I recognize that I am a guy and not allowed to have an opinion on the subject of Abortion. However when it comes to this subject I will throw in my Two cents. I think that if a kid gets Knocked up and wants to Terminate the pregnancy then she Should be required to tell her Parents. For instance, what if something goes Wrong during surgery or Post-op? Also,it seems to me that there would be a lot of Practical issues to Like, Post-operative care, a Ride to and from the Hospital, emotional Support, etc. There are times when A kid really needs their Parents, this seems like it would be one of them.

They should need the same consent for an abortion that is necessary for any other surgical procedure that the state requires. For instance, can they get their ears pierced without parental consent? Gee, why not?

I'm pro-choice but I think this is a good talk for mom and dad. Hey, guess what....and pass the easy fries?

Alrighty, here I go. *groans from the peanut gallery* Lets take the fact that this is an abortion off the table COMPLETELY. That's right, no arguments about morality, murder, or anything else. This is a medical procedure, yes? A surgical, medical procedure... is a doctor allowed to yank a kidney out of a minor without consent? That's how this is portrayed, right? Just a little medical procedure to have something removed that shouldn't be there, right? So even if you are the most staunch pro-abortion person I think then that you cannot possibly support the idea of allowing abortion without parental permission, but hey, if you want your kids to able to get knocked out and cut on by people, whatever...

The preliminary issue here undoubtedly determines one's view on this question too, and that's whether abortions should be permitted at all. I can see that the anti-abortion folks also are in favor of requiring parental consent. Abortion is one of the thorniest, most divisive issues we have, and it's not going to be resolved anytime soon. I think both sides have legitimate reasons for their positions, notwithstanding some adherents are extreme, to the point of violence against the other side, which is morally bankrupt, no matter which side one is on.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled (in Roe v. Wade) that abortion is a right that may not be denied, and the makeup of the Court isn't going to become more conservative under Obama, so I don't see the law of the land changing anytime soon. So on this issue, let's leave out of this discussion whether there should be a right to abortion, and focus instead on this more narrow issue.

All that said, I favor the right to abortion. Some will say it's because I'm a liberal. But to my mind, it's more because of some of the libertarian beliefs I also hold. I firmly favor having people take responsibility for their decisions. For example, I favor eliminating criminal penalties for most drug offenses -- if it doesn't affect me directly, why should I care about what people do with their own lives? I do favor providing education to society, such as drug education that explains why it's a really bad decision to take drugs and how it can destroy lives, and providing rehabilitation resources. But in the end, the individual person has to make his/her own decisions, and then be responsible for them. I'm not responsible for those decisions, they are, and unless the consequences of those decisions directly affect me, I favor allowing people broad freedom to do what they want. (This is not the place for a full discussion of legalizing drugs or not, because that issue also has other parameters, including why there should be exceptions to the general rule. I'm just using it to show an example of my libertarian beliefs.)

So as to parental consent, it follows that I favor allowing the affected individual -- the pregnant teenager -- to make the decision for herself. She has to take responsibility for her own decisions that directly affect her life. Her parents have their feelings and views, but they don't have to live with the consequences, the teenager does. A teenage mother will have responsibility for the child the rest of her life, unless she's able to find (far in advance of birth) someone who wants to adopt the child. It's also the teenager who has to live with the emotional and practical consequences for the rest of her life, not her parents.

Some argue we should require parental consent because teenagers frequently aren't capable of making correct decisions about things, and that the parents of pregnant teenagers are better equipped to make significant decisions for their kids. That's a legitimate concern, but it has to be balanced against what I said above.

And what about teenage girls who are quite intelligent and fully capable of making rational decisions? I can foresee such a teenager who decides to have an abortion, but her parents are firmly against it and never would consent. Who should be able to make the decision?

I'm in favor of letting each pregnant teenager make her own decision, and not be subject to a parental veto. As in all other matters, parents can and should offer their advice and opinions. There are other issues on which parents should, and do, have the right to make the call. But there are some life-changing issues, such as this one, where the parents should not have the final decision.

For years we have been told by the "pro choice" crowd that abortion is not murder and that an unborn baby is not a human life- that this is just a "medical procedure". Really. So...what other "surgical procedures" should minors be able to undergo voluntarily with no parental consent?

