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.