Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: vyper on April 30, 2005, 11:44:21 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4500245.stm
[q]A pregnant 13-year-old girl in Florida has been told she cannot have an abortion because she lacks the maturity to make such a decision.
A state court granted an injunction which prevents the girl from terminating her pregnancy.
She is three months pregnant and had planned to have an abortion on Tuesday of this week.
The American Civil Liberties Union says it will launch an urgent appeal against the ruling[/q]
Next time the yanks complain about other nations being sexist, cruel or opressive I'm whipping this baby out (no pun intended). This is a ****ing joke.
-
Florida...... yeah. Sounds right.
Although I should really say "America..... yeah... sounds right"
-
So they think she has the maturity to be a mother? Yeah...
-
She was mature enough to have sex! (or not... lol)
-
So begins the baby farms.
-
I'm wondering several things... a) what is her parents stance? b) how did she become pregnant? c) isn't any sex under the age of consent considered something like statutory rape? (I'm not sure if this applies to same-age) d) if she wanted to keep the baby, and her parents did not, would this have been taken to court? e) if her parents do/did want her to abort (supported her decision), would the court have done the same?
-
B) She had un-protected sex.
C) If the guy was same age, then probably no.
-
b) no ****, sherlock. What i mean is, what were the circumstances of it? Was it consensual, was it with someone of the same age, etc.
-
Thing is, all this means is that the baby will end up going into care or being killed. Remember when there was the 'one child per family' rule in China?
When they drained the village Paddy fields, they found thousands of drowned newborn girls, because all the families wanted baby boys because you didn't have to pay a dowry. Trying to impose similiar constraints on Birth control in Florida will only lead to the same sort of results.
-
OK, they do have a point on this one. She's thirteen. I was watching Pokemon when I was that age, hardly in a position to decide on just a serious matter.
However, it would be equally to make her have the baby. It's a grey area, but I definitely don't think thirteen year olds are fully capable of understanding the situation, unless they're especially smart.
-
So what, the state can force her to become a mother at that age?
-
True, and yet she is expected to be responsible for, and raise, a child. So she holds the childs life in her hands either way. It will be an unwanted, unloved child, that will grow up knowing it's mother tried to get rid of it before it was born (this is assuming she doesn't decide to take a more radical approach to destroy the foetus). What sort of life do you see ahead of it?
I give it 2-3 weeks before either :-
'Pregnant 13 year old commits suicide'
'Pregnant 13 year dies in Backstreet abortion'
or any other gruesome story of choice.
-
I see the girl either topping herself or finding some way to get rid of the child.
-
LOL Spooky, you posted as I edited ;)
-
Presumably, she doesn't have a competent legal guardian to make an 'adult' decision and help clear this sort of thing up; otherwise there'd be no right for the court to intervene.
So... I guess what will happen is that she'll be made to carry & have the baby, and it'll be taken into care at birth. It doesn't strike me as a particularly humane solution.
Ultimately, IMO the issue is pretty clear; would it be taken to court if she decided to keep the child?
Because she's not any more able to make that decision than any about abortion (and is arguably even less equipped to have and raise a child) - so all I can see is that this legal action has been taken simply because the state does not approve of this particular decision in moral terms. And in that context, it's clearly the wrong action.
-
First, parents have legal rights over a child. That doesn't mean that the child doesn't have rights. But if the parents are responsible to take care of the child(feed, clothe, and shelter) why should they not have a say in such situations as this.
Second, adoption is an alternative. There are plenty of loving familys that can't have children that would love to adopt a baby.
-
And where does the mother's opinion fit into this?
I can imagine when she turns 18...
'Oh, heres that baby you didn't want, you can feel free to get rid of it now'. The ruling is based on the 'Abortion is Murder' idea, which is a religious position, to enforce on people who don't believe the same is..... silly.
-
Frankly I don't think her opinion really does. I think her opinion would matter in shoosing an adoptive family. It is also worth asking the parents how she got into this situation in the first place.
-
Less than 100 years ago the average age of a mother in developed countries was 13-14. In many countries it still is.
Taking a mothers options away regarding her own body and having to carry and give birth to the child within it is a scary thing for any government to do.
I do agree that her parents, who are accepting responsiblity for the baby have shown an amazing lack of responsiblity in educating their own daughter.
-
If she is not financially responsible for her self and able to care for her self, I am not really sure she can make the descion for her self.
Like the stupid ruling in Oregon regaurding privacy of a minor. A girl should have a right of privacy in her room, on a phone, in a house that she does not pay for. I disagree with that ruling for same economic reasons.
-
I agree that is stupid, since parents will be held responsible if the child is keeping drugs in her room etc, and in a way it is a parents job to be a nosy bastard ;)
However, this is not something that she can go to a clinic and kick the habit for or the like. And her level of finances has little to do with her wishes as to whether she actually want's to have the baby. If the court considers her body capable of carrying and delivering the baby, then her body must also be capable of terminating it. It seems like one heck of a lifetime punishment for having underage sex.
Edit : Considering she is living in a country where she can choose whether to have the child or not.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
First, parents have legal rights over a child. That doesn't mean that the child doesn't have rights. But if the parents are responsible to take care of the child(feed, clothe, and shelter) why should they not have a say in such situations as this.
That would be dependent upon who the parents - or legal guardians - are/were. I don't know what the parents' position is; it's not stated in the news story.
Originally posted by redmenace
Second, adoption is an alternative. There are plenty of loving familys that can't have children that would love to adopt a baby.
The/a primary choice is between carrying or not carrying a developing child at what is a very young age; what the mental ability is to carry that child in a responsible way, and the psychological consequences of it (and others responses to it).
AFAIK a 13-year old cannot be a legal guardian of a child; thus the choice is between having the child and having it 'taken away', or aborting it.
Of course, another issue is that it is direct contradiction to an existing law to block the abortion, even temporarily.
-
As.. foolish as it seems that she got pregnant I really can't see how they'll be doing any good by forcing her to have this unwanted child. At this stage at least, it's not to late to prevent her from potentially ruining her life at a young age, placing a massive strain on her parents and on her child when it's born. By the time the newborn is 12 she'll be only 25... it'll be an incredibly hard life that is being forced on her.
-
All I know is that if it had happened in any other state other than Florida there wouldn't have been a word said about it by the courts or the media. If you ask me it's just like California the state is wanting attention whether it be negative or positve.
-
An abortion at 13 can't be any better. And ignoring the rights of the parents isn't either.
-
Originally posted by Swantz
All I know is that if it had happened in any other state other than Florida there wouldn't have been a word said about it by the courts or the media. If you ask me it's just like California the state is wanting attention whether it be negative or positve.
Not true, virginia for instance would probably intervene.
-
Lets hope the ACLU can pull this off. I say, if it's her baby in her body, it's her choice. What if you had something growing inside of you, and you wanted it gone, but some court descision said you are to 'irresponsible' to control something within your own body? Thats just not right IMO.
-
That is just retarded. I completely agree with KappaWing
-
That's why she should give it up for adoption. Why the hell is a 13 year old girl having sex for anyway?
-
Originally posted by redmenace
An abortion at 13 can't be any better. And ignoring the rights of the parents isn't either.
Can you actually point out what the parents said? Not only have I not read anything from them, I've not even seen an indication they know or even are capable of judging.
EDIt; alright. She doesn't have parents per se, or at least not that were legally competent or capable of making such a decision; she was living in a state shelter, from which she had ran away several times (during the last of which she became pregnant).
i believe arrangements for the abortion were made by a social services worker, although the caseworker (any caseworker) does not have the legal ability to provide consent for abortion (or deny it).
(end edit)
If an abortion at 13 proves to be traumatic, or in some way psychologically damaging, at least she has the knowledge that it was her choice. I think that would count for something in terms of 'recovery' from that.
-
And delivering a baby at 13 isn't going to be traumatic? :wtf:
-
She could (if feaseable) find a way to a different state, and it might be passed there. Florida's state court doesn't pass outside of florida afterall...
-
Originally posted by Hippo
She could (if feaseable) find a way to a different state, and it might be passed there. Florida's state court doesn't pass outside of florida afterall...
Given that under Florida law minors are allowed to have abortions without parental consent, I wouldn't be sure.
-
Let's face it, they need taxpayers and soldiers to help clear that national debt ;)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Given that under Florida law minors are allowed to have abortions without parental consent, I wouldn't be sure.
That's just wrong. Why is this particular minor an exeption? A jugde's duty is to inforce the law, not go against it.
-
yeah really... :doubt:
EDIT: oops... typed :donut: :p
-
LOL If that is the case, how did it even end up in front of a court in the first place?
