Is 14 old enough to decide on your own if you want an abortion? [Archive]

Stelliform

Jul 31, 2004, 06:40 PM

Bobcat37

Jul 31, 2004, 06:42 PM

I'm going to guess you don't want the "they shouldn't get abortions even if their parents OK it" response.

So playing along with the topic, and pretending I'm not anti-abortion, I think the parents should be informed. 14 is too young to make a decision like that on your own (and no, the school nurse doesn't count). 14 year olds can't even drive or vote, how should we expect them to make a potentially life altering decision like that by themself? And as you said, an abortion is a medical treatment, which should ALWAYS have parental consent involved.

Kids hide plenty of things from their parents, an abortion should NOT be one of them.

(PS- Stelliform, check the stem cell topic for my huge response if interested)

zimv20

Jul 31, 2004, 06:53 PM

parents are responsible for their kids until the age of 18. so, the parents should definitely be informed. plus, 14 is too young to be making major life decisions anyway.

takao

Jul 31, 2004, 07:07 PM

Since cool heads have been the norm and not the exception around here, lets push the envelope... And it is a BBC news article. (Hey Skunk, who's looking out for you. ;))

Anyway, 14 year old, gets preggers, talks to the school nurse, nurse talks her into the abortion pill, they administer it without telling her mother, her mother finds out, tells daughter not to abort, but it is too late.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/3709681.stm)

I think this goes beyond abortion rights here and more into parental rights. I don't want my kids getting any medical treatment without my knowledge and consent. Granted they are young right now, but I know my mom was at every doctor visit I had until I was 18. Anyway, what do you guys think...

Beyond abortion rights, should a school be able to administer medication without parents knowledge? Should kids who are pregnant have to tell their parents before they have an abortion? Is there an age limit to get a tattoo in England? I know in the US many places require parental permission if you are under 18. Is an abortion less important than a tattoo? Shouldn't the parent know, so they can talk to their kid about STD's? Be nice guys!

everything i say after this line is 'as far as i know' because i am neither female nor do i remeber the details of the discussio na few years ago here..

hm here it is differentiated between 'the pill the day after' (i forgot the real name) and the other abortion

1. 'the pill the day after': (the pill who you take for example if the preservative gets damaged aka. 'accident' ... and stops the egg to start growing in the uterus...) this you can get >14 and older without asking the parents..these pills are available not only at doctors but also in emercengy rooms because they have to be taken within 24 hours or something...but when i think about it i'm not sure ..perhaps it was 14/15 when your show up with your friend the accident happend (or parents)... and when 16 and above your can show up alone

2. abortion : if you are 16 and older it is the decision between the woman and her doctor and nobody else
younger than 16...parents have to know

personally i had no problems visiting the doctor alone when i was older than 15/16
i was still 17 when i was checked for the conscription service but i don't know where those did get their 'doctor' ;)

Bobcat37

Jul 31, 2004, 07:18 PM

Yeah, I think it is referred to as "the day after pill" here. As far as I know is basically a pill that gives you a chemically induced abortion, just in case the sex you had accidentally formed a new life (whoops :p). Of course, I am vehemently against such a pill (if it is offered at abortion clinics, that is one thing, but if it is offered over the counter, bad bad bad)... but at Stelliform's request, that isn't what this topic is about, so I'll end my rant there.

skunk

Jul 31, 2004, 07:18 PM

parents are responsible for their kids until the age of 18. so, the parents should definitely be informed. plus, 14 is too young to be making major life decisions anyway.
Presumably, if they are in need of this advice, they have already taken a major life decision...

zimv20

Jul 31, 2004, 07:27 PM

This is the part of the article I found shocking. That they had taken her daughter to the hospital without telling her mother.
i'm not familiar w/ british law, but that strikes me as criminal.

skunk

Jul 31, 2004, 07:28 PM

This is the part of the article I found shocking. That they had taken her daughter to the hospital without telling her mother.
I agree: this is collusion. The "Nanny State" strikes again.

takao

Jul 31, 2004, 07:47 PM

This is the part of the article I found shocking. That they had taken her daughter to the hospital without telling her mother.

intresting but for me that wouldn't be surprising

her in school we have the position of a school-doctor (which in practice is in most cases a woman) who is, additional to the annual rountine tests, responsible for 'sexual education' or as we guys called it: "girly questions" ... such things can happen here too... on some things (and lower ages) parents have to be informed and on others not
during 8 years 4-6 friends from me had been taken to hospital before informing the parents.. (2-3 broken arms/legs and other smaller things)

Ugg

Jul 31, 2004, 07:49 PM

Anyway, 14 year old, gets preggers, talks to the school nurse, nurse talks her into the abortion pill, they administer it without telling her mother, her mother finds out, tells daughter not to abort, but it is too late.

I think this goes beyond abortion rights here and more into parental rights. I don't want my kids getting any medical treatment without my knowledge and consent. Granted they are young right now, but I know my mom was at every doctor visit I had until I was 18. Anyway, what do you guys think...

Beyond abortion rights, should a school be able to administer medication without parents knowledge? Should kids who are pregnant have to tell their parents before they have an abortion? Is there an age limit to get a tattoo in England? I know in the US many places require parental permission if you are under 18. Is an abortion less important than a tattoo? Shouldn't the parent know, so they can talk to their kid about STD's? Be nice guys!

