Florida Dept of Child Services blocks 13-year old from abortion

[Beet]

By Tal Abbady, John Coté and David Fleshler
Staff WriterS
Posted April 29 2005

Pregnant and living in a shelter, a 13-year-old Palm Beach County girl is snared in a court fight of national scope after the state's social services agency blocked her attempt to have an abortion.

The legal and political wrangling surrounding the girl intensified Thursday as legislators and advocates weighed in on the case in light of state and federal efforts to pass a parental notification law that would apply to pregnant teens.

State law allows minors to have abortions without notifying their guardians. Experts say the law extends to wards of the state, raising the question of why this girl's decision has ended up before a judge.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-pabortion29apr29,0,4239569.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

[opebo]

Tyranny.

[opebo]

How the hell did she get herself pregnant in the first place?

No one ever gave you the birds and bees talk Everett?

[Citizen James]

How the hell did she get herself pregnant in the first place?

Well, she was removed from an abusive home, so I've got  a decent guess.

I would consider rape of some sort to be a highly probably cause, in any case it is definitely statutory rape (Unless Florida is even more backwards than it seems)

In any case, carrying a pregnancy to term at age 13 is extremely risky for the mother, and holds a high risk of miscariage as well (which unlike abortion is an uncontrolled situation and caries much higher risk of life-threatening complications.).  Even if the pregnancy last to term, there is a signifiganly higher chance of serious birth defects (to say nothing of maternal death during delivery.

But of course, right wing judicial activists care only for the rights of the unborn, not of the currently living.

Homer Simpson was right, Florida is America's wang.

[opebo]

How the hell did she get herself pregnant in the first place?

Well, she was removed from an abusive home, so I've got  a decent guess.

I would consider rape of some sort to be a highly probably cause, in any case it is definitely statutory rape (Unless Florida is even more backwards than it seems)

In any case, carrying a pregnancy to term at age 13 is extremely risky for the mother, and holds a high risk of miscariage as well (which unlike abortion is an uncontrolled situation and caries much higher risk of life-threatening complications.).  Even if the pregnancy last to term, there is a signifiganly higher chance of serious birth defects (to say nothing of maternal death during delivery.

But of course, right wing judicial activists care only for the rights of the unborn, not of the currently living.

Homer Simpson was right, Florida is America's wang.

If her pregnancy was definitely the result of rape/incest, then she ought to have an abortion. However, if she was simply being irresponsible, there are these really magical things called contraceptives that could have been used.

What nonsense - what does what 'could've' been done have to do with the present?  It doesn't matter if she was raped by her grandpappy or wantonly gangbanged the soccer team at school.  The point is now she is pregnant and needs, and wants, an abortion.  What on earth does the past have to do with this?

[Jake]

Bet that's one of your most searched phrases, eh?

[TomC]

Bet that's one of your most searched phrases, eh?

Or at least in the top thirteen.

[Brambila]

Why abort? The girl had sex (I HIGHLY doubt it was rape, as the media would be first to report this), and now she's getting the consequences of her actions. She can't kill her child simply because she got kinky, and even if it was rape, she still has NO right to allow the murder of her child, FIRST because she is not old enough to make a decision to have an abortion (she doesn't know what she's getting into-- her guardians are forcing an abortion on her!), and SECOND because her child was not responsible for the rape in the first place.

[Jake]

Welcome back

[??????????]

State law allows minors to have abortions without notifying their guardians. Experts say the law extends to wards of the state, raising the question of why this girl's decision has ended up before a judge.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-pabortion29apr29,0,4239569.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

Wrong. Florida has a parental notification law and in the future if you are going to quote the Sun Sentinels garbage at least do some research.

[Beet]

State law allows minors to have abortions without notifying their guardians. Experts say the law extends to wards of the state, raising the question of why this girl's decision has ended up before a judge.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-pabortion29apr29,0,4239569.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

Wrong. Florida has a parental notification law and in the future if you are going to quote the Sun Sentinels garbage at least do some research.

Wrong. Florida does not have a parental notification law. Bills SB 1908 and HB 1908, which would require parental notification, have been passed by the state senate and house, but have not yet been formed into a single bill and sent to the governor to sign.

[??????????]

State law allows minors to have abortions without notifying their guardians. Experts say the law extends to wards of the state, raising the question of why this girl's decision has ended up before a judge.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-pabortion29apr29,0,4239569.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

Wrong. Florida has a parental notification law and in the future if you are going to quote the Sun Sentinels garbage at least do some research.

Wrong. Florida does not have a parental notification law. Bills SB 1908 and HB 1908, which would require parental notification, have been passed by the state senate and house, but have not yet been formed into a single bill and sent to the governor to sign.

It has a parental notification law. It just hasn't been enacted into law yet.

[minionofmidas]

It also has a law introducing compulsory attendance at the Church of Saint Fidel Castro. It just hasn't been presented to the State Legislature yet. The next time you're going to refute the Sun Sentinel garbage at least do some research.

Brambila claims, meanwhile, that "her guardians are forcing an abortion on her!". If he had read the posts above, he'd have noticed that her guardians are dragging her to court to prevent her from having an abortion.

James 42's classic abortion rights rhetoric, meanwhile, is problem-riddled as well. Yep, 13 year old mothers have higher risks of complications, but not because 13 year olds are somehow to young to be mothers, but because most 13 year old mothers these days are subproletarian waifs who've spent the first eight months of their pregnancy in denial. In a shelter (if they're anything like what they're here), with a good doctor around, this shouldn't be any problem at all.

[opebo]

Why abort?

