Judge rules 13 year old Florida Girl can have abortion - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

arch13 · 05-03-2005, 01:26 PM

Please read the story before commenting.

The basics here are a 13yr old in state custody got pregnant, and petitioned the court for the right to have an abortion.
After much struggle, the court has given the go ahead, but Child Protective services is taking great issue with this since they are her gaurdians.

I have several thoughts on this.
If she had the child, who would pay for it since she is a ward of the state?
Who pays for the abortion?
As she was statuatorly raped (being 13 she is not able to give consent), she can petition for the abortion under the rape clause

So my thoughts?
She should have the abortion. She has a right to the abortion actually. The state of Florida would willing pay more of my tax money to support a child before they would pay for an abortion.
Further, why is no one asking how DCS lost this child, thus allowing her to get pregnant in the first place? If I was the judge, I'd require the departments funds be used to pay for the abortion as a public shaming of loosing the child to begin with.

I respect those that feel that this is very wrong.
So my question(s) for those that do is this:
Who should pay for the child if it was born?
Could a 13 year old be a good mother?
Does her statatury rape meet the justification of being "raped", thus allowing her petition?
Please be more specific than "Abortion is bad / Abortion is wrong for ______ reason!"

For those that agree with the courts action;
Why do you agree? Please be more specific than "Because abortion should be legal"
Text below my comments

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/rights_ab...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

MIAMI (Reuters) - Florida dropped its fight on Tuesday to prevent a 13-year-old girl in state care from having an abortion in a case that marked the state's second recent foray into controversial personal rights issues.

Weeks after it unsuccessfully tried to intervene in the bitter dispute over the fate of a brain-damaged woman, Terri Schiavo, the state's Department of Children & Families said it would not appeal a ruling from a Palm Beach state court allowing the teenager to have an abortion.

"There will be no further appeals and we will respectfully comply with the court's decision," DCF District Manager Marilyn Munoz said in a written statement.

It was not immediately known if the girl, who is 14 weeks pregnant, had had the abortion.

The case stirred concerns among civil libertarians who argued the child had a constitutional right to decide to have an abortion under state law and condemned the Florida government's attempts to interfere in personal rights.

"You've got to be blind not to see a pattern here," said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. "The pattern is the state's hostility to the exercise of personal freedom ... when that personal freedom is not consistent with the prevailing ideology of the state government."

Florida's governor is Jeb Bush, President Bush's younger brother, who was active in trying to keep Schiavo alive and who has said he personally opposes abortion.

"It's a tragedy that a 13-year-old child would be in a vulnerable position where she could be made pregnant and it's a tragedy that her baby will be lost," Jeb Bush said on Tuesday. "There's no good news in this at all."

The child, identified in court only as L.G., is a ward of the state who became pregnant when she ran away from a state-licensed group home. Under Florida law, a 13-year-old cannot consent to sex, making her pregnancy the result of a statutory rape.

LEGAL GUARDIAN SAYS NO

The Department of Children & Families, her legal guardian after her parents' rights were terminated, petitioned the courts to block an abortion, arguing she was not mature enough to make such a choice.

It cited a state statute that says: "In no case shall the department consent to sterilization, abortion or termination of life support."

Florida law, however, allows minors to choose to have abortions. Critics of the DCF action argued that the child's constitutional right overrode any conflicting state statute.

"The constitutional right belongs to the child, and it belongs to the child even if the parents object," said Mary Coombs, a family law professor at the University of Miami. "In this case, DCF didn't have any more right than the parents."

The DCF legal effort marked the second time in recent weeks the state welfare agency had tried to intervene in a high-profile case involving personal rights issues.

It petitioned the courts to take custody of Terri Schiavo, the subject of a controversial right-to-die case in which her parents fought for years against attempts by her husband to remove her feeding tube and allow her to die.

Critics condemned attempts by Jeb Bush to intervene in a family dispute in which courts had repeatedly ruled in favor of Schiavo's husband Michael, who said he was carrying out his wife's wishes. Terri Schiavo died on March 31.

In the abortion case, Palm Beach County Judge Ronald Alvarez, who temporarily blocked the abortion last week, ruled on Monday that the girl could have the procedure over the objections of the DCF, her guardian.

Mathew Staver, president of Orlando, Florida-based Liberty Counsel, a conservative advocacy group, said he was disappointed by the state's decision not to pursue appeals.

"A second opinion is clearly warranted in a case where life and death is at stake," he said. "An appellate court should look at whether or not the girl is mature enough to make a decision like this."

maleficent · 05-03-2005, 01:30 PM

There was some lively debate on the topic here...

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=88084

liquidlight · 05-03-2005, 01:33 PM

There is nothing about this entire situation that I don't find despicable, from the state or from the girl. That doesn't leave much to discuss and I'm sorry, but it frightens me that situations like this are becoming not only more common, but judging by the reaction they have somehow managed to almost become acceptable.

connyosis · 05-03-2005, 01:35 PM

"The Department of Children & Families, her legal guardian after her parents' rights were terminated, petitioned the courts to block an abortion, arguing she was not mature enough to make such a choice."

I read this qoute in a swedish newspaper, and the first thing that popped into my had was "But she is mature enough to have a baby?".

lindseylatch · 05-03-2005, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Florida law, however, allows minors to choose to have abortions. Critics of the DCF action argued that the child's constitutional right overrode any conflicting state statute.

"The constitutional right belongs to the child, and it belongs to the child even if the parents object," said Mary Coombs, a family law professor at the University of Miami. "In this case, DCF didn't have any more right than the parents."

There ya go...That's why I think she gets to have the abortion.
I think it's kind of funny that the conservatives want to appeal...I mean, they only have to drag this thing out for about nine months, and the decision will be made...

Superbelt · 05-03-2005, 04:19 PM

Yes she should have the abortion.
Strictly for the risk that the baby is putting her developing body in.
Noone at 13 should have to go through a pregnancy.

There should be plenty of firings at child protective services for those responsible for her being lost for so long and getting pregnant.

89transam · 05-03-2005, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Yes she should have the abortion.
Strictly for the risk that the baby is putting her developing body in.
Noone at 13 should have to go through a pregnancy.

What about her developing mind? Abortions can scar a person for the rest of thier life at any age, mutiply that trauma times 100 for a 13 year old.

Also , how much of a risk on her body can pregnancy possiby be? Yes, 13 is young to get pregnant but throghout history it has certainly happened more than a few times. Abortion however is a pretty hardcore procedure, certainly more damaging than pregnancy.

I agree, however , if it was deemed that this pregnancy put her in mortal danger then by all rights she should have the abortion. For any other reason I would be against it, hell I think 9 months of pregnancy would probobly do her alot of good, teach her that her actions have consequences.

You say Noone at 13 should have to go through a pregnancy , I say that noone at 13 should have to through an abortion.

pan6467 · 05-03-2005, 06:13 PM

First who is the father and why if he isn't, is he not being held accountable?

Secondly, I agree with Superbelt, there should be some investigations and firings and the abortion is probably the healthiest for all concerned.

Thirdly, this is a perfect example of the Right's double standards. "No abortion but fuck you i'm not going to pay taxes to help that child." So we end up with children having children, higher crime rates, poor education, higher poverty rates (ooo yes, lower the poverty line and you can say fewer families live in poverty).

This is a truly disgraceful situation all around and should be taken care of quickly and learnt from so that our society can make the necessary changes to try to prevent such incidences from happening again.

guy44 · 05-03-2005, 08:15 PM

Yeah, I agree pan. The important thing to remember, and what most anti-choicers fail to understand, is that abortions are not a problem but a symptom. Poverty, social alienation, schizophrenic societal sex standards, inadequate sex education, poor parental guidance, insufficient contraception distribution, and in this case, a terrible Department of Children and Family Services, are the problem. I probably missed a few; nevertheless, the point remains. Progressive economic policies, sensible societal attitudes towards sex, full sex education, contraception distribution, and improved parental guidance would do far, far more to lower the number of abortions in this country than puritanical rantings or even bans on abortion.

Not to mention that we'd have a better country for it.

EDIT - I don't mean to overly generalize, but I believe that most anti-choicers would rather continue their pointless, sisyphean crusade to ban abortion than accept the above changes, which would do far more to actually lower the number of abortions. Why let sex ed teach our kids to use condoms when we can just banish them from our homes when they get an abortion?

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-03-2005, 08:18 PM

Why is it the right to lifers, or any tax payers responsibility to pay more taxes to pay for children? I mean honestly that is probably one of the most ridiculous things I have heard, it's a prime example of the entitlment/welfare state that the reproductive rights camp has pushed on this country. How about you take responsibilities for your own god damned actions, sex is fun I realize, but reailty flash, it's meant for procreation! This selfish society me, me, me, actions and consequences be damned is fucking ridiculous.

guy44 · 05-03-2005, 08:21 PM

Mojo, I'm unsure of what precisely you are talking. Do you mean sex ed, or this particular girl's abortion being paid for by the state, or something else?

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-03-2005, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Thirdly, this is a perfect example of the Right's double standards. "No abortion but fuck you i'm not going to pay taxes to help that child." So we end up with children having children, higher crime rates, poor education, higher poverty rates (ooo yes, lower the poverty line and you can say fewer families live in poverty).

Mostly in response to this. I'm all for sex ed, that's a part of public education. But why is it mine or anyone elses responsibility to pay for the child just because it isn't convenient to the mother? It's perplexing really.

guy44 · 05-03-2005, 08:36 PM

Well, this child doesn't have parents to pay for an abortion. She's a ward of the state.

But, and I could be wrong, I think pan's point is that if the government engaged in some of the actions I discussed in my earlier posts, general things like lower poverty levels, things that aren't necessarily only about abortion, then it is likely that abortions would decrease as well.

You know that teenage pregnancy levels are lower in the "blue" states than the "red" ones? It's not because of cultural reasons - just as it is silly to say that there is something inherent about black urban culture that results in high teenage pregnancy rates (thanks Rush, you drug-addled idiot), it is silly to say something like southern rural folk are culturally likely to have high teenage pregnancy rates - but rather because the south is poorer than the north. Improve any population's economic situation, you lower their teen pregnancy rates. Same thing with abortion.

Mojo_PeiPei · 05-03-2005, 08:41 PM

Agreed but there is a big difference between helping a given populations economic situation and the government doling out money.

pan6467 · 05-03-2005, 09:18 PM

First I want to add this is a situation where again the Right will probably use it for their political gains (i.e. Schiavo) but one case that should just be left alone.

Secondly, I reiterate, poverty begets higher crime, loss of ambitions and desire and becomes more of a social burden than taxes that are used to better education, better help people to live fuller lives (small business loans, Housing loans, etc.).

The problem with the Right is that they have become greedy fucks and while they run deficits it is NOT to help society as a whole. If the GOP didn't run deficits and streamlined government while maintaining some societal programs then I would be a Republican, but they refuse to accept that OUR government HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO ALL THE PEOPLE AND TO TRY TO GIVE EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD AN OPPURTUNITY FOR GROWTH. This betters society as a whole and is what made America great.

No, throwing money for the sake of throwing money does not help, but neither does the attitude "fuck you why should I pay taxes for someone".

Don't want to pay taxes for people? Then stand up and hold government accountable for their actions and demand better education, more funding to rebuild our infrastructure and stop whining about how if we raise tarriffs to protect jobs that will hurt us.... or if we socialize medical care in some ways that will hurt us..... or if we actually fund education that will hurt us....... BUT we can go deeper in the hole for Congressional pay raises, a homeland security that is a money pit and so far reports show inefficient, support tax cuts for the wealthy while raising the hidden taxes on the poor, give away billions in corporate welfare to companies shipping jobs overseas, and fund a goddamned war while we cut veterans benefits, close their VA hospitals and blame the veterans who put their lives on the line for this country for wanting what was PROMISED THEM AND WHAT THE TRULY DESERVE.

Yeah, let's cut what helps society and pay Haliburton BILLIONS for shit that they never deliver. Let's go deeper in debt and fund truly evil governments that show little respect to human rights or the US with our tax dollars, while we destroy our own educational systems and small businesses because of healthcare costs. Let's ship billions overseas to country's like Isreal, Saudi, Kuwait, Sudan, Chile, Columbia as their leaders rip us. While we put our tried and true friends, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, on hate lists because they don't agree with us on the war.

And in the process blame the poor for not getting better jobs while we continue to destroy their education, cut social programs that can help them achieve goals and better themselves.

