Court Declines to Review Abortion Law

[ginshun]

From: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/chapter3.html

If you find that you are being worsted, you can make a diversion—that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute, and afforded an argument against your opponent. This may be done without presumption if the diversion has, in fact, some general bearing on the matter; but it is a piece of impudence if it has nothing to do with the case, and is only brought in by way of attacking your opponent.

Oh Snap!!

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, I see none of the boys want to deal with the questions. Much, much easier to claim that somebody else called you names they didn't call you, or to claim that the issue of control of one's own body has nothing to do with the issue of control over one's own body.

It has nothing to do with any, "slippery slope," argument: I merely asked a hypothetical question based upon an analogy.

OK, so let's try this one: given the number of unwanted pregnancies in America, let's have a Federal law requiring all unmarried American men over the age of 14 to undergo a reversible vasectomy. Then when they can legitimately have kids, we reverse the surgery. It's a much safer operation than abortion or pregnancy, so gentlemen, you're so worried (morality, it seems, is always a matter of keeping track of the wimmens, ain't it?) about what the girls are doing? Set a better example: step up to the plate. Vasectomies now!

I also note that none of the boys want to take up the issue of Bush and his cronies attacking reproductive rights--including contraception and "morning-after," pills, or their aiding and abetting of attacks on women's clinics. And nobody wanted to deal with the issue of kids gotten pregnant by their dad or a family member.

But in the end, I suspect that the invective doesn't have a thing to do with anything but this: like a traitor, I basically repeated the women's viewpoint explained in other posts here--which is, their body, their decision.

Why bring this up? because the whole unspoken slant of the discussion was that girls should go to their daddy for help.

As with Terry Schiavo, this is real simple: you only get to choose for yourself, and at times for the people who have entrusted you with the power to make such choices.

 

[Ray]

As with Terry Schiavo, this is real simple: you only get to choose for yourself, and at times for the people who have entrusted you with the power to make such choices.

Yes, you're exactly right. The abortion debate is much like the Terry Schiavo debate...currently, she is unable to make a decision. If it was her original wish to be terminated she is unable to change that decision. In her current (non-living) state, she is unable to make her own decision so someone else makes it for her.

There are also circumstances where minor females are unable to make mature decisions.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Which Is Why They Have To Take The Issue To A Judge.

 

[ginshun]

OK, so let's try this one: given the number of unwanted pregnancies in America, let's have a Federal law requiring all unmarried American men over the age of 14 to undergo a reversible vasectomy. Then when they can legitimately have kids, we reverse the surgery. It's a much safer operation than abortion or pregnancy, so gentlemen, you're so worried (morality, it seems, is always a matter of keeping track of the wimmens, ain't it?) about what the girls are doing? Set a better example: step up to the plate. Vasectomies now!

And this is the same thing because all women require abortions, and we are somehow trying to take that right away through our insistance that 14 year olds need to get there parents OK for them?

Plus I don't think that there has been a procedure established for a reversable vasectomy. Last time I checked there was still a debate on whether they were reversable or not.

Your kockamamy analogies really are not helping your argument.

Hey, what is your argument / point anyway? I have been pretty consistant in trying to discuss why I think an underage girl should be need to have parental consent to get an abortion surgery. All I have seen from you are rants and raves about how us kooky right wingers are trying to take away womens rights or outlaw abortion, or how men are evil or something. I don't even know what you are getting at. Do you even have an opinion on the original topic that we are trying to discuss, or are you just going to keep bringing in random scenarios and telling us how us men are trying to take away the rights of women?

I mean what the heck?

 

[Cryozombie]

Why bring this up? because the whole unspoken slant of the discussion was that girls should go to their daddy for help.

As with Terry Schiavo, this is real simple: you only get to choose for yourself, and at times for the people who have entrusted you with the power to make such choices.

