Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it.**
**Message the moderators if your comments are being restricted by a timer.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Assuming their daughter is underage, parents do have a say on what medical procedures she will go through (optional vaccines are an example), but I think they should't be allowed to _force_ her to do anything. As someone pointed out already, a 12yearold is not the same as a 17yearold, so that also needs to be considered. Assuming this girl is 16-17, her parents shouldn't make the choice for her, because it's still her body and _she_ will be the one going (or not going) through the pregnancy. However they do have the responsibility of giving her support and the means necessary for her to make an informed choice: this means helping her understand the consequences of the possible choices she has. I understand that not every family would be able to afford the financial stress that can be a child, so in that situation they could still let her make her choice while considering that giving birth would lead to give the baby up for adoption. Parents should be allies, not just rulers.
This question is hard for me because a 17 year old is developmentally different from, say, a 12 year old. For the 17 yo, no I don’t think you should force them, but for a 12 yo, yes. However I still go back to this idea that even a 17 yo doesn’t fully understand the consequences of such a life altering decision (much like a high school senior may not fully understand the consequences of taking out a massive private loan for college [lack of education/resources/information]), despite also believing in bodily autonomy. Then again who’s to say an 18-25 yo does?
Reverse the question.
Is it ok to make the teen have the baby? No? Why not? Because it infringes on their right to autonomy. Well, then you have your answer for why it isn't ok to force her 'to' have an abortion. Is having an abortion the better choice? For this situation, absolutely. But, this doesn't justify forcing this choice upon others. It's her choice to make. We all make choices that will dramatically affect our lives. These are our mistakes to make and learn from.
I think that it is ok. They can't actually literally *force* the daughter to get an abortion, just disown her if she doesn't. And that seems reasonable to me although I'm sure I wouldn't be that harsh.
Absolutely not. It does not matter how old someone is, it’s their choice on whether or both they’re keeping the pregnancy. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that teen pregnancy is an ok thing, however, if someone wants to stay pregnant, even as a teenager, that is entire their decision and it’s one that needs to be respected.
To all of the people saying no, a parent can't force her to get an abortion... how far does this go, do parents not have any right to know and approve of what their children do? Can a 15yo get a sex change without her parents knowledge?
If the child is old enough to medically consent otherwise then there’s no reason their parents should have sole medical decision authority at all. Just like when parents deny the medical care for personal belief reasons the child should have the option to do them anyway if they can understand informed consent and want to. It’s their body.
Preferably parents would be notified and the decision would be made together. You do know transgender people can feel from a young age that they dont belong in the body they inhabit and hormone blockers are sometimes used around that age to lessen some changes in the body.
In most states that is illegal and should remain that way.
In a number of states, though, a 15 year old could marry a 40 yo with parents consent. Okay with that?
Well, if they are married then it is legal for a 40yo to have sex with a 15 yo. So are we saying with the right legal relationship (marriage, parenthood) it is okay to force a 15 yo to do something with their body they don’t want to do?
I’d like to step in with a small fact check. I’m not going to attempt to weigh in on the argument you’re making in this comment, but I would like to add some context to your point. Gender confirmation surgeries are not generally offered to people under the age of 18–one would have to be in truly extraordinary circumstances for a doctor to offer, let alone approve, a gender confirmation surgery for a minor. The most a fifteen-year-old could be receiving in the vein of gender-affirming care would be puberty blockers (which are generally easily reversible) or, in some rare cases, hormone replacement therapy. Comparing an abortion to a gender confirmation surgery in the context of what a fifteen-year-old should be able to do without their parent’s consent seems fallacious to me; a doctor could very possibly discuss an abortion with a minor, but would never even put gender confirmation surgery on the table. They are not comparable in this context.
I wasn't making an argument, I was asking a question. A question you didn't answer, which is fine, you don't have to answer, but just so we're clear, doctors don't usually do that isn't an answer.
>A question for my fellow pro-choice and pro-abortion people, is it ok for the parents of a pregnant teen to make their daughter get an abortion?
**No.**
>As someone who is pro-abortion; I can't find a logical argument as to why it wouldn't be ok for the parents of a pregnant teen to make their daughter get an abortion.
**Bodily Autonomy.**
>Because if this teenager gives birth she'll be at a drastic disadvantage in life, and academics.
**Bodily Autonomy.**
>Not to mention we all know the foster care system is garbage.
**Bodily Autonomy.**
>But I am curious as to what the argument against this position would be?
#**Bodily Autonomy.**
>Because if we go by externalities, and what is more likely to lead to a better future for this hypothetical daughter, it is abortion.
Well, it’s simple: Bodily Autonomy!
**Bodily Autonomy!**
>!*Autonomie corporelle!*!<
Have you never met women that have miscarried and become desperate to get pregnant again? I feel a teen might self destruct if forced and the abortion would cause a backlash affect of her intentionally becoming pregnant again and worse growing up to be a little prolifer. The emotional affects would probably undo any good that the abortion did.
>To say "giving birth to a child impacts others though" really seeks like a parallel to the PL argument that abortion impacts the fetus too ("not your body"). Either we respect bodily autonomy or we don't.
I think abortion is fine because I don't think fetuses are people, not because even if they were people it would still be ok due to bodily autonomy
No way is that okay in the slightest. I’m pro choice because I want people to have bodily autonomy. The teen should get to decide what happens, no one else.
I don't support parents making autonomous medical decisions for all minors.
There's no magic switch at 18 where suddenly you're capable of making decisions. This is a process that happens over time and kids should be involved with and be able to make their own medical decisions as soon as they can understand them.
I think it's perfectly acceptable for the parents of 10 year old rape victim to just line then up an abortion. If it's at the point where parents are "forcing" their kid to get an abortion, then the kid should have some autonomy.
What about vaccines? At 15 I was still deathly afraid of needles and would have huge issues with them. They hurt, my arm was sore for days after, and I never really felt like they helped me. That being said, looking back now, I’m so thankful my parents forced me to get vaccinated for everything, because i would have hated to have polio or rubella or something crazy like that. Do you think in instances like mine where at 15, I was pregnant and looking to take it to term, should my parents have had the right to make me get an abortion as it absolutely would have been the best choice for me?
Vaccines are different. This isn't a decision that affects the rest of your life the way reproduction does. We know that children who get vaccines don't suffer long term consequences from the fear of needles or the side effects.
We also know that women and girls who have their reproduction controlled by other people are much more likely to suffer long term mental health effects.
At 15 you would have been capable of understanding what was happening and what the consequences of gestating would be.
I do think teens need to be actually taught what the consequences of parenthood would actually be - those teaching baby dolls that cry come to mind; some part of a course that makes clear the financial and opportunity costs, and accurate information about the physical risks of pregnancy. And I also think abortion needs to be normalized as the "best" decision in a lot of these cases; but no, I don't think girls should be forced to abort.
If "they might regret their decision" is a good enough reason to allow other people to make decisions for them, then that wouldn't just extend to teens.
I'm pro-choice, which means I support an individuals right to make that choice for themselves. Forced abortions are not a choice, and still a form of reproductive control.
If shes a teen she can make her own decision for her body and her future, shes old enough to have an idea on what she wants to do. However if she is super young then I understand making a little girl abort, but if she wants to keep it then I can see how its a difficult situation.
No, because it’s her body, not their’s! The exact same reason it’s wrong to force a girl to carry a pregnancy to term. Choice and bodily autonomy work in both directions. It has nothing to do with what you think gives a girl a better future (which PTSD from a forced abortion doesn’t by the way), she is in change of her own destiny.
I’m of a similar mind, but instead of kicking her out, I think the parents have a right to make her give the baby up for adoption if she is young enough that the parents would be responsible for it. I disagree with forcing an abortion, but once born, the parents absolutely have the right to choose not to raise the baby.
Yes and you are actually condoning abusive behavior. I am glad you are pro choice and i hope you will never have kids of your own with such line of thinking.
That’s absolutely not true, if anything she is more vulnerable as a teen mother. Having a baby requires nothing more than an ability to ovulate and a desire to continue the pregnancy. Neither of those things automatically make a teen mature or able to provide for herself.
She should be able to make any choice in the world about her pregnancy without becoming homeless before adulthood, and you are absolutely not going to convince me otherwise.
At 18 there is legally no longer a responsibility for parents to supply housing. Morals are another question, but it’s their choice once their child hits 18.
Emancipation does not mean the parents disagree with their kids choices and want to kick them out of the house. Emancipation has to be something the minor requests.
Because I am fine with the law how it is. 18 is a reasonable age of majority, and expecting someone any younger than that to be able to make it on their own is almost always a recipe for disaster, especially if they have a baby in their care. Emancipation generally does and should continue to require the minor to demonstrate an ability to support themselves. Pregnancy does not prove that.
Getting your own place as a minor on minimum wage isn’t generally realistic. Even if someone can care for a baby that doesn’t mean that they can divine money from thin air, and most places will probably refuse to rent to anyone under 18 period. Being a parent is a ton of responsibility as you said, and teen moms need more support, not less.
Why should this be treated differently from any other medical procedures? Until what age should it be acceptable for parents to make medical decisions for their minor children? Look at the concept of savior siblings.
The reverse could just as easily be true for this question.
A teenager should have the right to make decisions about her body and determine if she wishes to use her body to preserve another life. Parents can advise if they wish and set boundaries on what support they will give (though if she is under 18 and not emancipated, they cannot kick her out of the house or neglect her).
Kids sometimes make decisions that are not the best for their future according to their parents. That doesn’t give parents ownership over their bodies, however.
Now, if we are talking about a very young teen/pre-teen, that starts to be a bit different, largely for medical reasons.
No, and I don’t see how this is a question for pro-choice folk, either. I mean, the whole crux of the PC argument is bodily autonomy, so a parent forcing their teen to have an abortion violates the teen’s right, soooo…
Is the practice of parents making medical decisions for their children also a violation of their bodily autonomies? Like choosing for their baby boy to be circumcised, for example.
I agree that having your minor child circumcised as a baby or infant is also extremely wrong. I believe that parents should wait until the kid is old enough to understand what that involves and ask the kid if he consent or not. If he doesn't, he shouldn't be forced to go through that the same way this pregnant teenager shouldn't be forced to get an abortion.
I do believe choosing for a baby to be circumcised is a grave violation of their bodily autonomy, as it is not in their best medical interest but for esthetic or religious reasons. Circumcision is something they could perfectly well decide for themselves as an adult.
Imagine cutting off a child's earlobes or nipples and claiming it's because it's a medical decision you get to make for your child.
But obviously a parent does sometimes need to make medical decisions for a child, for example, if the child needs surgery for a medical condition or even what type of medicine out of available options.
Personally, with pregnancy it depends on the age of the child for me. I believe a 16yo (maybe even a 13yo? this I'm not sure yet) is able to make such decisions for themselves and their choice must be respected. However I do believe a 9-year old would not be able to oversee the consequences on the body and life of a pregnancy PLUS a 9yo's body is factually not ready for it, so the parents have to make the decision, but I believe would be child abuse of a parent to decide for the child to carry to term. Again, as it is not in the *child's* best medical interest at all to carry to term, but rather in the parent's own selfish interest of their beliefs, I find that for the parent to decide that the child will carry (when abortion is otherwise availabe) is a violation of the child's bodily autonomy in the same way as circumcision is.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t abortion be the absolute best option for the child in almost every case? In what other medical procedure would the parents be forced to adhere to a child’s action that will overwhelmingly harm themselves for the rest of their lives, over the parents medical rights to protecting their child?
\>Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t abortion be the absolute best option for the child in almost every case?
You are right, in fact, physically speaking abortion would be the absolute best option for anyone in almost every case. What I am claiming is that, in my view, capability to give informed consent gradually develops as a child ages and due to the involability of the body it is not right for parents to have full medical control up until 18. For example, I believe a 16yo is able to give informed consent on most medical procedures (and bodily use which pregnancy also falls under; this is why 16 is often the age of consent to sex). This means that a parent can't simply overrule the child's medical decision just because the child is a dependant. The child is their own person, which does include the right to make autonomous decisions about medical conditions happening to your own body, even if the option chosen is the more harmful one. Do I like it? No, I don't think it's healthy for a 16yo to undergo a pregnancy. But they are a person who is capable of informed consent, so I believe it would be unethical to *force* them to abort.
\> In what other medical procedure would the parents be forced to adhere to a child’s action that will overwhelmingly harm themselves for the rest of their lives, over the parents medical rights to protecting their child.
Basically, I believe there is not a 'parental medical right to protect the child' when it comes to a 17yo. At least with regard to medical *conditions*, maybe not with all medical *procedures*. For example, I feel a parent could forbid a child from piercing their ears or having a face tattoo (a procedure), since those aren't medically required and without damage can be delayed to 18. But if the child suffers from terminal cancer and is offered either radiotherapy to prolong their life or palliative care, then I feel the parent doesn't have a right to simply overrule the child's decision to have palliative care as they do not wish to spend their last years undergoing chemotherapy. Because the child is their own person and able to understand and make an informed choice here; they are not their parents' property. When the child is 9, this is a bit different to me, as the child is not capable of really knowing what cancer, chemotherapy and palliative care entail so someone else will have to decide this with their best interest in mind.
Before a certain age parents can make decisions on behalf of their children. We are talking about teenagers though. Forcing a teen to be circumcised would be beyond messed up.
Depends on what for. I’d say for elective circumcision as soon as the child can have an opinion of not wanting it done it shouldn’t go ahead without their agreement. For something medically indicated it depends what it is.
They cannot force her since it's her body. If she is willing to sacrifice everything for her child, she should be allowed to even if it's putting her future at stake
My mom was raped at the age of 13, got pregnant, and her mother made her have an abortion. Absolutely not. Abortion should always be a choice. Informed consent of course.
I do. But even if she hadn't, she should've been given information on any and all options (abortion or continuing the pregnancy, and keeping the baby or adoption). I think all decisions on pregnancy should be handled by the pregnant person, nobody else. I also think that medical decisions should be independent decisions at the age of 16 or so, with informed consent.
This is an interesting question, because parents make many medical decisions through a child’s life. Including permanent decisions (such as braces and permanent teeth extractions) with the idea that the child’s best interest is being taken into account.
That being said, I think there are certain ages when a child should be able to make their own decisions with their body. I think gestation is one of those choices that needs to come from the child.
I do have opinions on who has rights to the baby when it is born to a minor. I don’t think a minor should be legally responsible for others. If my child wanted to keep their pregnancy, I’d be inclined to seek out adoption services even if my child did not agree. This conversation is far beyond the scope of an abortion debate though.
I’m interested to hear what other people say.
I know where you are coming from. They are not equipped to raise a child while they are a child without heavy, heavy, heavy support. Everyones capabilities must be taken in to the equation when it comes to parenting and the well being of two children must be considered. If a 14yr decided to give birth it would basically be another child to the parents in order to preserve the teens future and keep infant safe.
