Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Parental Notification re: Abortion

Abortion Parental Notification

  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#21 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 05:32 PM

As a parent, I want to be able to use my own discretion when it comes to raising my child.  End. Of. Story.  

I remember when my son was small, 4 I think.  We had different driving and child safety laws then [don't get me started on that one either], and he was sitting in the front seat.  We pulled up in front of our place and I parked.  We lived on a busy street, and I always went around to open his door and then he got out.  But this time, he released the seat belt and followed me out of the driver's side.  Well, he went too far into traffic. It was so automatic, I don't even remember thinking 'grab him'.  I just did it.

Well, grabbing him the way I did would be considered child abuse now.  I really yanked his arm to pull him out of traffic.  And, yes I yelled at him and made him cry.  But, I knew exactly what I was doing and why.  I wanted him to fear my reaction to doing that until he was old enough to actually understand the danger.  It worked too.  He never did that again.

Was I sorry I grabbed and yelled.  Sort of.  It was so automatic, I don't know what else I would have done.  But I understood later that it is more important for kids to sometimes fear a parent, than it is to "let them learn on their own".   At least if you want your kid to stay alive.  Being a parent isn't always about be nice and understanding   Sometimes it is ALL about being a disciplinarian.  Why?  To keep them alive until they enter adulthood.  

I never had to spank my kid [don't actually believe in it, at least for my kid, maybe others kids would change my mind], but I signed for his Middle School to issue swats if he misbehaved.  He was going down a bad road in Middle School.  I wanted him to change course.  I authorized swats and his counselor had permission to swat him good.  She never had to, but my son knew it could happen.  It was enough of a threat to get him to straighten up.  He went on to be an academic, and had colleges scouting him for 4 sports.  He had choices in life.  Many choices, and it was because I saw a need for some discipline early on in school.  That's what being a parent is all about.  

And he was killed by kids who run in gangs.  Whose parents had no control.  Kids that knew their parents could do nothing to stop them.  Schools that had given up even trying to get them educated.  Lawless children who never learned that you don't throw a tantrum with a gun.

Schools don't give out swats any more for misbehavior.  But you know what, kids run amok in schools right now.  Why?  IMO, because schools have way too little control over behavior, which does no child any favor in the long run.  Each new law to "protect kids" undermines the very control adults need to guide these kids to a good adult life.

If I had to grab any kid out of traffic to save his or her life, I'd still do it.  Dead is dead.  A bruise on the arm is nothing that won't heal.  And anyone who says they wouldn't do the same, is lying.  Instincts take over.  You just do it.  But, the state calls it abuse now.  Really??

It's all gone too far.  Do I think abused kids need to be protected.  Yes.  I do.  I was an abused kid.  I know what it is/was like to have bad things happening and no one to turn to.  But, I was also a parent, and I think a parent needs to have some autonomy over his or her family.  I definitely don't think the state is capable of making split second decisions in order to save a child's life.

Every time I get into these kids of discussions, all I hear is how bad parents are.  How we have to protect kids from their own parents.  Yet, we bundle all parents into legislation that should be crafted for special circumstances.  I believe that we are doing great harm to our children and the next generations if we allow the state to raise them and not parents.  I think the lessons children must learn from necessity are dwarfed and lost in all this state sponsored parenting   Kids aren't learning how to become adults.  They are learning that no adult can tell them anything and they act this out.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#22 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:00 PM

View PostCait, on 02 October 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

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.

Well, I'd not use such a strong word as *control* (or perhaps I perceiving it with a strict definition). Not because I think kids should be in control, but because very rarely is someone in complete control of another person. With giving/demonstrating consequences to a child for bad behaviour, and talking to them about it, you show them some of what they could face in the real world, to some degree or another, and how is/are the best way(s) to handle it. Some children are unruly despite the best parents. My mom had five kids, and we are all different. Did she parent us different and/or did we take different things/meanings from the lessons of growing up? But yes, parents are definitely guidance, and a strong one, since kids know little else for a long time (for example, sadly, many abuse victims figure that all kids are similarly treated. But how they react to their upbringing will not be all identical.).

Quote

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.

