• 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

Dragonfly said:
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?
Click to expand...

Her parents have the same rights as every other citizen.

They also have a duty to provide (and pay for) medical care for their child.
 
Dragonfly said:
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?
Click to expand...

With all due respect, you make it sound like the daughter committed a crime and the parents are the victims. If an underage child vandalized a car, as an example, courts would likely order the parents to pay for the damage. It may seem unfair to you, but being a parent comes with responsibilities not only to see to the care of the child but to ensure that the child doesn't cause society any harm.

In this case, the court isn't treating the parents as victims of their daughter - the court is simply stating two things, in my view - first, they are responsible for the health and wellbeing of their under-age daughter just as they would be if she developed cancer or something else that required medical care - secondly, that they cannot punish their daughter because she chooses to carry her child and give birth. Most parents wouldn't need a court to tell them that.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't absolve you from holding the contemptible view that pro-choice people are "appalled" by her choice.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Which doesn't absolve you from holding the contemptible view that pro-choice people are "appalled" by her choice.
Click to expand...

I don't need to be absolved - I'm quite happy and content to hold the view - it's a shame you feel it's necessary that I hold your view - I find that contemptible.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't need to be absolved - I'm quite happy and content to hold the view - it's a shame you feel it's necessary that I hold your view - I find that contemptible.
Click to expand...

You don't have to hold my view, and I have no problem with you wallowing in your own ignorance. I just think its only fair of my to point it out as you do it. I have never said you have to hold my view, but it is ignorant of you to assume that people that disagree with you are appalled at the girls choice as though we all think all fetuses should be aborted without delay. That's where I judge you, the ignorance you display in painting an entire side with one incompetent and bumbling brush stroke.

And of course your happy, ignorance is bliss after all.
 
roughdraft274 said:
You don't have to hold my view, and I have no problem with you wallowing in your own ignorance. I just think its only fair of my to point it out as you do it. I have never said you have to hold my view, but it is ignorant of you to assume that people that disagree with you are appalled at the girls choice as though we all think all fetuses should be aborted without delay. That's where I judge you, the ignorance you display in painting an entire side with one incompetent and bumbling brush stroke.

And of course your happy, ignorance is bliss after all.
Click to expand...

And you can happily wallow in your own views - it troubles me not. Nor does it trouble me that you disagree with me or that you choose to be personally insulting about it - I'm used to that approach from liberals who believe debate entails attacking the person rather than just the ideas.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm used to that approach from liberals who believe debate entails attacking the person rather than just the ideas.
Click to expand...

Lol, you're the person that insulted the entire other side of the isle with your very first post in this thread, lol. And they you try to blame it on liberals?

Wow, ok. Yea, blame it on the evil liberals, lol.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Lol, you're the person that insulted the entire other side of the isle with your very first post in this thread, lol. And they you try to blame it on liberals?

Wow, ok. Yea, blame it on the evil liberals, lol.
Click to expand...

No, I did no such thing - firstly, I simply indicated my view of why this particular situation was a story - since I'm pro-choice, it's hard for me to accept that I was insulting myself, but you seem to think I attacked everyone - it is possible, you know, to abhor abortion but to be respectful of individual choice. Secondly, I didn't blame anything on liberals, I simply pointed out that liberals like you prefer to attack a person rather than his/her ideas - you validated that view, perfectly.

Finally, I believe we've both made our positions clear and nothing is gained by continuing. Therefore, I wish you a good day and I hope you have fun.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Lol, you're the person that insulted the entire other side of the isle with your very first post in this thread, lol. And they you try to blame it on liberals?

Wow, ok. Yea, blame it on the evil liberals, lol.
Click to expand...

You just don't understand.

CJ makes a hateful and ignorant statement attacking libruls, and when people call him on it, it's because libruls want to force everyone to agree with them

It's not easy being victimized so. It takes a lot of effort to be a perpetual victim, so cut him some slack
 
sangha said:
You just don't understand.

CJ makes a hateful and ignorant statement attacking libruls, and when people call him on it, it's because libruls want to force everyone to agree with them

It's not easy being victimized so. It takes a lot of effort to be a perpetual victim, so cut him some slack
Click to expand...

What a surprise we'd get the benefit of your idiocy today. What ignorant or hateful statement did I make attacking liberals? - I'll spell it correctly, since I'm an adult and I'm not in your play group. You do know, presumably, that the pro-choice/anti-abortion issue is not a left/right issue?
 
CanadaJohn said:
No, I did no such thing - firstly, I simply indicated my view of why this particular situation was a story - since I'm pro-choice, it's hard for me to accept that I was insulting myself, but you seem to think I attacked everyone -
Click to expand...

1. You didn't sate your point of view. You insulted pro-choice people by saying we were appalled that the girl would choose to keep her baby. That is an insult. If I were to say that you love it when kids are murdered, that's not me simply stating an opinion, that's an insult, and your comment was an insult. That you delude yourself otherwise doesn't negate this fact.

2. I didn't say you insulted yourself or everyone. I said you insulted everyone on the other side of the isle, IE: pro-choice people. Once again you misrepresent what was posted. No surprise.
 
CanadaJohn said:
What a surprise we'd get the benefit of your idiocy today. What ignorant or hateful statement did I make attacking liberals? - I'll spell it correctly, since I'm an adult and I'm not in your play group. You do know, presumably, that the pro-choice/anti-abortion issue is not a left/right issue?
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised to see you trying to deny your own words, or the way the right has chosen to champion the absurd pro-life agenda
 
sangha said:
I'm not surprised to see you trying to deny your own words, or the way the right has chosen to champion the absurd pro-life agenda
Click to expand...

Ah yes, a non-answer from our resident sage - now, if I was you or roughdraft, I'd be in high dungeon claiming you insulted all conservatives as being champions of the "absurd pro-life agenda".
 
CanadaJohn said:
Ah yes, a non-answer from our resident sage - now, if I was you or roughdraft, I'd be in high dungeon claiming you insulted all conservatives as being champions of the "absurd pro-life agenda".
Click to expand...

The fact remains that you made a statement so ignorant and hateful that even you refuse to defend it. Now, you're trying to forget that you even said it.
 
sangha said:
RvW clearly states that under the constitution, a fetus is not a person, therefore the govt has no power to ban abortion
Click to expand...

Negative. RvW explicitly states that no such consideration was made in the ruling.
 
ecofarm said:
Negative. RvW explicitly states that no such consideration was made in the ruling.
Click to expand...

From RvW

Under the constitution, a fetus is not a person

the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn
Click to expand...

In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons
Click to expand...

The govt has no power to ban abortion
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life 165*165 may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
Click to expand...

Please quote where RvW "explicitely states" what you claim it states
 
sangha said:
The fact remains that you made a statement so ignorant and hateful that even you refuse to defend it. Now, you're trying to forget that you even said it.
Click to expand...

Nothing you've said here is remotely accurate - just because something happens to float out of your ass doesn't make it a gem of wisdom. I've neither forgotten what I initially said and I've no need to defend it - it's my view, whether you agree with it or not. So the DebatePolitics self-appointed knower of all knowledge doesn't agree - I'm crushed. By the way, why aren't you in the running to be the next Pope? You're clearly infallible, right?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Nothing you've said here is remotely accurate - just because something happens to float out of your ass doesn't make it a gem of wisdom. I've neither forgotten what I initially said and I've no need to defend it - it's my view, whether you agree with it or not. So the DebatePolitics self-appointed knower of all knowledge doesn't agree - I'm crushed. By the way, why aren't you in the running to be the next Pope? You're clearly infallible, right?
Click to expand...

I don't look good in white, otherwise I would

And I'd be a shoe-in for the job
 
I'm kinda sad, I was looking forward to the abortion party (#what conservatives think liberals do)...I was going to reply constructively to this thread, however this is all I could mash out.
 
rathi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, you just further articulated my argument. Since Pregnancy is a choice, then the minor can not be forced to carry to term. However, since we're talking about minors, incapable of truly understating the responsibility and unable to provide on their own, then the parents can still insist the she NOT carry to term. She is free to get pregnant again when she is an Adult.



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?
Click to expand...

With that idiotic analogy, I guess you want to get rid of logic and honesty. And find me a lower-income child that can live 18 years on just food stamps from the government.


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

Why, an abortion of an unwanted, severely deformed or retarded child is better for mother, child, and society.

Forcing a woman to carry to term is NOT EVER a requirement. In fact, it's banned in the first two trimesters by Roe v Wade.




Yes, because history clearly shows us that underage girls are bigger threat than the potential abuse of letting the government control reproductive rights.
Click to expand...

How is it abusive to say don't have more babies than we can possibly feed or care for? -- That's compassion, reason, intelligence.

You should see a movie called Idiocracy.
 
mr4anarchy said:
Why, an abortion of an unwanted, severely deformed or retarded child is better for mother, child, and society.
Click to expand...

Which is why orphans have a 100% suicide rate, because they agree with you that they're better off dead.

Oh wait, no, you're just full of crap.
 
I think everyone needs to take a step back and realize there's another human being involved in this decision. It blows me away how little anyone is thinking of the child on this thread. We're so worried about the parent's rights to a friggin car or paying a hospital bill that we're losing sight of the fact that the judge made the best ruling in the interests of the child. That's who matters the most. That's the only person in this entire equation that cannot control any of the circumstances her screwed up parents and grandparents put her in. Why put the child at a disadvantage from the jump? It's the parent's responsibility to care for their child. Their child is pregnant and lives under their roof. Therefore they must provide medical care and transportation to their child and in turn the grandchild. If they didn't want this responsibility they should've A) Not had a kid themselves B) Supervised their child better so that this wouldn't happen. I understand parents can't be everywhere and we'll never know the circumstances that led to their girl and the father having the opportunity to have sex. But it happened under the parent's watch. Time to pay the piper. Heck, a lot of you would hold someone accountable that was in charge of a huge gov't agency for the actions of one employee whom the leader has never met but seem to lose that on a set of parents who are in charge of one person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom