I’m sure there are some extremists, but to say that are many of them and that killing/beating your children was the purpose of the law is just wrong IMO.
We haven’t had one of these threads for a while. Okay, I’ll go on record again. I see no reason why parental consent, which is required for virtually every major medical decision associated with a minor, should be excluded for abortion.
The basis for these laws does not ignore the potential outcome of these decisions–in fact, the significant effect of these decisions are precisely why parents must make them. The basis for parental consent laws is that children are not in the best position to make their own major decisions. We accept this for virtually every other medical situation, and for virtually every other major life decision.
But not for abortions. Why? Just speculating, but I believe it is often founded on the belief that abortion decisions can never, ever, ever, not for any reason, be denied. Never, no justification. Anything that violates this must be wrong. Period.
Out of ignorant curiosity, how far of a road trip would a kid have to make to get to a hospital that doesn’t require parental consent? Could they skip town for a few days and have the procedure done legally in a neighboring state?
I thought Football was already the state god and religion of Texas 
Anyway, why the bother ? Do kids in Texas have easy access to enough money to routinely pay for abortions.
I see things like this and I thank Football that I am Canadian.
Do you think the parents of the underage girl, who force her to carry to term, should have to pay any child support on the grandchild they made their daughter have?
I believe the child who is born is also the responsibility of the girl’s parents (the grandparents, that is).
Well, why shouldn’t the incest victim get permission from the baby’s father before she kills his child?
What does that have to do with parental consent laws?
I’m suggesting the emotional brutality of the law, requiring girls who are raped by their fathers get permission from their rapists to abort the consequences of that rape.
Are you suggesting that if the article comes from a pro-life group, it is biased and therefore invalid?
If so, then we must immediately ignore anything that Planned Parenthoood or NARAL has to say on this issue.
Unfortunetly we cannot find the appropriate statistics from your linked page - it provides the rates of deaths due to illegal abortions, but not the rate of actual illegal abortions. As the source says; medical advances over the years have meant less risk to the patient. I think it’s fair to say that that also means more women may survive an otherwise life-threatening injury brought about by an illegal abortion.
Um, okay. I suggest rapist fathers have their parental rights removed permanently. How’s that for a workable solution to an exceptional circumstance? I’ll bet Texas law even contemplates such a circumstance. Or are you suggesting that this is a typical situation for a teenage pregnancy?
Do you know what other major medical decision doesn’t require parental consent? Bringing a pregnancy to term. If an abortion is such a decision, surely keeping the pregnancy is too? And yet, only an abortion requires consent.
Why? Just speculating, but I think it’s a desperate attempt to stop abortions happening at all, rather than an honest belief in letting the pregnant person know all the facts and make an informed decision. If she won’t carry it to term, we’ll just let the parents in on the decision, too! And hey, if that doesn’t work, we’ll make it both parents. And the father. And the grandparents. One of them surely won’t agree with the abortion.
You don’t see anything at all wrong with the idea that the girl herself can’t make her own medical decisions, but can make them for the baby she was forced to have?
She’s the one who makes those decisions for the baby she was forced to have.
Cite?
Bringing a pregnancy to term is, in a very important sense, a passive event, though, isn’t it? We don’t require parental consent to permit children to age past puberty either, right? I will also permit my teenager’s wisdom teeth to grow. Each event will almost inevitably occur (given a teenager or a pregnant teenager, as the case may be).
Straw man much?
Yes, I do see something wrong with that. Since you ask.
She shouldn’t be permitted to. She’s a minor, you know. Let me be clear, though. I don’t pretend to know the legal subtleties of every jurisdiction in the nation.
You want a cite for my opinion? Okay, please consider this my affirmation that my opinion is indeed my opinion. Signed, Stratocaster. I’ll have it notarized if you’d like.
So you can’t even be bothered to get the facts when a teenage girl’s life and future are in question?
Well, I guess it’s easy to throw out blind opinions when the situation can never happen to you.
It’s not like your parents could force you to be pregnant and have a baby and then lose your chance at going to college and making something of yourself. Nope, that can only happen to a girl.
Here’s the thing. We can’t stop puberty from happening. Nor can we stop wisdom teeth growing (I assume.). Pregnancy, however, is something that can either continue or not continue. There’s a choice involved there.
And I imagine those mothers on the boards who’ve carried a pregnancy to term and given birth would have a few words to say about that being a “passive event”. 
Yes, it was. It was a total overstating of the case. I was, however, merely following your lead rather than trying to make a point;
Disingenuous responses aside, you must surely be aware that your opinion carries no legal weight, thus the point regarding a teenager being forced to carry to term a child for which she is then responsible for many years is a valid one. The ramifications of this parental choice directly extend for a very long time after the young mother is no longer beholden to their parents, a situation that is not affected one whit by your opinion of their responsibilities. We’re talking about the law here, and the law in question would in many cases result in a girl being forced to carry a child to term for which she alone would then bear the responsibility. For up to 18 years. In edge cases, a near-adult could plausibly be forced to bear a child by their parents, then almost instantly kicked out on their own once they reach the age of majority.
Even if we discuss the hypothetical world of your opinion, in which the grandparents do have a legally binding responsibility for the child; how is this supposed to work? Are the grandparents legally responsible only until the young parent leaves home, or do they have some sort of duty of care until their grandchild is an adult in its own right? Does this apply only when the parents have forced their daughter to have a baby, and what do you think that sort of situation implies for the practicalities of enforcing said duty?
AND, don’t we then essentially have a case of breeding slaves? If the grandparents retain custody of the offspring from a forced pregnancy, isn’t their daughter breeding *for *them? Who else am I allowed to force to breed me a baby? What about a disabled adult child? Can I adopt an adult and claim their child as mine?
Ridiculous? Yeah. But the last time we allowed people to force someone else to bear offspring in their name was before Lincoln wrote that Proclamation thing.