Trying to Prevent Teen Abortions Leads to Allowing Parents to Force Teens into Abortions. Huh?

One of Jill of Feministe's talents is her ability to take almost anything and turn it into a reason not to support either prolife legislation or attack the prolife movement. The case of two parents trying to force their daughter into an abortion is a perfect example.

And it would do them well to consider the fact that a government which can take away your right to prevent pregnancy can also take away your right to carry pregnancies to term. Laws which require parental consent for abortion or birth control can easily be taken a step further and require parental consent for childbirth.

I don't where to begin here. Let's start with misleading generalizations. Your right to prevent pregnancy taken away? I was unaware the United States banned the right for teens to abstain from sex. Did Congress pass some compulsory-sex-before-18 legislation over the weekend? Or have teens be banned from obtaining condoms? If so, Planned Parenthood would probably be in a lot of trouble for giving them away to teens for free. I'm guessing Jill is referring to some attempts to have parental consent for contraceptives but according to The Center for Reproductive Rights: "No Law Currently Requires Parental Consent for Contraception."

This is also an example of the slippery slope fallacy but strange since the goals of one type of legislation (parental consent laws for abortion) would be the exact opposite of forcing teens to have abortions. There is absolutely no reason to think that a government which understands that minors shouldn't have abortions without some kind of parental involvement will then move to allow parents to force their teens to have abortions.

That is unless you're the delusional type who thinks the prolife movement doesn't care about saving unborn children but is really led by crazy, patriarchal men whose sole goal is to control women.

In her post, Jill also fails to substantiate her claim that parental consent laws don't lower abortion rates among minors. She simply asserts it, doesn't link to anything or provide reasoning and leaves it at that. Kind of reminds of me of most NARAL "fact sheets."

What's also strange here is that the woman in question is 19 years old. She's not a minor. So she wouldn't even be effected by parental consent legislation if she wanted to have an abortion.

Instead of seeing this case for what it is - two sick individuals trying to force their daughter to kill her own child because they dislike the father of child - Jill turns this situation into a way to attack prolifers.

I will continue to hope that some pro-choice bloggers will attempt to veer away from trying to take illogical cheap shots at the prolifers.