Should minors have to have parental consent for abortion?

[AHunter3]

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
What if one believes that a certain decision is virtually always an immoral, tragic choice? What if one believes that no one should have the right to deny another being (unborn in this instance) to live?

I believe abortions should largely be banned, except in instances where it could save the life of the mother. I believe it’s an immoral choice (I know you don’t, I’m just explaining, as you requested). So, parental consent issues aside, I don’t support any legal scenario where an abortion choice is permitted (with the exception noted). And I see this as protecting a right that is greater than the right for parents to supervise their children’s medical care. To use an analogy, my right to supervise my child’s medical care doesn’t mean I can kill you for your body parts to transplant. My right does not go that far, though it’s a real right.

That does not mean, however, that the parental consent right evaporates in all other situations where there is NOT a greater conflicting right. In all medical instances where a parent is not making an egregiously bad decision (let’s say, for the moment–since I can’t think of a better gauge–against a “reasonable man” standard) or violating the greater right of another human being, the parent gets to decide. Why? Again, parental consent is based on the concept that children haven’t the capacity to make significant medical decisions. A child who hasn’t the capacity to decide to get a tattoo doesn’t suddenly develop that capacity by becoming pregnant.

Obvious point: I fully understand you (and Revenant) won’t hold the same axioms you see embedded in this explanation, though they are beliefs held by millions of reasonable people (IMO ;)). But I believe it’s consistent and logical, proceeding from those axioms. Revenant, this gets to your point, I think.

Does that clarify?
[/QUOTE]

It does, and thank you for your honesty.

The underlying logic, then, is not “Minors should not be allowed to have abortions without parental consent because the parent should be the one making that decision”, but rather “Minors should not be allowed to ahve abortions without parental consent because abortions are bad and should be prevented wherever possible and by requiring parental consent, here’s a way we can prevent a few abortions” – yes?

Feel free to explain any misconstrual on my part.

[Stratocaster]

[QUOTE=AHunter3]
It does, and thank you for your honesty.

The underlying logic, then, is not “Minors should not be allowed to have abortions without parental consent because the parent should be the one making that decision”, but rather “Minors should not be allowed to ahve abortions without parental consent because abortions are bad and should be prevented wherever possible and by requiring parental consent, here’s a way we can prevent a few abortions” – yes?

Feel free to explain any misconstrual on my part.
[/QUOTE]
You’re welcome.

I don’t think that’s quite right, but I gave Revenant the same impression, so let me try again. I do agree that parental consent will reduce abortions, and I think that’s a beneficial outcome–so don’t let me give the wrong impression. That said, that’s not the reason I support parental consent. I do support it because minors don’t have the capacity to make major medical decisions, whether it’s abortion, elective surgery, or deciding the course of treatment for a serious illness. The fact that abortions will be reduced is, I fully acknowledge, a happy side effect, but it’s not necessary for parental consent to be considered valid and appropriate.

My explanation regarding which rights “trump” which other rights was an explanation for why I don’t think the right for parents to consent to major medical procedures extends to demanding that an abortion takes place. In that instance, I believe the parent’s right does not extend across a border where another person’s life would be taken. Again, I fully understand others don’t hold that the unborn is a “person.” Just trying to explain my position.

Does that make sense?

[Guinastasia]

[QUOTE=1010011010]
“Minor” is such a vague word.

Should a 17 year old minor require parental consent? No.
Should a 13 year old minor require parental consent? …No. If you’ve already screwed up enough where your kid is unwilling to come to you for help with something like this by the age of 13, I seriously doubt you will have any useful input on the decision.
Should a 7 year old minor require parental consent? I doubt a 7 year old would be able to understand what was going on without a significant amount of careful explanation.
[/QUOTE]

Fortunately, it is EXTREMELY unlikely for a seven year old to be capable of becoming pregnant in the first place. Of course, I’m sure, there are always exceptions, but I’m going to assume they’re rare enough that such cases should be decided individually.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
You’re welcome!

No, I don’t think that what I said. I agree that’s a beneficial outcome, but I support the concept of parental consent (with the exceptions already noted) because I believe parents are in the best position to make decisions for their children who lack the capacity to do so. IOW, I support it for the same reason I do when a child has a major illness and decisions need to be made regarding the course of treatment.

