• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Planned Parenthood at it again!

Curious George

Veteran Member
See my post. Patents very typically don't when talk to their kids about sex, and refuse them related services. That's also why there is a position that parents can bugger off when it comes to refusing to let schools teach sex education.
Not sure if you are on your phone when normally you are on your computer, but usually your meaning is much more clear.

Parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children. This is a fact. When the parents actions are deemed harmful or threaten eminent harm we can intercede. That is because of our laws regarding abuse.

Take a breath, and accept this. This is true. Now it is also true that child can pursue medical care on their own. Depending on the age and location of that child the parents may not have access or may only have limited access to any records or information regarding that medical care.

None of this changes the general rule that parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children.

You can also note that bio parents who have had their rights severed can not make medical decisions. Well ok. But that doesn't change the general rule.

We are discussing parents rights to make medical decisions. Parents also have the right to raise their children as they see fit. This includes education. Education includes sex education. Now it may be foolish for parents to deny quality sex education or education to their children but as long as minimum standards are met this does not fall into a category of neglect. You may not like it, but do you have the right to impose differently? If so, on what grounds?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
If so, on what grounds?
Because kids aren't taught about sex, they aren't required for it, and the tax prayer ends up paying for the services related to unwanted teenaged and young adult pregnancy, and STIs spread more easily because kids weren't equipped with the knowledge to reduce the spread of STIs.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Because kids aren't taught about sex, they aren't required for it, and the tax prayer ends up paying for the services related to unwanted teenaged and young adult pregnancy, and STIs spread more easily because kids weren't equipped with the knowledge to reduce the spread of STIs.
So on some vague hypothetical and assumed future. That is not solid ground.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Parents have the legal right to make medical decisions for their child
Of course. But if that conflicts with medical advice or the parents are the cause of the distress in the first place?

Imo those rights have limits, or at least should. That whole, your right to swing your arm stops at my nose, kind of deal. Why make exceptions for minors? If a kid is denied a life saving heart transplant, well they could die, but hey, at least the parent’s legal rights were respected? No, minors should be empowered to own their body.

Look I’m all for consulting with parents if the patient is underage. As a fail safe, generally that works out well.
But we do not live in nirvana or heaven or whatever paradise is on offer. We live in a reality where it could potentially be dangerous to disclose a minor’s medical decision to their legal guardian. That is why privacy, at least where I live, is near sacrosanct. Even for minors. Ideally a parent would be privy to all medical issues with their progeny. But we do not live in an ideal reality.

Maybe American law is different, but apart from a rather odd encounter being on display (seriously, what pimp just casually says that kind of stuff to a medical professional? Lol) I just can’t see PP as being in the wrong here. They respected privacy first. That is the norm where I live. A kind of “just in case” rule.
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
So... they need parental permission to get married under the age of 16-18 but no permission needed to have sex and get an abortion... something just doesn't add up.

Actually, if you listen to the video one person says "This is how you can skirt the law". And by law, an underage pregnancy should be reported in case of rape or sex trade.

Sex is not marriage.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Imo those rights have limits, or at least should. That whole, your right to swing your arm stops at my nose, kind of deal. Why make exceptions for minors? If a kid is denied a life saving heart transplant, well they could die, but hey, at least the parent’s legal rights were respected? No, minors should be empowered to own their body.
Sure those rights have limits. When parents are crossing the line of abuse or neglect.

"The whole swing your arm" isn't really applicable here though. We do not let an 8 year old decide if they want to have the cavity filled by the dentist or not.

Some hypotheticals to consider. Your 11 year old has cancer that has a 60% death chance without treatment. Your 11 year old wants to deny treatment, do you let them?

Your 11 year old daughter gets raped and is impregnated. The doctor informs you that there is a 60% chance of your daughter dying if she continues carrying the baby to term. She doesn't want an abortion. What do you do?

I am not sure what the rules are where you live. People are notorious for thinking they know the laws when they in fact do not. There are definitely times where doctors do not need to give out records or information even to parents (without a subpoena). But the general rule is that parents or guardians are entitled to request, see, and know medical information of their children or wards. This is true in the U.S. and I am actually pretty sure it is true wherever you live as well. While exceptions always exist, parents or guardians need this entitlement because they are acting on behalf of the child.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Some hypotheticals to consider. Your 11 year old has cancer that has a 60% death chance without treatment. Your 11 year old wants to deny treatment, do you let them?

