I agree with SATAN.
What? Yagotaproblemwidat?
Not exactly. For legal purposes, teenagers are considered able to give their own informed consent in certain situations, including birth control, STDs, pregnancy, and substance abuse. (There may be others, I don’t know.) If the doctor believed the teen to be capable of giving IC, and he took care to document everything carefully, he would probably in the clear if the truly unforeseeable happened.
Dr. J
Teaching a kid to stop-drop-and-roll doesn’t mean she’s going to set herself on fire.
Making protection availiable to your children doesn’t mean that you are advocating sexual activity or that you are encouraging your child to engage in premarital intercourse.A child’s health and personal decisions are affairs which concerns them, as much as parents like to believe that they have the final say. Unfortunately for some parents who feel that the best way to protect their children is to sheild them from life and limit parent-child communication where ethical issues are concerned, that final say can ultimately lead to their children leading unhappy and potentially unhealthy lives.
There are parents out there who would physically harm their children if the children brought home a poor report card. That doesn’t mean we should make “parental notification of grades” the prerogative of the child. The existence of poor parents should not lead us to the conclusion that parental authority should be done away with.
The fact that abortions are legal (as opposed to drugs) is not relevant either. Parents have the authority to decide which legal options our children can pursue. It is perfectly legal to miss church on Sunday, but as a parent I can insist that my child attend Mass.
You can disagree with this influence, but that’s the way it works, and you don’t get to decide for my children–just as I can’t stop you from driving your child to the abortion clinic if that’s my inclination. As my dear dad said, “For good or for bad, we get to decide what’s right for you.” Short of abuse, that’s how it needs to work.
Why would abortion be an exclusion if I have legitimate authority in every other arena for my minor child? Again, the “because that would be a poor decision from my perspective” argument may be interesting–hell, from where you’re sitting it may be indisputable–but it shouldn’t carry any legal weight.
IMO, it can reasonably be said that forcing a child to have a child is abusive in and of itself. NOBODY should have to take on that kind of responsibility before she is absolutely ready.
Based on your earlier post I assume by the term “responsibility” you mean raising a child?
If so, you never addressed my response to your earlier post…
“So it’s either abortion or teenage motherhood…those are the only options available?”
RoboDude, there are people who would argue that sending a child to a religious school amounts to abuse. That does not give them the right to install a prohibition against this practice as the law of the land.
You’re entitled to your opinion, and I’m sure many people would agree with you. But are you saying that you (or anyone else) are entitled to force this viewpoint on someone else’s children, children of a parent who does not agree? That would be an ironic pro-choice stance.
Again, you’re entitled to your opinion. But with all due respect (just to make my point again), it’s not relevant with regard to my children. My child’s pregnancy does not change the nature or scope of my parental authority–or, rather, it shouldn’t, IMO.
There is also the option of adoption but…
If a parent does not give a child permission to have an abortion, that is essentially going to be the end of parental authority.The very act of giving birth, in some cases, will cause a minor to become emancipated.The grandparents consent will not be sufficient to surrender the child for adoption. I don’t think most people would agree with the idea that the parents of a pregnant minor should be able to force her to put the child up for adoption. I find it hard to understand a postion where the pregnant girl in February can’t consent to an abortion, but after giving birth in September can make her own decision about whether to surrender or keep the baby, and if she decides to keep it, can now make all the decisions regarding the baby.
Also, the right to forbid based on parental authority generally goes hand in hand with the right to compel. Bob, as a parent, you certainly have a right to insist that your children attend Mass. You also have a right to forbid them to attend Mass.Your consent is necessary for them to have surgery, and once you have given yours, the child’s is legally irrelevant. I don’t think even the most zealous advocate of parental rights would argue that parental authority allows a parent to compel ** a child to have a abortion, and I can’t see a way to justify (given that abortion is legal) giving parents the decision making power in one direction and not the other.
** I don’t mean “compel” in the sense of the parents saying “you can’t live here if you have a baby”, but in the sense that, if the doctor says my 10 year old needs a tonsillectomy and I consent to it,the surgery will be performed, and the surgeon will be on firm legal ground, no matter how vehemently she says she doesn’t want the surgery.
There are people who would argue that refusing medical treatment for one’s child on religious grounds does not amount to abuse, even if it results in permanent disability or death. Many, if not most, abusive parents also believe they are doing nothing wrong. Must we tolerate their beliefs as well?
Children are human beings, not property.
doreen makes a good point there, Bob. Does your insistence on parental authority in this case mean that you support the right of parents to make their pregnant minor daughter have an abortion even if she doesn’t want one?
I’d never, ever make a decision for your children as long as you are able and willing, *Bob. But if your daughter gets pregnant and wants an abortion, and doesn’t feel safe telling you, and the law says she doesn’t have to, that’s not my decision. It’s between her, her doctor, and the courts, because she may have to face a judge to plead her case.
