Birth Control for 11-Year-Olds???

[BuddyRey]

I'm really about as culturally tolerant and socially liberal as they come, yet this outraged me when I heard about it. My opinion: Children simply aren't supposed to be sexually active at 11 (or 13, for that matter). If a sizeable portion of them are, it's because their parents are shirking their responsibilities and not raising their own children, which is fine if that's what they want to do. However, when society begins to treat this like a normal and perfectly acceptable practice, it brings us ALL down the moral sewer along with that small segment of neglectful parents.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/18/middleschool.contraception.ap/index.html

[fcofer]

I've listened to the discussion about this all day. If you had to pin me down, I suppose I'd say that teaching contraception in schools is okay with me, and having contraceptives available (as opposed to banning them) is not unreasonable. However, this opinion might be blowback due to the fact that I heard Hannity foaming at the mouth about it in the car today, and I've gotten to the point that I pretty much automatically disagree with any position he takes on anything.

However, I chose the "more nuanced" choice, because I don't like the idea that we should have a majority vote enforced on everyone. This decision was made by a local school board somewhere in Maine. Presumably, these boardmembers will face re-election, and if the parents are really incensed by the policy, a new board will be elected and the policy changed to something more reasonable. If the parents are not upset, then I don't see how I have the right to get involved. Maybe having contraception in school is a good thing; maybe it's a bad thing, but it's best in cases like these to err on the side of liberty and allow people (through local government) to choose what they feel is best. We don't have to have a national referendum on every issue.

As for the idea that children aren't "supposed" to be sexually active at 13, well, it might not be a good idea, but from a biological perspective, once children hit puberty, no amount of social control in the world short of isolated incarceration ever has or ever will prevent a significant portion of them from being sexually active. I don't think that it is unreasonable to attempt to protect this portion; after all, they are children. Finally, I don't think that educating children about contraception, or making it easily obtainable, is likely to significantly affect the likelihood that any particular child will have sex. Children, by the age of middle school, are significantly more perceptive and suspicious of the motivations of perceived authority figures to be easily convinced of how to behave by stupid "Just Say No" campaigns, whether it be drugs or sex.

Do you honestly think that knowing how to cook and inject heroin, and how morphine works as a euphoric, would have made you more likely to try the drug as a child? Do you think that chanting "Just Say No" would make you less likely to try it? Heroin is unattractive to kids who have a reasonable perception of the facts surrounding its negative effects much more so than to those who have merely been ordered or cajoled by authority figures that "it's bad, m'kay".

Anyway, these opinions aside, I still think the issue is best left up to the local school board. Some school boards will have it one way; some another. One answer might in fact be the correct answer, but I don't think that any decision made by a higher level of government is any more likely to be correct. Hence, I'd take a hands-off approach.

[BuddyRey]

I've listened to the discussion about this all day. If you had to pin me down, I suppose I'd say that teaching contraception in schools is okay with me, and having contraceptives available (as opposed to banning them) is not unreasonable. However, this opinion might be blowback due to the fact that I heard Hannity foaming at the mouth about it in the car today, and I've gotten to the point that I pretty much automatically disagree with any position he takes on anything.

However, I chose the "more nuanced" choice, because I don't like the idea that we should have a majority vote enforced on everyone. This decision was made by a local school board somewhere in Maine. Presumably, these boardmembers will face re-election, and if the parents are really incensed by the policy, a new board will be elected and the policy changed to something more reasonable. If the parents are not upset, then I don't see how I have the right to get involved. Maybe having contraception in school is a good thing; maybe it's a bad thing, but it's best in cases like these to err on the side of liberty and allow people (through local government) to choose what they feel is best. We don't have to have a national referendum on every issue.

As for the idea that children aren't "supposed" to be sexually active at 13, well, it might not be a good idea, but from a biological perspective, once children hit puberty, no amount of social control in the world short of isolated incarceration ever has or ever will prevent a significant portion of them from being sexually active. I don't think that it is unreasonable to attempt to protect this portion; after all, they are children. Finally, I don't think that educating children about contraception, or making it easily obtainable, is likely to significantly affect the likelihood that any particular child will have sex. Children, by the age of middle school, are significantly more perceptive and suspicious of the motivations of perceived authority figures to be easily convinced of how to behave by stupid "Just Say No" campaigns, whether it be drugs or sex.

