Parents and their right to know
It says something for the state of our ‘civilisation’ when a mother has to go to court in order to secure the ‘right’ to know whether her child has been the victim of a crime - underage sex - and is also planning on terminating the baby in her womb.
Just reading through the Daily Mail’s report of mother of four Sue Axon’s bid to secure that right makes for disturbing reading:
Her QC Philip Havers told Mr Justice Silber, sitting in London: “This case raises the important question whether the parent of a young person aged under 16 who goes to her doctor or other health professional for advice and treatment in respect of contraception, or in respect of sexually transmitted infections, or in respect of an abortion, are entitled at least to be told about the proposed advice and treatment before it is provided.”
Labour have nationalised the family and now we parents have to apply to the State for our ‘right’ to look after our children in the best way we know. This is what happens in a rights based culture. Everything is allowed when and only when the government deigns to allow it.
“It is incongruous to me that I am required to have to consent to my daughter having her belly button pierced while she can have an abortion without me even knowing.”
Mrs Axon said she believed parents should be involved because “difficult discussions strengthen family life”.
The consequences of the decisions made with regard to abortion also “stay with you for the rest of your life”, she added.
This is a government that will happily ban privately owned drinking establishments from allowing the legal habit of smoking cigarettes to take place on their premises - a decision which removes the right of adults to make their own decisions - but will enable 13 year old girls to have illegal sex and then terminate the results as if they were old and wise and quite able to deal with such a procedure.
If parental responsibility is to mean anything at all then they must have a say in such life-affecting decisions of their off-spring. To take critical decisions on contraception and abortion away from the family and give them to the State is an abomination.
Whatever a child chooses to do, in the end, their family has to cope with any harmful fallout. If an underage child pursues a sexual relationship she is breaking the law and exposing herself to emotional trials she may not be able to deal with at such a young age. A decision over an abortion that doesn’t involve those who care for her most means that whichever way she goes the family may have to handle an outcome without having any involvement in the original decision. This being so, to allow the State to dictate terms is patently wrong.
Parental responsibility is being relegated to simply sending them off to school in the morning.
And once again I’m amazed that this sort of thing comes from an atheist. You redefine the term ‘noble pagan’, Gary. Nice one.
Comment by Dumb Brit — November 9, 2005 @ 2:32 pm
Brit,
Recognising parental responsibility and the vulnerability of of children doesn’t require religious belief. We can reach similar conclusions from entirely different directions.
Pagan? Me? I’m not sure pagans would be too happy with you for aligning me with them!
The ‘noble’ is nice though. Thanks…
Comment by Gary Monro — November 9, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
If parental responsibility is to mean anything at all then they must have a say in such life-affecting decisions of their off-spring.
It’s a strange position that would require a parent’s permission before a minor could give birth to children, surely?
Comment by Frank O\\\'Dwyer — November 9, 2005 @ 6:53 pm
Actually, that’s a good point, Gary. Somehow I can’t imagine you stringing anyone’s entrails around a tree. Except perhaps Brooksie’s…
Would you accept Godless heathen?
Seriously, though, you’re quite right. For my part, I think the case is doomed from the outset, but she’s absolutely right to fight it. I hope she wins.
Comment by Dumb Brit — November 9, 2005 @ 10:00 pm
I’m a little worried that the people campaigning hard (as is their right) for parental involvement are lucky enough (like me btw) to come from supportive functional, dare I say, middle class families.
What about the young girl who is brutalised by her parents, abused either physically or mentally? Anybody who tells you that all mothers are inherently caring (I’m looking at you Anne Atkins) is deluded.
Comment by driverchris — November 10, 2005 @ 10:35 am
Frank,
The situation where a minor is pregnant is the strange situation. Parental involvement ought to be a given.
Driverchris,
In this imperfect world no one set of rules is without a down side. These exceptions - as tragic as they certainly are - cannot be the starting point for policy. Either one recognises the parents’ fundamental responsibility for their offspring or one doesn’t. If one doesn’t then another chink in the family structure becomes nationalised.
