Anti-Choice Activists Applaud 14 Year Old Giving Birth
by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
July 25, 2011 - 1:13pm (Print)
When a teen girl gets pregnant, anti-choice activists state that she has absolutely no right to an abortion without her parents' permission. But conversely, if she wants to have the baby, she's old enough to make her own decision. Especially, apparently, if the parents of the boy who impregnated her want her to carry to term, too.
Via Pennsylvania Pastors Network press release:
A 14-year-old girl was granted an emergency injunction last week because she didn’t want to abort her baby—even though her parents did.
The Independence Law Center helped the girl from York, Pa., to fight the abortion in court. The mother and stepfather of the girl had scheduled an abortion for their daughter against her wishes and against the wishes of the family of the unborn child’s father.
“This is a hard road ahead for this young girl, but we applaud her and the future paternal grandparents of the child for standing up for life,” said Colin Hanna, president of the Pennsylvania Pastors’ Network and Let Freedom Ring. “Although this girl is in a difficult situation today, it is a blessing that she has chosen not to make a mistake that would end a child’s life.”
The court-ordered injunction was presented to the girl’s parents and Planned Parenthood of York.
I can only hope that these "paternal grandparents" are taking her in and caring for her as well, because this girl is going to need a whole lot of help.
Follow Robin Marty on Twitter, @robinmarty
Robin,
Aren't you pro-choice? From your post it almost seems you're saddened that a girl wasn't forced into an abortion by her parents. Shouldn't you applaud a court allowing this girl to choose life?
Jivin J--the point is, that if you think teens are mature enough to choose to give birth without their parents permission, then logically they're also mature enough to choose abortion. You can't demand parental approval in one situation and not the other.
Robin isn't saying "YAY! I love forced abortion!". She's pointing out that anti-choicers claim that young teens are too young to have sex or choose abortion, yet they're applauding a 14 year old for deciding to be a mother. Where is their logic? If 14 is too young to choose a medical procedure (not a problem in my country, if someone understands the consequences of their decision, whether they're five or eighty five, then they can give consent to treatment or can choose to refuse) then it's too young to commit to a lifetime of responsibility for another human.
That's because prolifers don't view all choices equally. We recognize that some choices are good (not killing your unborn child) and some choices (like having sex when you're 14 or killing your unborn child) are bad. I know this is difficult for pro-choicers to get because they unfathomably believe that all choices pregnant women make are valid.
Logic fail...
I don't view all choices as equal. Certainly, some choices are better than others.
The difference between you and me is that, good or bad, I don't view OTHER people's choices as MINE.
I do not believe that I have superior decision making skills to everyone around me, and I don't believe that I know "what's good" for other people better than they do. I understand that a you can't know what's best for a person unless you're standing in their shoes.
Anti-choicers however, make it abundantly clear that :
1) you believe that blanket statements about "good" and "bad" choices can be made, as if every woman and every pregnancy weren't a unique situation
2) that women certainly can't be trusted to distinguish between good and bad choices
3) that you can identify good and bad choices better than the people who's lives they actually affect
Personally, I think that children having children is ALWAYS a horrid decision. I think that pregnant children would be wise to terminate their pregnancies, in every case, BUT that is not MY choice to make.
I think that women/couples having children that they are unequipped to cherish, spend time with, and properly care for are making terrible decisions when they decide to create and bring forth those children, BUT it is not for ME to make that choice FOR them.
The problem with forced-birthers is that they believe fertile females have no right to make decisions regarding their own bodies unless it agrees with their pro-life-until-birth position. Whereas pro-choicers believe that girls and women are persons who have every right to make their own health and life decisions, regardless of our personal feelings with regard to the utility/morality of those decisions, without the interference of religion-addled, misogynistic busybodies.
JJivin,
You know, I've always suspected that 'pro-life' parents are proud and happy when their poorly raised boys impregnate underage girls. I've always suspected that y'all don't see pregnant children as a problem at all. After all, they're just girls.
Everyone above has made the important point that that simply wasn't the TOPIC of this post.
But I think you might also want to be aware that no one here is up in arms about it ALSO because we know that... The reality is, this teen and the baby daddy's parents likely didn't NEED an injunction. Her parents can make an appointment for her without her consent. But no legitimate clinic is going to force an abortion on any woman, even a minor. There was, in fact, no attempted forced abortion by any health care practitioner. Her parents would have, in all liklihood (had they taken her to any reputable, licensed physician) had a very rude awakening when they found doctors and nurses unwilling to perform medical rape.
