The bad effects of parental notification laws

[DMB]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1706493,CST-EDT-open08a.article

While parental notification laws are intended to protect young women, they assume that all young women can safely involve their family in the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Ideally, young women would freely inform their parents or other trusted adults. And most do.

According to a study published in Family Planning Perspectives, 74 percent of 15-year-olds report that at least one of their parents knew about their decision to have an abortion. For 14-year-olds, this percentage grows to 90 percent.

However, the government cannot mandate good family dynamics or strengthen a family's ability to engage in effective and positive communication.

It's worth reading the whole article. It's not very long.

[Garrett]

If there's a problem, it isn't with the notification laws. Such laws are mere band-aids. The problem is with thinking that parents should have authority over their children.

That hurt to say. But it's a deep and broad position. Why should a child's welfare depend on a a particular pair of people?

[David B]

If there's a problem, it isn't with the notification laws. Such laws are mere band-aids. The problem is with thinking that parents should have authority over their children.

That hurt to say. But it's a deep and broad position. Why should a child's welfare depend on a a particular pair of people?

I ain't going around changing babies nappies, or diapers as I think some people refer to them.

I'll leave that to the parents.

David

[Garrett]

good point

Should we be okay with letting the parents home-school the kid with indoctrination rather than letting the kid suffer public education?

[David B]

good point

Should we be okay with letting the parents home-school the kid with indoctrination rather than letting the kid suffer public education?

False dichotomy.

David

[Garrett]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1706493,CST-EDT-open08a.article

While parental notification laws are intended to protect young women, they assume that all young women can safely involve their family in the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Ideally, young women would freely inform their parents or other trusted adults. And most do.

According to a study published in Family Planning Perspectives, 74 percent of 15-year-olds report that at least one of their parents knew about their decision to have an abortion. For 14-year-olds, this percentage grows to 90 percent.

However, the government cannot mandate good family dynamics or strengthen a family's ability to engage in effective and positive communication.

Would it be better if your unerage kid could get pregnant and choose an abortion without your knowledge? That's the only apparent option.

[Garrett]

good point

Should we be okay with letting the parents home-school the kid with indoctrination rather than letting the kid suffer public education?

False dichotomy.

Where? Some home-schooling rocks, and some pub ed sucks. But that doesn't change my question, which you didn't answer.

[Free in Freeport]

I support a woman's right to choose, regardless of age.

[Hevvin Machine]

good point

Should we be okay with letting the parents home-school the kid with indoctrination rather than letting the kid suffer public education?

False dichotomy.

Where? Some home-schooling rocks, and some pub ed sucks. But that doesn't change my question, which you didn't answer. Yes he did. There is no logical connection between school systems and abortion rights. That is the false dichotomy.

Parents are required to provide their children with schooling, because they are responsible for bringing them up. Here in rich countries the state will provide this schooling. That has nothing to do with a parents right and responsibility to take resposibility for their children and their children's actions. The flip side of this responsibility is a parents right to know what their children are doing. Neither the state nor any other agency has the right to enable a child to act against the parents rights, unless it has been proven that the parents are incompetent. If the state has reason to believe that the parents are incompetent or negligent or abusive, then it should move to end the parental relationship. Unless this has been demonstrated, the parent has a right to know what is being done to their child and stop it if they choose.

There is no connection between abortion and schooling. It is a false dichotomy.
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

I support a woman's right to choose, regardless of age. If the mother-to-be is a woman, then she is responsible for her own choices. That includes telling her parents what she has decided to do. If she is still a child, then she doesn't have any right to choose, her parents will choose for her. That is not just their right, it is their duty towards a child. Either she is a woman, an adult, or else she is a child who has to do what her parents say. I'm not saying exactly where that line should be drawn, I'm just saying that once it has been then everybody needs to be honest about it. An independent adult woman has a right to keep this from her parents, a child does not. Neither does anybody else.

Isn't that the point to statutory rape? An underage person doesn't have the capacity to consent to sex? Similarly, underage people do not have the capacity to consent to medical procedures like abortion.

Hev

[hecaterin]

Did you read the article:
more than half of young women who do not involve a parent in their decision to seek an abortion cite fear of abuse or eviction.

So what happens if, as happens in real life,
* the girl is a street kid who's run away from an abusive family
* only one parent can be contacted; the other is a deadbeat
* the girl's parents disagree, and her mother is living in a shelter with a restraining order out against the father
* the girl has a restraining order out against her father
* the girl got raped by her father and her mother's in denial about it. Or complicit.

Laws of this kind basically assume that everyone is in a happy little nuclear family, where all children have supportive parents. They are not. These laws are redundant for healthy families, and an extra strain and obstacle on those from dysfunctional families.

[LoneWolf]

If there's a problem, it isn't with the notification laws. Such laws are mere band-aids. The problem is with thinking that parents should have authority over their children.

That hurt to say. But it's a deep and broad position. Why should a child's welfare depend on a a particular pair of people?

Well, parents don't OWN their kids but they are responsible for them and are their guardians until they become adults. Parents are expected to make choices for their children that they are not yet mature enough to make for themselves. At what age we draw the line is certainly up for debate.

I am for parent notification laws. An abortion is a medical procedure and parents are consulted on every other medical procedure and this one should be no different. And if complications arise, and they do arise on occasion, the parents will have to get involved anyway.

I do understand that a minority of families out there will make things unbearable for the daughter once notified and that is horrible and I am not sure what to do about it. But I don't want my rights as a parent taken away because of some fuckwads out there.

[Free in Freeport]

I support a woman's right to choose, regardless of age. If the mother-to-be is a woman, then she is responsible for her own choices. That includes telling her parents what she has decided to do. If she is still a child, then she doesn't have any right to choose, her parents will choose for her. That is not just their right, it is their duty towards a child. Either she is a woman, an adult, or else she is a child who has to do what her parents say. I'm not saying exactly where that line should be drawn, I'm just saying that once it has been then everybody needs to be honest about it. An independent adult woman has a right to keep this from her parents, a child does not. Neither does anybody else.

Isn't that the point to statutory rape? An underage person doesn't have the capacity to consent to sex? Similarly, underage people do not have the capacity to consent to medical procedures like abortion.

Hev

If a female is pregnant, it's her choice whether to continue or terminate. Not her parents; hers. That has been upheld in court. Illinois is among many states that recognizes this right. Parental consent is not needed for an abortion.

[hecaterin]

Black and white is a bad way to legislate, too. Either a teenager is a child with no rights to decide on anything, or is fully adult? That's silly. There are gradations.

Very few teen girls would be keen on sharing the details of menarche, sex and contraception with their fathers. I would certainly not have liked my parents to be informed when I talked to my Dr about the pill and other contraceptive methods when I was 16. Parents most certainly were NOT consulted about that sort of thing when I was a kid, and I'm very glad of it.

[Hevvin Machine]

If a female is pregnant, it's her choice whether to continue or terminate. Well, as we both probably remember, I do not agree with this statement. But the morality of abortion is not the issue on this thread. It's about parental duties.
Not her parents; hers. Even if I did agree with this, it still isn't the issue on this thread. The issue here is about whether or not the parents should be notified.
If a child wanted a bottle of whiskey, or a pentacle brand on her cheek, or all of her teeth pulled, no one would agree that a non-guardian adult had license to grant this request without mentioning it to the girls parents. Whether a child is capable of making this decision for himself or not, a parent has the duty to rear their own child and that gives them rights to information about the child.

That has been upheld in court. Illinois is among many states that recognizes this right. Parental consent is not needed for an abortionJust because something is legal doesn't make it right. I'm sure that you would not agree that the laws regarding women in Saudi Arabia are moral, but they are legal.
Hev

[halii]

I always used to be for parental notification/consent laws when I was younger. I knew I needed my parent's permission for practically any kind of medical procedure from even getting a cavity filled to invasive surgery. Of course if your parents turn down necessary medical procedures you alway have a way around it. Elective surgery like plastic surgery and abortion couldn't be overturned. Though now, in most states at least, abortion can be because people have recognized the problem of forcing someone to have a pregnancy they do not want - its damaging to the pregnant minor and the fetus inside her.

The problem I have with parental consent particularly is the risk to both the pregnant girl and her unborn. Is the teenager going to take good care of herself when she desperately wants to terminate her pregnancy? The risks of attempting to terminate on one's own when they KNOW their parent will say no or severely punish them are potentially deadly for the pregnant girl. The risks that they don't take care of themselves properly and that impacts the baby is also troubling.

Even though this decision should be theirs, and is in parental notification states that don't mandate consent, they are still legally bound to parental authority. They have authority to punish you and in some cases severely traumatize you. In most areas, proving parental abuse is extremely hard, especially when it's alleged in suburban, middle class families where the family is dealing with a pregnant daughter. There's a great deal of risk coming at a time when the health of the the pregnant daughter an the health of the child is a factor.

in the US you have to have a process to overrule the parental notification/consent rule. it' a court system. only has to exist in certain states. you go to a healthcare provider like planned parenthood who will tell you the process. First you need a doctor to analyze you and see if you are a low-risk abortion. Then you have to be evaluated on a mental level and deemed mentally capable of having the procedure. then you take that evidence to a judge and as soon as you get assigned to a judge you more often than not know what's going to happen.

[Loren Pechtel]

Would it be better if your unerage kid could get pregnant and choose an abortion without your knowledge? That's the only apparent option.

Yes. Parental notification laws won't do a thing about keeping your underage kid from getting pregnant. All they can do is permit the parents to force her to keep it or to do something like throw her out of the house.

Most *DO* tell their parent(s)--doesn't that suggest there's a reason behind those that don't??

[Faerie]

Here the "legal" age to undergo any medical procedure without parental consent is 12. However, should the child be of a more privilaged background, and is on a medical insurance, the insurance requires the parental consent for financially legal reasons, should the teenager (12+ of age), go to a governmental hospital, no questions will be asked and she will be treated as an adult. In our society this makes sense as we have many, many childheaded households.

[Valheru]

I support a woman's right to choose, regardless of age. If the mother-to-be is a woman, then she is responsible for her own choices. That includes telling her parents what she has decided to do. If she is still a child, then she doesn't have any right to choose, her parents will choose for her.

That's horseshit, Hev. When, according to YOU, does a child become an adult?

When the lawmakers say so? :rolleyes:

I will concede that children aren't fit to make certain decisions for themselves, but a decision regarding custody of their own bodies, isn't one of them.

[Free in Freeport]

Having an abortion is hardly analogous to getting a tattoo!

Minors have successfully petitioned courts for emancipation and removal from the home when parents attempted to interfere with their right to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

[Matty]

did i just read that right Hev? A girl under the age of consent should have no say in whether she has an abortion, it should be totally up to the parents?

You do try to be a good guy eh but the poorly thought out religious ugliness just cant seem to help seeping through . Read that again and see what you are suggesting. That a 16 yr old pregnant girl could be taken to the hospital and be forced to get rid of a baby she might actually want. The parents could quite easily be insisting becasue the other parent to be is of the wrong colour, religion, race, class or any of that, but that doesnt matter to you because the girl, and by proxy her foetus is simply the property of the girls parents.

what a morally abhorrent crock of shit Hev. You are on a roll today my friend.

[BioBeing]

I have always thought that the Parental Notification laws were designed to make it harder, not easier, for the girl to get an abortion, for many of the reasons mentioned here.

[David B]

Having an abortion is hardly analogous to getting a tattoo!

Minors have successfully petitioned courts for emancipation and removal from the home when parents attempted to interfere with their right to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Being genitally mutilated is hardly akin to getting a tattoo, either.

Yet parents seem to have the legal right to genitally mutilate their child. Not only in the Sudan and the US, but here, too.

Bizarre, and tragic, both.

David

[Hevvin Machine]

did i just read that right Hev? A girl under the age of consent should have no say in whether she has an abortion, it should be totally up to the parents?
No Matty, you did not read that right. I never said anything like that. As usual when you disagree with me about something you made up a strawman argument and got your panties all in a wad over it.

This thread is not about the morality of abortion or who is in control of the decisions. It is about the duty of a parent to rear their children. My point is that nobody has the right to usurp parental duty without even informing the parents that they are doing so.

You do try to be a good guy eh but the poorly thought out religious ugliness just cant seem to help seeping through . Where did I refer to any religious argument, Matty? This has nothing to do with religion, I thought parents have duties even when I was an atheist.

Read that again and see what you are suggesting. That a 16 yr old pregnant girl could be taken to the hospital and be forced to get rid of a baby she might actually want. The parents could quite easily be insisting becasue the other parent to be is of the wrong colour, religion, race, class or any of that, but that doesnt matter to you because the girl, and by proxy her foetus is simply the property of the girls parents. Well, this is the third strawman argument you've managed to pack into one post, Matty. I don't think people should ever choose to kill healthy people, it's a Pro-Life thing.

what a morally abhorrent crock of shit Hev. You are on a roll today my friend. Stick your strawman arguments up your ass Matty. Then set them afire. It'll make it easier for you to keep blowing smoke.
Hev

[Pandora]

Compromise.

Parental notification required... but the girl has the right to petition for an override. Petitioning for an override, however, opens the family to social services review.

Those girls who are afraid of being harmed by their parents because they've chosen abortion should probably have their families looked into anyway - abuse is abuse, and shouldn't be tolerated.

But unless the girl is willing to open that can of worms, their parents should be informed. They don't need to give consent, but they should be informed. As with any other medical procedure.

[Hevvin Machine]

Compromise.

Parental notification required... but the girl has the right to petition for an override. Petitioning for an override, however, opens the family to social services review.

Those girls who are afraid of being harmed by their parents because they've chosen abortion should probably have their families looked into anyway - abuse is abuse, and shouldn't be tolerated.

But unless the girl is willing to open that can of worms, their parents should be informed. They don't need to give consent, but they should be informed. As with any other medical procedure.
Exactly.

If parents are too violent/absent/incompetent to provide child rearing, then they should be left out of the picture. This does happen, and allowances must be made for this unusual circumstance. But there must be a legal process making clear who is in custody of an underage person if it isn't their legal parents. Otherwise, no parent really has custody of their children.

Hev

[Loren Pechtel]

Compromise.

Parental notification required... but the girl has the right to petition for an override. Petitioning for an override, however, opens the family to social services review.

Those girls who are afraid of being harmed by their parents because they've chosen abortion should probably have their families looked into anyway - abuse is abuse, and shouldn't be tolerated.

But unless the girl is willing to open that can of worms, their parents should be informed. They don't need to give consent, but they should be informed. As with any other medical procedure.

Bad idea. This will tell the parents what's up and could easily trigger the problems she's trying to avoid.

There's also the problem that in some places the overrides are unobtainable. Get a biased PL judge and there's simply no point to trying.

[Hevvin Machine]

Compromise.

Parental notification required... but the girl has the right to petition for an override. Petitioning for an override, however, opens the family to social services review.

Those girls who are afraid of being harmed by their parents because they've chosen abortion should probably have their families looked into anyway - abuse is abuse, and shouldn't be tolerated.

But unless the girl is willing to open that can of worms, their parents should be informed. They don't need to give consent, but they should be informed. As with any other medical procedure.

Bad idea. This will tell the parents what's up and could easily trigger the problems she's trying to avoid.
I don't think this is a bad idea at all. I think that the point that Muidiri and I are trying to make is this: "If an underage person is pregnant and unwilling to tell her guardians then there is already a problem that needs to be looked into."
C'mon. If a young woman suddenly became unable to walk without crashing into doors and getting a black eye, or falling down stairs and breaking their arm, or getting burned when they don't even smoke, the only reasonable assessment is that they are being abused by someone. You can't just turn a blind eye because she tells you a story. You can't be that blind, morally.

A young girl is pregnant, but doesn't want her parents to know. There is a problem here that needs investigation. Just giving her an abortion and sending her right back into the same situation is insane! If she were bruised and burned, with a broken arm and jaw, and asked you not to tell her parents since she only fell down the stairs accidentally and hit the furnance, would you agree to keep this from them? It's idiocy, covering up such obvious problems. Immoral idiocy.


There's also the problem that in some places the overrides are unobtainable. Get a biased PL judge and there's simply no point to trying. The judicial system is imperfect, to say the least. But it's the best we have, at the moment. If you've got a better suggestion, then by all means let us know.

Hev

[hecaterin]

If parents are too violent/absent/incompetent to provide child rearing, then they should be left out of the picture. This does happen, and allowances must be made for this unusual circumstance. But there must be a legal process making clear who is in custody of an underage person if it isn't their legal parents. Otherwise, no parent really has custody of their children.Well, this is very nice, but exactly who's got custody of that 14 year old heroin addicted prostitute who ran away from home when she was 12, and now lives on the street?

