home

FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sun May 01, 2005 at 08:29:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Florida's Department of Children and Families, having been thwarted in its effort to interfere in the Terri Schiavo case, is acting to prevent a 13 year old girl from exercising her constitutional right to have an abortion. The department claims the girl is too immature to decide whether to undergo the procedure, although the department doesn't seem to care whether she's sufficiently mature to give birth.

The girl, who got pregnant in a group home, now lives in foster care. When she learned of her pregnancy, she immediately told her caseworker that she wanted an abortion.

The procedure had been scheduled for last Tuesday, but then the morality police from Tallahassee arrived. That very morning, DCF lawyers filed an emergency motion with Palm Beach Circuit Judge Ronald Alvarez. He signed a temporary order blocking the abortion and ordered a competency examination for [the girl].

Before the girl decided to exercise her constitutional right, nobody had suggested that she was incompetent. Not only is the department interfering with the girl's ability to exercise a constitutional right, the decision to force a young girl to have a baby she doesn't want is bad policy.

Forcing children in state custody to have babies against their will guarantees that there will be a whole new generation of abused, abandoned and neglected kids for taxpayers to support.

The department has a dismal record of caring for the children who fall within its clutches.

Others in state care have been tortured, raped, killed or, in the case of Rilya Wilson, vaporized into thin air.

The department should focus its efforts on protecting those kids, not on making this girl's life even more miserable.

Will Republicans use this case to energize a base that is disenchanted with the president's focus on social security and giveaways to the oil industry, when they want to see government working more diligently to advance their extreme agenda?

Such ruthless intrusion into the most private matters is a trademark of the new Republican right, which seldom wastes an opportunity to whip the pro-life crowd into a tizzy. It will likely happen again with [the girls] case.

Update (TL): The 13 year old speaks her mind to the Judge.

< Tom Cruise: Drug Crusader | Bush's Unacceptable Plan on Social Security >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion | 68 comments (68 topical)
    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:54 PM EST
    Hey, if it's cool to hand-cuff 5-year olds, Blaghdaddy figures he don't want to know what they'd do to a pregnant 13-year old. As for her parents- if they're willing to carry the baby, birth it and then care for it for its entire childhood, maybe then they can decide if they have a say in her abortion or not...otherwise, still her body....

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    Mfox: I enjoy the lack of any moral obligation on the part of the government. Could we extend that to moral arguments regarding capital punishment and euthanasia? Let us choose not to make any moral decisions in our laws. Going back to the issue at hand, is there any low end age-wise to your moral decision that children may have abortions when they choose with no input from adults or anyone else. This child is 13. Is 11 okay? As far as the folks not caring about what the clump looks like, I pity them in their selfishness.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#48)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    DB, As far as "rule of law" goes, in Florida a minor needs parental permission to get an abortion. So, in practical terms, she doesn't have any such right. Her parents have the right. So it's not such a stretch that, lacking parents, it's the government's decision to make. This is EXACTLY OPPOSITE of Fl law. read the !@#$%^& posts & links before commenting!

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#49)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    Sailor, My bad. I forgot about your earlier posts and didn't feel like filling in yet another registration form, so I tried to Google up the law. My sources were outdated. So, erm, down with the GOP!

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    Hey, Sailor's cursing like a, well, Sailor...no harm, no foul!!! Blaghdaddy wants to know if anyone else thinks the law doesn't hold up (parental notice and/or permission) for the following reason: It's fine to need parental permission for a school trip or to buy a car...the trip and car don't last the next 80 years, which is exactly how long this unwanted child might have to wreak havoc on society...not exactly the best start with a 13 year old mother...does anyone else see the fallacy in making a baby have a baby when the baby isn't old enough to have the baby if she had the baby? What is she, a f#*king prize Holstein?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    No. She, like the clump/alien, is a human(potential human) being. She is a child who you suggest is responsible to make an adult decision to have an abortion.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    Do we have any moral obligation as a society to those not yet born?
    Well, seeing as the unborn are not yet born, hence not members of society, I'd say no. Society does, in fact, have an obligation to the woman to allow her to do with her body as she sees fit.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    No one said anything about responsible...if she doesn't want to have the baby, or YOU going to be the one to take care of it? She can't, SHE'S NOT OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE A BABY, WHY DO YOU WANT TO MAKE HER HAVE ONE? It's bad enough the girl's a victim of statutory rape...let's see how really bad we can make the rest of her life...

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    is there any low end age-wise to your moral decision that children may have abortions when they choose with no input from adults or anyone else. _______________ Yes. Puberty. Oddly enough, I think more harm has been done to young girls by their parents (all fine, upstanding Christians, I'm sure) forcing them to have abortions when they are not psychologically on board. I therefore agree that a 13 year old should have advice, but NOT by their parents, unless they request and/or consent to this. I would argue that a counselor of some kind (not a government agency) should assist this girl (who may very well think she wants the baby) in making the best decision for her and her child. Some would think that adoption is best, but each case is different. 1 woman, 1 pregnancy, 1 doctor, no courts no neocons, no Pat Robertson, no Tom Delay. Who every said, BTW that "life" per se is SO valuable that the quality of that life or the living being's state of mind/health are OF NO IMPORT?? Jesus didn't exactly choose life.... did he. HE CHOSE TO MAKE HIS OWN CHOICE.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    So, mfox, all of the past justifications about making abortion safe legal and rare are really just words. The calls for improved prenatal care for the poor are just words. The sum total of society's role in child bearing is to make sure everyone can get an abortion for any reason because the clump/tumor means nothing. Again, look at a sonogram.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#56)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    Sorry Roy, I just got a might frustrated with what appeared to be willful ignorance. My bad. Tex, congrats on losing your ' key;-)

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:53:04 PM EST
    Ed, your claim that the trimester system no longer applies is unsubstantiated. The issue is, and has always been, VIABILITY. 'Right-to-lifers' should be able to put a special tax on themselves to support the COST of extreme efforts at supporting viability. You don't expect the government to pay the medical bills, do you? Late-term abortions ARE rare. Prenatal care and helping people to learn about contraception is supported by EVERY LIBERAL. If you think it's a ruse, then look to the other side of the aisle. You know, the ones who say they value all life, while killing and torturing for fun.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:53:04 PM EST
    Don't worry about Ed...he's still trying to find out what the cleaners did with his robe and sandals...

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:53:05 PM EST
    A little off-topic, but here's where we get the holier-than-thou pundits like Ed sticking their noses where they don't belong... Follow this linkto FoxSpews, where Bill O'Reilly is having a forum on Paula Abdul's alleged sexual liason with a contestant. Does anyone else here see the joke, like from a million miles away? These conservatives have no blood in their veins, man, no shame. These are the same hypocrites we're to believe when they start talking about God?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:53:05 PM EST
    Sorry folks. I do not even go to church, so I don't worry about robes and sandals. I would encourage you to look at sonograms. The hypocrisy charge sticks better to those who choose to deny the reality of the clump/alien's life than to me. At least I don't hide behind the word "choice". What are you choosing to do? What choice is being made?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#25)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:09 PM EST
    Adept_Havelock: Having been raised on a farm, its is a bet you don't eat fertilized eggs. If she murders someone a year after getting the abortion, can she be found resposible enough for the death penalty? That question was answered last month.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    Last time I looked, 13 years olds weren't adults. Last time I looked a 13 year old was being tried for murder as an adult. Disgustingly hypocritical. Let's try reframing this by looking at people as pro Legal abortion or pro illegal abortion. No one, not even fathers, parents, priests have been able to stop woman by barbarically maiming themselves or going through life-threatening torturous procedures to terminate life inside them that they cannot nurture. So you either want women to at least not be criminalized for this, or you've decided to preempt God's judgment by condemning the woman to public scorn and well deserved injury. Funny, same people who would condemn you for having an abortion would condemn you for getting pregnant. My mother, a very "religious" lady always told me that "if I let one out, I'm not taking two back" (I didn't even know what she meant til I was 17! lol). I would have robbed a bank to come up with abortion money rather than be "cast out as a sinner and a filthy whore". Most teens aren't going to go to a homeless shelter and drop out of school for a year so they can give a baby up for adopion in these circumstances.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:15 PM EST
    You want to save babies??? Put the stupid signs down and go adopt a black baby with Aids. Or a Romanian Orphan with spina bifida. Or a child with cystic fibrosis who will die as a child or young adult. Or better yet, why don't you "sponsor" a mom who wishes she could keep her baby but has no resouorces. Instead of forcing her to cast her flesh and blood out upon the seas of the world why don't you put 10K in a trust fund for the baby's expenses|????

