"Choice"

Remove all ads!

Well, I guess that we just have different experiences on this then - but as I see it there *are* a whole lot of us, no luck involved. But I'm guessing that this is something that we'll just disagree on.

The asylum stuff is interesting - I feel that I could use that very easily to argue for my view just as much as you can for yours though. But I don't really feel like going into this now - I'm pretty well over this thread. Maybe some other time we can discuss the subjective nature of reality

Quoted for extreme disagreeance. That's the kind of reasoning that gets your right to free speech taken away from you because the government feels that it has the responsibility to protect people from it, or the right to your body because the goverment has the responsibility to save you from yourself (such as in the case of recreational drugs).

It's not much of a 'right' if it can get overridden so easily.

 

The problem is that young people don't pay the full consequences for their actions. in the case of a thirteen year old girl being pregnant, it is the parents who are going to be responsible for the new child, not their teenage daughter. You can't have rights without responsibilities.

 

Actually, I had meant to respond to this, too:

In America, at least, that isn't entirely true. Children have all the rights that adults have, but they are 'held in suspension' by the parents, meaning the parents decide when to exercise those rights, not the child. Children still have the same right to avoid unreasonable search and seasure, freedom of speech, religion, the press, etc. but it is their parents that decide when to use them.

This is wrong. Throughout history many people that were born into power had rights vastly above their responsabilities, especially when they were young. In Japan, the entire social psychology for hundreds of years (and I think to some degree still today) is based on the seperation of rights and responsabilities. New born children, until they are 5 years old I think, had the right to do just about whatever they wanted without any punishment or avoidable repercussions. After that time, however, they had to take on the full responsabilities of being a productive member of society, and their rights got dropped to almost nil. This remained for the rest of their lives, or at least the majority of it. Here, the addition of responsabilities is seen to be entirely anathema to rights.

 

Actually NOG, now that you have explained yourself a bit better, I think I understand what you're coming from. However, I think you missed the mark with this:

I really don't think schools had much to do with it. Something else happened socially in the late 40s that revolutionized child-rearing that you seem to have overlooked completely. I think the year was 1947 (may be off a year or two) when Dr. Benjamin Spock (the author/pediatrician, not the Vulcan) released his first book on child rearing. Starting in the late 1940s and continuing for about the next 50 years until his death in the late 90s, Dr. Spock was considered the authority on child rearing and his writings were practically considered the bible of child rearing.

So the people you reference of being born in the 50s and 60s were the first Spock babies. While I cannot claim that child rearing was identical through the previous 5 decades, I think you will find that children raised in the 70s and 80s were raised more similarly to the children raised in the 50s and 60s than in generations previously.

Basically, I think the school excuse doesn't amount to much. There were a lot of other things going on in schools during that timeframe. Heck, going back before Brown vs. The Board of Education, schools were segregated. Well into the 60s schools in "black" neighborhoods were horrificly underfuded compared to their white counterparts. The biggest difference I see between children of the 70s and 80s and children of the 50s and 60s is a much larger amount of tolerance.

I guess my final complaint is that I have never heard anyone born in the 50s or the 60s claim that the schools tried to raise them. You think some of them would point that out if it were true. Heck, both my parents were born in the early 50s and they never mentioned it.

Off-topic thought - geez - not only is Nakia older than me, she's older than my parents!

Well that's a broad generalization. It covers everyone born between 1946 and 1964. And the hippie/sexual revolution types only existed for a small portion of that group - the only baby boomers involved in that were the early baby boomers, because if you were born in the 60s you were too young to participate in that stuff.

I guess one of the reasons I take exception to the comment is I hold the first half of the baby boom generation (say 1946-1955) in high regard. I think they had a point. They are responsible for the social structure we have today, which I feel is better than what it was 30 or 40 years ago. They fought in Vietnam. They got the voting age lowered to 18. They brought in large part an end to the color barrier and gender barrier in the workplace. And I think a lot of those acheivement belong especially to the first half of boomers, and that the second half of boomers kind of road their coattails so to speak.