What happened to "Parents Know Best?"
What happened to "Nobody has the right to give children information their parents don't want them to have?"
What happened to "if 14 year old girls are pregnant that's child sexual abuse and the father is a sex offender and should be put in prison"?
Haven't this boy's irresponsible parents ever explained what "abstinence" means?
Silly liberals. Boys can have all the sex they want with no responsibility or consequences. That's the girls burden because girls are just pleasure vessels, baby machines & childcare providers.
When it comes to a situation like this involving parental notification, I don't think enough of us are willing to admit what a tough situation this is for parents. We all want what is best for our children yet at the same time we have to walk a tight rope in regards to our children's bodily autonomy as humans. If MY 14-year-old CHILD came home pregnant, of course I would want to drag her to the nearest abortion clinic and get the mess taken care of so that she could get back on the right path in life and not have to suffer and struggle before her adult life has even begun. Yet at the same time, she isn't my property or a small child, she is a young woman who is approaching the age where she gets to consent to what medical procedures she wants performed on her body. So what's a parent to do?? There are no easy answers with this one.
She took me in her arms and told me my options: (1) Have the child and she would help me raise him or her; (2) Have the child and give it up for adoption; or (3) have an abortion. And she meant it; she would have helped me raise the child if that is what I chose. Of course, the reality is that at 15, I was in no way, shape, or form ready to be a single parent, even one with such a loving family, such a loving mother. The reality is that she would have ended up doing the child-raising and I was not willing to do that to her. Any life I create is one that I and I alone (of course with help of loving family) must be able and willing to cherish and properly parent.
But not everyone can honestly say such a thing, is willing to do such a thing. Women having children when they are prepared and desperately want to create/parent them is the most responsible, most loving choice. Women who desperately want and love their children are less likely to abuse or neglect them. Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's ass about embryos and fetuses. I would rather there be untold numbers of abortions than just ONE starved or malnourished or resented or neglected or beaten or raped or thrown away or murdered ACTUAL child. I truly couldn't care less about the plight of insensate proto-humans. Call me crazy, if you like.
Just curious where the option is to have the child and arrange for shared (50/50) parenting with the father? From the posts here it doesn't look like society (the patriarchy right?) is placing the full burden of child-rearing on women. It looks to me like even self-described feminists are placing that burden on themselves. I don't get it.
Well since the article talks about the 'couple', I'm assuming that includes the father as well. Additionally the paternal grandparents seemed to be involved, so I'm confused as to exactly what you're talking about, anonymous99.
I see and read this a lot. Why do these teen girls need to be "single moms"? I'm not suggesting shotgun weddings. But I don't understand why "shared parenting" never seems to be an option in these cases.
Understand now what you're saying--honestly I'm not sure. I also don't believe in shotgun weddings--14 years old is far too young to know the man or woman that you want to spend the rest of your life with. Heck, I can't even remember the full names of the boys that I dated at that age. In a case like this I suspect it might be the grandparents who will do the lion's share of the parenting but you're right--I see no reason why the responsibilities shouldn't be equally shared.
Thanks for the response.
It's hard to believe how little progress has been made in this area regarding gender roles. I go back to the NOW statement of Purpose from 1966, which is really an extraordinary document by the way, that calls for:
"...an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support."
That was 44 years ago, so one might believe we should be further along in cases like this.
I think there is a prejudiced assumption that a teenage boy isn't capable of taking care of a baby but that a teenage girl is capable. Personally, I don't think 14-year olds are capable of doing a good job without a lot of support and so the child will end up being raised mainly by the grandmothers. I'm assuming you would agree that neither of the kids should drop out of school to parent full-time or to get a job to provide support?
Comparing likely scenarios is complicated by the fact that the article mentions the age of the girl but does not mention the boy's age. I agree that being able to bond and form a close and loving relationship with both parents is in any child's best interest, barring violence, but it's been my experience that all too often 'the father's 50%' ends up being 'paternal grandma's 50%' or 'father's live-in girlfriend-of-the-month's 50%'.
I'd add, it's also hard to discuss because at this point there is no "baby". At this point there is a 14-year old pregnant girl. Miscarriages, stillbirths and birth defects are all more common when the pregnancy involves a young girl. I hope she is okay and everything goes well, but there's not much point is getting all upset about what is still at this point only a speculative child.
