It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chemo Forced on Connecticut Teen Against Her Will

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

for a guy that i have seen regularly post up your disdain for over reaching control by governments and alike i find your stance on this interesting to say the least.....i agree with occam on this ...this is rape...granted it is not sexual in nature but it is still rape...it is having a foreign object inserted in you against your will....

to the OP...this behavior from the state is disgraceful.....this is another step into a totalitarian control of citizens...who the hell do they think they are ?....seriously they screw up each and every day and yet think they know best...what a bunch of retards




posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Jamie1

Fine, perfect example of a rational argument as to why this is wrong.

I agree that this does violate the rights she has, but I am a dirty liberal communist socialist ( yes I know they contradict) and don't mind the state putting up a fight for a life of 17 year old kid if we have the means to do it.


So what about a girl who is 17, turning 18 next month, and it's determined she will have life threatening complications during childbirth.

No problem stepping in and forcing an abortion on her, since she's just stupid and needs her life saved, right?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Grimpachi

If the girl was 7, I'd agree. She is 17, and no one mentioned faith healing that I saw. She is old enough that the State says she is of sound mind to make decisions about her body and seek an abortion, why is she not of sound mind for this?


Let me reiterate.

If she died do to her parents not seeking adequate medical care which be determined because she died at that point the parents should be prosecuted the "same as" parents of children who do not seek adequate care because of beliefs.

I hope that clears things up.

As far as the age goes she is still a minor at 17 her parents are still responsible.

Of course if they find some other treatment and it works then everything is fine.

It is all about responsibility.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes. It's about a girl taking responsibility for her life. She is 17, not 7. Is it your claim someone of 17 is unable to make decisions about their body?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Then I'll tell you what I think about it then, right now that is not the case.

And I never called her stupid, not sure what you are trying to get at there.
edit on thFri, 09 Jan 2015 01:32:49 -0600America/Chicago120154980 by Sremmos80 because: typo 0.o



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I just read OP. If your 'gut feeling' requires a supreme court decision to give you (or in your example just women) ownership of their body, I think something is wrong. I thought this had been fundamentally established many times. It is becoming less true every day, because we allow the argument to be framed in terms of "the scotus says.." The scotus has nothing to do with the refusal to be force fed poison, that is just basic human rights. They don't come from men I robes.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is my claim which I thought I was clear on, that she is a minor and her parents are legally responsible for her.


I know you are trying to twist my words but I will be patient and correct you.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Jamie1

Fine, perfect example of a rational argument as to why this is wrong.

I agree that this does violate the rights she has, but I am a dirty liberal communist socialist ( yes I know they contradict) and don't mind the state putting up a fight for a life of 17 year old kid if we have the means to do it.



You're probably right. I can see both sides. Imagine it's 5 years from now and she's cancer free. Or 5 years from now and she's dead. She's 22 and this will be a distant memory. Or she's dead.

Yes, seeing it from your perspective makes more sense. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint!



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Sremmos80

for a guy that i have seen regularly post up your disdain for over reaching control by governments and alike i find your stance on this interesting to say the least.....i agree with occam on this ...this is rape...granted it is not sexual in nature but it is still rape...it is having a foreign object inserted in you against your will....

to the OP...this behavior from the state is disgraceful.....this is another step into a totalitarian control of citizens...who the hell do they think they are ?....seriously they screw up each and every day and yet think they know best...what a bunch of retards


Yes, I can see both sides.... Sremmos80's perspective is valid too. Characterizing it as rape or not, a violation of her rights or not, the States' intent is, I believe, to serve her best interests. And the opposite side that this is appalling is valid as well.

Sometimes in real life you have to make a decision, like the judge did, and sleep at night feeling like it was your best intent, and decision, and that's all you can do.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Then I'll then you what I think about it then, right now that is not the case.

And I never called her stupid, not sure what you are trying to get at there.

No, you did not, others did though so I was adding that in just to cover some other arguments as well.

You did not answer though, should they force abortions on 17yo girls, or can they make decisions about their own bodies?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is my claim which I thought I was clear on, that she is a minor and her parents are legally responsible for her.


I know you are trying to twist my words but I will be patient and correct you.


So then parents should be responsible for her having or not having an abortion, since she is not 18 and has no say over her body, right?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What if she doesn't have parents and is in foster care?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
Yes, I can see both sides.... Sremmos80's perspective is valid too. Characterizing it as rape or not, a violation of her rights or not, the States' intent is, I believe, to serve her best interests. And the opposite side that this is appalling is valid as well.

Sometimes in real life you have to make a decision, like the judge did, and sleep at night feeling like it was your best intent, and decision, and that's all you can do.

I think they have her best interests at heart too, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The State absolutely has a duty to the girl, they are simply exceeding their bounds.

What they should do is force mandatory education on both parents and child, and work with them to explain why chemo is the best option.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What if she doesn't have parents and is in foster care?

Then someone is her legal guardian and they make those decisions. That does not change anything, is it your claim a 17yo should have no say whatsoever over whether they get an abortion, and their parents (or legal guardian) should be the only one to make those decisions for her?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I answered it, I told you that when the state does that I'll tell you what I think.

Maybe the typo threw you off, it was a pretty bad one!


edit on thFri, 09 Jan 2015 01:33:30 -0600America/Chicago120153080 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)

edit on thFri, 09 Jan 2015 01:34:08 -0600America/Chicago120150880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
I just read OP. If your 'gut feeling' requires a supreme court decision to give you (or in your example just women) ownership of their body, I think something is wrong. I thought this had been fundamentally established many times. It is becoming less true every day, because we allow the argument to be framed in terms of "the scotus says.." The scotus has nothing to do with the refusal to be force fed poison, that is just basic human rights. They don't come from men I robes.


If she is literally a child...call it less than 15 16 ok, but ihave also met 12 year olds wise beyond their years. In the end it is the individuals life, to pursue happiness in their measure, not an impossed measure a politician decides for them.

We will all die, we all have the right to choose our own path, way beyond a lying pos politicians political schemings.

The .gov is the last people I deem able to look after this girl.

In state custody rape escalates, neglect escalates, pretty much much every time the state takes custody the childs life gets worse.

Google it, state custody is worse than a crack whore mothers literally.

These pos need have no say even over a crack whore mother.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I answered it, I told you that when the state does that I'll tell you what I think.

Maybe the typo through you off, it was a pretty bad one!


The State just did it. They said a 17yo is incapable of making their own decision. There is no difference, your answer is a cop-out. Either a 17yo CAN or can NOT make decisions.

Or are you saying they can make decisions, as long as they choose what you personally agree with? If so, that's not choice, that's the illusion of choice.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What if she doesn't have parents and is in foster care?

Then someone is her legal guardian and they make those decisions. That does not change anything, is it your claim a 17yo should have no say whatsoever over whether they get an abortion, and their parents (or legal guardian) should be the only one to make those decisions for her?


Well then be happy because that is exactly what the court ruled when they forced a girl to have a baby.

Seems that in both cases a minor is still a minor.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Is she pregnant or has she got cancer . How did this turn into an abortion debate . Eyes on the ball people . Eyes on the ball .



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Sremmos80

for a guy that i have seen regularly post up your disdain for over reaching control by governments and alike i find your stance on this interesting to say the least.....i agree with occam on this ...this is rape...granted it is not sexual in nature but it is still rape...it is having a foreign object inserted in you against your will....

to the OP...this behavior from the state is disgraceful.....this is another step into a totalitarian control of citizens...who the hell do they think they are ?....seriously they screw up each and every day and yet think they know best...what a bunch of retards


Yes, I can see both sides.... Sremmos80's perspective is valid too. Characterizing it as rape or not, a violation of her rights or not, the States' intent is, I believe, to serve her best interests. And the opposite side that this is appalling is valid as well.

Sometimes in real life you have to make a decision, like the judge did, and sleep at night feeling like it was your best intent, and decision, and that's all you can do.


The judge sleeps at night because he did his job. Which is to make sure that if this young woman is going to pay. Our future labor has already been sold. If she cannot pay by producing, then she and her family must be liquidated. Her literally, her parents financially.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join