reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly
I can see that you're still attached to the Victorian mindset of the Puritans. I'm going to go slow, to present my case against this out dated
Owning a firearm isn't an inalienable right, endowed by the creator. Autonomy over one's body is.
are we reading the same constitution? see amendment #2 on the bill of rights.
We are, but we're interpreting differently.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it.............
The Constitution, ie The Bill of Rights, guarantees that this young women, being discussed, has inalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness, separately but equally. According to the constitution, she has the right to defend these rights, up to and including the use of deadly
force, ie using a gun (or in this case, an abortion) to protect her rights.
The constitution acknowledges that these rights are inalienable, however, if governing bodies, including parents, become destructive in defending
these rights, recourse must become available.
Minors are not exempt of these rights until they reach an age of maturity. Parents and law makers are charged with insuring these rights are
maintained for minors, not excluding minors from these rights, but adding additional safeguards to protect them.
In this case, an unwanted pregnancy is threatening this young woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in that pregnancy will have
an adverse effect on her life, her liberty and her pursuit of happiness. Her foster parents and the courts failed to protect her rights, placing the
rights of her unborn "potential child" above her own, via religious doctrine and a personal bias in the case of the judge, as has been demonstrated.
This is unconstitutional, and has been affirmed as such per the SCOTUS ruling in Roe V Wade, which states that an embryo/ fetus has NO RIGHT TO LIFE.
im not referring to post sexual intercourse. again your ignoring the choice of having sex to begin with and starting your argument (if you want to
call it that) post-sexual intercourse.
Like it or not, abortion is a method of birth control. And, along with other methods of birth control, like "The Pill", "The IUD", "Norplant", "Depo
Provera" and "The Morning After Pill" all rely on "after the fact" methods of expelling the fertilized egg AFTER SEXUAL RELATIONS. All of these
methodss require a doctor's exam and an expensive prescription to obtain (except the Morning After Pill, which was just unregulated).
what you should have said was "right to not be pregnant via abortion"
The only methods of birth control which don't employ abortifacients are barrier methods such a condoms or a diaphram, which still requires a doctors
exam and an expensive prescription. Many religious bodies still condemn these methods of birth control as well.
They Are Coming For Your Birth Control
The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme
Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse.
It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in
sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral
people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young
people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.
Denying young women the freedom of sexual expression based on Victorian morality, shaming and punishing young women for having sex is a common tactic
used by the religious right. Denying young female minors access to birth control remedies, including abortion, in order to control their sexual
expression, forcing them to carry their pregnancies to term, simply because of their age and marital status is unconstitutional and these state laws
need to be challenged. Parents and courts are failing these disenfranchised women.
abstinence is unrealistic? that is your opinion.
Teaching abstinence doesn't work, and that is a proven fact. States that employ the teaching of abstinence have high rates of teen pregnancy than
states that employ the teaching of sex education and allow access to birth control without parental permission.
Almost 350,000 U.S. teenagers under the age of 18 become pregnant each year. Approximately 82% of these pregnancies are unintended.
Acknowledging that it takes "two to tango" that means that, at least, 700,000 teens every year ignore abtsinence. Those stats only reflect those
teens who become pregnant, not those who are having sex.
yes i do know that, for the simple fact that this could have been willingly avoided by her, and her alone. the responsibility doesn't fall on the
parents to provide contraceptive.
Yes, the responsibility for for protecting young female minors from unwanted pregnancy DOES fall on the parents. Ignoring the raging hormones and a
teen's inability to practice restraint, as restraint comes from experience, and can't be forced, is akin to sticking ones head in the sand and
pretending that teens don't have confusing and overwhelming urges to have sex. Relying on the teaching of abstinence is unreliable and unnatural,
and, is a cop out and akin to neglect.
its voluntary birth due to their decision to initiate the risk. the guest was invited when they decided to play bump-bump.
Consensual sex is not an invitation for parenthood. If a skier breaks his leg, or worse, should they be denied medical intervention because they
decided to "play bump-bump"? Should a smoker be denied medical intervention because they chose to smoke?
edit on 19-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)