I'm discussing teen pregnancy on a
different forum, and a thought crossed my
mind:
if a minor gets pregnant and her parents
don't want to be stuck supporting her and
her baby, can the parents give their
daughter up for adoption? I realize
pregnant teens can be emancipated, but
their parents are still responsible for
them until they hit 18. Is it not true
that kids can be put in foster care up to
age 17? Oh wouldn't that be a kick in the
a** if a girl got knocked up and figured
mommy and daddy would support her, and
they put her in the system. Is there some
kind of law that prevents parents from
giving their pregnant daughters up for
adoption? Has anyone ever put their
adolescent in the system (not anyone here,
but just in general - has anyone ever
heard of such a case)?
i'm discussing teen
pregnancy on a different forum, and a
thought crossed my mind:
if a minor gets pregnant and her parents
don't want to be stuck supporting her and
her baby, can the parents give their
daughter up for adoption? I realize
pregnant teens can be emancipated, but
their parents are still responsible for
them until they hit 18. Is it not true
that kids can be put in foster care up to
age 17? Oh wouldn't that be a kick in
the a** if a girl got knocked up and
figured mommy and daddy would support her,
and they put her in the system. Is there
some kind of law that prevents parents
from giving their pregnant daughters up
for adoption? Has anyone ever put their
adolescent in the system (not anyone here,
but just in general - has anyone ever
heard of such a
case)?
that's an interest thought, cambion. I
have never heard of such cases, nor do I
know much about the legal side of the
issue, but I think it is a perfectly
reasonable and acceptable thing to do. I
would never, ever do that to my own
daughter should she fall pregnant
underage, but I suppose some parents
choose not to have a teenage mother under
their roof just as the teenager herself
chooses to keep her baby.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3962 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 126
Thanked:12
Just Something to Chew On Posted: 02-03-07 17:50pm
I don't know a whole lot about the current
system, but remember in "the old days" a
teenage girl who got pregnant wasn't
allowed to go to school (teachers couldn't
teach either-if they were showing-isn't
that ridiculous? Natural process of
life, and you couldn't be in public. The
shame of pregnancy!) so anyways, they'd
send their girls off to some kind of
community living where they could have the
baby, it would be given up for adoption,
and then they could come back.
I do know that the state's last resort is
foster care-so if the parents wanted the
daughter out, they would attempt to place
her with relatives. If not, perhaps a
group home. Not a lot of foster families
are going to accept a 17yr old pregnant
girl into their lives, unfortunately.
If a parent would do that to their child,
it would probably be in everyone's best
interest that the daughter leaves,
anyways.
|
Jules
Moderator
Joined: 19 Aug 2006 Posts: 3752 Location: Merrie Englande, UK
Thanks: 75
Thanked:65
Re: Just Something to Chew On Posted: 02-04-07 10:32am
birch
wrote:
if a parent would do that to their child,
it would probably be in everyone's best
interest that the daughter leaves,
anyways.
couldn't agree more!
|
Cambion
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 748
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-04-07 14:47pm
I looked on the net for some information
on this and I did find something on a
forum where a mother was considering
putting her teenage daughter in the system
(for reasons never mentioned). I think
there was one response that actually gave
real information rather than 'omfgz ur a
horibull mudder!' yes, it would be pretty
drastic for someone to put their teen in
the system, but i'm sure there's a few
parents who have contemplated it (parents
who are constantly bailing their kids out
of jail, for example). The info given
there was what you had said, birch - the
kid would get stuck in a group home.
Quote:
i have never
heard of such cases, nor do I know much
about the legal side of the issue, but I
think it is a perfectly reasonable and
acceptable thing to do.
i agree - if the daughter has the right to
choose to have a baby when she can't
support it herself (and must rely on mommy
and daddy), then the parents should have
every right to give their knocked-up
daughter away. I think it's pretty fair
considering the grandparents are usually
plunged into caring for the child against
their will because the real mother is too
lazy, stupid, or unwilling to accept her
responsibility.
