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

[Quantum Windbag]

Reading that article I was reminded of an episode of 'Criminal Minds' where a young, unwed mother dies in childbirth and her self-righteous and abusive parents beat their unwanted grandson in to a very successful serial killer.

It's fiction, I know, but weird.

It is absurd.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The people of Nebraska do not own this girls uterus.

They do, however, own the ability of the girl to legally consent to anything until she is 18 or declared legally an adult. Since you support that for voting, and even drinking, your argument is specious.

No, her argument is innately correct. Your argument is legalistic. Hope this helps.

The girl is a minor. Every single culture on this planet recognizes that minors are incapable of making some decisions, which is why every single country takes age into account in legal contracts and medical procedures. This girl was, essentially, filing for emancipation while still demanding that her foster parents be responsible for providing her with 3 hots and a cot.

That makes everyone that supports here wrong.

You agreeing with them just proves that I am right.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Sex education based in reality works..

And just what does "Sex education based in reality" entail as you imagine it? Is this the condom on a banana show? Books with graphic lesbian sex for first graders? The "give homosexuality a try, you might like it!" or "we know you're going to do it, so go do it. don't be a loser, all the cool kids are doing it!" advice? And where is the evidence of it "working"? Teen pregnancy? STDs? Breakdown of the family? General moral decay? What?

How about the facts about what they're likely to encounter out in the world? Not just the facts concerning the potential results of inserting stem A in to slot B, but also the facts concerning social situations and potentially dangerous situations that they are likely to encounter. If nothing else, homosexuality statistics would be great information for college students.

It's a question of thinking outside the cross-shaped box because MOST Americans are not living Christian lives, no matter what silver bauble dangles from their neck.

 

[Pogo]

They do, however, own the ability of the girl to legally consent to anything until she is 18 or declared legally an adult. Since you support that for voting, and even drinking, your argument is specious.

No, her argument is innately correct. Your argument is legalistic. Hope this helps.

The girl is a minor. Every single culture on this planet recognizes that minors are incapable of making some decisions, which is why every single country takes age into account in legal contracts and medical procedures. This girl was, essentially, filing for emancipation while still demanding that her foster parents be responsible for providing her with 3 hots and a cot.

That makes everyone that supports here wrong.

You agreeing with them just proves that I am right.

"Right" is a legend in your own mind.
As is your reading comprehension-- to imagine that responding to a single point is tantamount to "agreeing with everybody about everything". What is it with you -- mercury poisoning?

Your argument is still legalistic. Noomi's point, that the state doesn't own the girl's uterus, remains innately correct.

Bag that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, her argument is innately correct. Your argument is legalistic. Hope this helps.

The girl is a minor. Every single culture on this planet recognizes that minors are incapable of making some decisions, which is why every single country takes age into account in legal contracts and medical procedures. This girl was, essentially, filing for emancipation while still demanding that her foster parents be responsible for providing her with 3 hots and a cot.

That makes everyone that supports here wrong.

You agreeing with them just proves that I am right.

"Right" is a legend in your own mind.
As is your reading comprehension-- to imagine that responding to a single point is tantamount to "agreeing with everybody about everything". What is it with you -- mercury poisoning?

Your argument is still legalistic. Noomi's point, that the state doesn't own the girl's uterus, remains innately correct.

Bag that.

My argument is not legalistic because it does not rely on the law.

Noomi's, on the other hand, is legalistic in that she is arguing the legal point that the state does not own the girl, or her uterus.

That makes you 100% backward, again.

 

[Pogo]

The girl is a minor. Every single culture on this planet recognizes that minors are incapable of making some decisions, which is why every single country takes age into account in legal contracts and medical procedures. This girl was, essentially, filing for emancipation while still demanding that her foster parents be responsible for providing her with 3 hots and a cot.

That makes everyone that supports here wrong.

You agreeing with them just proves that I am right.

"Right" is a legend in your own mind.
As is your reading comprehension-- to imagine that responding to a single point is tantamount to "agreeing with everybody about everything". What is it with you -- mercury poisoning?

Your argument is still legalistic. Noomi's point, that the state doesn't own the girl's uterus, remains innately correct.

Bag that.

My argument is not legalistic because it does not rely on the law.

Noomi's, on the other hand, is legalistic in that she is arguing the legal point that the state does not own the girl, or her uterus.

That makes you 100% backward, again.

You really like sinkholes, doncha?

