Pro-choice - I need help with arguments

[Dystopia]

I need some brief coherent arguments to support a pro-choice policy directed towards minors (usually under 18) - This implicates allowing teen girls to abort without parental consent. It is a bit more difficult to argue about compared to adults. Also what age do you think should be the minimum? Or should there be none? I think it should be legal from the moment it's possible to get pregnant

Here's the arguments I came up with:

1 - Sometimes teens need abortion the most, because having kids can be a burden and either ruin your plans for the future, or seriously incapacitate them, not to mention going trough a pregnancy when you're still in important stages of psychological and physical development

2 - Overparenting is harmful to teens/children, and such a decision like abortion shouldn't be enforced (in this case, the refusal to let a teen girl abort) because of personal position parents may hold (like religious ones

3 - You shouldn't refuse your children an abortion and force motherhood, like you wouldn't force them to work.

Counter-arguments people have directed towards me:

1 - Just like teens or minors aren't allowed to do a lot of less serious acts [compared to abortion] like buying property (a house, a car, etc.) or consuming alcohol, tobacco, drugs or engaging in sexual intercourse, a more serious decision like abortion should be the parents decision, not to mention a minor doesn't possess enough mental development to know if an abortion really is the best option and this could result in depression and regret

(I really need help with this last one!)

2 - Allowing free abortion for minors could cause a derail to allow them to buy tobacco, alcohol, drugs and thus incentive legalization of some things minors shouldn't be doing for their own good (slippery slope)

3 - It should be allowed because parents will be the ones legally with the job to provide and take care of the kid, so the teenager will have no trouble other than a [simple -- sarcasm!] period of 9 months pregnancy (gasp*)

Anything to add in favour? And how do I counter the first two counter arguments? I'm having trouble.

[vorlon13]

Genesis 2:7 is handy when dealing with idjit christers.

[Dystopia]

Genesis 2:7 is handy when dealing with idjit christers.

It's really not meant to argue against a religion or the morality of it, rather legality, I need secular arguments to support teenagers being able to abort since consent is so important according to the law (for many things teens do, and children)

[CapnAwesome]

A 16 or 17 year old certainly has the mental capacity to know whether or not they want a child or to go through 9 months of pregnancy. Teenagers aren't idiots, they have brains that are capable of dealing with complicated decisions like this. They certainly dealt with pregnancy much earlier in the past, and teenagers have gotten smarter since then. Also I would talk about how these teens may be in a situation where they might have parents who aren't understanding of mistakes they may have made. A parent doesn't own a teen like property, like the counterpointers seem to imply. They have lots of rights and responsibilities in our society. They can go to prison, they can drive, they can have abortions.

[Dystopia]

A 16 or 17 year old certainly has the mental capacity to know whether or not they want a child or to go through 9 months of pregnancy. Teenagers aren't idiots, they have brains that are capable of dealing with complicated decisions like this. They certainly dealt with pregnancy much earlier in the past, and teenagers have gotten smarter since then. Also I would talk about how these teens may be in a situation where they might have parents who aren't understanding of mistakes they may have made. A parent doesn't own a teen like property, like the counterpointers seem to imply. They have lots of rights and responsibilities in our society. They can go to prison, they can drive, they can have abortions.

Well prison and going to jail depends on state - In my case case it's 16 as minimum (same for driving but you need parental consent) - However the issue extends beyond 16 year old teens, I'm talking about possibly 12-14 year old girls who might need an abortion

[Ryantology]

I think there is only one argument that is ever necessary to defend the right to abort: a person who does not want to raise a child is a person who should not raise children.

If that's not enough, remind them that there are more than 18 million unwanted children already living in this world and it's insanity to insist that someone make another.

[Jenny A]

I need some brief coherent arguments to support a pro-choice policy directed towards minors (usually under 18) - This implicates allowing teen girls to abort without parental consent. It is a bit more difficult to argue about compared to adults. Also what age do you think should be the minimum? Or should there be none? I think it should be legal from the moment it's possible to get pregnant
<snip>

Counter-arguments people have directed towards me:

1 - Just like teens or minors aren't allowed to do a lot of less serious acts [compared to abortion] like buying property (a house, a car, etc.) or consuming alcohol, tobacco, drugs or engaging in sexual intercourse, a more serious decision like abortion should be the parents decision, not to mention a minor doesn't possess enough mental development to know if an abortion really is the best option and this could result in depression and regret

All of the other prohibitions, alcohol, buying property, engaging in sexual intercourse, drugs, etc. are prohibited for the purpose of preventing children from burdening their future adulthood with obligations, or negative health choices taken on too young. Ending a pregnancy creates no such burden. To the contrary, carrying a baby to term creates a burden on a teen's future adulthood. Requiring a child to carry a baby to term is like requiring a child to take on debt or assume responsibility for property.

There is little evidence that abortion actual does cause depression or serious regret.

2 - Allowing free abortion for minors could cause a derail to allow them to buy tobacco, alcohol, drugs and thus incentive legalization of some things minors shouldn't be doing for their own good (slippery slope)


Somehow, I can't see a connection between allowing a medical procedure which is what an abortion is and allowing the consumption of alcohol and drugs. Presumably, children are allowed access to care for over doses of drugs, or rehab. That is not considered encouragement to consume drugs or alcohol. Why then, if they have sex early (prohibited or not) shouldn't they be allowed medical care to treat the pregnancy by terminating it?

3 - It should be allowed because parents will be the ones legally with the job to provide and take care of the kid, so the teenager will have no trouble other than a [simple -- sarcasm!] period of 9 months pregnancy (gasp*)

Would the pregnant child's parents be responsible for their grandchild forever? Or just until their child reaches adulthood? Because my guess is it's the later, in which case the teen certainly will face a financial burden in the future.

[Minimalist]

I have to go along with Ryan. I question the motivations of people who insist on sticking their noses into someone else's business when the result does not impact them one iota.

When such people employ these arguments I think they are full of shit.

One addendum to Jenny's point above. Why assume that the parents are even in the picture? The last census indicated that 1/3 of all children in the US were being raised in single-parent homes. For that matter, why assume that the parents are even capable of taking on the burden of raising yet another kid?

[pocaracas]

My dad, recently, had to give permission for the doctor to run some test on him... I think it was an MRI.
An adult must give consent for particular medical procedures.
An abortion is, ultimately, a potentially life-threatening procedure and should then be performed with consent by an adult... whatever "adult" means in your neck of the woods (yeah, I know you're in my neck, blackout... and I know giving birth is also a potentially life-threatening procedure).
That's just it. Informed consent requires an adult. A teenager is a child, in the eyes of the law, so the parent/caregiver is the one that gives consent.
It's the same thing, if the child requires an MRI, chemotherapy, biopsy, tonsil removal, etc, etc, etc...

Of course, this brings up situations where the teen wants to abort, but the parent is morally against abortion, so refuses to give consent... where has anyone ever heard of a parent being morally against tonsil removal?
I don't know how to sort these out... Perhaps some counseling of the parent could steer him/her towards meeting with their own child's desire not to have a baby, but it's far from guaranteed.

On the other hand, if teen abortion is allowed without any parental consent... what is foreseeable? More reckless behaviors on an already reckless enough demographic?
Do we, as a society, want out kids to have sex and abort without adult supervision/consent? The first part is already happening, I guess...

[Minimalist]

Do we, as a society, want out kids to have sex and abort without adult supervision/consent? The first part is already happening, I guess...

As you say, the horse is out of the barn on the first part. On the second, do we as a society want to force babies to have babies? And why? Because some 19th century minded religious retard thinks they should be punished for fucking?