SO what about children's rights? In the aftermath of the case of 14-year-old Melissa Smith, who was offered an abortion without her parents' knowledge, we have heard much about her right to confidentiality. Then there was also her mother's right to know what was happening to her child... the girl's right to a sex life... her right to be a mother herself... the baby's right to be born.

Nowhere in all the comment and confusion about where responsibility lay, was the thought that Melissa at 14 might have had the right to be, just simply, a child.

Because at 14 a young girl, however sophisticated and sexually active, is still a child. And children should not be making life and death decisions. And what is an abortion if not a life and death decision?

We don't think our two-year-old has the "right" to play with the fire or our ten-year-old has the "right" to drive a car, however much they might want to and think they can - because those things are dangerous. They don't realise it, but grown-ups do.

Well, sex and its consequences can be pretty dangerous too. That's why it's best left to grown-ups. And, goodness knows, we can make a big enough mess of it too. So what hope for children?

Whether Melissa might have been better off having the abortion in secret without her mother knowing, or whether it has been made better or worse to have her picture and her story all over the papers, we will not be able to tell.

But one thing is certain - it would have been far better if she had never got pregnant in the first place.

And the sad thing is that now it will be easier for other children to become pregnant.

Of course 14-year-olds - a sad, small number - have always become pregnant over the years. I remember them from my own childhood. But they were few and far between, they were spoken of in whispers and it was something to be ashamed about because all right-minded people knew that being pregnant at 14 is a terrible burden for a child. They wanted it to be a rare exception, so they made it unacceptable so the rest of us wouldn't get ideas.

But now Melissa is all over the papers and it seems as though it's quite normal for 14-year-olds to be having a sex life. That's not the issue.

In the past foolish women have boasted about being Britain's youngest grannies. Coronation Street's Sarah Platt is seen to be making a decent fist of bringing up her baby born when she was 14.

So that's alright then.

And every time that happens, it becomes more acceptable that 13 and 14- year-olds should be pregnant. And by making it more acceptable, we're putting more pressure on other 13 and 14-year-olds, making it harder for them to say no.

The legal age of consent is supposed to be 16 in order to protect children. Below that age we assume that, by and large, whatever they may think, they are in no real position to make those decisions. So we take the burden from them, making the decision for them and allow them to be children, free from such worries.

Perhaps the world has already gone too far to be turned back. We shrug and say, "But they grow up so soon these days".

Yes they do. And more teenagers than ever are coping with stress, taking drugs, drinking too much, suffering from anorexia and mental health problems. That's what growing up has meant for them.

And that's why, for as long as possible, we should give our children the right to stay as children.

How we do it, of course, is quite a different matter...

WHAT'S in a name? Whatever it is, it needn't last forever. Gwyneth Paltrow has just called her new baby Apple. Poor little scrap.

She might of course blossom into it. There again, Zowie Bowie, son of David, changed his name to Duncan Jones. Meanwhile Dandelion Pallenberg, daughter of rock chick Anita and Rolling Stone Keith Richards leapt straight out of her starry universe, changed her name to Angela and married a joiner.

In the aristocracy of rock and roll, that's what you call a real rebel.

ARMANI might be global name, big, posh and expensive. But not too big to get away with things...

Last year Orthet Ltd, trading as Armani Junior ran a very peculiar advert in glossy magazines. It featured a young child - tricky to tell if it was a girl or boy - with a wonderful hair style, topless and wearing only baggy jeans and a necklace.

There was something about the image that was very unsettling, disturbing almost, something about the elaborate hair, the child's expression. It was actually a very sexy ad - and all to sell children's jeans.

So a lot of people complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, including Paula Hall of Northallerton. "I was appalled when I saw it," she said. "It made me feel very uncomfortable. It just wasn't the right image for children's clothes.

"In this day and age when we're so aware of paedophiles that parents can't even video children's nativity plays, I thought it was unacceptable. I wanted to send it to my daughter in New Zealand but frankly, I didn't want to put it in the post in case I was accused of sending pornographic material."

The ASA agreed with her and the 73 other people who complained, and in their judgement just announced say that the ad sexualised the child. Armani Junior had already withdrawn the ad.

"I was so angry that I felt I had to do something," said Paula. " It wasn't the sort of thing you'd expect from someone like George at Asda, so why should Armani get away with it?"

A lesson for us all - if something makes you angry, say so. You might get something done - however well known the perpetrator.

www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/news

/griffiths.html

Published: ??/??/2004