Should older minors have rights?

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

[My position is that as minors approach adulthood should increasingly gain individual rights. I agree that parental consent should not be required for abortion and am conflicted about parental notification. as i have said before I am in favor of moving the age of consent backwards again, to 15 or maybe 14. I am conflicted about the laws that take into consideration the age of the sex partner. I think that teens have the right to be told the truth, thus sexual indoctrination programs such as "just say no" are an abomination.

Anyone got anything to say about teenage rights in general, or how it relates to sexual and/or abortion rights in particular??

Two points...

Your "I think that teens have the right to be told the truth, thus sexual indoctrination programs such as "just say no" are an abomination." statement is just plain silly. The "Just Say No" program doesn't prevent teens from being told about sex and/or sexuality. In fact, in most places where it is used it either supplements or is incorporated into normal sex ed classes. So what "truth" is it exactly that they are being denied? Claiming that the "Just Say No" program denies some "truth" is the same as claiming that telling teens that they should use protection while having sex "denies" them some "truth" about having unprotected sex. "Being told the truth" is a factor of knowledge and nothing more. The "Just Say No" program doens't deny knowledge to anyone. It encourages teens not to act...

Secondly (and this isn't limited to either sexual or abortion rights) rights confer the authority to make decisions and on the other side of any rights are responsibilities. Until such time as you can work out a method where the parents are no longer held responsible for the decisions of their children you'll be stuck with what we have. I see no way to have a functioning society where that society grants the right to make decisions to one group of people and then holds an entirely different group of people responsible for those decisons.

3 Replies

@fishin,

In German law, minors can vote (from 16 onwards), can deselect religious classes at school (from 14 onwards) etc without consent from their parents, on their own responsibility.

And from 15 onwards, they can decide if they want to have an abortion (as well as e.g. any medical operation), without consent of their parents.

(In the councelling process before an abortion, they have to prove their so-called "Einwilligungsfähigkeit" = capacity to consent.)

(Age of majority is 18 in Germany.)

2 Replies

@fishin,

fishin wrote:

Until such time as you can work out a method where the parents are no longer held responsible for the decisions of their children you'll be stuck with what we have. I see no way to have a functioning society where that society grants the right to make decisions to one group of people and then holds an entirely different group of people responsible for those decisons.

What do you think about my idea of conferring these rights through minor emancipation? Right now it's not really used for this, but I'd like to see minor emancipation become more common in situations where the parents' rights conflict with the child's.

3 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

and just how do you propose that minors be introduced to their rights? don't you figure that parents are going to have a problem with this being taught in schools and/or with schools directing minors to representative who would help them legally? Also, we can expect that an adversarial relationship between family members will be introduced or strengthened by using the adversarial legal system to solve family disputes, don't we know that overall this is a bad dynamic to have working in families? You remember my point that funnelling all rape allegations through the legal system is a bad idea, the same arguments would apply to why your scheme is a bad idea. In my opinion doing what you propose would be showing that we have not learned from our mistakes, and in fact would be making them worse.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

In German law, minors can vote (from 16 onwards), can deselect religious classes at school (from 14 onwards) etc without consent from their parents, on their own responsibility.

And from 15 onwards, they can decide if they want to have an abortion (as well as e.g. any medical operation), without consent of their parents.

(In the councelling process before an abortion, they have to prove their so-called "Einwilligungsfähigkeit" = capacity to consent.)

(Age of majority is 18 in Germany.)

I have long been impressed with how Germans can be sensible, this seems like a very good way to go.

0 Replies

@fishin,

I think that if one checks they will find that a stipulation of taking funding for "just say no" programs is that the use of contraception can not be taught, that the benifits of being sexual can not be mentioned. It is very clearly providing one side of the story (the negative aspects of sexual practice) while not only not mentioning the positive, but forbidding the positive from being presented. I would have no problem with "just say no" programs, if equal time was allowed for something like the planned parenthood program....then let the budding adults make up their own minds which viewpoint is a better fit for them.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

and just how do you propose that minors be introduced to their rights?

Why should there be a special proposal to set up such an introduction?

Quote:

don't you figure that parents are going to have a problem with this being taught in schools and/or with schools directing minors to representative who would help them legally?

So what? I'm expected to know what I need to about the law despite not having had a special introduction set up by parents. If they are to be granted the rights they can share the same responsibility we all do in educating themselves about them.

Quote:

Also, we can expect that an adversarial relationship between family members will be introduced or strengthened by using the adversarial legal system to solve family disputes, don't we know that overall this is a bad dynamic to have working in families?

I think that if a minor is seeking an emancipation there is, by definition, a "bad dynamic" going on. That kinda goes with the territory when the parents are not compromising and neither is the child.

Sure, there are a lot of more positive ways to resolve the conflict but all of those are irrelevant to a discussion about what is going to be the legal last resort. You advocating giving them rights while still forcing the parents to take responsibility for the situation is itself a legal ultimatum that can be just as bad for the relationships.

Quote:

You remember my point that funnelling all rape allegations through the legal system is a bad idea, the same arguments would apply to why your scheme is a bad idea.

I am not well versed in your arguments about rape, but I suspect they are an unconvincing as your argument here that emancipation is bad for families because the legal system is adversarial while recommending that the same legal system be involved in all the cases by granting them rights by default.

Quote:

In my opinion doing what you propose would be showing that we have not learned from our mistakes, and in fact would be making them worse.

I know, but that's not of much import to me if you can't articulate a good case for the opinion. The strength of your conviction does not a good argument make.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

You are naive to believe that you can set up a process to help minors with no institution providing information on its existance, its purpose, and giving instruction on how to use it...and expecting to to work as planned.

Also, any parent who has had their child threaten during a fit to report said parents for child abuse I am sure has had the same laugh as I at your statement that this legal scheme would not change family dynamics.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

You are naive to believe that you can set up a process to help minors with no institution providing information on its existance, its purpose, and giving instruction on how to use it...and expecting to to work as planned.

Says you. Minor emancipation already exists as a process.

Quote:

Also, any parent who has had their child threaten during a fit to report said parents for child abuse I am sure has had the same laugh as I at your statement that this legal scheme would not change family dynamics.

I've never claimed it wouldn't change family dynamics. I claimed that arguing that it is bad because it introduces the legal system into their family dispute is stupid if you are also arguing that the legal system should just give them the rights anyway.

Your position is that the law should grant them the rights by default.
My position is that the law should grant them the rights if they accept the responsibility of emancipation. Both systems have a legal ultimatum to the parents granting the child rights but with different conditions.

Thus, you can't reasonably argue that the mere existence of the legal system in the process is the problem because you seek to introduce it as well, just differently.

That's why your sole argument against my proposal (that the legal system intrudes on family dynamics) is not very compelling.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Last I paid attention, hawkeye's points about rape and legality were about 'raw sex' and its waivers. I gave up, this is so out of my interest. I now get him as misogynist, it was just too much, I gave up and admitted he is, but I still think it is possible he is not, as such.

Part of my just forgetting it is that hawkeye seems to ride a cycle of so called argument, a cycle to nowhere, a kind of chant.

Not that I'm any kind of good arguement person, but I do pay attention.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

fishin wrote:
Until such time as you can work out a method where the parents are no longer held responsible for the decisions of their children you'll be stuck with what we have. I see no way to have a functioning society where that society grants the right to make decisions to one group of people and then holds an entirely different group of people responsible for those decisons.

What do you think about my idea of conferring these rights through minor emancipation? Right now it's not really used for this, but I'd like to see minor emancipation become more common in situations where the parents' rights conflict with the child's.

What do you think about children who are no cabable of looking after themsleves, had living in the care system, with parentable responsibility, and the day the child leaves the "care home" - with little life skills, being shown hot get benefits.... and yet be could living on the streets if a place for them cannot be found.

I 4 days I will find this out. Should older minor have rights. In the UK care system they do.... no matter how we fight it. parental responsibility is taken because he "gained a day" and what does an child non-educated in s spacialised setting gets the opportunity to leave. He can't deside what to wear in the morning and what he wishes to eat without angst becoming a factr.... but LAW is LAW. in 4 days the LAW could destroy my child. Should he rights in these circumstances..... NO. Do I have choice. NO. It's the law..... it's called protection of the rights of children.

What do you think of that.

Not cheking back.... raw is good right now!

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

You are naive to believe that you can set up a process to help minors with no institution providing information on its existance, its purpose, and giving instruction on how to use it...and expecting to to work as planned.

Sorry.... you are naive to believe that a process set up to help minors with no institution providing information on itx existence, its purpose, and giving instruction on how to use it... expecting it to work as planned - it doesn't - it happends - this does happen.... to children aged 15 - the day the turn 16 they can walk onto the streets.- it's their right!!!!!!!!! So say the govenrnment.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Not very compelling??!! You are talking about divorce, we know what effect easy divorce has upon marriages, it makes people less willing to cooperate with their mates and more willing to chuck the marriage (family) and leave. It would be no different if kids could divorce their parents.

It would be far better to leave the family in tack.Also far better to not introduce or strengthen the conflict between parties, and then have an expensive drawn out process to resolve said conflict. It is all avoided by saying up front "as a older minor this is what you can choose to do no matter what your parents say" and "as a parent this is what you have the right to force your kid to do"

1 Reply

@Izzie,

Izzie wrote:

What do you think about children who are no cabable of looking after themsleves, had living in the care system, with parentable responsibility, and the day the child leaves the "care home" - with little life skills, being shown hot get benefits.... and yet be could living on the streets if a place for them cannot be found.

Huh? I don't follow. Minor emancipation is a process that requires the minor to establish that they can care for themselves so I don't see how that dillema relates to my suggestion of using the process more broadly to confer the rights and responsibilities to teenagers who are deemed responsible enough to decide whether they will marry, have babies etc.

Quote:

I 4 days I will find this out. Should older minor have rights. In the UK care system they do.... no matter how we fight it.

As has already been established here (by me) all minors have rights. I have been answering about the specific ones about abortion and age of consent.

Quote:

parental responsibility is taken because he "gained a day" and what does an child non-educated in s spacialised setting gets the opportunity to leave. He can't deside what to wear in the morning and what he wishes to eat without angst becoming a factr.... but LAW is LAW. in 4 days the LAW could destroy my child. Should he rights in these circumstances..... NO. Do I have choice. NO. It's the law..... it's called protection of the rights of children.

What do you think of that.

To be perfectly honest I don't know. I can't make head or tail of it if. And don't honestly know if it adds up to an argument about what I've been talking about.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

sorry.... I'm thinking about other things and crossing over - apoliges.

minor emancipation for a child on the day they turn 16 - parental reposiblility legally ends here...

sorry...

gone

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Not very compelling??!!

Yup, even with the extra exclamation marks the strength of your conviction is, alone, not very compelling.

Quote:

You are talking about divorce, we know what effect easy divorce has upon marriages, it makes people less willing to cooperate with their mates and more willing to chuck the marriage (family) and leave. It would be know different if kids could divorce their parents.

Kids already can "divorce their parents" hawkeye. I'm not introducing a new legal instrument here I am suggesting it be broadened to confer rights more readily than it currently does.

It's not much different than what you want to do, it's just a check and balance system in addition to what you want to do.

You want to give them the rights while the parents still maintain responsibility. I want to give them the rights through the existing legal process that grants them both rights and responsibility.

I am not arguing that this would always be positive, but you haven't even made a case for how it's fundamentally worse than the legal system just giving the children the rights.

Quote:

It would be far better to leave the family in tack.

In some cases I would agree that an intact family is best, in others I don't. Either way, the types of families that want to remain intact don't need to separate or anything. When a kid turns 18 and is emancipated by default it's not that traumatic to the family and this way needs to be inherently no different. It would simply confer the rights and responsibilities to minors in special circumstances where the child's rights should supersede the parents.

Quote:

Also far better to not introduce or strengthen the conflict between parties, and then have an expensive drawn out process to resolve said conflict.

You don't understand the legal concept of emancipation very well. It's not always like divorce except in that the colloquial term is often used by laymen. All minors are emancipated at some point. When they turn 18 they are all emancipated without any such problems you speak of.

You want partial emancipation at a lower age, and I think you have a legitimate case that something like that is necessary. I favor combining the partial emancipation with at least part of the responsibility that they will all have to accept in a few years anyway.

It doesn't need to be a long expensive court system and I've not advocated anything of the sort.

