Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Parental Notification 35

Journal by pudge

Here's a letter in response to some other letter. This is an issue that's bugged me for awhile, because of the clear attack it represents against parental rights.

The recent letter against parental notification for children wishing to have abortions is disingenuous.

There is no doubt that a serious concern in such matters is those situations when the parent is the cause of the pregnancy. But parental notification laws make exceptions in such cases, by allowing judges to intervene. To be against a law for a reason that is already taken into account makes little sense.

Indeed, even without such explicit exceptions, a judge can and should in such cases remove the child from the parent's custody, in which case parental notification would be moot anyway.

Abortion is not just something people do for fun: it is a serious medical procedure. A parent, guardian, or the court must nececssarily be involved before a doctor is allowed to perform any non-emergency medical procedure on a child, whether it's removal of tonsils or a fetus.

Children are not responsible for themselves. That responsibility falls to parents and guardians alone, and in a civilized society, only a court may revoke it. Down the parent-less abortion path lies the dissolution of all parental rights.

In the zeal to push the pro-choice agenda, take care to not throw out the proverbial baby with the real one.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Parental Notification More

Parental Notification

Comments Filter:
  • When I first started reading her comment, I didn't think you had replied directly to her argument. Then I read the rest of it and found that she is all over the board here.

    I tried finding the original letter that she claims to be replying to, but was unable to as it seems they do not keep letters for more than 5-6 days.

    She seems to dwell on finge cases here, and not even that good of cases at that. You correctly argue that the kids should be removed from the situtation if the parents are molesting their k
    • When I first started reading her comment, I didn't think you had replied directly to her argument. Then I read the rest of it and found that she is all over the board here.

      Yeah, I focused only on the one point that I felt mattered.

      However her second contrived situation has no bearing, since at 7 months it'd take quite an extreme case of lack of parenting to not notice your child is 7 months pregnant, and if the child wants an abortion at that point waiting a day to discuss it with the parents is not unreaso
    • Equating abortion with sending men and women to war... what a nut.

      Yeah, in war at least the people have a chance to live.

      --

      She is nutty though. She is using extreme cases, not to demonstrate absurdity, but to gain a stronger position that parental right can be abused.

      She then gives cases of why she thinks abortion should be allowed in the first place.

      I find it ludricrous though, that she defends the child's rights to crush her own child's rights. That is, she rebels against parent's rights over a pregnant d
  • Some parents are abusive. Parental notification will lead to abuse. You don't take this into account.
    • Actually, I did take that into account, though not explicitly: again, a judge can intervene if necessary for the physical welfare of the parent-child.
    • I see no data to backup this argument. However, I have seen studies that show the lack of notification will likely lead to more kids having unprotected sex, because hey.. they can just get an abortion later.

      Here's an article [aei.org] where a comparison was done on the British vs American lower classes and programs setup to help those people get ahead.. and compared 1989 through 2005. A good summation is here:

      Our grandparents' most basic taken-for-granted understanding, which today's intellectual and political elit

      • is whether it's more dangerous with Planned Parenthood (or the boyfriend) or the parents. You and pudge have vastly more faith in the parents of this great nation than I do.

        Maybe also you have forgotten what it is to be a teenager. It isn't all happy families around the Thanksgiving table, even in Jesusland.

        • is whether it's more dangerous with Planned Parenthood (or the boyfriend) or the parents. You and pudge have vastly more faith in the parents of this great nation than I do.

          Well, first of all, yes, I do have more faith in the parents than some people who are not parents, as a general rule.

          But second, that's beside the point. It's not about who I have more trust in. That is entirely beside the point. It's about rights and responsibilities. I am the parent, and I have the responsibility to care for the ch
          • Pudge, where are parental rights spelled out? I recently had a discussion with a coworker concerning parental notification, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out where it's spelled out that parents have rights concerning their children and making decisions on their behalf.

            --trb
            • Two places. First, the law is evry clear, on every level, that the parents are the legal guardians of the child. Except for abortion, a child needs a parent's permission to do most anything similar to surgery; to go to a school; to do most things. Further, the parent is legally responsible for the bad things a child does. All of these things directly imply, even where they do not state explicitly, that the parents have the right to say what their child can and cannot do, and that they are responsible fo
              • First, the law is evry clear, on every level, that the parents are the legal guardians of the child.

                Guardians, sure, but children have also been found to have a right to privacy just like any other citizen. Since abortion is largely regarded (well, sorta) as a privacy issue, wouldn't mandatory parental notification be unconstitutional?

                Second, the Ninth Amendment leaves no doubt that the parents have these rights and responsibilities.

                Can you explain how that works? I always assumed the 9th gave powers not
                • Guardians, sure, but children have also been found to have a right to privacy just like any other citizen.

                  No, they have not. Not sure where you got this from, but it's not true.

                  Can you explain how that works? I always assumed the 9th gave powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states.

                  That's the 10th. The 9th recognizes rights not specifically enumerated, but retained by the people. This is where the right to privacy itself primarily comes from.
                  • No, they have not. Not sure where you got this from, but it's not true.

                    Actually, he's sorta right.. there have been some completely whacked out rulings in the last year or so by idiot judges on this. One said that parents have no right to listen in on their children's phone conversations, and that what a parent overheard that would've helped convict their child's boyfriend for a crime was inadmissable because of that.

                    Was covered at least on O'Reilly's show.

                    I think the rulings are completely wrong though.
                    • Actually, he's sorta right

                      Well, no. :) He was speaking absolutely: that children have the same right to privacy. They do not. There have been some ruling which have etched away a parent's rights, but they have not (yet) dissolved them entirely.

                      One said that parents have no right to listen in on their children's phone conversations, and that what a parent overheard that would've helped convict their child's boyfriend for a crime was inadmissable because of that.

                      But that was in state court, not federal cou
                  • This is where the right to privacy itself primarily comes from.

                    Okay, gotcha, but how does this extend a parents' rights over the rights of a/their minor? Maybe I'm just not familiar with the precedent, but I don't see how the Constitution in any way guarantees a parent's right to make decisions for their child...as such, I would think it would fall to the state.

                    --trb
                    • Okay, gotcha, but how does this extend a parents' rights over the rights of a/their minor?

                      It doesn't. It recognizes the fact that parents already have such rights.

            • Parents have rights by virtue of the fact that YOU have zero claim of ownership or authority over my child. The only person with any claim to a right over my child is me. Even if I have zero claim over the child, you (and by extension society) certainly do not have more.

              Parental rights also follow implicitly from the asinine assumption that a woman has the right to have a child in her womb killed.

        • is whether it's more dangerous with Planned Parenthood (or the boyfriend) or the parents

          It's usually the boyfriend pressuring for the abortion, you know. "A woman's choice," my foot. It's often that abusive male pushing his desires on the girl.

      • I see no data to backup this argument. However, I have seen studies that show the lack of notification will likely lead to more kids having unprotected sex, because hey.. they can just get an abortion later.

        Perhaps. But I couldn't care less which way such data goes. This is about rights, not social engineering. Not that I have a problem with exploring the data, but it won't inform my view either way.

        The option for judcial review will give the child an out, and will likely help to bring to light the abusi
        • This is about rights, not social engineering.

          I agree. And I support the right of a teenager, over that of her parents, a judge, or the state, to control her own body. We are not going to agree on this.

          • I agree. And I support the right of a teenager, over that of her parents, a judge, or the state, to control her own body.

            Fortunately, the law is on my side, and increasingly so.

            And even in absence of this absolutely necessary law, you bet your ass if a doctor ever performed an abortion on my child without my permission, I would sue him for everything he has, and I would surely win.

            We are not going to agree on this.

            You're right. I will never see how a child can be trusted to make such a decision when she is
        • This is about rights, not social engineering.

          Then you should be for parental notification. It's the erosion of parental rights (while still expecting the parents to hold the responsibility for the children) that's social engineering.

  • Here in California we voters recently rejected a similar sounding piece of legislation. (I can only speak for the reasons I voted against, and as only one of millions that has little relevance here.) In our case, there were explicit arrangements for cases where the youth in question would be better served by legal emancipation or a court taking jurisdication - both where a male relative was the father or abuse was expected or suspected. I would have been honestly surprised if Washington's version did not include similar exceptions for unusual cases and from the context of your letter, I take it these did exist.

    I would only add that both sides have an agenda - pro-choice and pro-life. The most extreme fringes of either agenda are the ones that make the majority of us cringe. Very few pro-lifers want to force a woman who is 7-months pregnant to carry a non-viable fetus to term. Very few pro-choicers want a 15-year-old to be sexually active using repeated abortions as birth control. Yet from what we hear from the opposing side this is exactly what anyone not on the "right" side wants. I've found that if you ask people seriously where they stand and let them draw their own line it is nowhere near either extreme (albeit it is generally different from our own). Perhaps it is a pro-choice agenda that calls for voters to reject parental notification, but it is a pro-life agenda that tries to use such legislation to redefine abortion, life, and such legally (which was one of the cons of the California legislation).
    • Very few pro-lifers want to force a woman who is 7-months pregnant to carry a non-viable fetus to term.

      Note that this is beside any actual issue here, though. No one is saying anyone should be forced to do anything. What must be kept in mind is that a child does not make any decisions like this: someone has to make the decisions for them. It's either the parent, or the court, or some other party who has no business making such decisions.

      I know that's not really your point here, but your language seems to
      • The text of 73 says "For purposes of this section, the following terms shall be defined to mean:"

        It doesn't say the term cannot be used to try to redefine the word abortion in the state courts. How are you sure it couldn't have been effectively used as a crowbar for new lawsuits?
      • You're telling me you voted in favor of the right of a doctor to operate on my child without my permission or knowledge, because the law called the unborn child an "unborn child" instead of a "fetus?" Are you kidding me?

        No, I voted in favor of my child's right to seek a medical treatment without my knowledge. I don't feel it is my place to tell you how to raise your children, but I won't vote for a law that essentially does the same in reverse - insists that my children have less rights than I have granted
        • I don't feel it is my place to tell you how to raise your children, but I won't vote for a law that essentially does the same in reverse - insists that my children have less rights than I have granted them.

          That's a completely false characterization of the case at hand. This is not about whether the child can act without your direct permission, but whether the doctor can.
        • Oops, hit Submit prematurely. I won't address most of what you said, because most of it is about whether children can make decisions, and at what age, and that's beside the point here, because none of it justifies the *doctor performing surgery on my minor child with my permission,* ever, for any reason, except in absolute emergencies to save my child's life, or prevent serious physical injury.

          Whether you think the child is old enough to make that decision is irrelevant. Surgery is too important an issue
          • ... none of it justifies the *doctor performing surgery on my minor child with my permission,* ever, for any reason, except in absolute emergencies to save my child's life, or prevent serious physical injury.

            Which brings up an interesting point. Why was this legislation so specific to abortion? It is because law already exists covering numerous medical needs of minors (such as drug treament), the situations which may be involved (such as emancipation) and when or whether parental notice or consent is requ
            • Why was this legislation so specific to abortion?

              Because many people incorrectly believe that Roe v. Wade somehow overrides laws forbidding doctors to provide non-emergency medical care to minors without parental permission.

              • No mention of Roe v. Wade in the California decision. Back in 1987 a statue was passed in California that required minors seeking abortions to obtain parental consent. A court case was brought (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997)) on the grounds that the law violated the California Constitution's explicitly granted right to privacy. The recently rejected initiative attempted to get around that decision by amending the Constitution - literally stating within that "Notwithstand
                • No mention of Roe v. Wade in the California decision.

                  I am well are of this.

                  Back in 1987 a statue was passed in California that required minors seeking abortions to obtain parental consent. A court case was brought (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997)) on the grounds that the law violated the California Constitution's explicitly granted right to privacy.

                  The reasoning behind the application of "privacy" to "abortion" originated in Roe. And it's completely nonsensical. According
  • with how you word exceptions to parental notification laws. I'd almost go so far as to say that the decision on notification should probably always cross a judge's bench.

    It's the whole in the best interests of the child schtick. In some, hell, maybe many cases, it's probably in their best interests for their parents to be notified, but I doubt you could get good metrics for determining that codified into law. So you use judges, who are generally elected, and thus can apply community standards and good ju
    • I'd almost go so far as to say that the decision on notification should probably always cross a judge's bench.

      That's utter nonsense. Should a child's request to have her nose made smaller, or her breasts bigger -- without parental knowledge -- always cross a judge's bench? Why is abortion so special?

      It's the whole in the best interests of the child schtick.

      Of course. Which includes -- until alleged and subsequently demonstrated otherwise -- the parents as the default persons who make the decision for wha

Slashdot Top Deals

Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this-- no dog exchanges bones with another. -- Adam Smith

Close