[Flipside]

Are we talking America's laws or the Christian Gods' laws, cos that's becoming a real fuzzy line at the moment.

[KappaWing]

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.

[Blaise Russel]

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

[aldo_14]

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?

[karajorma]

Yeah but he likes this decision so he won't complain about it. Activist judges are okay when they are on his side.

[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.

[vyper]

Okay, if you can get off your moral high ground could you perhaps think about this girl's future?

[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?

[vyper]

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).

[Flipside]

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.

[Liberator]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[aldo_14]

Of course, if laws were locked in stone we'd probably still be stoning people for adultery........

[Flipside]

And hanging people for defacing coins, or for driving cattle across London Bridge.

[aldo_14]

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......)

[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.

[aldo_14]

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?

[Sandwich]

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!!!"

[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.