Traditionally, let's begin with a link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/3709681.stm

Apparently, the girl, aged 14, got pregnant with her boyfriend. The school's health staff scared the girl away from talking to her parents about the "accident". What is more, the health staff specifically stressed that the parent's wouldn't know anything when talking to the already intimidated girl.

Under pressure, the girl agreed and they took her to the hospital. The mother somehow got to know about the things going on and intervened. She told the girl that she should carry the child, and also the boyfriend's parents insisted on the child being given birth. The girl was relieved and wanted her child to live, too. However, it was too late. The foetus was already cut from oxygen and suffocated (yeah, that's how they make abortions, very civilised), and the damage done couldn't be reverted at that point. The foetus was killed.

The school claims that their staff aren't obligated under the law to inform parents when children get pregnant.

What a wicked excuse! Not only had they not informed the mother of the girl, they exerted pressure on the girl to have abortion and also encouraged her to hide the fact from the parents.

I would also like to raise one important point that was not addressed in the article: the boy and his parents were totally ignored. No one asked the underaged father if he wanted the child, no one even bothered contacting his parents.

Who gave the school any right to decide for the child (the pregnant one, not the foetus)? Where did the father's rights go? What about the parents of the parents?

What about the legal age? Since when are 14 year olds entitled to make decisions in this grave matters?

Abortionist organisations speak a lot about pro-lifers enforcing their anti-abortion views on the whole of the society and acting holier-than-thou. However, in this case, the school usurped authority and forced what they thought was morally right without giving a damn about anyone else and their beliefs, "convincing" the girl and skipping the parents altogether.

I will keep an eye on this one and I hope to see prison sentences in the end.

What about the legal age? Since when are 14 year olds entitled to make decisions in this grave matters?Since they become pregnant! However - there are mitigating circumstances:

1) Pregnancy is risky. Women still die in childbirth, even in modern facilities. Add to that a girl really too young to carry - and you're talking about serious trouble.

2) Are you certain the father is her boyfriend? Too often, a girl who becomes pregnant so young was sexually abused. Should the parents (the mother often does know) even be involved in this situation?

They exercised undue pressure on the child that is correct. I do not think that is your main problem though chev, it is abortion in itself.

If abortion is legal then I think the only persons it concerns are the parents. I would however advice everyone to talk it through with your parents if you are very young. That may not be possible at all times though. If someone is decided on an abortion and know that their parents are staunchly against it I see no reason to tell them.

Keep in mind that this reasoning all stems from abortion being legal and is not an invitation for discussing the whole issue of abortion.

Provided the facts of the story are true, this is just flat out wrong, and I, as a parent, would be raising holy hell if it happened to my child! I am not with the right (and of course not with the left either!) on the issue of abortion, and I do not support minor's "rights" to an abortion without their parent's/guardian's knowledge and consent.

1) Pregnancy is risky. Women still die in childbirth, even in modern facilities. Add to that a girl really too young to carry - and you're talking about serious trouble.Then parents should have been informed even more so... Too young to carry and to young to take care of the child on her own (I'm adding this one now), ERGO: too young to decide on her own.

2) Are you certain the father is her boyfriend? Too often, a girl who becomes pregnant so young was sexually abused. Should the parents (the mother often does know) even be involved in this situation?If she had been raped, it would have been mentioned. It's said she had sex with her boyfriend and the allegation is he was the father.

Again, if a young girl gets raped, the parents are the first people to be informed and to provide her with all care and support she needs. And she needs a lot.

If someone is so young that she can't sign a valid contract without her parents consenting, how is she to make decisions affecting her future on her own? Besides, laws and even constitutions interfere here, confirming parental authority over minors below legal age.

If she had been raped, it would have been mentioned. It's said she had sex with her boyfriend and the allegation is he was the father.Not necessarily for the former, especially the way it was reported, and the only impression I got for the latter was that he was assumed to be the father.

Again, if a young girl gets raped, the parents are the first people to be informed Unless, the father is the rapist.

If someone is so young that she can't sign a valid contract without her parents consenting, how is she to make decisions affecting her future on her own?Simple. Laws have little to do with childbirth. Do you need laws to breathe?

Not necessarily for the former, especially the way it was reported, and the only impression I got for the latter was that he was assumed to be the father.Still, he was the only potential candidate and the probability was strong. He should have been informed and have had something to say.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, if a young girl gets raped, the parents are the first people to be informed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless, the father is the rapist.I was speaking about a pregnant girl's parents who should be informed at any rate.

Simple. Laws have little to do with childbirth. Do you need laws to breathe?Abortion is not the same as removing a rotten tooth. Actually, they should contact the parents before removing a rotten tooth as well, let alone foetus.

Some level of awareness and responsibility is required to decide if you want to carry or kill the foetus as well.

I was speaking about a pregnant girl's parents who should be informed at any rate.When I said father, I meant her father, not the boyfriend.

Abortion is not the same as removing a rotten tooth. Neither is pregnancy! It is hard upon the body, epecially the body of a young girl who is still growing!

Some level of awareness and responsibility is required to decide if you want to carry or kill the foetus as well.Well, arguably, it takes more responsibility to carry the child to term. Who would you trust in this matter? Not the mother of the girl - she obviously already failed.

I agree that the school handled this situation very poorly. The parents certainly have a right to know about something like this, and it is not the school's place to decide if she keeps the baby or not.

That being said, the school was doing the right thing in suggesting an abortion (but going about it the wrong way by pressuring her into it). She should be made aware that abortion IS an option, and that it may be the best option for her. Her parents, on the other hand, should also have a strong say in the matter, but they should not be able to make the decision for her. It IS her body, after all, and as Chev pointed out, a 14-15 year old carrying a baby to term could be a risky proposition. I don't think they should have the right to forbid her from getting one, as childbirth represents a very real threat to her life-- maybe this is what the school was thinking.

If her and her boyfriend's parents insist on her having the baby, they had also better be fully prepared to raise the child, as a 14 year old girl is not suitable to raise a child. If they want her to have it so badly, they'd better be willing to give her the help she'll need.

Did the school handle the situation poorly? That's debateable - all we have is the mother's hearsay. I don't believe the parents should be informed in every case - one reason I already gave. Another good reason is: HONOR KILLINGS - and yes, that happens even in the US (one case made the papers in Michigan a few years back).

The fact the girl didn't confide in her mother speaks volumes to me.

As I was in the Lyceanum, a girl from a neighbouring village, that was in a class one year behind got pregnant. She was about 16. She kept the baby and here good caring, loving and virtous parents kicked her out. She had to quit school and make it on her own. Not that their parents hadn't had enough money, they just couldn't live with the shame of the daughter. Indeed, the daughter had a lot of trouble getting money from her parents through the legal way, as here, the parents have to feed their children and finance a minimal education. No, really good parents, really. Babies from babies and parents with a certain attitude, that just doens't go well together.

Where did the father's rights go? I don't know what the laws in the U.K. are like, but here in the U.S. the father has NO rights. According to the Roe vs. Wade ruling, the woman has the sole decision as to whether or not she has an abortion. Of course, that doesn't answer the question of if this child should have an abortion, but it is why the boyfriend or the boyfriend's parents weren't consulted.

Just last year there was a case in Pennsylvania where a man wanted to prevent a woman who he got pregnant from having an abortion. It went to the State Supreme Court where the judges ruled unanimously that the decision to have an abortion was entirely up to the woman, and that the man had no claim on the fetus.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abortion is not the same as removing a rotten tooth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither is pregnancy! It is hard upon the body, epecially the body of a young girl who is still growing!Another reason why the parents were so desperately needed.

Well, arguably, it takes more responsibility to carry the child to term. Who would you trust in this matter? Not the mother of the girl - she obviously already failed.How could the mother act if she hadn't been told anything? If you had a 14 year old daughter, would you ask her "aren't you pregnant?" every day? The school eliminated the mother from the process.

The fact the girl didn't confide in her mother speaks volumes to me.See above. Moreover, the girl was suggested that trusting her mother could be a bad idea and was taken to hospital all in hiding from her mother. Imagine you have a 14 year old daughter and some school hides her from you and tells her trusting you might not be a good thing.

Just last year there was a case in Pennsylvania where a man wanted to prevent a woman who he got pregnant from having an abortion. It went to the State Supreme Court where the judges ruled unanimously that the decision to have an abortion was entirely up to the woman, and that the man had no claim on the fetus.Thanks for info, Aldeth. I would address this one, but it merits a separate thread. Hope you don't mind my taking it outside.

Moreover, the girl was suggested that trusting her mother could be a bad idea and was taken to hospital all in hiding from her mother.Based on the mother's hearsay.

"They rang up and said, 'Why is your daughter not in school?' I said, 'She is in school.' And they said, 'She is not.'

"So I rang her mobile - but it was switched off.

"They rang up an hour later and said, 'Sorry, it was a mistake - she is in school.'" The school intentionally misled the mother of the child by direct flat out lie.

The mother couldn't talk to anyone because the school said the persons she needed to talk to were not accessible and they kept telling her to wait longer and longer - several minutes, next several minutes, an hour and so on.

It was not even just done in secret, flat out lies were employed in the intentional deception of the mother of that underaged girl.

The school not only failed to inform the mother and seek consent, the school usurped parental authority. First of all, it's not the school problem if a pupil gets pregnant.

They acted out of fear that the mother would have forbidden the abortion, but the mother had every right to.

Someone should rot in prison for that and some couple persons should be banned lifetime from working with children.

This entire controversy comes back to what you think about abortion. We have a bunch of threads about that where the topic have been explored extensively but if people have more to say they shouldnt keep quiet. Trying to disguise it as something slightly different is just a tad silly in my opinion.

The parents certainly have a right to know about something like this, and it is not the school's place to decide if she keeps the baby or not.Yes, the same parents who did not know that their 14 year old daughter was having unprotected sex. And at what age? Great, responsible parents here. So let's have them make more parental decisions. :rolleyes: This kind of poor parenting is bound to end in disaster for all involved.

For those of you who support a "Womans right to chose"...go through the news story and substitute the words "assisted suicide" every where you see the word "abortion"...still make sense?

Now take it a step further and substitute the word "homicide" for the word "abortion"...

If you do this with an open mind, you may begin to appreciate the views of pro-lifer's, and see the gaps in your own logic. If you can't see it...then...whatever :rolleyes:

@Chandos...your point is well taken, but don't cloud the issue of the school's sins with the failures of the parents.

Apples and oranges.

Chandos, just because a kid screw up a bit doesn't mean that the parents are always bad. She have sex at the age of 14? Sure, they maybe can be bad parents, but you have no rights to say that every parent in the world that have had a child who had sex at the age of 14 are bad parents.


On topic, I am not pro-abortion(only in extreme cases, lake rape and incest), so I am obviously enraged to see how a school could act like this. I'm with Chev on this one, let 'em rot in jail for murder.

Also, HS, I don't think that comparision was very fair. It is a bit hard to explain, and I may edit this post later to do it, but like Sojourner said, apples and oranges.

Good point, Chandos, but it's not really sure to what extent the mother is responsible here. There's no mention of the father (or have I missed it?), so she might be a single mother and those already have too many things to take care of for one person. Also, who would suppose a 14 year old girl to have sex? Plus, with kids it works like with unfaithful spouses: if they want to screw, they will and you can do nothing about that except for being a good example and that not always works (plus, it takes more time to enact fully than a single working parent has to spare).

However, the mother allegedly having failed in an equivocal situation, she was nonetheless not even given chance to prove herself in the most important ordeal and the only unequivocal trial. Whether she had done enough to learn the truth is immaterial in the face of deliberate deception and downright lie on the part of the school. The school can't use any ethical or moral arguments because they would have to have clean hands themselves, first of all.

Ultimately, had the woman really screwed up, it was not the school's place usurp parental authority - let alone to decide they're above the law and human rights.

Also, from the perspective of the kid having unprotected sex, the school can't blame the mother if they claim for themselves the competence to inform children about the options they have, like contraception and abortion. No, it's not sudden change in my views on contraception, I'm speaking on purely logical basis here, ie the school failed to inform the kid no less than the mother did.

I still look forward to prison sentences in this case.

