NationStates Jolt Archive

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050503/2005-05-03T191225Z_01_N03350535_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-ABORTION-DC.html

the florida courst today decided that a 13 year old girl cannot be denied the "constitutional" right to have an abortion despite being a minor

does that mean that my constitutional right to own a firearm also cannot be denied despite my legal status as a minor?

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050503/2005-05-03T191225Z_01_N03350535_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-ABORTION-DC.html

the florida courst today decided that a 13 year old girl cannot be denied the "constitutional" right to have an abortion despite being a minor

does that mean that my constitutional right to own a firearm also cannot be denied despite my legal status as a minor?

Omfg, shut up, SHES A BABY! You can't honestly expect this barely teen baby, to have a baby!? You know how incredibly risky to her life that would be? Get the hell over it.

You know how incredibly risky to her life that would be?

as in no more riskey than anyone else having a baby, but I digress, does this mean I can get a gun now? does this mean my 13 year old cousin can get a gun now?

as in no more riskey than anyone else having a baby, but I digress, does this mean I can get a gun now? does this mean my 13 year old cousin can get a gun now?

Her reprodictive system has barely even formed, and she is yet to be fully grown, unless she started puberty at an early age. Of course it would be more risky to her than someone with 5+ years on her.

does that mean that my constitutional right to own a firearm also cannot be denied despite my legal status as a minor?
i had a gun long before i was thirteen

In most states you can own a gun at 13, you just can carry in public.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050503/2005-05-03T191225Z_01_N03350535_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-ABORTION-DC.html

the florida courst today decided that a 13 year old girl cannot be denied the "constitutional" right to have an abortion despite being a minor

does that mean that my constitutional right to own a firearm also cannot be denied despite my legal status as a minor?
Bad form, Schrandtopia. It's hardly pro-life if both mother and daughter die because the state didn't allow an abortion.

I think that a lot of pro-lifers are forgetting that where abortion is illegal, pregnant women will try to perform the abortions on themselves which often causes not only serious damage or death to the fetus, but considerable damage and possibility of death to the mother as well. Outlawing abortion doesn't fix anything.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050503/2005-05-03T191225Z_01_N03350535_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-ABORTION-DC.html

the florida courst today decided that a 13 year old girl cannot be denied the "constitutional" right to have an abortion despite being a minor

does that mean that my constitutional right to own a firearm also cannot be denied despite my legal status as a minor?
"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."

...does that mean that my constitutional right to own a firearm also cannot be denied despite my legal status as a minor?

Yes, but only if you keep it in your uterus.

I think the more important issue than abortion here is why the hell a 13 year old girl is allowed to get pregnent? Honestly, what is wrong with my generation.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050503/2005-05-03T191225Z_01_N03350535_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-ABORTION-DC.html

the florida courst today decided that a 13 year old girl cannot be denied the "constitutional" right to have an abortion despite being a minor

does that mean that my constitutional right to own a firearm also cannot be denied despite my legal status as a minor?
That depends: is a firearm physically attached to your body, feeding off your tissues and blood, putting your body through permanent physiological changes, and endangering your health and life?

Don't you think you just might be able to answer your own question?

I think the more important issue than abortion here is why the hell a 13 year old girl is allowed to get pregnent? Honestly, what is wrong with my generation.

Umm, the same thing that was wrong with every generation before you? Don't think she is the first 13 year old to get pregnant...

In texas, guns seem physically attached to people's hands....
and yes, guns endanger people's lives. But anyway, your case is strong.

Umm, the same thing that was wrong with every generation before you? Don't think she is the first 13 year old to get pregnant...

This is the 21st century. By now the kids should be educated enough to know that if you're gonna have sex, wear a damn condom. Its not that complicated. Parents however are so afraid to talk to their kids, and schools are afraid to talk to the kids because the parents might freak, that these kids are totally oblivious to what is going on.

the florida courst today decided that a 13 year old girl cannot be denied the "constitutional" right to have an abortion despite being a minor

does that mean that my constitutional right to own a firearm also cannot be denied despite my legal status as a minor?

Asinine.

1. I am quite sure minors may own firearms in many states. So would have to be more specific to raise a serious question. (But there is nothing serious about your question, is there?)

2. You do not have a federal constitutional right to own a firearm. Read this (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html).

3. Even if you did, it does not restrict the power of a state to keep you from owning a firearm. Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29) or this (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23).

4. Even if you had such a right and it applied to the states, it would not be absolute. It would -- like pretty much all constitutional rights -- be subject to limitations that are narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest.

5. The case was decided by a Florida state court. Unless you live in Florida, the precedent does not even apply to you.

6. But, even if it was a US Supreme Court decision, it would not change the status of a single gun law in the U.S.

On the other hand,

1. Women have a fundamental right to abortion protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments.

2. This right restricts the power of both the state and federal governments.

3. If you noted from your own story, Florida law allows minors to get abortions.

4. You misread the court's decision. The 13-year old had the constitutional right all along. The Florida Department of Children & Families tried to argue she was not competent to make the decision. The state court disagreed.

as in no more riskey than anyone else having a baby,


You know not of what you speak.

It is far, far more dangerous for a 13-year-old to give birth than for a fully grown woman.

But you don't really care about the girl or abortion -- you just want that gun!

Ask your mother. If it is legal and she says OK, so be it.

Otherwise, you are SOL

Now, stop trying to capitalize on someone else's tragedy.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050503/2005-05-03T191225Z_01_N03350535_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-ABORTION-DC.html

the florida courst today decided that a 13 year old girl cannot be denied the "constitutional" right to have an abortion despite being a minor

does that mean that my constitutional right to own a firearm also cannot be denied despite my legal status as a minor?


Where in that article does it say ANYTHING about a constitutional right to abort? It's a state law that allows her to have an abortion.

Of course, that pretty much destroys your thesis....

This is the 21st century. By now the kids should be educated enough to know that if you're gonna have sex, wear a damn condom. Its not that complicated. Parents however are so afraid to talk to their kids, and schools are afraid to talk to the kids because the parents might freak, that these kids are totally oblivious to what is going on.

I don't know what your local laws are like, but in some areas minors are not allowed to buy condoms. There was even a large town here (Australia) where the only pharmasist refused to stock condoms (and yes, there was a slight increase in the number of teens having babies).

These kids probably should know to use a condom (if they can get one), but the thing is: they are kids. The only way to really put a choke-hold on this sort of thing is if parents play a more active role across the board, but it won't happen.

As for Catholics condeming condoms, if they're having sex outside of marriage (a Catholic no-no) then they might as well use a condom too (another Catholic no-no).

No, you should not be allowed to own a firearm, because the way you put it it makes you sound like you're going to do something stupid.

On to the whole parents not talking to children, schools need to be obligated to teach this stuff. If we don't teach them, they're going to experiment. If they don't know, they won't know when risks happen. Though teens, at least me and my girlfriend knew when to have sex to create as little risk possible of pregnancy. And we use condoms. If we teach teens about condom use, they can buy them themselves. Most teens have 4 bucks (USD to my non-american friends) to their name.

(You may find this material offensive)If you can have a firearm, I can have a firearm, my psychotic cousin can have a firearm, and that two year old ripping the head off her barbie can have a firearm...
Heh heh. Actually, that would be kind of amusing to watch.
Anyway, thirteen is not even the youngest ever or something. In fact, the youngest recorded pregnancy was that of a five-year old.
Wasn't that pleasant to know?
I hope your eating lunch while you read this. It makes it so much more enjoyable!
Also, at the local public school, a third-grader, nine years old, went into labor in the middle of her gym period. Nobody had even noticed that she was pregnant. Obviously, she was rather chubby.
And, you can go on lots of xangas about fun things like this! For instance,
I read an xanga written by a girl who was raped by her father when she was two years old! Isn't that pleasn't? ;)

On to the whole parents not talking to children, schools need to be obligated to teach this stuff.

Do you honestly think that this can realistically happen? In an age where evolution cannot be mentioned in religion classes, but creationism must be offered as an alternative theory you expect these people to let their kids learn about condoms? I don't think compulsary 'sex ed' would be allowed by some ranting parents.

When I was at school they taught us 'sex ed' as part of PE. You were only allowed to go if your parents signed a permission slip, even then the classes were optional. If you say to a fifteen year old, "you can go to class or you can have a free period" most will choose the free period IMHO. So on the other hand optional classes do not educate everyone on the dangers of STDs et cetera.

I hope your eating lunch while you read this. It makes it so much more enjoyable!

I was actually eating lunch when I read this...

On to the whole parents not talking to children, schools need to be obligated to teach this stuff.
It's sad that people would want to obligate the school systems to raise their children for them...

If you don't want to raise your own child, don't have children.

(You may find this material offensive)If you can have a firearm, I can have a firearm, my psychotic cousin can have a firearm, and that two year old ripping the head off her barbie can have a firearm...
Heh heh. Actually, that would be kind of amusing to watch.
Anyway, thirteen is not even the youngest ever or something. In fact, the youngest recorded pregnancy was that of a five-year old.
Wasn't that pleasant to know?
I hope your eating lunch while you read this. It makes it so much more enjoyable!
Also, at the local public school, a third-grader, nine years old, went into labor in the middle of her gym period. Nobody had even noticed that she was pregnant. Obviously, she was rather chubby.
And, you can go on lots of xangas about fun things like this! For instance,
I read an xanga written by a girl who was raped by her father when she was two years old! Isn't that pleasn't? ;)

...and this is your first ever post here?
Hmm.

Do you honestly think that this can realistically happen? In an age where evolution cannot be mentioned in religion classes, but creationism must be offered as an alternative theory you expect these people to let their kids learn about condoms? I don't think compulsary 'sex ed' would be allowed by some ranting parents.

When I was at school they taught us 'sex ed' as part of PE. You were only allowed to go if your parents signed a permission slip, even then the classes were optional. If you say to a fifteen year old, "you can go to class or you can have a free period" most will choose the free period IMHO. So on the other hand optional classes do not educate everyone on the dangers of STDs et cetera.

At my school we didn't need permission slips. They just realized that it was important to know.

(You may find this material offensive)If you can have a firearm, I can have a firearm, my psychotic cousin can have a firearm, and that two year old ripping the head off her barbie can have a firearm...
Heh heh. Actually, that would be kind of amusing to watch.
Anyway, thirteen is not even the youngest ever or something. In fact, the youngest recorded pregnancy was that of a five-year old.
Wasn't that pleasant to know?
I hope your eating lunch while you read this. It makes it so much more enjoyable!
Also, at the local public school, a third-grader, nine years old, went into labor in the middle of her gym period. Nobody had even noticed that she was pregnant. Obviously, she was rather chubby.
And, you can go on lots of xangas about fun things like this! For instance,
I read an xanga written by a girl who was raped by her father when she was two years old! Isn't that pleasn't? ;)

*stares in horror*

I agree with the point you're making but DEAR GOD! Five years old??? How the fuck is she reproductively capable at that age?

And a third grader going into labor in the middle of class. That's just wrong too. *shudders* Excuse me while I go throw up.

It's sad that people would want to obligate the school systems to raise their children for them...

If you don't want to raise your own child, don't have children.
Well if the parents aren't gonna do it, then who will do it if not the schools?

Well if the parents aren't gonna do it, then who will do it if not the schools?
the media!! less violence on tv, more people dieing of AIDS!!

*stares in horror*

I agree with the point you're making but DEAR GOD! Five years old??? How the fuck is she reproductively capable at that age?


http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp

Strange but true.

I don't know what your local laws are like, but in some areas minors are not allowed to buy condoms. There was even a large town here (Australia) where the only pharmasist refused to stock condoms (and yes, there was a slight increase in the number of teens having babies).

These kids probably should know to use a condom (if they can get one), but the thing is: they are kids. The only way to really put a choke-hold on this sort of thing is if parents play a more active role across the board, but it won't happen.

As for Catholics condeming condoms, if they're having sex outside of marriage (a Catholic no-no) then they might as well use a condom too (another Catholic no-no).

Here in Canada, well at least where I live, there is a clinic right down down where kids can get free condoms and i think now even birth control pills. There is really no reason for kids to be pregnent here in my hometown. Ultimetely however, I think it comes down to education. There is simply not enough education in schools.

*stares in horror*

I agree with the point you're making but DEAR GOD! Five years old??? How the fuck is she reproductively capable at that age?

And a third grader going into labor in the middle of class. That's just wrong too. *shudders* Excuse me while I go throw up.


I have a twisted mind, so I found it hilarious... the idea of a 5 year old kid
"I'll do anything you want for a box of crayons".

I don't know what your local laws are like, but in some areas minors are not allowed to buy condoms. There was even a large town here (Australia) where the only pharmasist refused to stock condoms (and yes, there was a slight increase in the number of teens having babies).


I've never heard of anyone being carded when buying condoms. Beer and cigaretts, yes. Condoms, no.

Of course, if minors can't buy condoms then they could always make their own out of sausage casings. Condoms made from animal intestines are much less effective than latex or plastic condoms, but they are better than nothing. They're also re-usable.

Of course, teenagers won't know that animal intestines were commonly used as condoms throughout history without a proper comprehensive sex education class. Comprehensive isn't just putting rubbers on bannans. Comprehensive is a year or two-year long series of classes dleving into the history of human sexuality from pre-history to present. Such courses could be used to sataify humanities and/or health requirements to make them more attractive.

There is, of course, a much simpler and easier sollution that doesn't require any public funds or uncomfortable sex talk. Infibilation. Have everyone's sex glands wired shut at birth and only opened when they are married.

"Omfg, shut up, SHES A BABY! You can't honestly expect this barely teen baby, to have a baby!? You know how incredibly risky to her life that would be? Get the hell over it."

13 is not a baby. if she can get pregnant,that should be obvious to all. ive seen some kids act more mature than their parents anyway. its this weird need by our nation to infantize minors as well as avoiding talking about the sex issues in a rational light that causes situations like this. it may be fun to rant and rave and get upset about kids having sex,but that wont stop them from having sex. just say no doesnt work,and making your kids so scared that they dont feel they can talk to you doesnt work either. if you want the kids to wait until they grow up to have sex,then maybe we should set the example by having the adults grow up first?

13 is a baby?! what backwards christian town do you live in? 13 is not a baby,and 17 is not a kid. get real.

Man, thats just messed. My girlfriend and I are waiting until shes on the pill, and then we'll be using condoms on top of that. In this day and age, having a baby at 17, about to go into University is the last thing you want. Especially when its so simple to just go into Shoppers Drugmart and pick up a package for like $7 CDN.

*stares in horror*

I agree with the point you're making but DEAR GOD! Five years old??? How the fuck is she reproductively capable at that age?

And a third grader going into labor in the middle of class. That's just wrong too. *shudders* Excuse me while I go throw up.

There is a medical condition known as precocious puberty.
Essentially, children with this condition mature sexually at an extremely young age. I have heard of two-year-olds with this condition. Usually, it is simply natural maturation to occurs too early. Somethimes it is caused by defects or cancer in the putitary gland or gonads. It can also be caused by exposure to chemicals such as hormorne replacement creams.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/sexual/precocious.html
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/puberty.htm
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/104/2/e23

THe bad thing about precious puberity is that the children afflicted with it have the sex drives of randy teenagers but lack even a teenage level of experience and maturity.

13 is not a baby. if she can get pregnant,that should be obvious to all. ive seen some kids act more mature than their parents anyway.
And if she can act more mature than her parents, she should be allowed to make her own choice about wanting an abortion, just as adults are allowed to.

And if she isn't mature enough to make that choice, she certainly shouldn't be forced to have a child!

Either way, I wholeheartedly support her right to have an abortion.

Man, thats just messed. My girlfriend and I are waiting until shes on the pill, and then we'll be using condoms on top of that. In this day and age, having a baby at 17, about to go into University is the last thing you want. Especially when its so simple to just go into Shoppers Drugmart and pick up a package for like $7 CDN.

Withdrawal is so much more efficient. She won't get pregnant if "it ends" somewhere else.

13 is a baby?! what backwards christian town do you live in? 13 is not a baby,and 17 is not a kid. get real.

I am living in New York City, which is hardly backwards nor particularly a Christian town. Thirteen is a baby. Seventeen is not a legal adult. Kindly stop trolling.

Withdrawal is so much more efficient. She won't get pregnant if "it ends" somewhere else.

That does work. most men lek small ammouts of sperm containing fliud throughout the sex act. Remmeber, it only take 1 sperm to make a woman pregnant. Even if the man doesn't ejaculate near the vagina there is always a chance that a few little swimmers jumped the gun.

Withdrawal is so much more efficient. She won't get pregnant if "it ends" somewhere else.

Not that efficient. There is always some ejaculation before the orgasm, thats why it is so deceiving. Its only effective like 50% of the time or something.

Withdrawal is so much more efficient. She won't get pregnant if "it ends" somewhere else.

Yes. That's why so many people end up pregnant using the withdrawal method, or what I like to call "pray he gets out in time." Even if he DOES get out before ejaculating, you DO know there are still plenty of motile sperm in the drops of lubricating fluid that come out of the penis before aman ejaculates, right?

Why EVER would anyone want to do something as responsible as get a prescription for pills, or an IUD, or use condoms when it takes the thrill of not knowing whether he's gauged his nearness to orgasm properly?

Not that efficient. There is always some ejaculation before the orgasm, thats why it is so deceiving. Its only effective like 50% of the time or something.


Well it worked 4000/4000 times, so I'm batting 100%.

NYC or not, you're still wrong. 13 is not a baby. Not just by definition, but by the fact that people at that age know a fair bit, and are more mature than you think.

Yes. That's why so many people end up pregnant using the withdrawal method, or what I like to call "pray he gets out in time." Even if he DOES get out before ejaculating, you DO know there are still plenty of motile sperm in the drops of lubricating fluid that come out of the penis before aman ejaculates, right?

Why EVER would anyone want to do something as responsible as get a prescription for pills, or an IUD, or use condoms when it takes the thrill of not knowing whether he's gauged his nearness to orgasm properly?

If you can't control your tallywhacker, you shouldn't be having intercourse.

Well it worked 4000/4000 times, so I'm batting 100%.

Shenanigans. I call shenanigans.

You and Wilt Chamberlin must have partied together. :rolleyes:

NYC or not, you're still wrong. 13 is not a baby. Not just by definition, but by the fact that people at that age know a fair bit, and are more mature than you think.

Rather they are much less mature than you think.

Her reprodictive system has barely even formed, and she is yet to be fully grown, unless she started puberty at an early age.

she has a baby, I think we can safely assume she has gone through puberty

Shenanigans. I call shenanigans.

You and Wilt Chamberlin must have partied together. :rolleyes:


Look at it this way on average 1 a day for 35 years?

Bad form, Schrandtopia. It's hardly pro-life if both mother and daughter die because the state didn't allow an abortion.

there is no more chance of the girl dying than of most other women

I think that a lot of pro-lifers are forgetting that where abortion is illegal, pregnant women will try to perform the abortions on themselves which often causes not only serious damage or death to the fetus, but considerable damage and possibility of death to the mother as well. Outlawing abortion doesn't fix anything.

planned parenthood, the most liberal source your going to find on this conceeds that in 1972 there were no more than 10,000 abortions preformed in the US and less than 40 women died from them

we now have around, often over 1.3 million abortions a year and often more than 40 women will die from these "safe medical opperations"

Well, I guess its fair to say that many teens are immature, I wouldn't know... I've never attended a public school. But, it ISN'T fair to say that after 13 years on Earth you are still a baby. It doesn't make sense on any level.

I think the more important issue than abortion here is why the hell a 13 year old girl is allowed to get pregnent? Honestly, what is wrong with my generation.

agreed!

NYC or not, you're still wrong. 13 is not a baby. Not just by definition, but by the fact that people at that age know a fair bit, and are more mature than you think.



That right there is the problem. They are being exposed to it way to early. Yeah at thirteen I knew what sex was to but I wasnt running around chaseing it. This shouldnt even be an issue yeah 13 wow its the first year they can all themself a teen but damn words dont mean shit. At thirteen there still watching cartoons and power rangers. I'm sorry but Its just not right for them to be doing such things much less makeing that kind of dissision.

Omfg, shut up, SHES A BABY! You can't honestly expect this barely teen baby, to have a baby!? You know how incredibly risky to her life that would be? Get the hell over it.
Last time I checked, "babies" DON'T go around with their legs spread(purposely vulger, thank you). Offended? You should be. We're talking about a thirteen year old having a baby and not about why she's pregnant, who did't educate her, and why society is so accepting of this to allow the abortion. So, lets just kill another baby and screw the whole thing, right? If she gets pregnant again, she can just kill another. Go ahead, justify it, I know you will.

