This issue becomes a bit more clear when you stop to ask: what other medical procedure can a minor obtain without parental consent?

You can't get your teeth cleaned without parental consent. Yet for some reason, the far more significant choice of whether or not to have an abortion is deemed too 'private' to allow parental consent to play a role.

I find that bizarre. And I believe abortion is subject to far too much government scrutiny already. It's not my business whether Bristol Palin has an abortion, any more than its my business whether she visits the dentist.

But it is her mother's business. At least until she's a legal adult.

Pregnancy and childbirth cause major strain on the body (and the mind) - should parents really be allowed to force their child to go through with that?

So you equate the degree of privacy between oral hygene and sexual intercourse. Me, I'll brush my teeth on the subway if I need to yet no matter how horny I am fucking my girlfriend on the train during rush hour just aint right.

That's why you do her outside the train, on the little platform between cars.

Xando:

This issue becomes a bit more clear when you stop to ask: what other medical procedure can a minor obtain without parental consent?

You can't get your teeth cleaned without parental consent.

The difference is that there aren't anti-dental nutcases running around who don't care if their children have to suffer from bad teeth their whole life, so long as they don't go to the dentist. The minor is going to have to deal with the effects of her decision her entire life, whether it is abortion, adoption or to keep the baby, and so she should get to make the decision simply because so many parents aren't willing to act in a rational manner.

Xando:

Yet for some reason, the far more significant choice of whether or not to have an abortion is deemed too 'private' to allow parental consent to play a role.

Abortion is more private than dental hygenie.

Xando:

But it is her mother's business. At least until she's a legal adult.

And if a girl has a good relationship with her parents, she'll inform them and bring them into the decision making process even if the law is not forcing her to. It's the girls that don't feel that they can tell their parents whom need protection.

Well actually there are anti-dental nut cases- Christian Scientists. 2 of my college housemates were forced to have what dental treatment they got, without any novocaine because of their parents' beliefs...

Think Marathon Man applied to children.

So you can pilot a 3 ton deadly missile, but you are incapable of deciding between what doctors are telling you about your body?

uhuh.

I have no problem btw, letting kids get their teeth cleaned without parental consent. Invariably the prohibition against this is based in parents trying to impose their religious belief (read up on Christian Science and dentistry) on their kids.

Having The Government help parents coerce their kids into belief systems is anathema to teaching a population of informed and independently reasoning individuals

Xando,

In the typical case, the child is probably 15-16 years old. That means that the outcome of a birth is a responsibility imposed upon that "child" until she's in her mid THIRTIES (16 + 18). I would say that's a bit of an extended period to say that parents should have the right of consent over!

IOW, it doesn't seem reasonably within the purview of parents to "force" something on their children that has direct ramifications nearly to the child's middle age.

Or, to frame it slightly differently: a birth places an inordinate RESPONSIBILITY directly on the mother--no matter what her age. The responsibility is so great that it's over-reaching to give control of the decision to someone who won't have to deal with the consequences (i.e., the GRANDparents).

StevieN:

In the typical case, the child is probably 15-16 years old. That means that the outcome of a birth is a responsibility imposed upon that "child" until she's in her mid THIRTIES (16 + 18). I would say that's a bit of an extended period to say that parents should have the right of consent over!

As a minor, you can do none of the following without parental consent:

Join the military - 4 years.

Get a credit card - 7 years.

Rent an apartment - 1 year.

Yet somehow, the same people who we deem too immature to make decisions of these time frames suddenly become mature enough when you're talking about abortion? Please.

The only reason to oppose parental consent laws is if your goal is to increase the number of abortions in society. It's not a matter of decision-making - the list of parental consent items that you accept goes on and on. It's not a matter of ensuring choice - all parental consent laws can be overriden by a very simple court petition.

It's a matter of declaring that the proper response to every family's teenage pregnancy is that you impose your values of demanding an abortion over the judgement of the parents.

I believe in legal abortion. But I'm not going to trample people's rights to ensure that every baby gets aborted.

You are comparing apples and oranges because you are missing WHY the law recognizes responsibility in a progressive manner. There are two issues here:

• the ability to make cognitively INFORMED decisions
• the rights of the individual

So if we look at the items you mention

Join the military - 4 years.

This requires the ability to understand the legal implications and to be able to continue to make a series of cognitively Informed decisions AFTER you make the initial decision.

Furthermore you don't have any fact based advisors to help you make these decisions. So not only are you on the line ethically, you are also on the line factually.

While I would argue that even 18yo aren't really capable of this, the societal consensus is that 18yo have sufficient congitive processing to do this in the framework of a hierarchical military. Are there 15yo who could do this? sure but not many, so you have to draw the line somewhere

As for rights - there is no imposition on the rights of the person doing the signing up to be precluded from this decision until 18

Get a credit card - 7 years.

Again here the issue of Cognitively Informed consent comes into play. The issue is whether you can cognitively draw enough FACTUALLY INFORMED decisions for them to be legally consistent and bindig

as for rights - there is no imposition on the basic rights of the individual if a corporation won't contract with them

Rent an apartment - 1 year

This is simply a shorter term case of the Credit Card for which your 7 year impact is the time period it takes for something to disappear from your credit record - in which case the duration here is also 7 years.

Note also that in the latter 2 cases, if a minor has a legal advisor - such as McCauley Culken did, you can get emancipated at a much earlier age by demonstrating certain cognitive competencies.

Now in the case of abortion the FACTUAL basis for that decision support is provided by the MDs. So only the ethical component of the decision is the one that the minor needs to make

Furthermore, unlike the prior examples, removing this right from the minor requires an intrusion into their physical bodies in a manner that our Constitution only allows in the most compelling circumstances.

So in balancing the common law rights of parents against the explicitly enumerated protections and rights of the individual, the balance goes to the minor unless the legal guardians (parents, state, ad leitum) can demonstrate that the individual is cognitively unable to make such a judgement.

Basically parents don't have the right to force their children to have the parents beliefs. Yet you want The Government to violate those most fundamental protections siimply because YOU don't like the outcome.