Other issues not mentioned because of the shutdown.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#53223314

^I know this is a liberal source. But either this court ruling happened or it didn't so it's easily factcheck able, despite any bias.

How can a State Supreme Court say this to a 16 year old girl who wants an abortion, and probably needs one in her unique situation when Roe v. Wade is in effect?

Nutshell: Nebraska requires parent signature approval to get an abortion, she legally has no parents because she's an abused foster kid whose parents lost parental rights for her so their signatures mean nothing legally, and the decision to obtain an abortion is given to the court, they said no.

 

This is not news! This is garbage! It's totally bias- and not only that, it has to do with her mental state, not her age.

She could kill her baby,and go on to regret it the rest of her life. Just because society has normalized something, doesn't make it right.

If the judge says she's too immature after speaking with her, he's probably right.

 

Reality check: Anti-abortion activists question the mental state and maturity of everyone who disagrees with them.

 

Oh, you mean infanticide promoters? seems like anything for a kill lately huh? Hunting season for the eugenics crowd? Funny, just in time for obyscare? Funny I'll bet thats included on the jihadist's list of free "services". Shame on You!!!!

 

I mean EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM. Can you read simple English?

 

By "everyone," you mean stupid Liberals, who have no morality anyway.


We're talking about the same groups who believe in stealing for the "greater good" and want to take guns away, by government GUNS.

The most hypocritical morons in this country.

 

So the premise is that it takes less maturity to give birth to the child than to abort it?

The logic from the judge doesn't compute, especially since a Judge's rulings SHOULD be restricted to legal precedent, especially FEDERAL precedent given that they're only State judges.

Also if a woman DOES abort her baby, and later regrets it, THAT'S ON HER, and nobody else! (That's a libertarian view on power to the individual at least on this issue of abortion)

---

It's totally news, despite it's bias because it's a true story that happened, and you can prove it happened the way it was told in this news report.

It also sets up a bad legal precedent for any parentless girl, who gets pregnant (rape or consentual sex) it doesn't matter, and the State says No to her request for an abortion based on whatever grounds they have to give her the label of "too immature".

(Sidenote: maybe a rapist makes sure the girl has no parents, by murdering them > legal limbo for her)

Fyi, I'm pretty sure Islam is against abortion too. So the above post makes you sound uninformed.

Also eugenics was a horrible false science, and we know it is bad now because of the various branches of Anthropology (genetic especially), proves that the concepts Inferiority/Superiority, and therefore cleansing the "gene pool" doesn't make any sense.

Science (not politics) now knows that certain traits are carried on certain genes which exist in all races, and there's no way to tell by outward appearances, not to mention those same genes might have duel effects that could be positive in some environments.

Those who were gullible and bought into Social Darwinism, tended to be pro-eugenics; one's political views are skew to whether one supports eugenics or not.

Why do you equate the two separate issues of right to an abortion to the concept of eugenics?

---

On the flipside Roe V. Wade, PROTECTS any women who DOESN'T want to get an abortion from being forced into one.

It also doesn't allow for abortions after 25 weeks.

So it's a fair interpretation of the law, to the concept of freedom.


This judge's ruling is not.

 

To STP's credit, as of late he has been very civil and contributes to the conversation, albeit a different perspective, in regards to politics.

His views and mine are very much like a Venn Diagram.

---

But give him a pass on this issue because the topic of abortion hits him personally, for he has stated in other parts of Hipforums, that a girl aborted a child he wanted to raise and was willing to raise without her.

I can level with him on that.

 

STP's case is not uncommon. This is a huge opportunity to make a plea for male parency rights not only regarding child custody in divorce but in the case of infanticide as well. Why was not STP allowed to save a life? Left wing dogma? PC nonsense? Whatever the case , give males as much of a right to choose as the female. Save the baby humans.

 

+1

 

I believe it takes maturity to have sex, and she should've taken proper precautions. Furthermore, having a baby doesn't take maturity, raising a baby does. She has the option of adoption still; there are plenty of women who would die for a child, while girls that can't be bothered just kill theirs.

Well okay. What type of legal precedent are you talking about? A psyche evaluation, an overturn of the law? Personally, I don't feel like state judges should have this type of custody over children; But Liberals typically love CPS and other such organizations.

Then, I differ with Libertarians on this issue. I believe you can do as you please, as long as you're not damaging or destroying someone else's property.

It takes 2 people to make a baby. The baby is a person of their own, and they own their own body. The idea that a woman has some moral "Right" to murder her baby; To me, it's just a sick form of population control and desensitization. Women today use abortions as a form of birth control, when we have other contraceptives that work better.

It's not like I'm saying a sperm in an egg is a baby. Women can use Plan B the morning after, and terminate the pregnancy. However, once the baby has a mind and body of it's own, you are destroying a life.

Buddha said we should wish peace and happiness for every living thing, and respect every form of life. That baby is a life, and abortion, is taking that life away. It is a very touchy subject; But just today, I heard of a 16 year old being forced by her parents to get an abortion, and, she slipped into depression for over 9 years now. It is taking away a life, and it's not morally right.
---

She could appeal the decision through a different judge, and take a psych Evaluation, to prove she understands she's taking a life. Plus, does she not have foster parents? or Local law doesn't account for them? I don't think the government should be acting as this girls parents, anymore than you do. But, I do think the court system is pretty thorough when it comes to these issues.

We heard from Mrs. Meadow that the judge asked question; To which we never got the answer. She may have said something, that made him rule this way.

It's a touchy subject, but again- Plan B. If a women gets raped (God Forbid,) she still has other options. In Most states, 16 is the age to buy Plan B, (morning after pill,) and it avoids directly taking the life of a living human being.

Furthermore, you turned the rape card into double homicide and rape card. That type of thing, doesn't happen everyday- and people rarely get away with that. Plus, there's plenty of other options still.

Again, I don't want the government to parent foster kids- but these are programs Liberals overwhelmingly support. We don't know what happened in the courtroom, so I assume Rachel went wayyy over the top, for something that was an isolated incident, based on the Judges understanding of the situation.

They are in that position for a reason- we don't blindly choose Judges, and, I highly doubt this had much to do with his political party as Karen J suggested.

 

I didn't call anybody stupid for their beliefs.

In fact until this post on this forum, none of my posts prior have the word "stupid" in them.

It is valid though, to attack and criticize a train of logic leading to a conclusion or action that stems from a belief-system, be it faith or something else.

That is not a personal attack, but I can see how one would take an attack on their belief-system that they use as attack on their personal character, but it's really not one.

Why did you interpret my posts as personal attacks?

 

He's talking about me. He still doesn't say anything to RJ, for all this Anti-republican rants. It's only people who diss on Liberals.

Also, I made valid points. If you think taking a life is okay, that's not very moral. If you think government guns kicking in our doors and taking our guns is okay- again, totally immoral.

However, I wasn't attacking anyone directly, only your views, with logical reasoning behind it. Maybe I shouldn't had said "stupid," but I stand by the immorality part, and I don't think Liberals are too bright, supporting government force, until a 16 year old, gets denied an abortion. It is hypocritical and immoral to me; I stand by what I said.

 

We disagree about the level of maturity to have sex = the level of maturity to give birth = the maturity to raise a child. I treat each of those categories separately, you seem to merge them. Fine we'll agree to disagree here.

Not all women are in the right frame of mind after giving birth to follow through on giving the child up. (hormones and all)

---

 

I don't believe exactly how you said it. I believe if you're doing something, you should think about the consequences. There are other ways to avoid pregnancy, and you shouldn't have sex, if you're not taking proper precaution and/or you don't want a baby. plus, I said adoption is a viable option, as is birth control and Plan B. I'm not merging anything; just saying that people need to deal with the reaction of their deeds. If I go out and take 50 hits of LSD daily, there's a chance I'll go crazy and lose my mind. That is my own fault. But to cause harm on an innocent child, is where I morally disagree, and that's fine.

I think it's a little better than killing the child. That child didn't make her mistakes, she did. If you have a risk of becoming pregnant, you should eliminate that risk, before having sex. Sex leads to pregnancy, and too many women think it's fine cause they can just kill the baby, it's their "choice." But in the process you are depriving another human of life, liberty and, happiness. I'm strongly morally opposed to it, but, I know people see things differently than I do, so I can agree to disagree.

It's not like it'll ever be illegal anyway. I just think it should be more difficult and less enticing, less accepted and not used as birth control. I'd like to see abortion acknowledged for what it actually is; Taking a human life away.

 

What's unique about her situation?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/teen-too-immature-abortion_n_4072321.html

It sounds as if the foster parents need sorting out...

I do think if the girl has such feelings about her foster parents then she should have some other course of action...

It's a sad case, but I think it's a fair decision because it does feel like a bit of a whim on her part.

Getting pregnant at 16 is pretty immature in this day and age...especially if you don't take into consideration the consequences.

However, I don't know the full circumstances of her getting pregnant, so can't take everything into consideration...

She doesn't sound as if she physically doesn't want to give birth - but simply doesn't want the consequences of her own actions...

 

Okay, it sounds like we're broadening the discussion to the topic of abortion, birth control, and access to sex education (and the specifics of what that education entails or omits) at large, rather than this specific court case ruling. Originally, I wanted to keep the discussion narrow to this one case, before I went into this broader discussion. So one last thing on the specific case mentioned earlier and your replies to it.

If you agree with the judges ruling on her being too "immature" for the procedure, by de facto since there is only one other option, you're saying that her maturity level is enough to handle giving birth because that's what will happen if she doesn't get an abortion.

Also I'm not sure the girl CAN appeal because it's gone to the highest court in that state, and unless this goes to the federal system. It is safe to assume that the speed in which legal paperwork gets done by the court system she'll be past the time in which Roe V. Wade allows abortion to be accessible to her. It wasn't one judge in this case but the State Supreme court panel that made that decision in this particular case.

---

As for that other instance, about the girl who was forced by her parents to get an abortion...that isn't legally protected, in fact that's a crime so the law has done everything it possibly can in that instance, the problem, if there was one, was do to enforcement. In fact I believe that the state should provide services (shelter, food, baby care help) to protect girls who are being leveraged against their will to get an abortion.

--

Now to the broad discussion, I DO agree with all of you who feel that abortion USED AS birth control is an abuse of the system, I just don't know what to do about that without opening up legal problems in other areas that affect the legal definition of "Personhood" (other issues impacted for example: medically assisted fertilization procedures and technologies, and birth control like Plan-B can be affected), not to mention that I could see some lawyers making the crazy case that miscarriage = manslaughter.

I want to say more but I need to end this here as I'm pressed for time to make this post.

Other issues: Some states do restrict what that state's education system can tell their students about abortion in their health classes.

So yes in theory, students in their teens at least, SHOULD know about plan-B, condoms, they may not...and therefore aren't in a good position as an individual to make choices about sex.