Home - List All Discussions

keep you hands off my children

parental rights

by: xnavy

as the mother of a 11 year old daughter. i can tell you how i would feel if anyone
performed anything medical without my permission they would be wearing my size 6
shoes up their butt. i don't feel any female less than 18 is eligible to called a woman and
therefore they should have to go to a parent or a legal guardian.

reply from: Sigma

So, parental rights are absolute?

reply from: nsanford

I agree, not 11. But anyone older than 15 is old enough to decide whether they wish to have a child.
You give too little credit to teenagers.

reply from: yoda

MORE euphemisms? "Old enough to decide whether they wish to have a child"????? Don't you mean "old enough to KILL her BABY"???

reply from: nsanford

Yes, Yoda, if that is what you prefer. They mean the exact same thing, and you have this inablility to understand that.

reply from: xnavy

parental rights are not absolute if there is abuse in the house, i feed, clothe, shelter my daughter and love her very much.
you believe that a parent has the right to kill their unborn child, so i ask you the same question sigma.

reply from: Sigma

Ah, so parental rights are not absolute. Who decides what is abuse or not? Is it abuse to deny your daughter medical treatment if she, say, needed blood?
I do not believe parental rights are absolute, either. Abortion does not have to do with parental rights, it has to do with rights to ones body and privacy.

reply from: xnavy

i do understand teenagers i have a 14 year son and a 20 year old son in college. i taught both of them that if they do what it
takes to get a girl pregnant they had better take responsbibity. i also taught them that abortion kills a baby

reply from: yoda

Yes, Yoda, if that is what you prefer. They mean the exact same thing, and you have this inablility to understand that.
What I prefer? I prefer to hear you and Siggy come out from behind your silly little euphemisms and speak the plain, simple truth!!
Is that asking too much?

reply from: nsanford

Yes, Yoda, if that is what you prefer. They mean the exact same thing, and you have this inablility to understand that.
What I prefer? I prefer to hear you and Siggy come out from behind your silly little euphemisms and speak the plain, simple truth!!
Is that asking too much?
Is it asking too much for you to stop calling us pro-babykillers?

reply from: yoda

THAT'S not what I call you, I call you "probabykilling advocates"!!
Isn't that MUCH BETTER?????

reply from: Hereforareason

"I agree, not 11. But anyone older than 15 is old enough to decide whether they wish to have a child.
You give too little credit to teenagers. "
If a 15 year old has been foolish enough to go sleeping out with anyone, then NO! They are not mature enought to decide if they should NOT KILL THEIR CHILD!!! And yes I know many people think it's just fine and dandy to go sleeping around, if you are cautiouse. But I'm not in a mood to tread lightly right now. Sex is something special to be shared between a HUSBAND AND A WIFE!!!! It is not something to be played with. The fact that it is so openly talked of is awful. It is an intimate relatioinship not to be blabbed about. If parents can't even teach their kids to have SELF CONTROL!!!! Then What in the world are they raising??? Selfish failures. Sorry, but it's the truth.
That's how it is. Does everyone agree that sex should be only after marriage? No. But here's something I hope we can all agree on. If your 15 year old daughter is dating a boy, and he wants to have sex, if she says she's not ready he should excerise self control.
Is that not so? Or should your daughter cater to him because he is not mature enough to have self control? And that relationship will go where.........
Okay now she is 16, he is 17 and she is ready to give her virginity away to this guy. Let me ask you, and this is a seriouse question I have. Are you okay with your child, male or female giving their virginity away to someone who has already played around with other teens? Are you really? Is it something that flippant now?
Okay, rants over for now.
Amber

reply from: AshMarie88

I agree, not 11. But anyone older than 15 is old enough to decide whether they wish to have a child.
You give too little credit to teenagers.
If I found out my 16 year old was pregnant and she wanted an abortion, I would deny her to have one.
That would be my right, as a parent.

reply from: Sigma

In some states that is not so.
Why would you believe it is your right?

reply from: AshMarie88

In some states that is not so.
Why would you believe it is your right?
In some states, where there's no parental notice, are warped (like mine).
It would be my right just like it would be my right to deny my child a tattoo or a body ring. I, as a parent, would also ground her and keep a close eye on her. That's not invading her privacy, that is being a parent! I guess you keep forgetting what it means to be a parent... Or, if you don't even have kids, you should know what it means anyway.