Your 11 year old daughter gets raped and is impregnated. The doctor informs you that there is a 60% chance of your daughter dying if she continues carrying the baby to term. She doesn't want an abortion. What do you do?
Time for counseling sessions to explain the reality to them. If they refuse treatment, I would assume the child is suicidal if they can understand the possible consequences.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
So on some vague hypothetical and assumed future. That is not solid ground.
Is not vague or hypothetical, but why do, so much of the rest of the world added sex ed to their public school curriculum. They realized it was detrimental to keep sexually active teenagersiignorant. They even consider it a public health issue regarding the spread of STIs.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Time for counseling sessions to explain the reality to them. If they refuse treatment, I would assume the child is suicidal if they can understand the possible consequences.
I appreciate you trying to answer these tough scenarios. Are you suggesting forced counseling? Would you take the same approach to a 45 year old woman making these decisions?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Is not vague or hypothetical, but why do, so much of the rest of the world added sex ed to their public school curriculum. They realized it was detrimental to keep sexually active teenagersiignorant. They even consider it a public health issue regarding the spread of STIs.
If you are trying to get me to argue against higher sex ed standards you are not going to be fruitful. It seems that you want me to be saying something I am not.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
If you are trying to get me to argue against higher sex ed standards you are not going to be fruitful. It seems that you want me to be saying something I am not.
You don't have to argue for it, but the facts are our hurts teens, is bad for society overall, and facts do not bode well for your beliefs. We all live together in a society, not self contained islands where are actions do not effect others.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I appreciate you trying to answer these tough scenarios. Are you suggesting forced counseling? Would you take the same approach to a 45 year old woman making these decisions?
The only thing tough is to get most parents to realize their shellfish wants and desires for their children just won't always be in the best interest of the child. In America, this frequently revolves around sex, sex education and readiness, and sexual health and reproductive options.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
As a general rule, I support Planned Parenthood. Because I oppose abortion, and PP prevents them.

But I cannot support the policy described here, underage people getting abortions without their parents even knowing. I wouldn't give parents total rights. But knowing what's going on in their dependent child's life seems like a no brainer.

Yes, there are parents who cannot be trusted with such information. Then the kid needs different custodial units. But I believe that most of the children who want abortions without their parent's knowledge have other reasons.

I did lots of stuff at that age that I didn't want my parents to know about. Because they were altogether too likely to get involved and be supportive. In ways I didn't want them to, but I'm glad now that they did.

While I recognize that there are freakishly unusual circumstances under which a child should be removed from the family circumstances, I don't think PP is qualified to make that decision. PP should, at least, be required to let the parents know what's going on.
Tom
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
You don't have to argue for it, but the facts are our hurts teens, is bad for society overall, and facts do not bode well for your beliefs. We all live together in a society, not self contained islands where are actions do not effect others.
My beliefs? I am not so sure you understand my beliefs.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
The only thing tough is to get most parents to realize their shellfish wants and desires for their children just won't always be in the best interest of the child. In America, this frequently revolves around sex, sex education and readiness, and sexual health and reproductive options.
You are going to have to read the hypotheticals and put your thinking cap on. Those were tough scenarios anyway you cut it. So save your rhetoric, get off your pedestal and come back to reality.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
As a general rule, I support Planned Parenthood. Because I oppose abortion, and PP prevents them.

But I cannot support the policy described here, underage people getting abortions without their parents even knowing. I wouldn't give parents total rights. But knowing what's going on in their dependent child's life seems like a no brainer.

Yes, there are parents who cannot be trusted with such information. Then the kid needs different custodial units. But I believe that most of the children who want abortions without their parent's knowledge have other reasons.

I did lots of stuff at that age that I didn't want my parents to know about. Because they were altogether too likely to get involved and be supportive. In ways I didn't want them to, but I'm glad now that they did.

While I recognize that there are freakishly unusual circumstances under which a child should be removed from the family circumstances, I don't think PP is qualified to make that decision. PP should, at least, be required to let the parents know what's going on.
Tom
Why do you think planned parenthood should be required to notify the parents?
 
Top