[vyper]

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.

[Taristin]

Florida...... yeah. Sounds right.


Although I should really say "America..... yeah... sounds right"

[Primus]

So they think she has the maturity to be a mother? Yeah...

[Taristin]

She was mature enough to have sex!  (or not... lol)

[Flipside]

So begins the baby farms.

[aldo_14]

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?

[Primus]

B) She had un-protected sex.
C) If the guy was same age, then probably no.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[Rictor]

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.

[vyper]

So what, the state can force her to become a mother at that age?

[Flipside]

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.

[vyper]

I see the girl either topping herself or finding some way to get rid of the child.

[Flipside]

LOL Spooky, you posted as I edited

[aldo_14]

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.

[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.

Second, adoption is an alternative. There are plenty of loving familys that can't have children that would love to adopt a baby.

[Flipside]

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.

[redmenace]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[redmenace]

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.