2. You do not have a federal constitutional right to own a firearm. Read this (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html).

if the somewhat ambiguous language of the constitution dosn't give me the right to have a gun you damn well better believe it don't give you the right to have an abortion

4. You misread the court's decision. The 13-year old had the constitutional right all along. The Florida Department of Children & Families tried to argue she was not competent to make the decision. The state court disagreed.

which is also the state's argument on why I should be allowed to have a gun

It is far, far more dangerous for a 13-year-old to give birth than for a fully grown woman.

Ask your mother. If it is legal and she says OK, so be it.

I did ask my mother, she is a medical doctor, she has given birth to thousands of children over her career, some of them to teenage mothers and fathers

Now, stop trying to capitalize on someone else's tragedy.

first time in a long while I've heard of an innocent human life refered to as a tragedy

she has a baby, I think we can safely assume she has gone through puberty

Not really. We can safely assume that she has begun puberty. We cannot assume that she has completed it. In fact, it is unlikely that she has, since most women are not fully through puberty until around age 16.

Last time I checked, "babies" DON'T go around with their legs spread(purposely vulger, thank you). Offended? You should be. We're talking about a thirteen year old having a baby and not about why she's pregnant.

Why was she pregnant? Well, let's see, she was a 13-year old ward of the state who ran away and was out on the streets. Chances are that she was either raped or got pushed into prostitution. Offended? You should be.

Withdrawal is so much more efficient. She won't get pregnant if "it ends" somewhere else.
Are you a complete IDIOT?!? If you're a guy, you know there is precum that leaks out durring simple arousal and are stupid. If you're a girl, you're just stupid. There are 20K sperm in one DROP of semen, just a little over what is needed to get a girl preggers. In fact, it has been proven that coitus interuptus(however you spell it) is just as effective as cumming inside the girl. Deal with it and pray you/your gf don't get pregnant with that mind set.

On to the whole parents not talking to children, schools need to be obligated to teach this stuff. If we don't teach them, they're going to experiment. If they don't know, they won't know when risks happen. Though teens, at least me and my girlfriend knew when to have sex to create as little risk possible of pregnancy. And we use condoms. If we teach teens about condom use, they can buy them themselves. Most teens have 4 bucks (USD to my non-american friends) to their name.

people screw up, how many classes have you had about how smoking will kill you and yet how many of your classmates smoke? sooner or later people have had enough education and have to make decisions for themselves

I did ask my mother, she is a medical doctor, she has given birth to thousands of children over her career, some of them to teenage mothers and fathers

If your mother is not aware that a 13-year old is unlikely to be fully developed and is a medical doctor, we should revoke her license.

Meanwhile, the fact that medical technology has progressed to the point that we can deliver difficult pregnancies, often without incident, does not change the fact that it is more dangerous for an undeveloped young girl than a fully developed woman.

first time in a long while I've heard of an innocent human life refered to as a tragedy

I believe he was referring to the entire situation.

Meanwhile, as far as your original argument goes:

(a) Being denied access to firearms is unlikely to affect the rest of a 13-year old's life and would be more dangerous than helpful - thus, a compelling interest in disallowing them.

(b) If a 13-year old could display adequate competence and maturity, I would have no problem with said 13-year old possessing a firearm.

L.G., whose parents were stripped of their rights to raise her, has been in foster care for several years. Though she is originally from Palm Beach County, sources say she was living in a group home in St. Petersburg when she became pregnant. She now lives in a licensed shelter home, records show. - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/28/165641/067

She was living in a home when she got pregnant. She knows who the father is and is refusing to tell.

What I don't understand is why no one is looking at DCF here. Obviously Florida's DCF has issues. They lose kids, and now kids are turning up pregnant. The Florida child welfare system needs a complete overhaul. It's easy to sit here and debate whether or not she should have an abortion, but let's get to the real issue here.

if the somewhat ambiguous language of the constitution dosn't give me the right to have a gun you damn well better believe it don't give you the right to have an abortion

Completely non-responsive.

I gave you multiple reasons why the two are not comparable.

I'm not a woman, so I don't have a right to have an abortion.

I do have a right to self-ownership, bodily integrity, privacy, etc.

Try the 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.

Try reading a little Constitutional law, including the links I already provided.

But a clearly enumerated right of states to well organized militias is just that. And it hasn't been incorporated to limit the power of the states.

On the other hand, the Constitution has been held for well over 100 years to protect substantive liberties not enumerated. I've gone over this repeatedly.

If you need me to spoonfeed it to you again, fine.

But methinks you don't care.

which is also the state's argument on why I should be allowed to have a gun

I doubt it. The situations are completely different.

If you want to look up the actual statute and legislative history to make an argument, fine. I'm done doing your homework for you.

I did ask my mother, she is a medical doctor, she has given birth to thousands of children over her career, some of them to teenage mothers and fathers

Well, if your mommy said it was OK and it is legal, you can have your gun.

What your mommy does for a living isn't really relevant, is it?

And an appeal to an unverifiable authority is fallacious.

If your mother is a doctor with expertise, I highly doubt she believes that a 13-year-old faces no greater risks from pregnancy and childbirth than someone older. If she does believe that, she is simply wrong.


first time in a long while I've heard of an innocent human life refered to as a tragedy

You don't think the story of a 13-year old who has runaway from a state home and is pregnant is a tad tragic?

Perhaps your desire to exploit the situation has made you a bit callous.

If your mother is not aware that a 13-year old is unlikely to be fully developed and is a medical doctor, we should revoke her license.

is the 13 year old completly physically mature? probobly not

will that realistically have an effect on the outcome of the pregnancy? maybe 50 years ago it would have, but not today

Meanwhile, the fact that medical technology has progressed to the point that we can deliver difficult pregnancies, often without incident, does not change the fact that it is more dangerous for an undeveloped young girl than a fully developed woman.

dangerous to what extent? its also more dangerous for an Italian woman to go into labor because they're statistically shorter, there are plenty of things that can techincaly make labor more dangerous but with todays medical enviroment they really don't have much of an impact anymore.

Indeed, the real question is why isn't anyone taking the Florida system to task for its failure to care for her. She was in a group home and ran away, and it was during that time she was missing that she became pregnant. The DCF's best attempt to find her was simply to notify authorities that she was missing. All of which means that the Florida system didn't give a rat's ass about her until she showed up with a bun in the oven, and only then did they pay enough attention to her. . .to try and stop her from aborting the fetus.

This might be the bleeding heart liberal in me talking, but maybe the best way to have dealt with this situation was to make sure she was never in a position to get pregnant in the first place.

is the 13 year old completly physically mature? probobly not

will that realistically have an effect on the outcome of the pregnancy? maybe 50 years ago it would have, but not today

Nothing has changed in the last 50 years that make the long-term effects any different. In addition, we haven't magically made 13-year old hips wider or their wombs larger.

If you would worry about the mother involved, instead of only worrying about the possible eventual fetus, you might see the problem.

dangerous to what extent? its also more dangerous for an Italian woman to go into labor because they're statistically shorter, there are plenty of things that can techincaly make labor more dangerous but with todays medical enviroment they really don't have much of an impact anymore.

Who are you to determine how much of a risk makes a difference in someone else's life? God?

there is no more chance of the girl dying than of most other women

Prove it.

planned parenthood, the most liberal source your going to find on this conceeds that in 1972 there were no more than 10,000 abortions preformed in the US and less than 40 women died from them

we now have around, often over 1.3 million abortions a year and often more than 40 women will die from these "safe medical opperations"

Prove it.

Try the 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings + Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. + Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights = what the hell does that have to do with abortion?

What your mommy does for a living isn't really relevant, is it?

actually since we're talking about wether having a baby at this age could impact the girl's health and my mother is a medical doctor with decades of experience in this field its relevantcy in magnificent

If your mother is a doctor with expertise, I highly doubt she believes that a 13-year-old faces no greater risks from pregnancy and childbirth than someone older. If she does believe that, she is simply wrong.

so.........um, where did you go to medical school?

In addition, we haven't magically made 13-year old hips wider or their wombs larger.

but our experience at providing ceasarians has grown to an art and the chances of dying from that operation have remote, if you clicked the like about the 5-year old girl giving birth I think you'll find its more than possible for a 13 year old girl to survive child bearing

If you would worry about the mother involved, instead of only worrying about the possible eventual fetus, you might see the problem.

did I ever indicate that I had no concern for the mother? if there was a remote possibility that this might kill the mother things would be differnt but the artical listed no reasons why she couldn't give birth

Who are you to determine how much of a risk makes a difference in someone else's life? God?

no, but at the same time who are you to decide that an innocent life is worth sacraficing because it might be inconvinient?

13 year old abortion case? One would think it rather settled by now. Are we dealing with a twelve year old child, or a really smelly pile of dried blood and tissue?

Prove it.

ceasarian-section, it can be performed regardless of the girls age without any permanent damage to her, it worked for the 5 year old peruvian girl, its worked for 13 year old girls at my mother's hospital, it'll work for her

Prove it.

it was on New Jersey public TV

I'll find it for you right after you prove to me abortion is a constitutional right

but our experience at providing ceasarians has grown to an art and the chances of dying from that operation have remote, if you clicked the like about the 5-year old girl giving birth I think you'll find its more than possible for a 13 year old girl to survive child bearing

For someone who claims to be close to the medical industry, you are pretty naive about it. There are numerous complications that could occur, and a ceasarian is hardly something which has no long-term effects.

did I ever indicate that I had no concern for the mother?

Yes.

if there was a remote possibility that this might kill the mother things would be differnt but the artical listed no reasons why she couldn't give birth

(a) There is a remote possiblity, you have admitted it yourself.

(b) Why does it have to be death?

no, but at the same time who are you to decide that an innocent life is worth sacraficing because it might be inconvinient?

I am not deciding at all, the one known human being involved is. In my case, I do not believe I would decide to have an abortion, no matter how unplanned the pregnancy was. In her case, she has obviously decided to do so. It may or may not be the right decision, but that is neither for you nor for I to say.

Meanwhile, the idea of an embryo being an "innocent life" is an opinion, not a fact and the idea that most abortions occur simply for convenience is simply naive.

I'll find it for you right after you prove to me abortion is a constitutional right

I hate to tell you this, but abortion is perfectly legal in this country. However, there is nothing in the constitution pro or against abortion. Unfortunantly this girl is just going to become another political football. I would love to see everyone pull thier heads out of thier asses and do what is right for this girl, not what will further thier political agenda.

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings + Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. + Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights = what the hell does that have to do with abortion?

<sigh>

If can't even be bothered to read the short Amendments, you don't really care.

But I'll explain anyway.

The Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Ninth Amendment is one of the many reasons that the Supreme Court has held that the list of fundamental rights in the first 8 Amendments is not to be taken as exhaustive.

Furthermore, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments each state that no "person" shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Without incorporation through the 14th, you have no protection under the Constitution against state infringement of free speech, free press, freedom of religion, etc. (Go back to my original post on this.)

Your insistence on "explicit" Constitutional rights is inconsistent with: (a) the original Bill of Rights (i.e., the 9th Amendment), (b) the intentions of the Founding Fathers (e.g., the motives behind the 9th Amendment), (c) the 14th Amendment, (d) the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, and (e) well over 100 years of Supreme Court decisions.

Here is a quote from aSupreme Court opinion written by Chief Justice Rhenquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas that explains how the 14th Amendment protects substantive liberty (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Second, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

Are you that desperate to take away women's rights?

actually since we're talking about wether having a baby at this age could impact the girl's health and my mother is a medical doctor with decades of experience in this field its relevantcy in magnificent

Appeal to fictituous authority.

We don't know you have a mother, what her qualifications are, or what her opinion is.

If you want to make the absurd claim that pregnancy and childbirth are as safe for a 13-year old as for an adult, PROVE IT.

Why do I get the feeling that this has become more of a personal arguement regarding people's personal beliefs rather than the issue of this child getting pregnant? I've seen bickering and mudslinging...a person's mother even got drug into it.

Since it has been so personal, I'll just say I am a woman, a mother, and a minister, and I don't agree with abortions for personal reasons. I don't believe an abortion should be an easy out for someone that thought they were mature enough to handle an intimate situation but then realized that they weren't. If the child, and she is a child...not a baby, was raped..that's one thing. I would never dream of forcing a woman to carry the child of a rape. However, if she did willingly consent to sex (and let's not start the whole argument of her being underage so she can't consent yadda yadda yadda. Ok, we know legally she can't consent, but when has that ever stopped anyone, huh?) and didn't take precautions, or the other party didn't take precautions, then on her own head be it.

This world is fast becoming a disposable society. Some place very little value on human life, and many don't take responsibility for their own actions, and that is true across the board...from the girl that had unprotected sex, to her partner, to DCF that didn't take proper care of the girl, to her parents who apparently were so difficient in their care of the girl that she was removed from their care.

We all as a society need to shoulder a little blame on this one.

There are numerous complications that could occur, and a ceasarian is hardly something which has no long-term effects.

no more numerous than the complications that could occure getting an abortion, and with far fewwer potential long-term effects that killing the baby

Yes.

where

(a) There is a remote possiblity, you have admitted it yourself.

no more remote than with any other pregancy

(b) Why does it have to be death?

because thats the only thing that would warrent taking another life

It may or may not be the right decision, but that is neither for you nor for I to say.

indeed, but it is for us to argue about

Meanwhile, the idea of an embryo being an "innocent life" is an opinion, not a fact and the idea that most abortions occur simply for convenience is simply naive.

#1 - we might have differing oppinions about what "convenience" is defined as in this case

#2 - with the knowledge that I can't provide any information to support me beliefe can you provide any to support yours on the matter?

Snip

I stand corrected.

ceasarian-section, it can be performed regardless of the girls age without any permanent damage to her, it worked for the 5 year old peruvian girl, its worked for 13 year old girls at my mother's hospital, it'll work for her

That is is possible does not mean it is not more risky. And your saying so is not proof.

You've alleged pregnancy and childbirth pose no greater risk to a 13-year-old than an adult.

Prove it.

it was on New Jersey public TV

Great source. You say that you saw something on NJ public TV. That is not proof. You made a very specific claim about something Planned Parenthood supposedly says. Prove it.

I'll find it for you right after you prove to me abortion is a constitutional right

In addition to what I already posted:

Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html ), 410 US 113 (1973).

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html ), 505 US 833 (1992).

QED

This is the 21st century. By now the kids should be educated enough to know that if you're gonna have sex, wear a damn condom. Its not that complicated. Parents however are so afraid to talk to their kids, and schools are afraid to talk to the kids because the parents might freak, that these kids are totally oblivious to what is going on.

Actually, it is against the law for teachers to teach anything besides abstaince(can't spell tonight). Thank your President.

i had a gun long before i was thirteen
i did too and having an abortion is completely different than owning a gun so dont even try to compare the two you idiot

the girl would have like a 40% chance of living through the birth and think of the quality of life for both her and the baby after the baby was born, it is hard enough on single mothers who have both a high school diploma and a job

i know a couple girls myself who had abortions at 11, 12 , or 13 and have had more than one (my area isnt too nice) so why is that any different? lots of people do without being on the news

I've never heard of anyone being carded when buying condoms. Beer and cigaretts, yes. Condoms, no.

Of course, if minors can't buy condoms then they could always make their own out of sausage casings. Condoms made from animal intestines are much less effective than latex or plastic condoms, but they are better than nothing. They're also re-usable.

Of course, teenagers won't know that animal intestines were commonly used as condoms throughout history without a proper comprehensive sex education class. Comprehensive isn't just putting rubbers on bannans. Comprehensive is a year or two-year long series of classes dleving into the history of human sexuality from pre-history to present. Such courses could be used to sataify humanities and/or health requirements to make them more attractive.

There is, of course, a much simpler and easier sollution that doesn't require any public funds or uncomfortable sex talk. Infibilation. Have everyone's sex glands wired shut at birth and only opened when they are married.

This is just brilliant! :D

Actually, it is against the law for teachers to teach anything besides abstaince(can't spell tonight). Thank your President.

Actually, my school, and many that I know of have classes called Marriage and Family Living. During that class, they teach all forms of contraception...from condoms to depo, the pill, and now even the patch. It's not against the law. During this class, they also put you through a simulated pregnancy through the use of something called the empathy belly and having a baby with the use of dolls called "Baby Think It Over." These little dolls eat, drink, and mess their pants. They scream and cry and can even tell the teacher that they've been abused. Students have to care for these babies for 24 hours...usually just that little taste is enough to make them take better precautions in the future. It's sad to think that maybe they should start thinking about moving this class down a few grades for the 10-12 year olds.

The Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Ninth Amendment is one of the many reasons that the Supreme Court has held that the list of fundamental rights in the first 8 Amendments is not to be taken as exhaustive.

this may shock you but I already knew what that ment. but of course I cant just as easily argue that the right of a baby not to get owned by an abortionist can be considered one of the rights not enumerated, but still technically just as contitutionally valid as the "right" to abortion

in short - since its not mentioned how do we know it falls on your side of the fence

Furthermore, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments each state that no "person" shall be deprived of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

life, then liberty, then property

my neighdor is denied the right to have as his property a fence surrownding my house because it would curtail my liberty of movement

I am not allowed the liberty of random act of arson because they could curtail someone's life

besides, what is a person?

Withdrawal is so much more efficient. She won't get pregnant if "it ends" somewhere else.


reminds me of the old joke: "What do you can people who use the withdrawl method?" "Parents"

Withdrawl doesn't work, there have been cases of pregnacies resulting from pre-ejaculate which can contain live sperm. Put a condom on!

Withdrawal is so much more efficient. She won't get pregnant if "it ends" somewhere else.


reminds me of the old joke: "What do you call people who use the withdrawl method?" "Parents"

Withdrawl doesn't work, there have been cases of pregnacies resulting from pre-ejaculate which can contain live sperm. Put a condom on!

Withdrawal is so much more efficient. She won't get pregnant if "it ends" somewhere else.


reminds me of the old joke: "What do you call people who use the withdrawl method?" "Parents"

Withdrawl doesn't work, there have been cases of pregnancies resulting from pre-ejaculate which can contain live sperm. Put a condom on!

no more numerous than the complications that could occure getting an abortion, and with far fewwer potential long-term effects that killing the baby

If we are going to have a discussion, you really should refrain from emotive opinions and stick to the facts. At most, we can *factually* state that an embryo or early-fetus is involved. "Baby" is your opinion.

no more remote than with any other pregancy

...of an underdeveloped girl. So?

because thats the only thing that would warrent taking another life

I'll assume you mean another *human* life, which again - brings in your own personal opinion.

indeed, but it is for us to argue about

We can argue left and right about whether or not abortion is a good thing. Whether or not this girl should have gotten one, however, is really not for us to argue.

#2 - with the knowledge that I can't provide any information to support me beliefe can you provide any to support yours on the matter?

I haven't even brought up my beliefs, as they are irrelevant. You might be surprised to discover that they are closer to yours than you might guess.

However, I am not attempting to legislate my personal beliefs which I cannot support and thus force them upon other people. I'm afraid, if you wish to do so, the burden of proof is on you.

the girl would have like a 40% chance of living through the birth

who told you that?

who ever it was deserves to be smacked

no more numerous than the complications that could occure getting an abortion, and with far fewwer potential long-term effects that killing the baby

Simply untrue. Not even for a healthy adult.

APA Briefing Paper on The Impact of Abortion on Women (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2692552

The Public Health Impact of Legal Abortion: 30 Years Later (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3502503.html)

Trends in Abortion in the United States: 1973-2000 (http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/trends.pdf)

An Overview of Abortion in the United States (http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf)

Medical and Social Health Benefits Since Abortion Was Made Legal in the U.S. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-medical-social-benefits.xml)

National Centers for Disease Control - Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2001 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm)

Note that the above also disprove your claims about the number of deaths from abortion prior to its legalization versus now.
.

Emotion Vs. Facts. Guess we know who took this one.

That right there is the problem. They are being exposed to it way to early. Yeah at thirteen I knew what sex was to but I wasnt running around chaseing it. This shouldnt even be an issue yeah 13 wow its the first year they can all themself a teen but damn words dont mean shit. At thirteen there still watching cartoons and power rangers. I'm sorry but Its just not right for them to be doing such things much less makeing that kind of dissision.


first of all, no 13 year old I know wacthes "cartoons and power rangers"

second of all, while some 13 year olds are very immature you said it as if they all were!

that's ageisim mister! :mad:

here is an argument for the side i actually oppose but:
under the constitution we have the right to life and doesnt killing an unborn child count as killing? so shouldnt someone who gets an abortion be sentenced to first degree murder?


in response to someone talking about how people shouldnt be having sexat that age:
HOW ARE U GOING TO STOP THEM? unless the parents of all children cut off their child's social life so its go to school come home from school stay in on the weekend, then there are going to be people of all ages having sex

in a different generation there were people at our age and younger hooked on pot and there was a lot of uninhibited sex back then so how is that any different? just because it was a different era? wouldnt being addicted to pot mess up ur life too?

this may shock you but I already knew what that ment. but of course I cant just as easily argue that the right of a baby not to get owned by an abortionist can be considered one of the rights not enumerated, but still technically just as contitutionally valid as the "right" to abortion

in short - since its not mentioned how do we know it falls on your side of the fence

life, then liberty, then property

my neighdor is denied the right to have as his property a fence surrownding my house because it would curtail my liberty of movement

I am not allowed the liberty of random act of arson because they could curtail someone's life

Ya didn't even try to respond to the majority of the post.

