Parental notification

May 22nd, 2011 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Andrea Vance in the SST reports:

POLICE MINISTER Judith Collins has pledged to support a call for laws to prevent girls under 16 having abortions without their parents being told.

Collins said she would support a private member’s bill requiring parents to be involved before a termination could take place.

She could not introduce it herself, because ministers can only introduce legislation related to their own portfolios, but her stand comes after the Sunday Star-Times revealed a mother’s anger that a school counsellor arranged an for her teenage daughter.

While in opposition in 2004, Collins proposed the Care of Children Act be amended to make parental notification mandatory for girls under 16. The act allows a female of any age to consent to an abortion. Collins proposed that if a girl objected to parental notification, a doctor would contact the district court to arrange an appointment for the girl to see a judge in chambers within 24 hours.

I’m not a fan of changing the law, but if you were to do so, it is important to have a procedure where notification does not occur – especially vital in cases of incest.

I would hope that any child who has an abortion does tell their parents, as how can the parents be there to support them if unaware. But as I said, I am not sure it is a good idea to make notification a legal necessity – it could lead to a pregnant teen trying to do a back street abortion. 

In 2009, 3950 girls aged 11 to 19 had abortions.

That isn’t a very useful number. The relevant number is how many aged under 16 had abortions. The stats don’t tell us for under 16, but in 2009 only 79 abortions were done for those aged under 15. That’s 79 too many, but it is also far from a tidal wave. In fact the number of abortions (all ages) has been declining for the last two years.

UPDATE: Family First have supplied me more detailed stats, and n 2009 there 299 abortions on under 16 year olds.

Tags:

50 Responses to “Parental notification”

  1. Viking2 (11,676 comments) says:

    Abortion is an invasive procedure. Invasive procedures on children require their parents consent. Why can these people, councilors and Dr’s avoid the Law?

    Abortions mess with the persons mind over many years just as adoptions do but worse for there is no chance of reconciliation later.

    Not a child’s choice in my view and I would support Collins in her efforts to change the Law. The judge should have to have extremely good reasons to ignore the parents and rape by someone out side of the immediate family is not one of them.
    Perhaps only incest and even then only in a very limited circumstance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    Hell the school cannot even give a kid an aspirin without Parental consent but they can approve the murder of your grandchild, strange old world the leftoids inhabit, one where abortion is about the only thing that is held sacred and sodomy a virtue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Caleb (480 comments) says:

    If find it ironic that some are arguing that the parents may force the child to have the baby.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. democracymum (616 comments) says:

    David with all due respect you are not a mother.

    As a mother I, like many other parents, have nursed my child through everything from febrile fevers to whooping cough. A disease so terrible, I thought my daulghter could die.

    I have slept beside her in hospital after operations and sat beside her through the night administering pain relief, and a mother’s words of comfort from the day she was born.

    Now that she is 13, I would expect – no demand that I be informed of any
    medical procedure that would affect her in any way. (Quite aside from any moral considerations!)

    Her school requires me to provide authority to administer so much as a disprin at school camp.

    How can the state be exempt, from such a basic duty of care?

    I have no concern with a school providing counselling, but when it comes to a medical procedure, a parent’s signature for admission should be mandatory!

    Judith Collin’s backing for such a law is timely and very much in tune with the thinking New Zealand parents, I commend her for her leadership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Viking2 (11,676 comments) says:

    democracymum (658) Says:
    May 22nd, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Hey, Dads feel that way too. Probably more so sometimes.
    So don’t forget us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. nasska (12,101 comments) says:

    The piece of legislation that allows abortions to be performed on minors is Section 38, Care of Children Act 2004 passed by the Labour Government at the behest of Dear Leader. Under this act a female of any age can consent to an abortion, vaccination & be prescribed contraceptives. As DPF stated Judith Collins tried to get an amendment but was unsuccessful.

    While I agree that abortion shouldn’t be used as a form of birth control the cruelty of people who would force a child to carry to full term a foetus conceived by rape or incest sickens me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Nicholas O'Kane (147 comments) says:

    Back-street abortions are always held by the “pro-choice” crowd to be the ultimate arguement as to why abortion should be legal. While the arguement has a element of truth (but ultimately irrelevant, if one holds abortion to murder we shouldn’t legalise it just because some people will do it anyway) for adults, I don’t think so here.

    Teenage girls will unless they have super rich parents will be perhaps one of the poorest groups in New Zealand financially. As they are under 16 they can not work, so the ONLY income wil be pocket money. If an illegal abortion costs a few hundred dollars (plus additional health risks from the chance of the abortion going wrong) that will be several months if not years of pocket money.

    Plus the number of teenage girls seeking backstreet abortions will be too small to create a market for one.

    Say all 79 are interested (unlikely, as some of the 79 might have abortions with the parents knowing), and lets say the cost is cheap enough for a third to afford it (that is about 25). Now asumoing the girls are distributed evenly around the country that means about 7 in Auckland (i.e. one is going to invest thousands of dollars creating their own backstreet clininc, purchasing all the medical equipment for something that will be done every 2 months). And even if one was to go all to all this uneconomic expense of setting up an underground clinic good luck having all the girls know about it but the police don’t.

    Whiole some backstreet abortions will perhaps occur in adults with money and there is corrupt cops willing to overlook the illegal activity (or a large underground economy), the challenge of having a clinic that girls know about that the police don’tis very problematic.

    I wil be surprised if any such backstreet clinic is set up

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. TEO (33 comments) says:

    For far too long abortion has had a narrow, individualistic focus on the rights of the woman. It’s time to acknowledge that abortion affects entire communities. The rights of whanau, the would-be father, the would-be grandparents and of course the unborn child also need to be upheld.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. democracymum (616 comments) says:

    I quite agree Viking2 – hence my use of the word ‘parents’ :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Thomas the Unbeliever (141 comments) says:

    …… “I am not sure it is a good idea to make notification a legal necessity – it could lead to a pregnant teen trying to do a back street abortion.”….

    I disagree. That same logic says that we should not try and prevent the retail sale of alcohol or tobacco to minors as they will just obtain it illegally elsewhere. Bullshit. We make the sale illegal AND we enforce that law against retail outlets breaking the rule AND we try and educate our children.

    No school has the right to keep information from a responsible parent. It is just bizarre that schools can protect children from the difficult consequences of telling their parents they are pregnant but assist them to have abortions. When the consequences of abortion are seen as easier to face than telling your parents, there is something dreadfully wrong. When ‘counsellors’ support that argument, they are not professionals – they are abusers, damaging our children.

    The position taken by counsellors (and seemingly supported by DPF) also ignores the fact that failing to tell the parents now does not avoid the problem – it may just be delayed. In many families such secrets represent a betrayal of trust; planting a seed that will later bear bitter fruit.

    Of course in rare instances (incest, child abuse) children need to be protected by their parents. But the current system seems to presume that all children need to be protected from their parents. Again – that is bullshit! … and dangerous bullshit at that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Christopher Thomson (377 comments) says:

    Maybe, just maybe, there are some families where it is best for the parents not to be informed. However if they can be identified and the child supported then I do not agree with the state allowing abortions to be performed on children and the parents not informed.

    It would be too easy to point the finger at Clarke and recall the statement she made when seeing a litter of kittens (or was it puppies) when she said that they were disgusting and should be killed. Recalling this and other remarks during her formative political career one can assume that her lack of children wasn’t the hard career choice that she says it was.

    As a side-thread, how can the dichotomy of supporting abortion and opposing capital punishment be reconciled?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. slightlyrighty (2,097 comments) says:

    This is timely, considering the announcement of Labour policy regarding a ministry of Children.