Most teenagers will likely end up going to a free/low-cost clinic. If doctor-patient confidentiality is to go out the window for abortion, I would assume it would be natural for it to go out the window for birth control, STI testing, and even simple counselling. Not that the contents of counselling sessions would have to be made clear to the parents, I assume, but at least that they are in counselling. How do you feel about that? Do you think that clinics/doctors/nurses/etc, should have little to no doctor-patient confidentiality with minors. That a clinic, when learning the age of a minor have to turn them away, and/or state that a notification will have to go to the parents?

At that age, teenagers are expected, as part of their development, to start seeking outside connections and/or sources of guidance, and forming their sense of self apart from their family. Do we want all their information/guidance to come from their fellow teens? What will be the effect of essentially having no doctor-patient confidentiality as a teen?

Quote

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.

I think a big part of the problem is there is not an adequate way to detect abuse victims, much less help them. Especially without getting intrusive. If we could detect and help abuse victims I would hope we had no-where near the current rates of child abuse, spousal abuse, or it would mean we, as a society just don't care. But detecting/helping abuse, whether physical/sexual, emotional/psychological, etc, is very difficult. And when it is detected, it is still very hard to quantify/qualify the extend of the abuse, as it is rarely just physical, and it is a lot of she said-he said. For the same reason it is sometimes hard to prove rape, it is hard to prove abuse. And if it can't be proven in court (since we are talking about the law here), or if it isn't being proven quick enough, how do we respond nimbly enough to adequately, if not help and protect abuse victims, at least ensure they are able to go about their life anonymously for a while, without triggering more abuse from the abuser, until, hopefully, they can get themselves out. That is sometime I don't think any society has found a great way to grabble. And often, rightly or wrongly, society may not have wanted to get involved because of ideas of sanctity of the family, and that it wasn't right to involve one's self in a, I'll say it, a father's/husband's home/family domain. There is a very hard balance to make. Are we just to hope that victims of child abuse make it to 18 and aren't so badly affected that they can manage a decent existence? That, of course, doesn't seem like a hugely palatable alternative, but neither is abusive parents abuse gaining in quality/quantity that leads to serious injury, abandonment or death. I just wish better could be done for abuse victims, they are really seemingly being failed all around no matter our policy :( And I can't think of an effective way to fix it, because treating all parents like abusers needing intrusion and vetoing will create other problems.

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.

I just wonder how. Inevitably some teen daughters are going to fall thru the crack. Is that a reason to rule against all parents? Perhaps not. But, as I said above, I wonder really, what any legislation can do to effectively detect/assist a majority of abuse victims. Especially in a nimble enough  manner to give a waiver for such a time sensitive matter as an abortion.

Edited by sierraleone, 02 October 2012 - 06:22 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#23 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:54 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 02 October 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Most teenagers will likely end up going to a free/low-cost clinic. If doctor-patient confidentiality is to go out the window for abortion, I would assume it would be natural for it to go out the window for birth control, STI testing, and even simple counselling. Not that the contents of counselling sessions would have to be made clear to the parents, I assume, but at least that they are in counselling. How do you feel about that? Do you think that clinics/doctors/nurses/etc, should have little to no doctor-patient confidentiality with minors. That a clinic, when learning the age of a minor have to turn them away, and/or state that a notification will have to go to the parents?

Doctor/patient confidentiality doesn't exist as it is for children.  Parents are the ones making all the decisions.  To do that, they have to know the medical condition.  But, no one questions a doctor going to a parent as asking for permission to take a ruptured appendix out.  Parents are the ones that sign each and every consent form for each and every surgical procedure, except an abortion.  Does that make sense?  I mean really, does that make any sense.

And this is my problem with it all.  A parent is the one financially responsible for all the torts of a child.  A parent is responsible for all the medical bills accrued by a child.  A parent is responsible for all the things a child does or doesn't do, yet when it comes to sex, suddenly parents aren't just not consulted, they are legally kept in the dark.

Maybe birth control should be with parental notification.  I hadn't thought about it, but maybe it should.  Maybe if kids with raging hormones knew that there would be consequences to sex they might think twice.  Or at least think about how to face the adult activity of sex by talking to their own parents in an adult manner.

See, I know this was all well intended.  I know kids who are afraid to tell their parents.  I grew up in a generation of those kids.  But, I also know that we've created a monster here because kids do as they please without any parental input in many cases.  It's not the parents that need to be controlled, it is the kids.  [And by controlled I mean using enough influence and persuasion to save them from themselves--not strict discipline.  I'm not talking about strict disciplinary homes, although I pass no judgment on discipline if it isn't abusive.]  Why?  Because we've created an entitled younger generation where parents exert too little influence.  Can anyone say that is a good thing?

