Minors Should Be Able to Obtain Abortions Without Parental Consent

Side Proposition believes that opting for underage abortion is not a whimsical turn of mood on part of young women; we believe they are very much aware of the consequences of bearing a child if they want to avoid it.

Firstly, most teens have developed consequential thinking[[Shure and Spivack, 1990]], which means they are capable of assessing the consequences of their actions. Generally, we expect them to have developed this skill by junior high[[http://www.experientiallearning.ucdavis.edu/tlbx-ages.shtml]], as they are given more and more autonomy in project-making and other school projects. While that does not mean perfect foresight, it means that they are fairly capable of taking in the information about the risks of a surgery – fairly non-invasive if performed early – and benefits of having a child at the age of 17 and running the risk-benefit analysis upon coming to the clinic.

Secondly, sex education is on the curriculum of most countries. That means that children have sufficient information about sex and troubleshooting in its aftermath. Conversely, where sex education is unavailable, teen abortions without obstacles are even more important, as the minors involved obviously failed to feed in correct data and should get a second chance to get it right.

Thirdly, required counseling leading up to and after the abortion ensures that aborting teens are aware of risks and possible benefits.

Thus, teens can decide about their abortion responsibly. Of course, even if they are developed and rational, they still may not be able to bring children up – because of her social background, lack of money or absence of a father.

Side Opposition needs to ask: if they are not developed and rational enough to decide not to have a baby, how can they be considered developed enough to raise it?

Side Proposition believes that the overall impact on minors bearing children is so severe that it justifies abortions without parental consent.

First and foremost, minors are faced with social consequences ranging from frendship failures to worsening inter-family relationships, from school drop-outs to isolation from the community of young adults, all of which impair the mother´s emotional health and her future life. Moreover, 25% of teenage mothers have another child within 2 years[[http://tinyurl.com/39xmlad]], which ensures inability to study, find job etc. Secondly, we believe that pregnancy itself is emotionally difficult, particularly if – for one reason or another – the mother seeks abortion but is prevented from having one without a parental consent. Teenage mothers are more likely to suffer from depression [[http://www.pregnancy-period.com/teen-pregnancy.html]] and those „who are pregnant or have a baby are seven times as likely to commit suicide than teenage women who are not responsible for their own child (Lerman).“ [[http://sean-c-powers.com/TeenagePregnancy.html]]

Thirdly, pregnancy is a physically exhausting state, especially when we consider that teenagers´ bodies are still growing and thus not yet ready for pregnancy. Having a baby requires immense strength and good health. The bones are still growing and the muscles are still supple. Getting pregnant can physically damage the body and weaken to an extent where it can prove fatal.[[http://tinyurl.com/3az9aza]] Worse still, minors are generally less likely to seek prenatal care, which further exacerbates the medical dangers.

At the end of the day, we see that banning abortions without parental consent has grave impact on the potential mother´s life, can damage her both physical and emotional health, relationships, and most importantly her ability to function in our society.

The unwanted pregnancy of minors doesn’t affect only the girl herself but also the whole society. Unwanted children cause economic and social burden for the state.

Firstly, teenage mothers are usually not in the situation in which they can take care of the baby as much as it’s necessary. They usually don’t have enough time for upbringing: they either still have to attend school and/or they don’t have any partner to help them (more than 80% of all births to teens (15 – 19) are in the cases of single mothers).[[http://tinyurl.com/39g58ne]] Moreover they often bring huge economic burden for the state: 80% of teen mothers must rely on welfare at some point. And as whole the teen childbearing cost taxpayers in the US 9.1 billion dollars in 2004.[[http://tinyurl.com/3223qkm]] Hence the children of teen mothers will in the vast majority of cases not get the upbringing and conditions for growing up as in the standard cases and besides they will cost huge amount of money.

Secondly, we have already mentioned that (unwanted) children of teen mothers usually don’t get the upbringing as others; it causes huge problems on the social level. Not only that nearly one third of daughters of teen mothers are more inclined to become teenage parents themselves,[[ http://tinyurl.com/3223qkm%5D%5D but more importantly children of teen mothers are more likely to commit crime:Scher, Hoffman. Incarceration – Costs of Early Childbearing
The sons of adolescent mothers are 2.2 times more likely to spend time in prison than the sons of mothers who delayed childbearing until their early twenties.