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#1)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:37 PM EST
    TalkLeft is baffled again by a common fact of life: "in loco-parentis" Last time I looked, 13 years olds weren't adults.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#2)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:37 PM EST
    Welcome to the New World Order.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:37 PM EST
    Blaghdaddy's got a better one for you, Jer.... How does a government that advocated executing juveniles to the Supreme Court then turn around and say that the same youths they'd happily kill for actions they committed are not responsible enough to decide whether they can have an abortion or not?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#4)
    by mpower1952 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:37 PM EST
    What if this girl dies while giving birth? Who killed her? For any men on this site, let me tell you that carrying around a baby for nine months is no picnic even when you want it. I can't imagine what it would be like if it was against one's will. It would be like 9 months of torture. This girl may try to harm herself. She may try to commit suicide. She may be mentally damaged for the rest of her like. Think of it this way. You have a daughter that you dearly love. She's 13 and pregnant by a boy she hardly knows due to a one night fling. She says if you stop her from getting an abortion she will kill herself. She means it. What do you do. Remember, she is your daughter and you love her and want what's best for her. You want her healthy and happy and in your life for a long, long time. It's a lot harder to answer when it affects you personally. And remember, if you don't have kids yet you don't really know what you're talking about.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    My mother use to say Babies having Babies. The right is truly trying to drive us to violence. An abortion is simple quick and it's over the alternative is two lives in permanent turmoil. Shame on them all.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Years ago my husband and I had an eleven year old girl come to us from our neighborhood. Her mother's boyfriend had "messed with her" and she was pregnant. We got CPS involved and soon a foster family and abortion at a local Planned Parenthood was arranged. On her twelth birthday the foster parents invited us over for cake. When it was announced that it was time to blow out candles she flung her birthday doll into a chair and shot past us all to get to the beautiful cake made in her honor. This would have been the year for her to become a mother. I would be flabberghasted at what is happening today, but there's no time for that.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#7)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    TalkLeft is baffled again by a common fact of life: "in loco-parentis" And that "relevance" thing once again eludes JR. Keep trying, one of these days you'll add to a discussion.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#8)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    The anecdotes are all interesting, but the reality is - a 13 year old is NOT an adult. We don't consider a 13 year old competent to: -- vote -- drink alcohol -- join the military -- have a full time job On that latter point, why should a 13 year old be able to make an individual decision on abortion, but not on something of far less consequence, like taking a job at the local coffee shop? Forget whether the decision regards abortion - do you want a 13 year old - male or female - making a decision about major surgery without input from the parents/guardians? Why does the left have this batty obsession with children having rights with regards to abortion that they have with no other similar decision?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#9)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    JR, one reason you're analogy is flawed is that once a kid's pregnant, something's going to happen one way or the other, regardless of what decision she makes. No matter what happens, she's going to have some kind of major medical event happen to her one way or the other. Interestingly, though, as the kid herself pointed out at the most recent hearing on the matter, the abortion is less risky than going to term. That aside, if you're going to analogize to laws against underage drinking, et al., why not balance it out by pointing out the instances in which we treat juveniles as adults when it comes to holding them responsible for their actions? If a 13 year old can be treated as an adult under those circumstances, why can't she be treated as an adult when it comes to making a decision about whether to carry a pregnancy to term?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#10)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Blaghdaddy,
    How does a government that advocated executing juveniles to the Supreme Court then turn around and say that the same youths they'd happily kill for actions they committed are not responsible enough to decide whether they can have an abortion or not?
    The obvious response here is... How do Leftists who advocate protecting the lives of children who murder then turn around and say they'd happily kill innocent unborn children?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    That's easy Roy, Some of us don't believe that a zygote is the same thing as a child. A potential child, at best. I don't worry about eating eggs, either, though they are potential chickens.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Article 1, Sec. 23 of the state constitution: "Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his personal life. ..."
    [the Florida Legislature] twice passed laws requiring parental notification. The FL Supremes rejected both. Justice Leander Shaw wrote: "Few decisions are more private and properly protected from government intrusion than a woman's decision whether to continue her pregnancy."
    It's obvious the DCF is just pulling another politically motivated assault on women's rights. Her parents wouldn't be allowed to challenge her decision, and the loco parents of the state shouldn't be allowed to either.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#13)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Roy, your logic only works if we all share the belief that a 14 week old fetus has the same rights, and is entitled to the same protections, as a 13 year old girl. We don't all agree on that; moreover, that's a different debate. The issue here is whether a 13 year old girl, once she becomes pregnant, should be allowed to make her own decision about whether to carry her pregnancy to term, or whether that decision should instead be entrusted to someone else.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Having an abortion is not have anthing to do with LIFE. It is a simple medical procedure to prevent a pregnancy from coming to term. This girl could go into one of a bathroom and with a coat hook end the pregnancy herself and not be breaking any law! It is her body not the States. The only life in danger here is Hers! Please keep your religious beliefs out of her life!

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#15)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    JR, You think that this girl is too young to make a choice, but old enough to raise a child? Are you saying that you want the state to raise the child? Are you willing to pay for that? Roy, Is "unborn child" like "proto-woman" or "jumbo shrimp"? Or is it more like "military intelligence"?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#16)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Hey do any of you remember the King Brothers?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    I think it is important for those of us who support abortion rights to make a firm stand against the propaganda of the Pro Life gang. They in many ways have framed the argument to the extent that many have capitulated that some how an abortion is something to be ashamed of and objectionable. It is NOT! It is simply a medical procedure a women can have at her descretion. It is nothing to be ashamed of. There is no life taking or life killing, PERIOD. To a muslim eating pork is an abomination and a sin. This does not mean I should accept their religous premis and feel guilty or ashamed every time I eat ham! I certainly will not discuss eating ham as though it IS an accepted fact that it is WRONG. We must retake the high ground on the choice of a woman to control her own body! I am proud to proclaim ABORTIONS ARE PRO LIFE and a shamless and healthy choice! Again I repeat. THERE IS NO KILLING OR LIFE TAKING INVOLVED IN HAVING AN ABORTION!

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Having been a 13 year old girl, and raising one that was as well...... 13 year olds are vulnerable to their surroundings and the people who should be protecting them. In our world kids do not get the cover they deserve to be kept safe. I just cannot fathom why a 13 year old who knows she is pregnant, no matter how she got that way, would need to fight the government to keep from having her life endangered. What 13 year old takes consequences into consideration even under the best of circumstances?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    My point was simply that if (BIG if) you accept the premise that the fertilized egg is a person, then it's strange to protect that person less strongly than you protect a murderer. (I happen not to accept that premise, I'm just injecting a perspective that is very common in the general population but otherwise missing from this discussion) Nobody really knows when life begins. Everybody is willing to act with 100% confidence anyway. I'm not trying to derail the discussion, but isn't it useful to see how your beliefs look to the majority? (55% say life begins at conceptions, but it's a FOX New poll so assume it's wrong)? Or would you prefer to enact laws based on the assumption that your view is correct, without understanding the other views? One could also point out that 13-year-olds typically aren't allowed to consent to tattoos, body piercing, or sex. Those would be activities affecting her own body, but her consent isn't sufficient. If abortion is just a simple medical procedure, what distinguishes it from these other activities where some adult's decision would override her's?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#20)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Interesting point Blaghdaddy. The USSC said that under 18 is a special category. Ultimatley the effort to stop her from having an abortion will fail, but in light of the recient ruling, perhaps the USSC should take a look at the competency issue. -BigTex (Damn you troll!)

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Roy: That's an easy answer if you look at the facts. Fact: There is still NO legal or widely accepted standard for when a fetus becomes an actual "baby." Some say it's at conception (the far right). Some say it's with the creation of the egg (so no birth control here please, far-far-right) Some (gasp) even say that it isn't until the fetus could reasonably have a chance to survive outside the womb. Lots of hazy area there, for anyone to be proclaiming all or some abortion to be murder, agreed? Fact: Minor children ARE alive, minor children ARE viable, the right has no problem EXECUTING THEM, but cries for unborn children who can't even be legally defined yet... Any more bright questions, Roy?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    The anecdotes are all interesting, but the reality is - a 13 year old is NOT an adult. We don't consider a 13 year old competent to: -- vote -- drink alcohol -- join the military -- have a full time job . . . but you consider them competent to be mothers. Since you don't have a uterus of your own, why do you think your opinion on this should count for anything?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#23)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Molly, I am pro choice, but if you base your argument on physical characteristics, you should be ready to talk about how women get pregnant. It isn't magic. Ed B - How many children have you raised, and how many new borns have you held in your arms? How short is the trip from the womb to the world? At what point do you declare the baby an illegal alien and sign of on its death warrant? It is a complicated question and deserves more attention than your self serving and approval seeking rant.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    I wonder how much media attention this will get? Maybe if FOX sets up a lemonade stand or two, we'll see some droolers camped outside the poor girl's foster home with duct tape covering their mouths, their arms crazily gesticulating to an empty sky. Enough is enough. It is not "complicated": her body belongs to her (for the moment), her rights are protected (for the moment), and in short, these nutbags need to stop laboring under the illusion that their opinions matter.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#28)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Mfox - so if someone is to donate to a group for the purpose of allwoig a mother to stay with her baby, or to adopt an unwanted baby will you say that they have a bona fied right to act in an antiabortion manner? I know I've given to such groups in the past, and will again when my finances allow me to. Bhlag - Fact: There is still NO legal or widely accepted standard for when a fetus becomes an actual "baby." Don't be so sure about that. As far as legal goes several states use when the baby takes it's first breath, even if not fully delivered as the point. Why do you think that partial birth abortions are performed in the breeched birth position? There may be medical reasons, but a big part of the reasoning is that if the head is still in the birth canal the baby can't have taken a breath, and therefore no criminal liability for infanticide. As far as widely accepted [s]ome (gasp) even say that it isn't until the fetus could reasonably have a chance to survive outside the womb. (also called the point of viability) would likely pull a significant majority in a poll. -BigTex

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    It's funny how all anti-abortionists eventually get around to accusing all pro-choicers of advocation "partial-breech" abortions. For the Record: Blaghdaddy had never even heard of "partial-breech" abortions until the firestorm hit the media airwaves. When it was explained, Blaghdaddy cursed the heavens and asked how this procedure could even be called an abortion. It's murder, plain and simple. No if's, but's or and's about it. His opinion. That said, where do you conservatives stand on interning Americans on racial factors? On segregation? On not allowing women the vote? On slavery? On witch-burning? On the Crusades? On bombing countries who haven't attacked us? On torturing people who aren't even proven terrorists but just suspected? At some point, a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy, whatever her age. You can't deprive a minor of their right not to be executed, and you shouldn't be able to force a minor child to carry out a biological process that may negatively affect not just her and her family, but potentially society as a whole- how many abused and unwanted children become monsters? Too, too many. As for those holier-than-thou people challenging others to adopt a black baby with AIDS, or a Romanian orphan- you bloody adopt them, if you're so "culture of life" Many of them are here because of you and your ilk. You should be running to save those babies instead of trying to bring more into the world at gunpoint and trying to kill others who've already made it. You bloody hypocrites.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Since this is in the court system now it is a legal question. She has a FL state constitutional right to an abortion and doesn't have to notify parents or guardian. DCF knows they don't have a case, they are just trying to delay things legally until it is too late for her to have an abortion. They've used thte tactic before and it plays well politically with the rabid religious right.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#31)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    JR, you talk about this girl as if she's incompetent, yet reading through the excerpts from the trial she seems to be the most intelligent one in the room.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#32)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    There is much ado about when life begins. When roe v wade was decided the science was absolutely clear and the standards set for abortion were based on the FACTS. Those who oppose abortion have been unable to refute the scientific evidence so they just ignoe it! If they had any REAL science to proove their contention they would used it as if it were a God given sword. Religion has been ad odds with science because Science reveals to us God's real truths at the exspense of religous superstitions. You can say god created the universe in seven days over and over untill your blue in the face but it will not and cannot truump truth! Science does not proclaim truth it reveals it!

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    If life starts at conception, can we claim an IRS deduction for every conception that we think happened during the course of a year? One in three conceptions ends in a naturally occurring abortion, btw. If it's a child at conception, it should be a deduction at tax time, doesn't that seem fair? What if it is a child even if the egg isn't fertilized? Who knows about this stuff for certain? Shouldn't welfare families start drawing the increased family size benefit from the date of conception? See, the problem is that we have decided for some logical reasons that a child is a child when it is born and starts breathing. If we want to change the rules, let's be consistent about the change, shall we?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    This child of 13 seems to be abandoned by any loving family. This child of 13 seemed to have made a decision to have sex. This child of 13 seems to have made a decision to have an abortion. This child of 13 seems to be making a lot of decisions on her own. And now the government has decided to step in and tell her what she can't do? Where were they when she was 12? Oh yeah, we can't teach children about birth control or give them condoms but we can tell a female that she does not have the right to make this decision? And the guy who helped her get pregnant???

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#35)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    We could make the abortion issue Moot. If, we were only willing to require advertising the morning after pill back to back with every Viagra Commercial.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Life cannot be said to start at conception, since FORTY PERCENT of all concepts fail to implant, and are washed out in the next menstruation. So you got a LOT of women to try for murder, if the right is right. Including every one of their wives who has had unprotected sex, but not achieved pregnancy, since fertilization is generally the UNcomplicated part of the equation. "When it was explained, Blaghdaddy cursed the heavens and asked how this procedure could even be called an abortion. It's murder, plain and simple." No, it isn't. There are no persons under law who have no brains, but that is exactly the type of failed pregnancy that gets this kind of procedure. And the reason for it isn't that it is cruel and horrid -- it's that it is MUCH safer for the mother than a Cesarian, and much less likely to damage her organs so she can conceive and deliver a baby WITH a brain. Tens of thousands of murdered babies in Iraq -- THAT is murder.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#37)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    It's funny how all anti-abortionists eventually get around to accusing all pro-choicers of advocation "partial-breech" abortions. Where has anyone done so in this thread? Given that the only two posts with the word partial in them are my response to you and your response to me you seem to not have any argument that your above quoted assertation has taken place in this thread. My post was merely a response to your claim that there was no point in which legally a state determined when life occurred prebirth. It only indicated that there was a point in which states legally charge someone with infanticide even if the baby is not yet fully delivered. No moral judgment involved. No accusation of any sort involved. In fact, I've taken care to not address the issue of abortion on it's merits (or lack thereof) and to stick to anaylsis of the issue of hand, without going into moral judgment ground. CA - there's a big difference between a natural, often called spontanious, abortion and an elective abortion. The abortion issue, bot at large and in this thread, involves elective abortions. If it's a child at conception, it should be a deduction at tax time, doesn't that seem fair? There should be a benefit, but not as you suggest. The benefit should be for prenatal care, not the same benefit as having a child. What if it is a child even if the egg isn't fertilized? Who knows about this stuff for certain? You're either being silly or disengenious. Fusion of the egg and sperm nuclei is needed for the correct amount of chormosomes to be present. With out the sperm (or some other form of DNA present) a full set of chromozomes can't form along the spindle during cellular reproduction, and the process of development won't take place. Shouldn't welfare families start drawing the increased family size benefit from the date of conception? Wellfare is need based, not entitlement based (though it is an entitlement.) They should be able to draw prenatal care, and perhaps a food benefit for the mother, but the purpose of wellfare is to care for those who have needs, and the only need an unborn baby has is for the mother to stay healthy/get enough nutrition, and for prenatal care. The only need that has increased is prenatal and mother's nutrition, and the increased benefit should be narrowly tailored to meet those specific needs, not be a bouns in the size of the wellfare check.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    I think you all are missing the point by getting hung up on when life begins - as if the government could step in to protect the "citizen" while it is inside of another citizen. Ridiculous. This is a MEDICAL decision. And no one is FOR abortion. They are either for safe legal abortions, or they're for dirty nasty illegal abortions where the mother is considered a murderer. So let's be clear. I'm tired of this stupid debate. Did you know that only poor women actually have to go to clinics? Anyone with a good doctor will check them into the hospital for a D&C. Go take care of your own families. More on this later if y'all can't stop treating women like chattel.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:38 PM EST
    Bravo mfox...looks like everyone's beating the dead horse when the should be looking for more neocons...

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    To say that there are no people for abortion is simply false given how flippant many of the posters are. Science and sonograms(my daughter did not look like an alien or a clump of cells) are rendering the trimester legal framework obsolete. Do we have any moral duty as a society to those not yet born/Are all reasons offered for abortion acceptable/why is abortion, if it is just another medical procedure, different from ear piercing which requires a parent or guardian's approval.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    Leaving aside the whole debate about when life begins (or even whether abortion should be a right) for a moment, can we talk about the rule of law? Under Florida law, this young woman has a right to an abortion. The issue here, it seems, is whether the state is justified in trying to find a way to block her from exercising that right. Whether or not you agree with the right, it exists. If the legal maneuvering takes long enough, the state could effectively prevent her from making the decision. That seems an unlovely precedent.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#42)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    DB, As far as "rule of law" goes, in Florida a minor needs parental permission to get an abortion. So, in practical terms, she doesn't have any such right. Her parents have the right. So it's not such a stretch that, lacking parents, it's the government's decision to make.
    If the legal maneuvering takes long enough, the state could effectively prevent her from making the decision.
    Stalling tactics would be disgusting in this case. The courts need to resolve the issue quickly, whichever way it goes.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    All right, I'll bite, Ed.
    Science and sonograms(my daughter did not look like an alien or a clump of cells) are rendering the trimester legal framework obsolete.
    Most who have abortions don't care what the "clump" looks like, they don't want it inside of them. Don't like it - take it up with Mother Nature, or God, or whoever gave mothers the free will to bond with or reject growing life inside of her. Science and sonograms(my daughter did not look like an alien or a clump of cells) are rendering the trimester legal framework obsolete. Do we have any moral duty as a society to those not yet born/Are all reasons offered for abortion acceptable/why is abortion, if it is just another medical procedure, different from ear piercing which requires a parent or guardian's approval.
    Do we have any moral obligation as a society to those not yet born?
    Sure, if your church does. The GOVERNMENT? B.S. Are all reasons offered for abortion acceptable? Offered to who? The abortion board? I need a PERMISSION SLIP FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO TERMINATE LIFE GROWING INSIDE ME??? If the reasons are acceptable to a mother and her physician,who else could possibly be more qualified to decide? Tom DeLay? Jeb Bush? I'd go in a back alley with a coat hanger in a NY minute before I'd ever take the chance that the state (especially of Florida)could gain any kind of jurisdiction over my unborn child. They are worse than murderers, based on their abhorrent record as guardians of the states OFS.
    Why is abortion, if it is just another medical procedure, different from ear piercing which requires a parent or guardian's approval.
    Having your ears pierced is a CHOICE. Having sex may have been a choice (in most cases) but becoming a host for another life by means of the sex act has burdened women for eons by their limited choices in this case. Allowing women to decide whether they want to be a mom, or want to bring a child into the world that they can't take care of or love I thought was a humane act.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    mfox...well said.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    Yes mfox, you, me, every citizen, "need a PERMISSION SLIP FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO TERMINATE LIFE."