This brings me to another question: should
parents have the legal right to put their
minor daughter's children up for adoption
against her will? If the parents don't
want to be stuck caring for their
grandchild, should they be able to put the
child into foster care, whether or not the
real mother agrees with it? After the
child is born, it is no longer about the
mother's body - would such a right be
crossing the line? Minors need parental
consent to do almost everything, so why
should having a child be any different?
Thoughts?
|
Meandering Away
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 535
Posted: 02-04-07 15:08pm
cambion
wrote:
i looked on the net for some
information on this and I did find
something on a forum where a mother was
considering putting her teenage daughter
in the system (for reasons never
mentioned). I think there was one
response that actually gave real
information rather than 'omfgz ur a
horibull mudder!' yes, it would be pretty
drastic for someone to put their teen in
the system, but i'm sure there's a few
parents who have contemplated it (parents
who are constantly bailing their kids out
of jail, for example). The info given
there was what you had said, birch - the
kid would get stuck in a group home.
Quote:
i have never
heard of such cases, nor do I know much
about the legal side of the issue, but I
think it is a perfectly reasonable and
acceptable thing to do.
i agree - if the daughter has the right to
choose to have a baby when she can't
support it herself (and must rely on mommy
and daddy), then the parents should have
every right to give their knocked-up
daughter away. I think it's pretty fair
considering the grandparents are usually
plunged into caring for the child against
their will because the real mother is too
lazy, stupid, or unwilling to accept her
responsibility.
This brings me to another question: should
parents have the legal right to put their
minor daughter's children up for adoption
against her will? If the parents don't
want to be stuck caring for their
grandchild, should they be able to put the
child into foster care, whether or not the
real mother agrees with it? After the
child is born, it is no longer about the
mother's body - would such a right be
crossing the line? Minors need parental
consent to do almost everything, so why
should having a child be any different?
Thoughts?
why should they need consent to have a
child when they don't need consent to have
an abortion, either you need parental
consent or you don't, you cannot pick and
choose.
In my opinion it would be wrong to put
your child up for foster because she was
pregnant, just has wrong has putting her
up for foster if she had an abortion, what
happened to choice, not the
grandmothers/grandfathers choice but the
female whos body it is, I thought you
believed in the right for every female to
choose, was I wrong.So are you saying you
are only pro choice up to birth, after
that she has no choice then.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3962 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 126
Thanked:12
Posted: 02-04-07 23:06pm
cambion
wrote:
this brings me to another
question: should parents have the legal
right to put their minor daughter's
children up for adoption against her will?
If the parents don't want to be stuck
caring for their grandchild, should they
be able to put the child into foster care,
whether or not the real mother agrees with
it? After the child is born, it is no
longer about the mother's body - would
such a right be crossing the line?
Minors need parental consent to do almost
everything, so why should having a child
be any different?
Thoughts?
i do not think anyone should be allowed to
forcefully separate a [good, adequate]
mother from her child. Man, wouldn't
that be traumatic? You could reasonably
hate your parents the rest of your life
for that.
I understand grandparents not having the
financial responsibility of raising the
kid...But is that worth separating the mom
and baby?
I say, put them together in a group
home.
cowboys
wrote:
why should they need consent
to have a child when they don't need
consent to have an abortion, either you
need parental consent or you don't, you
cannot pick and
choose.
*buzzzt* (the 'wrong answer' buzzer)
in the .U.S, twenty- five states require a
minor to obtain at least one of her
parents consent before receiving an
abortion and 23 states require parental
notification. Ohio, oklahoma, virginia
and wyoming all specify requiring parental
notification and/or knowledge and consent.
There are six states-connecticut, hawaii,
new york, oregon, vermont and washington-
that have no laws specifically addressing
parental consent or notification for
minors seeking abortions.
Parental consent generally means that at
least one of the minor's parent(s) or
legal guardian must give written or verbal
permission to the physician in order to
perform the minor's abortion.
