Sorry to say

Please look beyond your blinders. Informing the parents does NOT mean forcing a full term pregnancy upon an unwilling minor. That is not and never was my point.

I assume that a child can find a way to get as safe a legal abortion as is possible regardless of what the parents wish. My point is that those parents should be notified about the pregnancy so that they can act to meet their legal liability regarding all the consequences pertaining pregnancy of their minor child. Not only meet the legal liability but also meet the moral demand to take care of his/her child. Anyone that asserts as a general rule, someone other than a parent is best suited to help the child through such a traumatic decision is moron of epic proportions.

Not notifying the parent is tantamount to saying the parents are not responsible for what happens to that child. That is it strips the parent of his/her duty to his/her child. While that might be necessary on an exceptional basis, it is a Stupid. Policy. as a blanket rule.

Its not about what the laws says or can be made to say. It is about the moral responsibility of a parent to his child. Asserting that you can change the law to make me not responsible for my child doesn't make that a morally good policy nor make it good in anyway for my child.

gcomeau wrote:

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!

Sadly not all parents are either responsible or competent to make such decisions.
The example of incest has been provided already, and I'd add a few others. Drug addled, intellectually challenged (state wards themselves), religious fanatics, violent, absent, separated and opposed regardless, I'm sure there are more.

In a perfect world a just pregnant 15 year old girl could sit down and have a supportive discussion with both of her parents and they would together come up with the best way out of the situation. I'd add that the potential father should be included in the discussion if possible, and the girl's father didn't kill him. After all if the decision is made to keep the baby he will have a financial and emotional committment as well.
I do know that years ago here the law was changed so that doctors don't tell parents if their underage daughter is on the pill.

PeterZ wrote:Please look beyond your blinders. Informing the parents does NOT mean forcing a full term pregnancy upon an unwilling minor. That is not and never was my point.

Perhaps you should ponder the difference between "parental information" and "parental consent" then get back to me.

We've been discussing parental consent... in case you missed it. And yes, requiring consent DOES mean forcing if that consent is withheld.

Indeed so. My apologies. The word was consent throughout the thread and I read the meaning as informed. First God and Gold standard, now this...<sigh>

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Please look beyond your blinders. Informing the parents does NOT mean forcing a full term pregnancy upon an unwilling minor. That is not and never was my point.

Perhaps you should ponder the difference between "parental information" and "parental consent" then get back to me.

We've been discussing parental consent... in case you missed it. And yes, requiring consent DOES mean forcing if that consent is withheld.

Hell, my wife was orpaned at 13 and due to her abusive half sister was in the hands of a pedophile by 16.

Absolutely noone in her life at the time was qualified to be a parent to a pet rock, let alone a child.

Sometimes you just need someone involved who is not invested. Someone there purely for the patient.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

That is an exception. When possible it is best to let families resolve these issues.

Annachie wrote:Hell, my wife was orpaned at 13 and due to her abusive half sister was in the hands of a pedophile by 16.

Absolutely noone in her life at the time was qualified to be a parent to a pet rock, let alone a child.

Sometimes you just need someone involved who is not invested. Someone there purely for the patient.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

How about NZ's law? Parents have no control over choosing to abort or not, but may/usually are informed for girls under 16, and/or family services depending on doctors judgement of situation.

May or usually inform means parents are not responsible for their child. Government bureaucrats will act in loco parentis to help a minor child navigate a horrendously difficult set of choices. That premise assumes government cares more for a child than any parent. While this may be true in the exceptional case it is absolutely not universally true.

Creating a policy that helps the exception but dooms the majority to poorer guidance is stupid.

Spacekiwi wrote:How about NZ's law? Parents have no control over choosing to abort or not, but may/usually are informed for girls under 16, and/or family services depending on doctors judgement of situation.

Govt actually has nothing to do with it, only the doctors. 2 doctors required to confirm abortion for each lady, but oce done is done, and for under 18s, the doctors have to decide whether to inform or not based on conscience, so if both drs decide it is best for parents not to know, parents dont know. and the 2 drs are required for mental health/safety confirmation of abortion.

PeterZ wrote:May or usually inform means parents are not responsible for their child. Government bureaucrats will act in loco parentis to help a minor child navigate a horrendously difficult set of choices. That premise assumes government cares more for a child than any parent. While this may be true in the exceptional case it is absolutely not universally true.

Creating a policy that helps the exception but dooms the majority to poorer guidance is stupid.

Spacekiwi wrote:How about NZ's law? Parents have no control over choosing to abort or not, but may/usually are informed for girls under 16, and/or family services depending on doctors judgement of situation.

So the doctors perform the abortion and don't inform the parents. Who is responsible if complications happen? Are the doctors free from liability? Does the doctor bill the government for the procedure? How are alternatives to abortion presented? Who the F**k guides this minor pregnant child through such difficult circumstances? The doctor with a monetary incentive to perform the abortion?

Not informing parents is a stupid policy for the vast majority of people.