Teenagers - rights vs privileges

[justginger]

I DO NOT WISH TO OPEN A DEBATE ON ABORTION!

http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant-teen-wins-abortion-battle-150554993--abc-news-topstories.html

What I am interested in is what people consider to be the 'rights' of a teenager. In this case, a court ordered parents to reinstate a teenage girl's access to a cell phone and car. I seriously doubt that at 16 she was the purchaser of either (though it is possible, just highly unlikely).

Are these things now considered 'rights' of teenage children? Do you consider them to be basic necessities for your children?

 

[yennyfire]

I agree with you JG. I do think it's the parent's responsibility to get her to school and if they expect her to get a job to pay some of her bills (i.e. medical. baby gear), then I think that's their right. I do NOT think that this girl has the right to a car and cell phone unless she pays for them. Period. Pregnant or not.

 

[justginger]

I agree with you JG. I do think it's the parent's responsibility to get her to school and if they expect her to get a job to pay some of her bills (i.e. medical. baby gear), then I think that's their right. I do NOT think that this girl has the right to a car and cell phone unless she pays for them. Period. Pregnant or not.

I don't understand how the phone figures into ANYTHING. The car I can see, to get to and from medical appointments. I still disagree with it - I think the parents have a responsibility to take her to appointments in THEIR car, without providing one for her free use. But the phone? Pregnant women the world over have children without access to cell phones.

 

[rubybeth]

No, I don't think a car and a cell phone are 'rights.' I'm also thinking her parents probably instructed her to not have sex/get pregnant, and so its within their realm of responsibility to punish her for disobeying them. If she were 18, she'd be on her own and could do whatever she wants, but she's 16 and still under their care. If their 'punishment' for her getting pregnant and not wanting an abortion was having to give up her cell phone and car, well, so be it. I'm guessing there's a lot more to this story than we'll ever know.

 

[iheartscience]

No, I don't think a car and a cell phone are 'rights.' I'm also thinking her parents probably instructed her to not have sex/get pregnant, and so its within their realm of responsibility to punish her for disobeying them. If she were 18, she'd be on her own and could do whatever she wants, but she's 16 and still under their care. If their 'punishment' for her getting pregnant and not wanting an abortion was having to give up her cell phone and car, well, so be it. I'm guessing there's a lot more to this story than we'll ever know.

Ditto. I'm not saying her parents were right to try to force her to get an abortion, but I do think the parents should have the right to say "Okay, but we're not paying for your cell phone or car."

 

[Bella_mezzo]

I think that the parents should definitely be responsible for taking her to and from Drs appointments as well as school (medical care and education are basic requirements for parenting, if they are not able/willing to provide those things then she should not be in their care right now).

Personal car and phone for teenager, in my book are definitely privileges (regardless of whether or not she pays for them)

I can see re the Drs appts where it gets a little sticky legally and ethically...what if they were the ones who wanted her to have a procedure (not looking to start an abortion debate either, just trying to sort out for myself who makes medical decisions for a 16 year old and practically speaking what that looks like...)

Either way, I think phone and car are privileges.

 

[kenny]

IMHO, rights for minors include: good parents, love, guidance on ethics values and morals, air, safe home, food, water, clothes, education, medical care, condoms (uncomfortable subject but much less upsetting than pregnancies).

Privileges are 100% optional and provided only if parents choose: car to use or own, computer, sodas and junk food, cellphone, TV, iPod, iAnything, freedom outside the home, allowance, choice of friends (I don't think my kid has a right to druggie slacker friends).

The gray area that I find very interesting is ... a minor becoming a parent introduces a paradox in that some of the position/authority of the parents of the pregnant teen suddenly seem inappropriate.
Pregnant 16 year olds should be considered 18 year olds in some ways since they now have parental responsibilities too.
The problem is they rarely have the finances or maturity for the job and often still live under their parent's roof.

Condoms people.
Condoms.

 

[partgypsy]

I can't look at videos at work, but in the article it said the parents took away her phone and her car, also that she was working 2 jobs. So it sounds like it was her property. I guess there are 2 legal points here, whether parents can take a minor's property away (and to what extent, such as can they take away the children's clothes, their bed and make them use a sleeping bag, can they take things that the minors have paid for themselves, etc) and 2nd the minor may need to use the cell phone and car to make doctor's visits for the health of the unborn child.

I think the court had an issue with how the parents were trying to coerce her into a abortion, in part by denying her use of a car and phone, not ruling that cars and phones were rights of all teenagers.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I think the judge thought the parents used taking away the use of the car and phone to intimidate the girl into an abortion. He is in no way saying cars and phones are a right of teenagers. If they are in a suburb you need a car to go anywhere. She remains somewhat independent by having the car & phone. She can go to school and Dr.s visits on her own. I agree the next step should be emancipation, but the teen is not ready for it yet.

