From: mattb@ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: I'm surprised!
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:45:33 GMT
Reply-To: mattb@olympus.ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Cabletron Systems INc.

(Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>(Paul Smith) writes:
>>(Melanie Wertz) writes:
>>>For those of you that consider parental consent laws to be appropriate,
>>>consider the following scenarios:

>>>Your parents will disown you if they find out your pregnant.
>>>You would rather risk a back alley abortion than risk telling your parents.
>>>You would rather commit suicide than risk telling your parents.
>>>Your parents are physically abusive.
>>>Your father IS the father of your child.

>>I've been in this discussion on the net before, so I have to jump in...

>>(not shouting, just don't know how to do italics in ascii :-)

>>I DON'T CARE WHAT EXCEPTION SITUATIONS YOU COME WITH, YOU (and the STATE) 
>>DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNDERMINE *MY* PARENTAL AUTHORITY. *PERIOD*.

>>To do so would open (has opened?) up a bigger can of worms...

>  Patently, morally, ethically, logically wrong. Children are not your
>property and you don't have absolute authority over them nor ownership
>of them. They are your responsibility and that grants you certain
>rights to exercise such parental authority in order to fulfill those
>responsibilities. But they are not slaves ownded by you but real, living
>INDIVIDUALS with civil rights under the Constitution, though not strictly
>identical to those granted to adults under the laws that implement and
>govern those rights. Hence the state has the right and responsibility to
>set limits to your authority and the exercise thereof in the perceived
>best interests of the child.

>  Then again, here are some (other) sick and extreme people who would
>argue that incest is an exercise of their right of parental authority
>and that the state has no right to interfere because it is a god-given
>right and religious belief. Would you argue that the state has no rights
>or responsibilities to intercede in such cases as these ? Or beatings ?
>If not, then the issue is one of degree, not the absolute sort of authority
>that you (capitalized) statement suggests.

Let me take a somewhat different tack on this. Suppose we agree with Paul.
After all, parental authority is conceptually a good thing, and good things
shouldn't be undermined, right? 
If so the crux of the matter becomes:
1) What is the definition of parental authority; how are its bounds defined?
2) How do we define the relationship between parental authority and the rights
   of under-age citizens (commonly called children)?
3) What would constitute undermining, and what would constitute overstepping
   the bounds of parental authority.

Without formally defining these here, let's look at the situation closer.
(my discussion below pretty well demonstrates my personal answers to these
questions, I hope.)

Paul did not specifically claim "absolute" authority over his children, by the  
way, although it is easy to see why his statements led Jeff to that assumption.

If you look at the situation proposed above, the real problem is not abortion
consent. The real problem is an illegal act of child abuse and molestation,
if not forcible rape. This has nothing to do with parental authority or
consent for an abortion. The only parental authority in this case is the
heap of fear and shame forced on this child by one or both parents. Any 
action taken by the state, church, or other concerned party (if the girl
is brave or lucky enough to confide in someone) is no infringement of
parental authority.

So leave off the last line. The parents are abusive. Bingo. Felony. Not
a parental authority problem. Lock `em up and get the girl someplace safe.
If the abuse is genuine, and proved, these parents have forfeited any
parental authority they had.

So leave off the previous line. The remaining three lines tell the story
of a girl who believes (correctly or incorrectly) certain things about
her parents. She may be right, she may be lying, she may be emotionally
distraught or abandoned by the boy who got her pregnant. Any number of
things. She needs some one to turn to, that she can confide in, that will
not tell her parents as a matter of policy. She needs to calm down and
think clearly. She does not necessarily need an on demand abortion. She 
needs to understand _all_ her options.

That is not to say she should be denied an abortion. It just shouldn't
be option #1, we'll have you back on the streets in 30 minutes, sign here.

My own belief?
Abortion without parental consultation is not a good thing. But if the parents
are irresponsible, uncaring, or unfit to deal with the situation, some one
else has to. I believe that the parents must be consulted, and that if they
can convince a trained councilor that they are fit to excerise control of
the child, then they should have the final say. Intrusive? Maybe, but less so
than letting the child decide with no parental involvement. Fair to the child?
Yes, because she still is a child, not a woman, and she should not be forced
or allowed to make decisions she is not mature enough for. If her situation
is truly a disfunctional family that will not support, she will get the help
she needs, and the abortion if she wants it. Not behind the parents back,
but not requiring the parents' consent, if they are not fit to give it.

She should be able to seek intercession. That should include
counseling on all options, and counseling on overcoming her fears about
her parents, her personal worth (must be low in esteem if she seriously
would rather kill herself than tell her parents), and her belief about
possibly being disowned.  If she is "disowned" she should be assured she
has a place to go to get the support her parents refused her, and at that
point she should be free to make her own choice in spite of her age.

Once she has had a chance to clear her mind and weigh her options, she
should meet with her parents, with counselor support, to work out the 
options. The counselor moderates the meeting, and makes a judgement 
(appealable) about the case (ie, parent's choice or girl's choice).

It is not perfect, by nay means. I contend it is better than state
invasion and usurpation of the parent's role, or letting parental
victimization drive a young girl to suicide, ending 2 or more lives,
and destroying a number of others.

Matt