    If NZ society is to embrace the role of parent, then the state should cease trying to usurp a parents authority by enabling a child to go behind their back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Raging Glory (45 comments) says:

    DPF is not in favour of changing the law. But then i wonder if he has a daughter? i regard abortion as murder. No one has this right. And the fact that currently one of my grandchildren could be executed under cover like this is nothing less than corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. side show bob (3,410 comments) says:

    This bullshit was brought in by that nasty evil piece of work the Dear One and her cabal of Marxists moles. It is just another attack on the family by evil, evil people who believe the state should be the parent and children are property of said state. Repel this crap, stick it up the Marxist’s noses, they are bad bastards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. nasska (12,101 comments) says:

    Nearly everyone commenting on this thread so far shares a common view…..that being that the parents have a right to be brought into the loop. It’s totally understandable & consistent with the feelings of many good parents that they shoulder all responsibilities & have few rights.

    There remains, however, the problem of what should happen when the parents of a pregnant teenager are themselves totally lacking in common sense, feelings or empathy. Who does the girl turn to when her own parents are violent or irrational or substance addicted or have their brains addled by religion?

    It is easy to scream “Ban Abortion” or “Parents’ Rights” but what of the cases where parents through their utter uselessness are most of the problem, not the solution?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. side show bob (3,410 comments) says:

    Trouble is naaska why should all of us suffer under politics for the lowest denominator. Your concern sounds like the tripe Marxists resort to when justifying their evil laws. Sure there are bad parents but I think you would find 95% are decent, loving parents, why should all be tarred because a few are total two bobs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nicholas O'Kane (147 comments) says:

    Oh yes, the proposed law is parental noticiastion, not consent. So a girl can have an abortion against her parents wishes anyway, even though she has to tell them first. So no forced pregnancies, and this dramatically reduces the risk of backstreet preganacies

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Raging Glory (4) Says:
    May 22nd, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    DPF is not in favour of changing the law. But then i wonder if he has a daughter? i regard abortion as murder. No one has this right. And the fact that currently one of my grandchildren could be executed under cover like this is nothing less than corruption.

    Here we go again.

    Strong opponents of abortion are almost all deeply religious. The sincere supporters of abortion, whether personally religious or not, are likely to follow a non-religious, consequentialist moral philosophy, perhaps invoking Jeremy Bentham’s question, ‘Can they suffer?’ An early embryo has the sentience, as well as the semblance, of a tadpole. And if late-aborted embryos with nervous systems suffer – though all suffering is deplorable – it is not because they are human that they suffer. There is no general reason to suppose that human embryos at any age suffer more than cow or sheep embryos at the same developmental stage. And there is every reason to suppose that all embryos, whether human or not, suffer far less than adult cows or sheep in a slaughterhouse, especially a ritual slaughterhouse where, for religious reasons, they must be fully conscious when their throats are ceremonially cut.

    Suffering is hard to measure, and the details might be disputed. But that doesn’t affect my main point, which concerns the difference between secular consequentialist and religiously absolute moral philosophies. One school of thought cares about whether embryos can suffer. The other cares about whether they are human. Religious moralists can be heard debating questions like, ‘When does the developing embryo become a person – a human being?’ Secular moralists are more likely to ask, ‘Never mind whether it is human, (what does that even mean for a little cluster of cells?); at what age does any developing embryo, of any species, become capable of suffering?’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Furthermore, don’t forget how your God feels about the murdering of children:

    1 Samuel 15:1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ”

    The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered.” O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don’t give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, “All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children.” (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

    “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

    And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. DJP6-25 (1,390 comments) says:

    I hope the bill becomes law.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. nasska (12,101 comments) says:

    SSB

    I agree that the vast majority of parents are decent people trying their best to look after their kids. To this extent I can see that the legislation needs to be tightened so that these same responsible parents cannot be bypassed.

    At the same time some way of dealing with pregnancies occurred by less fortunate teenagers needs to be available. I’m uncertain as to what would be the best vehicle for this but it must be included as part of any change.