-
As Shi pointed out on #nodewar, what about Roe vs. Wade? Wasn't that for legalization of abortions?
-
Can someone explain to me why there is demand (couples unable to have children), potential supply (unwanted (??!?) children), and yet no connection between the two on a large scale?
There are plenty of emotional trauma cases from women who, for whatever reasons, decided to have an abortion, and regretted it ever since. They don't want / can't take care of the baby? Fine - there's plenty of loving couples who would love to, and at least the biological mother wouldn't have the emotional trauma of putting one of her offspring to death.
-
That's because there aren't enough loving couples for all 1.3 million aborted babies a year.
-
Originally posted by KappaWing
That's just wrong. Why is this particular minor an exeption? A jugde's duty is to inforce the law, not go against it.
Political expediency I'd wager; basically, they (US / state government) want to change the law but can't (presumably for constitutional reasons or similar), so they want to have a test case that will allow them to circumvent said law.
Roe vs Wade established that laws against abortion constituted a violation of privacy; thus overturning all laws against abortion. 'Jane Roe' was IIRC a pseudonym which eventually emcompassed several plantiffs. The 'original' Jane Roe (real name Norma McConvery or similar IIRC) has since become a born-again Christian and campaigned against abortion, which someone would probably mentioned sooner rather than later (so I'll pre-empt them); however, the decision itself is not based upon (AFAIK) a single idividual case but rather by the text of the US Constitution so IMO it's not really a valid point in the whole abortion arguement.
To be fair, this particular case is not against abortion per se (although it's obviously a step in the anti-choice / prohibition direction and probably calculated as such); it's being presented as judging the ability and right of a 13-year old to make such a decision as to have an abortion (yet presumably not judging the ability to decide not to abort). It's not decided; there's an injunction been granted for psychological evaluation of the 13-year old; but it's still an ominous step IMO if the state feels so free to try and 'step in' to regulate decisions it disagrees with.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Can someone explain to me why there is demand (couples unable to have children), potential supply (unwanted (??!?) children), and yet no connection between the two on a large scale?
There are plenty of emotional trauma cases from women who, for whatever reasons, decided to have an abortion, and regretted it ever since. They don't want / can't take care of the baby? Fine - there's plenty of loving couples who would love to, and at least the biological mother wouldn't have the emotional trauma of putting one of her offspring to death.
Well, part of the purpose of procreation is to spread your genetic material.... there's often (I think) a desire not just to have a child, but to have your child.
In terms of post-abortion trauma.... that's something which can be applied in many ways to different things; what of the trauma of a raped mother who raises a child whose existance reminds here of that rape? Or who simply can't handle a child for psychological reasons (one of the medical 'permissions' for abortion is the risk of psychological damage to the pregnant women)?
Pregnancy is not just a case of have a shag, wait 9 months or so and see what pops out.... the act of carrying a developing child will have its own psychological effect.
And besides which, why does it matter if a women regrets the decision to have an abortion? It's not the states duty to regulate our lives and stop us doing things we might regret; ultimately all the state should do is let us know - in a fair and unequivocal way - the consequences of what we choose to do (and not to do).
Finally 'put to death' is an emotive and inaccurate term; the fundamental (or one of them) in abortion is whether or not the foetus can be considered alive atall. Using that phraseology implies there is a definitive conclusion (and there isn't), and attempts to place moral baggage upon the opposing side of the arguement.
-
Plus it's not as simple as whether she raises the child or not sandwich, it's whether she carries the ****ing thing for 9 months.
If there's one thing that riles me up it's prolifers that seem to think a woman should have the child, go through that emotionally and physically traumatic experience only to spend the rest of her life instinctively longing for that child back even if she knows she had to give it up.
-
What we really need here, I reckon, is a few female voices on both sides of the fence.
-
Sadly the only female member we had I recall being on the pro-choice side with any conviction was Tiara. And when was the last time she posted eh?
-
Originally posted by vyper
If there's one thing that riles me up it's prolifers that seem to think a woman should have the child, go through that emotionally and physically traumatic experience only to spend the rest of her life instinctively longing for that child back even if she knows she had to give it up.
I find it ironic that we live in such an incredible age of contradictions and hypocrisy. One the one hand, our (read: America's) "justice" system is so overblown that we have this amazingly complex set of rules, regulations, precedents, and what have you to make sure that whomever the case is against has to deal with the consequences of their actions.
On the other hand, we resort to what some people consider murder to avoid having to have women deal with the consequences of their actions (I'm not talking about rape pregnancies, mind you). God forbid that they should learn to take responsibility for their actions. :rolleyes:
Completely aside, does anyone know where I can get that advert that had this little kid being an absolute horror, throwing a tantrum in a store, etc, and ended with "Use a condom" (or something like that)?
-
Originally posted by vyper
If there's one thing that riles me up it's prolifers that seem to think a woman should have the child, go through that emotionally and physically traumatic experience only to spend the rest of her life instinctively longing for that child back even if she knows she had to give it up.
And aborting a pregnancy is better. So instead of knowing that your child is alive and living well in a family that could care for it better than you ever could, afford it more opportunity for sucess etc., the person aborts the "non-person" going through life knowing that they are responcible for ending a beating heart and/or a developing life. While a loving couple go on childless. I should also mention these couples that desire a child compensate the person in full for nine months of pregnancy. Unfortunatly people are not aware of all the options. People like Planned Parenthood don't promote it enough as a viable option. Additionally, I would not make the mistake of thinking that the regret of abortion is less than regret of adoption. I have spoken to couples who have had their child aborted. They say, if they could do all over, they would keep the child. To be frank, it is a tramatic experience for a man and a woman.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Finally 'put to death' is an emotive and inaccurate term; the fundamental (or one of them) in abortion is whether or not the foetus can be considered alive atall. Using that phraseology implies there is a definitive conclusion (and there isn't), and attempts to place moral baggage upon the opposing side of the arguement.
IIRC, many pro-lifers claim that life starts at the zygote. These crusaders are backed up by scientists some of them are even pro choice. I think the real debate is if a live zygote is equal to the value of a human being. Even if the zygote is alive, like these scientists say, IMO the value of life can be gauged based on how far the baby has developed... I woulden't care if I was terminated as a zygote or even a partially developed baby, because I wouldent have the brains to care about anything. You get what I'm sayin?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Finally 'put to death' is an emotive and inaccurate term; the fundamental (or one of them) in abortion is whether or not the foetus can be considered alive atall. Using that phraseology implies there is a definitive conclusion (and there isn't), and attempts to place moral baggage upon the opposing side of the arguement.
Let me put it plainly for you then. You're an astronaut on the first manned mission to Mars. You get there and discover a native martian fetus, dead (ok, zero active biological functions :rolleyes: ) and rotting in the sand. But hey, too bad fetuses aren't considered alive, eh? You might have gone down in the history books as the discoverer of life on Mars.
That's my definition of "alive".
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I find it ironic that we live in such an incredible age of contradictions and hypocrisy. One the one hand, our (read: America's) "justice" system is so overblown that we have this amazingly complex set of rules, regulations, precedents, and what have you to make sure that whomever the case is against has to deal with the consequences of their actions.
On the other hand, we resort to what some people consider murder to avoid having to have women deal with the consequences of their actions (I'm not talking about rape pregnancies, mind you). God forbid that they should learn to take responsibility for their actions. :rolleyes:
In a sense, many are taking reponsibility for their actions - what makes you think women who decide to have an abortion do so lightly?
The main thing you point out is 'some people'. The law, as it stands, respects that view; it just also respects the views of the other people, and gives them a choice.
-
Originally posted by KappaWing
I woulden't care if I was terminated as a zygote or even a partially developed baby, because I wouldent have the brains to care about anything. You get what I'm sayin?
No offense, but that's an incredibly stupid statement. You didn't have the brains to care about anything (none of us did) even at a few months out of the womb. Oh, sure, we cry when hungry or in pain, but do you somehow think that that is some ability or change that happens to us during the Big Move/Squeeze? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
No offense, but that's an incredibly stupid statement. You didn't have the brains to care about anything (none of us did) even at a few months out of the womb. Oh, sure, we cry when hungry or in pain, but do you somehow think that that is some ability or change that happens to us during the Big Move/Squeeze? :rolleyes:
First, let's define 'care'. When I say care, I mean feel. If a baby is in pain, it cries. It cares about how it feels.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
In a sense, many are taking reponsibility for their actions - what makes you think women who decide to have an abortion do so lightly?
The main thing you point out is 'some people'. The law, as it stands, respects that view; it just also respects the views of the other people, and gives them a choice.