There seems to be a huge disconnect between people who want to legislate for what they think the world ought to be like, and people who want to mitigate the damage in actual reality. To me this thing reads of unnecessary self-righteous busy-bodying. If a child has a good relationship with her parents, it's not necessary. If not, it's an additional obstacle that can make life hugely worse.

What twelve year old is going to want to bring government social services down on her family? It's good odds that an abuser is in there saying "if you tell anyone the government will take you away and you'll never see your mother/sister again." One who I know well was told that her abuser would literally kill her mother if she told anyone about it. She wouldn't have dobbed him in to the government, she was terrified. Suicide would have been her much more likely option.

[Hevvin Machine]

If parents are too violent/absent/incompetent to provide child rearing, then they should be left out of the picture. This does happen, and allowances must be made for this unusual circumstance. But there must be a legal process making clear who is in custody of an underage person if it isn't their legal parents. Otherwise, no parent really has custody of their children.Well, this is very nice, but exactly who's got custody of that 14 year old heroin addicted prostitute who ran away from home when she was 12, and now lives on the street?
Nobody seems to have custody of this child, and that strikes me as a very big problem. She needs somebody, a competent adult of some kind, and a state agency or social worker is better than nothing.


There seems to be a huge disconnect between people who want to legislate for what they think the world ought to be like, and people who want to mitigate the damage in actual reality. To me this thing reads of unnecessary self-righteous busy-bodying.
So what are you suggesting? Give her an abortion and a little hug and send her back into whatever situation got her in the predicament? This thread is about parental notification. If her parents do not qualify as competent caring adults, then that is a whole 'nother problem. But if her parents don't even know that she's pregnant you can't justifiably claim that they are violent incompetents. I don't see how making sure this young person has a competent adult guardian qualifies as "unnecessary self-righteous busy-bodying".
If a child has a good relationship with her parents, it's not necessary. Quite true. But as a former teenager I know there were times when I would have preferred that my parents did not know about my every mistake. That doesn't mean that they were not loving and capable guardians. But I definitely would have lied convincingly if I thought I could prevent my parents from finding about certain car accidents or minor drug offenses. Actually, I did. I know for a fact that teens will lie to prevent their competent guardians from finding out things, if they can. I know.
If not, it's an additional obstacle that can make life hugely worse. Then that is a whole separate problem from the abortion and needs to be dealt with.
That child did not get pregnant all by herself. Who is the father? How did this happen to her? These are questions that need to be answered, for the sake of the child. Something needs to be done to ensure the safety of the child in the future. Just giving her an abortion and sending her back into whatever situation she faced before getting pregnant is not a solution to the problem. More likely it is giving cover to an irresponsible male predator.

What twelve year old is going to want to bring government social services down on her family? It's good odds that an abuser is in there saying "if you tell anyone the government will take you away and you'll never see your mother/sister again." One who I know well was told that her abuser would literally kill her mother if she told anyone about it. She wouldn't have dobbed him in to the government, she was terrified. Suicide would have been her much more likely option.
Oh right, so instead of finding this poor girl a safe place and a competent guardian, you just give her abuser a free abortion and send her back to him?! That's horrible. You knew this and you let him get away with it?! Surely not.

I know victims of child sexual abuse, but always from the clarity of years after. I am not a violent person, but there are people I would hunt down with a gun if I could. I can say that, since it isn't any longer possible.

I do not see laws giving children the right to abortions without parental notification as protecting children from their parents. I see them as laws protecting child abusers from justice. Somebody "helped" that girl get pregnant, and competent adults need to find out who and under what circumstances and make sure it doesn't happen to her again until she is a competent adult on her own and able to choose for herself.
That fourteen year old heroin addicted prostitute deserves better than just a quiet abortion.
Hev

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think this is a bad idea at all. I think that the point that Muidiri and I are trying to make is this: "If an underage person is pregnant and unwilling to tell her guardians then there is already a problem that needs to be looked into."

Sure, there's a problem. That doesn't mean it should be made worse, though.

C'mon. If a young woman suddenly became unable to walk without crashing into doors and getting a black eye, or falling down stairs and breaking their arm, or getting burned when they don't even smoke, the only reasonable assessment is that they are being abused by someone. You can't just turn a blind eye because she tells you a story. You can't be that blind, morally.

I have no problem with reporting abuse. I just don't think a minor seeking an abortion should trigger an automatic investigation. That's just setting her up for more trouble.

A young girl is pregnant, but doesn't want her parents to know. There is a problem here that needs investigation. Just giving her an abortion and sending her right back into the same situation is insane!

The problem might not rise to the level of criminal conduct on the part of the parents, though.

There's also the problem that in some places the overrides are unobtainable. Get a biased PL judge and there's simply no point to trying. The judicial system is imperfect, to say the least. But it's the best we have, at the moment. If you've got a better suggestion, then by all means let us know.

Well, one simple change: Judges are the wrong person to be doing this. It's an issue of her mental state--the correct people to evaluate that are psychiatrists or psychologists.

[Hevvin Machine]

I don't think this is a bad idea at all. I think that the point that Muidiri and I are trying to make is this: "If an underage person is pregnant and unwilling to tell her guardians then there is already a problem that needs to be looked into."

Sure, there's a problem. That doesn't mean it should be made worse, though.

How can you know whether you're making it better or worse without an investigation? My whole point is that you can't know what the situation is without involving the parents, or legal guardians. So you can't say that what you're doing is making anything better. C'mon. If a young woman suddenly became unable to walk without crashing into doors and getting a black eye, or falling down stairs and breaking their arm, or getting burned when they don't even smoke, the only reasonable assessment is that they are being abused by someone. You can't just turn a blind eye because she tells you a story. You can't be that blind, morally.

I have no problem with reporting abuse. I just don't think a minor seeking an abortion should trigger an automatic investigation. That's just setting her up for more trouble. But you do have a problem with reporting evidence of abuse. You've said so. You don't think that a minor who is facing a crisis pregnancy, but doesn't want her legal guardian involved, isn't evidence of an abusive situation. Not investigating these circumstances is setting her up for more trouble.

A young girl is pregnant, but doesn't want her parents to know. There is a problem here that needs investigation. Just giving her an abortion and sending her right back into the same situation is insane!

The problem might not rise to the level of criminal conduct on the part of the parents, though. An investigation into the circumstances under which a minor gets pregnant doesn't necessarily involve criminal conduct on the part of the parents. No one said it did. But it may very well involve some criminal conduct. Somebody needs to find out. Even if it is just another youthful human who is sexually irresponsible, that also needs to be dealt with. But a competent adult needs to find out what actually happened for young people(AKA minors) to be safe. I don't see this as all that complex.

There's also the problem that in some places the overrides are unobtainable. Get a biased PL judge and there's simply no point to trying. The judicial system is imperfect, to say the least. But it's the best we have, at the moment. If you've got a better suggestion, then by all means let us know.

Well, one simple change: Judges are the wrong person to be doing this. It's an issue of her mental state--the correct people to evaluate that are psychiatrists or psychologists. I can well understand why judges need other professionals to do an evaluation of a situation that is outside of their scope of knowledge. But before you end parental or guardianship duties you need somebody with state authority to make an informed decision. That would be a judge.

Hev

[Loren Pechtel]

But you do have a problem with reporting evidence of abuse. You've said so. You don't think that a minor who is facing a crisis pregnancy, but doesn't want her legal guardian involved, isn't evidence of an abusive situation. Not investigating these circumstances is setting her up for more trouble.

But investigating it will have the actual effect of keeping her from having the abortion. It's just a way of trying to slip in parental notification.

[Hevvin Machine]

But investigating it will have the actual effect of keeping her from having the abortion. Not necessarily. The state can emancipate her. Then she is free to do whatever she wants. If she needs it, the state can find her foster-care. But you can't have it both ways. Either she is a competent adult or she is a dependent minor.

It's just a way of trying to slip in parental notification. This is not about "slipping in parental notification". It's about the right of a parent to be notified before making a choice for a dependent minor in their care. Nobody has a right to do that.

And frankly, I don't see how anybody can think that the matter has been adequately addressed without doing so. The girl did not get herself pregnant. Having sex with a minor is a crime and for good reason. Finding out what happened is important beyond the issue at hand. Taking the girl's word is just not good enough. She is trying to slip the facts past her parents, what makes anybody think she is truthing to them? Getting to the facts of a matter involving sex with minors must necessarily involve the parents. And, they are the one's who are supposed to prevent it, how can they if they don't know about the situation?

Hev

[halii]

if i had a daughter, i'd want her to tell me so i could get her the best care or best abortion doctor there was depending on what she decided.

unfortunately not all people are as awesome as i am.

the daughter's decision impacts her health significantly and her fetus. her decision - regardless of what she is allowed to do - is a key one.

if it's not fair to force a daughter into an abortion it shouldn't be fair to force her to carry to term. either both should have notification and approval or neither.

[Hevvin Machine]

either both should have notification and approval or neither. Does this sentence make sense to anybody else? It doesn't to me.
Hev

[Loren Pechtel]

It's just a way of trying to slip in parental notification. This is not about "slipping in parental notification". It's about the right of a parent to be notified before making a choice for a dependent minor in their care. Nobody has a right to do that.

And frankly, I don't see how anybody can think that the matter has been adequately addressed without doing so. The girl did not get herself pregnant. Having sex with a minor is a crime and for good reason. Finding out what happened is important beyond the issue at hand. Taking the girl's word is just not good enough. She is trying to slip the facts past her parents, what makes anybody think she is truthing to them? Getting to the facts of a matter involving sex with minors must necessarily involve the parents. And, they are the one's who are supposed to prevent it, how can they if they don't know about the situation?

Hev

One should look at the best interests of the woman. The reality of parental notification is back alley abortions. If the home situation is bad enough she doesn't want to tell then forcing matters isn't going to help.

[Hevvin Machine]

One should look at the best interests of the woman. How can you look at the best interests of the girl if you don't know what happened in the first place or is likely to happen in the future?

The reality of parental notification is back alley abortions.
This is not true. RvW and parental notification need not be mutually exclusive.

If the home situation is bad enough she doesn't want to tell then forcing matters isn't going to help.
If the home situation is so bad that she is pregnant and prefers not to tell her parents then that is evidence enough to justify an investigation. Maybe she should be removed or emancipated or something. But quietly sweeping this all under the rug and hoping that the problems become somebody else's is flat out immoral.
Hev

[Valheru]

If the home situation is so bad that she is pregnant and prefers not to tell her parents then that is evidence enough to justify an investigation. Maybe she should be removed or emancipated or something. But quietly sweeping this all under the rug and hoping that the problems become somebody else's is flat out immoral.
Hev

Why does the home situation need to be "bad" for a girl to choose not to tell her parents? Complete and utter red herring.

It's her choice, and her choice alone. You're trying to muddy the issue with irrelevant crap.

One could just as easily argue that the all-American valedictorian girl from a good family wants to hide it to spare her and/or her family any perceived shame.

[Loren Pechtel]

One should look at the best interests of the woman. How can you look at the best interests of the girl if you don't know what happened in the first place or is likely to happen in the future?

The reality of parental notification is back alley abortions.
This is not true. RvW and parental notification need not be mutually exclusive.

Reality: Becky Bell.

If the home situation is bad enough she doesn't want to tell then forcing matters isn't going to help.
If the home situation is so bad that she is pregnant and prefers not to tell her parents then that is evidence enough to justify an investigation. Maybe she should be removed or emancipated or something. But quietly sweeping this all under the rug and hoping that the problems become somebody else's is flat out immoral.
Hev

In a perfect world. The problem is that the world is far from perfect. You're going to make things worse for her at least for a while. Avoiding the confrontation is sometimes her best course of action.

[Loren Pechtel]

If the home situation is so bad that she is pregnant and prefers not to tell her parents then that is evidence enough to justify an investigation. Maybe she should be removed or emancipated or something. But quietly sweeping this all under the rug and hoping that the problems become somebody else's is flat out immoral.
Hev

Why does the home situation need to be "bad" for a girl to choose not to tell her parents? Complete and utter red herring.

It's her choice, and her choice alone. You're trying to muddy the issue with irrelevant crap.

One could just as easily argue that the all-American valedictorian girl from a good family wants to hide it to spare her and/or her family any perceived shame.

If the situation isn't bad she has no reason not to tell her parents--and most of them do.

[Pandora]

If the home situation is so bad that she is pregnant and prefers not to tell her parents then that is evidence enough to justify an investigation. Maybe she should be removed or emancipated or something. But quietly sweeping this all under the rug and hoping that the problems become somebody else's is flat out immoral.
Hev

Why does the home situation need to be "bad" for a girl to choose not to tell her parents? Complete and utter red herring.

It's her choice, and her choice alone. You're trying to muddy the issue with irrelevant crap.

One could just as easily argue that the all-American valedictorian girl from a good family wants to hide it to spare her and/or her family any perceived shame.

Why should any minor be required to inform their parents about any surgical procedure? Why should parents have the right to know the risks and dangers of any medical procedure that their child might decide to undergo?

Parental consent is required for any other medical procedure. Yet for voluntary terminations, people argue that the parents don't even need to be informed. I understand the need to keep the choice that of the girl - it's her body. But I still think that it is rational and sensible to require that the parents be informed except for extenuating circumstances. They don't get to grant consent - but they should at least be informed.

Sometimes things go wrong. There are dangers associated with any surgical procedure. The parents should at least know what dangers their children are facing.

[Loren Pechtel]

If the home situation is so bad that she is pregnant and prefers not to tell her parents then that is evidence enough to justify an investigation. Maybe she should be removed or emancipated or something. But quietly sweeping this all under the rug and hoping that the problems become somebody else's is flat out immoral.
Hev

Why does the home situation need to be "bad" for a girl to choose not to tell her parents? Complete and utter red herring.

It's her choice, and her choice alone. You're trying to muddy the issue with irrelevant crap.

One could just as easily argue that the all-American valedictorian girl from a good family wants to hide it to spare her and/or her family any perceived shame.

Why should any minor be required to inform their parents about any surgical procedure? Why should parents have the right to know the risks and dangers of any medical procedure that their child might decide to undergo?

Parental consent is required for any other medical procedure. Yet for voluntary terminations, people argue that the parents don't even need to be informed. I understand the need to keep the choice that of the girl - it's her body. But I still think that it is rational and sensible to require that the parents be informed except for extenuating circumstances. They don't get to grant consent - but they should at least be informed.

Sometimes things go wrong. There are dangers associated with any surgical procedure. The parents should at least know what dangers their children are facing.

The reason we are opposed is that in this case the harm outweighs the benefit.

Furthermore, avoiding risk is *NOT* a reason--childbirth is more dangerous than early abortion.

[Hevvin Machine]

The reason we are opposed is that in this case the harm outweighs the benefit.
But you don't know what the harm or the benefits are. You can't know, without finding out what the circumstances are. There is no way you can do that without involving the parents. You cannot make the determination that the harm outweighs the benefits when you don't know the situation. If the girl and the father are irresponsible enough to get pregnant without the capability of dealing with that and the girl is deceitful enough to try to keep this from her legal guardians, there is clearly a problem. You can't say for sure where the problem is until you get the facts.

Furthermore, avoiding risk is *NOT* a reason--childbirth is more dangerous than early abortion.There are many more risks involved here besides the medical risks associated with the pregnancy. Whatever the circumstances that led to an underage girl getting pregnant, they were risky. The whole point to parents having custody of underage humans is so that some competent adult is taking responsibility for that child until they are determined to be competent for themselves. If the parents are not competent, then emancipate the child and let the parents know that she is emancipated. If not, then anybody is morally obligated to let the parents know before making such a decision for their child.
Hev

[Free in Freeport]

If a girl is old enough to get pregnant, she is old enough to be entitled to privacy in her medical care.

[Lugubert]

I do hope that if I had had a daughter, there would have been enough trust between us that she would have come to me for advice or at least discussion in any similar case.

On the legal aspect in Sweden, for persons younger than 15, parents/legal guardian should partake in similar decisions. (For older kids, it seems that it would be illegal for caregivers to inform parents, but the girl would be recommended to tell her parents or another close adult.) Informing is not, however, legally compulsive for medical professionals. They can choose not to inform parents, if the girl doesn’t want them to, but will provide help from adequately trained support persons.

The financial aspect is no problem. All medical care is free for minors.

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason we are opposed is that in this case the harm outweighs the benefit.
But you don't know what the harm or the benefits are. You can't know, without finding out what the circumstances are. There is no way you can do that without involving the parents. You cannot make the determination that the harm outweighs the benefits when you don't know the situation. If the girl and the father are irresponsible enough to get pregnant without the capability of dealing with that and the girl is deceitful enough to try to keep this from her legal guardians, there is clearly a problem. You can't say for sure where the problem is until you get the facts.

But we can see what happens when you have parental notification laws: Becky Bell.

Furthermore, avoiding risk is *NOT* a reason--childbirth is more dangerous than early abortion.There are many more risks involved here besides the medical risks associated with the pregnancy. Whatever the circumstances that led to an underage girl getting pregnant, they were risky. The whole point to parents having custody of underage humans is so that some competent adult is taking responsibility for that child until they are determined to be competent for themselves. If the parents are not competent, then emancipate the child and let the parents know that she is emancipated. If not, then anybody is morally obligated to let the parents know before making such a decision for their child.
Hev

You're not addressing what you quoted at all.

Furthermore, you are treating it as a binary state: Totally competent or totally incompetent.

[Loren Pechtel]

I do hope that if I had had a daughter, there would have been enough trust between us that she would have come to me for advice or at least discussion in any similar case.

Yes, this is how it should be.

If it's not, however, parental notification laws can't fix the problem. It would be like putting a band-aid on a bleeding artery.

The real purpose is to make abortion harder to get and thus sex more dangerous.

[Hevvin Machine]

If a girl is old enough to get pregnant, she is old enough to be entitled to privacy in her medical care.Why? You state this assertion without backing it up with anything.

But I'll see your assertion and raise it. If a child is old enough to demand medical privacy, she is old enough to emancipate herself. That is all she has to do in order to get total medical privacy, and it already happens quite frequently. Why is this simple option being dismissed?
Hev

ETA If a person is too young to be emancipated then they are too young to be allowed medical privacy from their parents. Total privacy on any count is a function of competence.

[Hevvin Machine]

The reason we are opposed is that in this case the harm outweighs the benefit.
But you don't know what the harm or the benefits are. You can't know, without finding out what the circumstances are. There is no way you can do that without involving the parents. You cannot make the determination that the harm outweighs the benefits when you don't know the situation. If the girl and the father are irresponsible enough to get pregnant without the capability of dealing with that and the girl is deceitful enough to try to keep this from her legal guardians, there is clearly a problem. You can't say for sure where the problem is until you get the facts.

But we can see what happens when you have parental notification laws: Becky Bell.
You didn't address the point to my post. You don't know what the harm or benefits are until you do an investigation. You can't do that without letting the people who are being investigated know about the investigation.

I think this an issue too important to argue it with the weak argument of one particular anecdote. But I did Google out some information concerning your anecdotal argument.
Becky died, and nobody really knows why. Her parents claim that she got an illicit abortion, and that it caused her death. The autopsy didn't make such a claim. Becky's mother, according to Wiki, made a good case for parental notification. People ask me what I would have done if Becky had told me the truth. I would have been mad, and I would have said, "Becky, you just ruined your life. What are the neighbors going to think?" That would have been my first reaction because that's who I am. But then I would have asked her, "Beck, do you want to get married? Have a baby? Have an abortion? What do you want? What can you live with, hon?" We would have worked it out. But I never got the chance Assuming that Becky's mother is telling the truth here, what would have been wrong with her knowing about Becky's pregnancy? If Becky's mother isn't telling the truth about Becky's death, then why would her claim that Becky's death is a result of notification laws instead of poor parenting make any sense?

Here's a quote from another source. It is a Pro-Life website, I am not pretending that they don't have a biased opinion. But they do have another view of the whole Becky Bell issue. If you can prove them wrong go for it.
It's long and much more detailed than the Wiki.
Becky had been involved sexually with a high school dropout as long as one year before her death. He also introduced her to drugs. Sometime in late 1987 or early 1988, her mother learned through a family friend that Becky might be pregnant, and immediately took her to Planned Parenthood where the tests proved negative. Soon after this, her parents also admitted her to the hospital for an almost two-month detoxification program.

After returning home, she apparently became pregnant in mid-May. This time, instead of telling her parents, she told only her best girl friend, Heather Clark, who accompanied her to Planned Parenthood. She was pregnant this time and was told about the Indiana consent law. According to the oft-repeated story of her friend Heather, during the four months of her pregnancy, Becky wavered about what to do. She talked of going to Kentucky for an abortion, or running away to California, having the baby, and placing the child for adoption. But the key part of Becky’s sad story is what happened the last six days of her life. She attended a drug party on a Saturday night, six days before she died. This is listed in the coroner’s report. It also details the fact that Becky told her mother that she thought some one had put speed or cocaine in her drink. It is known that she stayed in her room all of the following day, Sunday, telling her parents that she had flu.

Becky apparently began hemorrhaging five days later — Friday morning — the day she died. Her mother recalls that she said earlier that day, "Mommy, I started," with a smile, which she thought was odd because Becky usually dreaded the cramps associated with her period. After the bleeding started, Becky, who had resisted going to the doctor, now agreed to seek medical help. Her father took her to the hospital that afternoon. She died that night. Heather Clark flatly insists that Becky did not attempt to abort. She has stated that Becky talked about getting a legal abortion in Kentucky right up until the day she died. (Heather believes Becky had a miscarriage.) Furthermore, after Becky’s death, her mother found a list of abortion clinics and adoption agencies in her daughter’s purse. Also, Heather Clark has stated that the day before Becky died, "Becky asked me for the phone number of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Louisville." Your authors have a copy of the autopsy report. It lists "manner of death" as "undetermined." It then lists "cause of death" as "septic abortion with pneumonia." Remember, in medical reports, miscarriages are referred to as "abortions" or "spontaneous abortions." This is what has caused the confusion as, by carefully reading the autopsy report, it is obvious that the primary cause of death was fulminating, cavitating pneumonia and sepsis, along with evidence of a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). The autopsy report reads as follows:

"The uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries are present. They are of usual size and shape for age. No tumors are present. There is evidence of recent pregnancy with recent partial abortion. The uterus is enlarged consistent with current pregnancy of age approximately 2-3 months. The cervix is dilated uniformly without evidence of mucosal or submucosal injury. Extruding from the cervical os is hemorraghic and necrotic red-tan and grey-brown tissue consistent with products of conception. The lower third of the uterine cavity has only the flat mucosa without obvious evidence of instrumentation. However, the upper 2/3 of the uterine cavity has a mixture of blood clot and necrotic and hemmorraghic products of conception. There are no recognizable fetal parts, and the amniotic membrance has been ruptured, leaving only a small area recognizable as thin blue-tan glistening membranes. There is no evidence of hydatid mole or invasive chorio-carcinoma. The serosa of the uterus is smooth and glistening and without exudate, and there are no areas of perforation or pus in or around the uterus. The right ovary has a 1 x 1 1/2 x 1 inch bright yellow corpus luteum. The remainder of the ovaries shows unremarkable for age ovaries. There are no injuries of the vagina."

Let us translate. That she was pregnant is obvious. The cervix in a 17-year-old’s first pregnancy would have to be stretched open by an abortionist, causing some tearing of the lining of that cervix, even by the most gentle dilation. If a trained abortionist had performed an abortion, there would have been evidence of scraping, trauma, scratching, and tearing. Had an untrained person attempted an abortion, there would have been much more damage to the cervix and uterus. To have a cervix "dilated uniformly without evidence of mucosal or submucosal injury" totally rules out the use of any instrumentation; rather, it tells any physician that this was a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), not an induced abortion.

The description of what "extrudes" from the "cervical os" (cervical opening) is the normal leftover from a nearly completed miscarriage. The report then further states that the lower third of the uterus was "without obvious evidence of instrumentation." The report describes the remaining tissue in the upper two-thirds as exactly what one would expect from a miscarriage. Then the report speaks of the serosa, which is the outer covering of the womb, which is described as "smooth, glistening and without exudate." Exudate would be pus or oozing if the organ was infected. If this had been a case of septic abortion, this tissue would be shaggy and discolored (not "smooth, glistening and without exudate"). Further, the report stated, "there are no areas of perforation or pus." Finally, there are "no injuries of the vagina." Clearly she did not have an induced abortion. The autopsy report of the lungs and pleural (chest) cavities take up over half a page of single-spaced reporting, and describe the near total destruction of those organs by infection.

Dr. Nathanson, who performed thousands of abortions before he completely reversed his position and became a pro-lifer, agrees that "there is no evidence for an induced abortion at all." He states that the cause of death was obviously overwhelming pneumonia unrelated to the miscarriage, with no evidence of significant infection inside or outside of the uterus.

The report details that the germ that killed Becky (streptococcus pneumoniae) is a common pneumonia germ unlikely to originate from a contaminated abortion procedure.

