• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle

CanadaJohn said:
Contrary to what you may feel, I don't report to you and as I've said previously, based on the comments posted on this thread, I stand by my original comment - if you don't like it, too bad, that is your choice, however. The very fact that so many here who claim to be pro-choice are fixated on the court ordering the child retain her access to the car she had before the pregancy is at the very least curious, wouldn't you agree? If you were all so much in favor of her choice, wouldn't you want her to have all the assistance and benefit she needs or that can be made available to her by her parents. All this nonsense about personal property and insurance and who pays the medical bills is all a smokescreen to justify the parents abandoning their child for making the wrong decision, in their view.
Click to expand...

If you were truly "standing by" your original comment, you would support it.
 
roughdraft274 said:
You sound just like every other pro-choice person I've heard speak on this issue. The girl should be able to choose what happens. I don't know where CanadaJohn got his hair brain reasoning behind his assertion that "the pro-choice crowd is appalled by her choice" or that we think she shouldn't be able to choose.
Click to expand...


I don't know where he gets his reasoning either, but I refuse to engage because of the obvious futility of it all.
 
Rainman05 said:
I think this is the wrong result.

A car is not her right. Did she pay for her car? No, she didn't. She has no right to it. I swear, the judge must have been either takin' a piss at the whole situation or was completely drunk.

Either way, this is a wrong ruling. It may be legal, I don't know the laws of Texas in this regard, but it sure as hell isn't a smart decision or a logical one.

But the law is the law.
Click to expand...

The medical insurance, the car and phone, the parents withdrew those to coerce the kid into an abortion. There are a lot of things parents can legally coerce their children to do by withholding non-essentials, but this isn't one of them. That's why the judge ordered them to continue with what she had become accustomed to.

Notice however, this judgement only applies until she moves out, which the kids intend to do.
 
joko104 said:
You mean parents should physically hold down teenage daughters and force birth control pills down her throat?
Click to expand...


No. They should make her hold an asprin between her knees.
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
Contrary to what you may feel, I don't report to you
Click to expand...
Yes, because you are too busy to be bothered with facts. I see how you are now buddy. One of those people that just like to make baseless claims with no proof or evidence. Good for you.

CanadaJohn said:
and as I've said previously, based on the comments posted on this thread, I stand by my original comment - if you don't like it, too bad, that is your choice, however. The very fact that so many here who claim to be pro-choice are fixated on the court ordering the child retain her access to the car she had before the pregnancy is at the very least curious, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
Not at all. I don't think the court should have anything to do with them punishing their child. I don't agree with the punishments, if they are true, and I wouldn't treat my child the same way, but I don't think a court should have any say in the matter. If you do then you are supportive of a nanny state government. They should support the child in her right to choose, but should not interfere with the parent's right to parent. My opinion does not indicate any disdain for the child, and you are doing backflips trying to claim otherwise. You are wrong and this is your last ditch effort in trying to defend your ignorant assertion.

CanadaJohn said:
If you were all so much in favor of her choice, wouldn't you want her to have all the assistance and benefit she needs or that can be made available to her by her parents.
Click to expand...
I do want her to have all the assistance she needs, and I want everything to go well for her, that doesn't mean that I think the court should be able to invade the parents rights to parent. I think parents should hug their kids every night before bed, but I would be against a constitutional amendment forcing parents to do so. You get the difference yet? This isn't hard to comprehend.
CanadaJohn said:
All this nonsense about personal property and insurance and who pays the medical bills is all a smokescreen to justify the parents abandoning their child for making the wrong decision, in their view.
Click to expand...
It's not nonsense. I think that they should allow the use of the car for the child, but that doesn't mean I support the court mandating it.

Rights have to mean something. If I support your right to say whatever you want according the constitution, does that mean that I also by definition agree with everything you say? Of course not, that's a stupid argument. Likewise, just because I think the parents have a right to parent and punish their child, it does not mean I agree with the punishment. You are ignoring the important distinctions, either because you don't get them, or on purpose, and trying to make a case out of it where there is none.

No one has criticized the child, and no one has come close to showing any evidence that the pro choice crowd is appalled by her choice, instead every pro-choice person that has spoken on the issue has stated plainly that they support her decision regardless.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Yes, because you are too busy to be bothered with facts. I see how you are now buddy. One of those people that just like to make baseless claims with no proof or evidence. Good for you.