Similarly the Freakonomics shows the impact of legalization of abortion on the fell of crime. New York, California (and few other states) legalized abortion in 1970’s and due to it the violent crime fell by 23% between 1988 – 1997.[[http://tinyurl.com/3y8ts72]]

Rebecca Suzanne Bell died because of ill-preformed abortion. At the age of 17, she was found dead. Real life example demonstrates what the phrase “requires parental consent” in the local abortion law does.

Let us consider the incentives – she was afraid of what her parents will say and how they will react. Here we have to emphasize an interesting fact – if the family of the teenage mother is supportive, they will do whatever is best for the girl anyway (ie – in most cases, grant the consent for abortion); however, in case the family is not so benevolent, we can see great fear of telling one’s parents. For not only the girl will not be granted the right, but she may be very well punished. As one study shown teenagers fear even obtaining information: “More than one-third of teens make their first visit for birth control to a clinic because they suspect pregnancy; only 14 percent come before first intercourse. Fear their parents will find out is a major reason most teens delay the visit until a year or more after starting intercourse”. Not to mention cases when an abusive relative (or even parent) is the father – the dread is immense here.

Other reasons for abortion may the inability to secure the child and/or the mother financially, (virtual) inability to obtain higher education with children to look after, even good reputation in some cases etc. Illegal-Abortion Deaths in the United States: Why Are They Still Occurring?
The causes of death following illegal abortion differ markedly from the causes following legal abortion. Infection was responsible for 59 percent of illegal-abortion deaths[…]
Here we can see that dangers of illegal abortions are immense, and so is the scale as Poland case study illustrates: “In all, that makes roughly 40,000 – 50,000 [illegal] abortions a year.”[[ http://tiny.cc/nijf8%5D%5D

Legalized abortion will be safe and available, should they desire it, thus eliminating all these unnecessary deaths.

Let us look at the reality of the situation:

One, consent laws aren’t notification laws. Unlike notification – also ill-advised, but for different reasons – consent gives parents veto right over their daughter’s abortion.

Two, consent laws are mostly adopted with the express purpose that parents be able to veto the abortion. While we accept that perfectly liberal families exist which discuss sex openly and can support their teenager through post-abortion procedures, they aren’t as likely to live within a legislature that passed a parental consent law as conservatives are. We need to realize that if a teen is unwilling to report pregnancy to her conservative parents, it is partly because no intra-familial discussion that could soothe her sex-induced problems took place – and mainly because it is unlikely to. Such parents are also unlikely to grant the craved consent.

What next? Canada places faith in judicial bypasses, while we see they are unlikely to work properly in such societies: (a) acquiring judicial bypass is estimated to to take 22 days at minimum[[http://xr.com/telj]], (b) this figure is greatly understated in rural areas, where it is hard to get to a city judge, and in conservative areas, where judges often recuse themselves from the hearing, or deny petitions on a regular basis. Postponing abortion has serious health risks for teenage mothers; so does seeking illegal abortion service or even self-aborting, as 40 % of teens conceded they would do if they had to tell their parents[[S.K. Henshaw, “Parental Involvement in Minors’ Abortion Decisions.” , 1992 Family Planning Perspectives: 196-207, 213]]

Adoption, unlike opposition suggests, is not a solution that would greatly alleviate the situation as we will how in our next contention.

Most importantly, we elevate the risk that teens, in face of obstacles, will give birth. We expounded on dangers to individual and society if that is so; we prevent that by making abortion easier.

Ponder what may happen in families:

1) Best-case: supportive liberal parents who will be willing to talk the issue over and grant the required consent if necessary.

2) Next-best case: anti-abortion parents, despite their values, sanction their daughter’s extramarital sex, sign the form, and do not escalate the situation afterwards. While we deem this preferable, it is also unlikely: this would require parents to renounce their core beliefs, admit their parenting was all wrong, and adopt a far more open mindset than they sported in the past.

3) Real case: anti-abortion parents behave consistently, deny abortion right to their daughter, and thus force her to (a) self-abort or seek a back-alley abortion, (b) apply for judicial waiver, the waiting period of which increases risks of abortive surgery, (c) force her to carry the child to term and bring it up, exposing her health even further and taking most future prospects – job, education, and friends – away from her, or (d) force her to give the born child up for an adoption, which has negative effects of its own. The mother usually suffers from trauma and depression as well, but it also means that she still goes through with the pregnancy, therefore all the harms of it still stand.

Without consent laws, teens in case 1 will talk to their parents anyway, teens in case 2 will carry on not existing, and teens in case 3 will be able to undergo a safe procedure.

Lastly, even if parents give their consent, it takes time and the abortion will therefore be delayed (not to mention judicial waiver which is often not granted simply because of the conservative views of some judges). The risk of death or major complications significantly increases for each week into pregnancy, particularly if the abortion is delayed until the third trimester. Moreover, such abortions are more difficult to obtain because they are more expensive and fewer doctors perform them. [[http://xr.com/c9fj]]

This week, we stood for rights of teens not to tell, on three bases: (1) teens can choose rationally without involving a parent, (2) requiring parental consent endangers mother’s health too much, and (3) abortion is nearly always preferable for teens. Holding any of these arguments means a Proposition win, as Opposition didn’t offer an ethics or principle that could outweigh our analysis.

1) If teen can decide without parents, why violate her right?
One, we proved that teens are rational, especially in as serious cases as abortions. Only reply? “Teens mostly think with amygdala and this thus is impossible”, which is gibberish.
Two, even if teen was amygdala-slave, she can consult counselors and other trusted non-parent adults instead of parents, thus ensuring informed choice without need for veto right.
Three, even if experts weren’t best counselors, neither are parents: as shown, if they aren’t consulted, it’s for very good reasons, as they harm rather than help.
As legislating parental consent is right-violating, unnecessary, and harmful, Prop wins.

2) Consent laws imperil teen moms. We showed that chance of parental veto in societies with consent laws is big, even in as free countries as the US. Veto has serious impacts: teen either gives birth (70 %), self-aborts (12 %), or seeks judicial bypass[[http://is.gd/fh8Do]]. In all cases, teen’s health is spoilt; long-term mental & physical health of both mother and child is most at stake with childbirth. However, parents only hurt in that case, the only case where they need be consulted (Canada’s main “benefit”).
As harms to the teen outrank harms to parents, the teen must have right to override her parents’ wishes.

3) As proved, short and long-term harms of childbirth outweigh dangers of legal abortion and its wake. Alone, by showing abortion is the most sensible option for immature, single, poor girls, we show that enabling anyone to ban them from desired abortion harms society’s and teens’ best interests. Opp gave no benefits of not aborting; we don’t believe there are any so early in one’s life. Therefore, as it is unreasonable to allow parents to violate a right decision, Prop wins.

Moreover, Canada thrice conceded the debate.

1) By dropping parental veto cases as “extremes” which “reformed judicial bypasses can solve”: if we could reform system, so that it’d always grant teen abortions regardless of parental wish, why have the law? As long as we can’t, all harms stay acute.

2) By giving twice pregnant teen moms as “inconsequentially thinking”: clearly, if having kids this young is irrational, danger of veto to abortion is too great to be allowed!

3) By distorting (often nonexistent) proofs, e. g. claims that back-alley abortions are safe (we can’t even find if author exists), that judicial bypass won’t put abortion off (study not about bypasses), or that abortions lead people to substance abuse (nonexistent). That’s unfair in debate mostly about facts v. emotions.

Opposition claims that teens lack consequential thinking because of insufficient brain development, obtain more reliable counseling from parents than from trained specialists, and ultimately have their best interests represented by parents only.

Firstly, negation of teen ability to evaluate consequences of their action – in this case, abortion – rests on (1) claim that teens use amygdala part of the brain and therefore can’t think consequentially, (2) are thus impulsive and impressionable in all cases. The former is blinding by science, an attempt to deny psychological findings by a biological fact, the ilk of denying the existence of airplanes because “humans develop no wings in their lifetime, hence cannot fly”. The latter is a fallacy: abortion is not like deciding to skip homework and go to a party, or even have sex. (Having sex and getting pregnant are not evidence against consequential thinking – it happens to many adults.) Maternity – and abortion – require decision-making that is logically exempt of emotional outbursts; either you want to be a young mother, or you don’t, and for very good reasons. You don’t need to block your amygdala out to do that.

Even if teens were as bad decision-makers as Opposition asserts, what is then more sensible – to allow them to make a decision that will impact them in the short term, like abortion will, or allow them to make long-term decisions about themselves, their parents AND their child?

Secondly, Opposition wants to make sure – that is, legally obligatory – that teens “reach out” for help. Yet, that is what teens do by trying for an abortion! As we pointed out in Contention 5, the reality of the situation is that most teens who don’t inform their parents in consent-requiring have very good reasons for it, amongst them the fact that their parents may not help them but rather exacerbate their situation even further.

Therefore, there is no argument to be made about the necessity of taking final word away from teens.

It is lamentable how Opposition confuses abortion with a momentary whim such as piercings, trips, or even bad habits, as abortion is none of these. Unlike team Canada, we believe that pregnancy cases exist where parental consent for abortion is counterproductive and deplorable.

The fact that parents have to consent to other regular surgeries does not automatically mean that they should do so in the case of abortion. Opposition is asserting again, rather then providing explanation and analysis for their claims. In case of pregnancy and abortion it is the minor who will have to deal with the consequences – parents of the minor will not have to carry the baby for nine months or (in most cases) raise it. Minors can for example consent on their own to services related to childbirth – and even to delivery by cesarean section, a far more dangerous procedure than abortion. Therefore, there can be no health-related reason for denying them the right to consent on their own to abortion. [[Heather Boonstra and Elizabeth Nash, “Minors and the Right to Consent to Health Care” 3 The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 4, 6-7 (Aug. 2000)]]

We agree that abortion is a difficult procedure but so is childbirth. Abortion is actually safer than childbirth (which we assume will happen when parents refuse to consent) and teens are 24 times more likely to die from childbirth than from a legal abortion performed in the first trimester. [[http://tinyurl.com/3yefvge]] If we really have the minor’s best interest in mind, we should give them an opportunity of safe abortion which is denied by requiring parental consent, often leading to back alley abortions as we explained in our fourth argument. The society is ultimately responsible for girls dying or having permanent heath damage because we allowed their parents to interfere in their private life.

Yes, abortion is serious but so are the alternatives. It should be up the minor weigh the risks and decide for herself about her future life.

Having an abortion is far from having a surgery. Not only because of the liabilities, which significantly differ (for the teenage mother and the teenage mother only has the legal obligation to care for her children), but also because of the people we are discussing.

We are talking about families where the consent will not be granted, for that is the only group that will be affected by any such law. These parents will hardly offer any kind of support – be it financial or emotional one. In most cases they have failed as parents – their children are reluctant to even tell them.

All those who have understanding families are consulting them already:” In fact, 90% of minors under 15 involved a parent in their decision to have an abortion. A majority of teens who did not talk to a parent turned to another trusted adult.”[[http://xr.com/c9fj]] We see that even teenage mothers understand the severity of the situation and if the family is working, they will consult them (and if needed will receive the consent); however, the group which will be most affected by this law is consisting of families, where the child cannot trust the adult.

Moreover, because of the legal liability I have adumbrated we may see that parents will not be affected by the fact whether the child has been born or not. There will always be cases (especially in very religious families), where the families will repudiate their daughter because of her pregnancy and thus she will have to take care of her own child without anyone’s support. She will be desperate, moneyless, and alone with her child.

Let us now look how this will affect legal responsibilities – parents (who are responsible for their child only, not for children of their children) will be able to completely overrule decision of their daughter (who will then have the legal responsibility to look after and secure her child). We believe that opposition second-tracks those who are in the vanguard of the impact.