reply from: theamericancatholic

In most states a 15 year old is not old enough to drive a motor vehicle. A 15 year old is not old enough to vote, fight in a war or buy an alcoholic beverage. And yet you think that a 15 year old is mature enough to decide to have sex and bring children into the world or then kill those unborn children? UN-BELIEVABLE!

reply from: Sigma

How about a blood transfusion or a cast for a broken leg? Do you have the right to deny your child this? How far should your control extend?
Would you want your daughter to get diagnosis or treatment for a STD, even if it is without your knowledge? How about if she would not get treatment if you knew she was having sex because you would ground her?
Which is more important, her treatment or your control?

reply from: AshMarie88

Sig, if her life was in danger or if she needed something else (treatment for std, cast, blood transfusion, etc.) I wouldn't deny her that.
But, for other things (like I mentioned above, abortion, tattoo, body peircing, etc.) I would not allow her to get (peircing maybe... But at a certain age).
It's not being controlling, it's being a parent, and going what you think is best for your child. If I would tell my daughter no, that she can't have sex, how is that being "controlling"?

reply from: Hereforareason

"How about a blood transfusion or a cast for a broken leg? Do you have the right to deny your child this? How far should your control extend? "
hm, don't you need to get the parents permission for those things for a minor?
Amber

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I agree, not 11. But anyone older than 15 is old enough to decide whether they wish to have a child.
You give too little credit to teenagers.But but but...! When a 13 year old gets pregnant, shouldn't SHE decide if SHE wants to have the baby? If she doesn't, that would be contradicting the girl's rights according to you.

reply from: yoda

Parental rights is a two-edged sword, but unfortunately that is the best we can do. Personally I think that any parent ought to have the right to protect the life of their unborn grandchild, but along with that goes the right of other grandparents to kill their unborn grandchild. It's a sad situation.

reply from: Hereforareason

If you talk about a woman's right to choose, and a grandparents right to choose, you are missing the picture. This actually isn't about choice. It's about respecting life. Yes that man chose to kill that child. Oops, she was 3 years old and he raped her first. Was that his right? Or was her life preciouse? I don't care if it's because you are a model or you just don't want to have a baby right now, you have NO RIGHT to take that child's life, any more than the terrorists of 9-11 had rights to fly those planes into biuldings.
Was it their right? Well...... (And just in case someone jumps in on the mother's health over the babies health, if the mother is in peril, then of course you do all you can to save the mother, but not at the expense of the child. Duh! With techknowledgy today you do everything you can for BOTH of your PATIENTS!!)
Amber

reply from: Sigma

That's great. The question is: Should you be able to deny these things to her?
And if she's already had sex and may have gotten a STD, would you prefer her to go to a clinic in secret to get a diagnosis and treatment, or not get either of those things because she would have to tell you she has had sex and get grounded?
Which is more important? Her treatment or your control?

reply from: yoda

Trusting a complete stranger to treat your child for an STD is not a good idea. There are child molesters in the health care profession. As a general rule, parents should always be in charge of their children's health care, unless their parental rights have been legally removed.

reply from: xnavy

i hope you will forgive me for changing the subject, would you like to hear something unusual, i work for child support enforcement
we are over here talking about some of the most unusual names people give their children, 1 mother came and had named
her children rhythem, blues. another named hers lemon and lime, one child's name was abbydam. another child was essence and
middle name was alove.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Parental rights is a two-edged sword, but unfortunately that is the best we can do. Personally I think that any parent ought to have the right to protect the life of their unborn grandchild, but along with that goes the right of other grandparents to kill their unborn grandchild. It's a sad situation.It is sad. Which goes right back to making abortion illegal, so this can't happen.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

How about a blood transfusion or a cast for a broken leg? Do you have the right to deny your child this? How far should your control extend?Those are vital, Sig. Unless in an ectopic pregnancy, an abortion is not.
Would you want your daughter to get diagnosis or treatment for a STD, even if it is without your knowledge? How about if she would not get treatment if you knew she was having sex because you would ground her?
Which is more important, her treatment or your control?Look at my above message.

reply from: Sigma

A cast is not vital, but it does allow the bone to heal straight. Should a parent be able to deny their child such?
You didn't answer my question. Which would you prefer? Would you want your daughter to get diagnosis or treatment for a STD, even if it is without your knowledge? How about if she would not get treatment if you knew she was having sex because you would ground her?
I want to know how far you believe parental control extends.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

