An abortion is normally a relatively minor medical procedure, and insofar as it merely puts the girl back to a state of not being pregnant, it has no life consequences at all. It's not having an abortion that has the major risks and consequences, medically and for the girl's life. On the face of it, the stated rationale for parental consent laws is an argument for consent laws for giving birth, not for abortion.

Of couse, this is absurd, for a few reasons. But it is interesting to note how the momentousness of one decision (not to have an abortion) gets "trasnferred" to the inverse decision (to have an abortion) as a justification for these laws.

Saletan makes the the same mistake in a different way. He says the momentousness of the decision is a reason parents should not have veto power. But of course, no one is talking about giving parents veto power over the decision to give birth.

I'm pro-choice, but the idea that abortion has no life consequences? Maybe for some people.

You do bring up an interesting point, though: what if the default option for a pregnant minor was abortion? If our government deems under-18ers to be physically, emotionally, and cognitively unable to consent to sex, drink alcohol, vote, adopt a child, etc, why should they be permitted to give birth? Of course, choosing who can and can't give birth brings up all sorts of scary eugenic stuff.

Just to be clear:

1) I mean that medical and life consequences of abortion are minor compared to giving birth, the only other option once pregnant, and something for which no parental consent is demanded.

2) In saying that the argument in the first paragraph is absurd, I mean that I am not seriously proposing that there be mandatory abortions for pregnant minors unless exemption is granted by their parents.

I am merely pointing out an interesting aspect of the logic of the argument, that the rationale for consent laws illicitly transfers the great seriousness of the decision to give birth to the decision to have an abortion.

But if you had to have parental consent to give birth, what would daytime talk show hosts do for a living?

I have to disagree about birth being more risky and have more life consequences. You may say that because you don't know much about birthing, I don't know. However giving birth is something that has been occurrring on this earth since the beginning of time, aborting is something new. Birthing is a natural process that, with a few exceptions, women are built to do, aborting is an invasive medical procedure that is so astronomically unnatural it boggles the mind. Birthing is the climax of bringing new life in to the world, aborting is snuffing that life out because you aren't comfortable with it. I, as a person who has given birth 3 times (twice at home) and someone who has been raped and had the possiblity of a pregnancy, I wholeheartedly in any situation where a baby was conceived would choose LIFE.

I beg to differ with you. Abortion is as old as time. Women in ancient Greece took herbs with abortifacient properties. Abortion was legal before it was illegal in the United States in the 19th century. The only thing new is safe and legal medical and surgical abortions.

You say that childbirth is natural but that does not always equal safe. The CDC determined that in 2002, 357 women alone died of maternal causes. Between 1990 and 2000, between 4 and 11 women died each year from complications related to legal abortions.The rate of death from abortion is 1/10 that of childbirth.

In countries where abortion is illegal, death from abortions rises to hundreds of times higher. I assume anti-choice people believe those deaths are acceptable.

I'm glad you would choose life if you were to become pregnant by rape. I hope you would let me make my choice. I guess I'm cynical when I think you won't agree.

Pregnancy certainly has more life consequences for more people regarding finances. Someone has to pay to feed, diaper, raise and train that kid. Could be mama (in which case papa is legally required to contribute), or it could be the grandparents or friends or the taxpayers- which is who bears the societal costs when a child is put up for adoption.