Development progresses in children and with it comes more responsibility. I’d never allow a toddler to walk up to the local convivence store but I’d allow an 11 year old to do it.
A typical 16 year old does not have the necessary understanding of contracts nor the ability to typically fulfil a legally binding contract.
Some girls are put on birth control due to ovarian cysts. Should parents be able to refuse that?
Before I go off on a tangent, I want to add my two cents on the actual topic of the thread: Parents should be involved in the medical decisions of their children, and as a general rule, the State should not be going behind the backs of parents in providing medical services of any sort without parental input.
But @bigtwnvin, you raise a common statement that gets made in discussions like this one.
The common social construct today is to expect sex among teens. When we expect it, we get more of it. Whether it is sex, or alcohol or violence or whatever … we get more of it.
Your response goes on to expound on the downward generational spiral we are left with.
And your concluding statement is spot on:
That would be a medical reason, not a preventative. Hopefully, the parent(s) wouldn’t refuse but if they did then it is still their right to do so.
It says a lot that the term “baby momma” and “baby daddy” is even a thing 
But they do of medical treatment decisions?
Without parent’s knowledge?
No, I think this is an example of where the parents don’t get to say no. Saying no is a kin to child abuse in this situation.
Is birth control a preventative or a medical treatment?
A preventative medical treatment.
The topic here is the medicating adolescents without parental knowledge. By law.
Under a certain age, in most states, a child cannot consent to having sex. Remember the controversy in Missouri when some candidate implied that statutory rape wasn’t “rape rape”? The universal media response was that it was indeed rape. So now the federal government is going to be an accessory to rape by promoting underage sex?
Is allowing minors to buy condoms also “promoting sex”?
Yes….
Reconcile the logic of making it convenient for underage children to have sex, and then if they do, declaring it to be rape?
And what does “promoting sex” mean to you? Is it basically synonymous with “encouraging sex”?
Please feel free to make any opinions available on the subject you may have and I will do,the same. I am not here for interrogation.
Okay, but in the meantime:
Or “you are not old enough to consent to sex, here are birth control pills…don’t tell your mother.”
Bad form. Edit a post after fussing at me? Tsk tsk.
Anyway, access to birth control doesn’t make sex any more or less convenient. In fact if anything, it makes it less convenient.
Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request: there is no logic to be reconciled.
I don’t know what youre talking about as far as editing, but that’s ok…I don’t care.
And…faulty logic. Let the reader decide.
