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

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


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.

Well, Che, if the girl is going to have severe adverse health consequences, I am sure she could get an abortion. I think most parents and guardians would support that choice as well.

As to the baby, most kids born to children are raised by the child's parents or given up for adoption. The real problems begin when the girl is off on her own, having left her parent's home.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


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.

While I agree with you on this, The child has no choice because she didnt enter foster care on her own will, nor did she choose to become a ward of the state. The porblem that now arises is this kind of sitution needs to be prevented in the future. Btw Even if a judge got involved whos to say they wouldnt agree to whats already been decided?? They do work for the state too.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
The porblem that now arises is this kind of sitution needs to be prevented in the future.

That would interfere with the GOP's plan to cut taxes and pare all state agencies to the bone, except police and prisons.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, Che, if the girl is going to have severe adverse health consequences, I am sure she could get an abortion. I think most parents and guardians would support that choice as well.

As to the baby, most kids born to children are raised by the child's parents or given up for adoption. The real problems begin when the girl is off on her own, having left her parent's home.

#1, a 13-year old child does not have fully developed reproductive organs. Forcing them to go through a pregnancy more or less stops the development, from what I learned in HS sex ed, which was over 20 years ago, so I could be wrong.

#2, a child isn't physically big enough to bring a baby to term safely.

#3, there is a much higher risk of health complications for both the child and the baby.

#4, if the parents were good parents to begin with, it's unlikely that children would be having babies, thus foisting their grandchildren on to them isn't really a great option.

#5, a large percentage of teen mothers drop out of school to raise their babies.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

My thoughts are this, what kinda precedent the state would be setting if they allow this girl to have an abortion. You now set up for many young girls in this pregnancy predictmint that are afraid to tell their parents to enter the foster system get their abortions to soon be put back into the family life leaving the state to pay for all these abortions. Call me a loony but things like this can happen, and thus leaving the state with more bills.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


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.

What a quaint way to justify murder.



Oh and an egg or a sperm is not a fetus, its not even a zygote, its an egg or a sperm.




Chegitz, sounds like rubbish to me..... people have been giving birth at the age of 12 for millenia.

[Ramo]

There has also been massive numbers of pregnancy-related deaths for millennia.

A fetus ain't a person, so killing it ain't murder.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Vesayen


What a quaint way to justify murder.

No person is dying, so there is no murder.

Duh.

[Vesayen]

How do you define a person?

Any defenition you will give, will disenfranchise various groups of people with health problems-lets hear your defenition.

[Ramo]

Something capable of abstract thought.

I suppose this might disqualify certain human life forms (by definition, it can't disqualify any people - plural of person) with "health problems." For example, if your cerebral cortex is liquified (see Terry Schiavo). Dunno what your point is...

And you need to look "franchise" up in the dictionary.

Incidentally, how do you define person?

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by Vesayen
How do you define a person?

Any defenition you will give, will disenfranchise various groups of people with health problems-lets hear your defenition.

Not this argument again.

Obviously, the definition of a human is one which that you will still disagree with.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Ramo
Something capable of abstract thought.

I suppose this might disqualify certain human life forms (by definition, it can't disqualify any people - plural of person) with "health problems." For example, if your cerebral cortex is liquified (see Terry Schiavo). Dunno what your point is...

And you need to look "franchise" up in the dictionary.

Incidentally, how do you define person?

I don't know what a good defenition is, maybe the combination of a sperm an an egg with so many chromosones of certain composition. I'd define it genetically-if it is a life form with the genetic code of homo sapiens, it is human. Many humans which are protected by the U.S. constitution are not capable of abstract thought, due to health problems. I guess they arent human.


We live by rule of law, we can't leave ambiguity to fill in when we feel like it.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Ok guys before we go on to kick each other in the nuts, the main argument is wheter the state has the right to allow this child to an abortion. Please lets not regurgitate the anti and prolife crap that makes me sick. Therefore more defining what is an alive person and what is not. Nobody here knows. and to continue to argue is a waste of ur breath.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Bill3000


Not this argument again.

I got tired of it when I never got a satisfactory reason why the abstract thought or sentience requirement couldn't be used to kill newborns.

[Ramo]

I don't know what a good defenition is, maybe the combination of a sperm an an egg with so many chromosones of certain composition. I'd define it genetically-if it is a life form with the genetic code of homo sapiens, it is human.

So anyone that kills any of my blood cells can be charged with murder?

I'm curious why you chose that definition. Can we kill intelligent non-humans with impunity?

Many humans which are protected by the U.S. constitution are not capable of abstract thought, due to health problems. I guess they arent human.

Humanity isn't the same thing as personhood.

We live by rule of law, we can't leave ambiguity to fill in when we feel like it.

Eh? Why is my criteria incompatible with the "rule of law?" It's certainly better than your half-baked criteria...

I got tired of it when I never got a satisfactory reason why the abstract thought or sentience requirement couldn't be used to kill newborns.

On what basis do you say that newborns are incapable of abstract thought?