Yes, there was a lot of drug use in the 60s and 70s, but I don't think the number of people experimenting with recreational drugs like marijuana was that much higher than it is today. And I seriously doubt many were effected to the point where they don't remember that time in their life. I think you are exaggerating the numbers once again.

10 million. Don't forget the 1 billion 990 million that it didn't happen to.

 

Aldeth, I was only talking about a very small portion of the population, and more to do with LSD and the like, which can actually damage existimg memories and the brain's ability to make new memories stick. By and large, I hold much of that generation in high regard, as well. My parents belong to that generation, and I have a great deal of respect for them. I also agree that a great number of the social changes that took place in that period were probably for the better, but a number of them are still being sorted out today.

Please, don't mention Dr. Spock. Yes, I have heard of him, and yes, I'm sure he had something to do with it, possibly much more than I realize, but there was also a serious social change that you may not realize in America at the time. A lot of families were moving, or had recently moved, away from the farms and country and into the cities, and a lot of rural areas were getting public schools for the first time as well. At that point, school teachers were actually looked at as role models and, by many, supplimental parents. They were allowed and even expected to teach moral values as they saw fit, and to enforce them with corporal pumishment (that's spankings). They had real authority over the children's lives and were frequently respected by the children on par with parents. Then, through a number of legal cases as well as social change, they were no longer allowed to do these things.

Also understand that I'm talking about generalizations, and that I don't know how issues like segregation and under-funded schools influenced these things. It is quite possible that the ghetto schools never had any of these things, I don't know.

Anyway, all of this seems a little off-topic.

 

hi Aldeth, grandma here. Fortunately I was born before Spock published. I agree with you that Spock was the big influence during the 50's and 60's and maybe 70's. I don't know about the city schools, I'll have to ask my cousin about that. I went to country schools for the first 6 grades then to a school in a small town which had an A rating. Teachers had a lot of power but other than some bible people coming round in the country school I certainly didn't feel they tried to raise me. Sure they were responsible when I was at school and we were expected to follow the rules. Outside of the class room, recess and lunch, all they worried about was that we didn't kill each other or damage ourselves. In the town school I don't ever remember morality being mentioned. Again it was obey the rules. These of course were public schools. Women still mostly stayed home and were responsible for their children with papa as the fall guy. "Just wait till you father gets home."

Just wanted to express an opinion from that older generation.

 

Trade the word "can't" for "not worthy of" and my meaning will be more clear. Rights should be balanced with responsibility. As an adult, I am capable of paying the price for anything I do. If I get someone pregnant, I can be held accountable for the well being of the child. If I sign a contract, I can legally be held to the terms of that contract. All of my adult rights come with a counter-balancing responsibility. As a voter, I am more likely to think for myself rather than blindly vote for who my mommy likes (which is, admittedly, not true of everyone, but you have to draw the line somewhere). Until my children are legally capable of accepting the full ramifications of the specific actions and decisions they make, their rights to engage in such actions or make such decisions are rightfully limited. It's not only for their protection, but for the protection of everyone affected by their actions. That's all I'm saying.

 

Sorry if this has already been said:

Would it be the same situation if the girl were 17? According to some of you, the parents should still be in absolute control since the girl in question is a minor. She still would be four years later. The legal stance of the court would have the same amount of justification. Also: Would you agree with the decision if the girl desperately wanted an abortion and the parents decided to force her to keep the baby to term?

It's not about the correctness of the decision or the maturity of the girl. These are difficult to determine with our limited information. I think that the real problem is that the decision, to me, constitutes a human rights violation.

It's like an arranged marriage in India. The parents control the decision and the government supports them. The children have no right to respond. I know a woman who was going to college in a city adjacent to me. She was taking a class with a professor that I knew, and she went home to visit her family in India. She arrived, and they stole her ticket to return home. Then, they introduced her to her husband that she had never laid eyes on before. Good thing parents know best, or else their actions could be viewed as slightly morally reprehensible.

 

I'm inclined to agree with Slith. Parents assume they know best but in major decisions such as marriage, abortion, jobs IMO that is not necessarily true. Sure the child may pick the wrong partner, job or otherwise make a poor choice but many adults do the same thing.

 

There are families here in the US where the parents decide the kid is going to be a doctor or lawyer or the like when they're 2 or younger. In many of these cases the parents may actually kick the kid out if they say they want to do something else, like be a geologist.

Slith, as for your question, in my opinion it isn't a matter of the parent's don't have the right to veto their child's decision so much as that they don't have the right to make needlessly dangerous decisions for them. As I have said before, this is the kind of situation where social services (or their equivalent) needs to step in.

 

But guess how old the child is by then. Usually 18 and at the age where the parents can legally pull the carpet out from under Jhonny who wants to major in art and not medicine.

Not to mention the parents you've described are few and far between. Hence the reason, as stated before, why the 'blanket' legislation might not work perfect EVERY time but it still works MOST times. The state doesn't have the time, resources or right to enforce disputed morals on every single family. Frankly I think the parents have made a sensiable decision in this matter, you don't and think the state should intervene... see the problem?

Let the parents deal with their problem their way. Don't need Auntie Bush to tell them how to live their lives.

 

Actually, now that it has been brought up, what would happen if she were 17? Legally, the courts could also decide that the parents have the final say. Then again, it may also matter if she was to have the baby when she was 17, or pregnant at 17 but having the baby after she turned 18. To further complicate matters, what if the boyfriend was no longer a minor. If we push everything 4 years into the future, the boyfriend would be 19.

All told though, I agree with Abomination. While it is spectacularly clear that the present legislation does not work perfectly every time, I do not think that any legislation could be drafted that would work to accomodate any and all situations to everyone's satisfaction. To think that this would be possible is extremely naive. So the best we can reasonably hope for is for legislation to work for the greatest number of people as frequently as possible, and I think that the existing laws do in fact accomplish that.

 

In the case cited at the start of this thread the reason I disagree with the decision is that based on the information we have I do not feel that the parents considered the best interest of the daughter but their own best interest. Of course this is their right under the law. Neither do I do know what the family circumstances are. However I am reasonably certain that the girl will be emotionally scarred for life.

 

@Nakia:

I'm not so sure about that. Of course, I'm not terribly familiar with the laws of the area, but in America I'm pretty sure that isn't their right.

@Abomination:

You think they have made a sensible decision? Do you know the risks involved in abortions? Do you know the degree of psychological trauma it usually causes? ESPECIALLY if it is forced? If you say you don't, then I'd suggest you do a little research of your own before you make any judgement. If you say you do, well, you may just be living up to your name, there.

As I've said before, it isn't just a matter of morality, it is a matter of unnecessary risk, as well.

 

You do realize that one of the lines of reasoning used in the Roe v. Wade decision is that the risk of health complications of getting an abortion in the first trimester is actually less than the risk of carrying the baby to term. So there is also a risk associated with carrying the baby to term as well, and the physical risks are actually greater. As for mental health, you're probably right - getting a forced abortion would carry with it the possiblity of serious psychological reprecussions.

I don't know if the parents decision is sensible, but it is definitely justifiable.

 

Do you? Do you know the degree? Phycological damage is impossible to predict and/or measure. There is no scale. No index. No litmus test. Some people crack under the strain of emotional pressure, some come out stronger, some it doesn't affect at all.

Certainally in this situation there is a risk of psycological scarring, however considering the age of the girl in question I dare say the damage would be less. She hardly understands how the thing got inside of her, let alone the responsibilities associated with it. I'd say she views it as a doll rather than a person.

 

Okay. Wow; this has been a fascinating discussion going on here, relating to parental responsibility (and thus legal guardianship), as well as the abortion angle. A lot of rational and calmly-thought out arguments have been fielded, and strangely I feel the need to add to them.

I don't know WHY I stayed glued to four pages of discourse in this topic when just browsing the Alleys regarding my DST post, but maybe it has to do with being the step-father of a 13-year old girl...hits a little close to home, maybe.


First off, I agree with the judge; as for agreeing with the parents, I really can't say whether they chose the BEST option here.

