frithrah, sorry if I misunderstood your intent. Again, you may raise your children as you see fit, consistent with your belief as to what constitutes good psychological health. May I do the same?
Unless you raise them to be Cubs fans.
That’s just wrong.
It’s not exactly to the exclusion of all others. In at least some states, minors can receive treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, prenatal care and prescriptions for birth control without the parent’s knowledge. And I don’t think it’s because it’s the party line that abortion be unrestricted - some people, at least have no problem with requiring a judicial process before the minor can have an abortion without the parent’s consent. There are in my mind, a few differences between these decisions and others that parents may make for their children.
Minors are far more likely to avoid discussing these issues with their parents than they are other issues. Under normal circumstances, I can’t imagine a child not having a strep throat treated for fear of their parent finding out. I can easily imagine a child ignoring the signs of an STD for fear of their parent finding out, even if the parent isn’t abusive
Second, the abortion issue is time-sensitive. If my sixteen year old daughter wants her navel pieced, and I don’t allow it, she can always have it done when she’s eighteen and it won’t really make a difference in her life. If I make her drop out of high school as soon as she passes the age of compulsory attendance, she can always get a GED and go to college later. Not so with abortion. If she’s pregnant, and I don’t allow her to have an abortion, she (not I ) will have to make a decision in a few months that will affect her for the rest of her life.There is a way around other time-sensitive medical issues- if my child needs an appendectomy, and I won’t consent, you can bet someone will be getting a court order.(I don’t have a problem with requiring a minor to gain judicial approval to have an abortion without parental knowledge- but I think it would be unworkable for STD’s)
Which brings me to the last difference. How can any one logically say that a 16 year old is incapable of making her own decision regarding an abortion and therefore allow her parents to decide she cannot, when that simply means that in a few months she will be making decisions on her ownabout whether to surrender the baby or keep it, and making medical decisions for the baby in the latter case?
BTW, I personally know of a case where a 14 year old believed she was pregnant, (she was wrong), and her parents would have forced her to have an abortion. I don’t think that parents should be able to force an abortion either. But if they have the power to forbid, they also have the power to mandate.
Really? Maybe I don’t know what a claim form is, exactly. All I can tell you is that in the last 20 years I’ve seen doctors in New Jersey, New York, Texas, Arizona, and California, and I’ve never gotten in the door without signing a form either identifying myself as the insured and fililng out a blank for reltionship to the policy or (when I was young and poor) a form stating that I didn’t have insurance.
“Nothing more” referring to the fact that an uncomplicated abortion does not require actual incisions. My intent wasn’t to trivialise the procedure, but to refute the claim of it being a “major surgical procedure,” which it is not, IMO. I’m well aware of what an abortion entails; most abortions will take <5 minutes for the actual procedure, and as far as pain is concerned, I think I am quite safe in saying the pain is rather trivial when compared to the pain of childbirth. I imagine the noise of the vaccuum pump doesn’t approach the volume level of a woman screaming her birthing pains. For 95% of women, an abortion will likely have a much less life-altering outcome than parenthood.
An abortion most certainly requires care and precision, as does any medical procedure. However, I don’t believe a perforation incidence rate of 3/1,000 for D&E is “considerably higher” than 1/1,000 for D&C. We’re still talking <1%. Incidentally, did you know insertion of an IUD carries about the same risk of perforation as a D&C abortion? (Cite) IUD’s are considered a safe and effective birth control method despite that minimal risk.
I would think it’s clear there is a very major difference between elective cosmetic surgeries and having an abortion to avoid being a parent at 16. Not getting your nose fixed doesn’t result in midnight feedings, diapers, and trying to figure out how to provide for a child when you don’t even have a highschool diploma. People make mistakes every day; for some young women, that mistake is in getting pregnant. Her mistake should not have to be one that lasts a lifetime unless SHE wants it to. Her parent’s belief-structure should not force her to carry and give birth to a child she doesn’t want.
Bob - I think the paradox for me would be if a parent insisted on their sixteen-year-old daughter going through with a pregnancy, thereby obviously seeing her as adult enough to carry a child, yet not adult enough to have her own rights and opinions and choices on the matter.
And yet - to take another extreme example - say a twelve-year-old girl getting pregnant, which many doctors at least would probably consider quite perilous for her mental, if not physical wellbeing - would you in this case insist on her going through with the pregnancy?
I think that becoming pregnant automatically gives a young girl/woman certain adult rights. She needs them morally and ethically, and legally. That’s why she needs the right to choose an abortion, or choose to have the pregnancy - in accordance with the law in her State or country - but not necessarily in accordance with her parents’ wishes.
Further to Sionach’s post - where a minor requires something that is medically necessary, and the parents refuse to allow treatment, at least in the UK that child can (and will) be made a ward of court.
