Comments on: Protecting California girls

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:48:50 +0000

In the Umma, girls are the tools for the population of the caliphate. In the Democrat West, girls are the tools for the depopulation for the Enviro-Eutopian State.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:56:52 +0000

The judge is the only hope a child has if the child needs help against his own family members. Regardless of how you cut it, the judge needs to know.

By: erp

erp — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:48:46 +0000

It’s not only abortion that’s contrary to logic when it comes to kids. All of the above is true for children under 18, the age when the law says they are adults.

All well and good except they’re not responsible for paying their college costs no matter how old they get, that’s still the parents’ responsibility, yet parents can’t request to see their kid’s report card or any of their academic records without their kid’s permission.

The double standard thrives in our demented leftwing world.

By: Scott in SF

Scott in SF — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:09:10 +0000

Ymarsakar, that’s funny, so a judge is going to hold a pregnant teen in contempt of court and jail her until she tells all.
“Lighter and lighter the sky grows, Darker and darker are our woes.”
Romeo and Juliet: Parents you can’t tell, love, larger social consequenses, abortion, untimely death, it’s got it all.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:32:05 +0000

The law decides, and those who make the law, should make the law a good one. One that will maximize justice. The debate really should be on what law will maximize justice for all. Teenagers cannot refuse to tell a judge what the judge has demanded as evidence. Children are not outside of the law, they are under the umbrella of the protections of the law.

By: Al

Al — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:26:21 +0000

This debate is spurious.The individials who believe that a 14 year old should be allowed to have an abortion without any notification of the poor girl’s parents are the same individuals (ie. emorphis liberal mob)(note the dicotomy?)who believe that the parents of students who shoot up a school should pay millions of dollars in restitution.They should know what their child is doing,thinking,enduring in the gulag of the local High School.
Liberals do not what to let parents know that their child is engaging in inappropriate sex, but those same parents have to know (I guess by osmosis) that their child may be in disress and may strike out.
Girls who try to deliver a baby under 15 years of age have an increased risk of dying in childbirth. The poor girl’s parents need to know that their child is pregnant.
In the main, the majority of family problems are best solved by the family. not by the government.
Mom and Dam need to be notified.
Al

By: Scott in SF

Scott in SF — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:26:44 +0000

JJ you are right that there is a conflict in the law based on the idea that teenagers are both responsible for their actions and yet not mature enough to make decisions as well as adults. When a parent knows about a teenager’s bad decisions, sometimes they can take actions which will convince that teenager to make better decisions in the future. And sometimes not.
This issue is about a situation where a teenager has gotten pregnant without the knowledge of their parents.
In some situations telling the parents will be better for everyone, and in some situations telling the parents will be worse for everyone. Who decides?
The teenager has done nothing illegal (and even if they have the law allows them not to incriminate themselves) so the legal system can not sanction them.
Everyone in this debate recognizes these facts. That is why the proposed law allows for a judge to intervine on be half of the teenager.
So the debate is: Should a teenager have to go before a judge to get an abortion in a situation where they feel they must keep their pregnancy a secret from their parents.
So I imagine a teenager going before a judge and saying I want an abortion and I don’t want my parents to know. The judge than asks “why shouldn’t your parents be informed” And the teenager says “I can’t tell you.”
Now the judge knows nothing about the case and therefore can not make an informed decision. All they know is that this teenager wants an abortion.
The teenager has more information than anyone else and can not be forced to share that information, therefore–in this case (and it is the only case which is relevant to the law) they must be the one to make the decision.
(Many people have proposed that we force teenagers to gain more information before they get an abortion, but what that information should be is a matter of debate.)
I absolutely agree that we should do what we can to prevent and deter teenage pregnancy, but it can not be totally prevented.
The ways people have tried to prevent teenage pregnancy are diverse and contentious–but that is still the appropreate place to focus our energies, for the good of society and the individual.
The way the law is now, there is an insentive on parents to make sure their children already understand all of the consequences of teenage pregnancy and abortion before they reach puberty and that they continue to be informed as they mature.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:36:37 +0000

JJ, the revolution requires sacrificies. And sometimes those sacrifices are inconsistent and jagged with the wounds brought on by the newness of things. But it will all be for the best, we assure you.

The judges know. They know. Even the Democrats know.

By: JJ

JJ — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:31:55 +0000

There are centuries of experience with teenagers making their own decisions. Most of them have been bad. That’s why the human race established an “age of consent” in the first place: because kids can all too often be depended upon to inevitably screw it up, hurting themselves at the least, and all too often everyone around them.

After all, “let them eat cake,” a not very bright remark from the typically thoughtless teenager Marie Antoinette turned out to have ramifications she wasn’t old enough to know existed, or imagine could exist.

This is why we don’t let fourteen years olds drive or own homes. Why we don’t let teenagers drink, smoke, or enter into contracts. For a long time we didn’t let them vote, either. Below the age of sixteen, they’re expected to be in school every day, and if they aren’t someone’s going to want to know why.

Order, in other words, is imposed on them by society, pretty much without their consent. Their consent is not seen as being “informed,” and is therefore not seen as being necessary. This is because they are kids. Society, knowing in advance that they will generally not make good decisions, does not care what they think, and tries to protect them from themselves.

Except in this one area, which I do not, I confess, understand. I don’t know how society - or even the courts - reconcile the simultaneously held ideas of, on the one hand: too young and dumb to own a home, drive, smoke, drink, or sign a contract; with the idea - simultaneously held, mind you! - that here, in this matter of literal life and death, magical competence to render a reasoned decision somehow manifests as needed.

Quite weird.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:30:25 +0000

If Scott wants teenagers to make their own decisions. Scott is basically lowering the legal age for being an adult. He can’t just pick and choose what he likes and then somehow present it as a “house” that won’t fall with the next 5 MPH wind.