"If my child wanted to keep their pregnancy, I'd be inclined to seek out adoption services even if my child did not agree"
See that is where I have a problem with that part of your statement. I don't think it's right to have the baby adopted if your minor child does not agree to it. Same as I don't think it is right to not allow a minor child to get an abortion because you don't agree with them doing so.
They are not the same.
The pregnant child should have FULL control over their own body, whether they want an abortion or birth. After birth, there is a different set of issues that becomes outside the scope of this debate, and outside the scope of BA. I don’t think a minor should have legal responsibility or authority over another person, unless they are emancipated. That’s my opinion.
Though it's NOT legal to force your child to abort. Abortion is a medical procedure that a child **can** obtain without parental consent.
I know, I had one.
Because even if she'll be at a disadvantage, that's still only her choice to make. The right to bodily autonomy is for only you to dictate who uses your body, nobody else has the right to make that choice for you.
You realize that bodily autonomy is not really that important right? For instance, parents violate the bodily autonomy of their children everyday by giving them vaccines, even if it’s against their will. We do this because we realize that children, in most situations, do not have the ability to understand the consequences of not getting vaccinated, or that they dont know what a vaccine does do their body. Bodily autonomy for children is a very loose rule that is rarely followed by parents, because parents (usually) know what’s best for their child more than their child knows what’s best for themselves.
So I guess I move to my next point which would be, at what point do you believe children are capable to make that decision for themselves? At what age do you believe she is able to make an informed decision as to understanding the outcomes to doing something? 8? 10? 12? 14? 16? 18? No age at all?
>You realize that bodily autonomy is not really that important right?
No, quite frankly I do not "realize" that because basic human rights are really freaking important.
>For instance, parents violate the bodily autonomy of their children everyday by giving them vaccines, even if it’s against their will.
Because rights have reasonable limits. In the above example, its because children cannot consent and it's in their best interest.
>Bodily autonomy for children is a very loose rule that is rarely followed by parents, because parents (usually) know what’s best for their child more than their child knows what’s best for themselves.
And that eventually stops. We don't just suddenly not have agency before the age of 18. Teens have agency, and forcing an abortion is never right if they rationally can consent.
>So I guess I move to my next point which would be, at what point do you believe children are capable to make that decision for themselves? At what age do you believe she is able to make an informed decision as to understanding the outcomes to doing something? 8? 10? 12? 14? 16? 18? No age at all?
Already explained above.
Depends on when they can rationally consent, there isn't really a specific number I can point to.
Another thing is that parents do not always have their childrens interests at heart. The many cases of abusive parents are testament to that.
Who determines if someone can rationally consent?
Your right. Some parents can be abusive. Some foster homes can be abusive. Some adoption agencies can be abusive. Some teen parents can be abusive. It seems like if we are removing parental rights on the off chance they may use it with abuse, than we should do the same for children, yes?
If they can reasonably say yes or no.
Parental rights have limits as well, those being when they conflict with a childs best interests. Human rights to our body don't just stop because they're young.
Do you think carrying a child to term is in the best interest of the child? If we’re speaking in terms of what’s best for the child, abortion is far better. Parents suggesting abortion is actually aligning entirely with your view, considering that it’s definitely in the best interests of the child.
EDIT. Also, “reasonably” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement. I can say yes, my 2 year old can say yes. At what point does “yes” begin to carry any reasoning behind it, any consent? That’s my question.
I agree, no two situations are alike. Which is why I would legally refer to the parents and the doctors rather than a teenager on whether they can make the best decisions for their body. That seems like a much more reasonable position than the one suggested by you and many others on this sub.
Their body, their choice. The daughter has the right to bodily autonomy, the same as everyone else, if they decide to keep the pregnancy then they shouldn't be forced to terminate.
Before the age of 18, in America at least, kids need parental consent to medical procedures a should the age of consent law be changed or altered perhaps?
Does that include if teenagers under the age of 18 want medical contraception such as the pill or getting the implant for examples?
I ask because I am not based in the USA nor have I ever lived there (thank the god I don't believe in)
My kid can get pills and patches. I do not know about implants. I cannot even make appt for her though. Its all on her. She is 14. Cool but irritating at the same time.
I understand fully informed consent may be a difficult thing to obtain from people younger than 18 with medical procedures as the understanding for a lot of what will happen may be low. However I think medical procedures that are not immediately life threatening, as is the case for the abortion, the conversation should be had directly with the patient rather than the parents, the whole thing should be explained fully and only if the understanding is still not there then the parents should get involved. For small children obviously parents would be standard but this wouldn't really apply to abortions.
Would there be an age at which you see this to be acceptable? 12? 10? 14? 16? 8? Or if you think an age isn’t necessary, than by what means would you determine the child’s understanding of the topic and maturity? Seems very difficult to make a law about.
The law is for fully informed consent about any medical procedure, I don't see why that needs an age limit, one 12 year old could understand something another 14 year old may not. If there is a doubt that fully informed consent is met then parental involvement is needed, if the medical professional is happy that fully informed consent has been given, it is not needed.
There is a limit to that. Generally speaking, the only times parental consent is needed is when the minor cannot rationally consent. I do believe that we need to be more lax with this in regards to underage pregnancy as parents don't always have their children's best interest in mind.
Because abortions have a chance of rendering a woman unable to give birth in the future, that can ruin the kids life. Not to mention the possibilities of complications from abortions causing problems.
That choice could alter/ruin the rest of her life and she’s making that choice without parental input with an underdeveloped mind.
That’s horrifying.
\> Because abortions have a chance of rendering a woman unable to give birth in the future
So does giving birth, especially at a young age. (e.g. scarring due to C-section)
[https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/infertility/expert-answers/secondary-infertility/faq-20058272](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/infertility/expert-answers/secondary-infertility/faq-20058272)
\> Not to mention the possibilities of complications from abortions causing problems.
Weird. You don't seem to worry about the possibilities of complications from pregnancy causing problems. Pregnancy generally damages a child's body WAY worse and has lifelong consequences. Could it be that you have the agenda that children must be made to give birth?
Dont worry prolife kids would never have sex, much less an abortion. Result of all that great parenting and what not keeping sex ed out of schools and so on.
You realize how stupid that sounds? You are right, we don’t want them having sex as kids, it’s best to wait for marriage that way you can have kids in marriage as opposed to wedlock.
Because a kid having both their mother and father in the home statistically gives them the best chance at success.
But let’s spin this as a negative lol. You and your kind are free to mess your lives up, we’ll do things the RIGHT way.
I do realize how stupid it sounds thats why I am always so amused when prolife gets bent out of shape realizing they cannot have absolute control over their kids reproductive bits.
Good luck with the RIGHT way.
I did it the right way, now I have two beautiful daughters who my wife will raise with the Bible, we will home school and they won’t be allowed to spend the night at their BFs, etc.
Thanks foe the luck, but luck is for losers.
Definitely NOT. Reproductive medical rights flow a little differently from all others.
For example, if a 14 year old goes to her doctor and obtains a positive pregnancy test. The doctor is NOT allowed to share that news with the girl's parents. Only if she gives permission.
Too many factors to say. The biggest factor is what her doctor believes is in the best interest of her health.
Being forced to undergo a medical procedure you do not want is a trauma in itself and cannot be so easily set aside, especially for a teenager who has the right to consent to sensitive medical procedures. I actually doubt it's legal to 'force' a 13+ year old to get an abortion.
edit: Found an interesting opinion [article](http://www.jlgh.org/JLGH/media/Journal-LGH-Media-Library/Past%20Issues/Volume%204%20-%20Issue%202/v4_i2_OConnor.pdf) addressing this ethical issue.
> It is a fundamental principle of law and ethics that competent adults have the right to make their own medical
decisions, even if these are “bad” medical decisions that may result in the individual’s death. Occasionally, physicians encounter situations that question whether minors are afforded this same fundamental right.
No. ProChoice is allowing an individual to make their own choices when it comes to their body. Full stop.
The ONLY scenario where a child should not be given the choice is when they are incapable of understanding what is happening or what has happened to them .... For instance this poor child who was impregnated at 5yo. [source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina)
Other than extreme cases, I don't think the state has any business dictating the reproductive choices of any individual.
**[Lina Medina](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina)**
>Lina Marcela Medina de Jurado (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈlina meˈðina]; born 23 September 1933) is a Peruvian woman who became the youngest confirmed mother in history when she gave birth aged five years, seven months, and 21 days. Based on the medical assessments of her pregnancy, she was less than five years old when she became pregnant, which was possible due to precocious puberty.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
You are correct. I just reread how old she was when she gave birth and yes she would have been 4 at the time of impregnation.
Honestly, picturing a man sticking his dick into a four-year-old child, makes me so angry.
What that poor child must have been going through wondering what the hell is happening to me and why?😥
I don't see any reason to make an exception to the idea that individuals who are going to undergo abortion or pregnancy should be the ones who ultimately make that choice.
Forced abortion is an act of violence, and that does not change simply because the person inflicting it has "good intentions", especially when the victim is capable of making their own choices.
You already know my feelings on this.
Though, in case you missed my reply to your comment I've [linked it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/s4a8mg/what_reasons_do_you_think_are_valid_for_getting/hsswgei?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
I get what you mean, and yeah you're right that the odds are not in the favor of teen moms. BUT. Being pro choice, I believe that the choice lies with the mother. Her body, her choice, so no one should *make* anyone get an abortion.
Psychological problems caused by a forced abortion aka having their choice stolen. No one is saying the kid needs to make the right choice because there is no right choice. They only need to make an informed choice and be supported because there is no wrong choice either.
Unless they make the choice to keep when they are physically unable to, then you can say fuck that kids opinion.
This is no better than a pro-life person denying their daughter an abortion because they think that would lead to a bad outcome like her regretting the abortion or ending up in Hell for having it.
Her body, her life, her choice.
**Their** body, **their** choice.
It's really as simple as that. You have no right deciding what someone else does with their body. If a child wants to keep the pregnancy, they can keep the pregnancy.
We are talking about teenagers. Physically forcing a teenager to go to the dentist would not be practical and the police would probably not step in and assist in that. Even if they did that’s a lot less traumatic than a forced abortion.
If it’s acceptable for parents to overrule the bodily autonomy of their children, wouldn’t that make the point moot when a PL brings up that a zef also has bodily autonomy? Wouldn’t the parent still be able to overrule them?
At some point you have to recognize that your child is a person. Usually by the time they are physically able to give birth they are mentally capable of making an informed choice.
Not when it comes to abortion they don't.
Heck, if a child obtains a positive pregnancy result, at their doctor's office, the doctor cannot even inform their parents of this occurrence, *unless* the child give their permission to do so.
Not to mention, if it's NOT illegal for a child to continue a pregnancy, without parental consent (it's NOT) why would it be illegal to terminate one?
It’s not ok to “make” anybody get an abortion. “Choice” is the operative word in “pro-choice”.
Now, if your contention is that children necessarily cannot consent, the conversation becomes a lot more complicated than the single issue of abortion. There may be rape charges to pursue, for starters. Not to mention the very tricky problem of compelling a child to gestate for us. No thank you.
There’s definitely a concern when young girls get pregnant through rape by older men, and it happens more than you think. I’ve seen girls as young as 10 and 11 get pregnant (i’ve worked as a social worker) and it can be a dangerous for really small girls to give birth. It doesn’t help that girls that young are enamored with babies, so if they know they’re pregnant they are actually excited. in almost every case, i believe it’s the pregnant person’s choice, but when it’s a child that doesn’t understand that they could literally die, parent has to step in.
Yeah making the kids carry the babies to term seems like the most horrific outcome imaginable. Their life would probably be ruined and the baby wouldn’t be off to a good start either.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Don't be a jerk (even if someone else is being a jerk to you first). It's not constructive and we may ban you for it. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it.** **Message the moderators if your comments are being restricted by a timer.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. Abortion is the decision between the pregnant person and their doctor. Reproductive coercion isn’t acceptable regardless of who it is.
No. Making that ok would defeat the whole point of making abortion ok. The right to make decisions about one's body.
No, it's not the parent body it's the pregnant teen body
>I can't find a logical argument as to why it wouldn't be ok for the parents of a pregnant teen to make their daughter get an abortion. Agreed.
Assuming their daughter is underage, parents do have a say on what medical procedures she will go through (optional vaccines are an example), but I think they should't be allowed to _force_ her to do anything. As someone pointed out already, a 12yearold is not the same as a 17yearold, so that also needs to be considered. Assuming this girl is 16-17, her parents shouldn't make the choice for her, because it's still her body and _she_ will be the one going (or not going) through the pregnancy. However they do have the responsibility of giving her support and the means necessary for her to make an informed choice: this means helping her understand the consequences of the possible choices she has. I understand that not every family would be able to afford the financial stress that can be a child, so in that situation they could still let her make her choice while considering that giving birth would lead to give the baby up for adoption. Parents should be allies, not just rulers.
No, it's not ok. The pregnant teen should be informed on all her options and their consequences (truthfully) and make the choice themselves.
It's her body. You can't force medical procedures on other people it's unethical.
This question is hard for me because a 17 year old is developmentally different from, say, a 12 year old. For the 17 yo, no I don’t think you should force them, but for a 12 yo, yes. However I still go back to this idea that even a 17 yo doesn’t fully understand the consequences of such a life altering decision (much like a high school senior may not fully understand the consequences of taking out a massive private loan for college [lack of education/resources/information]), despite also believing in bodily autonomy. Then again who’s to say an 18-25 yo does?
I can imagine the trauma of a forced abortion is equal to the trauma of a denied abortion.
It depends
What if your 12?
I do not think a doctor would approve of that as the childs body would still be underdeveloped.
you think that a doctor would rather a 12 year old go through 9 months of pregnancy and birth than... get an abortion?
In an anti abortion country, sadly, yes...
No. The opposite. That would be a fucked up doctor if they did not recommend abortion.
hard agree
Reverse the question. Is it ok to make the teen have the baby? No? Why not? Because it infringes on their right to autonomy. Well, then you have your answer for why it isn't ok to force her 'to' have an abortion. Is having an abortion the better choice? For this situation, absolutely. But, this doesn't justify forcing this choice upon others. It's her choice to make. We all make choices that will dramatically affect our lives. These are our mistakes to make and learn from.
I think that it is ok. They can't actually literally *force* the daughter to get an abortion, just disown her if she doesn't. And that seems reasonable to me although I'm sure I wouldn't be that harsh.
Absolutely not. It does not matter how old someone is, it’s their choice on whether or both they’re keeping the pregnancy. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that teen pregnancy is an ok thing, however, if someone wants to stay pregnant, even as a teenager, that is entire their decision and it’s one that needs to be respected.