Dr. Curtis Harris, a teaching Endocrinologist from Oklahoma City and president of the American Academy of Medical Ethics, has consulted in detail with four prominent specialists in the fields of infectious disease, Ob/Gyn. Infertility, and Pathology. All of them have agreed that Becky had a spontaneous miscarriage; that her uterus was not infected; that in all likelihood her drug taking was the primary cause of the infection, perhaps causing vomiting and aspiration of the vomitus into the lungs or through toxicity; that the miscarriage was likely directly related to drug ingestion; and that she died from overwhelming sepsis from the lung infection, which was completely unrelated to her spontaneous miscarriage. He and the consultants asked for slides for pathologic consultation and examination. Was she on drugs? Blood specimens analyzed were negative for alcohol, cocaine, speed and "other drugs," but there was no examination for marijuana. The blood was taken one week after the above party at which time all of the drugs should have cleared her system, with the exception of marijuana, but it was not tested for.

Conclusion

Becky Bell did not die from an induced abortion. The entire attempt by the abortion industry to so label her death was a total lie.
My interpretation of what I can learn about Becky's case is that her parents made a national case out of blaming the law for the results of their own parenting. Becky was having irresponsible sex and doing drugs and wound up dying. That is a bad thing, and I sure feel for her parents. But blaming parental notification laws for Becky's untimely and unecessary death is obviously not all there is to this story.
Like I said, I am not big on argument by anecdote. I do not see this one tragedy as being particularly informative on the whole issue of parental custody of minor children.
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

Furthermore, avoiding risk is *NOT* a reason--childbirth is more dangerous than early abortion.There are many more risks involved here besides the medical risks associated with the pregnancy. Whatever the circumstances that led to an underage girl getting pregnant, they were risky. The whole point to parents having custody of underage humans is so that some competent adult is taking responsibility for that child until they are determined to be competent for themselves. If the parents are not competent, then emancipate the child and let the parents know that she is emancipated. If not, then anybody is morally obligated to let the parents know before making such a decision for their child.
Hev

You're not addressing what you quoted at all.
Yes I did. I didn't list all of the many risks involved with minor having risky sex because I assumed that competent adults would see them. I pointed out that there are more risks involved with incompetent people having risky sex than just the risks involved with birthing or abortion.
So, I'll come up with a short list.

~ The girl is pregnant by a close family member. She doesn't want to face the problems resulting from getting pregnant by her uncle, so she prefers a quiet, anonymous, abortion.

~ The girl believes that the father will marry her later, IF SHE DOESN"T CAUSE HIM PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW.
It doesn't really matter whether or not this is true. Women will protect their men to an extent that I find totally inexplicable. But I am not a woman, so I have no way of understanding this.

~ The girl is pregnant by a community member.
If the girl is pregnant by a big time executive or preacher or politician, he can make sure that she understands how much her life will be trashed if she has a child that can be clearly identified as his child.
I think it is pretty obvious that most elective abortions are performed to protect the reputation of the fathers, not the reputations of the mothers. Most abortions are performed because men don't want to take care of the mothers and children they create, not because mothers are irresponsible.

Elective abortion is clearly a result of male irresponsibility, not female irresponsibility, if you ask me me.
Hev

[Free in Freeport]

You're ignoring the fact that abortion is THE responsible choice in many circumstances. What greater crime is there than bringing an unwanted child into the world? (psst! That's a rhetorical question!)

[Loren Pechtel]

[QUOTE=Hevvin Machine;65589][QUOTE=Loren Pechtel;65525]
The reason we are opposed is that in this case the harm outweighs the benefit.
But you don't know what the harm or the benefits are. You can't know, without finding out what the circumstances are. There is no way you can do that without involving the parents. You cannot make the determination that the harm outweighs the benefits when you don't know the situation.

But we can look at patterns. Most of those who don't tell their parents fear violence if they told. Some will no doubt be mistaken but they are the ones in the position to make the best evaluation.

If the girl and the father are irresponsible enough to get pregnant without the capability of dealing with that and the girl is deceitful enough to try to keep this from her legal guardians, there is clearly a problem. You can't say for sure where the problem is until you get the facts.

Of course not. That doesn't change the fact that you're setting up a system that guarantees the negative consequences happen.

Becky died, and nobody really knows why. Her parents claim that she got an illicit abortion, and that it caused her death. The autopsy didn't make such a claim. Becky's mother, according to Wiki, made a good case for parental notification.

I suggest reading something other than lying PL sites.

It's clear. She had a back alley abortion and died of it. The result was her parents shifted from favoring parental notification laws to opposing them.

My interpretation of what I can learn about Becky's case is that her parents made a national case out of blaming the law for the results of their own parenting. Becky was having irresponsible sex and doing drugs and wound up dying. That is a bad thing, and I sure feel for her parents. But blaming parental notification laws for Becky's untimely and unecessary death is obviously not all there is to this story.
Like I said, I am not big on argument by anecdote. I do not see this one tragedy as being particularly informative on the whole issue of parental custody of minor children.
Hev

They made a case out of it to avoid more cases like her.

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes I did. I didn't list all of the many risks involved with minor having risky sex because I assumed that competent adults would see them. I pointed out that there are more risks involved with incompetent people having risky sex than just the risks involved with birthing or abortion.

No, you didn't address the issue at all. You're changing the topic here. Risk of the abortion is a non-issue because childbirth is riskier and one of the two events are going to happen.

You're focusing on her behavior before getting pregnant. That's water under the bridge.

~ The girl is pregnant by a close family member. She doesn't want to face the problems resulting from getting pregnant by her uncle, so she prefers a quiet, anonymous, abortion.

And how often does this actually happen?

~ The girl believes that the father will marry her later, IF SHE DOESN"T CAUSE HIM PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW.

So? In this case abortion is probably the best alternative anyway.

~ The girl is pregnant by a community member.
If the girl is pregnant by a big time executive or preacher or politician, he can make sure that she understands how much her life will be trashed if she has a child that can be clearly identified as his child.
I think it is pretty obvious that most elective abortions are performed to protect the reputation of the fathers, not the reputations of the mothers. Most abortions are performed because men don't want to take care of the mothers and children they create, not because mothers are irresponsible.

[citation needed]

Elective abortion is clearly a result of male irresponsibility, not female irresponsibility, if you ask me me.
Hev

[citation needed]

[Hevvin Machine]

You're ignoring the fact that abortion is THE responsible choice in many circumstances. What greater crime is there than bringing an unwanted child into the world? (psst! That's a rhetorical question!) psst, Your rhetorical question is also irrelevant to the OP. This is not just a thread about abortion, it is a thread about parental notification
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

[QUOTE=Hevvin Machine;65589][QUOTE=Loren Pechtel;65525]
The reason we are opposed is that in this case the harm outweighs the benefit.
But you don't know what the harm or the benefits are. You can't know, without finding out what the circumstances are. There is no way you can do that without involving the parents. You cannot make the determination that the harm outweighs the benefits when you don't know the situation.

But we can look at patterns. Most of those who don't tell their parents fear violence if they told. Some will no doubt be mistaken but they are the ones in the position to make the best evaluation.

No, I don't think that a frightened and irresponsible minor is in the best position to make this evaluation. If the girl has cause to fear violence there are plenty of ways to prevent it. You don't have to just send her back into a violent situation. But if she justifiably fears violence, then why send her back there at all? If the parents are so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with information about a event like this, then why leave her in the same situation that caused the problem?


Of course not. That doesn't change the fact that you're setting up a system that guarantees the negative consequences happen. No I'm not, you are. If the girl needs protection from her parents then she should get it. You keep making this into a binary thing, either the parents are kept in the dark, or the girl is just sent back to meet her fate. There are other options.


Becky died, and nobody really knows why. Her parents claim that she got an illicit abortion, and that it caused her death. The autopsy didn't make such a claim. Becky's mother, according to Wiki, made a good case for parental notification.

I suggest reading something other than lying PL sites.

It's clear. She had a back alley abortion and died of it. The result was her parents shifted from favoring parental notification laws to opposing them. I did. The quote from Becky's mother came from Wiki.
It is not clear that she had a back alley abortion. She was doing enough drugs to cause a spontaneous abortion. But either way, blaming the law is a good way of shifting responsibility for the child that was in her care.

