Florida Conservatives try to force 13 year old girl to not have an abortion.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Vesayen
How is it the consequence of an adult? She, decided to have sex. Banning abortion is not the "consequence of an adult" any more then banning murder is.

Very simple:

1. "Adult" (i.e kid with family problems but physically fit to be pregnant) has sex. She gets pregnant. She is wholly unprepared to raise a child.

2. "Child" lives a crappy life because its mother sucks, and probably because there's no father around. Most probably, "child" will become a ward of the State, which is an oh-so enviable situation

The one who suffers the most is the child. It's the one who has a seriously crappy life. QED.

[Dis]

god help the little girl impregnated by her father who can't get an abortion.

evil conservatives

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... Diss... you should work on that reading... it wasn't by dady.

[Dis]

I was talking about future cases.

The reason why kids can have abortions without telling their parents is because of possible incest. It's not some evil liberal plot to break up the american family.

[chequita guevara]

I think he was making a general comment.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dissident
The reason why kids can have abortions without telling their parents is because of possible incest. It's not some evil liberal plot to break up the american family.

Don't forget parental violence. Parents can be a little upset finding out their daughter is knocked up.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Oh yeah while had wringing for us poor saps are going on we might stop to think why this kid after a history of running away was not put in a center that she isnt allowed out of. Instesad she is returned to foster home with little to no supervision and allowed out and about. If you want an answer to your question should the state force her to have the child, written in the law she is a ward of the state, they make her decsions for her. is this moraly correct probably not legally yes it is.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Very simple:

1. "Adult" (i.e kid with family problems but physically fit to be pregnant) has sex. She gets pregnant. She is wholly unprepared to raise a child.

2. "Child" lives a crappy life because its mother sucks, and probably because there's no father around. Most probably, "child" will become a ward of the State, which is an oh-so enviable situation

The one who suffers the most is the child. It's the one who has a seriously crappy life. QED.

And ask every child ever born, who is a result of that situation if they would of rather never lived.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
we might stop to think why this kid after a history of running away was not put in a center that she isnt allowed out of.

Probably because DFCS is underfunded and understaffed. These people are trying to put out forest fires with a bucket brigade.

[Ned]

The original Roe v. Wade premised its decision on a protected right of privacy of a physician and an (adult) woman and her health. I, for the life of me, cannot understand how this right, which is the right protected, has to exclude a guardian or parent when the person involved is a minor. The law PRESUMES that a minor is incapable of making fully informed decisions at that age.

Now, what Supreme Court decision told us that minors can get abortions without the consent of their parents?

BTW, if a minor has a right to make THIS choice for herself, how can the law deny the minor the right to make OTHER choices. Despite the jingosim of the pro-choice crowd, the right protected is not a right to an abortion, but a right to privacy where the state cannot go to affect private decisions. The right to privacy is allegedly there to protect decisions on health, but why is the abortion choice the ONLY health choice allowed without a guardian's consent?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Vesayen
And ask every child ever born, who is a result of that situation if they would of rather never lived.

It's not their choice, and it never was. I'm sure the possible children who might have been born had their "mother" not let her eggs get flushed normally or were wasted by their father spilling his seed uselessly might also have liked to have been born. It doesn't mean squat.

Most of those who were born are happy to exist. None of those who weren't born regret it.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ned
The original Roe v. Wade premised its decision on a protected right of privacy of a physician and an (adult) woman and her health. I, for the life of me, cannot understand how this right, which is the right protected, has to exclude a guardian or parent when the person involved is a minor. The law PRESUMES that a minor is incapable of making fully informed decisions at that age.

Now, what Supreme Court decision told us that minors can get abortions without the consent of their parents?

BTW, if a minor has a right to make THIS choice for herself, how can the law deny the minor the right to make OTHER choices. Despite the jingosim of the pro-choice crowd, the right protected is not a right to an abortion, but a right to privacy where the state cannot go to affect private decisions. The right to privacy is allegedly there to protect decisions on health, but why is the abortion choice the ONLY health choice allowed without a guardian's consent?

people have the right to medical care of their own body without telling other people. And this includes kids.

Yes, by supporting this I also have to support teenage girls getting boob jobs (or that would make me a hypocrite).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
The right to privacy is allegedly there to protect decisions on health, but why is the abortion choice the ONLY health choice allowed without a guardian's consent?

Because having a baby is a huge decision. Not having a baby is not. Not having a baby won't change the rest of your life. Not having a baby won't mean you can't afford to go to collge and get an education. Not having a baby when you're a child won't mean that your reproductive organs are permanently underdeveloped. Not having a baby won't force you into decades of poverty.

Not having a baby is one of the best and easiest decisions to make.

Having a baby on the other hand, that's what you should need parental notification for.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Be as it may the state is this childs parents, they have to act like parents even if its wrong. As I said before the system needs tobe fixed rather then start a name calling game. Hell if Texas can allocate some more funds for the cps then so can all the other states, and if they cant why bother to have the dam agencies. Its obvious they aint doing the job.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Be as it may the state is this childs parents,

And that's fine, but refusing to let foster kids use a judge is unfair. Every other kid has an out except those in the state system.