• 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

tessaesque said:
Not having a car does not deny her an education.

As far as medical expenses...fine...whatever costs are directly related to the 16 year old and NOT to the baby? The parents can be held responsible...but all care costs for the baby? Not theirs.
Click to expand...

If the school is too far to walk, and her parents won't provide transportation, then a car is necessary

As far as medical costs, from the article
The teen's parents will be liable for half of the hospital bill when she gives birth, unless she is married to the baby's 16-year-old father.
Click to expand...

It says nothing about "all care costs for the baby"
 
tessaesque said:
I never said anything about her dying. The assumption from my post was that she survives, hence the entire scenario of replacing the vehicle...so I'm really not sure where that statement even came from.
Click to expand...

It's just logical. If she wrecks the car, she may be hurt. If she totals it, she may end up dying. The car doesn't get wrecked by miracle, it happens because of collision. Impact. Boom boom stuff.

Anyway. If the car goes to car heaven, I assume the parents get the insurance money for it... if they have insurance and if the girl isn't to blame for wrecking it. And then... who knows. Its really too much to think about on little info. The bottom line is, she doesn't own the car.

But we are getting offtopic. From baby in her belly to wrecking cars.
 
joko104 said:
The Court sure gave a reason for her and the father to not marry at least until after the birth.

I don't real problem with the decision other than don't agree about the car. Then all teens should be able to sue of parents try to take away car-rights.

Welcome to parenting.
Click to expand...

Why should the girl be penalized for exercising her constitutional rights to free choice? I can guarantee if the choice was to abort and the parents didn't want her to, the pro-choice crowd would be groaning and moaning if her parents punished her by taking away her access to a car she had before the pregnancy.
 
sangha said:
If the school is too far to walk, and her parents won't provide transportation, then a car is necessary

As far as medical costs, from the article


It says nothing about "all care costs for the baby"
Click to expand...

1. You are not legally obligated to provide your child with a car to get to and from school.
2. If it's too far to walk she can likely take the bus, get a ride w/friends (or the baby daddy), etc.

As for your other statement. "Half of the hospital bill when she gives birth" means the totality of the bill, split in two. The MAJORITY of that bill will be costs associated with the baby's care post-birth, NOT the mother's....hence my statement.
 
tessaesque said:
I hardly think the question is irrational. If they're required to provide her with a luxury item, what happens if she renders that item unusable during the course of the injunction? She's 16. Statistically it's very probable she'll wreck the car.
Click to expand...

A car is not a luxury item when used by a pregnant person who can't hike to a distant school.
 
Rainman05 said:
It's just logical. If she wrecks the car, she may be hurt. If she totals it, she may end up dying. The car doesn't get wrecked by miracle, it happens because of collision. Impact. Boom boom stuff.

Anyway. If the car goes to car heaven, I assume the parents get the insurance money for it... if they have insurance and if the girl isn't to blame for wrecking it. And then... who knows. Its really too much to think about on little info. The bottom line is, she doesn't own the car.

But we are getting offtopic. From baby in her belly to wrecking cars.
Click to expand...

I can't even address the multitude of blatantly incorrect "facts" in this post.
 
sangha said:
A car is not a luxury item when used by a pregnant person who can't hike to a distant school.
Click to expand...

You're creating unconfirmed scenarios to justify your opinion, you know.
 
sangha said:
Yes, that's true, but you said it was "pro-choice crowd" that was appalled by her choice. Two people do not make a crowd.
Click to expand...

Based on the comments on this thread, I stand by my first statement - the fact so many "progressives" feel her parents should be able to punish her for her choice by being petty and withholding access to a car she had before tells me all I need to know - as I said previously, if she had decided to abort and the parents didn't want her to and took away the car, the "progressives" would be screaming bloody murder.
 
tessaesque said:
1. You are not legally obligated to provide your child with a car to get to and from school.
2. If it's too far to walk she can likely take the bus, get a ride w/friends (or the baby daddy), etc.

As for your other statement. "Half of the hospital bill when she gives birth" means the totality of the bill, split in two. The MAJORITY of that bill will be costs associated with the baby's care post-birth, NOT the mother's....hence my statement.
Click to expand...

1) This decision proves that you are wrong about that.

2) Supposition. Try using facts instead.

Maybe the hald the parents are paying is the half attributable to the mothers care, and not the babys. And I don't know why you claim that the majority of the costs are associated with the babys care. It's the mother who will require meds, anesthetics, etc. If healthy, the care for the baby is minimal.
 
What if it was old school days - the parents said she could have the baby, but she'd have to give it up for abortion?

Babies, as we all know, are massively expensive. Maybe the parents don't have the finances to pay for another baby.
Even if the boy's parents agree to pay for half of everything.....

What are the rights of the "grandparents" here?

Since they will foot a good deal of the finances for a child they did not want or agree to have?

Are they SOL simply because their child did something stupid?
 
CanadaJohn said:
That's easy - her two parents.
Click to expand...
The parents are denying that they ever tried to coerce the girl into having an abortion. They claim they were punishing her for her actions that got her pregnany.