But wait -- there's more. NOW how much would you pay?

They do, however, own the ability of the girl to legally consent to anything until she is 18 or declared legally an adult.

Nope, sure doesn't rely on the law...

What a

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Right" is a legend in your own mind.
As is your reading comprehension-- to imagine that responding to a single point is tantamount to "agreeing with everybody about everything". What is it with you -- mercury poisoning?

Your argument is still legalistic. Noomi's point, that the state doesn't own the girl's uterus, remains innately correct.

Bag that.

My argument is not legalistic because it does not rely on the law.

Noomi's, on the other hand, is legalistic in that she is arguing the legal point that the state does not own the girl, or her uterus.

That makes you 100% backward, again.

You really like sinkholes, doncha?

But wait -- there's more. NOW how much would you pay?

They do, however, own the ability of the girl to legally consent to anything until she is 18 or declared legally an adult.

Nope, sure doesn't rely on the law...

What a

I am backing my argument up by citing law, but that does not make the argument itself legalistic. The fact that anyone has to actually spell that out indicates why no one believes anything you say.

 

[BDBoop]

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.

Maybe I missed it (and if I did, please inform me), but I didn't see how far along the pregnancy had progressed. For me, that does influence the decision I would make on abortion. I believe that should also influence the judges' decision. If she is six weeks pregnant, that is vastly different than six months pregnant.

<begin speculation>
Perhaps the reason the judges' called it an "unborn child" instead of "an embryo" or "a fetus" is because the pregnancy has already progressed to the point that the child could now survive outside the womb.
<end speculation>
If that is the case, yes, I would say a 16 year old isn't mature enough to decide to end that life.

Ten weeks.

 

[BDBoop]

In which case, being a ward of the state or under Foster Care you would be admitted to a Psych ward for your own protection to prevent yourself from doing bodily harm to yourself.

The law in this case is clear. The Courts uphold the law, and that's the deal.

Right. Like anybody attempting to end a pregnancy would do so with an audience.

That was an incredibly stupid argument.

Sometimes I think you must be having a totally shit day, and come here to try to make everybody else miserable too.

Other times I think - well, maybe he's like Sheldon, and being right is more important than any particular person he may be speaking to.

You thought that was a stupid argument? Was what I was responding to ever-so-much more intelligent?

 

[laughinReaper]

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 &#8220;were never around.&#8221; Petitioner will be a senior in high school and plans to graduate early&#8212;in December&#8212;but she did not adduce any evidence about the grades that she has received. She wants to move out of her foster parents&#8217; 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 &#8220;a little bit.&#8221; Petitioner did not testify about any work experience. &#8220;&#8216;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.&#8217;&#8221; 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 &#8220;went three times at, um, one center and then went once at another and then had two on the phone.&#8221; Petitioner&#8217;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&#8217;s heartbeat. She understands that an abortion would &#8220;kill the [unborn] child inside [of her].&#8221; 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&#8217;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.

This isn't an abortion issue, it's a social issue.

She's not mature enough to be emancipated,not mature enough to make family planning decisions,not mature enough to raise a child. Very few 16 year olds are. This is where parents are supposed to come in for guidence. Unfortunately for this girl, she doesn't have that either. She has been failed by the adults in her life and that is the fault of society as we really don't expect it or care. No pressure from society to do better, no consequences for doing what you shouldn't, no pressuring of parents to get a grip on their kids, no social shame on the adults in the family when they fail their responsibilities. Basic morals of society have eroded so if the children don't get morals at home they don't get it anywhere else either. Then we wonder why our kids on a whole have run amuck.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right. Like anybody attempting to end a pregnancy would do so with an audience.

That was an incredibly stupid argument.

Sometimes I think you must be having a totally shit day, and come here to try to make everybody else miserable too.

Other times I think - well, maybe he's like Sheldon, and being right is more important than any particular person he may be speaking to.

You thought that was a stupid argument? Was what I was responding to ever-so-much more intelligent?

Unless you are advocating that women use coat hangers the only way to get an abortion is with an audience. That is what made that particular post an incredibly stupid argument.

 

[BDBoop]

That was an incredibly stupid argument.

Sometimes I think you must be having a totally shit day, and come here to try to make everybody else miserable too.

Other times I think - well, maybe he's like Sheldon, and being right is more important than any particular person he may be speaking to.

You thought that was a stupid argument? Was what I was responding to ever-so-much more intelligent?