Do you honestly think that knowing how to cook and inject heroin, and how morphine works as a euphoric, would have made you more likely to try the drug as a child? Do you think that chanting "Just Say No" would make you less likely to try it? Heroin is unattractive to kids who have a reasonable perception of the facts surrounding its negative effects much more so than to those who have merely been ordered or cajoled by authority figures that "it's bad, m'kay".

Anyway, these opinions aside, I still think the issue is best left up to the local school board. Some school boards will have it one way; some another. One answer might in fact be the correct answer, but I don't think that any decision made by a higher level of government is any more likely to be correct. Hence, I'd take a hands-off approach.

That's a very thoughtful take on it, and I agree to a point. Understand, it's not that I'm opposed to educating kids about safe sex, and I agree that treating the subject as taboo will only make the problem worse, but I can't help but wonder why schools should have to be involved in this. Nobody knows a child better than his/her parents, so it follows, IMHO, that only parents have the ultimate knowledge and intuition regarding how best to broach the topic and keep their kids safe, wise, and well-informed.

[EvilTwinkie]

Im fine with it. Sorry to shock some people, but human children are sexual beings, some dont have proper guidance and let nature get the best of them, they are children after all. I was sexually curious at 7 and did things with other curious children at the apartment complex I lived in at the time. I remember growing up and finding this curiosity quite common among my peers.

You arent encouraging the behavior, youre just providing a contingency plan when it happens, and it does happen.

No evidence suggests that providing contraceptives in anyway encourages the behavior.

I think the feigned outrage has more to do with the fragile egos of the parents. They dont want to admit that their kids would have sex at that age.

If the local school board is for it, go for it. More power to them.

[SeanEdwards]

You can't be trusted to raise your own children. Modern America asserts the right of the state to raise your children for you.

Hello socialism!

[fcofer]

That's a very thoughtful take on it, and I agree to a point. Understand, it's not that I'm opposed to educating kids about safe sex, and I agree that treating the subject as taboo will only make the problem worse, but I can't help but wonder why schools should have to be involved in this. Nobody knows a child better than his/her parents, so it follows, IMHO, that only parents have the ultimate knowledge and intuition regarding how best to broach the topic and keep their kids safe, wise, and well-informed.

That's a convincing argument, and if I were voting for the policy in my local school board, it would probably win my vote.

However, I stand by my position that this rule shouldn't be extended to everyone's school. :) Although I agree that parents should be the primary source of education, particularly moral education, of their children, I don't think that there is something sacred about sexuality that makes it a topic, either from a pedagogical or a medical standpoint, that is automatically non-delegable to the schools. Many people are fine with delegating education about civics (IMHO a much more important topic) to organized schools, or with allowing schools to feed kids at lunch, and to choose what sort of food will be provided, etc. If schools can provide tampons to middle-schoolers, why not contraceptives, if the parents are okay with it?

I suppose my point is that I don't see how your argument that "parents have the ultimate knowledge and intuition... of how best to keep their kids well-informed" can't be extended to the prospect of schools providing lunches, or tampons, or medical treatment, or even education. I think that we agree that sexuality is an important topic and that kids need to be educated about it, and that if they are going to have sex (a prospect not likely to be encouraged much, or at all, by their being educated about it), then they should be able to obtain contraceptives. Why not allow parents to delegate that responsibility, at least in part, to the schools if they wish?

[0zzy]

I think that they should offer it if they vote on it.

HOWEVER, they SHOULD tell the parents. Giving 11 year olds birth control pills and not telling the parents is irresponsible and puts parenting in the hands of school nurses rather than the parents themselves.

[cjhowe]

Sounds like a local issue that the people of Portland, Maine can sort out without the budding in of the rest of the country.

[LBennett76]

It is incredibly unacceptable but only to the point of taking sex education too far. The part that nobody seems to be mentioning is that birth control pills are a MEDICATION. They mess with hormones. Birth control can have bad side effects. It should not be up to a school whether a child, note "child", should be given a medication. When my son has a headache at school, the nurse HAS to contact me to ask if it's okay to give him Tylenol. Schools can't just dispense a medication of this magnitude to pre-teens, especially if the girl hasn't even had her first period. This is an unhealthy idea to say the least.
Hopefully parents will become upset not only for social reasons, but more importantly for medical reasons. Even better, maybe this school board decision and the debate over it will open up some conversations between parents and children about sex.