[ May 29, 2004, 13:51: Message edited by: chevalier ]

@Chandos:

As Caleb said, you can't really make the claim for bad parenting here based on the information that we're given. Even a good parent could only provide an example for their child. They do not live that child's life for them. The girl has a free will, can act on her own, and the teen years are a time of experimentation and pushing the limits of parental authority. Most have us have gotten into some form of trouble or other in our teen years, but is that the fault of our parents? I don't see how the mother is supposed to know about this, as children can be incredibly deceptive when they want to be, especially when that involves escaping the potential wrath of a parent.

The school intentionally misled the mother of the child by direct flat out lie.

The mother couldn't talk to anyone because the school said the persons she needed to talk to were not accessible and they kept telling her to wait longer and longer - several minutes, next several minutes, an hour and so on.That's an excellent point, and the school was WAY out of line. The mother's tax dollars pay for this institution, and they turn around and lie to her about something as important as this. As a school, they should point out that abortion IS an alternative, but that's the extent of their involvement. If anything, they should have called the mother and told her the girl was pregnant.

As for prison terms... for what? Abortion isn't illegal. What would you charge them with? I'll agree that the school overstepped their bounds, and they should certainly endure suspension/firings, but they acted with concern for the well being of the girl. Should this be punished with prison terms? I don't think so.

They acted out of fear that the mother would have forbidden the abortion, but the mother had every right to. Oh God, I really dont' want to get into this. Long story short: since when does the mother have the right to forbid an abortion for her daughter? Shouldn't it be the girl's decision? I mean, she's a child, but the last time I checked, children did have minds, and were even capable of making decisions on their own. I've even seen it once or twice. Seriously, I'm all for guiding children and all that, and she should be made aware of her options, but the final decision has to be hers, not the mother's, not the school's, but hers.

[ May 29, 2004, 21:50: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Sorry, but I am having problems with the formating of this thread, and so it was difficult to read the replies. But the essence seemed to be that the parent is not responsible for the acts of his/her child.

It seems that some feel that the responsibilty for parenting should rest elsewhere. And where would that be? Notice that I have not given any opinion on the school's actions at all, since the information in the article was not very convincing either way. As has been pointed out, we know nothing of the 14 year old girl's home background. And we know almost nothing about the mother. We don't even know if there is a father at home.

I do know that the student was pregnant and that the mother seemed oblivious to what was happeing in her daughter's life - maybe "too busy" to find out, seems to be the conventional wisdom here. It makes me wonder how many other things in her daughter's life to which she was oblivious. Also, being 14 and having sex, with all the risks, is more than "scewing up a little" in the opinion of most of those who would claim be responsible parents.

The one thing that stands out in my mind, is that the daughter "seemed" to turn the school with this issue first rather than approaching her own mother with it. Then after the fact, the mother was suddenly so supportive. Why, she was even so "thoughtful" as to get the girl's father "involved." I wonder where he has been for the other 14 years? Something is wrong with this picture.

[ May 29, 2004, 16:44: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Excuse me for being a little prejudiced, but I bet most of the people out there who want to forbid abortions are men.

Now from a woman's point of view the mere thought of making abortion illegal is terrifying.

I'm 17, not so far from 14, and I do think that I was as capable of making a decision about these things by then as I am now.

I would consider it wrong to try forcing the girl to do either thing, but I would, as the school, also advice her to make an abortion. Just as I would advice her to speak to her parents and her boyfriend, but I would point out that her decision, whatever it may be, should be her own.

You have to understand that it’s impossible to let the father decide whether the child should be born or not, as it’s the girl that has to bear it.

As for poor parenting, I would as a mother consider it a failure to have a daughter getting pregnant at 14. Even worse would be that she didn’t dare to tell me.

A weak attempt to justify a prohibition of abortion, in my opinion.

As for prison terms... for what? Abortion isn't illegal. What would you charge them with? I'll agree that the school overstepped their bounds, and they should certainly endure suspension/firings, but they acted with concern for the well being of the girl. Should this be punished with prison terms? I don't think so.School is primarily intended for education. They (gays) do play other roles in upbringing of children, but only supportive to the parents'. They decided to violate the mother's basic rights and they should pay the price. I don't know the British law in this much detail, so I have to hope they have legal rules that make an opportunity to put the people involved in this scheme in prison where they belong, IMHO of course. Mind you, they didn't just neglect the need to contact the mother, they specifically belied her.

Long story short: since when does the mother have the right to forbid an abortion for her daughter?Since the daughter is below legal age.

