Court mandated abortion possible

[Gina B]

When will Americans realize the terrible oppression we put ourselves under by allowing these types of decisions to be made by government workers?

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/...d-force-them-to-end-disabled/?intcmp=obinsite

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Nothing new here. Courts have always been able to intervene on behalf of those unable to fend for themselves and to protect their interests.

 

[billwald]

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

Nothing new here. Courts have always been able to intervene on behalf of those unable to fend for themselves and to protect their interests.

The persons in society most unable to defend themselves is the unborn. so your logic fails.

 

[Oldtimer]

Ever heard the term "history repeats itself? The following has been in the news as compensation for the victums of this practice.

The bottom line: From 1929-74, North Carolina sterilized 7,600 people as part of a eugenics program that mostly targeted minorities and the poor. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-12/a-bitter-fight-over-forced-sterilization

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:

 

[abcgrad94]

Nothing new here. Courts have always been able to intervene on behalf of those unable to fend for themselves and to protect their interests.

In this case, there is no need for the courts to "intervene" as the disabled woman has capable parents to care for her.

 

[Gina B]

Nothing new here. Courts have always been able to intervene on behalf of those unable to fend for themselves and to protect their interests.

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.

 

[Chessic]

Nothing new here. Courts have always been able to intervene on behalf of those unable to fend for themselves and to protect their interests.

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.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

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.

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.

 

[Gina B]

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.