My interpretation of what I can learn about Becky's case is that her parents made a national case out of blaming the law for the results of their own parenting. Becky was having irresponsible sex and doing drugs and wound up dying. That is a bad thing, and I sure feel for her parents. But blaming parental notification laws for Becky's untimely and unecessary death is obviously not all there is to this story.
Like I said, I am not big on argument by anecdote. I do not see this one tragedy as being particularly informative on the whole issue of parental custody of minor children.
Hev

They made a case out of it to avoid more cases like her. I don't doubt that they believe that and there is an element of truth in it. But that isn't the whole story.
I'm not big on arguing by anecdote. But since you've brought up the case of Becky Bell let's see where it goes. The website I quoted from went into a great deal of detail, quoting the autopsy and describing the events that led up to Becky's death. I asked you if you could demonstrate that it is wrong, and you carefully avoided doing that. Wanna give that a go?
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

Yes I did. I didn't list all of the many risks involved with minor having risky sex because I assumed that competent adults would see them. I pointed out that there are more risks involved with incompetent people having risky sex than just the risks involved with birthing or abortion.

No, you didn't address the issue at all. You're changing the topic here. Risk of the abortion is a non-issue because childbirth is riskier and one of the two events are going to happen.
No, I'm not talking about the risks of pregnancy. I'm talking about the risks of irresponsible sexual behaviour by minors. If you haven't investigated the circumstances leading up to a crisis pregnancy then they will still remain, even if you perform the abortion. That is what I said. Nothing about the relative risks of abortion and child-birth.


You're focusing on her behavior before getting pregnant. That's water under the bridge. No, I'm not. I'm focussing on the current situation. This obviously includes at least one more person than just the girl herself. Given that a minor is in the care of legal guardians I'm saying that includes them as well.

~ The girl is pregnant by a close family member. She doesn't want to face the problems resulting from getting pregnant by her uncle, so she prefers a quiet, anonymous, abortion.

And how often does this actually happen?How can anyone know if the victims just quietly go off and have surgery to clean up the father's mess?

~ The girl believes that the father will marry her later, IF SHE DOESN"T CAUSE HIM PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW.

So? In this case abortion is probably the best alternative anyway.Entirely possible. But it doesn't really suggest a healthy relationship, now does it? Since we are not talking about adult women here, we are talking about children, I think this sort of thing needs looking into.

~ The girl is pregnant by a community member.
If the girl is pregnant by a big time executive or preacher or politician, he can make sure that she understands how much her life will be trashed if she has a child that can be clearly identified as his child.
I think it is pretty obvious that most elective abortions are performed to protect the reputation of the fathers, not the reputations of the mothers. Most abortions are performed because men don't want to take care of the mothers and children they create, not because mothers are irresponsible.

[citation needed]

Elective abortion is clearly a result of male irresponsibility, not female irresponsibility, if you ask me me.
Hev
[citation needed]
I thought you might understand qualifiers like "I think" and "if you ask me".
I've been around the block a time or two. I've seen more abortions than I can count. In the large majority of cases the father prefering not to deal with the consequences of his choices figured prominently. In most of the cases I know about, the mother was a least somewhat conflicted, but the father wasn't at all. He didn't want to take care of the child, and she didn't want to fight him over it. This is not a scientific study, but it is my own observation.

Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

Maybe I just need to point out that this thread is not about the morality or utility of abortion. It is about performing abortions on children and then sending them back into the situation they were in before without letting anyone know about it. Most of the arguments here seem to revolve around the utility of abortion, and avoid the OP itself.

My main point is that the difference between minors and adults is that minors have a legal guardian and adults do not. So while adults may be free to make this decision on their own, minors are not. Usurping a parents duty to care for their underage child is not something that can be justified by a frightened and irresponsible teen's wishes. Parents are not perfect and if a teen is afraid of them then that is a separate problem that also needs to be dealt with.
Hev

[Loren Pechtel]

No, I don't think that a frightened and irresponsible minor is in the best position to make this evaluation. If the girl has cause to fear violence there are plenty of ways to prevent it. You don't have to just send her back into a violent situation. But if she justifiably fears violence, then why send her back there at all? If the parents are so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with information about a event like this, then why leave her in the same situation that caused the problem?

:rolling::rolling::rolling:

The police can punish but they can't prevent.

Of course not. That doesn't change the fact that you're setting up a system that guarantees the negative consequences happen. No I'm not, you are. If the girl needs protection from her parents then she should get it. You keep making this into a binary thing, either the parents are kept in the dark, or the girl is just sent back to meet her fate. There are other options.

Should get. That doesn't mean squat. Things have to be pretty bad for the kid to be pulled out at once.

It is not clear that she had a back alley abortion. She was doing enough drugs to cause a spontaneous abortion. But either way, blaming the law is a good way of shifting responsibility for the child that was in her care.

And you're sure that the PL's didn't water down the article?

My interpretation of what I can learn about Becky's case is that her parents made a national case out of blaming the law for the results of their own parenting. Becky was having irresponsible sex and doing drugs and wound up dying. That is a bad thing, and I sure feel for her parents. But blaming parental notification laws for Becky's untimely and unecessary death is obviously not all there is to this story.
Like I said, I am not big on argument by anecdote. I do not see this one tragedy as being particularly informative on the whole issue of parental custody of minor children.
Hev

They made a case out of it to avoid more cases like her. I don't doubt that they believe that and there is an element of truth in it. But that isn't the whole story.
I'm not big on arguing by anecdote. But since you've brought up the case of Becky Bell let's see where it goes. The website I quoted from went into a great deal of detail, quoting the autopsy and describing the events that led up to Becky's death. I asked you if you could demonstrate that it is wrong, and you carefully avoided doing that. Wanna give that a go?
Hev[/QUOTE]

As you say, it's a PL website. Experience has taught me they are worthless in the accuracy department.

[Loren Pechtel]

No, I'm not. I'm focussing on the current situation. This obviously includes at least one more person than just the girl herself. Given that a minor is in the care of legal guardians I'm saying that includes them as well.

In other words, you want to give someone else the right to overrule the abortion.

~ The girl is pregnant by a close family member. She doesn't want to face the problems resulting from getting pregnant by her uncle, so she prefers a quiet, anonymous, abortion.

And how often does this actually happen?How can anyone know if the victims just quietly go off and have surgery to clean up the father's mess?

And she's going to stay quiet about it her whole life?? Most of these cases will come out in time.

Entirely possible. But it doesn't really suggest a healthy relationship, now does it? Since we are not talking about adult women here, we are talking about children, I think this sort of thing needs looking into.

Excuses. What you are missing is that there is *NO* good solution, we are looking for the least bad solution. Thus pointing out that what I propose isn't perfect isn't addressing the problem.

I thought you might understand qualifiers like "I think" and "if you ask me".
I've been around the block a time or two. I've seen more abortions than I can count. In the large majority of cases the father prefering not to deal with the consequences of his choices figured prominently. In most of the cases I know about, the mother was a least somewhat conflicted, but the father wasn't at all. He didn't want to take care of the child, and she didn't want to fight him over it. This is not a scientific study, but it is my own observation.

Hev

You were trying to slip them in as part of the argument.

I don't think your observations will see the whole picture.

If there isn't any real question about what to do few others will know about the case in the first place. Unless you work in an abortion clinic you wouldn't see these cases.

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe I just need to point out that this thread is not about the morality or utility of abortion. It is about performing abortions on children and then sending them back into the situation they were in before without letting anyone know about it. Most of the arguments here seem to revolve around the utility of abortion, and avoid the OP itself.

My main point is that the difference between minors and adults is that minors have a legal guardian and adults do not. So while adults may be free to make this decision on their own, minors are not. Usurping a parents duty to care for their underage child is not something that can be justified by a frightened and irresponsible teen's wishes. Parents are not perfect and if a teen is afraid of them then that is a separate problem that also needs to be dealt with.
Hev

Something else to keep in mind:

Parental notification isn't going to do a bit of good if she's pregnant by her father--and if it's a family member he's the most likely one.

How about a different approach: A minor gets an abortion and a psych interview is required to figure out if there's a police matter involved.

[Hevvin Machine]

How about a different approach: A minor gets an abortion and a psych interview is required to figure out if there's a police matter involved. This is painfully simplistic and doesn't take into account the problems. If a minor is pregnant, something happened that shouldn't have. Maybe it's as simple as lack of parental supervision. Maybe it's a case of abusive sex. Whatever it is, something needs to be done to prevent it from reoccurring. If a childs guardians are not able to do this, then some more competent adult needs to take charge of the situation. If the child's guardians don't know about it, then they can't take better care. If the child's guardians are the problem, then that is a whole separate problem that needs dealing with. But all of the problems lead back to the child's guardians and you can't solve the problem without their knowledge.

