Should minors have to have parental consent for abortion?

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
It would solve the abortion issue, if not totally. If doctors have no arms, there will be less abortions. Of course, you’ll get the occasional talented surgeon who can use his feet, but that’d leave your insides smelling pretty bad. :wink:

Seriously though, what does count as an acceptable remedy? Killing is out. Injuring another person to an extent greater than pregnancy is out. How about stealing money from abortion providers so that they aren’t able to go to work? Getting someone to lie about being raped by an abortion provider to get them disbarred? Getting a big group of people to stand in front of an abortion clinic door to stop people getting inside? Stealing medical equipment? Where do you draw the line between acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour in stopping abortions?

I’m concerned that you find other methods of halting abortions out of the question, whilst stripping a free choice is.
[/quote]
Again, I don’t consider this a “stripping of free choice” any more than any of a million other situations where a parent decides what’s best when a minor might choose otherwise. It’s a parent’s primary responsibility, along with keeping the child safe and healthy.

But I guess I’d answer the first part of your post by saying it’s just part of this whole “civilized society” thing, which I don’t mean to sound glib. But decent people accept the fact that even if they are convinced they’re right, we don’t use certain means to achieve our objectives. Killing and maiming is generally right out. And thankfully, abortion is not the only arena where this rule applies.

That’s a matter of opinion, I suppose. But, again, the whole concept of capacity recognizes that there are people not equipped to make certain decisions. And in this instance we have a scenario where the same girl, same age, would not be permitted to make virtually any other major medical decision because of her capacity. But becoming pregnant somehow renders her competent. Why?

102

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Again, I don’t consider this a “stripping of free choice” any more than any of a million other situations where a parent decides what’s best when a minor might choose otherwise. It’s a parent’s primary responsibility, along with keeping the child safe and healthy.

But I guess I’d answer the first part of your post by saying it’s just part of this whole “civilized society” thing, which I don’t mean to sound glib. But decent people accept the fact that even if they are convinced they’re right, we don’t use certain means to achieve our objectives. Killing and maiming is generally right out. And thankfully, abortion is not the only arena where this rule applies.
[/quote]
Here’s the problem, though; forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term *is * maiming, both physically and psychologically. You can’t say “Sure, things may be bad if the pregnancy is carried to term, but the most important thing is life” without also saying “Sure, things may be bad if I cut off a doctor’s arms, but the most important thing is life”. If you do recognise that there are some lines of maiming or injuring that aren’t acceptable in order to mean less deaths, that opens the door to say forced pregnancy isn’t acceptable in order to mean less deaths.

But i’m not in favour of parental consent for many major medical decisions, at least when it comes to teenagers. I agree with equivalency; I just think it should go the other way.

103

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
No, but if I’m not misunderstanding you, you’re extrapolating incorrectly if this is the math you use to set policy. This is the extreme example, correct? Every abortion results in the death of a human being (from some people’s perspective). Your scenario is very rare. Again, I don’t want to suggest that the circumstance you describe is no big deal, no concern. Just commenting on your algebra. Let me know if you think I missed something.
[/quote]

The only thing you missed was in my previous post where I said that, to me, even **one **additional dead baby in a toilet or dumpster is too much to justify this law. So even if I accept that “[my] scenario is very rare” (which I don’t, based on working with teenaged girls), it’s not nonexistant. The only way it would be acceptable to me was if absolutely ZERO increase in these behaviors could be expected after these laws are implemented - just as for you, ZERO elective abortions is the ideal. I don’t expect that ZERO increase is going to happen. I hope to be pleasantly surprised as data is collected, but I don’t have *much *hope.

This would indicate to me that the kid doesn’t understand cancer. The cancer won’t “go away”. If a patient doesn’t understand the prognosis of their condition, then yes, he or she is not fit to make a medical decision. This applies whether he’s 13 or 30.

A teen who seeks an abortion absolutely understands the prognosis of her condition - the prognosis is that she’ll have a baby! If she didn’t understand that, if she thought it would “go away”, then she wouldn’t be seeking an abortion.

She’s demonstrating an understanding of the consequences of her medical condition, he isn’t. That’s the difference.

We assume that most children won’t understand the consequences of their medical decisions, and because most of the time, parents can be counted on to make good decisions, or there’s enough time for a judge to step in during those cases the parents make lousy decisions, the legal default is for parental consent.

The case of pregnancy is enough different from the dafault medical condition, that I think it’s entirely appropriate to not use that default position. It’s different for three reasons. One, many parents become irrational when faced with an underage pregnancy. One cannot make an informed medical decision while irrational, by definition. Two, there is a time constraint. While going to a judge to override the parents is possible, abortions do have more risks the later they are done. Three, the main consequence of pregnancy is obvious to even a very young teen: a baby. Any medical risks of either abortion or labor and delivery are less than the 100% “risk” of having a baby. Well, maybe not 100%, babies do die and miscarriages happen, so maybe 75% “risk”. Still, a much higher likelihood of outcome than any other risk factor.

