should parental consent be required for abortions?

[Smash255]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

Do teens HAVE to have sex--no if they don't want to, they won't--it's a matter of will and if you include this little way out, that says, hey, who cares, lets do it.

the answe is no, but thinking that is the answer to everything so nothing else can be discussed is exactly the reason why the south has MUCH higher teen Pregnancy rates than the northeast.  Simple minded and non realistic thinking about teenagers and sex.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be telling kids not to have sex.  Of course absitence should be part of the equation, buts its not the end all be all argument because well the argument doesn't work in the actual real world of reality we call Earth.

But I'm saying if you stopped all condoms, birth control and abortions, teen pregnancies would probably drop 75%.  Suddenly they have a multiple year problem to deal w/ for 4 minutes of fun.

Thats the biggest pile of crap I ever heard, and their is nothing to back it up.  Teen Pregnancies are MUCh higher in the part of the country where the access, to knowledge of and education about condems, birth control etc are less available than the ares they are more readily available. 

So how exactly does that result in that the ratees would drop by cough 75% if these things aren't avilable at all, when the areas that these things are harder to get are the areas with the higher rates???

Because Billy Bob and Betty Lou now know "if we have sex, there's nothing stopping us from getting pregnant, so we'll just wait."  Look at teen pregnancies before and after abortion, or birth control or condoms.

Its already hard for them to get in many areas of the south, and that is exactly why they have the higher rates of teen pregnancies than the northeast (or anywhere else in the country for that matter)

So you go in to those areas and say "You have sex; you have babies" end of story!

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO IN THE SOUTH.   And it doesn't work??  That kind of teaching, results in the highest rates of teenage Pregnancies in the entire country.  It doesn't work.

BECAUSE TEENS KNOW THAT THERE ARE STILL CONDOMS, THE PILL, AND ABORTIONS.  if you take those away, what you say is actuall 100% (not exactly--illegal/black market stuff, but maybe 95%) true!

Its much harder to access it.

Just answer this question.

Why do areas that have more comprehensive sex education, have more avilability to condemns, birth control and abortion actually have fewer teen pregnancies than the areas which teach absitence only, and do not have that much access to condemns, birth conrol, adnd abortions???

[Smash255]

1. The Government ensures that when the teens aren't responsible, the life of the baby is still kept safe
2. What do you mean saving the baby's life when the issue is rape, and I don't get where you're going w/ teh last sentence.

No, the government ensures that when teens aren't what you consider responsible, the parents can choose to allow whether the "baby" dies.  Parental consent doesn't keep babies safe, it either gets teens in trouble or kills babies.  Not all parents will say their teen can't have an abortion.

What I'm saying is that you're arguing against abortion on the basis that it's irresponsible for a teenager to have sex.  When the issue turns to rape, it's about protecting the life of the baby.  So what matters more to you, ensuring responsibility or protecting life?  You only use the latter argument when the first one doesn't apply.

No--it's always protecting life.  The teens deserve to be in trouble.  I know parents will sometimes let the kids have the abortion, but it would be less than w/o parental consent.

Do teens HAVE to have sex

So you would be opposed to giving birth control to teenagers.  Thus increasing the abortion rate, because people are still going to have sex anyway.  See how this works?

Yes.  Teens should not be having sex--if we had to take away all forms of protection to accomplish even 1/2 of my goal.  Thats fine.  Teenagers do not have to have sex and can resist if they want to.  it's not that hard.

Again  what you speak of is not going to stop teens from having sex.  Its not, and the proof is that the areas where the things you want banned are less accesable are te areas which have the higher rates. 

What cuts down on abortions and teen pregnancies is not making abortion illegaal, its not taking away condems and birth control.  That simply doesn't work, and the proof is the south.  What does work to limit these things is comprehensive sex education the avilability to condemns, birth control and the education that comes along with it.  Thats what works.

NO!  Sex education, combined w/ sex ed from PARENTS with NO access to legal protection or abortions is what will bring it down.  You cite areas where access is limited--I'm saying NO access.