Not every problem is a police matter. Maybe it is just youthful irresponsibility on the part of the girl and her male friend. But you can't be sure of that based only on what a frightened and desperate teenager tells you. And frankly, the father of the child needs to be held to account. Too many men get away with sexual irresponsibility because desperate women opt for abortions rather than inconveniencing the male half of the equation. There are just too many factors involved in this kind of situation to sweep them all under the rug with a quiet abortion.
I'm not saying that the girl shouldn't get the abortion, or that the parents should be able to force her to go through with the pregnancy. I'm saying that the parents should know what is going on in their childrens lives when it is a matter of this import.

Hev

[Loren Pechtel]

How about a different approach: A minor gets an abortion and a psych interview is required to figure out if there's a police matter involved. This is painfully simplistic and doesn't take into account the problems. If a minor is pregnant, something happened that shouldn't have. Maybe it's as simple as lack of parental supervision. Maybe it's a case of abusive sex. Whatever it is, something needs to be done to prevent it from reoccurring. If a childs guardians are not able to do this, then some more competent adult needs to take charge of the situation. If the child's guardians don't know about it, then they can't take better care. If the child's guardians are the problem, then that is a whole separate problem that needs dealing with. But all of the problems lead back to the child's guardians and you can't solve the problem without their knowledge.

Not every problem is a police matter. Maybe it is just youthful irresponsibility on the part of the girl and her male friend. But you can't be sure of that based only on what a frightened and desperate teenager tells you. And frankly, the father of the child needs to be held to account. Too many men get away with sexual irresponsibility because desperate women opt for abortions rather than inconveniencing the male half of the equation. There are just too many factors involved in this kind of situation to sweep them all under the rug with a quiet abortion.
I'm not saying that the girl shouldn't get the abortion, or that the parents should be able to force her to go through with the pregnancy. I'm saying that the parents should know what is going on in their childrens lives when it is a matter of this import.

Hev

A psych exam would do a far better job of actually addressing the problems than parental notification laws. No naive, scared girl is going to be able to fool a shrink.

[Sam Hunter]

I've been around the block a time or two. I've seen more abortions than I can count. In the large majority of cases the father prefering not to deal with the consequences of his choices figured prominently. In most of the cases I know about, the mother was a least somewhat conflicted, but the father wasn't at all. He didn't want to take care of the child, and she didn't want to fight him over it. This is not a scientific study, but it is my own observation.

I thought the you weren't big on arguing by anecdote?


Instead of abortions (which I'm not opposed to) why not promote instead the use of the morning after pill? It could be made clear that it would be available without judgement in a safe environment. It's not an abortion, it's contraception, and isn't an invasive medical procedure so informing the parents wouldn't be an issue. It seems that the side-effects are minor, certainly when compared to either an abortion or childbirth.

[Hevvin Machine]

How about a different approach: A minor gets an abortion and a psych interview is required to figure out if there's a police matter involved. This is painfully simplistic and doesn't take into account the problems. If a minor is pregnant, something happened that shouldn't have. Maybe it's as simple as lack of parental supervision. Maybe it's a case of abusive sex. Whatever it is, something needs to be done to prevent it from reoccurring. If a childs guardians are not able to do this, then some more competent adult needs to take charge of the situation. If the child's guardians don't know about it, then they can't take better care. If the child's guardians are the problem, then that is a whole separate problem that needs dealing with. But all of the problems lead back to the child's guardians and you can't solve the problem without their knowledge.

Not every problem is a police matter. Maybe it is just youthful irresponsibility on the part of the girl and her male friend. But you can't be sure of that based only on what a frightened and desperate teenager tells you. And frankly, the father of the child needs to be held to account. Too many men get away with sexual irresponsibility because desperate women opt for abortions rather than inconveniencing the male half of the equation. There are just too many factors involved in this kind of situation to sweep them all under the rug with a quiet abortion.
I'm not saying that the girl shouldn't get the abortion, or that the parents should be able to force her to go through with the pregnancy. I'm saying that the parents should know what is going on in their childrens lives when it is a matter of this import.

Hev

A psych exam would do a far better job of actually addressing the problems than parental notification laws. I'm getting tired of wasting my time writing long responses to your one sentence, unsupported assertions. So I'm going to stop.

No doubt Matty will take this as yet another instance of Hev bowing out of an argument when it gets heated.

No naive, scared girl is going to be able to fool a shrink. You have a lot more faith in shrinks than I do, I've watched this happen before. What the hell, keep your ideaology. Don't let reality get in your way.
Hev

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm getting tired of wasting my time writing long responses to your one sentence, unsupported assertions. So I'm going to stop.

The problem is you aren't actually addressing the issue. You have never even attempted to compare the harm from parental notification with the harm of not having parental notification. You aren't even willing to accept that parental notification causes harm.

No doubt Matty will take this as yet another instance of Hev bowing out of an argument when it gets heated.

More like when hammering on the party line doesn't work.

No naive, scared girl is going to be able to fool a shrink. You have a lot more faith in shrinks than I do, I've watched this happen before. What the hell, keep your ideaology. Don't let reality get in your way.
Hev

I'm sure there are bad shrinks but there are bad judges, also.

[Pandora]

If the home situation is so bad that she is pregnant and prefers not to tell her parents then that is evidence enough to justify an investigation. Maybe she should be removed or emancipated or something. But quietly sweeping this all under the rug and hoping that the problems become somebody else's is flat out immoral.
Hev

Why does the home situation need to be "bad" for a girl to choose not to tell her parents? Complete and utter red herring.

It's her choice, and her choice alone. You're trying to muddy the issue with irrelevant crap.

One could just as easily argue that the all-American valedictorian girl from a good family wants to hide it to spare her and/or her family any perceived shame.

Why should any minor be required to inform their parents about any surgical procedure? Why should parents have the right to know the risks and dangers of any medical procedure that their child might decide to undergo?

Parental consent is required for any other medical procedure. Yet for voluntary terminations, people argue that the parents don't even need to be informed. I understand the need to keep the choice that of the girl - it's her body. But I still think that it is rational and sensible to require that the parents be informed except for extenuating circumstances. They don't get to grant consent - but they should at least be informed.

Sometimes things go wrong. There are dangers associated with any surgical procedure. The parents should at least know what dangers their children are facing.

The reason we are opposed is that in this case the harm outweighs the benefit.

Furthermore, avoiding risk is *NOT* a reason--childbirth is more dangerous than early abortion.

Please read more carefully Loren. I said nothing about avoiding risks. Merely informing about the existence of them.

[Pandora]

If a girl is old enough to get pregnant, she is old enough to be entitled to privacy in her medical care.

:eek: So a twelve year old who has experienced menarche is, in your eyes, old enough to decide whether to have surgery rather than physical therapy for an injury? She's old enough to decide that she wants a boob job?

And what about boys? Are they old enough to be entitled to privacy in their medical care as soon as they're physically able to impregnate someone? Or does privacy extend only to girls?

[Pandora]

I think it is pretty obvious that most elective abortions are performed to protect the reputation of the fathers, not the reputations of the mothers. Most abortions are performed because men don't want to take care of the mothers and children they create, not because mothers are irresponsible.

:hmm: I think you're making a pretty serious leap right here, and I don't think it's based on anything other than what you want to believe. Sorry Hev, but I really don't think this is the case.

[Pandora]

But we can look at patterns. Most of those who don't tell their parents fear violence if they told. Some will no doubt be mistaken but they are the ones in the position to make the best evaluation.

If a girl fears violence from her parents, then she should shouldn't be living under their power. In such a case, social services should be involved. Which is exactly my point to begin with!

[Pandora]

I've been around the block a time or two. I've seen more abortions than I can count. In the large majority of cases the father prefering not to deal with the consequences of his choices figured prominently. In most of the cases I know about, the mother was a least somewhat conflicted, but the father wasn't at all. He didn't want to take care of the child, and she didn't want to fight him over it. This is not a scientific study, but it is my own observation.

I thought the you weren't big on arguing by anecdote?


Instead of abortions (which I'm not opposed to) why not promote instead the use of the morning after pill? It could be made clear that it would be available without judgement in a safe environment. It's not an abortion, it's contraception, and isn't an invasive medical procedure so informing the parents wouldn't be an issue. It seems that the side-effects are minor, certainly when compared to either an abortion or childbirth.

I would support this.