Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Law & Justice > Family Law
Should abortion for underage children require parental consent?
Results so far:
| Yes | 51% | 1148 votes | Total: 2258 votes | |
| No | 49% | 1110 votes |
Yes
by Elizabeth M Young
Created on: November 07, 2009
When under aged children who fall under the laws covering statutory rape are about to have children, any choice to have an abortion should require the consent of a public guardian, and the parents should be out of the picture. Children who are as young as 10 and 12 are having sex, and no parent has an excuse for any child who is that young engaging in or being forced to have sex. Child protective services should investigate and, if the child is of an age where statutory rape applies, a guardian must be appointed to investigate and to insure that the child's best interest in all matters of life are being met, not just how they are having sex at that age. There is something seriously wrong when children that young are having sex, and parents should lose their ability to dodge any investigations or potential loss of custody.
If the child is older than the age where statutory rape applies, and the parents are still responsible for the medical and other care of that child, then a neutral party should be there to assist in any mess that the family cannot resolve on its own. Normal and healthy families manage to work out their decisions and move on through the difficult process, whether abortion or having the child is the final decision, but everyone should be required to have psychological counseling to insure that no one is liable to pull off a Casey Anthony gambit where the child is murdered and missing for a month before anyone even reports to the police.
If the statutory rape law does not apply, a young woman who is not mentally or otherwise incapacitated should be able to make her own decisions in life. If a parent has to consent for a 17 year old to go to war, then 17 years old is the maximum age where some parental authority must be involved. But at that age, If the young person wishes to have someone other than the parents to aid them in their decisions, or even wants to emancipate and take on the full responsibilities of adulthood, then it will just have to be a wake up call for the parents who have a child who demands to make major independent decisions and to live as an adult.
Parents will have some form of control or authority over their children for the rest of their lives, unless they are so incompetent and toxic that the child gets away or is taken away from them as early in life as possible. It is just too sad that so many infants and small children are suffering the horrific and insane consequences of generational drug abuse, failure to function in society, or even well concealed and serious family dysfunction even in prominent and publicly attractive households. Every week, there is a new and even more infuriating story of a missing, tortured or murdered child, and grandparents, parents or guardians who play the game of telling so many lies that no one can do any justice.
The sad fact is that no amount of freedom to have abortion is going to prevent or correct the disasters that have been in the making for a child's entire life, because many of the children insist on having their children, will give in to their parents control and demands, or will have them in order to continue under the financial support of their parents or welfare long after the time when they should have become self sufficient adults. "We can only hope" is not a good enough answer.
Whether underage parenthood, adoption, or abortion is the result, there has to be more done to insure that children and their children are protected, educated, given protection against pregnancy, and put under a system where any problems are identified and dealt with before they turn into horrific events.
Learn more about this author, Elizabeth M Young.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Rebecca Adele Scarlett
Created on: July 03, 2007 Last Updated: September 10, 2011
Why would there be a law requiring parental consent for an underage girl to get an abortion? Obviously it is to reduce the number of abortions undergone by underage girls. If girls require consent for an abortion, some will not get that consent and not be able to obtain an abortion. Remember that such a law will not reduce underage pregnancies, but only underage abortions.
Why are we seeking to reduce abortions in this age group, rather than focusing on reducing pregnancies? Once an underage girl is pregnant, that pregnancy has a high chance of being dangerous for her. Requiring parental consent to have an abortion is foolish because of the parents who would rather endanger their daughter's health by refusing to give consent than "participate" in an abortion (by giving consent.)
Parents are supposed to do what is best for their child. Having a 13 or 14 year old girl carry a baby to term and give birth to it is not the best thing for her physically, and having a child at that age is not the best thing for her mentally, emotionally, or financially. Forcing her to continue the pregnancy, therefore, is bad parenting and inherently wrong, even if the parents plan to reduce the burden by helping out financially. Child labour is against the law because parents do not own their children's bodies and cannot force them into circumstances where their bodies are being taxed unreasonably, and I have a hard time believing that going through pregnancy and birth would not tax a 13 or 14 year old's body unreasonably. (Yes, women used to give birth at that age all the time, but that was also when giving birth was the leading cause of death among women.)
Why would any parent want to force their child to continue with an unwanted and most likely (due to their age) dangerous pregnancy? Religious reasons are obviously one answer, but I dismiss that as a logical reason. There will be those who vehemently disagree with me, but I have never believed that religion was an appropriate excuse to inflict any kind of stress on another human being.
Another possible reason is these parents believe that by allowing their daughter an abortion they are letting her "off the hook." There is a widespread sentiment that a girl should be "punished" for having sex, and that having to be responsible for the resulting baby is a fit punishment. Obviously you don't want your daughter to think that her actions don't have consequences, but parents are not just there to teach their children not to make mistakes; they are also there to protect their children during the learning process when mistakes will inevitably be made.
Some mistakes are so big that the consequences are unacceptable, but at the same time those consequences will interfere with health, safety, growing, learning and/or becoming a productive member of society, and therefore the consequences MUST be alleviated by the parents. For example: your 15 year old is not supposed to borrow the car, but she does, and ends up in a serious accident. Would you deny her medical treatment even if she may die or lose a limb without it, just because helping her will be "letting her get away with it," or because being paralyzed for life is a fitting punishment? I believe a parent might actually be charged with criminal negligence if they tried to do that! So why force your daughter to carry an unwanted pregnancy?
Any time a new law is up for discussion its consequences should be weighed. Is it possible that underage girls who want an abortion, but require parental consent and know their parents will be furious when they find out about the pregnancy, might run away rather than be punished for the pregnancy? Might they end up on the streets, manipulated by dishonest people, ending up in the child sex trade? (This happens to runaways all the time.) Might they try to get to another state, or another country, on their own to obtain an abortion without consent (making themselves vulnerable to being raped or even murdered) or might they just try it on their own with a coat hanger, resulting in infection and death? All of these things are highly realistic consequences of requiring parental consent for abortion, and all of them are horrible.
Despite all of the reasons that parents should support their daughters' decisions to terminate a pregnancy, there will still be parents who are willing to force their daughters through harmful negative consequences, if given the chance. Requiring parental consent for abortion gives them that chance, which is why consent should not be required.
Learn more about this author, Rebecca Adele Scarlett.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley