I think children SHOULD have their parent's consent to have an abortion. Not to control them, but to counsel, and support them. These are children we're talking about. Do these young girls suddenly become more mature, more able to make major life decisions by becoming pregnant at such a young age.

Such an unfortunate situation would suggest the opposite in terms of decision making skills.

In addition...these are young women with HUGE hormonal changes going on. I myself am 33 and pregnant with my fourth...I'm always a wreck during the first trimester. The idea of allowing a child to make a life altering decision alone during this highly insane emotional time, is ludicrous.

Where Palin and I disagree....I am a HIGHLY religious person. But, in cases of rape, I would counsel my child, to end the pregnancy. But, still support her if she is adamant about keeping the pregnancy, and encourage adoption. No, child should know they were a product of violence, and no child should have to carry that reminder of violence for 9 months.

Again, I still think parents should be aware, and available to counsel and support their children during such a life altering event in their lives.

It's disingenuous to call Bristol a child. She's not an adult, either, of course. She's somewhere in between, which is the problem.

Another problem is that you're assuming the parents of the girl will definitely be providing "support and counsel". Too frequently, in the real world, parents instead provide selfish opinions based on what's best for them, pressure, religious 'instruction', shame, and/or emotional or physical abuse. I'm talking both ways, here: girls are pressured to GET abortions, too, not just the other way around.

I hope that my daughter would trust me enough, and that I'd done my job as a parent well enough, that if she became pregnant as a teenager she COULD come to me for support and counsel, whether she was required to or not. Because ultimately I would support whichever decision she makes. It seems unfair and unrealistic to make laws that assumes all parents are "bad" parents - unable to support and counsel their daughters without the intervention of the law - and then turns around and assumes that they are all also GOOD parents who provide that support and counsel in reasonable ways.

I see two very different issues here;

1) Parents have the right to be notified. BUT they have NO rights over the outcome.

2) Parents have the right to be notified AND they control the outcome.

While I'm a lib and 100% pro-choice I do NOT agree with my fellow libs on the issue #1, parental notification. In other words, unless there is physical abuse, I support parental notification.

One issue #2, who decides the outcome, I believe the girl\women has the final say.

Can you really say that you would support whichever decision she makes?

For example, would that 'support' include NO changes in your daughter's lifestyle? e.g. She could keep her cell phone, her car, she could come home at the same time as before, no changes to her 'perks' ?

I know of a few girls with great parents like you (not being a smartass) but these girls still had an abortion without telling their parents. Why? Well while their parents were 'cool', the girls feared they were NOT that cool! In other words the girls feared they would lose some of their 'perks' and it was just easier to hid it from their parents.

I told them they should tell their parents but they didn't. To me this was sad for these good parents and this is why I'm torn on the issue here.

Jazzguitarman, I see where you're coming from. The problem is, how do you determine whether, in the face of the law, there is, or is likely to be, abuse? Who makes that determination? Does it still require mediation by a judge? How many abused young girls are going to get up in court and say "Your honor, I should not be subjected to parental consent laws because I am abused?" How would they prove it? If they were unable to prove it, would they then have to go back into an abusive situation, with all the fear of reprisal that their actions have just brought them? They're under 18, and also now pregnant--where else can they go but home, where I assume they're still living because of financial necessity?

Before you argue that abuse cases are obvious enough to spot: One of my best friends in high school was in my youth group at church. Her father was a church deacon. Her mother was the school secretary. They were a well-respected family in the community. He also routinely beat both her and her brother, a fact that I didn't know until well after we both graduated and she moved away (far away) to college. And I didn't know it in spite of having spent many a weekend sleeping over at her house.

"Can you really say that you would support whichever decision she makes?"

I think it's pretty clear that I mean I would support either carrying the pregnancy or aborting it. Other repercussions would depend on the situation, but I wouldn't be harsh, especially on a 16 or 17 year old, because I was having sex at that age.

Of course there's a chance that she might still be scared to tell me. (I know I wasn't up front about a lot of things with my parents - but then again, they were pretty harsh and conservative, as much as I love them.) In which case, I hope she's got relatively easy access to both decisions *without* my knowledge, especially as a 16 or 17 year old. Yes, she will have to live with the decision that she made without our guidance and support, and deal with having a secret that huge - that was her choice - but it was a CHOICE that she made, not something forced on her by courts. I know that I'm not an abusive zealot who will force my choice on her, but the courts can't know that.

Quote: "Too frequently, in the real world, parents instead provide selfish opinions based on what's best for them, pressure, religious 'instruction', shame, and/or emotional or physical abuse."

This applies to every aspect of parental responsibilities and parental authority. If we have decided as a society that parents in general cannot be trusted with authority over their minor children's lives, then I don't see why we're limiting that to abortion.

Just because you may think (want) your daughter to be a "child", if she is over the age of consent then parents should butt-out. If your relationship with your offspring is such that you can counsel, encourage, support or whatever, so much the better, but other players, like doctors etc. have no obligation to the parent. Their responsibility is to their patient and respect for her privacy is paramount.

"If we have decided as a society that parents in general cannot be trusted with authority over their minor children's lives, then I don't see why we're limiting that to abortion."

We're not.

You cannot kill your child, or even hurt your child or neglect your child. And you don't have full medical authority over them, either.

For example, Christian Scientists cannot endanger their children's health by refusing a procedure on their behalf because of their religious beliefs.

Nope, you don't own your children. They do have some autonomy. While you may be able to bully them about how they dress or what time they come home, you don't - and shouldn't - have 100% control over their medical decisions. And whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not IS a medical decision - and one that's especially likely to invite abuse.