Shouldn't it be the girl's decision?From a legal standpoint: the mother's, with a possibility to override by the court.

I would like to avoid getting into a discussion of whether a woman should be allowed to kill the foetus at will in general.

Now from a woman's point of view the mere thought of making abortion illegal is terrifying. I know women who disagree, but let's please concentrate on this particular case.

I'm 17, not so far from 14, and I do think that I was as capable of making a decision about these things by then as I am now.I suppose it works this way: now that you're 17 you think you'd have thought the same if you had been 14. When you're 20, you'll think you would think the same when you were 17 as you think being 20. However, you won't really think that you would think the same being 20 as you would think if you were 14.

Next, parental authority ends with the age of 18.

I would consider it wrong to try forcing the girl to do either thing, but I would, as the school, also advice her to make an abortion. Just as I would advice her to speak to her parents and her boyfriend, but I would point out that her decision, whatever it may be, should be her own.Well, the school hadn't done even that. They instead chose to lie to the mother.

You have to understand that it’s impossible to let the father decide whether the child should be born or not, as it’s the girl that has to bear it.If a woman decides to have sex with a man, she decides to face the possible consequences in form of conceiving a child with that man. Conception is a natural result of unprotected sex between a woman and a man and no one forced that girl to have sex with her boy. Humans don't breed via parthenogenesis, there's the egg cell and the spermatozoon. The child is so much the father's as the mother's. If fathers were to have no rights to the children, they should have no obligations as well. Having fun without having to pay for it sounds attractive, but life isn't an eternal playground and people grow up.

Hearsay and more hearsay. The mother claims the school lied to her about her daughter's whereabouts - did they, or is she making political hay? She claims the daughter, had she talked with her first would have kept the baby - did the daughter really say that, and if she did, was she simply telling her mother what she wanted to hear?

No laws were broken:

A local education authority spokeswoman said teachers were not legally bound to tell parents if pupils became pregnant.From the commentary I've read browsing the BBC site, the authorities that be determined this was necessary in dealing with an apparently burgeoning teen pregnancy problem. The consensus seems to be, were the parents required to be notified, the teens would end up not seeking help at all. (Mom would still be out of the loop - as evidently, she is slow to catch on.)

Finally, I strongly disagree with your opinion that grandma (as this mom would effectively be) should have the final say in whether or not the girl obtained an abortion - she's not the one who is pregnant! And apparently, the daughter felt she couldn't trust her mother - and splashing this all over the press does little to dispel this.

Having fun without having to pay for it sounds attractive, but life isn't an eternal playground and people grow up. Except for the men of course, right? Why else would they engage in unprotected sex outside of marriage?

[ May 29, 2004, 22:56: Message edited by: Sojourner ]

Isn't it odd that if you take a minor across State lines without parental consent...you can go to jail...but you can take her down the street and assist her in homicide...and that's called "her freedom to chose" :confused:

"Pro-Choice" makes no sense.

@Hacken Slash: Well, that's where there's the basic inconsistency here. In small matters parental control is respected, in important ones it's being skipped. Some human rights become less important than the authorities' policy and so on, everything being politically correct and accorded by politically correct verdicts of politically correct judges. Logic is not relevant in the process.

No laws were brokenParental control is a human right and a civil right. Human and civil laws usually have constitutional rank, or at least higher than "common" bills, let alone enactments.

The consensus seems to be, were the parents required to be notified, the teens would end up not seeking help at all.The consensus was that if parents were informed, they could disagree and the propagation of abortion as a routine medical operation comparable to tonsil removal wouldn't work.

If the teens would end up not "seeking help" (ie an abortion), they would end up giving birth and having their own children. Bad for the demographics? Bad for the liberal image?

Except for the men of course, right? Why else would they engage in unprotected sex outside of marriage?That doesn't change the fact that a child comes from two parents and not just one.

I will keep an eye on this one and I hope to see prison sentences in the end.You are a nutcase :lol:

If the teens would end up not "seeking help" (ie an abortion), they would end up giving birth and having their own children. Bad for the demographics? Bad for the liberal image?Ah, so now you've become a rabid supporter of teens having babies out of wedlock, provided you don't have to pay for them, of course.

