Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Ward of State Thwarted in Seeking an Abortion

Abortion Ward of the State

  • Please log in to reply
185 replies to this topic

#21 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 05:11 PM

Quote

Eloisel: What disgusts me is that she will probably win the right to kill a viable baby in the end with a partial birth abortion.

That would be awful. And that would result from the delay caused by this legal brouhaha that has no business happening since (a) it's apparently legal for her to make this choice, and (b) not to choose an abortion would put her health at greater risk.

Quote

DCF attorneys filed an emergency motion Tuesday morning, the same day L.G.'s caseworker was prepared to take her to a clinic for the abortion.

http://www.sun-senti...-home-headlines

Quote

Eloisel: I see this abortion as this girl and other pro-abortionists forcing their views on me. Who is paying for her abortion? Taxpayers - of which I am one. If people who live off the government don't want taxpayers forcing their views on them, then they need to get off the government handout list. And, while this 13 year old girl does not have the option to chose not to be a government handout recipient, the people who are most interested in her right to have an abortion are doing so to further their agenda - "see, we have to have abortion because of pregnant 13 year old girls!" Otherwise, why don't they take their own advice dished out so heavily in the Schiavo case - "what business is it of theirs?" Or is it only someone's business when it is to justify the right to kill and not to justify the right to live?

Whew! "Pro-abortionists?" Who are these people? Do they stand outside abortion clinics and cheer?


First of all, abortion is legal. It's legal because making it illegal doesn't stop it from happening. I'm all for reducing the number of abortions, and I'm certainly irritated by women who use it as their primary means of birth control. But the solution, to me, is not to make it illegal but to preach contraception. And even then, there will still be impulsive young people and failed birth control methods. Hence, there will always be desperate women who think that ending a pregnancy early is less traumatic than bearing a child full-term and giving it up for adoption--because of their unique circumstances. Every abortion is tragedy, but the tragedies have roots in the lives of the pregnant women. Rape. Incest. Poverty. Dysfunctional families to make one's hair stand on end. I think the anti-abortion activists have played an important role in getting out the message that abortion is not equal to having one's tonsil's removed, a message that has surely affected many women's thinking about the matter since the late 70's. But the fact remains that abortion is legal and is likely to remain so.

Secondly, the interference in this case was not initiated by pro-abortion activists. The girl was on her way to have the abortion when DCF intervened, even though she had the legal right to choose an abortion.

Now, it is entirely possible that someone will counsel her about other options. Maybe a family will come forward and offer her money for the child. Maybe she will be talked into bearing the child and giving it up for adoption. And if so, she might die in childbirth, thus relieving taxpayers of a burden. How does that sound?

Or everything might turn out just fine, she mends her ways, gives the baby up, and she and the baby both have fine lives. No one has a crystal ball. But it does appear that she's taking more of a risk to bear the child than to have an abortion.

Frankly, I'm glad I'm not in her shoes.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#22 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 05:34 PM

Quote

Eloisel: What disgusts me is that she will probably win the right to kill a viable baby in the end with a partial birth abortion.

Not likely.  Unless the baby has no brain or is a health risk to the mother.  An aquintance of mine was torn between having an abortion and keeping the child. She waited too long at 3 months pregnant she couldn't get an abortion.  But there is more to this story

THe father abandoned the child (except for forced child support payments) The woman works full time to support this child and her other two.  This child has had very little emotional support as it was essentially unwanted.  He has trouble reading, probably has ADD due to the babysitting method being video games.  Is emotionally messed up.  There is a good person in there, if someone could spend the time to reach him.  IF.... I fear this child will grow up and be a troubled teen.

The best thing would have been to adopt the child to a good home, but once a woman carries a child to term and especially if they have other kids (who know they have  a sibling on the way) it is very rare for them to give them up even if that would be the best for the child to keep them from being yet another neglected, lost child.

In the case we are talking about, the window for the 13 year old  to have an abortion is closing.  I don't know why no one in the story is talking about adoption.  In any case if her body is not strong enough to carry a child to term, she could end up dying as well as the baby.  This is a sad story all around.

Edited by GiGi, 01 May 2005 - 05:35 PM.

"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#23 nutmeg

nutmeg

    Just passing through

  • Islander
  • 169 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 05:34 PM

I started to respond to the 'proabortionist' post but saw Spectacles response. I can't say it any better. The law is on the girl's side. Therefor, everyone else should butt out and leave her be. Try and change the laws, if you want to, but leave a law-abiding person (no matter what age) alone.

nutmeg

#24 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 06:03 PM

How is the law on her side? I saw the part Sierra pointed out there are other laws that do not allow for sterilization abortion or termination of life support of those who are wards of the state. So I can see where the court is going have to decide which law they need to uphold. But I do not see a clear cut answer.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#25 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 06:16 PM

Just FYI, at this girl's age, carrying a child to term carries with it three times the likelihood of death for her than having an abortion would.  Why do some of you wish to endanger this girl's life by denying her control over her own body?
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#26 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 06:37 PM

Zack I would love to let her have an abortion. But the law may not be on her side. If the law is going to work it must apply to all that it covers. After all is the state and it's agents are assumed to have the best interest of the child in mind or are we going to take the power away from the state?

If we do why have a FCS? After all it's not doing anything at all to protect children or families at risk. Can folks remember before we had these organizations what there was to protect kids from parents who beat their children or were too drunk to care for them?

I can remember that in my part of america Family services were called in for a child who's parent was putting cigarettes out on them. With the hostility shown at the same services working with in the law. Want to go back to where we did not have such services?
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#27 Eskaminzim

Eskaminzim

    Head eggs and butt toast

  • Islander
  • 559 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 06:52 PM

I'm not sure exactly where all these "you're throwing abortion in our faces because taxpayers pay for abortions" stuff is coming from.  Medicaid hasn't been paying for abortions (except in the cases where the health of the mother is at medical risk) since round about 1979.  That's going on thirty years ago!

I honestly think any tax monies you put toward the tiny percentages of abortions in the nation from Roe V. Wade until 1979 have already been spent, so there's really no use griping about it anymore, is there?

You are against abortions?  Fine.  Don't have one.  But don't gripe that your hard earned tax dollars are filling the medicare coffers for the old scrape scrape.

#28 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 07:04 PM

Of course, you are correct.  So.  Who is paying for this girl's abortion?  Who is paying for her housing, food, clothing, medical care?

#29 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 07:09 PM

G1223, on May 1 2005, 07:03 PM, said:

How is the law on her side? I saw the part Sierra pointed out there are other laws that do not allow for sterilization abortion or termination of life support of those who are wards of the state. So I can see where the court is going have to decide which law they need to uphold. But I do not see a clear cut answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


To clarify, from what I understand, it does not allow the state to *consent* to someone in their care to have an abortion.... but in the state of Florida, it does not appear underage pregnant people need the consent of their parents anyways. They don't even have to notify their parents. So if this is L.G.s own decision her "parents"/guardians have no say in it.

I figure the law about them consent is either old and/or applies to forced abortions/sterializations of people (which has happened in Canada, and IIRC in the US as well for inferior deemed people, I figure this law was probably made in response to acts like that but I'm guessing).

Also, as for the argument this abortion is going on our tax dime... any action taken is going on our tax dime. For one this court case :p
Though I don't know really what tax dollars are covering, these cost are going to come up somewhere and someone is going to have to cover them, no matter what she chooses:

Abortion: possibly counselling before and after, the abortion itself, medical care after

Carrying to Term: prenatal care and doctor appointments. The hospital stay for the labour itself. Post natal care.
Carrying to Term: a: keeps the child.... another kid being raised on tax dollars (I assume DCF would end up w/ the tab whether they let the child live w/ her at her facility, or take the child from her)
Carrying to Term: b: gives the child for adoption. You still have the costs for carrying to term, though maybe it would be able to recoup that if the people adopting pay.... but I suspect the pay would go towards the birth mother, not the government.... the government taking the money would not reflect well... some would ask if they presured the birth mother to give the child up.

Edited by sierraleone, 01 May 2005 - 07:11 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#30 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 08:11 PM

Wait Florida has a law that simply allows a teenager to get an abortion without parental consent? Meaning that if the child is injured and requires even more medical care that the parents are off the hook since they did not  authorize it. Also if she becomes injured the parents are off the hook for any neglect charges. Somehow I do not think that is the case.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#31 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 08:30 PM

Again, have to ask - why is she pregnant?
Was she raped?  Let's get the rapist off the street too.
Is she sexually active?  Teach her some birth control and self control.
Is there no concern about her exposure to AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases?  The fact that she is pregnant tells me she was having unprotected sex if she wasn't raped.  Are these not health issues also?  AIDS isn't going to go away with an abortion.  Protecting her and others from rape isn't going to be solved with aborting the non-criminal fetus.

So far as taxpayer dollars coming in no matter the decision, the difference is what I'm willing to pay for and what I'm not.  

Who supports Planned Parenthood?  I know they get Title X funds, which is for education and by law can not be used for abortion.  However, I think States are also a major funding source but can't find any non-agendized report as to whether the money can be used for any abortion or just those allowed under federal guidelines (rape, incest, health).

So far as the law, the statute might say "parent" - not parent and/or guardian - does not have to be notified of a minor getting an abortion.  The statute applying to the DCF prohibits the department from consenting to an abortion for a minor in any instance.  Now, if an employee of the department provides transportation and assistance (not further described), is that in affect giving consent?

And, pro-abortionist would be anybody screaming about right-to-lifers sticking their nose in this.

#32 TechHarper

TechHarper
  • Islander
  • 231 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 10:03 PM

In cases like this, I always wonder why the anti-choice activists are more concerned with the life of a being that isn't even a complete human, but don't give a damn about the life of the pregnant woman (or in this case, girl).  Also, I wonder why they never seem to care what happens to the child after it's born.  Truly bizarre.  :blink:
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson
"A nation that limits freedom in the name of security will have neither." - Thomas Jefferson

#33 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 10:28 PM

^Who says anti-choice people don't care?  And where is the proof that pro-choose-abortionist do care about this girl?  Subject her to a surgery that has possibility to kill her and then what?

#34 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 11:11 PM

She's thirteen.  That means it's rape, whether forcible or statutory.  By all means, let's get the bastard off the street and into jail where he belongs.

Quote

Who says anti-choice people don't care?

You do, eloisel.  You wax indignant about "subjecting this girl to a surgery that has the possiblity to kill her," but are willing to subject her to childbirth, which, at her age, is three times more likely to kill her than abortion is.  And then what?
Posted Image

#35 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 11:35 PM

Waterpanther if the father is under 17 what then? We are assuming a predatorial adult as the father.

The basic draw back has been hearing every person who has attacked the pro life platform keep acting like they do not care about the girl. As you and Eloisel have shown both sides care but disagree about what course of action to take.  

So I think we can drop the whole. "You do not care" finger pointing act.

Now I agree about giving her the abortion but I also see where the anger at paying for this child's mistake comes from.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#36 TechHarper

TechHarper
  • Islander
  • 231 posts

Posted 02 May 2005 - 12:12 AM

eloisel, on May 1 2005, 08:28 PM, said:

^Who says anti-choice people don't care?  And where is the proof that pro-choose-abortionist do care about this girl?  Subject her to a surgery that has possibility to kill her and then what?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Emphasis added.

This is from the article:

Quote

When L.G. found out about her condition, according to court testimony, a caseworker drove her to the Presidential Women's Center in West Palm Beach, where staffers administered an ultrasound and advised L.G. about her options. She decided to have an abortion and scheduled an appointment for last Tuesday.

You seem to be implying that anyone here is saying that she must have the surgery.  The truth is that no one is subjecting her to anything.  She is choosing to have the abortion based on what appear to be some very valid reasons.

As an aside, I think you'd find it a difficult task to find anyone who is an "abortionist."  Most pro-choice individuals are just that, pro-choice.  Not pro-abortion.  I personally don't like abortion as a first option and I think that education regarding contraceptions and an emphasis on abortion as a very last option is the best way to go.  That having been said, the issues here are that she's made an informed decision, she's a young teenager in an already bad situation, and it is incredibly unlikely that she would benefit from this pregnancy.
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson
"A nation that limits freedom in the name of security will have neither." - Thomas Jefferson

#37 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 02 May 2005 - 12:19 AM

waterpanther, on May 2 2005, 04:11 AM, said:

She's thirteen.  That means it's rape, whether forcible or statutory.  By all means, let's get the bastard off the street and into jail where he belongs.

Quote

Who says anti-choice people don't care?

You do, eloisel.  You wax indignant about "subjecting this girl to a surgery that has the possiblity to kill her," but are willing to subject her to childbirth, which, at her age, is three times more likely to kill her than abortion is.  And then what?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please read my post #19 above, third paragraph.

And that is what I'm saying - quit treating abortion as the end all cure all for the problem of unwanted pregnancies.  
Planned Parenthood Coverup #1
Planned Parenthood Coverup #2
Planned Parenthood Coverup #3
It goes on and on.  The child molestors, rapists, predators aren't being dealt with.

#38 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 02 May 2005 - 06:59 AM

Quote

Eloisel: quit treating abortion as the end all cure all for the problem of unwanted pregnancies.


I shouldn't speak for everyone on this thread, but I think that all would agree with you. In fact, several, including me, have said as much.