Well, I will say it is hard to find an unbiased source for these women.
Woman goes to Planned Parenthood:"Abortion is your only alternative. Here I will even drive you to the clinic
Woman goes to Crisis Pregnance Center:"Keep the baby, we will even do an ultrasound for you. And here is some baby clothes, crib etc. for you. Also take some literature about adoption.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Let me put it plainly for you then. You're an astronaut on the first manned mission to Mars. You get there and discover a native martian fetus, dead (ok, zero active biological functions :rolleyes: ) and rotting in the sand. But hey, too bad fetuses aren't considered alive, eh? You might have gone down in the history books as the discoverer of life on Mars.
That's my definition of "alive".
Let me put this in another way.
Bacteria are said to be alive, a fetus is alive, every biological entity is in one way or another alive. However, when we discuss "alive" here, we mean if it's considered to be a human life.
And also, a person discovering a dead fetus (dead in biological sense) isn't discovering life at all.... afterall, it's dead! :p
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
In a sense, many are taking reponsibility for their actions - what makes you think women who decide to have an abortion do so lightly?
:wtf: That's not taking responsibility. Yeah, it's undoubtable a tough decision to make, but responsibility lies along the other path. Living with the results of your actions.
"I can screw around with every Tom, Dick, and Harry as much as I want, and it doesn't matter, cuz if I get pregnant, I can just have an abortion." Doesn't sound like taking responsibility to me. And aldo, no offense, but if that fits your definition of "taking responsibility", you need to re-evaluate your understanding of the phrase IMHO.
-
Originally posted by KappaWing
First, let's define 'care'. When I say care, I mean feel. If a baby is in pain, it cries. It cares about how it feels.
Exactly my point - you think that a baby in the womb doesn't react to pain if exposed to it? There's no magical "turn on pain receptors" switch during childbirth.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
No offense, but that's an incredibly stupid statement. You didn't have the brains to care about anything (none of us did) even at a few months out of the womb. Oh, sure, we cry when hungry or in pain, but do you somehow think that that is some ability or change that happens to us during the Big Move/Squeeze? :rolleyes:
It is kinda clowdy when does a "fetus" actually feel pain. some say 22 weeks others say 8 weeks.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Let me put this in another way.
Bacteria are said to be alive, a fetus is alive, every biological entity is in one way or another alive. However, when we discuss "alive" here, we mean if it's considered to be a human life.
"Oh, honey.... I'm pregnant!"
"Sweetheart, that's incredible! Boy or girl, do you know?"
"Neither, silly - it's not a human yet!"
Yeah.
Originally posted by Ghostavo
And also, a person discovering a dead fetus (dead in biological sense) isn't discovering life at all.... afterall, it's dead! :p
Yeah, yeah, I was kinda hoping nobody would be picky enough to point that out. I only said "dead" to avoid questions of "how would a fetus be able to survive in the Martian atmosphere??" But then I changed it to "Martian fetus", and forgot to take out the "dead" part. :p
-
Thing is, the court is saying she's not mature enough to not have the child but is mature enough to have the child. It's double standards and takes choice away.
If it's based on a personal 'Pro-life' bias, and is being forced on someone else, that's no better.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
:wtf: That's not taking responsibility. Yeah, it's undoubtable a tough decision to make, but responsibility lies along the other path. Living with the results of your actions.
"I can screw around with every Tom, Dick, and Harry as much as I want, and it doesn't matter, cuz if I get pregnant, I can just have an abortion." Doesn't sound like taking responsibility to me. And aldo, no offense, but if that fits your definition of "taking responsibility", you need to re-evaluate your understanding of the phrase IMHO.
Maybe you should have some respect for the people who take actions you disagree with, first. you're making a massive sweeping generalization about the motivations and thought processes of these women, using the result to insult them, and then claiming moral high ground.
Responsibility is facing the situation they are in, and making a decision based upon it. Just because you don't like the decision, you can't write it - and them - off. They make the decision, they face the consequences, and that's what I define as taking responsibility.
I respect your opinion. I don't respect you regarding & effectively describing women who take this incredibly ****ing tough decision - arguably tougher than any of us will make in our lives - as some kind of emotionless 2-bit whore. And yeah, maybe some very few are. But not all.
And I'm sorry if that sounds pissed off, but that's how I feel.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
"I can screw around with every Tom, Dick, and Harry as much as I want, and it doesn't matter, cuz if I get pregnant, I can just have an abortion." Doesn't sound like taking responsibility to me. And aldo, no offense, but if that fits your definition of "taking responsibility", you need to re-evaluate your understanding of the phrase IMHO.
Well, I've seen a statistic (this was from a fact sheet I found on the World Health Organization website) that 54% of people who get abortions were using contraceptives. So they were at least trying to be responsible. Labeling everyone who gets an abortion as a slut who's been sleeping around with everyone freely seems rather unfair.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
"Oh, honey.... I'm pregnant!"
"Sweetheart, that's incredible! Boy or girl, do you know?"
"Neither, silly - it's not a human yet!"
Yeah.
ah... the problems of reducing a sentence and having something... how do you call it in english... sub-entendido?
"Boy or girl, do you know?"
this is the same as
"Is it a boy or a girl?"
which in turn is further amplified to the final original form of
"Is it going to be a boy or a girl?"
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Exactly my point - you think that a baby in the womb doesn't react to pain if exposed to it? There's no magical "turn on pain receptors" switch during childbirth.
Incorrect. As a zygote, a baby obviously cannot feel. It has no nerves, it has no brain. It is merely a sperm burrowed into an egg. Fast forward a few weeks to a partially developed baby. Still no feeling... Somewhere between there and a fully developed baby, the 'switch' you refer to has to flick on.
-
Will someone send that poor kid a coathanger already?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Maybe you should have some respect for the people who take actions you disagree with, first. you're making a massive sweeping generalization about the motivations and thought processes of these women, using the result to insult them, and then claiming moral high ground.
Responsibility is facing the situation they are in, and making a decision based upon it. Just because you don't like the decision, you can't write it - and them - off. They make the decision, they face the consequences, and that's what I define as taking responsibility.
I respect your opinion. I don't respect you regarding & effectively describing women who take this incredibly ****ing tough decision - arguably tougher than any of us will make in our lives - as some kind of emotionless 2-bit whore. And yeah, maybe some very few are. But not all.
And I'm sorry if that sounds pissed off, but that's how I feel.
Let me put it this way. You forge a few thousand dollars/pounds/whatevers, fully aware that you might be found out, and would then have to take responsibility for your actions. A few weeks go by, and then you're found out and brought before a court. How is it conceivable then that you would be able to say to the court, "Just give me the money back and I'll burn the bills, no harm done"?? Is that "taking responsibility"? It's taking the "easy", irresponsible way out.
The analogy isn't perfect, mind you, but I trust it helps you see why I see this issue the way I do.
Now I'm going to bed.
-
Originally posted by Annorax
Will someone send that poor kid a coathanger already?
:wtf:
Why? To hang a coat on?
-
Actually it helps show how poorly you understand the situation. The woman having an abortion isn't just saying "oh, I can get another one - let's just get rid of this thing". Most women go through a whole storm of emotions when they are faced with a decision like this and know full well what they are doing - and show incredible emotional strength to pull through.
You seem to think by being flippant and glib in your analogies and comparisons that you somehow prove these women are somehow amoral cowards of some sort - instead you make yourself sound like an insensitive single minded son of a ***** who might know something about war, but knows nothing about real life or the consequences for a woman being forced to carry a child she doesn't want.
-
Originally posted by Hippo
:wtf:
Why? To hang a coat on?
She'll need to put her coat somewhere when she watches her life get ruined I guess.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Let me put it this way. You forge a few thousand dollars/pounds/whatevers, fully aware that you might be found out, and would then have to take responsibility for your actions. A few weeks go by, and then you're found out and brought before a court. How is it conceivable then that you would be able to say to the court, "Just give me the money back and I'll burn the bills, no harm done"?? Is that "taking responsibility"? It's taking the "easy", irresponsible way out.
The analogy isn't perfect, mind you, but I trust it helps you see why I see this issue the way I do.
Now I'm going to bed.
I don't view that as a valid analogy; I view it as artificially reducing one side to be simpler than it is, to be 'cost free' to the person, to make it look to be the wrong one. The entire concept of the 'easy' way isn't valid. It's what is the best way, what is the right way. That's a personal choice, made based on personal circumstances, I would never seek to take that away.
And I believe that describing it as the 'easy way' is just the easy way out of addressing different views, a trivialization to make arguements easier via lazy characterisation. I don't think any of us - male at least and especialy - have any right or ability to dictate what the 'easy way' is.