If there were no consequences to no parental notification, I'd be sort of fine with it.  I'd deal with it as a parent, and in fact did but from the POV of a mother of a teen father.  But I think there are actual bad unintended consequences to letting children have abortions without parental notification.  There is lots of anecdotal evidence we can all present as a counter to my argument, but this law affects ALL parents.  The law literally gives permission for teens to have sex without any consequences whatsoever.  Teens who aren't grown up enough to make those decisions for the most part.  Teens who might never get pregnant, but they act knowing that if they do they can do it secretly and their parents will never know.  Teens who never get pregnant,m but have sex and get STD's, perhaps AIDS, perhaps become sterile, etc--all because they know they don't have to tell their parents.

Think about your own teen years.  What would that have done to your POV about "minding your parents"?


Quote

I just wonder how. Inevitably some teen daughters are going to fall thru the crack. Is that a reason to rule against all parents? Perhaps not. But, as I said above, I wonder really, what any legislation can do to effectively detect/assist a majority of abuse victims. Especially in a nimble enough  manner to give a waiver for such a time sensitive matter as an abortion.

Well, to begin with, the law should make it clear that parental notification isn't parental approval/consent.  I think that is the line we can draw and protect kids of abuse.Parents need to know what their kids are doing, and just them knowing can act as a restraint to some behavior.  Which is good.  Do we as a society really want our teens having unprotected sex, getting pregnant and having abortions?  Do we?  Well, this law sure doesn't provide any deterrents.  Like I have said, it keep parents in the dark, and kids do as they please because they know their parents won';t be told.

Parents are not the enemy here.  Parents are the foundation of our culture.  Parents are the ones that raise the next generation and they do a sight better than any state agency or law.  And, believe me I am "pro-choice".  I am a social liberal.  I believe the state can help in cases of abuse.  But I draw the line when it comes to dismantling the family.  I believe in families and their right to determine their own destinies.  

It's called freedom of choice, and when kids reach their majority, they can have the freedom too.  Until then, parents are the ones making the decisions and should at least be consulted before such a life altering procedure.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#24 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:13 PM

View PostCait, on 02 October 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

Schools don't give out swats any more for misbehavior. But you know what, kids run amok in schools right now. Why? IMO, because schools have way too little control over behavior, which does no child any favor in the long run. Each new law to "protect kids" undermines the very control adults need to guide these kids to a good adult life.


They still give swats here in Texas and kids know all about Old Spanky or whatever name they use in their schools. You have to sign a form allowing them to do so. So that might vary from state to state.

I sign that piece of paper for every child every year. Mine don't get detention let alone swats in school but iIF they did and  if a teacher left excessive bruises, I'd be on them in a heartbeat.  They do have to call the parents before they give the swats.

And yes, every year there is a teacher or principal/vice principal in the news who overdoes the paddling and leaves horrendous bruises or other injuries. But the option is on the table and most kids don't get to the point of swats.

Most kids would rather take the swats and a more severe level of mark on their permanent record than ISS (in school suspension) and AEP ( the more severe Alternative Education Program) (and then you get the little thugs who think that is a badge of honor)

Edited by Tricia, 02 October 2012 - 08:16 PM.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#25 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:53 PM

View PostCait, on 02 October 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

Doctor/patient confidentiality doesn't exist as it is for children.  Parents are the ones making all the decisions.  To do that, they have to know the medical condition.  But, no one questions a doctor going to a parent as asking for permission to take a ruptured appendix out.  Parents are the ones that sign each and every consent form for each and every surgical procedure, except an abortion.  Does that make sense?  I mean really, does that make any sense.