The consensus was that if parents were informed, they could disagree and the propagation of abortion as a routine medical operation comparable to tonsil removal wouldn't work.But you have no problem making that comparison with a complicated pregnancy, delivery and C-section, not to mention miscarriage should something go wrong (which frequently does).

That doesn't change the fact that a child comes from two parents and not just one.Dodging. This single-father crap smacks to me of the male wanting to have his cake and eat it, too.

It is obvious to me that what problem you're having here, is not the fact the school did not inform the parents, but that the girl got an abortion.

[ May 30, 2004, 07:34: Message edited by: Sojourner ]

Dodging. This single-father crap smacks to me of the male wanting to have his cake and eat it, too.

It is obvious to me that what problem you're having here, is not the fact the school did not inform the parents, but that the girl got an abortion.
I think that it's the "pro-choicer's" who are dodging...over and over again chev has tried to steer the topic of this thread back to the narrowly defined realm of the legality and propriety of the school's actions...particularly when viewed against other laws that affect the rights of minors...and this central issue has been largely ignored.

Er, no he hasn't. As for the legality:

A local education authority spokeswoman said teachers were not legally bound to tell parents if pupils became pregnant.

"If there is to be any disclosure the teachers should seek consent from that pupil they are working with." And finally, there's the Watch & Listen link from the one Chevalier posted: "Maureen Smith...is calling for the law to be changed"

You seem to be missing something...there is a difference between legally enforced disclosure, and transporting the child (yes, dammit...she is a child) to an abortion mill.

This is the central question of the thread...which, yes, is still being dodged.

Jumping to conclusions - NOWHERE in the article does it say that happened! And the central question was whether the school should have informed the mother.

Jumping to conclusions - NOWHERE in the article does it say that happened!Explain, please.

Ah, so now you've become a rabid supporter of teens having babies out of wedlock, provided you don't have to pay for them, of course.No need to take it so personal, really. I can live with the knowledge that you disagree with me, so I bet you could too if you tried.

I'm a rabid supporter of responsibility for your actions. First of all, pregnancy is not some inconvenient complication, it's a natural result of sexual intercourse.

The problem doesn't begin in having children out of wedlock. The problem begins in having sex out of wedlock. Wanted to have some fun? Something went wrong? So fix it instead of finding an easy way out. In my first language, we have an idiom for that that translates as "walking on corpses". Quite relevant in this case, I believe.

But you have no problem making that comparison with a complicated pregnancy, delivery and C-section, not to mention miscarriage should something go wrong (which frequently does).Sometimes you have to make a choice between the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child. Complicated pregnancy isn't an excuse.

Dodging. This single-father crap smacks to me of the male wanting to have his cake and eat it, too.The man wanted to have fun without paying the bill much like the man. Please note that no one in this thread had talked about single father before you did. That you have a problem with single fathers doesn't mean it's relevant for all of us in this discussion. The fathers who have no say about the mothers aborting their children are relevant here, but there's no logical connection between this and single fathers.

It is obvious to me that what problem you're having here, is not the fact the school did not inform the parents, but that the girl got an abortion.What is obvious for you need not necessarily be true. Especially not the way you present it.

So, instead of artfully dodging the subject and playing Freud on me, maybe, for a change, we could discuss the topic?

Listen lads, either way I look at it the thing makes little sense to me. Either the girl is old enough to accept consequences of her actions or she isn't. If she is old enough to have sex and face the consequences then she is old enough to decide that she wants an abortion and face the consequences. If she is too young to deicde whether she wants an abortion or not then surely she is too young to have a child of her own and raise it.

I do agree that the parents should have been told but I also think that by letting them decide you also have to get them to take full reponsibility for their grandchild. To put it another way, I agree that the girl's parents have to have a final word in any medical procedure performed on their daughter, but that they have to make their decision based on the girls wishes.

One good thing might come of all this: the girl will think twice before ignoring contraception again...

If she is old enough to have sex and face the consequences then she is old enough to decide that she wants an abortion and face the consequences. If she is too young to deicde whether she wants an abortion or not then surely she is too young to have a child of her own and raise it.Well, that's what she has parents for. The mother (ie could-have-been-grandmother) wanted to keep the child and care for it, not just to force her daughter to give birth only to kick her out of the house together with the kid, anyway.