In terms of cosmetic treatments - these are non-life-necessary, and a nose job can always be carried out once the child turns eighteen. For a severe orthodontic case, where correction was urgently medically needed (impacted wisdoms/teeth not meeting/speech impaired) again, this could probably argued as medically necessary.
In the case of an abortion, this is something that can’t be carried out “in a few years’ time”. It’s something that can’t wait, and that’s why the minor’s choice - or the doctor’s choice - trumps that of the parents.
You don’t own your children. And you certainly don’t own their fertility, or right to parenthood, at any age.
There is of course another side to all of this - there are parents around who would actually force their kids to have an abortion. I saw it happen once - the boyfriend and his family were happy to have the girl live with them as part of their family - which is exactly what happened. The girl’s parents thought it would ruin her life but in the end, they were unable to force their decision on her and lost her…
Go Phils!
Can you explain why becoming pregnant somehow confers on the child the ability to make adult decisions? Because it’s that capacity that demands that adults not shirk their parental responsibilities. I don’t know why this is so difficult. Continuing to harp on the child’s need to make this decision (because otherwise she wouldn’t have a right you want her strongly to have) does not make the reason she shouldn’t be permitted to make this decision disappear.
Also, in instances where the courts have ordered medical treatment (at least those instances I’m aware of), it was to intercede in a parental decision that was inherently abusive, an exception I have recognized throughout my participation in this thread. If it was a circumstance other than that, then I would have the same objections.
By the way, STD treatment, birth control, etc., when permitted without parental knowledge/authority is not evidence contrary to what I’m arguing. It is the same category–i.e., the imposition of a moral position by the state. Abortion is just the one that seems to invite the most vociferous support.
If I believe that allowing my child to have an abortion will have the worst long-term effect on my child of all the alternatives we have, why does someone else get to overrule that? Because they believe differently? You don’t get to decide for my child.
And, again, this is not about “owning” one’s children. Quite the contrary, I am intensely concerned for my child’s welfare. More than you, more than a judge. Nor is it about ensuring moral decisions that you are comfortable with as it concerns my children, even when those decisions have long-term effects (as many, MANY parental decisions do). That is not how it should work.
I think I know what you’re talking about .My doctors usually call it a “patient information form”. Asks for name, address,insurance information and involves agreeing to pay for the services if your insurance doesn’t . That’s not a claim form. A claim form is a form sent to the insurance company, informing them of the diagnosis and services provided for each individual visit. When I was young, doctors would fill out the form and give it back to the patient so the patient could send the form to the insurance company and be reimbursed for the fee. Some types of insurance still use such forms (my dental insurance, for example), but for the most part, the provider sends them in,rather than returning them to the patient. Which means they are signed by the patient or parent before they are filled out by the provider.
In support of Irishbird:
and showing how differently such cases can be treated in different jurisdictions, the British decision is left almost entirely to the medical personnel:
http://www.fnf.org.uk/gillick.htm
Victoria Gillick was a very conventional and conservative mother who started a court case to potentially force medical personnel to disclose potential prescription of contraceptives to her daughters. The law at this stage was unclear. The eventual decision gave her the completely opposite answer- if a doctor considers that a child is competent to take medical decisions, that then is the legal case. Embarrassingly for Victoria Gillick, this process is now known as Gillick Competence!
So, with contraception as with abortion (and with all other medical procesures) children are credited with ‘competence’ if they exhibit such ability, and it is almost always the medical personnel who will determine the level of competence.
Also, the Children Act makes it clear that parental decisions (as well as judicial and governmental decisions) can only be made in the interests of the child.
Allowing a minor to obtain birth control may involve the state imposing a moral decision, but how do STD treatment and prenatal care involve the state imposing a moral position?Certainly, if a parent refused to allow a child’s STD treatment or prenatal care, that would be an inherently neglectul act and the child would end up receiving the care regardless of what the parents want. The only possible reason to not require parental consent in those cases is to encourage the child to get treatment, and not ignore the situation for fear that the parent will find out.
Does being a parent confer the ability to make adult decisions? Not the parent of the pregnant child, but the formerly pregnant child who just gave birth? Who is now a parent herself and has all of the parental responsibilities and authority over her own child that her parents recently used to prevent her from having an abortion. That’s the part of your position that I just don’t understand. I don’t understand how the same person who in January can’t make a decision to have birth control prescribed, in March can’t consent to an abortion, in April can’t consent to prenatal care, who (I presume) on Sept 21 can’t consent to an epidural or a C section , can suddenly on Sept 22 consent to surgery for her newborn.
**It seizes the parent’s right to know what medical treatment his/her child will receive. It is the state determining that what is best is to leave parents out of a circumstance the parent may just consider important enough to warrant his/her attention.
No, it does not. Being an adult does (or it is at least presumed). IANAL, and am consequently unfamilar with the myriad laws that would govern this, but it seems to me that a 15-year-old who just gave birth is in no position to make decisions for the child she just gave birth to. For the same exact reason that she couldn’t prior to the birth for herself. Because she is still a child. By definition, she cannot exert parental authority–i.e., the ability to make mature decisions for another.
Sorry Bob . I was actually being sarcastic here. One of my friends fell pregnant through ignorance (in that her parents hadn’t done the responsible education thing with her) at 14. She was made to go through with the pregnancy and the day she came home from hospital after having the baby, her father kicked the shit out of her. He was an overbearing and controlling man who thought he had the “right” to do with his kids whatever he saw fit. None of us on here will be able to persuade you that your kids have rights of their own by the sound of it but it could be that in the coming years they turn their back on you. My personal experiences made me think about what kind of parent I would be. I certainly didn’t want my child to go through an unhappy childhood like I did because of an overbearing parent who refused to let any of us have any kind of choice.
My child is also my friend who can talk to me about Everything - including taking the decision to have sex for the first time and even discussed that with me afterwards. None of us “own” our children. IMHO the best kind of parent is one who teaches their kids how to cope with life and what to do when things go horribly wrong. They shouldn’t be afraid of their parents. We should have instilled confidence in them that no matter what happens, we will always be there for them and yes, sometimes this is difficult but nevertheless, we took the decision to have our children so we should also take the decision to support them, let them make their mistakes and then help them if they make a wrong one…
See my note above.
English law would disagree with you on every point that you make. There are different ways of looking at social situations which lie outside our prejudices and experiences.
That’s not really a moral issue- it’s an issue of interests. And while I’m sure that you believe such as issue warrants your attention, as do I, given the option of your child receiving treatment without your knowledge or going without treatment ( which may not happen in the case of your child or my child, but will happen in many other cases)which would you prefer? I would certainly prefer my child to be treated without my knowledge than walking around with untreated gonnorhea, or going through an entire pregnancy with no prenatal care.
By definition, she is a parent, and as far as I know the law treats her as such. Certainly, in NY, grandparents cannot surrender a child for adoption over the minor parents’s objection.
How does turning eighteen magically give her the ability to make adult decions? It doesn’t. Giving people authority to make adult decisions is by neccesity somewhat random, and doesn’t all come in one step, either. You can drive at sixteen, but you can’t drink until 21. Becoming pregnant may not make someone magically competent, but it gives them the neccesity to start making those decisions.
Besides, kids do all kinds of things without their parents permission, or against their parents permission. A kid can go to the all ages nighclub their parents told them not to go to, and it isn’t illegal. They won’t get arrested. They do not need a parents signature to get in. They might get in troble with their parents, but I’d say it is a strech to say their parents have a legal right to prevent them from going to nighclubs.
Okay, but my medical provider did not require parental consent for treating a flu, and did not allow my mother into the examination room for even mundane complaints. The child’s health comes before parental authority, and there is evidence that allowing parents in the exam room and having them approve all treatment can work against the child’s health interest. I don’t care about your “rights”. The childs right to health comes first. Always.
What exactly is this moral position? All I can see is a legal position- that people have a legal right to make medical decisions for themselves and abortion is one of those decisions. If you do not want abortion to be legal, please join one of the many anti-abortion movements. But using your whatever “logic” is convienent when trying to chip away at abortion instead of just stateing your oposition to it is dishonest.
And neither do you.
**
But not mpore than your child.
But, um, you don’t have that right.
**
This is not about me making any sort of decisions for your child. This is about your child making decisions for your child. I have no iterest in making your child have an abortion. I have every interest in allowing your child to make her own decision regarding abortion, not because I am an aboriton zealot, but because I was once a minor, and knew many minors during that time.
I know that any decision I made regarding abortion at that time would have been the right one, and I know that my friends who did make those decisions ended up chooseing the same thing they would have as adults and do not regret their abiltity to make those decisions. I do, however, know that if they were forced to keep those babies they'd be regreting those decisions for about twelve more years now, and sadly that little kid would have to deal with the fact that nobody wanted it but it's grandparents. I'm not saying that everybody facing birth at bad times should abort. But I am saying that if they face birth in those times, and abortion is legal, they really should have the right to make that choice. If this is "me imposing a moral decision on your child", well, it's not even worth argueing with you.
What kind of kid are you raising if she is oh-so-willing to run off to planned parenthood and get an abortion against every value she was raised with and without talking to her parents, anyway?Huh…so even though it’s a “blob of tissue” (as I’m often reminded)…the girl is now suddenly a parent for purposes of this argument. I’ve had several pro choice folks get angry with me for referring to a woman as a “parent” (or mother) automatically in this case…they say only the woman can decide if she is a “parent”.
Now you’re telling me that the pregnant woman is automatically a “parent”.
heh…it gets hard to keep up with you folks… 
Very cute, Beagledave, now can we get back to the debate where we were discussing why a minor who has had a child (which is the “parent” we were discussing) should get so many more rights than a pregnent minor when they havn’t “magically” become any more mature by giving birth than by getting pregnant?