Court mandated abortion possible

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Gina B, Nov 8, 2012.

  1. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
  2. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing new here. Courts have always been able to intervene on behalf of those unable to fend for themselves and to protect their interests.
     
  3. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perfect example of why humans are not evolving

    Ever since the post WW2 technical/medical revolution every generation has become genetically weaker and less able to exist if we should lose our technical infrastructure.
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,282
    Likes Received:
    780
    The persons in society most unable to defend themselves is the unborn. so your logic fails.
     
  5. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ever heard the term "history repeats itself? The following has been in the news as compensation for the victums of this practice.

    While not quite the same in procedure, the principle is the same. History repeating itself, as some act as if they think they are gods, too.

    Soon we'll be cost justifying mandated abortions, if we aren't already doing so.

    Human life only has value as long as a person is a productive member of the hive. :tear:
     
  6. abcgrad94

    abcgrad94
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    In this case, there is no need for the courts to "intervene" as the disabled woman has capable parents to care for her.
     
  7. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Her parents are her legal guardians, so the court should not be intervening here. Taking legal guardianship of an adult means that adult needs a guardian to help them make decisions. Her parents took on that role by accepting guardianship of her once she was a legal adult.

    The court is out of order by interfering in this case.
     
  8. Chessic

    Chessic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't believe the OP said there was something new here. Nor would the lack of anything new here reduce the worth of the post.
     
  9. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Parents' or guardians' bad decisions are still able to be overruled by the courts; e.g. a minor who's parents refuse medical treatment and rely solely on prayer for fatal, yet curable, conditions.
     
  10. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Actually, case law is starting to turn towards the support of people who, because of their religion, do not seek modern medical care for the children in their care.

    However, abortion when the mother's life is not in any reasonable danger is silly. Lots of people with epilepsy bear children, it has been stated as the mother's desire, and the guardians have stated it. People do not take guardianship when they do not care and the fact that they even wanted to bring her home despite the obviously hard work it would take is even more evidence that they have her and baby's best interests in mind.

    But...why should they, as her parents and legal guardians, be questioned in the first place? There should be a natural assumption that a parent or legal caregiver already has the best in mind for their child unless they have been found guilty of criminal activities involving children or dependent adults in the past.

    It should be a fundamental right. Wait, it IS, isn't it? It's just being taken away. Quickly. You see it everywhere. Guilty until proven innocent is how it seems to work when it comes to accusations of neglect and such against those caring for dependent persons. That is very wrong and even worse, in a court where you're talking about dependency, it's rare for the caregiver to be able to defend themselves until 30 days AFTER the first court date. That's plenty of time to have the dependent removed and have the abortion performed, should the court grant a motion to have the dependent in state custody while this is sorted.
     

Share This Page

Loading...