Its tough for everybody. I don't blame the parents for being angry--the care of both their teen and grandchild will probably fall upon them. But, I have found once a baby comes, you'd never trade it. And the teen may someday regret her decision. Its a surprise for them all, they have to adjust.


Annette

 

[ForteKitty]

If she's old enough to legally get married (and she is), she's old enough to take care of herself.

 

[iheartscience]

If she's old enough to legally get married (and she is), she's old enough to take care of herself.

Yep. And in many states once a teenager becomes pregnant she is no longer considered a minor.

 

[amc80]

So it sounds like it was her property. I guess there are 2 legal points here, whether parents can take a minor's property away (and to what extent, such as can they take away the children's clothes, their bed and make them use a sleeping bag, can they take things that the minors have paid for themselves, etc) and 2nd the minor may need to use the cell phone and car to make doctor's visits for the health of the unborn child.

I don't think it should matter if a teen buys something with their own money or not. Unless that teen is paying for rent, insurance, food, etc., the only reason they are able to buy extra stuff is because they are being supported by someone else.

Having said that, I do think the motivation for what the parents did was wrong, but within their rights.

 

[madelise]

Okay, can someone please point out why this dumb girl decides to SUE her parents rather than get emancipated?
She can easily emancipate herself from her parents' "law", and thus free herself of them at the same time as relieve her parents of their financial burdens from the extra child.

I totally agree with you. A cell phone and a car are PRIVILEGES. Privileges I didn't have, and I worked at that age! I walked to work, and took the bus to work.

She has an amazing sense of entitlement, and that shows through her actions of suing her parents. Condoms aren't fool proof-- I understand that she might have been 100% responsible in her frolics, and still end up pregnant. But I believe she had a choice, to follow her parents' request, or to emancipate herself. She decided to be a jerk about it instead, and stick them with the bill. I cannot believe her parents are now forced to be half responsible for the financial part of this new baby. This is telling every kid across America that their parents will be forced to take care of their consequences.

Isn't the new law about giving up kids still in effect? Can't her parents just take her to the nearest Fire Department, and dump her there?



I know I sound harsh, but, gosh, this story just pisses me off in a million ways. If they start taking away the rights of parents, and giving them to minors that don't have their darn frontal lobes developed…. I think I'm way too scared to have kids.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

.

 

[mdmc]

I agree with others a phone and car are a privilege. That being said she is still a minor. I don't believe in abortion and I do think her parents were trying to force her to do that. As a parent we are responsible for them even when they make bad/stupid mistakes.(If your minor vandalizes your neighbors home most states you have to make restitution,which makes you somewhat responsible) I do believe they should and have a responsibility to make sure she and the baby have good medical care. If she were mine I would also make sure she had a usable phone. So do I think they should GIVE her a car? No. But once again they are responsible for her care.

 

[TooPatient]

Okay, can someone please point out why this dumb girl decides to SUE her parents rather than get emancipated?
She can easily emancipate herself from her parents' "law", and thus free herself of them at the same time as relieve her parents of their financial burdens from the extra child.

I totally agree with you. A cell phone and a car are PRIVILEGES. Privileges I didn't have, and I worked at that age! I walked to work, and took the bus to work.

She has an amazing sense of entitlement, and that shows through her actions of suing her parents. Condoms aren't fool proof-- I understand that she might have been 100% responsible in her frolics, and still end up pregnant. But I believe she had a choice, to follow her parents' request, or to emancipate herself. She decided to be a jerk about it instead, and stick them with the bill. I cannot believe her parents are now forced to be half responsible for the financial part of this new baby. This is telling every kid across America that their parents will be forced to take care of their consequences.

Isn't the new law about giving up kids still in effect? Can't her parents just take her to the nearest Fire Department, and dump her there?



I know I sound harsh, but, gosh, this story just pisses me off in a million ways. If they start taking away the rights of parents, and giving them to minors that don't have their darn frontal lobes developed…. I think I'm way too scared to have kids.

I agree with Madelise.

I'm not in support of what her parents did. I don't think anyone should be forced into an abortion, but the parents should be able to tell her that she's an adult now and must take care of herself. If they are willing and able to help her in some way then that is great too, but most people can't just add the expense of another child to their budgets.

The ability of the court to order parents to be financially responsible for a 16 year old's choices is also disturbing. What a great message to send to all the teenagers out there -- have sex, get pregnant, and your parents will have to pay for it!