If someone can ever define life, write it down on paper without any reasonable scientific dissent, and then say 'it happens here', then I'll support the banning of abortion after that point, even if that point turns out to be at conception itself.
But only if and when it's proven; I would not force my beliefs of when that time is upon others, nor would I accept the forcing of others beliefs of that upon me. And because this is a question of that belief, that is why I always true and choose to decide based upon what is unequivocal, what isn't already prejudged and assumed by either myself or others.
-
All I can say (or will say) is BLAME THE PARENTS!'
OPS,, in this case that would mean FLORIDA....
Yet another shining example of how well Florida's Department of Children are taking care of their precious charges (vomits)...
IF I was Jeb Bush I would be VERY VERY VERY f'ing embarressed (one cause of this story, and two for being a Bush)..
Nuff said... (and you guys know I only post a political statement like once a year)...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
But only if and when it's proven; I would not force my beliefs of when that time is upon others, nor would I accept the forcing of others beliefs of that upon me.
And I suppose the fetus doesn't appreciate other people forcing on it the belief that it isn't alive.
You argue that the fetus isn't alive? Fine, prove it. You argue that the fetus is alive? Fine, prove it (as some people have, to the satisfaction of some but not others). You say you don't know? Then the only moral and ethical option is to assume the fetus is alive and act accordingly.
-
Jeez, where do I start?
If this turns into another Terry Schiavo, I'm going to bust some TV's.
"Neither, silly - it's not a human yet!"
Everyone has their own beliefs as to when a baby is human/sentient. However, I have one thing to say about this--OK, two things. Back in high school, I remember seeing in my biology book pictures of a human fetus and a few animals fetuses side-by-side. They all looked very similar, so I agree with that statement. Second, I don't believe the baby has a soul until it is born, but that's just my beliefs. You can believe whatever you want.
I firmly believe the state has no right to decide whether even a 13-year-old can or cannot have an abortion, as it is her body. I wouldn't like being unable to control my body. No one is forcing her to get an abortion, but she is being forced to have a child now. Not every person is the same, she could be more mature than the average person her age, not necessarily true but possible. Not everyone is watching Pokemon or Ninja Turtles. Generalizing all young people as being immature is ignorant.
She'll need to put her coat somewhere when she watches her life get ruined I guess.
Back in the day when abortions were illegal, women used to perform them on themselves with coat hangers, a very dangerous method.
Also, this thread is in serious need of
(http://www.cliser.net/images_cont/d_01.jpg).
This thread has had total communication breakdown. You guys aren't arguing. You're just telling each other that your way is better and making personal attacks as well now. Stop talking out of your asses and attempt to prove your statements! Oh, and listen too!
Grr, I don't have the keys to the plasma rifle locker. Where's an admin or that hyperintelligent cloud when you need it.
By the way admin, I recommend we have pics like this for threads.
That's it, I'm done.
*Drops a plasma grenade and leaves*
-
well frankly this thread has gone better than some others concerning this very topic
-
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that many of the people claiming that at the age of 13 she is incapable of choosing to have an abortion are the same people who would claim that at 13 she could be tried as an adult had she committed a crime and sentenced to death?
To be honest I'd agree that at 13 she is very young to have an abortion. What she needs is some councilling from a neutral party who will help her choose the best route for her.
Unfortunately there is no way you could possibly do that because the anti-abortionists would all jump in and try to get these councilling positions so that they could push their agenda on the poor children in this situation.
Which basically means that incapable of deciding or not it's up to her to make the choice either on her own or after talking to whichever adults she chooses to trust.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
And I suppose the fetus doesn't appreciate other people forcing on it the belief that it isn't alive.
You argue that the fetus isn't alive? Fine, prove it. You argue that the fetus is alive? Fine, prove it (as some people have, to the satisfaction of some but not others). You say you don't know? Then the only moral and ethical option is to assume the fetus is alive and act accordingly.
That's your definition of the 'only moral and ethical option', based upon your presupposition/s. Again, all I ask is (for myself and others) to have the freedom to make my own decision towards that.
And, incidentally, proof has to be complete, unequivocal and unquestionable for it to be fairly applied to everyone. So long as legitimate, factual dissent exists, it's simply a theory.
-
I say leave the decision up to the women. After all, what right do we men have to decide what they should or should not do with their bodies? Sure there´s the moral consideration, but alas the woman´s desires, fears, and possible complications of carrying out a pregnancy are always neglected.
It´s easy for a man to say "she´s a coward, she´s killing a living being", but how many men would be willing to suffer in their own flesh the pains of giving birth?
I say make a referendum, and only women get to vote.
Finally, this girl is way too young for anything. I doubt her body is even prepared to carry out the pregnancy to good term. Yet i don´t see anyone worried that baring a child this young might kill her in the process. Many people defending the rights of the fetus, but no one defends the girl´s right to live...
Not to mention that having a baby this young means virtually that she will have to drop out of school, raise a bastard child (that might grow to be deficient), get ostracised by society as a single mother, loose her chance to live a normal childhood, etc etc.
No one seems to care about that...
.
-
[q]Back in the day when abortions were illegal, women used to perform them on themselves with coat hangers, a very dangerous method.[/q]
*sighs* Yes I know I was being sarcastic.
-
Ok, how many people on here have actually had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy? How many people here have found out their partner is pregnant and they have no room, no money and their future prospects are too uncertain to be able to ensure that child the life it deserves, and that having it means that everyone, you, your partner, and the child, will suffer for year after year after year, where eviction or starvation is a real possibility?
Just interested.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
You argue that the fetus isn't alive? Fine, prove it. You argue that the fetus is alive? Fine, prove it (as some people have, to the satisfaction of some but not others). You say you don't know? Then the only moral and ethical option is to assume the fetus is alive and act accordingly.
Fine prove to me that plants can't feel pain. And if you can't then institute measures to make sure that all trees are doped up before being chopped down. After all it can't be ethical to take a saw to one and take minutes to bring one down without knowing for certain it doesn't feel pain.
Sometimes you can't prove something and just have to take your best guess.
-
This is a depressing situation. And there will be a firestorm. I'm just not in the mood to pull the trigger on the fuel-air bomb just yet.
This is a more frightening concept:
Originally posted by KappaWing
A jugde's duty is to inforce the law...
A judge's only power is to hear a case and decide guilt based on existing law.
They cannot enforce the law, nor make new law. It is not in their purview.
In the USA, only the Legislative branch can make law. The Executive can suggest law, but it still falls to the Legislative branch to see it become law. The Judicial branch's sole duty is to see that law carried out.
There are far too many judges that are using Precedent to make law and far, far too many people who are willing to let them.
-
To enforce the law is the same thing as to ensure that law is carried out, right? :wtf:
-
Are we talking America's laws or the Christian Gods' laws, cos that's becoming a real fuzzy line at the moment.
-
Some judges enforce christian laws, and some enforce laws set down by the government. It's quite easy to guess which kind of judge decided this case. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Let me put it this way. You forge a few thousand dollars/pounds/whatevers, fully aware that you might be found out, and would then have to take responsibility for your actions. A few weeks go by, and then you're found out and brought before a court. How is it conceivable then that you would be able to say to the court, "Just give me the money back and I'll burn the bills, no harm done"?? Is that "taking responsibility"? It's taking the "easy", irresponsible way out.
The analogy isn't perfect, mind you, but I trust it helps you see why I see this issue the way I do.
Now I'm going to bed.
Interesting. Curious connection between sex and crime, both being things that people 'have to take responsibility for', as if both were violations of personal and societal codes of conduct, and one wasn't a private, personal thing one engaged in with another person.
Mainly, though, I reckon your view of 'taking responsibility' is flawed.
"Crikey, look at me leg! It's gangrenous!"
"How'd'you do that, then?"
"Long story, mate - bit of a tangle with the local wildlife, own stupid fault."
"What are you gonna do about it?"
"Gonna get rid of it. Get the doctor to 'ack it off. Have it 'put to death', sorta, you know?"
"What?! You can't do that! That's the easy way out, just getting rid of it like that! You gotta keep it, that's what taking responsibility is all about!"
"Alright, alright, I'll keep the bloody leg. This'd better work out, though."
Taking responsibility is dealing with it. Not taking responsibility is when you ignore the matter, walk around for nine months and act all surprised when a person falls out of your genitals.
decontextify me plz
-
Originally posted by Liberator
This is a depressing situation. And there will be a firestorm. I'm just not in the mood to pull the trigger on the fuel-air bomb just yet.