Let’s be clear: removing the rights of parents is Labour’s way of ensuring more abortions and so meeting their target of fewer teenage pregnancies. Whereas kids may well want rid of the baby, parents might feel differently about what is, after all, their grandchild - and that means another teenage mum and that just isn’t good for Labour. So they remove the parents from the equation.
As a parent myself though abortion isn’t the issue here. It’s that the government and its health ‘professional’ cronies will deal with my children according to their values and opinions rather than allow the me to deal with my own children according to my own values and opinions.
Comment by Gary Monro — November 10, 2005 @ 10:55 am
‘It’s a strange position that would require a parent’s permission before a minor could give birth to children, surely?’ says Frank.
Youve twisted the words around and created a different argument.
It is an abomination, as Gary says, that a parents consultation is not sought before ENDING the life of an unborn child.
A child frightened by her parents reaction might not have the emotional intelligence to comprehend that her parents might actually help support the unborn child, or that the emotional cost of an abortion will far outweigh the disapproval she percieves she might get from her parents. Result - an unborn life is lost that might have been saved.
Comment by HSBguzzler — November 10, 2005 @ 11:08 am
Interesting stuff Gary, I’d rather the government (of any political flavour) kept the hell out.
You are correct, by using pregnancy and abortion as the example it’s easy to inflame opinions because it’s such an emotive area, are we actually discussing patient confidentiality versus parental rights?
- bit of a tangent, but how do you feel about a devout J’ Witness parent for example refusing treatment for a toddler ‘cos it goes against their wishes. Would a government that left them to their own beliefs and devices be praised?
Comment by driverchris — November 10, 2005 @ 11:43 am
As HSBguzzler says, a child can only imagine a parent’s reaction.
I know I would be outraged if my daughter was pregnant - and she knows it too - but what she probably wouldn’t recognise in her confusion and distress is that I love her too much to adandon her or make her life a misery. My wife and I would make the most of a bad situation and support her. I doubt she’d realise this at the time of finding out she was pregnant so might (although I suspect not) make use of the State-parent to take care of her.
But the issue isn’t just abortion. If my daughter is seeking contraception then I want to know about it. She is my responsibility and she will not engage in sexual activitiy if I can prevent it. It is damaging in countless ways and as a responsible adult I will do whatever is necessary to ensure she doesn’t get the chance to make use of the contraception.
I do not intend to jettison my parental responsibilities so that Blair can meet his targets. He doesn’t care about my daughter so long as she’s not pregnant. I care about all aspects of her emotional and physical well-being and so the final decision should be mine.
Driverchris,
Good question. If it can be shown that the refusal of treatment will likely end in the death or serious injury of the child then one can argue the parents’ actions are causing the child some harm. I’m loathe to force people to act against their convictions although I have to say that a refusal to help yourself - or a loved one - when it’s possible to do so borders on the insane. So maybe the parents should be certified.
This is different - as you acknowledge - from the topic of the original post because in your example the parents are actively doing something - withholding treatment - whereas in my post they’re nowhere to be seen. I would not extend the right of parents to look after their children to giving them the right to do whatever they felt like doing with them.
Comment by Gary Monro — November 10, 2005 @ 12:44 pm
“If my daughter is seeking contraception then I want to know about it. She is my responsibility and she will not engage in sexual activitiy if I can prevent it.”
Ho-hum. I wonder what a liberal would make of that…
Come to think of it, I wonder what the FPA would make of that.
Comment by Dumb Brit — November 10, 2005 @ 1:04 pm
HSBGuzzler,
Are you telling me that if a minor shows up for a pre-natal checkup, then as long as she is intending to give birth, you consider that parents DON’T need to be consulted?
Gary,
If it can be shown that the refusal of treatment will likely end in the death or serious injury of the child then one can argue the parents’ actions are causing the child some harm.