Well, there's a cultural aspect to this that should be explored before this gets too far. The UK and Europe allow young people certain rights at an earlier age than in the US. A healthy attitude IMO because there is no magic transformation on turning 18. Sex is also treated differently and the age of consent is, even to me, sometimes shockingly low. If the law allows a teen to have sex at 14, shouldn't it also allow that teen to make a decision about the possible consequences? Maybe what's needed in the US is the recognition that adulthood doesn't suddenly take place at 18 and is a slow process starting in the early teens.

Here it seems that it is all too often an Us Vs Them battle and common sense loses out. If you don't want your kid going to the school nurse for a pill then you damned well better pay attention to what they're doing and make sure they're informed before they start to have sex. Either that or have them go to a private religious school where any discussion of sex is taboo so that by the time they're 18 the only knowledge they have about sex is what they get from their peers in the playground. Or, buy them a chastitiy belt....

Bobcat37

Jul 31, 2004, 07:52 PM

... such things can happen here too... on some things (and lower ages) parents have to be informed and on others not
during 8 years 4-6 friends from me had been taken to hospital before informing the parents.. (2-3 broken arms/legs and other smaller things)

Well a broken appendage is quite a bit different from an abortion. Something like a broken appendage could be pretty serious, and need medical attention immidiately. However, you think there would be plenty of time to alert a parent before possibly giving a minor an abortion or day-after-pill.

Maybe what's needed in the US is the recognition that adulthood doesn't suddenly take place at 18 and is a slow process starting in the early teens.

Here it seems that it is all too often an Us Vs Them battle and common sense loses out. If you don't want your kid going to the school nurse for a pill then you damned well better pay attention to what they're doing and make sure they're informed before they start to have sex. Either that or have them go to a private religious school where any discussion of sex is taboo so that by the time they're 18 the only knowledge they have about sex is what they get from their peers in the playground. Or, buy them a chastitiy belt....

Well I agree that with each generation, kids do seem to be growing up faster. Of course, along the same lines I don't necessarily think this is a good thing. We already teach sex ed in 5th grade (at least that is when I had it). Personally I question if that is already too early to attempt at teaching it in a classroom environment... I seem to remember the class was pretty lame, as all we ever did was laugh and make jokes about it. Sure if parents want to tell their kids about sex at that age, that is probably good, but to have a whole class on it in 5th grade seems iffy (6th or 7th might be a bit more appropriate).

As for your second statement, as I said above, I agree that parents should be responsible for their kids and making sure they understand all the necessary elements involving sex. However, your comment about religious schools was a little uncalled for. I see nothing wrong with explaining how human reproduction works. I think most religious schools teach sexual education ALONG WITH abstinence until marriage (or something along those lines). That is the difference. FYI, I can't exactly prove this, but that is what I would assume.

kerb

Jul 31, 2004, 07:59 PM

Ugg

Jul 31, 2004, 08:13 PM

intresting but for me that wouldn't be surprising

her in school we have the position of a school-doctor (which in practice is in most cases a woman) who is, additional to the annual rountine tests, responsible for 'sexual education' or as we guys called it: "girly questions" ... such things can happen here too... on some things (and lower ages) parents have to be informed and on others not
during 8 years 4-6 friends from me had been taken to hospital before informing the parents.. (2-3 broken arms/legs and other smaller things)

Not to over generalize, but I think your statement points out one of the fundamental differences between the US and a smaller European country like Austria. Austria is fairly homogenous, ok, well Austrians are as much a melange as Americans but the culture is whereas in the US, there are many who object on hospitalization on religious/cultural/moral grounds and of course financial grounds as the insured increasingly are a minority here. It is very hard to come to a consensus here whereas I would think it would be much simpler in Austria.

I think a lot of parents would be glad to have a morning after pill offered their daughters but there are many here who would also force their child to go through with the pregnancy. At 14, I think either decision would be a heavy burden.

What may please Stelliform and his fellow Louisianans, wouldn't be very popular here in CA.

To be fair, this has caused a huge stir in the UK as well. But it is interesting that the UK has the second highest teen birth rate after the US and it is due in part to the reluctance of parents and the education system dealing with sex ed. in a straighforward way. The need for the morning after pill would be a lot less if we based sex ed. on the truth instead of abstinence only programs that clearly don't work and only end up doing a disservice to teens.

Bobcat37

Jul 31, 2004, 08:19 PM

I think a lot of parents would be glad to have a morning after pill offered their daughters but there are many here who would also force their child to go through with the pregnancy. At 14, I think either decision would be a heavy burden.

I would definitely agree with that Ugg.

To be fair, this has caused a huge stir in the UK as well. But it is interesting that the UK has the second highest teen birth rate after the US and it is due in part to the reluctance of parents and the education system dealing with sex ed. in a straighforward way. The need for the morning after pill would be a lot less if we based sex ed. on the truth instead of abstinence only programs that clearly don't work and only end up doing a disservice to teens.

