Abortion and parental consent

[Figueira]

This is something I've been wondering about people's opinions on. I have a very strong opinion but I'll keep it to myself until there are responses.

If you think there should be exceptions to your usual rule on abortion (e.g. rape, incest, length of pregnancy, etc.) then vote based on the times you think abortions should be legal.

If this is confusing let me know.

[Figueira]

Anyway, my position is Option 1, and if you don't agree with Option 1, you aren't really "pro-choice." I wish more states would get rid of their parental consent laws.

For those of you who voted for 2 and 3, I'd like to know your reasoning.

[Figueira]

Why should a minor be allowed to get an abortion without parental consent but not be able to get married without it?

Because the right to bodily autonomy is more fundamental than the right to marry.

This, and because not getting married doesn't have huge consequences the way not getting an abortion does.

That said, I don't really support the parental permission requirement for marriage either. I'd rather have a single minimum age for marriage (maybe 16-18 or so) since I don't really see how the parents' opinion is relevant to such a decision. Same with getting tattoos: either let them get tattoos, or don't.

[Figueira]

No, it should be illegal (except for the exceptions yada yada), but parental consent would be a fair compromise, at least temporarily.

Is it really? Either you conciser the life of a fetus equivalent to that of a newborn baby, which means parental consent wouldn't make it any more morally acceptable to kill it, or you don't, which mean's parental connect doesn't matter becasue it's morally acceptable anyway. How does this compromise make sense for either side?

I do consider the life of a fetus equivalent to that of a newborn baby, so you're right parental consent wouldn't make it any more morally acceptable, but I think this would lead to less abortions. I want to see more done on restricting abortion, but if I was a legislator and I had to vote on this bill I would support it because it probably would lead to less abortions, and I think less abortions is good.

I suppose that's fair enough. Still doesn't make sense from a pro-choice perspective, though.

I don't really think it does either but you hear Democrats talk about wanting abortion to be safe and rare (which doesn't make sense because why does it matter whether this procedure is rare or not if they don't think a fetus is human life) so it plays into that.

There are good and bad ways of making it rare though. Increasing access to birth control is a good way of making it rare. Discriminating against a segment of the population by preventing them from getting abortions is a bad way of making it rare.

And fetuses are demonstrably human life; the question is whether or not they count as people.

[Figueira]

Not taking a definitive stance on this issue, just wanted to play Devil's Advocate for a minute.

If people under the age of 18 are not capable of consenting to medical procedures in general, why would an abortion be any different?

Also, in the lack of parental consent laws, is there a risk that certain abortion service providers would refuse treatment to women under the age of 18 in order to cover themselves legally? 

Because giving birth is basically a "medical procedure" in and of itself. A medical procedure is, at that point, unavoidable.