child rights and parental responsibilities
Judith Collins has been busy defending her SOP to change the law regarding abortions for those 16 and under. Quite a few politicians - most whom do not have kids - have come out and supported the medical groups who support the rights of children over the responsibility of parents. Now if course it is irrelevant that the head of one of these medical groups is widely known for her pro-abortion stance, and I supposed it is also irrelevant that the group does not represent the views of the majority of the medical profession.
Well, irrelevant to politicians like Helen Clark.
To those who support the right of child not to tell the parents of an abortion, I ask this: Why should abortion be the only medical procedure that does not legally require parental consent?
These days you often need parental consent to give a child an aspirin at school. Why hasn't a child the right to take an aspirin without parental consent, particularly as they can access contraception without parental consent?
Under law, any medical, surgical, or dental procedure that is carried out on a child requires parental consent.
Back in 1977 when the law was written, parental responsibility took precedence over childrens' rights - and children who had an abortion 15-20 years ago were probably less likely to exclude their parents. - and more likely to live with both of them. These days this balance is shifting to such an extent that parental responsibility is secondary to the rights of the child.
If you think children should have the right to have an abortion without parental knowledge, why then don't you push for a law change to give children the right to go to the dentist or have a blood transfusion without parents knowing?
After all, isn't good law about having a consistent approach?