[cjhowe]

It is incredibly unacceptable but only to the point of taking sex education too far. The part that nobody seems to be mentioning is that birth control pills are a MEDICATION. They mess with hormones. Birth control can have bad side effects. It should not be up to a school whether a child, note "child", should be given a medication. When my son has a headache at school, the nurse HAS to contact me to ask if it's okay to give him Tylenol. Schools can't just dispense a medication of this magnitude to pre-teens, especially if the girl hasn't even had her first period. This is an unhealthy idea to say the least.
Hopefully parents will become upset not only for social reasons, but more importantly for medical reasons. Even better, maybe this school board decision and the debate over it will open up some conversations between parents and children about sex.

You may want to read the story. They're not advocating what you think they're advocating.

[SlapItHigh]

You may want to read the story. They're not advocating what you think they're advocating.


How are they not advocating what LBennett76 said?

To the OP - I think it is unacceptable. This allows a child to get a prescription for medication on school grounds without the parents knowing. A child aged 11-15 may not have all of the knowledge to safely get said prescription such as family history which could greatly increase her risks from the medications. The fact that they can't give tylenol shows that this is a huge double standard. I have no problem with condoms being availalbe on school grounds, but medications being prescribed to children age 11-15 without the parents knowledge is just not ok.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I oppose public education. nuff' said

[Bryan]

I voted other. Get ride of forced funding for "public" schools and this whole issue goes away. The parents get to decide what school (or home school) works for them. Simple & freedom based.

[Hook]

I doubt there are many girls that can even get pregnant at 11. What is the point?
How come I never got any when I was 11? :D
Damn kids these days.

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

Philip K. Dick did a story called "The Pre-Persons" where little kids were aborted by having the air sucked out of their lungs. That's what I thought of when I saw the title of this thread "Birth Control for 11-Year-Olds???"

[ThePieSwindler]

I oppose public education. nuff' said

Well at least you've cut right to the point...

[nexalacer]

I agree with JosephtheLibertarian and Brian.... also, I think in a truly free society, we wouldn't have these ridiculous age limits for sex/marriage. In a free society, people wouldn't spend 12-14 years in a school where they learn nothing, parents would be more involved in the raising of children, and by the time a child was able to procreate (i.e. after puberty) they would have the mental faculty to make decisions for themselves. Most of the outrage about this should be directed back to the state that created the situation in the first place.

[Starks]

I believe that birth control and contraceptives should be readily available to anyone who is sexually active but kids that young should certainly not be having sex.

[Perry]

If you believe that our schools should be handing out drugs to our children then you are a purebred socialist. How could anyone possibly believe this is ok and vote for Ron Paul?

[Mortikhi]

Any school nurse that gives my daughters birth control will get the beating of her/his life.

Jail? So what. You do someting like this to one of my daughters and you WILL pay the price.

[Wendi]

I voted other, because I don't have a problem with having a licensed physician make this available (presumably at low or no cost) to teens in school. However...

My problem is that THEY ARE NOT TELLING THE PARENTS!

Parents are legally responsible for the actions of their children until they are 18 years of age. Birth control is associated with (a) high risk behavior and (b) serious potential side effects. Parents have a right to determine what medical treatment their minor child will receive, ESPECIALLY in the case of elective medications (i.e. not medically required for health).

[Shiranu]

I dont trust any drugs, they all (90% anyways) end up screwing you up someway. And if birth control pills are messing with hormones and such... omg, just what we need...

[Shiranu]

+ parents should be able to teach their kids how stupid pre-marital sex is (or at least high school sex)... altough, the stupid kids who end up working at McDonalds and Whataburger probally wouldn't get crap out of those talks anyways... mmm... its still not the goverments responsibility to keep them from having kids...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well at least you've cut right to the point...

haha. Yes. I think everything will be more free when you remove PUBLIC ENFORCED EDUCATION, and you replace it with options in a free market setting. You know, you can be home schooled, you can attend a non profit school, you can go to some sort of "specialist" school, you could go to a crafting school, and the possibilities are endless in a free market setting. This is just what I'm envisioning here.... I think you do need a transition period, however. The immediate closing of public education would create riots and that is no understatement, uninformed parents would be like zombies wrecking havoc upon the streets. And more to the topic of this thread: I'm against handing out birth control stuff, why? I wouldn't oppose it on morals, I'd oppose it on costs.... waste of money. Whatever happened to parents? Why can't a kid go and buy it? Why are schools concerned with teen pregnancies? It's none of their business.

