From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:00:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.191225.13821@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Oct6.170405.6878@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com 
>   (Jennifer Brindle) writes: >
>
>> I think that many 14-year-olds are capable of making good decisions, 
>> particulaly when it concerns their own lives.  And I think that if a 
>> teenager wants an abortion she should be able to get one--without 
>> _having_ to get permission, or even inform, her parents.  
>
>I agree that many 14 year olds are capable of making good decisions,
>but the decision to abort is very difficult for many experienced 
>*adults*.  What makes us think that the typical young adolescent 
>has the requisite experience and maturity to make such a decision 
>unilaterally?  

I will try to answer the question as asked, and not another one.  I
believe that a typical adolescent knows the risks of pregnancy, or has
the ability to find out. I believe that a typical adolescent knows the
risks of abortion, or has the ability to find out.  I believe that
she has the ability to think rationally and logically when it's an
important issue.  

However, I don't see that _requiring_ her to inform or get permission from
her parents won't necessarily _solve_ anything.  What if your teenage
daughter wanted an abortion and you wanted her to have the baby?  Who
"wins"? You, because you're the parent and you have "absolute" rights
over her body?  Her, because it's her body that would have to experience
pregnancy?  Ideally, she should discuss the situation with her parents, or
guardian, but we're not talking ideals here, we're talking law.  And the
law has to deal with _all_ situations, not just ideal ones.  If there never
were conflicts like this, if there never were parents who would throw
the kid out, if there never were parents who would abuse the kid, if we
lived in a perfect world, then I could support such legislation, even
though it would be unnecessary. But we don't live in an ideal world, do
we?

Theoretically, you should have discussed your views beforehand and
she should have your views beforehand so there wouldn't be any conflicts.
Would you like for me ot propose legislation which would _require_
all parents to tell their children the "facts of life", about abortion,
pregnancy, financial planning, balancing checkbooks, everything they need
to live in this world?  What would be the penalty for failing to inform
your child?  If our children, all of them, knew these things, we certainly]
would live in a better world.  Surely, you want us to live in a better world?


>
>Beyond that, though, as a parent *I* have rights, too.  Since I am 
>legally responsible for my children, should it not follow that I 
>also be legally permitted to govern their activities?  If they incur 
>a debt, or destroy private property, or require emergency medical 
>treatment, the bill is ultimately mine to pay.  If, subsequent to
>a legal abortion, my daughter developed complications, the cost of
>treatment would also be my responsibility.  I don't want my right
>to influence my minor children's decisions taken away any more
>than pro-choice women want their right to abortion taken away.
>

Do you govern her activities?  All of them?  What penalty (prescribed
by law) does she pay if she disobeys?  What penalty (prescribed by law)
do you pay if you fail in governing her activities--either by her action
or bt yours?  You have the right as a parent to instill your values.
You have the right as a parent to provide a safe haven for your child.
YOu do not have the right to control her body.  You do not have the
right to force her to have an abortion, or give birth, depending on
your particular persuasion.

If your child incurs a debt, it is not necessarily yours to pay.
A minor child may recend a contract FOR ANY REASON and not be required
to pay for goods or services.

If your child destroys private property it is not necessarily yours to
pay.  A parent is responsible for the WILLFUL MISCONDUCT of their child.
If my 3-year-old throws a rock and breaks a window, I am not responsible
as legally, 3-year-olds cannot be held for WILLFUL MISCONDUCT--he is simplyt
too young.  You are not required to pay if an unforseeable accident occurred.
You are only required to pay if there is willful misconduct.

You are only responsible for medical care if you are capable of paying
for it.  If you are indigent, you are not held responsible.  If you
declare bankrupcy, you are not responsible.

As far as the cost of abortion complications being yours, that is debatable.
You could get out of it several ways.  You could declare her to be an
emanciated (is that the right word?) minor, thereby absolving you or any
parental responsibility that may exist.  YOu might argue in a court that
you weren't involved in the abortion decision therfore she may be ablt
to "rescend" her "contract" for medical payment.

Likewise, you may get out of paying for pregnancy and childbirth expenses
in much the same manner.  You are not required to pay for them in all
cases.

No one is saying that your right to influence your daughter's decisions
are being taken away.  The time to exert that influence is BEFORE the
event happens.  You still have the right to do so.

What if we pass an parental inform law and your daughter wants an abortion?
You are unable to sway her?  What then?  do you sacrifice your relationship
with her?  Or do you support her decision?  


>> I don't believe in legislating family relationships.
>
>In a way, family relationships have *always* been legislated (at 
>least in this country).  Parents are legally responsible for the 
>activities of their children.  If my ability to govern a particular
>activity is taken away, then perhaps my liability for any relevant
>consequences should also be removed as well.  Seems fair.

As mentioned above, you're responsibility for the activities of your children
is not absolute.

And, as I've have mentioned, you have a very good case for removing all
liability and several routes to go to achieve that.


>
>> I also think that if a teenager wants to continue the pregnancy and
>> have the baby, then she should be able to do so--without pressure to
>> give it up for adoption. I think the support system should be in place
>> (if not by the parents, then by the state) to ensure good day care,
>> continued education for the mother, and any help she needs to get back
>> on her feet to support herself and her child.
>>
>> When people (and Bush is one of them) state that "a teenage girl can't
>> get her ears pierced without her parent's permission, but can get an
>> abortion", they aren't understanding the complexities involved.
>> They need to think "Why is that?" instead of belaboring on the fact of
>> it.  The answer to "Why?" is simple...once the person asking starts
>> to think.
>
>Perhaps I've yet to think about this in the "right" way, but please
>know that I have considered it and simply arrived at a different
>conclusion:  I have rights that I'm not willing to give up.  Does
>that sound familiar?

The reasons for arguing against parental inform or consent are simple.
It has nothing to do with parental rights at all, but instead focuses
on the realities of this world.  

In our society, premarital sex is frowned-upon.  Premarital sex by a
teenager is seen as irresponsible and even a form or rebellion against
the teen's family values.  If an unmarried teenager has sex, and cotracts
syphillis, do you think the law should be changed to where she/he MUST
notify, or get permission from the parents, before treatment?  Do you
think that many teenagers would rather do just about ANYTHING before
telling their parents that they've had sex, let along contracted a disease?
If you believe that seeking treatment would not be effected by such
laws, then you are dead wrong.  The reason a teenager is able to seek
treatment without parental involvement is so they will be free to get
the treatment, without their parent's knowledge.  

Any teenager who contracts an STD may seek treatment without parental
involvement.  This is because we'd rather a teenager get treatment
and risk any "parental rights" upheaval, than uphold the "parental
rights" position and have the teenager not seek treatment.

Now, abortion is different in that pregnancy really isn't a disease, but
very similar in that one get's pregnant from having sex--that frowned-upon
activity.  And here, the issue isn't about seeking treatment (although
you could successfully argue that), but about the teenager's safety.
We, as a society, would rather abdicate our "parental rights" on this
issue rather than risk a teen's death by an illegal or self-induced abortion.
Personally, I'd rather give up that particular "parental right" and have
my daughter alive and well than have that "parental right" and a dead daughter.
When push comes to shove, I'd favor my daughter's life over any "parentsl
right".  Would you?


Jennifer

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush