78 replies to this topic

[Cait]

scherzo, on 30 September 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

Quote

As a public mental health issue, I can applaud this legislation, but I'm wondering why, if it is a de-bunked therapy, it isn't outlawed for adults as well.  I suppose the answer is, adults can do whatever they like [to themselves].

Baby steps. The thought police will seek their outright ban eventually if they haven't already. They're not really all that fond of individual choice as it turns out.

I'm torn between two ideas.  On the one hand, I can sympathize with the children who are forced to undergo therapy that 1]won't work and 2] denies them the right to be individuals with the freedom to choose.  I also recognize it is a hot issue and passions run strong...  The protection of minors is a compelling state interest. And, I believe conversion therapy is something no child should be exposed to.

Still, [and here is where I share your concern scherzo], I don't like parental right's being eroded even further. I'm of the opinion that the state has encroached on parental right's to the point that parents no longer can have much control over their own families and their children.  Some parents may be ignorant and even abusive, but a law that outlaw the choices of ALL parents is not a baby step in my opinion.  It's a giant step, and not for the good.  

I'm still outraged at the idea of minors being able to get an abortion without parental notification.  I understand the reasoning  that some parents are abusive   SOME parents are.  But to pass a law for ALL parents is just beyond the pale.  Every teenager is going to claim their parents are going to be upset at an abortion.  Why?  Because they are parents.  But only a few would be actually abusive.  A minor has to have parental permission to get him/her ears pierced, but for an abortion parents can be kept in the dark?  Seriously?  

And, I definitely would not like this to be outlawed for adults. Adults have the right to choose, even if that choice is only the product of denial and/or wishful thinking.  Let me be clear  I don't approve of any part of conversion therapy.  It's not a therapy, it's a brainwashing IMO, and does real and irreparable harm.  But, adults make bad decisions all the time regarding their health and well being.  Liquor, tobacco, bad diets, Cults, etc.. just to name a few?  None of these are illegal and they all do permanent harm.

Like I said, I'm torn between two competing interests.  The state encourages family values, intact families, and parental responsibility,  and yet dictates the terms of those values to some families.

[Nonny]

Cait, on 30 September 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

I'm still outraged at the idea of minors being able to get an abortion without parental notification.

Even when the father is the father?

[Cait]

Nonny, on 30 September 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Cait, on 30 September 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

I'm still outraged at the idea of minors being able to get an abortion without parental notification.

Even when the father is the father?

See. this is the kind of thing that those who support no parental notification always bring up.  So let me be clear, of course not.  There are always cases where the protection of the minor is paramount.  I'm not talking about the limited cases where parental abuse is in play.  

I'm talking about the 1000's of homes where no such abuse takes place, but where kids would be afraid to tell their parents just because ANY parent would be upset at a teen pregnancy.  Kids don't like to get in trouble.  Parents don't want their kid's life to be about sex and pregnancy.  Any parent that says different is high on something.

Those good parents, those parents who would wish for a different outcome, aren't notified either   What good does it do in a home for a parent to teach abstinence  or proper protection, etc, only to have a kid be able to get an abortion without ever consulting their parents?  What kind of control and responsibility can a parent exert under those circumstances?

This result is an unintended consequence of protecting those minors who do live in abusive conditions.  It's a consequence that limits the power of a parent to guide his or her own family, and increases the states power over parents   Do you know what happens?  Kids end up knowing that they can do whatever they want and never have to tell their parents.  They make decisions that no minor should make without the guidance of her parents. They begin to not listen to parents on other matters as well.  This law undermines the role of parents in general.  Something no one really wants, but something we got as a by-product.

Let me put it a little more viscerally, the thought of my daughter getting an abortion without me at her side is anathema to me.  The thought of my daughter having to make the choice alone, is anathema to me.  The thought of my daughter getting an abortion, and something going terribly wrong, her bleeding to death, and then being informed---is horrific.  How would you [generic you--not you personally Nonny] like to answer the door and have some policeman tell you your child died while having an abortion?

Kids will always be afraid to tell their parents.  It's the nature of kids Vs. parents.  But being afraid to tell you parents is a sight different than incest, and the law should recognize that imnsho.  

It's also a question of learning about consequences, which is a parental responsibility as well.  Girls that get pregnant need to learn about consequences, and like it or not, parental upset over a pregnancy is all about learning to face the consequences in life.  The state should not be legislating that lesson out of family dynamics  

They SHOULD address ways for children of abuse to get care and not suffer abuse at the hand of an abusive parent, but those cases are the exception -not the rule.  Most parents are not abusing their own children.  But the law protecting the few has a negative consequence on the many--parents lose control of guiding their own families.