 

[Gypsy]

I think actions have consequences. I don't think the court was right to interfere in the parent's rights to discipline their kid. I do think that the decision to have or not have the child is the decision of the 16 year old who is bearing the child. But everything that flows from that decision-- whether it is being kicked out of the house, or having your car taken away is well... is up to the parent as long as it is legal (not physical abuse or threats or detainment). And I don't think the court should interfere. I do think that the parents should have the girl emancipated, I think that's the right thing to do.

I think the court overstepped and I really hope the parents appeal. I think it sets a bad precedent.

 

[JulieN]

I don't think cars/phone are rights, but I don't think parents are right to punish her for being pregnant or to try to coerce an abortion, so I agree that her car and phone should be given back to her.

 

[megumic]

Okay, can someone please point out why this dumb girl decides to SUE her parents rather than get emancipated?
She can easily emancipate herself from her parents' "law", and thus free herself of them at the same time as relieve her parents of their financial burdens from the extra child.

I totally agree with you. A cell phone and a car are PRIVILEGES. Privileges I didn't have, and I worked at that age! I walked to work, and took the bus to work.

She has an amazing sense of entitlement, and that shows through her actions of suing her parents. Condoms aren't fool proof-- I understand that she might have been 100% responsible in her frolics, and still end up pregnant. But I believe she had a choice, to follow her parents' request, or to emancipate herself. She decided to be a jerk about it instead, and stick them with the bill. I cannot believe her parents are now forced to be half responsible for the financial part of this new baby. This is telling every kid across America that their parents will be forced to take care of their consequences.

Isn't the new law about giving up kids still in effect? Can't her parents just take her to the nearest Fire Department, and dump her there?



I know I sound harsh, but, gosh, this story just pisses me off in a million ways. If they start taking away the rights of parents, and giving them to minors that don't have their darn frontal lobes developed…. I think I'm way too scared to have kids.

Not sure about TX but in many states to get emancipated, the kid needs to prove he or she has an income sufficient to support him or herself and that he or she has a suitable place to live. So it's not just as easy as "ok let's all agree to legally sever this parent-child relationship" because the state has a vested interest in its children having a home and financial support.

 

[monarch64]

Hmm. Phones are as prevalent as cars these days. One would be hard-pressed to find a payphone at any random gas station/drugstore/grocery store now, so I can understand why a phone may now be considered a necessary means of contact. Are teenagers who are driving now expected to rely on passers-by who might have cell phones to stop and assist/call AAA or 911? This is where my mind went when thinking about whether it's a privilege or right to be able to keep using a cell phone.

As far as the right to drive: THAT is a privilege. One must pass all sorts of tests, written and physical, to obtain a license to drive, and then must somehow secure a street-safe vehicle to actually drive. Obviously no education/tests/licenses are necessary for one to use a cell phone. Then again, none of those are required to become pregnant, carry a child, birth a child, and raise it, either.

Would any of this even be in question if we as a society did not place so much importance on the status of having a car at a somewhat young age? Having a cellphone as a small child/teen? I mean, when my parents had "the talk" with me (re premarital sex and the consequences of pregnancy before I was married) it was a respect issue, not a "we'll have to take away your phone and car" issue. How did things get to this point? (Yes, Kenny, they talked to me about birth control!) I'm just saying, I was more worried about losing my parents' respect and love rather than losing possessions.

 

[asscherisme]

I AM the parent of a 16 year old and I have made it very clear to him that borrowing my car is a PRIIVILEDGE and NOT a right. In fact the state where I live gives me the authority as his parent to have them revoke his licence anytime I feel like it until he is age 18. His licence until 18 is conditional upon my continued permission.

I also feel the cell phone is a privlege. That being said, I have punished him before with the cell phone but not allowing him to text his friends (he does not have a smart phone but a regular texting phone which is very uncommon where I live. It seems everyone buys their kids iphones at 11 around here and I disagree with that and have stood my ground. ) i do plan on buying him a smart phone when he graduates high school because I think for college it would be a good thing to have.

I personally don't take the phone away completely because I feel its a safety thing for him to have a phone. The school bus can be rough and with schoool shootings (sad to think about but they do happen) I want him to have a phone for safety reasons. Also, when he is driving I think having a phone for emergencies is important. Like others pointed out, its almost impossilbe to find pay phones anymore. Althought the times his battery has died EVERYONE on the bus and school has phones now.

From what I understand the judge was not so much saying those things are a right, but he was saying he felt the parents were using unfair methods to coerce their child.

