Nebraska court rules 16-year-old girl not mature enough for abortion

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Let me ask you this.

How is unjustified murder a responsibility?




posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by thesaneone
 


No actually it means your answer was inadequate. You went to causation that does not equate to a responcibility to carry to term.

She has no choice but to take responcibility and she made her choice to not have a baby which means having a procedure to remove it.

My question was and still is when did individual responcibility equate to having a child?



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by thesaneone
 


Since when was abortion murder?

Please quote the case and legal precedent.
edit on 9-10-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWhiteKnight
 



forced-birther
English[edit]

Noun[edit]
forced-birther (plural forced-birthers)
(chiefly US, Canada, politics, derogatory) One who desires that abortion be illegal, and thus that pregnant women be required to carry to term and give birth in all or most cases; a pro-lifer.


reply to post by Grimpachi
 




This case is nothing more than holly rollers dictating their religious beliefs onto others. Like I said this case will be part of what undoes the parental consent law in the end.


In this case, the judge was a pro-life attorney before becoming a judge!


Seventeen Operation Rescue protesters in Omaha, Nebraska, have managed to defeat charges that they violated trespassing laws by advancing a “necessity defense” that can sometimes convince juries that an unlawful action was essential to prevent a grave evil. “We showed them that abortion is the killing of another human being,” said defense lawyer Peter Bataillon, who made his clients testify at length about how abortions are performed and got permission from the judge to show videotapes about fetal development as well as abortions-in-process. Visibly upset about the verdict, Susan Hale, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood, told the Omaha World-Herald, “the judge and the jury condoned illegal act



[Attorney Catherine Mahern] also said Bataillon should have recused himself because he was not impartial, as evidenced by his asking the girl if she knew that, "When you have the abortion, it's going to kill the child inside you."



One book available online states that Bataillon was President of the Metro [Omaha] Area Right to Life organization. A January 17, 1994 AP article identifies him as speaking on behalf of Nebraska Lawyers for Life.

And now Peter Bataillon gets to decide whether young women are entitled to make their own health choices.


www.dailykos.com...

reply to post by thesaneone
 




Sorry no belief system here but nice try.


Of course you have a belief system! You believe that women should be punished by being forced to give birth to an unwanted child.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

thesaneone
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Responsibility also means to keep your legs closed until you are old enough to understand the consequences of your actions.


The disconnect of rationale here is mind blowing. She should've been responsible enough to keep her legs closed but is not responsible enough to make any other decisions about her body and should be forced to carry a child to term against her will? Just come out and say you are against abortion for any reason whatsoever because sweet baby jesus won't like it instead of trying to argue around it and give opposing views of responsibility within the confines of one sentence. You'd at least garner a little more respect for at being honest about it. Unless I'm wrong and I'm ok with that. I just don't see that being the outcome.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by thesaneone
 


Since when did responsibility mean carrying to term?


I don't think it meant that either. The girl was either irresponsible by engaging in sexual conduct or maybe she was forced or coerced in some way. It doesn't matter though because she realized the mistake caused a pregnancy and she then acted responsibly to the situation by seeking to terminate before the problem became too big.

Somehow, the law doesn't think she has the right to undo what has been done.

Of course, if she were to buy a car as a minor the courts would have no problem undoing that contract. Goes to show you how absurd the court system is when dealing with a woman's reproductive issue.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   


forced-birther
English[edit]

Noun[edit]
forced-birther (plural forced-birthers)
(chiefly US, Canada, politics, derogatory) One who desires that abortion be illegal, and thus that pregnant women be required to carry to term and give birth in all or most cases; a pro-lifer.

reply to post by windword
 


Oh, I see. A straw man, something from the arsenal of 'change'. Thanks for that.

Well, I wasn't really thinking about myself, nor my ideologies.

It's nice to have sex.

It's also nice when the small voice wins. That's so rare.

One day, 'reproductive rights' may become properly defined as a 'license to breed', and 'forced kills'.

I hope not.

# 67
edit on 9-10-2013 by TheWhiteKnight because: syntax



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

wuforde
reply to post by CB328
 


No one forced her to have sex. Children are a consequence when having sex. Take the religious part away from it and since she is not 18 she shouldn't be able to make the choice, since she is not an adult legally. Not having money shouldn't matter b/c she can give it up for adoption.


This is so beyond reason.

You don't have to be 18 to have sex. Therefor; the recourse for the consequences for having sex should also be available.

She's 16. How many of you out there can say you grew into an adult between the ages of 16 and 18.

So, at 18, she could abort, but at 16, she's stuck with being a mom and raising a kid for the rest of her life?


That's absolutely backwards. If anything, adults are expected to be responsible, and children to be irresponsible -- so if it's going to be denied to one of the two, it should be denied to the adult -- as children often make mistakes.

[That's what we as people do, make mistakes.]

I thought religion was supposed to be separated from state; abortion issues should be off limits to the government.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   

camaro68ss
I don’t agree with most abortions but this is strange. To young to have an abortion but I guess old enough to raise a kid…. hummmmm


I'm exactly with you. The Funny thing is.... you might say..... that in their own eyes, they Know everything at that age..
Ok down to hard facts... I'm pro life. There have been millions literally who have given birth at earlier ages. My next door neighbor girl started dropping kids at 16 and now has three..
The body will do it easily enough provided the skelature is of the correct size for a vaginal birth. The mind...... that's another thing.... lots of hormones running berzerk.

Biggest problem I see .... Government Nannyism.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   

wuforde
reply to post by CB328
 


No one forced her to have sex. Children are a consequence when having sex. Take the religious part away from it and since she is not 18 she shouldn't be able to make the choice, since she is not an adult legally. Not having money shouldn't matter b/c she can give it up for adoption.


Not being 18 is no excuse for her being treated differently and in this case religiously by law.

Person that is judge in this case should leave her 'religious believes' behind their court room.

This is just big fail of a system... and religious freedom.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
There are miles of difference between taking a human life and raising a family. One is an extreme moral dilemma and the other is a magical life changing experience. I believe that since this girl is so young she can be expected to remember what she needed as a child and will have no problems as long as her family stands by her. And if she does not wish to raise this child there are thousands of people willing to.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

tmeister182
There are miles of difference between taking a human life and raising a family. One is an extreme moral dilemma and the other is a magical life changing experience. I believe that since this girl is so young she can be expected to remember what she needed as a child and will have no problems as long as her family stands by her. And if she does not wish to raise this child there are thousands of people willing to.


Those are two big ifs and quite an assumption.

1) What if she really doesn't remember what she needed as a child or didn't get what she needed as a child to begin with?

2) What if her family is not able to stand by her or can not finance the rearing of this new child? Don't forget this is a foster home and the girl and her baby may get shuffled for any number of reasons.

3) What if there really aren't people waiting in line to adopt this baby and the girl can't handle it or items #1 & #2 above rear themselves?

This girl tried to responsibly take care of her own mistake and was told she can't. My parents always told me if I break something or make a mistake, own up to it, take responsibility for it. She seems to have been on the right path until the courts failed her by railroading her into the exact situation she sought to leave.

edit on 10-10-2013 by evc1shop because: sp



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tmeister182
 


This girl has no family to stand by her. Her parents and her have no relationship anymore and her and her two younger siblings have been removed due to abuse. She has related to the judge that fears retribution from her foster parents.

She has said that adoption, based on her experience, is not a good choice. There are hundreds of diaries on line of adoptees who have suffered at the hands of their adoptive families and have been estranged by the "blood is thicker than water" mentality of many adoptive families.

Abortion is legal, and the fact that this judge was predisposed and had previously been a paid representative and a volunteer in several pro-life campaigns and court cases, he should have recused himself based on his bias bias.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

American-philosopher
reply to post by evc1shop
 


Do you not think that maybe the judge was thinking about long term for the mother that maybe when she grows up a little more she will very much regret the decision of having an abortion. One that she can't take back. As opposed to having the baby and then giving it up for adoptioon if she feels she can;t take care of it or doesnt want it.



But even if she was forced to have the child and then gave up up for adoption, she then has to live the rest of her life knowing there's a human being out there who she brought into the world that probably hates her. Just give the girl an abortion for god's sake, she's a human being!!



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

wuforde
reply to post by CB328
 


No one forced her to have sex. Children are a consequence when having sex. Take the religious part away from it and since she is not 18 she shouldn't be able to make the choice, since she is not an adult legally. Not having money shouldn't matter b/c she can give it up for adoption.


Funny, having an abortion is "avoiding taking responsibility" and yet abandoning the very saem child to the system is way more acceptable.


Is that judges logic infectious!?