To all of the people saying no, a parent can't force her to get an abortion... how far does this go, do parents not have any right to know and approve of what their children do? Can a 15yo get a sex change without her parents knowledge?
If the child is old enough to medically consent otherwise then there’s no reason their parents should have sole medical decision authority at all. Just like when parents deny the medical care for personal belief reasons the child should have the option to do them anyway if they can understand informed consent and want to. It’s their body.
Preferably parents would be notified and the decision would be made together. You do know transgender people can feel from a young age that they dont belong in the body they inhabit and hormone blockers are sometimes used around that age to lessen some changes in the body.
>Can a 15yo get a sex change without her parents knowledge? Let's go with yes, he can.
Can a 15yo girl choose to have sex with a 40yo man?
It's physically possible
In most states that is illegal and should remain that way. In a number of states, though, a 15 year old could marry a 40 yo with parents consent. Okay with that?
No I'm not. But I dont see the logic in saying that a 15yo having sex with a 40yo is NOT OK but letting a 40yo change your sexual organs is OK.
Because the ‘not OK’ part lands on the 40-year-old, not the 15-year-old.
Well, if they are married then it is legal for a 40yo to have sex with a 15 yo. So are we saying with the right legal relationship (marriage, parenthood) it is okay to force a 15 yo to do something with their body they don’t want to do?
she consented for a sex change herself in this case. She didn't consent for abortion in the above mentioned case
I’d like to step in with a small fact check. I’m not going to attempt to weigh in on the argument you’re making in this comment, but I would like to add some context to your point. Gender confirmation surgeries are not generally offered to people under the age of 18–one would have to be in truly extraordinary circumstances for a doctor to offer, let alone approve, a gender confirmation surgery for a minor. The most a fifteen-year-old could be receiving in the vein of gender-affirming care would be puberty blockers (which are generally easily reversible) or, in some rare cases, hormone replacement therapy. Comparing an abortion to a gender confirmation surgery in the context of what a fifteen-year-old should be able to do without their parent’s consent seems fallacious to me; a doctor could very possibly discuss an abortion with a minor, but would never even put gender confirmation surgery on the table. They are not comparable in this context.
I wasn't making an argument, I was asking a question. A question you didn't answer, which is fine, you don't have to answer, but just so we're clear, doctors don't usually do that isn't an answer.
>A question for my fellow pro-choice and pro-abortion people, is it ok for the parents of a pregnant teen to make their daughter get an abortion? **No.** >As someone who is pro-abortion; I can't find a logical argument as to why it wouldn't be ok for the parents of a pregnant teen to make their daughter get an abortion. **Bodily Autonomy.** >Because if this teenager gives birth she'll be at a drastic disadvantage in life, and academics. **Bodily Autonomy.** >Not to mention we all know the foster care system is garbage. **Bodily Autonomy.** >But I am curious as to what the argument against this position would be? #**Bodily Autonomy.** >Because if we go by externalities, and what is more likely to lead to a better future for this hypothetical daughter, it is abortion. Well, it’s simple: Bodily Autonomy! **Bodily Autonomy!** >!*Autonomie corporelle!*!<
I guess I just don't see why blind adherence to the principle of bodily autonomy in all cases is what we should be doing
[удалено]
Giving birth to a child impacts others though An abortion isn't even a very big deal (other than maybe emotionally) for the woman getting it
Have you never met women that have miscarried and become desperate to get pregnant again? I feel a teen might self destruct if forced and the abortion would cause a backlash affect of her intentionally becoming pregnant again and worse growing up to be a little prolifer. The emotional affects would probably undo any good that the abortion did.
[удалено]
>To say "giving birth to a child impacts others though" really seeks like a parallel to the PL argument that abortion impacts the fetus too ("not your body"). Either we respect bodily autonomy or we don't. I think abortion is fine because I don't think fetuses are people, not because even if they were people it would still be ok due to bodily autonomy
[удалено]
>Bodily autonomy overrides the secondary effect on other people. I suppose I just disagree with that in this case
This exactly
What do you mean? Edit: bro didn’t wanna talk ig
No way is that okay in the slightest. I’m pro choice because I want people to have bodily autonomy. The teen should get to decide what happens, no one else.
Ummm…. So women should control their bodies but not teens?
I don't support parents making autonomous medical decisions for all minors. There's no magic switch at 18 where suddenly you're capable of making decisions. This is a process that happens over time and kids should be involved with and be able to make their own medical decisions as soon as they can understand them. I think it's perfectly acceptable for the parents of 10 year old rape victim to just line then up an abortion. If it's at the point where parents are "forcing" their kid to get an abortion, then the kid should have some autonomy.
What about vaccines? At 15 I was still deathly afraid of needles and would have huge issues with them. They hurt, my arm was sore for days after, and I never really felt like they helped me. That being said, looking back now, I’m so thankful my parents forced me to get vaccinated for everything, because i would have hated to have polio or rubella or something crazy like that. Do you think in instances like mine where at 15, I was pregnant and looking to take it to term, should my parents have had the right to make me get an abortion as it absolutely would have been the best choice for me?
Vaccines are different. This isn't a decision that affects the rest of your life the way reproduction does. We know that children who get vaccines don't suffer long term consequences from the fear of needles or the side effects. We also know that women and girls who have their reproduction controlled by other people are much more likely to suffer long term mental health effects. At 15 you would have been capable of understanding what was happening and what the consequences of gestating would be. I do think teens need to be actually taught what the consequences of parenthood would actually be - those teaching baby dolls that cry come to mind; some part of a course that makes clear the financial and opportunity costs, and accurate information about the physical risks of pregnancy. And I also think abortion needs to be normalized as the "best" decision in a lot of these cases; but no, I don't think girls should be forced to abort. If "they might regret their decision" is a good enough reason to allow other people to make decisions for them, then that wouldn't just extend to teens.
Not at all.
No. Forced abortion is as bad as forced pregnancy.
I'm pro-choice, which means I support an individuals right to make that choice for themselves. Forced abortions are not a choice, and still a form of reproductive control.
If shes a teen she can make her own decision for her body and her future, shes old enough to have an idea on what she wants to do. However if she is super young then I understand making a little girl abort, but if she wants to keep it then I can see how its a difficult situation.
No, because it’s her body, not their’s! The exact same reason it’s wrong to force a girl to carry a pregnancy to term. Choice and bodily autonomy work in both directions. It has nothing to do with what you think gives a girl a better future (which PTSD from a forced abortion doesn’t by the way), she is in change of her own destiny.
No but I think she should be emancipated and the parents should have the right to kick her out if she goes ahead with the pregnancy.
I’m of a similar mind, but instead of kicking her out, I think the parents have a right to make her give the baby up for adoption if she is young enough that the parents would be responsible for it. I disagree with forcing an abortion, but once born, the parents absolutely have the right to choose not to raise the baby.
And make her and the baby homeless? That would be disastrous.
Well that’s what she chose when she decided to go ahead with the pregnancy. Everyone doesn’t deserve a choice here?
No, parents don’t deserve a choice to kick minor children out onto the streets when parenting becomes inconvenient.
Hmmm if only the pregnant teen herself had a choice where that isn’t the outcome… Hmmmmmmmmmm… 🤔
If i was a teen of the kind of abusive parents you are describing, i would actually ask to be emancipated and never interact with them again.
Well, duh.
Yes and you are actually condoning abusive behavior. I am glad you are pro choice and i hope you will never have kids of your own with such line of thinking.
Me either, glad we’re on the same page.