Parental notification generally means that
the physician must send a letter within a
specific time period to the parent(s) or
legal guardian of the minor seeking an
abortion to notify them of her intent.
Forty states have judicial bypass
procedures allowing minors who cannot tell
their parent(s) about their decision to
have an abortion to seek court orders to
waive parental involvement. A judge will
decide whether to allow the abortion
without parental consent or
notification.
from that site, nc required parental
consent, but they have a law that allows a
minor to seek a judicial bypass (abuse
cases, parents can't be notified/time
sensitive), and written consent of the
minor and the parent or legal guardian are
required.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3962 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 126
Thanked:12
Posted: 02-05-07 12:22pm
biirch
wrote:
nightangel73
wrote:
and what is for north
carolina?
from that site, nc required parental
consent, but they have a law that allows a
minor to seek a judicial bypass (abuse
cases, parents can't be notified/time
sensitive), and written consent of the
minor and the parent or legal guardian are
required.
this was me. I don't know what's going
on.
|
Meandering Away
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 535
Posted: 02-05-07 13:49pm
birch
wrote:
cambion
wrote:
this brings me to another
question: should parents have the legal
right to put their minor daughter's
children up for adoption against her will?
If the parents don't want to be stuck
caring for their grandchild, should they
be able to put the child into foster care,
whether or not the real mother agrees with
it? After the child is born, it is no
longer about the mother's body - would
such a right be crossing the line?
Minors need parental consent to do almost
everything, so why should having a child
be any different?
Thoughts?
i do not think anyone should be allowed to
forcefully separate a [good, adequate]
mother from her child. Man, wouldn't
that be traumatic? You could
reasonably hate your parents the rest of
your life for that.
I understand grandparents not having the
financial responsibility of raising the
kid...But is that worth separating the mom
and baby?
I say, put them together in a group
home.
cowboys
wrote:
why should they need consent
to have a child when they don't need
consent to have an abortion, either you
need parental consent or you don't, you
cannot pick and
choose.
*buzzzt* (the 'wrong answer' buzzer)
in the .U.S, twenty- five states require a
minor to obtain at least one of her
parents consent before receiving an
abortion and 23 states require parental
notification. Ohio, oklahoma, virginia
and wyoming all specify requiring parental
notification and/or knowledge and consent.
There are six states-connecticut, hawaii,
new york, oregon, vermont and washington-
that have no laws specifically addressing
parental consent or notification for
minors seeking abortions.
Parental consent generally means that at
least one of the minor's parent(s) or
legal guardian must give written or verbal
permission to the physician in order to
perform the minor's abortion.
Parental notification generally means that
the physician must send a letter within a
specific time period to the parent(s) or
legal guardian of the minor seeking an
abortion to notify them of her intent.
Forty states have judicial bypass
procedures allowing minors who cannot tell
their parent(s) about their decision to
have an abortion to seek court orders to
waive parental involvement. A judge
will decide whether to allow the abortion
without parental consent or
notification.
i am in the uk not america and there are
no parental notification laws here, please
remember that there are other countries
that have acsess to the internet, I am
getting tired of americans assuming that
everyone on the internet is from
america.So now we have that cleared up
would you like to address the rest of my
post thank you.
i looked on the net for some
information on this and I did find
something on a forum where a mother was
considering putting her teenage daughter
in the system (for reasons never
mentioned). I think there was one
response that actually gave real
information rather than 'omfgz ur a
horibull mudder!' yes, it would be pretty
drastic for someone to put their teen in
the system, but i'm sure there's a few
parents who have contemplated it (parents
who are constantly bailing their kids out
of jail, for example). The info given
there was what you had said, birch - the
kid would get stuck in a group home.
Quote:
i have never
heard of such cases, nor do I know much
about the legal side of the issue, but I
think it is a perfectly reasonable and
acceptable thing to do.
i agree - if the daughter has the right to
choose to have a baby when she can't
support it herself (and must rely on mommy
and daddy), then the parents should have
every right to give their knocked-up
daughter away. I think it's pretty fair
considering the grandparents are usually
plunged into caring for the child against
their will because the real mother is too
lazy, stupid, or unwilling to accept her
responsibility.
This brings me to another question: should
parents have the legal right to put their
minor daughter's children up for adoption
against her will? If the parents don't
want to be stuck caring for their
grandchild, should they be able to put the
child into foster care, whether or not the
real mother agrees with it? After the
child is born, it is no longer about the
mother's body - would such a right be
crossing the line? Minors need parental
consent to do almost everything, so why
should having a child be any different?
Thoughts?
why should they need consent to have a
child when they don't need consent to have
an abortion, either you need parental
consent or you don't, you cannot pick and
choose.
In my opinion it would be wrong to put
your child up for foster because she was
pregnant, just has wrong has putting her
up for foster if she had an abortion, what
happened to choice, not the
grandmothers/grandfathers choice but the
female whos body it is, I thought you
believed in the right for every female to
choose, was I wrong.So are you saying you
are only pro choice up to birth, after
that she has no choice
then.
doesn't consent to have an abortion depend
on age? I didn't think 15 year olds could
have abortions without their parents
knowing.
I think the issue for me here is the girl
having the baby.
Can she care for that baby herself?
Does she have people willing to help her
care for it?
If either answer is no, then she should
seriously reconsider keeping the baby for
herself, as opposed to giving it up
for adoption.
But that's just my opinion.
|
Guest
Posted: 02-05-07 22:31pm
cowboys
wrote:
*buzzzt* (the 'wrong
answer' buzzer)
i am in the uk not america and there are
no parental notification laws here, please
remember that there are other countries
that have acsess to the internet, I am
getting tired of americans assuming that
everyone on the internet is from
america.So now we have that cleared up
would you like to address the rest of my
post thank you.
i don't like to address your posts b/c you
lump everyone together into one group and
make assumptions. People who stereotype
and generalize drive me insane. Such as
the above.
Regardless, where you are geographically
is besides the point. Clearly, some
minors need parental consent to obtain an
abortion, thus rendering your comment:
"why should they need consent to have a
child when they don't need consent to have
an abortion, either you need parental
consent or you don't, you cannot pick and
choose" null and void. You didn't
specify location.
Glad you learned something today.
eiri
wrote:
doesn't consent to have an
abortion depend on age? I didn't think 15
year olds could have abortions without
their parents knowing.
I think the issue for me here is the girl
having the baby.
Can she care for that baby herself?
Does she have people willing to help her
care for it?
i didn't see anything about age being a
factor. I think you could ask a pregnant
woman of any age, "can you care for the
baby yourself? Do you ahve people willing
to help?" and get varied answers. You
might find a fifteen year old with more
resources than a 25 year old. It's a
tricky thing. Thanks for your opinions,
.Eiri. :d
to me, it's a 'see-saw' issue. I think
abortion should be recognized as surgical,
and done in a hospital where the best care
is available. Especially if full
anethesia is done. However...With the
acceptance of abortion as surgery, then
minors must have parental consent, as they
would have to with any other kind of
surgery.
I think a minor should tell their parents.
I don't think a minor should "have to"
tell their parents.
|
Guest
That Last Msg Was From Birch! Posted: 02-05-07 22:32pm
Good criminy...That last post was from me,
birch. I don't know what's going on!
:d
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-05-07 22:58pm
anonymous
wrote:
cowboys
wrote:
*buzzzt* (the 'wrong
answer' buzzer)
i am in the uk not america and there are
no parental notification laws here, please
remember that there are other countries
that have acsess to the internet, I am
getting tired of americans assuming that
everyone on the internet is from
america.So now we have that cleared up
would you like to address the rest of my
post thank you.
i don't like to address your posts b/c you
lump everyone together into one group and
make assumptions. People who stereotype
and generalize drive me insane. Such as
the above.