I agree that the girl's parents have to have a final word in any medical procedure performed on their daughter, but that they have to make their decision based on the girls wishes.Children's wishes have some importance, but the role of parents is to make decision based on what they think is good for their children and not on the children's wishes. If parents were to make deicisions based on their children's wishes, they wouldn't be needed at all.

Please note that no one in this thread had talked about single father before you did.I give you:

I would also like to raise one important point that was not addressed in the article: the boy and his parents were totally ignored. No one asked the underaged father if he wanted the child, no one even bothered contacting his parents.and Where did the father's rights go?from your first post.

I remember what I've said. Now please explain how it relates to single fathers.

All right, I'll spell it out - the boyfriend, if he is indeed the father, would be a single father, since he is obviously not married.

No. A single father is a father raising his children without the mother.

The issue here is not whether or not abortion is legal, but whether or not it should be possible for a minor to get an abortion without the consent of her parents.

In the United States at least, this is entirely legal. Granted, that does not make this ethical. The story, if true, sounds as though the school forced the girl to get an abortion or made the decision for her. That is certainly inappropriate given the circumstances.

The school should not, however, be forced to tell the mother (ie, Grandmother) that her daughter is pregnant. There's an old concept of doctor-patient confidentiality. It applies in this case as well.

Well, that's what she has parents for. The mother (ie could-have-been-grandmother) wanted to keep the child and care for it, not just to force her daughter to give birth only to kick her out of the house together with the kid, anyway.That is hearsay. The mother may only be saying that for the reason of giving her story more support. She may have been disappointed enough to toss the girl on the street. That's the point that many of the others seem to be making: A legal case cannot be made out of hearsay evidence.

Should the school have told the mother without asking the girl first if it was all right? No, but the girl should have had enough faith in her mother to have told her herself. The fact that she did not speaks loads about the quality of her family life, does it not?

Children's wishes have some importance, but the role of parents is to make decision based on what they think is good for their children and not on the children's wishes. If parents were to make deicisions based on their children's wishes, they wouldn't be needed at all. While I do agree with you that the girl's mother should have known, I disagree with you that the grandmother-to-be should be able to control whether her daughter has the baby or not.

All of which begs an interesting question. Speaking legally, if the pregnancy had been allowed to continue who would be the legal guardian of this child? The grandmother? Would she be responsible for it until it reaches adulthood or would she only have to 'fill in' as it were, until her daughter reaches an age when she's not a minor any more (18 presumably). Or would it have to be ruled upon by the court?

The legal guardian is the parent, and if the parent has a legal guardian, the parent's legal guardian is the legal guardian of the child until the parent reaches legal age and can take over the duties.

But it depends on the court to lay down the rules if the parents aren't married or living together and given the parents are underaged, they're neither married, nor (probably) living together in one household, so you bet it'll und up in the court, anyway. However, it's impossible for someone not of legal age to be a legal guardian. Unless somewhere in the world there are some very non-standard laws that allow that.

Trying to stay a bit on the outside of this until I have formed my own opinion, I did notice something that has bothered me. While reading everyones threads, a few people have bashed the mother for not knowing/noticing that her daughter was pregnant.

I don't believe that the article said how far along the girl was. I am no obstetrician, but if the girl was only a few weeks or even a month along, is it possible to notice?

Now if the girl was well into her first or second trimeseter, then the mother can be blamed for no noticing.

Sorry, but I had to point that out.

To briefly address some of the points made here:

Legally:

The healthcare workers and doctors can under no circumstances other than suspected rape or suchlike inform the parents or anyone else for that matter. Confidentiallity is assured.
1985 House of Lords ruling in what is known as the Gillick case, which said that in England and Wales people under 16 who are able to understand the situation can consent to medical treatment - including contraception and abortion - regardless of age and in confidence.This actually goes for any medical procedure in the UK. As long as you're in a position to understand the consequences of the medical procedure and the consequences of *not* having something done, you are legally in a position to make the decission to have it done or not, regardless of age.

As far as teachers go:
Under DfES [Department of Education] guidelines, teachers are not legally bound to inform parents of any disclosure by pupils unless the school's confidentiality policy requires them to do so.