[sierraleone]

Cait, on 30 September 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

scherzo, on 30 September 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

Quote

As a public mental health issue, I can applaud this legislation, but I'm wondering why, if it is a de-bunked therapy, it isn't outlawed for adults as well.  I suppose the answer is, adults can do whatever they like [to themselves].

Baby steps. The thought police will seek their outright ban eventually if they haven't already. They're not really all that fond of individual choice as it turns out.

I'm torn between two ideas.  On the one hand, I can sympathize with the children who are forced to undergo therapy that 1]won't work and 2] denies them the right to be individuals with the freedom to choose.  I also recognize it is a hot issue and passions run strong...  The protection of minors is a compelling state interest. And, I believe conversion therapy is something no child should be exposed to.

Still, [and here is where I share your concern scherzo], I don't like parental right's being eroded even further. I'm of the opinion that the state has encroached on parental right's to the point that parents no longer can have much control over their own families and their children.  Some parents may be ignorant and even abusive, but a law that outlaw the choices of ALL parents is not a baby step in my opinion.  It's a giant step, and not for the good.  

I'm still outraged at the idea of minors being able to get an abortion without parental notification.  I understand the reasoning  that some parents are abusive   SOME parents are.  But to pass a law for ALL parents is just beyond the pale.  Every teenager is going to claim their parents are going to be upset at an abortion.  Why?  Because they are parents.  But only a few would be actually abusive.  A minor has to have parental permission to get him/her ears pierced, but for an abortion parents can be kept in the dark?  Seriously?  

...

Like I said, I'm torn between two competing interests.  The state encourages family values, intact families, and parental responsibility,  and yet dictates the terms of those values to some families.

Parental notification I can understand, for most cases.

But unlike tattoos or piercing, a happening pregnancy can't wait until the teen is 18, so I can understand from that angle why laws on teen pregnancy and abortions are different from laws on teen's body art. And all arguments about that the pregnancy shouldn't have happened is kinda moot once it has happened. And it will, as long as birth control is not in the drinking water.

While I understand the desire for parental notification (and that the lack or present of parental notification laws do not protect teens from incest, or statutory rape), I don't believe in parental consent laws. Basically, because, if they can legally make a child of theirs *not* abort, why can't they legally make a child of theirs have an abortion, if they want, instead? I don't understand why such circumstances would be treated different... If a parent has legal say over their daughter so as to compel her to continue a pregnancy, why don't they have a legal say over their daughter as to compel her to end a pregnancy? Why do they have a say in one circumstance, but not another? And at what point does it get icky for people that parents have to give consent, as opposed to just notification (of which there is hopefully there is discussion of, preferably before, but during and after as well). Just as much as it gives me the willies if some governing body has the power to tell a grown woman that she is not allowed an abortion, and much continue her pregnancy (even with life/rape exceptions), it gives me the willies if a parent may get to tell their teen daughter that she has to continue her pregnancy (or, conversely, has to have an abortion). It gives me the willies, it just does. I imagine for a lot of parents, their teenager being pregnant (or getting someone else so), gives them the willies, understandably so. Of course, for most teens, that would probably give them the willies too (pregnancy), and having to talk to their parents about it.

Edited to add, as an afterthought: Is forced (non-medically indicated) body modification considered child abuse? Not even going to discuss male circumcision.... Parents are allowed to have their child's ears pierced when they are infants... can they also get them tattooed, or something similar, if they so desired? (of course, I imagine most wouldn't want to do so since their kids are not likely to stay still, if awake ).

Edited by sierraleone, 30 September 2012 - 08:00 PM.

[Nonny]

Cait, on 30 September 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Nonny, on 30 September 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Cait, on 30 September 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

I'm still outraged at the idea of minors being able to get an abortion without parental notification.

Even when the father is the father?

See. this is the kind of thing that those who support no parental notification always bring up.  So let me be clear, of course not.

Those of us have to, since nobody else does.  No matter how clear you are, plenty of others want to muddy the waters on this issue.  How many politicians, for instance, are running for office on the "no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother" platform these days?

I do not support parental notification because parental notification places vulnerable young girls at the mercy of their parents.  Too many have discovered the dangerously hard way just how lacking that mercy is.

[Cait]

Nonny, on 01 October 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

Cait, on 30 September 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Nonny, on 30 September 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Cait, on 30 September 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

I'm still outraged at the idea of minors being able to get an abortion without parental notification.

Even when the father is the father?

See. this is the kind of thing that those who support no parental notification always bring up.  So let me be clear, of course not.

I do not support parental notification because parental notification places vulnerable young girls at the mercy of their parents.  Too many have discovered the dangerously hard way just how lacking that mercy is.

I don't want to really get off track in my own thread, but this kind of statement bothers me a lot.  It is actually an incitement of most parents, instead of a few parents who are indeed abusive.  And, this is representative of the exact problem I have with the erosion of parental rights.  The underlying premise is that MOST parents are bad.  That the state must intervene on behalf of ALL children because most parents are abusive, incompetent or both.  

Yet, the state [and the media] will drone on and on about "Where were the parents?".  Well, you can't have it both ways.  Either parents have some control over the direction of their families [and the rules], and yes then guess what  kids will have to follow the rules and pretty much be upset a lot of the time.  That's part of growing up.  The most essential part of growing up is learning that the carefree days of youth fade away in place of a world that has rules.

Or, you have the state tell us day to day what kind of behavior and conduct it demands of parents who are just essential babysitting now for the state.  And, yes, I know that is an extreme statement, but that's how I see it.  It's one thing to protect abused children, it's quite another to give children essentially a free reign because parental control has been undermined by the state.

I believe every single one of these things is motivated by the "the state needs to protect" meme.  And, in many cases that is true. The state does need to have the power to step in when abuse occurs.  But a lot of kids who simply don't want to follow the rules in a GOOD home, now have the freedom to do as they please even if it is contrary to a parents wishes.

[Mikoto]

That's an interesting debate Cait, and while it is a little bit of a thread drift its an interesting school of thought.

My question is simply this. If the teenaged daughter desperately wants an abortion and the mother desperately wants her to carry the baby to term, do you feel the mother has the right to override what the daughter wants to do with her own body? Or vice versa I suppose.

Edited by Mikoto, 01 October 2012 - 01:45 PM.

[Cait]

Mikoto, on 01 October 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

That's an interesting debate Cait, and while it is a little bit of a thread drift its an interesting school of thought.

My question is simply this. If the teenaged daughter desperately wants an abortion and the mother desperately wants her to carry the baby to term, do you feel the mother has the right to override what the daughter wants to do with her own body? Or vice versa I suppose.

This is an interesting debate, but Miko, maybe we should split it off from the original.  It's really far afield and I'm the one that took it there.  Call it "Parental Notification re: Abortion"

My apologies to everyone.

You pose an interesting question.  I don't know the answer   I don't know the answer to the role reversal either.  What if the parents wanted her to have an abortion and she wanted to go through with the pregnancy?  

I'd mostly side with the pregnant teen.  I'm not for making any teen "have" to do whatever a parent tells her, especially when the consequences will be suffered by the girl, not so much the parents.  But, this is a different issue from parental notification imo.  At least with parental notification, it forces the discussion.  It might be a hard discussion, but it forces it to happen.

[Godeskian]

Cait, on 01 October 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

This is an interesting debate, but Miko, maybe we should split it off from the original.  It's really far afield and I'm the one that took it there.  Call it "Parental Notification re: Abortion"

I'd be interested in that as a separate discussion, mostly because I've developed very strong views regarding the overriding importance of talking about your problems to those who genuinely care about you, even if they sometimes suck at demonstrating that too you.

[Nonny]

Cait, on 01 October 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

At least with parental notification, it forces the discussion.  It might be a hard discussion, but it forces it to happen.

Not if the girl is thrown out, her parents' screaming insults ringing in her ears for the rest of her life.

[Mikoto]

There, if I've done this right and checked the right posts we should have a split topic for this.

Anyway, yes parental notification but without the ability to force the daughter to continue the pregnancy or abort either way is an interesting compromise but its still a bit of a sticky situation IMO. Parents exert a lot of pressure and influence over their children. I can see many cases where the parents would coerce the daughter to their views. "I'll kick you out if you don't bear this baby to term!" As one example.

[Nonny]

One of my  posts is still in the other thread.

[Nikcara]

I have mixed feelings about parental notification in abortion.  On one hand, yes, if a teen gets pregnant she should ideally talk to her parents about it and they should all figure out what should be done.  I think that most teens, when faced with something as enormous and potentially life-altering as pregnancy, will talk to their parents even if it will get them in trouble.  

Of course, the problem isn't with teens who have good or even decent relationships with their families, and it's impossible for a health care provider to know if the girl comes from a normal family or an abusive one.  I tend to err on the side of being afraid of the parents, but my views are strongly colored by my personal history.  

For example, when I was in highschool I was friends with a girl whose parents were controlling and abusive.  When she was 17 she had a pregnancy scare.  She was so terrified of the idea that her parents would find out and kill her and her boyfriend (not an exaggeration) that she started looking into how to perform one on herself, or where to obtain an illegal one.  Thankfully she wasn't pregnant, but parents like that could force a young woman to do much riskier things simply to avoid getting caught.

[Cait]

Mikoto, on 02 October 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

There, if I've done this right and checked the right posts we should have a split topic for this.

Anyway, yes parental notification but without the ability to force the daughter to continue the pregnancy or abort either way is an interesting compromise but its still a bit of a sticky situation IMO. Parents exert a lot of pressure and influence over their children. I can see many cases where the parents would coerce the daughter to their views. "I'll kick you out if you don't bear this baby to term!" As one example.

Well, ALL parents usually teach their children their views.  I'd not call it all coercion  but taken to an extreme, even taking your kids to church when they are young could be seen as coercion because they are not given a choice about what religion to believe.  Catholics baptize at birth.  Isn't that parents forcing their views on a child?

And, yes, parents would try and tell their kids what "they" think is the best way to go re: the pregnancy.  That's the whole point IMO.  Parents are there to guide and to actually help kids make decisions.  That's part of growing up.  That's part of being a parent.

A parent is not supposed to just provide room and board and let their kids figure it all out on their own.  A parent is supposed to be in control of the family.  It doesn't work well if the kids are in control, no matter how much kids think they can make their own decisions   Parents are there to exert some control, and yes, discipline.  Why?  Because it is a life skill to teach kids to accept consequences for their actions.  To be responsible,  and to face the results of what they do.  That's called growing up and being an adult.  Kids don't learn to be an adult by never having their parents exert any influence.

No parental notification removes the parent from one of the most important decisions anyone can make.  That's practically un-American in my view.  Parents, and the families they raise, are the bedrock of American culture [and I am talking about any family of any make-up].  And the state saying that a child [under 18] does not have to tell a parent when seeking an abortion is tantamount to telling a parent they are irrelevant, AND it tells kids exactly that.  That the parents have no real control over them.  How do you exert any parental control over your kids if they know they can do whatever they like, get pregnant, and never have to face their parents at all?  The assumption here is that parents are bad, and kids are good.  But the actual result is to put kids in charge of their families and reduce parents to babysitters for the state.

As I've said, I think the left was trying to protect teenage girls from REAL abuse in the homes that could come from such a notification.  I understand that.  BUT, there has been a terrible unintended consequence because of that goal.  Parents have been removed from making decisions for their own children.  All parents have been removed, not just abusive ones.

And, I maintain that listening to a teen tell a counselor, "My parents will kill me?" isn't always about abuse.  It's about the upset any good parent feels when confronted with that news   That's no reason to let a kid avoid those consequences, or a reason to exclude parents from knowing.  

I know there are lots of examples of situations where real abuse and/or coercion does that place.  I know this.  What I'm saying is that these examples do not carry the same weight as removing ALL parents from the care and guidance of their own children.  A law could be constructed to address the abuse factor, and the coercion factor, without removing ALL parents from the process.  In fact, I think legislators have a deep moral responsibility to do exactly that.  Protect kids and their blossoming decision making AND to protect the family dynamics by informing parents when their child is going to undergo a surgical procedure that could result in death if something went wrong..and all because some kid thought "hey my parents are gonna ground me for life" and didn't want to face that.

[Mikoto]

Quote

I know there are lots of examples of situations where real abuse and/or coercion does that place. I know this. What I'm saying is that these examples do not carry the same weight as removing ALL parents from the care and guidance of their own children. A law could be constructed to address the abuse factor, and the coercion factor, without removing ALL parents from the process. In fact, I think legislators have a deep moral responsibility to do exactly that. Protect kids and their blossoming decision making AND to protect the family dynamics by informing parents when their child is going to undergo a surgical procedure that could result in death if something went wrong..and all because some kid thought "hey my parents are gonna ground me for life" and didn't want to face that.

Bolding mine.

I'm wondering what kind of laws could be put in place to deal with the abusive/coercive factor and indeed if further age brackets need to be introduced. A 17 year old is much closer to legally adult than a 13 year old is. (Indeed remember the legal age of consent in the UK is 16, not 18 as it is in the US.) As Nikcara said a healthcare provider has little to no way of knowing whether the teenager comes from a normal family or an abusive one.