BTW, I’m not trying to dodge the fact that I do want abortions banned and that it’s generally a good thing when they are limited. Let that be on the record! (I think it already is.) But that doesn’t mean that’s my logic for believing parental consent is justified.
[/QUOTE]
Then i’m confused. Why not just leave the decision up to the parents either way, then? If you believe parents are in the best position to make the decision to have an abortion, then surely they’re also in the best position to make the decision to *not * have an abortion. It’s what I (and others) have been saying before; to accept your rationale means we should make parental consent mandatory for any option, not just abortion.

[DianaG]

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
I do agree that parental consent will reduce abortions, and I think that’s a beneficial outcome–so don’t let me give the wrong impression. That said, that’s not the reason I support parental consent. I do support it because minors don’t have the capacity to make major medical decisions, whether it’s abortion, elective surgery, or deciding the course of treatment for a serious illness. The fact that abortions will be reduced is, I fully acknowledge, a happy side effect, but it’s not necessary for parental consent to be considered valid and appropriate.

My explanation regarding which rights “trump” which other rights was an explanation for why I don’t think the right for parents to consent to major medical procedures extends to demanding that an abortion takes place. In that instance, I believe the parent’s right does not extend across a border where another person’s life would be taken. Again, I fully understand others don’t hold that the unborn is a “person.” Just trying to explain my position.

Does that make sense?
[/QUOTE]

Not really. Given that abortion is in fact legal, and that not everyone shares your moral view of the world, you’re assuming outcomes that won’t necessarily be so.

I believe that as many parents would force their child to have an abortion as would force their child to carry to term, given the opportunity. (And for the record, I find forcing a child to do either equally repungant.)

Many people are just as morally fervent in their belief that a fetus is NOT a person, and should not be allowed to “ruin” their child’s life, as you are in your belief that the fetus IS a person entitled to live. Given that the law takes no stand on this aside from giving the parents control of the decision, I’m not sure why you think that parental consent laws will cause a decline in abortions.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=DianaG]
Given that the law takes no stand on this aside from giving the parents control of the decision, I’m not sure why you think that parental consent laws will cause a decline in abortions.
[/QUOTE]
I think it would. Here and in places with no parental consent, only one person has to make the decision. So the options are;

-Abortion
-Carrying to term

With the laws, two people have to make the decision; the options are expanded.

-Child and parent want abortion - Abortion
-Child doesn’t want abortion, parent does - Carrying to term
-Child wants abortion, parent doesn’t want abortion - Carrying to term
-Neither want an abortion - Carrying to term.

By expanding the decision to another person, and making sure both must agree to have an abortion (but carrying to term can be a unilateral decision) the chances are increased that there will be no abortion.

[DianaG]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I think it would. Here and in places with no parental consent, only one person has to make the decision. So the options are;

-Abortion
-Carrying to term

With the laws, two people have to make the decision; the options are expanded.

-Child and parent want abortion - Abortion
-Child doesn’t want abortion, parent does - Carrying to term
-Child wants abortion, parent doesn’t want abortion - Carrying to term
-Neither want an abortion - Carrying to term.

By expanding the decision to another person, and making sure both must agree to have an abortion (but carrying to term can be a unilateral decision) the chances are increased that there will be no abortion.
[/QUOTE]

But *does * the law mandate that both parties must agree to an abortion?

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=DianaG]
But *does * the law mandate that both parties must agree to an abortion?
[/QUOTE]
In the case of the law discussed in the recent Pit thread, the form required the signatures of the child, the parent, and the abortion provider. Of course, there’s always the chance that a parent could force the child to sign their name and get an abortion, but if we’re assuming no wrongdoing, yes, both parties must agree.

[DianaG]

Thank you. Again, while forcing the child to do either is equally repungant, it’s nice to know that at least parents can only force their child to do *one * of those things against their will.

[miss_elizabeth]

Well, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that not only do I believe that the decision to abort or not should be left up to the minor, but that ALL medical decisions should be left up to the minor (and their doctor) probably from age 14 and up. Younger than that and I think if a child gets pregnant, and wants and abortion, a judge or somthing of that sort should probably be involved. Well, I feel that way even if the child wants to carry the child to term. If a child under the age of 14 gets pregnant I think the courts or DHS should be involved. I think it’s indicitave that the parents have failed to either educate or protect their daughter, and at that point the girl should be considered a ward of the state.

