CreateDebate


Debate Info

73
50
Hell no its their choice! Of course.
Debate Score:123
Arguments:89
Total Votes:142
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Hell no its their choice! (47)
 
 Of course. (42)

Debate Creator

DaWolfman(3322) pic



Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?

Hell no its their choice!

Side Score: 73
VS.

Of course.

Side Score: 50
2 points

I say parental consent is not legally necessary to have a baby, and nor should it be. The ultimate authority over whether to have a baby must be the baby’s mother, not its grandparents. It is absurd to say that someone is old enough to have a baby, but not old enough to have an abortion. The parental consent required for surgery is a legal sham in any case, since in serious cases a refusal can be overridden on medical advice with a court order. In effect, parents can consent to surgery on their children, but cannot withhold their consent. This is not a good example for the proposition.

And if needing parental consent became effective it could just lead to 'back street' abortions. Which are far more dangerous to the mother and the baby than just being able to go to a clinic.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
JoeKinnan555(13) Disputed
1 point

Under-16s need parental consent for medical treatment and surgery: abortion should not be an exception. There are plenty of other things children are not allowed to do without their parents’ consent: tattooing, ear-piercing, school activities such as school trips; parents can withdraw their children from school religious activities without their children’s consent; under-16s are not allowed to get married without their parents’ consent. Abortion is at least as important a decision as any of these if not more important.

Side: Of course.
DaWolfman(3322) Disputed
1 point

Abortion should be one of the only exceptions to that rule. Children may not be able to do some things without their parent's consent but abortion is much more an important decision, a decision that could be life changing. Getting a tatoo or an ear piercing is a totally different subject on a much lower level of concern in a parent's eye ( one would hope ).

Whether or not a teenager/woman wants to keep her baby should be totally up to her and nobody else.

Side: Hell no its their choice!

Absolutely not. I'm 16 years old, sexually active, and I've had one--exactly one--pregnancy scare, even though I've used protection every time. I have many, many friends--both older and younger--who have been in the same situation. Involving parents makes matters more difficult, and they may even override the pregnant woman's decision.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
2 points

If she is under age, by definition, she is not a woman. Therefore, the parent is not overriding a pregnant woman's decision.

Also, by definition, the act is statuary rape. Now, what was this argument for abortion that says that in case of rape....

Children who use drugs also feel that involving parents makes matters much more difficult. There's a reason for that.

Side: Of course.
2 points

Under the law, parental notification provisions are only legal if they allow the underage person to "opt out" of notification via some other legal process, usually appearing before a judge. This was decided in Ohio v. Akron and again in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and part of the rationale for the decision was that young people may be subject to abuse or coercion if they disclose a pregnancy to their parents, or may already be victims of incest (hence having the need for an abortion). Such "opt-out" provisions generally require the pregnant minor to appear before the court, and the court will then consider factors such as her maturity and her circumstances in determining whether parental notification should be waived. I think this is a reasonable balance between the interests of the pregnant minor and those of the minor's parents.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
1 point

I am going to make my argument assuming that it is already accepted that abortion should be legal in general because that is a separate issue.

Here are some the reasons abortion is legal: Primarily people have a right to determine what happens to their bodies. But also we know from history that many women will abort babies themselves if they do not have access to legal abortions and we want to protect those women. Also it is detrimental to society to have unwanted babies being born just because they could not be aborted as they are more likely to be in poverty and not raised properly and will therefore be statistically more likely to gravitate toward crime.

Specifically regarding underage women the first point is debatable. As has been mentioned minors need consent for surgical procedures. But I believe the circumstances unique to abortion override this. If parental consent is required for abortions it logically follows that many underage girls and women will be prevented by their parents from getting legal abortions. And you therefore face the two other reasons I gave for abortion being legal in general. In this instance I think the illicit abortion reason is the most salient. Underage girls have very strong reasons for not wanting to be pregnant. Please don't mention "they should have thought of that before they had sex etc." because it is irrelevant. It is too late at this point. Understandably they may be very desperate to terminate their pregnancies, and being young they are possibly even more likely to do something rash like attempt a self-abortion. In my opinion the safety of underage pregnant women keeping in mind the strong possibility they will try to abort their babies themselves, outweighs the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children. I think that almost all of the time parents will make better medical decisions for their children and their children are not old enough to make such decisions. However I think almost everyone old enough to get pregnant understands pregnancy and abortion well enough to make their own decision. There is a bit of a difficult situation with very young girls like 12 years old, and I have difficulty with making a decision on this. In general, however, I think underage pregnant women should not need parental consent to have abortions.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
1 point

I do believe that parents should be informed on the fact that their child is receive an abortion. It is their right.

But, they should only receive this information once their child is getting that abortion. Parents do not have the right to stop a child from getting an abortion.

I would make a longer argument, but it seems a shit load of people have already made all the arguments.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
lawnman(1106) Disputed
0 points

Hello Pyg,

Longtime no word!

Would you care to defend your position in debate with lawnman?

Why do I ask?

You are rationally honest!

Side: bs

No, no, and no.

As someone who comes from a foster home, let me tell you, teenage girls do not want to have to tell their parents they've been spreading their legs, especially if it's to black men in the south. So what happens when this girl who did just that has to ask her racist daddy for an abortion? She'll make the smart choice: coathanger > daddy kicking her in the stomach until she miscarries.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
1 point

To be honest with you, that statement scared me a little.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
3 points

1.)Parents have a right to know what their children are doing: they are legally responsible for their care, and as parents they have a proper interest in any case. Any good parent would want to know if their daughter were having an abortion; any good parent would want to help her daughter make a good decision on the matter, and to prevent her from making a bad decision.

2.)The parents of teenagers have to live with the consequences of teenage motherhood: they often bear a particularly large responsibility for looking after the children, because teenage mothers are usually 1) single; 2) living at home; 3) unemployed; 4) in full-time education. They are economically dependent, and unable to give all of their time to their children. If the mother’s parents are going to have to look after their grandchild and to live with it, they should have a say on whether it is born in the first place.

3.)The decision whether to have an abortion or continue the pregnancy often has a major long-term impact on a woman's psychological and emotional well-being, her ability to continue formal education, and her future financial status. The proposed measure helps ensure that pregnant teenagers get support and guidance from their parents in this important decision. If parents are not informed, there is a risk that they and their daughters will become permanently estranged at a time when parental support is most important.

Side: Of course.
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

The key word is require

Your reasoning, assuming require is a prerequisite, assumes every pregnant teenager has the type of relationship with a parent or gaurdian where they can tell them anything.

The fact is, the world isn't a Norman Rockwell painting.

Many of these young girls are abused by their gaurdian. Many times, the male gaurdian is the father.

Requiring consent is for many the same as simply outlawing it.

If a young girl knows they need to get this consent, they ofen simply will say nothing. They will not get any kind of medical treatment, they won't get ultrasounds, they won't find out if their own life may be in danger by bringing the child to term,

and worse, many many times, they will seek an abortion from a place with no license to give abortions.

Requirements in this arena can only be a bad thing.

Encourage those who can to tell their parents, help those who cannot, and educate them as much as possible.

But requirements only lead to more and greater problems.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
xander(438) Disputed
2 points

A healthy family would not need a law to force their daughter to tell them; an unhealthy family would put the girl into unnecessary peril. Your points are very true for a healthy family; however, not every family is healthy.

Also, you don't need parental permission to have sex, to get married in the event of a pregnancy, and a parent cannot force a child to abort- so why, why, why would you let a parent effectively force an underage girl into birthing a baby that she doesn't want? Would those repercussions not be more emotionally scarring than destroying a clump of cells?

The choice of getting an abortion is serious indeed; however, it should be the decision of the mother and only the mother.

Side: Hell no its their choice!

Parents need to know what's going on in their children's lives when they are still underage. As far as I'm concerned a 13 year old kid has no choice because she can't think it all through properly. It's her body but the parents are still responsible for her until she comes of legal age.

Side: Of course.
DaWolfman(3322) Disputed
1 point

What if the parents are biased? Some parents are totally anti-abortion and some are totally for it. If the parents have a choice they might not be making the choice that is RIGHT for the child just the choice that supports his/her VIEW.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
1 point

Parents are biased in much more than this and yet they are still responsible for their child's welfare. I cannot think of any circumstance that would dictate having a child while underage is a good thing whether or not the parents are biased in that way. They may be biased but there may be conditions to that bias.

Side: Of course.
therandomtal(20) Disputed
1 point

When you remove choice you create slaves. In saying that a thirteen year-old has no choice, you're saying that they aren't granted civil liberties. You're effectively not regarding them as a person anymore. For instance, if a fifteen year-old girl gets raped, and knocked up as a result, but doesn't want her mother to know because the mother is a suicidal rape victim with recent trauma herself, that's a good reason not to tell the parents. Or if the girl just simply doesn't want her parents to know she's not a virgin anymore, that's also a good reason. Why? Because it's her choice. When the law forces people to do things against their own choices is when it infringes upon their civil liberties. Forcing people to reveal their secrets to anyone, unless they are of legal importance, is a violation of civil liberties, and simply saying "It's not her choice" is the same argument which was given before the violation of civil liberties throughout history.

Being under 18 doesn't make someone a second-class citizen.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
0 points

Hello K,

The baby growing within the girl is a separate and unique person. Neither the girl or any person in this world has a right to kill (abort) the life growing within her womb!

Feel free to counter those facts. (I perceive we agree!)

Side: Of course.
Banshee(288) Disputed
2 points

An embryo or fetus not a "person" under U.S. or European law. See Roe v. Wade and Vo v. France. Argument countered.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
2 points

Am I biased because I think virtually all abortions should be illegal?

Even when abortion is legal, I think an underage girl should definitely have to have consent for this. Can she do anything else without parental consent? Think of it like an operation. Other than trauma in an ER, an underage girl would have a very small chance of getting a surgery without her parents involved.

Side: Of course.
1 point

But this is a decision the girl will have to live with for the rest of her life, and no one would argue that the role of a mother is not an adult role.

Certainly whatever he situation was, this decision must be made by the person most effected: the pregnant girl.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
MKIced(2510) Disputed
1 point

She could easily give the baby up for adoption. It's not a bad institution. My aunt was pregnant a long time ago and probably could have gotten an abortion without anyone knowing, but she went through the pregnancy (I'm not sure how old she was) and gave her baby boy up for adoption. Now, he is actually a police officer in the NYPD, saving lives and fighting criminals!

Side: Of course.
1 point

Hello MKIced,

All abortions may not be illegal, but all abortions are the termination of life.

Never in the history of my debating career has any pro-abortionist been reduced to anything other than a willful murderer. Your position is just! Stay the course!

Side: Of course.
Banshee(288) Disputed
2 points

"all abortions are the termination of life."

So is whacking off. So is taking antibiotics. So is swatting flies. So is eating meat. You willful murderer, you! You truly are a bad bad bad bad man.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
1 point

The school nurse cannot give you an asprin unless a parent allows it, but an abortion doctor does not need consent to perform a potentially dangerous procedure.

Side: Of course.

Of course. A parent is ultimately responsible for their under aged children.

Side: Of course.
DaWolfman(3322) Disputed
1 point

I will say to you what I said to Kukla

What if the parents are biased? Some parents are totally anti-abortion and some are totally for it. If the parents have a choice they might not be making the choice that is RIGHT for the child just the choice that supports his/her VIEW.

Side: Hell no its their choice!

So? Parents make choices for their children all day everyday. Some are right. Some are wrong. As long as the parent is ultimately responsible for the child, the parent gets to decide.

Side: Hell no its their choice!
1 point

This is a very interesting argument. My first inclination is to say that our moral culture has gone so far down the tubes that we are removing consequences of actions. Which is true, but at times, the consequences from "removing" the consequences can be just as, if not more, devastating.

Maybe that is off topic, but it's my opinion. Now, on to the question at hand.

Of course parental consent should be required for underage abortions. However, in a slight twist, this consent should be not forced by the provider, but the parents responsibility. A parent needs to be involved enough in their childs life to know what is going on. There should be significant enough trust in the parent child relationship that the child is comfortable enough talking to their parent about everything in their life.

Not being a parent myself, I understand that I don't really understand all the dynamics involved here, but I do know parents that are involved in their children's lives, including my own parents, and typically, there is enough trust in those relationships to have these types of conversations. The funny thing is, when parents are this involved in their child's life, in a healthy way, these conversations do not need to happen.

Side: Of course.
1 point

Teens can't buy cigarettes, or alcohol, or sudifed, or a lottery ticket, or....I could go on and on. But some people think it's ok for them to kill a baby inside them withough parental consent? Geez people, think! My 16 year old son had to go to the ER the other day for a bad cut, and they wouldn't let him see the doc without my consent. But it's ok for a girl to kill her baby without her parents knowing?

Side: Of course.
1 point

As long as the child is underage, parental consent should be required. The parents have a right to know what they're child is doing. Now another argument would be that some teens are mature enough to make the right decision. But remember this: were they mature enough to make the correct decision to have protected sex? In this case, obviously not. Choice comes long before the pregnancy. You made the first choice and obviously it wasn't the best one. So because of this, the second choice will not be yours...unless of course, you're a legal adult.

Side: Of course.

They are minors, therefore, parental consent is required.

Side: Of course.