PDA

View Full Version : A girl of 16 years old cannot abort because she is too unmature in Nebraska



kilgram
10-20-2013, 10:42 AM
A girl of 16 years old cannot abort because the supreme court of Nebraska considered that she was too unmature to abort, however she is taking care of her smaller siblings. Even the girl decided to finish high school before aborting and also she showed many proofs in the court to prove that she was enough mature.

However, the court considered that proofs were unsufficient to prove her maturity. And there is a problem, because Nebraska is one of thos states that require the consentiment of the parents, but she didn't notify to them because she alleged that adoptive parents would be against it because their religious believes.

Source (http://www.examiner.com/article/nebraska-court-rules-16-year-old-girl-not-mature-enough-for-abortion):

It is a clear example of the consequences of mixing religion and law and as it says the conclusion of the news, it shoud end.

Chris
10-20-2013, 10:47 AM
Full moral maturity doesn't arrive till around 25.


Reading your source I see religion may have influence her foster parents, not the law.

kilgram
10-20-2013, 10:49 AM
Full moral maturity doesn't arrive till around 25.


Reading your source I see religion may have influence her foster parents, not the law.
Again with the nonsense of the full moral maturity.

It is very relative. A person that has to take care of other people, I assure you that this person is already enough mature to take decissions, and more rellevant to her body.

I don't need to have studied psichology to know this.

And the religion influenced also the court.

Chris
10-20-2013, 10:57 AM
Again with the nonsense of the full moral maturity.

It is very relative. A person that has to take care of other people, I assure you that this person is already enough mature to take decissions, and more rellevant to her body.

I don't need to have studied psichology to know this.

And the religion influenced also the court.


Reason I said around 25 is because it is not exact. But if choices are not moral then they're not worth much.



And the religion influenced also the court.

How? Your source says her foster parents are religious, that's all.

roadmaster
10-20-2013, 10:57 AM
It's called rape in most states because of her age if she consented or not. It's called state laws and don't live in a state that you don't approve of their laws. Just like you can't demand in SC to buy beer on Sunday. Are you saying we should abolish all state laws so everyone can have their way? Can I go to NY and walk around with a gun? Is it because of religious folks up their or is it state law. So the parents should just give consent regardless of laws and how they feel.

kilgram
10-20-2013, 10:59 AM
Reason I said around 25 is because it is not exact. But if choices are not moral then they're not worth much.




How? Your source says her foster parents are religious, that's all.
Read the arguments of the court, they are inherently based under religious views.

And if you read the arguments of the girl are showing big maturity, and if someone reasoning like her cannot abort, then no one cannot practice abortion.

roadmaster
10-20-2013, 10:59 AM
How? Your source says her foster parents are religious, that's all. Religious can mean anything.

Chris
10-20-2013, 11:11 AM
Read the arguments of the court, they are inherently based under religious views.

And if you read the arguments of the girl are showing big maturity, and if someone reasoning like her cannot abort, then no one cannot practice abortion.



Link, please.

Chloe
10-20-2013, 11:33 AM
Full moral maturity doesn't arrive till around 25.


Reading your source I see religion may have influence her foster parents, not the law.

Well I have less than six years to go then! Whoo hoo

kilgram
10-20-2013, 11:35 AM
Link, please.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/05/nebraska/

Chris
10-20-2013, 11:37 AM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/05/nebraska/

And that says what i said: "The 5-2 decision denied the unnamed child’s request for an an abortion, saying the girl had not shown that “she is sufficiently mature and well informed to decide on her own whether to have an abortion,” according to the ruling."

Where's religion enter into it again?

Chloe
10-20-2013, 11:38 AM
I personally think she should be able to decide for herself. Her body is still hers. Her parents should be able to give their best advice and input but in no way should she be forced to give birth in my opinion, especially while it is still within a reasonable timeframe.

Chris
10-20-2013, 11:42 AM
I personally think she should be able to decide for herself. Her body is still hers. Her parents should be able to give their best advice and input but in no way should she be forced to give birth in my opinion, especially while it is still within a reasonable timeframe.

16? I wonder if she has a driver's license.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 11:42 AM
If everyone else can abort, then a 16 year old should have that right as well. She's probably post pubescent, and is obviously intellectually aware of what she's doing.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 11:43 AM
And that says what i said: "The 5-2 decision denied the unnamed child’s request for an an abortion, saying the girl had not shown that “she is sufficiently mature and well informed to decide on her own whether to have an abortion,” according to the ruling."

Where's religion enter into it again?

That's one of the most insane rulings of all time. Lol at a court arbitrarily ruling what maturity is.

roadmaster
10-20-2013, 11:44 AM
Instead of going to court she could have crossed state lines to get the abortion. Not every parent is the same and maybe they couldn't deal with them deciding to kill a child. It would have been on them and one day the girl may hate them for whatever decision. They didn't make the 16 year old have sex. People are throwing this all on the parents like they hold the key to a baby dying or living. It's easy for some to say yes or no here but until you walk in their shoes, you won't know how you would react.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 11:45 AM
Instead of going to court she could have crossed state lines to get the abortion. Not every parent is the same and maybe they couldn't deal with them deciding to kill a child. It would have been on them and one day the girl may hate them for whatever decision. They didn't make the 16 year old have sex. People are throwing this all on the parents like they hold the key to a baby dying or living. It's easy for some to say yes or no here but until you walk in their shoes, you won't know how you would react.

I'm not a fan of abortion, but this is the young ladys decision and hers alone.

Chris
10-20-2013, 11:46 AM
That's one of the most insane rulings of all time. Lol at a court arbitrarily ruling what maturity is.

It's based on psychology. It's often used in trial to determine if a child should be tried as an adult. Why's it insane?

roadmaster
10-20-2013, 11:46 AM
That's one of the most insane rulings of all time. Lol at a court arbitrarily ruling what maturity is. It's still state law just like you can't carry a gun in NY. Are all of you not mature to have a gun?

kilgram
10-20-2013, 11:46 AM
And that says what i said: "The 5-2 decision denied the unnamed child’s request for an an abortion, saying the girl had not shown that “she is sufficiently mature and well informed to decide on her own whether to have an abortion,” according to the ruling."

Where's religion enter into it again?
So I would like that you explain how she is inmature and she is able to breed a child. LOL.

And the religious part is in the part where the judge says: "Are you conscient that you are killing the child inside you".

Chris
10-20-2013, 11:47 AM
If everyone else can abort, then a 16 year old should have that right as well. She's probably post pubescent, and is obviously intellectually aware of what she's doing.

So you're for rule of law, equality before the law?

roadmaster
10-20-2013, 11:47 AM
I'm not a fan of abortion, but this is the young ladys decision and hers alone.

But the state doesn't allow it. That puts all the pressure on the parents.

kilgram
10-20-2013, 11:48 AM
It's still state law just like you can't carry a gun in NY. Are all of you not mature to have a gun?
Is she mature enough to breed a child?

roadmaster
10-20-2013, 11:49 AM
Is she mature enough to breed a child?

I can't answer for her or her parents, nor can you.

Chris
10-20-2013, 11:51 AM
Is she mature enough to breed a child?

So you equate physical maturity with moral maturity? Here's List of youngest birth mothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers), starting at age 5. Look at that before answering.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:03 PM
It's based on psychology. It's often used in trial to determine if a child should be tried as an adult. Why's it insane?

Psychology has no place in determining whether a post pubescent should be tried as an adult, or whether they have the right to an abortion. Will they put every 18+ year old female under said test prior to determining whether or not they are capable of having an abortion? Probably not, despite the fact that many would fail said test. Why? Because it's their body and their right. I don't see why that would change just because a post pubescent hasn't hit an arbitrary, man made age for adulthood.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:06 PM
It's still state law just like you can't carry a gun in NY. Are all of you not mature to have a gun?

New York is one of the biggest abortions of all time. We shit on the Constitution all the time.

Of course all of us have the Constitutional and legal right to own a gun, New York is ignoring the Constitution, as they always do.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:07 PM
But the state doesn't allow it. That puts all the pressure on the parents.

The state should look up Roe vs Wade.

roadmaster
10-20-2013, 12:08 PM
Because it's their body and their right. Not in that state. She knew this and if she really wanted one she could have. If you want to walk around with a gun you have to go to another state too. Go to court and tell them you have the right and see if you win.

roadmaster
10-20-2013, 12:09 PM
The state should look up Roe vs Wade. Your state should look up the right to have guns.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:10 PM
Not in that state. She knew this and if she really wanted one she could have. If you want to walk around with a gun you have to go to another state too. Go to court and tell them you have the right and see if you win.

Abortion is the law of the land via Roe vs Wade.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:10 PM
Your state should look up the right to have guns.

No argument here.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:11 PM
So you're for rule of law, equality before the law?

I'm for equality by law when it comes to government. A private clinic has the right to deny her on any basis, but the government has no place to get involved here.

Chris
10-20-2013, 12:14 PM
Psychology has no place in determining whether a post pubescent should be tried as an adult, or whether they have the right to an abortion. Will they put every 18+ year old female under said test prior to determining whether or not they are capable of having an abortion? Probably not, despite the fact that many would fail said test. Why? Because it's their body and their right. I don't see why that would change just because a post pubescent hasn't hit an arbitrary, man made age for adulthood.

How does one make choices without moral consideration?

See link provided showing a 5 year getting pregnant, is a 5 year old mature enough to make moral decisions?

Chris
10-20-2013, 12:15 PM
Abortion is the law of the land via Roe vs Wade.

Law doesn't justify itself. That is rule of man, not rule of law.

Chris
10-20-2013, 12:16 PM
I'm for equality by law when it comes to government. A private clinic has the right to deny her on any basis, but the government has no place to get involved here.

And yet you cite Roe v Wade?

If you accept rule of law, equality of law, what about the equal rights of the unborn?

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:17 PM
Law doesn't justify itself. That is rule of man, not rule of law.

I don't necessarily disagree, and if you want to have an discussion on abortion, I'd probably agree with you on most points, but if something is in place, I don't think you can pick and choose who can do what. It's the same stance I have on gay marriage.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:18 PM
And yet you cite Roe v Wade?

If you accept rule of law, equality of law, what about the equal rights of the unborn?

My stance is on the reality that abortions are legal. Whether or not they should be legal is another matter.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:19 PM
How does one make choices without moral consideration?

See link provided showing a 5 year getting pregnant, is a 5 year old mature enough to make moral decisions?

Is a 5 year old post pubescent or near post pubescent? Does it have an adult level intellectual capacity?

roadmaster
10-20-2013, 12:25 PM
I feel more for the parents here and pushing it on them. It would be hard for me to say kill the child. I was always close to my kids and they knew regardless of my beliefs I would be there for them. We wouldn't have to go to court, I always had unconditional love for them.

Chris
10-20-2013, 12:26 PM
I don't necessarily disagree, and if you want to have an discussion on abortion, I'd probably agree with you on most points, but if something is in place, I don't think you can pick and choose who can do what. It's the same stance I have on gay marriage.

Then in this case the state law is in place that says the girl needs parental approval. Her foster parents refused. The court adjudicated by the law.

Chris
10-20-2013, 12:28 PM
Is a 5 year old post pubescent or near post pubescent? Does it have an adult level intellectual capacity?

Now you're arguing the psychology I earlier argued and on which the state law is predicated. I couldn't drive till I was 16, vote till 18, drink till 21.

kilgram
10-20-2013, 12:28 PM
So you equate physical maturity with moral maturity? Here's List of youngest birth mothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers), starting at age 5. Look at that before answering.
What do you mean?

Is not necessary to have moral maturity to breed children? Or is it only necessary for abortion? Because I don't get your comment.

