Attack on under-16's contraception/abortion access

[ficklephyliss]

Given that the lawyer representing Kiera Bell is also representing the mother who is challenging abortion and contraception access for under+16's without parental consent, it probably shouldn't be a surprise. But can we prevent this when bodily autonomy for children has now been so systemically undermined in law?

That’s a bunch of nonsense.

@ficklephyliss, I'd imagine you (a) haven't read the actual judgement, and (b) have a weird agenda going on there.

I've read the judgement, I know that both cases involve the same legal representation, and I know that the language that solicitor is using is worryingly similar.

My only "agenda" is protecting children's rights to bodily autonomy - and clearly conservative activists believe that they have an opening to go after this. As demonstrated in the screenshot, very clearly.

Perhaps we need to figure out what they've read into this judgement that allows them to think this? Or not, depending on your agenda.

Why?

The age of consent has not gone up in the UK since 1885. Buying cigarettes has gone up to 18. I can’t think of anything else which has raised age.

I’m not sure children should have “bodily autonomy” to be honest - seems ripe for enabling child abuse.

Seriously, bodily autonomy is intrinsic to preventing abuse.

@ficklephyliss

Seriously, bodily autonomy is intrinsic to preventing abuse.

So a 12 year old says 'Yes I want to have sex with 55 year old Uncle Bob' - and that's ok is it?

No, when creepy uncle Bob pesters the 12 year old for sex, they'll know that's abusive, though why I'm wasting my time responding to such a stupid response I don't know.

If you don't understand what bodily autonomy means just say so, but the for the record, you'd be the one making it more than less likely that creepy uncle Bob abuses that child.

when creepy uncle Bob pesters the 12 year old for sex, they'll know that's abusive,
Not always, and less often when the child is 14 and the adult is 25.

If the 12 year old insists she loves him and it's her body you're arguing she had bodily autonomy. Obviously I don't agree but I'm wondering how you can say that children MUST be allowed bodily autonomy and that this case ruins that. It's YOUR post - you explain.

(Btw you do know that solicitors and barristers represent whoever pays them - they don't pick and choose the ones they personally agree with.)

He's being an idiot if he thinks the cases are remotely analogous.

Neither abortion nor contraception are untested treatments. In both cases, it's not hard to comprehend what is being consented to.

An obvious difference is that the long term consequences of contraception and abortion are well known and have been for a long time and can therefore be clearly explained to allow informed consent.

An experimental treatment is much more difficult to give informed consent to.

The judgement deals with this point in some detail.

Given that the lawyer representing Kiera Bell is also representing the mother who is challenging abortion and contraception access for under+16's without parental consent

Which case is this please?

Under 16s should be able to access contraception without parental consent, as well as abortion. But we shouldn't be changing the laws of consent - i.e. if you participate in sexual activity then there should be protection in place, but we shouldn't legalise or normalise having sex with minors or when you are a minor (of course).

Also who is the person in your screenshot with the blogspot blog and the hotmail address and why should we care what he reckons?

bodily autonomy is intrinsic to preventing abuse

My safeguarding training and experience working with vulnerable families and children tells me otherwise OP.

Just checking to see if OP had been back. No? Colour me surprised.