• 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!

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
You misunderstood. You are the parent and want your daughter to have anabortion because carrying the baby to term will have severe and life threatening consequences. You are a parent and want your daughter to undergo cancer therapy because not doing so will result in a substantial likelihood of her death.

Should her opinion carry the day at 11 years of age? Or do you have a right to intervene? Parents and guardians have the right to make medical decisions for their child. This is true over the child's choices to a point. The parent enjoys a legal presumption that they are acting in the child's best interests. This can however be challenged and the presumption can be overcome. The same is not true for a 45 year old woman. That is because a child does not have the same rights as an adult.
I think what is best for the child (needs, not wants) should override what other the child or the caregivers want.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Then by what criteria are you judging what os best for the child?
People like doctors and social workers. I didn't realize I had to spell everything out. Now this has been drawn out so long, it's far from the topic at hand. Basically, my stance is that children should have the right to make their own medical choices, within reason, especially when it involves a possibility of them dying. And parents should not be allowed to make choices for them that deny needed treatment or cause harm. That's it. It's a more moderate position.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
People like doctors and social workers. I didn't realize I had to spell everything out.
Yes it must be spelled out. Otherwise you are opening the door for someone to say a teen could be forced into counseling for wanting to have an abortion.

Appealing to doctors and social workers does not work either. Doctors are there to inform a patient of the choices not to make medical decisions for the patient. Social workers draw the line at abuse. Social workers themselves are a diverse lot with diverse opinions on what is best. We need laws and objective standards for them to work.

Now this has been drawn out so long, it's far from the topic at hand. Basically, my stance is that children should have the right to make their own medical choices, within reason, especially when it involves a possibility of them dying.
This sounds a lot like what we have in many states today. But, out of curiosity, what is "within reason?"

And parents should not be allowed to make choices for them that deny needed treatment or cause harm. That's it. It's a more moderate position.
Yes we definitely have this. However this allows people to argue over what constitutes "causing harm."
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Yes it must be spelled out. Otherwise you are opening the door for someone to say a teen could be forced into counseling for wanting to have an abortion.

Appealing to doctors and social workers does not work either. Doctors are there to inform a patient of the choices not to make medical decisions for the patient. Social workers draw the line at abuse. Social workers themselves are a diverse lot with diverse opinions on what is best. We need laws and objective standards for them to work.


This sounds a lot like what we have in many states today. But, out of curiosity, what is "within reason?"


Yes we definitely have this. However this allows people to argue over what constitutes "causing harm."
I'm kinda done talking about this. I gave my opinion.
 
Top