[cjhowe]

It is incredibly unacceptable but only to the point of taking sex education too far. The part that nobody seems to be mentioning is that birth control pills are a MEDICATION. They mess with hormones. Birth control can have bad side effects. It should not be up to a school whether a child, note "child", should be given a medication. When my son has a headache at school, the nurse HAS to contact me to ask if it's okay to give him Tylenol. Schools can't just dispense a medication of this magnitude to pre-teens, especially if the girl hasn't even had her first period. This is an unhealthy idea to say the least.
Hopefully parents will become upset not only for social reasons, but more importantly for medical reasons. Even better, maybe this school board decision and the debate over it will open up some conversations between parents and children about sex.


How are they not advocating what LBennett76 said?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/national/main3379737.shtml
“They don't just have a giant punch bowl full of pills,” he said,

The birth control will be given out only after extensive counseling, and no prepubescent children will get it, O'Brien said.

The lead school nurse said the health center’s staff would also encourage kids to talk with their parents, reports CBS affiliate WGME-TV.

----
The parents have to sign a permission slip allowing their child to use the health care center. If you don't feel your child has a right to privacy regarding their health care decisions (after all, I'm pretty sure they weren't telling you they were having sex in the first place), don't sign the permission slip. But again, this sounds like a local issue that the people of Portland, Maine can decide for themselves.

[FindLiberty]

Ask for an opinion or take a poll as a great way to get people to talk.... in my case, too much!

I'm a hardcore Libertarian and therefore the root issue for me is the state's involvement in education! I hate the widespread mandatory government propaganda youth camps... otherwise known as publik skoolz.

Market driven schools would make this issue a parental choice, and not a one-size-fits-all solution. It would most likely be one of the criteria used to select a "school" for one's children and not simply a parental permission slip or opt-out procedure that would only effect, affect (and infect?) some percentage of the students at that particular mandatory, government propaganda youth camp.

I'm sure there could be a wide choice of non-government (private) schools, and that some would be willing to teach the three R's along with the Birds and the Bees if parents wanted it for their kids at any particular age versus having the important (uncomfortable?) B&B's discussion(s) at home with their own kids.

Parents might also teach their kids (at an early age) about our Founders, Marx, Keynes, income taxes, politicians (poly=meaning many+tics=blood sucking insects), social security and Ponsi, etc. ...Or not teach it, 'cause it's their choice, their responsibility and not the school's or the neighbor's choice to force on everyone.

Kids can learn so much starting at age 2 1/2 to 3 and they could do so much better with homeschool. The horrid performing public schools earn the USA a rank in almost last place among all other developed countries/nations (in math and science scores) ...even after we now automatically add "100 points" to SAT test scores to help hide the decline in our average scores. Most recently, the usa has dropped out of this world ranking process 'cause the USA rank is so embarrassingly low. Dumping the federal dept of education may be a good start at rooting out these problems...

The problem is not only with the government schools, teacher's unions, and student pack behavior, etc. I also DARE to say it's the drug WAR (not the drugs, but the "forbidden fruit", it's the war against them that produced the pushers, gangs, and drive by shootings), it's our lifestyle where TV influences and dulls young minds (passive thinking is learned at a very early age watching movies or cartoons regardless of their content), both parents are working (where one wage mostly goes to pay taxes or is eaten up by fiat inflation) and the parents welcome the 13 year mandatory state-nanny day care for the kiddies.

The saturated marketing of glamour and sex while promoting a nanny gubermint brings society to ask the subject question about "how much further our schools need to go in sex ed?". We should be asking ourselves how we got here in the first place. I bet that, say 125 years ago, an average 8 year old (who probably lived on a farm and saw explicit sex between animals) already knew exactly how babies were conceived and born and therefore would not require sex ed and condom installation lessons in public school at the "early" age of 11 (or 13), much less be provided with birth control (at taxpayer's expense). I can imagine the torches and pitchforks as the nearby families converge on the school/teacher responsible for this idea if this issue had come up 125 years ago.

Today who really notices the unceasing advancement of the nanny state's influence, power and control? Is it cause or effect? Maybe it's another forbidden fruit issue like the drug war?

In any case, the state should keep it's nose out of it.

[Matt Collins]

What's that old saying.... "If there's grass on the field, play ball" LOL

[SlapItHigh]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/national/main3379737.shtml
“They don't just have a giant punch bowl full of pills,” he said,

The birth control will be given out only after extensive counseling, and no prepubescent children will get it, O'Brien said.

The lead school nurse said the health center’s staff would also encourage kids to talk with their parents, reports CBS affiliate WGME-TV.

----
The parents have to sign a permission slip allowing their child to use the health care center. If you don't feel your child has a right to privacy regarding their health care decisions (after all, I'm pretty sure they weren't telling you they were having sex in the first place), don't sign the permission slip. But again, this sounds like a local issue that the people of Portland, Maine can decide for themselves.

The above doesn't contradict anything I said before. I'm with the others who don't even agree with public education. In fact, I oppose compulsory education alltogether. I still don't think that children should be able to get prescriptions for birth control pills on school grounds without their parents knowing because of the risks to the child. We aren't talking about the parents signning a slip that says they can use planned parenthood like facilities. We are talking about parents signing a slip that says they can receive medical care in general. These are children who use this as their primary care for all of their health needs.

eta - to be clear, I do agree with you that this is an issue that the people of Portland, Maine can decide for themselves. I'm simply answering the OP's question of what my opinion is on the matter.

[jumpyg1258]

Im fine with it as long as the kid asks the school for them (without parental permission) and not the school forcing kids to take them. I mean cmon, do you think kids are going to go to their parents if they are having sex currenty and ask if they could get some bc pills? Its better safe than sorry.

[Van Damme]

I don't like the precedent it sets. First of all, how can Middle School aged children be expected to know how to use birth control and contraceptives? Contraceptive use requires the knowledge that it is not 100% effective, and therefore users must weigh the consequences of contraceptive failure. 11-year olds are not old enough to make this decision. Even with education I don't think these kids will be able to properly use the contraceptives. Condoms require a certain procedure of use to be effective and birth control must be taken at the appropriate times at the appropriate doses. The argument for placing contraceptives in highschools was that sex will happen, protected or not, and giving contraceptives to highschoolers doesn't increase the frequency of sex, it increased the frequency of safe sex. Highschool students understand this, they are old enough and mature enough. I don't think the same can be said for middle school aged kids. Handing out contraceptives may send the message to these kids that sex is condoned, because they cannot understand the distinction between what is acceptable and what is inevitable. Furthermore, contraceptives are designed for adults with adult maturity and body size. Will condoms work properly on undeveloped children, I think not. In Highschool kids operate fairly independent of parents, but in middle school parents are still highly integrated into children's lives. In middle school it is up to the parents to supervise their children to make sure that this kind of sexual behavior, where contraceptives are necessary, does NOT take place. This kind of basic parenting is not beyond us.

An aside: 11-year old boys should NOT be wearing condoms and 11-year old girls should NOT be on birth control. It borders on the silly. It has nothing to do with individual rights and has everything to do with the fact that there is a period of time in a child's life where the parents have to right and duty to decide what is best for their children without their consent.

[cjhowe]

The above doesn't contradict anything I said before. I'm with the others who don't even agree with public education. In fact, I oppose compulsory education alltogether. I still don't think that children should be able to get prescriptions for birth control pills on school grounds without their parents knowing because of the risks to the child. We aren't talking about the parents signning a slip that says they can use planned parenthood like facilities. We are talking about parents signing a slip that says they can receive medical care in general. These are children who use this as their primary care for all of their health needs.

eta - to be clear, I do agree with you that this is an issue that the people of Portland, Maine can decide for themselves. I'm simply answering the OP's question of what my opinion is on the matter.

The following is the letter from the principal of King Middle School in Portland..