In the case of abortion, we should take things on a case-by-case basis to determine patient competency, not revert to a default position. And those cases should be determined by a DOCTOR, who is trained to determine patient competency.

If a doctor gives any woman, of any age, an abortion when his professional opinion is that she doesn’t understand the consequences, then he should be hauled off and have his medical license stripped. He should only be performing ANY medical procedure with informed consent of the patient, or an informed judge’s order.

The kid has to talk to someone, in a practical sense, to get an abortion - she has to talk to a doctor. The doctor is trained to recognize patient competency and to obtain informed consent. Not the parent.

104

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Two, there is a time constraint. While going to a judge to override the parents is possible, abortions do have more risks the later they are done.
[/QUOTE]

In the cite I found above, it said that the hearing and ruling must come by the end of the second business day after the girl files for a judicial bypass. So, assuming that’s true, that’s a pretty effecient system.

105

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Here’s the problem, though; forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term *is * maiming, both physically and psychologically. You can’t say “Sure, things may be bad if the pregnancy is carried to term, but the most important thing is life” without also saying “Sure, things may be bad if I cut off a doctor’s arms, but the most important thing is life”. If you do recognise that there are some lines of maiming or injuring that aren’t acceptable in order to mean less deaths, that opens the door to say forced pregnancy isn’t acceptable in order to mean less deaths.
[/quote]
No, I don’t see it that way. Jumping out from behind a wall and lopping off someone’s arms with a machete is always maiming. Carrying a pregnancy to term happens all the time. Is it maiming only if the child wants an abortion, but it’s not maiming otherwise? That would be a curious definition. In any event, I don’t agree (obviously) that the two are remotely analogous.

That’s at least consistent. It probably won’t be a great shock to you to hear I disagree in the direction you’d take this.

106

Having an abortion is, in fact, safer than completing a pregnancy to term and having a baby. I would imagine this is even more true in the case of pregnancy in a young girl. So, under what conditions would it be wrong to choose to have an abortion, providing that is what the girl wants? I mean, if you are against forcing a girl to abort, but in favor of forcing her to have a baby, then doesn’t it stand to reason that you (as the parent) are the one making a poor medical decision, since you are exposing your child to greater risk? And since you are making a poor, misinformed decision, shouldn’t you be stripped of your power to make these decisions?

If an underage girl chooses to abort her pregnancy, she is making the safest choice, and therefore should absolutly be allowed to do so. Her parents should not be able to force her into an unsafe decision, just as we don’t allow strongly religious parents to make other unsafe medical decisions for their children based on their religion.

107

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
The only thing you missed was in my previous post where I said that, to me, even **one **additional dead baby in a toilet or dumpster is too much to justify this law. So even if I accept that “[my] scenario is very rare” (which I don’t, based on working with teenaged girls), it’s not nonexistant. The only way it would be acceptable to me was if absolutely ZERO increase in these behaviors could be expected after these laws are implemented - just as for you, ZERO elective abortions is the ideal. I don’t expect that ZERO increase is going to happen. I hope to be pleasantly surprised as data is collected, but I don’t have *much *hope.
[/quote]
Again, there are those of us who would include the death of the unborn baby in the calculation here, in determining “even one dead baby.”

Perhaps. But I’d think it a likelier conclusion of a frightened 13-year old. It’s why 13-year olds don’t get the final say.

But that doesn’t mean she understands the implications of that choice.

But it’s not just a question of “baby or no baby.” There are lingering concerns–at least for some–regardless of the decision made. Some girls, I’m sure, regret the decision to have an abortion.

What makes a doctor especially competent to determine a girl’s competency? And, BTW, I don’t at all buy the notion that most parents would react irrationally to the situation. There are certainly irrational parents for ANY situation, abortion or otherwise.

108

[QUOTE=miss elizabeth]
Having an abortion is, in fact, safer than completing a pregnancy to term and having a baby. I would imagine this is even more true in the case of pregnancy in a young girl. So, under what conditions would it be wrong to choose to have an abortion, providing that is what the girl wants? I mean, if you are against forcing a girl to abort, but in favor of forcing her to have a baby, then doesn’t it stand to reason that you (as the parent) are the one making a poor medical decision, since you are exposing your child to greater risk? And since you are making a poor, misinformed decision, shouldn’t you be stripped of your power to make these decisions?

If an underage girl chooses to abort her pregnancy, she is making the safest choice, and therefore should absolutly be allowed to do so. Her parents should not be able to force her into an unsafe decision, just as we don’t allow strongly religious parents to make other unsafe medical decisions for their children based on their religion.
[/QUOTE]
Using your logic, shouldn’t parents always be permitted to force their daughters to have abortions, even if they want to keep the child? After all, it’s the safest decision.