'Cuz you couldn't.

As to what you "could say," you could say lots of dumb things. That does not mean they have any merit. Or that they logically follow from over 100 years of Supreme Court caselaw.

But at this point you aren't even trying to make serious arguments.

EDIT: and that little prioritization, you just made that up out of thin air, didn't you?

besides, what is a person?

The text of the Constitution would imply and the Supreme Court has held it is at least one who has been born.

Perhaps you should read up on the subject.

here is an argument for the side i actually oppose but:
under the constitution we have the right to life and doesnt killing an unborn child count as killing? so shouldnt someone who gets an abortion be sentenced to first degree murder?

An embryo/early fetus is not legally considered a human life, so no. Interestingly enough, despite revisionist history, it has not been historically seen as such either. The idea is actually very, very recent.

here is an argument for the side i actually oppose but:
under the constitution we have the right to life and doesnt killing an unborn child count as killing? so shouldnt someone who gets an abortion be sentenced to first degree murder?

Under the 14th Amendment, no person may be deprived of life without due process of law.

Embryos, zygotes, and fetuses are not persons under the Constitution.

In other words -- NO.

The text of the Constitution would imply and the Supreme Court has held it is at least one who has been born.

Or at least one who can be born, considering that late-term fetuses are afforded some protection.

Am I the only one here who is even slightly wondering about the fact that we are all casually dealing with a pregnant 13 year old?

first of all, no 13 year old I know wacthes "cartoons and power rangers"

second of all, while some 13 year olds are very immature you said it as if they all were!

that's ageisim mister! :mad:

Its been 10 years, but Power Rangers were cool when I was 13. Admitedly, they've gone downhill since Fox Family was bought out by Disney.

Or at least one who can be born, considering that late-term fetuses are afforded some protection.

Nope. It has never been held they are entitled to constitutional protection.

It has been held that states may choose to offer them some statutory protection. The individual states have chosen to do so.

An embryo/early fetus is not legally considered a human life, so no. Interestingly enough, despite revisionist history, it has not been historically seen as such either. The idea is actually very, very recent.

If you consider 2000 years to be very very recent then yes you are correct. It is fairly well known that our laws are based on English Common law which is based very heavily on Judeo-Christian values. While I don't argue that today modern Jewish law considers life to begin not at conception, but at birth, the new testament has a verse, and excuse me for not having the chapter and verse reference, which says something to the effect of "Even in your mother's womb I [God] knew you."

Obviously there is an implication there that life does in fact begin in the womb. As I said earlier, our laws based on English Common Law which is based heavily in Judeo Christian values, especially the Christian side. Therefore the idea really is NOT all that new.

the ironic part of all this is that people who are prolife constantly talk about all the mental/emotional damage that having an abortion causes so wouldnt having her case be on the news and people all around the country talking about her cause even more mental/emotional damage? and what about the fact that now most people will be calling her a hoe/slut/whore/hor/bitch cause her some trauma too? so by making such a huge deal of this they are making it even worse

Am I the only one here who is even slightly wondering about the fact that we are all casually dealing with a pregnant 13 year old?

I think it is a grave tragedy.

But the Puritan Misery Squad thinks "every life is a blessing" so I told it was wrong to think of the situation as tragic.

OKAY

ENOUGH WITH THE ABORTION THREADS
I see these things every day. Isn't is obvious? Everybody has a different view and no 'right' or 'wrong' conclusion will ever be reached.

SO PLEASE STOP POSTING THESE USELESS THREADS!!! :headbang:

If you consider 2000 years to be very very recent then yes you are correct. It is fairly well known that our laws are based on English Common law which is based very heavily on Judeo-Christian values. While I don't argue that today modern Jewish law considers life to begin not at conception, but at birth, the new testament has a verse, and excuse me for not having the chapter and verse reference, which says something to the effect of "Even in your mother's womb I [God] knew you."

Obviously there is an implication there that life does in fact begin in the womb. As I said earlier, our laws based on English Common Law which is based heavily in Judeo Christian values, especially the Christian side. Therefore the idea really is NOT all that new.

LOL.

1. Care to find any evidence in the Bible that abortion is a crime

2. Care to explain why abortion was legal in the US until the late 1800s.

3. Care to explain why for much of history the Christian church did not think abortion was wrong until quickening.

OKAY

ENOUGH WITH THE ABORTION THREADS
I see these things every day. Isn't is obvious? Everybody has a different view and no 'right' or 'wrong' conclusion will ever be reached.

SO PLEASE STOP POSTING THESE USELESS THREADS!!! :headbang:

It is mandatory in every abortion thread that we get one of these posts.

They are common in other threads as well.

Dear Swedish Intelligence,

You appear to misunderstand what we do here in these Forums. One of the main things we do is argue.

We rarely solve diseases, feed the hungry, or bring about international peace.

Given that we are only connected by the internet, many of these things are not possible.

We enjoy arquing and sometimes we learn things from it or teach things to others.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THESE THREADS, THEN JUST DON'T READ THEM! :headbang:

I think it is a grave tragedy.

But the Puritan Misery Squad thinks "every life is a blessing" so I told it was wrong to think of the situation as tragic.

Right, because everyone who is prolife automatically hates anyone who gets an abortion. While I don't think abortion is right and I don't agree with the decision of this 13 year old to have one that doesn't change the fact that it is a tragic situation. Every part of it is tragic-the fact that she's lost her innocence at such a young age (me personally I was still fantasizing about holding a girls hand and definitely not about having sex), the fact that one mistake has left her with such a difficult decision and the fact that the decision she has made has left her in the public spotlight, where yes, as someone earlier posted she will be called some very negative things. I'm prolife yes, but the people that would publicly call a 13 year old girl a whore for making a mistake and perhaps not knowing how to deal with that are far worse in my opinion.

Please don't lump everyone who is prolife into the group of militant christian fundamentalists. It's no better than fundamentalists lumping together every accidental mother into the "whore" category.

Right, because everyone who is prolife automatically hates anyone who gets an abortion. While I don't think abortion is right and I don't agree with the decision of this 13 year old to have one that doesn't change the fact that it is a tragic situation. Every part of it is tragic-the fact that she's lost her innocence at such a young age (me personally I was still fantasizing about holding a girls hand and definitely not about having sex), the fact that one mistake has left her with such a difficult decision and the fact that the decision she has made has left her in the public spotlight, where yes, as someone earlier posted she will be called some very negative things. I'm prolife yes, but the people that would publicly call a 13 year old girl a whore for making a mistake and perhaps not knowing how to deal with that are far worse in my opinion.

Please don't lump everyone who is prolife into the group of militant christian fundamentalists. It's no better than fundamentalists lumping together every accidental mother into the "whore" category.

Those that would call a 13-year old a whore belong to the Puritan Misery Squad.

I don't think eveyone that is anti-choice is a member of the Puritan Misery Squad. Nor did I say so.

I said it was tragic. I was told it was not by one of your ideological brethren. We agree that person was wrong.

LOL.

1. Care to find any evidence in the Bible that abortion is a crime

2. Care to explain why abortion was legal in the US until the late 1800s.

3. Care to explain why for much of history the Christian church did not think abortion was wrong until quickening.

1. The Bible does not specifically address every issue. That is not exactly news. However, the verse i cited earlier pretty clearly points to the idea that life is precious to God from the moment of conception.

2. Something being unregulated does NOT make it legalised. All that points to is the fact that it wasn't issue enough at the time for it to be specifically addressed. Legalisation would have implied that it was both legal and regulated in terms of when, how, where, who etc as it is now.

3.St. Basil the Great (circa 330 - 379 CE): "She who has deliberately destroyed a fetus has to pay the penalty of murder..

St. Ambrose: (339 to 397 CE) "The poor expose their children, the rich kill the fruit of their own bodies in the womb, lest their property be divided up, and they destroy their own children in the womb with murderous poisons. and before life has been passed on, it is annihilated."

Tertullian (circa 155 - 225 CE): "...we are not permitted, since murder has been prohibited to us once and for all, even to destroy ...the fetus in the womb. It makes no difference whether one destroys a life that has already been born or one that is in the process of birth."

etc.

I only wonder how you can get knocked up at 13... I thought humans have a brain, or parents are there for "parenting" and taking care of their kids maybe teaching them a few things... maybe I was wrong.

And for crying out loud, what does the bible have to do with modern laws? Nothing... darn fanatics... someone should gas them all. It's not a question what the bible says, it has nothing to do with this. Absolutely nothing. Last I checked the bible wasn't the code of law of the USA or any other country (despite the attempts of all the little religious fanatics out there).

Well it worked 4000/4000 times, so I'm batting 100%.

Hate to be the one to tell you, but you aren't batting 100%, you are shooting blanks ;)

Those that would call a 13-year old a whore belong to the Puritan Misery Squad.

I don't think eveyone that is anti-choice is a member of the Puritan Misery Squad. Nor did I say so.

I said it was tragic. I was told it was not by one of your ideological brethren. We agree that person was wrong.

We are agreed on that point. However the term Puritan Misery Squad is very condescending and you'll have to forgive me for assuming you were lumping all Christian pro-lifers into that category as all Christians do tend to be lumped into a narrow category. Also I see we're playing a bit of a psychological war of words with you using the term anti choice and me prolife. I suppose if i wanted to I could call all of the pro-choicers anti-life.

1. The Bible does not specifically address every issue. That is not exactly news. However, the verse i cited earlier pretty clearly points to the idea that life is precious to God from the moment of conception.

2. Something being unregulated does NOT make it legalised. All that points to is the fact that it wasn't issue enough at the time for it to be specifically addressed. Legalisation would have implied that it was both legal and regulated in terms of when, how, where, who etc as it is now.

3.St. Basil the Great (circa 330 - 379 CE): "She who has deliberately destroyed a fetus has to pay the penalty of murder..

St. Ambrose: (339 to 397 CE) "The poor expose their children, the rich kill the fruit of their own bodies in the womb, lest their property be divided up, and they destroy their own children in the womb with murderous poisons. and before life has been passed on, it is annihilated."

Tertullian (circa 155 - 225 CE): "...we are not permitted, since murder has been prohibited to us once and for all, even to destroy ...the fetus in the womb. It makes no difference whether one destroys a life that has already been born or one that is in the process of birth."

etc.

1. So that is a no.

2. Ditto.

3. Didn't address the timing, did you?

Beliefs about abortion in the early Christian church (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)

I only wonder how you can get knocked up at 13... I thought humans have a brain, or parents are there for "parenting" and taking care of their kids maybe teaching them a few things... maybe I was wrong.

And for crying out loud, what does the bible have to do with modern laws? Nothing... darn fanatics... someone should gas them all. It's not a question what the bible says, it has nothing to do with this. Absolutely nothing. Last I checked the bible wasn't the code of law of the USA or any other country (despite the attempts of all the little religious fanatics out there).

Not saying its right necessarily, but youre in idiot if you think the bible has "absolutely nothing" to do with modern law. As I said earlier you can trace much of the morality, and hence, our laws, back to Judeo-Christian values as you can to most of the Western World. That is not to say that our laws are exact replicas of the bible verses, but many of the morals found in our laws are derived from the bible.

Not saying its right necessarily, but youre in idiot if you think the bible has "absolutely nothing" to do with modern law. As I said earlier you can trace much of the morality, and hence, our laws, back to Judeo-Christian values as you can to most of the Western World. That is not to say that our laws are exact replicas of the bible verses, but many of the morals found in our laws are derived from the bible.

OK. I'd let that slide before, but it is not particularly accurate.

Have Judeo-Christian values have some impact on our morality and laws? Yes.

More than the Greeks and Romans? No.

More than other influences? No.

You'd have a very hard time tracing our laws to the Bible.

Most examples you can come up with are also found in non-Judeo-Christian cultures. :eek:

Not saying its right necessarily, but youre in idiot if you think the bible has "absolutely nothing" to do with modern law. As I said earlier you can trace much of the morality, and hence, our laws, back to Judeo-Christian values as you can to most of the Western World. That is not to say that our laws are exact replicas of the bible verses, but many of the morals found in our laws are derived from the bible.

And well, why would I care about the completely messed up fiction book some nuts wrote a few thousand years ago? Honestly, not that much is derived from it when you look at actual laws. There was a basis once, but that basis is long gone (luckily and thanks to the fact that some countries were smart enough to seperate religion from state).

It has nothing to do with modern law. It's an anachronism, old fashioned and obsolete. And it surely doesn't have anything to do with the decision of the court converning that kid.

1. So that is a no.

2. Ditto.

3. Didn't address the timing, did you?

Beliefs about abortion in the early Christian church (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)

1. No, the bible does not specifically mention abortion. I cede that point. However, it does state that life is precious in the womb. It also says that to kill a life is wrong. If you combine the two ideas maybe you can synthesize (put together two things to make one) a point.

2. Not ditto. Again, leaving something unregulated is different than legalising it.

3. You said early christian church. I did address that timing. In fact we used the same website. Your stats come from slightly later if you look at the timeline. ---St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, and returned to the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote 7 that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).

See, he REVERSED the teachings meaning they were DIFFERENT before what he said. Obviously those teachings got REVERSED again in the 18th-19th centuries.

what is wrong with some of you guys? jesus. One of my friends got a girl pregnant, now they're very un-happily married, and BOTH OF THEIR LIVES ARE RUINED!!! They're stuck with jobs that pay barely above minimum wage for the rest of their lives. you don't need to focus on just the moral, religious, or legal aspects of this. Look at the whole picture. Think about what it does to the mother and father and everyone around them. If she had to go through with having the baby, she's not only putting her life at risk in the short run, but she'd also have no life until the kid(that would be barely younger than her) is out of the house. Babies are expensive and time consuming. I'm not saying premarital sex is bad, and, sometimes condoms do break and the pill doesn't ALWAYS work, but it's almost impossible to convince a teenager, that was living in a group home she apparently hated being in, that sex is bad. And for all of you non-virgins out there, how many of you weren't atleast a little nervous or shy about buying your first pack of condoms? This shouldn't be blamed on anyone, really, i know she and some guy had to have had sex, but it's not the school's fault or the parents fault(they werent even involved with raising the child), and how many of you have willingly practiced celibacy? Sh!t happens, and you either fix it and move on or grin and bear it. This girl decided to try and fix her predicament, and her "legal guardians" attempted to prevent her from being happy, just because they share different ideals.

I'm sorry I would stay and debate, but I have 1000 words to write in my 8000 word essay so I cannot. I realise it looks like I am simply backing out because I have nothing left, but I guess youll have to trust me on this essay thing. You've all made some good points and obviously the founding fathers would have based our constitution and laws on both the ancient greeks and romans as well as judeo christian laws. As I said i wish i could stick around and see how this pans out but alas I cannot.

Also isn't it funny how this entire thread began with some guy saying because a 13 year old is getting an abortion his 13 year old cousin should be able to carry a gun?

what is wrong with some of you guys? jesus. One of my friends got a girl pregnant, now they're very un-happily married, and BOTH OF THEIR LIVES ARE RUINED!!! They're stuck with jobs that pay barely above minimum wage for the rest of their lives. you don't need to focus on just the moral, religious, or legal aspects of this. Look at the whole picture. Think about what it does to the mother and father and everyone around them. If she had to go through with having the baby, she's not only putting her life at risk in the short run, but she'd also have no life until the kid(that would be barely younger than her) is out of the house. Babies are expensive and time consuming. I'm not saying premarital sex is bad, and, sometimes condoms do break and the pill doesn't ALWAYS work, but it's almost impossible to convince a teenager, that was living in a group home she apparently hated being in, that sex is bad. And for all of you non-virgins out there, how many of you weren't atleast a little nervous or shy about buying your first pack of condoms? This shouldn't be blamed on anyone, really, i know she and some guy had to have had sex, but it's not the school's fault or the parents fault(they werent even involved with raising the child), and how many of you have willingly practiced celibacy? Sh!t happens, and you either fix it and move on or grin and bear it. This girl decided to try and fix her predicament, and her "legal guardians" attempted to prevent her from being happy, just because they share different ideals.

And the award for most redundant post goes to...

(ok now i really am leaving)

What you guys in the states need to decide is what holds the greatest clout - the constitutional rights of individuals or the legal status of minors (and when you cease to be a minor).

Does someone under 21 have a constitutional right to buy alchohol (we can legally drink at 18 in australia btw).
Does a 13yo have the constituational right to apply for a driving livence?

Is it right that an 18yo is legally allowed to vote, become a policeman, own a gun, become a soldier... but that you can't buy alcohol until you are 21 in your country.... the whole system is fucked up.

Move to Australia.... you'll have more fun in a far more liberal society... but with a good dose of reality thrown in.

strike that... we only want the good looking sane americans ;) hahaha

this may shock you but I already knew what that ment. but of course I cant just as easily argue that the right of a baby not to get owned by an abortionist can be considered one of the rights not enumerated, but still technically just as contitutionally valid as the "right" to abortion

in short - since its not mentioned how do we know it falls on your side of the fence



life, then liberty, then property

my neighdor is denied the right to have as his property a fence surrownding my house because it would curtail my liberty of movement

I am not allowed the liberty of random act of arson because they could curtail someone's life

besides, what is a person?


An unborn baby has no right to not get aborted by a random doctor. You don't have the right to not get murdered by a random person. You don't have any liberity from unreasonable search and seizure by a common citizen.

Rights and liberities only apply between individuals and the government. This is why evidence collected semi-illegally by a privite investigator can be used against you so long as he wasn't hired by the police.

Because of this the rights of the unborn are not at issue. What is at issue is the state's interest in perserving the unborn. Murder is illegal because the state has a compelling interest in perserving the lives of citizens. It also has a compelling interest in providing justice to avoid rampant viglantism.

Your neighbor probably could fence you in. Doing so would either be a tort . It would not be a crime. There is no state interest in a tort other than ensuring that disputes can be resolved equitably and peacefully.

Arson is a crime because the state has an interest in preventing the destruction it causes.

The question of abortion is a simple one. Does the states interest in protecting the unborn outwiegh the right of the mother to control her body.
According to the Supreme Court, definatly not in the first trimester. Possibly in the second and third trimesters.

Asinine.

1. I am quite sure minors may own firearms in many states. So would have to be more specific to raise a serious question. (But there is nothing serious about your question, is there?)

2. You do not have a federal constitutional right to own a firearm. Read this (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html).

3. Even if you did, it does not restrict the power of a state to keep you from owning a firearm. Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29) or this (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=23).

4. Even if you had such a right and it applied to the states, it would not be absolute. It would -- like pretty much all constitutional rights -- be subject to limitations that are narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest.

5. The case was decided by a Florida state court. Unless you live in Florida, the precedent does not even apply to you.

6. But, even if it was a US Supreme Court decision, it would not change the status of a single gun law in the U.S.

On the other hand,

1. Women have a fundamental right to abortion protected by the 5th and 14th Amendments.

2. This right restricts the power of both the state and federal governments.

3. If you noted from your own story, Florida law allows minors to get abortions.

4. You misread the court's decision. The 13-year old had the constitutional right all along. The Florida Department of Children & Families tried to argue she was not competent to make the decision. The state court disagreed.



You know not of what you speak.

It is far, far more dangerous for a 13-year-old to give birth than for a fully grown woman.

But you don't really care about the girl or abortion -- you just want that gun!

Ask your mother. If it is legal and she says OK, so be it.

Otherwise, you are SOL

Now, stop trying to capitalize on someone else's tragedy.

Bullshit.... the consitution says and i quote "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

wich means that everyone in this fine counrty of our's has a right to have a firearm and if the courts decide that a 13 year old cannot have her consititutional rights infringed and be able to have an abortion then its perfectly legal for this person to own a firearm regardless of age or ethnicity as long as he's a US citizen then he's guaranteed the right to own a Firearm... is it a silly law probably is there anything we can do about it no.. but do i think that he could use this girls case to get his own firearm... YOU BETCHA! because he can... look at the number of court cases won using Rowe vs Wade for an example... there have been several of them do a google search im sure you can come up with plenty of them... so yes its possible for him to be able to go to the Supreme court here and win... he just has to present an argument as to how and why he feels his constitutional rights are being infringed upon....

wich means that everyone in this fine counrty of our's has a right to have a firearm and if the courts decide that a 13 year old cannot have her consititutional rights infringed and be able to have an abortion then its perfectly legal for this person to own a firearm regardless of age or ethnicity as long as he's a US citizen then he's guaranteed the right to own a Firearm...