Regardless, where you are geographically
is besides the point. Clearly, some
minors need parental consent to obtain an
abortion, thus rendering your comment:
"why should they need consent to have a
child when they don't need consent to have
an abortion, either you need parental
consent or you don't, you cannot pick and
choose" null and void. You didn't
specify location.
Glad you learned something today.
eiri
wrote:
doesn't consent to have an
abortion depend on age? I didn't think
15 year olds could have abortions without
their parents knowing.
I think the issue for me here is the girl
having the baby.
Can she care for that baby herself?
Does she have people willing to help her
care for it?
i didn't see anything about age being a
factor. I think you could ask a
pregnant woman of any age, "can you care
for the baby yourself? Do you ahve
people willing to help?" and get varied
answers. You might find a fifteen year
old with more resources than a 25 year
old. It's a tricky thing. Thanks for
your opinions, .Eiri. :d
to me, it's a 'see-saw' issue. I think
abortion should be recognized as surgical,
and done in a hospital where the best care
is available. Especially if full
anethesia is done. However...With the
acceptance of abortion as surgery, then
minors must have parental consent, as they
would have to with any other kind of
surgery.
I think a minor should tell their parents.
I don't think a minor should "have to"
tell their
parents.
age was a factor because this specific
section is about parents giving up their
pregnant daughters to the system.
I say things within the frames of the
current debate, so remembering context
when I talk is important...
I agree with your other points.
|
Meandering Away
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 535
Posted: 02-06-07 07:08am
birch
wrote:
don't like to address your
posts b/c you lump everyone together into
one group and make assumptions. People
who stereotype and generalize drive me
insane. Such as the above.
Regardless, where you are geographically
is besides the point. Clearly, some
minors need parental consent to obtain an
abortion, thus rendering your comment:
"why should they need consent to have a
child when they don't need consent to have
an abortion, either you need parental
consent or you don't, you cannot pick and
choose" null and void. You didn't
specify location.
Glad you learned something today.
first of all you started with the stupid
comments and not specifiying locations so
get over yourself, you assumed I was
american or you would not of put that
stupid wrong buzzer remark, did you
actually read either of those links or
what.So you totally disregarded my apology
in the other thread even though you said
thank you, mmmm that says more about you
than me.Location is very pertinant to this
debate as we are not all run by the same
laws, so to assume that we are is pure
arrogance, I have argued a few times
because people dont consider that other
people are not from america, on such
things as law and even spelling, so no
generalization there they have all been
american.So maybe in the u s my point is
null and void [ though not in pro choices
ideology, who believe that no female needs
anothers consent to have an abortion ] but
not in my country it isn't, which had you
bothered to read the links provided you
would of known.Now if you do not wish to
respond to my posts then that is up to
you, I could care less what someone on the
internet thinks of me
birch
wrote:
i do know that the state's
last resort is foster care-so if the
parents wanted the daughter out, they
would attempt to place her with relatives.
If not, perhaps a group home. Not a
lot of foster families are going to accept
a 17yr old pregnant girl into their lives,
unfortunately.
well now that changes your comment on
"some minors need parental consent to
obtain an abortion," thought we were
talking about a 17 year old or even teens
not some minors, so to make your point you
change the post ,nice
14 year olds can obtain an abortion
without parental consent, should we go
younger [ though 14 year olds shouldn't be
having sex let alone anyone younger ]
here you go basically saying any minor can
obtain an abortion without parental
consent.So much so it even states that the
law on sexual offences should not stop
them.So now tell me that "some minors
need parental consent to obtain an
abortion," because you are wrong they do
not.
Ps glad you learnt something today.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 02-06-07 12:35pm
cowboys
wrote:
first of all you started
with the stupid comments and not
specifiying locations so get over
yourself, you assumed I was american or
you would not of put that stupid wrong
buzzer remark, did you actually read
either of those links or
what.
cambion began this
thread discussing the foster care system
of .America and in .america,
minors often .D.O need parental consent to
obtain an abortion but do not require it
to keep the pregnancy or parent the
resulting child. In the context of the
original discussion, your comments:
you
wrote:
why should they need consent
to have a child when they don't need
consent to have an abortion, either you
need parental consent or you don't, you
cannot pick and choose.
are the ones that are
out of place. In .America, you .D.O need
consent to obtain an abortion (if you're a
minor) but you don't need it to keep the
pregnancy even though the financial burden
will fall to someone other than the
pregnant minor. If you want to talk
about picking and choosing consent, then
the place to start .I.S. America because
we arbitrarily set standards that don't
make any effing sense.
Quote:
here you go
basically saying any minor
can obtain an abortion
without parental
consent.
uh, no, that was you.
Quote:
so much so it
even states that the law on sexual
offences should not stop them.So now tell
me that "some minors need parental
consent to obtain an abortion," because
you are wrong they do
not.
a large number of
minors, .D.O, in fact, need parental
consent to obtain an abortion. In fact,
the number of second trimester abortions
in my state alone increased following the
move to parental consent because pregnant
17 year olds who wanted an abortion but
didn't want to have to tell their parents
simply waited for their 18th birthday even
though it was even more unhealthy and
dangerous for them to do so. There are
literally millions of teenage girls in my
state alone and a large number of them
will become pregnant before they are 18.
They will all have to either obtain a
judicial bypass or obtain consent from
their parents. But, if these same
teenagers want to keep their pregnancies,
they don't have to tell anyone let alone
get their parent's permission even though
their parents could then be put in the
position to financially care for their
child and grandchild for extended periods
of time.
|
Guest
Posted: 02-06-07 12:36pm
eiri
wrote:
age was a factor because this specific
section is about parents giving up their
pregnant daughters to the system.
I say things within the frames of the
current debate, so remembering context
when I talk is
important...
yes, of course age is a factor. You
specifically mentioned 15 year olds...So I
was assuming you meant that consent for a
15 year old is different than consent for
a 17 year old, and I didn't see any
difference when I was reading about it
online. That's what I meant.
cowboys
wrote:
first of all you started
with the stupid comments and not
specifiying locations so get over
yourself, you assumed I was american or
you would not of put that stupid wrong
buzzer remark, did you actually read
either of those links or
what.
you didn't even provide links that would
indicate where you were until after you
made a blanket statement about consent,
and after what you claim as me assuming
you were american!!! Dude!!! I can do
alot of things, but I am not psychic.
cowboys
wrote:
so you totally disregarded
my apology in the other thread even though
you said thank you, mmmm that says more
about you than
me.
oh, i'm sorry, I forgot that apologies
meant that I was to immediately forgive
all future transgressions without comment.
cowboys
wrote:
location is very pertinant
to this debate as we are not all run by
the same laws, so to assume that we are is
pure arrogance
so, uh, why did you assume we were all
talking about the .U.K? And I clearly
posted what the .U.S laws where, and
listed them as such. Was it the "bzzt"
comment? Is that what stuck in your
craw? Sorry you took it to heart.
,
cowboys
wrote:
i have argued a few times
because people dont consider that other
people are not from america, on such
things as law and even spelling, so no
generalization there they have all been
american.So maybe in the u s my point is
null and void [ though not in pro choices
ideology, who believe that no female needs
anothers consent to have an abortion ] but
not in my country it isn't, which had you
bothered to read the links provided you
would of
known.
you didn't provide the links until after
all that was said. So no, I didn't read
your links before you posted them. Not
that that matters, because in some places
of the world you need parental consent,
which was my entire point, which has all
gone by the wayside because i'm in a bad
mood, you make assumptions, it's freezing
outside, and some person stands outside an
abortion clinic and I have to see him
every morning on my way to work. He's got
that bogus photo of "ten week old fetus"
expanded in a giant poster with fully
formed hands and body parts, and all kinds
of propaganda [big poster that says,
"don't kill babies, doctor!"], and I want
to sock him in his lying, self-righteous
face, but I am in my car so all I do every
morning is give him a casual finger, and
he nods at me. We have an
understanding.
cowboys
wrote:
birch wrote:
i do know that the state's last resort is
foster care-so if the parents wanted the
daughter out, they would attempt to place
her with relatives. If not, perhaps a
group home. Not a lot of foster families
are going to accept a 17yr old pregnant
girl into their lives, unfortunately.
