DodoBird, Eater of Souls wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.
You completely missed the point. The point wasn't that that case in particular would've benefeted from the abscence of the law. The point was that parents don't always know what is best for their child, as Pat himself said.
I got that. I simply don't agree with Pat's position at all. To me, the burden is on the state, not the parent. Can the state take away the power of a parent over their child because "not all parents know what's best for their child"?
Shouldn't the state *only* take that power away when it can proove the parent wont do what's best for the child? That's my problem here. You're essentially saying it's ok to take away my rights as a parent as long as you can find a single instance of a parent abusing that right. I think that's backwards. The burden should be on the state. Unless it can show that *all* parents will make the wrong choice, then they should not override that parent's choice. Because otherwise we're all being assumed to be guilty of bad decisions based on what others might do.
And no Pat. It's not about the child's right versus the parents rights. Or at least it *shouldn't* be. The point your missing is that the *only* medical case in which minors are allowed to make medical decisions without parental consent is on the issue of abortion. Why do you suppose that is Pat?
A minor cannot recieve a prescription for a flu without parental consent, but that same minor can get an abortion? Don't you think there's a bit of a double standard there?
My problem is that you are presenting this as though it's a minor's rights versus the parents rights, but if that was the case, then why aren't you championing that cause for *all* other issues as well? I don't see any of the people arguing this particular issue also arguing for removal of permission slips for children attending field trips at school. Or for taking sports. Or going on trips. Or getting credit cards. Or getting bank accounts. Or any of hundred different things that minors must get parental permission to do.
If it was truely about the minor's rights, we'd be hearing those same people pushing those issues as well. Funny that I don't hear *anything* about that. Funny how we still hold those same parents responsible for their children. Funny how we still charge parents with criminal negligence for leaving their teens at home without adult supervision, but apparently think it's perfectly ok for those same teens to make a decision about abortion without ever talking to their parents.
I'm sorry. But that's a *huge* double standard. How you can't see that is beyond me...
Edited, Thu Nov 10 22:00:18 2005 by gbaji