Confidentiality must exist in some manor for teens, if they can get contraceptives (do you have to show ID to buy condoms or home pregnancy tests?), STI tests and medicine to treat such, and counselling regarding all of this. If it is something free/low-cost clinics take upon themselves, are they acting against the law? A quick check of the internet is not giving a straight answer, so it likely varies, may even vary in the same place depending on the disease, with regard to STI testing. Some places seem to have an "age" of confidentiality, so to speak, so that 16 & 17 year olds can get confidential services, but 15 & unders can not. I wonder if it has to do with the age of consent, with regards to consent to sex.... How does the age of consent factor into this for you? I assume no one would want it to depend on parental consent.... That is just weird ;) So if an arbitrary age of consent is to be had, is it to be 18, or younger? If they are legally allowed to consent to sex under the age of 18, why wouldn't they be allowed to get contraceptive/STI testing/abortion without parental consent, since they didn't need consent to engage in the act that required one of the former? Maybe a compromise would be parental notification up until the age of consent? It sort of goes in line with other responsibilities a teenager is allowed by society without explicit parental consent, like driving (albeit with restrictions on their license usually), or to discontinue school at 14-16 in many places. To refuse counselling (I don't know if that is a legal thing, or a medical practice thing, but it came up with my brother. Though it is hard to counsel someone who doesn't want it. I assume, like an adult, if a teen is considered a serious harm to themselves or others, that could be overridden).

One of the things I have read on-line says the percentage of teens who use health (and not just sexual health) go down when notificiation is required. I assume that doesn't actually significantly lessen the percentage of teens who are sexual active (or have other health concerns they don't want their parents to know about). It is possible society might have to weight the autonomy of the home against good public health policy.

Quote

And this is my problem with it all.  A parent is the one financially responsible for all the torts of a child.  A parent is responsible for all the medical bills accrued by a child.  A parent is responsible for all the things a child does or doesn't do, yet when it comes to sex, suddenly parents aren't just not consulted, they are legally kept in the dark.

And if the number of teenagers who are having sex (and safe sex if condoms, other contraceptives, STI testing, etc., need parental notification too) does not go down meaningfully, that doesn't bode well either. I assume free/low-cost clinics lessen the medical bills that are accrued by the child. Though I do not know how it goes down if their is complications and the child ends up in the hospital in serious condition. The child could still keep their parents in the dark, though that doesn't necessarily speak for or against the legislation. Unless it can be shown that notification laws increase risks to teens health thru delays and/or using risky methods outside of mainstream and policed medicine.

Quote

Maybe birth control should be with parental notification.  I hadn't thought about it, but maybe it should.  Maybe if kids with raging hormones knew that there would be consequences to sex they might think twice.  Or at least think about how to face the adult activity of sex by talking to their own parents in an adult manner.

And condoms, and STI testing, results, and treatment. And if they are seeking contraceptives, aren't they realize there are potential consequences to sex, that they are trying to lessen? Sure, there is more to sex and sexuality then reproduction, which is what is also an important part of the topic that is probably missed in a lot of these discussions, like this, or between parent and child, or between a doctor/nurse/counsellor and patient.

Quote

See, I know this was all well intended.  I know kids who are afraid to tell their parents.  I grew up in a generation of those kids.  But, I also know that we've created a monster here because kids do as they please without any parental input in many cases.  It's not the parents that need to be controlled, it is the kids.  [And by controlled I mean using enough influence and persuasion to save them from themselves--not strict discipline.  I'm not talking about strict disciplinary homes, although I pass no judgment on discipline if it isn't abusive.]  Why?  Because we've created an entitled younger generation where parents exert too little influence.  Can anyone say that is a good thing?

I don't know. Just being honest. I am not sure the stereotypical old time approach was better (don't talk about it, and if the daughter ends up pregnant either shot-gun marriage, or an unwed mother's home. Strange story: My own grandma had to adopt her own biological child).

Quote

If there were no consequences to no parental notification, I'd be sort of fine with it.  I'd deal with it as a parent, and in fact did but from the POV of a mother of a teen father.  But I think there are actual bad unintended consequences to letting children have abortions without parental notification.  There is lots of anecdotal evidence we can all present as a counter to my argument, but this law affects ALL parents.  The law literally gives permission for teens to have sex without any consequences whatsoever.  Teens who aren't grown up enough to make those decisions for the most part.  Teens who might never get pregnant, but they act knowing that if they do they can do it secretly and their parents will never know.  Teens who never get pregnant,m but have sex and get STD's, perhaps AIDS, perhaps become sterile, etc--all because they know they don't have to tell their parents.

Well, teens don't get to have sex without *any* consequences. Real life consequences happen. What the lack of parental notification law in some areas do is let them deal with the consequences, with meaningful and licensed medical advice and care if they so choose, without their parents knowing. It also lets them deal to trying to lessen the consequences proactively, ie. contraceptive and condoms before pregnancy and STIs.

