Texas Teens and Birth Control

[Dr. Who]

Do you not realize that not all children who petition for emancipation are granted emancipation?

I'm sure some are rejected, but if they meet the requirements, i.e. they are 16 or 17, self-supporting and not living with their parent or guardian, assuming they are not living in a box under a bridge, they are likely to be granted emancipation.

[FindersKeepers]

This is enough out of your camp, the reason that the left does not want abstinence to be part of the sexual education is they want the kids having sex, they want them to rely on the state and not the family and there are a lot of perverts that want to have sex with them!

This is not about the child's rights, if it was you would be posting that they should be driving, able to purchase tobacco, get married, get a bank loan, purchase firearms, alcohol and recreational drugs, work a full time job, you don't have any problems with these laws, but when it could stop your crowd from getting away with sex with minors, OH NO that should be the child's rights they should be able to have sex with anyone they want.

You have to ask yourself a serious question, and you have to do so without trying to conform to the party line.

Of course parents don't want their teens to have sex--but if they do--do they want their teens protected or not?
Your dad told you not to have sex, but you did anyway. What makes you think today's teens are any different?

The government has NO business in this at all, and of course the child can get birth control with parental permission. You just don't want her talking to them because she might choose to wait.

I agree with this, which is why I oppose any law that bans allowing teens to see birth control unless they get parental permission. How can you say on one hand that you don't want the government involved, and then on the other hand you support draconian government control?

[FindersKeepers]

I would have to look but I think in her teens, what was the average age of marriage back then Of course the parents would have been involved as these were arranged marriages, she was engaged to Joseph, and what was the life expectancy of a person back then..

What would happen to a male if they got a girl pregnant back then?

I am OK with allowing someone the age of Mary to have contraception if we can have the other laws too. Deal?

If you can show that allowing someone who is 14 to buy a gun will not be detrimental to society -- go ahead. I'll agree with you.

But, we KNOW that 14 and 15 year olds having babies is detrimental to society. Hence, there's no logical reason to ban them from protecting themselves if their parents won't sign-off on contraception.

Plus, by denying them contraception, you're increasing abortion and unwanted births. You can't have it both ways. That's irresponsible.

[Chris]

Promoting teen sexuality is detrimental to society. Being anti-family by making children autonomous from parents, as liberalism has since at least Rousseau, is detrimental to society.

The law does not deny contraception, it's been in effect since 2019 and abortion has in fact declined.


Can't have it both ways? What is the other way? Wouldn't that be strengthening family bonds as the basis of society?