Well, the fact is abstinence is the only way to 100% guarantee you won't get pregnant (if you are a girl) or get any STDs (if you are girl or boy). Also, I would love to see some statistics that show teaching abstinence doesn't work, because I always had believed the statistics showed the opposite was true.

jsw

Jul 31, 2004, 08:22 PM

An interesting argument in favour of the the 14 year old having secrecy is this.

The girl gets pregnant and wants an abortion. However she doesn't want one if it means she has to tell her parents. So she puts it off and the foetus becomes viable. She has the kid and her life changes drastically.

If she was allowed the abortion secretly she may have it and the whole crisis is avoided.

It also works with STDs. If a kid gets an STD and they are underage but are forced to tell their parents to get medical care they may avoid saying so. In secret however they may seek treatment.

As the husband of an RN who works in Labor & Delivery and seems to have one or more 12-14 year old kids delivering each night, and having had to deal with her grief over the two kids that age who have died during childbirth this year, and having listened to stories of stillborns, which are more prevalent at that age, and of kids who end up wasting their lives - one came in having her fifth child at age 19 (staggering, to me), I agree that any measure which reduces the number of pregnant children is a good thing.

If not telling parents will help, I'm all for it. Birth control in schools? All for it. If telling parents stops a child from either not getting pregnant or from terminating an early pregnancy - where the risk of the termination is less than the risk of continuing with the pregnancy - then I oppose any attempt to force parents to be told.

Any parent who would force a school to tell them and thus shame their child into doing nothing until it is too late - and then risking her life during childbirth, and allowing it to be wasted thereafter if she delivers a child... that parent does not deserve the child.

Should parents be told a child is getting antibiotics (or other treatment) to get rid of an STD? Not if it'll stop the kid from taking the drugs.

Basically, I think parent's right stop when they would allow a parent to risk their children's health. At any age.

takao

Jul 31, 2004, 08:23 PM

Well a broken appendage is quite a bit different from an abortion. Something like a broken appendage could be pretty serious, and need medical attention immidiately. However, you think there would be plenty of time to alert a parent before possibly giving a minor an abortion or day-after-pill.

it said 'scanning' ...or did i get that wrong ?

here minor is below 14
14-17 is teenager but there is difference between 14/15 and 16/17
which means a hell lot of complicate laws

and with neither teen pregnancy nor teen abortion being very high compared to other countrys around

whats the definition of minor in the US or UK ? here it ranging from -14 to -21 depending on law

14: sex allowed(with partners on same age or little bit older)/but on exchange you have to take full responsibilty for your crimes (most of them but not all)
16: smoking/drinking beer&wine /driving small motorcycles/vespas
18: right to vote/drive car /full sexual rights/ hard alcohol allowed
21: some notaric & business stuff and other small reall unimportant things

Bobcat37

Jul 31, 2004, 08:32 PM

whats the definition of minor in the US or UK ? here it ranging from -14 to -21 depending on law

Minor basically means under 18 in the US. However, you have to be 21 to drink here. That is one right a non-minor does not get immediately.

themadchemist

Jul 31, 2004, 08:33 PM

I think this one's easy: "No." And I'm pro-choice.

jsw

Jul 31, 2004, 08:38 PM

I think this one's easy: "No." And I'm pro-choice.

To which question(s)?

Beyond abortion rights, should a school be able to administer medication without parents knowledge?
Should kids who are pregnant have to tell their parents before they have an abortion?
Is there an age limit to get a tattoo in England?
Is an abortion less important than a tattoo?
Shouldn't the parent know, so they can talk to their kid about STD's?

Ugg

Jul 31, 2004, 08:40 PM

Well I agree that with each generation, kids do seem to be growing up faster. Of course, along the same lines I don't necessarily think this is a good thing. We already teach sex ed in 5th grade (at least that is when I had it). Personally I question if that is already too early to attempt at teaching it in a classroom environment... I seem to remember the class was pretty lame, as all we ever did was laugh and make jokes about it. Sure if parents want to tell their kids about sex at that age, that is probably good, but to have a whole class on it in 5th grade seems iffy (6th or 7th might be a bit more appropriate).

As for your second statement, as I said above, I agree that parents should be responsible for their kids and making sure they understand all the necessary elements involving sex. However, your comment about religious schools was a little uncalled for. I see nothing wrong with explaining how human reproduction works. I think most religious schools teach sexual education ALONG WITH abstinence until marriage (or something along those lines). That is the difference. FYI, I can't exactly prove this, but that is what I would assume.

The best approach is to start early and introduce a little info at a time. There's no point in giving a 12 year old a complete rundown on sex but it's a good time to start and every following year introduce more age-specific info.

Abstinence only programs work for a couple of years and then the kids who took part in them go hog wild, however, now they don't have any info about what is safe and what is not and from what I've read, most are ignorant on what it takes to make a baby.

Once again, if you want your kid to be sheltered from the big bad world, turn off the tv, put them in a religious school and buy them a chastity belt. If you can't do that, then educate them about their bodies, STDs and what it takes to make a baby. If you do that, then the chances are good that you will never be faced with the above scenario.

Knowing how to use a condom is not a crime against humanity and should not be treated as such.

jsw

Jul 31, 2004, 08:48 PM

There's no point in giving a 12 year old a complete rundown on sex but it's a good time to start and every following year introduce more age-specific info.

As mentioned above, my wife helps 12 year old kids deliver their babies. I'd argue that 12 is a little late for the facts of life. Essentially, they should know it all before hitting puberty.

takao

Jul 31, 2004, 08:52 PM

Not to over generalize, but I think your statement points out one of the fundamental differences between the US and a smaller European country like Austria. Austria is fairly homogenous, ok, well Austrians are as much a melange as Americans but the culture is whereas in the US, there are many who object on hospitalization on religious/cultural/moral grounds and of course financial grounds as the insured increasingly are a minority here. It is very hard to come to a consensus here whereas I would think it would be much simpler in Austria.

To be fair, this has caused a huge stir in the UK as well. But it is interesting that the UK has the second highest teen birth rate after the US and it is due in part to the reluctance of parents and the education system dealing with sex ed. in a straighforward way. The need for the morning after pill would be a lot less if we based sex ed. on the truth instead of abstinence only programs that clearly don't work and only end up doing a disservice to teens.

actually exactly the same discussion came up when the "day after pill" was introduced here... and with exactly i mean it literally
"austria is pretty homogenous"...but the important missing word is "catholic" ..86-90% here are catholic (similiar to france) ... and with the catholic church being opposed to abortion it made quite a intresting sometimes ugly discussion ..without violence of course ...

because of actuality i will throw this in:
most fiercing anti abortion bishop was the bishop of st. pölten dr. Kurt Krenn which (oh the irony) is a little bit handicapped now because in the priest-seminar in his diocese (sp?) there was child-porn scandal with the additional bonus of pictures from two priests kissing each other in the seminar...now the consequences: police investigating against those owners of that computer,the pope sent out a 'visitator' (like it happened in Boston), the press is grinning, the the pope forbid the Bishop talking to the press after the bishop said "i don't care a **** about the other bishops and the kardinal"(yes he used the sh.. word) in a interview where he was definatly drunk.....etc.
to say that the opposition against abortion is having problems at the moment would be fitting ;)

actually there are countries where teen pregnancy is higher than in the UK ...i thought bulgary,latvia and a few other small ones have higher ones (actully russia has a lower one) ...japan and switzerland are having 1 digit numbers as far as i have looked it up but i might be wrong

perhaps new sexual ed. guidlines will help against the increasing amount of STDs too ? who knows

Ugg

Jul 31, 2004, 08:59 PM

Also, I would love to see some statistics that show teaching abstinence doesn't work, because I always had believed the statistics showed the opposite was true.

Planned Parenthood's statement (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/AbstinenceOnly10-01.html)

Article (http://wcco.com/localnews/local_story_005082522.html) on a Minnesota study of its heavily funded and promoted abstinence only program.

The study found that sexual activity among junior high kids at three schools where the program was taught doubled between 2001 and 2002 and that the number who said they would probably have sex during high school nearly doubled.

Abstinence only is stupid. There isn't a switch in humans that allows us to turn our sexual feelings on and off. What we do know, is that the more completely we educate children and teens, the more informed their decisions will be. When we teach driver's ed., do we only teach how to push the gas pedal or do we also teach how to use the brakes?

Sex ed. needs to include the good, the bad and the ugly of ALL aspects of sex. They need to know that condoms fail sometimes, birth control pills can have side effects and some STDs can kill you, but they also need to be taught that sex is a natural expression of who we are and that you won't burn in hell for having pre-marital sex.

jsw

Jul 31, 2004, 09:08 PM

I was put through an abstinence only program, and I waited until i was 20. So you can't say everyone goes hog wild. (And I got married to the girl 6 months later. ;) Still married 7 years later.. .

I had no abstinence program and still waited until I was 20. In my case, though, it was due to shyness and a resulting lack of options. Sex ed, common sense, etc. taught me enough to use birth control thereafter.

And I though abstinence-only programs push waiting until you were married to have intercourse - did you fail by doing something six months early? ;)

takao

Jul 31, 2004, 09:11 PM

Minor basically means under 18 in the US. However, you have to be 21 to drink here. That is one right a non-minor does not get immediately.

thanks for that i wasn't sure first i thought minor means below 16 (because you are allowed to drive with 16 in the US..or is that only in some states?)

well the "you have to be 21 to drink" thing completly destroys the atmosphere of those hollywood teenage movies with those parties where everybody gets wasted after 2 beers out of plastic/paper cups...i love that...(that and the american obsession with those metal lockers on the corridor...do they really exist or are they just a hollywood thing)

edit:
to make my post more on topic:
i was raised as a open minded catholic (if such a thing can exist) and influenced by liberal opinions from my mother ,central opinions from my father,conservative opinions from my grandfather and completle lack of interest in polictics by my grand mother (both have been living with us in the house)
i got sexual education in small bites across the years starting with 7-8 and up to 14 in a combination of books,school,tv (no cabel/sat dish untill i was 12 )...i have to say that the sex ed in our school was very good and we had broad lessons about pregnancy prevention etc. (our teachers general advise was to use combinations of completly different methods) our class had to learn the female cyclus (with our class being 17 boys and 2 girls made it amusing) and we got multiple tests about 'how much we now' about this and that which methods are the savest/which methods protect you better from STDs etc.
anybody remembers the 'femidom' also know as "the condom for women" we even had a lesson about that

Ugg

Jul 31, 2004, 09:27 PM

thanks for that i wasn't sure first i thought minor means below 16 (because you are allowed to drive with 16 in the US..or is that only in some states?)

well the "you have to be 21 to drink" thing completly destroys the atmosphere of those hollywood teenage movies with those parties where everybody gets wasted after 2 beers out of plastic/paper cups...i love that...(that and the american obsession with those metal lockers on the corridor...do they really exist or are they just a hollywood thing)

Some rural states issue provisional drivers' licenses at 14, others 15 or 16. But, minor means anyone under 18. There are child labor laws that are federal but most other laws are state laws and vary a lot.

Yeah, well, 21 is the legal age so I bet the vast majority of teens are law breakers!

The lockers do exist although many schools are taking them out because they have been used to store drugs and guns, and fireworks are often lit inside of them! That means students have to lug their books around in their backpacks all day long.

I've been reading a little bit about the Krenn case in Der Spiegel. I didn't realize that he was such an outspoken critic of abortion. Why doesn't the Church allow priests to marry? Certainly any armchair sociologist can make the connection between forced chastity and sexual predation?!?!?!

takao

Jul 31, 2004, 09:59 PM

thanks for the info as well
(i'm thank full for every non-election thread at the moment)

I've been reading a little bit about the Krenn case in Der Spiegel. I didn't realize that he was such an outspoken critic of abortion. Why doesn't the Church allow priests to marry? Certainly any armchair sociologist can make the connection between forced chastity and sexual predation?!?!?!

Krenn was controversial since the beginning.. when he started as a bishop in st. Pölten there were regulary demonstrations against him with numbers up to 5.000 on multiple occassions...over the years his positions were made pretty clear ...he doesn't stop from insulting words and ..since a few years is known as having an alcohol problem...in the past Groer case (a cardinal (?) who was involved in a child abuse case) he blindly defended 'his' cardinal and shouted down all critics in discussions about priest-marriage ... he is definatly a ultra-hardliner and opposing cardinal Schönborn (who ,despite his young age, has many friends who look upon as man of wise words by many, even young people..in some groups of the church and vatican he is already discussed as potentional pope-successor (personally i doubt he would have a change, but there is hope) )
Krenn said "only god can put me out of this bishop if he wants" (he forgot the pope..which he defends on every occasion with blind faith)

as long as the current pope still is the pope there won't change anything according to the women-position of the catholic church.period.

Ugg

Jul 31, 2004, 10:14 PM

thanks for the info as well
(i'm thank full for every non-election thread at the moment)

as long as the current pope still is the pope there won't change anything according to the women-position of the catholic church.period.

Yeah, a little break from evil vs evil is nice.

I remember reading somewhere that the pope is filling all the important positions in the Vatican with like-minded men so that his legacy will live on for a long, long time. It's sad to see an institution so opposed to change, change that I believe will ensure the relevance of the catholic church for this century. It would be nice to see a more moderate pope but I agree that it "ain't gonna happen". Especially with the most recent denouncement of feminism.

Neserk

Jul 31, 2004, 10:59 PM

I believe the day after pill prevents conception, not implantation, but I could be mistaken. COnception can take place up to 72 hours after intercourse.

pseudobrit

Jul 31, 2004, 11:33 PM

Hmm... Since I'll never be in this position (I'm neither 14 nor female) I want to simply bow out of any such discussion, as I'd never understand the full scope of such a situation.

However, I think that fully handing over a teenager's rights to their parents is not always serving the best interest of the teen. I do believe that a teenager deserves some input in the handling of their life. For instance, I opted not to get braces as a young teen. I'm still pretty glad I didn't.

I also know that teens will hide things (especially bad news) from their parents, which introduces another level of complexity.

edit: on thinking, perhaps consent from a licensed psychiatrist would qualify a teen for such a treatment in lieu of parental consent or knowledge.

Bobcat37

Jul 31, 2004, 11:46 PM

The best approach is to start early and introduce a little info at a time. There's no point in giving a 12 year old a complete rundown on sex but it's a good time to start and every following year introduce more age-specific info.

I think we are on the same page Ugg... for instance, the whole "stork" thing is really lame. One of my very good friends is married and has two kids. His oldest is a girl, and I think she is like 7... point is, she knows babies come from the Mom, and it involves "loving each other a lot and deciding to have a baby". As far as I know, he never told his kids the "stork" fable, which is a good move IMO.

Someday if I have a family, I think what my friend did with his kids is a good place to start, lol.

In short, a little knowledge can go a long way on an issue like this. (I imagine complete ignorance could go a long way too, but on something like sex ed, that is basically impossible as you pointed out.)

Durandal7

Jul 31, 2004, 11:48 PM

1.Beyond abortion rights, should a school be able to administer medication without parents knowledge?
2.Should kids who are pregnant have to tell their parents before they have an abortion?
3.Is there an age limit to get a tattoo in England?
4.Is an abortion less important than a tattoo?
5.Shouldn't the parent know, so they can talk to their kid about STD's?
1. Absolutely not. Schools seem to have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to mind-altering drugs like ritalin. Every time a kid acted up he would be given downer pills, ritalin and everything else under the sun.

