Maturity has little to do with having a child. It has much to do with caring for a child, but not for giving birth to a child. Many immature girls give birth to children every year. If a girl is considered too immature to care for a child, then the child could be put up for adoption, or cared for by the girl's parents. These options are a lot less extreme than abortion and puts less pressure on the girl. Maturity is not a question when it comes to giving birth. Immature girls getting pregnant and giving birth to children is a reality and a measure that is taken to save lives. Whether the girl is mature enough to care for the child is a solely different question.
It is more a matter of what is right and what is not. Abortion should not be an option unless one was subjected to rape. Abortion is murder, whether one admits it or not. If someone puts themselves in a situation where pregnancy is a possible outcome then they must live with the consequence. If they are not considered mature enough to sufficiently raise the child then they may put it up for adoption, that is what the court should decide.
If this girl is dumb enough to get knocked up, then no. She shouldn't be allowed an abortion. NOW. In the event of it being caused by rape, then she should have the decision to do as she pleases with it. Otherwise, it's her own fault and she should deal with the consequences.
Sex is an easy act, going through bodily changes, being fed on by what is essentially a parasitic organism, going through major health risks, and the possibility of death isn't. Not that anyone without a womb would understand in their 'punish the little hussy with all that crap for having sex I didn't approve of' mindset.
Sex does not require so-called maturity; having, and then deciding to raise or adopt out a child does. If you can't trust someone to be 'mature enough' (a sixteen year old girl no less, who knows her own body more than anyone else could) to make a choice for themselves, how can you trust them with a child that you forced on them?
After all, a non-sentient fetus that has been carried and birthed unwillingly will grow into a sentient child, and both parent and kid will feel negative effects.
The Nebraska Supreme Court recently denied a pregnant sixteen-year old an abortion, ruling her "not sufficiently mature" to make the decision herself. Seriously? Not mature enough to decide to have an abortion, but mature enough to birth and raise a baby? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
And more importantly, why do we even have a system that lets the courts make important health decisions for individual women?
This entire thing is absurd.
How on earth is raising a child easier than having an abortion? FREE AND SAFE AND LEGAL ABORTIONS FOR ALL! I can't even believe all of these neanderthals on here who want to impose their artificial morals on everyone else. We need comprehensive sex education in this country, along with widespread, legal abortion access.
It makes no sense to say she's mature enough to keep and child rather than not. It takes more responsibility to raise a child. She would definitely be entering "adulthood" if she kept the baby. If you're agreeing with this statement, you're basically saying she's not mature enough to keep her childhood.
Having something means that you can (or at the very least, are assuming the responsibility for) take(ing) care of them (who would own something they don't want to take care of?), however if you aren't able to have it, than you may or may not be able to take care of it (I can't own a gun, but I understand how to clean them, and be safe with them), it is not a definite yes or no. In the case of an abortion, the logic then follows, if you are not allowed to get rid of something you don't want (you can't get rid of the vegetables on your plate, but you don't like vegetables), than once again, you may or may not be mature enough to use (or in this case, eat) it (you might just whine, or you may deal with it and consume the vegetables).
The real question is: "...Could she be considered mature enough to have a child?"
Kids are kids, again, it the girl lacks the maturity to have an abortion she will be even more immature to give birth, let alone raise a kid up. And again, since the girl is a kid, she is dependent on her parents who ends up paying for the kid's education.
It takes a lot more maturity to be pregnant and give birth that it does to have an abortion. Regardless of whether one keeps the child or gives it up for adoption, both of those choices still take a *lot* more maturity than having a medical procedure to remove a non-conscious mass from your body. You can't legally give informed consent to have a medical procedure performed on you, but you can 'consent' to have a child or give it up for adoption? Are you serious?
And remember, this question is not asking about the 'morality' of abortion, and has nothing to do with the fetus' supposed rights as a 'person'(which it isn't until 26 weeks). This question is *only* talking about the maturity of the girl who is actually pregnant and giving birth. Simply, it is a violation of consent and bodily autonomy, among other inviolable rights, to force a woman to be pregnant and give birth against her will, let alone a girl we are considering 'immature' for all other intents and purposes.
If one claims a teenage girl is too young to have an abortion, why on EARTH would she be old enough to be responsible for the lifelong care of a vulnerable child? Or to go through the trials of a pregnancy and a birth?
This is the kind of backwards thinking that makes anti-choice proponents so ridiculous.
It doesn't make much sense to not allow abortion especially in younger girls! A child would completely ruin a childs education, school is stressful as it is! Try adding angry parents and a child to take care of, plus (in some cases) a physically and emotionally abused girl due to rape. Abortion should always be an option for girls, especially girls under the age of 20 or so. Girls, even if it's their own fault, should not have their entire lives and education ruined.