Pregnancy and childbirth always causes harm. It is 10x as dangerous as is abortion, and giving birth is especially harmful and dangerous to younger minors.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — November 10, 2005 @ 7:21 pm
I’m amazed it took you that long to get back on your Soapbox of Death, Frank. Have you been ill?
Comment by Dumb Brit — November 10, 2005 @ 8:21 pm
DB,
Do you ever consider that you be wrong about anything or anyone? Your handle on here suggests a certain humility, which would be something I respect.
I just want to ask you one question. You are a Christian, I know, and vehemently opposed to abortion. Perhaps on biblical grounds, I don’t know.
What if Christ is not?
What if on the day of judgement you stand before your Lord, and He says to you that He is a God of love and compassion, and that He created abortion because he loves mothers, and as a test of your forgiveness? What if He points out to you a 13 year old that was impregnated by her father, who when ‘consulted’ under a law that you helped to pass, made her carry to term.
When He asks you why that girl had to be raped twice, how will you answer Him?
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — November 11, 2005 @ 12:24 am
Frank, I think you misunderstand me. It’s abortion as a lifestyle choice that I oppose as the abomination it is. Wretched excuses for men like the one in your example deserve no better than the Tepes treatment, and girls like that deserve all the love and compassion one can muster. I’m not disputing either of these facts.
However, I don’t believe in forcing someone to pay for someone else’s crime. The situation you described is a tragedy, and an abominable one. There’s no doubt about that. I just wonder if the error need really be compounded by murdering the child growing within. However, in rape cases things are different again, and I can understand the desire to remove oneself from that child.
What’s needed here, Frank, is industrial-strength therapy, not the bloody quick-fix solution of the infanticide clinic. If the girl really can’t cope with the child, well, there are thousands of couples who cannot conceive but would love to look after a child, and would do it wonderfully.
A few theological points, because I’m like that. a) God doesn’t create evil to test Christians. That would make God evil, which would make Him Satan. b) God doesn’t have to ask me anything about why the girl ‘had’ to be raped (though it’s a charge many non-believers would level at Him to ‘prove’ his nonexistence) He and I and all my brothers and sisters under Him know that evil is a result of the abuse of Free Will. It’s really that simple. Simple, though, having nothing to do with easy.
Well now there’s a thing, we appear to be having a civilised conversation, who would have thought it? I’m really rather pleased.
Comment by Dumb Brit — November 11, 2005 @ 9:18 am
Frank,
I would agree with abortion in the case of the example you mention. I wouldn’t encourage it, mind, but nor would I try to talk the girl out of it.
Pregnancy and childbirth always causes harm. It is 10x as dangerous as is abortion, and giving birth is especially harmful and dangerous to younger minors.
Which suggests you think that I think parental involvement will decrease the amount of abortion.
Well, I think it probably would but (a) that’s not why I believe parents have every right to be informed of their child’s goings-on when they’re that young and the circumstances are that critical and (b) I apply the general rule to all aspects of a child’s upbringing - including, but not restricted to, abortion and contraception.
For example, my daughter needs my consent to go on her school trip to Germany and I will not accept the state decreeing she can/can’t over my wishes.
Comment by Gary Monro — November 11, 2005 @ 11:48 am
Frank asked: ‘Are you telling me that if a minor shows up for a pre-natal checkup, then as long as she is intending to give birth, you consider that parents DON’T need to be consulted?’
No, Im not saying that. I think that that is entirely a separate issue, and not one I have such strong convictions about.
Comment by HSBguzzler — November 11, 2005 @ 12:31 pm
DB,
Agree it is pleasing to have a civilised conversation. I wondered if you’d respond in kind, and I’m glad you did.
There’s a lot I’d like to respond to in your post (including even the theological point!). I won’t do it here, but I will post it on my blog if you’re interested.
To HSBguzzler,
Your reponse is just baffling to me. You don’t think that giving birth is just as much a life altering decision? To say nothing of the immediate dangers? Even allowing for the fact you consider there is an ‘unborn child’ etc, it’s as if you are saying you care about your grandkids welfare, but to hell with your daughter.