Perhaps a compromise? That's my line of thought at the moment. The parent is informed of the abortion but has no legal say in it. The decision is the teenager's but the parents get the chance to guide her. Maybe the teenager is to be given medical advice and non-religious professional counselling about it so that she gets a chance of making a decision fully informed about the options she has available. Counselling may get some insight into whether the family is abusive or not.

[Nonny]

My point is that tossing away the possibly few (and maybe more than we can imagine) girls in this situation whose family life is this bad is simply not acceptable to me.  It is no more acceptible to me than allowing women and girls to die horribly just because somebody's religion says that abortion must not be allowed even to save the life of the mother.  Sure, there aren't a lot of us, but that does not matter.  If life is sacred, then our lives are sacred too.

Edited;  Nonny, somehow I edited your post.  I was quoting it [I thought].  Please forgive me.

Edited by Cait, 02 October 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[Nonny]

And then there's always this kind of tragedy:
http://www.huffingto...ign=daily_brief

Quote

A 14-year-old is accused of choking her newborn to death while the baby was still attached to her by the umbilical cord.
Cassidy Goodson of Lakeland, Fla., is charged with first-degree murder and aggravated child abuse, according to the Ledger.
Goodson gave birth to a boy in the bathroom of her home on Sept. 19, ABC News reports.
Police say the high school freshman ultimately used scissors to pry the baby out of her body and into the toilet. Lifting the baby out of the toilet, Goodson "placed her hands on the infant's neck and squeezed until he wasn't moving or breathing any longer," according to a statement released by Polk County Sheriff's Office on Friday.
Goodson allegedly killed the childbecause she "didn't know what to do with it," officials told WTSP....

[Cait]

Nonny, on 02 October 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

My point is that tossing away the possibly few (and maybe more than we can imagine) girls in this situation whose family life is this bad is simply not acceptable to me.  It is no more acceptible to me than allowing women and girls to die horribly just because somebody's religion says that abortion must not be allowed even to save the life of the mother.  Sure, there aren't a lot of us, but that does not matter.  If life is sacred, then our lives are sacred too.

Edited;  Nonny, somehow I edited your post.  I was quoting it [I thought].  Please forgive me.

But, no one is suggesting we toss away anyone.  No one.  I AM suggesting that we're undermining families when we take parents out of the equation when it comes to decisions regarding their own children.  

As I said before, a law could be crafted to protect real abuse victims and still give parents some control.  I don't care if it isn't an easy thing to do.  It should still be done.  Why?  Because we are undermining the family structure.  

Kids are not free to make their own decisions.  They can't drink legally.  They really aren't suppose to smoke legally.  They can't enter into legal contracts.   They can't do much of anything, and things that are legal, they can't do until they are adults without parental permission.  Yet, somehow we assume that ALL parents are going to coerce some poor child into an abortion, or make her carry it to term, or hurt her, or beat her, or kick her out.  All of these things can and do happen, but they are not the norm, they are the exception.

And in protecting those girls, we undermine every single parents authority to guide their own families.  That doesn't bother any of you?  You're putting kids with raging hormones in charge and leaving parents in the dark.  How does any child learn to be careful, or wait, or anything, when the state gives them permission to go and have sex, get pregnant, get an abortion, and hide it all legally from their parents.  

And you wonder why parents can't control their kids. They can't control them because the state says they literally have no control and KIDS KNOW it.

[Mary Rose]

^That's a great point and I agree.  Hell, a school nurse can't even give a kid an asprin without parental permission but getting an abortion is just fine and dandy.  There's something wrong there.  And I'm saying this as a pro choicer.

[Tricia]

I have to admit that I struggle with this issue.

I understand that not all families can have this conversation  without a lot of anger and disappointment or coersion into 'do it my way or get out'

But as a mother of teens....I would want to know.  If only to be able to give support to what my child wanted to do, her plans.  To hold her hand.

But I am also not the type of parent who doesn't listen, that has ever said "Because I said so" because I will and do listen to reasons and explanations. I can listen without totally freaking out. Does not mean that they rule the roost but their concerns are taken into consideration.  (also shows me their decision making process in action but there is the disadvantage that sometimes there are subjects that even mom is uncomfortable with)

There has to be some middle ground, some form of family counseling or help for those girls who are afraid to tell their parents that they are pregnant and want an abortion.  I think I read somewhere about a judicial waiver but that can't be an easy thing to obtain either.

Edited by Tricia, 02 October 2012 - 04:40 PM.