Unless you are advocating that women use coat hangers the only way to get an abortion is with an audience. That is what made that particular post an incredibly stupid argument.

No, it was not. And again - did you read what I was responding to.

 

[Noomi]

She is looking to her future, wanting a better life, and a bunch of people who don't know her, or anything about her, think they have the right to control her uterus.

Its bullshit.

Her parents & the judges know her & are still molding her until she is an adult. They know way more about her than some activist or journalist does. They also have the right to control her & her entire body until she is of legal age.

Except they are NOT her parents! They are her FOSTER PARENTS, who are uber religious, and of course would never allow her to make the decision to abort regardless!

 

[Noomi]

This young girl will eventually mature & get her right to make her own decisions. The male who got her pregnant never gets any rights to prevent the killing of his child or to terminate her pregnancy or not have to pay child support.

The male who got her pregnant has no rights because that fetus does not reside in his body.

http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/sites/supremecourt.ne.gov/files/sc/opinions/s13-510009.pdf

Generally, an abortion cannot be performed upon an
unemancipated pregnant woman under 18 years of age unless
a physician obtains the notarized written consent of both the
pregnant woman and one of her parents or a legal guardian.

How do you suggest she get permission from her religious foster parents?

In her shoes, I'd throw myself down the stairs until I wasn't pregnant anymore.

No, I'm not kidding. A woman who doesn't wish to be pregnant will go to any lengths to end the pregnancy, just as a woman who wants to be pregnant will go to any lengths to stay that way.

In which case, being a ward of the state or under Foster Care you would be admitted to a Psych ward for your own protection to prevent yourself from doing bodily harm to yourself.

The law in this case is clear. The Courts uphold the law, and that's the deal.

She wouldn't be harming her body. She would be ridding her body of an invader.

They could strap her to a bed in a rubber room until the baby is born.

Of course, resorting to torture to get a child to give birth is what Republicans have been pushing for, isn't it?

if a 16 yo is not mature enough to consent for sex with a 20 yo ( an example) and the 20 yo will be charged with statutory rape because of having sex with a "minor" - she is not mature enough to decide the murder of her baby.

Abortion is not murder.

Those idiots did not say she cannot have an abortion. What they said is that, if she wants one, she has to talk to her foster parents first. She is also free to look up a grandparent and get consent form them.

Her foster parents are religious, meaning they would be anti abortion. How the fuck is she going to get them to agree to something they think is morally wrong? What right do they have to force their religious beliefs on a minor child?

Maybe they were trying to avoid having an innocent unborn baby's brains scrambled?

That shouldn't be anyone's decision but hers.

She is a fucking minor, not an adult.

She was capable to make the decision of having sex, she is capable of making the decision to abort her fetus.

 

[Kondor3]

"...She was capable to make the decision of having sex, she is capable of making the decision to abort her fetus."

And if The Law says differently?

 

[Noomi]

"...She was capable to make the decision of having sex, she is capable of making the decision to abort her fetus."

And if The Law says differently?

The law does not own her uterus, or her brain, and cannot make decisions for her. Her choices should be respected, and they are not.

 

[Political Junky]

"...She was capable to make the decision of having sex, she is capable of making the decision to abort her fetus."

And if The Law says differently?

The law does not own her uterus, or her brain, and cannot make decisions for her. Her choices should be respected, and they are not.

The Right would prefer a minor give birth to pay for her sin. Of course neither she nor the child should get any help from them or the government.

 

[Noomi]

And if The Law says differently?

The law does not own her uterus, or her brain, and cannot make decisions for her. Her choices should be respected, and they are not.

The Right would prefer a minor give birth to pay for her sin. Of course neither she nor the child should get any help from them or the government.

The Right believe she is a slut for having sex at such a young age.

 

[BDBoop]

And if The Law says differently?

The law does not own her uterus, or her brain, and cannot make decisions for her. Her choices should be respected, and they are not.

The Right would prefer a minor give birth to pay for her sin. Of course neither she nor the child should get any help from them or the government.

Also, she should be denigrated at every turn.

 

[Noomi]

The law does not own her uterus, or her brain, and cannot make decisions for her. Her choices should be respected, and they are not.

The Right would prefer a minor give birth to pay for her sin. Of course neither she nor the child should get any help from them or the government.

Also, she should be denigrated at every turn.

Punish the little whore for having sex!