2.Yes they should. Until they are 18 they are still a minor. If for some reason they are so fearful that they have to hide the abortion from their parents perhaps they should be in some sort of foster care.

3.No comment.

4.No.

5.Seems like it would be a nice idea. [Bitter Sarcasm] Then again maybe they should have had "the sex talk" before their daughter got knocked up. [/Bitter Sarcasm]

Chip NoVaMac

Aug 1, 2004, 05:34 PM

What I have to say is that she will have to answer to her God for her actions. Plain and simple. It is not us to judge, regardless to her age. Sure some will argue that the parents have a say in the outcome, but unless they will willing to take total responsibility for this child (and the daughter or the father giving up ALL rights), the daughter was old enough to have sex and get pregnant, she will have to live with her choices.

amnesiac1984

Aug 2, 2004, 11:03 AM

I believe the day after pill prevents conception, not implantation, but I could be mistaken. COnception can take place up to 72 hours after intercourse.

So technically it's not an abortion pill at all. Its a form of contraception, so why is it any worse than using a condom?

I think anyone should have access to the day after pill and perhaps then the parent could be told after the fact if at all.

I thought the pill was in everyday use by couples who didn't want to use a condom, or is this only in the UK?

The UK isn't really a very religious country at all, we invented cricket to give us a concept of eternity! :P

Neserk

Aug 3, 2004, 03:08 PM

So technically it's not an abortion pill at all. Its a form of contraception, so why is it any worse than using a condom?

IMO, the only problem with it is unknown risks of taking a hormone. I personally would never go on the pill because of the hormones and the risk they are for some people.

I think anyone should have access to the day after pill and perhaps then the parent could be told after the fact if at all.

Again, the only problem is with the fact it is a hormone (I could be mistaken) and it can mess up your system.

I thought the pill was in everyday use by couples who didn't want to use a condom, or is this only in the UK?

The pill is often used by couples who don't want to conceive early in the relationship. But it isn't any good for preventing STD's. That is what Condoms are for.

Chip NoVaMac

Aug 3, 2004, 03:53 PM

You raise a good point. It is much like "vanity" drugs or treatments. What are the long term effects. Much like fen-fen (sp).

AhmedFaisal

Aug 3, 2004, 04:34 PM

Ok lets clear a couple of things up. There is two pills:

1. Abortion Pill (Mifegyne, RU 486)

A high dose of Mifepristone (a Progesteron Analog with opposing effects) will inhibit growth of the Uteral tissue and the implanted Embryo and together with a small dose of Prostaglandin (causes contractions) will artificially trigger a misscarriage. Can be taken up to 7 weeks into pregnancy

2. Day After Pill (Levonorgestrel)

A high dose of the Gestagen Levonorgestrel will cause two effects:

1. It will prevent Ovulation if unprotected sex took place prior to Ovulation
2. It will prevent implantation of the zygote (fertilized ovum) if unprotected sex took place after ovulation.

Can be used up to 72 hours after unprotected sex, the sooner the better. In the first 12hours up to 95% efficient. After 72h efficiency is at 70% and lower.
It is NOT recommended to use this pill as a regular form of contraception due to the very high dose of hormon each pill carries. It should be considered an emergency contraceptive only!

In regard to Point 2: By the law of most countries in which the pill is legal the pill is NOT defined as an abortion pill since pregnancy is defined as the time after implantation of the zygote in the uterus. Implantation takes place 6-8 days after fertilization.

Information was taken from (in German)

http://www.netdoktor.de/sex_partnerschaft/fakta/pille_danach.htm
http://www.netdoktor.de/sex_partnerschaft/fakta/mifegyne.htm

Regards,

Ahmed

P.S.: As to my opinion about whether or not this whole thing was right or not. Legally, its debatable. Morally, I think whatever allows giving a teenager the chance to make a prudent decision without having to fear repercussion from her parents is a good thing.

FriarCrazy

Aug 3, 2004, 04:41 PM

Mayhap I'll get yelled at for this, but the first thing that came to my mind after scanning the article and all of the responses was

"Perhaps this is why 14 year olds shouldn't be having sex."

The issues of social pressure and sex are very prevalent in this story; however, I myself am 18 and have chosen to wait. I was also brought up under the aforementioned Minnesota system of "abstinence only." Now I'm not advocating for that system at all (In fact, I find it as flawed as most of the reports), rather I'm pointing out that young people simply need to make better decisions about sex so as to avoid situations such as these.

skunk

Aug 3, 2004, 05:30 PM

I blame the parents.

Neserk

Aug 3, 2004, 05:33 PM

"Perhaps this is why 14 year olds shouldn't be having sex."
.

From working with a woman who has a 6 year old son with someone she pretty much hates this is my opinion:

Don't have sex with someone you aren't willing to raise a child with.

Don't have sex until you are ready to have a child.

And no, 14 year old's shouldn't be having sex.

Neserk

Aug 3, 2004, 05:35 PM

amnesiac1984

Aug 3, 2004, 07:16 PM

The pill is often used by couples who don't want to conceive early in the relationship. But it isn't any good for preventing STD's. That is what Condoms are for.

I understand that, I meant that it is in use by couples who don't sleep around and know that they are both clean.

zimv20

Aug 3, 2004, 07:35 PM

I am speechless.... That sums up my opinion.... Am I going Left, or are you going Right? ;) :D
no cause for alarm. i think it simply means that the responsibility vs. hormones concern runs along a different axis.

skunk

Aug 3, 2004, 08:02 PM

'Sright. You can't describe every aspect of life by reference to "left" and "right".

AhmedFaisal

Aug 3, 2004, 08:10 PM

From working with a woman who has a 6 year old son with someone she pretty much hates this is my opinion:

Don't have sex with someone you aren't willing to raise a child with.

Don't have sex until you are ready to have a child.

And no, 14 year old's shouldn't be having sex.

1. I could almost agree to, though I would define it more as with someone I could imagine to be married to (I am not sure yet whether I want to have children at all), however having sex with that person does not absolutely entail getting married to her because of it. There definitely has to be something there that is deeper than just a simple crush.

2. That I do not believe in, one can have sex and still don't want and feel ready to have a child. That's what proper contraception is for. (Either the pill if the level of trust is high enough or condoms + spermicidal lube)

3. When somebody wants to pursue a sexual relationship and when not is not mine or anyone else's decision to make. I can only decide for myself in such a way that I believe a sexual relationship should never the start of a relationship but should follow after a period of getting to know eachother and finding out how high the level of compatibility is and it should be a mutual agreement and based on trust and the knowledge that at whoever of the two decides to use contraception is responsible for making sure it is done properly.
Regards,

Ahmed

skunk

Aug 3, 2004, 08:13 PM

By the time you've repeated all of No 3, you'd be too out of breath for anything else! :)

AhmedFaisal

Aug 3, 2004, 08:19 PM

By the time you've repeated all of No 3, you'd be too out of breath for anything else! :)

I got more breath than hoover, sweetheart ;) .
Regards,

Ahmed

blackfox

Aug 3, 2004, 08:21 PM

Quite frankly,

hormones+Alcohol+marketing of sex= fancy ideas and principles irrelevant...

skunk

Aug 3, 2004, 08:27 PM

Quite frankly,

hormones+Alcohol+marketing of sex= fancy ideas and principles irrelevant...
No, they just make raising a child a very tricky job.

Neserk

Aug 3, 2004, 08:34 PM

I understand that, I meant that it is in use by couples who don't sleep around and know that they are both clean.

ohh... I know my sister and her hubby use the pill and a condom. Why? Because they both can fail :eek: I personally hate condoms (I'm female, in case you don't know) but don't have to worry about getting pregnant...

Neserk

Aug 3, 2004, 08:37 PM

I am speechless.... That sums up my opinion.... Am I going Left, or are you going Right? ;) :D

You must be going Left :D

I just get tired of hearing her whine about her child's father. I feel like saying: YOU were the one who ****ed him and got pregnant! Heaven knows there is plenty of birth control out there and I respect that she doesn't believe in having an abortion, so the solution was simple! Don't have sex with him in the first place!

I know I"m being especially hard, it probably goes back to the people having 7 kids when I can't have one!

Neserk

Aug 3, 2004, 08:41 PM

1. I could almost agree to, though I would define it more as with someone I could imagine to be married to (I am not sure yet whether I want to have children at all), however having sex with that person does not absolutely entail getting married to her because of it. There definitely has to be something there that is deeper than just a simple crush.

Ideally. But at *least* be willing to raise a child with them!

2. That I do not believe in, one can have sex and still don't want and feel ready to have a child. That's what proper contraception is for. (Either the pill if the level of trust is high enough or condoms + spermicidal lube)

Yes, but the end result can still be a child, even if all the precautions are taken.

3. When somebody wants to pursue a sexual relationship and when not is not mine or anyone else's decision to make. I can only decide for myself in such a way that I believe a sexual relationship should never the start of a relationship but should follow after a period of getting to know eachother and finding out how high the level of compatibility is and it should be a mutual agreement and based on trust and the knowledge that at whoever of the two decides to use contraception is responsible for making sure it is done properly.

The only problem is that abstinence is the only 100% guarantee. You can use multiple forms of birth control and still get pregnant. So I still say don't have sex until you are ready to have a child!

Neserk

Aug 3, 2004, 08:42 PM

By the time you've repeated all of No 3, you'd be too out of breath for anything else! :)

LOL.

Neserk

Aug 3, 2004, 08:45 PM

Sorry to pick on pseudobrit, but his post has underscored much of the comments about how it isn't our decision to make since we are not 14 or female.

My original question was should a 14 year old decide without discussing it with her mother or father whether she should have an abortion. As most of us could potentially have a 14 year old daughter at some time, this is a pertainate question for everybody.

The solution to that is simple: Make sure you have a relationship with your child that she knows she can come to you in crisis. I'm guessing this is a case of: my parents would KILL me if they knew I was having sex.

Even though Skunk may have been facetious when he said it: blame the parents for not building the relationship with their daughter!