I think the child should be required to submit their parental permission slip to the abortionist along with the consent form that their parents signed allowing the child to become impregnated in the first place as supporting documentation. Then all of the paperwork will be in order and the procedure can be scheduled. By the way, there is about a 13 month waiting list, so it is best to schedule the procedure before you actually engage in the planned sexual encounter.

This would only make sense if the minors have also have to obtain parental permission to keep their kids. In fact, I'm against this no matter what. The parents should not have a say about how their child should live their life when this unborn child is going to have the most direct influence on the child's life, not theirs. Would you marry a person you don't love only because he's the person your parents want you to marry? That's nonsence. And why not? Because who you're marrying is going to affect you most, not them, so you should be able to make that final decision.

I'm not sure about all states, but my general understanding is most jurisdictions here in the United States require parental approval for any medical decisions regarding a person under the age of 18. Hell...school nurses aren't even allowed to give out tylenol for a headache in my experiences. Yes...I empathize and care for the emotional well-being of any young lady that finds herself pregnant. However, the laws of our country have dictated that parents have rights when it comes to their children until the age of 18. This can be painful for adolescents, but I believe this system works well.

i think its brilliant that they dont need consent. so many young girls are having sex so it comferts them to kno they can have a secret abortion. if they do it once they will never do it again! also it saves there parents froma heartattck and saves the child from getting into so much trouble. It is very comferting to kno they can do this with confedentiality.

Absolutely. Minors are under the protection and guidance of their parents, not of the government, and it must be the parent's decision and responsibility killing or protecting the life of an innocent, defenseless and vulnerable human being. But more important than permission, parents must be offered legal counsel to apprehend the culpable for likely having sexual intercourse with the minor. Those child molesters and potential criminals must be put away for the benefit of the society.

Minors should absolutely be required to obtain parental permission for an abortion. Hopefully their parents would be mature and level headed enough in the situation to not give their consent. In the ideal case, they wouldn't be able to have an abortion with or without parental permission, because the procedure would not be legal. But if you can't completely eliminate it, tight restrictions are better than nothing.

Without a doubt, my lands they can't get a Tylenol, but they can get an abortion?

Minors have to get permission to get tattoos, go tanning, get their ears pierced, get operations, to be absent from school but to murder their unborn child they shouldn't? So is the confused state of contemporary liberalism.

Consider the reverse situation. If the medical procedure involved saving the life of a developing fetus, many would be appalled by a potential grandparent refusing permission for the teenage mother to save her own baby-to-be's life. That would certainly bother me. When the teenager becomes a mother herself, who should be ultimately responsible for various medical care decisions regarding the developing life? There are situations when a mother-to-be should not be shut out of medical care.

Swampy sailing on this topic; you'd like to balance the rights of the individual with as much safety as possible. Tough subject to broach for almost any minor (parents don't want to even think that their children are having sex; that it's moved beyond that must be overwhelming in an all-at-once discovery), but it's those "extenuating circumstances" that make things more dangerous. For example, say your pregnant 16-year-old daughter is trying to protect her anonymous 18-year-old boyfriend from being charged with statutory rape (parental permission might cause many a freeway pile-up in these situations). Or, say a 14-year-old is pregnant by way of a drunken (or sober) relative, perhaps even her father (do you open that can of worms up to public scrutiny, or do you handle it privately)? Granted, some people are more forthright than others, but I know of too many instances where overreactions had damaging repercussions that hung on far longer than they should have. If common sense were to play a larger part in this country, the "Plan "B"" contraceptive scheme would've long ago been made available as an incognito, over-the-counter option for JUST these sorts of incidents (guess it's more fun to play politics with people's lives). The high-minded side of me pictures robust, civilized discourse taking place between those affected, but the gut-level realist in me sides with the minor's initiative. Paint me conflicted.

Can't drink, can't smoke, can't vote, can't abort. Deal with it, poeple. Until you are legal age, your parent or legal guardian by law has the final say on just about anything a kid does. Why should this topic be any different?

Complicated for me...I'd have to then figure out how to throttle my kid without harming her baby.

In a much better world, yes. Unfortunately, requiring notice hurts young women more often than it helps.

Considering that parental permission is required to get a tatoo and go on a field trip, then I don't see why it shouldn't be required for a procedure as serious as this.

I'm not sure if obtaining permission justifies murder, does it? How about obtaining permission from the being whose life is being destroyed?