 |
|
Vesayen
|
|
Did the person ever consider keeping their legs shut :?
Unless you were raped, you had your choice-you blew it-tough.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Vesayen
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy
That's pretty heartless Vesayen; we all know how irrational and stupid women can be sometimes .
Besides, she's 13, carrying the pregnancy to term could be very physically harmful for her if she's not developed enough. |
Are you certain it could be physically harmfull?
I am well aware of the fact it is harsh, LIFE is harsh.
I'd like to take this time to say I think the republican party is satanic and the democrats have gone off the deepend since Clinton left office, before anyone accuses me of party affiliations .
Even a 13 year old child has enough intelligence to make a choice, people need to be held responsible for their actions even if they have poor results. That 13 year old may have very well thrown her life away when she decided* to have sex but that does not mean she should be allowed to throw away another. Unless she was raped or it is very likley giving birth will kill the mother, tough luck.
I don't feel sorry for the 13 year old, tough luck. I am sure many in this thread feel sympathetically sorry for her, I do not.
Claiming abortion is fine by claiming it is "pro choice" is so rediculous it never ceases to amaze me, until I remember the cumulative wave form theory@. If pro murder groups started going under the banner of "pro choice" or pro arson, or pro rape groups, you'd see a different reaction. People championing pro choice are not libretarians or constitutionalists, they usually side with other policies which restrain our freedoms, not enchance them and it is blatantly transparent. These are not people fighting for liberty and freedom from opression, they are fighting for the right to opress others and kill them.
She made her choice, now its time for her to pay the piper.
*that is right, DECIDED! Do you remember being 13? I remember being 13 and arrogantly thinking I was more intelligent and responsible then my peers(and I was) but they had enough intelligence to tie their shoes every morning. If a child has enough intelligence to figure out which pipe goes into which socket, they are old enough to be responsible for the actions of such plumbing usage.
@AKA the theory of everything, which is, people are stupid.
Last edited by Vesayen on 01-05-2005 at 23:25
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Vesayen
|
|
And of course it becomes a matter of politics because now I am an evil freedom eating conservative(which i'm not.)
How is it the consequence of an adult? She, decided to have sex. Banning abortion is not the "consequence of an adult" any more then banning murder is.
A fetus is more then a lump of flesh, or would you like to legalize the murder of the mentally disabled as well?
Even animals have rights and I'd bet you would say they are "no more then a lump of flesh."
I am not anti freedom, I've considered changing my party affiliation to libretarian on a monthly basis, i'm anti murdering babies.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:18
|
|
The original Roe v. Wade premised its decision on a protected right of privacy of a physician and an (adult) woman and her health. I, for the life of me, cannot understand how this right, which is the right protected, has to exclude a guardian or parent when the person involved is a minor. The law PRESUMES that a minor is incapable of making fully informed decisions at that age.
Now, what Supreme Court decision told us that minors can get abortions without the consent of their parents?
BTW, if a minor has a right to make THIS choice for herself, how can the law deny the minor the right to make OTHER choices. Despite the jingosim of the pro-choice crowd, the right protected is not a right to an abortion, but a right to privacy where the state cannot go to affect private decisions. The right to privacy is allegedly there to protect decisions on health, but why is the abortion choice the ONLY health choice allowed without a guardian's consent?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000 time: 21:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
The original Roe v. Wade premised its decision on a protected right of privacy of a physician and an (adult) woman and her health. I, for the life of me, cannot understand how this right, which is the right protected, has to exclude a guardian or parent when the person involved is a minor. The law PRESUMES that a minor is incapable of making fully informed decisions at that age.
Now, what Supreme Court decision told us that minors can get abortions without the consent of their parents?
BTW, if a minor has a right to make THIS choice for herself, how can the law deny the minor the right to make OTHER choices. Despite the jingosim of the pro-choice crowd, the right protected is not a right to an abortion, but a right to privacy where the state cannot go to affect private decisions. The right to privacy is allegedly there to protect decisions on health, but why is the abortion choice the ONLY health choice allowed without a guardian's consent? |
people have the right to medical care of their own body without telling other people. And this includes kids.
Yes, by supporting this I also have to support teenage girls getting boob jobs (or that would make me a hypocrite).
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18. Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|