Its not going to work.  If limited access = higher rates than full access, than what direction are we heading in.  Ahh thats right up. shich means even higher rates for no access.

And sex ed from Parents really doesn't work, comprehensive sex ed from schools works, hence the low rate in the northeast.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

Do teens HAVE to have sex--no if they don't want to, they won't--it's a matter of will and if you include this little way out, that says, hey, who cares, lets do it.

the answe is no, but thinking that is the answer to everything so nothing else can be discussed is exactly the reason why the south has MUCH higher teen Pregnancy rates than the northeast.  Simple minded and non realistic thinking about teenagers and sex.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be telling kids not to have sex.  Of course absitence should be part of the equation, buts its not the end all be all argument because well the argument doesn't work in the actual real world of reality we call Earth.

But I'm saying if you stopped all condoms, birth control and abortions, teen pregnancies would probably drop 75%.  Suddenly they have a multiple year problem to deal w/ for 4 minutes of fun.

Thats the biggest pile of crap I ever heard, and their is nothing to back it up.  Teen Pregnancies are MUCh higher in the part of the country where the access, to knowledge of and education about condems, birth control etc are less available than the ares they are more readily available. 

So how exactly does that result in that the ratees would drop by cough 75% if these things aren't avilable at all, when the areas that these things are harder to get are the areas with the higher rates???

Because Billy Bob and Betty Lou now know "if we have sex, there's nothing stopping us from getting pregnant, so we'll just wait."  Look at teen pregnancies before and after abortion, or birth control or condoms.

Its already hard for them to get in many areas of the south, and that is exactly why they have the higher rates of teen pregnancies than the northeast (or anywhere else in the country for that matter)

So you go in to those areas and say "You have sex; you have babies" end of story!

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO IN THE SOUTH.   And it doesn't work??  That kind of teaching, results in the highest rates of teenage Pregnancies in the entire country.  It doesn't work.

BECAUSE TEENS KNOW THAT THERE ARE STILL CONDOMS, THE PILL, AND ABORTIONS.  if you take those away, what you say is actuall 100% (not exactly--illegal/black market stuff, but maybe 95%) true!

Its much harder to access it.

Just answer this question.

Why do areas that have more comprehensive sex education, have more avilability to condemns, birth control and abortion actually have fewer teen pregnancies than the areas which teach absitence only, and do not have that much access to condemns, birth conrol, adnd abortions???

B/c they use the protection--but that's not 100% guarunteed.  True, after you eliminate it completely, it will spike for a little, but then after Lindsey sees that Megan and Jennifer got pregnang, Lindsey will say No to boyfriend Brad.

[Ebowed]

Yes.  Teens should not be having sex--if we had to take away all forms of protection to accomplish even 1/2 of my goal.  Thats fine.  Teenagers do not have to have sex and can resist if they want to.  it's not that hard.

If we took away all forms of protection, teen abortions and pregnancies would skyrocket.

I said all protection and abortions.  Teens would either resort to illegal unsafe abortions, or less sex.  True, some would go to black market abortions, but overall less teens would have sex.

No, you're entirely dead wrong.

Let's take a look at Mississippi, where in the average household you cannot obtain birth control, and you can't get an abortion without the consent of both parents.  Why are teen pregnancy rates high in Mississippi?  Because teens are still having sex.

Now, if you banned all contraceptives (which I'm surprised you are seriously advocating), a massive black market would spring up, similar to the situation with drugs.  Home made contraception could be unsafe or unreliable, sexually transmitted diseases would be everywhere, and people would either be getting pregnant too early in life or getting unsafe abortions.  One thing's for sure, though; teen sex wouldn't decrease.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

1. The Government ensures that when the teens aren't responsible, the life of the baby is still kept safe
2. What do you mean saving the baby's life when the issue is rape, and I don't get where you're going w/ teh last sentence.

No, the government ensures that when teens aren't what you consider responsible, the parents can choose to allow whether the "baby" dies.  Parental consent doesn't keep babies safe, it either gets teens in trouble or kills babies.  Not all parents will say their teen can't have an abortion.