And when we sit back and look at it, NONE of the alternatives are looking terribly good...

a) the parents could (as someone's already mentioned) emulate the Sicilians and punish their daughter lethally for her immature indiscretion - outcome: BAD

b) they could kick the 'loose woman' out of their house, and leave any decision about the unborn child up to this now abandoned 13-year old - outcome: BAD

c) they could agree that she could keep the child, but force her to drop out of school to see to the parenting and raising of her offspring, offering no help or advice - outcome: STILL FAIRLY BAD

d) they could consent to their child becoming a mother and then devote their next eighteen years to raising their grandchild themselves, leaving the daughter with a sense of no consequences for her actions and probably with a fair amount of pending enmity between the first and second generations here (and even possibly between the 'mother' and her own child, which may come to be seen as a 'rival sibling' for her parents' attention and love) as well as further financial strain upon the parents (and possibly the denial of any idea of 'retirement' for them) - outcome: SOMEWHAT LESS BAD, BUT STILL MILES AWAY FROM GOOD

e) they can do what they did and psychologically scar their child for life, as well as depriving the world of a potential Einstein, Mozart, Mother Teresa...or a potential Hitler, Jim Jones, Susan Smith...or even a potential John/Jane Q. Public who never does anything even remotely significant in a long, boring, and unremarkable life. - outcome: STARTS WITH A 'B' AND ENDS WITH A 'D'

f) they can permit their daughter to birth the child and imprint a biological bond that alters the way a woman behaves for the rest of her life (and I think Rally'll back me up on this one) and then declare that she must give her newborn up for adoption (whereupon the child's destiny enters another spin of the Wheel of Fate regarding the suitability of the adoptive/foster parent(s), but that's a completely different discussion) likely causing just as much psychological scarring to their daughter by "taking away [my] baby" - outcome: KNOCK, KNOCK; WHO'S THERE; BAD

To be honest, I don't see any possibility of this thirteen-year-old girl coming out of this situation without ANY kind of psychological trauma that's going to haunt her forever.

The cause of all this happened some time previously with that 15-year old boy...

I'll draw an analogy that might illustrate how I'm seeing this whole set of circumstances:

You take your kid out for a driving lesson, and whilst they're at the wheel, the car veers off a ledge and you're all plunging through several hundred feet of open air into a ravine.

What you do next - whether you wrench control of the car from your student, or spend the next few moments berating your idiot offspring for an unwise action, or hug them close and tell them how much you love them, or try jumping from the car, or thrusting them from the car, or even pull out a gun and start shooting up the dash - may say much about your character as a parent and a person, but it won't make one whit of difference as to the final outcome of this 'voyage'.

 

Well...honestly, I'd agree with Dalveen here...I mean, if a 13 yr old girl gets pregnant and wants to have a baby...well, she's clearly irresponsible. Whether she is fit to be a mother or not is moot indeed, but her sense of responsibility or lack thereof is demonstrated by her actions so far. And would you really trust a baby in her care?? I wouldn't!!

Its not the best way the situation could have been handled, and maybe her parents should have resolved the issue between the girl and themselves, but at the end of the day, I can't say that I really find anything wrong about it. Disturbing that you can be ordered to do something so private and personal...yes. But whether the abortion was WRONG? Hmm...probly not...though the entire situation is a big mess.

 

Wow, um, do you even have a basic understanding of psychology? Things that happen during the formative years affect a person's entire life more so than at any other time. These kids are more likely to go to one extreme or the other in regards to what happened during those years.

I dare say that forced abortion is as bad if not worse than a rape. Atleast they know rape is wrong and they have someone and somewhere to turn. A forced abortion, however, I can't even imagine how bad it is, It must be like being raped by your parents, a doctor, and law enforcement only worse.

How do you recover from something like that?

 

How do you recover from having to give a child you just gave birth to up for adoption? Either way it's not good.

To claim that there will be a large amount of pshycological damage is simply wrong. There's a chance there will be no damage, that the girl will come out of this as 'lesson learned, don't get knocked up till capable of taking care of the baby myself'.