You explain it to me, because I don't understand

[TemplarKormac]

Your attempt to attribute positions and conclusions to me that I have not taken is illogical and dishonest, which I guess sums you up pretty well.

Given that your sole tactic here is attributing positions to people that they haven't taken, you look quite hypocritical to have said that.

If you could argue against what we say, you would. You can't, hence you make shit up instead. Stop telling us what we really believe, and I'll stop pointing out that you're making shit up.

And after you stop making crap up, you might want to justify your inconsistency regarding your "You can't put a price on human life" and your "I won't pay a penny to save human life" beliefs. Or you could just keep whining about how mean I am for pointing out your contradictions.

Notice how you successfully failed to negotiate your position, and are now engaging in ad hominem attacks on your opponent.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Daily Kos: You won't believe this new abortion decision, or who decided it.

If a 16 y/o isn't mature enough to make her own decisions regarding family planning, then how on earth is she mature enough to parent.

As is undoubtedly typical in such cases, the only testimony we have to review is that of petitioner. She will turn 17 years old in October 2013 and is unemancipated. She testified that she mostly raised her younger siblings because her parents “were never around.” Petitioner will be a senior in high school and plans to graduate early—in December—but she did not adduce any evidence about the grades that she has received. She wants to move out of her foster parents’ house after she graduates and has saved enough money to live on her own. Petitioner has not lived on her own, and she is dependent upon her foster parents for financial support. She plans to attend college, either in December or after working for “a little bit.” Petitioner did not testify about any work experience. “‘Experience, perspective and judgment are often lacking in unemancipated minors who are wholly dependent and have never lived away from home or had any significant employment experience.’” We find that to be true in this case.

Petitioner has engaged in counseling regarding abortion. She first testified that she had been to counseling three times, then said that she had five sessions, and later testified that she “went three times at, um, one center and then went once at another and then had two on the phone.” Petitioner’s attorney clarified that petitioner had six sessions where she either had counseling or a medical procedure. She has had three ultrasounds and has heard the unborn child’s heartbeat. She understands that an abortion would “kill the [unborn] child inside [of her].” Petitioner testified that someone discussed the risks associated with terminating a pregnancy, including bleeding and a possibility of death, but petitioner did not otherwise expound on the substance of the counseling. Nor did she elaborate on a discussion she had with a cousin’s mother. She presented no evidence regarding her understanding of the emotional and psychological consequences of abortion or of the immediate and long-range implications of the procedure.

Upon our de novo review, we conclude that petitioner has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that she is sufficiently mature and well informed.

I am hereby implementing the TK rule, whereby I inform you ahead of any possible debate that I will not respond to your posts if I find you have either a) not read the article in its entirety, or b) you're just verbally vomiting what you say in every abortion thread you've ever encountered.

And what is this exactly? Daily KOS isn't exactly known for its objective reporting. If I had a 16 year old daughter, I would be making the decisions I thought were best for her. Second, I would have no daughter of mine running around getting pregnant in the first place. Does that make me evil? No. It would make me a good parent! Good for this court. She should be made to live with the consequences of her immaturity.

You don't get to run around roughshod having sex and getting pregnant underage. Technically she violated the law by having sex as a minor. This article refers to this girl as a "woman" when in reality she is 16, a teenager, not an adult. So in order for this court to be "against women's rights" she would have to be an adult who was fully capable of exercising her (nonexistent) better judgement and ability to act on the facts provided to her. Under the law, a minor cannot make any decision on their own without the consent of an adult; given that she was (as I mentioned previously) 16 years old, her foster parents were well within their rights to veto that decision. If she cannot exercise her self restraint as far as her sexual behavior is concerned, how can she be mature to handle her own family planning? Goodness gracious! Who starts a family at 16?

So what are you going to do? Rely on the word of a 16 year old over any facts stating to the contrary? Namely the law? Another thing, Judge Battalion was not the only justice in that court, he and four others voted in the majority. So to pin this on just him alone is disingenuous.

This article is nothing but a rant, a hit piece.

Under Sections A and B of the so-called TK rule, I do hereby exercise my right to not engage in any further debate with the author of this thread, as her OP violates these stipulations by continuously repeating known liberal talking points on women's reproductive rights, on top of of regurgitating known stereotypes of Republicans supposedly suppressing these rights, instead of making a factually based argument explaining said position. I also hereby invoke the entirety of this rule. I will summarily dismiss any argument against mine that A) does not rely on factually supported counterarguments or B) repeats tired party line propaganda instead of meeting the standards set forth in Section (A) or simply engages in ad hominem and petty name calling.

 

[BDBoop]

She didn't want to ask them because she knew they would refuse based on their beliefs.

Not only can you read minds, you think she can too.

Clearly you didn't read the article.

Clearly.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Clearly you didn't read the article.

Clearly you did not read the article.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

She didn't want to ask them because she knew they would refuse based on their beliefs.

Not only can you read minds, you think she can too.

Clearly you didn't read the article.

As I keep pointing out, the issue never came up in court. On top of that we have the clincher that, as a foster child, her case worker trumps the foster parents on medical issues. Yet you keep ignoring this, and blaming the foster parents for this girl's idiotic attempt to gain emancipation and remain in her foster home. By the wya, the fact that she wants to stay there tells me that she actually likes it there, yet you hate them because they were not asked about an abortion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Clearly you didn't read the article.

Clearly you did not read the article.

I have pointed that out multiple times, yet she keeps insisting her interpretation of the case trumps reality.

 

[Vox]

now, our militant leftard feministas, would you take your 16 yo pregnant daughter to a licensed janitor in California so they can get rid of the cluster of cells you deem so inconvenient?

even better - would you go there yourself?

 

[Unkotare]

I responded to your exact words.

No, you're just making shit up.

Try reading carefully: I RESPONDED DIRECTLY TO YOUR EXACT WORDS.


Is it sinking in yet?

 

[Unkotare]

I do understand why you lash out at us.

What's all this "us" business? Do you have an entire team of pro-abortionists there with you at the keyboard all typing at the same time?

 

[Unkotare]

your "I won't pay a penny to save human life" beliefs? [sic]

I never said that. That is your dishonest fabrication, and has nothing to do with me. Do you have a question about something I actually did say, you dishonest sack of crap?

 

[mamooth]

Instead of addressing the point, you keep making excuses to pout and run. Not surprising. Pro-lifers usually act like that. They're not an intellectually honest bunch.

If you locate your gonads, you could address the disparity between your words and your actions. Obviously, I can't force you to do that. You can freely choose to remain a joke. I've got a couple other stalkers who specialize in the scream-"Liar!"-and-run thing, so you could join that club.

 

[Unkotare]

Instead of addressing the point, you keep making excuses to pout and run.

If you want to address any point, you must first decide to behave like an honest interlocutor. When you are ready to commit to that, ask any question you like and I'll answer directly.

 

[Unkotare]

If you locate your gonads, you could address the disparity between your words and your actions.

You just can't bring yourself to conduct an honest discussion, can you? What "actions"? You can't possibly know of any specific "actions" of mine, so you are 'arguing' with your own assumptions about same. Can't you at least see that is not logical? Or are you really just trolling?

 

[Unkotare]

I've got a couple other stalkers who specialize in the scream-"Liar!"-and-run thing, so you could join that club.

Has it ever occurred to you that if you stopped lying that problem would resolve itself?