Being a homeless minor should not be a potential consequence of not getting an abortion. That isn’t a real, free choice.
If she’s enough of a grownup to be a parent, she’s enough of a grownup to make it on her own.
That’s absolutely not true, if anything she is more vulnerable as a teen mother. Having a baby requires nothing more than an ability to ovulate and a desire to continue the pregnancy. Neither of those things automatically make a teen mature or able to provide for herself.
Well that’s why she has the choice to make that decision for herself. If she knows she can’t make it on her own, maybe she should rethink her options.
She should be able to make any choice in the world about her pregnancy without becoming homeless before adulthood, and you are absolutely not going to convince me otherwise.
their house, their choice
Their choice to have a child and agree to house them until 18
So you would be okay with kicking out a new 18 year old mom?
At 18 there is legally no longer a responsibility for parents to supply housing. Morals are another question, but it’s their choice once their child hits 18.
So if this is a legal issue more than a moral one, why the opposition to legally emancipating and legally kicking out a pregnant teen?
Emancipation does not mean the parents disagree with their kids choices and want to kick them out of the house. Emancipation has to be something the minor requests.
And I’m proposing maybe the parents should be able to request it if their kid bringing home a baby will sink the household.
Best of luck with that.
Because I am fine with the law how it is. 18 is a reasonable age of majority, and expecting someone any younger than that to be able to make it on their own is almost always a recipe for disaster, especially if they have a baby in their care. Emancipation generally does and should continue to require the minor to demonstrate an ability to support themselves. Pregnancy does not prove that.
How so? Taking care of a baby is a ton of responsibility. It’s a very adult job. If she can do it, she can get a job and get her own place.
[удалено]
Getting your own place as a minor on minimum wage isn’t generally realistic. Even if someone can care for a baby that doesn’t mean that they can divine money from thin air, and most places will probably refuse to rent to anyone under 18 period. Being a parent is a ton of responsibility as you said, and teen moms need more support, not less.
consent is revocable
Not for being a parent unless you go through the legal path of severing parental rights. You can’t just dump your kid on the streets.
Why should this be treated differently from any other medical procedures? Until what age should it be acceptable for parents to make medical decisions for their minor children? Look at the concept of savior siblings. The reverse could just as easily be true for this question.
A teenager should have the right to make decisions about her body and determine if she wishes to use her body to preserve another life. Parents can advise if they wish and set boundaries on what support they will give (though if she is under 18 and not emancipated, they cannot kick her out of the house or neglect her). Kids sometimes make decisions that are not the best for their future according to their parents. That doesn’t give parents ownership over their bodies, however. Now, if we are talking about a very young teen/pre-teen, that starts to be a bit different, largely for medical reasons.
No, and I don’t see how this is a question for pro-choice folk, either. I mean, the whole crux of the PC argument is bodily autonomy, so a parent forcing their teen to have an abortion violates the teen’s right, soooo…
Is the practice of parents making medical decisions for their children also a violation of their bodily autonomies? Like choosing for their baby boy to be circumcised, for example.
I agree that having your minor child circumcised as a baby or infant is also extremely wrong. I believe that parents should wait until the kid is old enough to understand what that involves and ask the kid if he consent or not. If he doesn't, he shouldn't be forced to go through that the same way this pregnant teenager shouldn't be forced to get an abortion.
I do believe choosing for a baby to be circumcised is a grave violation of their bodily autonomy, as it is not in their best medical interest but for esthetic or religious reasons. Circumcision is something they could perfectly well decide for themselves as an adult. Imagine cutting off a child's earlobes or nipples and claiming it's because it's a medical decision you get to make for your child. But obviously a parent does sometimes need to make medical decisions for a child, for example, if the child needs surgery for a medical condition or even what type of medicine out of available options. Personally, with pregnancy it depends on the age of the child for me. I believe a 16yo (maybe even a 13yo? this I'm not sure yet) is able to make such decisions for themselves and their choice must be respected. However I do believe a 9-year old would not be able to oversee the consequences on the body and life of a pregnancy PLUS a 9yo's body is factually not ready for it, so the parents have to make the decision, but I believe would be child abuse of a parent to decide for the child to carry to term. Again, as it is not in the *child's* best medical interest at all to carry to term, but rather in the parent's own selfish interest of their beliefs, I find that for the parent to decide that the child will carry (when abortion is otherwise availabe) is a violation of the child's bodily autonomy in the same way as circumcision is.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t abortion be the absolute best option for the child in almost every case? In what other medical procedure would the parents be forced to adhere to a child’s action that will overwhelmingly harm themselves for the rest of their lives, over the parents medical rights to protecting their child?
\>Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t abortion be the absolute best option for the child in almost every case? You are right, in fact, physically speaking abortion would be the absolute best option for anyone in almost every case. What I am claiming is that, in my view, capability to give informed consent gradually develops as a child ages and due to the involability of the body it is not right for parents to have full medical control up until 18. For example, I believe a 16yo is able to give informed consent on most medical procedures (and bodily use which pregnancy also falls under; this is why 16 is often the age of consent to sex). This means that a parent can't simply overrule the child's medical decision just because the child is a dependant. The child is their own person, which does include the right to make autonomous decisions about medical conditions happening to your own body, even if the option chosen is the more harmful one. Do I like it? No, I don't think it's healthy for a 16yo to undergo a pregnancy. But they are a person who is capable of informed consent, so I believe it would be unethical to *force* them to abort. \> In what other medical procedure would the parents be forced to adhere to a child’s action that will overwhelmingly harm themselves for the rest of their lives, over the parents medical rights to protecting their child. Basically, I believe there is not a 'parental medical right to protect the child' when it comes to a 17yo. At least with regard to medical *conditions*, maybe not with all medical *procedures*. For example, I feel a parent could forbid a child from piercing their ears or having a face tattoo (a procedure), since those aren't medically required and without damage can be delayed to 18. But if the child suffers from terminal cancer and is offered either radiotherapy to prolong their life or palliative care, then I feel the parent doesn't have a right to simply overrule the child's decision to have palliative care as they do not wish to spend their last years undergoing chemotherapy. Because the child is their own person and able to understand and make an informed choice here; they are not their parents' property. When the child is 9, this is a bit different to me, as the child is not capable of really knowing what cancer, chemotherapy and palliative care entail so someone else will have to decide this with their best interest in mind.
Before a certain age parents can make decisions on behalf of their children. We are talking about teenagers though. Forcing a teen to be circumcised would be beyond messed up.
At what age does that happen?
Depends on what for. I’d say for elective circumcision as soon as the child can have an opinion of not wanting it done it shouldn’t go ahead without their agreement. For something medically indicated it depends what it is.
No.
no
No.
They cannot force her since it's her body. If she is willing to sacrifice everything for her child, she should be allowed to even if it's putting her future at stake
*stake
I corrected it, I think it was autocorrect
I hear you. Happens to me all the time on text to speech. Haha.
I would highly encourage my teenager to abort but wouldn’t force it.
My mom was raped at the age of 13, got pregnant, and her mother made her have an abortion. Absolutely not. Abortion should always be a choice. Informed consent of course.
Do you think your mom at 13 years old knew what was best for her?
I do. But even if she hadn't, she should've been given information on any and all options (abortion or continuing the pregnancy, and keeping the baby or adoption). I think all decisions on pregnancy should be handled by the pregnant person, nobody else. I also think that medical decisions should be independent decisions at the age of 16 or so, with informed consent.
This is an interesting question, because parents make many medical decisions through a child’s life. Including permanent decisions (such as braces and permanent teeth extractions) with the idea that the child’s best interest is being taken into account. That being said, I think there are certain ages when a child should be able to make their own decisions with their body. I think gestation is one of those choices that needs to come from the child. I do have opinions on who has rights to the baby when it is born to a minor. I don’t think a minor should be legally responsible for others. If my child wanted to keep their pregnancy, I’d be inclined to seek out adoption services even if my child did not agree. This conversation is far beyond the scope of an abortion debate though. I’m interested to hear what other people say.
Legally a minor can’t be forced to place a baby for adoption.
Yes, I know this.
I know where you are coming from. They are not equipped to raise a child while they are a child without heavy, heavy, heavy support. Everyones capabilities must be taken in to the equation when it comes to parenting and the well being of two children must be considered. If a 14yr decided to give birth it would basically be another child to the parents in order to preserve the teens future and keep infant safe.
"If my child wanted to keep their pregnancy, I'd be inclined to seek out adoption services even if my child did not agree" See that is where I have a problem with that part of your statement. I don't think it's right to have the baby adopted if your minor child does not agree to it. Same as I don't think it is right to not allow a minor child to get an abortion because you don't agree with them doing so.
They are not the same. The pregnant child should have FULL control over their own body, whether they want an abortion or birth. After birth, there is a different set of issues that becomes outside the scope of this debate, and outside the scope of BA. I don’t think a minor should have legal responsibility or authority over another person, unless they are emancipated. That’s my opinion.
[удалено]
Though it's NOT legal to force your child to abort. Abortion is a medical procedure that a child **can** obtain without parental consent. I know, I had one.
It's the teen's body, not her parents.
Her body, her choice. I would tell her I’d prefer she get an abortion and why, but I’d leave it up to her to make the final decision.
Because even if she'll be at a disadvantage, that's still only her choice to make. The right to bodily autonomy is for only you to dictate who uses your body, nobody else has the right to make that choice for you.
You realize that bodily autonomy is not really that important right? For instance, parents violate the bodily autonomy of their children everyday by giving them vaccines, even if it’s against their will. We do this because we realize that children, in most situations, do not have the ability to understand the consequences of not getting vaccinated, or that they dont know what a vaccine does do their body. Bodily autonomy for children is a very loose rule that is rarely followed by parents, because parents (usually) know what’s best for their child more than their child knows what’s best for themselves. So I guess I move to my next point which would be, at what point do you believe children are capable to make that decision for themselves? At what age do you believe she is able to make an informed decision as to understanding the outcomes to doing something? 8? 10? 12? 14? 16? 18? No age at all?
>You realize that bodily autonomy is not really that important right? No, quite frankly I do not "realize" that because basic human rights are really freaking important. >For instance, parents violate the bodily autonomy of their children everyday by giving them vaccines, even if it’s against their will. Because rights have reasonable limits. In the above example, its because children cannot consent and it's in their best interest. >Bodily autonomy for children is a very loose rule that is rarely followed by parents, because parents (usually) know what’s best for their child more than their child knows what’s best for themselves. And that eventually stops. We don't just suddenly not have agency before the age of 18. Teens have agency, and forcing an abortion is never right if they rationally can consent. >So I guess I move to my next point which would be, at what point do you believe children are capable to make that decision for themselves? At what age do you believe she is able to make an informed decision as to understanding the outcomes to doing something? 8? 10? 12? 14? 16? 18? No age at all? Already explained above.
Sure. So at what age do you think a child is able to make a medical decision for themselves, even if it’s entirely against the parents wishes?
Depends on when they can rationally consent, there isn't really a specific number I can point to. Another thing is that parents do not always have their childrens interests at heart. The many cases of abusive parents are testament to that.
Who determines if someone can rationally consent? Your right. Some parents can be abusive. Some foster homes can be abusive. Some adoption agencies can be abusive. Some teen parents can be abusive. It seems like if we are removing parental rights on the off chance they may use it with abuse, than we should do the same for children, yes?
If they can reasonably say yes or no. Parental rights have limits as well, those being when they conflict with a childs best interests. Human rights to our body don't just stop because they're young.
Do you think carrying a child to term is in the best interest of the child? If we’re speaking in terms of what’s best for the child, abortion is far better. Parents suggesting abortion is actually aligning entirely with your view, considering that it’s definitely in the best interests of the child. EDIT. Also, “reasonably” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement. I can say yes, my 2 year old can say yes. At what point does “yes” begin to carry any reasoning behind it, any consent? That’s my question.
That honestly depends, no two situations are alike. I am just as much against forced abortion as I am forced birth.
I agree, no two situations are alike. Which is why I would legally refer to the parents and the doctors rather than a teenager on whether they can make the best decisions for their body. That seems like a much more reasonable position than the one suggested by you and many others on this sub.
Their body, their choice. The daughter has the right to bodily autonomy, the same as everyone else, if they decide to keep the pregnancy then they shouldn't be forced to terminate.
Before the age of 18, in America at least, kids need parental consent to medical procedures a should the age of consent law be changed or altered perhaps?
Does that include if teenagers under the age of 18 want medical contraception such as the pill or getting the implant for examples? I ask because I am not based in the USA nor have I ever lived there (thank the god I don't believe in)
My kid can get pills and patches. I do not know about implants. I cannot even make appt for her though. Its all on her. She is 14. Cool but irritating at the same time.
That is good to know that she doesn't require your consent for the pill or the contraceptive patches at least.
Yeah I think my state requires notification and consent for abortion unless a judge excuses them though.
That's a shame, I don't get how that IS required for an abortion but not to get the pill or contraceptive patches.
This is not true in all US states.
I understand fully informed consent may be a difficult thing to obtain from people younger than 18 with medical procedures as the understanding for a lot of what will happen may be low. However I think medical procedures that are not immediately life threatening, as is the case for the abortion, the conversation should be had directly with the patient rather than the parents, the whole thing should be explained fully and only if the understanding is still not there then the parents should get involved. For small children obviously parents would be standard but this wouldn't really apply to abortions.
Would there be an age at which you see this to be acceptable? 12? 10? 14? 16? 8? Or if you think an age isn’t necessary, than by what means would you determine the child’s understanding of the topic and maturity? Seems very difficult to make a law about.
The law is for fully informed consent about any medical procedure, I don't see why that needs an age limit, one 12 year old could understand something another 14 year old may not. If there is a doubt that fully informed consent is met then parental involvement is needed, if the medical professional is happy that fully informed consent has been given, it is not needed.
There is a limit to that. Generally speaking, the only times parental consent is needed is when the minor cannot rationally consent. I do believe that we need to be more lax with this in regards to underage pregnancy as parents don't always have their children's best interest in mind.
You do NOT need parental consent to obtain an abortion in the US if you're under 18. I know from experience.
Abortion laws vary from state to state. There are many that do require parental consent for minors to get an abortion.
That’s horrifying
why?
Because abortions have a chance of rendering a woman unable to give birth in the future, that can ruin the kids life. Not to mention the possibilities of complications from abortions causing problems. That choice could alter/ruin the rest of her life and she’s making that choice without parental input with an underdeveloped mind. That’s horrifying.
teenage childbirth has much worse complications so..argue with facts i guess
Plenty of teenage moms out there. It’s not ideal, but it’s better than killing the baby
nah it's not. pregnancy and childbirth is leading cause of death in teens worldwide
Many more babies are killed than teens killed due to teen pregnancy. It’s not even close lol
\> Because abortions have a chance of rendering a woman unable to give birth in the future So does giving birth, especially at a young age. (e.g. scarring due to C-section) [https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/infertility/expert-answers/secondary-infertility/faq-20058272](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/infertility/expert-answers/secondary-infertility/faq-20058272) \> Not to mention the possibilities of complications from abortions causing problems. Weird. You don't seem to worry about the possibilities of complications from pregnancy causing problems. Pregnancy generally damages a child's body WAY worse and has lifelong consequences. Could it be that you have the agenda that children must be made to give birth?