Gary,
I don’t think such a law would decrease abortion necessarily at all. More likely it would increase it. I’d like to think most parents would support their daughter in either decision, but I suspect more would pressure her to abort than to give birth. Plenty of teenage pregnancies are planned. A childish sense of planned, but by this I mean they want a child sometime and now is OK. But I suspect many of those children’s parents have other ideas.
As for the state, is it the state’s role to prop up lack of trust between parent and child? I would have thought that if a daughter wanted the parents to know she would tell them herself.
If not, then two things occur: one is that the parent had their chance to pass on values and instil trust. If they failed then why should the state spend tax money putting that right? Should we also send state taxis to pick up daughters from parties, or call around to find out where she is, if the parents won’t?
Second and more important is that if she doesn’t trust her parents, she may well have a damn good reason.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — November 11, 2005 @ 6:50 pm
one is that the parent had their chance to pass on values and instil trust. If they failed then why should the state spend tax money putting that right?
Frank, if I had to guess I’d say you’re not a parent. If you are I’d be interested to know how you instill values and trust into your child so completely that, come the horrible moment, she’s able to come skipping gaily to you for your advice. It is simply wrong to say that, because a child wants to do something without informing their parents that the parents somehow have failed. By that reckoning no parent can succeed.
Second and more important is that if she doesn’t trust her parents, she may well have a damn good reason.
Then again, she may not.
You and I can spend all day looking for exceptions. The overall point though remains, so far as I am concerned, that a parent is responsible for his child and the state should have as little say in family matters as is possible.
Labour’s decision to keep the parents oout of contraception/abortion issues for children is so they can make all the decisions. And their decisions are, as I’ve said, based on what’s good for them and their teenage pregnancy rate targets rather than on what’s good for the child.
Comment by Gary Monro — November 12, 2005 @ 1:45 pm
On a related topic, is it just me or does anybody else begin to wonder if there might be some kind of agenda behind the increasing marketing of sexual behaviours to an increasingly young audience?
Comment by Dumb Brit — November 12, 2005 @ 2:00 pm
Frank, you said:
“There’s a lot I’d like to respond to in your post (including even the theological point!). I won’t do it here, but I will post it on my blog if you’re interested.”
All I can see on your blog at present is a spirited attempt to give David Vance an unwarranted drubbing and some excellent points on Chip and PIN and our tyrant government. A mixture of good and bad, which isn’t a bad thing in itself, but I feel I’ve been lead there under false pretences. The comments you promise are not there.
Comment by Dumb Brit — November 12, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
A girl talks to a health care profesional in private. She gets advice.
I’m not sure where either the state or the girls parents come into this. The professional should be able to give advice and decide how to deal with the issue at hand, and the girl is entitled to communicate with adults other than her parents.
Comment by DE — November 12, 2005 @ 2:32 pm
The comments you promise are not there.
Like I said, if you’re interested.
I kinda doubt anyone else is interested in a philosophical discussion of the problem of evil, and I wasn’t about to post all that for my own benefit
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — November 12, 2005 @ 2:49 pm
The overall point though remains, so far as I am concerned, that a parent is responsible for his child and the state should have as little say in family matters as is possible.
Indeed, but there are limits to parental involvement just as there are limits to state involvement. If a parent wishes to demand that their child either give birth or have an abortion, then too bad: that is no more a ‘family matter’ than if he demands that she sleep with him.
Children also have rights, and one of them is that they are not the property of any parents, any church, any state, any person, or any foetus. None of the above have any right to command their servitude.
Comment by Frank O\\\'Dwyer — November 12, 2005 @ 2:58 pm
But Frank, how will you know if anyone’s interested if you never write it?
Anyway, I’ll read it and that’s certain, so go ahead and write it.
Comment by Dumb Brit — November 12, 2005 @ 7:11 pm
DB,
Done. A tad rushed so I may update it a bit later on.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — November 12, 2005 @ 8:46 pm
Frank said ”HSBguzzler, Your reponse is just baffling to me. You don’t think that giving birth is just as much a life altering decision? To say nothing of the immediate dangers? Even allowing for the fact you consider there is an ‘unborn child’ etc, it’s as if you are saying you care about your grandkids welfare, but to hell with your daughter.”
To explain my response; I don’t feel doctor/child patient confidentiality should be breached if at all possible, BUT I am not happy for an under 16 to have an abortion and sweep it under the carpet without her parents knowledge, and not giving them the chance to influence that decision. If, however, she has chosen to go ahead with the pregnancy, the doctor/patient confidentiality need not be breached, as the parents will find out in time anyway.
Also I do not accept that giving birth is 10x more harmful than abortion.
Comment by HSBguzzler — November 14, 2005 @ 8:58 am
DE,
Advice is one thing. But administering contraception or encouraging/discouraging abortion is, to use a slightly too emotive term, incitement to actually act. That’s for the family who bare more of the consequences of the outcome than faceless bureaucrats.
Frank,
If a parent wishes to demand that their child either give birth or have an abortion, then too bad: that is no more a ‘family matter’ than if he demands that she sleep with him.
Hardly.
In the first place, the parents demands can somehow be legitimised/contradicted by what highter authority? The state’s? In an imperfect world do you honestly believe the state is best-placed to iron our life’s tougher wrinkles? Life is tough and no solution works for all people all the time. The next best thing is an accurate general principle and that principle is that family pulls together and works through its problems as best it can. Sometimes it’ll be crap, others it’ll be outstandingly wonderful. Mostly it’ll fall between the two extremes. Welcome to the real world.
Children also have rights, and one of them is that they are not the property of any parents, any church, any state, any person, or any foetus.
Ah, rights. Whenever life refuses to do as required create some rights then enforce them, accusing others of contravening them if they believe otherwise (not that you yourself were necessarily doing either). But nobody wants to feel they’re stepping on other people’s rights do they? Create a ‘right’ and, hey presto, you have a moral argument to support whatever it is you want to do.
Do children have rights? They do if an adult deigns to ‘give’ them rights. Of course, such rights reflect only the latest fad rather than anything that’s fundamentally true. A parent’s love for his/her child - and the attendant anxiety, ambition, concern and hope - cannot, inconvenitently, fit into the framework of leftist ‘rights’ culture but, by jove, that won’t stop the left insisting that children have these abstract figments of their imaginations.
We’re animals Frank. You might believe we’re something quite a bit better but we have the same brains we had on the savannah and attempts to circumnavigate our deepest human instincts with smoke and mirror rights arguments will serve only to disconnect us from what makes us truly human.
That’s fine if you’re on the left but for thos eof us who appreciate humanity for what it is these human constructs are exactly contrary to our natural desire to be social and family-related animals.
Comment by Gary Monro — November 14, 2005 @ 11:43 am
Gary,
“If a parent wishes to demand that their child either give birth or have an abortion, then too bad: that is no more a ‘family matter’ than if he demands that she sleep with him.”
Hardly.
In the first place, the parents demands can somehow be legitimised/contradicted by what highter authority?
The same authority that can contradict him when he demands that he sleep with her.
“Children also have rights, and one of them is that they are not the property of any parents, any church, any state, any person, or any foetus.”
Ah, rights. Whenever life refuses to do as required create some rights then enforce them, accusing others of contravening them […]
Invented rights, such as a “parent’s right to know”?
You whinge about having to petition the state for that “right”, yet you will still expect the state to enforce it for you.
I guess that makes you a “leftist”?
Do children have rights? They do if an adult deigns to ‘give’ them rights. Of course, such rights reflect only the latest fad rather than anything that’s fundamentally true.
Only if it is the ‘latest fad’ that says a father may not rape a child - nor force her to have an abortion, nor force her to give birth.
