To Whom Do Your Children Belong?

tip jar n/t (10.30 / 20)

"I have an existential map. It has "You are here" written all over it."

Steven Wright

---

by: lorraine @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:00:35 PM CDT

FUCK (0.00 / 0)

This was NOT supposed to be on the front page. I must have missed the button. SORRY>

"I have an existential map. It has "You are here" written all over it."

Steven Wright

---

by: lorraine @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:03:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you take it down (8.00 / 4)

I'll just put it back up.  I'm nasty that way.

Trying to maintain some small measure of sanity while I'm drowning in the mainstream - Folami Abiade

---

by: ScottinSoCal @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:13:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ditto. (5.00 / 1)

This is a good diary, lorraine.

But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:14:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

okay, I give (0.00 / 0)

It'll stay where it is. Thanks for the compliments.

"I have an existential map. It has "You are here" written all over it."

Steven Wright

---

by: lorraine @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:18:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i have no powah (9.00 / 1)

but I'd have nagged every one else too as well.
It is FP material

yep, my son's room has privacy at 7 too.  But I still hold on too, "Sure you can have [insert snack, video games, etc..] as soon as your room's picked up.

Good for you!

---

by: Diane W @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:34:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

how do I love thee, lorraine? (9.00 / 4)

"Because I will never be a mother who invades my children's space. Every person on this earth needs a space to call their own. And every person on this earth needs a place to keep their own secrets. My children are allowed to have secrets."

Right to the gut, this went.

Amen.

Privacy either has sacred value or it doesn't. 

I believe, from the bottom of my heart, that it does.

That doesn't mean that I always respect it, though.  I am human and though by no means do I consider myself a gossip, it's human nature to talk about other people when they're not around and the line between something shared in confidence and something just shared is usually very murky. 

That's a bit of a tangent from the specific context of your point, I realize, but there it is.

Here's to privacy.

---

by: weeping for brunnhilde @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:32:14 PM CDT

Weeping, Babe (7.25 / 4)

If you keep making PUBLIC declarations of your love for me, you're going to give plenty of people stuff to GOSSIP about.
I thought this stuff was private. :)

"I have an existential map. It has "You are here" written all over it."

Steven Wright

---

by: lorraine @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:38:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was lucky (10.33 / 3)

I had parents who didn't violate my personal space - they rarely ever entered my room after I was maybe 6 or 7, and as I entered my teenage years, gave me wide latitude. I was also able to successfully shut them out of my life in other ways, so that my rights to privacy were respected whether that was what they wanted or not.

So I commend you on this, Lorraine, I think it is an excellent way to raise children, to guide them into becoming self-confident people, knowing that they do have rights to privacy that will always be respected. And as you note, in your case it has actually helped you to have close relations with your daughters.

We live in a society that distrusts children deeply, and usually for reasons that are not borne out in evidence. I think a lot of it is about control - people feel they lack control in life, and believe they feel more secure when they are able to assert control over something, like their children. It strikes me as rather pathological.

I like to think that if I ever have kids, I will treat them the way you have treated yours - you provide a great model of how to do it well, at least from the distant view that I have here.

---

by: eugene @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:37:42 PM CDT

What I think is more accurate, (7.00 / 2)

"We live in a society that distrusts children deeply"

I would say we don't trust that children have the capacity to understand the consequences of their actions, which is why we do not punish them like adults (or should not) for crimes they commit as adults.

I just see this line as grossly inconsistent, either we treat them like little adults, or acknolwedge their experiences are limited.

"Truth has no time of its own. Its hour is now -- always, and indeed then most truly when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances."

---

by: roysol @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:49:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's not easy or consistent (8.50 / 4)

We let them drive at 16, go to war at 18, hear the word "fuck" in a movie when they're 17, shoot a gun at 12, declare them adults at 18 but won't let them drink alcohol until they're 21. Teenagers are not children, nor are they adults. But the ironic thing about parental consent laws is that the teenager who doesn't get an abortion because she's unable to tell her parents winds up becoming a parent herself.
I'm not arguing with you, Roysol. I just think that part of what we're dealing with is that we are so arbitrary in deciding what's "adulthood" that it confuses all of us.

"I have an existential map. It has "You are here" written all over it."

Steven Wright

---

by: lorraine @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:56:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

everyone's experience is limited (9.00 / 1)

so, when do we begin to trust them? 25? 40? At 60, does the boy king understand/appreciate the consequences of his actions?

If we designate people of certain ages "children" then how, at those ages, could they possibly do anything (commiting crimes included) "as adults"?

I may be misreading you, roy, so let me know, yes?

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

---

by: 5hearts @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:11:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hi fiver, how you doing? ;-) (5.00 / 1)

I actually addressed the point of adults with diminished capacity in phyrro's diary about Andrea Yates, and punishing just the action, without regard for ability to form intent. In my opinion, we ought to treat those adults like we treat children, for the same reason.

Now, the trick, like you say, and as was phyrro's point, is how can we determine that. To extend that to this diary, the right to be allowed to do "adult" things, whatever they are, could only be determined on a case by case basis. I have no idea what the metric for that might look like.

In practical terms, we have picked somewhat abitrary ages, and applied them to be a proxy for maturity. It's imperfect, to say the least, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. I posted a general comment downthread that may answer any other questions you have concerning my position.

Cheers!

"Truth has no time of its own. Its hour is now -- always, and indeed then most truly when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances."

---

by: roysol @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:38:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do You Really Have to Go There? (10.75 / 4)

It strikes me as rather pathological.

This seems unnecessary, and considering both your age and childlessness, overly judgmental when you have nothing other than theory to inform your view.  We need to try to build political consensus and solution over this issue, and I continue to believe that harsh judgmentalism is not the way to go when there is no such thing as a "right answer" except in the minds of folks whose politics knows no compromise.

You can find my meanderings on all things Black and political at Maat's Feather

---

by: shanikka @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 19:00:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and as to your not so rhetorical question (9.00 / 3)

I was just having a very similar conversation with the lovely woman whose apartment I subletted this summer.  We talked about how our job as parents is to nurture, facilitate, and get out of the way.  Well, as much out of the way as possible, of course.

But all we can do is help them become the people they're meant to become. 

Any aspiration beyond that is not just ownership, it's hubris.

---

by: weeping for brunnhilde @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:40:50 PM CDT

On Children (10.80 / 5)

Your children are not your children
They are the sons and daughters
of life longing for itself

They come through you
but are not of you . . .

This is part of Kahlil Gebran's Prophet On Children

I taped this to my son's (Matthew Kahlil's) incubator when he was born 2 1/2 month early. I felt strongly that this tiny soul's life was his struggle and I could only do so much.

For better or for worse I raised my children with this in mind. I say for worse, because my daughter committed suicide at age 19. Despite our being really close, I didn't know what demons were haunting her at the end.

After several years of my being an absentee mother (college at Cornell while she lived with her dad in Nebraska,) she joined me in New York. We worked together and we were open (I thought. Those who knew our relationship said it was the closest mother-daughter relationship they ever knew.

Her father and step-mother used to read her journals, restricted her and even refused to let her visit that last summer - because she had a nose ring.

After her death, my son ran away from his father's home in Nebraska to live with me in Manhattan. We have lived in Philladelphia, Phoenix and San Diego since those tragic days. Lorraine, I admit I was more intrusive with my son since then. This is because of fear. He understands and seems to respect my need for more transparency. Secrets (for me) can kill.

---

by: katecontinued @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:43:40 PM CDT

dear kate (11.00 / 4)

I am honored that you shared this. I'm not going to patronize you and tell you I know how you feel. The truth is, I don't, and I know when my daughters have been in "trouble", I have often assumed that it was because of something that I did or didn't do in the parenting of them. I do know about suicide, and I do know that short of forcibly committing someone to a facility, there's a point at which nothing can save a person who has decided to kill themselves. I say that not to be cruel, but because it is the thing I was told when I lost someone who I thought that maybe I could have saved. But, as I said, I have no business speaking on this to you, who have lost your daughter.
I am glad that your son is with you, and that he understands your need to know what's going on with him.
I will keep you in my thoughts. Thank you.

"I have an existential map. It has "You are here" written all over it."

Steven Wright

---

by: lorraine @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:51:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"parental notification" rules aren't about child's welfare (11.00 / 3)

Lorraine,

Engulfed in memories of Angel, I lost the thread.

I don't for one minute believe that this legislation is about a child's best interest. That is bullshit. It is about more of that dominionist, authoritarian, patriarcal kind of control.  It is about owning children (wives too) and restriction / denial.

If a child lives in a home of respect, responsibility (ability to respond) and love - she or he will seek out a parent or trusted other. Both my children had to do this. Each came to me for help.

I have a story less tragic about Angela. When she was 10 her father grounded her (this was before our divorce). One morning she ran away and happily she called within several hours because she got lost trying to find the Omaha bus station. She wanted to go live with her grandmother she said. I explained to her that the big people in her life were a good thing. I then let her live out one of her wishes, to be in charge of her own life.

It was summer and she could go to bed and wake when she wanted, dress how she wanted, eat what she wanted, etc. When we went grocery shopping, I let her ride along and select her own food to prepare for herself. (She chose a treat for her little brother too - sweet ceral, not stocked in our house.) The only stipulation for the whole experiment is that if she wanted to go to the movies or leave our neighborhood, she needed to go with some big person. She selected my mom for an outing.

Lorraine, after about 3 days Angel let me know she didn't want to do it any longer. She said it was way too hard. I cherish the memory.

This is quite long, but I'd like to share 2 other thoughts. One is a developmental thing. When I lost Angel I didn't know about how a teenager's brain is wired. I didn't know that too many choices (freedoms?) can be a real stressor for a young person who hasn't developed completely - judgement, logic, etc. Translated, this means that some solid family rules can help reduce stress for a kid.

The second thing I want to offer up for all the firepup parents - your approach to a kids space insofar as "cleaning" goes is bang on. I learned while living with teenagers that I had to get past my own compulsions about order, cleaning, etc. If I had a problem with something in our tiny apartments, I had to deal with it - otherwise I learned to lighten up and go with the flow.

---

by: katecontinued @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:37:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am always suspicious of people who claim to know the (6.75 / 4)

"right" way to parent.

The reality is that every kid is different.  I don't think there are any "right" ways.  And a parent who is boasting about the success they've had with their "right" way of parenting when the kid is 15 may be lamenting their choices when the kid is 17.

And, sometimes, what the parent does is much less an influence than the surrounding enviroment/media/peers/etc.

And parenting involves a certain degree of luck.

All we can do is what we think it best.  We all try our best to instill the right attitudes and values in our kids.  And then we let go.

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:04:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

do you mind my asking the ages of yours? (9.00 / 1)

I agree with you that there is no "one size fits all" or even "one size fits the smae kiddo over time", but how does this jive with what you wrote about "the government" steeping in to take over parental duties?

Sorry, but that scares the fucking shit out of me.

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

---

by: 5hearts @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:07:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am referring to (0.00 / 0)

the desirability of judicial and medical necessity safety valves in parental notification laws.

It should not scare you.

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:16:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it "should not"? could you (0.00 / 0)

possibly BE more condescending? oh, wait, perhaps you could....never mind.

So, anyway, do you have children? If so, of what ages? Or should I take your non-response as an indication that you do mind if I ask?

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

---

by: 5hearts @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:22:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

See below. (5.00 / 1)

Age 4.

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:38:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You go too far (7.00 / 2)

There are indeed different ways to parent well, but there are also bad ways to parent, bad values that can be instilled. I think we're right to say what we think those are and why we feel them to be wrong.

Otherwise you end up saying "well people can just parent however they want to" and not see important differences between methods and outcomes.

---

by: eugene @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:07:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"bad ways"? "bad values"? (10.00 / 1)

and who exactly determines these? I agree to a certain extent, but become VERY uncomfortable with what you just wrote if that means others  get to decide for parents and chilren.

For example, there are plenty of people out there who would read this and think that lorraine is a "bad parent" instilling "bad values" through "bad methods" -- should the government step in and take over her "duties to society" vis a vis her children?

I think not.

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

---

by: 5hearts @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:25:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

bad values (9.00 / 1)

I'd say that if you physically and emotionally abuse your child--and the physical part is a crime these days--you are teaching bad values.

I agree with you Ont he rest of it. I am appalled at the values that many of the Religious Reich, especially fo the Dominionist variety, are installing in their kids: intolerance for others with different religious beliefs, lack of compassion for the poor (because, of course, you're only poor if you're lazy), fear of anyoen different, hostility toward GBLT folks....but I also know that while it may appall me, they are equally appalled by the way I would raise kids if I had chosen to have them (and the fact that I didn't usually provokes a pretty negative response; I've been called selfish, immature, irresponsible, self-absorbed because I chose not to be a parent)--with liberal Wiccan values. 

It gets hairy when the government gets involved int he values issues.  Wasn't so long ago that a judge in (I think ) Indiana decreed that the divorced WIccan parents of a child whoa attended a Catholic  school couldn't take their kid to WIccan circles because they might be exposed to sex orgies--based on the testimony of a social worker whose knowledge of Wicca seems to have come from reading a lie-filled right-wing Christian treatise on the Oh-Cult.

The last time we mixed religion and politics, people got burned at the stake.

---

by: irishwitch @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 17:57:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you know (11.00 / 1)

I'm not sure why you dislike me as much as you seem to, and frankly, I don't care.

But I guess I'm curious as to how many children you have.

"I have an existential map. It has "You are here" written all over it."

Steven Wright

---

by: lorraine @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:08:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't dislike you. (6.00 / 1)

And I really don't think my comment is an indictment of you, any more than it is an indictment of me.  We as parents make our choices on how to parent.  We do so because we think its "right."  The choices I've made are different than the choices made by my parents, although, as my Mom points out to me, they must have done a hell of a job because I'm perfect. ;)

All I'm saying here is that there is no "right" way to parent.  And we as parents aren't the only ones responsible for our children's success or failure.

I have one child.  He's four.  I agonize over these issues.  Previously I've volunteered with a number of youth programs that my wife has worked for: BB-BS, BGC, etc.  I've seen a lot of parents and a lot of kids.  I prefer a parenting style close to what you abdicate, but I've seen that style screw up kids and I've seen great kids come from authoritarian parenting environments.  Ultimately, every parent I talks to admits a degree of fear because there are no guarantees as to what is right for your kid given his environment etc., despite what Eugene may suggest.

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:23:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

duck, honey, in this case you DO mean (7.00 / 2)

"advocate"!

;)

I'll quit with the "editor in chief" mode now, k?

And yeah, parenting involves a whole bunch of flying by the seat of your pants -- fortunately for my kids (and me!), I have always thrived in that mode of existence...sure there's an element of fear, but mostly I convert it into the thrill of adventure and the unknown!!

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

---

by: 5hearts @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:29:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You got my joke! (7.00 / 1)

Good catch.

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:40:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

One of my favorites (11.00 / 1)

When I saw the title of this diary I kept thinking of Gibran.  I love "The Prophet".  My copy of this book came to me in a very strange way.  My parents had friends that had adopted a baby girl.  She committed suicide on Valentine's day when she was 16.  The Mother died a few years later, followed by the Father.  They were an older couple when they adopted Debbie.  I was browsing a used book store one day and I came upon "The Prophet".  Along with the book was a daily diary book with a few entries which I began to read.  I was shocked to see my Mother and Aunt and Uncle being referenced in the diary.  I realized what I had in my hand was Debbie's diary.  The last entry was New Years Eve, her last.  I have often wondered why these books came to me.  "The Prophet" was given to Debbie with a wonderful message written in it from someone who chose to pass it on.  Gale had received the book from her Mother when she was a freshman in college.  Why, I wonder, why, am I supposed to have these books.  Will I ever meet Gale. I have kept the diary and believe there is a message but I haven't a clue what it is and it has been years since this came about.  I have searched for clues in her writing about her frame of mind in her few entries but nothing indicates that she was contemplating suicide.  Will I ever know the reason for this strange string of events, I don't know.

---

by: mary4 @ Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 14:20:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dear kate (0.00 / 0)

I originally meant to post my sincere condolences on the loss of your daughter.  The Gibran reference led me in another direction.  I lost a dear, sweet, beautiful, intelligent niece when she had just turned 19.  My husband and I were with her parents 24/7 until the day of her funeral.  She died from an AVM, totally unexpected and unsuspected.  I believe there are different kinds of love, the love for a parent, a spouse, a child, a friend.  But I must believe the greatest tragedy is the loss of a child.  I can't even imagine the grief even though I shared it with her parents, I did not experience the depth of the pain.  I do not believe time ever heals that wound and I know there will always be a Mckenzie sized hole in their hearts.  God bless you till you meet your daughter again on the other side.

---

by: mary4 @ Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 02:34:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Parents have several fundamental duties to their children. (6.67 / 3)

One of those duties is to (hopefully) help instill the values and decision-making skills  the child will need to properly and ethically function in society.  In my view, and its just my view, authoritarian parents may be doing their kids an injustice in this regard.  My parents raised me in a relatively hands off manner, but I really don't think it is helpful to make this issue a referendum on any one person's parenting style.  Lots of parenting styles work.

In any event, parents have other duties to their children and to society:  First, the duty to ascertain when their children have gone astray into improper or unethical behavior, and to attempt to correct that behavior.  Second, the duty to look after the physical health and well-being of the child.

To fulfill these duties, a parent cannot, in my opinion, treat their child as if they were an adult.  For example, a parent who is concerned that their child may have succumbed to the scourges of meth or crack should not "respect" their child's "choice" to engage in such self-destructive behavior.  And a parent should absolutely be involved in decisions concerning what medical treatment of their child is appropriate.

In my view, parents who advocate their responsibilities in this regard are bad parents.

I support parental notification laws for this reason.  I also support appropriate safety valves because I recognize that there are situations, totally alien to my own life and hard for me to understand, where parents are abusive, sexually abusive, and therefore should not be part of abortion decisions.  Because I am a liberal, I believe that one purpose of government is to substitute for bad parents, and safety valves are a very good idea.

Flame away.

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 14:55:44 PM CDT

you mean "abdicate", not "advocate", right? (11.00 / 1)

I find it amusing that you say this:

I really don't think it is helpful to make this issue a referendum on any one person's parenting style.  Lots of parenting styles work.

but then, this:

In my view, parents who advocate their responsibilities in this regard are bad parents.

So, we shouldn't judge parents unless we judge parents? I am confused as to your point, and for the record, if I were deemed "bad parent" as I am sure I would be by various and sundry "well-meaning" but fucking clueless people, for various and arbitrary "moral" reasons, I would would NEVER commend my children to the tender "parental" mercies of the government in my stead. NEVER.

If that is essentail to the definition of "liberal", I just got out from under that label.

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

---

by: 5hearts @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:04:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the typo correction. Abdicate. (5.67 / 3)

Whether you are an authoritarian parent or not, I still think you have a minimal obligation to your kids and to society.  And so do you.

None of us would believe that abandoning a four year old in a field over night is proper parenting, for example.  There are minimum standards which are independent of "parenting style."  These standards are what I think of us as "parental duties," and they are enshrined in law.

As for the last paragraph of your post, I think you are trying to hijack this to a discussion of adoption.  And, no, that's not what I'm talking about at all.

But, government exists to protect the people ... including children, and including from their parents.

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:09:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

don't tell me what I think (0.00 / 0)

feel free to ask if you are confused.

As it so happens, I let my son camp out in a field without my hovering when he was five -- feel free to heap the "bad parent" guilt trip upon me -- rolls off from anyone and everyone except me own self-criticism.

Just earlier today, I left my 3 and 7 year old alone in the house for 10 minutes. I could go on, but you get the idea, right? To some people's minds I will always be "bad parent", to that I say *shrug*.

As to this:

I think you are trying to hijack this to a discussion of adoption

No, I was responding to what you said about the govenment "stepping in" as substitute parents. and "hijacking"? based on lorraine's responses to you, I'd say that's be you not me. If lorraine reins me in, I will respect her request, until then, you can just step off.

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

---

by: 5hearts @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:18:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair enough. (0.00 / 0)

"don't tell me what I think feel free to ask if you are confused."

Please do me the same courtesy. I'm not condemning leaving your kids alone for 10 minutes.  And I'm also not advocating that you "commend [your] children to the tender 'parental' mercies of the government in [your] stead."

 

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:29:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ok then, what were you saying? (0.00 / 0)

about the government stepping in? I'm confused.

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

---

by: 5hearts @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:31:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There are two kinds of parental notification laws. (6.50 / 2)

In one, a teenage girl cannot get an abortion without parental notification/consent.  Period.

In the other, a "safety valve" is provided the teenage girl where she can forego giving her parents notification if a doctor determines the abortion is medically necessary for her health/safety or a judge determines that parental notification would be detrimental (e.g. in cases of incest, abusive parents, etc.).

The later case is what I'm talking about when I say the government should step in.

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:36:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ok, I see what you're saying now (0.00 / 0)

still, I have to disagree that the "safety valve" that you speak of is actually in the young female person's best interest. Really, how is this any less difficult than confronting a "bad parent"?

When I was pregnant with my elder son, unmarried and not sure who the biological co-contributor was, I had a hard enough time with the judgements passed on me, and I never once had to stand in front of a judge and justify myself...on top of which, I was 32 and not 14....

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

---

by: 5hearts @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 16:03:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a tough issue. (0.00 / 0)

Ultimately, most opponents of parental notification cite situations involving hypothetical "bad parents" who shouldn't get notification to justify not having such laws.  And those arguments are good ones.  Which is why I believe that if you are going to have such laws, a safety valve is required.

Whereas I, perhaps because I and most everyone I know had great parents, tend to focus more upon getting good parents notification so they can help and support their kids. 

There is no perfect answer here.  No matter what you do, bad things will happen.

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 16:16:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes, it is a tough one (0.00 / 0)

and I have given it a lot of thought, not only because of my own experiences with "bad things happening" but the fact that I have two boys.

This may seem irrelevant but I think about my elder son's biological co-contributor running around out there without a clue that he exists (and NOT for a shitload of mostly humiliating trying to determine his paternity on my part...story for some other time I suppose) and I wonder at these notification laws, I mean, if the parents should be notified by law, what about the biological co-contributor? Should he also be notified?

  (and if you wonder at my use of that phrase, "father" is completely inappropriate, even when prefaced by "biological", and my preferred phrase, "sperm donor", it has been pointed out to me several times, is rather offensive, so I quit using it...)

ANYway, I suppose my point here is, that once you start taking these decisions away from the person whose body it is, there is no end to the "requirements" that can be placed on a pregnant woman, minor or not.

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

---

by: 5hearts @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 16:27:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You need to get out more (0.00 / 0)

Whereas I, perhaps because I and most everyone I know had great parents, tend to focus more upon getting good parents notification so they can help and support their kids.

I can't think of anyone I know who has a good upbringing, and a large number of the people I know come from parents who are divorced.

---

'Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened.' ~~ Dr. Seuss

---

by: theboz @ Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 12:58:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Both suck (9.00 / 2)

Because neither are parental "notification", both are parental intervention.  And it isn't the parents' body involved, it's the girl's.  The only thing the second one does different is change the ownership of the child, not the state of being owned.

Children are not property.

Trying to maintain some small measure of sanity while I'm drowning in the mainstream - Folami Abiade

---

by: ScottinSoCal @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 16:06:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is a difference between notification and consent. (0.00 / 0)

I agree with you that parents shouldn't have a veto. 

But notification?

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 16:21:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If she wants you to know (9.00 / 1)

she'll tell you.  If you've been such a great parent, she'll tell you.  In fact, she'll probably involve you in the decision making process.

If she doesn't, maybe you should rethink that "Best Parent Ever" t-shirt.  Either way, her call, not yours.

Trying to maintain some small measure of sanity while I'm drowning in the mainstream - Folami Abiade

---

by: ScottinSoCal @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 16:33:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you a parent? (0.00 / 0)

Because you don't sound like one.  You don't sound like someone's who's been a kid.

Even great parents have kids who make bad decisions.  A parent's job includes helping their children when they make bad decisions.  Initiating discussions with their kids.  Initiating discussions when advised of facts by others. Your post ignores a lot of the reality of teenage life -- the irrational insecurity, the fear, the bad decisions that get made.  It's just not realistic to make public policy under the assumption that we live in the "the best of all possible worlds" (a Bushian strategy) and under the plainly stupid assumption that "good parents" will be told everything by their kids. 

It may be her call to get an abortion, but it's a parents right and responsibility to know about it until the kid is an adult. 

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 17:39:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ah, the credential card (9.50 / 2)

Yes, I'm a parent.  I'm also a grandparent.  And - you nailed it - I've also been a kid.

And when I was actively parenting, I knew my daughter made bad choices.  And not just because she told me, eventually, about all of them, but because I had been a kid and kids do make bad choices.

And I think you're dead wrong about this part:

It may be her call to get an abortion, but it's a parents right and responsibility to know about it until the kid is an adult.

No, it isn't.  Not unless she chooses to tell you.

Trying to maintain some small measure of sanity while I'm drowning in the mainstream - Folami Abiade

---

by: ScottinSoCal @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 17:53:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a credential, a perspective. (0.00 / 0)

I'm glad you acknowledge "kids do make bad choices."

But I really am not getting anything meaningful from your posts, because you keep repeating the same categorical statement without offering supporting reasoning.  If you accept "kids make bad choices," do you accept that parents have a right and responsibility to try to address those bad choices? 

Or do you think parents are just bystanders?

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 18:08:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily. (10.00 / 1)

My sis-in-law was stupid enough to marry a right-wing Republican Religious Right Biblethumper.  She was even dumber to go to NYC when their marriage was falling apart, get drunk, and have unprotected sex with him.  Right after the baby was born he resumed sleeping around, and within a year, she caught him and divorced him.  She is the custodial parent.

If this kid--who is a brat by ANYONE'S definition except he mother and father's--gets pregnant ten years from now, and they notify Dad (because he keeps constantly attempting to get primary custody from my sis-in-law, and he can afford to file endless nuisance lawsuits), I don't want to think of the consequences the kid would face. 

The problem is that notification only works if you have loving, concerned, RATHIONAL parents. Not all parents fit that bill.  I live in suburban GA, and I suspect a LOT of parents wouldn't because of their religious beliefs--and they are the Focus On the Family types who think sparing the rod is spoiling the child.  That pregnant teen who has an abortion  may face a beating from her loving parents.  DO you REALLY want that?  Because in a lot of homes, that is the very probably outcome. And the parents will tell you sorrowfully that they had no
choice because her salvation was at stake.

And what if Daddy is also the father of her child?  Incest is all too common.

Without the opportunity to go before a judge--and the guarantee that her case will be heard fairly and impartially, not a guarantee in my neck of the woods where a lot of judges are Jams Dobson's in judicial robes--this puts the safety of the teen in danger. 

One person on DKos summed it up well: "You're thinking about the parents on Ozzie and Harriet. I am thinking of the parents on Cops."  The quote came from a social worker who deals with pregnant teens and knows that the reality  is pretty different from the way it should be.


The last time we mixed religion and politics, people got burned at the stake.

---

by: irishwitch @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 18:17:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If a young woman is too scared (0.00 / 0)

of her parents' reaction to involve them in the decision, then maybe she has good reason not to want them notified, too. I can think of a couple of those right off-hand. Incest is one, and many mothers still will blame the daughter or disbelieve her version of what happened, and not the father's/stepfather's/mother's BF's...partly because the mother doesn't want to admit that she has fucked-up big-time by getting involved with that kind of asshole. Religious orientation of the parents is another. How many stories do we still hear about young women who get pregnant and are thrown out of the house by their parents, either for keeping the pregnancy or for having an abortion?

But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 21:28:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Taking all those Arguments (10.50 / 2)

There is still a legitimate perspective on the other side:

- From time to time, it is indeed true that a young woman has good reason to be scared.  Yet that is the minority of girls.  IME far more often girls.s scared of nothing that she can point to other than the things she is scared her parents will do/say. Yelled at.  Being told she's a disappointment.  Or told worse. 

- I know of many cases of women serving life sentences in prison for dealing with the men who had abused their daughters.  With all due respect, not all cultures contain hordes of women who behave passively or act in denial when they learn that their daighters have been abused.  There is no data indicating which is the more common reaction. 

- Religious orientation of the parents may indeed affect the reaction of parents.  But this is when we get into the grey area because I do believe that parents have the right to rear their children within the dictates of their religion so long as they do not cross the line of abuse or neglect.  No child has to share their parents' religion.  But as long as their parents are the ones that have responsibility for them, they do have to live in accordance with it, or go on with their own lives (i.e. move and be self-responsible).  Arguments like these fall into the place that I call "encouraging children to live their lives as if they can have their cake and eat it too".  It's a cultural and class belief I simply do not share when it comes to training children about life (part of a parent's job, IMO).  If what you do pisses off your parents that much you get two choices:  (a) conform until you can take care of yourself, no matter what you think of their opinions or (b) live somewhere else.  Again, it's harsh, but so is life.  Since the vast majority of young women do not get pregnant because of abusing fathers/stepfathers or failed birth control (except from a failure to be responsible and consistent using it) we continue to be left with whether we will set policy based on the minority of girls' experience, or the majority.

I say this as someone whose mother let her have it with both barrels when she found out about my voluntary sexual conduct when she didn't think I was ready.  I won't go into details, but under today's parenting viewpoints I should be utterly destroyed and fucked up because of the not-too-gentle manner in which she made clear that I was not a grown woman and, therefore, may have a "right" to fuck but had no "right" to expect her to still take care of me while I did it.  Yet the folks who basically argue that a girl should have a right to keep secrets to avoid the consequences of their parents displeasure are saying, IMO, exactly that.

Again, these things are cultural and nobody has a cultural monopoly on raising OK children.  So we're still left with: how do we set policy? Based on worst-case scenarios that are not the majority of real life experience? Or based on the default experience, with protections for those who truly need special protecting?  It seems to me that reasonable minds can disagree.

You can find my meanderings on all things Black and political at Maat's Feather

---

by: shanikka @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 21:46:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Much of what you say is true (6.00 / 1)

but I do disagree with one thing. While many young women do get pregnant from a failure to use birth control consistently, those states which are strictest in requiring parental consent/notification for abortion also tend to be those which place the most restrictions on the ability of women not of full legal age to get effective birth control without a parent's permission...or even for a doctor to see the kid without written consent if it's not an emergency. (I don't call relying on a teenaged boyfriend's willingness to get and use a rubber "effective".) And let's face it: those are also the states which do the worst job of getting honest, fact-based, unbiased information to the kids...and, I suspect, the states with the highest teen pregnancy rates.

But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 22:18:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Agree with You (10.50 / 2)

The correlation is there.  But then it just begs the question - why are we fighting harder for peripheral rights relating to abortion than we are for the absolute right to access birth control?

Let me spell out my thinking.

The primary reason that I am not for parental consent laws (as opposed to notification laws) is that the sphere of rights that is implicated is truly the right of a woman to choose to bear a child.  Her biological state of pregnancy.  No matter what I think about why people choose abortion, whether they should, or how they got there, in the end only that woman can decide to give birth or not. 

Birth control, to me, operates in that same sphere.  It is a direct control by a woman over her own body.  No matter what arguments are advanced (some ludicrous, others less so) about why young women should not have access to birth control - we agree about the shaky level of trust that one should place in young males bearing latex gifts -- the truth of the matter is that it is, short of outright abstinence, the most effective way of prohibiting the very outcome that all of us, right wing and left, say we don't want:  unintended pregnancies.

Parental notification, in contrast, operates in a different sphere.  There is absolutely nothing stopping a young woman from making the same choices she has made before about her freedom to be sexual or abortion if she chooses - except for the actual or feared consequences she might face from other people who are ultimately responsible for her well-being.  The argument that I see people advance often against notification - that this puts girls at risk of their incestuous father abusers -- makes no rational sense if truly the goal is protecting the girl from harm.  Keeping the secrecy about the outcome of the abuse from the girls' parent does not resolve - and arguably enables - the ongoing, usually quite secret abuse.  Indeed, every single state has a mandatory reporting law as it is, and although it is never talked about, there is no exception for abortion providers that I am aware of.  So since they are supposed to be reporting this event to law enforcement anyway (whether or not they actually do) what are we really saying when we make this argument against notifying the parents? In theory, a girl who is at risk should not be permitted to even leave the clinic and go home, if incest/rape is the issue.  Just something to think about.

We don't try new strategies to persuade the majority on this issue because of political fear.  Yet at some point, we are going to have to confront the reality:  all the rhetoric in the world about "rights" has not resulted in women having more of them when it comes to reproductive rights.  Quite the opposite - we seem well into a backlash.  And I do not subscribe to the vanity that 80% of parents in America (the estimated number who are in favor of parental notification, regardless of the consent issue) are just stupid/blind/crazy/ignorant.  It's an easy luxury, pretending that people who don't agree with us are ignorant.  But that luxury has not gotten us anywhere but going backward, so maybe we need to seriously look at a different strategy.

You can find my meanderings on all things Black and political at Maat's Feather

---

by: shanikka @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 22:33:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Didn't take Eugene long to get in that troll rating. (7.00 / 1)

That's why I said "flame away."

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:25:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A few assumptions (11.00 / 2)

As usual, you've read something I've written and extrapolated it to something I did not say.

Clearly, you're looking for a fight. "Flame away" gave you away.

Anything I say in response to you will simply lead you to make some other statement that I will be forced to defend.

As I said, I know people will disagree with me, and clearly, Roysol has. But Roysol is having a civil conversation, and you've just declared that extrapolating from my diary: giving your children privacy means treating your children like adults which means that you'd allow your children to become meth addicts which means you're a bad parent. What's the point in continuing a discussion?

Or did I miss something and I've misstated your position?

"I have an existential map. It has "You are here" written all over it."

Steven Wright

---

by: lorraine @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:05:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you missed something. (9.00 / 1)

One way to reach common cause is to start from propositions where there is agreement.  And then see if you can extrapolate from those shared propositions what the exact disagreements at issue are in not entirely analogous situations.

Why'd I say "flame away"?  Because I was troll rated on your last diary for no real reason.  What you are seeing is not an attempt to pick a fight, but defensiveness borne from an experience of abuse.

I don't think my post is uncivil. 

Maybe you could address whether you agree with me on the "duties" of parents.  Or do you think parents have no duties to their children or society?

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:13:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Duties of parents (10.00 / 2)

First of all, I would remind you that I did not troll-rate you and I tried to remain civil.

Parental duties are many. There are the obvious ones: food, clothes, shelter, schooling, etc. I think we know what I'm talking about here.

For me, and this is for me, parenting has been about nurturing but not controlling. For example, I have never hit my children. I have never called my children names or told them they were stupid. But, I have yelled at them. Big time. Sometimes inappropriately. I have sworn in front of them on a regular basis. I have also told them as often as I possibly can that I love them. I have soothed their hurts, bandaged their cuts, provided their medical care, advocated for them in situations that called for it.

I have listened to them. I have not belittled them their questions or their fears. I have slept with them, held them when they cried, laughed with them, tickled them.

I have provided them with books, and access to cultural events. I have taught them to question, always, even my authority. I have told them they could not do certain things. There were certain things my children thought they wanted to do that I told them they could not. I have said "no" on many, many occasions.

My children are polite, they know how to be civil in public. They can also be complete pains in the ass, just like I am at times, because they're human.

I wouldn't presume to write a parenting manual. What has works, and this is always in process despite your disdain above, is that things change in response to their changes. Obviously, I don't treat a 15 year old like a 5 year old.

My children are safe. My children are healthy and successful. And you know what? I don't take any credit for that. They are their own persons. Which is the thing I have tried to keep in mind since the moment they emerged from my body.

"I have an existential map. It has "You are here" written all over it."

Steven Wright

---

by: lorraine @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:23:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You sound like a good parent. (5.00 / 1)

And I'm not arguing otherwise.

Do you believe that a parent should be involved in major medical decisions for their children?

I believe that is one a parent's duties.  If not, at what age and why?

Do you believe that a parent has a duty to the child and society to attempt to correct a child who is engaging in improper, unethical or illegal behavior?

Again, I do.  Your thoughts?

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:33:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the issues of medical/ethical (10.67 / 3)

First of all, "major medical" is a big category. So here's what I'd say. Should I be involved in deciding a course of treatment for my child's cancer or serious disease. Yes. And truthfully? If I have a good relationship with my kids, then I'll be involved in those decisions for the rest of my life. You know what I mean? "Hey Mom. The doc says I have xxx and I was just wondering what you think."
But in terms of being the one who makes the decision, probably until the point comes when my child has become independent--around 18 or so.
But MINOR medical decisions, like should i be involved in her decision to use birth control and what kind to use, no. That's between her and her doctor. Do I hope she's going to talk to me about it? Damn straight. Do I need to intervene if my 15-year old needs to take an Advil because she's got cramps?

If however, she's doing something that is endangering herself or others, than yes, I have a duty to get involved. If she's drinking and driving, or drinking or using illegal drugs, or sticking up liquor stores or joining the mob, then yeah. I've got a duty.

I do not want my children to hurt themselves. But, and here's the rub for me, I cannot protect my children 24/7 from decisions they may make. Obviously, I can keep my 9-year old from drinking. But part of allowing my 15-year old to be 15 is giving her room to make the occasional mistake.
My children understand, and my 15-year old especially, that the definition of adult decision-making is being able to deal with the consequences of your actions. If my daughter knows that if she gets caught using alcohol she will a) be punished by me and her father; and b) be suspended from varsity sports and she chooses to drink anyway, I cannot physically keep her in handcuffs to keep her from doing it.

If my daughter were to become pregnant as a minor, I would want her to tell me. But I also accept that she may not. For some people here, that makes me a bad parent. C'est la vie. I'm not going to apologize for it.

I know parents who read their children's journals, search their kids' rooms, smell their kids' breaths when they come home from being out with friends. Are they better parents than someone like me who is willing to let my daughter have a private space?

"I have an existential map. It has "You are here" written all over it."

Steven Wright

---

by: lorraine @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:45:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well maybe we're getting close to the difference between us. (4.00 / 1)

I assume that if you 15 year old was caught drunk in public by the police, or caught by a store trying to buy alcohol underage, you'd want to be informed by the police or store.

So would I.

But, I'd also want to be informed by my 15 year old's doctor if she was prescribing birth control pills (really any medicines) or performing an abortion on my kid.  I don't equate an abortion, or birth control pills or any presecription drugs, with "Advil."

I equate underage sex and drinking as being at least equal in significance, with no magical privacy right that I should respect as to sex/pregnancy that I should not respect as to drinking.

Now, I agree, that in a perfect world my kid will talk to me about all these issues.  But the world's not perfect, teens have their hang-ups and fears, often unfounded, and I'm not sure its good public policy to bet on a perfect world.

 

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 16:03:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

this is where we disagree (0.00 / 0)

I do see a difference between sex and alcohol. I'm not trying to be coy, and perhaps it's because I'm hungry and need to eat, but for me, as a parent, they are different.
Thank you for engaging me in the discussion.

"I have an existential map. It has "You are here" written all over it."

Steven Wright

---

by: lorraine @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 16:28:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Someday I hope you'll explain the difference. (0.00 / 0)

Because I don't get it.  What I'm taking away from this discussion (my reading of the totality of the posts, not just yours) is that the argument against parental notification laws is ultimately a faith-based one:  (1) Kids will talk to good parents, (2) if kids don't talk then the parents are bad and shouldn't know what's going on, and (3) it's the kid's choice anyway.

I can't subscribe to that "logic."  While I agree the abortion decision is ultimately the kid's to make, not the parents, and thus I do not support "consent" laws, I cannot agree that doctors should be free to dispense prescription drugs and perform major medical procedures on kids without the parent's knowledge (subject to a safety valve).  The notion here appears to be that parents shouldn't be parenting unless the kid want to be parented (unless we're talking about alcohol, in which case by all means parent away).  I still haven't seen a convincing argument for why this should be the case.

The best argument I've seen in opposition to notification laws is that kids might be afraid to use a safety valve and thus wouldn't approach an abortion provider if a parental notification statute existed.  This is the argument that used to convince me to oppose parental notification. But now that I am a parent my appreciation of parental rights and responsibilities are greater and this concern seems best addressed through the legislative process, educational process, and by counseling from the abortion provider. 

I whish the discussion here were a little more open.

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 18:00:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The scars are always there, forever there (11.00 / 4)

In the spirit of not being rancorous I want to start with an apology.  I was extremely rude, less than the person I want and try to be, in your last diary Lorraine and I so apologize.  I know this issue is one that brings up so many things in me, I made a vow to do the one thing I know can lead me to communicate more wisely what I wish to say, I will put music on because it heals my soul so I can be a better person.  To that end I just turned on the music and what song was playing?  Aretha Franklin singing Freedom, now how perfect is that?

As usual this is a great diary, it speaks so clearly to what I  believe is every child's right, to discover who and what they are with the freedom that is all of our birthright.  Of course children need guidance, they need and deserve to know they have parents that are there for them no matter what.  By the time they are teenagers though they deserve to have freedom.  The freedom to grow into the person they are becoming.  The freedom to choose their future and not to have that future decided by others.

When S403, the bill that makes it illegal to help a young girl from crossing state lines to have an abortion, was being debated on the senate floor, Barbara Boxer spoke of what an egregious bill it is, she said it's really the worse piece of legislation she has seen in all her years of holding office, she said there are so many things in it that need to be fixed, she also said something that is heartbreaking, she said there will be many, many young girls who will choose to take their own lives because they don't feel they have any other choice. 

The bill gives a rapist father full parental rights.  The only thing Boxer was able to change in the bill, so far, is that the rapist father can no longer sue those who help his daughter in terminating the pregnancy that comes as a result of the incestuous act he forced upon her. 

I hear the argument so often that some can't imagine a more vulnerable being than that of an unborn fetus.  I have to disagree, I can't imagine a more vulnerable being that a young girl or a woman who finds herself pregnant when she doesn't have the means to support that child, either emotionally, financially or physically. 

The bans on abortion have to be considered.  How vulnerable do some people think a young girl or woman is when they are told their very lives are at stake if they don't terminate their pregnancy?  How vulnerable are young girls or women who have been raped and are forced to carry a pregnancy to term that is a consequence of that rape?  How vulnerable are women who are the victims of unrelenting domestic abuse?  How vulnerable are teenaged girls or preteens who live with fathers who rape them?

How vulnerable is a young girl who lives in extreme poverty?  How vulnerable is she if there are no abortion clinics in her state?  Isn't it bad enough that money, the funds needed to have an abortion, aren't readily available?  What if that young girl isn't able to seek help?  How does that cycle of deep poverty stop if these young girls have no access to terminate a pregnancy?

We are told we have a right to privacy but that is a lie if we don't have the freedom that comes with knowing we have control over what happens to our bodies, if we don't have the freedom to our design our own future what do we have?

I've been that teenaged girl without a choice.  I know, in the deepest part of me, that terror and horror, I know what it's like to be driven to a place where life is the greatest obstacle imaginable, I know that place, that deep down dread, I can still hear my footsteps taking me to that drawer that held the knife I used to slit my wrist.  I've been that teenaged girl who woke up in the hospital when the first thought was, why didn't I die?

It makes me weep for all those young girls who will, guaranteed WILL, feel all those things, all those girls who will bear the same scars as they're either lowered into the ground or as they live their lives, those scars will always be there as a reminder of what happens when we've lost our freedom to be who we were born to be. 

I will not die an unlived life. Fuck em, I will not live in fear, I will live out loud and on the record.  

Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) 1-800-787-3224 (TTY)  

---

by: caliberal @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:08:18 PM CDT

Autonomy & Privacy (9.50 / 2)

Reflecting back, I suppose my parents had a great deal of respect for their daughters' privacy, but I think how they raised us is better reflected in the term 'autonomy'.

When I talk with some of my students and acquaintences about our childhood experiences, most people seem to think my sister and I had very adult childhoods. That's because our parents valued autonomy in themselves and strove to raise children who embraced autonomy at an early age. My father's usual sentiment is that he and mom sat back and watched us grow up, providing a bit of advice now and then, some bandaids, and whatever else it looked like we needed. I get the impression it wasn't always easy to keep their (figurative) hands off, but for the most part they did--much to our benefit. Whatever complaints my sister and I have, neither of us can say our parents didn't help us become functional, independent, capable people--something they managed to do without sending us through the school of hard knocks.

With autonomy comes personal responsibility and privacy--privacy is part and parcel of being an autonomous person. My dogs, beloved though they are, do not have much privacy. Nor to they have much autonomy. Once I learned how to dress myself, thus gaining the competence and a bit of autonomy, my parents no longer tried to assist (unless I asked for help).

Still, I linger on the parental notification laws because of those young women who run a real risk of harm at the hands of their parents. Should parents be involved in their childrens' health? Yes. Should children's health suffer because of parental prejudice? Hmm...

A cat's got her own opinion of human beings. She doesn't say much, but you can tell enough to make you anxious not to hear the whole of it.

---

by: gatoscuro @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:13:19 PM CDT

I disagree with the fundamental principle of this diary (8.00 / 3)

I do not believe that children are inalienably entitled to a zone of privacy.

It's good to give your children the opportunity to learn to exercise judgment and self control, especially in areas that will not have too much adverse consequence when bad choices get selected.

Turning a bedroom into a secret sacred sanctum is a huge mistake for a lot of kids who'll find it easier and easier to slip away. For every Lorraine who has a story to tell about how giving her children privacy has worked out well, there is a Rebecca who has a 25 year old son who is a substance abuser and will probably end up dead on the street. Rebecca gave her son all the privacy he wanted, too.

Intervening early, when your children start showing signs of disaffectation, is usually the wisest course of action. That means keeping tabs on their drug or alcohol stashes in their bedrooms.

If I can't touch myself, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: fridechikin @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:18:25 PM CDT

First disclaimer; I am not a parent. (6.67 / 3)

Maybe I'd have different views if I was.

I was just having the privacy/trust discussion with my best friend growing up in Pgh, and his wife. They have two teenage kids, a son and a daughter. They take the same general position you do, But.

In the hypothetical that their 17 year old son, for example, was exhibiting signs of drug abuse, perhaps a serious addiction problem, not casual experimentation, and further, he declined to be forthcoming when asked (denied), they would break their rule to find out.

I think that is very reasonable and responsible. You can only trust someone (child or otherwise) until they betray that trust. What evidence is sufficient to make that determination may not be easy to discern.

A couple of other points, while I'm at it. You used both "parental notification", and "parental consent". According to the Guttmacher Institute(PDF file) 22 states require consent, in 2 states it is the consent of both parents. I will acknowledge that notification could be considered a defacto consent requirement.

The opening paragraph from this survey

In light of two U.S. Supreme Court rulings that prohibit parents from having absolute veto over their daughters’ decision to have an abortion, many states require the consent or notification of only one parent, usually 24 or 48 hours before the procedure. Many parental involvement requirements also include a medical emergency exception and a judicial bypass procedure, through which a minor may receive court approval to obtain an abortion without parental involvement.

Under the section titled "highlights"

�� All of the 34 states that require parental involvement have an alternative process for minors seeking an abortion. �� 34 states include a judicial bypass procedure, which allows a minor to obtain approval from a court. �� 6 states also permit a minor to obtain an abortion if a grandparent or other adult relative is involved in the decision. �� Most states that require parental involvement make exceptions under certain circumstances. �� 28 states permit a minor to obtain an abortion in a medical emergency. �� 12 states permit a minor to obtain an abortion in cases of abuse, assault, incest or neglect.

So far, no one has explained to my satisfaction how we can think (like I do) that minors ought to be treated differently under the law for crimes they have comitted, based on an inability to understand the consequences of their actions, but that in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, they are capable. Certainly there are minors who are capable, and they have the opportunity to demonstrate that.

There is a common argument for fighting this as a "slippery slope" issue. I think this is the same flaw the NRA has. They are so adamant about opposing even the most sensible restrictions that it turns off pro-gun owners, like me. The problem is, "slippery slope" can be a valid concern, or not.

I won't paste it here, as the table of contents is over a page long, but if you follow this link you will find a paper on the various types of slippery slope arguments. It runs 96 pages.

All without rancor, I assure you ;-), I'm guessing you were thinking of me when you mentioned those who don't agree with you (I hope so  ;-). I also will not drag this out, I said my piece, and will leave it at that, unless someone really wants further discourse.

Peace!

"Truth has no time of its own. Its hour is now -- always, and indeed then most truly when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances."

---

by: roysol @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:18:45 PM CDT

Hypotheticals (7.50 / 2)

All of my kids are grown now.  Guess what?  Hypothetical ideas of what you would do don't mean crap.  Situations are never that clearcut.

What you wind up doing is often different than what you thought you would do, thinking about it abstractly.

Want a third party -- 50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts -- Go get 'em

---

by: TarheelDem @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:39:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They don't belong to me (10.80 / 5)

Its so hard. So trying. So complicated. These little beings come into our lives with no instruction manual. And though I rarely look at instruction manuals anyway, there are times I would have wanted one. Mostly when they were very little.

It is not our responsibility to make our kids like us, much less, love us. Its our responsibility to love them. To help them grow up to be functioning adults. Thats our job. If it works out better than that, its gravy.

I've tried to do that. They're close. 20, and 18 next week. But my wife and I have been miraculously lucky. Finished with all but the final touches, and they've never been punished or disciplined for anything. Ever.

My son came home 15 minutes late one time without calling. And he didn't always do his homework. But he's in college now. Has a part time job. Even makes money with his music, enough to pay for his toys. He has some tattoos, and a couple piercings. At 20 years old, thats the worst I can complain about.

And my daughter. Though I have vascillating feelings on the existence of god, I tell people  that when she was born, god needed more angels on earth. I just got lucky. Her best friends are her parents. Though she occasionally gets snotty with her mother.

When friends ask for advice with kids, I usually respond with a blank stare. I don't know what to say. We just winged it, and it worked. Crisis were minimal. The only constant was, we were there. They had as much space as they needed or wanted. They were encouraged to explore their dreams. But we were there. Always. At ball games, at recitals, at karate tests, at parent teacher conferences, at performances of any kind. Through 4 years of hundreds of varsity sports games, my daughter looked up into the stands and didn't see at least one of her parents exactly once. She didn't see both of us maybe 10 times.

And now they're adults. And if they ever belonged to me, they don't anymore.

to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance .  G. Washington

---

by: Kane in CA @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:31:15 PM CDT

THERE, right the fuck on, kane (0.00 / 0)

But we were there. Always. At ball games, at recitals, at karate tests, at parent teacher conferences, at performances of any kind.

yup.

Congrats! I hope to look back in 15 years as you do, on the "thereness".

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

---

by: 5hearts @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 15:48:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know how important that is (10.00 / 1)

It just always seemed like the right thing to do.

My parents had six kids. My wife's five. It was something both of us remembered from our childhoods. I have 3 brothers, we all played basketball. My dad was a CPA, during tax season he worked like a dog. 70-80 hour weeks. But somehow, through 6 straight years of high school basketball seasons, he never missed a game.

I couldn't do that. So I closed my business and got a job where I could. Every parent does it a little different. We went through 4 years with my daughter and sports, and there were kids she played with for all 4 years and we never saw their parents. It just seemed wrong. At very least, it was wrong for me.

I hope your next 15 years of "thereness" brings you as much joy as it brought me.

to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance .  G. Washington

---

by: Kane in CA @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 16:03:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thanks, kane! (0.00 / 0)

got 7 1/2 down and counting -- I'm having a blst so far, just always take one moment at a time....

OT -- do you have pix of the whale watching? We took another trip to Sea World yesterday and I was thinking about the Orcas in their natural habitat...I'd love to see your pix and share them with the kiddos -- the 3 year-old especailly LOVES the whales!

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

---

by: 5hearts @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 16:10:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh dear (0.00 / 0)

I did get pics. About 100 of them. The photographer stunk. But I'll pull a few of the better ones together and post them on the open thread in the next few days, if i can figure out how to not break everything. It was really amazing.

to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance .  G. Washington

---

by: Kane in CA @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 16:17:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh, cool! thanks! (0.00 / 0)

will I be able to download them if you post them on an open thread? If you have an email addy, I can send you mine and you could send the pix to me directly, if that's easier?

I'll even post them for you here if you want me to, just let me know!

Never miss a good chance to shut up.
~~T e x a s B i x B e n d e r, from "Don't Squat with Yer Spurs On"

---

by: 5hearts @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 16:34:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

only time for a drive-by comment (11.00 / 1)

My daughter is 20 so I have the experience of raising someone who could have gotten pregnant while "underage".

I do NOT support parental notification laws in any way shape or form.  Multiple reasons for my stance that I don't have time to go into right now.

  Any and all laws that make abortion the business of anyone other than the pregnant woman and her health care professional are legalized sexism.  Striving to control a woman's body, at any age, is unforgivable.

Did I mention I feel strongly about this :)?

"A religious person is a dangerous person. He may not become a thief or a murderer, but he is liable to become a nuisance."

---

by: militant_atheist @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 16:11:21 PM CDT

Although I'm not a parent, (0.00 / 0)

I agree that a child should have his/her own private space.  With regards to the abortion issue, I'm not sure if parental notification is necessarily the best thing in this instance.  However, I believe that the best way to possibly prevent one's  son or daughter from contracting a sexually-transmitted illness and/or an unwanted pregnancy would be to at least discuss sex and the possible consequences of it during the teen years(or any age, for that matter), and hope that s/he uses common sense when the time comes for her to have sex.  I myself don't advocate the idea of teens being sexually active, because most teens aren't mature enough to handle a sexual relationship. (not that all adults are, either).  However, in the event that a teenager was sexually assaulted and either became pregnant or contracted a sexually-transmitted disease as a consequence of the assault, then I would NOT want to have to be surprised and shocked by learning about it out of the blue by another person.

Ahhhh....Life goes on.

---

by: independentminded @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 17:05:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Have to Agree with Fridechiken (10.33 / 3)

Even though of course the diarist knows that I empathize with her view, and certainly support her right to raise her children the way she sees fit for them.  But in my mind, children have only the "right" (a loaded word, in the context of children) to love, affection, nurturing, guidance and their own thoughts.  Everything else they have is a function of the values of the parents who are charged biologically, morally and/or legally with rearing them, caring for them, monitoring them, and being subject to punishment, economically and sometimes criminally, for their acts until they reach the age of 18 (unless they emancipate earlier, which is fine by me if a kid thinks they are that grown.) 

To talk about "ownership" of children in this context strikes me as loaded and biased.  Issues involving parental notification (which is different than parental consent, another reason that makes it hard for me:  there is simply no acknowledgement that the issues implicated by consent are fundamentally different than those implicated by notification without the requirement of consent) are not about ownership.  They are about parents being given the tool to do their jobs.  Many on the left are quick to condemn parents whose children make mistakes while also condemning them from trying to make sure that mistakes don't happen in the first place.  This entire idea of children having more than a basic set of human rights (i.e. to be free from abuse) is a relatively new way of rearing children.  Particularly in some communities.  And the data does not support a blanket statement about this method being best for children, whether while they are children or while they are adults.  For example, it has been shown that African-American children do not do as well with the same "laissez faire" parenting style that many upper middle class whites take with their children, long term.  Sure, they have lots of self-esteem and definitely have a real sense of their rights where authority is concerned.  Unfortunately, they also occasionally get shot dead for trying to exercise them in the wrong place and time.  I can't even begin to im

Privacy is a value I respect, but it is not a value I revere about common sense when it comes to raising children.  I do not ask my children to tell me in detail about their sex lives, but I do have a right to know if they are having sex -- so that I can ensure that they are living in a way that leaves them free from risk, physical or otherwise.  I don't read my daughter's diaries, but that doesn't mean that she gets to have secrets across the board just because I respect those private thoughts of hers too much to snoop.  Their rooms? I don't spend much time in there because taking care of them is their responsibility since I'm paying for them.  But that doesn't mean that have I don't have an absolute right to entry, on my terms, if I believe that there is something that requires my entry (i.e. shit that is being hidden, none of which ever is something that they are permitted to do in my house as minors or adults).  That is the privilege of being the person who owns the house in which I permit them to live.  Harsh? OK - but reality and the truth is often so.  And no child on this earth has ever been crippled merely by knowing that their parents have demand the right to look in their rooms.

Saying that "parents don't trust their children" is not really saying anything.  A parent who engages in blind trust of the child to which God (IMO) has made them responsible is a fool.  Children are from the moment of birth extremely self-actualizing animals.  "It's all about me" is the central operating principle for quite some time.  Children, especially teenagers, lie.  Same as adults.  Sometimes worse than adults.  When they are adults, you should trust that they will succeed because it's no longer your call, as a parent.  But if you rely only on trust when they are not, you're rolling loaded dice.  Some parents may wish to do that.  I'm not one of them.

Even though, again, I don't knock anyone's right to raise their own child anyway they see fit.  So long as they don't insist that the law should not reflect some middling ground.  IMO, parental notification is a middle ground.  And a reasonable one.  I personally don't care if the notification comes before or after the pregnancy is terminated.  But to teach minors that they have a right to keep secrets from those responsible for them is fundamentally violative of my culture.  And frankly rather stupid - because IMO, other than those girls who are truly victims of circumstances over which they had no control getting pregnant (which remain the vast minority of girls no matter how much that small minority gets used as the poster child for discussion) if you're woman enough to fuck, you're woman enough to take the heat from your parents.  I admit that it is the ultimate in encouraging childishness to tell girls that they should be free, open sexual actors yet run around like frightened rats when it comes to defending their right to do so and making the case with the people who supposedly gave them all that maturity in the first place - their parents.


You can find my meanderings on all things Black and political at Maat's Feather

---

by: shanikka @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 18:22:58 PM CDT

Well of course . . . (0.00 / 0)

I have to rate this post highly. But you said it in much more detail, and with more passion, than I did.

I do disagree with you to some extent about a parent's right to raise his or her child anyway he or she sees fit. I think there's plenty of cause to criticize how some people choose to raise their children. I speculate you were probably trying to cushion your message a bit.

If I can't touch myself, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: fridechikin @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 18:48:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What she said. (6.00 / 2)

I wish I had put it this well.

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 18:48:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

when shanikka talks (10.50 / 2)

I listen, 'coz there's a whole lot of wisdom there.
But I still disagree. Respectfully.
I hear what you're saying. I hear what what cityduck and fridechicken are saying, too, although I disagree.
Admittedly, I'm not raising my child in a high-crime area, although certainly there's plenty of meth around.
And it's not as if I've told my kids they're free to do whatever the hell they want. What I have done is to tell them that there are private spaces for them in my home. And I have told them both that their bodies are private places since they were very small. They get to decide who gets let in and who gets to touch them, and if someone does that against their will, they better damn well tell me. They also understand that actions have consequences.

The problem for me is that I can't talk about my "real world" reactions to some of the things that have gone on with my children because I respect the privacy of my interactions with them. I have written about my children before, but always with their knowledge and permission to talk about certain things.

So, right now, I feel a little hamstrung. This is my bad, because clearly, I shouldn't have written a diary in which I would be unable to transcend boundaries that I've made in previous commitments.

So, this whole diary has been a learning curve for me.
 

"I have an existential map. It has "You are here" written all over it."

Steven Wright

---

by: lorraine @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 19:08:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Certainly Understand (8.67 / 3)

Why you feel you can't share more - even if your take on what privacy means and governs is different than mine.  As I was raised, sharing stories is how wisdom is taught.  Stories grounded in real life.  I tell stories about my children all the time, sometimes deeply personal ones.  I tell stories about myself so they know it's not just me picking on them.  My children tell me when for them a particular disclosure is one that makes them uncomfortable and I evaluate both what the disclosure is and why it is one.  And, unless it's a blanket "MOM - why did you talk to Auntie X about me doing Y" (usually a selfish request that I not speak to others to get emotional support for myself when I am at my wits end just because they are embarassed, an emotion that I guess you could say I have little respect for; because if they were really that embarassed about their behavior they should have shown the forethought not to do it) - when they ask me not to, I don't.

BTW I don't raise my children in a "high crime" environment either, all myths about East Palo Alto aside.  Most Black people don't.  Doesn't mean that their children don't get killed anyway.  Especially their boys.  Exercising one's right to privacy and autonomy with a cop or the wrong person wherever they are has far too often led to a mother burying her child.  Over abstract principles like "privacy" that work well when reasonable boundaries are placed on them but IME work poorly when they are stated as default principles in all areas of life.  I won't even begin to discuss the scourge of drug and alcohol abuse, or the increasingly common rage - sick fucks on the Internet entreating teenage girls who rely on all that privacy to put themselves at the risk their mental age (teenager) would rationally suggest.  Because almost no teenager has a mental horizon that reaches all that far.  Not to mention that immortality myth they all run around with.

Finally, IMO there is a real difference between teaching your children that they have dominion and control to prevent unwanted intrusion into their physical domain and teaching them that they have a right to do whatever they want with that same body without limits when they are not fully autonomous beings (and no child is until they are adult or emancipated adult.) In the end, all of us who are parents know that they are going to do what they are going to do at a certain point, anyhow.  But the question is whether or not that knowledge means parents "should" stop trying, while their children are minors.  There are legitimate cultural differences of viewpoint on that question and those differences turn on everything from education level to religious views.  It is way too easy to assume that one's preferred way is the "right way" that should be enshrined in law.  I continue to believe that the case needs to be made based on the majority of girls' lives, not the minority, so long as protections are set in place for the minority needing that protection.  We clearly don't agree on that, and I know that here at MLW I am in the decided minority on that question. 

You know that I adore everything you write, Lorraine, so I too read carefully what you have to say.  Always.  In this one, we do indeed disagree.  But it's all good.  As long as we can both feel heard, right?

You can find my meanderings on all things Black and political at Maat's Feather

---

by: shanikka @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 19:26:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

absolutely (11.00 / 1)

You've left me with a lot to think about, and I'm grateful for that.

"I have an existential map. It has "You are here" written all over it."

Steven Wright

---

by: lorraine @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 19:28:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You know, shanikka, (0.00 / 0)

if you'd just show up first, then I could have skipped this thread altogether, other than to post "I say what she said"  ;-)

I am in awe of your ability to put things so well, and your opinion carries so much more weight than mine(as it  should). You're a woman, a mother, a lawyer, and much smarter than me, of course people should listen to you!

Thanks for adding to the discussion.

"Truth has no time of its own. Its hour is now -- always, and indeed then most truly when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances."

---

by: roysol @ Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:33:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think you need to discuss your experiences. (0.00 / 0)

Because, ultimately, they are just that: Your experiences with your kids.  Unless you believe that your parenting style is the only "right" parenting style, that everyone who employed it would get the same results, I'm not sure that their relevance is that great. 

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 19:28:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cityduck (10.33 / 3)

I have claustrophobia.  When the comments start getting all crammed over to the right like that, I find it hard to breathe, let alone put down anything coherent.  So, starting over fresh and clean here in the wide open spaces...

I always knew what I'd be like as a parent, and (like most parents will tell you) I was so far off the mark.

My first realization was that this was a whole other person.  She was not a theory, or an accessory, and she stubbornly refused to conform to the shape of the fantasy child I'd been raising.  That still strikes me as supremely inconsiderate of her, but kids are like that.

My second realization was that she wasn't going to do the smart thing and just take my word for everything.  She was going to find things out on her own.

My third realization was that she was going to fall, and I might not be there to pick her up, dust her off, and send her on her way.  Frankly, that one horrified me.

I didn't react the way I'd always known I would react when things came up.  I made mistakes.  I did some things so much better than I thought I would.  I did some things that I kicked myself for at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight I can see were the right things.  I did other things that felt so perfect, and now I can see were just another fuck up.

I understood that she would fall sometimes.  So, I decided the best way to handle it was to let her fall off the curb, when I was there, and risk that she might get a skinned knee or a bloody nose.  The alternative that I saw was to cushion her so completely that when she was perched on a ledge 10 stories up, she wouldn't have any idea that a fall could hurt her.

I'm pretty confident that if you knew what our house rules were when she was 16, you'd be left in slack-jawed disgust at my horrible parenting skills.  And that my reaction the day I came home early and stumbled across her and her boyfriend having sex at 16 was all wrong.  For the record, I apologized, left the room and waited until after her boyfriend left to ask if she was using protection.  We had a long discussion about condoms, birth control pills, and what the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy could be.  That's not one of the things I'm ashamed of, by the way.

I know, as only a parent can know, that one size doesn't fit all when it comes to kids.  But I also know that parents can not reshape children to be who they want them to be.  They're not an extension of their parents, they're complete individuals.

Trying to maintain some small measure of sanity while I'm drowning in the mainstream - Folami Abiade

---

by: ScottinSoCal @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 19:27:34 PM CDT

I don't disagree with a thing you've said. (0.00 / 0)

Except perhaps that I'd be slackjawed at your bad parenting skills. 

Contrary to the misimpressions floating around here, I am far from some sort of fundy. 

Heck, I'm not even religious like Shanikka.

Instead, I just think that parental notification is consistent with and necesary for parents to fulfil their parental rights and responsibilities.  And like Shanikka, I think that the minority of cases where notification can lead to a bad result is best dealt with by safety valves and otherwise, not by keeping parents ignorant that their kids are undergoing a major medical procedure.

What tends to offend me is the notion that "good parents" don't need notification because if they are "good parents" their kid will tell them everything.  That is contrary to my memories of the teenage years.

---

by: cityduck @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 19:39:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Safety valves aren't safe (0.00 / 0)

If we had a perfect judiciary, one that actually worked for justice and was untainted by personal prejudice or animus, you might be able to persuade me with that argument.  Because in general I agree with you that laws should be tailored for the majority, and not the minority.

But we don't.  IrishWitch recounted the story of the judge who told two Wiccan parents that their religion was against the child's best interest and they were forbidden from teaching it to their child.  I can tell you all kinds of stories about judges who didn't decide a case on its merits, but instead decided on their own prejudice.

The concept is a sound one, but where the leather hits the road, we've got some good judges and we've got some asshole judges.  We have fair, compassionate judges and we have judges who aren't fit to dig turnips.  So I don't trust the safety valve.

Trying to maintain some small measure of sanity while I'm drowning in the mainstream - Folami Abiade

---

by: ScottinSoCal @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 19:52:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The monkey-wrench in this discussion (11.00 / 1)

Shanikka touched upon above. The "emancipated minor".

Many, if not most, states consider any person who is a mother a legal adult. Yup, you heard me. A fourteen year old mother is legally an adult; since she takes legal responsibility for her child, it is ridiculous for her not to have legal responsibility for herself. Yet, many of you are insisting that that same fourteen year old---who would be giving legal permission for any medical procedure on an infant if she gives birth---needs to have one or both parents notified, if not their blessing, to have an abortion, a procedure with far fewer long-term consequences, and one which leaves her still an unemancipated minor.

I find this, frankly, not only logically inconsistent, but also incredibly patronizing. It's saying that there's something magical about giving birth to a full-term living child which makes someone a responsible adult (since, if the infant dies in utero, the mother's status does not change), which is bullshit, and that the same kid who can make major decisions for herself and a baby isn't capable of making a much less life-changing decision on her own six months beforehand. It's the same "logic" which leads to attempts to pass laws requiring the notification and/or permission of the putative father before an adult woman has an abortion: the assumption that she's "not capable" of making that decision.

I frankly think even parental notification laws are really an effort on the part of the anti-abortion forces to block access to abortions, disguised hypocritically as "protecting the teenager". I remember quaking in my shoes at the thought of going to Planned Parenthood when I was nineteen and three hundred miles from home at college for birth control (not knowing what the law was): what if my mother found out? It's the same fear which leads to teenagers who show up in hospital emergency rooms with "abdominal pain" who deny that they could be pregnant even as they deliver, and the occasional report of a baby found in the trash, abandoned by a young mother much too scared to tell her parents.


But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 22:05:25 PM CDT

Actually (0.00 / 0)

I don't know that many states assume full legal adulthood to minors who are parents.  Most do provide that the mother has full adult right to make medical decisions for the child as well as medical decisions for herself at that point, but that is not the same thing as emancipation.  Emancipation is the right to make all decisions, as if one is a legal adult.  And I don't know of any states that go that far. 

You can find my meanderings on all things Black and political at Maat's Feather

---

by: shanikka @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 22:49:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

She's still permitted (0.00 / 0)

to make life-or-death, major medical decisions for herself and the baby...the same decisions which she was legally "incapable" of a short time previously, and which other kids her age are not permitted to make. Which worries me a hell of a lot more than letting her decide on her own to abort or not.


But examination of the available data leads only to the conclusion that the biggest beneficiary of the Bush Presidency is Warren Harding. (Steve Mirsky, "Antigravity", SciAm 10/05)
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est. (Latin for All Occasions)

---

by: mirrim @ Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 23:03:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think your post is intellectually dishonest, Mirrim. (0.00 / 0)

I think you are making a good case against the present emanicipation laws (assuming you are characterizing them correctly).  But a criticism of emancipation laws is not an argument against parental NOTIFICATION.

To this effect you are resorting to the intellectually dishonest position of creating strawmen.  Specifically, you state:

I find this, frankly, not only logically inconsistent, but also incredibly patronizing. It's saying that ... the same kid who can make major decisions for herself and a baby isn't capable of making a much less life-changing decision on her own six months beforehand.

I am not arguing, and neither is Shanikka to my knowledge, that parental CONSENT should be required for a kid to get an abortion.

You also falsely assert:

It's the same "logic" which leads to attempts to pass laws requiring the notification and/or permission of the putative father before an adult woman has an abortion: the assumption that she's "not capable" of making that decision.

Both Shanikka and I are grounding our arguments in favor of parental notification in the rights and responsibilities owed by parents as a matter of law.  A "putative father" has no such rights and responsibilities towards the adult woman he impregnated.  So the logic used by Shanikka and I has zero application to that situation.

Please do me the courtesy of not mischaracterizing the argument.

---

by: cityduck @ Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 10:59:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think your post is intellectually dishonest, Mirrim. (0.00 / 0)

I think you are making a good case against the present emanicipation laws (assuming you are characterizing them correctly).  But a criticism of emancipation laws is not an argument against parental NOTIFICATION.

To this effect you are resorting to the intellectually dishonest position of creating strawmen.  Specifically, you state:

I find this, frankly, not only logically inconsistent, but also incredibly patronizing. It's saying that ... the same kid who can make major decisions for herself and a baby isn't capable of making a much less life-changing decision on her own six months beforehand.

I am not arguing, and neither is Shanikka to my knowledge, that parental CONSENT should be required for a kid to get an abortion.

You also falsely assert:

It's the same "logic" which leads to attempts to pass laws requiring the notification and/or permission of the putative father before an adult woman has an abortion: the assumption that she's "not capable" of making that decision.

Both Shanikka and I are grounding our arguments in favor of parental notification in the rights and responsibilities owed by parents as a matter of law.  A "putative father" has no such rights and responsibilities towards the adult woman he impregnated.  So the logic used by Shanikka and I has zero application to that situation.

Please do me the courtesy of not mischaracterizing the argument.

---

by: cityduck @ Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 11:00:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

bloom and grow (11.00 / 2)

My first thought was that I absorbed your deep ethic, I have the same philosophy, but you have it better, I'm going to apply that message by stealing using some of the phrases you put above the fold.

My second thought is that a truly messy room probably does have things blooming and blossoming in it.  And that privacy is the best excuse in the world for having kids put away their own laundry! I respect and inform my daughters of their right to private places but I am not sure I've let their rooms serve that function entirely.  I want them to learn how to clean them, I'd have rather learned how to clean younger...

Basically, I've informed my kids about their privacy and that I would not invade it, but I have not gone so far as to tell them particular zones that are theirs that I won't enter.  Lately I have been instructing them on certain aspects of the room.  Where I live clutter attacts roach colonies, and I need to mop and vaccuum their room, or they do, so we need some open space on the floor.  But it seems really good you've told your kids their drawers are sacrosanctly theirs.  It's great food for thought for me, thanks.

As for the right to privacy... it's the only way to have individuality, because every group, however benign, has a withering and forceful gaze, a blaring light where the shade plant of individuality does not grow, and often what we take for overt individuality, a powerful personality, is of course really a social persnality that is reacting strongly in a social sense, and their individuality is still within in some private place, even if it gets to express its will.

Individuality requires privacy.

-pyrrho-

---

by: pyrrho @ Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 14:02:00 PM CDT

Please prove your thesis (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that individuality requires privacy. I think individuality requires strength. If one of your daughters was growing more and more disaffected, and a counselor told you in no uncertain terms that you ought to be looking through her drawers for contraband, what would you do?

If I can't touch myself, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: fridechikin @ Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 15:26:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

thesis (9.00 / 1)

to require freedom for individuality doesn't mean total freedom, nor total inaction, far from it.

However, one needs some privacy because we are social animals, and those parts of us open to inspection of the group do generate feedback from the group, and that feedback leads to a reaction on our side, and compromises "what we would do if left alone as an individual".

and.

I would very likely think that couselor was of questionable merit because there are more places to hide contraband, and the only reason to look for it there would be to find out if she was trafficking in illegal contraband (I assume we mean guns and pipe bombs!), because she'd soon adopt a different place to hide it.  I think it would likely be counter productive, and I'd need a couselor able to address route causes.

otoh, I would absolutely "invade privacy" for safety or a million reasons... which is why this diary is important, it helped me think where I can explicitly make zones of privacy where the privacy is even more solid and robust than I naturally, by my own nature, grant privacy.

-pyrrho-

---

by: pyrrho @ Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 19:53:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]