DEBATEitOUT.comHave Your Voice Heard, 24/7.

I find it truly amazing how our government can allow such an operation, like an abortion, not require parental consent, but in the schools, you can't get a tylenol without a call to your parent(s).

If they're 16 or older (old enough to be an emancipated adult) then no. but if they're younger than that, I think there's a great danger in letting them "take care of the problem" without their parents having to even be notified. But then, the question regards consent not notification… hmmmm… Now I'm not so sure.

Notification yes. Consent no. Also depends somewhat on the definition of "underage", which seems to vary by state. If you're talking a daughter who is 12, this is probably a more difficult situation to handle than a 17 year old young woman who is pregnant against the wishes of her parents.

I think 18 should be the age.

I don't see what the difference between a 16-17 year old and an 18 year old is concerning their own body and consent for sex within a reasonable age range.

Absolutely yes! They need consent to do any other procedure, so there should be no reason to not expect it for this. No doctor has a right to touch my child without my consent until they reach the age of 18, period. If the 16 year old goes through the process of actually choosing to emancipate, that is one thing, but just getting to that age but actually still living at home under a parent's authority does not grant a doctor the opportunity to perform a risky medical procedure on the child without both the parent's knowledge and consent.

The difference is they are under the legal age of consent. Those who are under that legal age but are no longer at home and supporting themselves financially, should be all means have the freedom to grant such consent. But those living at home, being supported by their parents are still under their authority. Parents have a right to decide for the minor in those instances. No doctor, judge or anyone else has a right to interfere since they are not the ones investing their years of love, sweat, and money to raise that child.

Besides, if a person gets an unwanted pregnancy after being inundated with all the sex education material and access to birth control out there it only reveals their inability to make a mature and responsible decision. You know, you don't get pregnant by mistake you have to actually have sex to do that! If the minor is not mature enough to deal with the passion of moment in order to do something to stop from becoming pregnant they are probably are not mature enough and educated enough to understand the risks and long term affects of abortion.

Morally and physically, I'm not sure that there is a difference.

Legally, it depends what state you are in for the age of consent issue. Some are even lower still. Statutory rape aside (ie, adults abusing children and teens), if you're dealing with intra-teen relationships, I'm not that worried about consensual sexuality as something society needs to penalize, scrutinize, or enforce some parental response toward.

For many families, this will be little more than a formality. Others, it may be a cause of considerable strain. I am not sure where it presents some great advantage to society as a whole, ie, that it will reduce the number and demand for abortions generally. If a teenager cannot get a legal abortion or cannot get legal permission from their parents (or fears what that will entail), and still wants one, then we're back where we started pre-Row v Wade. With young people seeking out back alley abortions or illegal prescriptions.

What "long term effects" of abortion are we talking about? It would seem to me that the long term effects of having a child while still a teenager are known and often considerable in their negative impact (for all of us, not merely the parent or potentially aborted fetus involved). By contrast, I am unaware of some long-term health impact of abortion, and certainly no long-term societal impact which we should be attempting to govern against happening.

I'm also aware of plenty of data suggesting that the "educational" material that children and teens are being "inundated with" is often flawed, if not an outright distortion and falsehood. Try making good decisions without accurate information and let me know how that works out. I can say that it turns out by effecting the rates of teenage pregnancy (upward) by lowering the amount of birth control access and use in places where this has happened.

Plus, you way of thinking changing dramatically during those years. I’m 20 and I think completely different than when I was 18-19.

This is my personal opinion and nothing more.

From birth to the legal age of adulthood (whatever that age should be) a parent (or parents) should be responsible for the health, well-being, and actions of that child.

My sisters – one younger and one older – at the age of twelve had no idea of the responsibility that a pregnancy brings. Even though we did not have the heinous law of legal abortions back then, I do not see how a twelve-year-old would have the mental capacity to handle such a thing and not suffer irreparable mental damage.

My not-so-humble opinion.

The age of consent for sex may vary, but the age of consent for medical procedures without parental consent generally does not.

There is no reason that a doctor who can NOT give my child ANY other kind of medical procedure should suddenly be able to do so simply because this one has a moral element to it. We need to take the reason for wanting the procedure out of the equation. Either children need to start becoming responsible for their own medical decisions (and finances) at an earlier age or the parents should ALWAYS have to give consent. The doctor or judge should not be the ones to decide if THEY think the child should have it, it is not up to them. Period.

There are many long term effects of abortion, many of which are emotional and mental. Some complications from the procedure can also cause long term effects. No procedure is without risks. I know people who have had them and then later have children. After experiencing pregnancy many begin to regret the decision. Many children, who are often defiant against their parents when a teenager, later realize they were wrong. At that point they might begin to regret the decision. Many in the pro-life movement are women who had abortions and have later regretted it. You can't deny that people change their minds and beliefs over the course of their lifetime.

That is why the parent should be the one counseling the child on what decision to make. They parent is the only one who truly cares about the long term life and health of their own child. The parent is the only who really loves the child and wants what is best for them. Others may have beliefs about what decisions are best for children in general, but they do not know this particular child and they will not be the ones who will be there for the child if they later regrets the decision, suffers emotionally from it, or if their are complications from it. We do a great harm to children by keeping them from seeking the advice of the people who care for them the most at a time when they are dealing with lots of issues and probably not using their best judgment.

I can tell you that they have access to much more access to accurate information about birth control then they do about abortion.

You are right. Someone in my family DID have access to abortion without parental consent. Her parents found out about the abortion when they had to rush her to the ER from complications from it. At 16 she thought she had the capacity to handle it, now there is not a day that goes by that she does not regret it. Her parents would not have "killed her" if she told them she were pregnant and they would have done everything in their power to help her both raise the child and complete her education, etc. However, they were never given the chance. Now they have all had to deal with the results. The doctor who profited from the procedure does not care about anguish and physical damage it caused them. Nor do those demanding that parents not have a say. They are hurting these kids, for the rest of their lives, they are not helping them!

No. They don't. There is deliberate misinformation on either topic, but when condoms are compared to machetes, birth control is favorably compared to slut-shaming, and on and on…

I don't see your point. If the issue is a parental consent over other matters, then I'd say some medical matters can be handled between parents and doctors and others between children and doctors. There's several recent cases where parents make terrible, tragic, medical decisions against the advice of doctors and are being held accountable for negligence. They should be. So don't give me this crap about "parents" being the only ones who know the best interests of a child. They're often misinformed zealots. On this or almost any other medical topic.

What are the long-term complications? That you feel sort of bad about it? That's not a "complication". That's inevitable. The question is whether you would feel worse having a child that you cannot take care of in a modern society. I suspect there are many people who would. As I said, pushing this off into a side channel increases the risks, both to society as a whole and to these teenage daughters out there seeking an abortion. Weighing that cost and the personal dangers is something people should be able to do for themselves. I don't deny that they should seek counsel and advice. Doctors, judges, parents, or clergy can all provide it. But I don't think parents should be required to.

I think it should be up the mother only, no matter what age she is because it is her child.

I think 21 should be the cutoff.

Abortions should be completely outlawed. There is no excuse for killing a baby. I don't care if you are raped. They have centers where women go to that help them deal with depression and stress and many rape victims have had their babies. Plus, if you don't want the baby just give it up for adoption. Why kill it?

Good for you kid.

But Sal, what about the father, it’s his kid too, just as much as it’s the mother’s. If the father doesn’t want to the guilt of being an outright heartless killer why should you make him?

this is a touchy one. While I agree that the mental capacity of a teenager between 16-18 is minimally different, I also think the changes b/w 18 and 20 aren't that great. I don't think most people get their heads out of their asses before 23 or 24. I mean really out, like responsible job/home/ paying their own bills and whatnot. Especially here on Long Island where most children live in their parents house without much responsibility mostly until they're about 25ish. I'm not going to assign what I feel should be an arbitrary age to this, but I do think that there should be an age, and girls below that age should have to get parental consent yes. If that age is 18 then so be it. I don't think we could legally make that age 21, though I'd probably feel better about it I guess. But at 21 some people are out of the home and living their lives.

I definitely think 16 year old girls shouldn't really be having much sex, nor should they be requiring abortions. But hey… maybe I'm just old fashioned.

Right, but why is the father not consulted at all. Maybe you just overlooked this quickly, which is what I hope happened. But if equality is truly imminent, why does not the man get a say, in whether to abort or not. Speaking of equality 95% of men lose custody of their children in divorce settlements, equality, or guilt? You be the judge.

How is having pre-marital sex "adultery"?! The term normally implies "extra-marital" sex…which is a whole other topic.

I have an idea! Make Abortion illegal and we won't have to talk about this!

Problem solved.

No they shouldn't require parental consent, they should be flat out illegal! Abortion is murder.

As Ian said……."Make Abortion illegal and we won't have to talk about this! Problem solved."