A cast can be vital, i.e. a neck cast.
I think a parent should have consent and control when their daughter gets something done to them that is not life saving, like getting a tatto, a peircing, or an abortion. If the abortion is vital then the parents should be notified with the doctor say that she needs an abortion. If a child has an STD or HIV, they should get treatment while notifying the parents.

reply from: Sigma

Well, sure, so can an abortion. You seem to be avoiding the question.
How about an arm cast? Should a parent be able to deny their child this if the child wishes to heal their arm straight?
What if your daughter doesn't go in for diagnosis and treatment because she is afraid of you knowing that she is having sex? Which would you prefer, your daughter to get diagnosis or treatment for a STD without your knowledge or your daughter not getting treatment?
Surely you know the denial that teens can go through. If she feels she cannot get treatment because then you'll know, she may very well simply not get treatment and try to pretend nothing is happening. Pregnant girls do this sometimes too. This is dangerous.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

No I'm not. I said earlier, if a girl has an ectopic pregnancy, she should either a) put it in a incubator when it's old enough, or, if that won't work, b) abort it.
That would be considered abuse, and the parents would get arrested.
Why do you keep thinking that I wouldn't get her STD treatment if I knew she was having sex? Most parents would get her STD treatment.
But what is so bad about a parent knowing? It's not like they're going to kill her in her sleep!

reply from: Sigma

I never asked about ectopic pregnancies.
So a parent cannot prevent their child from receiving some treatment for things that are not life-threatening?
I'm not asking you what you or most parents would do if they knew. I'm asking which you prefer: your daughter to get diagnosis or treatment for a STD without your knowledge or your daughter not getting treatment?
For the purposes of this hypothetical, I'm assuming your daughter does not plan to tell you she is having sex out of fear of punishment or some other reason.
Ask the girls who are terrified of telling their parents they're having sex
Pregnant teens go through denial where they refuse to acknowledge that they're pregnant. Girls with STDs do this too. If telling a parent that they're having sex is unacceptable to the girl in question, they may simply not get the treatment or care that they need. This is dangerous.

reply from: Alexandra

When I was 17, I required a note from my mother saying it was okay for me to get my ears pierced.
Figure that one out.

reply from: Sigma

Not sure why I would have to.
Perhaps you would answer the question I posed: which would you prefer: your daughter to get diagnosis or treatment for a STD without your knowledge or your daughter not getting treatment?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I heard of a guy who was so obsessed with Star Wars that he named his son Anakin Skywalker *whatever his last name was*.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I never asked about ectopic pregnancies.I am saying that abortion is not vital unless in an ectopic pregnancy. You were comparing it to vital procedures earlier.
So a parent cannot prevent their child from receiving some treatment for things that are not life-threatening?Abortion is not a treatment, if this is where you're going.
I'm not asking you what you or most parents would do if they knew. I'm asking which you prefer: your daughter to get diagnosis or treatment for a STD without your knowledge or your daughter not getting treatment?
For the purposes of this hypothetical, I'm assuming your daughter does not plan to tell you she is having sex out of fear of punishment or some other reason.Well, I would rather her get treatment, but what does that have to do with the point?
Ask the girls who are terrified of telling their parents they're having sex
Pregnant teens go through denial where they refuse to acknowledge that they're pregnant. Girls with STDs do this too. If telling a parent that they're having sex is unacceptable to the girl in question, they may simply not get the treatment or care that they need. This is dangerous.Again, what does this have to do with the point?

reply from: yoda

Parental knowledge and consent on all important matters concerning their children is the bedrock of our traditional family concept in this country. While no arrangement is perfect, children are overall much better off with such parental oversight than without, IMO. To make exceptions for such things as STD treatment and abortion chips away at the bedrock foundation of our society, IMO.
And just because there are a few "bad" parents, that's no justification for allowing complete strangers to come between all parents and their children. The good of the vast majority of families ought to come first.
And only a poor parent would even allow such intervention, IMO, because it shows a real lack of concern to turn your kids over to strangers.

reply from: Sigma

I was not intending to include vital procedures in this.
In a sense it is. It is a medical procedure to solve a medical issue the woman has.
Because my point is that sometimes it is better that your daughter get procedures done without your knowledge if it means she will get the care she needs. You disagree with abortion specifically, but you agree with the general desire that allowing abortion without parental consent satisfies. This is common ground.
It is dangerous, therefore allowing teens to go to the doctor without their parents knowledge may be justified. You may disagree with abortion specifically, but that does not make this desire wrong.