<sarcasm>I agree with Robert... A 14 year old girl should make all her own choices without the consent of her parents. She should be able to Decide to Drink, Smoke, Do drugs, star in Porn Flicks for cash to hang at the mall with her friends, have sex with 30 year old men... She should be able to decide she doesnt wanna go to school...She shouldnt be told what to do... even by her parents... Why should her Daddy be able to tell her these things are wrong for her?

'Cuz, you see, this is real simple: you only get to choose for yourself.</sarcasm>

That makes less sense than usual from you Robert.

 

[MisterMike]

Which Is Why They Have To Take The Issue To A Judge.

I thought people took things to the judge because they can't seem to get anything through congress. It's a tactic of the left leaning democrats.

 

[Melissa426]

I'd like to repeat what Shesulsa said earlier. Abortions happen whether they are legal or not. But they are safer for women when they are in medical clinics done by licenced doctors (IE: legal). When I was in high school I knew a 15 year old girl who got pregnant and was afraid of telling her parents so her boyfriend tried to abort it himself by repeatedly punching her in the stomach as hard as he could. This is dangerous. Deuce is right, having an abortion purely out of fear is probably not right, but neither is trying to Do-It-Yourself purely out of fear.

You are right about abortions happening, legal or not. Someone posted earlier about legal medical/surgical abortions being safer than term pregnancies. That is true, as well. I am not arguing against legal abortion, my argument is against underage girls having a medical/surgical procedure without their parents consent.

Like your example above, 15 y.o. has her boyfriend punch her in the stomach. That's shows extremely poor judgment. But this same girl could nonetheless give consent to a medical surgical procedure? I don't see the sense in that.

Like the Schiavo case taught us all about the importance of Living wills and POA, I hope this teaches all parents the importance of frank open honest discussions with your kids, at an early age, about sex and pregnancy, contraception and STD's.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[qizmoduis]

I thought people took things to the judge because they can't seem to get anything through congress. It's a tactic of the left leaning democrats.

People take things to judges, especially now, because it's the only way they can protect themselves from right-wing nutcase legislators who seem utterly incapable of understanding the very basis of the government they participate in. The abortion "debate" and the right's vicious attacks on women's access to contraception and family planning is just one example of this.

 

[ginshun]

People take things to judges, especially now, because it's the only way they can protect themselves from right-wing nutcase legislators who seem utterly incapable of understanding the very basis of the government they participate in. The abortion "debate" and the right's vicious attacks on women's access to contraception and family planning is just one example of this.

Right, because why should people have to deal with legislators that were actually elected to there positions, and you know people who actually have to go through a voting process to change laws?

Easier to just find a judge that agrees with their point of view and take it to him, seeing as how judges change laws as they see fit nowadays.

 

[MisterMike]

People take things to judges, especially now, because it's the only way they can protect themselves from right-wing nutcase legislators who seem utterly incapable of understanding the very basis of the government they participate in. The abortion "debate" and the right's vicious attacks on women's access to contraception and family planning is just one example of this.

If I recall, Homosexuals are now allowed to "marry" in Massachusetts due to left leaning "Acivists" and "Judges".

 

[shesulsa]

If I recall, Homosexuals are now allowed to "marry" in Massachusetts due to left leaning "Acivists" and "Judges".

And this has what, exactly, to do with young girls and abortions?

 

[loki09789]

At what point does the state/gov recognize a 'girl' as a 'woman' and a legally independent entity from her parents?

Is someone starts telling me how 'girls mature faster than boys therefore they should have full citizenship sooner' I will say that is a bunch of sexist BS and THAT is hitleresque in nature to define citizenship rights on biology and gender.

Women have been dealt the biological card of childbearing....that is the way it is. Burden? Gift? Depends on mood, perspective, age...

But, how many people here think that making a sweeping policy that a 13/14 or younger girl that is with child is responsible enough to make a life and death decision is a responsible legistative action?

They try child murderers as adults in cases like this (Boy or girl) if it carries the same level of premeditation and follow through as the decision to abort a life.

YES I know it is 'her body' but she is 'someone's child' and is now carrying 'a child' of her own. People can focus on which element of these things they want, but the truth is that they all still exist. Her body still carries a life in it that she will decide with her legally recognized minor's decision making power to keep or abort...

 

[Feisty Mouse]

At what point does the state/gov recognize a 'girl' as a 'woman' and a legally independent entity from her parents?

Is someone starts telling me how 'girls mature faster than boys therefore they should have full citizenship sooner' I will say that is a bunch of sexist BS and THAT is hitleresque in nature to define citizenship rights on biology and gender.

Women have been dealt the biological card of childbearing....that is the way it is. Burden? Gift? Depends on mood, perspective, age...

But, how many people here think that making a sweeping policy that a 13/14 or younger girl that is with child is responsible enough to make a life and death decision is a responsible legistative action?

They try child murderers as adults in cases like this (Boy or girl) if it carries the same level of premeditation and follow through as the decision to abort a life.

YES I know it is 'her body' but she is 'someone's child' and is now carrying 'a child' of her own. People can focus on which element of these things they want, but the truth is that they all still exist. Her body still carries a life in it that she will decide with her legally recognized minor's decision making power to keep or abort...

As of now (thank goodness), women - and men - are still entitled to control what happens to their own bodies.

As of now, a pregnancy is veiwed as a potential life, rather than having, post-conception, its own rights as an individual. Thus a woman who chooses to have an abortion is considered to have had an abortion, not participated in murder. An individual may think she is "a murderer", but under the law, she has decided what to do with her own body and reproductive abilities.

So does a 13 or 14 year old girl know what is best for her? Again, most girls I know would go running to their parents asap, for help, for guidance, for anything. But some would not.

 

[loki09789]

So does a 13 or 14 year old girl know what is best for her? Again, most girls I know would go running to their parents asap, for help, for guidance, for anything. But some would not.

And those that would make the abortion decision because they knew that Mom and Dad would never have to know would most likely be doing that out of fear: Fear of reaction/consequence/stigma/responsibility...and when is a decision made primarily in fear EVER a good one?

Now, that doesn't mean that different motives and reasons don't lead to the same end - so not all abortions are done out of fear.

Responsibility gets bigger as you get older, it isn't easy. Having sex means potential pregnancy...that is life. There are other options besides having/keeping the child and abortion.

 

[Tgace]

And we are not talking about "women" we are talking about children (as defined by law). Thats the crux of this particular thread.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

And those that would make the abortion decision because they knew that Mom and Dad would never have to know would most likely be doing that out of fear: Fear of reaction/consequence/stigma/responsibility...and when is a decision made primarily in fear EVER a good one?

Now, that doesn't mean that different motives and reasons don't lead to the same end - so not all abortions are done out of fear.

Responsibility gets bigger as you get older, it isn't easy. Having sex means potential pregnancy...that is life. There are other options besides having/keeping the child and abortion.

Or the fear that some pretty awful repercussions would face them, like homelessness, or being beaten up by an angry parent.

And not all young women are selecting to have sex and get pregnant, either. Some are assaulted. It's not always a choice (or "accident") she decided to make.

Is a decision based in fear a good one? Perhaps not the best decision - and I wish no young woman would EVER find herself in that position. But, sadly, for some kids, fear is something that plays a big part in their lives.

 

[Tgace]

Not meaning to sound argumentative, but I still dont understand how we can make/argue a policy based on what "might" happen. We cant tell parents becaues they "may" beat, abandon the child? Where else in our society do we follow that policy between children and their parents?

 

[shesulsa]

There are other options besides having/keeping the child and abortion.

This is so easy to say - especially for people who can't get pregnant. I'd like to think parents are open minded and respect their daughter's potential to be any kind of woman with her very own opinions and values ... but that's just not likely.

 

[shesulsa]

If we're going to limit the fredoms of young girls with the physical ability to reproduce then why don't we do the same for males? Why don't we delay puberty chemically? It can be done. Or mandate the use of medication to suppress sperm production until they're 18?

It takes two to tango, folks.