October 19, 2007
Dear Parents,
I wanted to write you a quick note to address the swirl of controversy surrounding King Middle School’s
Health Center. There is an amount of misinformation out in the national media that I would like to clarify
for our families. Here is our logic:

Teen pregnancy is a life-changing event with many negative results. There have been 17 pregnancies among Portland Middle Schools in the last 4 years.
Some of our students only access health care through the King Student Health Center operated by the City of Portland’s Public Health Division.
Five students who were aged 14 & 15 self reported risky sexual behavior at the Health Center last year resulting in one full-term pregnancy.
To prevent pregnancy the Health Center needs to have contraception as an option when a student admits being sexually active. Contraception would only be prescribed in rare cases after counseling about abstinence and postponing sexual behavior was not productive. Every effort is always made to encourage the student to join with her parents in making this decision.
There is also counseling to determine if this is a case of abuse or coercion. In this case proper authorities would be informed.
If the student does not wish to inform their parent – the doctor is required by Maine State Law to keep the diagnosis confidential. This is also the case if a private physician treats a student.
Our goal is to equalize access to health care for our students who use the Health Center as their primary source of health care. This gives the doctor the full range of options to prevent teen pregnancy.


I hope this logic makes sense to you and helps you understand our thinking. King is a great school dedicated to the learning, health and safety of all of our kids. This change is another tool to support our students albeit a very small minority.
I have talked with a number of parents and I know one positive outcome of this controversy is that parents and teens have (in some cases for the first time) had a discussion about sexual activity. I suspect this also may be discussed in homes beyond King Middle School.
The media frenzy is calming at least as it touches King. While all of this has been happening school has proceeded smoothly and effectively. This is a credit to the great kids and staff at King.
Have a great weekend.
Sincerely,
Michael J. McCarthy
Principal



The state of Maine protects the privacy rights of minors. This would be no different in a legal basis than if it were your regular family physician.

[SlapItHigh]

The state of Maine protects the privacy rights of minors.

This is what I don't agree with. What is the point of differentiating between minors and adults? How can minors have adult rights in some instances but not others? Parents should be allowed to know any medications that are prescribed for minors especially when we are talking about ages 14 and 15 (or even younger here). Many simply aren't aware of their family history even though they may think they are. The pill has a lot of risks and the parents should not have their right to keep their children safe taken away from them. Handing out condoms is one thing but prescribing medications that have real and serious risks is another. Just my opinion.

[Van Damme]

This is what I don't agree with. What is the point of differentiating between minors and adults? How can minors have adult rights in some instances but not others? Parents should be allowed to know any medications that are prescribed for minors especially when we are talking about ages 14 and 15 (or even younger here). Many simply aren't aware of their family history even though they may think they are. The pill has a lot of risks and the parents should not have their right to keep their children safe taken away from them. Handing out condoms is one thing but prescribing medications that have real and serious risks is another. Just my opinion.

I agree. Parenting is not complete when a kid turns 11. If you give up on parents on this issue of contraception, why stop there. Lets have mandatory government run day care from age 2 on so the government can be intimately involved in the parenting process. In any case, parents are human they can make mistakes, so that is every reason for the government to take control and do whats best for their kids.

That was sarcasm.

Parents of 11 - 13 year olds should know if their kids are sexually active (they should do everything they can to stop this behavior if its taking place), and if they don't then they are negligent. Simple as that.

[cjhowe]

This is what I don't agree with. What is the point of differentiating between minors and adults? How can minors have adult rights in some instances but not others? Parents should be allowed to know any medications that are prescribed for minors especially when we are talking about ages 14 and 15 (or even younger here). Many simply aren't aware of their family history even though they may think they are. The pill has a lot of risks and the parents should not have their right to keep their children safe taken away from them. Handing out condoms is one thing but prescribing medications that have real and serious risks is another. Just my opinion.

I disagree with the fundamental assumptions of your opinion, but not entirely with the practical application. One person never holds rights over another. It is never the parent's "right" to keep their children safe, rather it's the parent's "responsibility" to keep their children safe. As teenagers grow up, we as a society recognize the teenager's rights overtake the responsibilities of the parents. With regards to sex and drugs, a teenager is in the gray area of where parents responsibilities begin to yield.

[Van Damme]

I disagree with the fundamental assumptions of your opinion, but not entirely with the practical application. One person never holds rights over another. It is never the parent's "right" to keep their children safe, rather it's the parent's "responsibility" to keep their children safe. As teenagers grow up, we as a society recognize the teenager's rights overtake the responsibilities of the parents. With regards to sex and drugs, a teenager is in the gray area of where parents responsibilities begin to yield.