This is a more frightening concept:
A judge's only power is to hear a case and decide guilt based on existing law.
They cannot enforce the law, nor make new law. It is not in their purview.
In the USA, only the Legislative branch can make law. The Executive can suggest law, but it still falls to the Legislative branch to see it become law. The Judicial branch's sole duty is to see that law carried out.
There are far too many judges that are using Precedent to make law and far, far too many people who are willing to let them.
You realise the judge did effectively ignore the existing confidentiality /consent laws in granting the injunction?
-
Yeah but he likes this decision so he won't complain about it. Activist judges are okay when they are on his side.
-
Okay, this babe is 13 years old. Would you trust her to drive a car? Or use a weapon responsibly?
I'll remind you of the recent study that concluded that humans have reduced(sometimes non-existant) capacity for responsible thought and/or action until somewhere around the age of 25.
No way in hell should she have even been having sex. I wanna know how old the male half of the equation is and if he's more than a year older than her, why in the hell he was sleeping with a 13 year old or having sex himself.
-
Okay, if you can get off your moral high ground could you perhaps think about this girl's future?
-
Isnt this terrible how the court is FORCING her to have the child and she cant have control over her body and kill the developing baby before its born.
First of all, she isnt being forced to have the child she made that decision when she deceided to have sex. And if any thirteen year old is old enough to know how to have sex they know full well where babies come from.
Second, why should people kill another person, at such a young and vulnerable age because they dont think their quality of life will be up to their own standards? It doesnt matter what the quality of life will be... everybody gets only one, and why should that person have a life less than 9 months?
-
Deep, have you even thought about what that girl is going to go through? What will happen to her future? What will happen to her own body in the next 9 months because THE STATE has told her she has to have a child at 13 years of age?
ACCIDENTS HAPPEN. No she shouldn't have been having sex but do we punish her by forcing her to ruin her life when it can be saved?
You people slay me - you talk about the quality of life for the child but you completely rape the quality of life for the woman in the process (or in this case another child).
-
Thing is, either the law is flexible enough to deal with modern needs and behaviour or it is not. Is the law something to be etched in stone, based on the beliefs of people hundreds of years ago, or are they supposed to be malleable and deal with changing situations are conditions. As I've said before, less than 100 years ago, it was expected for women to give birth at 13-14 years old and spend their lives looking after the children. These days I hope we are more enlightened.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Is the law something to be etched in stone...
Flip, they have to be or they have no value. That's why we have two different sets of laws dealing with premature death(manslaughter/murder), one set doesn't deal with the circumstances of all premature deaths. This is why so called "blue laws" aren't enforced anymore, they have no bearing in modern society. But, by the same token, it's a waste of time and resources to bother repealing them.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Okay, this babe is 13 years old. Would you trust her to drive a car? Or use a weapon responsibly?
I'll remind you of the recent study that concluded that humans have reduced(sometimes non-existant) capacity for responsible thought and/or action until somewhere around the age of 25.
No way in hell should she have even been having sex. I wanna know how old the male half of the equation is and if he's more than a year older than her, why in the hell he was sleeping with a 13 year old or having sex himself.
The question here really has nothing to do with whether or not she should have had sex; it might be a contributing factor to our emotional evaluation, but in this case it's an issue of the individual rights of a minor, as specified by law, being (or attempting to be) circumvented by the state.
I don't think there are many people who would condone sex at such a young age, but this isn't really of that particular issue. IMO you have to regard these types of cases by the precedents they set, as much as by your judgement of the individuals involved.
However - if she chose to keep the child, would you also ask for the state to intervene and question her decision making? Because this is essentially a case of the state seeking to dictate its own decision upon her.
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Isnt this terrible how the court is FORCING her to have the child and she cant have control over her body and kill the developing baby before its born.
First of all, she isnt being forced to have the child she made that decision when she deceided to have sex. And if any thirteen year old is old enough to know how to have sex they know full well where babies come from.
Second, why should people kill another person, at such a young and vulnerable age because they dont think their quality of life will be up to their own standards? It doesnt matter what the quality of life will be... everybody gets only one, and why should that person have a life less than 9 months?
To be fair, the court is not forcing her to do anything - yet. What it has done is stopped the scheduled abortion (granted an injunction) until psychological profiles, etc, can be done to examine the Florida states claim she isn't capable of making this decision.
The issue, is that even bringing this case to court is in contradiction to existing law which allows minors to have abortions without parental consent, based upon the protection of privacy (which is IIRc a constitutional issue).
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this law, what the state of florida has done is to seek to circumvent it entirely.
Now, re secondly, there's been a ****load of pro-choice / anti-abortion arguements. The main bone of contention is based upon when you believe life begins - at conception, after xx weeks, and soforth. Essentially, the pro-choice arguement (or the argument I use) is that the determination of when life begins - i.e the point after which abortion is killing - is essentially a personal belief, and that it's not right to legislate a single particular belief upon people who do not share it. It is worth noting that AFAIK most countries base the legal time period for adoption (excepting circumstances where it is needed to save the mothers live), upon the current medically accepted knowledge of when 'life' begins; offhand, I think this is usually set as the period when the baby / foetus is able to survive and grow outside of maternal sustenance.
However, IMO this arguement is not about abortion but is fundamentally about an issue of individual civil rights, and specifically that of a minor and if / when / why a state can challenge such an individual decision.
-
But if the law is locked in stone, then this girl should never have even appeared in front of a court to decide her right to have an abortion.
-
Of course, if laws were locked in stone we'd probably still be stoning people for adultery........
-
And hanging people for defacing coins, or for driving cattle across London Bridge.
-
Or executing people for impersonating an Egyptian.
(or being bankrupt & hiding it, or visiting France, or stealing horses, or cutting down or destroying trees in an avenue or garden, or forging a lottery ticket......)
-
America is (essentially) a free society... according to law (and pardon any generalizations I may be making), one is free to do whatever you want - as long as the excercision of said liberties does not cause undue harm to another person. That's where law comes in - to set down ground rules, to supply the public with a common baseline of "allowed" and "disallowed".
Now, Miss X had sex at age 13 and is now pregnant. On one hand, she's free to do whatever she wants, especially concerning her own body. But on the other hand, she's not allowed to excercise said liberties if in doing so she causes undue harm to another person.
And I think that that's where the argument is. Which takes precedence: the mother's right to determine what to do with her own body, or the limitation of not causing undue harm to others by the excercising of that liberty.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
America is (essentially) a free society... according to law (and pardon any generalizations I may be making), one is free to do whatever you want - as long as the excercision of said liberties does not cause undue harm to another person. That's where law comes in - to set down ground rules, to supply the public with a common baseline of "allowed" and "disallowed".
Now, Miss X had sex at age 13 and is now pregnant. On one hand, she's free to do whatever she wants, especially concerning her own body. But on the other hand, she's not allowed to excercise said liberties if in doing so she causes undue harm to another person.
And I think that that's where the argument is. Which takes precedence: the mother's right to determine what to do with her own body, or the limitation of not causing undue harm to others by the excercising of that liberty.
To what other person? If you're intimating the baby - or rather, the developing foetus - then that's a highly subjective issue; one which IMO should be left to the individual who makes the decision.
Again we come back to the highly personal, highly opinionated issue of what constitutes 'life' and the beginning of it.......
Would the state (sorry, forget the exact dept name) question it if she kept the child? If not, why question this decision?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
To what other person? If you're intimating the baby - or rather, the developing foetus - then that's a highly subjective issue; one which IMO should be left to the individual who makes the decision.
Again we come back to the highly personal, highly opinionated issue of what constitutes 'life' and the beginning of it.......
Would the state (sorry, forget the exact dept name) question it if she kept the child? If not, why question this decision?
Houston: "Alright, Bob, we can hear you loud and clear. How's the weather on Mars?"
Bob: "Pretty cold here, Houston, but boy, have we made some historical discoveries!"
Houston: "Oh? Well, out with it!"
Bob: "Ok, first we encountered a Martian fetus lying in the sand about 75 meters from our capsule."
Houston: "Really? Interesting. Go on."
Bob: "A bit later we took some rock samples back to the lab, and - get this - found a single-celled plant organism on the rock! We thought it might have been contamination from ourselves, so we took on-location readings, and sure enough, there's single-celled plant organisms on many of the rocks in this vicinity."
Houston: "Single-celled plant organisms? Get the press!!! LIFE ON MARS!!!"
-
*holds head in hands* You're doing it AGAIN. You pompus self assured... WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL THIS GIRL HOW TO LIVE HER LIFE, OR HANDLE HER OWN BODY? IT IS NOT EVEN A SENTIENT LIFE FORM SHE IS CARRYING YET.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Houston: "Alright, Bob, we can hear you loud and clear. How's the weather on Mars?"
Bob: "Pretty cold here, Houston, but boy, have we made some historical discoveries!"
Houston: "Oh? Well, out with it!"
Bob: "Ok, first we encountered a Martian fetus lying in the sand about 75 meters from our capsule."
Houston: "Really? Interesting. Go on."
Bob: "A bit later we took some rock samples back to the lab, and - get this - found a single-celled plant organism on the rock! We thought it might have been contamination from ourselves, so we took on-location readings, and sure enough, there's single-celled plant organisms on many of the rocks in this vicinity."
Houston: "Single-celled plant organisms? Get the press!!! LIFE ON MARS!!!"
That's not a valid anology; single celled organisms are formed by cellular mitosis rather than developing from a prior state - there's no growth process required to develop into a functioning single celled organism.
It's also a deliberate over-simplification; unless you're suggesting a foetus left lying on the ground is still alive and functioning, in which case it's not even technically a foetus (a foetus is the embryo - in humans - after the 3rd month of development until birth. So technically anything referred to as foetus outside the body would have had to have been aborted or miscarried, i.e. unborn ).
In fact.... thinking about it, it's a stupid analogy in total. The reason for a foetus being cited as life if discovered on Mars would be because it's evidence of a reproducing organism, not because it's alive. Technically, it'd be a carcass.
-
Besides, I thought this was about her 'Mental capacity to decide', not whether the Foetus is alive or not...... or is it.....
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Besides, I thought this was about her 'Mental capacity to decide', not whether the Foetus is alive or not...... or is it.....
I suspect the 2nd led to the questioning of the 1st..... this isn't really about abortion, it's about the rights of a minor.
-
I'll say it again. Minors have all kinds of rights, however, the reason we don't hold them accountable for stuff is because they don't know better. This is why it's stupid to cut parents out of the loop of their child's health. The raising and wellbeing of the child is their responsibility.
Also, a note on responsibility, if you do something positive, let's say you pull a person from a burning car after a wreck, you are going to be congratulated and praised. This is the responsiblity you took on when you stopped to help them. It's not a burden because it's a positive event or series of events.
But, the way you talk, it sounds like you believe that, should you do something with negative consequences, that you should be allowed to get away with it, and not take responsibility for you're actions.
In the case in question, the girl is responsible for her actions. She had sex and got pregnant, by having an abortion she is evading the events that she voluntarily accepted culpability for by having sex. This is unacceptable to me, because she will now proceed from the false assumption that she can do whatever she wants and have no negative consequences.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Houston: "Alright, Bob, we can hear you loud and clear. How's the weather on Mars?"
Bob: "Pretty cold here, Houston, but boy, have we made some historical discoveries!"
Houston: "Oh? Well, out with it!"
Bob: "Ok, first we encountered a Martian fetus lying in the sand about 75 meters from our capsule."
Houston: "Really? Interesting. Go on."
Bob: "A bit later we took some rock samples back to the lab, and - get this - found a single-celled plant organism on the rock! We thought it might have been contamination from ourselves, so we took on-location readings, and sure enough, there's single-celled plant organisms on many of the rocks in this vicinity."
Houston: "Single-celled plant organisms? Get the press!!! LIFE ON MARS!!!"
I've already answered to this issue you have with "life" and life.
@Lib
If she is responsible enough to carry the pregnancy through the 9 months and give birth why exactly isn't she responsible enough to have an abortion?
Taking Blaise Russel analogy, if some guy were to trespass (sp?) in a private/government property and for example get a gangrenous leg would it be unacceptable for the guy to have it taken care of? Or would he have to continue to have his leg gangrenous?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I'll say it again. Minors have all kinds of rights, however, the reason we don't hold them accountable for stuff is because they don't know better. This is why it's stupid to cut parents out of the loop of their child's health. The raising and wellbeing of the child is their responsibility.
Also, a note on responsibility, if you do something positive, let's say you pull a person from a burning car after a wreck, you are going to be congratulated and praised. This is the responsiblity you took on when you stopped to help them. It's not a burden because it's a positive event or series of events.
But, the way you talk, it sounds like you believe that, should you do something with negative consequences, that you should be allowed to get away with it, and not take responsibility for you're actions.
In the case in question, the girl is responsible for her actions. She had sex and got pregnant, by having an abortion she is evading the events that she voluntarily accepted culpability for by having sex. This is unacceptable to me, because she will now proceed from the false assumption that she can do whatever she wants and have no negative consequences.
But - you're prejudging her motivations and character. That's not fair; even the court hasn't done that but assigned it to a third party. You're placing your negative opinion of abortion, and using prejudices derived from it to judge right or wrong. You're effectively, IMO, refusing to recognise any decision or course of action which you do not agree with as legitimate; and whilst you have a right to judge that as an individual, the state does not have the right to make these case-by-case moral judgements where doing so circumvents or plain breaks existing laws.
Your moral framework makes you think 'abortion is wrong, so she is wrong, so she is a bad person'. The problem is, that's not a solid basis for establishing this sort of precedent. As has been pointed out multiple times, she made a decision which - under Florida law - was protected for her privacy. The state has stepped in and attempted to change that decision, and thus ignored the same protective laws.
Can this really be fair? Because the state is effectively removing her ability to make this decision, but yet would almost certainly have not opposed the converse decision. If she is not competent to make the decision to have an abortion, how can she be any more competent to make the decision not to? Does this mean the state now can claim sole jurisdiction over the decisions made by minors, even if they are tearaways.
If it succeeds, not only does it set a precedent for ignoring existing laws, it also sets a precedent of allowing moral dictat by the state; even if you agree with the morality being espoused, can you really accept that being forced upon others - even a minor?
I'd also point out - she has no parents; she lives in a shelter. The caseworker is not in a position - legally - to give or withold consent.
Oh, and whether or not abortion - in this or any case - has negative consequences is a matter of personal judgement and your definition of 'negative consequences'.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I'll say it again. Minors have all kinds of rights, however, the reason we don't hold them accountable for stuff is because they don't know better.
[SNIP]
In the case in question, the girl is responsible for her actions.
You do realise that those two points are mutually exclusive? If you're saying she's too young to decide whether or not to have an abortion why are you claiming that she should be held responsible for the concequences of her actions?
-
Whether you like it or not she is responsible to some extent for her actions. Her parents or guardians would bear most of the responsibility as their are legally responsible. But get this, she is responsible for her pregnancy, not her parents.
-
Then she must also be responsible for how she deals with it no? Or are babies the property of the state there?
Edit : Anyway, that's my last post in this thread, I find the chauvanistic assumptions in here a bit sickening. I don't know how many people have faced a situation involving abortion, but it's NOT an easy choice whether you are 13 or 30, and I'm getting a bit annoyed at hearing a bunch of males trying to dictate womens roles and choices to them.
Have fun people :sigh:
-
No. You are a minor, you do drugs, get sick come close to dying. You parents are is deep **** for allowing you to or not making sure you didnt take drugs. They now have to deal with it because you are a minor.
On a side note, parents should have a say as to whether or not their kids can and cant have an abortion, or be made aware of it altogether. Or how about the unthinkable... actually informing the child of the dangers and psychological problems which can occur from having an abortion.
*Pulls out ACME Flamethrower*
Here is why you are so adament about defending abortion. You wont admit it but deep down you know its true. Atheism and relativism is your religion. Abortion is your sacrament. Whenever you feel somebody trampling on your sacrament you get very defensive and angry. You really dont care nor want to know whether its as person or not.
It all boils down to selfishness, irresponsibility, and amorality. You dont want anything getting in the way, including another person or maybe 18 more years of raising a child as consequence. You may think ive gone over the deep end, but in reality it isnt hard to see.
-
Abortion is my sacrament? You don't know the half of it.
I suppose that women are baby making machines too. You tar and feather everyone with assumptions and rapidly jumped to conclusion.
---------------------
Here is why you are so adament about stopping abortion. You wont admit it but deep down you know its true. Fear and control is your religion. Making judgement on people you know nothing about, based on half complete knowledge is your sacrament. Whenever you feel somebody trampling on your sacrament you get very defensive and angry. You really dont care nor want to know whether its as person or not.
It all boils down to chauvenism, ignorance, and a need to feel superior. You dont want anything getting in the way, including another person or maybe admitting that yours isn't the most important opinion in the world. You have gone over the deep end, and that is blatantly obvious to see.
-
Very original remix of my original statement. And i never pointed this specifically at anyone, for the record.
-
Well, I apologise my short temperedness, but I get annoyed when people imply that my(*edit at Sharon's request): Commonlaw partner is a murderer, or that it was her fault the condom split and we should have been forced to have had a child that would have left us both destitute, which is what is happening in this thread.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Second, adoption is an alternative. There are plenty of loving familys that can't have children that would love to adopt a baby.
are you ****ing kidding me? do you know what the adoption situation in the world is at the moment!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Fine prove to me that plants can't feel pain. And if you can't then institute measures to make sure that all trees are doped up before being chopped down. After all it can't be ethical to take a saw to one and take minutes to bring one down without knowing for certain it doesn't feel pain.
... the day people start comparing a human life, the most precious thing on this planet, to a plant, is the day i fear our species is ...... oh wait, you just did :doubt: :wtf:
Okay, if you can get off your moral high ground could you perhaps think about this girl's future?
or perhaps the girl should take responsibility for her actions, just as every one of us in society have to, without taking the easy way out... **** her "future"... she ruined her future for herself...
*holds head in hands* You're doing it AGAIN. You pompus self assured... WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL THIS GIRL HOW TO LIVE HER LIFE, OR HANDLE HER OWN BODY? IT IS NOT EVEN A SENTIENT LIFE FORM SHE IS CARRYING YET
so at exactly what point does the thing she's carrying become a life form. give me an exact time.
-
Like i said, leave the decision up to the women. Until us men start getting pregnant ourselfs and endure all the hardakes women do, we should not be allowed to decide on their behalf.
In all truth, western male society is still the same chauvinist asshat that we accused the "barbarians" of being, throughout history. We are still living in the dark ages. We still stone women to death, we just use diferent stones to do it...
-
I can't remember the exact scientific definition but I believe it's something like the end of the first trimester.
Farnkly I'd rather put a bullet between your eyes than give you an answer anyway. You, Sandy, the lot of you who think this girl should have no ****ing life because she doesn't conform to your concept of right and wrong.
I'm done with this debate. I cannot face people like those in this thread without becoming as bad as them.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Farnkly I'd rather put a bullet between your eyes than give you an answer anyway. You, Sandy, the lot of you who think this girl should have no ****ing life because she doesn't conform to your concept of right and wrong.
I'm done with this debate. I cannot face people like those in this thread without becoming as bad as them.
oh, who think the GIRL has no ****ing life... WHAT IN THE **** ABOUT THE BABY. how can a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD decide something like that? She ****ed her own life up, without anyone's help... now whose fault is it. Oh but wait, she can just abort the baby, and keep on with her life as if nothing happened. forget responsibility... a few drugs can get rid of it!
i think that's a sin
-
GOD DAMNIT WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
You think having her ****ing insides screwed up, doctors inside her and **** knows what other emotional trauma is just the easy way for her to carry on like nothing has happened?
Now I said I was leaving and I am - but that girl has a chance to get her future back - a painful chance but a chance nonetheless. Because you can't see past your own morality you would condemn her to a life YOU will never face. You might not agree with abortion but it's not your choice to make and it's certainly not the state's.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
...we should have been forced to have had a child that would have left us both destitute...
Flip, having a child is a wonderful experience, so I have been told. If you're waiting to have children till you feel you're financially ready, you'll never have them. If you aren't making enough money for you're wife to raise the child and provide a reasonable standard of living, evaluate what needs to change to make it possible.
Having children, or growing up at any rate, changes you're perspective. You can't live a life of hedonism and whatnot and have much of a life.(says teh forum hermit:p)
-
Originally posted by vyper, 10 minutes before he made his next post in this thread.
I'm done with this debate.
I think abortion's wrong, yes. i think it's a sin to kill an INNOCENT human life (albeit not a full-grown baby, but still...)
but it's even worse for you to say that this 13 year old "still has a chance to lead a normal life". SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO HAVE SEX...[/i], so she damned well should be responsible enough to pay the consequences, without taking the easy way out.
You think having her ****ing insides screwed up, doctors inside her and **** knows what other emotional trauma is just the easy way for her to carry on like nothing has happened?
let's compare the two:
1) she gets an abortion. highly traumatizing, very emotional... a "big decision" for her to make... over in a few weeks, maybe months. in fact, for argument's sake... let's say it takes her a year... or at any rate, it'll definately take less than #2
2) she DOESN"T get an abortion: spends 18+ years raising a child. she'd obviously have to drop out of school, with no more than a junior-high education. what would she do for a job? probably nothing, while she's raising the kid... her parents would support her. 10 years later she may go to college, try to get some sort of education to support herself.
Yeah... i'd say getting an abortion IS the easy way out in this case
-
Originally posted by vyper
*holds head in hands* You're doing it AGAIN. You pompus self assured... WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL THIS GIRL HOW TO LIVE HER LIFE, OR HANDLE HER OWN BODY? IT IS NOT EVEN A SENTIENT LIFE FORM SHE IS CARRYING YET.
Not that I agree with them to the extent that they take things, but tell that to PETA. Just because a life form isn't sentient doesn't mean that we can completely ignore how we treat it.
And calm down, sheesh. I'm not gonna go bomb an abortion clinic or anything.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Technically, it'd be a carcass.
That's perfectly fine by me - the analogy still holds for the point I'm trying to make, which is "unborn human offspring" = "life". It doesn't matter whether it happens to have ongoing biological process or not (alive or dead), the point is that the very existance of one on Mars, in any condition, is evidence that there is (ok, was) Life on Mars.
I cannot in good concience deny that a fetus is, IMO, alive.
Oh, and that point about it being able to survive outside the mother's womb? Bollocks. Premature babies often survive just fine - many even without special medical care. And swinging in the other direction, go drop a newborn - heck, even a 6 month old kid - off on the street corner and see how long he or she survives without care.
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Taking Blaise Russel analogy, if some guy were to trespass (sp?) in a private/government property and for example get a gangrenous leg would it be unacceptable for the guy to have it taken care of? Or would he have to continue to have his leg gangrenous?
...which is an oversimplification in the other direction, since there's not the issue of whether the leg is it's own living being.
IIRC, the mother's blood does not mix with the fetus' at all. Two seperate circulatory systems. Hmm.
Originally posted by vyper
You think having her ****ing insides screwed up, doctors inside her and **** knows what other emotional trauma is just the easy way for her to carry on like nothing has happened?
Now I said I was leaving and I am - but that girl has a chance to get her future back - a painful chance but a chance nonetheless.
Bringing us back to my original question... :rolleyes: ...why isn't there a more solid and cohesive link between unwanted children and barren couples? Aborting a child does cause immense emotional trauma (and I highly dout that the 13 year old in question is aware of the extent of this; whether she's old enough to be responsible or not, she's pregnant, and should at the very least be aware of the consequences of whichever path might be taken), far more than carrying the child through to birth. Yes, her life won't be "ideal" for the next 9 months, but she lives in a shelter, as aldo pointed out, so I doubt it's "ideal" anyway.
I guess the simple answer would be "beauracracy", but is that all it is?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
...which is an oversimplification in the other direction, since there's not the issue of whether the leg is it's own living being.
IIRC, the mother's blood does not mix with the fetus' at all. Two seperate circulatory systems. Hmm.
Actually, no. I was targeting your position that the only way to 'take responsibility' for something was to grin and bear it; that removing the problem was undesirable because it was 'cheating'. Also, I was concerned about associating 'sex' with 'taking responsibility'.
Way I see it, issue of whether baby is alive or not is not strictly relevant. Human society shouldn't be making grand promises to protect 'all humans, whether they be zygotes or pensioners,' while people are still running around killing each other for silly, stupid reasons. A cluster of four cells may be alive, may be human, but it doesn't count as a member of society that can be protected by society's laws to me.
'Course, it's a gradual process, this becoming, that in truth technically starts years before anybody actually has sex, and I'm not in favour of late-term abortions because the baby is now so close to entering society, and may indeed actually be capable of doing so, that aborting it enters a dangerous area. Furthermore, it may be that the process of killing something so obviously not a bunch of cells is even traumatic to the people involved (nevermind the baby, of course).
-
Now that I think of it, if adoption is such an issue, why wasn't the girl in the middle of this whole mess adopted?
-
I'll remind you of the recent study that concluded that humans have reduced(sometimes non-existant) capacity for responsible thought and/or action until somewhere around the age of 25.
Interesting. I never heard of that study. Can you give me a link to it? I'm interested in seeing the rest of it.....
SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO HAVE SEX...,
And one thing that you people seem to forget is that (at least in the developed world), sex is NOT really about reproduction anymore. Being ready for sex and being ready to be a parent are two different things.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Not that I agree with them to the extent that they take things, but tell that to PETA. Just because a life form isn't sentient doesn't mean that we can completely ignore how we treat it.
And calm down, sheesh. I'm not gonna go bomb an abortion clinic or anything.
That's perfectly fine by me - the analogy still holds for the point I'm trying to make, which is "unborn human offspring" = "life". It doesn't matter whether it happens to have ongoing biological process or not (alive or dead), the point is that the very existance of one on Mars, in any condition, is evidence that there is (ok, was) Life on Mars.
I cannot in good concience deny that a fetus is, IMO, alive.
Oh, and that point about it being able to survive outside the mother's womb? Bollocks. Premature babies often survive just fine - many even without special medical care. And swinging in the other direction, go drop a newborn - heck, even a 6 month old kid - off on the street corner and see how long he or she survives without care.
Again, you're missing the point. A 6 month baby is capable of digesting and processing food, and of feeding itself, even if that is simply a suck and grab instinct. A foetus is entirely dependent upon the nutrition provided via the mothers womb; in that sense it cannot survive once seperated. Once it can, i.e. in terms of having the developed organs to breathe, digest, remove waste, etc, abortion is usually prohibited in non-exceptional cases (i.e. may be allowed where the mothers health is threatened).
Now, if your opinion the foetus is alive, that's fine. I have no objections to that. What I'm saying, is that opinion is just that; it's not been factually proven to be alive. Medical opinion holds life - human life - beginning at a certain point. Personal opinion may shorten that time. But I don't think personal opinion is a solid basis for creating laws that affect everyone - hence I am pro-choice, i.e. I believe the law should not judge which personal opinion is right, but stick to the known medical facts which have been proven right. The rest, we should be able to determine for ourselves.
Originally posted by Sandwich
IIRC, the mother's blood does not mix with the fetus' at all. Two seperate circulatory systems. Hmm.
Actually, the mothers blood travels through the umbilical cord to the placenta, where nutrients (some harmful ones are blocked) are passed onto the developing embryo / foetus / child; the placenta is considered a part of both mother and child (as it contains genetic material from both).
On a general note - 90% of us here are probably hypocrites. At least, we have no experience, no personal knowledge to make an honest judgement as to what is right. I think a lot of people are considering the 'easy way out' as being the one they regard as wrong; they're simplifying the arguement to suit their position, to apply their moral, ethical, personal, etc opinion to everyone as justification for holding it. Abortion becomes 'easy', women who have one become 'hedonists'.... for me that's wrong. I've seen only one person here who's properly qualified to speak of the issues here.
Oh, and Stealth - and everyone else who's seemingly selectively blind towards this;She does not have parents. She is in a state shelter. [/i][/b]
I hope that makes that clear (for the third and final time I've said it...nggh); please consider that in your reasoning over if and how she would care for a child.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Now that I think of it, if adoption is such an issue, why wasn't the girl in the middle of this whole mess adopted?
Good point. I didn't see anyone lining up to take care of her. Right now there are thousends of children in care in the US. I don't see anyone lining up to take care of them either.
I've said it before. Get every single child out of care and then maybe I'd believe the people who say that all these unwanted pregnacies would actually be wanted children.
Originally posted by Stealth
... the day people start comparing a human life, the most precious thing on this planet, to a plant, is the day i fear our species is ...... oh wait, you just did :doubt: :wtf:
I guess analogy is just a type of watch to you :doubt:
Next time pay attention to the context.
-
Can you guys please calm down? If not you know I'm going to have to lock this.
-
I think we can drop the "Life on Mars" analogy for this discussion.
Scientists aren´t exactlly looking for little green men in Mars. If they find bacteria or even unicelular creatures on Mars, they will still regard it as alien "life". We are not discussing wether a fetus qualifies as life or not, we know it does. Even the baby´s placenta can be considered "life", as it is composed of living tissue. But that´s not the issue. The issue is wether a fetus can be considered an individual, and as such wether it´s warranted to have rights like any other individual.
The thing is, a fetus 4 or so months old is no more an individual anymore than a guy´s leg or arm. It´s a bunch of cells arranged to form tissue, but it hardly has a conscience yet. During the first few months, a fetus is only an extension of the mother´s body. It breaths through the mother, it feeds through the mother, it´s a part of the mother. Only when that fetus grows to be able to sustain itself, should it be considered a seperate entity. Untill then, it´s just like any other organ.
We are not disputing wether it´s alive or not, we know it is. But is it a seperate individual? Does it have a "soul" yet? I think not.
Now, here´s a seperate issue that is very important for this discussion:
If anti-abortionists think a fetus is a fully formed individual, then isn´t sperm aswell? Where is the line drawn? And if sperm is "alive", isn´t the simple action of ejaculating a full pledged genocide? And what about masturbation? How many of the so-called pro-lifers haven´t masturbated at some point in life? And in having done so, aren´t they just as quilty as any woman who aborts?
Before you pro-lifers start saying "we don´t masturbate, never!", i doubt there is even one person in this forum who hasn´t done it at some point. Wether you admit it or not.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
And one thing that you people seem to forget is that (at least in the developed world), sex is NOT really about reproduction anymore. Being ready for sex and being ready to be a parent are two different things.
Then what the hell is it for you hedonistic bugger?
Sex is the one romantic act that invariably will lead to being a parent if it is performed enough times. Voluntarily having sex with any member of the opposite gender is tacitly signalling that you are ready to become a parent. It's one of the reasons that it should be reserved for the marriage bond.(but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish and let's stay on topic here). If you don't want to become a parent, you simply shouldn't be having sex. As has been shown by example(see Flipsides post above), "safe" sex can lead to pregnancy just as easy as "unprotected" sex.
Sex is(so I've been told) a wonderful thing, but if you are in a relationship and want to take the next step...IT CALLED MARRIAGE YOU MORON!
-
Since the topic has changed I feel I can now jump back in.
Lib - go get a) laid b) a girlfriend (in any order you wish) before you try and tell other people what sex is about.
-
Lib. If you feel the need to start calling people names I hope you enjoy being a monkey again. Quite frankly you deserve it and this time you can't complain that Kazan provoked you.
Simple fact is that Kosh is right. Even between many christian couples sex is about pleasure and intimacy. Reproduction is a secondary consideration.
The days when women used to lie back and wait for the nastiness to be over are long gone.
-
Kara, you're right(about the name calling), and I apologize.
But you must see the logic of it:
Sex invariably leads to pregnancy. To avoid pregnancy don't have sex.
It's quite simple.
Also, I view it as a test of Sentience. A sentient being can override their hormonal/instinctual responses to a given situation. Warriors do not fear during combat. Politicians do not fear during public speaking. And couples should not **** until they are married.
But no, everywhere you look, humans, supposedly sentient and supposedly beyond the influence of instinct are rutting around like a bunch of animals. I wonder sometimes if we are actually sentient or just a bunch of well trained animals whose masters died off or left us alone.
-
I've seen your picture. Should I apply the same logic to the fact that you're rather heavy set? The fact that you can't stop eating should perhaps be used as a sentience test too? The fact that despite the fact that you know that eating less would make you slimmer but yet you choose to eat anyway and can't override your hormonal/instinctual response to eat when something is placed in front of you should also be used to say you fail perhaps? After all an animal will eat when food is placed in front of it as long as it isn't completely full. Overfeed any animal and it will get fat because it lacks the capacity to stop itself.
Personally I don't think having sex is even wrong let alone something you can use in that way. Nor do I think you can simply say that fat people are stupid because they didn't stop eating.
But if you think that way I'd love to hear your explaination for why you're sentient.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Kara, you're right(about the name calling), and I apologize.
But you must see the logic of it:
Sex invariably leads to pregnancy. To avoid pregnancy don't have sex.
It's quite simple.
Also, I view it as a test of Sentience. A sentient being can override their hormonal/instinctual responses to a given situation. Warriors do not fear during combat. Politicians do not fear during public speaking. And couples should not **** until they are married.
But no, everywhere you look, humans, supposedly sentient and supposedly beyond the influence of instinct are rutting around like a bunch of animals. I wonder sometimes if we are actually sentient or just a bunch of well trained animals whose masters died off or left us alone.
...
Because I just got back from a vacation I won't blow this to pieces.
-
Alright then, seeing as a second complaint has been made about this thread and it seems a couple of you really can't keep it civil, this is now closed. You had your chance and blew it.
In addition, Lib, I believe you can read. Calling someone a moron like that two posts after my request that everyone calm it down is not the smartest move. Chill out or your posting privlages will be removed.