Did you even read the links Cat-Tribe provided? :rolleyes:

I can blow a huge hole in your argument...felons are U.S. citizens. Felons are not allowed to own firearms.

That felons are not allowed to own firearms, something that is completely unaddressed by the constitution, is a perfect example of the regulation of firearm ownership by the states.

Whatever state you live in could ban every type of gun tomorrow, and unless the Supreme Court overruled nearly 80 years of precedent, you would be SOL.

NYC or not, you're still wrong. 13 is not a baby. Not just by definition, but by the fact that people at that age know a fair bit, and are more mature than you think.


you wouldnt happen to be 13 would you? ;)

I was wondering. Is a fetus or zygote considered a separate entity, or considered a part of the main body?

I think the ironic thing about this case is that the government is effectively saying that 13 year olds may not be old enough to consent to sex, buy cigarettes, drink alcohol, or vote, but they are old enough to make a decision as life changing as to have an abortion. An irreversible decision with serious consequences.

An irreversible decision with serious consequences.
What you so deftly neglect to observe is that this statement is true for any outcome following pregnacy. Including miscarriege, where the body (not God) decides to abort the potential human regardless of what the pope thinks.

What you so deftly neglect to observe is that this statement is true for any outcome following pregnacy. Including miscarriege, where the body (not God) decides to abort the potential human regardless of what the pope thinks.

That is incorrect. Adoption is reversible. It may not be feasible to regain custody of the child (although it is possible), but it is feasible to make yourself part of the childs life if you were to have a change of heart in the future. The decision is not as final as abortion where no matter how much you change your mind once you have matured you cannot go back and see your child.

As for miscarriage, it is not a decision and has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

This is the 21st century. By now the kids should be educated enough to know that if you're gonna have sex, wear a damn condom. Its not that complicated. Parents however are so afraid to talk to their kids, and schools are afraid to talk to the kids because the parents might freak, that these kids are totally oblivious to what is going on.

Yeah, well...tell the smucks in the religious-right to stop teaching abstinance-only sex-ed in our schools, then maybe kids will be less oblivious.

That is incorrect. Adoption is reversible. It may not be feasible to regain custody of the child (although it is possible), but it is feasible to make yourself part of the childs life if you were to have a change of heart in the future. The decision is not as final as abortion where no matter how much you change your mind once you have matured you cannot go back and see your child.

As for miscarriage, it is not a decision and has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

I think the point was that birth isn't reversable. The result is a baby that someone has to take care of for 18-26 years or untill it dies, whichever comes first.

If you consider 2000 years to be very very recent then yes you are correct. It is fairly well known that our laws are based on English Common law which is based very heavily on Judeo-Christian values. While I don't argue that today modern Jewish law considers life to begin not at conception, but at birth, the new testament has a verse, and excuse me for not having the chapter and verse reference, which says something to the effect of "Even in your mother's womb I [God] knew you."

That verse indicates that life begins at some point in the womb, not at fertilization.

Obviously there is an implication there that life does in fact begin in the womb. As I said earlier, our laws based on English Common Law which is based heavily in Judeo Christian values, especially the Christian side. Therefore the idea really is NOT all that new.

English common law holds, as most ancient cultures (including the early church) did, that human life begins at the quickening, when a mother can feel the baby move.

1. The Bible does not specifically address every issue. That is not exactly news. However, the verse i cited earlier pretty clearly points to the idea that life is precious to God from the moment of conception.

No, it doesn't. It clearly points to the idea that life is precious to God from some point in the womb. Conception is not mentioned. It doesn't say "I knew you when the sperm touched the egg" or even, as they would have understood it then "I knew you when the seed was planted." It specifically says "I knew you in the womb."

Like I said, both Christian and common law held for thousands of years that life began at the quickening.

Interestingly enough, Exodus clearly demonstrates that the unborn are *not* given the full protection of a born human being, as causing a miscarriage resulted only in a fine.

I suppose if i wanted to I could call all of the pro-choicers anti-life.

No, you couldn't, for numerous reasons. The easiest would be that abortion has not been definitively proven to destroy life any more than breathing or picking an apple. Then there is the fact that many who are pro-choice are, in fact, anti-abortion. Go figure.

I just find everything about this depressing.

Where the hell is the father? I haven't heard anything about that piece of shit. I don't give a damn if he's thirteen himself, he's a piece of shit.

How far into the future will it be until we divorce ourselves from all personel responsibility?

3. You said early christian church. I did address that timing. In fact we used the same website. Your stats come from slightly later if you look at the timeline. ---St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, and returned to the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote 7 that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).

You ignore the fact that these are translations. The word fetus has a very specific meaning now that its translation may or may not (most likely not, since these people knew absolutely nothing of biology) have meant the same thing. A woman's pregnancy meant nothing until the quickening throughout the vast bulk of history.

I just find everything about this depressing.

Where the hell is the father? I haven't heard anything about that piece of shit. I don't give a damn if he's thirteen himself, he's a piece of shit.

You want to be really depressed? Think about this:

At her age, out on the street, the father is most likely either a rapist or a john.

You want to be really depressed? Think about this:

At her age, out on the street, the father is most likely either a rapist or a john.

Yeah, I thought about that. Thinking becomes very painful sometimes. This poor girl has become somekind of symbol now. Pregnant at 13, getting an abortion. Her family and the courts fight over her, she will have no regular childhood now, if she even had one before. And people either condemn her or hold her up as a champion of abortion rights and she is just some kid is a shit situation.

so if i disagree with you i am a troll? mmmmkay.

"I am living in New York City, which is hardly backwards nor particularly a Christian town. Thirteen is a baby. Seventeen is not a legal adult. Kindly stop trolling."

13 is not a baby. babys wear diapers,suck their thumb,and make gurgle noises. if the 13 year old is doing that,then she needs to be in a home for the handicapped. kids will never learn responsibility as long as the adults around them keep infantising them and pretending that they dont have a desire to be intimate. the sex organs dont suddenly grow in when the clock strikes midnight on the day of her 18th birthday. i agree that she is prolly too young to have a kid,but calling her a baby is very condescending. you would be amazed at what kids are capable of if you would raise the bar a little instead of having this idealistic view that ALL kids live in Candy Land. if you live in NY,you should know by now that some kids are drinking,smoking,and having sex by the time they are 13. the rate of developement is different for each kid,and there are many other factors to consider besides annual age. not everyone lives in the little house on the praire.(sp?) simply put,if you want kids to be more responsible and make better decisions,then do a better job educating them about life and treat them like people instead of morons. trying to re-live your life through the kids and atone for your own mistakes is not fair to the children. they have their own lives to live. yes,they might make mistakes. its part of the human condition,and no amount of over-protection will give them the perfect life. find something to do with yourself and stop trying to raise everyones kids. some parents are more liberal than you,and you cant do anything about it.

now,go ahead and censor me if you want. moderators are good at that when you present an unpopular view. ive said my piece...

That is incorrect. Adoption is reversible. It may not be feasible to regain custody of the child (although it is possible), but it is feasible to make yourself part of the childs life if you were to have a change of heart in the future. The decision is not as final as abortion where no matter how much you change your mind once you have matured you cannot go back and see your child.

As for miscarriage, it is not a decision and has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
No, not only is birth, any complications resulting from birth irreversible, neither is adoption, certainly not from an infant's standpoint. Irreversibility is an occasionally significant quality of time. And all decisions that effect the neonatal enviroment have a tremendous impact. This little girl is a ward of the State, and an excellect example of how inattentive, uncarring and illequiped that State is to make any decisions regarding the care and maintenance of children. And that's the world the baby would have been born into.

And as for miscarrige if a woman's, or a little girl's for that matter, endocrine system can decide it's not worth it to risk having a baby, what, exactly, is wrong with using our species highly developed capacity for abstract reasoning and foresight? It too is a biological process.

Why are you christians so quick to demand another doomed child be born into the world, you clearly haven't decided to help all of the one's who are already here in America yet. e.g. One confused, frightened, little girl in Florida. You finish what's on you're plate, then we'll talk about another helping.

No, not only is birth, any complications resulting from birth irreversible, neither is adoption, certainly not from an infant's standpoint. Irreversibility is an occasionally significant quality of time. And all decisions that effect the neonatal enviroment have a tremendous impact. This little girl is a ward of the State, and an excellect example of how inattentive, uncarring and illequiped that State is to make any decisions regarding the care and maintenance of children. And that's the world the baby would have been born into.

And as for miscarrige if a woman's, or a little girl's for that matter, endocrine system can decide it's not worth it to risk having a baby, what, exactly, is wrong with using our species highly developed capacity for abstract reasoning and foresight? It too is a biological process.

Why are you christians so quick to demand another doomed child be born into the world, you clearly haven't decided to help all of the one's who are already here in America yet. e.g. One confused, frightened, little girl in Florida. You finish what's on you're plate, then we'll talk about another helping.

Well said.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050503/2005-05-03T191225Z_01_N03350535_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-ABORTION-DC.html

the florida courst today decided that a 13 year old girl cannot be denied the "constitutional" right to have an abortion despite being a minor

does that mean that my constitutional right to own a firearm also cannot be denied despite my legal status as a minor?

Well...they're not exactly comparable rights are they?

(a) She's not performing the abortion herself, so her age doesn't affect the ability to use it*
(b)She's not going around pointing an abortion at people and threatening to kill them with it.

*Obviously it affects her ability to reason as to whether an abortion is moralistic or not, but at the same time you could say that about her having the child in the first place, so it's not entirely relevant

Bullshit.... the consitution says and i quote

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

wich means that everyone in this fine counrty of our's has a right to have a firearm

Perhaps you should have read the links.

The people have a collective right to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated state militia. Nothing more.

But, feel free to present a single case in the entire history of our Republic where a gun law has been struck down as violating the Second Amendment. That should keep you busy. You won't find one.

On the other hand, there are scores and scores and scores of cases spanning over at least 70 years (and likely far more) and almost unanimously holding that there is no individual right to own or possess firearms protected by the Second Amendment.

And, as I said, even if there were an individual right protected by the Second Amendment, it is not incorporated and does not apply to the states. (Easier to ignore what you don't understand, isn't it?)

And, even there were such a right and it applied to the states, it would not be absolute. There are limits on free speech and essentially every other constitutional right. Pray tell why the Second Amendment would be different?

That you wish something were the law does not make it so. Particularly where decades upon decades of legal precedent disagrees with you.

and if the courts decide that a 13 year old cannot have her consititutional rights infringed and be able to have an abortion then its perfectly legal for this person to own a firearm regardless of age or ethnicity as long as he's a US citizen then he's guaranteed the right to own a Firearm...

No. Apples and oranges.

There is no federally guaranteed right to own a firearm.

Even if there was, it could be constitutionally permissible to prevent a 13-year-old from owning a firearm but not from getting an abortion.

is it a silly law probably is there anything we can do about it no.. but do i think that he could use this girls case to get his own firearm... YOU BETCHA! because he can... look at the number of court cases won using Rowe vs Wade for an example... there have been several of them do a google search im sure you can come up with plenty of them... so yes its possible for him to be able to go to the Supreme court here and win... he just has to present an argument as to how and why he feels his constitutional rights are being infringed upon....

1. You ignore all of the distinctions I raised between the two "cases"

2. You ignore the problem of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade was, under the Constitution, the supreme law of the law and every lower court is required to follow it. A state trial court decision in Florida is binding on no one outside Florida and does not bind the higher courts in Florida.

3. As no one has ever gone to any federal court in the history of the US and suceeded in overturning firearms legislation as violating the Second Amendment, his chances of success are rather poor. That the case he wants to use as precedent has nothing whatsoever to do with gun rights, he may well get sanctioned for a frivilous argument.

No, not only is birth, any complications resulting from birth irreversible, neither is adoption, certainly not from an infant's standpoint.

What do complications have to do with anything? Ive known quite a few adopted kids, none of them wished they were dead. Some of them did wish they could meet their biological parents. This could happen in a case like this. Abortion on the other hand is final. If the woman decides she wishes she could see her baby its too bad cus her baby is dead.


Irreversibility is an occasionally significant quality of time.


I cant figure out what you mean by that


And all decisions that effect the neonatal enviroment have a tremendous impact.


The impact of delivering a child isnt as great as the impact of killing one.


This little girl is a ward of the State, and an excellect example of how inattentive, uncarring and illequiped that State is to make any decisions regarding the care and maintenance of children. And that's the world the baby would have been born into.


The fact of the matter is that there is a deficit of babies up for adoption. Everyone wants to adopts babies and if this mother offered hers up for adoption, it would find a loving home easily. The sad fact is that no one wants to adopt grown children (any children over 3), so the girl has little hope of ever being adopted into a loving family, but her child does.


And as for miscarrige if a woman's, or a little girl's for that matter, endocrine system can decide it's not worth it to risk having a baby, what, exactly, is wrong with using our species highly developed capacity for abstract reasoning and foresight? It too is a biological process.


Thats an interesting point of view that might be useful if you are ever debating pro life vs pro choice, but thats not this thread, and that has nothing to do with this case or with anything I said.


Why are you christians so quick to demand another doomed child be born into the world, you clearly haven't decided to help all of the one's who are already here in America yet. e.g. One confused, frightened, little girl in Florida. You finish what's on you're plate, then we'll talk about another helping.

First of all, the only person dooming the unborn child is the person sentencing it to death before it has the chance to live on its own. That child could easily be adopted by a loving family. There are many couples yearning to adopt a baby. sadly, there arent enough couples looking to adopt older children, but the baby could be placed in a good home easily. As for the rest of your post, you have no idea how many children Ive helped so you are in no position to say that. Also, when you look at all of the orphanages around the world, you begin to realise how difficult it is to find any that were not founded by a church, christian organization, or religious person. Therefore it would appear that no one has done as much for children as christians have.

Furthermore, what does any of what you said have to do with what I said? I made a comment about how hypocritical the government is that it thinks a 13 year old is old enough to make a decision on ending a pregnancy but not old enough to have sex or make any number of other less important decisions. Yet, all your responses assume I said that abortion should not be allowed (I didnt).

2. You do not have a federal constitutional right to own a firearm. Read this (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html).

Of course, the site ignores the definition of militia.


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

For refference:

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard,
a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64
years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,
Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for
reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National
Guard, a person must -
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

So the militia consists of all able-bodied males, between the ages of 17 years and 45 years (unless they have previously served in the regular army, in which case under 64 years), women in the National Guard, and the Naval Militia. And these are the ones who are protected under the Second Amendment towards the right to bear arms.

Those persons who specifically are not members of the militia in lieu of other service are definied as:


(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States,
the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on
active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission
of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards
of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant
in, the United States.


Note: Members of the armed forces who are on active duty (a-3) are not milita, though non-active personnel are.

Of course, the site ignores the definition of militia.

For refference:

So the militia consists of all able-bodied males, between the ages of 17 years and 45 years (unless they have previously served in the regular army, in which case under 64 years), women in the National Guard, and the Naval Militia. And these are the ones who are protected under the Second Amendment towards the right to bear arms.

Those persons who specifically are not members of the militia in lieu of other service are definied as:

Note: Members of the armed forces who are on active duty (a-3) are not milita, though non-active personnel are.

:rolleyes:

Pray tell how a federal statute defines the state militia

Or any Constitutional term, for that matter. If Congress passed a statute saying only hand gestures counted as speech, would that alter the protections of the First Amendment?

And good luck finding a case that supports this sophistry.

And note that, even if your premises were accurate, they don't rebut a single point I made. ;)

blah blah blah

Summary: women do not have a constitutional right to bear arms unless they have enlisted in the armed forces

Of course, the site ignores the definition of militia.



For refference:


So the militia consists of all able-bodied males, between the ages of 17 years and 45 years (unless they have previously served in the regular army, in which case under 64 years), women in the National Guard, and the Naval Militia. And these are the ones who are protected under the Second Amendment towards the right to bear arms.

Those persons who specifically are not members of the militia in lieu of other service are definied as:



Note: Members of the armed forces who are on active duty (a-3) are not milita, though non-active personnel are.

Are you in all seriousness stating that the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION is ignoring the law?

pregnant women will try to perform the abortions on themselves which often causes not only serious damage or death to the fetus, but considerable damage and possibility of death to the mother as well.
And I care why? Stupid people should die.
Outlawing abortion doesn't fix anything.
Yes it does. It weeds out the idiots and the whores and forces people to be responsible for thier actions. You just want a world of dumb fucks so you can whine and bitch some more. Aint going to happen. I hope that 13 year old is never able to give birth again and pees blood for a week.

The fact of the matter is that there is a deficit of babies up for adoption. Everyone wants to adopts babies and if this mother offered hers up for adoption, it would find a loving home easily. The sad fact is that no one wants to adopt grown children (any children over 3), so the girl has little hope of ever being adopted into a loving family, but her child does.

If someone really wanted a family and to do something good for a child, they wouldn't wait for a white, perfectly healthy newborn. They would adopt an older child. The fact that they won't, itself, makes them undeserving of an adopted child.

Furthermore, what does any of what you said have to do with what I said? I made a comment about how hypocritical the government is that it thinks a 13 year old is old enough to make a decision on ending a pregnancy but not old enough to have sex or make any number of other less important decisions. Yet, all your responses assume I said that abortion should not be allowed (I didnt).

They specifically examined competence to make the decision in this particular case. It isn't like the ruling was "all 13-year olds are competent to make this decision."

The court is completly right, she cannot be denied the right of having and abortion. it was her decision to have sex, her mistake to get pregnant and it will be her regret in the future. the effects of the abortion alone will surely degrade her enough as having a baby at 13. leave her alone, let her have the abortion. and there is a huge difference in owning a gun and having a baby.

alright, this issue has been gone over in courts how many times now? in my personal view, i believe that the government should stay out of everyone's lives and let ppl live their lives the way that they want to. i mean, i'm pro-choice, but if i ever got pregnant, i wouldn't be able to kill my child. but that's my choice. by arguing constantly over this issue (how many years has this issue been a conflict of interest?), we're getting nowhere. just drop it and let's move on to other topics that we should be focusing on, like helping our own country, ie: the poor and homeless, social security, etc.

We could kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. What if we gave 13 year olds guns, but they had to use them to perform their own abortions?

What do complications have to do with anything? Ive known quite a few adopted kids, none of them wished they were dead. Some of them did wish they could meet their biological parents. This could happen in a case like this. Abortion on the other hand is final. If the woman decides she wishes she could see her baby its too bad cus her baby is dead.

*snip*

The impact of delivering a child isnt as great as the impact of killing one.

Physical, emotional, psychological, and economic risks and costs -- impact -- of abortion on the mother are less than for pregnancy and childbirth.

See the links I provided earlier.


The fact of the matter is that there is a deficit of babies up for adoption. Everyone wants to adopts babies and if this mother offered hers up for adoption, it would find a loving home easily. The sad fact is that no one wants to adopt grown children (any children over 3), so the girl has little hope of ever being adopted into a loving family, but her child does.

Deficit of white infants.

If someone really has a strong desire to adopt, perhaps they should stop insisting on getting a cupie doll. There are a plethora of children needing adoption.

Thats an interesting point of view that might be useful if you are ever debating pro life vs pro choice, but thats not this thread, and that has nothing to do with this case or with anything I said.

Except for the part where you are arguing a pro-life viewpoint.

And the point was originally made in direct response to a point to which it was relevant.

*snip*

Furthermore, what does any of what you said have to do with what I said? I made a comment about how hypocritical the government is that it thinks a 13 year old is old enough to make a decision on ending a pregnancy but not old enough to have sex or make any number of other less important decisions. Yet, all your responses assume I said that abortion should not be allowed (I didnt).

The ability to distinguish like cases from unlike cases is not hypocrisy. It is judgment.

And recognizing the foolishness of forcing a 13-year-old to give birth to a child is wisdom.

Cat tribe- A related question, since you seem to be our resident legal wonk.

The delaware state code states that "(3) In the case of an unmarried female under the age of 18 or mentally ill or incompetent, there is filed with the hospital abortion review authority the written consent of the parents or guardians as are then residing in the same household with the consenting female, or, if such consenting female does not reside in the same household with either of her parents or guardians, then with the written consent of 1 of her parents or guardians.", but doesn't it say in Planned Parenthood v Danforth that 'The State may not constitutionally impose a blanket parental consent requirement, such as 3 (4), as a condition for an unmarried minor's abortion during the first 12 weeks of her pregnancy for substantially the same reasons as in the case of the spousal consent provision, there being no significant state interests, whether to safeguard the family unit and parental authority or otherwise, in conditioning an abortion on the consent of a parent with respect to the under-18-year-old pregnant minor. As stressed in Roe, "the abortion decision and its effectuation must [428 U.S. 52, 54] be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician."'?

The Sun-Sentinal published the transcript of the girl's hearing (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-pabortion30apr30,0,700609.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines)

"Why can't I make my own decision?"

"I don't know," Circuit Judge Ronald Alvarez replied, according to a recording of the closed hearing obtained Friday

"You don't know?" replied the girl, who is a ward of the state. "Aren't you the judge?"

"I don't think I should have the baby because I'm 13, I'm in a shelter and I can't get a job," the girl said as Alvarez and her guardian ad litem, assigned to shepherd her in the legal system, questioned her.

"DCF would take the baby anyway," she said, but later added: "If I do have it, I'm not going to let them take it."

"Since you guys are supposedly here for the best interest of me, then wouldn't you all look at that fact that it'd be more dangerous for me to have the baby than to have an abortion?" she asked. Alvarez called that "a good point."


A good point indeed. Just not good enough for the judge to take notice of the Florida Supreme Court rulings on this issue aparently. That must be something else that he "doesn't know".


Funny how I don't see the massed army of screaming protesters against an "activist judiciary" surrounding this courthouse to complain about a judge overruling black-letter state law which very clearly indicates that minors in florida do NOT need parental/guardian consent to get an abortion.

2. You do not have a federal constitutional right to own a firearm. Read this (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html).
Wow, the Bar Association has a legal opinion that defies all logic. I'm impressed.

Wow, the Bar Association has a legal opinion that defies all logic. I'm impressed.
Pray tell how that opinion defies all logic, when it is nothing more then a summary of all supreme court cases on the topic since 1930...

Wow, the Bar Association has a legal opinion that defies all logic. I'm impressed.

Definitions change over time and with new developments. This is not a new idea, nor is it illogical.

Wow, the Bar Association has a legal opinion that defies all logic. I'm impressed.

OK. You want to be silly and assume your knee-jerk opinion is more valid than the policy statement of the ABA. Fine. I'll go all lawyery on your ass.

But first, Former Chief Justice Warren Burger and arch-conservative Judge Robert Bork happen to agree with the ABA.

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a life-long hunter and conservative Republican, terms the NRA's Second Amendment rhetoric a "fraud" paid for by the firearms industry:
[O]ne of the frauds -- and I use that term advisedly -- on the American people, has been the campaign to mislead the public about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all . . . . It's shocking to me that the American people have let themselves be conned . . . by the campaigns that are sponsored and financed by the arms industry and the ammunition industry.
Warren Burger, Press Conference Concerning Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1992, Federal News Service, June 26, 1992, available in LEXIS, News Library, Wires File; see also Tony Mauro, Bill of Rights Has Not Been Scuttled, USA TODAY , Dec. 16, 1991, at 13A. ("[T]he National Rifle Association has done one of the most amazing jobs of misrepresenting and misleading the public.").

Arch-conservative and leading proponent of the use of original intent in interpreting the constitution, Judge Robert Bork has stated that the Second Amendment operates "to guarantee the right of states to form militia, not for individuals to bear arms." He believes California's assault-weapons ban is, and indeed "probably" all state gun control measures are, constitutional. Claudia Luther, Bork Says State Gun Laws Constitutional, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 15, 1989, at B5; see also Miriam Bensimhorn, The Advocates: Point and Counterpoint, Laurence Tribe and Robert Bork Debate the Framers' Spacious Terms, LIFE, Fall 1991 (Special Issue), at 96, 98 ("[T]he National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people's right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that's not the original understanding.").

1. The legal precedent is overwhelming and nigh unaminous that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms.

A. Let's go over the relevant U.S. Supreme Court cases.

United States v. Miller (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/307/174.html), 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

Defendants were charged with the crime of transporting and possessing an unregistered sawed off shotgun, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1132, et seq. They challenged the indictment and the trial court sustained the demurrer, dismissing the charges. Id. at 177. The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding the Second Amendment provided defendants no protection against the indictment. After reviewing the language and history of the Second Amendment, the Court concluded that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia. Id. at 178. Because defendants had offered no evidence that their possession or use of the shotgun had “some reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,” their conduct was not protected by the Second Amendment. Id.

Here is what the case literally says:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

This clearly states that, unless "possession or use" of a weapon has "some reasonable relationship to to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," then the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear such a weapon. It does not hinge on whether the firearm was of a type used by the military, but on whether the possession or use of such of a weapon is reasonably related to preservation of a well-regulated militia. In other words, if preservation of a well-regulated militia required that the defendant possess the shotgun, then the Second Amendment comes into play.

Similarly, Miller says:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

This clearly states the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of state militias and that it "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

The Court then turns to a discussion of the history of state militias. The Court states that, in the Constitution (emphasis added):

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress.

The Court in Miller is crystal clear that the “well-regulated militia” which the Second Amendment protects are the militias which the “States are expect to maintain and train.”

But you do not have to take my word for it, you can take the US Supreme Court’s own description of Miller in Lewis v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/445/55.html), 445 U.S. 55 (1980):

Defendant Lewis was convicted in state court of a felony violation which was never overturned and for which he did not receive a pardon. Subsequently, he was charged under a section of the federal Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act (then codified at 26 U.S.C. § 1202(a)(1)), which makes it a crime for a convicted felon to knowingly receive, possess or transport a firearm. Lewis challenged the federal conviction, alleging his prior state conviction was constitutionally invalid. The District Court convicted Lewis and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and held Lewis could not raise the constitutionality of the prior conviction as a defense to the new crime and the absence of such a defense from the federal law did not render that law violative of any constitutional protections. Id. at 65.

The Court ruled that restrictions contained in the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting felons from owning firearms were constitutional under a rational basis standard. The Court noted:

These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).

445 U.S. at 65-66 (emphasis added).

Other relevant Supreme Court decisions:

Burton v. Sills (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/394/812.html), 394 U.S. 812 (1968):

In Burton, the Court dismissed a gun owner's appeal (supported by the gun-lobby), for want of a substantial federal question, of a New Jersey Supreme Court's 1968 holding that the state's gun control laws did not violate the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment permits regulation of firearms "so long as the regulation does not impair the active, organized militias of the states." Adopting the narrow view of the Second Amendment, the New Jersey court found that the state's licensing requirements for manufacturers, wholesalers, and retail dealers, as well as permit and identification card requirements for purchasers, did "not impair the maintenance of the State's active organized militia" and thus were "not at all in violation of either the terms or purposes of the second amendment."

Miller v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/153/535.html), 153 U.S. 535 (1894):

Dismissed defendant’s post-conviction challenge to a Texas law prohibiting the carrying of a dangerous weapon on a public street. Defendant sought review by the Supreme Court on several grounds, including that the Texas law denied him the “privileges and immunities of citizenship” because it violated his alleged Second Amendment “right to bear arms.” Id at 538. The Court held the Second Amendment had no application to the challenged state proceedings because the amendment constrains only the federal government and has no “reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.” Id.

Presser v. Illinois (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/116/252.html), 116 U.S. 252 (1886):

Presser was indicted in Illinois state court for violating those sections of the state law making it a misdemeanor for any body of men to associate as a military company of organization, except as part of the organized state militia, unless they obtain a license from the Governor. Presser moved to quash the indictment, alleging that the laws at issue violated numerous constitutional provisions, including the Second Amendment. After the state courts denied his challenge, he sought review in the Supreme Court.

Relying on U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Court rejected Presser’s Second Amendment challenge on the grounds that the Second Amendment constrains only federal action and had no applicability to the state law at issue. The Court also rejected Presser’s claim that the state law denied him the “privilege and immunities” of citizenship because it prevented him from associating with others as an unorganized militia. Presser, 116 U.S. at 267. In addressing this issue, the Court specifically held that “military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers.” Id. at 267.

B. Some of the US Court of Appeal cases

Additionally, the following are a handful of the many cases by the the US Court of Appeals of every circuit in the land have repeatedly rejected your reading of the Second Amendment.

They also show that the "definition of militia" arguments raised herein have been considered and rejected.

This is not one judge or one court. This is scores of judges on 11 different courts over many decades. These judges are from different political backgrounds and different ideologies -- yet they agree on this issue.

Not one single decision holding that a gun restriction violates the Second Amendment in the history of the U.S. -- despite the well-funded efforts to appeal every case and fight every law by the gun-lobby and NRA. The legal record speaks volumes.

Widespread ownership of guns may be good. Even though gun control laws do not violate the Second Amendment, such laws may be harmful, counter-productive, and/or tyrannical. But leave the poor Second Amendment out of it. It simply does not say or mean what you think.

United States v. Lippman (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/033275p.pdf), No. 03-3275, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10432 (8th Cir. May 27, 2004):

Defendant argued that his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm violated the Second Amendment. The court cited its earlier decisions holding that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms “when it is reasonably related to the maintenance of a well regulated militia.” Id. at *11 (citations omitted). The court found that the defendant had not shown that his firearm possession was reasonably related to a well regulated militia and rejected the Second Amendment claim. Id.

Here are relevant excerpts from the opinion:

Finally, Lippman argues that his conviction should be reversed because § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional. … Lippman contends that the Second Amendment protects his individual right to bear arms and that the district court erred in its conclusion that § 922(g)(8) does not impermissibly infringe on that right.
…
In a line of cases starting with United States v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764, 772 (8th Cir. 1971), we have held that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms when it is reasonably related to the maintenance of a well regulated militia. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 315 F.3d 972, 973-74 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Lewis, 236 F.3d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Smith, 171 F.3d 617, 624 (8th Cir. 1999); United States v. Farrell, 69 F.3d 891, 894 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318, 1320 (8th Cir. 1988); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34, 37 (8th Cir. 1972). Hutzell is no exception because it cited United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-79 (1939), in connection with the right to bear arms, and the Supreme Court held in Miller that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms in "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Id. … Since Lippman has not shown that his firearm possession was reasonably related to a well regulated militia, his Second Amendment argument cannot succeed.

United States v. Parker (http://laws.findlaw.com/10th/034119.html), 362 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004):

Defendant, convicted of carrying a loaded firearm on a military base, appealed on the ground that the conviction violated the Second Amendment. Relying on United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court rejected defendant’s claim, holding that in order to prove a Second Amendment violation, one must first show that the alleged possession of the firearm was related to participation in a well-regulated state militia. 362 F.3d at 1282.

Here are excerpts from the opinion:

On appeal, Parker contends his prosecution pursuant to the ACA violates his right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
…
Our analysis is guided by the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). … Miller has been interpreted by this court and other courts to hold that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and transport a firearm where there is no evidence that possession of that firearm was related to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (citing Miller for proposition that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia");see also Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) (referring to Miller's implicit rejection of traditional individual rights position); Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir. 1995) ("Since [Miller], the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right."); United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115, 128 (2d Cir. 1984) (interpreting Miller to stand for rule that, absent reasonable relationship to preservation of well-regulated militia, there is no fundamental right to possess firearm); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977) (analyzing Miller and concluding that "[t]o apply the amendment so as to guarantee appellant's right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy").

Drawing on Miller, we repeatedly have held that to prevail on a Second Amendment challenge, a party must show that possession of a firearm is in connection with participation in a "well-regulated" "state" "militia." See United States v. Haney, 264 F.3d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding "that a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well-regulated militia"); Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387 (stating "purpose of the second amendment . . . was to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia"). Applying this principle, in Haney we set out a four-part test a party must satisfy to establish a Second Amendment violation: "As a threshold matter, [a party] must show that (1) he is part of a state militia; (2) the militia, and his participation therein, is `well regulated' by the state; (3) [guns of the type at issue] are used by that militia; and (4) his possession of the [the gun at issue] was reasonably connected to his militia service." 264 F.3d at 1165. See also United States v. Bayles, 310 F.3d 1302, 1307 (10th Cir. 2002) (applying Haney to uphold federal law restricting a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm); United States v. Graham, 305 F.3d 1094, 1106 (10th Cir. 2002) (applying Haney to find law banning sale of explosive devices does not infringe upon person's Second Amendment rights). Unless Parker can satisfy these four criteria, he cannot prevail on his Second Amendment claim. Notably, Parker has presented no evidence tending to show that he meets any of the Haney criteria.
…

[T]he Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have adopted the most restrictive interpretation (also known as "the collective rights model") of the Second Amendment. Under "the collective rights model," the Second Amendment never applies to individuals but merely recognizes the state's right to arm its militia. See Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996); Love, 47 F.3d 120; United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976); see also United States v. Price, 328 F.3d 958, 961 (7th Cir. 2003). Similarly, in addition to this court, the First, Third, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have all adopted a "sophisticated collective rights model." Under this interpretation of the Second Amendment, an individual has a right to bear arms, but only in direct affiliation with a well-organized state-supported militia. See United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942).

… We conclude Parker's prosecution by the United States pursuant to the ACA did not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Rybar (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/rybar.htm), 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 446 (1997):

Rejected defendant’s Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenge to his conviction for unlawful transfer or possession of machine guns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Defendant, a federally licensed firearms dealer who obtained the machine guns at issue at a gun show, argued that because of the obvious military utility of a machine gun, the federal law regulating its possession is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The Third Circuit first noted that while the Supreme Court in Miller clearly suggested that the firearm at issue lacked the necessary military character, the Court did not state that “such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection.” Id. at 286. Instead, Miller “assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its ‘possession or use’ and militia-related activity.” Id. (citations omitted).

Noting that defendant’s possession and use of the machine guns was related to his business activity as a firearms dealer and not to any militia-related activity, the court affirmed the principle established in Miller that, regardless of the military character of a firearm, the Second Amendment is inapplicable when there is no connection between defendant’s possession of a firearm on the one hand and any protected militia-related activity on the other. Finally, the Third Circuit referred defendant to its decisions “on several occasions emphasiz that the Second Amendment furnishes no absolute right to firearms.” Id. at 286 (citations omitted).

Here are excerpts from the opinion:
As an independent basis for his argument that Section(s) 922(o) is unconstitutional, Rybar relies on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. Const. amend. II.

In support, Rybar cites, paradoxically, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), where the Court upheld the constitutionality of a firearms-registration requirement against a Second Amendment challenge. Rybar draws on that holding, relying on the Miller Court's observation that the sawed-off shotgun in question had not been shown to bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Brief of Appellant at 24-25; Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Drawing from that language the contra positive implication, Rybar suggests that because the military utility of the machine guns proscribed by Section(s) 922(o) is clear, a result contrary to that reached in Miller is required, and the statute is therefore invalid under the Second Amendment.

Rybar's reliance on Miller is misplaced. The language Rybar cites is taken from the following passage:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
307 U.S. at 178.

We note first that however clear the Court's suggestion that the firearm before it lacked the necessary military character, it did not state that such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection. In fact, the Miller Court assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its "possession or use" and militia related activity. Id.; see Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942) (susceptibility of firearm to military application not determinative), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943). Rybar has not demonstrated that his possession of the machine guns had any connection with militia-related activity. Indeed, as noted above, Rybar was a firearms dealer and the transactions in question appear to have been consistent with that business activity.

Nonetheless, Rybar attempts to place himself within the penumbra of membership in the "militia" specified by the Second Amendment by quoting from 10 U.S.C. Section(s) 311(a):
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are . . . citizens of the United States . . . .
Rybar's invocation of this statute does nothing to establish that his firearm possession bears a reasonable relationship to "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," as required in Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Nor can claimed membership in a hypothetical or "sedentary" militia suffice. See United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997 (1993); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976).

Rybar boldly asserts that "the Miller Court was quite simply wrong in its superficial (and one-sided) analysis of the Second Amendment." Brief of Appellant at 27. As one of the inferior federal courts subject to the Supreme Court's precedents, we have neither the license nor the inclination to engage in such freewheeling presumptuousness. In any event, this court has on several occasions emphasized that the Second Amendment furnishes no absolute right to firearms. See United States v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65, 66 n.2 (3d Cir. 1977); Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839, 843 (1973). Federal attempts at firearms regulation have also consistently withstood challenge under the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Hale, 978 F.2d at 1020; Warin, 530 F.2d at 108; United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290 n.5 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974); Cases, 131 F.2d at 923. We see no reason why Section(s) 922(o) should be an exception.

Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied sub nom, Hickman v. County of Los Angeles, 519 U.S. 912 (1996):

Hickman filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after his application for a concealed carry weapon permit was denied by Los Angeles County Sheriff and City of Los Angeles Chief of Police. Held, based on the “seminal” Supreme Court decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), that an individual has no standing to raise a Second Amendment claim because “the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia, [and] the states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.” Id. at 102. Based on a “plain reading” of the Amendment’s text, the Ninth Circuit also stated that “it is only in the furtherance of state security that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ is finally proclaimed.” Id. (citation omitted). Reiterating that even technical membership or eligibility for enrollment in state militia is insufficient, the Ninth Circuit also emphasized that even if there were individual standing to bring a Second Amendment claim, it would fail because the Second Amendment is not incorporated into the Bill of Rights against action by state and local governments. Id. at 103 n.10.

Here are excerpts from the opinion:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. Const. amend. II. Hickman argues that the Second Amendment requires the states to regulate gun ownership and use in a "reasonable" manner. The question presented at the threshold of Hickman's appeal is whether the Second Amendment confers upon individual citizens standing to enforce the right to keep and bear arms. We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.

….

This case turns on the first constitutional standing element: whether Hickman has shown injury to an interest protected by the Second Amendment. We note at the outset that no individual has ever succeeded in demonstrating such injury in federal court. The seminal authority in this area continues to be United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. S 1132 (1934), for transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. The Court rejected the appellant's hypothesis that the Second Amendment protected his possession of that weapon. Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to protect the right of the states to keep and maintain armed militia. In a famous passage, the Court held that
in the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
307 U.S. at 178 .5 The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its first clause establishes the premise that wellregulated militia are necessary to this end. Thus it is only in furtherance of state security that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed.

Following Miller, "it is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right." United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 96 S.Ct. 3168 (1976); see also Thomas v. Members of City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 1984) (same, citing Warin); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974) (cited with approval in Lewis, 445 U.S. at 65 n.8) (same). Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.

… Even in states which profess to maintain a citizen militia, an individual may not rely on this fact to manipulate the Constitution's legal injury requirement by arguing that a particular weapon of his admits some military use, or that he himself is a member of the armed citizenry from which the state draws its militia. United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978) (technical membership in state militia insufficient to show legal injury under Second Amendment); Warin, 530 F.2d at 106 (same with respect to individual "subject to enrollment" in state militia); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 1982) (same, citing Warin); United States v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65, 66 n.2 (3rd. Cir. 1977) (en banc) (narrowly construing the Second Amendment "to guarantee the right to bear arms as a member of a militia").

I have over 60 more cases I can post -- which are not exhaustive of the caselaw on this issue. I won't bother. The caselaw is uniform and overwhelming.

I would not say "it is so because a court says so," but I would say that over 70 years of consistent caselaw but the US Supreme Court and every US Court of Appeals is damn good evidence. Particularly in the absence of a single case overturning a gun law on Second Amendment grounds -- in the history of our country!

So, now the US Supreme Court, all eleven US Courts of Appeal, the ABA, Chief Justice Burger, and Judge Bork all agree on the position that you say "defies all logic." Care to explain why?

2. The right "to bear arms" is not an individual right to possess and use firearms.

It is widely assumed that "to keep and bare arms" means "to possess and use firearms," but that is not what the Second Amendment says. The definitive dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, makes clear that -- particularly at the time the Second Amendment was written and adopted -- "to bear arms" meant "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter, "OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from 1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id.

In the mid-19th century the original usage of "bear arms" was still understood:

"The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a
private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."
[I]Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)


3. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was passed and not all provisions of the BoR have been incorporated through the 14th to apply to the states.

Here is an article from the NRA-ILA explaining that I am right:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23

In case you don't trust even the NRA on this, here are a couple of other sources:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
http://www.therant.us/staff/nsalvato/judicial_activism_undermines_the_integrity_of_the_constitution_-_1.htm
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0047310-00&templatename=/article/article.html
(You may note that the second article is a conservative screed against incorporation).

In the first Congress in 1789, Congressman James Madison had submitted proposed amendments for the Bill of Rights. One of Madison's proposed amendments would have prohibited states from violating the rights of conscience, freedom of the press, and trial by jury in criminal cases. The House passed Madison's proposed amendment. But the Senate rejected it because all the states already had their own bills of rights.

In 1833, the Supreme Court addressed the issue and determined the amendments of the Bill of Rights, applied only to the national government and not to the states. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters 243 (1833). You can read the case for yourself at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html. It is pretty short and easy to read.

Before you go on a rant about Barron. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marsall. He was a hero of the Revolutionary War and a close friend of George Washington. At college, he was taught philosophy by James Madison. He participated in the debates over the ratification of the Constitution as a member of the Virigina legislature. Prior to becoming Chief Justice, he served as Secretary of State.

