Parents furious as 13-year-old girls given contraceptive implants at school without their knowledge

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I am not talking about birth control. I am talking about invading a childs body. which is EXACTLY what this is.

Well you can consent to one form of invasion and not to the other, so they are still not the same.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I am not talking about birth control. I am talking about invading a childs body. which is EXACTLY what this is.

Well you can consent to one form of invasion and not to the other, so they are still not the same.

edit on 9-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

i can consent to abortion as well. Does that mean that someone doing it without my consent should not be charged with murder?

I can consent to giving blood. If someone forcibly draws it, does that make it less of a crime, since i *CAN* consent?

I can consent to many millions of things that may kill me. If someone else does those things to me, does that make it less of a crime?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

i can consent to abortion as well. Does that mean that someone doing it without my consent should not be charged with murder?

I can consent to giving blood. If someone forcibly draws it, does that make it less of a crime, since i *CAN* consent?

I can consent to many millions of things that may kill me. If someone else does those things to me, does that make it less of a crime?

No, but it doesn't make them all the same.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

i can consent to abortion as well. Does that mean that someone doing it without my consent should not be charged with murder?

I can consent to giving blood. If someone forcibly draws it, does that make it less of a crime, since i *CAN* consent?

I can consent to many millions of things that may kill me. If someone else does those things to me, does that make it less of a crime?

No, but it doesn't make them all the same.

Ok, so in other words, you are going to say "nuh-uh, is not" without providing anything to back it up.

Kinda embarrassed it to me this long to realize your tactic...

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Ok, so in other words, you are going to say "nuh-uh, is not" without providing anything to back it up.

Kinda embarrassed it to me this long to realize your tactic...

It is simple. There are many things that are illegal but they are not all the same. Theft isn't the same as grand theft. Involuntary manslaughter, isn't the same as 2nd degree murder or 1st degree murder. Placing implants in a minor isn't the same as statutory rape. There is no tactic. It's simple logic.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Ok, so in other words, you are going to say "nuh-uh, is not" without providing anything to back it up.

Kinda embarrassed it to me this long to realize your tactic...

It is simple. There are many things that are illegal but they are not all the same. Theft isn't the same as grand theft. Involuntary manslaughter, isn't the same as 2nd degree murder or 1st degree murder. Placing implants in a minor isn't the same as statutory rape. There is no tactic. It's simple logic.

edit on 9-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

I never said it was the same, i said it was on the same level.

The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states. These persons are considered deserving of special protection because they are especially vulnerable due to their youth or condition.

take the term "sex" out of the definition, and it fits this case to a "T"

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I am not talking about birth control. I am talking about invading a childs body. which is EXACTLY what this is.

Well you can consent to one form of invasion and not to the other, so they are still not the same.

edit on 9-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

i can consent to abortion as well. Does that mean that someone doing it without my consent should not be charged with murder?

I can consent to giving blood. If someone forcibly draws it, does that make it less of a crime, since i *CAN* consent?

I can consent to many millions of things that may kill me. If someone else does those things to me, does that make it less of a crime?

Actually, consent or non-consent can be overridden by Medical Professionals if the patients life is deemed to be in jeopardy or if the person is deemed incapable (implied consent) to be able to consent.

Originally posted by Wotan

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I am not talking about birth control. I am talking about invading a childs body. which is EXACTLY what this is.

Well you can consent to one form of invasion and not to the other, so they are still not the same.

edit on 9-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

i can consent to abortion as well. Does that mean that someone doing it without my consent should not be charged with murder?

I can consent to giving blood. If someone forcibly draws it, does that make it less of a crime, since i *CAN* consent?

I can consent to many millions of things that may kill me. If someone else does those things to me, does that make it less of a crime?

Actually, consent or non-consent can be overridden by Medical Professionals if the patients life is deemed to be in jeopardy or if the person is deemed incapable (implied consent) to be able to consent.

There are hundreds of "special circumstance" cases where parents can be overridden. I keep seeing you all bring this up. Let me ask, what does that have to do with THIS thread and THIS case? Are these kids "special circumstances"? If not, your point is TOTALLY irrelevant.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I never said it was the same, i said it was on the same level.

Your exact words were:

It is predatory behavior. Just as having sex with a 13 year old is.

It isn't even on the same level. That is why one can be consented to and the other can't.

The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states. These persons are considered deserving of special protection because they are especially vulnerable due to their youth or condition.

take the term "sex" out of the definition, and it fits this case to a "T"

Which is what makes it different.

Take the death out of the definition of murder and it fits attempted murder to a "T". Of course, that is why it is classified as a different/lesser crime.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I never said it was the same, i said it was on the same level.

Your exact words were:

It is predatory behavior. Just as having sex with a 13 year old is.

It isn't even on the same level. That is why one can be consented to and the other can't.

The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states. These persons are considered deserving of special protection because they are especially vulnerable due to their youth or condition.

take the term "sex" out of the definition, and it fits this case to a "T"

Which is what makes it different.

Take the death out of the definition of murder and it fits attempted murder to a "T". Of course, that is why it is classified as a different crime.

So by my assertion that doing this to 13 year old is predatory behavior, you inferred that I was saying it was the same? Interesting.....but thanks for posting this so all can see that that is NOT AT ALL what I said, you simply A)distorted it or B)misinterpreted it.

It is different. It is still on the same level.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

So your tactic is to repeat "it's on the same level" over and over and hope it makes it true. It's obvious that the laws in certain places around the globe don't treat them the same and over half of the state laws in the US disagree, but if you say so.

Minor's Consent Law

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Wotan

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I am not talking about birth control. I am talking about invading a childs body. which is EXACTLY what this is.

Well you can consent to one form of invasion and not to the other, so they are still not the same.

edit on 9-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

i can consent to abortion as well. Does that mean that someone doing it without my consent should not be charged with murder?

I can consent to giving blood. If someone forcibly draws it, does that make it less of a crime, since i *CAN* consent?

I can consent to many millions of things that may kill me. If someone else does those things to me, does that make it less of a crime?

Actually, consent or non-consent can be overridden by Medical Professionals if the patients life is deemed to be in jeopardy or if the person is deemed incapable (implied consent) to be able to consent.

There are hundreds of "special circumstance" cases where parents can be overridden. I keep seeing you all bring this up. Let me ask, what does that have to do with THIS thread and THIS case? Are these kids "special circumstances"? If not, your point is TOTALLY irrelevant.

Well if you have read what I posted a page back, you would see that the Child can consent to having birth control which also includes abortion WITHOUT you the parents consent or even of you knowing about it which is what this thread is basically about.

reply to post by Wotan




I have been taking my 15 year old grand daughter for dental treatment over these last three

months which includes two extractions, and at EVERY appointment i have been required

to sign agreeing to the treatment being done. So why was this??


If a child [minor] has TOTAL rights over their own medical condition and treatments why would

an appropriate adult need to sign? Also if she were in need of an operation or anesthetic for

ANYTHING her mother would have to sign for her, which in point does not give her jurisdiction

over her own medical condiction.


So many of these 'silly' girls [minors, young adults] aspire to breast implants, but i don't

beleive the medical profession are allowed to do this procedure before the age of 18 years which

means the law has the rights over the childs [minor, young adult]


It is my belief that there should be greater clarity over the rights of the parent who after all are

the one's responsible for the WELFARE, CARE and WELL BEING of their offspring and any

decisions they make are with this in mind. And in reality the parent is most often in the best

position to make judgements on the maturity of their child.


There is a vast difference in two13 year olds, one having had her 13th birthday yesterday and

the other having her 14th birthday tomorrow! ....... What a difference a year can make

reply to post by eletheia


In most normal circumstances you are correct, the parents are asked to sign a consent form. This is the normal process and would be done in 99% of the time. It is only in certain circumstances that parental consent can be overidden.

You are also correct in that two 13 year olds are very different - Hence the Gillick competency and Frazer Principles.

Originally posted by Wotan

Originally posted by EvanB
I would KICK THE FK OFF if they implanted my kids without my permission!!

There would be blood to pay, I aint kidding!

Sorry to say, but you would not have a leg to stand on if your child consented to an implant, apart from the fact that the Medical Authorities have a legal statute to NOT even discuss you childs medical procedures with you without your childs consent.

Who gives a crap about legalities?

No amounts of pieces of paper would stop me taking a baseball bat to the person who implanted my underage daughters with that sh%t!

reply to post by EvanB


With an attitude like that I'm sure your kid would make sure you never found out. Probably the reason she would go behind your back in the first place.

Originally posted by EvanB

Originally posted by Wotan

Originally posted by EvanB
I would KICK THE FK OFF if they implanted my kids without my permission!!

There would be blood to pay, I aint kidding!

Sorry to say, but you would not have a leg to stand on if your child consented to an implant, apart from the fact that the Medical Authorities have a legal statute to NOT even discuss you childs medical procedures with you without your childs consent.

Who gives a crap about legalities?

No amounts of pieces of paper would stop me taking a baseball bat to the person who implanted my underage daughters with that sh%t!

Well i'll try to make sure that I do not place an implant in your daughter then

Have a stay day in prison.

reply to post by daskakik


She knows better!

reply to post by Wotan


May as well make it worth it then hey?

Originally posted by EvanB
reply to post by daskakik

 

She knows better!

Or so you think. Always surprised me how wild the kids of overbearing parents were when out of their parents sight. Of course the parents would never hear it from me.

Maybe just knows it's better to keep you in the dark.