Eloisel, unless I misunderstood, you even conceded somewhere up there that this girl would be better off having the abortion because of the risk the pregancy poses to her. That's what most here seem to be saying, so what seems to be happening here is that the old pro-choice/anti-choice debate is being grafted onto this thread, as it has this girl's situation.

As for the links you provided regarding Planned Parenthood helping a thirteen-year-old cover for an abortion, that's disturbing if true. But did you notice that the thirteen-year-old turning fourteen in a month seems to reside in Connecticut and Alaska? The tapes reported in the second link (Connecticut) and third (Alaska) appear awfully similar, which leads me to wonder if they were faked. Some anti-choice groups employ less-than-truthful tactics themselves, you know.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#39 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 02 May 2005 - 08:38 AM

eloisel, on May 1 2005, 09:30 PM, said:

Again, have to ask - why is she pregnant?
Was she raped?  Let's get the rapist off the street too.
Is she sexually active?  Teach her some birth control and self control.
Is there no concern about her exposure to AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases?  The fact that she is pregnant tells me she was having unprotected sex if she wasn't raped.  Are these not health issues also?  AIDS isn't going to go away with an abortion.  Protecting her and others from rape isn't going to be solved with aborting the non-criminal fetus.

So far as taxpayer dollars coming in no matter the decision, the difference is what I'm willing to pay for and what I'm not. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


And there are some taxpayers that would not be willing to pay for those other things. I'm  not that callous or cynical, but I've heard lots of people who are sick of welfare mothers having more kids, and I'm sure some of them would feel the same way about wards of the state that get pregnant, putting more kids for their whole lives possible, on the public dole. There is no way to satisfy everyone in regards to where your tax dollars go. Even if we had a referendum for every general issue, the minority/dissenting opinion would be very vocal I'm sure.

Of course she should be tested for HIV/STDs. And educated on birth control/etc... As for rape.... it sounds like she has talked to a counsellor of sorts before she made that decision for abortion.... perhaps she didn't talk to the counsellor about whether it was consenting or not, I would hope though, that that would be something an counsellor for people considering abortion would be trained in, and to ask them relevant questions. Of course, that might just be wishfull thinking, and we don't know. Theres a lot we don't know though, maybe she has been tested, and educated. But of course, we should ask the questions to find out.

Edited to make more clear

Edited by sierraleone, 02 May 2005 - 08:50 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#40 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 02 May 2005 - 08:50 AM

eloisel, on May 1 2005, 11:41 AM, said:

Still, as much as I'm disgusted by this situation, that girl probably should have an abortion immediately because it is more dangerous for her to carry the child to term. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spectacles, on May 2 2005, 03:59 AM, said:

Eloisel, unless I misunderstood, you even conceded somewhere up there that this girl would be better off having the abortion because of the risk the pregancy poses to her. That's what most here seem to be saying, so what seems to be happening here is that the old pro-choice/anti-choice debate is being grafted onto this thread, as it has this girl's situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and yes again.  

Spectacles, on May 2 2005, 03:59 AM, said:

As for the links you provided regarding Planned Parenthood helping a thirteen-year-old cover for an abortion, that's disturbing if true. But did you notice that the thirteen-year-old turning fourteen in a month seems to reside in Connecticut and Alaska? The tapes reported in the second link (Connecticut) and third (Alaska) appear awfully similar, which leads me to wonder if they were faked. Some anti-choice groups employ less-than-truthful tactics themselves, you know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not only less-than-truthful tactics, but less-than-truthful motives.  One woman I know who is rabidly anti-choice because of an abortion she had to please a boyfriend who demanded she have it (whose choice?) and which damaged her so that she lives in guilt and grief because she can't have a baby for the evil little bigot she married caused much trouble in a church I used to go to, and finally left because we all politely refused to go along with her.  She and hubby moved to DC where they planned to make life hell for "that b!tch" Hillary Clinton.  They hooked up with some national anti-choice organization.  However, in a candid moment before she left, she told one of my friends, an older woman who never told her about the two backstreet illegal abortions she had in the 50s, that while she was against abortion and wanted to make it illegal in this country, if her daughter (born, obviously, before the abortion the boyfriend chose for her) ever "got in trouble" she would take her to Europe and help her get an abortion.  :suspect:

On our side, it's about choice.  On her side, it's about control.  I suspect that it's about control for a lot of her compatriots too.  :(  

Meanwhile, I feel sorry for the poor little girl who made a choice and has found out how little say she has over her own body.  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Abortion, Ward of the State

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users