Limbaugh talks how the War on Poverty failed...... It didn't, the kids that benefitted helped us rebuild a little in the 80's and partially into the 90's because it took awhile for it to show. Granted, in the process we over compensated but now that we know what worked we can streamline, find abusers faster and cut down the red tape and cost without having to cut the programs.

I am sorry I did not mean to threadjack or rant, but I get so Goddamned tired of hearing the right cry about taxes and destroy what we need as a society, while they are willingly throwing money into things blindly that cost us far more than just tax dollars.

As for this case, the hypocrasy shows from the right and I will demonstrate. No abortion for a girl 13 already in the system means tax monies for her hospitalizations, her child's, then she is still in the system and now her child will be so therefore there's twice the spending in tax dollars. Of course the Right could force her to put the child up for adoption..... ooo there's a real solution let's illegalize abortion but force adoption....... which would still cost tax dollars.

Really in cases like these, the father should be found and forced to pay..... but what if he's a minor.... guess what more tax dollars are spent because where would he get the money????? Throw him in prison????? more tax dollars.

uncle_el · 05-04-2005, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arch13

I have several thoughts on this.
If she had the child, who would pay for it since she is a ward of the state?

the state

Quote:

Who pays for the abortion?

the state

seems to me, on a purely financial level, it's cheaper to have the abortion now, then to pay for everything her and the child will need until the 13 year old is emancipated from the state (not sure what florida's policy is on this, but it ranges from 18-20 years of age in different states), and likely have to pay for the care through welfare and/or women and children's services funds for the child the 13 year old has.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 89tansam

What about her developing mind? Abortions can scar a person for the rest of thier life at any age, mutiply that trauma times 100 for a 13 year old.

Also , how much of a risk on her body can pregnancy possiby be? Yes, 13 is young to get pregnant but throghout history it has certainly happened more than a few times. Abortion however is a pretty hardcore procedure, certainly more damaging than pregnancy.

I agree, however , if it was deemed that this pregnancy put her in mortal danger then by all rights she should have the abortion. For any other reason I would be against it, hell I think 9 months of pregnancy would probobly do her alot of good, teach her that her actions have consequences.

You say Noone at 13 should have to go through a pregnancy , I say that noone at 13 should have to through an abortion.

if the mind's still developing/fragile/in whatever state you want to say it's in, it will be affected by either decision.and if it's still developing, who's to say one choice is any worse than the other? the pregnancy and delivery could also be traumatic for her.

an abortion is no more damaging than pregnancy. having been in both procedures during my ob/gyn rotation, i saw more complications from pregnancy, delivery, and post-partum issues.

why people think pregnancy is so much safer and less dangerous than abortion is interesting to say the least. there are potential issues and complications with both.

pan6467 · 05-04-2005, 06:48 AM

What I don't understand with anti-abortionists is if this 13 yr. old truly wants an abortion and is prevented.... all she has to do is fall down stairs, whack herself in the belly somehow, od on pills or alcohol.... many ways to abort without the safety of a medical procedure. If they couldn't watch her enough to not allow her to get pregnant then they could never prevent her from finding a way to self abort (short of locking her up in a padded room and even then she could stop eating).

I abhor abortion but I would prefer that than have self abortions or hacks. Psychologically and spiritually is it evil? that is between the girl and her God.... not me or society to decide. Who's to say this experience doesn't bring her closer to her God and she helps other children someday to make better decisions than she did..... Did Jesus not teach us that salvation can come to those who made the worst choices? Have we not seen those who have made bad choices learn from them and become stronger and help educate people to not make their mistakes?

I believe good can come from even the worst scenarios, let us hope that this proves to be such a case and allow this 13 yr.old her life.

lindseylatch · 05-04-2005, 06:50 AM

yes, many women throughout history have had children at 13...and a hell of a lot have died. according to a wikipedia type site (which I accidentally closed, but will try to find again), the maternal death rate in the 19th century was about 1 death per 100 live births.
Our bodies aren't fully developed at 13. We're not our full size, breat aren't fully grown. It can't be good to toss a growing fetus into the mix.

FoolThemAll · 05-04-2005, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Yeah, I agree pan. The important thing to remember, and what most anti-choicers fail to understand, is that abortions are not a problem but a symptom.

They're both a symptom and a problem. A symptom of the problems you mention, and a problem because most are unjustifiable killings.

Quote:

EDIT - I don't mean to overly generalize, but I believe that most anti-choicers would rather continue their pointless, sisyphean crusade to ban abortion than accept the above changes, which would do far more to actually lower the number of abortions. Why let sex ed teach our kids to use condoms when we can just banish them from our homes when they get an abortion?

It's not pointless. If an action causes unjustified physical harm to another, it should be illegal.

Your changes look good to me. I'd say that I'm for them. Except for progressive economic policies...I have little to no confidence in that.

FoolThemAll · 05-04-2005, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Yes she should have the abortion.
Strictly for the risk that the baby is putting her developing body in.
Noone at 13 should have to go through a pregnancy.

When I hear about these cases, I tend to assume that pregnancy is physically dangerous. Provided that this assumption is correct in this particular case, or provided that there's a significant level of risk, I agree. She should have the abortion.

Superbelt · 05-04-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 89transam

What about her developing mind? Abortions can scar a person for the rest of thier life at any age, mutiply that trauma times 100 for a 13 year old.

Also , how much of a risk on her body can pregnancy possiby be? Yes, 13 is young to get pregnant but throghout history it has certainly happened more than a few times. Abortion however is a pretty hardcore procedure, certainly more damaging than pregnancy.

I agree, however , if it was deemed that this pregnancy put her in mortal danger then by all rights she should have the abortion. For any other reason I would be against it, hell I think 9 months of pregnancy would probobly do her alot of good, teach her that her actions have consequences.

You say Noone at 13 should have to go through a pregnancy , I say that noone at 13 should have to through an abortion.

She is still in, I believe an early stage of pregnancy. The abortion procedure will be magnitudes simpler than going through a pregnancy.
How much of a risk? A responsible GROWN woman will take special vitamins for a year and a half before getting pregnant. This is because pregnancy saps huge amounts of vitamins, amino acids, and minerals from her body.
Especially important are Calcium for her still developing bones and folic acid.
Folic acid is even more important, but for both the mother and child. For the fetus a deficiency can cause problems, including neural tube defects, arm and leg malformation, heart defects, and cleft palate and lips.
For the mother Folic Acid deficiencies early on can cause anemia, brain disorders, and increase likelyhood of contracting cervical and colon cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease

This girl is 13 and a ward of the state. I guarantee you her Folic acid is seriously deficient.