Because she feels like it - that is what abortion on demand is all about!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, she's getting the consequences of State oppression.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She would've been able to last year, and any girl not in 'state custody' could do so.  That is the beauty of Roe V. Wade - the girl can end the pregnancy simply because she wants to regardless of what you theocrats think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does her age have to do with the decision?  Obviously any rational person in her situation would want the abortion. 

[Inverted Things]

Why abort?

Because it's the smart thing to do from a pragmatic standpoint. If I was in that situation, I'd definately do the same thing.

The girl had sex (I HIGHLY doubt it was rape, as the media would be first to report this), and now she's getting the consequences of her actions.

Agree. However, claiming that she should have to face the consequences of her actions is sadistic. To make a similar argument, should people who smoke not get cancer treatment because cancer is the consequence of the action of smoking? What a stupid argument.

She can't kill her child simply because she got kinky,

Yes she can. Legally even.

she still has NO right to allow the murder of her child

She's not allowing it. She's authorizing it. It looks like she does have the legal right to do that. I dislike arguing moral rights, and so I won't.

FIRST because she is not old enough to make a decision to have an abortion (she doesn't know what she's getting into-- her guardians are forcing an abortion on her!)

I don't think her guardians are forcing it on her, but that's a minor point. She was old enough to make the decision to have sex, so why she shouldn't she decide among her *LEGAL* options?

and SECOND because her child was not responsible for the rape in the first place.

I don't see where that's overly relevent. Enron employees and stockholders were affected by the shady accounting behavior, but they were not responsible. Bad things happen to innocent people and good things happen to guilty people. That's the way the world works. What needs to be done here is to make the best of a bad situation. I don't know what the best solution is, and therefore defer the decision to the girl since she knows her situation better than anyone.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps I should have read the entire article; I was picking up from the debate. What is the debate now? The guardians said no, so she can't have an abortion. Her guardians certainly didn't force sex on her.

Opebo seems to not have changed since I left, as his post once again is filled with red harrings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't compare the two. There are other, better alternatives to abortion that do not involve the death of another human being. This girl cannot allow the death of her child simply because she and another boy got kinky. She needs a much more valid excuse than that. You can't end a human life to hide your mistake.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poor logic; that situation could not have been prevented for the innocents. This one can. The girl does NOT need to have an abortion; she can easily put the child up for adoption. By your logic, the girl would also be able to kill her newborn because "bad things happen to innocent people". Of course, killing the newborn would be wrong.

[opebo]

Opebo seems to not have changed since I left, as his post once again is filled with red harrings.

No, there are none.  If you can't give examples of something, your claims are very weak.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, you can!  That is what is great about Roe V. Wade. 

[Jake]

Just ignore opebo. He's become a die hard pedophile in your absence.

[Inverted Things]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps I should have read the entire article; I was picking up from the debate. What is the debate now? The guardians said no, so she can't have an abortion. Her guardians certainly didn't force sex on her.

Opebo seems to not have changed since I left, as his post once again is filled with red harrings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't compare the two. There are other, better alternatives to abortion that do not involve the death of another human being. This girl cannot allow the death of her child simply because she and another boy got kinky. She needs a much more valid excuse than that. You can't end a human life to hide your mistake.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poor logic; that situation could not have been prevented for the innocents. This one can. The girl does NOT need to have an abortion; she can easily put the child up for adoption. By your logic, the girl would also be able to kill her newborn because "bad things happen to innocent people". Of course, killing the newborn would be wrong.

You emphasized all the wrong parts of my last paragraph. The important part is "What needs to be done here is to make the best of a bad situation."

With regard to the smoking argument, I can and did compare the two. Is the fetus a human being? If it is, why does that make a difference? Human lives aren't sacred, there are over 6 billion of them.

Making the best of a bad situation, in the girl's opinion, involves an abortion. She's given a lot more thought to her own situation than I (or you) have, so why force her to do otherwise?

[Brambila]

I never made any claims of human lives being sacred. However, human lives are definately important individually, and do have certain rights. Answer this question: If human life isn't "sacred", then should we extend abortions to up to 4 months after birth?

Having an abortion in no way makes better the situation.

[Ebowed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, you can!  That is what is great about Roe V. Wade. 

Holy sh**t!  You don't even agree that "ending a human life" is wrong?

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, you can!  That is what is great about Roe V. Wade. 

Holy sh**t!  You don't even agree that "ending a human life" is wrong?

Are you seriously trying to deny that Opebo's statement, while flippant, is factually correct in this context?

Re: Brambila? Why adoption? Why THE HELL adoption? She could just keep the baby, you know. Lots of teenage mothers do.

[Inverted Things]

Having an abortion in no way makes better the situation.

Well, how doesn't it make the situation better? There are two people (and I use that term loosely) who the situation directly affects. First is the girl, second is the fetus. The fetus has no opinions and no thought process that we understand. Thus, we must defer to the girl.

[Gabu]

It has a parental notification law. It just hasn't been enacted into law yet.

It has a parental notification bill, which does not affect anything until it actually becomes a law.

At any rate, if abortion is legal in Florida, on what grounds have they stopped her from having an abortion?  Regardless of whether or not you think abortion should be legal, it seems to me that we should not be blatantly ignoring the law purely because we don't agree with it.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though she has the right to keep her child, I would highly reccomend adoption as the infant will be adopted instantly (infants are always adopted; its children that arn't), and she would go to a home that has higher chances of taking care of the baby. The girl needs to grow up-- she's too young to become a mother. She needs at least a few more years of understanding life before she could raise a child.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a logical fallacy. Simply because the fetus can't state its opinion doesn't mean it has none. As a matter of fact, it does. The fetus has the opinion that every single mentally normal human being has-- survival. All life seeks survival of themselves, and the mere fact that the fetus is surviving in the girl's womb is the absolute evidence that the fetus wants to live.