What I'm saying is that you're arguing against abortion on the basis that it's irresponsible for a teenager to have sex.  When the issue turns to rape, it's about protecting the life of the baby.  So what matters more to you, ensuring responsibility or protecting life?  You only use the latter argument when the first one doesn't apply.

No--it's always protecting life.  The teens deserve to be in trouble.  I know parents will sometimes let the kids have the abortion, but it would be less than w/o parental consent.

Do teens HAVE to have sex

So you would be opposed to giving birth control to teenagers.  Thus increasing the abortion rate, because people are still going to have sex anyway.  See how this works?

Yes.  Teens should not be having sex--if we had to take away all forms of protection to accomplish even 1/2 of my goal.  Thats fine.  Teenagers do not have to have sex and can resist if they want to.  it's not that hard.

Again  what you speak of is not going to stop teens from having sex.  Its not, and the proof is that the areas where the things you want banned are less accesable are te areas which have the higher rates. 

What cuts down on abortions and teen pregnancies is not making abortion illegaal, its not taking away condems and birth control.  That simply doesn't work, and the proof is the south.  What does work to limit these things is comprehensive sex education the avilability to condemns, birth control and the education that comes along with it.  Thats what works.

NO!  Sex education, combined w/ sex ed from PARENTS with NO access to legal protection or abortions is what will bring it down.  You cite areas where access is limited--I'm saying NO access.

Its not going to work.  If limited access = higher rates than full access, than what direction are we heading in.  Ahh thats right up. shich means even higher rates for no access.

And sex ed from Parents really doesn't work, comprehensive sex ed from schools works, hence the low rate in the northeast.

I didn't follow the 1st paragraph

[Smash255]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

Do teens HAVE to have sex--no if they don't want to, they won't--it's a matter of will and if you include this little way out, that says, hey, who cares, lets do it.

the answe is no, but thinking that is the answer to everything so nothing else can be discussed is exactly the reason why the south has MUCH higher teen Pregnancy rates than the northeast.  Simple minded and non realistic thinking about teenagers and sex.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be telling kids not to have sex.  Of course absitence should be part of the equation, buts its not the end all be all argument because well the argument doesn't work in the actual real world of reality we call Earth.

But I'm saying if you stopped all condoms, birth control and abortions, teen pregnancies would probably drop 75%.  Suddenly they have a multiple year problem to deal w/ for 4 minutes of fun.

Thats the biggest pile of crap I ever heard, and their is nothing to back it up.  Teen Pregnancies are MUCh higher in the part of the country where the access, to knowledge of and education about condems, birth control etc are less available than the ares they are more readily available. 

So how exactly does that result in that the ratees would drop by cough 75% if these things aren't avilable at all, when the areas that these things are harder to get are the areas with the higher rates???

Because Billy Bob and Betty Lou now know "if we have sex, there's nothing stopping us from getting pregnant, so we'll just wait."  Look at teen pregnancies before and after abortion, or birth control or condoms.

Its already hard for them to get in many areas of the south, and that is exactly why they have the higher rates of teen pregnancies than the northeast (or anywhere else in the country for that matter)

So you go in to those areas and say "You have sex; you have babies" end of story!

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO IN THE SOUTH.   And it doesn't work??  That kind of teaching, results in the highest rates of teenage Pregnancies in the entire country.  It doesn't work.

BECAUSE TEENS KNOW THAT THERE ARE STILL CONDOMS, THE PILL, AND ABORTIONS.  if you take those away, what you say is actuall 100% (not exactly--illegal/black market stuff, but maybe 95%) true!

Its much harder to access it.

Just answer this question.

Why do areas that have more comprehensive sex education, have more avilability to condemns, birth control and abortion actually have fewer teen pregnancies than the areas which teach absitence only, and do not have that much access to condemns, birth conrol, adnd abortions???

B/c they use the protection--but that's not 100% guarunteed.  True, after you eliminate it completely, it will spike for a little, but then after Lindsey sees that Megan and Jennifer got pregnang, Lindsey will say No to boyfriend Brad.

