Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
November 23, 2014, 09:14:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pregnant Minor Sues Parents to be Allowed to Keep the Child...and Wins  (Read 752 times)
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2013, 07:58:14 PM »

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. Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 42275

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2013, 08:01:04 PM »

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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25402



« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2013, 08:36:43 PM »

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. Roll Eyes
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.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25402



« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2013, 08:47:16 PM »

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...
Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2013, 12:36:14 AM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
JBGRAY
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2020



« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2013, 12:57:05 AM »

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.  Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25402



« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2013, 04:47:30 AM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2013, 05:13:36 AM »

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..
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!