Not at all. I don't think the court should have anything to do with them punishing their child. I don't agree with the punishments, if they are true, and I wouldn't treat my child the same way, but I don't think a court should have any say in the matter. If you do then you are supportive of a nanny state government. They should support the child in her right to choose, but should not interfere with the parent's right to parent. My opinion does not indicate any disdain for the child, and you are doing backflips trying to claim otherwise. You are wrong and this is your last ditch effort in trying to defend your ignorant assertion.


I do want her to have all the assistance she needs, and I want everything to go well for her, that doesn't mean that I think the court should be able to invade the parents rights to parent. I think parents should hug their kids every night before bed, but I would be against a constitutional amendment forcing parents to do so. You get the difference yet? This isn't hard to comprehend.

It's not nonsense. I think that they should allow the use of the car for the child, but that doesn't mean I support the court mandating it.

Rights have to mean something. If I support your right to say whatever you want according the constitution, does that mean that I also by definition agree with everything you say? Of course not, that's a stupid argument. Likewise, just because I think the parents have a right to parent and punish their child, it does not mean I agree with the punishment. You are ignoring the important distinctions, either because you don't get them, or on purpose, and trying to make a case out of it where there is none.

No one has criticized the child, and no one has come close to showing any evidence that the pro choice crowd is appalled by her choice, instead every pro-choice person that has spoken on the issue has stated plainly that they support her decision regardless.
Click to expand...

You're comments portray a person who's not honest with himself or a person who has no understanding of the legal responsibilities of parents for the health and wellbeing of their children and the role of the courts in assuring they live up to those responsibilities. If you honestly think parents should have unfettered rights to do whatever they choose with "parenting" their children, I hope you don't now have or never do have children of your own.
 
clownboy said:
The medical insurance, the car and phone, the parents withdrew those to coerce the kid into an abortion. There are a lot of things parents can legally coerce their children to do by withholding non-essentials, but this isn't one of them. That's why the judge ordered them to continue with what she had become accustomed to.

Notice however, this judgement only applies until she moves out, which the kids intend to do.
Click to expand...

What?????? Since when is a car and a cellphone "essential"?? What planet are you on? Certainly not earth.
 
MaggieD said:
What?????? Since when is a car and a cellphone "essential"?? What planet are you on? Certainly not earth.
Click to expand...

Depends where you live really - at least for the car. Our house in Vermont a car is pretty much essential if you plan to eat.
 
Hatuey said:
Depends where you live really - at least for the car. Our house in Vermont a car is pretty much essential if you plan to eat.
Click to expand...

I have never in my life heard of a parent being required to let their kid use or have a car. I don't care where someone lives. How many parents can afford that? How many parents have an extra car kids can use? Sounds really weird to me.
 
MaggieD said:
I have never in my life heard of a parent being required to let their kid use or have a car. I don't care where someone lives. How many parents can afford that? How many parents have an extra car kids can use? Sounds really weird to me.
Click to expand...

That's not what I argued. I simply said a car was essential in some areas. In some places, like Vermont, it's pretty much custom to buy a beater for your kids to drive around when they get older. Mostly because the main vehicle is used by the parents for work.
 
The car key is a powerful weapon for the parents of teenagers. What's a shame is that this is even an issue when the real one--a girl who is pregnant and who will probably be dependent for help from parents in rearing a child they think she shouldn't have--is the reality.
 
Dragonfly said:
Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle - Yahoo! News




Wow. This is odd. Not the story I thought it was going to be for sure.

Not sure how I feel about this. Who is liable for the other half of the hospital bill?

I imagine the tension in that house must be pretty high.

Who has what rights here?
When a child, a minor, is giving birth who has the ultimate say over this situation?

Exactly what rights do the parents of the pregnant child have here?
Click to expand...


Since we know how responsible and mature 16yos are, who is going to raise this child, feed this child, see to regular medical care for the child. If not her parents, then the state.

So, congrats, Pro-life, you've created another Mitt Romney 'taker'.

This is insane, that the parents have to pay for the delivery.
 
mr4anarchy said:
Since we know how responsible and mature 16yos are, who is going to raise this child, feed this child, see to regular medical care for the child. If not her parents, then the state.

So, congrats, Pro-life, you've created another Mitt Romney 'taker'.
Click to expand...

Pro-Lifers are not responsible for this situation. This girl had abortion legally available to her, but ultimately the choice was hers.

This is insane, that the parents have to pay for the delivery.
Click to expand...

How is it insane? Parents are legally obligated to pay for medical care for their children, regardless of who is responsible. Teens injure themselves all the time in accidents that are entirely their fault, that doesn't alter the duty of the parent.
 
CanadaJohn said:
This is only a story because the pro-choice crowd is appalled by her choice.
Click to expand...

that is nonsense, why would I as a pro-choice person want to see a teenage girl be forced into an abortion. Abortions should be the choice of the mother and nobody but the mother. If parents want to force a teen to have an abortion they can go "you know what" themselves because it is not their choice. They have the choice to kick the girl out but extorting her to have an abortion is close to criminal behavior IMHO.

We are pro-choice and not pro-abortion. And the last thing we want to see is someone pressured or blackmailed into or out of abortion. Abortion should be a free and well considered decision of the mother and the mother alone.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Of course, since you don't agree with me, I'm plainly wrong - why don't you educate me about parental responsibility for the health and safety of their children.
Click to expand...

What does parental responsibility for the health and safety of their children have to do with it. She is pregnant and does not want to have an abortion, that is not a sickness or a health issue because she is not going to die, injure herself of take an huge health risk. And the safety of the child also does not come into the picture. Having a child at her age might be unwise, but a danger to her safety it is not.

And yes, you are wrong. This is not a pro-choice or pro-life issue but an issue within a family where one part of the family (parents) put undue pressure on the other part of the family (youth) to have an abortion against her will.
 
rathi said:
Pro-Lifers are not responsible for this situation. This girl had abortion legally available to her, but ultimately the choice was hers.
Click to expand...

I think underage girls should be able to choose to have an abortion, parents can not force them to have a baby.

However, parents should be able to determine if their daughter is ready to have a baby. If you're underage, you have to show the means to care for an infant on your own, meaning a job or some form of income, otherwise your parents get to determine what is best for you.

If food stamps and welfare are a bad word, and we want to cut back on those programs, then forced abortions needs to become more acceptable--someone needs to come up with a good euphemism, but if we're going broke, we shouldn't be having more children we can't afford to feed.

Plan B in every high school counselors and nurses office.





How is it insane? Parents are legally obligated to pay for medical care for their children, regardless of who is responsible. Teens injure themselves all the time in accidents that are entirely their fault, that doesn't alter the duty of the parent.
Click to expand...

Child birth would be an elective medical procedure -- parents should not be responsible.

This is just setting a bad precedent--underage girls already want to get pregnant to feel more independent.
 
mr4anarchy said:
I think underage girls should be able to choose to have an abortion, parents can not force them to have a baby.

However, parents should be able to determine if their daughter is ready to have a baby. If you're underage, you have to show the means to care for an infant on your own, meaning a job or some form of income, otherwise your parents get to determine what is best for you.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand. Pregnancy is the choice of the mother, nobody else. Not you, not me, not her parents, not the father, not the government. Your position is no different from pro-lifers, you put your own personal feelings over the sovereign rights of a woman over her body.

If food stamps and welfare are a bad word, and we want to cut back on those programs, then forced abortions needs to become more acceptable--someone needs to come up with a good euphemism, but if we're going broke, we shouldn't be having more children we can't afford to feed.

Plan B in every high school counselors and nurses office.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, you want to engage in an utterly monstrous violation of rights to save a few bucks on food stamps? Should we get rid of trials as well because they are too expensive?

Child birth would be an elective medical procedure -- parents should not be responsible.
Click to expand...

Child Birth is not an elective medical procedure, its an absolute requirement for the safety of both mother and child.

This is just setting a bad precedent--underage girls already want to get pregnant to feel more independent.
Click to expand...

Yes, because history clearly shows us that underage girls are bigger threat than the potential abuse of letting the government control reproductive rights.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You're comments portray a person who's not honest with himself or a person who has no understanding of the legal responsibilities of parents for the health and wellbeing of their children and the role of the courts in assuring they live up to those responsibilities. If you honestly think parents should have unfettered rights to do whatever they choose with "parenting" their children, I hope you don't now have or never do have children of your own.
Click to expand...

Lol, I never said that they should be able to do whatever they want. I think it's fair for the court to say they must provide a method for the daughter to go to school, recieve all medical care for the baby and to work and back, I do not think they should mandate the parents that she get's to use her car. You are arguing that the government should be able to tell parents that they HAVE to provide their kid their own car and can not take it away from them. At what point do you think that's a good idea?

If at any point the do anything that breaks the law, either by not providing healthcare, or by not providing her an education, then I'd be all for prosecuting them or forcing them to provide care. But I don't think it's smart to start a precedent that a government can come in and specify what luxuries you must provide your children.

One again, you misunderstand my position, either intentionally or by accident.

And still, I see you can't provide evidence that there is anyone hating on this girl for her choice. You make **** up and don't provide evidence.
 
Dragonfly said:
Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle - Yahoo! News




Wow. This is odd. Not the story I thought it was going to be for sure.

Not sure how I feel about this. Who is liable for the other half of the hospital bill?

I imagine the tension in that house must be pretty high.

Who has what rights here?
When a child, a minor, is giving birth who has the ultimate say over this situation?

Exactly what rights do the parents of the pregnant child have here?
Click to expand...

Once again, the innocent baby seems to have no say in your demented view on abortion.

I vote for the rights of the baby.
 
sangha said:
The fetus has no rights
Click to expand...

RvW was clear that the issue had not been addressed, nor had the issue of 'personhood'. The ruling was outside of any such consideration, this was explicit in the ruling.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Lol, I never said that they should be able to do whatever they want. I think it's fair for the court to say they must provide a method for the daughter to go to school, recieve all medical care for the baby and to work and back, I do not think they should mandate the parents that she get's to use her car. You are arguing that the government should be able to tell parents that they HAVE to provide their kid their own car and can not take it away from them. At what point do you think that's a good idea?

If at any point the do anything that breaks the law, either by not providing healthcare, or by not providing her an education, then I'd be all for prosecuting them or forcing them to provide care. But I don't think it's smart to start a precedent that a government can come in and specify what luxuries you must provide your children.

One again, you misunderstand my position, either intentionally or by accident.

And still, I see you can't provide evidence that there is anyone hating on this girl for her choice. You make **** up and don't provide evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't want to get into the argument again today, I'll simply accept that we disagree, which is natural in a world where people have freedom of opinion and thought. I would simply note once again that the court is not mandating that the parents provide their child with "luxuries". As I understand the case, the child had access to a car their parents provided to her that she could use for her travel needs. When they found out she was pregnant and when she refused to have an abortion, the parents chose to take access to the car away from her. The court ruling, from my perspective, took the parents' actions as punishment for not agreeing to an abortion and ordered them to put things back the way they were prior to knowledge of the pregnancy. In addition, the court's ruling terminates when the child is born so it's a temporary measure to ensure that the daughter and the health of her child are not jeopardized during the pregnancy.

If you have taken offense from my position, so be it - no offense was directed at you personally, however, I appreciate that you may have been insulted by virtue of my original comment.
 
Erod said:
Once again, the innocent baby seems to have no say in your demented view on abortion.

I vote for the rights of the baby.
Click to expand...

Any and all fertilization's of any and all eggs I've ever been a contributor to have either miscarried naturally, or were born into healthy happy daughters.

I've never been a factor in any abortion anywhere on this earth.

What I'm struggling with is why the parents of the pregnant girl would be forced to pay for anything by court of law.
The parents of the pregnant girl appear to now be victims and in some way hostage to their daughter and her choices.

What rights do the parents of the pregnant girl have here?

It appears they have none.

Is that the case? Is that appropriate for this situation?
 
ecofarm said:
RvW was clear that the issue had not been addressed, nor had the issue of 'personhood'. The ruling was outside of any such consideration, this was explicit in the ruling.
Click to expand...

RvW clearly states that under the constitution, a fetus is not a person, therefore the govt has no power to ban abortion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom