HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-21-2013, 08:14 PM
  #76
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kov View Post
(Trying to salvage what's interesting in this thread.)

So Wetcoaster, from a legal perspective, do you think this decision would create a precedent that someone could cite in a future challenge to parental consent laws?

Seems pretty clear (to me) that the judge in this case decided the rights/wishes of the pregnant girl trumped the rights/wishes of her parents.
What if the parents were trying to force her to get a nose job? Could it be considered like braces. I certainly didn't think I had the choice whether I was getting braces or not. A nose job seems somewhere in between braces and an abortion. They are all choices the parents are making in what they think is in the best interest of the child's future.

__________________

"This is not a nick or a scratch, this is an open wound" - Doug Wilson.
Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 06:41 AM
  #77
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,856
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bengui View Post
No, nobody would argue that. They're called pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Her parents aren't pro-choice, they're pro-I-don't-want-to-deal-with-my-daughter-becoming-a-teenage-mom-and-I-wrongly-think-I-have-the-right-to-dictate-her-life-the-way-I-want-just-because-she's-not-18-yet.
This, stupid is this thread.

beowulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 09:48 AM
  #78
Bengui
Registered User
 
Bengui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
What if the parents were trying to force her to get a nose job? Could it be considered like braces. I certainly didn't think I had the choice whether I was getting braces or not. A nose job seems somewhere in between braces and an abortion. They are all choices the parents are making in what they think is in the best interest of the child's future.
You certainly had the choice to get braces or not... Your parents can't make that decision for you.

Bengui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 09:58 AM
  #79
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Win it for Robidas!
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 24,321
vCash: 500
With the exception of dental work, I don't think a parent could ever force their kid to have any real surgery or procedure against their will.

I have heard of parents taking their teenage daughters to doctors to get birth control shots even when the daughters didn't want them, but that is not anything that is nearly as life changing as abortion or amputation.

Troy McClure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:00 AM
  #80
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure View Post
With the exception of dental work, I don't think a parent could ever force their kid to have any real surgery or procedure against their will.

I have heard of parents taking their teenage daughters to doctors to get birth control shots even when the daughters didn't want them, but that is not anything that is nearly as life changing as abortion or amputation.
Life saving heart surgery? An amputation that would save the childs life? Ruptured spleen? Burst appendix? How old of a kid?

Doppler Drift is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 11:59 AM
  #81
Johnnywhite
Registered User
 
Johnnywhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: White Hart Lane
Posts: 3,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
Life saving heart surgery? An amputation that would save the childs life? Ruptured spleen? Burst appendix? How old of a kid?
Circumcision?

Johnnywhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 12:17 PM
  #82
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnywhite View Post
Circumcision?
And the gauntlet is thrown down...

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 12:49 PM
  #83
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnywhite View Post
Circumcision?
Ban circumcisions then. A baby can't give their consent to the procedure. May has well ban all the above as well then until the child reaches the age of consent since a baby can't possibly give consent, and since the childs rights must be protected the parent can't make the decision for them. No blood transfusions either. No medical or dental procedures. Hell school shouldn't be mandatory.

Doppler Drift is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 12:58 PM
  #84
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Win it for Robidas!
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 24,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
Life saving heart surgery? An amputation that would save the childs life? Ruptured spleen? Burst appendix? How old of a kid?
We should probably separate medical emergencies from elective procedures like abortion.

Troy McClure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:04 PM
  #85
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure View Post
We should probably separate medical emergencies from elective procedures like abortion.
If the abortion decision becomes the sole responsibility of the child the parents of neither party should be financially responsible for their children nor the grandchild. If the teens are going to take the decision that they want to bring a child into the world then they should be responsible for supporting and raising it.

Doppler Drift is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:35 PM
  #86
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
If the abortion decision becomes the sole responsibility of the child the parents of neither party should be financially responsible for their children nor the grandchild. If the teens are going to take the decision that they want to bring a child into the world then they should be responsible for supporting and raising it.
Good way to frame it.

This can almost lead you to think that 18 should be the minimum age for consensual sex.

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 01:38 PM
  #87
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Win it for Robidas!
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 24,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
If the abortion decision becomes the sole responsibility of the child the parents of neither party should be financially responsible for their children nor the grandchild. If the teens are going to take the decision that they want to bring a child into the world then they should be responsible for supporting and raising it.
Okay. Doesn't bother me.

Troy McClure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 03:02 PM
  #88
Johnnywhite
Registered User
 
Johnnywhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: White Hart Lane
Posts: 3,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
Ban circumcisions then. A baby can't give their consent to the procedure. May has well ban all the above as well then until the child reaches the age of consent since a baby can't possibly give consent, and since the childs rights must be protected the parent can't make the decision for them. No blood transfusions either. No medical or dental procedures. Hell school shouldn't be mandatory.
Infant circumcisions I certainly would, in the absence of any rare medical imperative. I've always found it weird that society unanimously & correctly reviles female genital mutilation, but goes into misty eyed approbation of male genital mutilation because it's on 'religious' grounds.

Johnnywhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:03 PM
  #89
Bengui
Registered User
 
Bengui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppler Drift View Post
Ban circumcisions then. A baby can't give their consent to the procedure. May has well ban all the above as well then until the child reaches the age of consent since a baby can't possibly give consent, and since the childs rights must be protected the parent can't make the decision for them. No blood transfusions either. No medical or dental procedures. Hell school shouldn't be mandatory.
Ban circumcisions, yes. It's pointless and irreversible. But for the other things, like blood transfusions and school, you're either not serious or stupid.

Bengui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:37 PM
  #90
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bengui View Post
Ban circumcisions, yes. It's pointless and irreversible. But for the other things, like blood transfusions and school, you're either not serious or stupid.
You took my statements to be in favor of banning those things? It seems you misidentified who the stupid one is. Go back to the start of this page, work your way down and see if you can catch up.

Doppler Drift is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 05:05 PM
  #91
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnywhite View Post
Infant circumcisions I certainly would, in the absence of any rare medical imperative. I've always found it weird that society unanimously & correctly reviles female genital mutilation, but goes into misty eyed approbation of male genital mutilation because it's on 'religious' grounds.
One gruesome question to ask is would people be less opposed to female genital cutting if it happened during infancy (like male circumcision) instead of the more common 7-13 range?

Sevanston is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:52 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.