That is well put. Our system currently is full of these gray areas that make no sense and thus cause confusion. You can vote at 18 but you can drive at 16 but you can be charged as an adult for a crime at 17. In Utah you have to be 19 to buy cigarettes but most states you have to be 18. You can't drink till you're 21. These arbitrary age lines seem silly to me simply because there are so many of them.

That was a bit off topic.

[SlapItHigh]

I disagree with the fundamental assumptions of your opinion, but not entirely with the practical application. One person never holds rights over another. It is never the parent's "right" to keep their children safe, rather it's the parent's "responsibility" to keep their children safe. As teenagers grow up, we as a society recognize the teenager's rights overtake the responsibilities of the parents. With regards to sex and drugs, a teenager is in the gray area of where parents responsibilities begin to yield.

I know that some people are particular about the use of the word "rights" and perhaps I could have chosen a better word but I really do think of it as a right. Why should the government be able to put my 13 year old child at health risk without me knowing? I'm a mother and nothing is stronger than my drive to keep my children safe. The government has determined the age of an adult to be 18 although some mature earlier (and later) than others. If there is a grey area, then who gets to decide? The government? Maybe, but if so, the parents should be involved in that decision which happens when a child is emancipated. And we aren't talking about this health care center changing the rules on an individual basis. A 13 year old with the maturity of a 10 year old gets to make an adult decision with health risks without her parents knowledge just the same as a 13 year old with the maturity of a 16 year old. So, this has nothing to do with when the lines of adolescence and adulthood blur. My children will be able to decide for themselves when to have sex and when and if they want to try drugs but that doesn't really involve the government. The grey areas will work themselves out.

[cjhowe]

I know that some people are particular about the use of the word "rights" and perhaps I could have chosen a better word but I really do think of it as a right. Why should the government be able to put my 13 year old child at health risk without me knowing? I'm a mother and nothing is stronger than my drive to keep my children safe. The government has determined the age of an adult to be 18 although some mature earlier (and later) than others. If there is a grey area, then who gets to decide? The government? Maybe, but if so, the parents should be involved in that decision which happens when a child is emancipated. And we aren't talking about this health care center changing the rules on an individual basis. A 13 year old with the maturity of a 10 year old gets to make an adult decision with health risks without her parents knowledge just the same as a 13 year old with the maturity of a 16 year old. So, this has nothing to do with when the lines of adolescence and adulthood blur. My children will be able to decide for themselves when to have sex and when and if they want to try drugs but that doesn't really involve the government. The grey areas will work themselves out.

Again, why the government should be able to put your 13 year old child at risk without you knowing is not the correct question when gauged against "rights". The correct question is rather "Why does your responsibility to keep your child safe surpass your child's right to privacy for their medical treatment?" The government is not the one "keeping" the information from you, rather it is your child keeping it from you. The government is encouraging the child to tell the parents, the child is deciding not to. Why does the government have an obligation to the parent? You're a third party to the care being sought. The child is the one seeking treatment, the government is not mandating treatment.

[nexalacer]

Again, why the government should be able to put your 13 year old child at risk without you knowing is not the correct question when gauged against "rights". The correct question is rather "Why does your responsibility to keep your child safe surpass your child's right to privacy for their medical treatment?" The government is not the one "keeping" the information from you, rather it is your child keeping it from you. The government is encouraging the child to tell the parents, the child is deciding not to. Why does the government have an obligation to the parent? You're a third party to the care being sought. The child is the one seeking treatment, the government is not mandating treatment.

Wow, I completely agree with you. This is an excellent point. We cannot raise our children better until we see them as human beings with the full rights of all other human beings. Just because our culture has somehow twisted our image of children in such a way to make them seem helpless does not make them so. Children's brains are basically fully capable by the age of 10 or 11, in most cases. Puberty occurs after the brain's development as a way for the body to catch up. If we were doing a better job teaching our children HOW TO THINK from an earlier age, these problems would not occur. Instead, we plop them in front of the TV, send them off to have other people raise them, and allow them to be forced into 13-14 years of mind-numbing public school brainwashing.

Without the destructive tendency of looking as children as not equal to human beings, this would not even be an issue.