And I think almost all normal children (not children who are developmentally disabled) after the age of 14 or so are perfectly capable of making their own medical decisions, with their doctors advice, of course. Thinking on it now, I’m not sure why this isn’t already the law, except that so many parents think they “own” their children (which is sick, in my opinion).

[Stratocaster]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Then i’m confused. Why not just leave the decision up to the parents either way, then? If you believe parents are in the best position to make the decision to have an abortion, then surely they’re also in the best position to make the decision to *not * have an abortion. It’s what I (and others) have been saying before; to accept your rationale means we should make parental consent mandatory for any option, not just abortion.
[/QUOTE]
“Parental consent” does not and should not mean that a parent can make any decision they think is appropriate, no limits whatsoever. There are limits to any right. I explained why I think it is NOT within the province of parental authority to decide that an abortion is best: because to do so is to infringe on another, higher right, the right of the unborn baby to live. Again, I understand others do not recognize this right, but that explains my beliefs. Here, just to re-iterate:

I believe abortions should largely be banned, except in instances where it could save the life of the mother. I believe it’s an immoral choice (I know you don’t, I’m just explaining, as you requested). So, parental consent issues aside, I don’t support any legal scenario where an abortion choice is permitted (with the exception noted). And I see this as protecting a right that is greater than the right for parents to supervise their children’s medical care. To use an analogy, my right to supervise my child’s medical care doesn’t mean I can kill you for your body parts to transplant. My right does not go that far, though it’s a real right.

That does not mean, however, that the parental consent right evaporates in all other situations where there is NOT a greater conflicting right. In all medical instances where a parent is not making an egregiously bad decision (let’s say, for the moment–since I can’t think of a better gauge–against a “reasonable man” standard) or violating the greater right of another human being, the parent gets to decide. Why? Again, parental consent is based on the concept that children haven’t the capacity to make significant medical decisions. A child who hasn’t the capacity to decide to get a tattoo doesn’t suddenly develop that capacity by becoming pregnant.

Any clearer?

[Stratocaster]

[QUOTE=DianaG]
Not really. Given that abortion is in fact legal, and that not everyone shares your moral view of the world, you’re assuming outcomes that won’t necessarily be so.

I believe that as many parents would force their child to have an abortion as would force their child to carry to term, given the opportunity. (And for the record, I find forcing a child to do either equally repungant.)
[/quote]
I’m stating what I believe should be the law, and I believe that the law should never permit someone to force an abortion. So, even if you’re right, no problem in my scenario. A parent wouldn’t have that right.

Many people are just as morally fervent in their belief that a fetus is NOT a person, and should not be allowed to “ruin” their child’s life, as you are in your belief that the fetus IS a person entitled to live. Given that the law takes no stand on this aside from giving the parents control of the decision, I’m not sure why you think that parental consent laws will cause a decline in abortions.

The law and I are already in material disagreement regarding what rights the unborn have, so as a practical matter, perhaps you’d be right. But I’ll bet you a cup of coffee that there’s no state anywhere in the U.S. that will pass legislation permitting parents to force an abortion. There is already at least one state that requires parental consent for abortions.

[Stratocaster]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I think it would. Here and in places with no parental consent, only one person has to make the decision. So the options are;

-Abortion
-Carrying to term

With the laws, two people have to make the decision; the options are expanded.

-Child and parent want abortion - Abortion
-Child doesn’t want abortion, parent does - Carrying to term
-Child wants abortion, parent doesn’t want abortion - Carrying to term
-Neither want an abortion - Carrying to term.

By expanding the decision to another person, and making sure both must agree to have an abortion (but carrying to term can be a unilateral decision) the chances are increased that there will be no abortion.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with your logic. I don’t see how it wouldn’t reduce abortions.

[wonky]

[QUOTE=miss elizabeth]
And I think almost all normal children (not children who are developmentally disabled) after the age of 14 or so are perfectly capable of making their own medical decisions, with their doctors advice, of course.
[/QUOTE]

If the procedure can wait, I think the default should be that consent is necessary unless there is another, overriding concern.