Quote

Think about your own teen years.  What would that have done to your POV about "minding your parents"?

I don't even know what the laws where when, and where I was, a teenager. So I can say with certainty it never affected my POV. And my teen years were without any risk of pregnancy or STIs :) That didn't stop my sister (though she proactively lessened the risk ). I don't remember ever having a sex talk with my mom. Neither does my sister. And my mother was a teen mom, like her own mother.... Though none of her five children have become parents as teenagers.

I live in Canada, so the abortion laws are quite lax, in fact it is described in wikipedia as not being limited by law (the Supreme court struck down some abortion law, and the government has tried  a couple times, but has not successfully placed a new one in). Any obstacles are non-legal (so geographical, or medical practice, etc, in origin). Regulation, accessibility vary between provinces... And, it seems, there is no parental-notification required... probably since the court case striking down most abortion law in 1989.

Quote

Well, to begin with, the law should make it clear that parental notification isn't parental approval/consent.  I think that is the line we can draw and protect kids of abuse.Parents need to know what their kids are doing, and just them knowing can act as a restraint to some behavior.  Which is good.  Do we as a society really want our teens having unprotected sex, getting pregnant and having abortions?  Do we?  Well, this law sure doesn't provide any deterrents.  Like I have said, it keep parents in the dark, and kids do as they please because they know their parents won';t be told.

I don't know that notification is much more protection from child abuse then consent is, but it does recognize that they are, for the most part, teenagers, and while they need to have this discussions, and hopefully input, from their parents, that they have made weighty choices, and now need to make tough decisions.

Quote

Parents are not the enemy here.  Parents are the foundation of our culture.  Parents are the ones that raise the next generation and they do a sight better than any state agency or law.  And, believe me I am "pro-choice".  I am a social liberal.  I believe the state can help in cases of abuse.  But I draw the line when it comes to dismantling the family.  I believe in families and their right to determine their own destinies.  

It's called freedom of choice, and when kids reach their majority, they can have the freedom too.  Until then, parents are the ones making the decisions and should at least be consulted before such a life altering procedure.

*Most* parents. And not all of them doing better than a state agency (I do respite fostering), though admittedly it is not a state agency that does the care, it is a person, or a couple, under their authority, as foster parents. And they come in good and bad too, do I know! As I have said before, it is a balance between family autonomy, detecting/protecting/helping abuse victims, and good public health policy (which is generally measurable). Sometimes they might work together, sometimes they might work against each other.

If the parent being responsible for all tort and medical bills is someone's prime concern (not that I am saying it is yours, but it is an argument often use by the side you are arguing, even if the isn't the only/primary one), one would think that either the age of consent needs to be raised to 18.... and/or parental notification/consent is needed (which just would seem like the one of the strangest, and least enforceable, law ever :) ).

Edited by sierraleone, 02 October 2012 - 08:55 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#26 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 02 October 2012 - 11:29 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 02 October 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

One of the things I have read on-line says the percentage of teens who use health (and not just sexual health) go down when notificiation is required. I assume that doesn't actually significantly lessen the percentage of teens who are sexual active (or have other health concerns they don't want their parents to know about). It is possible society might have to weight the autonomy of the home against good public health policy.

The solution to that isn't to further alienate children from their parents.  And, quite frankly the idea of laws being passed so that kids will take care of themselves, actually makes my point.  The state is usurping the parental role.  Kids don't make the rules.  Parents and adults do.  The reason for this is that parents are responsible and can judge consequences.  Kids cannot--yet.  That's the whole point of parenting.  To guide a chjild so he/she grows up understanding how real life works.  Not to have the state dictate to parents what it thinks parents should and should not do, and thus putting kids in the driver's seat.


Quote

And if the number of teenagers who are having sex (and safe sex if condoms, other contraceptives, STI testing, etc., need parental notification too) does not go down meaningfully, that doesn't bode well either. I assume free/low-cost clinics lessen the medical bills that are accrued by the child. Though I do not know how it goes down if their is complications and the child ends up in the hospital in serious condition. The child could still keep their parents in the dark, though that doesn't necessarily speak for or against the legislation. Unless it can be shown that notification laws increase risks to teens health thru delays and/or using risky methods outside of mainstream and policed medicine.

And again I say the solution isn't to strip parents of their authority.  It's all backwards.  The right's of children to get an abortion should not abrogate parental rights'.  

Quote

I don't know. Just being honest. I am not sure the stereotypical old time approach was better (don't talk about it, and if the daughter ends up pregnant either shot-gun marriage, or an unwed mother's home. Strange story: My own grandma had to adopt her own biological child).

I'm not talking about some old time stereotypical way to approach this.  I'd never suggest any parent bury his or her head in the sand and pretend it is 1950.  I think it's pretty much the most important thing there is to educate your kids about sex and sexuality and yes, the consequences.  That's part of becoming an adult.

But going forward doesn't mean parents should lose control of their kids, and to deny a parent notification is undermining a parents authority in the family.  Authority a parent needs to raise kids.  Those words aren't abusive or reactionary   Control, Authority, discipline are the balance to understanding, compassion, even love.  All those things are necessary in raising a child in today's world.

Quote

Well, teens don't get to have sex without *any* consequences. Real life consequences happen. What the lack of parental notification law in some areas do is let them deal with the consequences, with meaningful and licensed medical advice and care if they so choose, without their parents knowing. It also lets them deal to trying to lessen the consequences proactively, ie. contraceptive and condoms before pregnancy and STIs.

Once again, the law is backwards.   My concern isn't about what the teen needs.  My concern is about the unintended consequences a parent has to deal with. Teens who do not have to tell their parents avoid the biggest consequence of all--family.  You do no teen a favor teaching them to lie and avoid trouble with a parent.  In fact, it puts a wedge between parent and child, and the state has no business even venturing into this area unless there is provable child abuse.

Quote

If the parent being responsible for all tort and medical bills is someone's prime concern (not that I am saying it is yours, but it is an argument often use by the side you are arguing, even if the isn't the only/primary one), one would think that either the age of consent needs to be raised to 18.... and/or parental notification/consent is needed (which just would seem like the one of the strangest, and least enforceable, law ever :) ).

I only used tort responsibility and medical bill to make a point.  Not to make them a "concern".  The point is, parents are responsible for their children.  Full. Stop.  It is a huge responsibility   Parents use their best judgment given what they believe and what they know and try to raise their kids with love, etc and lead them to successful adult lives.

To have the state pass a law that says a child can now have an abortion, without a parent ever knowing, is injurious to the entire family structure.  And, if no one here can even try to see it from a parent's POV, I guess that's the way it is.  I can't do anything else, and now I'm just going over territory I've already covered.  But, I feel the law giving kids authority to do things behind a parents back is insane in our modern era.

I'm gonna back out of this conversation ow.  Not because I'm upset, so no one take offense here.  I just think I've said all I have to say on it.  I believe in the rights of parents.  I believe they should have the freedom to raise their families   I believe the state interjecting itself into a family dynamic is destructive.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#27 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 06:47 AM

View PostCait, on 02 October 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

As a parent, I want to be able to use my own discretion when it comes to raising my child.  End. Of. Story.  

As a woman who has faced death over pregnancy issues twice, I want girls to have better choices than I did, whether parents are involved or not.  End.  Of.  Story.

Well, not quite.  My Parthian shot is that it's a miracle that I'm alive to participate in this discussion.  I'd like to pay that forward.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#28 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:52 AM

This is a general question, not aimed at anyone specific, but how many of you are parents?

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#29 Mikoto

Mikoto

    Rejected on all levels.

  • Islander
  • 9,304 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:36 PM

I'm not, and barring being terribly unlucky, never will be. It was in part that what prompted me to ask my initial question Cait. ;) I was curious about another perspective other than mine.
Rejected and gone.

#30 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:40 PM

Well here's the thing.  If someone is old enough to get a license to drive I think they might be old enough to decide whether or not to get an abortion.

OTOH, what if it were some other kind of procedure?

Also, isn't there a big difference between notification and approval?
Posted Image

#31 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:42 PM

And, can't kids buy condoms without parental notification?

What I'm getting at is the question of where is the line supposed to be drawn?
Posted Image

#32 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 01:22 PM

View PostMikoto, on 03 October 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

I'm not, and barring being terribly unlucky, never will be. It was in part that what prompted me to ask my initial question Cait. ;) I was curious about another perspective other than mine.

Thanks.  The reason I asked is because all the arguments seemed to be on the side of the teens.  It just seemed that there were no parents speaking up about the concern they might have about their kids doing this and the parents never knowing.  It wasn't to slam any non-parents, and I really want to thank you for not taking it as a slam, and for engaging.  I quite agree, it's always good to have discussions where we engage others with different experiences.


View PostBad Wolf, on 03 October 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Well here's the thing.  If someone is old enough to get a license to drive I think they might be old enough to decide whether or not to get an abortion.

OTOH, what if it were some other kind of procedure?

Also, isn't there a big difference between notification and approval?

I don't know about other states, but last time I looked in California, under 18 kids had to have parental consent to get a driver's licence.  Has that changed?  I remember as a teen myself, my mother would not sign for a driver's licence until I could afford my own insurance.  

At the time, if a kid got into an accident then parents were liable. Consequently I had to wait until I had my majority to get my own license, get my own insurance, sign for my own loan to buy a car, etc.  All those things require a person be a legal adult if your parents won't give consent and take on the liability of a teen driver.

View PostBad Wolf, on 03 October 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

And, can't kids buy condoms without parental notification?

What I'm getting at is the question of where is the line supposed to be drawn?

If it were me, I'd draw the line at a surgical procedure.  That could be life threatening and a parent should know what's going on.  Buying condoms,  birth control, all those things, could be seen as life threatening to NOT use or have.  Besides I think enforcing laws on birth control would be impossible to do effectively, and there are way too many ways around it.

But a teen undergoing a procedure that could [if there were complications] cause death.. a parent should at least know.

When I was suggesting at least notification, not necessarily approval, I knew it was probably a difference without a distinction, but I was trying to make the point for parents.  Parents should not be left in the dark legally.  I think it is tantamount to the state telling a teen it is OK to lie to his or her parents   A lie puts a wedge in between family members.  Secrets can destroy families.  I just think the consequences of a parent being in the dark and a teen lying are so far reaching that it should be looked at.

I know that  Pro-choice people [of which I am one] react to any encroachment on Roe V. Wade.  An abortion should be available blah blah blah.  The meme used is that this kind of law is to protect abused teens, which is a good issue to look at when crafting a law.  All I'm saying is that no one is looking at the other side of this.  The parents side.  Not all parents are abusive.  The state should not interject itself into a family dynamic that creates a lack of trust within the family, and skews the control and authority to the teen instead of residing with the parents--who after all are the ones responsible for their children.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#33 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 01:40 PM

I don't think it's true that no one is looking at the other side of this.  I think that what's happened is that a lot of people, having looked at both sides of this, come down in favor of "if it's her choice, it's HER choice and nobody else's".

My personal belief is that a law requiring notification is not really there to protect parents; it's there to give the government control over who gets to choose to have an abortion.  I see it as an end around pro choice laws.  I've never seen a proposed parental notification bill that, based on history, who is proposing it, who favors it, has convinced me otherwise.  To me it's pretty simple:  If a woman has the right to choose, then she has the right to choose.
Posted Image

#34 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 03:11 PM

The question is about what age right? A kid can buy cigarettes or get married at 16, get a driving licence at 17, buy alcohol at 18... but different kids grow up at different rates.

I think the thing is... if a kid is old enough to get into that situation, then they are old enough to get out of it. They have to be. It's all about choice - the kid can choose to tell her parents, or not - but that's the choice. I would like teenage girls to be encouraged strongly, with plenty of assistance, advice, and support to tell their parents - at least one parent, or guardian. But they are teens- not children. They are not adults, sure. But they are not children either. They're teens.

On other hand, what Lil says is crucial:

Quote

Also, isn't there a big difference between notification and approval?

I think it's important to make the distinction. Perhaps an argument can be made for notifying the 'next of kin' that an under-16 year old is having a surgical/medical procedure - but it is not a matter of parental over-ride and talking about "control" and "authority" ... the choice of the teen should be held as the most important thing. Teen years are a transition to adulthood. It isn't control, control, control, right off you go. It's a process of taking on responsibilities. You can't become an adult if even the most fundamental, CORE choices are taken away from you. This is much, much too important and critical a choice for anyone to make but the person involved.