I agree. These (would-be) parents will need a lot of support, but I think the grandfathers can help too. See, there you go dismissing men from hands-on parenting. This was the whole point of my post. Men are perfectly capable of hands-on parenting. And I'm not surprised when I hear both men and women doing this from the general population. But I am surprised when I come to a site where even the self-described feminists don't see the benefits to BOTH women and men, as well as children, to share the burden of hands-on parenting.
I'm not sure how often young fathers are getting 50% custody these days. I'm certainly not aware of that ever happening in my sphere, not that it's a large sphere. It's more like a few overnights a month and child support, right? Even when there is shared parenting I'm sure mom's 50% is pretty filled up by grandparents and the like, too. We agree that they BOTH need the support of family and friends, right?
What I don't understand is why "feminists" aren't demanding that young fathers take on shared custody. Removing at least part of the burden of child care from mom gives her the freedom to pursue educational and vocational opportunities she wouldn't otherwise have and gives her a better chance at self-sufficiency and feedom, frankly, from having to rely on a man. Isn't that a big part of "feminism". I know that's what I want for my daughter. I think burdening mom with the full responsibility of hands-on child rearing and "demanding" child support is a really lousy strategy, but it seems like the strategy of choice.
Yes, neither should drop out of school to parent full time or work.
Look, I said it was a "prejudiced assumption", didn't I? And I believe I pretty clearly said I absolutely thought children needed a good relationship with both parents. I know that young men are physically capable of DOING hands-on child care when trained to do so. However, it has been my experience that young men are not encouraged to believe they will need those skills and are not given the opportunity to practice the skills by babysitting, but instead they are discouraged from 'hanging around with little kids' and told to instead concentrate on their education. It was my experience in raising two kids that while their fathers, both of whom were perfectly fine men, would take care of some things, they believed the responsibility was really 100% mine and they deserved a cookie for being willing to "help out", even when the kids were theirs from a prior marriage and not mine.
It isn't about "dismissing men from hands-on parenting" out of prejudice, it's instead long years of experience that in the great majority of cases the men are missing in action when the time comes because they think each individual task is OPTIONAL and the scut work really is the responsibility of the nearest woman. It's just super to say 'things would be better if fathers were encouraged to do 50%' but it isn't up to "feminists" to make that happen, it's up to the fathers themselves. In my opinion single mothers better be prepared to provide 100% monetary support if needed (since child support isn't likely to actually show up) and single fathers had better be prepared to do the hands-on, nitty-gritty work of cleaning, cooking, hygiene, homework and tears-drying instead of feeling entitled to dump the kids on whichever woman they've got living in this week/month/year. Without the young men themselves buying into the concept, if THEY'RE reluctant to care for their children because it's 'disgusting' or 'faggy', if THEY won't be trained in HOW to do so, if THEY'RE resentful or unwilling, why would "feminists" or anybody else think this is a good idea? How good a father would YOU have been when you were 14 or 15?
You seem to be totally ignoring the logistics here. Don't you think it's going to be a little disruptive to the educational process at the junior high to have these two kids passing the baby back and forth between classes or kneeling down in the aisle to change diapers? How is the child going to be provided with biologically superior breastmilk during the first year if its being shuttled around? Are you operating on the assumption that these kids are going to live with the paternal grandpa or grandma for the next four or five years? That either grandpa or grandma (probably in their 40's) is going to quit a job and stay home? No possibility that the girl might be a teensy resistant to being supervised in mothering by her pseudo-mother-in-law? If the daycare route is chosen where is the $600 plus a month that an infant costs going to come from? Or are they instead going to pressure the girl to surrender for adoption and let her, and the child when it is older, deal with the guilt and abandonment issues that arise from that?
It's super duper to have all these rosy, hopeful dreams about how the young couple, through hard work and true love and with support from their loving families who give them sage advice, can make this work and enjoy their wonderful child -- cue the sparkles, cue the music. Unfortunately my experience in real life indicates where this ends up instead is at the E.R., with a doc wanting to know what caused the bruises, or down at the WIC office, with the case worker explaining that, no, cheese doodles and taco chips are NOT a complete and balanced diet for a nine month old, and just maybe that's why she/he is sick a lot. I don't see much point in saying, well, if everything was just DIFFERENT than it actually is, if there was an entirely different reality than what we know actually happens now, THEN it would all work out fine.
It's not different, that isn't the reality, and it probably won't work out fine. Certainly putting the responsibility to make it work on "the feminists" by expecting them to convince the boys to stop playing videogames/sports and instead reluctantly do their 'chores' makes it clear those boys are children, does it not? And that even you can't entirely let go of the idea that it's the WOMEN'S responsibility to make sure the children are cared for? But the biggest indicator that this is a trainwreck is the fact that the grandparents have shared her private circumstances with a church eager to betray that confidence by sending out press releases violating the privacy of everyone involved, splashing the participants personal circumstances all over the internet, and using this situation to make political points. If things weren't a disaster before the church publicly accused her parents of abuse and sicced the wolfpack of media curiosity on them all, the church has certainly created a disaster now.
The sperm donor dropped off the face of the earth as soon as I turned up pregnant. This, even though we had agreed well before we started having sex that if our BC failed, I would get an abortion and we would split the costs. Hence, had I brought the pregnancy to fruition, I would have been left a single parent, which is a state of motherhood that I know is extremely difficult under the best of circumstances and I knew I simply wasn't up for the task.
I was fortunate to have a pro-choice, feminist mother who was willing to support me in whatever decision I made regarding my pregnancy. Same can't be said for most sperm donors...To be fair, the same can't be said of most mothers/parents, either.
Well, even had he stuck around you would have STILL been a single parent for all intents and purposes. Sure, you might have gotten some child support and a few nights a month break but that would be it. Here's the thing, for single guys, in most cases "fatherhood" is nothing more than paying child support and "visitation" "rights". Maybe if there was a more meaningful approach to fatherhood for these young men they might be more into it. Do I maybe have a point here?
Which is one of the major factors influencing my decision to never create children. I want a career and I want to be able to support myself. I do not want to be saddled with all or the bulk of child-rearing responsibilities.
I would love for parenthood to be an equal task, for joint custody to be the default, rather than the exception. That will take a lot of societal change and I'm not holding my breath.
Here's the thing, for single guys, in most cases "fatherhood" is nothing more than paying child support and "visitation" "rights". Maybe if there was a more meaningful approach to fatherhood for these young men they might be more into it.
So isn't this statement "dismissing men from hands-on parenting"? Sure would love to know just why it totally out of bounds for me to say something like this and then perfectly okay for you to say. If men want to invent "a more meaningful approach to fatherhood", more power to them. Women have a small baby to take care of, it's not their responsibility to chivvy the fathers into taking a 'meaningful approach'. I haven't seen that it has a whole bunch to do with 'single' either, most married men leave 95% of the hands-on childcare work to the woman, even when both mom and dad work. This is NOT women's problem, it's men's problem -- YOU fix it.
I've faced the opposite of this when it comes to hypocritical positions: I've had near a dozen doctors tell me that they won't sterilize me because I'm far too young to make the permanent decision never to have children. And yet, when I asked each of those doctors if they forced all their patients my age and younger to abort, since those women were far too young to make the permanent decision to have a child, you'd think I'd asked them if they clothed themselves in the skin of infants while slaughtering kittens.
Okay, I think you are all missing the point here.
I'm going to help you try to think like an anti-choicer. The logic goes like this:
If you do something I agree with, then I will support you and your autonomy.
If you do something I disagree with, then you are a stupid minor and/or woman, and you don't know what's best for your own good. Women have no autonomy. They are property.
Got it?
By the way: I think you all are awesome, and I want to be your friend!
@z3ncat: unfortunately you are right; outside of extreme circumstances, federal law prohibits healthcare providers from sterilizing people until they're 21 years old.
If you ARE old enough to go out and order a beer, you can find providers who will perform this procedure. Population Connection is a good resource to find providers who will do this for you. This is a very serious decision, and I commend you for doing what's right for you, even though you might have to search for a provider who will support you in this regard.
Keep talking, folks. You all are great!
must be that all choices a pregnant woman makes are valid. So if a mother wants to kill her female unborn child because she's a girl - well then that's her "choice." Of course, the vast majority of pro-choicers don't really believe this, they just use it to bludgeon prolifers.
But why is Marty almost seemingly upset that this girl's wasn't forced into abortion. Imagine someone's thought process if they read an article about a girl being saved from a forced abortion (hello? - one would think saving a 14-year-old girl from a forced abortion would cause both prolifers and pro-choicers to celebrate) and all they can comment on it is some weak snark directed at prolifers.
Again, no one is upset. But if this girl is old enough to decide to continue her pregnancy without parental approval/notification, than she's old enough to make the opposite decision as well. It's her decision to make, regardless. If you don't support a forced abortion, JivinJ, why would you support a forced birth? Both are equally wrong.
1) No one said the all choices were valid (good). What we are saying is that all choices are not YOURS. People have the right to make choices that you think are bad. I think it would be a bad choice for woman to terminate a pregnancy due to the child's gender. If this was a woman I knew, given the opportunity, I would (non-threateningly, compassionately, and without judgment), express to her my concerns about her choice (as I would to any friend that I worried might be making a bad decision). But I would also understand that her life is probably more complicated than I know. Perhaps giving birth to another daughter would put the children she already has in danger, perhaps this is part of escaping an abusive relationship.... or maybe she hates girls. The point is, that even if her choice is a bad one, it's HERS.
2) The issue of "forced abortion" (which never happened in this article, it was, at worst, force-appointment-making) has been explained to you several times. One, this article is about the LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY of supporting the parental right to force gestation, but not to force termination. Two, all those of us who are actually familiar with abortion providers know that the clinic would have refused to perform the abortion once they realized the girl was unwilling, minor or not.
You can't just repeat the same statements that have already been answered and call that an argument...
one would think saving a 14-year-old girl from a forced abortion would cause both prolifers and pro-choicers to celebrate
Really? When you're talking about a pregnancy created by a couple of children, I don't see much to celebrate. The option which is known to produce the least physical, emotional and economic damage having been taken off the table, no matter what happens now, the lives of everyone involved have sustained an irreversible blow.
At a minimum, there is an estrangement from her parents that will likely never be completely healed, and hostility between the two sets of grandparents that is not going to disappear.
If the child is given up for adoption, she, the father, their siblings, all the grandparents and the child itself will all have to deal with the severe emotional damage known to be consequent to that.
If she tries to raise the child she increases the likelihood for a series of negative outcomes including her education being cut short, lifelong poverty, higher likelihood of being abused and negative impacts on her physical health. The boy involved must assume the financial and emotional burden of being a father a good decade before he's likely to actually be a success at doing either, and will have to cope with that inadequacy and its results lifelong.
And the child, the poor thing, born through no fault of its own already assigned a role as poster child for a fertility cult ready to sacrifice his or her emotional health and future happiness to 'prove' that they're right and babies are the appropriate punishment for sex. Maybe the young couple can name him or her Consequence, or Responsibility, or just be blunt and choose Punishment.
There are a bunch of comments here about the parents of sons not giving a damn if they knock up their young girlfriends. It would seem to me that this boys family DOES give a damn, since it is that family who is willing to support the girlfriend and their baby. I am the mother of three boys, no girls. I will teach my boys to practice safe sex and let them know that I expect the emotional well being of their partners to his very first priority when deciding who to sleep with. I am terrified, though, that if one of them does get a girl pregnant, I am going to be totally helpless. It will he HER family making the decisions, and that's a pretty terrible place to be.
To the poster who mentioned abstinence only education, and why this young boy wasn't taught it,..... well, apparently they are informed enough to know that it DOESN'T work. Sarah Palin's two out of wed lock grandbabies, anyone??
I believe that the point is that they, like you, don't care about the 14 year old girl.
I am going to be totally helpless. It will he HER family making the decisions, and that's a pretty terrible place to be.
Perhaps you should teach your sons that sex with 14 year old girls is illegal.
colleen, I know we've been through this before but teen sex is not illegal.
Sex at nineTEEN is always legal. Sex at eightTEEN is mostly legal.
When you're talking about sex at ages 13 through 17 it depends on what state you live in.
Each US state has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16.[41]
- age of consent 16 (31): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia
- age of consent 17 (8): Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Texas
- age of consent 18 (12): Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America
~ The only thing that makes pro-lifers hornier then a grown women being pregnant and giving birth, is an under age girl giving birth. Under age girls being pregnant and giving birth is pro-lifers favorite porn.
My Baptist christian uncle bragged to me when I was fifteen that he kept my aunt pregnant so much when she was young that she had three children before the age of eighteen. He had such twinkle in his eyes when he bragged on what his Christian man penis did to an under age girl.
Pro-lifers are perverts to girls under the age of eighteen. ~
Elegant and stylish, you should get these fashion shinning sunglasses from our Sunglasses Online store, which are well made and lined nicely on the inside. These sunglasses are perfect for going out. Like the most durable Black Sunglasses is you best choice to go out and they the best-seller sunglasses in our store. Want to look for more Best Sunglasses? Please view our Sunglasses 2011 category or click our homepage. Here you can find various the world famous brand sunglasses. Just like the Oakley Sunglasses or the Rayban Sunglasses which are the most fashionable style and also popular among most young people in our store. Take your time to look through our catalogue and find the best price on our sunglasses shop! We will provide you the best quality and the most satisfactory services
