Court Declines to Review Abortion Law

[Shaolinwind]

If this is the case, thats what judicial bypass and social services are for.

Setting policy because some parents "may be psychotic hardcore christians" is stupid. Where else do we not tell parents what their children are doing because they MAY get abused? I have to notify parents of what their children do all the time. Maybe doing so resulted in their being beaten/abused at home, I dont know, but thats doesn't change my duty to tell them, unless I have evidence that that is indeed going to happen...if thats so then the parents should be reported and charged. Thats the way the system is.

Not may be, will be. It's a serious issue involving their bodies and reality demands that government mandates their control over their bodies when it comes to legal, non-damaging things. Parents have this notion that children are their property and that is not so. You're speaking to someone who grew up with a single mother with munchausen bi-proxy.. I know the need to protect children from parents and from christianity's sick dogmas and legacy of hate.

 

[Tgace]

Still dosent change the fact that we do not make or change law because of what "may" happen. Thats assuming guilt before making law. Its wrong.

Similar to saying we should just arrest any (race) we find near a crime scene..because we know that all (race) are criminals.....

 

[Shaolinwind]

Still dosent change the fact that we do not make or change law because of what "may" happen. Thats assuming guilt before making law. Its wrong.

Oh so you don't believe in preventative legislation at all then? Think about that for a second. Are you the type who likes to act only after people are hurt? Or when you see a situation that people are HIGHLY likely to be hurt do you do something to assure safety?

 

[Shaolinwind]

Similar to saying we should just arrest any (race) we find near a crime scene..because we know that all (race) are criminals.....

No it's nothing like that. You won't be able to come up with a legitimate metaphor for a unique issue like this.

 

[Tgace]

So are we to assume ALL parents are religious wackos, therefore we should tell no parents that their kid wants an abortion????

If thats the case should I tell a parent when their kid gets arrested? Perhaps that parent may "flip out" and kill the kid.......

 

[Shaolinwind]

So we are to ASSUME ALL parents are religious wackos therefore we should tell no parents that their kid wants an abortion????

If thats the case should I tell a parent when their kid gets arrested? Perhaps that parent may "flip out" and kill the kid.......

If you are simply going to take everything I say out of context, I am finished conversing with you.

 

[Tgace]

Oh so you don't believe in preventative legislation at all then? Think about that for a second. Are you the type who likes to act only after people are hurt? Or when you see a situation that people are HIGHLY likely to be hurt do you do something to assure safety?

If you are going to circumvent a parents legal responsibility, it should be done through a legal channel... the court. If not the court, a Social Worker/Physician should evaluate the case and authorize the procedure. After which that worker should file a legal report to CPS or a similar body......

 

[Tgace]

If you are simply going to take everything I say out of context, I am finished conversing with you.

How is it out of context? You stated we cant tell a parent their child is having an abortion because that parent MAY be a religious nut that would force her to have the baby.....Im saying we shouldnt circumvent a parents responsibility for their child without legal process or evidence that that parent is unfit to be told.

 

[Adept]

*dons flame retardant suit and wades into thread*

If I understand it correctly (and please, correct me if I am wrong) the stance of some is that parents should be notified before a young girl is allowed to have an abortion.

Again, if I understand it correctly, this is because the parents should have the final say in the matter because it is assumed the girl is too young to make an informed decision.

The reason I am opposed to this idea is because I do not believe it is the parents place to make that decision for their child, no matter what stage her mental development is at. The parents should not be able to force the child to have a child if the child does not truly want it, nor should they force the child to have an abortion if it is medically sound not to do so.

Families are unpredictable, loose organisations that often lack the facilities to be objective, caring and supportive.

I propose a compromise. Lets create an independant third party, in the form of an advisory/medical/counselling board. A girl under 16 would be required to attend said board and be informed as well as possible about the outcomes of her decision. This provides the same role as the family (guidance and support) and (hopefully) eliminates the bias involved in the family.

 

[Tgace]

I dont fully agree, I think some sort of evidence should be presented before overriding the responsibility of the parents...but your plan is a sound and reasonable suggestion too.

:asian:

 

[Tgace]

2. There are only two sides to politics, with the truly decent and reasonable man in the middle? Well, that's nonsense. But it is a traditional position from which to deny one's own ideology.

But almost everybody who contradicts you is a Rush/Savage/Hannity'ite?

:idunno:

 

[Cryozombie]

Well, I think (and yes this is similar to TGace's comments) that denying a parent their parental rights and responsibilities to their minor child on the basis that they MIGHT deny the child an abortion would be like, oh I dunno, rounding all of the middle easerners up and tossing them in, say cuba, becuase they MIGHT be terrorists.