This argument suffers from several significant flaws in logic and factual content.

One, there is the assumption that parents provide the best guidance; in team Canada’s view, parents are the best and most appropriate help just because they “live under the same roof” and “eat at the same table.” This is of course incorrect. Opposition says: “the relationship between parents and their children is vital“ and it is in the perfect world, but in the real world it often isn’t. Numerous families have a huge gap between children and parents, e. g. conservative religious parents and their non believing children. Parents often aren’t willing to discuss and guide their children on the issue, but are more likely to forbid abortion and let children to deal with it on their own.

Planned Parenthood v. Farmer, 762 A.2d 620, 637 (N.J. 2000).
As the New Jersey Supreme Court found when it held that state’s parental notice law unconstitutional, a law “cannot transform a household with poor lines of communication into a paradigm of the perfect American family.”

Secondly, Opposition contradict itself: in contention 1, they said this debate is not about merits of abortions, while here they argue against abortions as a whole and list their negative consequences. We already showed that similar impact can be expected of childbirth or adoption but moreover, this has nothing to do with parental consent, as requiring consent is unlikely to ease these impacts. In fact, parental consent may exacerbate them: Canada cites a US statistics (though inaccessible) but vast majority of the US has parental consent as necessary for abortion.[[http://tinyurl.com/yh956uw]] These girls likely consulted their parents; yet, they became alcoholics and slobs! As we explained, family relationships can be ruined by simple notification that the girl is pregnant or wants to undergo abortion. The cause of alcoholism or drug use isn’t the abortion itself, but more likely the shattered family.

Unless Canada presents good reasons for childbirth against mother’s will, no reason exists for granting her parents a veto right, because anything but abortion is against her best interests. Once again: consent law doesn’t only bar the teen from keeping her mistake a secret (which is a bad thing, as “teens who do not voluntarily consult a parent generally have good reasons not to”, mainly because they may be evicted or beaten[[Stanley K. Henshaw and Kathryn Kost, “Parental Involvement In Minors’ Abortion Decisions,” 24 Family Planning Perspectives 196, 200 (1992), in http://xr.com/c9fj%5D%5D), but also allows parents to force the teen to carry the baby to term. This violates freedom of choice and everyone’s better judgment.

Let’s stop here. Opposition asserts that denial of consent would be exceptional. That is rather the most likely scenario, as “almost two-thirds of Americans (63%) believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances”, and if a relative was to have abortion, “67.4 %” would pass such judgment on her[[http://tinyurl.com/3xpb7jt]] Opposition’s claim that “plenty of conservative folks who do begin to see things in a different light” is just that: a claim. How likely is it that they’ll give up their lifelong values? With 80 % mothers to give birth if denied parental consent to abortion[[http://tinyurl.com/2uwvx8n]], this will cause a lot of unnecessary tragedy.

Moreover, teens who leave their parents out will consult even without consent laws: “majority of teens who did not talk to a parent turned to another trusted adult”[[Henshaw and Kost, 1992]]. With the Opposition figure of “40 %” non-reporting teens nowhere to be found in provided source, though, we wouldn’t worry about that much anyhow: we will stick with the corroborated value of “90% … involved a parent in their decision”[[http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/laws-restricting-teenagers-access-abortion]].

Prior to any refutation, we raise a red flag concerning Opposition’s sources. The first one doesn’t contain the words “hematometra” nor “suicide” at all; the second one throws a 404 error. Sadly, that’s the case with most Canada’s sources.