Forcing her to go through with this will put her body through immense hell. There's a reason female life spans were abysmal before the modern age.

matthew330 · 05-04-2005, 04:26 PM

" The abortion procedure will be magnitudes simpler than going through a pregnancy."

Her life is already much too complicated than a 13 year olds should be. Simplicity is not the issue here.

"A responsible GROWN woman will take special vitamins for a year and a half before getting pregnant. This is because pregnancy saps huge amounts of vitamins, amino acids, and minerals from her body."

I have never met nor heard of anyone concieved where the process was planned a year and a half in advance, with the exception of those that are having problems getting pregnant. Responsible woman are women who deal with pregnancies appropriately when they occur, GROWN or not. Handing this girl the "easy way out" will do nothing but compound her already chaotic life.

"Especially important are Calcium for her still developing bones and folic acid.
Folic acid is even more important, but for both the mother and child. For the fetus a deficiency can cause problems, including neural tube defects, arm and leg malformation, heart defects, and cleft palate and lips."

I have over 2+ of the above mentioned problems, i can't tell you how thankfull i am i wasn't born in an era where these were detectable prior to birth and acceptable reasons for terminating a pregnancy.

"This girl is 13 and a ward of the state. I guarantee you her Folic acid is seriously deficient. " I have no idea how effective the state is at raising children, their obviously seriously lacking in the emotional arena. I would hope they would have medical obligations that would prevent..." anemia, brain disorders, and increase likelyhood of contracting cervical and colon cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease" by providing her necessary Folic acid requirements for a healthy pregnancy. If this were not true, this is a problem of the state that should be addressed, not an excuse for an abortion.

" There's a reason female life spans were abysmal before the modern age." I'm guessing your comparing modern day state guardianship to.... i don't know... Whatever was available prior? In which case, i would think you would be complaining about the quality of care provided by the state for foster children (sorry if im not using the appropriate terms). Either that or your referring back to your previous post that pregnancies cause undue hardship for "still developing" bodies. To which i would say, biologically they are capable of pregnancy, because they are biologically ready. The issue here is whether or not a 13 year old in "modern society" is mentally ready. From my point of view, 9 months or pregnancy would do more good than harm for this child. At the very least she would learn that there are consequences to her actions, and be less likely to get pregnant again.

This girls life is already in a downward spiral. Easy access to an abortion will certainly not help her get on the right track, and perhaps encourage her to continue her lifestyle. 9 months of pregnancy will make her think twice about the next time she decides to engage in sex, and perhaps would give her an appreciation for life that she apparently hasn't learned yet.

Superbelt · 05-04-2005, 04:31 PM

Yes, Osteoperosis, persistant depression brought on by post partum and cancer later in life are character building events.

ps. any responsible grown woman, whether planning a pregnancy or not, is taking vitamins that include folic acid, calcium, iron and other necessary compounds.
A child doesn't know responsibility, she depends on adults who should.

matthew330 · 05-04-2005, 04:45 PM

and adults who encourage the easy way out, as far as i'm concerned, do not.

Superbelt · 05-04-2005, 04:54 PM

It's not the easy way out. She is absolutely too young to have a child. Having one at her stage of development is factual detriment to her long term health. And to top it off she doesn't want the baby.
She was RAPED. She is too young to give consent. We don't know anything about how this happened. Was it another kid? Was it a legal adult who took advantage of her? Maybe she wasn't raped and this is the second coming....
This isn't the easy way out, this is someone finally being responsible for this child and doing what is best for her,

tspikes51 · 05-04-2005, 04:57 PM

My view on this is pretty anti-humanitarian, but we need to undo some of the damage that has been done by some progressive programs and ideas that failed or have visited harm on society. If she wants an abortion, and if the court rules that she has the right to one, let her do/pay for it herself. No matter how you look at it, it's her fault for getting pregnant. If she would have stayed at wherever the state put her, she probably wouldn't have been raped. Plain and simple. It's sad that it has to be that way, but that's the hard reality of it. It seems to me if the court decides that somebody has the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion, they should just release her from state custody. The responsibility required to live on one's own is less than that of raising a child. It sucks that it has come to this.

matthew330 · 05-04-2005, 05:20 PM

Your all over the place superbelt. Was she raped because she's too young to give consent, and as such should have the abortion? Is it because it is a "factual detriment to her health", and as such she should have the abortion? Or is it because she has a "right to choice" to top it all off?

You admittedly don't know anything about the situation, but suggest it's rape because she is incapable of choosing to have sex at 13, but suggest at 13 she's capable of choosing to have an abortion. And the only "factual detriment to her health" is her current behavior. If i'm wrong about that, please throw some facts my way.

I'm seriously trying to understand your position, and would like to know what for you is the determining factor. Is it her physical health (by all means throw some detrimental facts my way, maybe i'll think differently)? Mental health? Or my hunch, the need to protect a womans right to choose at any and all costs (i.e. - are you really considering this 13 year olds situation and what's best for her, or is your position knee-jerk reaction to someone preventing an abortion, any abortion)

Superbelt · 05-04-2005, 05:29 PM

All of the above:
Too young to give consent, is dangerous to her health to have the baby, and it's her choice.
How hard is it to understand all are valid reasons?

It is rape below the age of consent and 13 is the age of consent to have sex. I also gave you a laundry list of horrible things that can follow her till the day she dies. So don't be coy. Clinical depression, osteoperosis, cancer and alzheimers.

You want the facts, look up results of calcium, iron and folic acid deficiency as a result of pregnancy.

I don't think anyone else around here can't see that I have argued very well for her personal health.

matthew330 · 05-04-2005, 05:36 PM

she's too young to consent to sex therefore its rape, but mature enough to choose abortion, therefore we should respect her choice. Pick one and stick with it. It's dangerous to her health to have the baby, or there are potential medical complications? Please choose one so i can argue it. There are potential medical complications with abortion.

"I don't think anyone else around here can't see that I have argued very well for her personal health."

I guess i'm just special then.

lindseylatch · 05-04-2005, 05:42 PM

I'm gonna have to go with Superbelt on this one, although you make a valid point that she's either old enough or she isn't.
I agree that the risks to her health and the potential medical complications are serious, too serious just to risk it to "teach her a lesson."
A therapist could do a good job as well, and they don't cost as much as a child.
Obviously the state fucked up with this kid, let's not give them another one to work on from birth.

RangerDick · 05-04-2005, 06:02 PM

What if the "man" (I use that term loosely) who impregnated this girl was also below the age of consent? Is it still rape? Since we don't know how old the guy was, I think it's a fair question and something to be considered in this scenario.

Regardless, I believe that having an abortion will, in the long run, do this girl much more damage than carrying the pregnancy to term and giving the child up for adoption. in which case the state won't have to pay the child's way through life.

matthew330 · 05-04-2005, 06:02 PM

What risks and potential medical complications? It's not being coy. Everything you've brought up medically (easily) treatable. Could the same be said for the potential risks with abortion?

matthew330 · 05-04-2005, 06:19 PM

"in which case the state won't have to pay the child's way through life."

This does not even factor into the equation for me. It's one place i don't mind my taxes going.

Superbelt · 05-04-2005, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

What risks and potential medical complications? It's not being coy. Everything you've brought up medically (easily) treatable. Could the same be said for the potential risks with abortion?

No they are not easily treatable. Do you really know the scope of importance that proper nutrition (esp calcium and folic acid) has during pregnancy?
"Everything you've brought up medically (easily) treatable" shows that you really don't

Potential risks for a 13 year old girl whose body has not yet developed to the point where she can safely deliver a child is the most immediate medical complication.
Her hips are not yet widened enough to safely pass a child, her body overall has not strengthened to the point where she can handle the stress of carrying the child or delivering it.

matthew330 · 05-04-2005, 06:53 PM

"Her hips are not yet widened enough to safely pass a child, her body overall has not strengthened to the point where she can handle the stress of carrying the child or delivering it."

Perhaps with any luck evolution will catch up and women won't biologically be able to conceive untill their old enough to vote.

" Do you really know the scope of importance that proper nutrition (esp calcium and folic acid) has during pregnancy?"

you've done a good job of enlightening me tonight. You've already identified potential risks, identified excellent measures to keep these risks to a minimum. In the event one happens, i'm sure the "modern" medical community will think of something. About the easiest medical adventure i've seen. You've single handedly almost eliminated the need for 'em.

( i misspoke when i said treatable...i meant preventable, but the complications when they do arise are treatable, easy or not -and the same can't be said for complications with abortion - which is why i'm not buying your argument that this is a major concern of yours)

lindseylatch · 05-05-2005, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Perhaps with any luck evolution will catch up and women won't biologically be able to conceive untill their old enough to vote.

Alas, evolution doesn't really care if you can vote...And neither does puberty. It only requires the minimum to support a child.

And actually, girl are getting their first periods earlier and earlier, which could have potential repercusions. Of course, there's getting pregnant at such a young and unfortunately tender age. I had a health teacher tell our class that the hormones which trigger puberty also stop brain growth in certain areas, and when this starts too early (as is the case more and more) key areas of the brain are not fully developed (such as the problem solving areas). She didn't back that up with any evidence, so unfortunately I can't confirm that.

Also, she said that hormones in our food could be the culprit, causing the early onset of puberty.

A little off-topic, sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

i'm sure the "modern" medical community will think of something. About the easiest medical adventure i've seen. You've single handedly almost eliminated the need for 'em.

Now, as to what the "modern" (why is that in quotes?) medical sciences can and cannot do. Guess what? They have limitations. They can't cure alzheimers. They can't straighten rickets without serious surgery. Many of the fixes you so casually mention are fucking expensive. And the fact that we can prevent them means they don't show up a lot in the people who can afford the treatment, so the docs probably don't have a ton of experience. Although they can do amazing things, doc aren't the gods some of them believe they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerDick

Regardless, I believe that having an abortion will, in the long run, do this girl much more damage than carrying the pregnancy to term and giving the child up for adoption. in which case the state won't have to pay the child's way through life.

That assumes that the child will actually get adopted. Which is no guarantee, particularly if it will need expensive measures to fix any problems with poor fetal nutrition.

RangerDick · 05-05-2005, 05:41 AM

Quote:

That assumes that the child will actually get adopted. Which is no guarantee, particularly if it will need expensive measures to fix any problems with poor fetal nutrition.

Nothing in life is guaranteed lindseylatch. Defaulting to abortion simply because there is no "guarantee" the baby will be adopted is ridiculous. I encourage you to do some research on the number of people seeking to adopt a child in relation to the declining number of children being put up for adoption.

uncle_el · 05-05-2005, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

"Her hips are not yet widened enough to safely pass a child, her body overall has not strengthened to the point where she can handle the stress of carrying the child or delivering it."

Perhaps with any luck evolution will catch up and women won't biologically be able to conceive untill their old enough to vote.

" Do you really know the scope of importance that proper nutrition (esp calcium and folic acid) has during pregnancy?"

you've done a good job of enlightening me tonight. You've already identified potential risks, identified excellent measures to keep these risks to a minimum. In the event one happens, i'm sure the "modern" medical community will think of something. About the easiest medical adventure i've seen. You've single handedly almost eliminated the need for 'em.

( i misspoke when i said treatable...i meant preventable, but the complications when they do arise are treatable, easy or not -and the same can't be said for complications with abortion - which is why i'm not buying your argument that this is a major concern of yours)

as i graduate from medical school in 1 week, i'll go ahead and call myself a medical professional.

i'd say at a minimum, abortion and a full term pregnancy followed with a delivery have the same risks. at worse, i would say that a full term pregnancy followed by delivery is more dangerous.

risks of abortion: missed/incomplete abortion (leaving behind fetal parts), infection, sepsis, uterine tear. having been present for a few abortions on my ob/gyn rotation, and seeing women in clinic and otherwise who had abortions in the past, the only real risk i saw was with medical abortions (they don't always work, and the lady ends up needing to get a surgical abortion).

risks of pregnancy: preeclampsia (hypertension, protein in the urine, edema), eclampsia (throw in seizures), gestational diabetes, infection, prolapsed uterus, iron deficiency anemia

risks of delivery: vaginal tears, uterine rupture, need to go to c-section (which has an increased risk of uterine rupture), infection, sepsis.

there may have been some risks i missed in pregnancy and delivery. and i also didn't mention the potential outcome of these risks on the baby at delivery either. add to that, many of the risks of pregnancy (those outside of infection and a prolapsed uterus) end up portending an outcome later in life (gestational diabtes begets diabetes mellitus, preeclampsia begets hypertension/high blood pressure, iron deficiency anemia begets itself).

the risks of both abortion and pregnancy are real. neither one is an easy decision. both can have, in worst case scenario, horrible outcomes. but in the "real world", i've seen worse outcomes with pregnancy and delivery. that's not to say that women shouldn't go through pregnancy and delivery, but i think it's potentially a more difficult course, and a much more complicated biologic process then many people like to think or believe.

edit: another interesting note is the mother of the 13 year old has been on the news (at least here in the south) saying that she doesn't want the girl to have the abortion, and is going to scrape together the money to get a lawyer to get it stopped. strange, since the girl is no longer in her custody, but also shows how sad the girl's situation is.

as far as the adoption angle, i suppose the baby, if she decided to have it, could be adopted. but damn, the potential 13 year old mother is still of an adoptable age as well! but most studies show that children after the age of 4 or 5 are very difficult to adopt out.

if you're against abortion, i respect that. but realize that at the end of the day, the state will be paying for whatever transpires either way, be it abortion, or pregnancy, delivery, and potentially 2 children in "the system".

JustJess · 05-05-2005, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindseylatch

yes, many women throughout history have had children at 13...and a hell of a lot have died. according to a wikipedia type site (which I accidentally closed, but will try to find again), the maternal death rate in the 19th century was about 1 death per 100 live births.
Our bodies aren't fully developed at 13. We're not our full size, breat aren't fully grown. It can't be good to toss a growing fetus into the mix.

I wouldn't say it's healthy for a 13-year-old... but we can hardly use statistics from the 1800's as reliable measures for today. Death rates for everything were higher - medicine was not as advanced or even as present as it is now. No comparison.

fibber · 05-05-2005, 05:38 PM

Allow the abortion, tie the tubes while you're in there. Then have a Pepsi.

05-03-2005, 01:30 PM	#2 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	There was some lively debate on the topic here... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=88084 __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

05-03-2005, 01:33 PM	#3 (permalink)
liquidlight AHH! Custom Title!! Location: The twisted warpings of my brain.	There is nothing about this entire situation that I don't find despicable, from the state or from the girl. That doesn't leave much to discuss and I'm sorry, but it frightens me that situations like this are becoming not only more common, but judging by the reaction they have somehow managed to almost become acceptable. __________________ Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

05-03-2005, 01:35 PM	#4 (permalink)
connyosis Psycho Location: Sweden - Land of the sodomite damned	"The Department of Children & Families, her legal guardian after her parents' rights were terminated, petitioned the courts to block an abortion, arguing she was not mature enough to make such a choice." I read this qoute in a swedish newspaper, and the first thing that popped into my had was "But she is mature enough to have a baby?". __________________ If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

05-03-2005, 06:13 PM	#8 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	First who is the father and why if he isn't, is he not being held accountable? Secondly, I agree with Superbelt, there should be some investigations and firings and the abortion is probably the healthiest for all concerned. Thirdly, this is a perfect example of the Right's double standards. "No abortion but fuck you i'm not going to pay taxes to help that child." So we end up with children having children, higher crime rates, poor education, higher poverty rates (ooo yes, lower the poverty line and you can say fewer families live in poverty). This is a truly disgraceful situation all around and should be taken care of quickly and learnt from so that our society can make the necessary changes to try to prevent such incidences from happening again. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

05-03-2005, 08:15 PM	#9 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Yeah, I agree pan. The important thing to remember, and what most anti-choicers fail to understand, is that abortions are not a problem but a symptom. Poverty, social alienation, schizophrenic societal sex standards, inadequate sex education, poor parental guidance, insufficient contraception distribution, and in this case, a terrible Department of Children and Family Services, are the problem. I probably missed a few; nevertheless, the point remains. Progressive economic policies, sensible societal attitudes towards sex, full sex education, contraception distribution, and improved parental guidance would do far, far more to lower the number of abortions in this country than puritanical rantings or even bans on abortion. Not to mention that we'd have a better country for it. EDIT - I don't mean to overly generalize, but I believe that most anti-choicers would rather continue their pointless, sisyphean crusade to ban abortion than accept the above changes, which would do far more to actually lower the number of abortions. Why let sex ed teach our kids to use condoms when we can just banish them from our homes when they get an abortion? __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'" Last edited by guy44; 05-03-2005 at 08:19 PM..

05-03-2005, 04:19 PM	#6 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Yes she should have the abortion. Strictly for the risk that the baby is putting her developing body in. Noone at 13 should have to go through a pregnancy. There should be plenty of firings at child protective services for those responsible for her being lost for so long and getting pregnant.

05-03-2005, 08:18 PM	#10 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Why is it the right to lifers, or any tax payers responsibility to pay more taxes to pay for children? I mean honestly that is probably one of the most ridiculous things I have heard, it's a prime example of the entitlment/welfare state that the reproductive rights camp has pushed on this country. How about you take responsibilities for your own god damned actions, sex is fun I realize, but reailty flash, it's meant for procreation! This selfish society me, me, me, actions and consequences be damned is fucking ridiculous.

05-03-2005, 08:21 PM	#11 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Mojo, I'm unsure of what precisely you are talking. Do you mean sex ed, or this particular girl's abortion being paid for by the state, or something else? __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

05-03-2005, 08:36 PM	#13 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Well, this child doesn't have parents to pay for an abortion. She's a ward of the state. But, and I could be wrong, I think pan's point is that if the government engaged in some of the actions I discussed in my earlier posts, general things like lower poverty levels, things that aren't necessarily only about abortion, then it is likely that abortions would decrease as well. You know that teenage pregnancy levels are lower in the "blue" states than the "red" ones? It's not because of cultural reasons - just as it is silly to say that there is something inherent about black urban culture that results in high teenage pregnancy rates (thanks Rush, you drug-addled idiot), it is silly to say something like southern rural folk are culturally likely to have high teenage pregnancy rates - but rather because the south is poorer than the north. Improve any population's economic situation, you lower their teen pregnancy rates. Same thing with abortion. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

05-03-2005, 08:41 PM	#14 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Agreed but there is a big difference between helping a given populations economic situation and the government doling out money.

05-03-2005, 09:18 PM	#15 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	First I want to add this is a situation where again the Right will probably use it for their political gains (i.e. Schiavo) but one case that should just be left alone. Secondly, I reiterate, poverty begets higher crime, loss of ambitions and desire and becomes more of a social burden than taxes that are used to better education, better help people to live fuller lives (small business loans, Housing loans, etc.). The problem with the Right is that they have become greedy fucks and while they run deficits it is NOT to help society as a whole. If the GOP didn't run deficits and streamlined government while maintaining some societal programs then I would be a Republican, but they refuse to accept that OUR government HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO ALL THE PEOPLE AND TO TRY TO GIVE EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD AN OPPURTUNITY FOR GROWTH. This betters society as a whole and is what made America great. No, throwing money for the sake of throwing money does not help, but neither does the attitude "fuck you why should I pay taxes for someone". Don't want to pay taxes for people? Then stand up and hold government accountable for their actions and demand better education, more funding to rebuild our infrastructure and stop whining about how if we raise tarriffs to protect jobs that will hurt us.... or if we socialize medical care in some ways that will hurt us..... or if we actually fund education that will hurt us....... BUT we can go deeper in the hole for Congressional pay raises, a homeland security that is a money pit and so far reports show inefficient, support tax cuts for the wealthy while raising the hidden taxes on the poor, give away billions in corporate welfare to companies shipping jobs overseas, and fund a goddamned war while we cut veterans benefits, close their VA hospitals and blame the veterans who put their lives on the line for this country for wanting what was PROMISED THEM AND WHAT THE TRULY DESERVE. Yeah, let's cut what helps society and pay Haliburton BILLIONS for shit that they never deliver. Let's go deeper in debt and fund truly evil governments that show little respect to human rights or the US with our tax dollars, while we destroy our own educational systems and small businesses because of healthcare costs. Let's ship billions overseas to country's like Isreal, Saudi, Kuwait, Sudan, Chile, Columbia as their leaders rip us. While we put our tried and true friends, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, on hate lists because they don't agree with us on the war. And in the process blame the poor for not getting better jobs while we continue to destroy their education, cut social programs that can help them achieve goals and better themselves. Limbaugh talks how the War on Poverty failed...... It didn't, the kids that benefitted helped us rebuild a little in the 80's and partially into the 90's because it took awhile for it to show. Granted, in the process we over compensated but now that we know what worked we can streamline, find abusers faster and cut down the red tape and cost without having to cut the programs. I am sorry I did not mean to threadjack or rant, but I get so Goddamned tired of hearing the right cry about taxes and destroy what we need as a society, while they are willingly throwing money into things blindly that cost us far more than just tax dollars. As for this case, the hypocrasy shows from the right and I will demonstrate. No abortion for a girl 13 already in the system means tax monies for her hospitalizations, her child's, then she is still in the system and now her child will be so therefore there's twice the spending in tax dollars. Of course the Right could force her to put the child up for adoption..... ooo there's a real solution let's illegalize abortion but force adoption....... which would still cost tax dollars. Really in cases like these, the father should be found and forced to pay..... but what if he's a minor.... guess what more tax dollars are spent because where would he get the money????? Throw him in prison????? more tax dollars. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 05-03-2005 at 09:28 PM..

05-04-2005, 06:48 AM	#17 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	What I don't understand with anti-abortionists is if this 13 yr. old truly wants an abortion and is prevented.... all she has to do is fall down stairs, whack herself in the belly somehow, od on pills or alcohol.... many ways to abort without the safety of a medical procedure. If they couldn't watch her enough to not allow her to get pregnant then they could never prevent her from finding a way to self abort (short of locking her up in a padded room and even then she could stop eating). I abhor abortion but I would prefer that than have self abortions or hacks. Psychologically and spiritually is it evil? that is between the girl and her God.... not me or society to decide. Who's to say this experience doesn't bring her closer to her God and she helps other children someday to make better decisions than she did..... Did Jesus not teach us that salvation can come to those who made the worst choices? Have we not seen those who have made bad choices learn from them and become stronger and help educate people to not make their mistakes? I believe good can come from even the worst scenarios, let us hope that this proves to be such a case and allow this 13 yr.old her life. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

05-04-2005, 06:50 AM	#18 (permalink)
lindseylatch Addict Location: Seattle, WA	yes, many women throughout history have had children at 13...and a hell of a lot have died. according to a wikipedia type site (which I accidentally closed, but will try to find again), the maternal death rate in the 19th century was about 1 death per 100 live births. Our bodies aren't fully developed at 13. We're not our full size, breat aren't fully grown. It can't be good to toss a growing fetus into the mix. __________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." -Voltaire

05-04-2005, 04:26 PM	#22 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	" The abortion procedure will be magnitudes simpler than going through a pregnancy." Her life is already much too complicated than a 13 year olds should be. Simplicity is not the issue here. "A responsible GROWN woman will take special vitamins for a year and a half before getting pregnant. This is because pregnancy saps huge amounts of vitamins, amino acids, and minerals from her body." I have never met nor heard of anyone concieved where the process was planned a year and a half in advance, with the exception of those that are having problems getting pregnant. Responsible woman are women who deal with pregnancies appropriately when they occur, GROWN or not. Handing this girl the "easy way out" will do nothing but compound her already chaotic life. "Especially important are Calcium for her still developing bones and folic acid. Folic acid is even more important, but for both the mother and child. For the fetus a deficiency can cause problems, including neural tube defects, arm and leg malformation, heart defects, and cleft palate and lips." I have over 2+ of the above mentioned problems, i can't tell you how thankfull i am i wasn't born in an era where these were detectable prior to birth and acceptable reasons for terminating a pregnancy. "This girl is 13 and a ward of the state. I guarantee you her Folic acid is seriously deficient. " I have no idea how effective the state is at raising children, their obviously seriously lacking in the emotional arena. I would hope they would have medical obligations that would prevent..." anemia, brain disorders, and increase likelyhood of contracting cervical and colon cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease" by providing her necessary Folic acid requirements for a healthy pregnancy. If this were not true, this is a problem of the state that should be addressed, not an excuse for an abortion. " There's a reason female life spans were abysmal before the modern age." I'm guessing your comparing modern day state guardianship to.... i don't know... Whatever was available prior? In which case, i would think you would be complaining about the quality of care provided by the state for foster children (sorry if im not using the appropriate terms). Either that or your referring back to your previous post that pregnancies cause undue hardship for "still developing" bodies. To which i would say, biologically they are capable of pregnancy, because they are biologically ready. The issue here is whether or not a 13 year old in "modern society" is mentally ready. From my point of view, 9 months or pregnancy would do more good than harm for this child. At the very least she would learn that there are consequences to her actions, and be less likely to get pregnant again. This girls life is already in a downward spiral. Easy access to an abortion will certainly not help her get on the right track, and perhaps encourage her to continue her lifestyle. 9 months of pregnancy will make her think twice about the next time she decides to engage in sex, and perhaps would give her an appreciation for life that she apparently hasn't learned yet.

05-04-2005, 04:31 PM	#23 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Yes, Osteoperosis, persistant depression brought on by post partum and cancer later in life are character building events. ps. any responsible grown woman, whether planning a pregnancy or not, is taking vitamins that include folic acid, calcium, iron and other necessary compounds. A child doesn't know responsibility, she depends on adults who should.

05-04-2005, 04:45 PM	#24 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	and adults who encourage the easy way out, as far as i'm concerned, do not.

05-04-2005, 04:54 PM	#25 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	It's not the easy way out. She is absolutely too young to have a child. Having one at her stage of development is factual detriment to her long term health. And to top it off she doesn't want the baby. She was RAPED. She is too young to give consent. We don't know anything about how this happened. Was it another kid? Was it a legal adult who took advantage of her? Maybe she wasn't raped and this is the second coming.... This isn't the easy way out, this is someone finally being responsible for this child and doing what is best for her,

05-04-2005, 04:57 PM	#26 (permalink)
tspikes51 Fuckin' A Location: Lex Vegas	My view on this is pretty anti-humanitarian, but we need to undo some of the damage that has been done by some progressive programs and ideas that failed or have visited harm on society. If she wants an abortion, and if the court rules that she has the right to one, let her do/pay for it herself. No matter how you look at it, it's her fault for getting pregnant. If she would have stayed at wherever the state put her, she probably wouldn't have been raped. Plain and simple. It's sad that it has to be that way, but that's the hard reality of it. It seems to me if the court decides that somebody has the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion, they should just release her from state custody. The responsibility required to live on one's own is less than that of raising a child. It sucks that it has come to this. __________________ "I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million." -Maddox

05-04-2005, 05:20 PM	#27 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	Your all over the place superbelt. Was she raped because she's too young to give consent, and as such should have the abortion? Is it because it is a "factual detriment to her health", and as such she should have the abortion? Or is it because she has a "right to choice" to top it all off? You admittedly don't know anything about the situation, but suggest it's rape because she is incapable of choosing to have sex at 13, but suggest at 13 she's capable of choosing to have an abortion. And the only "factual detriment to her health" is her current behavior. If i'm wrong about that, please throw some facts my way. I'm seriously trying to understand your position, and would like to know what for you is the determining factor. Is it her physical health (by all means throw some detrimental facts my way, maybe i'll think differently)? Mental health? Or my hunch, the need to protect a womans right to choose at any and all costs (i.e. - are you really considering this 13 year olds situation and what's best for her, or is your position knee-jerk reaction to someone preventing an abortion, any abortion)

05-04-2005, 05:29 PM	#28 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	All of the above: Too young to give consent, is dangerous to her health to have the baby, and it's her choice. How hard is it to understand all are valid reasons? It is rape below the age of consent and 13 is the age of consent to have sex. I also gave you a laundry list of horrible things that can follow her till the day she dies. So don't be coy. Clinical depression, osteoperosis, cancer and alzheimers. You want the facts, look up results of calcium, iron and folic acid deficiency as a result of pregnancy. I don't think anyone else around here can't see that I have argued very well for her personal health.

05-04-2005, 05:36 PM	#29 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	she's too young to consent to sex therefore its rape, but mature enough to choose abortion, therefore we should respect her choice. Pick one and stick with it. It's dangerous to her health to have the baby, or there are potential medical complications? Please choose one so i can argue it. There are potential medical complications with abortion. "I don't think anyone else around here can't see that I have argued very well for her personal health." I guess i'm just special then.

05-04-2005, 05:42 PM	#30 (permalink)
lindseylatch Addict Location: Seattle, WA	I'm gonna have to go with Superbelt on this one, although you make a valid point that she's either old enough or she isn't. I agree that the risks to her health and the potential medical complications are serious, too serious just to risk it to "teach her a lesson." A therapist could do a good job as well, and they don't cost as much as a child. Obviously the state fucked up with this kid, let's not give them another one to work on from birth. __________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." -Voltaire

05-04-2005, 06:02 PM	#31 (permalink)
RangerDick Loser Location: manhattan	What if the "man" (I use that term loosely) who impregnated this girl was also below the age of consent? Is it still rape? Since we don't know how old the guy was, I think it's a fair question and something to be considered in this scenario. Regardless, I believe that having an abortion will, in the long run, do this girl much more damage than carrying the pregnancy to term and giving the child up for adoption. in which case the state won't have to pay the child's way through life.

05-04-2005, 06:02 PM	#32 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	What risks and potential medical complications? It's not being coy. Everything you've brought up medically (easily) treatable. Could the same be said for the potential risks with abortion?

05-04-2005, 06:19 PM	#33 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	"in which case the state won't have to pay the child's way through life." This does not even factor into the equation for me. It's one place i don't mind my taxes going.

05-04-2005, 06:53 PM	#35 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	"Her hips are not yet widened enough to safely pass a child, her body overall has not strengthened to the point where she can handle the stress of carrying the child or delivering it." Perhaps with any luck evolution will catch up and women won't biologically be able to conceive untill their old enough to vote. " Do you really know the scope of importance that proper nutrition (esp calcium and folic acid) has during pregnancy?" you've done a good job of enlightening me tonight. You've already identified potential risks, identified excellent measures to keep these risks to a minimum. In the event one happens, i'm sure the "modern" medical community will think of something. About the easiest medical adventure i've seen. You've single handedly almost eliminated the need for 'em. ( i misspoke when i said treatable...i meant preventable, but the complications when they do arise are treatable, easy or not -and the same can't be said for complications with abortion - which is why i'm not buying your argument that this is a major concern of yours)

05-05-2005, 05:38 PM	#40 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	Allow the abortion, tie the tubes while you're in there. Then have a Pepsi.