[wonky]

I found this non-profit, Jane’s Due Process, operating out of Texas that gives standards for obtaining a “judical bypass” for parental consent. I would be very interested to know how hard this standard is to meet for a teen.

What is a judicial bypass?
A judicial bypass is an order from a judge that allows a minor to have an abortion without telling or receiving consent from her parent or legal guardian. To get a judicial bypass, a judge must decide that the minor meets at least one of the following “grounds” (reasons):

* The minor is mature and sufficiently well informed about her pregnancy options to make the decision without a parent or legal guardian being involved.
* It is not in the minor's best interest for the parent or legal guardian to be notified.
* Notification of a parent or legal guardian could lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor.

They provide legal assistance for the hearing. They also help girls in the opposite situation, those who want to continue their pregnancies against parental wishes.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
I explained why I think it is NOT within the province of parental authority to decide that an abortion is best: because to do so is to infringe on another, higher right, the right of the unborn baby to live.
[/QUOTE]
An attitude which makes anyone who believes that an unfit parent, because it shows they value their child less than a mindless thing. It shows massive contempt for humanity.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
“Parental consent” does not and should not mean that a parent can make any decision they think is appropriate, no limits whatsoever. There are limits to any right. I explained why I think it is NOT within the province of parental authority to decide that an abortion is best: because to do so is to infringe on another, higher right, the right of the unborn baby to live. Again, I understand others do not recognize this right, but that explains my beliefs. Here, just to re-iterate: <snip>Any clearer?
[/QUOTE]
Ah, yes, thanks, that does make more sense.

I have a couple of slight moral problems with the reasoning that killing is the ultimate moral no-no, though. For example, would you be in favour of cutting off the arms of anyone who qualifies as an abortion provider? Logically, as a lesser sin than killing, you should be happier with that than the alternative.

[joyfool]

[QUOTE=miss elizabeth]
…

Thinking on it now, I’m not sure why this isn’t already the law, except that so many parents think they “own” their children (which is sick, in my opinion).
[/QUOTE]

This would have been the exact opinion of my mother if I’d ever found myself in this situation while I still lived at home. Overriding my life is her goal.

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
“Parental consent” does not and should not mean that a parent can make any decision they think is appropriate, no limits whatsoever. There are limits to any right. I explained why I think it is NOT within the province of parental authority to decide that an abortion is best: because to do so is to infringe on another, higher right, the right of the unborn baby to live. Again, I understand others do not recognize this right, but that explains my beliefs. Here, just to re-iterate:Any clearer?
[/QUOTE]

Although you’re this way, you do unfortunately realize that all other parents are not, right? Many, many, many feel that keeping the baby is a punishment / responsibility that they refuse for their daughter to not damn well shirk, if they’re given the opportunity via consent and that doesn’t matter how bad it will make it for all parties involved (loved ones, mother and possibly father, but most importantly to those who are against abortion, the baby).

[gonzomax]

In an Ozzie and Harriet world with nice understanding parents. In this world where some kid would be beaten within an inch of her life and boyfriend beaten,I dont think so. There are lots of abusive and dangerous parents.They are not all entitled to make decisions . Some parents are stupid too. Take everybody into regard before making a blanket statement.

[AHunter3]

Stratocaster, thank you again. Yes, I understand your position more clearly now.

It is a much more complicated and nuanced position than “parental consent should be required because parents know best”. And to obtain the concurrence of other people, you’d need them to agree with you on more than one central argument:

• Generally speaking, parents know best and should make the medical decisions; but

• Certain invasive procedures are so potentially destructive that parents should not possess that authority and the medical decision should rest with the child instead; and

• While some people in our society feel strongly that the decision of whether to bear an unwanted child or to terminate a pregnancy via abortion would, in its entirely, fall into the latter category, in actuality it is less invasive to coerce a minor into bearing a child against her will than to coerce a minor into having an unwanted abortion, and that’s where to draw the line: parents should retain the authority to make the decision against abortion but should lack the authority to insist on abortion for their pegnant daughters

Have I this time successfully encapsulated your argument without undue distortion?