conclusions drawn therefrom.

[quote]. . . and a teenager is more likely to be better able to assess the situation than parents so out of touch they need the government to force the child to seek their consent.[/

There are a lot of factors to consider in choosing what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.

In terms of emotion, yes, the teenager has a better grip on that situation.

In terms of medical knowledge, career planning, finance, child-rearing, access to sound legal advice, general experience with the world, and (some would say) cognitive ability, parents are typically in a far stronger situation. Not necessarily strong enough that their consent should be required (Haven't made up my mind about that one). But enough that, barring extraordinary factors, they should at least have the option to offer advice.

Again, you refuse to consider the harsh realities of family abuse and violence. You refuse to consider the possibility that if a girl feels she cannot confide in her parents, she may have very good reason for that.

It's not that I don't consider it. I just (ulp!) trust the judiciary to generally make the correct decision, and I expect people in abusive situations to seek help.

You refuse to consider that notification laws will never be an issue for families that do not have such potentially dangerous problems already.

I've considered it. And I reject it.

And finally, you continue to refuse to consider that none of this is any of the government's business.

Not the government's, no. But the parents', yes.

Oh, so there are circumstances under which you think people should not be permitted to use contraception?

None that I can think of off-hand; I just haven't really thought about it that much.

Tell me, is there any area of human life that you don't want to see the government control?

It's not about government control; it's about parental control.

You consider abortion a loophole for escaping accountability?

I should not have said "escape"--obviously, there are still physical, emotional, and perhaps financial repercussions.

But for "minimizing" accountability: yes.

Second, you have not answered my questions: How are sex and pregnancy matters to which accountability attaches?

Sex gets people pregnant, which usually results in the inconvenience and financial loss of other people. Disobedience to parents warrants accountability in any circumstance where abuse is not a factor--not always punishment, but definitely an accounting and explanation of one's actions.

Who should be held accountable?

The prospective parents.

For what?

For the medical expenses of the pregnancy, and for having disregarded their parents' counsel.

And most important, to whom?

To each other, to whoever pays their medical expenses, and to their own families.

You can see it any way you like. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and the effect of such laws are clear in their implementation. They are nothing but tools for attaching social opprobrium.

How is the notification of either one or two parents equivalent to forcing a woman to wear a scarlet letter on her clothing until death?

The bottom line difference between us is that I do not believe it is any business of yours how I handle the consequences of my sex life.

Believe it or not, I don't support parental notification laws because I think they'll make people have less sex. I support them because I think parents have a right to be involved in their kids' lives.

I don't see people complaining about the horrific abuse heaped upon teenagers when their parents find out they've been arrested. Or have been disciplined for misconduct at school. Or have gone to the emergency room after jumping out of a tree and breaking their arm.

Why is pregnancy any different?

Excellent! I, for one, am now motivated to keep hammering away at you without mercy

Pray continue. You've made me think harder about this issue than I have in a long time.

<snip>
As I said, I'd be pleased to find that the situation is otherwise. A formative experience in my thinking on this was reading Sally Tisdale's essay, "We Do Abortions Here". That was some years ago, but Tisdale (a nurse in an abortion clinic) certainly didn't seem to portray the majority of her patients in the most sympathetic light. If it turns out that Tisdale was misstating the case, or if there's hard statistical evidence out there, I'd be interested in seeing it.
<snip>
Since you are open to reviewing your own thinking by comparing it to other opinions and to reality, don't you think there might be a little problem with basing your opinion about such an important and divisive issue on just one opinionated essay? If you are interested, don't take other people's word for things. Do your own research. Look up data from the AMA, the WHO, the NIH and other medical experts and public health agencies. Read their data, and look up the notes of where they got their information from for yet more information. You will not find it difficult to find information that contradicts the negative attitudes expressed in one person's essay.

The fact is that half or more of abortions are performed on married women who already have children. Many abortions are associated with failed contraception, which belies the assertion that sex is being had irresponsibly. Women do not make the decision lightly. Usually, they agonize for days about one of the least pleasant decisions they will ever be called on to make (right up there with having to manage the end of a parent's life). Yes, teens, lacking life experience, are at risk of pregnancy from failure to use contraception at all, but stastics show that teens respond very well to proper and complete sex education, including information about safe sex and contraception. Given information and access to contraception, they will make sound sex decisions. (Of all sex-related problems, teen pregnancy is one of the most easily fixed -- but also one of the most easily caused, with lack of education and repressive policies.) I have never, ever heard of any teen girl who went about having unprotected sex willy-nilly and then casually aborting to avoid being denied a BMW. I have heard girls in such a situation mention their fear of what their parents would do to them, ranging from realistic fears to just childish hyperbole, but in my experience, this is just emotional venting around the deeper issues of whether or not to give birth that these girls are really struggling with. They do not take it any more lightly than older women do, and they tend to beat themselves up terribly for having made a stupid mistake.

Since you are open to reviewing your own thinking by comparing it to other opinions and to reality, don't you think there might be a little problem with basing your opinion about such an important and divisive issue on just one opinionated essay? If you are interested, don't take other people's word for things. Do your own research. Look up data from the AMA, the WHO, the NIH and other medical experts and public health agencies. Read their data, and look up the notes of where they got their information from for yet more information. You will not find it difficult to find information that contradicts the negative attitudes expressed in one person's essay.

I will do so, and appreciate the suggestions. Any specific links will be appreciated, also--especially to sites with statistics dealing specifically with young women who concealed their abortions from their parents.

Thanks again!

You did not cover some of my initial questions:
1)Why does the responsibility to pay for any medical treatment of the girl fall wholly on the guy?
2)Why is anyone who has sex irresponsible? (I also note that you said that the guy was making an irresponsible decision – do you think the girl has no choice, is not capable of a decision and is thus not culpable, or just that a girl deciding to have sex is not irresponsible while a guy making that decision is? – and to the point of going to jail)

I will give you that it is a financial claim upon the guy and thus those that are financially responsible for the guy in question will need be informed – but only if and when the child is or is soon to be born. The parents of the father have no say in the matter nor the right to violate the girl’s right to privacy.