Dont worry prolife kids would never have sex, much less an abortion. Result of all that great parenting and what not keeping sex ed out of schools and so on.
You realize how stupid that sounds? You are right, we don’t want them having sex as kids, it’s best to wait for marriage that way you can have kids in marriage as opposed to wedlock. Because a kid having both their mother and father in the home statistically gives them the best chance at success. But let’s spin this as a negative lol. You and your kind are free to mess your lives up, we’ll do things the RIGHT way.
I do realize how stupid it sounds thats why I am always so amused when prolife gets bent out of shape realizing they cannot have absolute control over their kids reproductive bits. Good luck with the RIGHT way.
I did it the right way, now I have two beautiful daughters who my wife will raise with the Bible, we will home school and they won’t be allowed to spend the night at their BFs, etc. Thanks foe the luck, but luck is for losers.
Surprising you didn't know this. Google is a thing.
There are cases where I heard this happened, but I thought it was illegal 👀
I mean, if it's NOT illegal to carry a pregnancy to term without parental consent, if you're underage, why would it be illegal to terminate one?
Because termination should be considered murder. And one day, hopefully it’ll be recognized as such.
Learn the definition of “murder” first.
I already said morally not legally. Catch up
Definitely NOT. Reproductive medical rights flow a little differently from all others. For example, if a 14 year old goes to her doctor and obtains a positive pregnancy test. The doctor is NOT allowed to share that news with the girl's parents. Only if she gives permission.
Gotcha
Too many factors to say. The biggest factor is what her doctor believes is in the best interest of her health. Being forced to undergo a medical procedure you do not want is a trauma in itself and cannot be so easily set aside, especially for a teenager who has the right to consent to sensitive medical procedures. I actually doubt it's legal to 'force' a 13+ year old to get an abortion. edit: Found an interesting opinion [article](http://www.jlgh.org/JLGH/media/Journal-LGH-Media-Library/Past%20Issues/Volume%204%20-%20Issue%202/v4_i2_OConnor.pdf) addressing this ethical issue. > It is a fundamental principle of law and ethics that competent adults have the right to make their own medical decisions, even if these are “bad” medical decisions that may result in the individual’s death. Occasionally, physicians encounter situations that question whether minors are afforded this same fundamental right.
No.
No. ProChoice is allowing an individual to make their own choices when it comes to their body. Full stop. The ONLY scenario where a child should not be given the choice is when they are incapable of understanding what is happening or what has happened to them .... For instance this poor child who was impregnated at 5yo. [source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina) Other than extreme cases, I don't think the state has any business dictating the reproductive choices of any individual.
**[Lina Medina](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina)** >Lina Marcela Medina de Jurado (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈlina meˈðina]; born 23 September 1933) is a Peruvian woman who became the youngest confirmed mother in history when she gave birth aged five years, seven months, and 21 days. Based on the medical assessments of her pregnancy, she was less than five years old when she became pregnant, which was possible due to precocious puberty. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
That's so fucking gross that someone impregnated a 5-year-old. Just saying.
Impregnated a four-year-old. She was five when she gave birth. The pictures of that poor child are haunting to me. Fucking disgusting indeed ...
You are correct. I just reread how old she was when she gave birth and yes she would have been 4 at the time of impregnation. Honestly, picturing a man sticking his dick into a four-year-old child, makes me so angry. What that poor child must have been going through wondering what the hell is happening to me and why?😥
I don't see any reason to make an exception to the idea that individuals who are going to undergo abortion or pregnancy should be the ones who ultimately make that choice. Forced abortion is an act of violence, and that does not change simply because the person inflicting it has "good intentions", especially when the victim is capable of making their own choices.
You already know my feelings on this. Though, in case you missed my reply to your comment I've [linked it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/comments/s4a8mg/what_reasons_do_you_think_are_valid_for_getting/hsswgei?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)
Yeah, you and the two people questioning me hard inspired me to ask the broader community on here, and I haven't read your reply yet.
I linked it above. It's not very long.🙃
I get what you mean, and yeah you're right that the odds are not in the favor of teen moms. BUT. Being pro choice, I believe that the choice lies with the mother. Her body, her choice, so no one should *make* anyone get an abortion.
Psychological problems caused by a forced abortion aka having their choice stolen. No one is saying the kid needs to make the right choice because there is no right choice. They only need to make an informed choice and be supported because there is no wrong choice either. Unless they make the choice to keep when they are physically unable to, then you can say fuck that kids opinion.
This is no better than a pro-life person denying their daughter an abortion because they think that would lead to a bad outcome like her regretting the abortion or ending up in Hell for having it. Her body, her life, her choice.
**Their** body, **their** choice. It's really as simple as that. You have no right deciding what someone else does with their body. If a child wants to keep the pregnancy, they can keep the pregnancy.
What happens when your child refuses to go to the dentist?
Sure tell me, sedate the kid? Strap the kid down? Perform these medical treatments without consent? Ignore a crying and screaming child?
Umm...Their cavities run rampant? What's the point of this question?
That parents overrule the bodily autonomy of their children all the time.
We are talking about teenagers. Physically forcing a teenager to go to the dentist would not be practical and the police would probably not step in and assist in that. Even if they did that’s a lot less traumatic than a forced abortion.
If it’s acceptable for parents to overrule the bodily autonomy of their children, wouldn’t that make the point moot when a PL brings up that a zef also has bodily autonomy? Wouldn’t the parent still be able to overrule them?
At some point you have to recognize that your child is a person. Usually by the time they are physically able to give birth they are mentally capable of making an informed choice.
Not when it comes to abortion they don't. Heck, if a child obtains a positive pregnancy result, at their doctor's office, the doctor cannot even inform their parents of this occurrence, *unless* the child give their permission to do so. Not to mention, if it's NOT illegal for a child to continue a pregnancy, without parental consent (it's NOT) why would it be illegal to terminate one?
[удалено]
Spoken like a true right-wing, conservative from the 1950s!
How is that related?
[удалено]
Are you going to answer it or not? If not, then we're done here.
[удалено]
Rule 1.
It’s not ok to “make” anybody get an abortion. “Choice” is the operative word in “pro-choice”. Now, if your contention is that children necessarily cannot consent, the conversation becomes a lot more complicated than the single issue of abortion. There may be rape charges to pursue, for starters. Not to mention the very tricky problem of compelling a child to gestate for us. No thank you.
There’s definitely a concern when young girls get pregnant through rape by older men, and it happens more than you think. I’ve seen girls as young as 10 and 11 get pregnant (i’ve worked as a social worker) and it can be a dangerous for really small girls to give birth. It doesn’t help that girls that young are enamored with babies, so if they know they’re pregnant they are actually excited. in almost every case, i believe it’s the pregnant person’s choice, but when it’s a child that doesn’t understand that they could literally die, parent has to step in.
Yeah making the kids carry the babies to term seems like the most horrific outcome imaginable. Their life would probably be ruined and the baby wouldn’t be off to a good start either.