109

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
What makes a doctor especially competent to determine a girl’s competency?
[/QUOTE]

The fact that we train and license them to do it. No parent is trained to determine whether a child of theirs “really understands” - especially if it’s a decision they don’t agree with. We hope we’re good at it intuitively, but we never really know. I don’t think it’s going too far out on a limb to say that those who recieve training and licensure in a field are generally better at it than those who haven’t. Otherwise, why have “patient competency” and “informed consent” as part of the medical field at all?

If my daughter wanted to keep the baby, I would have grave misgivings (based in no small part on my own decision to be a teenaged mother) but I would support her decision to keep it. I’m not pushing for mandatory abortions. I don’t believe you would allow your daughter to have an abortion even if she demonstated to her doctor, the judge, God and everybody that she was making an informed decision. It is indeed parents like you (although I respect you as a poster and do indeed think your position is a logical and well-thought out one as it pertains to your body and no one else’s) that we need to protect our daughters from just as much as the incestors and abusers.
And yes, I think that a forced pregnancy will ALWAYS “maim”. I don’t see how it couldn’t. Taking away someone’s bodily autonomy and forcing them to bear and child and care for it for 18+ years against their will is going to cause harm. As you say, abortion may cause emotional harm, but then again it may not. I can’t imagine how a forced pregnancy would not cause harm.

110

No, of course not. I already said I think that children should be allowed to make their own medical decisions. I am countering your arguement, that young girls are incapable of deciding for themselves; that they lack the capacity. Since they are choosing a safer route, they obviously DO have the capacity, and should be allowed to make their own choice. How do you justify allowing parents to make unsafe medical decisions ON BEHALF OF SOMEONE ELSE (their children) based on their religious belief? How far are you willing to take this? I think it’s already standard that you can make an unsafe decision for yourself, based on religion or any other damn thing, if you so choose. I am in favor of continuing this.

111

Quoth Mr2001:

No matter how you slice it, once a minor becomes pregnant, she’s going to have an adult obligation on her. Even if there are no parental consent laws, and no other legal impediment to abortion, she would have the obligation to make the decision.

And it’s very rare that parents would be in a position to force a girl to carry a child to term. And we already have laws in place to cover those cases: If a parent rapes a child, the child should be taken away from the parent and the parent punished. But if the girl was not raped, then she was not forced to carry a child to term. This is why sex is regarded as an adult matter: The decision to have sex is a very serious decision, since sex can lead to pregnancy, which is a very serious matter.

112

When people personalize and say what it would be like with their child ,it misses the point. A law would be for every parent. We have jails full of kids , many destroyed with bad parenting. We have court dockets with child abuse cases. Kids are roaming the streets homeless in every major city. A law would mean every abuser would have to know.
Ask any school teacher how many parents scare them. You want them to be told that a kid made a mistake.

113

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
No, I don’t see it that way. Jumping out from behind a wall and lopping off someone’s arms with a machete is always maiming. Carrying a pregnancy to term happens all the time. Is it maiming only if the child wants an abortion, but it’s not maiming otherwise? That would be a curious definition. In any event, I don’t agree (obviously) that the two are remotely analogous.
[/quote]
It’s pretty reasonable definition, actually, from a psychological standpoint. Obviously a child who chose to have an abortion is going to be less messed up than a child who wanted one but wasn’t allowed. Physically, sure, carrying a pregnancy to term, even when you choose it, is maiming. But the point is you get to pick; having a tattoo or getting a piercing is maiming of a very minor sort, and choosing to get one is legal. Getting tattoed or pierced against your will, I imagine, would count as assault both legally and morally.

So why is the maiming from pregnancy so different from maiming from arm-lopping, or why is that level of “badness” acceptable when life is on the other scale, while stealing medical equipment isn’t? Where is the line drawn between “acceptable” badness and non-acceptable badness when the other option is death? And why is that line there?

114

I think I’m having problems with the concept of capacity. I myself support the age necessary being lowered, as I believe it is in Canada.

Does the young mother, once she has given birth, have the ability to make medical decisions about the baby? If so, how does it make sense that she doesn’t have the legal right to make them about herself? If not, who does? When does she gain the ability to do so?

115

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Let’s say a 13-year-old, a frightened kid whom you were certain did not understand the implications of his decision, a kid who tells you in a terrified voice, “No, no, the cancer will go away. I don’t need chemotherapy.” Just trying to triangulate here.
[/quote]

I’d be a bit more amenable to overriding his decision if I were sure he didn’t understand his situation. But even then, there’s a point at which I have to just respect his beliefs, crazy as they might be - I have to draw a line between an undeniable misunderstanding (someone who doesn’t know what cancer is, etc.) and a set of kooky beliefs. If someone thinks his cancer will just go away if he prays harder, for example, I’d certainly disagree, but it’s his right to think that and to turn down medical treatment in favor of prayer, whether he’s 13 or 30.

So along those lines, I have a question for you. Let’s say it’s a frightened 30-year-old whom you’re certain doesn’t understand the implications of his decision. Should he be forced to undergo chemo? Surely his age is irrelevant, because what really matters is his understanding of his predicament and thus his ability to make an informed choice, right?

How is it in your child’s best interest to force her to give birth?

Get down off that cross. You can be a hypocrite without being deliberately evil - at least until the contradiction between your beliefs and actions is pointed out to you. (And even then, “evil” is a stretch. That’s your word, not mine.)

The possible outcome is exactly why I’d divide them. Why would you exclude that? It’s the reason any decisions are divided from any others. We let teenagers choose which socks to wear because there’s no significant bad outcome if they pick the wrong color. If wearing mismatched socks could lead to death, there’d probably be an age restriction on that too.

As far as I can tell, the way you’ve been using it, it never had any real meaning.

That is, it’s based on an arbitrary definition. You (or some legislative body) picked an age, and decided everyone below that age lacks the capacity, and everyone above that age has it.

In order for it to have real meaning, it has to be applicable to individuals. You have to be able to show that all, or at least most, people on the wrong side of that line actually lack the capacity in some measurable sense, not just according to your gut.

Tell me, if I introduced you to a person, could you determine whether or not she has the capacity to make this decision without asking her age? Could you prove to me or anyone else that you have the capacity to make significant medical decisions for yourself? If not, the term as you’re using it is worthless.

That’s an obligation, but it’s not an adult obligation if you allow minors to make the decision themselves.

What reason is there to believe she doesn’t?

116

[QUOTE=Mr2001]
You were probably reading about Texas. I started a pit thread recently about their new law.

I believe parental consent should not be required, mainly for the reasons others have stated. To require consent is to allow parents to force an 18 year obligation on their children, most of whom are in no position to raise kids anyway. Even if they give the baby up for adoption, you’re still allowing parents to force 9 months of massive, invasive physical burden on their children - and if you’re fine with that, then you might as well let them donate their kids’ blood and organs against the kids’ will while they’re at it. Why not let them sign their kids up for involuntary medical experiments? They’re just teenagers, they aren’t really human beings, right? :mad:
[/QUOTE]

No one forced the child to become pregnant. If they’re not in the position to raise a child, they shouldn’t have gotten in the situation to become pregnant.

117

[QUOTE=Antinor01]
No one forced the child to become pregnant. If they’re not in the position to raise a child, they shouldn’t have gotten in the situation to become pregnant.
[/QUOTE]

I’m afraid that, in some cases, you will find that someone DID force the child to become pregnant.

118

[QUOTE=Antinor01]
No one forced the child to become pregnant. If they’re not in the position to raise a child, they shouldn’t have gotten in the situation to become pregnant.
[/QUOTE]

So, they’re not competent to make their own medical decisions, but they **are ** competent to make and responsible for their own sexual decisions?

Hmm.

119

Absolutely not. As many have said, there is too much baggage attached for this to be considered on a par with other elective surgeries. Presumably, the girl involved will only be a child herself for a few more years at the very most; for her parents to be able to make decisions for her that will have that kind of impact on her adult life is completely unacceptable.

Very young girls being faced with such decisions is unfortunate, certainly. But it is still their life. And I say that choking on the fact that often, young girls will make the decision to NOT abort, which I think is a far worse decision for a 15 year old girl to make than to have an abortion. But it’s still hers to make.

Now you should ask the question: should parents be allowed to impose birth control on their daughters in the form of things like implants, shots, and other semi-permanent means? YOU BET! ABSODAMNLUTELY! And I think they should.
I read a very cool science fiction novel years ago called “This Perfect Day” by the same man who wrote “Rosemary’s Baby”. It envisioned a world where everyone looked identical, there were only 4 names for each sex, and basically the level of control over individual lives was horrifying.

However, the one thing that I thought was great and should be adopted immediately by everyone: as part of a constellation of drugs and supplements that eveyrone had to take in the form of regular shots, all females began taking birth control as soon as they reached puberty, no matter what. I think that’s brilliant. I wish we could find a way to make that happen without sacrificing all our other freedoms. Just put all the girls on BC until their 18th birthdays. Save a whole lot of grief, for sure.

120

[QUOTE=DianaG]
So, they’re not competent to make their own medical decisions, but they **are ** competent to make and responsible for their own sexual decisions?

Hmm.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t say that. I don’t believe that anyone should engage in sexual activity if they are not prepared to deal with the potential consequences.

If they choose to do so, then yes they are responsible for the fallout of their decisions.