As I said, I'd be pleased to find that the situation is otherwise. A formative experience in my thinking on this was reading Sally Tisdale's essay, "We Do Abortions Here". That was some years ago, but Tisdale (a nurse in an abortion clinic) certainly didn't seem to portray the majority of her patients in the most sympathetic light. If it turns out that Tisdale was misstating the case, or if there's hard statistical evidence out there, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Basing your views on a single book (not even an academic source but one person’s narrative) from 1987 is not exactly taking an open minded look at the issue. Look around and you will find a range of views and completely different experiences. Go down to the local planned parenthood and ask the people there what they think. I will guarantee you that the majority are not getting abortions so they can keep their BMW (like really… how many teenage girls do you think even have BMWs? Much less would be so shallow as to base the decision on keeping said car)

Granted. But if you will permit me to say so, you (and several others here) almost seem to be hinting that a healthy relationship is predicated on a parents' having no strong convictions against either premarital sex or abortion. How would this situation have come out if, all other things being equal, your friend were aware that her parents a) would have pointedly told her that her behavior had been wrong, even while treating her otherwise with similar love and compassion, and b) were strongly against an abortion in this circumstance, perhaps to the extent that they would not have paid for it?

I do not say it is a good relationship because the parents had no opinion on premarital sex or abortions, and just because they did not scream at her for being a harlot and beat her does not mean they did not have an opinion on the issue. They had a good relationship because she could talk to her parents and they would listen and be compassionate rather than throw a bible at her. You seem to have the impression that unless parents do yell and scream at their kids that they condone and support their behavior. If someone makes a mistake, the compassionate (even the Christian) thing to do is to try to be understanding and not to beat them for making a mistake. Her parents in no way encouraged her to have sex nor did they encourage an abortion. I happen to think the whole getting pregnant thing might do it as far as her knowing that there are consequences, she did not need her parents to scream at her about it – people are smart enough to figure it out on their own. They also figured that it was her decision and that they would let her choose, rather than say ‘if you get an abortion you will burn in hell you evil slut’, which might not exactly be a loving and supportive thing to say.


There would be a couple of ways to get a different outcome in this situation while preserving some form of parental notification law.
1) Make it so that only one parent needs to be notified
2) Streamlining the process for allowing judicial oversight in situations like this (and having the judicial record subsequently sealed).
3) Empahsize the existence of women's shelters in middle and high school health classes, so that these young women know that they can get away from parents who are genuinely sociopaths.

1) What if neither parent was loving and supporting?
2) Judicial oversight? Do you honestly think that most teenagers are really going to feel comfortable going to the court system, having to publicly declare their parents to be abusive, and then get evidence to show such abuse (which of course the parents would have the right to appeal – so there goes the whole concept of protecting the child)?
3)so they run off to a shelter… then what? They get to live at the shelter until they are 18? They stay there until they have to go through the process to get emancipated? They have to go through CPS to get their parents declared unfit and then get shoved into the foster care system? All because their parents, who might otherwise be decent parents, are so strongly against premarital sex?




You mention that your friend could have gone off to college had she been able to conceal this from her parents. So, was there some kind of understanding there that they would continue to financially support her as long as she remained a virgin?

Her father was very traditionalist Chinese, where by she is little better than a servant or property until the parents find her a husband. He simply expected her to live as such. While I do not support deceiving those who support you, I happen to think this is an area and an instance where it is acceptable. I hardly think this constitutes fraud.

In terms of medical knowledge, career planning, finance, child-rearing, access to sound legal advice, general experience with the world, and (some would say) cognitive ability, parents are typically in a far stronger situation. Not necessarily strong enough that their consent should be required (Haven't made up my mind about that one). But enough that, barring extraordinary factors, they should at least have the option to offer advice.


Simply by having reproduced does not make someone any more capable than a teenager. When you get into the realm of legal requirements, you cannot say ‘well in general it is a good idea’.

If the parents and child have a good relationship, then the child will go to them for advice. While you may not support needing their consent for the operation, informing them has largely the same effect as parents do have many ways of controlling their children. Case in point is my friend who was severely beaten when her father found out – that did not take consent, merely being informed.

It's not that I don't consider it. I just (ulp!) trust the judiciary to generally make the correct decision, and I expect people in abusive situations to seek help.
And in this you think it is the role of the judiciary to approve everything people do?
You think some judge or government lawyer should be able to glance at a case and know better than the people involved what is the best decision?

It's not that I don't consider it. I just (ulp!) trust the judiciary to generally make the correct decision, and I expect people in abusive situations to seek help.
So, you like activist judges, then? Not much of a "conservative," are you? :p

What you expect of others is irrelevant. You are not the boss of them and don't get to dictate how they manage their lives.

I've considered it. And I reject it.
So you are deliberately choosing to ignore human suffering in order to promote your own agenda?

Not the government's, no. But the parents', yes.
Despite your attempt to "reject" it, you cannot avoid the fact that abusive parents do not and should not have a right to control their child's life. Unless you believe a parent should have the right to kill their child in recognition of some absolute authority?

None that I can think of off-hand; I just haven't really thought about it that much.
Well, considering that members of Congress are thinking about it, with the hope of severely restricting or even banning contraception, I suggest you start thinking about it.

It's not about government control; it's about parental control.
See my point about abusive parents, above.

I should not have said "escape"--obviously, there are still physical, emotional, and perhaps financial repercussions.

But for "minimizing" accountability: yes.

Sex gets people pregnant.

The prospective parents.

For the medical expenses of the pregnancy, and for having disregarded their parents' counsel.

To each other, to whoever pays their medical expenses, and to their own families.
And if ALL these affected parties agree to abort? What then?

And if, as in the bogus case of the OP article, the parent's counsel is to abort, but the child doesn't want to -- should she be forced to in order to obey her parent's counsel?

Who are the parent's accountable to for their decisions about their child's pregnancy?

Do you know what "accountability" is? It implies being answerable for wrongdoing. What is wrong about having sex and getting pregnant? I mean, morally wrong or legally wrong. What about it should require anyone to be "accountable" for it?

And since sex and pregnancy are not crimes, or misdeeds, or wrong acts, then why shouldn't people try to minimize the burdens or negativity of the outcomes? Do you hold with the biblical injunction that women should bear their children in pain and, thus, do you oppose allowing women to take painkilling medication during labor, since that would minimize a negative effect of pregnancy?

