Sorry to say

FROM Tenshania
Idiot. I cannot say how disgusting i found your prejudiced and outright stupid opinions.

Their goes your prejudices and opinions in denigrating someone else's opinions. Just because you believe in your own personal high opinion and high intelligence does not mean that you are right or wrong on this issue. At what age do you think abortion should be allowed without parental consent and whate conditions?

Conditions, well for starters when one of the parents is the cause of said pregnancy is a damn good time not to require parental consent.

I would actually advocate never requiring parental consent if a non-partison social worker could be reliably provided. Ie: Working in the best interest of the patient and not pushing an agenda.

Not terribly likely...

So 18, otherwise consent from a close adult female relative. Mother, Sister, Aunt, Grandmother.

No consent system or requirment will be perfect.

Is this policy an exception for when the rape victim names her parent or standard policy just in case the pregnant minor was raped by a parent (regardless of her story)?

Annachie wrote:Conditions, well for starters when one of the parents is the cause of said pregnancy is a damn good time not to require parental consent.

I would actually advocate never requiring parental consent if a non-partison social worker could be reliably provided. Ie: Working in the best interest of the patient and not pushing an agenda.

Not terribly likely...

So 18, otherwise consent from a close adult female relative. Mother, Sister, Aunt, Grandmother.

No consent system or requirment will be perfect.

PeterZ wrote:Is this policy an exception for when the rape victim names her parent or standard policy just in case the pregnant minor was raped by a parent (regardless of her story)?

You maker it standard policy. If you make it "you need parental consent *unless* you say your parent sexually assaulted you" guess what will happen to the rate of girls saying they were sexually assaulted by their parents while they're in a state of desperation and perhaps not thinking entirely straight.

The problem is that minors are not adults and so someone has to take responsibility for these rather important decisions. Asserting the government has standing to stand in loco parentis ANYTIME a minor child is pregnant without informing parents that this is being done means the parent is not responsible for the pregnancy of a child and any complications arising from that pregnancy. The parent is legally responsible for that child and requires due process to have that responsibility removed.

If the child wants to file to have that responsibility removed from that parent, the courts will assist.

Establishing that government always stands between a child and her parents when she is pregnant dooms the vast majority of children to suffer advice and support of people who are not nearly as motivated as her parents to seek her wellbeing. Anyone advocating such a policy is either heartless or misguided.

On a personal note, if some bureaucrat interferes with the wellbeing of MY daughter in this way, I will beggar myself trying to destroy that MFing piece of shit and anyone associated with those people.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Is this policy an exception for when the rape victim names her parent or standard policy just in case the pregnant minor was raped by a parent (regardless of her story)?

You maker it standard policy. If you make it "you need parental consent *unless* you say your parent sexually assaulted you" guess what will happen to the rate of girls saying they were sexually assaulted by their parents while they're in a state of desperation and perhaps not thinking entirely straight.

PeterZ wrote:The problem is that minors are not adults and so someone has to take responsibility for these rather important decisions.

Yes someone does. But the definition of "minor" and "adult" is, you realize, a largely arbitrary legal status subject to constant redefinition and it does not even hold constant across different issues within the same legal jurisdictions. In a single state... let's say, Nebraska... you could be a minor who needs parental consent to get married until you are 19, but an adult entitled to vote or serve in the military when you are 18, but not able to buy alcohol as an adult until you are 21...

So you can't just say 'you can't have the law say they can do that... they're a minor'. That's like saying "you can't make the speed limit 75 on that road the speed limit is 65".

Well yeah, until we change it to 75. Then it's 75.

And yeah, they might be below the age of parental consent... until we change the law to say they're not. Then they're not.

Sure we can change it, but there are consequences. Lowering the age of majority doesn't mean that the child is all of a sudden capable of making decisions. Lowering the age of consent but leaving the age of majority simply causes problems.

Sure we can make a child suddenly capable of saying yes to sex. Does that child have the ability to earn a living to take care of a child if they choose not to abort pregnancies? No. Can that child make decisions that result in incurring a legal liability? No. Can that child make decisions on their own which has far ranging consequences for their lives? No and again no.

Yet you want to impose that some disinterested bureaucrat always be inserted between that minor child and her parents in EVERY pregnancy. Sure you can make such a policy legal, it doesn't change that this is a Very stupid policy.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:The problem is that minors are not adults and so someone has to take responsibility for these rather important decisions.

Yes someone does. But the definition of "minor" and "adult" is, you realize, a largely arbitrary legal status subject to constant redefinition and it does not even hold constant across different issues within the same legal jurisdictions. In a single state... let's say, Nebraska... you could be a minor who needs parental consent to get married until you are 19, but an adult entitled to vote or serve in the military when you are 18, but not able to buy alcohol as an adult until you are 21...

So you can't just say 'you can't have the law say they can do that... they're a minor'. That's like saying "you can't make the speed limit 75 on that road the speed limit is 65".

Well yeah, until we change it to 75. Then it's 75.

And yeah, they might be below the age of parental consent... until we change the law to say they're not. Then they're not.

PeterZ wrote:Yet you want to impose that some disinterested bureaucrat always be inserted between that minor child and her parents in EVERY pregnancy. Sure you can make such a policy legal, it doesn't change that this is a Very stupid policy.

Before we throw the word stupid around any more... you do understand the difference between *not requiring* parental consent and *requiring the government to supplant the parent*? The proposal was the former, not the latter.

Any girl with supportive parents who wants them involved? Nothing stopping them.


Now... you were saying?

Not requiring parental consent asserts that the parent is NOT responsible for the consequences of the child's pregnancy. Someone has to stand in loco parentis to make decisions like whether to abort or not. Otherwise the decisions are absolutely not binding due to the child's not being legally liable for her decisions.

If the parent is responsible the parent(s) MUST be informed so they can act on their legal liability. If a decision to abort is made and the child suffers significant and permanent harm, are any waivers signed by the child valid? If costs are incurred who is legally responsible for paying those fees? If the child freaks out and harms the people at the facility and causes significant damage to the facility, who is held liable? If the child dies of complications during an abortion, who is responsible? The physician operating or the bureaucrat advising the child to accept the procedure?

I all cases where a minor child causes harm, the parent is responsible for damages. How can that be true if someone else stands in loco parentis for the child? In cases where important decisions are made on behalf of a child, the parent stands legally liable for any and all consequences of that decision. That is not true here.

Stupid. Policy.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Yet you want to impose that some disinterested bureaucrat always be inserted between that minor child and her parents in EVERY pregnancy. Sure you can make such a policy legal, it doesn't change that this is a Very stupid policy.

Before we throw the word stupid around any more... you do understand the difference between *not requiring* parental consent and *requiring the government to supplant the parent*? The proposal was the former, not the latter.

Any girl with supportive parents who wants them involved? Nothing stopping them.


Now... you were saying?

PeterZ wrote:Not requiring parental consent asserts that the parent is NOT responsible for the consequences of the child's pregnancy.

No.

Not requiring parental consent is saying the parent cannot exercise overriding authority to force some 15 year old girl to undergo a pregnancy and birth against her will. It is saying if that 15 year old girl doesn't want to be a teenage mother she has the right to say no to that.

And if you want to argue anyone should be able to do that to a 15 year old girl against her will... and I give not one shit if that person is her parent or not... I hope you have one hell of an astonishingly good justification.

Someone has to stand in loco parentis to make decisions like whether to abort or not.

Back to saying the law has to say this because the law does say this I see...

Raising the speed limit to 75 is stupid! Because people have to drive 65! Because the speed limit is 65!