 

[asscherisme]

IMHO, rights for minors include: good parents, love, guidance on ethics values and morals, air, safe home, food, water, clothes, education, medical care, condoms (uncomfortable subject but much less upsetting than pregnancies).

Privileges are 100% optional and provided only if parents choose: car to use or own, computer, sodas and junk food, cellphone, TV, iPod, iAnything, freedom outside the home, allowance, choice of friends (I don't think my kid has a right to druggie slacker friends).

The gray area that I find very interesting is ... a minor becoming a parent introduces a paradox in that some of the position/authority of the parents of the pregnant teen suddenly seem inappropriate.
Pregnant 16 year olds should be considered 18 year olds in some ways since they now have parental responsibilities too.
The problem is they rarely have the finances or maturity for the job and often still live under their parent's roof.

Condoms people.
Condoms.

Kenny,
For someone who is not a parent, you have a great grasp on this. I totally agree with you. Ideally teens would not have sex in H.S. and condoms DO break or are used wrong. But at least comdoms reduce risk of pregnancy and spreading nasty things. I hope hope hope my kids listen to me and don't do it in HS but have talked to them until I am blue in the face about coming to me if they do or at a minimum use condoms. Yes its super hard to talk to them but easier I imagine than dealing with a teenage pregancy.

 

[pregcurious]

I thought my answer was going to cut and dry until read the article. Yes, car and cell phone are privileges. It's also a given that a pregnant woman should be able to get to her prenatal appointments.

In general, I don't think that other people have a right to someone else's property, but in this case, we are talking about a child. A 16 year old is not considered an adult in this country. At the same time, I do see the issue of children have children. It's a problem, but it happens, so what do you do from there? Do I think these people are "good" parents based on the article? Really, I have never met them, but it doesn't sound like they are taking good care of their child.

If her parents don't drive her to her prenatal appointments, then I think it's right for the judge to give her access to their car. As for the phone, I won't say it's medically necessary, but I am pregnant and you bet I always carry a charged cell phone on me in case something happens. This is a bad situation on the part of both parties, and in bad situations, there is often not a good solution.

 

[amc80]

In fact the state where I live gives me the authority as his parent to have them revoke his licence anytime I feel like it until he is age 18. His licence until 18 is conditional upon my continued permission.

Same with my state (NV). DH is a deputy sheriff and has already said he wants our kids to wait until they are 18 to drive...he sees too many accidents and stupid behaviors with the 16-17 year olds.

 

[aljdewey]

So it sounds like it was her property. I guess there are 2 legal points here, whether parents can take a minor's property away (and to what extent, such as can they take away the children's clothes, their bed and make them use a sleeping bag, can they take things that the minors have paid for themselves, etc) and 2nd the minor may need to use the cell phone and car to make doctor's visits for the health of the unborn child.

I don't think it should matter if a teen buys something with their own money or not. Unless that teen is paying for rent, insurance, food, etc., the only reason they are able to buy extra stuff is because they are being supported by someone else.

Having said that, I do think the motivation for what the parents did was wrong, but within their rights.

The article doesn't say that she paid for the car/phone with money earned from her jobs, though. In fact, it implies the opposite....when she got pregnant, the car/phone she already had were taken away, and she was forced by her parents to GET 2 jobs.

To me, this matters, because it says to me that the parents paid/pay for the car and phone. If so, they should be able to yank them regardless of motive. I don't support their approach of trying to bully daughter into abortion at all......but, if she is going to take on an adult responsibility in becoming a parent, there is no reason she can't take on responsibility to acquire her own phone/car too. It's not right to insist on being subsidized like a child while at the same time arguing one's right to make an adult decision.

 

[aljdewey]

Hmm. Phones are as prevalent as cars these days. One would be hard-pressed to find a payphone at any random gas station/drugstore/grocery store now, so I can understand why a phone may now be considered a necessary means of contact. Are teenagers who are driving now expected to rely on passers-by who might have cell phones to stop and assist/call AAA or 911? This is where my mind went when thinking about whether it's a privilege or right to be able to keep using a cell phone.

I see your point to a point......but I'm not sure I can agree that makes having one's own phone a necessity. The fact that something is prevalent isn't enough for me to consider it a need.

I do agree that payphones are tough to come by, but if anything, it's gotten easier since almost everyone around you has a cell phone and no one pays based on pricey minutes anymore. Most of them are unlimited talk packages. I can't imagine denying someone in a bind who approached me asking if I could help them make a call as they didn't have a phone. Also, there's no reason she wouldn't have access to the land line at her house (which I presume exists - may not, of course, but most homes do still continue to have some kind of landline.)