Regardless the parent that attempts to do any of the above may still have some explaining to do to the police and the courts.
As you say, welcome to the real world.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — November 14, 2005 @ 10:08 pm
HSBguzzler,
Also I do not accept that giving birth is 10x more harmful than abortion.
“M is for Malapert” on t.a.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/825ca136c05c925f
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — November 14, 2005 @ 10:24 pm
>But administering contraception or >encouraging/discouraging abortion is, to use a >slightly too emotive term, incitement to >actually act. That’s for the family who bare
Gary, you are saying that administering contraception is a matter for the family? This is a very close family you are talking about here.
Comment by DE — November 15, 2005 @ 1:04 am
You’re really getting rather morbid on all this, Frank. I wonder how you brace yourself to leave the house every morning with so many unknown risks out there waiting to pounce on you. And that without a statistical study of the risks in some textbook for you to consult.
Comment by Dumb Brit — November 15, 2005 @ 1:28 am
You are confusing ‘harm’ with ’statistical risk of death’. Two entirely different measurements.
And ‘pop stats’ might suggest that it is safer to fly than to cross the road, but of course dont take any factors into consideration other than the death figures, so I cant really take them seriously at all.
Comment by HSBguzzler — November 15, 2005 @ 9:02 am
Frank,
You put the parental desire to be involved with significant aspects of their children’s lives and the unnatural act of incest side by side as if they were similar things. They are not so an argument that equates the two falls at its very foundations.
I don’t expect the state to enforce my right to be a parent. I expect the state to simply not interfere. Remember, in a relatively free country all is legal until it’s banned. I want them to not ban my influence over my children. Yes, I used the word ‘right’ - do you know how difficult it is to avoid these days? But I am referring to a person’s liberty more than their rights (you may well equate these two disimilar ideas) and I am saying the government is over-stepping the mark in a fundamental and wicked way when it encourages children to make decisions without consulting their parents.
‘Rape’ - and one’s natural revulsion to it - is not a fad. Giving children such rights that, suddenly, parents may not know about their own offsprings most troubled decisions is a fad. We’ve not yearned for it for years and it’s a recent development that is much-maligned. Whereas objections to rape - and its illegality - are features - one way or another - throughout humanity.
DE,
Gary, you are saying that administering contraception is a matter for the family? This is a very close family you are talking about here.
Well, what I am getting at really is that (a) the health service should not be providing the means for under-age girls to break the law and (b) regardless of the child’s wish that the parents not be informed the state should recognise parental responsibility and not seek to dismiss this with their craven obeyance of state-induced ‘rights’ propoganda.
HSBguzzler,
I told you Frank would provide stats…!
Comment by Gary Monro — November 15, 2005 @ 9:44 am
I want them to not ban my influence over my children.
And they don’t.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — November 15, 2005 @ 1:00 pm
That was brief Frank!
Having just read your exchanges on A Tangled Web I guess you’re a little tired…
You know what I meant by ‘influence’. I’m not talking only about the bit the state allows me but also the bit they’ve taken away.
Comment by Gary Monro — November 15, 2005 @ 1:13 pm
Gary,
That was brief Frank!
What else is to say - you don’t want them to ban your influence over your children, but there is no such ban.
The state hasn’t “taken anything away”.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — November 15, 2005 @ 7:11 pm
HSBguzzler,
You are confusing ‘harm’ with ’statistical risk of death’. Two entirely different measurements.
This is an excellent example of the absurdities that pro-lifers have to argue in order to be consistent.
A pregnant woman is typically looking at a tenfold greater risk of death, a 1 in 5 chance of hospitalisation due to complications, virtually certain pain and physical damage from childbirth, and perhaps a quarter of a million pounds in direct costs over the next 18+ years, to which you can add much more in lost income due to diminished career and education prospects.
All of that is harm.
If you did all that yourself to a woman, then tried to explain to the judge that you didn’t really harm her, you’d be looking at jail time.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — November 15, 2005 @ 7:27 pm