If that was true it would work when their is limited access as well, which is not the case

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes.  Teens should not be having sex--if we had to take away all forms of protection to accomplish even 1/2 of my goal.  Thats fine.  Teenagers do not have to have sex and can resist if they want to.  it's not that hard.

If we took away all forms of protection, teen abortions and pregnancies would skyrocket.

I said all protection and abortions.  Teens would either resort to illegal unsafe abortions, or less sex.  True, some would go to black market abortions, but overall less teens would have sex.

No, you're entirely dead wrong.

Let's take a look at Mississippi, where in the average household you cannot obtain birth control, and you can't get an abortion without the consent of both parents.  Why are teen pregnancy rates high in Mississippi?  Because teens are still having sex.

Now, if you banned all contraceptives (which I'm surprised you are seriously advocating), a massive black market would spring up, similar to the situation with drugs.  Home made contraception could be unsafe or unreliable, sexually transmitted diseases would be everywhere, and people would either be getting pregnant too early in life or getting unsafe abortions.  One thing's for sure, though; teen sex wouldn't decrease.

So in MS, what happens w/ all the teen pregnancies?  teens w/ 20 babies?  IF a teen is stupid enough to see all her friends have 12 kids, and then go get done by her boyfriend, she's a moron.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

Your trying to play the simpleton straw man argument game.  In an optimal society, in a perfect world that would work.  But guess what we don't live in a perfect world. I'm not advocating  teen sex, however its something that is going to happen.  Harping on teens not to have sex, telling them the evils of sex, preaching absitence only does not work.  Again their is a reason why areas with absitence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than areas with comprehensive sex education programs.  All what preaching what youu are reslts in is more teens getting pregnant.

Do teens HAVE to have sex--no if they don't want to, they won't--it's a matter of will and if you include this little way out, that says, hey, who cares, lets do it.

the answe is no, but thinking that is the answer to everything so nothing else can be discussed is exactly the reason why the south has MUCH higher teen Pregnancy rates than the northeast.  Simple minded and non realistic thinking about teenagers and sex.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be telling kids not to have sex.  Of course absitence should be part of the equation, buts its not the end all be all argument because well the argument doesn't work in the actual real world of reality we call Earth.

But I'm saying if you stopped all condoms, birth control and abortions, teen pregnancies would probably drop 75%.  Suddenly they have a multiple year problem to deal w/ for 4 minutes of fun.

Thats the biggest pile of crap I ever heard, and their is nothing to back it up.  Teen Pregnancies are MUCh higher in the part of the country where the access, to knowledge of and education about condems, birth control etc are less available than the ares they are more readily available. 

So how exactly does that result in that the ratees would drop by cough 75% if these things aren't avilable at all, when the areas that these things are harder to get are the areas with the higher rates???

Because Billy Bob and Betty Lou now know "if we have sex, there's nothing stopping us from getting pregnant, so we'll just wait."  Look at teen pregnancies before and after abortion, or birth control or condoms.

Its already hard for them to get in many areas of the south, and that is exactly why they have the higher rates of teen pregnancies than the northeast (or anywhere else in the country for that matter)

So you go in to those areas and say "You have sex; you have babies" end of story!

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO IN THE SOUTH.   And it doesn't work??  That kind of teaching, results in the highest rates of teenage Pregnancies in the entire country.  It doesn't work.

BECAUSE TEENS KNOW THAT THERE ARE STILL CONDOMS, THE PILL, AND ABORTIONS.  if you take those away, what you say is actuall 100% (not exactly--illegal/black market stuff, but maybe 95%) true!

Its much harder to access it.

Just answer this question.

Why do areas that have more comprehensive sex education, have more avilability to condemns, birth control and abortion actually have fewer teen pregnancies than the areas which teach absitence only, and do not have that much access to condemns, birth conrol, adnd abortions???

B/c they use the protection--but that's not 100% guarunteed.  True, after you eliminate it completely, it will spike for a little, but then after Lindsey sees that Megan and Jennifer got pregnang, Lindsey will say No to boyfriend Brad.

If that was true it would work when their is limited access as well, which is not the case

No, b/c limited means you can still get it.  If you eliminate it and then put some hefty punishment on any illegal forms, it would be different.

[Smash255]

I didn't follow the 1st paragraph

No need to have so many quotes.  To clarify.  If your argument about no access were true, then it would also be somewhat true for areas with limited access, but its not.  And areas with limited access and that don't have the comprehsnive sex education have the highe teen pregnancy rates.  the less sex education you have, the less availabilty to other options you have the higher the teenage pregnancy rate.  So no access would actually have higjher teen pregnancy rates than low access has, which has higher rates than full access.

[Smash255]

So in MS, what happens w/ all the teen pregnancies?  teens w/ 20 babies?  IF a teen is stupid enough to see all her friends have 12 kids, and then go get done by her boyfriend, she's a moron.

Thats exactly what happens.  Which by the way happens to be the state with the least amount of access to alternatives and the state with the highest teen Pregnancy rate.  Imagine that....

[Ebowed]

So in MS, what happens w/ all the teen pregnancies?  teens w/ 20 babies?  IF a teen is stupid enough to see all her friends have 12 kids, and then go get done by her boyfriend, she's a moron.

No, the morons are the people who still think using a condom is murder and thus would rather have their kid get pregnant than use birth control.

You have a very naive view of teen sex.  Your belief that it would just "go away" if we banned everything that makes it easier for teens to have sex is just incorrect.  STD's would skyrocket, a black market for contraceptives would emerge, teen pregnancies would skyrocket, and illegal abortions would skyrocket.  If you don't believe me, just look at Mississippi and then compare it to the Northeast.

[Smash255]

No, b/c limited means you can still get it.  If you eliminate it and then put some hefty punishment on any illegal forms, it would be different.

Ahh like Prohibition.  Its not going to work.

Banning all protections is not going to work.  If it would work than making it harder to get (as done in the south) would at least be in that realm.  But its not the case.  Taking the access away results in higher rates, period.

[AkSaber]

Yeah, I think so.

[dazzleman]

Yes, parental consent should be required for minors to have an abortion.

In extreme circumstances, perhaps a judge could waive parental consent, but it makes no sense for abortion, a very serious procedure, to be the only procedure that a minor can get without parental consent.  You can't even give a minor an aspirin without parental consent; why should an aspirin be regarded as more serious than an abortion?  That anybody would argue this with a straight face shows the true silliness of the pro-abortion movement.

First off, I disagree with the notion that there is a "pro-abortion" movement, at least one comprised of any more than a very few nutjobs. No one in mainstream politics is in favor of abortion.

In addition, I don't think many people here or anywhere are arguing that minors shouldn't be able to have an aspirin on their own but yet should be allowed to have an abortion, so it's not an inconsistent argument. The fact that US law may currently contain this inconsistency is therefore irrelevant to the debate, and the assumption that we have to make abortion law conform to aspirin law seems to be a bit flawed as the opposite could just as easily occur.

Inconsistency in the law is entirely relevant to the debate.  Your argument is just a slick intellectual trick to get away from a point that you know doesn't make any sense.  So the question is -- why should it be illegal to give a minor an aspirin without parental consent, but not an abortion?

[Ebowed]

You can't even give a minor an aspirin without parental consent; why should an aspirin be regarded as more serious than an abortion?  That anybody would argue this with a straight face shows the true silliness of the pro-abortion movement.

In addition, I don't think many people here or anywhere are arguing that minors shouldn't be able to have an aspirin on their own but yet should be allowed to have an abortion, so it's not an inconsistent argument. The fact that US law may currently contain this inconsistency is therefore irrelevant to the debate, and the assumption that we have to make abortion law conform to aspirin law seems to be a bit flawed as the opposite could just as easily occur.

Inconsistency in the law is entirely relevant to the debate.  Your argument is just a slick intellectual trick to get away from a point that you know doesn't make any sense.  So the question is -- why should it be illegal to give a minor an aspirin without parental consent, but not an abortion?

It really isn't, dazzle, and you appear to be attempting a tactic known as repeating the same question repeatedly even after getting a satisfactory answer to discourage the person you're debating with and make the audience think you won.  It's a tactic employed by Scientologists, among others, so enjoy your good company.

The answer to your (re-)question can be found in the answer you were responding to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It can be quite easily inferred that:
a.) Nym doesn't support requiring parental consent for aspirin, and doesn't believe that, in general, pro-choice advocates support "tough on aspirin" laws either;
b.) An inconsistency in U.S. law is not grounds on which we should restrict the rights of women under 18.  You are arguing that it is.  So, if parental consent weren't required for aspirin, what would be your argument against minors getting abortions without parental consent?  Do you support parental consent for aspirin, so that your little argument will work?  If so, why should a 16 year old need permission to get aspirin, dazzle?  Can you really justify that?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I didn't follow the 1st paragraph

No need to have so many quotes.  To clarify.  If your argument about no access were true, then it would also be somewhat true for areas with limited access, but its not.  And areas with limited access and that don't have the comprehsnive sex education have the highe teen pregnancy rates.  the less sex education you have, the less availabilty to other options you have the higher the teenage pregnancy rate.  So no access would actually have higjher teen pregnancy rates than low access has, which has higher rates than full access.

So, explain to me, why teens who see their friends having all these babies, still go out and have sex.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So in MS, what happens w/ all the teen pregnancies?  teens w/ 20 babies?  IF a teen is stupid enough to see all her friends have 12 kids, and then go get done by her boyfriend, she's a moron.

Thats exactly what happens.  Which by the way happens to be the state with the least amount of access to alternatives and the state with the highest teen Pregnancy rate.  Imagine that....

Then MS teens are a bunch of stupid free prostitutes!

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So in MS, what happens w/ all the teen pregnancies?  teens w/ 20 babies?  IF a teen is stupid enough to see all her friends have 12 kids, and then go get done by her boyfriend, she's a moron.

No, the morons are the people who still think using a condom is murder and thus would rather have their kid get pregnant than use birth control.

You have a very naive view of teen sex.  Your belief that it would just "go away" if we banned everything that makes it easier for teens to have sex is just incorrect.  STD's would skyrocket, a black market for contraceptives would emerge, teen pregnancies would skyrocket, and illegal abortions would skyrocket.  If you don't believe me, just look at Mississippi and then compare it to the Northeast.

I have no problem w/ condoms.

Point is--in theory, it should work, and after a while, with ENFORCEMENTS, it would

[jerusalemcar5]

So in MS, what happens w/ all the teen pregnancies?  teens w/ 20 babies?  IF a teen is stupid enough to see all her friends have 12 kids, and then go get done by her boyfriend, she's a moron.

Thats exactly what happens.  Which by the way happens to be the state with the least amount of access to alternatives and the state with the highest teen Pregnancy rate.  Imagine that....

Then MS teens are a bunch of stupid free prostitutes!

LOL!  Right.  Becuase sex=prostitute.  You've got a lot to learn buddy.  If there's very little access to contraceptives (like in backwards MS-sorry Harry) then you go without.  Abstaining from sex when it is right in front of you is not the easiest to do.  Maybe is it for you, but for normal human beings, it isn't.  Think about someone else besides yourself.  It's liberating.

[Smash255]

I didn't follow the 1st paragraph

No need to have so many quotes.  To clarify.  If your argument about no access were true, then it would also be somewhat true for areas with limited access, but its not.  And areas with limited access and that don't have the comprehsnive sex education have the highe teen pregnancy rates.  the less sex education you have, the less availabilty to other options you have the higher the teenage pregnancy rate.  So no access would actually have higjher teen pregnancy rates than low access has, which has higher rates than full access.

So, explain to me, why teens who see their friends having all these babies, still go out and have sex.

