That simply isn't true, not in cases involving pregnancy.
and if it were, what would happen in the examples I just gave?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
sex ed in schools..should abstinence be taught
- Thread starter nobull
- Start date
and if it were, what would happen in the examples I just gave?
Werbung:
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
It is in Texas and as far as I am concerned else where as well. If I am wrong, show me a state statute that says otherwise.
I have already answered this ...
It is still the law in California. There was a ballot initiative last time around they dubbed "save our daughters" or some such nonsense to change the law, but it failed.
Here, the girl can get the morning after pill and avoid being beaten and disowned. Maybe that's not the case in Texas.
The answer to that question is obvious: The girl would be beaten and disowned, and the father arrested for child abuse.
or not. parents get away with beating their children fairly often.
Texas_tea
Well-Known Member
No, it's not ...
Texas still respects the right for parents to make medical decisions for their children.
Yes .... child abuse happens across this Country everyday. Normal thinking Americans do not see this as a reason to take away the rights of responsible parents across the board to make medical decisions for their children.
So, in the case that I've described, the girl being beaten and disowned would be OK, as child abuse happens every day and normal thinking Americans don't want to stand in the way of parents' rights.
How's this scenario: the father is the girl's relative, say a cousin or even brother, maybe step brother. Since the culture of the family is that male children are far more valuable than female children, and that any female who winds up pregnant has done so deliberately and is therefore at fault, the main concern of the parents is to protect the male involved from discovery and prosecution for incest and rape.
The family won't acknowledge that the father is who they know him to be.
The girl is afraid to go to authorities, as they are also male, and she has little experience with men outside of her family.
So, she just has the child, and is then disowned for having had a child out of wedlock.
Is this a good outcome?
Pandora
Well-Known Member
I would say if the parent is going to beat her then Children Services need to be involved, at that point someone who is hired to look after the childs best interests would decide with her if the pill, abortion or having the baby is the best choice. If any 13 year old can go get a morning after pill can they get another the next week and another? having several abortions is very dangerous for your body so is taking that pill over and over. Do you think this girl understands the dangers? Who protects her? Throwing a pill her way or giving her an abortion may get her out of a instant problem but could cause more problems later and repeating this would increase the chance of problems later. If there is a real reason to think this child is in danger by her parents she should be taken away from her parents pregnant or not.
Pandora
Well-Known Member
What does that mean? What laws are out there that decree that a parent must be involved with a child’s pregnancy issues? The government does the exact opposite; they dish the pills and condoms out like candy.
According to Texas Tea, they can't provide birth control or abortion without parental consent in Texas. I'll take him at his word, as I don't know Texas law. In that case, the state has decreed that the parent must be involved in any such decisions involving an under age girl. Other states acknowledge that, while the parents should be involved, and will be in a close family regardless of what the government requires, there are cases in which it is far better if the parents are not involved.
We have a clear case of government mandate vs. individual decision here.
Pandora
Well-Known Member
In Oregon a school cannot give a cough drop or aspirin to a child but they can get them an abortion and a morning after pill without parent consent and without ever telling the parent. In two cases girls died after their abortions that I know of.
Oregon is a back assward state! I don’t know about other states but this one is really disgusting. Government has no business giving abortions, morning after pills or even condoms to kids. But if a parent is going to beat a child the government does have a responsibility to take the child out of that dangerous situation.
Government is back asswards too.. They get involved in abortions and such but dont take a child out of a hostile home environment????
Gipper
Well-Known Member
I suspect Oregon is not the ONLY state that prevents any medications being dispensed to g-school kids, but will gladly provide the morning after pill and abortions without parental consent. So, don't feel alone.
We know that the preeminent belief of the Left, is abortion must be promoted and provided to all girls and women. Baby killing is the holy grail to them. In a sane nation, one would think this alone would relegate them to the ash heap of history.
I would like to see a media report regarding the two girls who died after an abortion.
Werbung:
Government is back asswards on a lot of issues.
The school is not the place for birth control or any other medical service. The school should not be giving out aspirin or anything else. How does the teacher/administrator know if the child is allergic to the medication being given?
On the other hand, some of the schools have adopted "no tolerance" (read- no common sense) policies that prohibit children from bringing OTC meds even with a parent's note and have led to students being punished under drug laws for having aspirin, Tylenol, and similar things. It gets crazy when there is no room to exercise common sense and judgement.