Perhaps you asked the wrong question. Perhaps the question should be: Should any 14 year old girl have to go through the decision making process of rather or not to maintain a pregnancy by herself?

blackfox

Aug 3, 2004, 08:50 PM

My original question was should a 14 year old decide without discussing it with her mother or father whether she should have an abortion. As most of us could potentially have a 14 year old daughter at some time, this is a pertainate question for everybody.
Well, it is a tricky question...personally I would prefer a qualified "yes" to a "no". On one hand, I do not necessarily believe a 14 year-old is ready to make such a decision (at least in this country), but I also understand the problems inherent in the reluctance of the daughter to share this w/ her parents even under the best of circumstances(fear of punishment/embarrassment/misunderstanding). There is also the potential for the interests, principles and even irrationalities of the parents to interfere with the best interests of the daughter.

I would like to see there be options for a youth in such a situation, at whatever age...counseling, resources and options given to aid in the child making the best decision...this should involve the possibility of parental involvement as an option or part of an option, but not the necessity of...

With the example noted, I do disagree with the level of pro-activeness on that particular schools' part. No-one should be cajoling/manipulating someone into a decision they do not understand. She should have been given information about options, counseling and encouragement to find the right choice for her...I am sorry if it seems I am giving this 14 year-old too many rights , but who better than she?

Neserk

Aug 3, 2004, 08:50 PM

:eek: :D

That is very hard. If it is any inspiration, my sister went through fertility drugs and all sorts of treatments for years. She got pregnant by accident when she and her husband were considering separation. :rolleyes: They are still together and they have a beautiful 7 year old girl

I must have known at some level I couldn't have children because I know way too much about infertility. I know (for example) that the stress of fighting it can destroy a marriage.

I have gone so far as to decide that I won't try and get pregnant. The only way to do it in my case is to have IVF and I won't put myself through the hormone shots and what it does to the body to do that. (This is the reasonable side speaking, before you got to hear the angry side).

A family friend who is 38 just got pregnant (2nd husband) after 8 years of not using Birth Control :eek: She has 2 children who are older teenagers from her first marriage.

skunk

Aug 3, 2004, 08:51 PM

My original question was should a 14 year old decide without discussing it with her mother or father whether she should have an abortion. As most of us could potentially have a 14 year old daughter at some time, this is a pertainate question for everybody.
Speaking personally, I'd say no. Her parents are her guardians, even though the school may be temporarily "in loco parentis".

Neserk

Aug 3, 2004, 08:53 PM

In the article, the mother was supportive of her having the baby. After she told her mother and found out that her mother would support her, she wanted to save the pregnancy, but it was too late. The girl in the article made the decision with the help of the school nurse.

But did the girl KNOW this? Apparently not or she would have gone to mom and not the school nurse. It would have been handled at home. And father's get kind of funny when they find out their little baby has become sexually active!

Neserk

Aug 3, 2004, 08:55 PM

Please know that I do not want to invoke the angry side in the delicate subject, but why haven't you put adoption on your list of options?

It is there. Just not in the affordable category at the moment.

You aren't invoking the angry side.

You know how they say women reach their sexual peak at 40? Well I'm on my way there. My theory is has to do with the loud ticking going on -- my brain knows I can't have kids, my body does not.

Perhaps the angry side comes out here because most of you are males. Oddly, it makes it a safer place to be angry ;)

Neserk

Aug 3, 2004, 08:59 PM

Definitely, I am sure being 14 and pregnant can be terribly scary. I am not surprised that she bypassed mom.

This is what the article said:

The mother, Maureen Smith, told BBC News her daughter had been too afraid to say she wanted to keep the baby until had they talked.

"She was frightened. She felt she had let me down - but when she realised the support she would have got, she changed her mind."

Although in the paren't defense I would have swore my parents wouldn't love me if I wasn't perfect when I was a teenager. So teenage views *can* be skewed. (Go figure ;) )

I guess the moral of the story is make sure you straight out tell your child that you would walk with them through making a decision about maintaining or not a pregnancy *if* they got pregnant.

Neserk

Aug 3, 2004, 09:08 PM

I think for guys it is more along the lines of acting like a kid every 20 years or so. ;)

LOL

vniow

Aug 3, 2004, 10:25 PM

Bobcat37

Aug 4, 2004, 12:39 AM

Well, as I expressed in my previous posts, I basically agree with everything Neserk has said.

Bravo!

(And Stelliform, don't worry, she must be moving more right... j/k ;))

pseudobrit

Aug 4, 2004, 02:26 AM

Sorry to pick on pseudobrit, but his post has underscored much of the comments about how it isn't our decision to make since we are not 14 or female.

My original question was should a 14 year old decide without discussing it with her mother or father whether she should have an abortion. As most of us could potentially have a 14 year old daughter at some time, this is a pertainate question for everybody.

I think it comes down to this: we can all agree that whatever choices are made, that they should be made in the best interests of the girl.

Handing over absolute power to the parents is not always going to be in the best interests of the girl.

As the "potential father" of a 14 year old (talk about a hypothetical situation!) I'd want what was best for my child. If that meant I wouldn't be involved in the decision process, it would be a difficult step I'd have to take for her sake.