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    Human fetal form is NOT a viable human life, Ed. Your look at a sonogram is moot. There are a whole series of things that can go wrong with a pregnancy. Shall we prosecute women for every failure to deliver? No, the law is quite clear on viability, not merely having hands. NO ONE is denying the life of the fetus -- but a fetus is not a human being with individual rights until it can live (relatively) independently. That's the only standard we can have, without playing all the 'sonogram' games you have in mind, which would require MILLIONS of prosecutions of women who in good faith tried to carry a child and miscarried. Under your standard, Ed, that's murder. No one with half a wit of logic agrees with you.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    well, maybe life starts at ejaculation? Think of the horrible death and loss related to ejaculations that are not carried to term.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#63)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    well, maybe life starts at ejaculation? Maybe the moon is made of cheese? Maybe the Martians built the pyrmids? Maybe the Chineese assassinated Kennedy? Maybe Pluto is a glorified commet? Maybe you're being disingenious? Here's a clue CA. Sperm are incapable or reproduction. As such they can't be human life.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:40 PM EST
    Here's another clue, podner, unfertilized ovum are incapable of reproduction also. God's hand in all this is mysterious, though my hand or yours in the ejaculation business will not generally serve His plan for us to be fruitful. The point I make is that none of us know where life begins. And we don't know where it ends. It's a matter for personal prayer and reflection when we are faced with decisions about whether to attempt a pregnancy, or to terminate a pregnancy, or to insert a feeding tube, or remove a feeding tube. I would much prefer to let each of us have the power to pray on these decisions and act in accord with our prayer and reflection than to trust the US Congress to do our praying for us. btw, CIA got Kennedy. Chinese were not involved. I was in class in New Braunfels, Texas at the time and have an alibi. Where were you? You a real Texan or a Connecticut Yankee Texan?

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:40 PM EST
    CA...Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life" touches on that same subject. "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate." Too funny. The lunacy of it all.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#66)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:41 PM EST
    CA and Kdog, you are both being intentionally obtuse. You are equivicating life and human life in this thread. Life is all around. Taking life isn't the problem, when I had some beef at lunch it involved taking a cow's life at some point. When we cut down trees that's taking life. The battle isn't over taking life, it's taking human life. Fat cells are alive. However if someone has plastic surgery no one complains about the taking of life of the fat cells. Same with hair cells and chemo. Same with an arm or a leg and gangerine. The value appears when it becomes human life, which by necessity requires an ova to be fertilized with something. It doesn't have to be sperm, but it does have to be fertilized. A sperm can't be fertilized. It's a phyiscal impossibility, so it's a physical impossibility for sperm cells to be considered human life.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:41 PM EST
    I think this case has to be seen in the context of the overall power-grab by the religious right; people like DeLay, Scalia, Bush Jr., Frist, etc., who very much want to replace the rule of law with biblical law. You've got lunatics who should be on the fringe of society making some very weighty decisions. And this case -and abortion in general- is at the heart of these culture wars. So, while I agree that if a pregnancy/birth was forced on this 13-year-old girl, it'd be part of creating a whole generation of unwanted kids, I think it's more important that forcing pregnancies is part of creating a whole generation (my generation, actually) of women who believe they are selfish brats if they want any control over their bodies/destinies. Not to mention young women who, thanks to abstinence classes, instead of sex ed - have very little information to make decisions about their own bodies! And if a woman can't freely decide whether or not to be a mother, she is not free - period. And any society should be judged by how liberated its women are. I think this 13-year-old girl -judging by her quotes - is very sharp and independent. And I wish more girls had this much self-awareness.

    Re: FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#68)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Mic Test Mice test. 1..2..3... Mic test. Some earlier comments weren't showing up, so this is a mic test. -BigTex

    FL Interferes With Minor's Right to Abortion | 68 comments (68 topical)