How far does this so-called “right” go, anyway? Can you force your kid to carry a baby that threatens her life? Can you force her to have cosmetic surgery? Could you artificially inpregnate your daughter with the guy next door’s sperm and make her bear the child?
You can continue to ignore my point, but it remains the same: Parental rights do not exist because they are guaranteed to lead to good decisions, or only up to the point where the child agrees with them. Children don’t get to decide major decisions because they are children. Children lack the maturity that would allow this. It’s not that difficult a concept.
The fact that some want to take very specific decisions and remove them from the province of parental authority is a testament to their commitment to keep those decisions unencumbered rights, despite the fact that they are not qualitatively different from many, many decisions a parent can and does make for his/her children, despite the fact that no other right seems to warrant such protection.
It is, IMO, a politically motivated abandoment of simple logic. Someone can be pro-choice and still believe abortion should require parental consent, it seems to me, but I also understand that’s not the party line. Abortion rights must be completely unrestricted, or else we’re fascists (and despite the fact that Roe v. Wade did not provide for unrestricted abortion rights).
You stand this issue on it’s head when you focus on the medical proceedure. What is at issue is the young woman’s right to choose whether or not to become a mother. Even if the baby is put up for adoption, she will be a mother for life. It is her right to choose that. Not her parent’s. If the parents have abrogated their responsibility in preventing their daughter from becoming pregnant in the first place, or if the child has been awarded the maturity rights to accomplish this feat, she is likewise given the right to choose. Young or not, the issue is still a woman’s right to choose. OTOH, if you are appalled by the proceedure which you deem as painful and dangerous, you have an excellent reason to lobby for unrestricted sales of RU-486 over the counter to minors.
**What do you mean by “threaten”? Any pregnancy carries risk.
**Maybe. I can decide my child will have cosmetic surgery after an accident, for example. Hopefully the child agrees, but that’s not necessary.
IMO, this falls under the “inherently abusive” umbrella. It is tantemount to rape. YMMV.
No, the issue is why children get this particular right to choose to the exclusion of most others. Why? Because it’s the party line. The right to abortions must be unrestricted.
Okay, but the facts are that in most states there is no discrepency between a minors’ decision to abort and a minors’ right to make other major medical decisions. Additionally, many that are argueing for minors to have access to abortion are arguing that they should also reserve the right to make- under the supervision of a doctor and perhaps a judge- to make other medical decisions that have life-changeing implications. So your argument is without bounds. We might as well argue why the state gets to draw crosses on all of our forheads and not the sign of the invisible pink unicorn,
The fact that so many of you see your own children as some combination of pets and slaves is appalling.
Does she have the right to have sex Bob?
If you think she does than you must agree she has a right to make decisions regarding the outcome of her actions.
If you think she doesn’t, then you, or excuse me, the parent, has failed the responsibility of preventing it. Obviously she has matured to a point where her own decision making has taken precedent over your dictums. Inotherwords, she has developed her own identity and become an adult capable of making her own decisions. They leave the nest Bob. Its OK. We may bring them into the world, but we don’t own them.
Oh, Christ. Um, you understand that under typical circumstances, by the time they leave the nest my point is moot? And that this particular milestone is not relevant to this debate?
I will repeat yet again that I am not asserting that all parental decisions are guaranteed to be good ones. Whether or not the parent could have prevented the pregnancy through some different choices does not lead us to conclude that his/her authority has somehow evaporated. Do you believe that any time a child makes a poor choice that means the parent has ceded their authority? If my kid plays hooky do I no longer have the authority to send him to school?
It’s not that difficult a concept. Children don’t get to decide for themselves. Why? Because they’re children. If you want to exclude one very particular decision from this arena, please explain why. Here’s a hint: Citing offspring leaving the nest won’t help your case.
So does she have a right to have sex?
No, your strawman is what’s appalling. If you conclude that my enormous concern for my child’s welfare equates with seeing him as a pet or slave, you need to look inward for where the flaw lies.
That you think my argument is tantemount to allowing the state to exceed its rights regarding “crosses” and “unicorns” is also a rather glaring non sequitur. Do you really see me arguing for the state’s increased right to interfere in our lives?
I will also ask for a cite that shows that most states allow parental rights to be abrogated as it relates to major medical decisions for their children, in the manner you describe.
Ever hear of the case of Spring Adams? She was a thirteen-year-old girl in Idaho who was shot to death by her father after he learned she planned to end a pregnancy he himself had caused.
That’s why minors should get abortions without parental knowledge.
Really think you have a “gotcha” here, don’t you? OK, I’ll bite.
No, she does not have that right. Just as she does not have the right to stay out past 10:00 if her parents want her home by then. Just as she doesn’t have the right to eat at McDonald’s if her parents believe it’s unhealthy (and forbid it). Just as it is in the countless other situations where the parent gets to decide what is best for the child.
Is your point that children sometimes ignore their parents direction? If so…um, OK.
Yeah, and so am I but I am also a parent and my experiences probably made me a better parent. I allowed my child to have choices and discussed the conequences of certain actions. Of course I am in a position to overrule - to a degree - but our kids are people in their own right and at that age are quite capable of weighing up the pros and cons for themselves.
You’re kidding, right? A single cite of perhaps the most awful example of parental abuse one can imagine is reason enough to abolish parental authority for everyone else in the nation. OK. Now I see the light. If I can provide a cite showing some parent killed a kid for violating curfew, will you agree that this should also be removed from the province of parental authority?:rolleyes:
irishbird, I respect your right to raise your children in a manner that allows them to make the decisions you think they are capable of making. Can you respect my choice to do the same?
yeah, don’t take it personally Bob. You don’t need anyone’s opinion on how to raise kids:)
If a girl wants to keep a pregnancy and abortion from her parents, there is probably a very good reason for doing so. Most teenagers would seek out their parents help.
If they are too terrified to do so I wouldn’t second guess them and force them to tell, because I believe in this particular instance the harm outweighs the good.
Sorry. It wasn’t so much a “Gotcha.” I just wanted to get a firm grasp on where you stood. We just differ in opinion. I think a parent has a duty, responsibility and an obligation to guide and Shepard hir child as best they can from birth onward as long as possible and well into adulthood. And of course that means imposing restrictions for minors. But I also feel that all sentient beings are individuals with full rights be it you or a 5 year old, within the law of course. I may fence and leash my dog to protect him. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the “right” to dig a hole under the fence if I let the water bowl go dry. To act dictorially and subconsciously imply otherwise I don’t believe promotes healthy psychological development and certainly not your relationship to your children. It also opens the door for say, female genital mutilation in a country where it is culturally acceptable. Or as someone had pointed out, a Christian Scientists parent’s ability to stop an appendectomy because their child has no “right” to make that decision themselves. Rights are inalienable. Late teens also have the right to emancipate. That in and of itself should show you that the law can bestow on them full control of their destiny. Not just some party line Roe V Wade token rule as you imply
You may exercise this leniency with your own children. I do not cede that authority for my own. And why do you assume there is a good reason for a child to keep this from her parents? Children keep all kinds of things from their parents, for all kinds of reasons.
Forgive me, but I see your position as a rationale for abortion rights to be completely unrestricted, despite the fact that the same rationale could be applied to virtually any restriction a parent might impose. You have yet to provide an argument that supports why abortion, out of all rights, ought to be an exception to parental authority. Because “there’s probably a very good reason” is, frankly, laughable.
Well, I appreciate your response, but that’s the very essense of the debate here. There are many, including people participating in this very thread, who would not respect my right to do so.