    As a footnote, I’m far from being a Marxist but my personal philosophy is that everyone deserves a chance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. reid (16,700 comments) says:

    This is not about abortion it’s about a parent’s right to be involved, in everything to do with their own child. The article also referred to the need to retain a child’s confidence to the point of keeping confidential about a child who was suicidal.

    If that’s the best solution caring lefties can come up, they’re fucked in the head.

    If they really care about a child the only reason a parent should not be involved is when that parent is unfit and there are various ways to establish that.

    I’d like to ask those school counselors or others who support this policy, whether if their own child suicided and it transpired their school’s counselor had known about it, whether they would still support this policy? Honest answer. Because if you don’t, then how can you impose those rules on others?

    Honestly the fact lefties seem to think that total confidentiality is the only solution to this very human issue, shows they’re not thinking very hard about it, at all. I thought lefties were the humane and caring ones? Apparently not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    After 9 years of gradual erosion of the family unit (and the stealth erosion of family values) courtesy of the coven of feminazi, surely any move to have such highly emotive decisions made within the family unit (with parental support), can only be a good thing?

    We should not let the fact we have bad parents in society, prevent the other 95% of the population from knowing what is happening with their own kids. If a parent has to be contacted (and give consent) before teachers at a school camp can provide them with something for a headache, then the same rules must apply when the question is asked whether its OK to perform an abortion on their own child.

    Privacy my arse. Let common sense prevail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. nasska (12,101 comments) says:

    Elaycee

    That 95% of people do their best & deserve credit for being good & decent parents is a given.

    What should happen to the offspring of the 5% who are arseholes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Chuck Bird (4,902 comments) says:

    Good on Judith. The amentment needs to include the pill and and any me3dication.

    Schools are basicially promoting underage sex. They say it is best to delay sex till you are older but if you cannot not here is how to do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Liberty (277 comments) says:

    “I’m not a fan of changing the law, but if you were to do so, it is important to have a procedure where notification does not occur – especially vital in cases of incest.”

    Incest is a copout excuse
    Mothers can’t get their daughter pregnant.
    Granted some of the pregnancies would be the result of arsehole Dads.
    Most will be girls up the duff and just don’t want to tell mum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    nasska points out:

    There remains, however, the problem of what should happen when the parents of a pregnant teenager are themselves totally lacking in common sense, feelings or empathy. Who does the girl turn to when her own parents are violent or irrational or substance addicted or have their brains addled by religion?

    And if you spend any time actually talking to these girls (or, as I do, to women who’ve often had abortions as girls, as part of a sorry life ending up in drugs and crime and thus prison) you’ll find that’s exactly the kind of parents they have.

    And that’s not counting the ones who got pregnant, told their parents hoping for help and advice, and were told some variation of “that’s your problem, we’ve got our own, like the terrible pot shortage at present” or even “no worries, pop it out and sign it over to your mum, we could do with the extra benefit”. Usually after a sound beating, which is pretty much their standard reaction to anything requiring them to put down the bong and/or look away from the TV.

    And these are the people whose parental rights we’re so keen to uphold? The school would have trouble recognising many of them as they’d never have been to a parent teacher night let alone signed a consent for for disprin as people are waffling about above.

    Yes there were 79 abortions performed on girls under 16 in 2009 but that doesn’t tell us how many of those occurred without parental involvement. Some would have been, and have involved the decent well-meaning parents mentioned by side show bob and others.

    But what you need to realise is that a portion of those would have been done to relieve girls from either bringing home an unwanted child because mum and dad could do with the extra handout, or because mum and dad now think her an unworthy whore and her child the spawn of sin, but consider it their “Christian duty” to raise both.

    There are times when parental ignorance is bliss (for the pregnant and distressed girl) and yet another blanket one-size-fits-all-circumstances law, so favoured by dimwits like Collins who can’t see part their own middle class noses – will simply condemn them to misery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Ruth (164 comments) says:

    A good post DPF, and I agree with you. When one’s children become teenagers all you have is your relationship with them. They can totally block you out with social media, texting, and so forth.

    Any young person who has a healthy relationship with their parents would not be afraid to tell them about a pregnancy, and indeed a parent would be the first port-of-call. I would tend to be suspicious if the first person they told was a school official.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. BlairM (2,340 comments) says:

    Except where lives are in immediate danger, there should be no right for any child to have any medical procedure without parental consent, and I don’t see why abortion (of all possible procedures!) should be an exception. I’m of the view that if there is a compelling reason for not telling a parent of the wish to have an abortion, then it is highly likely that the child should not be in the care of those parents. It’s actually a custody issue with the child, not an “abortion rights” issue.

    There are situations where a child’s pregnancy will ruin the relationship between a child and her family, but I fail to see why a foetus has to die for the family’s sins. If a family is going to be that hostile to a pregnant child, again, that should be a custody issue. The child should seek alternate guardians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Dazzaman (1,082 comments) says:

    I see silly Courage Wolf is on his continuing anti-Christian pogrom again….pft!

    Good old Crusher Collins, she is one of the few sensible pollies we have.

    Why should a procedure for non-notification, where incest or rape has occurred, be included in any law change? That just effectively continues to act as a cover up of a prosecution for said rape/incest (as the present law does). So David, your suggested provision, isn’t a help to anyone. What? Do a secret abortion, send the kid back home like nothing has happened & possibly face the same scenario again? Clever alright :sad:

    The only answer is to bring it all to light (to the parents/guardians attention)….anything else is fudging, and draconian continuation of state interference.

    FFS, white, middle class angst is rife whenever the issue of baby killing comes up. Gimme the blimmin’ sick bag!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. simonway (387 comments) says:

    To those people asking “do you have a daughter?”/”are you a parent?”, this organisation is composed entirely of parents, and they support the current law, so please don’t pretend that you speak for everyone with children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Dazzaman (1,082 comments) says:

    Neither do they simonway, neither do they….Feminists much? Bloody sounds like it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Liberty (277 comments) says:

    BlairM Very good post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    So who the hell are “Mothers for Choice” – Simonway?

    Any fruit loop can put out a press release claiming to be an organization, might only have one member.

    And there are plenty of fruit loops out there full of wacko ideas they would like to mainstream.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    So who the hell are “Mothers for Choice” – Simonway?

    Hyper feminists with children is my bet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    And if you spend any time actually talking to these girls (or, as I do, to women who’ve often had abortions as girls, as part of a sorry life ending up in drugs and crime and thus prison) you’ll find that’s exactly the kind of parents they have.

    Well Rex, I would suggest it is time you gained a better understanding of a more accurate cross section of society.

    My wife and I are currently helping several families with ‘difficult’ teenage girls to deal with these issues, and I can tell you right now that while the parents aren’t perfect, they certainly are not what you describe.

    One 14 year old has taken the morning after pill 4 times in 5 months, her mother is desperately worried about her and the school councillor is completely enabling this destructive and dangerous behaviour. It has got to the point that the 14 year olds ‘anger management’ councillor is making decisions with the girl on which school she will attend without even involving the parents.

    This is only encouraging further destruction of the girls relationship with her parents, and ultimately setting her on the path to being yet another shipwrecked life for the statistic books.

    This bullshit has got to stop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    Furthermore, don’t forget how your God feels about the murdering of children:

    Courage wolf unknowingly becomes an appeaser for slavery, cannibalism, and child sacrifice.

    I actually have no problem in the elimination of cultures that eat human flesh and use children as human sacrifices as part of some devotion to idol worship. Especially when given the chance to stop their depraved ways.

