The morning after pill. The parents go to jail child goes to hospital. Doctor determines she should get the morning after pill. Parents are not there to give consent.
No I said there was a very high barrier. You said no. I gave an example. You could have just said yes or said yes there can be exceptions. But you won’t. You want to stove pipe the discussion.
Yes if the parents refuse and it is determined the life of the child is in danger. Once again a very high barrier.
I think up to the age of 16, the parent’s should have ultimate say in their child being on birth control. Hopefully, if the child has a good relationship with their parent(s) this is something that can be decided on by all.
On the other hand, I hate to think that a parent would be complicit in their child having sex at such an early age.
2 Likes
if parents wish to be consistent in their messaging that their minor children should no be having sex and refuse to provide birth control, thats their business
if parents choose to “bow to reality” and give implicit permission to their minor children to have sex by providing birth control, thats their business
in niether case is it any business of the state
3 Likes
In the middle of an AIDS epidemic during an earthquake while a hurricane is hitting the coast as Putin invades the US during a pandemic while 10 billion illegals cross the Canadian border by boat.
Have a nice day.
Why 16?
99.9% vrs 100%. High barrier
Tough one but the reality is teens have sex. Parents could be viewed as enabling their daughters to have sex but the alternative is just more teen mothers continuing the cycle of dependency, illiteracy and poverty.
Teen boys are stupid, reckless and irresponsible these days. A good number have grown up without fathers and are themselves products of teen careless and casual sex.
There’s no morality anymore.
Happy New Year. And thanks.
At 16 I see more freedoms. Permission to start dating, etc.
Also, I think if raised correctly at 16 the child has a good idea why she would never want to get pregnant so early in life.
1 Like
All true. All not the point. The question is not the morality/practicality of the parents.
The point is a law, passed by the state, usurping the right of the parents to consent.
Why? What’s special about 16? Lower the age to drink and vote?
The short answer is yes.
I already gave my reasoning for the age of 16. As far as the age to drink and vote I’m not sure what that has to do with birth control or usurping parental authority.
Yes what?
Because they date?
It has to do with informed consent. Decision-making ability. It goes to the very heart of “minor”.
If a 16 year-old is capable of consenting to medical treatment without the knowledge of her parents, why is she not capable of voting, drinking, carrying a gun, entering into contracts, etc?
How is contraception without parental knowledge any different than gender change without parental knowledge? For example, schools hiding pronouns from parents?
Doesn’t have to end that way. If my daughters had gotten pregnant as minors it wouldn’t have ruined their lives because they have parents who would support them and their child financially until they were able to bear that burden themselves.
2 Likes
Because at 16 they are given more freedom then they would have at say, age 13.
The government should not be involved in birth control.
1 Like
But not the topic of discussion.