We can continue this further if you wish, but it is really a waste of time. The language of the Constitution and the constitutional caselaw is overwhelming and consistently contrary to your view.

Last time I checked, "babies" DON'T go around with their legs spread(purposely vulger, thank you). Offended? You should be. We're talking about a thirteen year old having a baby and not about why she's pregnant, who did't educate her, and why society is so accepting of this to allow the abortion. So, lets just kill another baby and screw the whole thing, right? If she gets pregnant again, she can just kill another. Go ahead, justify it, I know you will.


If you are being purposefully offensive, you're violating the rules here, just to let you know...

If you're "old" enough to fv<k and your body is "mature" enough to get pregnant, it's also "mature" enough to have a baby.

And no, you should not be able to get your fingaz on guns.

ceasarian-section, it can be performed regardless of the girls age without any permanent damage to her, it worked for the 5 year old peruvian girl, its worked for 13 year old girls at my mother's hospital, it'll work for her



it was on New Jersey public TV

I'll find it for you right after you prove to me abortion is a constitutional right


Why is it that you have to sign a waiver releasing the surgeons and anesthesiologists from responsibility during any surgical procedure? Including procedures as simple as oral surgery?

*waits for answer*

Why is it that you have to sign a waiver releasing the surgeons and anesthesiologists from responsonsibility during any surgical procedure? Including procedures as simple as oral surgery?

Probably because they don't wanna get their asses sued off because you lied to them about something during the pre-op check or your body gave up during a "routine" op?

OKAY

ENOUGH WITH THE ABORTION THREADS
I see these things every day. Isn't is obvious? Everybody has a different view and no 'right' or 'wrong' conclusion will ever be reached.

SO PLEASE STOP POSTING THESE USELESS THREADS!!! :headbang:


You can choose not to read and respond to them.
So please stop being rude and spamming this thread.

I only wonder how you can get knocked up at 13... I thought humans have a brain, or parents are there for "parenting" and taking care of their kids maybe teaching them a few things... maybe I was wrong.

I believe you should reread the article: she is in a group home. Therefore, her parents are not present. She ran away from the group home and became pregnant.

Because forming a coherent complete response is sooooo freaking hard for the Eric Cartman's of the world, why not break it up.

What do complications have to do with anything? Ive known quite a few adopted kids, none of them wished they were dead. Some of them did wish they could meet their biological parents. This could happen in a case like this. Abortion on the other hand is final. If the woman decides she wishes she could see her baby its too bad cus her baby is dead.
Complications kill mothers and babies, and occasionally cover medical professionals in blood. It's one of the reasons we don't leave Obstetrics to God. He, in His infinite wisdom, is pro infant mortality. Some of them wished for a lot of things, and were only willing to share their most superficial feelings on the matter with you. That said, a miniscule blob of cells is not a child, let alone an adopted kid. Unwanted children are at risk for a lot of the misery that life has to offer. In one well known example, an adopted kid killed four Seattle firemen in an act of arson ment to punish his adoptive parents. As long as we're going to duel with useless anecdotes, mine made the newspaper.

I cant figure out what you mean by that
Books are heavy, and papercuts smart.

The impact of delivering a child isnt as great as the impact of killing one.
That'd we can agree on. But we're not talking about beating a child to death with a tire iron. We're talking about removing a parasitic mass of cells that doesn't even know it's enviroment exists, and might well be kicked out the womb by a cautious endocrine system. It's cheaper, doesn't hurt as much, and doesn't close doors on the future opportunities of two people. All it does is keep one door from being opened too soon in the case of one person who's already here.

The fact of the matter is that there is a deficit of babies up for adoption. Everyone wants to adopts babies and if this mother offered hers up for adoption, it would find a loving home easily. The sad fact is that no one wants to adopt grown children (any children over 3), so the girl has little hope of ever being adopted into a loving family, but her child does.
And by babies you mean blond haired blue eyed perfect babies without any serious medical conditions, or deficits. Somehow I doubt an angry, hurting little girl without effective supervision, and a poor education would provide the most ideal neonatal enviroment. Maybe if we all pray enough, God will magic her into a superior mother, and either provide her with a high paying job, or absolve her of the guilt and regret she would have over what might have been.

Thats an interesting point of view that might be useful if you are ever debating pro life vs pro choice, but thats not this thread, and that has nothing to do with this case or with anything I said.
Considering you're endorsing that children be forced to engage in activies that can kill them, will alter their life forever, and increase poverty as a matter of Law, I think the fact that bodies decide to abort potential children all the time (which might as well be illegal too) is important. Why should our unique ability at planning take a backseat to the kinetics of complicated molecules?

First of all, the only person dooming the unborn child is the person sentencing it to death before it has the chance to live on its own. That child could easily be adopted by a loving family. There are many couples yearning to adopt a baby. sadly, there arent enough couples looking to adopt older children, but the baby could be placed in a good home easily. As for the rest of your post, you have no idea how many children Ive helped so you are in no position to say that. Also, when you look at all of the orphanages around the world, you begin to realise how difficult it is to find any that were not founded by a church, christian organization, or religious person. Therefore it would appear that no one has done as much for children as christians have.
The only child in this story has been here, unloved, uncared for, unnoticed, unwanted, and unaided for 13 long years. If it looks like anything, it looks like a fish, or perhaps would-be puppie, and it's EXACTLY that far away from being an honest to goodness human. I guess the bulk of Christians are too devoid of charity and Christ love to do the right thing. But it's good to know that the apathetic masses care enough so late in the game to try their hand at living the life of a frieghtened little girl they don't know, and don't care about. I wonder when she gets to live their lives for them.

I know a little something about you. I know you haven't sold your computer to help that little girl. And I know she needs help a lot more than you need a computer. The truth about you, personally, is that you want to make the tough decisions from a comfortable distance and force her to live with the spirit crushing consequences.

Yes, let's look at the Christian plan for children. Starvation, poverty, war, genocide, disease, and sometimes horrific sexual assaults. Christian policies contribute to death on a massive scale across the developing world. They promote the birth of children who can't be fed, educated, or escape the ravages endemic to an uncompromising religion, unreasoning faith, and somehow still find time to promote the spread of HIV. On orphanages: The ones which weren't in musical theater, were typically miserable places, and really don't help that many children. Certainly not as many as the secular legal concept of adoption. Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, is a religion that promotes death, poverty, and misery at the expense of science, freedom, and happiness.

Furthermore, what does any of what you said have to do with what I said? I made a comment about how hypocritical the government is that it thinks a 13 year old is old enough to make a decision on ending a pregnancy but not old enough to have sex or make any number of other less important decisions. Yet, all your responses assume I said that abortion should not be allowed (I didnt).
A descision had to be made, could not be delayed. Each of the possible outcomes can never be undone and will have lifelong consequences for a minimum of one person. Her dilemma is to face the fire or jump from a third story window. A choice simply must be made, soon, and as much as it pains some people she's the only one who can make it. Until someone mandates the forced installation of locking gas caps in all juvenile females by a practicing gynocoligist, kids will be kids, or chimpanzees, as they have always been. And when they do, the benefit of our medical wisdom should be available to preserve their future.

If you don't like where the discussion went, perhaps you should have left it where it was.

That said, I'm going to end with a little experiment. Do you know the date, time, and place of your conception? Do you celebrate it every year? And how common would you say that kind of behavior is? There's a reason why Birthdays are celebrated and conception days are not. When a person actually arrives, or in some cases is later welcomed, that's when they join the community of humans. Not before. And it's not a coincidence.

so if i disagree with you i am a troll? mmmmkay.


now,go ahead and censor me if you want. moderators are good at that when you present an unpopular view. ive said my piece...


No, when you say "what kind of backward Christian town do you live in" and treat people as if disagreeing with you makes them an idiot, you're a troll. Your comment about me censoring you (when I did not) and referring to all moderators as doing that is flamebaiting.

My characterization of myself as living in New York, which is neither a small town, nor Christian particularly, demonstrates that your characterization of anyone holding the view that 13 is immature as being a member of a small town or a Christian is fallacious.

Now, why don't you try to make your point with a well thought out argument rather than using insults and baseless accusations?

No, when you say "what kind of backward Christian town do you live in" and treat people as if disagreeing with you makes them an idiot, you're a troll. Your comment about me censoring you (when I did not) and referring to all moderators as doing that is flamebaiting.

Now, why don't you try to make your point with a well thought out argument rather than using insults and baseless accusations?
I just want to take this time to say (because I am sure you don’t hear it enough moderating , always hearing the complaints and all)
That most of us here under stand and want to thank you for your time and effort

(I know may seem like a suckup) but I always seem to run across you (mods) being accused of something or another nasty. Just wanted to let you know we appreciate you

I will readily admit to it that I've not read through all of these posts, but I will say that I agree with whomever said that there's no "right" or "wrong" answer to this type of situation, as people all have different views on these kinds of things.

I will say that I find it unfortunate that she got pregnant at the age of 13, and that she's now in the position that she is. However, you have to have lived in a cave to not know what the possible rammifications are to having sex, whether it was consentual or not. I do remember reading somewhere that Florida law states that those under 15 (I think) cannot legally consent to sex, thus it would be considered statutory rape. Whether this changes the view taken on the problem or not, I don't know.

I don't think that abortion was necessarily the best decision per say, but we don't know medical backgrounds of this girl either. I will say that it is the least of the many evils to lose one child rather than two children. In the best of possibilities, this never would've happened at all, but it has and you can't really uncarve a turkey either.

The other thing I'm really wondering about is why *this* particular case has such a big impact on us right now. I'm sure that in other states there have been young girls coming in for abortions too. Is it just because it's FL, or is it because this is right on the tail end of the Terri Schaivo case or what? Does anyone really know about that?

I also know that I will be blasted to kingdom come for that comment (and any of the others in here), so blast away, I just wanted to put my two cents in.

Probably because they don't wanna get their asses sued off because you lied to them about something during the pre-op check or your body gave up during a "routine" op?

You are basically signing away your right to sue because (surprise) ANY operation, and ANY time you go under anesthesia, you are risking your life. It is a trauma to the body. Anyone who thinks a caesarian section is a walk in the park is woefully ignorant about the dangers of surgery and the pain and time involved in healing from such an operation.

There is a risk involved with fully formed and mature adult women having children. The risks are magnified when a thirteen year old who has not yet attained her full growth is forced to have a child.

The girl is 100% correct in her reasoning for having the abortion, and 100% correct in calling the judge on the lack of reason for preventing it. DCF are the culprits here in trying to deny her the rights given her by the State of Florida; thank heavens the court decided to go with state law rather than the argument that DCF was acting in loco parentis and could therefore deny her her rights.

I just want to take this time to say (because I am sure you don’t hear it enough moderating , always hearing the complaints and all)
That most of us here under stand and want to thank you for your time and effort

(I know may seem like a suckup) but I always seem to run across you (mods) being accused of something or another nasty. Just wanted to let you know we appreciate you


Thanks, UpwardThrust.

ceasarian-section, it can be performed regardless of the girls age without any permanent damage to her,


absolute bollox

C sections DO leave permanent damage - I had one and am still having related problems 5 years later

a friend had one for her first pregnancy and then the 'healed' area ruptured during her second delivery (4 years later) and it killed her

if it doesnt leave permanent damage why are doctors extremely reluctant to perform a 3rd?

it is a known FACT that at the age of 13 a girls (or boys) body isnt fully formed - the age of consent of 16 is based on MEDICAL reasons as the vast majority of girls ARE fully formed at that age

this girl has become pregnant - the reasons or the circumstances are unknown due to confidentiality laws to protect her as she is a minor

how arrogant to assume she is at blame

how arrogant to think it is right to make her carry out a pregnancy that will drastically change her life for the rest of her life even if she were to give the baby up for adoption

how heartless to assume she is some little slut who slept around

some of the opinions on this forum make me despair of the human race especially those who are so vehement on subject of this nature and profess to be religeous

last time I checked the major tennant in most religeons is that of forgiveness and charity - charity isnt just slapping your credit card details out to assuge your conscience but also a conscience of spirit and believe me thats sadly lacking around here sometimes

This girl has become tragically pregnant and has an opportunity of a second chance and no one has the right to deny her that - at the end of the day it has nothing to do with us - it's none of our business and we should not attempt to dictate the terms of the rest of her life to her

I wish her well for the future and I hope she learns from her mistakes and gets the chance in life any young person deserves

I will readily admit to it that I've not read through all of these posts, but I will say that I agree with whomever said that there's no "right" or "wrong" answer to this type of situation, as people all have different views on these kinds of things.

I will say that I find it unfortunate that she got pregnant at the age of 13, and that she's now in the position that she is. However, you have to have lived in a cave to not know what the possible rammifications are to having sex, whether it was consentual or not. I do remember reading somewhere that Florida law states that those under 15 (I think) cannot legally consent to sex, thus it would be considered statutory rape. Whether this changes the view taken on the problem or not, I don't know.

I don't think that abortion was necessarily the best decision per say, but we don't know medical backgrounds of this girl either. I will say that it is the least of the many evils to lose one child rather than two children. In the best of possibilities, this never would've happened at all, but it has and you can't really uncarve a turkey either.

The other thing I'm really wondering about is why *this* particular case has such a big impact on us right now. I'm sure that in other states there have been young girls coming in for abortions too. Is it just because it's FL, or is it because this is right on the tail end of the Terri Schaivo case or what? Does anyone really know about that?

I also know that I will be blasted to kingdom come for that comment (and any of the others in here), so blast away, I just wanted to put my two cents in.

It's important as the state has sued to block the abortion, and has failed in their attempt to do so.

:rolleyes:

Pray tell how a federal statute defines the state militia


I'll let state codes speak for themselves...

]
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.


120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.
121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


The militia of the commonwealth shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of seventeen and forty-five, and who are residents of the commonwealth, and of such other persons, male and female, as may, upon their own application, be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to any provision of this chapter, subject, however, to such exemptions as are now, or may be hereafter, created by law.

The militia shall consist of two classes, namely, the organized militia, composed and organized as provided in this chapter, and the remainder, to be known as the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia shall not be subject to duty except in case of war, actual or threatened, invasion, the prevention of invasion, the suppression of riots, and the assisting of civil officers in the execution of the laws.

And real Sophistry is making a case using a word, without defining it first (like the ABA has done).

Omfg, shut up, SHES A BABY! You can't honestly expect this barely teen baby, to have a baby!? You know how incredibly risky to her life that would be? Get the hell over it.

maybe she shouldnt have done an act to get impregnated then. Technically the father or would be father would be arrested for some type of rape, i believe statuary.

I'll let state codes speak for themselves...

And real Sophistry is making a case using a word, without defining it first (like the ABA has done).

Bravo. You recognized the fallacy of your original argument and completely abandoned it.

As to your new argument, pray tell, how is what is expressly defined as the "unorganized militia" the same as a "well-regulated militia"?

Nice bait-and-switch.

But you fail to recognize a greater flaw in your argument. A state is free under the Second Amendment to to maintain and train a well-regulated militia. But the state does not thereby limited in its ability to regulate firearms. What the state grants by statute it can take away by statute.

A state could define a well-regulated militia as including every citizen between 15 and 85 -- and at the same time severely limit those citizen's ability to own and possess firearms. The only thing the Second Amendment would prohibit under such circumstances would be a federal limit on the well-regulated militia's right to bear arms -- that failed to pass the strict scrutiny test.

And my challenge stands:

And good luck finding a case that supports this sophistry.

If the law is so clear, there must be caselaw overturning a restriction or ban of firearms. With all the firearms laws we have (and have had in the history of the Republic) there must be at least one case.

I showed you mine, now let's see yours. (But you don't have one, do you?)

maybe she shouldnt have done an act to get impregnated then. Technically the father or would be father would be arrested for some type of rape, i believe statuary.

Yes. It is quite likely that the father would be guilty of statutory rape -- I haven't found the precise requirements of Florida's statute and it may depend on the age of the father.

And we know not if the girl did a voluntary act to get impregnated.

Does not matter. She is 13-years-old. It was -- under your own scenario -- legally rape.

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050503/2005-05-03T191225Z_01_N03350535_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RIGHTS-ABORTION-DC.html

the florida courst today decided that a 13 year old girl cannot be denied the "constitutional" right to have an abortion despite being a minor

does that mean that my constitutional right to own a firearm also cannot be denied despite my legal status as a minor?


She should never have gotten pregnant, but having a baby could kill her.

And, in an abortion, you are not killing a human being. With a gun, you can kill several, living people on a whim.

Unless you live in Texas. I know ten year olds who own guns.

Incidentally, great way to stir up debate on the two most debated issues in American history.

That'd we can agree on. But we're not talking about beating a child to death with a tire iron. We're talking about removing a parasitic mass of cells that doesn't even know it's enviroment exists, and might well be kicked out the womb by a cautious endocrine system. It's cheaper, doesn't hurt as much, and doesn't close doors on the future opportunities of two people. All it does is keep one door from being opened too soon in the case of one person who's already here.

Considering you're endorsing that children be forced to engage in activies that can kill them, will alter their life forever, and increase poverty as a matter of Law, I think the fact that bodies decide to abort potential children all the time (which might as well be illegal too) is important. Why should our unique ability at planning take a backseat to the kinetics of complicated molecules?


The only child in this story has been here, unloved, uncared for, unnoticed, unwanted, and unaided for 13 long years. If it looks like anything, it looks like a fish, or perhaps would-be puppie, and it's EXACTLY that far away from being an honest to goodness human. I guess the bulk of Christians are too devoid of charity and Christ love to do the right thing. But it's good to know that the apathetic masses care enough so late in the game to try their hand at living the life of a frieghtened little girl they don't know, and don't care about. I wonder when she gets to live their lives for them.

Yes, let's look at the Christian plan for children. Starvation, poverty, war, genocide, disease, and sometimes horrific sexual assaults. Christian policies contribute to death on a massive scale across the developing world. They promote the birth of children who can't be fed, educated, or escape the ravages endemic to an uncompromising religion, unreasoning faith, and somehow still find time to promote the spread of HIV. On orphanages: The ones which weren't in musical theater, were typically miserable places, and really don't help that many children. Certainly not as many as the secular legal concept of adoption. Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, is a religion that promotes death, poverty, and misery at the expense of science, freedom, and happiness.

That said, I'm going to end with a little experiment. Do you know the date, time, and place of your conception? Do you celebrate it every year? And how common would you say that kind of behavior is? There's a reason why Birthdays are celebrated and conception days are not. When a person actually arrives, or in some cases is later welcomed, that's when they join the community of humans. Not before. And it's not a coincidence.

1. A blob of mass is not what it is. It is actually doing something very important. Think about it. First it cleaves then attaches until all the normal sized cells are as big as the original big cell. Then the ends start to take form. Follwed by appendages if I am not mistaken. Then the internal organs. About 4-6 months (Maybe 8) after fertilization the fetus decides a favored hand, right handed people live longer but also have a higher chance of becoming insane while left-handed people generally live shorter and have a higher chance of becoming a genius. I believe after 6 months the fetus starts to suck its thumb and stuff.

2. Its not Parasitic. Lets see, its a mutal benificial relationship, why you may ask, well because you actually help the survival of the species, and the parent lives longer. Similar to the reason why married men live longer then single men.

3. Miscarrages happen when life is not fit for survival (the life can not start) which happens with several genetic diseases I believe trisommy fourteen or eleven fit in there. A thirteen year old having a child would have a much greater chance of having a nondefected child then a fourteen year old, a twenty yearold and anyone higher then thirteen.

4. If having human DNA and has a male human father and a female human mother makes you as far away from a human as a fish then what the hell are we?

5. What are you talking about devoid of charity?

6. Um how do christen values help contribute to the way the underdevelooped countries are? Your thing doesnt make sense. Think about it this way, the people with HIV are destined to die shortly as most underdeveloped nations citizens have a form of the disease it is better to ensure the survival of the race then the survival of an individual. What it seems that you are talking about in that same paragraph is that you would rather let them die then for more children be born.

7. Maybe the reason is that it is not known most of the time, and the fetus/zygote is not fully developed.

8. Now like you I would end with an experiment. What would happen if our anscestors had abortions and underage pregnancies (meaning not of the consentated age.)? I think that there would be a lot less people. Who knows, maybe we would all be dead.

Yes. The father would be guilty of statutory rape.

And we know not if the girl did a voluntary act to get impregnated.

Does not matter. She is 13-years-old. It was legally rape.

I believe the under what ever age and even if you consent it is rape.

Another thing I dont agree with, if a male was raped by a female and she gave birth in which the rapped male was the father then she could have him legally pay for child support, even by going through courts.

If anything I would advise abortion in this case, not ban it.

Bad form, Schrandtopia. It's hardly pro-life if both mother and daughter die because the state didn't allow an abortion.