So, once again, who is out there arguing that parents should be able to force their children to get abortions? Even the parents, as you claim, aren't out there arguing they should be able to, they are arguing that they never even did that.

Texas parents agree not to pressure teen to have abortion - CNN.com
The parents have denied the allegations in the lawsuit and called the case baseless. Their attorney did not respond to requests from CNN for comment.
Click to expand...

You are making stuff up. Now please come up with a real instance of this happening.
 
tessaesque said:
I hardly think the question is irrational. If they're required to provide her with a luxury item, what happens if she renders that item unusable during the course of the injunction? She's 16. Statistically it's very probable she'll wreck the car.
Click to expand...

Nonsense - the court DID NOT rule that the parents had to go out and get her a car to use - the court DID rule that the parents couldn't take away the car as punishment for the child exercising her constitutional right to free choice.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Based on the comments on this thread, I stand by my first statement - the fact so many "progressives" feel her parents should be able to punish her for her choice by being petty and withholding access to a car she had before tells me all I need to know - as I said previously, if she had decided to abort and the parents didn't want her to and took away the car, the "progressives" would be screaming bloody murder.
Click to expand...

Actually, the people saying that aren't progressive.

The progressives in this thread are agreeing with the decision
 
sangha said:
1) This decision proves that you are wrong about that.

2) Supposition. Try using facts instead.

Maybe the hald the parents are paying is the half attributable to the mothers care, and not the babys. And I don't know why you claim that the majority of the costs are associated with the babys care. It's the mother who will require meds, anesthetics, etc. If healthy, the care for the baby is minimal.
Click to expand...

When you want to play by your own rules (re: #2) you can let me know.
 
sangha said:
Says the poster who worries about future car accidents that haven't yet happened
Click to expand...

I posed a hypothetical question regarding and related to the ruling. If you can't tell the difference between that and creating "facts" to support your opinion, I can't help you.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Nonsense - the court DID NOT rule that the parents had to go out and get her a car to use - the court DID rule that the parents couldn't take away the car as punishment for the child exercising her constitutional right to free choice.
Click to expand...

Which is why I asked a question. A hypothetical question regarding the judges ruling.

Apparently hypothetical questions are a complex concept. I was not aware they were so hard to understand. My apologies to all of those confused by the concept of a hypothetical question.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Nonsense - the court DID NOT rule that the parents had to go out and get her a car to use - the court DID rule that the parents couldn't take away the car as punishment for the child exercising her constitutional right to free choice.
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, the reports say nothing about the courts making any decision on the use of a car as punishment. You're just making stuff up
 
roughdraft274 said:
The parents are denying that they ever tried to coerce the girl into having an abortion. They claim they were punishing her for her actions that got her pregnany.

So, once again, who is out there arguing that parents should be able to force their children to get abortions? Even the parents, as you claim, aren't out there arguing they should be able to, they are arguing that they never even did that.

Texas parents agree not to pressure teen to have abortion - CNN.com


You are making stuff up. Now please come up with a real instance of this happening.
Click to expand...

So, the parents when sued suddenly deny they tried to coerce the child into an abortion and that constitutes fact in your mind? Good for you - perhaps the child was just experiencing morning sickness or some hormonal spike when she decided to sue her parents.
 
sangha said:
They're not *my* rules. It was *you* who started inventing hypothetical situations
Click to expand...

Just for clarification:

Do you understand the difference between a hypothetical situation and a declarative statement of fact? Because you used one and I used the other.
 
tessaesque said:
I can't even address the multitude of blatantly incorrect "facts" in this post.
Click to expand...

Sure. Then please don't strain yourself. It's ok, I can manage without your invaluable input.
 
tessaesque said:
I posed a hypothetical question regarding and related to the ruling. If you can't tell the difference between that and creating "facts" to support your opinion, I can't help you.
Click to expand...

And I posted a hypothetical justification for requiring parents to supply their children with a car to go to school.
 
CanadaJohn said:
So, the parents when sued suddenly deny they tried to coerce the child into an abortion and that constitutes fact in your mind? Good for you - perhaps the child was just experiencing morning sickness or some hormonal spike when she decided to sue her parents.
Click to expand...

Actually, a group sued the parents on the girl's behalf when she called a counselling line with the allegations against her parents.

The girl doesn't even LIVE with her parents.

Pregnant Texas teen sues parents to prevent them from forcing an abortion - NY Daily News
 
CanadaJohn said:
I can guarantee if the choice was to abort and the parents didn't want her to, the pro-choice crowd would be groaning and moaning if her parents punished her by taking away her access to a car she had before the pregnancy.
Click to expand...

You can't guarantee a damn thing, as you obviously have no idea what anyone would think. You can't just run around throwing out unsubstantiated, and quite frankly, ignorant assertions of everything the otherside would do. No one is arguing that the parents should have punished her the way described, I'm pro-choice and I don't agree with their actions, though I do think some kind of punishment is required for her to understand what's going on, but regardless, I am only saying that it's not your business, my business, or the courts business to stick their nose in on how parents punish their kid. If they are not breaking any laws in the punishment, then it's not our business. BTW, that used to be a conservative ideal, but apparently you conservatives change your mind on that frequently when you have no logic behind your assertions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom