Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tonymctones on February 19, 2013, 08:30:21 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant-teen-wins-abortion-battle-150554993--abc-news-topstories.html
A pregnant teen who sued her parents, claiming they were coercing her to have an abortion, will be able to give birth to her baby.
Attorneys representing the 16-year-old girl were granted a long-term injunction against the girl's parents in Texas family court on Monday, according to court documents.
The teen is 10 weeks pregnant and the injunction will last for the duration of her pregnancy.
As part of the order, the girl will be able to use her car to go to school, work and medical appointments. Her parents had taken away the use of the car as part of their effort to force an abortion, court papers stated.
When the pregnancy was confirmed, the teenager's father allegedly "became extremely angry, was insistent that R.E.K. was not having the baby, and that the decision was not up to her, according to the lawsuit. He stated he was going to take her to have an abortion and that the decision was his, end of story."
Im not quite sure how I feel about this. Good that she was able to save the child from abortion but I think this will lead to more legal battles in the future.
Id like to hear the judges reasoning for siding with the 16 year old.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant-teen-wins-abortion-battle-150554993--abc-news-topstories.html
A pregnant teen who sued her parents, claiming they were coercing her to have an abortion, will be able to give birth to her baby.
Attorneys representing the 16-year-old girl were granted a long-term injunction against the girl's parents in Texas family court on Monday, according to court documents.
The teen is 10 weeks pregnant and the injunction will last for the duration of her pregnancy.
As part of the order, the girl will be able to use her car to go to school, work and medical appointments. Her parents had taken away the use of the car as part of their effort to force an abortion, court papers stated.
When the pregnancy was confirmed, the teenager's father allegedly "became extremely angry, was insistent that R.E.K. was not having the baby, and that the decision was not up to her, according to the lawsuit. He stated he was going to take her to have an abortion and that the decision was his, end of story."
Im not quite sure how I feel about this. Good that she was able to save the child from abortion but I think this will lead to more legal battles in the future.
Id like to hear the judges reasoning for siding with the 16 year old.
A definite PRO-CHOICE VICTORY!!!!
Kudos to the judge who signed the injunction!!!
Best wishes to the 16 yr. old. Her life will be forever changed,
...and something tells me she may not have the most supportive parents.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant-teen-wins-abortion-battle-150554993--abc-news-topstories.html
A pregnant teen who sued her parents, claiming they were coercing her to have an abortion, will be able to give birth to her baby.
Attorneys representing the 16-year-old girl were granted a long-term injunction against the girl's parents in Texas family court on Monday, according to court documents.
The teen is 10 weeks pregnant and the injunction will last for the duration of her pregnancy.
As part of the order, the girl will be able to use her car to go to school, work and medical appointments. Her parents had taken away the use of the car as part of their effort to force an abortion, court papers stated.
When the pregnancy was confirmed, the teenager's father allegedly "became extremely angry, was insistent that R.E.K. was not having the baby, and that the decision was not up to her, according to the lawsuit. He stated he was going to take her to have an abortion and that the decision was his, end of story."
Im not quite sure how I feel about this. Good that she was able to save the child from abortion but I think this will lead to more legal battles in the future.
Id like to hear the judges reasoning for siding with the 16 year old.
can't force her to have the abortion. but reality is that the dad and mom are most probably going to be the ones who raise it. it's a bad situation no matter how you slice it. but you tell parents of teenagers in the US to practice abstinence and you're called a bible thumping maniac. well then have fun raising your kid's kids dude. i don't know what to tell you. if your 14 year old is fucking other 14 year olds they probably will get pregnant. why? because they're 14 fucking years old and they're dumb as shit.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant-teen-wins-abortion-battle-150554993--abc-news-topstories.html
A pregnant teen who sued her parents, claiming they were coercing her to have an abortion, will be able to give birth to her baby.
Attorneys representing the 16-year-old girl were granted a long-term injunction against the girl's parents in Texas family court on Monday, according to court documents.
The teen is 10 weeks pregnant and the injunction will last for the duration of her pregnancy.
As part of the order, the girl will be able to use her car to go to school, work and medical appointments. Her parents had taken away the use of the car as part of their effort to force an abortion, court papers stated.
When the pregnancy was confirmed, the teenager's father allegedly "became extremely angry, was insistent that R.E.K. was not having the baby, and that the decision was not up to her, according to the lawsuit. He stated he was going to take her to have an abortion and that the decision was his, end of story."
Im not quite sure how I feel about this. Good that she was able to save the child from abortion but I think this will lead to more legal battles in the future.
Id like to hear the judges reasoning for siding with the 16 year old.
This could have dangerous ramifications.
The parents are FORCED to let her use the car they bought for her. That doesn't sound right.
This is a sticky situation, and you can bet the left will use this to circumvent parental decisions in other matters.
-
just what everyone needs; another unwanted kid that a kid cant take care of. parents stuck with the bills again.
-
Another kid tax payers have to raise.
-
Did I miss it, or is everyone just assuming the girl will be keeping the child after delivery?
Adoption is still an option.
-
A definite PRO-CHOICE VICTORY!!!!
This is also an unusual instance, in that many/most "pro-choice victories" see people winning and celebrating the right to HAVE the abortion.
-
This could have dangerous ramifications.
The parents are FORCED to let her use the car they bought for her. That doesn't sound right.
This is a sticky situation, and you can bet the left will use this to circumvent parental decisions in other matters.
"her parents had taken away her phone, pulled her out of school, forced her to get two jobs and took away her car in an effort to "make her miserable so that she would give in to the coercion and have the abortion."'
Preventing her from continuing her education, working, or getting proper pre-natal care, ....all in an attempt to force her to end a pregnancy isn't right. It's coersive & abusive, and I fear for her safety if she has parents who would resort to that to get their way.
-
Did I miss it, or is everyone just assuming the girl will be keeping the child after delivery?
Adoption is still an option.
She plans to marry the father of her child, and I assume raise their child together.
-
"her parents had taken away her phone, pulled her out of school, forced her to get two jobs and took away her car in an effort to "make her miserable so that she would give in to the coercion and have the abortion."'
Preventing her from continuing her education, working, or getting proper pre-natal care, ....all in an attempt to force her to end a pregnancy isn't right. It's coersive & abusive, and I fear for her safety if she has parents who would resort to that to get their way.
Again, it's a sticky situation. But, I'm concerned about this being used to circumvent parental authority, in other cases.
-
She plans to marry the father of her child, and I assume raise their child together.
I see.
I was just thinking about that in regards to those here claiming the girl's parents will end up raising the child. That is often the case, but again, it's often the parents trying to force their daughter to keep the child, when she is in favor of aborting it. This scenario is the exact opposite.
Here, it is the parents who DON'T want the child. The person or people who are in favor of keeping the baby are often the ones to do most of the rearing. I wish the young couple the best of luck. They have a tough road ahead.
-
This is also an unusual instance, in that many/most "pro-choice victories" see people winning and celebrating the right to HAVE the abortion.
It is not an UNUSUAL victory in that THIS is exactly what pro-choice is all about!
The woman having the right to choose for herself. Your body - your choice.
Last year a girlfriend of mine admitted to me that years ago when her teenage daughter came up pregnant by a boyfriend no one she could stand (not even her daughter), ...she pressured her to have an abortion. She was beside herself. All she could think of was "What would the ladies at church say?" Everyone wanted her to terminate the pregnancy. Finally her daughter ran away from home until it was too late to end the pregnancy.
Now her 8 yr old grandson is her total world and she cannot possibly imagine life without him.
He truly is a very special little boy whose light touches and inspires all who encounter him.
-
It is not an UNUSUAL victory in that THIS is exactly what pro-choice is all about!
The woman having the right to choose for herself. Your body - your choice.
Last year a girlfriend of mine admitted to me that years ago when her teenage daughter came up pregnant by a boyfriend no one she could stand (not even her daughter), ...she pressured her to have an abortion. She was beside herself. All she could think of was "What would the ladies at church say?" Everyone wanted her to terminate the pregnancy. Finally her daughter ran away from home until it was too late to end the pregnancy.
Now her 8 yr old grandson is her total world and she cannot possibly imagine life without him.
He truly is a very special little boy whose light touches and inspires all who encounter him.
But, she ain't a woman; she's 16. And, that's part of the controversy.
-
Again, it's a sticky situation. But, I'm concerned about this being used to circumvent parental authority, in other cases.
All throughout history, courts have been making decisions and advocating on the behalf of minors whose rights are being curtailed by their parents, or those whose parents influence is not a positive one. we have seen many minors emancipate themselves from their parents. Just because you are a minor, doesn't mean you shouldn't have rights, and when the infringement of those rights becomes abusive, someone has to advocate. I don't think there is that great a danger that this could be used to further circumvent parental authority, as much as laws that demand child vaccination, or forced healthcare modalities against the wishes of both the child & the parents.
-
It is not an UNUSUAL victory in that THIS is exactly what pro-choice is all about!
The woman having the right to choose for herself. Your body - your choice.
I concur.
My point is that it seems pro-choice is - most of the time - in regards to someone fighting for the right to have an abortion rather than to not have one.
-
But, she ain't a woman; she's 16. And, that's part of the controversy.
Physically she is a woman. As for how mentally or emotionally developed she is... we can only speculate.
Perhaps I should have said a female's right to choose.
-
Physically she is a woman. As for how mentally or emotionally developed she is... we can only speculate.
Perhaps I should have said a female's right to choose.
I'm not sure about Texas' law. But, if her boyfriend were 18 or older, it's possible he'd be charged with statutory rape.
-
This is a sticky situation, and you can bet the left will use this to circumvent parental decisions in other matters.
I can't believe I missed this earlier.
McWay, Seriously! You need to get out of this ridiculously dead end LEFT / RIGHT paradigmn you're stuck in.
You wanna know what is far more dangerous, ..a 16 year old who comes up pregnant via RAPE, and BOTH the victim, along with her parents want to terminate the pregnancy and are told no.
There are lawmakers working feverishly to overthrow Roe vs. Wade, and they are allowed to do that, they circumvent not only parental rights, but constitutional rights as well.
This is not about LEFT or RIGHT. And as long as you keep thinking in those terms and being a "good little cheerleader for the team" you'll be round & round spinning your wheels seeing no progress at all. That is what "they" want. "They" being the people who run things, ...and it's NOT the government. Governments simply enforce the orders given to them and lay the ground work for the agenda's their masters intend to carry out.
When GWB was dismantling the Constitution, bringing in archaic laws some people cheered thinking there was nothing wrong with that. Now that "their guy" is out of power, they suddenly realize the scary potential for self-destruction? WTF!
Bad laws and bad decisions are bad regardless of which side initiates them, or signs them into law.
-
Physically she is a woman. As for how mentally or emotionally developed she is... we can only speculate.
Perhaps I should have said a female's right to choose.
The age of majority is set for a reason if you have an issue with it that's fine but legally she isn't a women and such decisions generally fall to the parents in most cases.
This is part of what I have an issue with as I think MCWAY is correct and I guess depending in how he came to his decision this court case will be used in many other cases where power is taken away from the parents of minors
-
I can't believe I missed this earlier.
McWay, Seriously! You need to get out of this ridiculously dead end LEFT / RIGHT paradigmn you're stuck in.
You wanna know what is far more dangerous, ..a 16 year old who comes up pregnant via RAPE, and BOTH the victim, along with her parents want to terminate the pregnancy and are told no.
There are lawmakers working feverishly to overthrow Roe vs. Wade, and they are allowed to do that, they circumvent not only parental rights, but constitutional rights as well.
Those cases are few and far in between. Over 95% of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest. Overturning Roe v. Wade would NOT circumvent parental rights.
This is not about LEFT or RIGHT. And as long as you keep thinking in those terms and being a "good little cheerleader for the team" you'll be round & round spinning your wheels seeing no progress at all. That is what "they" want. "They" being the people who run things, ...and it's NOT the government. Governments simply enforce the orders given to them and lay the ground work for the agenda's their masters intend to carry out.
When GWB was dismantling the Constitution, bringing in archaic laws some people cheered thinking there was nothing wrong with that. Now that "their guy" is out of power, they suddenly realize the scary potential for self-destruction? WTF!
Bad laws and bad decisions are bad regardless of which side initiates them, or signs them into law.
It IS about left and right. The blue-dog Democrats are all but gone and the RINOs aren't far behind. Politics is polarized. And, to each side, f you're not one, youre the other.
As far as this issue goes, I'm cautiously happy because there's one less baby being destroyed. But, the potential for this case to be abused, to strip parents of their ability to raise their kids is quite apparent. And for some strange reason, I don't think the Tea Party will be the ones doing such.
-
Not sure what I think about this. Parents have the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their kids, so this really shouldn't be any different, but talk about a thorny issue.
-
Not sure what I think about this. Parents have the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their kids, so this really shouldn't be any different, but talk about a thorny issue.
I don't think they do. I'm reminded of the parents who took their daughter off cancer treatment and gave her vitamin C instead, and cited religious beliefs as justification. She died. I don't think they had a right to do that.
-
I don't think they do. I'm reminded of the parents who took their daughter off cancer treatment and gave her vitamin C instead, and cited religious beliefs as justification. She died. I don't think they had a right to do that.
You think minors have the right to make medical decisions without their parents' consent? About the only thing I can think of where that happens is abortion in some states. Otherwise, doctors and hospitals will not treat minors without their parents' (or guardians') consent. And that's the way it should be.
-
You think minors have the right to make medical decisions without their parents' consent? About the only thing I can think of where that happens is abortion in some states. Otherwise, doctors and hospitals will not treat minors without their parents' (or guardians') consent. And that's the way it should be.
Your first question is a false dichotomy (The answer, by the way, is "No, i don't"). When the interests of the child (as in the cancer case) is grave, then the parents should not have say-so in medical decisions when they make decisions contrary to the interests of the child, as determined by doctors. This, in essence, erases anything that can coherently be called a "right".
-
This is an odd thread. Pro lifers have fought their asses off to make sure a fetus is considered a person with rights. The pro lifers on this thread sure haven't acted like they're against that concept. How can a pro life advocate say they're not sure what to think about this? Don't you have to automatically support the mother in her attempt to prevent being pushed toward abortion?
And with the parents having the right to make medical decisions for their kids, aren't there already plenty of exceptions to that? Can you force your kid to donate an organ? Nope. If you believe abortion is murder the question is: Is it ok to coerce a living person into murder?
I also don't see how this would be considered a pro-choice victory. ::)
-
You're first question is a false dichotomy (The answer, by the way, is "No, i don't"). When the interests of the child (as in the cancer case) is grave, then the parents should not have say-so in medical decisions when they make decisions contrary to the interests of the child, as determined by doctors. This, in essence, erases anything that can coherently be called a "right".
What "first" question? I only asked one rhetorical question.
So you would take the decision making process away from the parents and give it to doctors? (Another rhetorical question. Just one.) Yes, putting the decision in the hands of doctors does "erase" the parents' "right" to make medical decisions on their kids' behalf. Fortunately, that's not the way it works in the real world.
Doctors don't want to make those decisions anyway.
-
This is an odd thread. Pro lifers have fought their asses off to make sure a fetus is considered a person with rights. The pro lifers on this thread sure haven't acted like they're against that concept. How can a pro life advocate say they're not sure what to think about this? Don't you have to automatically support the mother in her attempt to prevent being pushed toward abortion?