Well now that changes your comment on
"some minors need parental consent to
obtain an abortion," thought we were
talking about a 17 year old or even teens
not some minors, so to make your point you
change the post ,nice
the first comment was about parents
kicking their pregnant daughters out.
Nothing to do with consent for abortion.
You brought up the concept of "consent
for abortion". We were discussing if
parents should be able to 'kick' their
pregnant daughters out of the house, and
put them in foster care. Apples to
oranges, here.
14 year olds can obtain an abortion
without parental consent, should we go
younger [ though 14 year olds shouldn't be
having sex let alone anyone younger ]
here you go basically saying any minor can
obtain an abortion without parental
consent.So much so it even states that the
law on sexual offences should not stop
them.So now tell me that "some minors need
parental consent to obtain an abortion,"
because you are wrong they do not.
I never, ever said "any minor can obtain
an abortion without parental consent"!!!
Was it a late night for you? And I stand
on my "some minors need parental consent
to obtain an abortion", because they do.
If you are upset about u.K. Law, what are
you doing to change it? Just complaining
on an online forum? Get a consensus
together, a gov't sponsor, and change the
law. I read that this is starting to
steamroll in england. Maybe you can jump
on and help.
|
Guest
Guest
Moses! Posted: 02-06-07 12:39pm
Holy criminy, I sign in and it still lists
me as "guest" when I reply. Maybe it's
the aliens again...I need to go out and
buy some aluminum foil. And jello.
They like jello.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3962 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 126
Thanked:12
Posted: 02-06-07 12:46pm
jenn_smithson
wrote:
cowboys
wrote:
first of all you started
with the stupid comments and not
specifiying locations so get over
yourself, you assumed I was american or
you would not of put that stupid wrong
buzzer remark, did you actually read
either of those links or
what.
cambion began this
thread discussing the foster care system
of .America and in .america,
minors often .D.O need parental consent to
obtain an abortion but do not require it
to keep the pregnancy or parent the
resulting child. In the context of the
original discussion, your comments:
you
wrote:
why should they need consent
to have a child when they don't need
consent to have an abortion, either you
need parental consent or you don't, you
cannot pick and choose.
are the ones that are
out of place. In .America, you .D.O
need consent to obtain an abortion (if
you're a minor) but you don't need it to
keep the pregnancy even though the
financial burden will fall to someone
other than the pregnant minor. If you
want to talk about picking and choosing
consent, then the place to start .I.S.
America because we arbitrarily set
standards that don't make any effing
sense.
Quote:
here you go
basically saying any minor
can obtain an abortion
without parental
consent.
uh, no, that was you.
Quote:
so much so it
even states that the law on sexual
offences should not stop them.So now tell
me that "some minors need parental
consent to obtain an abortion," because
you are wrong they do
not.
a large number of
minors, .D.O, in fact, need parental
consent to obtain an abortion. In fact,
the number of second trimester abortions
in my state alone increased following the
move to parental consent because pregnant
17 year olds who wanted an abortion but
didn't want to have to tell their parents
simply waited for their 18th birthday even
though it was even more unhealthy and
dangerous for them to do so. There are
literally millions of teenage girls in my
state alone and a large number of them
will become pregnant before they are 18.
They will all have to either obtain a
judicial bypass or obtain consent from
their parents. But, if these same
teenagers want to keep their pregnancies,
they don't have to tell anyone let alone
get their parent's permission even though
their parents could then be put in the
position to financially care for their
child and grandchild for extended periods
of time.
ah, the voice of reason has returned.
Thanks, jenn!