If you do not allow your teenage daughter to get an abortion if she wants/needs one, you’re compelling her to undergo a more severe physical trauma–pregnancy. Having been through this three times myself, I can state as an authority that pregnancy is far more difficult on the body than an abortion (performed in a safe, medical environment by trained doctors). Having also relinquished a child for adoption, I can say that in my case, the adoption was far more traumatic that the abortion.
What we as parents need to do is encorage our children to make decisions that are right for them. Yes, there are things that we insist on–for you it’s Mass, for me it’s breakfast. But teens and their sexuality is SUCH a hot button issue, it’s hard to determine what is right. Abortion isn’t just a surgical issue–it’s a sexual one. That’s why some people tend to get so freaked about it, and why others, such as myself, just don’t know what is carved-in-stone right.
Does my parental authority allow me to compel my child to have an abortion? Interesting question. It’s difficult for me to answer since I believe, in case it’s not clear, that abortion is not a moral choice. Because I believe behaving morally is a more compelling duty than behaving legally, my reaction is that no one should force another to conduct an immoral act. I would answer the same if you asked me if my parental authority allows me to force my child to steal (again, considering the morality, not legality, of the act).
As a legal hypothetical, though, if I suspend my own moral beliefs for a moment, I suppose a parent can decide whatever legal activity is best for his/her child, including abortion. Again, why the special exclusion for abortion? It is either a legally viable alternative or it isn’t.
A child may intensely believe that a particular operation is not the right choice (say, amputation of a cancerous limb), but the parent gets to decide. The intensity of the child’s feelings and the magnitude of the decision don’t change this. Why does abortion, out of all the sensitive and life-altering decisions a parent may possibly face, have a special status?
Does this make sense? I’ll have to give this some more thought. Persephone, BTW, when I said that “you” don’t get to decide for my child, I meant this in a “generic” way that would include courts, doctors or any other non-parent (seems I incorrectly worded it to sound as if it was directed specifically to you!–sorry).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RoboDude *
**
RoboDude, don’t want to seem as if I’m ducking this question. I’m just not sure how to answer it since it seems clear we have a fundamental disagreement regarding what constitutes abuse.
Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that carrying a baby to term is not a de facto instance of abuse (self-inflicted or otherwise)–but that being forced to carry a baby to term amounts to abuse? If that’s the case, why would any exercise of parental authority (against a child’s will) not amount to abuse? This is different, I think, than someone withholding medical care for religious reasons.
The very state of being pregnant is either an “abused” state, inherently, or it isn’t, correct? And if it is not inherently an instance of abuse (someone can want to be pregnant–can actually enjoy it), then your gripe would be with the fact that someone is forcing someone else to do something, that this compulsion is what constitutes abuse. Then I’m right back where I started–that’s what parents are often obligated to do, to compel their children to do what they think is right. Why is it abuse if it is in regard to abortion, but not if it is about which school to attend?
Am I mistating your position?
BC: A child may intensely believe that a particular operation is not the right choice (say, amputation of a cancerous limb), but the parent gets to decide.
Actually, as was pointed out above, the parent doesn’t always get to decide, as in the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses parents who were legally denied the right to refuse lifesaving operations or blood transfusions for their children. And of course, parents may not decide to starve or mutilate or sexually abuse etc. etc. their children, no matter how much they may feel it’s ultimately in the children’s best interests.
The intensity of the child’s feelings and the magnitude of the decision don’t change this. Why does abortion, out of all the sensitive and life-altering decisions a parent may possibly face, have a special status?
It doesn’t, as I noted; there are many instances in which the assumption that parents have the right to decide for their children is overridden by society’s declaring that certain parental decisions are not in the best interests of the children. And the “magnitude of the decision” does play an important part in that. It has been ruled that parents may not use their parental authority to deprive a child of adequate food or medical care—no matter how much their personal moral beliefs may demand it—and it can also be argued that parents may not deprive a child of her right to choose an abortion rather than carry a pregnancy to term. I know that you personally don’t consider that a legitimate “right”, but that is not the issue here.
NB: this is focusing only on the question of the necessity of parental consent, not parental notification (though I realize that in practice it won’t be possible to keep the two entirely separate).
BC: *Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that carrying a baby to term is not a de facto instance of abuse (self-inflicted or otherwise)–but that being forced to carry a baby to term amounts to abuse? If that’s the case, why would any exercise of parental authority (against a child’s will) not amount to abuse? This is different, I think, than someone withholding medical care for religious reasons.
The very state of being pregnant is either an “abused” state, inherently, or it isn’t, correct?*
I don’t speak for RoboDude of course, but IMO no, it’s not correct. Carrying a pregnancy to term if you want to do it is difficult but not abusive: carrying a pregnancy to term if you don’t want to is hellishly traumatic, and a very different story. It’s not the same order of magnitude as simply not liking to go to school. I think there’s a good case to be made that forcing a child to do something that massively life-altering against her will is abusive, without implying that any form of compulsion is therefore abuse. I don’t buy the argument that forcing a child to endure pregnancy against her will is automatically not abusive merely because it wouldn’t be abusive if it weren’t against her will.
What if the child believes(as I do) that it is highly immoral to have a baby that she could not adequately provide for? I suppose one might say that giving the baby up for adoption would be a reasonable alternative, but then there’s the matter of Persephone’s statement:
**
Let me say what I have already stated: abusive decisions do not fall within the scope of legitimate parental authority. We can discuss the line beyond which abuse occurs (which is, of course, what I attempted to do), but rest assured it’s not lost on me that parental authority is not absolute. The fact that it is not absolute does not, however, by itself lead to the conclusion that parents cannot prohibit abortions for their children. And in case I have been unclear, I have offered my opinion as to what ought to happen–I understand that courts have overruled parents’ decisions in cases like this despite the overwhelming weight of Bob Cos’s displeasure.
Well, I thought that was exactly the issue here–that’s why it was posted in GD–and I offered my opinion. Again, pointing out that a parent can’t starve a child seems to have missed my point.
If forcing my child to have a baby when she wants to abort it, or forcing her to abort the baby when she wants to carry it–if both of these amount to abuse, then it is the fact that I am forcing my decision on the child (not the decision itself) that renders the situation abusive. How could it be otherwise? Please point out any other form of “abuse” that relates principally to the fact that the child disagrees with the decision (if the child agreed with the decision, no one would be dragging the parent into court to point out that this pregnancy was, by itself, a de facto state of abuse). Starving a child or withholding medical care or sexual abuse are NOT in the same category; these are instances where–regardless of anything the child may or may not feel or want–the kid has been placed in an “abused state.” It is the “state” that makes it abuse, not anything that the child wants (or doesn’t want).
And you may decide that forcing a child to carry a baby to term is “hellishly traumatic,” and I may feel that allowing an abortion will lead to equally hellish trauma for my child. Again, though, I assert that your feelings regarding any decision I make for my child–short of prohibiting abuse–are not relevant. That’s my point in a nutshell–and that’s not the same as saying you’re not entitled to your opinion.
RoboDude, I just don’t know how to answer you any differently. Kids can hold all kinds of opinions about what is or isn’t right, but they don’t get to decide while they’re kids. That’s what parents do.
Are you suggesting that a strongly held moral belief is reason enough to let a child decide? What if the child believes that illegal drug use is a valid lifestyle choice? Should we defer to that belief as well? How about marriage at 15?–after all, she knows better than anyone else whether or not she’s in love. Or should we continue to operate under the assumption that parents need to make decisions for their children regarding what is or isn’t right? I’ll continue to assert the latter.
[minor hijack for purposes of clarification]
Choosing adoption was the right choice for me to make, at the time I had to make it. Yes, it was traumatic, but I and my daughter have come through it beautifully. We have an open adoption, so we are still part of each other’s lives. One other thing, though–I was 21 when she was born, old enough to make the choice myself.
[end minor hijack]
To the best of my knowledge, a parent cannot force a minor child to abort a pregnancy (IANAL, so someone else with more legal knowledge PLEASE tell me if I’m wrong). That’s one of the toughest parts of this argument–a parent cannot force an abortion, but they can prevent one. Why? I think (again, doctors or lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong) it has something to do with the fact that in most cases, an abortion is not medically necessary, and pregnancy is not an “illness”–it’s a temporary medical condition.
Up until a certain age, school is not optional. Kids have to go because it’s the law. Once they reach a certain age, though, they CAN leave, because the law says that they can. Pregnancy, on the other hand, is ALWAYS optional. One does not ever HAVE to get pregnant. It certainly not always a chosen condition, but it is never a required condition. And because it’s temporary and in most cases not life-threatening, it has to be seen differently than other medical conditions. If you don’t allow your child to be treated for cancer, he/she may die. If you don’t allow your child to obtain an abortion that she wants, she’s probably not going to die. You may end up with a severely emotionally traumatized child, and you may end up ruining your relationship with her, but she probably won’t be physically dead. Of course, you could get lucky, and she’ll be okay all the way around. But providing her with the emotional support she needs, regardless of her decision, is really the best way to go.
Maggie is a pregnant sixteen year old. If Maggie has her baby, she is taking on a legal responsibility that lasts for eighteen years (not to mention a moral responsibility that lasts a lifetime). Can Maggies parents rightfully force upon her a legal responsibility that will last far beyond the time that Maggie reaches the age of majority? Denying a pregnant minor an abortion is much like forceing them to enter an eighteen year contract. In most cases, parents are allowed to make contracts for their children, but in no case can a parent make a contract for the child that lasts beyond when the child reaches the age of majority (otherwise child star’s parents could sign their kids up for thirty year contracts and other absudities). Yes, of course adoption is an option, but if it is within a parents right to deny an abortion they can surely deny an adoption as well.
I just don’t think its right for someone (the parents) to make a decision that will have reprucussions that last that long (eighteen years) for someone else (the pregnant kid). In the end, it is the pregnant kid and only the pregnant kid whoes life is affected by the pregancy. It is immoral for people who will not be affected to make the decision of whether or not to carry it to term.