reply from: yoda

IMO it is far more dangerous to have a law that allows anyone to take a child to some quack abortionist who's out for a quick buck, without the permission of the parents. Even if they survive the experience, they have become a child killer, and that will stick with them for the rest of their lives.

reply from: Alexandra

I know this is over your head, Sigma, but pregnancy is not a medical condition--it's not an illness or a disease.
It's a woman's body doing what it was designed to do.

reply from: Sigma

It is not an illness or a disease, this is true. It is, however, a medical condition. Care to respond to the rest of my post?

reply from: Alexandra

After you tell me exactly what's meant by "medical condition."

reply from: yoda

Well, it means pretty much whatever the individual wants it to mean, Alexandra, because it's pure slang. No online dictionary I checked lists it as a phrase.

reply from: Sigma

It is a condition that is made easier by medical help or advice, and may require medical help or advice. Generally I'd say that would be as I view it.

reply from: yoda

Do you suggest that we do away with dictionaries altogether and just use words "however we happen to view them"?
That seems to be the vogue among probabykilling advocates, anyway.

reply from: nsanford

In most states a 15 year old is not old enough to drive a motor vehicle. A 15 year old is not old enough to vote, fight in a war or buy an alcoholic beverage. And yet you think that a 15 year old is mature enough to decide to have sex and bring children into the world or then kill those unborn children? UN-BELIEVABLE!
And you in turn believe that they are indeed ready to become mothers? Do you not believe that mothers should raise their own children?

reply from: nsanford

I agree, not 11. But anyone older than 15 is old enough to decide whether they wish to have a child.
You give too little credit to teenagers.But but but...! When a 13 year old gets pregnant, shouldn't SHE decide if SHE wants to have the baby? If she doesn't, that would be contradicting the girl's rights according to you.
I remember saying women's rights, not girls. 15 year olds are young women.

reply from: yoda

"Not being ready to raise children" is the poorest of all excuses to KILL BABIES.
You look for any excuse, any rationalization at all to justify KILLING BABIES, don't you?

reply from: Tam

It is a condition that is made easier by medical help or advice, and may require medical help or advice. Generally I'd say that would be as I view it.
None of that is factually true of pregancy. Some people feel that THEY might benefit from medical help or advice, but only if a problem arises (as in, not a normal pregnancy, a problem arises--like the difference between a normal day and a day when you have a heart attack--a real problem) can it be said that a medical condition exists.
Normal human pregnancies (that is to say, those pregnancies in which a medical condition does NOT arise) have been handled just fine by women, without help from people in little white coats and stethoscopes, for as long as humans have existed. Pregnancy is NOT a "medical condition"--it is a "physical condition" but that doesn't make it medical. It is normal, natural, and (for the species, not necessarily individual women) essential.
If a genuine physical problem arises, THAT is a medical condition. Otherwise, no medical condition exists in pregnancy.

reply from: Tam

If they are pregnant, they are already mothers. Of course in our society it is quite young to become a mother at 15. But it's not unheard of--it happens all the time. Abortion doesn't make them not mothers. It makes them mothers of dead children, children they hired someone to kill. For those unready to raise their kids, there are other options, such as adoption and raising the child with help from others.

reply from: Sigma

It is, however, true in practice. Even something as simple as boiling water to kill bacteria by a midwife could be considered medical help, or the cutting of the cord. Pregnancy is a condition that benefits from medical help, so I would consider it a medical condition.
During the pregnancy itself it is strongly advised to receive regular checkups even if there is nothing suspected to be wrong. It is a medical issue that impacts nearly every system in the woman's body.
This is, however, besides the point of the discussion.

reply from: xnavy

i guess my house hold is weird because my children have come to talk about sex and babies. they have promised they would
hold off on having sex til they are adults because they know that fetus is just another name for baby. my son is turning 15 in
a couple of days told me he would never agree to an abortion because that is taking a life. my son is not afraid of me and does
not hesitate to come to me.

reply from: Sigma

It would indeed be weird for a son to come to his mother regarding everything.
I would not presume to undermine your faith in your children's pledges, but such things are not guarantees of anything.
From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7232643/
Last year, the same research team found that 88 percent of teens who pledge abstinence end up having sex before marriage, compared with 99 percent of teens who do not make a pledge.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

You were comparing abortion to blood transfusions and STD treatments.
Yes, it is- 3% of the time. Most abortions are not done for medical problems with the mother OR the baby.
I NEVER said ANYTHING about abortion. I was talking about STD treatment.
What? I said she should get the treatment, but I never said without my knowledge. You gave me two choices, when there really should be three:
#1 Don't go to get treatment
#2 Go to get treatment without my knowledge
#3 Go to get treatment with my knowledge
I prefer the third.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I agree, not 11. But anyone older than 15 is old enough to decide whether they wish to have a child.
You give too little credit to teenagers.But but but...! When a 13 year old gets pregnant, shouldn't SHE decide if SHE wants to have the baby? If she doesn't, that would be contradicting the girl's rights according to you.
I remember saying women's rights, not girls. 15 year olds are young women.No, 18 year olds are women. Maybe you haven't noticed, but anyone under 18 years old is considered a child. And you said in your previous post that young women are not yet responsible for being a mother, yet you seem to think they're old enough to get an abortion with no parental guidance or consent whatsoever?

reply from: Sigma

laurissamarcotte, you are avoiding the question. My question assumes the girl does not plan on going to her parents regarding the issue.
Regardless, you confirm my suspicions with this dance you perform. Few parents, I daresay, would say that they would prefer their daughter to get no treatment even were she to get said treatment without their knowledge. So while their control is an important issue, the welfare, health and happiness of their daughter (not only a threat to her life) can be of greater importance. This is the reasoning behind abortions without parental consent. I realize you disagree with including abortion, but the reasoning is similar.

reply from: Alexandra

Know what, Sigma, a long time ago my husband fell off his bike and required stitches in his head. Because he was 17--and the NEXT DAY was his 18th birthday--he still required parental permission or they wouldn't do it.
I think they're allowed to treat minors without parental consent if the condition is life-threatening.
So there's no reason why a parent can't be informed. Unless you're Planned Butcherhood and can't be bothered to pick up the phone, because the parents might say no and there go your profits!

reply from: Sigma

And do you believe parents should be able to deny their children this?

reply from: Alexandra

And do you believe parents should be able to deny their children this?
If it's medically necessary the parents SHOULD approve of the treatment.
But parents should definitely have the right to deny their daughter an abortion, because usually it's NOT medically necessary, and it would kill their grandchild.
Let me put it this way: The parents should definitely be informed at the very least. If some teenager goes to the doctor to be treated for an STD, the parents should be called immediately.
These medical privacy laws--I can't even be informed about my own husband's condition without his consent, now how stupid is that? I think children's medical records should be easily accessible to the parent/legal guardian, because that child is being cared for by them!

reply from: Sigma

And if the stitches weren't necessary to save his life, do you believe the parents should approve? If the parents didn't approve, do you believe the teen should be able to get it done anyway? If the teen's parents would prevent the treatment if they knew, do you believe the teen should be able to get such treatment without their knowledge?

reply from: Hereforareason

That's the light it's put in today anyway. But man, wouldn't it be a lot nicer to really know your chidren and be there for them to come talk to whenever they need rather than having all these kids invovled in crime without their parents even knowing something is wrong? Disonnect, or connect?
In this day in age if those kids didn't decide they weren't going to have sex before marriage, they would have had it. Are you talking about signing a document type of thing?
Amber

reply from: Sigma

I don't know, would it? At some point the connection between parent and child should be severed.
Yes, as well as oral promises.
No, even if kids do decide they aren't going to have sex before marriage the vast majority do anyway.

reply from: yoda

Yeah. Like when they become adults, or leave home?

reply from: Tam

And if the stitches weren't necessary to save his life, do you believe the parents should approve? If the parents didn't approve, do you believe the teen should be able to get it done anyway?
If there's child abuse happening in the form of parents denying necessary medical intervention to preserve the child's life, then that should be reported to the authorities. If they see a problem, they will take the child(ren) away from the parents. This happened recently where a vegan couple's children were taken from them after one of their children died, and the other children were given "balanced" diets containing meat, and the parents were required by court order to continue feeding the children meat in order to be allowed to have the children come home. Now, obviously these parents did not know what they were doing or the child wouldn't have died. But my point is that the state forced the parents to give the child what it saw as medically necessary. The same would be true in any other circumstances. A medically necessary abortion wouldn't be stoppable by the parents.