    You are in need of perspective (yet again), you can not judge history by the standards of the present, and you can not make a stand on the perceived ‘crimes’ of one society while ignoring the astonishing depravity of another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. nasska (12,101 comments) says:

    Are each of you professed Christians certain that your deep personal faith has moulded you into a person who your children would naturally turn to in a crisis? If you are unable to answer positively could it be that your implacable opposition to the 1994 law owes much to personal self doubt?

    In other words, if the law as it stands could not possibly affect your own families then why not carry on & leave the wretched 5% to swim in their misery & let your God sort it out?

    Or perhaps you could get off your soapboxes & reacquaint yourselves with Luke 10:25-37.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    could it be that your implacable opposition to the 1994 law owes much to personal self doubt?

    No – the murder of infants is a very serious business, as is the welfare of our children

    Abortion is a procedure that puts the woman’s physical and mental health at risk but more to the point puts her immortal soul in peril!

    None of these are things we want for our children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Dazzaman (1,082 comments) says:

    Well nasska, what makes you believe that children will turn to their parents in a crisis whether their parents have a deep rooted faith or not? Kids are kids and make childish decisions, irrespective of the faith their parents have or they may hold themselves. Which is why they need parents to make the decisions for them…doh!

    Um, helping your neighbour & being a good samaritan is exactly why Christians are on the soapbox…to sound a clarion call against societies ills & wrongs……and because numbnuts like yourself can’t exegete scripture. Take a hint…..there are plenty of them spelled out here, not just by Christians either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    Its also constitutional people.
    Show me where and to whom responsibility for the child falls at any place on the timeline from 1. entering counsellors room to arrive home from hospital after abortion, who took rights off of the parents and whom took their statutory place and when it is given back to the parents?
    Similarly the signature of the person who gave permission for the invasive procedure and who has responsibility if it goes wrong?

    Yet another good reason the Labour/Greens must be banned from parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. nasska (12,101 comments) says:

    Andrei

    …”as is the welfare of our children”… no problem with that but not all of us subscribe to worrying about immortal souls.

    Dazzaman

    If the parents have provided a loving inclusive family most kids will turn first to Mum or Dad.

    My reference to the Good Samaritan stands. Spouting off at the soapbox/pulpit is cheap. Getting off one’s arse & providing an alternative to the actions of the dreaded counsellors doesn’t seem to come so naturally. I may not share Shunda barunda’s faith (see his 4.31pm) but I can respect someone who does something practical & positive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    My reference to the Good Samaritan stands. Spouting off at the soapbox/pulpit is cheap. Getting off one’s arse & providing an alternative to the actions of the dreaded counsellors doesn’t seem to come so naturally. I may not share Shunda barunda’s faith (see his 4.31pm) but I can respect someone who does something practical & positive.

    Nasska, the approach that my wife and I take is simply to inform people of the facts in these situations.
    For example, one 14 year old girl threatened her mother with “if I get pregnant I’m gonna abort it” so we suggested that the mother arm herself with facts and speak to her 14 year old as an adult. Basically, instead of telling the daughter that it is murder or “you will go to hell” you accept that she is going to do her thing regardless and you help her to make a reasoned decision.

    As it turns out, the daughter upon seeing what abortion involved and what these “cells” actually look like, decided it probably wasn’t a good idea any more, as do most people when they actually understand what the procedure involves.
    School councillors do not do this and this is why such terrible regret and emotional pain often manifests later on.

    You don’t have to be religious to have a strong opinion on this issue, the facts speak for themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    Are each of you professed Christians certain that your deep personal faith has moulded you into a person who your children would naturally turn to in a crisis?

    I am. And I know baha’i, buddhist and atheist parents who also have the complete trust of their children. So what’s your point?

    @BlairM at 3:20. Great comment. Completely agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Mark (1,502 comments) says:

    The overwhelming public response that parents should be advised is a sensible one. Who apart from the parents of these children is going to pick up the pieces of the lives of these girls steered into abortion. Certainly not these anonymous school counsellors who are all care, no responsibility for such a brief moment in time in your childs life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Dazzaman (1,082 comments) says:

    My reference to the Good Samaritan stands. Spouting off at the soapbox/pulpit is cheap. Getting off one’s arse & providing an alternative to the actions of the dreaded counsellors doesn’t seem to come so naturally

    Ha! How do you know? Christians back it up with good works all the time. In all sorts of situations & scenarios YOU don’t know about….ignorance much….again.

    Excellent comment Mark, they’re not there for the lifetime like the parents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Oh yes, I support cannibalism and idol worship which is why I was attacking God who decided to murder some babies. OR it could be because I recognise the Bible for the worthless pile of shit that it is and simply written by men who were at war and having no issue with killing enemy babies at the time due to the lack of development in their civilization, as you would see in African tribes that do the same, thus reflecting it in the texts when they wrote fairytales about the God that they worshiped.

    You’d think a God Who could create the world could figure out some way that doesn’t involve killing babies etc. Or that if it had to come to that, that He would not have created them in the first place.

    The most pathetic thing is that people like you still believe in these fictional accounts of history as if they’re real and that some arbitrary imaginary being in the sky is going to one day Rapture your soul while sending the rest of us to Hell (regardless of your disagreement with Harold Camping as to when that might be).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. BlairM (2,340 comments) says:

    I am staggered that someone could think that procuring an abortion for a child without her parents’ knowledge draws parallels with the parable of the good Samaritan!

    If you are that scared for the child’s welfare with regards to the parents, the correct thing to do is seek alternative custody for them from a judge. Otherwise you simply have no right.

    It should be noted that the right of parents to know includes the right to sanction an abortion for the child. There are plenty of parents who have no problem with abortion, and would procure one of their child if she got pregnant. Those parents need to know too! In terms of the argument, it is not a pro or anti abortion position. I am bothered that so many people, including purported “feminists” think abortion is SO IMPORTANT that it is the ONLY THING that they feel they have no right to know about their child, that it’s the ONLY THING that they feel their child should decide for themselves without their input! In fact, I think that position is psychologically disturbed. How could you believe such a thing? “NO! The foetus must DIE! ARRRGGGH!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. nasska (12,101 comments) says:

    BlairM

    If you cared to read my comments it would not be hard to draw the inference that I’m not in favour of more abortions with or without the involvement of school counsellors. From the outset I have supported the full involvement of parents in the 95% (est) of cases where the parents are parents as opposed to names on a birth certificate.

    Your God is not my God, your religion is not my religion but surely we can agree that if the parents of underage pregnant girls are unable or unwilling to step up to their responsibilities than someone has to. I don’t want the status quo to continue but if the system is to be tweaked to ensure that responsible parents are accorded their rights I want to see support systems in place for kids not so fortunate. For all their faults school counsellors are there & available when little else is.

    I can have no idea of your involvement in community support but my vilified reference to the parable of the Good Samaritan was aimed fair & square at those who pontificate at great length but walk past the unfortunate & offer little in practical support. To those who back up their words with deeds I offer my apologies if I offended you….those who mouth & do nothing are not worthy of my spit.

    If you are of a mind reread Rex Widerstrom’s comment @ 2.38pm. I have been involved, on a voluntary basis, with the same people he & I were referring to. They do exist, exactly as he portrayed & the misery they live in & extend to others is real. Most are beyond hope but their kids deserve a chance. To date prayers offered by church goers seem to have missed the mark….practical assistance & guidance can & does make a small difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Courage Wolf (557 comments) says:

    Why should the parent have the right to know? What if the child wants independence – they didn’t ask to be born into a shit family. What if they happen to be young budding entrepreneurs wanting to break out from their parents’ authority. What gives the parents the right to know whether or not the child (an independent person, from a Libertarian perspective) is doing something they may or may not approve of?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote