Parents have no rights?

Further, becasue I have been given the responsibility of raising my child, it is my right to teachmy child morals and values and the consequences of not following same.

Does the state have the right to tell me who my kid can be friends with? Do they have the right to tel lme what books/movies they are allowed to read/view? Does the state have the right to tell me what church I can or cannot attend and whether or not I can or cannot take my kid?

NO

They don’t have the right otherwise to make medical decisions for my child as well.

I am speaking for me and my child. Not this other child in the OP. Maybe her family is morally bankrupt and she needed someone else to help her make the decision. shrug

Exactly right. And they’re not making medical decisions for her. They’re letting her make her own. And if she decides to come to you for advice, the state is butting out of that as well.

If you want your daughter to come to you if she has to make that decision, then it’s up to you to let her know that she can do so without reprisals. That’s your right and your responsibility. But for the state to force her to come to you? Then the state IS making medical decisions for her. And for all underage girls as well.

For some girls, a right to privacy may make the difference between life and death. Are these the bad apples who are spoiling it for the rest of us? Perhaps. How do you propose we deal with them? Are you willing to sacrifice them because you want a one-size-fits-all law? Because you think all families are just like yours?

Someone earlier said that consent of the parents should always be sought except for the cases where there could be dangerous consequences. How are we to tell? Who is to make that determination? The parents? Defeats the purpose. The doctor? All kinds of moral and legal issues there. The daughter? Hey, now we’re onto something…

That’s why I said, in my case…for my kid… There is no law that has a one size fits all provision. That’s why there are so many pocket parts (any good law clerk will know what I’m talking about ROFL).

Okay so the State didn’t make the decision for her, she made the decision, THEY let her obtain a procedure that should have some adult consent, parental or otherwise by someone willing to take the responsibility.

Yeah and how do you get that…

I know, it’s flucked up I tell ya LOL

Eilsel,

…and some people are still developing them at 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, and 50. I understand that we have settled on 18 as the age of majority, but that doesn’t mean someone under 18 isn’t capable of rational thought.

Diogenes mentioned reproductive rights, and I think that’s key here. Do you, as a parent, have a right to force your child to have an abortion? I don’t think so. This is not a discussion about the merits of abortion, it is a discussion about a minor’s right to make decisions about abortion for herself.

One other thing. People here have mentioned that if a parent does his/her job ‘right,’ then of course the child would come to them to talk about getting pregnant. This is a load of hooey. Children of perfectly good, loving, considerate parents still might feel intimidated and affraid to discuss this with parents, which has nothing to do with the job they have done as parents.

Ummm…18 is the “adult” age insofar as the law is concerned…

I agree, children aren’t necessarily “okay” if their parents raised them properly. Most PKs and MKs are prime examples. But the point is they TRIED to raise them properly and hold them accountable.

Like I said before, there’s so much grey area in this type of discussion that you can’t have a cut and dry resolution.

Doh, I misread your post, ignore my first sentance :smiley:

Yes but until they reach the age of adult hood OR they’re no long my responsibility i.e., out of college, et al, then they’re my charge. I’m responsible.

I certainly understand that. But, being called a minor by the government does not mean one gives up all rights to make decisions. I would put forth that the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion is one of those rights that should not be restricted to only ‘adults’.

Also, what’s a PK and an MK?

Well, we apparently disagree. I don’t feel that anyone has any right to do any procedure on my kid unless I’ve permitted same.

PK - preacher’s kid
MK - Missionary’s kid

Sorry, **eisel[/b[ but you are simply wrong. The issue is your daughter’s rights, not yours or the state’s. Neither the state nor you has the right to make reproductive decisions for her.

I’m still waiting for some answers to a couple of questions I asked earlier in this thread which your side has been avoiding.

1.) How should health care providers determine if a child is abused or in danger from parents?

2.) Would you rather have your daughter get a legal abortion and not tell you or an illegal abortion and not tell you?

That’s pretty much the nub of the debate right there. Obviously, there are many parents who feel as you do, Eilsel. I can understand and sympathize with where you and ivylass – and many, many others – are coming from. But, as it happens, I agree with those who believe that parental notification and, even more so, parental consent laws are undesirable and dangerous.

(NOTE: the 2nd person singular is used in the following paragraphs not to refer to anyone in particular, but to a hypothetical concerned, loving, supportive parent).

I can understand your heartfelt desire to be given the opportunity to be there for your child, to guide, counsel and support her through whatever troubles and crises she may face. It’s laudable, and I commend you for it. But it is not properly up to the state to give you that opportunity. It is up to the individual in crisis, and properly so.

I volunteer for a rape crisis hotline. Say I get a call from a teenager (under 18), who has been date-raped. I have to tell you that, even if she were to give me identifying information, I am under no legal or ethical obligation to report the rape to the police or to her parents. Say she asks me, “Should I tell my parents that I was raped?” I am under a positive ethical obligation as a crisis counselor to refrain from either encouraging her to or discouraging her from telling her parents or anyone else. The matter at hand for me as a crisis counselor is to try to help her come to her own decision about what is best for her. I could ask her about what she thinks would be positive about telling them, what might be negative. Help her explore the issue. But ultimately it is her decision to tell or not to tell. And I’m very committed to the proposition that this is right and proper, even in those cases where I believe in my heart that she is making the wrong decision. Still, it is her decision and nobody else’s.

I know that if you were her mother, you’d want to know what happened to her, so you could help her. But if she knows that the state will force her to tell you or will force me to tell you, then she may well decide not to call and thus will be cut off not only from your help and support but from mine as well. I certainly concede that the help you can provide, as her mother, is likely to be far superior to mine, but even mine is better than nothing. If the state decides that minors have no right to confidentiality then many, many teens will choose to seek no help at all rather than turning to their parents, even when they have caring, helpful and supportive parents.

This is not about getting a piercing or not. That analogy just doesn’t cut it. Sexuality, reproductive decisions, mental health, substance abuse – these matters are so intensely personal that no one but the individual concerned has the right to dictate decision-making on them. (And decision-making includes who to tell and who not to tell.)

On a slightly different note . . .

The notion of parental rights that some people are advancing here does make me uncomfortable insofar as it seems almost to border on considering minor offspring as chattel. An emphasis on the parent’s right to decide what her child will eat, what she will wear, what she will do with her body, seems to me rather naive. The maturing process demands that children separate from their parents and establish control over and responsibility for the decisions that intimately affect themselves and their own bodies. That control and responsibility does not, should not, and cannot belong irrevocably and absolutely to the parents up until the child turns 18, at which point control and responsibility passes utterly to the (now adult) child.

The mother of a 10-year-old boy may well wish that, if her son is being tormented by a bully at school he will come to her with the problem and receive her help and guidance. Her help and guidance may well be exactly what he needs in this situation. But the fact is, he may decide to try and handle things on his own, because he’s a growing-up person and he’s trying to figure out how to be independent. Or maybe he’ll ask an older brother for help or talk to the parent of his best friend, and ask them to keep the conversation confidential. If he asks for confidentiality, do you feel the state should make it a crime for the non-parent to honor that request and not notify the boy’s parent?

I’m not saying that the situations are identical. I’m saying that children grow up gradually, not miraculously and all at once when they hit 18. Sometimes in the process of growing up they find themselves in over their heads. I’m sure as parents we all wish that they would turn to us when that happens, but we have to acknowledge that just by virtue of our being their parents we may be the last people they want to inform of the details of their troubles. Wouldn’t we rather they found help and support from someone ethical and professional rather than that they felt forced, in order to preserve their privacy, to turn in another, more dangerous, direction?

I’d like to point out something. The state considers this girl capable of deciding whether or not to have an abortion, yet considers the girl unable to decide whether or not to have sex in the first place.

If I, a 31 year old man, were to be the father in this scenario, I would be arrested for statutory rape. The implication is that the girl cannot decide for herself that she wants sex, therefore I have taken advantage of her. Yet, she can decide on an abortion.

The whole situation stinks to high heaven. Basically, every single right is the mother’s, and nobody has rights outside of her. Not her parents, not the father, not the fetus. The rules often fly in the face of other medical rules and laws for minors. Unfortunately, there isn’t really a better way to handle it, not that I know of.

If the fear is that parents will mistreat their daughters for being pregnant, why not advocate providing a support structure for these girls, one that will provide a safe, neutral place for them to inform their parents of their pregnancies, mediation while they hammer out the plan for how to deal with it and, if necessary, a safe place for the girl to stay while her parents get their heads on straight or while she makes alternative arrangements if going home pregnant/after abortion isn’t safe?

That’s not something I’ve heard. All I’ve heard is advocacy for the most extreme disconnects between the parent-child relationship at a time when in reality, these girls need their parents more than ever. I have a hard time believing that these no-parents-involved laws are founded in concern for pregnant girls more than expedience for those who make only one kind of reproductive choice.

According to the Alan Guttmacher institute (an arm of Planned Parenthood, so their political position on abortion is fairly clear) close to one million girls got pregnant in 1996. (That’s the last year for which they’re publicizing stats right now.) Somewhere in the neighborhood of 105,000 girls aborted their pregnancies without their parents’ knowledge. If we are to believe those who advocate laws like Florida’s, teens need unfettered access to abortion because their parents will abuse them in some fashion if they find out. But I will need a lot of evidence to convince me that rougly 1 in 10 girls (or more) who become pregnant have parents who would’ve rode roughshod over their rights and desires. A lot of evidence.

It’s indicative of the political divide on this issue that people will hurl invective at a parent who dares say that they should have input into the decision making process on abortion but won’t address analogies which are directly on point.

If a parent can’t say “no abortion until we talk things out” how about “no cochlear implants until we talk things out”? How about weight loss surgery – should a kid be able to demand one of those risky procedures without any interference from mom and dad? We can ignore that mom and dad will be directly in the path of the medical and psychological fallout that the procedures cause, because that aspect of the abortion issue is ignored.

If a 12 year old girl, solely due to her fertility, is somehow espounsed with strong enough judgment and decision-making ability to make life-altering decisions without any guidance from those who know her best and will be most involved with what will follow that decision, how much moreso shouldn’t she be free to do what she wants with her own skin? Shouldn’t the laws reserving body piercing and tattooing to those over 18 be abolished immediately?

If not, you are aware that you’re a raging hypocrite, right?

Bullshit analogies. Nothing happens to your body if you don’t get a piercing or a tattoo. A pregancy is a condition which requires immediate attention. You whine about what a big decision an abortion is as if having a fucking baby is trivial.

No matter what the context, many girls are simply not emotionally capable of telling an abusive parent about a pregnancy. Many sexual abuse victims are afraid to talk about it even in the presence of law enforcement or counsellors. I guarantee you that many of them would get an illegal abortion or self-abort before they would put themselves through that.

And no, Ahobilah, bringing in piercings and tattoos isn’t naive, it cuts to the heart of the question of absolutes. Either an adolescent (let’s say that instead of teen, we could be speaking of 11 year olds after all) owns their body or they don’t. The “this is special because it’s deeply personal” argument doesn’t wash, because what’s deeply personal to you may not mean diddly to me. There’s no standard for “deeply personal”. Either an adolescent has a complete right to autonomy within their body, which allows them to do whatever decorative, modifying or medical choices available to anyone, or they don’t. A person cannot have half of a right. They can’t have a right only under special circumstances.

So I’m just asking which it is – is there a right, or isn’t there? And if so, what actions are the advocates of that position taking to ensure that the right isn’t being breached by denial of other choices which adolescents might wish to make without their parents’ involvement or despite their parents’ objections?

Your tattoo strawman is dead already. Think of something else. It’s not analogous.

I think the issue is being duscussed well without any input from me, but I have a couple of remarks that I hope will help it along.

  1. The purpose of all law, IMHO, is to provide a state-enforced means of resolving problems. The question of a girl with concerned and caring parents who have let her know that her welfare and peace of mind comes ahead of anything else with them is really not at issue here. Ivylass’s daughter will be quite aware that she can turn to her parents for advice and help. Whatever her hypothetical rights ought to be (and that “her” can refer to either mother or daughter) will not be at issue – parents will help, comfort, and guide their daughter. The reason for and the need for the laws is illustrated by tanookie’s story (and dear, I hope you have a support group, and I’m quite confident that Dopers will help you find one if you don’t and want one). Just as I got a good deal on a used car last December, and the law was not involved – but if I had been cheated or sold a lemon, I’d want it in place. Peaceful honest people normally need not resort to the law in dealing with one another – but it’s a good thing to have for incidents whre one party is not peaceful or honest. The law the OP complains about is in place because of abusive or control-freak parents, and should not conern the other kind.

  2. Eilsel, the fallacy every parent falls into is “but he/she’s just a CHILD!” Nope. They start growing up immediately at birth, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. Barring extreme sexual precocity, this pregnant girl is not a child, she’s an adolescent. She either decided to have sex with somebody, decided to get into a situation where she was date-raped, or has been associating with someone who sexually abused her.

  3. You say, “children were given to us by God to raise and raise properly.” I understand the sentiment, but I have to say that you’re in error. The most they are is a loan. You were not given ownership but stewardship – He expects you to do your best to turn out a healthy, responsible, and caring adult, able to make adult decisions. And letting go and letting the adult-to-be make decisions is always the hardest part of the job.

tlw:

So either parents have complete control over their child’s body, or none?

So parents are either perfectly within their rights to perform female circumcision on their daughter, or they are way out of bounds to feed their kids vegetables instead of the ice cream they wanted?

No, clearly this is not an all or nothing situation. Parents have limited rights over their children. Things like female circumcision, forced abortion, or forced pregnancy are out. Sorry.

This is absolutely wrong. If the girl is having sex with someone her own age, it’s absolutely ok legally. The reason why it would be illegal for a 31 year old man is because he could potentially be abusing the immense power he has as an ‘adult’ over her, a ‘child’.

BTW, the medical profession DOES respect the right of children to make decisions about their medical care in other ways.

Even when it comes to a choice that means they will die. Gravely ill children have chosen NOT to be subjected to further painful attempts to prolong their life and had those choices respected, even when the parents wanted the reverse. True, a child in that circumstance is bombarded with arguments and evidence and appeals to change his mind, but if they are adamant, doctors aren’t going to strap someone down against their will in order to pump drugs into them.

As Aholibah said above, it shouldn’t be like flipping a switch. At age 17 years and 364 day the parents shouldn’t have all the rights and the child none. As the child matures, more and more his wishes count.

Actually, as a matter of simple reality, the parent has less and less control over the child as the child becomes more ‘competent’, in the sense of being able to make his own plans and carry them out.

You, the parent, may decree that the child should not eat candy or junk food, should not watch violent movies, should not wear makeup, should not be sexually active, whatever.

But the truth is, once your child is old enough not to be under constant surveillance, it’s up to him whether he buys that candy bar or watches the movie at his friends house. It’s up to her whether her first stop at school is the bathroom where she ‘does’ her face. And so on. All you can do is try to influence your child’s opinions/beliefs/morals to match yours – the actual decisions on what to do are up to them.

Let’s sidestep abortion for a moment (with all it’s other ethical arguments) for another example that involves sexuality. How about circumcism? Obviously a newborn child has no say in what happens if it’s done then. But what if it isn’t?

Suppose it’s sixteen years later, and now the parent thinks it would be right for the ‘child’ to be circumsized. But the boy vehemently DOESN’T want to have it done.

Who gets the final say in that case? My votes is for the child: it’s his body, he’s the one that will live with the result for the rest of his life.

tlw,

How fucking scary is that sentence. If you are under the impression that a parent owns his or her child’s body, then you are very much mistaken.

Polycarp,

I think the thing is, many posters in this thread feel ‘cheated’ out of their right to intercede on behalf of their own beliefs. In other words, ‘why has my right to intercede in my daughter’s decision to have an abortion been interfered with?’

I ask the question again to many of you: do you have the right to command your daughter to have an abortion?