reply from: Hereforareason

Changed yes, severed no. Not running to mommy to have her fix everything, but open talk with your parents. That actually happens when your parents have your heart. You talk openly and honestly. yes the relationship changes, but it shouldn't be severed. (It seems that now adays, there isn't much of a tie to severe)
That's not what I said. I said that none of the kids who didn't have sex, didn't think about it. They had to think it through and make a decision or they would have gone along with the flow.
Amber

reply from: xnavy

i have a question if a child is taked to pp and has an abortion without the parents permission, who is responsible for paying for the
abortion, the person that took the child or the parent that was kept in the dark.

reply from: danib

The person who takes the child or the child themself pays. They certainly wouldn't want the parent to find out. They have to pay upfront or they won't get the "procedure".

reply from: Sigma

Tam,
Yes, I understand that. If the issue is not inherently life-threatening, such as a cast for a broken arm or stitches in the scalp or prenatal care for a pregnant teen, then it is within the parent's complete discretion as to whether the teen receives medical care.
If you read what you quoted, you will see that I specified non-life threatening.
Hereforareason,
Changed is a better term for it, yes. During the teen years especially the relationship changes, generally a separation between teen and parent. Is this good? Again I say: I don't know, is it? Certainly it is a natural occurrance, but natural does not always equal good. It depends on your perspective. I'm not sure this separation can generally occur and maintain an open line about one's sex life. Sex in general certainly, but one's own sex life?
Well, each person must think about it beforehand. There are always factors such as peer pressure and such, but I believe it is unsupported speculation to imply that those who "go with the flow" don't think about it.
This is further supported by the fact that those whom you say do think about it do the same thing in the vast majority of cases.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

I am not.You gave me two choices, where there are three.

reply from: yoda

Why? Shouldn't parents be involved in their children's medical treatments, especially those that have to do with promiscuity?

reply from: Sigma

laurissamarcotte, the third option is not available in this hypothetical I no longer require you to answer, I have a clear picture simply from how you avoid the question. That you would allow your child to acquire STD treatment means you agree with the reasoning, you simply disagree with including abortion.

reply from: yoda

Do let us know when you "require" us to answer, okay?

reply from: Hereforareason

What? Sex life should be discussed with no one beyond the fact maybe to a parent that it is happening if before marriage. Maybe that is even to far. But the subject should be discussed before hand so that child is strong in their stand.
Are you done yet? This issue isn't really one I see as worth discussing any further.
Amber

reply from: Sigma

Should? Perhaps, perhaps not. Certainly it is normal for this not to happen.
You may stop any time you wish, Hereforareason.

reply from: NewPoster1

Interesting, what if a parent thought that it was in his/her daughter's best interest to have an abortion, even though she didn't want it, under your logic of absolute parental rights wouldn't it also be his/her right as a parent to force his/her daughter to have an abortion against her will?

reply from: yoda

Unfortunately that is the case. Parental rights are a two-edged sword.

reply from: nsanford

Wow, so you wish to restrict the rights of women, but when it comes to parents, hands off.
Go figure.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

That's because parents don't have the right to kill their children.
Go figure!

reply from: Sigma

Newposter said:
under your logic of absolute parental rights wouldn't it also be his/her right as a parent to force his/her daughter to have an abortion against her will?
to which yodavater replied:
Unfortunately that is the case. Parental rights are a two-edged sword.
This would apparently indicate that supporting those parental rights would support forced abortion.

reply from: yoda

I don't want anyone to KILL BABIES, ns, not even YOU!
Why is that so hard for you to understand?

reply from: yoda

Not the case at all, oh great tutor of all posters, far and wide. A simple, sad statement of fact, in that to endorse parental control means that one has to accept whatever "choice" a parent makes about abortion, even a choice to KILL their GRANDBABY. Even so, parents ought to be the ones in charge of their children, even when they make such horrible decisions, IMO.

reply from: AshMarie88

Sadly, the government gave woman that "right".
Tomorrow, the same women fighting for abortion rights, will be fighting for rights to kill their husbands if they want to.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

My answer is neither. Saying either one would make me a bad parent.

reply from: Sigma

Ah, so you would not wish your daughter to be able to acquire STD treatment without your knowledge, even if that meant she would not get treatment?

reply from: yoda

What a perfectly ridiculous question. How would one know that insisting on being informed about a child's medical condition would cause her not to have treatment?
If one doesn't know about the condition, how would one know that they were not going to get treatment?

reply from: laurissamarcotte

Sigma, I answered your question. If I said either one of your choices, that would make me a cruel parent.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics