Darth Vader Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Read this.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4500245.stm So they are refusing a 13 year old girl an abortion saying that she is too young to make the decision. What right has the state to dictate their morality upon this young girl unless they give her all the financial support she will need if she gives birth to this baby? And in the USA it is worse than the UK. She will get no support from the state if she has this baby. It is all very well these middle class wealthy bible thumping yanks lecturing the rest of the world about morality but when it actually comes to real help their wallets and purses are closed tight. Bush and his republican bible thumpers call themselves Christians but that is far from the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey_magic Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 So the court thinks she's too immature to decide for herself, yet mature enough to have a baby and make all the decisions that come with it? Messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted May 2, 2005 Author Share Posted May 2, 2005 Just as a matter of interest, note the identity of the Governor of Florida - and what he was doing today (Report from ABC News) TALLAHASSEE, Florida. May 2, 2005 — With the father of a slain 9-year-old looking on, Gov. Jeb Bush signed legislation Monday that strengthens punishment and monitoring of child sex abusers. The Jessica Lunsford Act requires those who prey on children under 12 to be sentenced to at least 25 years in prison and, if they get out, to be tracked for life. The bill was quickly drafted after Jessica's body was discovered in March, and sped through the legislative process, pushed by outraged lawmakers. Bush said Florida's sex offender laws are already tough, and "this bill will make our laws even tougher. It think it is right and just." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What relevance has that got to do with the right of a 13 year old child wanting to terminate a pregnancy which may have been as the result of two minors having intercourse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted May 2, 2005 Author Share Posted May 2, 2005 I see, thank you. Perhaps he should allow the young to determine their own future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 That BBC story manages to cock up entirely what's going on. Their coverage of US legal happenings is usually pretty crappy. What is going on is this: a 13 year-old with the initials 'LG' got pregnant. She is under the care of the Florida Dept of Children and Families (DCF). She wants an abortion, but is too young by state law to get one without consent (minimum age w/o parental consent is 14). By law, the DCF cannot give consent in any extraordinary medical procedures (barring emergencies), and has to seek court approval. Abortion is one of the procedures that the DCF cannot give consent to. The judge agrees, and has scheduled a psychiatric review, again required by law, to ensure that getting an abortion would be in her best interests. In other words, completely reasonable things happening in a reasonable sequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Here's a much better article http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/sou...-home-headlines This is a DCF nightmare either way. If she has the abortion, it sets precedent that wards of the state can make major medical decisions without oversight. However, if she carries the baby to term, they have to take it away from her, because she cannot provide for the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted May 2, 2005 Author Share Posted May 2, 2005 Here's a much better article http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/sou...-home-headlines This is a DCF nightmare either way. If she has the abortion, it sets precedent that wards of the state can make major medical decisions without oversight. However, if she carries the baby to term, they have to take it away from her, because she cannot provide for the child. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks for that ans. So if the girl has the baby by force from the state then the state can take the baby away from her. So not only now do we have the violation of a mother's rights but also a new born baby's rights to be with the mother. Indeed a nightmare and absolutely disgusting. I do not think that would happen on the Isle of Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Congratulations on completely missing the entire point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted May 2, 2005 Author Share Posted May 2, 2005 I do not think I did. My concern is for the mother and then for the baby if allowed to be born. Perhaps you could explain your point a bit further so all could understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 I read it as a kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't situation - bound by legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SugarBee Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 The 13 year old and her baby would receive State Funds (welfare). And if she was proven to be an unfit mother, her child would be placed in foster care until she could prove she was fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 So everyone's a winner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 The question on the rights and wrongs of the procured termination of a pregnancy for most rational people revolves around at what point a mass of tissue changes from being just that, a mass of tissue, to being a human being and does the person who IS a human who is carrying the tissue mass being have the right to dispose of it for whatever reason whilst it remains a tissue mass. I say yes they do. It is my absolute conviction that a tissue mass, although potentially a human being, is not one up until the stage that it is capable of surviving with absolutely minimal medical intervention outside of the womb. Up until that stage the most that can be said of the tissue mass no matter what its morphology is that it is no more than a potential human. The crux being that there is the world of difference between what might become viable and what is at a moment in time not. On that basis alone I have not the slightest issue with the removal and disposal of an embryo if that is what the person carrying the embryo wants. It is HER body, it will be HER future that will be affected, she is not a potential; person =- she is a real human being, she is here and now, it should be HER choice alone. The anti-choice sector so often parade the mechanism of a termination to play on the sensibilities of the audience in an attempt to persuade them to their viewpoint. How abortions are carried out? It is immaterial. What is at issue is not the process, it is the reason for the process and the outcome. Believe me, if people knew what takes place in an abattoir many if not most people would never eat meat again, much less sausages. As for automated chicken processing systems, don’t even think about it. Just make use of the result. Now the god thing. Just as a woman contemplating termination does not try to influence a "god-botherer" nor should a "god-botherer" try to influence her. Neither has the right and certainly not the duty to interfere with the other. Religion has no place in this. religion is at best a personal thing that people should keep to theselves. They should not stick their noses into other peoples beliefs and values. I would even go a stage futrther and make the teaching of a religion to a young person a criminal offence of the same order as child abuse - which it surely is. Teach them about reluigions, sure, it will help protect them from the procurers who want to warp their young minds, but teach A religion? NO. Back to abortion. This is a socio-medical issue, one of a number that are part of life and that is at times the right thing to do. Just as as recently as 30 years ago to my CERTAIN knowledge it was not entirely unknown to provide no more than palliative care to the severely disabled new born by giving them water to drink and nothing else. Given the number of feral kids running rampant and growing into the thugs and worse that now predate off the rest of us it makes perfect sense to simply let the plainly unwanted not survive after birth though I do realise that at this stage the majority of people would still have a problem with this. I wonder for how much longer, after all ‘exposing’ an unwanted new born would not exactly be a new thing to do – how much better than leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab as we presently have to in so many ways. Abortion doesn’t line up with another persons ideals? Fine – but they should not get in the way of those who have no problem with it. It’s NOT their duty, it’s NOT their right, and it’s CERTAINLY not their responsibility to try to influence anyone one way or the other. In fact I would go a stage further. Personally I would like to see the compulsory termination of any pregnancy suffered by a girl who conceived prior to her 16th. Birthday. I really would. What is more I firmly believe that the police have lost the plot regarding under age pregnancies and should ruthlessly seek out and prosecute all boys and men who impregnate an under age girl. The American case - it is simply wrong in the worst possible way to let a 13 year old kid deliver a child into the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SugarBee Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 I absolutely agree that this 13 year old should not be forced to give birth to this child. But, of course, there are religious zealots the world over. And, each State of the Union has a different set of laws regarding abortions that affect its citizens. Abortions are legal, but each State can impose rules of its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 I was with you up until compulsory terminations and excessive prosecutions Rog...although I'd not agree with letting unwanted babies die after birth either. Mad suggestion. My solution to unwanted babies is offer people benefits if they have sterilisations. Either before or after children, at any stage in their lives, a lump sum if they have a sterilisation. After all, we pay people who do drop child after child why shouldn't those who decide against children receive a benefit too? The type of people who'd do it just for the money would conveniently be exactly those who would be sh-te parents too... (I left some comments recently on a guestbook of a website that had set itself up to look as though it was offering help and advice to those who were pregnant and thinking of abortion, when in fact it was a hardline anti-abortion site with gross pictures etc.....jeez the amount of total lunatic Yanks who emailed me with death threat rants was unbelievable.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.