We had to look up the “large-scale Scandinavian study”[[http://tinyurl.com/37m5ugb]]: it was only done in Finland, where on-demand abortion is illegal[[http://tinyurl.com/39tbdf]], on a sample of 73 women in 1987-1994 – and finds that women who aborted are more likely to commit suicide, which is very far from proving anything at all, let alone debunking the “myth that childbirth is more risky than abortion”. “Acute hematometra” has a 0.1 – 1 % incidence, and is no “immense risk”[[http://tinyurl.com/37xkn9w]]; moreover, breast cancer is not linked to abortion at all, as WHO[[http://tinyurl.com/3xymzd5]] and other organizations[[http://tinyurl.com/36yvp5n]] concede. As for depression, in a 1990 review, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that “severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses,”[[http://tinyurl.com/25c4qpc]] confirming the findings again in 2008[[http://tinyurl.com/39f9pyx]]. As a matter of fact, the most frequent emotion of mothers following abortion is relief[[http://tinyurl.com/398eknh]].

In contrast, risks of death in childbirth, especially for young mothers, are 24 times greater[[http://tinyurl.com/3yefvge]]; plus, we have already explained that damages of carrying baby to term – which 70 % mothers denied consent will do![[http://tinyurl.com/2uwvx8n]] – for both her and her baby.

As this argument relied on assertion that parents can make a better cost-benefit analysis of abortion, and we proved that abortion has lower risks than anything else – why grant veto to allow for an irrational choice? Consent law is only good for misuse and that we reject.

Parental consent is not legally necessary to have a baby, and nor should it be. The ultimate authority over whether to have a baby must be the baby’s mother, not its grandparents. It is absurd to say that someone is old enough to have a baby, but not old enough to have an abortion. The parental consent required for surgery is a legal sham in any case, since in serious cases a refusal can be overridden on medical advice with a court order: in effect, parents can consent to surgery on their children, but cannot withhold their consent. This is not a good example for the proposition.

There are good reasons for not telling parents of a pregnancy. Parents who are opposed to abortion may force their daughter to continue with a pregnancy against her wishes, even at a risk to her health or life. Disclosing that you are pregnant necessarily requires that you disclose that you are sexually active: some parents may disapprove of this to the extent that they throw their daughter out of the house, or become physically or emotionally abusive.

This is irrelevant, because the proposal is not that parents should be able to compel their daughters to have abortions, only that they should be able to veto an abortion. The fact that parents of teenage mothers often play a major role in their grandchildren’s upbringing does not mean that they are allowed to insist that their children should produce grandchildren for them against their will.

This measure is unnecessary for stable and supportive families, in which daughters may well choose to discuss their pregnancy with their parents in any case, and ineffective and cruel in unstable and troubled families, as they do nothing to transform the unhelpful atmosphere in which the daughter is reluctant to tell her parents she is pregnant, and simply make the family situation worse.

Obtaining parental consent necessarily imposes a delay into the abortion process, which increases the likelihood of complications: generally speaking, the earlier in pregnancy an abortion takes place, the safer it is. Necessary safeguards such as judicial waivers introduce even more delays – at least 22 days in the US. For the sake of the mother’s health, it is better not to require parental consent.

Placing an age boundary after which a woman no longer needs to obtain parental consent, say at 16 or 18, may encourage a woman just below that age to wait until her birthday before seeking a legal abortion – again, the later the abortion, the more dangerous it is. The law is not good at allowing for individual circumstances, especially when it is required to make quick decisions, so it is unlikely to mitigate the impact of new rules.

There are various rational reasons why a child might not want to tell her parents she is pregnant, such as foreseeable parental disapproval. Requiring her to tell her parents may encourage her to run away from home. In the US, there have been numerous examples of teenagers crossing state lines to states which do not require parental consent or notification in order to get abortions – this could happen in Europe too (indeed, many Irish women already travel to Britain seeking abortions, which are banned in Eire). A teenager may also seek an unregulated ‘backstreet’ abortion or try to carry out an abortion on herself – both of which are highly dangerous. These factors account in large part for the fall in recorded teenage abortions in US states with similar laws.

Campaigns for sexual abstinence and contraceptive awareness are to be encouraged, but should not be an alternative to abortion provision. No sensible person would choose abortion as a good alternative to contraception, because it is more dangerous, more traumatic and harder to obtain than contraceptives – it is a necessary last resort. If sexual abstinence is not a sensible reaction to abortion being made more inaccessible, then making abortion more inaccessible is not a sensible way of increasing sexual abstinence.