Because they are teens.  teens aren't having sex because contraceptives are available, they are having sex because they are well teens.  If teens and having sex was related to contracpetives and the protections that are avilable, then the areas where they are less avilable would have the lower rates of teen Pregnancy, but the reverse is true.  Bottom line no matter what you teach if a teen wants to have sex, they are going to have sex.  the differences the contracpetives make is whether that sex is safe or not, and if they can get pregnant or not.

[Nym90]

Yes, parental consent should be required for minors to have an abortion.

In extreme circumstances, perhaps a judge could waive parental consent, but it makes no sense for abortion, a very serious procedure, to be the only procedure that a minor can get without parental consent.  You can't even give a minor an aspirin without parental consent; why should an aspirin be regarded as more serious than an abortion?  That anybody would argue this with a straight face shows the true silliness of the pro-abortion movement.

First off, I disagree with the notion that there is a "pro-abortion" movement, at least one comprised of any more than a very few nutjobs. No one in mainstream politics is in favor of abortion.

In addition, I don't think many people here or anywhere are arguing that minors shouldn't be able to have an aspirin on their own but yet should be allowed to have an abortion, so it's not an inconsistent argument. The fact that US law may currently contain this inconsistency is therefore irrelevant to the debate, and the assumption that we have to make abortion law conform to aspirin law seems to be a bit flawed as the opposite could just as easily occur.

Inconsistency in the law is entirely relevant to the debate.  Your argument is just a slick intellectual trick to get away from a point that you know doesn't make any sense.  So the question is -- why should it be illegal to give a minor an aspirin without parental consent, but not an abortion?

It shouldn't be, and neither I nor anyone else here to my knowledge is arguing that it should be. That's why it's a non-sequitur, because the law is full of such illogicalities, and that could be used just as effectively as an argument for legalizing the aspirin as it is for illegalizing the abortion.

[minionofmidas]

It makes no sense for abortion, a very serious procedure, to be the only procedure that a minor can get without parental consent.  You can't even give a minor an aspirin without parental consent; why should an aspirin be regarded as more serious than an abortion?  That anybody would argue this with a straight face shows the true silliness of the pro-abortion movement.

No, it shows the true silliness of the law you're alluding to there, if it indeed exists (gosh, I certainly hope not!)

[minionofmidas]

No parental consent or notification should be necessary for a minor seeking an abortion.

why?

It's a matter of priorities.  We live in a society where a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make a decision about keeping a pregnancy on her own, but she is mature enough to bear and raise a child and, depending on the area of the country, be forced into a shotgun wedding or similar situation.  That said, a minor who got pregnant to begin with was probably more likely to live in an environment where it was more difficult to obtain birth control.  If a girl's parents think condom use is murder, how likely is it that they're going to let her get an abortion?  Of course, there are girls who were simply lazy or uncaring, but even then I don't think the government ought to be legislating responsibility for these girls by putting them in potentially difficult situations.  I'm not arguing that parents should have nothing to do with the abortion process; I'm simply arguing against mandating parental oversight over the matter.

So if a girl can't handle having the baby, don't have sex--is it that hard?

Do we live in an optimal society where things were that simple??

Their is a reason why the south tends to have higher teenage pregnancy rates than the north especially the northeast.  Its because of that exact like of thinking and the absitence only minded type of sex education (well calling absitence only sex education is an oxymoron & complete farce)

What's so hard about keeping a several inch appendage inside your pants, and outside of your girlfriend?

It is deeply unnatural to do so, and there's no real reason to.

[??????????]

It makes no sense for abortion, a very serious procedure, to be the only procedure that a minor can get without parental consent.  You can't even give a minor an aspirin without parental consent; why should an aspirin be regarded as more serious than an abortion?  That anybody would argue this with a straight face shows the true silliness of the pro-abortion movement.

No, it shows the true silliness of the law you're alluding to there, if it indeed exists (gosh, I certainly hope not!)

Yeah, it is correct, their are such laws. Another silly example is at my work they management isn't allowed to give aspirin/ibprofen<sp?> to associates.