And again - I'm not just talking about the choice to abortion or have a child. I'm talking about the choice to decide who you trust, who you want to talk to about it and WHEN, and how YOU want to solve the issue.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#35 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 03 October 2012 - 03:35 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on 03 October 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

I don't think it's true that no one is looking at the other side of this.  I think that what's happened is that a lot of people, having looked at both sides of this, come down in favor of "if it's her choice, it's HER choice and nobody else's".

Fair enough.

Quote

My personal belief is that a law requiring notification is not really there to protect parents; it's there to give the government control over who gets to choose to have an abortion.  I see it as an end around pro choice laws.  I've never seen a proposed parental notification bill that, based on history, who is proposing it, who favors it, has convinced me otherwise.  To me it's pretty simple:  If a woman has the right to choose, then she has the right to choose.

Here, I disagree.  Sometimes even the far right and all their Pro-life stuff hit on one right issue.  Even a broken clock is right two times a day.  It's my opinion that it's precisely because of who generally supports parental notification, that so many pro-choicers come down on the side of teens without looking at how it affects the parents and the family structure.

But, I've said my piece.  :)

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#36 TruffulaSeed

TruffulaSeed
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 13 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:51 AM

Well, I don't often post, but why not jump in the deep end, right?

Full disclosure, I'm not an American, nor do I live in the US, so I may not be familiar with the nuances of this law and its intentions. I honestly don't know if such a thing exists where I live. I am a parent though, and of daughters, although they are thankfully still young enough that such a situation is not likely to be imminent.

It seems to me that perhaps we're viewing this from the wrong end - the law does not require teens to talk to their parents about an unwanted pregnancy, but it doesn't prevent them from doing so.

As parents we have to foster an environment for our children to learn to make good choices, even if we're not in their presence to help guide them. I'm also striving to provide an environment where they will trust me enough and know I respect them enough that we could talk about things - even hard things - without fear of judgement.

For myself, as a teenager I had an excellent relationship with my mother and to this day I can't imagine there being anything I wouldn't be able to talk to her about. Sex was never a taboo subject. When I went to university, her concise but memorable speech to me was thus: "Remember, sex is a beautiful part of a loving relationship and not something to ever be ashamed of. Just don't get yourself pregnant!"

I recognize that my relationship with my mother is not universal, or even common, and that there are many who wouldn't necessarily fear abuse in such a situation but still are unable to broach such things with their parents. And that is the grey area: not those like myself, for whom the law would never be invoked, nor those who do fear abuse or worse, for whom the law was created. That middle ground is where it gets tricky.

So I guess my view is this. If there are so many teenaged girls who fall in the middle ground, how can we as parents, as families, better communicate with each other so that talking about hard stuff doesn't become something needing a law.

#37 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:22 AM

View PostTruffulaSeed, on 04 October 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

Well, I don't often post, but why not jump in the deep end, right?

Hello!!! Welcome to OT. It's a pleasure to meet you and to welcome you aboard.  The water isn't too deep, and we don't bite---too often.  ;)

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#38 Mikoto

Mikoto

    Rejected on all levels.

  • Islander
  • 9,304 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 12:24 PM

View PostCait, on 03 October 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:


Thanks.  The reason I asked is because all the arguments seemed to be on the side of the teens.  It just seemed that there were no parents speaking up about the concern they might have about their kids doing this and the parents never knowing.  It wasn't to slam any non-parents, and I really want to thank you for not taking it as a slam, and for engaging.  I quite agree, it's always good to have discussions where we engage others with different experiences.


You're welcome. My initial thoughts were on the side of the teen, being 'pro choice' myself but you did make some good points on behalf of the parents. I think I favour notification without authority to decide for the teen plus the teen receiving private medical advice/counselling is a compromise of sorts. I doubt I fully imagine what it would be like as parent to be notified of your teen's death during a medical proceedure you knew nothing about.
Rejected and gone.

#39 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:33 PM

In CA the age of consent for both sex and marriage is EIGHTEEN.  I all capped that because I am surprised.  One can drive at age 16 and enlist at age 18 but one must be 21 to buy alcohol.   One can vote at age 18.
Posted Image

#40 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 October 2012 - 02:25 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on 04 October 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

In CA the age of consent for both sex and marriage is EIGHTEEN.  I all capped that because I am surprised.  One can drive at age 16 and enlist at age 18 but one must be 21 to buy alcohol.   One can vote at age 18.

I'm pretty sure a teen can drive at 16, but needs parental consent.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Abortion, Parental Notification

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users