Patrician wrote:
Eh? The discussion is not around Parent vs. Government choice, it is Parent vs Child choice. It is a matter of who's rights are more important and to what extent.
Um... But it's the government choosing whether to allow a child's choice to outweigh the parents though, so it's all about the government taking away that power from the parent, right?
Quote:
The majority of teens tell their parents that they are pregnant even when not required to by law, and many of those that don't have compelling reasons not to.
I think a hell of a lot of teens will avoid telling their parents about a pregnancy if they're legally allowed to simply to avoid the embarassment and confrontation that they believe will occur. Being grounded isn't a "compelling reason" not to inform the parents of a medical decision like abortion IMO. What exactly are you protecting these teens from anyway? Do you have any statistics on the rates of parents who'd do harm to their teenage daughters upon discovering they got pregnant? Or is it that there's a concern that parents would talk their children out of having abortions?
Even your example doesn't follow that logic. She wasn't a minor, and was not required to inform anyone of anything by any law, but was still discovered and was forced to have an abortion by her parents (after tbey killed her boyfriend). Um... So how exactly does not requiring a teen to tell her parents about a decision to have an abortion change that? It doesn't. Those extreme cases will occur anyway. The law at question doesn't affect it one way or another.
Quote:
There is a clear requirement for discretion on this issue. In a perfect world, Mommy and Daddy would know best and give appropriate and loving advice. It isn't a perfect world. Patient confidentiality is viewed as an important right for adults, which you are advocating should be taken away from young teens. I can see compelling arguments on both sides of the issue, and it IS complex.
Yes. But the problem is that until emancipation (typically at age 18), the teen is legally the responsiblity of the parent or guardian. They are civilly and criminally responsible for acts their child performs. This includes things like doctor/patient confidentiality.
Your argument is totally bogus because in every other single aspect of medical action, the parents are required not only to be informed but to assent to any medical action taken by a medical professional. Doctors are not allowed to so much as proscribe simple medications for a minor without the parents permission. They certainly cannot perform any sort of surgical proceedure.
Why is this case different? It's different because it's a politically charged issue with "sides", and each side wants to "win", and winning sometimes entails making arguments that don't make any damn sense at all. The pro-choice movement is predicated on the assumption that a womans right to her own body with regards to procreation is an absolute right that can't be abridged by any other law or right. So, a logical extension of that assumption is that a teens right to her own body in the case of a pregnancy superceeds even the parents rights and responsibilities when it comes to that teens medical care and health. If the pro-choice folks were to conceed that a parent can and should have *any* say in the medical care of a child with regards to procreation, then that would be seen as "losing ground" in the war over the issue.
So they fight a ridiculous position. And it really is ridiculous. I've seen no statisics to show that requiring parents to be informed of teens seeking abortions affects the rates of violence towards those teens, or the rates of the abortions as a result, or any other aspect of this issue. Should we remove a parental right that's prevalent in every other single medical case just because we feel like it? It just seems like an abuse of power to do so.
Edited, Thu Nov 10 19:36:56 2005 by Patrician[/quote]