One is right, the other is wrong? :idunno:

I would have to wonder, also, how many of those abortions by the underage children are to hide the fact that they are sexualy active from their parents? Can anyone find statistics on this?

On top of that... if a parent fails in their responsibility to their minor child, and say, neglects to get them medical treatment, DCFS tends to step in and the parents are held responsible... but now we are saying "let the minor child make her own decisions regarding this" and we are creating a double standard... we are also assuming that a minor child will be responsible enough to make this decision on her own, but, was she responsible enough when it came to sex not to get pregnant? Or to make the choice NOT to have sex?

I really feel, if we are going to decide that a child has the right to decide what to do with their body... it should be an all or nothing proposal. Drop the laws regulating Drinking and Smoking ages, Drop the laws regarding drug use, drop the laws against Child Pornography, Drop the Statutory rape laws, drop the laws reglating the age for Tattooing and Body piercing...

Those things all only affect the minor, right? And they are responsible enough to decide for themselves...

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. I just LOVE intellectual discussion, from people who in no way adopt both the ideas and the tone of Savage et al. Why, they're independent thinkers--it's just a complete, utter accident that they a) distort what they read, b) force everything into liberal evil thoughts from Satan vs. Decency and Conservatism, c) so frequently fall back on insult because they haven't got the goods to argue with, d) try to claim that their position is neutral, unbiased, common sense under attack. Good thing this never, ever happens on Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage et al...

2. Points that keep getting sluffed off: a) the whole court case is part of an explicit, deliberate attack on abortion rights in general, using "protecting kids," as an excuse; b) these are the clowns who've been attacking women's clinics, sex ed programs, services for women and kids (including Head Start) for two decades now; c) this is one more case of men wanting to use State power to keep control of, "their," women; d) the amount of heat this has generated underscores that point.

3. Oh. Nobody said nobody else didn't read books. I said the books you're reading aren't very good.

 

[Melissa426]

Not may be, will be. It's a serious issue involving their bodies and reality demands that government mandates their control over their bodies when it comes to legal, non-damaging things. Parents have this notion that children are their property and that is not so. You're speaking to someone who grew up with a single mother with munchausen bi-proxy.. I know the need to protect children from parents and from christianity's sick dogmas and legacy of hate.

I am truly sorry you grew up in a home with a seriously psychiatrically ill woman.
Munchausen's by proxy is an illness, and has no relationship to Christianity.Your mother could just have well been a fanatical Muslim and she still would have had her illness.

Your reality may demand governmental intervention, but not mine.
You argue that because some children have bad parents, all children should be entitled to made medical decisions.
My analogy is this (and others have made it): Because some parents don't lock up their gun cabinets, no parent should be allowed to have guns in the house in case a child decides to go on a shooting spree. Because some parents don't monitor their child's internet usage, no household with kids are allowed internet access.

I don't follow the logic here.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[Melissa426]

3. Oh. Nobody said nobody else didn't read books. I said the books you're reading aren't very good.

Thank you for your input.

Melissa

 

[Tgace]

Oh yeah...my point here on this thread is just the same as Rush would make.:shrug:

 

[Feisty Mouse]

So are we to assume ALL parents are religious wackos, therefore we should tell no parents that their kid wants an abortion????

If thats the case should I tell a parent when their kid gets arrested? Perhaps that parent may "flip out" and kill the kid.......

OK.

Things are getting pretty crazy-heated in here (and I'm not referring to you, tgace - I just wanted to use your comment as a springboard).

First of all, I can understand why parents want to know - and have a right to know - about what their kids are doing, what is happening with them, especially medically. All the parents out there who care about their kids will want this very much.

Controlling one's own reproductive abilities and future are affected by - and affect - one's family. But these kinds of control are based, eventually, on each individual. Particularly in the case that this discussion has come from, the young woman *could not* reach her parents for their consent/approval. Are we then going to limit what can be done when, in cases like abortion (or other procedures) that are very time-sensitive?

 

[Tgace]

Well, from my stance thats where the court or social services step in. Or the doctor goes ahead with the procedure due to pressing medical need. As he would with any other procedure.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Well, from my stance thats where the court or social services step in. Or the doctor goes ahead with the procedure due to pressing medical need. As he would with any other procedure.

But in this case, it is time-sensitive, but may not be considered "pressing medical need" if the girl's wishes, apart from her parents', are considered to be invalid. If she cannot OK an abortion for herself without their approval, a doctor may decide that she will be just fine as a young mother - since this is such an emotional issue.

 

[Tgace]

Then a social worker at the hospital can evaluate the case and make a decision. I dont know of any pressing need that a doctor wouldnt have to act immediately on.

In a nutshell. You make adaptations for special circumstances. You dont think up special circumstances then set policy because of them.