I think that a lot of pro-lifers are forgetting that where abortion is illegal, pregnant women will try to perform the abortions on themselves which often causes not only serious damage or death to the fetus, but considerable damage and possibility of death to the mother as well. Outlawing abortion doesn't fix anything.
Agreed.

I believe the under what ever age and even if you consent it is rape.

Another thing I dont agree with, if a male was raped by a female and she gave birth in which the rapped male was the father then she could have him legally pay for child support, even by going through courts.

What? Good god, man, make sense. :D

Seriously, I do not understand you.

Are you saying all sex between anyone at any age is rape regardless of consent?

That would be ridiculous and I don't think that is what you mean.

Or do you mean that there is some age below which you cannot consent
to sex, so anyone that has sex with a person that young is guilt of rape?

That would be closer. In many states there is a set age for consent. If someone cannot consent, then sex with them is rape. Many states, however, have an age gap requirement in addition to an age of consent. For example, a statute may provide that someone who has sex with someone under 16 and is 3 years older than that person is guilt of rape. It varies by state.
As for the second scenario, I'd love to see some evidence that what you assert is generally true. I highly, highly doubt it.

What? Good god, man, make sense. :D

Seriously, I do not understand you.

Are you saying all sex between anyone at any age is rape regardless of consent?

That would be ridiculous and I don't think that is what you mean.

Or do you mean that there is some age below which you cannot consent
to sex, so anyone that has sex with a person that young is guilt of rape?

That would be closer. In many states there is a set age for consent. If someone cannot consent, then sex with them is rape. Many states, however, have an age gap requirement in addition to an age of consent. For example, a statute may provide that someone who has sex with someone under 16 and is 3 years older than that person is guilt of rape. It varies by state.
As for the second scenario, I'd love to see some evidence that what you assert is generally true. I highly, highly doubt it.


NO i typed wrong and I was wondering about whether i typed it right

I believe that if you consent at any knowledgable age such as 13 then it is not rape.

1. A blob of mass is not what it is. It is actually doing something very important. Think about it. First it cleaves then attaches until all the normal sized cells are as big as the original big cell. Then the ends start to take form. Follwed by appendages if I am not mistaken. Then the internal organs. About 4-6 months (Maybe 8) after fertilization the fetus decides a favored hand, right handed people live longer but also have a higher chance of becoming insane while left-handed people generally live shorter and have a higher chance of becoming a genius. I believe after 6 months the fetus starts to suck its thumb and stuff.

*snip*

8. Now like you I would end with an experiment. What would happen if our anscestors had abortions and underage pregnancies (meaning not of the consentated age.)? I think that there would be a lot less people. Who knows, maybe we would all be dead.

1. Well, you must be quite happy with Roe v. Wade then. Under Roe v. Wade and its progeny, a state may ban abortion after the point of viability except when abortion is necessary to perserve the life or health of the mother. Almost every state bans abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy unless it is necessary for the life or health of the mother.

59% of abortions in the US are performed during the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. Almost 90% within the first 12 weeks. Fewer than 2% at over 20 weeks. And only about 0.08% at 24 weeks or more.

So the vast majority of abortions happen to that clump of cells and almost no abortions happen to the more developed fetuses.

2. Abortions have been quite common throughout history. We are still here. :eek:

NO i typed wrong and I was wondering about whether i typed it right

I believe that if you consent at any knowledgable age such as 13 then it is not rape.

Close your eyes and tap your heels together and believe real hard, but that won't work as a defense if you have sex with someone who is 13. ;)

But, I know that is not what you meant.

What you meant is that it should not be considered rape.

You are wrong. 13 is not a "knowledgeable" age and there can be no real consent.

1. Well, you must be quite happy with Roe v. Wade then. Under Roe v. Wade and its progeny, a state may ban abortion after the point of viability except when abortion is necessary to perserve the life or health of the mother.

2. Abortions have been quite common throughout history. We are still here. :eek:

1. Yes. Yes I am.

2. Have any examples?

Close your eyes and tap your heels together and believe real hard, but that won't work as a defense if you have sex with someone who is 13. ;)

But, I know that is not what you meant.

What you meant is that it should not be considered rape.

You are wrong. 13 is not a "knowledgeable" age and there can be no real consent.

Sex education at my school started at 5th grade.

absolute bollox

C sections DO leave permanent damage - I had one and am still having related problems 5 years later

a friend had one for her first pregnancy and then the 'healed' area ruptured during her second delivery (4 years later) and it killed her

if it doesnt leave permanent damage why are doctors extremely reluctant to perform a 3rd?

it is a known FACT that at the age of 13 a girls (or boys) body isnt fully formed - the age of consent of 16 is based on MEDICAL reasons as the vast majority of girls ARE fully formed at that age

this girl has become pregnant - the reasons or the circumstances are unknown due to confidentiality laws to protect her as she is a minor

how arrogant to assume she is at blame

how arrogant to think it is right to make her carry out a pregnancy that will drastically change her life for the rest of her life even if she were to give the baby up for adoption

how heartless to assume she is some little slut who slept around

some of the opinions on this forum make me despair of the human race especially those who are so vehement on subject of this nature and profess to be religeous

last time I checked the major tennant in most religeons is that of forgiveness and charity - charity isnt just slapping your credit card details out to assuge your conscience but also a conscience of spirit and believe me thats sadly lacking around here sometimes

This girl has become tragically pregnant and has an opportunity of a second chance and no one has the right to deny her that - at the end of the day it has nothing to do with us - it's none of our business and we should not attempt to dictate the terms of the rest of her life to her

I wish her well for the future and I hope she learns from her mistakes and gets the chance in life any young person deserves

Here, here. Damn well said.

"No, when you say "what kind of backward Christian town do you live in" and treat people as if disagreeing with you makes them an idiot, you're a troll. Your comment about me censoring you (when I did not) and referring to all moderators as doing that is flamebaiting."

ok. im sorry i came on so strong,but the very idea that someone would call a teenager a baby like it is fact and all kids are the same in intelligence and maturity really bugs me. its akin to me saying all women are gold diggers. i hate generalisations. and telling me to stop trolling is one step away from booting me or having me booted. these forums tend to be clicky.

"My characterization of myself as living in New York, which is neither a small town, nor Christian particularly, demonstrates that your characterization of anyone holding the view that 13 is immature as being a member of a small town or a Christian is fallacious."

read my last post? i didnt know you were from NY at first,and when you live in bigger cities like NY and LA,you should know the kinds of things kids can do.(both the good and the bad) its usually people from small religious towns that think teen pregnancy is an abomination. i for one happen to think all babies are beautyful,even if they come at an inconvenient time...

"Now, why don't you try to make your point with a well thought out argument rather than using insults and baseless accusations?"

read my last post yet?

We can continue this further if you wish, but it is really a waste of time. The language of the Constitution and the constitutional caselaw is overwhelming and consistently contrary to your view.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a dependant clause. It cannot stand without the underlying independant clause. " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Is an independant clause. It can stand on its own.

It is much like the sentence "Because it was a sunny day, I went for a walk." "Because it was a sunny day" is meaningless on its own and it does nothing to change the fact that I went for a walk.

By the same token, the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" does nothing to modify the fact that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged.

The fact is that the Amendment says "people" not "states". If it were purely a state right then it would say "states" just like every other other part of the constitution that deals with states' rights.

The courts have been consistantly incorrect in their reasoning. It just shows the danger of common law's reliance on precident. If one bad precident goes unchallanged then everyone will follow its lead.

However, it is silly to equate regulation with infingment. The fact that one cannot broadcast radio and television without the permission of the FCC doesn't infinge on the First Amedment guarentee to free speach. It simply regulates how that right can be exercised.
The same is true for gun regulations.

Remember that the National Firearms act didn't ban machine guns or sawed off shotguns. Apparently, the Congress of 1934 didn't think that an outright ban would have been Constitutional. They simply placed restrictive taxes and regulations on the weapons. It was still possible to obtain such weapons legally and it still is today. Its terribly difficult to do, but possible.

This is the 21st century. By now the kids should be educated enough to know that if you're gonna have sex, wear a damn condom. Its not that complicated. Parents however are so afraid to talk to their kids, and schools are afraid to talk to the kids because the parents might freak, that these kids are totally oblivious to what is going on.

At that age, I don't think children of either gender standardly possess condoms, even if by some odd chance they had their sexual education classes already. Besides, you're discounting the possibility that she was raped, in which case the whole sex ed issue becomes moot anyway.

Because forming a coherent complete response is sooooo freaking hard for the Eric Cartman's of the world, why not break it up.


A sure sign that someone's arguments are falling appart is when they begin to attack the person rather than their arguments. This is an excellent indicator of the quality of person posting, and/or the quality of their arguments.


Complications kill mothers and babies, and occasionally cover medical professionals in blood.


Sure, in underdeveloped nations. This happened in the USA where the rate for women dying from childbirth complications is approximately 0.009% (a figure considered negligible).


Some of them wished for a lot of things, and were only willing to share their most superficial feelings on the matter with you.


You are certainly willing to jump to alot of conclusions with absolutely no knowledge on the subject. If you do this about my life and the people I know, a subject I know for a fact that you know absolutely nothing about, it makes me wonder if this is your standard operating procedure. That certainly sheds some light on how reliable your arguments are and how your mind works (if you dont know something just guess!).


Unwanted children are at risk for a lot of the misery that life has to offer.


No one escapes misery in life. There are good things and bad things for everyone. Adopted kids are no different.


In one well known example, an adopted kid killed four Seattle firemen in an act of arson ment to punish his adoptive parents.


Sure, and the King brothers killed their father with a baseball bat and burned the house down to cover their crime. This type of thing happens with all manner of families, there is no indication it happens more in adoptive families.


...It's cheaper, doesn't hurt as much, and doesn't close doors on the future opportunities of two people. All it does is keep one door from being opened too soon in the case of one person who's already here.


Actually it completely ends all opportunities for one person, completely closing all doors to them by not allowing them to be born in the first place. To the mother, it saves her the pain of childbirth (which actually wouldnt be that bad because a child her age would almost certainly be given a c-section).


And by babies you mean blond haired blue eyed perfect babies without any serious medical conditions, or deficits. Somehow I doubt an angry, hurting little girl without effective supervision, and a poor education would provide the most ideal neonatal enviroment. Maybe if we all pray enough, God will magic her into a superior mother, and either provide her with a high paying job, or absolve her of the guilt and regret she would have over what might have been.


I havent promoted that she attempt to raise her child. Black babies are just as high in demand as white babies (who woulda though blacks like to adopt too?). There is no indication the baby would have any serious medical conditions.


Considering you're endorsing that children be forced to engage in activies that can kill them, will alter their life forever, and increase poverty as a matter of Law, I think the fact that bodies decide to abort potential children all the time (which might as well be illegal too) is important. Why should our unique ability at planning take a backseat to the kinetics of complicated molecules?

Not at all. Im endorsing some consistency in government policy. If 13 is old enough to make life and death decisions, then give them all their rights. If not, then why are they letting this 13 year old make the final decision?




The only child in this story has been here, unloved, uncared for, unnoticed, unwanted, and unaided for 13 long years. If it looks like anything, it looks like a fish, or perhaps would-be puppie, and it's EXACTLY that far away from being an honest to goodness human. I guess the bulk of Christians are too devoid of charity and Christ love to do the right thing. But it's good to know that the apathetic masses care enough so late in the game to try their hand at living the life of a frieghtened little girl they don't know, and don't care about. I wonder when she gets to live their lives for them.

Actually, many christians are foster parents. Chances are that she has lived with christians who tried their best to help her many times. There is only so much you can do though.


I know a little something about you. I know you haven't sold your computer to help that little girl. And I know she needs help a lot more than you need a computer. The truth about you, personally, is that you want to make the tough decisions from a comfortable distance and force her to live with the spirit crushing consequences.


That is not the truth at all. Once again, in the absence of any knowledge about a subject you simply make stuff up. How do you know I dont need my computer in order to work, which is what puts money in my pockets which can then be invested in other things? The truth is that any intelligent person will choose his or her battles wisely rather than running to help every person the news deems worthy of mentioning. The fact that I dont help any one specific case does not mean I dont help at all.


Yes, let's look at the Christian plan for children. Starvation, poverty, war, genocide, disease, and sometimes horrific sexual assaults. Christian policies contribute to death on a massive scale across the developing world. They promote the birth of children who can't be fed, educated, or escape the ravages endemic to an uncompromising religion, unreasoning faith, and somehow still find time to promote the spread of HIV. On orphanages: The ones which weren't in musical theater, were typically miserable places, and really don't help that many children. Certainly not as many as the secular legal concept of adoption. Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, is a religion that promotes death, poverty, and misery at the expense of science, freedom, and happiness.


Heh. How much more ignorant can you get? Christian charities are at the forefront of fighting the war against hunger, poverty, and everything else you mentioned.

Heh. How much more ignorant can you get? Christian charities are at the forefront of fighting the war against hunger, poverty, and everything else you mentioned.

No, they're at the forefront of complaining about them and trying to ease some of the more unsightly aspects of their condition, but they do everything in their power to maintain the actual condition. The one thing that could actually improve lives in these parts of the world, birth control, is prohibited by most Christian charity groups religions.

Sure it's possible that they're all too stupid to realize that there being lots of poor starving people who can't be cared for producing more and more of the same in exponentially increasing numbers isn't being fixed with bibles and wonderbread. But if they're policies actually contribute to the problems then they can't take the moral high ground. They're wrong and they are among the causes of most of the suffering in the world. If they won't at least teach people to use condoms and birth control pills then it's better that they just get the hell out and let them get back to their wars.

While your posts are always well written, LazyH, I'm afraid I agree with Domici's last post.
And Cat-Tribe is in his usual fine form. I'm so in awe.

you wouldnt happen to be 13 would you? ;)
No, I wouldn't.

"Omfg, shut up, SHES A BABY! You can't honestly expect this barely teen baby, to have a baby!? You know how incredibly risky to her life that would be? Get the hell over it."

13 is not a baby. if she can get pregnant,that should be obvious to all. ive seen some kids act more mature than their parents anyway. its this weird need by our nation to infantize minors as well as avoiding talking about the sex issues in a rational light that causes situations like this. it may be fun to rant and rave and get upset about kids having sex,but that wont stop them from having sex. just say no doesnt work,and making your kids so scared that they dont feel they can talk to you doesnt work either. if you want the kids to wait until they grow up to have sex,then maybe we should set the example by having the adults grow up first?

13 is a baby?! what backwards christian town do you live in? 13 is not a baby,and 17 is not a kid. get real.


i hope you arent a parent, because otherwise you SHOULD understand.

she has a baby, I think we can safely assume she has gone through puberty

Notice the part where I said BARELY even formed, which makes it more risky for her than an older woman.

Last time I checked, "babies" DON'T go around with their legs spread(purposely vulger, thank you). Offended? You should be. We're talking about a thirteen year old having a baby and not about why she's pregnant, who did't educate her, and why society is so accepting of this to allow the abortion. So, lets just kill another baby and screw the whole thing, right? If she gets pregnant again, she can just kill another. Go ahead, justify it, I know you will.

Your point? Ive heard of an 8 year old getting pregnant before........she not a baby? Should she be forced to have the child?

No, they're at the forefront of complaining about them and trying to ease some of the more unsightly aspects of their condition, but they do everything in their power to maintain the actual condition. The one thing that could actually improve lives in these parts of the world, birth control, is prohibited by most Christian charity groups religions.

Sure it's possible that they're all too stupid to realize that there being lots of poor starving people who can't be cared for producing more and more of the same in exponentially increasing numbers isn't being fixed with bibles and wonderbread. But if they're policies actually contribute to the problems then they can't take the moral high ground. They're wrong and they are among the causes of most of the suffering in the world. If they won't at least teach people to use condoms and birth control pills then it's better that they just get the hell out and let them get back to their wars.

Are you suggesting that the solution to crime and poverty in "those parts of the world" is to keep the poor starving people from breeding? I think it's the position of the religious charity groups that "bringing the Lord" to them will have a good effect on their quality of life. You're confusing the spread of belief with the cause of the crime and poverty that that belief brought the charities there to alleviate.

I repeat my question. The solution to crime and poverty is to stop people in those areas from breeding?

Omfg, shut up, SHES A BABY! You can't honestly expect this barely teen baby, to have a baby!? You know how incredibly risky to her life that would be? Get the hell over it.

Just like the baby she's aboout to kill...

Just like the baby she's aboout to kill...

Mean that collection of cells? Sure let it grow. Theres a chance that it may kill them both, or kill the mother, or just ruin this little kids life, but why not? It has the potential for life right? Just like all those cells teen boys splatter against their bath tubes? Sure, in the case of the fetus it could actually develop into life, but why risk a living breathing persons life for a little parasite that could potentially become a person but would also most likely have a shitty life too?

THis is a sticky situation. On one hand as a catholic, i believe that abortion is a crime against life, and should be stopped. But the fact remains that she is 13 years old. Being pregnant at 13 is a major health risk. She could have died, and usually at such a young age the pregnancies don't make it to term. The Catholic Church states that it is ok to have an abortion if there is a health risk involved. I dont know why is says that but it does, so I'm goin to go with the decision that she should have the right to choose but she should be sat down lectured, and made to watch the mot graphically horrible abortion videos, so she knows what she is goin to be doing to herself and her unborn child

Are you suggesting that the solution to crime and poverty in "those parts of the world" is to keep the poor starving people from breeding? I think it's the position of the religious charity groups that "bringing the Lord" to them will have a good effect on their quality of life. You're confusing the spread of belief with the cause of the crime and poverty that that belief brought the charities there to alleviate.

I repeat my question. The solution to crime and poverty is to stop people in those areas from breeding?

Apparently thats the solution Domici preffers. That's without even beginning to address the fact that it is only the catholic church who is against contraception and catholics do not account for the majority of christian relief going to these regions.

Imagine this scenario...

Your 14 years old, no parents, and no real home.
You have a baby who needs to be taken care of.
You have no idea how to take care of it, nobody to help you...
Would you want to be in this situation?
The girls whole life is still ahead of her and now she has to be burdened with a baby she is not yet physically or emotionally ready for...
So lets just take away the baby so it can be another orphan, and suffer through life without parents or a home, maybe even become impregnated at a young age itself.

C'mon people, calling this kind of abortion killing is wrong, would you rather the baby suffer for the rest of it's life?


Also, the 13 year old is by no means a baby, but she is stil a kid. Be serious, when it comes to something like sex and pregnancy, how much knowledge and expirience does a 13 year old orphan have? Would you throw her into the world of parenting at such a young age?


I am curious, since some of you are so anxious to get your hands on a firearm, what would you use it for? And how con you possibly connect firearms to abortions?

I think that a 13 year old has about as much use for their own pistol or rifle, as they have for a baby.

Everybody has their own pesonal opinion, but taking advantage of an event like this for your own wants, without putting youself in her shoes for just one moment is wrong.

this is to Invisuus:
A fetus is not just a collection of cells you ignorant ass. By 4 weeks it has a heartbeat, and you do not know your pregnant until you miss your period anyway (which takes 4 weeks). Do you know any cells that have a heartbeat? How can you compare a human being, true one that is very small but does have brain waves and movement, to seminal fluid?! Have you ever seen an abortion being done? Have you ever seen how they crush the babies into tiny pieces to get it out? Have you ever seen how they have to count all the pieces of the tiny person they just crushed to death in order to know if they got it completely out? Have you ever witnessed the throwing away of little babies into 2 gallon tubs, and stock piled in the back of a Planned Parenthood Center? Maybe if you did you wouldnt have the balls to call a child a bunch of cells. You make me sick.

this is to Invisuus:
A fetus is not just a collection of cells you ignorant ass. By 4 weeks it has a heartbeat, and you do not know your pregnant until you miss your period anyway (which takes 4 weeks). Do you know any cells that have a heartbeat? How can you compare a human being, true one that is very small but does have brain waves and movement, to seminal fluid?! Have you ever seen an abortion being done? Have you ever seen how they crush the babies into tiny pieces to get it out? Have you ever seen how they have to count all the pieces of the tiny person they just crushed to death in order to know if they got it completely out? Have you ever witnessed the throwing away of little babies into 2 gallon tubs, and stock piled in the back of a Planned Parenthood Center? Maybe if you did you wouldnt have the balls to call a child a bunch of cells. You make me sick.

Knock off the flaming. If you can't be civil, you can't post here.

I apologize. But when people are so ignorant about a topic and have such a strong opinion on it, it makes me frustrated.

I apologize. But when people are so ignorant about a topic and have such a strong opinion on it, it makes me frustrated.

The best way to persuade and refute them is to explain your point of view logically and without namecalling.

I apologize. But when people are so ignorant about a topic and have such a strong opinion on it, it makes me frustrated.Pot, meet kettle.