If they are enough mature to have children, they are enough mature to abort.

Chris
10-20-2013, 12:30 PM
What do you mean?

Is not necessary to have moral maturity to breed children? Or is it only necessary for abortion?

The court case had nothing to do with physical maturity.

But answer my question, is 5 years old mature enough to decide abortion?

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:31 PM
Then in this case the state law is in place that says the girl needs parental approval. Her foster parents refused. The court adjudicated by the law.

Which would seem to violate Roe vs Wade.

kilgram
10-20-2013, 12:31 PM
The court case had nothing to do with physical maturity.

But answer my question, is 5 years old mature enough to decide abortion?
Is 5 years old mature enough to endure the breeding of a child?

I had nothing to do with physical maturity, neither. You are the one who took to debate the physical maturity, because I never talked about it, and neither now. If you don't get the point you have a problem.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:33 PM
Now you're arguing the psychology I earlier argued and on which the state law is predicated. I couldn't drive till I was 16, vote till 18, drink till 21.

I'm not arguing for psychology, at all, I'm arguing for biology.

Chris
10-20-2013, 12:36 PM
Which would seem to violate Roe vs Wade.

That would have to be decided on appeal. The psychological maturity matter was, iirc, first raised in the Supreme Court hearing a case of whether a teenager could be tried as an adult. It was borrowed, again iirc, from European court cases--there was a big issue with using European precedence at the time, not with the psychology. If a teen is not psychologically morally mature to make such a decision, Roe v Wade would not apply.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:37 PM
The court case had nothing to do with physical maturity.

But answer my question, is 5 years old mature enough to decide abortion?

I'd imagine a 5 year olds life would be in danger if it had the child, frankly. An early abortion would make sense, just from the point of view of protecting the mothers life.

So I suppose their is a case to be made for a 5 year old having an abortion if it ever got to that point.

Chris
10-20-2013, 12:38 PM
I'm not arguing for psychology, at all, I'm arguing for biology.

So 5 years olds are mature enough to decide to have an abortion? Remember, the question here is not can girls have babies but are they mature enough to make such moral choices. That is what the court ruled on.

Chris
10-20-2013, 12:39 PM
I'd imagine a 5 year olds life would be in danger if it had the child, frankly. An early abortion would make sense, just from the point of view of protecting the mothers life.

So I suppose their is a case to be made for a 5 year old having an abortion if it ever got to that point.



But who should be involved in making the decision? The 5 year old? I doubt a 5 year old understands the consequences.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:40 PM
That would have to be decided on appeal. The psychological maturity matter was, iirc, first raised in the Supreme Court hearing a case of whether a teenager could be tried as an adult. It was borrowed, again iirc, from European court cases--there was a big issue with using European precedence at the time, not with the psychology. If a teen is not psychologically morally mature to make such a decision, Roe v Wade would not apply.

Courts have no right to determine maturity on arbitrary,man made, quack nonsense like psychology.

kilgram
10-20-2013, 12:41 PM
Law doesn't justify itself. That is rule of man, not rule of law.
rule of man? What the fuck is this? And what is the difference from rule of law, that is not more than the rule of man.

Chris
10-20-2013, 12:41 PM
Courts have no right to determine maturity on arbitrary,man made, quack nonsense like psychology.

You have not demonstrated quackery. It is you in fact arguing arbitrarily.

kilgram
10-20-2013, 12:42 PM
So 5 years olds are mature enough to decide to have an abortion? Remember, the question here is not can girls have babies but are they mature enough to make such moral choices. That is what the court ruled on.
The question is:

- Girls can breed their children and give them what is necessary. It is maturity. Are they or not?

The Xl
10-20-2013, 12:45 PM
But who should be involved in making the decision? The 5 year old? I doubt a 5 year old understands the consequences.

That might be true, unless said 5 year old was a genius.

Biologically speaking, though, a 16 year old is equip with enough knowledge and intelligence to understand what's going, what the ramifications are, etc.

Chris
10-20-2013, 12:49 PM
rule of man? What the fuck is this? And what is the difference from rule of law, that is not more than the rule of man.

I have to explain this now?

Why is murder wrong? Theft? Slavery? Simply because men make laws? No these acts are wrong because we as humans have a moral sense. This moral sense can be argued from equality before the law, it is wrong to murder, steal, enslave because we are all equal before the law, no man owns another man, no man has a right to harm another. That is rule of law, it is not designed but discovered, by society. Some call it natural law. Rule of man is law man posits, legislates, invents. It is just if and only if it aligns with natural law. There used to be laws legalizing slavery. These we know wrong because natural law says we are equal. Thus, law does not justify itself.

That's the short of it. It's as old as history.

Chris
10-20-2013, 12:53 PM
That might be true, unless said 5 year old was a genius.

Biologically speaking, though, a 16 year old is equip with enough knowledge and intelligence to understand what's going, what the ramifications are, etc.

But psychology begs to differ. The brain itself has not reached full development till around 25.

Beyond the Brain (http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/mind-brain/#page=6)


"The executive brain doesn't hit adult levels until the age of 25," says Jay Giedd of the National Institute of Mental Health, one of the lead scientists on the neuroimaging studies. "At puberty, you have adult passions, sex drive, energy, and emotion, but the reining in doesn't happen until much later." It is no wonder, perhaps, that teenagers seem to lack good judgment or the ability to restrain impulses. "We can vote at 18," says Giedd, "and drive a car. But you can't rent a car until you're 25. In terms of brain anatomy, the only ones who have it right are the car-rental people."

The Xl
10-20-2013, 01:34 PM
So 5 years olds are mature enough to decide to have an abortion? Remember, the question here is not can girls have babies but are they mature enough to make such moral choices. That is what the court ruled on.

5 year olds, aside from anomalies, are not intelligent or aware enough.

Find me a 16 year old that doesn't know what abortion is, what happens, or what the ramification are. Those are the only things that matter, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't on this test, or, at least, not the only things on the test.

I fully understood what an abortion was at about 11. I find it hard to believe that someone who is biologically an adult, or near it, at the very least, does not.

Chris
10-20-2013, 01:36 PM
5 year olds, aside from anomalies, are not intelligent or aware enough.

Find me a 16 year old that doesn't know what abortion is, what happens, or what the ramification are. Those are the only things that matter, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't on this test, or, at least, not the only things on the test.

I fully understood what an abortion was at about 11. I find it hard to believe that someone who is biologically an adult, or near it, at the very least, does not.



The question isn't whether she knows some fact but is capable of making a moral decision on her own.

I just cited the fact you're not even physically mature brain-wise till around 25.

Agravan
10-20-2013, 01:37 PM
So I would like that you explain how she is inmature and she is able to breed a child. LOL.

And the religious part is in the part where the judge says: "Are you conscient that you are killing the child inside you".
Isn't she killing the child if she has an abortion?

The Xl
10-20-2013, 01:39 PM
You have not demonstrated quackery. It is you in fact arguing arbitrarily.

Their is nothing arbitrary about puberty, whatsoever.

Ravi
10-20-2013, 01:43 PM
A girl of 16 years old cannot abort because the supreme court of Nebraska considered that she was too unmature to abort, however she is taking care of her smaller siblings. Even the girl decided to finish high school before aborting and also she showed many proofs in the court to prove that she was enough mature.

However, the court considered that proofs were unsufficient to prove her maturity. And there is a problem, because Nebraska is one of thos states that require the consentiment of the parents, but she didn't notify to them because she alleged that adoptive parents would be against it because their religious believes.

Source (http://www.examiner.com/article/nebraska-court-rules-16-year-old-girl-not-mature-enough-for-abortion):

It is a clear example of the consequences of mixing religion and law and as it says the conclusion of the news, it shoud end.

That's shameful. This is what comes of the state being allowed to decide matters that are none of their business.

Chris
10-20-2013, 01:48 PM
That's shameful. This is what comes of the state being allowed to decide matters that are none of their business.



But Roe v Wade was the business of government?

The Xl
10-20-2013, 01:51 PM
The question isn't whether she knows some fact but is capable of making a moral decision on her own.

I just cited the fact you're not even physically mature brain-wise till around 25.

The 25 study is no where conclusive enough to be used as a talking point. Firstly, it's only one part of the brain, and one that does not have any bearing on your IQ. Secondly, what percentage is it developed? 50%? 90%? That statement on it's own is useless. Thirdly, how many people were used in the study? Did they use an 18 year old, and compared the brain to a different individual who was 25, or did they study the participants brains from 18-25? Frankly, I don't really buy the study, as I've seen just as many immature and/or cold hearted people over 25 as I've seen under.

What is morality, anyway? A subjective concept. If someone is aware and intelligent enough, that should suffice.

Chris
10-20-2013, 01:55 PM
The 25 study is no where conclusive enough to be used as a talking point. Firstly, it's only one part of the brain, and one that does not have any bearing on your IQ. Secondly, what percentage is it developed? 50%? 90%? That statement on it's own is useless. Thirdly, how many people were used in the study? Did they use an 18 year old, and compared the brain to a different individual who was 25, or did they study the participants brains from 18-25? Frankly, I don't really buy the study, as I've seen just as many immature and/or cold hearted people over 25 as I've seen under.

What is morality, anyway? A subjective concept. If someone is aware and intelligent enough, that should suffice.

It wasn't a study I cited but a general consensus on the development of the brain.

You ask what is morality in a thread you argue a court decision wrong?


Listen, we're going in circles, I understand your position and respect is as such, you should by now understand mine.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 01:57 PM
But psychology begs to differ. The brain itself has not reached full development till around 25.

Beyond the Brain (http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/mind-brain/#page=6)

Psychology isn't real science. Biology disagrees with psychology, and biology>>>psychology.

I'm 25. Nothing has changed. It's a weak study, likely with the intent of justifying the holding down younger people. This article asserts that a 24 year old shouldn't have the right to vote, which is ludicrous.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 02:01 PM
It wasn't a study I cited but a general consensus on the development of the brain.

You ask what is morality in a thread you argue a court decision wrong?


Listen, we're going in circles, I understand your position and respect is as such, you should by now understand mine.

A consensus from psychologists. Biology would disagree.

The courts are supposed to uphold the law and the Constitution, not make determinations on someones morality, especially when the highest court has deemed the act legal.

The Xl
10-20-2013, 02:13 PM
For the record, I abhor abortion. When I was 19, me and my partner, who was also 19, agreed that if an accident happened, that we'd have the baby. I had empathy, responsibility, and maturity then, as I do now. I also believe that abortion should be illegal outside of the earliest stages, although I can see the argument for it being legal. I was strictly arguing this from an equality and youth rights point of view.

Adelaide
10-20-2013, 03:07 PM
Age 16 here is when you are able to make autonomous medical decisions without involving or informing your parents - the age of majority is 18 but there is a clause in healthcare legislation called the "Mature minor clause" that generally puts age 16 as the age of consent for medical decisions. That applies to every medical decision/situation, including decisions like organ donation and advanced directives. The "Mature minor clause" also means that physicians can decide someone under the age of 16 has a maturity level that enables them to make medical decisions without parental consent.

I definitely think that a 16 year old can make a conscientious and informed decision about abortion, particularly if the abortion process involved a lot of mandatory counseling, (which it does here and absolutely should - to inform individuals of alternative options and the exact details surrounding the abortion and aftermath). In my province, age 14 is when a female can have an abortion without informing or getting consent from parents, although again it could potentially be a lower age if a physician decides the person is mature enough. Usually lowering the age would only apply to specific sexual health services which doesn't include abortion, but I'm sure it's happened.

Chris
10-20-2013, 03:22 PM
Age 16 here is when you are able to make autonomous medical decisions without involving or informing your parents - the age of majority is 18 but there is a clause in healthcare legislation called the "Mature minor clause" that generally puts age 16 as the age of consent for medical decisions. That applies to every medical decision/situation, including decisions like organ donation and advanced directives. The "Mature minor clause" also means that physicians can decide someone under the age of 16 has a maturity level that enables them to make medical decisions without parental consent.

I definitely think that a 16 year old can make a conscientious and informed decision about abortion, particularly if the abortion process involved a lot of mandatory counseling, (which it does here and absolutely should - to inform individuals of alternative options and the exact details surrounding the abortion and aftermath). In my province, age 14 is when a female can have an abortion without informing or getting consent from parents, although again it could potentially be a lower age if a physician decides the person is mature enough. Usually lowering the age would only apply to specific sexual health services which doesn't include abortion, but I'm sure it's happened.


"Mature minor clause"

I see reference to that in medical ethics papers and A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 181 (http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7795/index.do), where a quick read says the court determines that. Not sure it's part of US law.

Ravi
10-20-2013, 03:35 PM
But Roe v Wade was the business of government?Yes, it was the job of the government to not deny a woman a right to her own body.

Ravi
10-20-2013, 03:37 PM
I pity the girl. She's in foster care. She's a ward of the state. The state is forcing her to give birth. And people on this thread support this insanity.

Mister D
10-20-2013, 03:38 PM
Yes, it was the job of the government to not deny a woman a right to her own body.

Which is why you can also shoot heroin or commit suicide. Oh wait, you can't. lol

Chris
10-20-2013, 03:40 PM
Yes, it was the job of the government to not deny a woman a right to her own body.

So you're for government interfering when you agree with it but against when not? Not very consistent.

Chris
10-20-2013, 03:41 PM
I pity the girl. She's in foster care. She's a ward of the state. The state is forcing her to give birth. And people on this thread support this insanity.

You're in this thread therefore you support it. Think before you post.

Chloe
10-20-2013, 03:42 PM
So you're for government interfering when you agree with it but against when not? Not very consistent.

To be fair people of all political leanings do it all of the time. It's kind of almost impossible not to have some contradicting views when dealing with state or national politics.

Alyosha
10-20-2013, 03:43 PM
A girl of 16 years old cannot abort because the supreme court of Nebraska considered that she was too unmature to abort, however she is taking care of her smaller siblings. Even the girl decided to finish high school before aborting and also she showed many proofs in the court to prove that she was enough mature.

However, the court considered that proofs were unsufficient to prove her maturity. And there is a problem, because Nebraska is one of thos states that require the consentiment of the parents, but she didn't notify to them because she alleged that adoptive parents would be against it because their religious believes.

Source (http://www.examiner.com/article/nebraska-court-rules-16-year-old-girl-not-mature-enough-for-abortion):

It is a clear example of the consequences of mixing religion and law and as it says the conclusion of the news, it shoud end.

kilgram

Where did the court say something religious?

@Grassroots Conservative hates religion and he's anti-abortion.

Mister D
10-20-2013, 03:44 PM
To be fair people of all political leanings do it all of the time. It's kind of almost impossible not to have some contradicting views when dealing with state or national politics.

helps to be aware of that though.

Alyosha
10-20-2013, 03:45 PM
This is a court case to change state law. Nothing is stopping her from going across state lines. We don't have roadblocks up. Let's not pretend this case is anything but a way to change the laws in the state of Nebraska.

Just sayin'.

Also...you can order the abortion pill through the mail. She's 10 weeks along. Just sayin' again.

I am not about the government legislating this issue, but at the same time let's all be honest with each other about what this is. Even the attorney refused to comment as to whether or not she's even still pregnant. Which means she's probably not still pregnant...

Alyosha
10-20-2013, 03:46 PM
To be fair people of all political leanings do it all of the time. It's kind of almost impossible not to have some contradicting views when dealing with state or national politics.

I have no contradicting views. :)

Chloe
10-20-2013, 03:47 PM
I have no contradicting views. :)

I'd like to think that too but i'm sure that i'm a hypocrite in some way or another.

Chris
10-20-2013, 03:48 PM
To be fair people of all political leanings do it all of the time. It's kind of almost impossible not to have some contradicting views when dealing with state or national politics.

Partisans do, I agree. Personally, I'm against government interfering in social issues.

My point to ravi was she's inconsistent on the same issue of abortion, she both wants government to interfere and not interfere.

Dr. Who
10-20-2013, 03:51 PM
"But she also told the court that she feared losing her placement in foster care if her highly-religious foster parents learned of her pregnancy."

It would seem that the foster parents are or were unaware of the pregnancy and the girl's desire for an abortion was as much predicated on fear of the foster parents reaction and being tossed from that situation as anything else. The Court in that situation was likely weighing the odds that her decision to abort was been made less for personal reasons and consideration of the magnitude of abortion and the possible psychological impact it may have on her in the future, as for fear of reprisal.

Alyosha
10-20-2013, 03:55 PM
"But she also told the court that she feared losing her placement in foster care if her highly-religious foster parents learned of her pregnancy."

As an attorney, we tell the courts lots of things.




It would seem that the foster parents are or were unaware of the pregnancy and the girl's desire for an abortion was as much predicated on fear of the foster parents reaction and being tossed from that situation as anything else. The Court in that situation was likely weighing the odds that her decision to abort was been made less for personal reasons and consideration of the magnitude of abortion and the possible psychological impact it may have on her in the future, as for fear of reprisal.

You can order the pills quicker than going to court.

You can go across state lines quicker than going to court.

The attorney will not comment that she is still pregnant, meaning she is not.

This is a case to overturn a law.

Adelaide
10-20-2013, 04:40 PM
"Mature minor clause"

I see reference to that in medical ethics papers and A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 181 (http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7795/index.do), where a quick read says the court determines that. Not sure it's part of US law.

Yes, I was taking about Canadian law. Would it not make more sense in the US if a doctor could make that decision instead of the government/courts? Shouldn't an individual's care be determined between the patient and physician?

Ravi
10-20-2013, 04:41 PM
Which is why you can also shoot heroin or commit suicide. Oh wait, you can't. lol

You should be able to do so. I'm not sure what the punishment for suicide could possibly be.

Ravi
10-20-2013, 04:42 PM
So you're for government interfering when you agree with it but against when not? Not very consistent.

roe v. wade was the opposite of the government interfering. It was a decision to keep the government from interfering.

Ravi
10-20-2013, 04:44 PM
You're in this thread therefore you support it. Think before you post.

I don't support the state forcing this girl to give birth. You do. It's laughably hypocrisy on your part, especially since you claim to be a glibertarian.

Ravi
10-20-2013, 04:45 PM
This is a court case to change state law. Nothing is stopping her from going across state lines. We don't have roadblocks up. Let's not pretend this case is anything but a way to change the laws in the state of Nebraska.

Just sayin'.

Also...you can order the abortion pill through the mail. She's 10 weeks along. Just sayin' again.

I am not about the government legislating this issue, but at the same time let's all be honest with each other about what this is. Even the attorney refused to comment as to whether or not she's even still pregnant. Which means she's probably not still pregnant...
Can you order an "abortion pill" through the mail?

Why should she have the burden put on her to leave the state merely to have dominion over her body?

Chris
10-20-2013, 04:46 PM
Yes, I was taking about Canadian law. Would it not make more sense in the US if a doctor could make that decision instead of the government/courts? Shouldn't an individual's care be determined between the patient and physician?


I think a doctor can, even should be involved for medical advice. I just think the parents should be as well for a teenager who may not even be old enough to drive. Barring, of course, abuse, etc, by parents.

Ravi
10-20-2013, 04:47 PM
"But she also told the court that she feared losing her placement in foster care if her highly-religious foster parents learned of her pregnancy."

It would seem that the foster parents are or were unaware of the pregnancy and the girl's desire for an abortion was as much predicated on fear of the foster parents reaction and being tossed from that situation as anything else. The Court in that situation was likely weighing the odds that her decision to abort was been made less for personal reasons and consideration of the magnitude of abortion and the possible psychological impact it may have on her in the future, as for fear of reprisal.

All abortions are made for personal reasons.

Ravi
10-20-2013, 04:48 PM
As an attorney, we tell the courts lots of things.



You can order the pills quicker than going to court.

You can go across state lines quicker than going to court.

The attorney will not comment that she is still pregnant, meaning she is not.

This is a case to overturn a law.That's possible. So what if it is? It is a bad law when a court can deny someone a right to regulate their own body.

Chris
10-20-2013, 04:49 PM
I don't support the state forcing this girl to give birth. You do. It's laughably hypocrisy on your part, especially since you claim to be a glibertarian.

You support the government supporting abortion. That's inconsistent.

I do not support federal or state government involvement at all. I have been very clear on that, very consistent, despite your and jillian lying about it.

Your little flame bait there at the end, distorting libertarian, was cute.

Chris
10-20-2013, 04:50 PM
That's possible. So what if it is? It is a bad law when a court can deny someone a right to regulate their own body.

And a bad law that allows you to violate the equal rights of the unborn. See, that's where your inconsistent.

Ravi
10-20-2013, 04:51 PM
You support the government supporting abortion. That's inconsistent.

I do not support federal or state government involvement at all. I have been very clear on that, very consistent, despite your and jillian lying about it.

Your little flame bait there at the end, distorting libertarian, was cute.
I support the government having no say in abortion. You do, though you laughably say "society" instead of government when it amounts to the same thing.

Ravi
10-20-2013, 04:51 PM
And a bad law that allows you to violate the equal rights of the unborn. See, that's where your inconsistent.

The unborn have no rights. People have rights.

Dr. Who
10-20-2013, 04:53 PM
You should be able to do so. I'm not sure what the punishment for suicide could possibly be.

That would be a moot law.

Adelaide
10-20-2013, 04:53 PM
I think a doctor can, even should be involved for medical advice. I just think the parents should be as well for a teenager who may not even be old enough to drive. Barring, of course, abuse, etc, by parents.

Not about medical advice, about determining whether their patient is mature enough to proceed with medical care without a parent consenting.

Chris
10-20-2013, 04:55 PM
I support the government having no say in abortion. You do, though you laughably say "society" instead of government when it amounts to the same thing.

You support the government giving you the right to abortion. That's supporting government involvement.


No, I do not support any government involvement. Why do you lie about that?


Society is not government. Government is an institution created by society.

Chris
10-20-2013, 04:55 PM
Not about medical advice, about determining whether their patient is mature enough to proceed with medical care without a parent consenting.

What qualifies a medical doctor to decide that?

Chris
10-20-2013, 04:57 PM
The unborn have no rights. People have rights.


So you're back to arguing progressive personhood? Let me remind you that that same argument supported the eugenics movement and was borrowed by the Nazis in their effort to build a superrace and exterminate Jews and others.


Medical science says the unborn is a living human being from conception.

Adelaide
10-20-2013, 05:02 PM
What qualifies a medical doctor to decide that?

Their training and experience.

Chris
10-20-2013, 05:05 PM
Their training and experience.

In medicine and the physical body? How does that qualify them to make psychological or moral assessments? I don't see it.

Ravi
10-20-2013, 05:13 PM
You support the government giving you the right to abortion. That's supporting government involvement.


No, I do not support any government involvement. Why do you lie about that?


Society is not government. Government is an institution created by society.
Right, therefore government = society.

And no, the government can't give me a right to abortion. They can only rule that abortion is a right and up to the individual's discretion.

You might want to turn in your libertarian card before you embarrass yourself further.

Ravi
10-20-2013, 05:14 PM
So you're back to arguing progressive personhood? Let me remind you that that same argument supported the eugenics movement and was borrowed by the Nazis in their effort to build a superrace and exterminate Jews and others.


Medical science says the unborn is a living human being from conception.hahaha, you're reduced to the Hitler was a vegetarian idiocy.

Dr. Who
10-20-2013, 05:15 PM
I think it is more like she decries the notion that government or society (whichever you prefer) has any place in adjudicating the bodies of women.

Chris
10-20-2013, 05:23 PM
Right, therefore government = society.

And no, the government can't give me a right to abortion. They can only rule that abortion is a right and up to the individual's discretion.

You might want to turn in your libertarian card before you embarrass yourself further.



If I meant government, ravi, I would say government, but, no, I say society. Government should not decide, society should.

That you somehow conflate the two is not my problem but yours. But if you must change the words and meanings of what I say then you're simply being intellectually dishonest. In the vernacular, you're lying.


Government made abortion legal, you support that act, it is an act of judicial activism, it is an an act of government intruding on a social issue. Therefore you do support government's involvement. You can also twist that all you like, but it is merely playing semantic games, again, intellectually dishonest.


I don't have a libertarian card.

You should stop lying. It's your reputation on the line here, not mine.

Chris
10-20-2013, 05:25 PM
hahaha, you're reduced to the Hitler was a vegetarian idiocy.

And you've been reduced to sputtering nonsense.

Chris
10-20-2013, 05:26 PM
I think it is more like she decries the notion that government or society (whichever you prefer) has any place in adjudicating the bodies of women.

When she applauds the adjudication of Roe v Wade inventing a right and legalizing abortion? Where's the decry in that, who? I'm the one decries it.

Alyosha
10-20-2013, 05:27 PM
Can you order an "abortion pill" through the mail?

You can order the abortion pill and Plan B both through the mail.




Why should she have the burden put on her to leave the state merely to have dominion over her body?

Why should you be arrested for doing drugs by choice? It's your own body. You can't even leave a state to do that legally. The short answer is because the people wrote a law.

There are a thousand stupid laws like this and I think all of them are clear cut government interference where it shouldn't be, but I said years ago until people admit that the choice to do drugs is no different than the choice to abort your baby legally, I'm refusing to get as uptight about it as most women. To me it is all the same. The government should not be involved.

Period.

However, if Nebraska is going to write a law prohibiting and criminalizing drug use, then they should be able to write laws limiting what minor's can or cannot do without their parent or guardian's permission--and its not just abortion, it is also any surgery--and have no one act hyprocritical about it.

Either we own ourselves or we don't. When people are as passionate about raw milk and food rights and the decriminalizing of drugs I will be just as angsty about abortion. I'm tired of the double standards.

Pro Choice should be all choices.

Chris
10-20-2013, 05:30 PM
You can order the abortion pill and Plan B both through the mail.



Why should you be arrested for doing drugs by choice? It's your own body. You can't even leave a state to do that legally. The short answer is because the people wrote a law.

There are a thousand stupid laws like this and I think all of them are clear cut government interference where it shouldn't be, but I said years ago until people admit that the choice to do drugs is no different than the choice to abort your baby legally, I'm refusing to get as uptight about it as most women. To me it is all the same. The government should not be involved.

Period.

However, if Nebraska is going to write a law prohibiting and criminalizing drug use, then they should be able to write laws limiting what minor's can or cannot do without their parent or guardian's permission--and its not just abortion, it is also any surgery--and have no one act hyprocritical about it.

Either we own ourselves or we don't. When people are as passionate about raw milk and food rights and the decriminalizing of drugs I will be just as angsty about abortion. I'm tired of the double standards.

Pro Choice should be all choices.



Now that is being consistent.

Dr. Who
10-20-2013, 05:36 PM
When she applauds the adjudication of Roe v Wade inventing a right and legalizing abortion? Where's the decry in that, who? I'm the one decries it.

Roe v Wade would be unnecessary if both government and society didn't feel that they had a say in a woman's right to self-determination. What can the slave say when it is only by jurisprudence or legislation that he obtained his freedom, although he had a natural right to same all along.

Alyosha
10-20-2013, 05:37 PM
I don't support the state forcing this girl to give birth. You do. It's laughably hypocrisy on your part, especially since you claim to be a glibertarian.

Technically unless she was raped no one forced her into that position. If she were on a desert island and there were no abortions to be had is she still "forced" to? No, it is the natural conclusion of the sex act when done correctly.

If you want to get rid of your kid while its in your uterus, fine. No one can make you love the fruit of your womb, and technically it's your body. Just quit acting like its a fucking surprise that you got pregnant when every public school in America has sex ed that teaches prevention. Hell, my Catholic school taught us what "protestants" did with a nudge-nudge.

And before you mistake Chris or I...you can think what people do is shitty and awful and still not find it the place of government to be involved in it. I think heroin use is disgusting, but its not my body and I don't think the government should tell the heroin user what he/she can do to themselves.

That's the part about consistency. I hate abortion. I think its selfish and disgusting, but I refuse to throw my hat in and say the same government that kills kids in Pakistan should be the moral arbiter for such things, or that it has a right to dictate to families what they do or individuals on how to use their body.

Government is not for this shit or it shouldn't be. Unfortunately, it is.

Chris
10-20-2013, 05:38 PM
Roe v Wade would be unnecessary if both government and society didn't feel that they had a say in a woman's right to self-determination. What can the slave say when it is only by jurisprudence or legislation that he obtained his freedom, although he had a natural right to same all along.

Great argument, except you leave out the equal rights of the unborn.

Dr. Who
10-20-2013, 05:48 PM
Great argument, except you leave out the equal rights of the unborn.The natural rights of the unborn are predicated on the willingness and/or health of the mother. Until they can exist or be preserved ex-utero, their natural rights are secondary to those of the host. Those rights are by definition unequal. The mother can survive the death of the fetus, but with the exception of immediate surgery and viability, the latter is not true. Even children who are born, have fewer rights than adults. Do children enjoy the right of liberty, for instance?

jillian
10-20-2013, 05:53 PM
The unborn have no rights. Nothing in the constitution or any other document contemplated rights being given to anyone not born. the concept is a fiction proffered by people who want to impose a religious agenda.

Chris
10-20-2013, 05:54 PM
The natural rights of the unborn are predicated on the willingness and/or health of the mother. Until they can exist or be preserved ex-utero, their natural rights are secondary to those of the host. Those rights are by definition unequal. The mother can survive the death of the fetus, but with the exception of immediate surgery and viability, the latter is not true. Even children who are born, have fewer rights than adults. Do children enjoy the right of liberty, for instance?


Sorry, but natural rights are predicated on being a living human being. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It's interesting, your initial argument was against slavery and now you're arguing the unborn is slave to the mother.




Do children enjoy the right of liberty, for instance?

Restricted exercise, or limited protection.

As in the case of the 16 year old under discussion in this topic.

Chris
10-20-2013, 05:58 PM
The unborn have no rights. Nothing in the constitution or any other document contemplated rights being given to anyone not born. the concept is a fiction proffered by people who want to impose a religious agenda.

And who are you to decide this for everyone else? The fiction is yours, the conception of personhood, as much legal nonsense as corporate personhood.


Jefferson wasn't religious yet penned words the founders all accepted: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Mister D
10-20-2013, 06:00 PM
The unborn have no rights. Nothing in the constitution or any other document contemplated rights being given to anyone not born. the concept is a fiction proffered by people who want to impose a religious agenda.

You have a bizarre habit of imputing religious motivations to avowed atheists.

Alyosha
10-20-2013, 06:04 PM
The unborn have no rights.

You are correct they have no rights. I don't really anymore either, but that doesn't stop me from breathing...I digress.

Frieda Mangold was 21 weeks when they performed an emergency C-section.

http://timewellness.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/madelinemannnewborn-resize1.jpg?w=307&h=205&crop=1

She's alive today.

We are one of the only nations in the civilized world (you love pointing that out for Obamacare) allowing it after 12 weeks.

Again, I'm not for the government's involvement, but I think our attitude about life in general sucks. We are horrible, destructive creatures. We wear "I love abortion" tshirts, we zap people on death row, we bomb kids overseas...Americans are bloodthirsty. We seriously are.

That is a cultural issue that no government can fix and no law can change.

Dr. Who
10-20-2013, 06:05 PM
Sorry, but natural rights are predicated on being a living human being. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It's interesting, your initial argument was against slavery and now you're arguing the unborn is slave to the mother.





Restricted exercise, or limited protection.

As in the case of the 16 year old under discussion in this topic.

Nevertheless, they are unequal. In fact they have as a born person who has not achieved the age of minimum majority a right to life, however their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are really predicated upon both their parents or guardians and the law. That is not equal. That is a right of diminishing returns, particularly when the fetus has not even been born.

Chris
10-20-2013, 06:10 PM
Nevertheless, they are unequal. In fact they have as a born person who has not achieved the age of minimum majority a right to life, however their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are really predicated upon both their parents or guardians and the law. That is not equal. That is a right of diminishing returns, particularly when the fetus has not even been born.



You'll need to find a valid reason to argue that, Who, not one that leads to contradiction.

They ought to by cared for and guarded and guided. That does not make them unequal in rights. Because one's parents age and have to be cared for do their rights diminish? Hardly.

Chris
10-20-2013, 06:13 PM
You are correct they have no rights. I don't really anymore either, but that doesn't stop me from breathing...I digress.

Frieda Mangold was 21 weeks when they performed an emergency C-section.

http://timewellness.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/madelinemannnewborn-resize1.jpg?w=307&h=205&crop=1

She's alive today.

We are one of the only nations in the civilized world (you love pointing that out for Obamacare) allowing it after 12 weeks.

Again, I'm not for the government's involvement, but I think our attitude about life in general sucks. We are horrible, destructive creatures. We wear "I love abortion" tshirts, we zap people on death row, we bomb kids overseas...Americans are bloodthirsty. We seriously are.

That is a cultural issue that no government can fix and no law can change.



It is a cultural issue, though I say societal. It's not, or should not be a legal issue for people in robes to decide. For these reasons even Justice Ginsberg has dropped her support of Roe v Wade.

Alyosha
10-20-2013, 06:13 PM
Nevertheless, they are unequal. In fact they have as a born person who has not achieved the age of minimum majority a right to life, however their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are really predicated upon both their parents or guardians and the law. That is not equal. That is a right of diminishing returns, particularly when the fetus has not even been born.

What is legal is not always moral and what is moral is not always even legal.

These types of things are not something an amoral entity should be deciding because ultimately it is about doing what is right, and "right" unfortunately is subjective.

I'd much rather have every vice, every bad decision be legal, ie "no government involvement" and go back to the days where you can do what you want but we can also tell you publicly that you're a junkie or a turd or a bitch.

I would then make the choice to eat a pile of magic mushrooms and have everyone in my community tell me I'm a hippie loser and I'll nod, say "I'll take that into consideration" before eating the mushrooms and drinking it down with a side of raw milk.

Dr. Who
10-20-2013, 06:17 PM
You'll need to find a valid reason to argue that, Who, not one that leads to contradiction.

They ought to by cared for and guarded and guided. That does not make them unequal in rights. Because one's parents age and have to be cared for do their rights diminish? Hardly.

You are bringing in other issues now. One's parents may need care, but may not be mentally compromised. Thus their rights do not diminish. The mentally compromised, regardless of age, require guardianship, and therefore forego certain rights.

Chris
10-20-2013, 06:24 PM
You are bringing in other issues now. One's parents may need care, but may not be mentally compromised. Thus their rights do not diminish. The mentally compromised, regardless of age, require guardianship, and therefore forego certain rights.

No, I'm revealing how your arguments lead to absurdities. I premise that on rule of law, iow, equality before the law, natural law. You're creating special classes of humans and treating them unequally, which is rule of man.

Dr. Who
10-20-2013, 06:31 PM
No, I'm revealing how your arguments lead to absurdities. I premise that on rule of law, iow, equality before the law, natural law. You're creating special classes of humans and treating them unequally, which is rule of man.The rule of man - who concocted the idea of natural law, but man? None of the natural laws are extended to the rest of the life on the planet, therefore, natural law was invented by mankind and for mankind. There is no other intervener, unless you believe in God, which you have stated that you do not. So therefore, it is all the rule of man.

Chris
10-20-2013, 06:58 PM
The rule of man - who concocted the idea of natural law, but man? None of the natural laws are extended to the rest of the life on the planet, therefore, natural law was invented by mankind and for mankind. There is no other intervener, unless you believe in God, which you have stated that you do not. So therefore, it is all the rule of man.

No, who, man did not invent natural law, he has trouble enough discovering it. It has to do with who we are as human beings, biological, social, even spiritual. As Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/two.asp) defines it: "The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man—what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature."

What man invents is called posited law.

Dr. Who
10-20-2013, 07:11 PM
No, who, man did not invent natural law, he has trouble enough discovering it. It has to do with who we are as human beings, biological, social, even spiritual. As Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/two.asp) defines it: "The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man—what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature."

What man invents is called posited law.

So the rules of natural law were handed down to man by whom?

Kabuki Joe
10-20-2013, 08:12 PM
A girl of 16 years old cannot abort because the supreme court of Nebraska considered that she was too unmature to abort, however she is taking care of her smaller siblings. Even the girl decided to finish high school before aborting and also she showed many proofs in the court to prove that she was enough mature.

However, the court considered that proofs were unsufficient to prove her maturity. And there is a problem, because Nebraska is one of thos states that require the consentiment of the parents, but she didn't notify to them because she alleged that adoptive parents would be against it because their religious believes.

Source (http://www.examiner.com/article/nebraska-court-rules-16-year-old-girl-not-mature-enough-for-abortion):

It is a clear example of the consequences of mixing religion and law and as it says the conclusion of the news, it shoud end.


...so they need consent to have sexual relations BUT they don't need consent to abort a child...hmmmm...

Mr Happy
10-20-2013, 08:57 PM
Are their age limits on gun ownership and shooting in the US?

shaarona
10-20-2013, 09:04 PM
A girl of 16 years old cannot abort because the supreme court of Nebraska considered that she was too unmature to abort, however she is taking care of her smaller siblings. Even the girl decided to finish high school before aborting and also she showed many proofs in the court to prove that she was enough mature.

However, the court considered that proofs were unsufficient to prove her maturity. And there is a problem, because Nebraska is one of thos states that require the consentiment of the parents, but she didn't notify to them because she alleged that adoptive parents would be against it because their religious believes.

Source (http://www.examiner.com/article/nebraska-court-rules-16-year-old-girl-not-mature-enough-for-abortion):

It is a clear example of the consequences of mixing religion and law and as it says the conclusion of the news, it shoud end.


Oh nuts.. I hate such stupid people.

Mister D
10-20-2013, 09:05 PM
Are their age limits on gun ownership and shooting in the US?

Yes. In my state it's 21 for a handgun. There is a mix of federal and state laws regarding age restrictions.

Agravan
10-20-2013, 09:10 PM
Are their age limits on gun ownership and shooting in the US?

This is relevant....how?

Dr. Who
10-20-2013, 09:19 PM
No, who, man did not invent natural law, he has trouble enough discovering it. It has to do with who we are as human beings, biological, social, even spiritual. As Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/two.asp) defines it: "The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man—what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature."

What man invents is called posited law.
This is not discovery as in discovery of organisms unseen by the naked eye, these are philosophical concepts that are observationally based on the interactions of humans with humans. They are also, given their provenance, particularly male oriented. There was at that time no consideration of women or children as they were mere chattel in the scheme of things. They were slightly more important than livestock. In such a world, where would the rights of a fetus or a woman demand any importance. It was not considered. In that world women, children and fetuses had no rights whatsoever and were not the subject of discussion nor did they have any natural rights. Those rights of which you speak were conferred upon men only.

Mr Happy
10-20-2013, 10:04 PM
This is relevant....how?

Age of consent is a big thing where I'm from. We seem to have this hypocrisy where you are too old to do one thing, but not others. ie, growing up, the day I turned 15 I could get a full driver's license. These days you get a learner's permit for six months, then another 9 or 18 months (depends on whether you do a defensive driving course) before you get a full license. I can legally have sex at 16. I can vote at 18, can join the army at 18. Up until about five years ago you had to be 21 to drink (it is now 18 although they are thinking of upping it again). You have to be 16 years old to get a standard firearms license. I like consistency that's all. Either you are old and mature enough to do all the above or you are not. The drinking one especially used to piss me off. "You're old enough to go and get your arse shot off, but you are not mentally prepared to have a beer yet." Fuck off. Thus the relationship between abortion and shooting a gun. Both, IMO, require the same degree of maturity and responsibility. Thus the question.

Ravi
10-21-2013, 03:56 AM
I think it is more like she decries the notion that government or society (whichever you prefer) has any place in adjudicating the bodies of women.
Yes, this is correct. Neither the government or society has the right to tell me what I may do with my body.

Nor do either have the right to force this young women to give birth.

Ravi
10-21-2013, 04:00 AM
You can order the abortion pill and Plan B both through the mail.



Why should you be arrested for doing drugs by choice? It's your own body. You can't even leave a state to do that legally. The short answer is because the people wrote a law.

There are a thousand stupid laws like this and I think all of them are clear cut government interference where it shouldn't be, but I said years ago until people admit that the choice to do drugs is no different than the choice to abort your baby legally, I'm refusing to get as uptight about it as most women. To me it is all the same. The government should not be involved.

Period.

However, if Nebraska is going to write a law prohibiting and criminalizing drug use, then they should be able to write laws limiting what minor's can or cannot do without their parent or guardian's permission--and its not just abortion, it is also any surgery--and have no one act hyprocritical about it.

Either we own ourselves or we don't. When people are as passionate about raw milk and food rights and the decriminalizing of drugs I will be just as angsty about abortion. I'm tired of the double standards.

Pro Choice should be all choices.While I agree with you that anyone should be "allowed" to ingest drugs, raw milk, etc. I think this issue in particular is more important as the disallowing one dominion over their body actually forces an outcome. For instance, not drinking raw milk isn't going to get you pregnant and force you to use your body to suit the whims of the government.

Ravi
10-21-2013, 04:04 AM
Roe v Wade would be unnecessary if both government and society didn't feel that they had a say in a woman's right to self-determination. What can the slave say when it is only by jurisprudence or legislation that he obtained his freedom, although he had a natural right to same all along.
Good point.

In the country's early history abortion was not illegal. Governments made it illegal. The federal government eventually needed to step in to guarantee women dominion over their bodies in much the same way the federal government needed to step in to guarantee black people dominion over their bodies.

This is the job of government: to ensure the constitution is followed and people's rights are protected.

Ravi
10-21-2013, 04:10 AM
Are their age limits on gun ownership and shooting in the US?Depends on the type of gun. Rifles have no age limit that I know of. And anyone is free to shoot, no restriction on that.

Ravi
10-21-2013, 04:15 AM
"The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man—what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature."

^This is an interesting quote (if it didn't merely originally apply to white European men).

Women should be free to pursue that which is most harmonious and which best fulfills their nature. If a women isn't ready to reproduce, that is her decision.

Chris
10-21-2013, 06:21 AM
This is not discovery as in discovery of organisms unseen by the naked eye, these are philosophical concepts that are observationally based on the interactions of humans with humans. They are also, given their provenance, particularly male oriented. There was at that time no consideration of women or children as they were mere chattel in the scheme of things. They were slightly more important than livestock. In such a world, where would the rights of a fetus or a woman demand any importance. It was not considered. In that world women, children and fetuses had no rights whatsoever and were not the subject of discussion nor did they have any natural rights. Those rights of which you speak were conferred upon men only.

I suggest you learn a little about natural law before you try to address it. Just because philosophers throughout history have spoken of it does not mean it is philosophy. It is not male oriented. It is by natural law we know no one can be slave to another--it was by posited law that some were slaves to others. All, by virtue of being human beings,, share the same rights. So nothing you say above has the least bit to do with it.

Chris
10-21-2013, 06:26 AM
Yes, this is correct. Neither the government or society has the right to tell me what I may do with my body.

Nor do either have the right to force this young women to give birth.


Ah, good, you're back to it's my body, fuck society. And therein we see the true selfish nature of the liberal. A complete rejection of rights as responsibilities.

And we see the repeated inconsistency of government can't intrude to force you but it can intrude to legalize your selfish act of killing the unborn.

Chris
10-21-2013, 06:28 AM
While I agree with you that anyone should be "allowed" to ingest drugs, raw milk, etc. I think this issue in particular is more important as the disallowing one dominion over their body actually forces an outcome. For instance, not drinking raw milk isn't going to get you pregnant and force you to use your body to suit the whims of the government.

Ingesting drugs could kill you or lead you to support your habit through crime.

Chris
10-21-2013, 06:31 AM
Good point.

In the country's early history abortion was not illegal. Governments made it illegal. The federal government eventually needed to step in to guarantee women dominion over their bodies in much the same way the federal government needed to step in to guarantee black people dominion over their bodies.

This is the job of government: to ensure the constitution is followed and people's rights are protected.


Whether government makes an act legal or illegal, it is still an act of intrusion upon society and the individual. You say you support one intrusion because it protects your rights but irresponsibly turn a blind eye to the fact it destroys another's rights.

Chris
10-21-2013, 06:33 AM
"The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man—what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature."

^This is an interesting quote (if it didn't merely originally apply to white European men).

Women should be free to pursue that which is most harmonious and which best fulfills their nature. If a women isn't ready to reproduce, that is her decision.


It did apply to all. Had you followed the link provided you would have seen Rothbard wrote it in 1982.

Mister D
10-21-2013, 08:20 AM
"The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man—what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature."

^This is an interesting quote (if it didn't merely originally apply to white European men).

Women should be free to pursue that which is most harmonious and which best fulfills their nature. If a women isn't ready to reproduce, that is her decision.


4347

You do realize "man" in this context is a generic term?

Mister D
10-21-2013, 08:21 AM
Yes, this is correct. Neither the government or society has the right to tell me what I may do with my body.

Nor do either have the right to force this young women to give birth.

But they do.

Mister D
10-21-2013, 08:24 AM
Depends on the type of gun. Rifles have no age limit that I know of. And anyone is free to shoot, no restriction on that.

Yes, they do. To buy a rifle from a licensed dealer one must be 18 years of age. That's a federal law.

Ravi
10-21-2013, 08:39 AM
Yes, they do. To buy a rifle from a licensed dealer one must be 18 years of age. That's a federal law.
He asked about ownership.

sky dancer
10-21-2013, 09:26 AM
Law doesn't justify itself. That is rule of man, not rule of law.

Who do you think makes the laws of our land? Human beings.

Chris
10-21-2013, 09:41 AM
Who do you think makes the laws of our land? Human beings.

Human beings are flawed, right? Madison: " If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

My point was simple, laws do not justify themselves, there needs to be an appeal to something else, an appeal to a moral sense, a sense of justice. At one point our laws legalized slavery, right? Did those laws justify slavery? Of course not, it was our sense of injustice that condemned slavery. Do laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc justify themselves? No, it's out sense of justice, of morality that does.

Alyosha
10-21-2013, 09:44 AM
This is not discovery as in discovery of organisms unseen by the naked eye, these are philosophical concepts that are observationally based on the interactions of humans with humans. They are also, given their provenance, particularly male oriented. There was at that time no consideration of women or children as they were mere chattel in the scheme of things. They were slightly more important than livestock. In such a world, where would the rights of a fetus or a woman demand any importance. It was not considered. In that world women, children and fetuses had no rights whatsoever and were not the subject of discussion nor did they have any natural rights. Those rights of which you speak were conferred upon men only.

Natural law is what you can observe when man/animal is in it's natural state. Law is a philosophical term used to create a common language within the philosophy.

We understand "law" as a "rule" and therefore is used when discussing what "rights" or what capabilities man would have if unhindered by a government. He has a right to eat, to dictate his own movements, his own pursuits, his ability to build a shelter, his ability to find food and eat it, to enter freely into relationships, to have sex; to use his body and time in ways that are pleasurable or necessary for him (her).

There is no natural right to drive a car. There is no natural right to vote because voting is systemic. There is no natural right to an abortion because that requires a service provider.

You have the natural right to attempt self abortion and perhaps put yourself into jeopardy, but no natural right to it. You do, however, have a natural right to privacy and to conduct a transaction with another.

As to the life within her, it has a natural right to life because (except in rape) the mother engaged freely in conduct which created its life and made a "contract" with it.

But whatever, this is not about natural rights this is about the right of a government to selectively give a shit about natural rights or personal/individual rights.

You can have a 19 week abortion and pull out what looks like a fully formed infant, but you can't smoke pot or drink raw milk.

We're one fucked up society.

Alyosha
10-21-2013, 09:45 AM
Who do you think makes the laws of our land?

Corporations and nonprofit entities who want grant money. Abortion is a business like any other.

Kabuki Joe
10-21-2013, 09:51 AM
Yes, this is correct. Neither the government or society has the right to tell me what I may do with my body.

Nor do either have the right to force this young women to give birth.


...even if you under 18?...

Alyosha
10-21-2013, 10:00 AM
Again, no one is "forcing" her to have a baby. Her body is functioning properly in accordance to its general purpose. She had sex at an appropriate time, now it's just doing what it is gonna do.

If she were on a deserted island or living 200 years ago she'd just be having the baby.

Force implies someone raped her.

Chris
10-21-2013, 10:00 AM
Natural law is what you can observe when man/animal is in it's natural state. Law is a philosophical term used to create a common language within the philosophy.

We understand "law" as a "rule" and therefore is used when discussing what "rights" or what capabilities man would have if unhindered by a government. He has a right to eat, to dictate his own movements, his own pursuits, his ability to build a shelter, his ability to find food and eat it, to enter freely into relationships, to have sex; to use his body and time in ways that are pleasurable or necessary for him (her).

There is no natural right to drive a car. There is no natural right to vote because voting is systemic. There is no natural right to an abortion because that requires a service provider.

You have the natural right to attempt self abortion and perhaps put yourself into jeopardy, but no natural right to it. You do, however, have a natural right to privacy and to conduct a transaction with another.

As to the life within her, it has a natural right to life because (except in rape) the mother engaged freely in conduct which created its life and made a "contract" with it.

But whatever, this is not about natural rights this is about the right of a government to selectively give a shit about natural rights or personal/individual rights.

You can have a 19 week abortion and pull out what looks like a fully formed infant, but you can't smoke pot or drink raw milk.

We're one fucked up society.


Just last night I was reading (Smith, The System of Liberty) about this distinction you're making, then by the likes of Locke, Pufendorf, and others, between what was called natural and adventitious rights. Also as natural and legal rights. It's in a dicussion distinguishing between force and fraud, where force is an act against natural rights and fraud against adventitious or legal or contractual rights.

Ravi
10-21-2013, 10:09 AM
...even if you under 18?...
Yes.

Chris
10-21-2013, 10:10 AM
Again, no one is "forcing" her to have a baby. Her body is functioning properly in accordance to its general purpose. She had sex at an appropriate time, now it's just doing what it is gonna do.

If she were on a deserted island or living 200 years ago she'd just be having the baby.

Force implies someone raped her.



Really, all that's being asked is she consult with her parents, foster parents in this case. Earlier it was suggested she consult with a physician, why not? I would suggest a counselor, mentor, adviser, some additional adult she can trust and confide in. I just don't think a 16 year old is emotionally or mature enough to make such a choice on her own.

Alyosha
10-21-2013, 10:19 AM
Really, all that's being asked is she consult with her parents, foster parents in this case. Earlier it was suggested she consult with a physician, why not? I would suggest a counselor, mentor, adviser, some additional adult she can trust and confide in. I just don't think a 16 year old is emotionally or mature enough to make such a choice on her own.

This is about changing the law. According to Nebraska's foster care system, if she cannot go to her foster parents, she can go to the ss department and have whomever acts as her legal guardian on the case sign off.

Chris
10-21-2013, 10:26 AM
This is about changing the law. According to Nebraska's foster care system, if she cannot go to her foster parents, she can go to the ss department and have whomever acts as her legal guardian on the case sign off.

Certainly if the (foster) parents were abusive she needs some other guardian involved.


My concern is just what's right, not the law, which should follow on society figuring out the dilemma first.

Kabuki Joe
10-21-2013, 10:34 AM
Yes.


...I thought you were of the opinion that a "child" wasn't smart enough to make grown up decisions...so explain to me how a 16 year old can't consent to having sex but can consent to an abortion...kind of like the egg before the chicken...

Mister D
10-21-2013, 10:41 AM
He asked about ownership.

And I told him there are a variety of laws regulating gun ownership with regard to age at the federal and state level. In your state, for example, a minor (i.e. under 18) may not possess a firearm without the permission of his/her parents.

Ravi
10-21-2013, 10:41 AM
...I thought you were of the opinion that a "child" wasn't smart enough to make grown up decisions...so explain to me how a 16 year old can't consent to having sex but can consent to an abortion...kind of like the egg before the chicken...

It has nothing to do with her intelligence. IF, as the state says, she isn't mature enough to decide to abort, she was certainly not mature enough to have sex.

Alyosha
10-21-2013, 10:55 AM
Certainly if the (foster) parents were abusive she needs some other guardian involved.


My concern is just what's right, not the law, which should follow on society figuring out the dilemma first.

Right and wrong do not exist in the law, but the law is what we are all constrained by.

Kabuki Joe
10-21-2013, 11:14 AM
It has nothing to do with her intelligence. IF, as the state says, she isn't mature enough to decide to abort, she was certainly not mature enough to have sex.


...we are talking about you, so if you are 16, do you need consent to have sex and get an abortion afterwards?...leave the law out of it...

Chris
10-21-2013, 11:14 AM
It has nothing to do with her intelligence. IF, as the state says, she isn't mature enough to decide to abort, she was certainly not mature enough to have sex.



Interesting, I thought you were against the state intruding on personal private rights. Now you're for it. :confused2:

Chris
10-21-2013, 11:15 AM
Right and wrong do not exist in the law, but the law is what we are all constrained by.

But the law ought to be constrained by society's sense of right and wrong.

Ravi
10-21-2013, 11:19 AM
...we are talking about you, so if you are 16, do you need consent to have sex and get an abortion afterwards?...leave the law out of it...
Not in my opinion.

The Xl
10-21-2013, 11:42 AM
You should be able to do so. I'm not sure what the punishment for suicide could possibly be.

The punishment for suicide is death. Or so I've heard.

Mister D
10-21-2013, 11:46 AM
You should be able to do so. I'm not sure what the punishment for suicide could possibly be.

But you're not. That's the point. We do not have dominion over our bodies. Time for that catch phrase to go.

Anyway, since so many people (especially females) fail in the attempt the "punishment" is forced treatment.

Cigar
10-21-2013, 11:48 AM
Watch who will be the first to call this 16 year old a taker :rollseyes:

Mister D
10-21-2013, 11:48 AM
So far it's just you.

Cigar
10-21-2013, 11:51 AM
So far it's just you.

Don't worry, no one ever expects you to back up your bull shit with any facts.

Please continue ...

The Xl
10-21-2013, 11:53 AM
Ah, good, you're back to it's my body, fuck society. And therein we see the true selfish nature of the liberal. A complete rejection of rights as responsibilities.

And we see the repeated inconsistency of government can't intrude to force you but it can intrude to legalize your selfish act of killing the unborn.

To be fair, this talk of society is collectivist babble. No one has any obligation to do jack for society, you as a libertarian should know that.

The Xl
10-21-2013, 11:54 AM
But they do.

Only because they have force. Certainly not via natural or Constitutional rights.

Mister D
10-21-2013, 11:56 AM
Only because they have force. Certainly not via natural or Constitutional rights.

That's all well and good but in fact the state does regulate a woman's body as well as a man's. I feel so humilated! lol

The Xl
10-21-2013, 11:57 AM
That's all well and good but in fact the state does regulate a woman's body as well as a man's. I feel so humilated! lol

That's because the majority of people in this country have become manipulated, lazy, and stupid.

Chris
10-21-2013, 11:59 AM
To be fair, this talk of society is collectivist babble. No one has any obligation to do jack for society, you as a libertarian should know that.


In a sense, it can be said to be collectivist, just without the full force bite of government behind it.

Rights are responsibilities, Xl, to ourselves and to society.


No Man Is An Island

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

John Donne


And, yes, I am libertarian.

Mister D
10-21-2013, 11:59 AM
That's because the majority of people in this country have become manipulated, lazy, and stupid.

Any society that allows the mentally ill and the depressed to kill themselves without any sort of intervention is not a society I want to live in.

Alyosha
10-21-2013, 12:46 PM
But the law ought to be constrained by society's sense of right and wrong.

No, we have that now and things are seriously inconsistent and fucked. It should be enough to deter harm to others or allow suit for damages.

Kabuki Joe
10-21-2013, 12:49 PM
Not in my opinion.


...good enough...

Chris
10-21-2013, 12:51 PM
No, we have that now and things are seriously inconsistent and fucked. It should be enough to deter harm to others or allow suit for damages.

We don't have that now. And your should is an ought, to limit law to protect against harm by force or fraud.

Alyosha
10-21-2013, 12:56 PM
That's all well and good but in fact the state does regulate a woman's body as well as a man's. I feel so humilated! lol

It does regulate our bodies which is why I can't get out of bed over reproductive rights. There are alternatives to abortion: birth control, doubling up on birth control, condoms, Plan B, and abstinence.

Funny, I've had lot of sex and never accidentally gotten pregnant. I came to the US at the height of the AIDS epidemic and had a hair stylist with HIV. He scared me so much and basically handed out condoms that I have never been of the opinion that women should even be on oral contraceptives because pregnancy is not the worst thing that can happen to you.

Raw milk kills less people each year (only 112 reported illnesses and no actual reported deaths) than abortions (5,000 abortion related deaths in the US through legal abortions) but guess which one is illegal?

Abortion is an industry that has industry lobbyists. Raw milk is a bunch of farmers selling cowshares.

Abortion is legal because it makes money. Drugs are illegal because that also makes corporations (drug rehabs, private prisons, alcohol companies) money and the state money. Raw milk is illegal because of agribusiness.

I submit what rights we have are those that corporations approve of.

Cigar
10-21-2013, 01:00 PM
It does regulate our bodies which is why I can't get out of bed over reproductive rights. There are alternatives to abortion: birth control, doubling up on birth control, condoms, Plan B, and abstinence.

Funny, I've had lot of sex and never accidentally gotten pregnant. I came to the US at the height of the AIDS epidemic and had a hair stylist with HIV. He scared me so much and basically handed out condoms that I have never been of the opinion that women should even be on oral contraceptives because pregnancy is not the worst thing that can happen to you.

Raw milk kills less people each year (only 112 reported illnesses and no actual reported deaths) than abortions (5,000 abortion related deaths in the US through legal abortions) but guess which one is illegal?

Abortion is an industry that has industry lobbyists. Raw milk is a bunch of farmers selling cowshares.

Abortion is legal because it makes money. Drugs are illegal because that also makes corporations (drug rehabs, private prisons, alcohol companies) money and the state money. Raw milk is illegal because of agribusiness.

I submit what rights we have are those that corporations approve of.

OK ... you've got my attention.

Does this Story come with any pictures.

Please continue :grin:

Alyosha
10-21-2013, 01:03 PM
OK ... you've got my attention.

Does this Story come with any pictures.

Please continue :grin:

My husband was a marine. Kinda looked like this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDngh77LowI



Ooooohrah. ;)

kilgram
10-21-2013, 01:04 PM
Changing a bit the topic, but related.

In Canada if I am not wrong the rate of abortions is lower than USA and abortion is paid by the tax payers, it is public. How do you explain it?

Alyosha
10-21-2013, 01:06 PM
Changing a bit the topic, but related.

In Canada if I am not wrong the rate of abortions is lower than USA and abortion is paid by the tax payers, it is public. How do you explain it?

Culture. Out out of every three women in the US will have an abortion. We're just bloodthirsty here. I mean, look at me. I'd punch someone before I shook their hand.

The Xl
10-21-2013, 01:13 PM
Any society that allows the mentally ill and the depressed to kill themselves without any sort of intervention is not a society I want to live in.

Why is it your business, or the governments, to make that decision? And how would you stop it anyway?

kilgram
10-21-2013, 01:19 PM
Culture. Out out of every three women in the US will have an abortion. We're just bloodthirsty here. I mean, look at me. I'd punch someone before I shook their hand.
Maybe, but I would have said education, however they are related. And also the information provided in the health centres.

Mister D
10-21-2013, 01:21 PM
Why is it your business, or the governments, to make that decision? And how would you stop it anyway?

I am my brother's keeper.

The way they stop it now. Commit those who are likely to do harm to themselves.

Alyosha
10-21-2013, 01:23 PM
Maybe, but I would have said education, however they are related. And also the information provided in the health centres.

Why would you say education when sex education that includes contraceptives is part of every public school system in the country and most private schools?

Do you know how many repeat abortions there are? Aren't you "educated" at that point?

45% of all abortions are performed on women who have already had an abortion.
36% of all abortions in the state of California are performed on women who have had two or more.

Cigar
10-21-2013, 01:27 PM
My husband was a marine. Kinda looked like this





Ooooohrah. ;)

:grin:

Chris
10-21-2013, 01:29 PM
Why would you say education when sex education that includes contraceptives is part of every public school system in the country and most private schools?

Do you know how many repeat abortions there are? Aren't you "educated" at that point?

45% of all abortions are performed on women who have already had an abortion.
36% of all abortions in the state of California are performed on women who have had two or more.



That just doesn't seem to exercise personal responsibility.

Cigar
10-21-2013, 01:31 PM
I am my brother's keeper.

The way they stop it now. Commit those who are likely to do harm to themselves.

Right up until Birth .. then Fuck them takers.

It's not like you'd want to feed, house or provide clothing for them.

Marry Christmas you Mothers-Fucker's ................ Food stamp benefits going down before the holidays
Millions of American families could face a sparse holiday table when food stamps benefits get reduced in November, and that could be just the start of deeper cuts to the program to feed poor families.

The modern-day food stamp plan, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is scheduled to scale back benefits for all recipients on Nov. 1 because a recession-era boost in benefits is expiring.

The cut comes as lawmakers also are considering billions of dollars of reductions to the overall SNAP program, which has grown substantially in recent years amid the weak economy and high unemployment.

The program is now serving more than 23 million households, or nearly 48 million people, according to the most recent government data through June. The USDA says the average monthly benefit is about $275 per household.


Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/food-stamp-benefits-going-down-holidays-8C11418632

Mister D
10-21-2013, 01:32 PM
Right up until Birth .. then Fuck them takers.

It's not like you'd want to feed, house or provide clothing for them.

Marry Christmas you Mothers-Fucker's ................ Food stamp benefits going down before the holidays
Millions of American families could face a sparse holiday table when food stamps benefits get reduced in November, and that could be just the start of deeper cuts to the program to feed poor families.

The modern-day food stamp plan, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is scheduled to scale back benefits for all recipients on Nov. 1 because a recession-era boost in benefits is expiring.

The cut comes as lawmakers also are considering billions of dollars of reductions to the overall SNAP program, which has grown substantially in recent years amid the weak economy and high unemployment.

The program is now serving more than 23 million households, or nearly 48 million people, according to the most recent government data through June. The USDA says the average monthly benefit is about $275 per household.


Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/food-stamp-benefits-going-down-holidays-8C11418632

:huh: lol

Alyosha
10-21-2013, 01:35 PM
kilgram
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/02/28/chicago-passes-sex-ed-for-kindergartners/



Under the new policy, the youngest students – the kindergartners — will learn the basics about anatomy, reproduction, healthy relationships and personal safety. Through the third grade, the sex-ed lessons will focus on the family, feelings and appropriate and inappropriate touching. In the fourth grade, students will start learning about puberty, and HIV. Discussions will emphasize that the virus cannot be transmitted through everyday contact such as shaking hands or sharing food.


From the fifth through the 12th grade, the emphasis will be on reproduction, the transmission and prevention of HIV/AIDS, and other sexually-transmitted diseases, bullying and contraception, including abstinence.




Does this make people happy? Instead of learning about wizards and transformers and dinosaurs kids get to learn about human anatomy and reproduction.

Cigar
10-21-2013, 01:37 PM
:huh: lol

I'm not for Abortion nor would I advise a woman to have one, but the fact is this country couldn't afford illegal abortion, nor would any of people making it illegal fund WIC.

So let's not fool ourselves ... we can't have it both ways.

Alyosha
10-21-2013, 01:38 PM
Right up until Birth .. then Fuck them takers.

It's not like you'd want to feed, house or provide clothing for them.

Marry Christmas you Mothers-Fucker's ................ Food stamp benefits going down before the holidays
Millions of American families could face a sparse holiday table when food stamps benefits get reduced in November, and that could be just the start of deeper cuts to the program to feed poor families.

The modern-day food stamp plan, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is scheduled to scale back benefits for all recipients on Nov. 1 because a recession-era boost in benefits is expiring.

The cut comes as lawmakers also are considering billions of dollars of reductions to the overall SNAP program, which has grown substantially in recent years amid the weak economy and high unemployment.

The program is now serving more than 23 million households, or nearly 48 million people, according to the most recent government data through June. The USDA says the average monthly benefit is about $275 per household.


Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/food-stamp-benefits-going-down-holidays-8C11418632


There is no state in the country where abortion is illegal. You can't blame anti-abortionists for a million kids on welfare.

After the first child or first abortion you might try realizing that sperm in the vagina makes baby smoothies.

Mister D
10-21-2013, 01:38 PM
I'm not for Abortion nor would I advise a woman to have one, but the fact is this country couldn't afford illegal abortion, nor would any other people making it illegal fund WIC.

So let's not fool ourselves ... we can't have it both ways.

Dude, you're babbling. Who and what are you responding to?

Alyosha
10-21-2013, 01:40 PM
I'm not for Abortion nor would I advise a woman to have one, but the fact is this country couldn't afford illegal abortion, nor would any of people making it illegal fund WIC.

So let's not fool ourselves ... we can't have it both ways.

Wouldn't happen anyway unless they outlawed the birth control pill (which no Big Pharm product ever gets outlawed) and...fuck it, it wouldn't. Doctors will do it anyway.

Molly is illegal but go to clubs on Friday nights.

However, I do think that people who are anti-birth control and anti-WIC are kinda dicks. Kids can't help that their parents are stupid shits.

Dr. Who
10-21-2013, 07:15 PM
I suggest you learn a little about natural law before you try to address it. Just because philosophers throughout history have spoken of it does not mean it is philosophy. It is not male oriented. It is by natural law we know no one can be slave to another--it was by posited law that some were slaves to others. All, by virtue of being human beings,, share the same rights. So nothing you say above has the least bit to do with it.

17th century natural law philosophers in Britain and America, such as Thomas Hobbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau) and John Locke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke), developed the theory of natural rights in reference to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle) and the Christian theologist Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquinas). Like the ancient philosophers, 17th century natural law philosophers defended slavery and an inferior status of women in law. Relying on ancient Greek philosophers, natural law philosophers argued that natural rights were not derived from god, but were "universal, self-evident, and intuitive", a law that could be found in nature. They believed that natural rights were self-evident to "civilised man" who lives "in the highest form of society". Natural rights derived from human nature, a concept first established by the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno of Citium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_of_Citium) in Concerning Human Nature. Zenon argued that each rational and civilized male Greek citizen had a "divine spark" or "soul" within him that existed independent of the body. Zeno founded the Stoic philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism) and the idea of a human nature was adopted by other Greek philosophers, and later natural law philosophers and western humanists. Aristotle developed the widely adopted idea of rationality, arguing that man was a "rational animal" and as such a natural power of reason. Concepts of human nature in ancient Greece depended on gender, ethnic, and other qualifications and 17th century natural law philosophers came to regard women along with children, slaves and non-whites, as neither "rational" nor "civilised". Natural law philosophers claimed the inferior status of women was "common sense" and a matter of "nature". They believed that women could not be treated as equal due to their "inner nature". The views of 17th century natural law philosophers were opposed in the 18th and 19th century by evangelical natural theory philosophers such as William Wilberforce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce) and Charles Spurgeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Spurgeon), who argued for the abolition of slavery and advocated for women to have rights equal to that of men. Modern natural law theorist, and advocates of natural rights, claim that all people have a human nature, regardless of gender, ethnicity or other qualifications, therefore all people have natural rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_for_the_Advancement_of_Women

Chris
10-21-2013, 07:17 PM
17th century natural law philosophers in Britain and America, such as Thomas Hobbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau) and John Locke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke), developed the theory of natural rights in reference to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle) and the Christian theologist Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquinas). Like the ancient philosophers, 17th century natural law philosophers defended slavery and an inferior status of women in law. Relying on ancient Greek philosophers, natural law philosophers argued that natural rights were not derived from god, but were "universal, self-evident, and intuitive", a law that could be found in nature. They believed that natural rights were self-evident to "civilised man" who lives "in the highest form of society". Natural rights derived from human nature, a concept first established by the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno of Citium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_of_Citium) in Concerning Human Nature. Zenon argued that each rational and civilized male Greek citizen had a "divine spark" or "soul" within him that existed independent of the body. Zeno founded the Stoic philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism) and the idea of a human nature was adopted by other Greek philosophers, and later natural law philosophers and western humanists. Aristotle developed the widely adopted idea of rationality, arguing that man was a "rational animal" and as such a natural power of reason. Concepts of human nature in ancient Greece depended on gender, ethnic, and other qualifications and 17th century natural law philosophers came to regard women along with children, slaves and non-whites, as neither "rational" nor "civilised". Natural law philosophers claimed the inferior status of women was "common sense" and a matter of "nature". They believed that women could not be treated as equal due to their "inner nature". The views of 17th century natural law philosophers were opposed in the 18th and 19th century by evangelical natural theory philosophers such as William Wilberforce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce) and Charles Spurgeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Spurgeon), who argued for the abolition of slavery and advocated for women to have rights equal to that of men. Modern natural law theorist, and advocates of natural rights, claim that all people have a human nature, regardless of gender, ethnicity or other qualifications, therefore all people have natural rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_for_the_Advancement_of_Women

Try and read up more on natural law, who, wikipedia doesn't cut it.

Peter1469
10-21-2013, 08:16 PM
Natural law exists, even if people reject it. See Hadley Arkes, First Things (http://www.amazon.com/First-Things-Hadley-Arkes/dp/069102247X).

IOW man can be wrong.

jillian
10-21-2013, 08:17 PM
Natural law exists, even if people reject it. See Hadley Arkes, First Things (http://www.amazon.com/First-Things-Hadley-Arkes/dp/069102247X).

IOW man can be wrong.

who decides what "natural law" is?

Peter1469
10-21-2013, 08:29 PM
who decides what "natural law" is?


Nobody. It is what it is- within certain boundaries.

Mr Happy
10-21-2013, 08:33 PM
Nobody. It is what it is- within certain boundaries.

This could possibly be the biggest non-answer I've read...

Mister D
10-21-2013, 08:36 PM
This could possibly be the biggest non-answer I've read...

Do human beings have inherent dignity? Does human life demand respect?

jillian
10-21-2013, 08:37 PM
Nobody. It is what it is- within certain boundaries.

as i always say, that's interesting as a philosophical construct. but it isn't enforceable law. and unless rights are enforced, you can call them rights, but they're easily infringed.

Mister D
10-21-2013, 08:37 PM
as i always say, that's interesting as a philosophical construct. but it isn't enforceable law. and unless rights are enforced, you can call them rights, but they're easily infringed.

Do human beings have inherent dignity? Does human life demand respect?

Chris
10-21-2013, 08:40 PM
This could possibly be the biggest non-answer I've read...

But it is the correct answer did you understand what natural law is. It is not defined or designed, laws defined and designed by man are called posited law. Natural law has to to with the universal laws of physics, biology, society, morality and so on. Man doesn't define the laws of gravity anymore than he designs the laws of morality. Such laws can with right reason be discovered, but as peter pointed out, man can be wrong.

Chris
10-21-2013, 08:43 PM
as i always say, that's interesting as a philosophical construct. but it isn't enforceable law. and unless rights are enforced, you can call them rights, but they're easily infringed.

Sorry, but the laws you speak of are of artificial construct. Unlike the laws you advocate which need a monopoly on power to enforce, natural law needs no enforcement than the laws of gravity.

Dr. Who
10-21-2013, 08:58 PM
Try and read up more on natural law, who, wikipedia doesn't cut it.

Even Hobbes who was considered to be, for the 17th century, an advocate of equality of the sexes states: "Again, seeing every monarch is supposed to desire tocontinue the government in his successors, as long as he may; andthat generally men are endued with greater parts of wisdom andcourage, by which all monarchies are kept from dissolution, thanwomen are; it is to be presumed, where no express will is extantto the contrary, he preferreth his male children before thefemale. Not but that women may govern, and have in divers agesand places governed wisely, but are not so apt thereto in generalas men."

In general however he believed that women were subordinate to the dominion of men through contract.

You may not like the fact that the ancient philosophers were particularly chauvinistic in their views, but it wasn't until the 19th century and the sufferage movement that philosophic consideration of natural rights and natural law actually began to give consideration to the notion that women were more than the responsibilities of men.

Mister D
10-21-2013, 08:59 PM
Even Hobbes who was considered to be, for the 17th century, an advocate of equality of the sexes states: "Again, seeing every monarch is supposed to desire tocontinue the government in his successors, as long as he may; andthat generally men are endued with greater parts of wisdom andcourage, by which all monarchies are kept from dissolution, thanwomen are; it is to be presumed, where no express will is extantto the contrary, he preferreth his male children before thefemale. Not but that women may govern, and have in divers agesand places governed wisely, but are not so apt thereto in generalas men."

In general however he believed that women were subordinate to the dominion of men through contract.

You may not like the fact that the ancient philosophers were particularly chauvinistic in their views, but it wasn't until the 19th century and the sufferage movement that philosophic consideration of natural rights and natural law actually began to give consideration to the notion that women were more than the responsibilities of men.

What do you think this means, Who?

Dr. Who
10-21-2013, 09:14 PM
What do you think this means, Who?

I thought that the meaning was clear. Perhaps you might clarify your question.

Chris
10-21-2013, 09:19 PM
Even Hobbes who was considered to be, for the 17th century, an advocate of equality of the sexes states: "Again, seeing every monarch is supposed to desire tocontinue the government in his successors, as long as he may; andthat generally men are endued with greater parts of wisdom andcourage, by which all monarchies are kept from dissolution, thanwomen are; it is to be presumed, where no express will is extantto the contrary, he preferreth his male children before thefemale. Not but that women may govern, and have in divers agesand places governed wisely, but are not so apt thereto in generalas men."

In general however he believed that women were subordinate to the dominion of men through contract.

You may not like the fact that the ancient philosophers were particularly chauvinistic in their views, but it wasn't until the 19th century and the sufferage movement that philosophic consideration of natural rights and natural law actually began to give consideration to the notion that women were more than the responsibilities of men.


People believed all sorts of strange things, but over time those arguments led to all being created equal.

Hobbes was a statist. He believed everyone was subservient to the state. He was probably paid well. ;-P

Mr. Freeze
10-21-2013, 09:23 PM
Spooner also believed in natural law and he was far from a misogynist.

Mister D
10-21-2013, 09:32 PM
I thought that the meaning was clear. Perhaps you might clarify your question.

What's your point?

Mister D
10-21-2013, 09:38 PM
Do human beings have inherent dignity? Does human life demand respect?

4352

Dr. Who
10-21-2013, 09:39 PM
Spooner also believed in natural law and he was far from a misogynist. He was quite a radical in many ways, but again he was 19th century, so there was beginning to be a shift in the old way of thinking. He was a true libertarian. He thoroughly rejected the government's right to dictate what he could and couldn't do in terms of the natural right to contract.

roadmaster
10-21-2013, 10:43 PM
The sick perverts want to lower the age of kids so they can sleep with them. People will start to get killed if they mess with kids.

Chris
10-22-2013, 07:13 AM
He was quite a radical in many ways, but again he was 19th century, so there was beginning to be a shift in the old way of thinking. He was a true libertarian. He thoroughly rejected the government's right to dictate what he could and couldn't do in terms of the natural right to contract.

I think you're too focused on what particular men thought natural law was instead of it as a general philosophy of what man is and what laws, physical and social, political and moral, he must live by.

Peter1469
10-22-2013, 01:13 PM
as i always say, that's interesting as a philosophical construct. but it isn't enforceable law. and unless rights are enforced, you can call them rights, but they're easily infringed.

I agree that it isn't self enforceable.

Chris
10-22-2013, 01:15 PM
I agree that it isn't self enforceable.

The laws of nature sure are self-enforceable.

Peter1469
10-22-2013, 02:25 PM
The laws of nature sure are self-enforceable.

We are talking about natural law (like murder is wrong), not the laws of nature (like gravity).

Chris
10-22-2013, 02:30 PM
We are talking about natural law (like murder is wrong), not the laws of nature (like gravity).

They're the same. Violate natural law and society wouldn't survive. What do you think would happen if we all went around murdering each other? Simple example, but it serves.

Dr. Who
10-22-2013, 09:21 PM
The laws of nature sure are self-enforceable.

Tell that to the slaves and the women living under fundamentalist religious laws. Self-enforceable can equal suicidal.

Man of Sin
11-16-2013, 12:51 AM
Well that is an unscientific ruling.


WASHINGTON—A 16-year-old might be quite capable of making an informed decision about whether to end a pregnancy - a decision likely to be made after due consideration and consultation with an adult - but this same adolescent may not possess the maturity to be held to adult levels of responsibility if she commits a violent crime, according to new research into adolescent psychological development."Adolescents likely possess the necessary intellectual skills to make informed choices about terminating a pregnancy but may lack the social and emotional maturity to control impulses, resist peer pressure and fully appreciate the riskiness of dangerous decisions," said Laurence Steinberg, PhD, a professor of developmental psychology at Temple University and lead author of the study. "This immaturity mitigates their criminal responsibility."


The findings appear in the October issue of American Psychologist, published by the American Psychological Association.


Steinberg and his co-authors address this seeming contradiction in a study showing that cognitive and emotional abilities mature at different rates. They recruited 935 10- to 30- year-olds to examine age differences in a variety of cognitive and psychosocial capacities.


The participants took different tests measuring psychosocial maturity and cognitive ability to examine age patterns in numerous factors that affect judgment and decision-making. The maturity measures included tests of impulse control, sensation-seeking, resistance to peer influence, future orientation and risk perception. The cognitive battery included measures of basic intellectual abilities.


There were no differences among the youngest four age groups (10-11, 12-13, 14-15 and 16-17) on the measures of psychosocial maturity. But significant differences in maturity, favoring adults, were found between the 16- to 17-year-olds and those 22 years and older, and between the 18- to 21-year-olds and those 26 and older. Results were the same for males and females, the authors said.


"It is very difficult for a 16-year-old to resist peer pressure in a heated, volatile situation," Steinberg said. "Most times, there is no time to talk to an adult to inject some reason and reality to the situation. Many crimes committed by adolescents are done in groups with other teens and are not premeditated."


In contrast, differences in cognitive capacity measures increased from ages 11 to 16 and then showed no improvements after age 16 - exactly the opposite of the pattern found on the psychosocial measures. Certain cognitive abilities, such as the ability to reason logically, reach adult levels long before psychosocial maturity is attained, Steinberg said.


"Medical decisions are those where adolescents can take the time to understand and weigh options provided by health care practitioners," said Steinberg. "Rarely are these decisions made in the heat of the moment without consultation with adults. Under these circumstances, adolescents exhibit adult maturity."


Two friend-of-the-court briefs filed by APA in cases heard by the Supreme Court spurred questions about these maturity differences and the apparent inconsistency between APA's positions in the two cases. In its amicus brief filed in Roper v. Simmons (2005), the case that abolished the juvenile death penalty, APA presented research showing that adolescents are developmentally immature in ways that are relevant to their criminal culpability. In an earlier brief filed in Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990), which upheld adolescents' right to seek an abortion without parental approval, APA presented research regarding cognitive abilities that bear on medical choices, showing that adolescents are as mature as adults.


APA differentiated these two scenarios by looking at the decision-making processes required for each situation. In the Hodgson case, APA described adolescents as being competent to make informed and sound health care decisions. In the Roper case, APA characterized adolescents as too short-sighted and impulsive to warrant capital punishment, no matter what the crime. APA placed the research about psychosocial development of adolescents in the context of a court's need to determine as part of a death penalty sentence that the perpetrator can reliably be assessed as among the "worst of the worst."


In November, the Supreme Court is slated to hear two cases concerning the constitutionality of sentencing juveniles to life without the possibility of parole. "Similar questions about adolescent development may be raised in these cases," Steinberg said. APA has filed an amicus curiae brief in those cases presenting relevant research, including Steinberg's most recent study, to the court.


Adolescents' legal rights, said Steinberg, should be guided by accurate and timely scientific evidence on the nature and course of psychological development. "It is crucial to understand that brain systems responsible for logical reasoning and basic information processing mature earlier than systems responsible for self-regulation and the coordination of emotion and thinking," he said.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2009/10/teen-maturity.aspx