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   

American-philosopher
reply to post by evc1shop
 


Do you not think that maybe the judge was thinking about long term for the mother that maybe when she grows up a little more she will very much regret the decision of having an abortion. One that she can't take back. As opposed to having the baby and then giving it up for adoptioon if she feels she can;t take care of it or doesnt want it.



Not sure, but the same could happen for ANY women. She could have an abortion, and years later regret it. No one ever said the choice is an easy one.

I suppose she could put the child up for adoption. A perfectly fine option, but she needs to figure that all out NOW.....WAY before the child is born. By the time the child is born, it should had some loving parents all ready to take care of it, love it, and help him/her grow.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


I have to go with the courts on this one. Everyone knows that having sex can lead to pregnancies. If she is ready to have sex then she is ready to have a baby. Come on people why deny the rights of the unborn child to live, because that young women doesn't want to deal with the consequence of spreading her legs.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by supermarket2012
 




I suppose she could put the child up for adoption. A perfectly fine option,


Who are you, or anyone else, to decide what is a perfectly fine option for someone else?


but she needs to figure that all out NOW.....WAY before the child is born. By the time the child is born, it should had some loving parents all ready to take care of it, love it, and help him/her grow.


The girl was 2 weeks pregnant when she asked for an abortion. She 4 months along now!


DuecesxGeneral
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


I have to go with the courts on this one. Everyone knows that having sex can lead to pregnancies. If she is ready to have sex then she is ready to have a baby. Come on people why deny the rights of the unborn child to live, because that young women doesn't want to deal with the consequence of spreading her legs.


So you agree that a woman should be punished for having sex, by being forced to give birth to an unwanted child. I wonder what that kind of hate, directed at a developing fetus, leaves in the child after birth? Maybe that's how psychopaths are created.

If she was supposed to know that sex can lead to pregnancy, why can't she also know that abortion is a solution to an unwanted pregnancy?

Abortion is legal and protected by the Supreme Court. Courts don't decide on a case by case basis who can and who cannot have an abortion. This judge is clearly forcing his religious views through his position on the bench.

IF this case goes to SCOTUS, and I hope it does, and this girl wins, I hope she turns around and sues the state of Nebraska for a violation of civil rights!



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

supermarket2012

American-philosopher
reply to post by evc1shop
 


Do you not think that maybe the judge was thinking about long term for the mother that maybe when she grows up a little more she will very much regret the decision of having an abortion. One that she can't take back. As opposed to having the baby and then giving it up for adoptioon if she feels she can;t take care of it or doesnt want it.



Not sure, but the same could happen for ANY women. She could have an abortion, and years later regret it. No one ever said the choice is an easy one.

I suppose she could put the child up for adoption. A perfectly fine option, but she needs to figure that all out NOW.....WAY before the child is born. By the time the child is born, it should had some loving parents all ready to take care of it, love it, and help him/her grow.


I covered a lot of this in earlier posts but I would like to know why so many people think that adoption is always the best answer.
If a pregnant person did not mean to have a child and they want to terminate things they ought to be able to do so in a safe, supervised manner.
It seems to me that people think that a lot of girls are going to have sex because they know if something goes wrong , well there is always the abortion to take care of it. Of course, the same can be said for the adoption, there is always that route too.

Finally, if the man in the equation can have no say in the matter why can the courts? They shouldn't, they should leave it up to the woman as any other medical decision.

Another thing, adoptions can actually lead to black market activities and pricings and kickbacks(perhaps from wealthy folks looking for a specific child and maybe paid to certain legal counsels) this stuff does happen. I know China had to crack down on the adoption schemes going on there. Why promote it here? I think it has a place for those times when a baby survives a tragedy without parents or even in the case where a mother of a new born realizes that she can't handle the responsibilities but give her the choice.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

SearchLightsInc

wuforde
reply to post by CB328
 


No one forced her to have sex. Children are a consequence when having sex. Take the religious part away from it and since she is not 18 she shouldn't be able to make the choice, since she is not an adult legally. Not having money shouldn't matter b/c she can give it up for adoption.


Funny, having an abortion is "avoiding taking responsibility" and yet abandoning the very same child to the system is way more acceptable.


Is that judges logic infectious!?

I agree!
Aren't they supposed to do what's in the best interest of the child? Didn't the child express her concern? What if she dies giving birth, though rare, it is still a possibility even today. Oh wait, it's not about the girl, it is about the unborn fetus, the real issue at hand. Nice way to turn a child into a religious pawn.
edit on 10-10-2013 by evc1shop because: eta





new topics
 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join