So, ignoring the flaming.... You might want to be a little more informed before you call someone else ignorant.

The Dying Race wrote: A fetus is not just a collection of cells...
Until approximately 20 weeks when it reaches viability, a collection of cells is just what a fetus is. Those cells are organized into tissues and, in some cases, organs, but they are still collected cells.

By 4 weeks it has a heartbeat...
But has not developed a heart yet; only a tube of cardiac tissue.

and you do not know your pregnant until you miss your period anyway (which takes 4 weeks)
Well not really. It depends on when you were fertile and had intercourse. Home pregnancy tests are relatively accurate at 1 week. OTOH, for teens, who are known to have irregular menstruation cycles, a missed period is quite common, and can result in a fairly advanced pregnancy without you knowing it.

Do you know any cells that have a heartbeat?
Yes indeed. Healthy cardiac cells of any kind will maintain rhythm, i.e. a heartbeat, long after they have been removed from the body. I've seen amphibian cardiac cells laying out on a table and still beating.

How can you compare a human being, true one that is very small but does have brain waves and movement, to seminal fluid?!
It's not a human being until birth by definition. As for comparisons, one can compare any two items with valid results. For example, polar bears and school buses... they're both big and can have school children inside them, for just two of their commonalities.

Have you ever seen an abortion being done? Have you ever seen how they crush the babies <lot's of emotion snipped>..?
One, it's not a baby. Use the correct terminology. And have you ever seen any medical surgery? Every single procedure is bone-shakingly ghastly. Should all procedures be banned because you can't stomach the sight?

telling me to stop trolling is one step away from booting me or having me booted. these forums tend to be clicky.

Telling you to stop trolling is telling you to cease the behavior I explained to you. Your continued declarations that it is looking for an excuse to get rid of you is as baseless as it was before, and frankly, one that I find insulting. We ban rulebreakers, not unpopular views. Look at all the people shouting that we should ban Nazis/Gays/Gay Haters/Communists/ Capitalists etc. and it is apparent how much water that theory holds. You chose to post in a way that was inappropriate, and when made aware of it, you went on to rant at me. Your comments about moderators and forums suggest that you have had trouble elsewhere before. Perhaps you should look at this as an opportunity to learn how to avoid such unpleasantness in the future.

Let's take some snips from your first two posts, as I am replying to your third.


"if you want the kids to wait until they grow up to have sex,then maybe we should set the example by having the adults grow up first?" <-- generalization that I am not mature?

"what backwards christian town do you live in?" <-- generalization that to be Christian is to be backward. Also that no one outside of a small Christian town could consider a 13 year old to be immature. Generalization, therefore, that people who disagree with you are backward and from a rural place -- which is somehow less worthy than a city because....?

"its usually people from small religious towns that think teen pregnancy is an abomination."<-- Generalization again. I can think of plenty of non-Christians, who do not hail from small towns, who think teen pregnancy is an extremely bad idea. And where did I say it is an abomination? Methinks you are putting words in my mouth.

"so if i disagree with you i am a troll? mmmmkay."<-- Generalization that trolling = disagreeing with Katganistan. Also an ad hominem attack. "The ruling is not valid because she is an OMG moderator, and they are OPPRESSIVE!"

"not everyone lives in the little house on the praire." <-- generalization that only people living in rural communties can consider a 13 year old mother too immature. Or that I think everyone should live there. Or something.

"if you want kids to be more responsible and make better decisions,then do a better job educating them about life and treat them like people instead of morons." <-- generalization that I am not responsible, do not educate properly, and that I treat teens like morons. A laughable generalization.

"trying to re-live your life through the kids and atone for your own mistakes is not fair to the children." <-- generalizing that I am somehow living vicariously through micromanaging children's lives because my own is somehow flawed.

"no amount of over-protection will give them the perfect life." <--generalization that adults are unhealthily overprotective (which is ironic given that the young lady in question got no useful guidance from adults and ended up in a situation SHE recognizes she can't handle -- a mature realization.)

"find something to do with yourself and stop trying to raise everyones kids." <-- Directly insulting to me. I have something to do with myself, and I do not interfere in other people's childrearing -- and again, a laughable generalization.

"go ahead and censor me if you want. moderators are good at that when you present an unpopular view. ive said my piece..." <-- we've covered this.

Considering the level of vitriol you have aimed at me personally as evidenced in your parting shot there, it's not surprising you'd expect some action to be taken against you.

I strongly suggest that you modify your posting style. If making your point consists of taking something that was not aimed at you as a personal insult, and tossing insults and accusations around when people disagree with you, it's not going to be very long before you run into trouble.

*snip*
How can you compare a human being, true one that is very small but does have brain waves and movement, to seminal fluid?!

Almost no abortions involve a fetus with brain waves.

Essentially all that do are necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother or involve a severe deformed fetus with little chance of survival.

Complete canard.

*Have you ever seen an abortion being done?

Yes. I have personally witnessed an abortion first hand.

Methinks you have seen misleading propaganda films.

*Have you ever seen how they crush the babies into tiny pieces to get it out?

Untrue of the vast majority of abortions.

Again, you are either being disingenuous or you have been misled.

Depending on what you mean by "crush" this is true of only late-term abortions that are generally illegal, are only a extremely small percentage of abortions, and almost always occur because they are necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

If you mean "crush" in a sense that applies to a significant portion of abortions, then they also "crush" poor innocent kidney stones, blot clots, etc. :eek:


*Have you ever seen how they have to count all the pieces of the tiny person they just crushed to death in order to know if they got it completely out?

Again, the graphic image you seek to present is disingenuous. You are either seeking to mislead or have been misled.

Same is true of many operations that seek to remove a foreign or unhealthy object from a body.

*Have you ever witnessed the throwing away of little babies into 2 gallon tubs, and stock piled in the back of a Planned Parenthood Center? *snip*

Have you ever seen the medical waste that comes out of any hospital?

Very gross. Should we ban all hospitals? Surgery is so ... yucky.

Same is true of many operations that seek to remove a foreign or unhealthy object from a body.
Just wondering, is a zygote/fetus considered a "foreign object in the body", or a part of the body?

Just wondering, is a zygote/fetus considered a "foreign object in the body", or a part of the body?

Just wondering, where did I say it was either?

I didn't. :eek:

Nice try. No cigar.

:confused:

Be nice Cat. Pluto is asking an honst question.

Be nice Cat. Pluto is asking an honst question.

Okay ... I'm sorry if I was rude and the question was honest.

But ,y answer was honest.

I hadn't taken a position and it seems a rather silly and irrelvant question.

Okay ... I'm sorry if I was rude and the question was honest.

But ,y answer was honest.

I hadn't taken a position and it seems a rather silly and irrelvant question.
Actually, I was thinking of making an analogy that if the zygote was part of the body, then it'd be like cutting your own finger off; and that it would count as "attempted suicide".

is it me, or did that just sound incredibly stupid?

Pluto, I know you're not really pro-choice, but this is a site I like that gives some good answers to many arguements that anti-choice folks make. Tell me what you think.

http://www.wcla.org/articles/procon.html

Actually, I was thinking of making an analogy that if the zygote was part of the body, then it'd be like cutting your own finger off; and that it would count as "attempted suicide".

is it me, or did that just sound incredibly stupid?

Actually cutting off your finger isn't attempted suicide. Most people don't expect to die from it. They can still cart you off to the wacky ward for it though. As a former "cutter" I can attest to this.
(Sorry, Pluto, not the smartest analogy)

Actually cutting off your finger isn't attempted suicide. Most people don't expect to die from it. They can still cart you off to the wacky ward for it though. As a former "cutter" I can attest to this.
(Sorry, Pluto, not the smartest analogy)
thanks, i kinda figured that.

EDIT: and thanks for the link. it is helpful. :)

Just wondering, is a zygote/fetus considered a "foreign object in the body", or a part of the body?

I have no knowledge of the legal case, but biologically, the body consider's a zygote/fetus to be a foreign object. It is my understanding that the majority of early term miscarriages are a direct result of this. Indeed, my old Physiology lecturer used to say that from a purely biological/physiological standpoint, that pregnancy was a battle for survival between the fetus and the mother, and that a successful pregnancy only resulted from a perfect (or near) balance between the two.

Blessings
Lucrece

this is to Invisuus:
A fetus is not just a collection of cells you ignorant ass. By 4 weeks it has a heartbeat, and you do not know your pregnant until you miss your period anyway (which takes 4 weeks). Do you know any cells that have a heartbeat? How can you compare a human being, true one that is very small but does have brain waves and movement, to seminal fluid?! Have you ever seen an abortion being done? Have you ever seen how they crush the babies into tiny pieces to get it out? Have you ever seen how they have to count all the pieces of the tiny person they just crushed to death in order to know if they got it completely out? Have you ever witnessed the throwing away of little babies into 2 gallon tubs, and stock piled in the back of a Planned Parenthood Center? Maybe if you did you wouldnt have the balls to call a child a bunch of cells. You make me sick.

Yup just a collection of cells to me, not too much higher than sperm. The mothers life is far more important to me. And after four weeks its HARDLY as advanced as you make it out to be.

2. Its not Parasitic. Lets see, its a mutal benificial relationship, why you may ask, well because you actually help the survival of the species, and the parent lives longer. Similar to the reason why married men live longer then single men.

That does not meet the defintition of a mutally beneficial relationship, not to mention that your assertion that women who have babies live longer is absurd. If a tapeworm kills off a less-productive member of society, that may help the survivial of the species - but it certainly isn't mutally beneficial to both organisms involved, which would define a mutually beneficial relationship.

Yes, once a fetus develops to the point that it can be considered an organism, it is parasitic until its birth. You don't have to attach negative connotations there if you don't want to, but the definition still holds.

3. Miscarrages happen when life is not fit for survival (the life can not start) which happens with several genetic diseases I believe trisommy fourteen or eleven fit in there.

Or the person is very stressed and their body decides the situation is not conducive to pregnancy, or certain nutrients are not present, or randomly.

A thirteen year old having a child would have a much greater chance of having a nondefected child then a fourteen year old, a twenty yearold and anyone higher then thirteen.

If you are only looking at genetic defects, a 13-year old would be less likely to have a child with a genetic defect than a 40-year old. The differences between her and the 14 or 20 year old would not be very evident. If you are taking into account other things that might cause miscarriage, the 13-year old, with her underdeveloped reproductive system, may be more likely to miscarry.

6. Um how do christen values help contribute to the way the underdevelooped countries are? Your thing doesnt make sense.

The post was most likely referring to the Catholic Church, which is partially responsible for the huge number of AIDs patients in Africa.

7. Maybe the reason is that it is not known most of the time, and the fetus/zygote is not fully developed.

That last point is the kicker. We don't celebrate life until it is fully developed into a living, breathing organism.

8. Now like you I would end with an experiment. What would happen if our anscestors had abortions and underage pregnancies (meaning not of the consentated age.)? I think that there would be a lot less people. Who knows, maybe we would all be dead.

There might be less people, and that would probably be a good thing. The idea that we would all be dead is ludicrous.

Guess what? Our ancestors *did* have abortions! They were simply much more dangerous.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is a dependant clause. It cannot stand without the underlying independant clause. " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Is an independant clause. It can stand on its own.

It is much like the sentence "Because it was a sunny day, I went for a walk." "Because it was a sunny day" is meaningless on its own and it does nothing to change the fact that I went for a walk.

By the same token, the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" does nothing to modify the fact that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged.

You either messed up in English class or logic, I'm not sure which.

"Because it was a sunny day" is useless by its self but it explains why you went for a walk. You would not have gone for a walk if it were not a sunny day.

By the same token "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" absolutely does modify the right to keep and bear arms. The only reason you have the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of a militia. This is basic English here.

A fetus is not just a collection of cells you ignorant ass. By 4 weeks it has a heartbeat, and you do not know your pregnant until you miss your period anyway (which takes 4 weeks).

At 4 weeks, it isn't even yet a fetus.

Do you know any cells that have a heartbeat?

Yes. In culture, no less. Would you like me to show them to you?

How can you compare a human being, true one that is very small but does have brain waves and movement, to seminal fluid?!

There are no brain waves until around 20 weeks. There is no movement until near the end of the first trimester.

I believe the dying race jsut got veritably owned.

I disagree with classification of a fetus as a parasite; on the grounds that parasitic relationships are invasional.... The Fetus, on the other hand, is a natural product of the female.

Though I agree women should have the ability to end pregnancies.... The issue should not be slanted throug mis-classifications to attempt internal self-justification of questionable practices (which is what usually occurs in these debates on this issue).. Whether it be right-to-lifers pushing against the liberties of the females carrying the offspring, or pro-choicers wanting to classify human offspring as "parasites"... You're both wrong, get over it...

At 4 weeks, it isn't even yet a fetus.


The girl this thread is about is 14 weeks pregnant, not 4.

I disagree with classification of a fetus as a parasite; on the grounds that parasitic relationships are invasional.... The Fetus, on the other hand, is a natural product of the female.

Irrelevant. The definition of parasite does not require an invasion.

The girl this thread is about is 14 weeks pregnant, not 4.

...which doesn't make my statement any less correct.

I think the more important issue than abortion here is why the hell a 13 year old girl is allowed to get pregnent? Honestly, what is wrong with my generation.
Things like this have always happened. It's only nowdays we hear about them.

NYC or not, you're still wrong. 13 is not a baby. Not just by definition, but by the fact that people at that age know a fair bit, and are more mature than you think.
Knowing a fair bit is quite different from being physically able to handle it.

there is no more chance of the girl dying than of most other women
Do you know what kind of things happen when immature girls give birth? Their vaginas tear. Do you want that to happen?

Here, here. Damn well said.


/me blushes and bows :)

I seriously think the goverment should consider making abortion only an option in a back ally with a clotheshanger. Then stupid whores at thirteen will keep thier legs closed for a few more years and the older ones will just buy a damn pill and force thier sexual partner to put on a condom.

And don't give me the percentages bullshit because guess what, if a pill has 80% protecton rate and a condom 75% percent that's 155% bucko.

And don't give me the percentages bullshit because guess what, if a pill has 80% protecton rate and a condom 75% percent that's 155% bucko.

Never studied probability, I see.

Irrelevant. The definition of parasite does not require an invasion.

Biological Definition of Parasite: "A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host)." [T.C. Cheng, General Parasitology, p.7]

If you're going by the general terminology (outside of biology), which decends from the latin word 'parastus'... Then every child untill they leave home, is a "parasite".... And even then that's up for grabs for some...

Biological Definition of Parasite: "A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host)." [T.C. Cheng, General Parasitology, p.7]

Is Cheng the absolute high master of biology? I could show you 10 biology textbooks with just as many definitions. The overall factor that would bind them together is that one organism must live in or on another and derive its nourishment from the host. Not all require a different species.

Never studied probability, I see.
Never left the house to learn common sense I see.

Pill+condom=abortion is needless.

Therefor abortion=excuse for murder.

And if you can't afford condoms/pills then perhaps you should be thinking about something else other then sex. Like a second job.

I seriously think the goverment should consider making abortion only an option in a back ally with a clotheshanger. Then stupid whores at thirteen will keep thier legs closed for a few more years and the older ones will just buy a damn pill and force thier sexual partner to put on a condom.

And don't give me the percentages bullshit because guess what, if a pill has 80% protecton rate and a condom 75% percent that's 155% bucko.It's not. The chance that someone will get pregnant from both is 1/5 * 1/4 = 1/20, or 5%, which is a 95% protection rate. Where were you during math class, protesting Roe v. Wade?

Never left the house to learn common sense I see.

How exactly is a misuse of mathematice "common sense"?

Pill+condom=abortion is needless.

Not necessarily. There have been couples who used the pill, a condom, a diaphragm, and a sponge and still ended up pregnant.

It's not. The chance that someone will get pregnant from both is 1/5 * 1/4 = 1/20, or 5%, which is a 95% protection rate. Where were you during math class, protesting Roe v. Wade?

Nicely done.

*snip*

How can you type with that foot in your mouth?


Pill+condom=abortion is needless.

Pill+condom = greatly reduced chance of abortion != elimination of possibility of pregnancy.

Note: If you use the pill and a condom and a pregnancy results, it is likely unwanted.

Best studies show that more than 1/2 of women seeking abortion were using at least one form of birth control.

you have a quick wit and a sharp tongue but that doesnt change my point. saying that all 13 year olds are babies is also a GENERALISATION. why are you so defensive?

and for the record,most of the forums i post on respect my opinions,but some moderators are nervous and fear contraversy,so they boot as soon as another poster complains.....

Never left the house to learn common sense I see.

Pill+condom=abortion is needless.

Therefor abortion=excuse for murder.

And if you can't afford condoms/pills then perhaps you should be thinking about something else other then sex. Like a second job.

You have valid points, but they are limited; neither the condom nor "the pill" is completely effective (many BC pills can be effected by antibiotics, which cancel their function)...

As long as abortion is legal, it is not "murder"... Whether is it ethical, is another matter all together...

Abortion should never be looked upon as a normative form of birth control. I'll grant that. However, the possibility of it should be an option.

This goes far past mere "pro-choice" and "right to life" extremist views on this issue.

First of all, women should have an important decision in this matter. But it should not be taken lightly.... We're dealing with the formation of a human being here.... IT IS NOT A PARASITE.. It is a devloping human being... And great care should go into this decision. However, this is not to say that abortion should be outlawed, nor is it saying that it should be normative... There is middle ground that needs to be covered between both the extremist views.

To the pro-lifers here, you simply can't discount the woman in all of this, and make it a blanket illegality. We're talking about the person who is to carry this child... Her choice should play an important role in all of this. It is totally inhuman of you.

To the pro-choicers here, you can't simply classify this developing human as a "parasite" to satisfy some root inside your psyche for self-justification on this issue. It is totally inhuman of you...

First of all, women should have an important decision in this matter. But it should not be taken lightly.... We're dealing with the formation of a human being here.... IT IS NOT A PARASITE.. It is a devloping human being... And great care should go into this decision. However, this is not to say that abortion should be outlawed, nor is it saying that it should be normative... There is middle ground that needs to be covered between both the extremist views.

To the pro-lifers here, you simply can't discount the woman in all of this, and make it a blanket illegality. We're talking about the person who is to carry this child... Her choice should play an important role in all of this. It is totally inhuman of you.

To the pro-choicers here, you can't simply classify this developing human as a "parasite" to satisfy some root inside your psyche for self-justification on this issue. It is totally inhuman of you...

It is you who are adding the negative connotation to the word parasite and assuming that it necessarily is something bad which can then justify something. It is in no way extremist to point out that a developing fetus is parasitic, nor does it preclude the idea that it is a developing human being.

I find it rather funny that you are so hung up on this point.

I regret to say that I am not at all surprised.
It's common with the gutter-dwelling vermin under-race Chavs we have over here in Britian. It's seen as a sign of honour that an eighteen year old man can impregnate a thirteen year old girl. In their trashy society, the dude with the most drugs, crime and violence background gets the most respect.
Sigh.

I seriously think the goverment should consider making abortion only an option in a back ally with a clotheshanger. Then stupid whores at thirteen will keep thier legs closed for a few more years and the older ones will just buy a damn pill and force thier sexual partner to put on a condom.

And don't give me the percentages bullshit because guess what, if a pill has 80% protecton rate and a condom 75% percent that's 155% bucko.
ROFLMAO

When I first saw this post I thought "What a moralistic asshole."
Then I read the last part and thought "He's gotta be a troll."

After all, they don't actually make real people that stupid, do they?

Just because of the fact that she is 13, doesnt make the fetus' life of less importance. True the mother may not be able to provide as great a life as someone else can, doesn't mean she has the right to kill something. No one has the right to play God, you can not choose who lives and who dies. Even though it is not yet a "baby", to be politically correct, it is a developing human being, its not some abnormal cell growth like cancer. At 13 most pregnancies dont make it to term, and if this is so let nature take its coarse. If she thinks it is ok to have sex, she has to deal with the consequences of her activities. She should have the right to choose, im not sayin that we should make abortion illegal, but she should be aware of exactly what she is doing, and she should know that it IS NOT a parasite.

so your answer is to potentially psychologically damage the girl for the rest of her life as an objective lesson?

that could prevent her becomming an useful and worthwhile contributor to society in her adulthood

so your answer is to potentially psychologically damage the girl for the rest of her life as an objective lesson?

that could prevent her becomming an useful and worthwhile contributor to society in her adulthood

and what exactly wouldnt make her a "..useful and worthwhile contributor to society.."?

what makes the young life less important than her own? it's like an eye for an eye.

i had a gun long before i was thirteen


Tell me about it. Im against abortion in its entirety. but SERIOUSLY? would you take care of a baby @ the age of 13? im of the same age, but i couldn't father a damn baby now.