So if you get past your straw men find fault with the very basics. If they are, in fact, old enough to have the rights are they old enough to have the responsibility?

Quote:

It is all avoided by saying up front "as a older minor this is what you can choose to do no matter what your parents say" and "as a parent this is what you have the right to force your kid to do"

I have no problem with the law stating what is what. Where I have a problem is very specific. I don't think that a child should have a right to have sex, get pregnant and have kids against their parents' wishes while requiring the parents to maintain the child's children and the responsibility of the child who does not have to listen to them. I think that right should come with the responsibility of being able to care for the children being brought into the world and that the parents have a right to prevent their child from having sex until the child is able and willing to accept the possible consequences.

So I'm not saying the law shouldn't say what's what. I'm saying the law shouldn't say what you want to be what.

So again:

You want the law to say they can have sex and the parents have no say.
I want the law to say they can have sex as long as they can accept the legal responsibility for it.

Both of us want the law involved. So your arguments against involving the legal system are irrelevant.

Both of us want the laws changed a bit. So your arguments about how I fail to explain how this change should be taught to kids are irrelevant, you need to get the word out for your change as well. This is not a differentiating argument.

So here it is again. You want them to be given rights they don't currently have. I want those rights to come with responsibility.

What is your argument against that.

0 Replies

@Izzie,

No worries, I'm not too familiar with the legal system you speak of.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

fishin wrote:
Until such time as you can work out a method where the parents are no longer held responsible for the decisions of their children you'll be stuck with what we have. I see no way to have a functioning society where that society grants the right to make decisions to one group of people and then holds an entirely different group of people responsible for those decisons.

What do you think about my idea of conferring these rights through minor emancipation? Right now it's not really used for this, but I'd like to see minor emancipation become more common in situations where the parents' rights conflict with the child's.

I have absolutely zero problems with a minor being emancipated. IMO, it should probbaly happen a lot more often than it currently does. And it also resolves the rights/responsibilities issue at the same time.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I think that if one checks they will find that a stipulation of taking funding for "just say no" programs is that the use of contraception can not be taught, that the benifits of being sexual can not be mentioned. It is very clearly providing one side of the story (the negative aspects of sexual practice) while not only not mentioning the positive, but forbidding the positive from being presented. I would have no problem with "just say no" programs, if equal time was allowed for something like the planned parenthood program....then let the budding adults make up their own minds which viewpoint is a better fit for them.

You are making up things here and trying to tie them together to support your argument but it fails.

"Just Say No" (aka "Absitinence Only")is a government program. Sex Ed classe are also a government program. They may or may not be funded by the same levels of government but the funding for them remains seperate. But there isn't a single word in the Just Say No program that prohibits the seperate funding of Sex Ed classes. They just can't use money from one program to fund the other. That is no different than the laws and funding rules for the DoD's funds that say that those funds can't be used for Federal Highway maintenance. Those laws don't prevent the DOT from paying for higway maintenance out of their funds.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

In German law, minors can vote (from 16 onwards), can deselect religious classes at school (from 14 onwards) etc without consent from their parents, on their own responsibility.

And from 15 onwards, they can decide if they want to have an abortion (as well as e.g. any medical operation), without consent of their parents.

(In the councelling process before an abortion, they have to prove their so-called "Einwilligungsfähigkeit" = capacity to consent.)

(Age of majority is 18 in Germany.)

There are a lot of things minors can do here without parental consent too (Such as obtaining an abortion in many, if not all states.)

But dropping out of religious ed classes and voting don't create liabilities for the parents. And in your system, where medical care is provided for free to someone who can't pay for it themselves, the medical bill for an abortion isn't sent to the parents. This already presents a small probelms here. A minor can obtain medical treatment for several things and the parents are sent a bill for it. They not only are legally liable for the bill but they don't have the right to know what exactly the bill is for.

If I still had a minor child they could go to a doctor's office and recieve treatment. The doctor could then send me a bill for $10 million and I'd have no way to prove that I am being overcharged because I'm not allowed to know what took place in the doctor's office. Whatever amount the doctor bills is entirely up to them and I have to take their word for it that the bill is justified. I'd have no way of knowing of they went in for a stubbed toe or brain surgery. That, IMO, is an untenable position.

1 Reply

Should older minors have rights?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know