http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4500245.stm

This child has been blocked from having an abortion because she apparently lacks the maturity to make such a decision.

This is despite Florida abortion law not requiring parental consent - the Florida state government intervened and asked a judge to rule on it.

1) Why does the government insist on interfering in people's lives??
2) If she's not mature enough to decide whether she wants an abortion, she sure isn't mature enough to have a baby! This will ruin her life and ruin the life of the child who will have the fun experience of being shuffled from foster home to foster home.
3) Isn't it cruel to force her to give birth? A rather painful and traumatic event at the best of times, I doubt she's even developed enough for it to go as easily as it might.
4) Wasn't this precisely the sort of interference that was made illegal by Roe vs Wade?
5) By slapping temporary injuctions on her, surely the baby moves ever and ever closer to that 'partial birth' point decided in 2003 after which it would be illegal to abort anyway?

[ 04-30-2005, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

I wholeheartedly agree. It would only be fair to let her hava an abortion if she wishes to do so.

One thing is for sure...the kid is definitely incredibly stupid.

Hell yeah. Must've had a major brainfart. I agree with the ruling however.

[ 04-30-2005, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Sir Degrader ]

Because nobody is thinking of the unborn childs life.

Pardon my straightforwardness, but shouldn't we view the situation while regarding the effect it has for the material world?

If the 13-year-old had her abortion, the whole issue wouldn't have much of an impact on her life. It would probably teach her never to do that again but not much else. She could move on with her life.

If the girl would give birth to the baby, the consequences would be very real. It would be very unlikely that the birth would be a success. The baby could affect her and her relatives' lives negatively.


I could be wrong though. It's all about the details, really. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]


By the way, what about her parents? What do they think on this matter? The article doesn't mention them at all. If they were for the abortion, would she have to give birth regardless?

No, she could have it anyway under Florida law. And as far as I'm concerned that baby is still a bunch of cells - the life of a living, breathing human being is far more important. But if concern for the baby is first in your mind then consider what kind of life she is going to have born into a situation like that. Another social security drain on your tax dollars too [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 04-30-2005, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Because nobody is thinking of the unborn childs life. </font>[/QUOTE]Fine, then I will think of both of their lives if the child is born.

13 year old girl never does well in high school. Her parents probably help take care of the kid, but she drops out as soon as she can. Ends up in a dead-end minimum wage job to support herself. And of course she resents the child, consciously or not.

What a great way to enter the world.

Better to enter it in that way then never at all.

Erm...no... that's not exactly true.

How would we know?

Personally, I'm of the belief that I existed before birth in the same way I will exist after death.

Not being born might very well be heaven and paradise for all we know...

Apparently the girl is an orphan -- she doesn't seem to have any parents or family. From the article:
Florida's department of children and families intervened and took the matter to court, arguing the teenager, who is under the care of the state, is too young and immature to make an informed medical decision.

So, under Florida law the girl is not required to get parental permission beforehand. But the DCF is acting like a parent and denying permission. Great, our tax dollars at work. By the time the courts settle this one, the baby will probably be a parent.

I wonder why there's no mention of the baby's father.

[ 04-30-2005, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: VulcanRider ]

I guess he must've done a runner. Well spotted VulvanRider, looks like she is an orphan.

In that case she's already in a vulnerable position and it goes a helluva long way to explain why she's in this situation in the first place. It's also another argument IMO against making her have the baby. The baby will probably end up in a similar vulnerable situation and the cycle will be repeated...

And why don't you guys just treat the law like the law and..erm...abide by it? [img]graemlins/angel.gif[/img] With my 'across-the-pond-tinted-spectacles' on it does seem like your representatives spend all their time trying to continually get round the law and have it changed if they can't.

Why not just obey it? We do that and it kindof works too...saves time, money and lawyers [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 04-30-2005, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

VULVANRIDER??? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Aaah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! I love it!

I just wanted to interject a couple ideas about 13 year olds and giving birth. Although there is some evidence that girls are hitting puberty sooner than usual in the States (possibly due to diet), it wasn't unusual in the past for women to give birth at such ages. It is possible without modern medicine even.

However, more women have died in childbirth than men have died in all wars combined. It's a difficult process, to say the least.

At a cursory glance, I'd call this risky medically and socially, and apparently in flagrant violation of law. Perhaps they'll both be okay when they sue the hell out of the state of Florida ;)

And Vulvanrider...that's a keeper lol.

LOL that is a classic. I guess the V and the C are right next to each other on the keyboard - but was it an error or a wondrously subtitle right cross???

Do you have more to suggest that the girl is an orphan then that quote? A child can be considered under the care of the state for many reasons becides being an orphan.

Do you have more to suggest that the girl is an orphan then that quote? A child can be considered under the care of the state for many reasons becides being an orphan. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope, this is the only article I've read that talks about her. But I'll keep looking...

Whoa careful. My homie had her daughter when she was 12, and she's the most beautiful girl I seen. Both momma and daughter live just fine.

They shouldn't be allowing a child to abort, no way. To young to decide whether to live with the murder guilt and screwed up womb for the rest of her life. She can always adopt. Too much man. Women are victims of abortion. They ain't got much choice these days. This proves it! A girl's thought to be crazy if she carries. Where's that at man? Shit.

I hope you didn't think I meant that to be a deterministic result, as in giving birth = death or poverty.

But I don't see it possible to deny that it's risky.

No no! She chose to abort - the state is denying her the legal right to choose. That's the issue here, not whether people think a girl is crazy for wanting to give birth - she doesn't want to.

Two strikes and you're reported. Next time you join a message board, try reading the Terms of Service and maybe not be an idiot.

Is the girl emotionally mature enough to decide to abort? If not, she could give birth. She can give the baby up for adoption.

<font color=steelblue>
Ruadh nan Cath: This is part of the rule that Illumina is referencing. Notice that I have stressed the section that says not to cuss just for the fun of cussing. Many people on this forum will not tolerate the degradation of the forum's reputation, and so people like me get called in to politely ask you to refrain from further infractions. Looking back on your post history, it seems that you may have a problem settling in, since half of your posts today have been questionable in terms articulation.

Basically, refrain from the "homie" attitude with all its colorful choice of words and phrases, and you'll be fine.

</font>

[ 05-01-2005, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

My point Degrader. Is she ready to raise a child? No, probably not. Someone else could raise the baby.

But who are we to take away who could possibly be the next Einstein and change our world?

Or the next Hitler, so it's not really a good argument. ;)

I'll take my chances.

In reality, nobody is forcing her to carry the fetus to birth, unless she is locked down in a padded cell. They are denying her the choice of a safe, sanitary abortion.

I forgot to ask the obvious. Is she having MY baby?

A very important consideration.

Well, she is now allowed to have the abortion. [img]smile.gif[/img]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4510847.stm