How about complications of pregnancy such as diabetes, dangerous blood pressure spikes, infection, hemorrhage, ectopic pregnancy, etc? Should women just be permitted to die of these things rather than try to minimize the negative effects of sex and pregnancy? Should there be no treatments for STDs since they are a possible negative effect of sex, if people are supposed to be held accountable for having sex? Should new parents be forced to pay full list price for baby furniture and baby clothes to stop them trying to minimize the financial burdens of sex and pregnancy?

Really, think before you say these things. The "Ignorant" in your name should be ironic, not descriptive.

How is the notification of either one or two parents equivalent to forcing a woman to wear a scarlet letter on her clothing until death?
You're being disingenuous. You know perfectly well that a national notification law, which would leave a child with no way to maintain her privacy in dealing with an unwanted pregnancy would put a black mark on her reputation by exposing her private business.

Look at how you yourself are carrying on about her not being allowed to escape or minimize "accountability" for her actions -- as if she has committed a crime. Having consensual sex is not a crime. Being the victim of rape is not a crime. Wanting to keep your private business private is not a crime. Wanting to choose whose advice you seek in life is not a crime.

But a law that would make parental notification mandatory in all cases would have the effect of treating girls as if they have done something wrong, something terrible, something shameful by accidentally becoming pregnant.

Believe it or not, I don't support parental notification laws because I think they'll make people have less sex. I support them because I think parents have a right to be involved in their kids' lives.
There is nothing stopping parents from being involved in their kids' lives. What you are really saying is that children should have no right to dis-involve their parents from any part of their lives, under any circumstances. But in the case of parental abuse -- which is the most likely case in which such laws would come into play -- there are compelling reasons why the parents should NOT be involved. Your wish to ignore such cases does not change the fact.

I don't see people complaining about the horrific abuse heaped upon teenagers when their parents find out they've been arrested. Or have been disciplined for misconduct at school. Or have gone to the emergency room after jumping out of a tree and breaking their arm.
Really? I have. Child abusers don't need much of an excuse. I have heard of kids being berated, beaten, kicked out of their houses, even sent to institutions for all kinds of minor infractions. And I have personal experience of friends who have suffered such treatment, who would show up at my house in the night, looking for a place to sleep because their parents had kicked them out for three days because they didn't like the way the kid ate her soup that one night. Friends who would ask my mother for sex advice because they were terrified of being beaten by their parents for even mentioning it. One friend who suffered years of emotional and physical abuse, until his mother finally threw him out of the house altogether, when he was 17. Other people had to go and get his possessions from the house, and he ended up being taken in by distant relatives in another state. It was the best thing that bitch, his mother, ever did to him. Guess what? He and his sister (who had significant emotional problems, btw) never consulted her about their sex decisions. Should they have? Did she have a right to be involved with their lives, which she had worked so hard to ruin?

Why is pregnancy any different?
It's not different. Your assertion that kids don't suffer as a result of non-sexual issues is incorrect.

While you're looking up abortion facts, why don't you go look up some general child abuse statistics, too? It'll be an eye-opener, trust me.

Pray continue. You've made me think harder about this issue than I have in a long time.
This is all I'm going to give you for tonight. I'm hungry, and it's so hot, I really need to stop being near this hot, plastic computer. I think I'll take a second shower and then make a nice chilled salad for dinner.

OK, I had a point-by-point response but then punched the wrong key and lost it all, so I'm just going to quickly rehash them and only directly address a couple of quotes:****

First off, let me be clear: I DO NOT SUPPORT A BLANKET REQUIREMENT FOR PARENTAL NOTIFICATION. :headbang: I support an exception for abusive situations, either by going through the judicial system or going to a women's shelter with personnel who are specifically trained to handle the situation sensitively. Uncomfortable for the girl? Maybe, but then, I would think going into a medical clinic would be as well.

Second: CONSENT and NOTIFICATION are not the same..

Third: I do believe that it is very much in the judicial interest to consider cases of abuse.

And if ALL these affected parties agree to abort? What then?

Then the abortion would happen.

Do you know what "accountability" is? It implies being answerable for wrongdoing.

But who defines "wrongdoing"? You seem to want to deny parents this right.

How about complications of pregnancy . . .

How about them? I don't see how they bear on the topic of parental notification.

Re the young woman's "reputation": It may get out, if the parent happens to be the type that likes to broadcast the misdeeds of their kids far and wide. (I've met some of those--not many, but a few). But still, I find a bit of irony in anyone engaging in deceit in order to protect their reputation.

What you are really saying is that children should have no right to dis-involve their parents from any part of their lives, under any circumstances.

Barring abuse, yes, I guess I am.

Your assertion that kids don't suffer as a result of non-sexual issues is incorrect.

I don't believe I asserted that they don't suffer. My point was that there is not a major group of people using this as a rationale for allowing minors to conceal significant and potentially embarassing academic, legal, or medical events from their parents.

Go down to the local planned parenthood and ask the people there what they think. I will guarantee you that the majority are not getting abortions so they can keep their BMW (like really… how many teenage girls do you think even have BMWs?

Haven't done that. I did look up this site (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html)--I'd be interested to get some feedback.

Not exactly the statistic I was looking for, but I was interested that according to that site, fully 25% of women surveyed listed one reason (not the major reason, granted, but "a reason") that they had an abortion that year was "doesn't want others to know she had relations or is pregnant ". Incest was less than one half of one percent.

How often does the term "others" mean "parents", and how many of those respondents were minors? It would have been interesting to see how things would have shaken out if the "unready" and "too immature/young" responses were taken away, but I guess I'll have to keep looking for some more specific numbers.

You seem to have the impression that unless parents do yell and scream at their kids that they condone and support their behavior

"Pointedly tell" does not equal "yell and scream".

Simply by having reproduced does not make someone any more capable than a teenager.

No. But having lived an additional 15-20 years at least? Yeah.

****EDIT: OK, actually it turned out to be pretty long-winded after all. Sorry.

There may or may not be merit to that attitude, but it is the one the law currently espouses.

No, it isn't. The law has recognized for quite some time now that a teenager has more legal rights than, say, an 8-year old. The law does have some arbitrary age points, but it does recognize that a teenager is becoming an adult, and treats some minors differently than others.

I acknowledge that it's possible for a parent to spend, say, thirteen or fourteen years raising a child and never becoming abusive, but always having that as a looming threat. But I don't think it's likely. And as I said before, I prefer policies crafted around more likely situations, with exceptions carved out for the less-likely ones, rather than the other way around.

Once again, you ignore the situations that don't involve outright abuse, but are dangerous situations. Why is that? Do you have no answer to them?

So, any relationship where a teenager conceals any bad decision from their parents is inherently unhealthy? Or just relationships where parents openly condemn premarital sex?

No, any relationship in which a teenager does not feel that they *can* speak to their parents about such a decision is inherently unhealthy.

Bottom line. This has nothing to do with protecting the emotions of a teenager, it has to do with the far left pro-abortion lobby losing a key fight.
I have worked in a hospital. Those doctors had to call up a kid's parents to treat a scrape from a bike accident. They had to inform the parents for any treatment or operation because the parent is the legal guardian of the child. A kid cannot even get a driving permit without parental notifacation. Yet the destruction of offspring can be done in secret in many states. Where do the people stand? Lets compare!
USA: 69% according to a recent gallup poll believe that parental consent should be the law for abortions on minors.....
this forum: 58% do not even believe the parents should have to be TOLD??
talk about bias and slanted debate. You guys make Fox news look even handed.

Bottom line. This has nothing to do with protecting the emotions of a teenager, it has to do with the far left pro-abortion lobby losing a key fight.
I have worked in a hospital. Those doctors had to call up a kid's parents to treat a scrape from a bike accident. They had to inform the parents for any treatment or operation because the parent is the legal guardian of the child. A kid cannot even get a driving permit without parental notifacation. Yet the destruction of offspring can be done in secret in many states. Where do the people stand? Lets compare!
USA: 69% according to a recent gallup poll believe that parental consent should be the law for abortions on minors.....
this forum: 58% do not even believe the parents should have to be TOLD??
talk about bias and slanted debate. You guys make Fox news look even handed.
Is everyone from this poll from the USA? No. If you want to use poll results to bitch about our leftie bias, find the same poll that tests the developed world. Then you would have a reason to bitch. You should take those bitchings to Beguatten; he will introduce you to the rightie bias on this forum.

Is everyone from this poll from the USA? No. If you want to use poll results to bitch about our leftie bias, find the same poll that tests the developed world. Then you would have a reason to bitch. You should take those bitchings to Beguatten; he will introduce you to the rightie bias on this forum.

yeah, registered american voters. You think there is a right wing bias on the forum? You must have been on a different one from me. I like how you ignored my point about parental notifacation being necessary for all treatment of minors. also, if a minor is pregnent rape has occured. No parental notifacation of that either???

yeah, registered american voters. You think there is a right wing bias on the forum? You must have been on a different one from me. I like how you ignored my point about parental notifacation being necessary for all treatment of minors. also, if a minor is pregnent rape has occured. No parental notifacation of that either???
I actually am undesided about the whole notify thing. While I can understand it is something the parent should know, there is probably something wrong with the parent/teen relationship if the teen feels they must hide it (ie. the parent my force the teen to act one way or another, further screwing up the teens life).

The Americocentralism is what annoyed me. So it is what I bitched about.

PS. I do not think there is a rightwing bias, Begautten does.

Is everyone from this poll from the USA? No. If you want to use poll results to bitch about our leftie bias, find the same poll that tests the developed world. Then you would have a reason to bitch. You should take those bitchings to Beguatten; he will introduce you to the rightie bias on this forum.

Even ignoring the polls, he's gotta point. Abortion is a major controversial issue in America, and yet parents don't have to be notified in some areas, when doctors have to notify parents, as he said, even for a simply scrape, as the parents are the legal guardians of the child.

It's common sense that the parents would have to be notified.

there is probably something wrong with the parent/teen relationship if the teen feels they must hide it (ie. the parent my force the teen to act one way or another, further screwing up the teens life).

I agree, there's a problem if the teen thinks they have to hide it.

I actually am undesided about the whole notify thing. While I can understand it is something the parent should know, there is probably something wrong with the parent/teen relationship if the teen feels they must hide it (ie. the parent my force the teen to act one way or another, further screwing up the teens life).

The Americocentralism is what annoyed me. So it is what I bitched about.

PS. I do not think there is a rightwing bias, Begautten does.

Yeah, I just think that it should not matter what medical procedure it is, the parent should always be notified as the parent is the legal guardian, relationship status level aside. Elective operations like abortion should have parental consent...like they all do...except abortion. Well, being that the topic of the thread is the recent law passed in the U.S. SENATE I thought we were discussing.....America?? (!)....sorry about the mistake I made on the bias comment....RE begautten

I agree, there's a problem if the teen thinks they have to hide it.

I teen is drunk and crashes a car and gets treated at the hospital. It is the law that the parent finds out. Is not an abortion slightly more serious?

I teen is drunk and crashes a car and gets treated at the hospital. It is the law that the parent finds out. Is not an abortion slightly more serious?

Same level, I'd say. I'm not saying they shouldn't be notified, I'm just saying that there might be a problem if the teen doesn't want to notify the parents.

I teen is drunk and crashes a car and gets treated at the hospital. It is the law that the parent finds out. Is not an abortion slightly more serious?Frankly, it isn't. Abortions are elective and relatively safe procedures. Car accidents are a bit more likely to turn out lethal. BUt thanks for the false comparison all the same.

And I said it before on another thread and I'll repeat it here--if your country's namesake were alive today, he'd bitchslap you for treating his memory so shamefully.

Yeah, I just think that it should not matter what medical procedure it is, the parent should always be notified as the parent is the legal guardian, relationship status level aside. Elective operations like abortion should have parental consent...like they all do...except abortion.
I've seen enough threads about parental liscences to question the ability of all parents, even Smunkeeville.

Well, being that the topic of the thread is the recent law passed in the U.S. SENATE I thought we were discussing.....America?? (!)
Now that is a valid point, but many here just don't care.

Same level, I'd say. I'm not saying they shouldn't be notified, I'm just saying that there might be a problem if the teen doesn't want to notify the parents.

A problem with notifying them anyway or a problem of communication between parent and kid?

Frankly, it isn't. Abortions are elective and relatively safe procedures. Car accidents are a bit more likely to turn out lethal. BUt thanks for the false comparison all the same.

And I said it before on another thread and I'll repeat it here--if your country's namesake were alive today, he'd bitchslap you for treating his memory so shamefully.

My analogy was that of a scrape...not a death........no false comparison. Barry Goldwater is not the issue here. Not telling parents when the child that they have custody of his raped and has a medical procedure that destroys human offspring is.

A problem with notifying them anyway or a problem of communication between parent and kid?

Latter.

I've seen enough threads about parental liscences to question the ability of all parents, even Smunkeeville.

Now, brace yourself and don't call me an idiot, it's a serious question. Are you a true, full Marxist-blooded By-the-Manefesto Communist? 'cause Marx advocated the destruction of the family, and it seems you may be going down that path.

Just a question.

Latter.

.

gotcha. Excellent point.:p

Now, brace yourself and don't call me an idiot, it's a serious question. Are you a true, full Marxist-blooded By-the-Manefesto Communist? 'cause Marx advocated the destruction of the family, and it seems you may be going down that path.

Just a question.
Not anymore. I am more liberal socially. Economically, I am a total crack-pot, but not a commie-crackpot.

thought you all might find this interesting...

http://www.answers.com/topic/usminorabortionlawsmap-png

for every other elective surgery on a minor, or rape of a minor, all 50 would have notifacation of guardians....

thought you all might find this interesting...

http://www.answers.com/topic/usminorabortionlawsmap-png

for every other elective surgery on a minor, or rape of a minor, all 50 would have notifacation of guardians....
Stupid pic doesn't fit.

Stupid pic doesn't fit.
in what?

in what?
The frame or whatever. Alaska, and the legand get cut off.

The frame or whatever. Alaska, and the legand get cut off.
Looks like a DIV area if I had to guess the png itself is full just the window

The frame or whatever. Alaska, and the legand get cut off.
Here: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/gfx/maps/parental-consent.jpg

Remember...for any other elective surgery both parents/guardians must be in agreement. Both parents/guardians must be informed of a rape.

yeah, registered american voters. You think there is a right wing bias on the forum? You must have been on a different one from me. I like how you ignored my point about parental notifacation being necessary for all treatment of minors. also, if a minor is pregnent rape has occured. No parental notifacation of that either???

And yet, even in the US, parental notification is not necessary for all treatment of minors. In fact, it is generally illegal for a doctor to tell a minor's parent that she is pregnant without her permission. A young girl can go to Planned Parenthood and get a pelvic exam, be treated for an STD, receive the birth control or morning after pill, and even receive prenatal care without parental notification or permission. In the realm of reproductive issues, abortion is actually the only thing that minors generally have to go to their parents about.

Meanwhile, if two 15-year olds are dating and they have sex, would you really call that rape? Who raped whom?

Meanwhile, if two 15-year olds are dating and they have sex, would you really call that rape? Who raped whom?
That's not the point that was raised...but of course addressing the fact that, under your ideal legislation, a teenage girl who was raped and impregnated could get an abortion and never inform her parents of the rape, would sort of start to make parental notification laws look like a good idea, and that wouldn't serve your agenda...

That's not the point that was raised...but of course addressing the fact that, under your ideal legislation, a teenage girl who was raped and impregnated could get an abortion and never inform her parents of the rape, would sort of start to make parental notification laws look like a good idea, and that wouldn't serve your agenda...

A teenage girl who was raped would have nothing to fear from telling her parents, unless they were of a culture in which a woman is blamed for being raped and considered worthless afterwards.

Once again, you seem to have this idea that a teen is never going to discuss these things with parents. In truth, the only reason she would not is if she fears doing so. And she is only going to fear doing so if her relationship with them is already unhealthy.

A teenage girl who was raped would have nothing to fear from telling her parents, unless they were of a culture in which a woman is blamed for being raped and considered worthless afterwards.

Once again, you seem to have this idea that a teen is never going to discuss these things with parents. In truth, the only reason she would not is if she fears doing so. And she is only going to fear doing so if her relationship with them is already unhealthy.
Indeed. Parental notification laws are not going to create good parent-child relationships where they do not already exist.

Indeed. Parental notification laws are not going to create good parent-child relationships where they do not already exist.

The girl might have willingly engaged in sexual relations, got preganant, and is worried about her parents being upset. Not necessarily abusive, just upset, that they might punish her in some way. I know that if I was a father and my daughter had sex and got preagnant, I'd be pissed.

disappointment/punishment =/= abuse

The girl might have willingly engaged in sexual relations, got preganant, and is worried about her parents being upset. Not necessarily abusive, just upset, that they might punish her in some way. I know that if I was a father and my daughter had sex and got preagnant, I'd be pissed.

disappointment/punishment =/= abuse
If, as a parent, your first reaction to your daughter's unplanned pregnancy would be to get pissed or to punish her, then she's better off dealing with it first and telling you about it later. Your feelings are totally and completely 100% irrelevant in that situation, and if you cannot deal with that then she would be wise to not bring you into the situation in the first place.

A teenage girl who was raped would have nothing to fear from telling her parents, unless they were of a culture in which a woman is blamed for being raped and considered worthless afterwards.

Once again, you seem to have this idea that a teen is never going to discuss these things with parents. In truth, the only reason she would not is if she fears doing so. And she is only going to fear doing so if her relationship with them is already unhealthy.
Are you aware that many victims of rape tell no one about it, including their own parents?

EDIT: In fact, 29% of teenage females do not tell anyone about the rape.
http://www.rainn.org/statistics/reporting-rape.html

The girl might have willingly engaged in sexual relations, got preganant, and is worried about her parents being upset. Not necessarily abusive, just upset, that they might punish her in some way. I know that if I was a father and my daughter had sex and got preagnant, I'd be pissed.

disappointment/punishment =/= abuse

Disappointment is not abuse. I know that, if I had become sexually active at a young age and gotten pregnant, my mother would hvae been disappointed. However, she would not have jumped to throw me out of the house or condemn me. She would have been supportive of me, given me advice, and been a part of the solution to the situation. And because I knew that, I would have gone to her in that situation, just as I went to her whenever I was in a difficult situation.

ILS seems to think that when we talk about parents who have a good relationship with their children, we are talking about parents who are like, "Oh yeah, go out and have lots and lots of sex!" We are not. A parent can feel that their teen should not have sex and can advise against it, but can still be supportive in the even that the teen chooses to do so otherwise.

Are you aware that many victims of rape tell no one about it, including their own parents?

EDIT: In fact, 29% of teenage females do not tell anyone about the rape.
http://www.rainn.org/statistics/reporting-rape.html

If a pregnancy results, you aren't really going to get away with not telling anyone, now are you?

Meanwhile, I don't buy that many people tell "no one." Most of us have at least one confidant that we tell nearly everything to. Many women do not tell the authorities, or anyone in a position to do so.

Besides, if they tell no one - how do you get the statistics?

If a pregnancy results, you aren't really going to get away with not telling anyone, now are you?
If you can get an abortion without parental consent, then it's quite likely that the only people who will find out about it will be the medical professionals at the clinic.
Meanwhile, I don't buy that many people tell "no one." Most of us have at least one confidant that we tell nearly everything to. Many women do not tell the authorities, or anyone in a position to do so.
Besides, if they tell no one - how do you get the statistics?
Well, you'd have to take those matters up with the Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network...clearly they're not as credible as Planned Parenthood.

If you can get an abortion without parental consent, then it's quite likely that the only people who will find out about it will be the medical professionals at the clinic.

Not if the teen in question actually has a good relationship with her parents in the first place and does not feel that they will force the issue. If she does, she is most likely going to discuss her options with them.

Well, you'd have to take those matters up with the Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network...clearly they're not as credible as Planned Parenthood.

(a) I didn't see any survey with the numbers you quoted.
(b) Once again, I'll ask, how can they get these numbers if the person told no one of their rape?

Not if the teen in question actually has a good relationship with her parents in the first place and does not feel that they will force the issue. If she does, she is most likely going to discuss her options with them.

(a) I didn't see any survey with the numbers you quoted.
(b) Once again, I'll ask, how can they get these numbers if the person told no one of their rape?
I gave you a link...The organization isn't some right-wing conservative think tank either. But, if that's not good enough for you...
The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. U.S. Justice Department statistics are even lower, with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials.
Source: http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

Similar statistics can be found all over the web, including the other site I gave you. It's doubtful that, if approximately 40% of all rapes occur with people under the age of 18 (again, all over the web), that many of these girls are discussing the issue with their parents if the police report numbers are so low. Don't you think that the parents would be pretty quick to at least make a report?

The point isn't about how close the girl is to her parents. The fact is that many girls do not tell their parents about being raped. Allowing her to get an abortion without their consent allows for her to further coneal the rape from their knowledge, as well as the fact that, if she is pregnant, the rapist clearly didn't use protection.

If, as a parent, your first reaction to your daughter's unplanned pregnancy would be to get pissed or to punish her, then she's better off dealing with it first and telling you about it later.

I never said I'd carry out with that. Any parent with any sort of hope of raising their children with a good moral character would be angry. However, those parents exert self-control and vent that anger elsewhere. I never said I'd crack down on her, I said I'd be angry and disappointed. In fact, in my little paragraph, I mentioned nothing about punishment. I simply stated at the end that punishment =/= abuse.

Your feelings are totally and completely 100% irrelevant in that situation, and if you cannot deal with that then she would be wise to not bring you into the situation in the first place.

If the child is under my legal guardianship, then my feelings are quite relevant, both morally and legally.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/25/interstate.abortion.ap/index.html

So, let's not debate abortion here, pretty please. There are plenty of threads for that. This is more about the idea of an interstate parental notification law (which you can discuss whether you personally agree with abortion or not) and whether or not it is (a) necessary and (b) would prevent things like the case mentioned in the article.



Personally, I would say that such a law wouldn't have prevented this case at all. What the boyfriend's parents did is clearly kidnapping and/or false imprisonment - not to mention that the essentially forced her to have medical treatment that she did not want.

If they are willing to to to those lengths, I seriously doubt that an interstate parental notification law would have stopped them. The issue here seems to be one of kidnapping and forced abortion, not of whether or not the girl should have been required to get her parents' permission.

There are also other reasons that I don't necessarily think such a law is a good idea, particularly without the amendments the Democrats are trying to add, but we can get into those later. I figure we'll focus on this story first. =)


For every case like the above, there is one completely opposite, where the minor's parents are abusive and would throw her out on the streets simply for having sex. This law is going to fuck someone up the ass, and soon.

Disappointment is not abuse. I know that, if I had become sexually active at a young age and gotten pregnant, my mother would hvae been disappointed. However, she would not have jumped to throw me out of the house or condemn me. She would have been supportive of me, given me advice, and been a part of the solution to the situation. And because I knew that, I would have gone to her in that situation, just as I went to her whenever I was in a difficult situation.

Right, as most parents would be. However, in tight situations, some children may think that their parents would condemn/kick out of the house, etc, when they wouldn't, and keep it a secret, when in fact the parents getting involved would be quite helpful. This is why I support a parental notification law. Not only does it make legal sense, it makes common sense, too. Plus, if the parents are abusive, there can always be exceptions. But the possibility of rare cases should not be reason to stop a reasonable and good law from going into place.

ILS seems to think that when we talk about parents who have a good relationship with their children, we are talking about parents who are like, "Oh yeah, go out and have lots and lots of sex!" We are not. A parent can feel that their teen should not have sex and can advise against it, but can still be supportive in the even that the teen chooses to do so otherwise.

Well, it depends on what you mean by supportive, but I agree woth you mostly.


Jeez, I've been agreeing with a lot of sworn enemies lately. ;)

For every case like the above, there is one completely opposite, where the minor's parents are abusive and would throw her out on the streets simply for having sex. This law is going to fuck someone up the ass, and soon.

And such a situation can be fixed. Just because it's a law doesn't mean that there will not be any exceptions. There are always exceptions to the rules.

Right, as most parents would be. However, in tight situations, some children may think that their parents would condemn/kick out of the house, etc, when they wouldn't, and keep it a secret, when in fact the parents getting involved would be quite helpful. This is why I support a parental notification law. Not only does it make legal sense, it makes common sense, too. Plus, if the parents are abusive, there can always be exceptions. But the possibility of rare cases should not be reason to stop a reasonable and good law from going into place.



Well, it depends on what you mean by supportive, but I agree woth you mostly.


Jeez, I've been agreeing with a lot of sworn enemies lately. ;)



It's a pretty big assumption that most parents are logical, helpful, supportive people. Abuse easily goes unreported, whether it is physical or psychological.

If the child is under my legal guardianship, then my feelings are quite relevant, both morally and legally.
I concur. It is your responsibility on a number of different levels to take care of her and do what is best for her.

And such a situation can be fixed. Just because it's a law doesn't mean that there will not be any exceptions. There are always exceptions to the rules.

With the time it takes to prove, legally, that a parent/entire family is abusive, the pregnancy can very easily pass the legal limit for elective abortion, and even late first-trimester abortions can pose risks that an early first-trimester one doesnt.

It would make far more sense to place the age limit (rather than at 18) at the age of consent -- if the state deems one capable of consenting to sex, then the state should also deem one capable of making an informed decision about any results of sex.

I gave you a link...The organization isn't some right-wing conservative think tank either. But, if that's not good enough for you...

Your link took me to a front page with no statistics whatsoever. When I began to look around for statistics on the page, I didn't find the ones you quoted. If you want to link to something and make sure they see it, link to the actual statistics, rather than just a page for the organization.

Similar statistics can be found all over the web, including the other site I gave you. It's doubtful that, if approximately 40% of all rapes occur with people under the age of 18 (again, all over the web), that many of these girls are discussing the issue with their parents if the police report numbers are so low. Don't you think that the parents would be pretty quick to at least make a report?

Considering that most of those girls are raped by family members or close family friends? No, not really. I was sexually abused at a young age - and while it may not have been considered rape under the law at the time, it certainly would be by most questions used in these surveys. No police report was ever filed, although I was taken to the doctor. Why? It was a family member who promised he would never do it again.

About 3/4 of the women I know were sexually assaulted as young children or teens. Most were family members, friends, or neighboors. The parents generally knew about it, and often sought medical/psychological attention. I can't think of a single one in which a police report was filed.

Right, as most parents would be. However, in tight situations, some children may think that their parents would condemn/kick out of the house, etc, when they wouldn't, and keep it a secret, when in fact the parents getting involved would be quite helpful.

A teen is not going to think that they are going to be condemned/kicked out of the house if the parents have made an effort to ensure that their children can come to them with problems.

This is why I support a parental notification law. Not only does it make legal sense, it makes common sense, too. Plus, if the parents are abusive, there can always be exceptions. But the possibility of rare cases should not be reason to stop a reasonable and good law from going into place.

I don't think these cases are as rare as you might think.

Well, it depends on what you mean by supportive, but I agree woth you mostly.

I mean supportive. A person in a difficult situation needs emotional support. And a young girl who has to make such a decision needs those around her to support her in it, even if they disagree.

In my case, had I gotten pregnant as a minor (or even an undergrad college student), I know that my mother would have immediately advised in favor of an abortion. I would have disagreed. She would not, however, have forced me to have one or even greatly pressured me. She would have explained her reasoning, and I would have explained why I disagreed. But in the end, it would have been my decision to make.

Jeez, I've been agreeing with a lot of sworn enemies lately. ;)

I'm a sworn enemy? Really?

By the way, VP and Derscon, do either of you have a problem with the fact that a young girl can have a pelvic exam and get birth control pills without parental notification or consent? That she or a young boy can receive sexual counseling without her parents knowing? That she can be treated for an STD or receive prenatal care without them knowing?

Or is it just abortion that gets your hackles up?

My analogy was that of a scrape...not a death........no false comparison. Barry Goldwater is not the issue here. Not telling parents when the child that they have custody of his raped and has a medical procedure that destroys human offspring is.
Your analogy was crap, as are most of your arguments. You simply said treatment for a car accident as opposed to elective surgery, and given that comparison, the elective surgery is of much lower concern.

Something else for you to consider--in some of these cases, where a minor is attempting to get an abortion without parental knowledge or consent, there's a very good reason for it. The father of the fetus is either the father or a male relative of the pregnant girl. Still want to make that kid go before a potentially hostile judge and explain why she ought to be allowed to have an abortion? And worse, do you want to subject that kid to being denied permission and having to raise that child? What kind of monster are you?

By the way, VP and Derscon, do either of you have a problem with the fact that a young girl can have a pelvic exam and get birth control pills without parental notification or consent? That she or a young boy can receive sexual counseling without her parents knowing? That she can be treated for an STD or receive prenatal care without them knowing?

Yes, I do have a problem with that. I believe the parents should have control over such things, as the children are under the moral and legal stewardship of said parents.



Even if the family isn't the greatest, I cannot support legislation that would further devalue and degrade the family. I believe society needs to place more emphasis on the good of the family, of a strong, self-supporting family. I honestly doubt we'd be having much of these problems had we had that strong moral and constructive fiber of the family.

And Nazz, giving birth to a child doesn't necessarily mean you have to raise it. There's always adoption. I'd know -- I was adopted. :)

And Dempublicents1, you're not a sworn enemy, no, we just rarely agree. :D

Yes, I do have a problem with that. I believe the parents should have control over such things, as the children are under the moral and legal stewardship of said parents.



Even if the family isn't the greatest, I cannot support legislation that would further devalue and degrade the family. I believe society needs to place more emphasis on the good of the family, of a strong, self-supporting family. I honestly doubt we'd be having much of these problems had we had that strong moral and constructive fiber of the family.

The family, the family, always the family. What's so damn good about the family?

Yes, I do have a problem with that. I believe the parents should have control over such things, as the children are under the moral and legal stewardship of said parents.



Even if the family isn't the greatest, I cannot support legislation that would further devalue and degrade the family. I believe society needs to place more emphasis on the good of the family, of a strong, self-supporting family. I honestly doubt we'd be having much of these problems had we had that strong moral and constructive fiber of the family.

And Nazz, giving birth to a child doesn't necessarily mean you have to raise it. There's always adoption. I'd know -- I was adopted. :)

And Dempublicents1, you're not a sworn enemy, no, we just rarely agree. :DYou're still forcing a person to birth that child, presumably against her will. That's still a monstrous thing to do, in my opinion.

Yes, I do have a problem with that. I believe the parents should have control over such things, as the children are under the moral and legal stewardship of said parents.

Even if the family isn't the greatest, I cannot support legislation that would further devalue and degrade the family. I believe society needs to place more emphasis on the good of the family, of a strong, self-supporting family. I honestly doubt we'd be having much of these problems had we had that strong moral and constructive fiber of the family.

The problem with this is that having this legislation isn't going to strengthen any families. If anything, it will only ensure that young women do not get the medical treatment they need, because those who are afraid of their parents are most likely going to forego treatment altogether rather than go to them.

Legislation isn't going to create strong families. Only the families themselves can do that. And if they do that, this legislation will be completely unnecessary anyways.

And Nazz, giving birth to a child doesn't necessarily mean you have to raise it. There's always adoption. I'd know -- I was adopted. :)

And giving a child up for adoption comes with its own set of emotional hangups. Once again, shouldn't it be the choice of the person who has to live with whatever they do for the rest of their life?

The problem with this is that having this legislation isn't going to strengthen any families. If anything, it will only ensure that young women do not get the medical treatment they need, because those who are afraid of their parents are most likely going to forego treatment altogether rather than go to them.

No, it won't; however, bypassing the parents serves to weaken it.

Legislation isn't going to create strong families. Only the families themselves can do that. And if they do that, this legislation will be completely unnecessary anyways.

I know. :(

And giving a child up for adoption comes with its own set of emotional hangups. Once again, shouldn't it be the choice of the person who has to live with whatever they do for the rest of their life?

Mostly I would agree, but I am against abortion, and that's something we're just going to have to agree to disagree on.

No, it won't; however, bypassing the parents serves to weaken it.

I don't think so. It isn't going to weaken anything - because those who will use it are already in a weak family. And having the law, as you admit, won't strengthen anything.

Mostly I would agree, but I am against abortion, and that's something we're just going to have to agree to disagree on.

I'm against abortion too. We don't disagree on that. Perhaps what we do disagree on is whether or not our own personal viewpoints should be forced upon others.

I'm against abortion too. We don't disagree on that. Perhaps what we do disagree on is whether or not our own personal viewpoints should be forced upon others.

Well, I believe abortion is murder. I don't believe people should be murdered. Frankly, I don't see how that's a bad thing to "force" upon people.

Although, to be honest, for the most part I agree with you on not forcing things upon other people, but there's a point where such "forcing" is going to happen anyways, or you'll have a lawless society.

See, I don't mind "forcing" certain things on people (for the record, religion is not one of those things I'd advocate forcing upon, as I'm a Calvinist, and a human can't force Divine Election on another human :) ), because of the nationstate system the world has in place. Each nation has its set of values, and then people can group together as such.

In fact, that's why I like our federal system so much in the US. If people in Maine or Massachussets want something that people in Alabama or Texas don't, they can enact it in their states and not have to force their wants and wishes on others.

Well, I believe abortion is murder. I don't believe people should be murdered. Frankly, I don't see how that's a bad thing to "force" upon people.

Although, to be honest, for the most part I agree with you on not forcing things upon other people, but there's a point where such "forcing" is going to happen anyways, or you'll have a lawless society.

See, I don't mind "forcing" certain things on people (for the record, religion is not one of those things I'd advocate forcing upon, as I'm a Calvinist, and a human can't force Divine Election on another human :) ), because of the nationstate system the world has in place. Each nation has its set of values, and then people can group together as such.

In fact, that's why I like our federal system so much in the US. If people in Maine or Massachussets want something that people in Alabama or Texas don't, they can enact it in their states and not have to force their wants and wishes on others.
By characterizing abortion as murder -- and there are several basic problems with doing that -- you are necessarily characterizing the fetus as a person with rights. This necessarily treats the fetus inside the woman as a separate person from the woman. By saying that a woman should not be permitted to abort her pregnancy, you are necessarily giving the fetus-person rights that are superior to the woman's. According to you, the fetus's right to get born is greater than the woman's right to control who gets to use her body and for what purpose. In other words, a fetus has the right to take over control of a woman's body and use it for its own purposes, even against the woman's will. Also, considering the physical risks associated with pregnancy, you are saying that the fetus has the right to use the woman's body -- against her will -- even to the point of killing or permanently injuring her. And you are saying that the woman should have no right to defend herself against this, if it is against her will. By characterizing abortion as murder, you are saying that any time a pregnancy is aborted, it is murder, i.e. a crime, i.e. inexcusable and indefensible under any circumstances. Note: If a killing is justified, then it's not murder, so if all abortions are murder, then there can never be any justification for it. Thus, I would assume you think that rape victims should be forced to carry a resulting pregnancy, and that women who are in grave danger of death due to pregnancy complications or diseases such as cancer should also be forced to go through with the pregnancy, even if it leads to their own death.

This is the logical extension of the "abortion is murder" argument. It strips women of all right to control their own physical condition, and turns women into cattle whose bodies can be used by others and discarded when they're done.

It is also utterly irrelevant to the topic of this thread, if we read parental notification as being different from parental consent. Personally, I think that distinction is a boondoggle, meant to mislead the public as to the truth of the agenda behind it. The fact is, if the parents have no authority to block a minor girl from getting an abortion, then what is the point of requiring mandatory notification? If it's just a pro forma nod to their status as parents, then it can as easily come after the fact. Why does it have to be before the procedure is performed? The fact that you and others are so insistent on a parent's power to control what happens to a child shows that you actually are calling for mandatory parental consent, and simply choosing to ignore the harm that such a rule would cause to those children who are in abusive families. It seems you would rather see children be abused and see children giving birth to children than allow pregnant girls to abort their pregnancies.

Tell me, since you support forcing women to undergo pregnancy against their will, once you have parents firmly in control of their minor daughters, who will you put in firm control of adult women to make sure your moral concepts get forced on them too?

Tell me, since you support forcing women to undergo pregnancy against their will, once you have parents firmly in control of their minor daughters, who will you put in firm control of adult women to make sure your moral concepts get forced on them too?

I would point out that, by allowing a parent to make the choice, you are also advocating forced abortions. I don't think it is any more unusual for a girl to wish to carry to term, but her parents wish her to abort than it is for the situation to be the other way around. Derscon may think he is saving embryos and fetuses from being murdered by advocating a parental role, but he really isn't, as many parents will push for or attempt to force abortion as well.