And with the parents having the right to make medical decisions for their kids, aren't there already plenty of exceptions to that? Can you force your kid to donate an organ? Nope. If you believe abortion is murder the question is: Is it ok to coerce a living person into murder?
I also don't see how this would be considered a pro-choice victory. ::)
the outcome is not what I have an issue with its the fact that the courts found in favor of a 16 year old basically saying that they had the ability to make life altering decisions without parental consent.
Like MCWAY has noted I think this will have ramifications that could be far reaching outside of procreation rights.
-
Your first question is a false dichotomy (The answer, by the way, is "No, i don't"). When the interests of the child (as in the cancer case) is grave, then the parents should not have say-so in medical decisions when they make decisions contrary to the interests of the child, as determined by doctors. This, in essence, erases anything that can coherently be called a "right".
so why not have the doctors have complete and total control of medical decisons in regards to minors?
Do you believe the doctors decisions outweigh the childs? seeing as their decision is taking the place of the parents in this regard...
-
the outcome is not what I have an issue with its the fact that the courts found in favor of a 16 year old basically saying that they had the ability to make life altering decisions without parental consent.
wait a second. You and other pro lifers have supported a definitive ideology around life vs. abortion. You can't pick and choose in that support; it's all in or not. If that means it could have drawbacks in some cases, tough fucking shit. You can't be pro life AND support the right of the partent to push their kid toward murder.
I also think it's totally silly to suggest this girl's case in a SMALL COURT will have ramifications that stretch into other areas--don't act like this is even at the state supreme court level lol. It's not. This was a local FAMILY court lol... Don't make a bigger production out of it than what it is. The girl is going to have a kid instead of aborting it. I would think pro life advocates would applaud that while trying to discourage underage unsafe sex or whatever and I'm a little shocked that pro lifers are acting dumbfounded and not quite sure what to say.
-
With the advent of abortion-on-demand, this has caused a decrease in crime and overall amount of childre up for adoption. The Pro Lifers may have a heart for infants, but once that infant becomes a hellraising teen, its all about locking them up and throwing away the key. The Pro Choicers are just a snooty bunch who like to call Pro Lifers morons. ;)
-
wait a second. You and other pro lifers have supported a definitive ideology around life vs. abortion. You can't pick and choose in that support; it's all in or not. If that means it could have drawbacks in some cases, tough fucking shit. You can't be pro life AND support the right of the partent to push their kid toward murder.
I also think it's totally silly to suggest this girl's case in a SMALL COURT will have ramifications that stretch into other areas--don't act like this is even at the state supreme court level lol. It's not. This was a local FAMILY court lol... Don't make a bigger production out of it than what it is. The girl is going to have a kid instead of aborting it. I would think pro life advocates would applaud that while trying to discourage underage unsafe sex or whatever and I'm a little shocked that pro lifers are acting dumbfounded and not quite sure what to say.
I think you misunderstood Hugo, Im not advocating for the parents to be able to control the childs choice on abortion. I dont care how they come to the conclusion that the pregnancy born of a consentual act shouldnt be aborted.
In other word it shouldnt have even been a choice as the act of conception was consentual.
But I am also able to see the issue this may cause movnig forward in other cases not relating to abortion. Dont be naive enough to believe that this decison will not be used in other cases. The reason this case is getting so much press is b/c its a landmark case.
-
I think you misunderstood Hugo, Im not advocating for the parents to be able to control the childs choice on abortion. I dont care how they come to the conclusion that the pregnancy born of a consentual act shouldnt be aborted.
In other word it shouldnt have even been a choice as the act of conception was consentual.
But I am also able to see the issue this may cause movnig forward in other cases not relating to abortion. Dont be naive enough to believe that this decison will not be used in other cases. The reason this case is getting so much press is b/c its a landmark case.
first off, cases from local family courts aren't likey to be sited as precedent in other cases so LOL with you even going there.
Second, I didn't misunderstand anything. I think it more likely you didn't read my entire post. If you didn't, you should go back and re-read it for full context of what I was saying beyond the first line. No doubt, your reply missed the mark lol..