But nor do they have any specific duty of confidentiality to the child, which means that in some schools teachers will tell parents about a pregnancy even if the girl does not want them to.

However, "teachers should seek consent for any disclosure," the guidelines state.

But if a child goes first to a healthcare worker rather than a teacher, confidentiality will be more or less guaranteed.
The BBC article is not really clear enough on many points to be certain about the exact turn of events other than the fact that the girl was pregnant, she told someone at the school in confidence, and the advice received was to have an abortion. She had that abortion without her parents knowledge and consent.

Clearly the girl did not feel she could speak with her mum about the issue, though of course ideally she should have. However, to put the blame for that on the school is plain daft.

As an addendum to this, please bear in mind that the girl's mother consented to her daughter being named and photgraphed in newspapers in order to further her own cause. Now take a moment to consider how utterly irresponsible in terms of her daughter's already difficult situation that was and ask yourself if she should have been the one to make the decission for her daughter in the first place?

@Chev - You'll be waiting a long time......

@Jaguar: good point.

@Viking:

However, to put the blame for that on the school is plain daft.If it's daft to blame someone for flat out lie, I'm daft.

1985 House of Lords ruling in what is known as the Gillick case, which said that in England and Wales people under 16 who are able to understand the situation can consent to medical treatment - including contraception and abortion - regardless of age and in confidence.Damn, I would never have supposed something like that could be part of the law of a civilised country. That's a shocker. How can an irresponsible kid who gets pregnant before 16 be responsible enough to "understand the situation", let alone decide someone's life or death?

It also means that in the legal sense the school is to blame for some unprecised disinformation and pressuring the kid to have abortion. No prison :(

As an addendum to this, please bear in mind that the girl's mother consented to her daughter being named and photgraphed in newspapers in order to further her own cause. Now take a moment to consider how utterly irresponsible in terms of her daughter's already difficult situation that was and ask yourself if she should have been the one to make the decission for her daughter in the first place?Quite contrary, she made it a point to combat the situation and demand a change of the law.

If it's daft to blame someone for flat out lie, I'm daft.To blame the school for the abortion is daft. To blame the school for not telling the girl's mother is daft. The lie about the girl being in or out of school premises is, if it happened and there is no real evidence here, completely besides the point.

It also means that in the legal sense the school is to blame for some unprecised disinformation and pressuring the kid to have abortion. No prison You have absolutely no evidence of disinformation or pressure at all. None at all.

No prison, sure, no prison.

Quite contrary, she made it a point to combat the situation and demand a change of the law.She is of course perfectly within her rights to attempt to get a change in the law, though she will not get it. However, that does not make it responsible to name and allow pictures of her daughter to be used in the media. Ultimately it was her daughter's decission to have an abortion. I really don't think she needs everyone else to know about it in detail including who she is.

To blame the school for the abortion is daft. To blame the school for not telling the girl's mother is daft. The lie about the girl being in or out of school premises is, if it happened and there is no real evidence here, completely besides the point.It is besides the point because it's inconvenient for your position.

Keeping the mother away while pressuring the girl to have an abortion and keep it in secret from her mother is actually the key point here, it being enough to take a single look at the thread's subject to attest.

You have absolutely no evidence of disinformation or pressure at all. None at all.The mother said this and the school didn't deny.

Ultimately it was her daughter's decission to have an abortion.It was not her decision, she was pressured by the school.

Actually, no, it was her decission. Legally and any other way you care to look at it:

She would have to had to make representations to two doctors as to the reasons for having an abortion in order to have it approved. This would neither have been done by the school nor at the school.

That is the legal position - two doctors must approve the abortion. Given her age, she would certainly also have been given some guidance by healthworkers such as a practice nurse or similar.

You're missing the point about what the school told the girl's mother: Since the girl spoke with a school health worker, they *could not* legally tell the girls mother. It is clear in law - please refer to the House of Lords ruling above.

Edited to add this:

From the girl's own account, as told to the Mail, it seems that she was given several opportunities to change her mind about having an abortion and about involving her mother - at every stage, she refused, and she apparently subsequently decided not to have an abortion only after her mother found out.Link to full article containing the above. (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA52E.htm)

It was her decission.

[ June 03, 2004, 00:44: Message edited by: Viking ]