Abortion Issues Return to Supreme Court

[Republican_Man]

It's 15 in my state, which I hate. And I was right. 3 states are exceptions to 16 or older.
Missouri: 14 (if partner under 21), 17 (all other adults)
Iowa: 14 or 15 (if partner less than 5 years older), 16 (all other adult partners)
Colorado: 15 (17 if partner 10 years older and not spouse)

And Virginia's an odd exception which has a lot to it.

But even though they wrongfully can have sex at a younger age in those states, that doesn't mean that they are mentally able to decide to have an abortion and can really decide whether or not to have one based on the mental implications that result from it. Plus, what about the values instilled in the child? Are we supposed to compromise what the parents are trying to teach their kids with regards to abortions? What if the doctor suggests it and makes it seem as though it's alright? Some would do that.
And again, I stand by my argument that if a 16 year old has to have parental forms filled out for medical and transportation situations, they should have to have parental consent for abortion (except for those two extreme circumstances). (I'm either the age of consent or older than that, and yet my parents have to fill out these forms and I'm restricted. It should be the same with abortion.)

I mean, it's the end of a life anyways. The teens should have known that they could get pregnant and should have to deal with it anyway (unless rape). It means that a minor can decide whether or not a life can be allowed to live--and without parental consent as well. That's a VERY serious issue that shouldn't be permissable without parental consent, at the very least.

[IntrepidIsMe]

Well, if a state believes that they're old enough to handle having sex, then that would also imply that the state believes they're old enough to handle the consequences and deal with them. Why is the legal age 18 for smoking? Because by then the government believes you're old enough to make a decision whether or not to harm your body through nicotine, and therefore handle the consequences.

I'm not arguing the moral issues here, just the facts.

and

Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, New York: 17

[Republican_Man]

And they SHOULD deal with the consequences. And not by murdering a baby--especially without parental consent.
Keep in mind that abortion is a medical procedure. Minors need parental consent for a medical procedure, and especially for one as serious as this, they should follow the same guidelines, end of story.

[IntrepidIsMe]

In which case the state age for sex should be 18. It seems rather backwards to allow sex, but not allow someone to deal with the consequences.

My only issue is with the confliction in laws and guidelines.

[Republican_Man]

Dealing with the consequences does NOT mean abortion [without parental consent], and it's rather sickening to hear that it does.
And besides, again, it's a medical procedure. Making the consent age that age doesn't mean that they can have such a procedure without parental consent anyways.

[IntrepidIsMe]

If you have sex, a possible consequence of that is pregnancy, hence: abortion. It's just an option that works. Is it right or wrong? That's a personal issue. I know plenty of people who've been pregnant at 16 and kept their children, and plenty who have had abortions.

Another issue is: would it be right for the parent to deny the person in question abortion? That seems to be a bit like slavery. Afterall, why not deny them treatment for cancer? Or food poisoning?

[LightningBoy]

Cancer and Food Poinsoning are a DISEASE.

The woman gave up her choice when she got herself knocked up. Murder is not a right.

[IntrepidIsMe]

Well, that brings you back to the moral debate. I'm not arguing that point.

[oberon]

[Birdy]

First of all, I think there should be the possibility to have an abortion if you want to. Whether the woman does that or not, it's her decision.

Second, I think teenagers have a right to decide over their own body, from like the age of 12. Over here the policy in medical treatment for young people between 12 and 16 is: they have a say in the treatment, and the parents too.
However. If the youngster, for instance, wants something that the parents don't want, the doctor has to respect the youngsters wishes.

I think that's a great point of view, cause you take the teenager very seriously. You respect his wishes. And that's what's this all about.

Plus: the law in Holland states that woman should have 5 days to think about it. So when they talk to a doctor to have the abortion, the procedure can't be planned sooner than 5 days after that. I think that's a good rule, you have to be sure.

If I was 13, and went and had sex, and got pregnant, and it was too late for a morning-after pill, well, I would have an abortion. I think even now I would have one if I got pregnant, even though I'm on birth control pills. I'm in college, I'm planning my life, and I can't give the child the love and support it needs. That's just unfair to him/her!

[LightningBoy]

[oberon]

It's actually the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. But anyway, those rights can only be granted to one who functions without the use of an umbilical cord. As of now, there is no such thing as 'fetal rights'. The right of the adult woman superceeds that of the unborn fetus. It may be cruel, but that's how it is. And life doesn't begin at conception. Technically speaking, the sperm and egg are alive, being independant entities.

[LightningBoy]

And at conception, they are no longer seperate entities. As for your coments about no fetal rights, that's the debate! Nowhere does it say they have no rights. Since they human, I would venture to believe that they're entitled to the same rights as any fully grown human. Roe v. Wade is irresponsible judging; conception is the point where the two separate DNA strands cease to exist, and join into a third combination; so scientifically; the new life begins at conception.

As for "Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happieness/Property" Either are acceptable. Though Happiness is written in the Declaration of Independance, it has been legally referred to throughout US history as meaning "the persuit of property".

[oberon]

Oh.. my mistake. I didn't know property was acceptable as well. Sorry about that.

And yes, I'm familliar with the process of "crossing over", the point at which amino acids are shared and bonding occurrs. But that doesn't prove anything. Each cell's nucleolus holds the parents' chromosomal information that is released in meiosis to create two identical daughter cells at the divergence of the pair. That means that they are reproductive and therefore, alive. So the basis of your argument is nullified because life is begun before the point at which they come together. Just because a unique genetic code is produced doesn't make it any more alive than before they had adjoined.

And nowhere does it say that fetuses have rights. So we're gridlocked, huh?

[LightningBoy]

Nowhere does it say Children have right either...

It's logical to assume, as humans, they do too.

[oberon]

You know, I really don't like the concept of abortion. I think that all life, no matter on what cellular plane it exists is sacred and should be respected and revered. I just don't think that illegalizing abortion is a good thing to do. I mean, I for one don't want to see desperate women going to extrodinary lengths such as using a coat hanger or seeing an unlicensed doctor, providing potential for internal bleeding, infection, and death along with the termination of her pregnancy. It's just not practical.

[Leo Wyatt]

Abortions is wrong plan and simple... Do you want me to explain the procedure of an abortion? I won't cause if i do I will have to go throw up literally.

I know how it is done cause my sister is a nurse. She even quit being a nurse cause of it. That is my middle sister. My oldest sister had an abortion and she said she wished she had took her baby sister's advise and not get it. She is suffering from the actions she took.

Common sense is needed. Don't spread your legs girls if you don't want a baby. In rape cases, give the baby up for an adoption, It is not the baby's fault of the sins of the father. There are lots and lots of people who can not have a baby and wants to raise kids. Even younger kids, give it up. Killing an innocent life cause of selfishness is not right in my opinion. I don't want to sound like I am bashing when I am not.

There are other options and it takes some common sense to do it in.

[Republican_Man]

[IntrepidIsMe]

[Republican_Man]

[IntrepidIsMe]

Sure, they're legally children, but apparently the state is recognizing the fact that they're able to handle themselves in at least this one respect, so why not the results, too?

It just seems stupid to say "Oh, you can handle sex, but not the consequences." If you're under 18 and commit a crime, then you go to prison. Obviously because you made a decision and now have to deal with the results. Or at least I believe that's how it works in the real world.

[Republican_Man]

Btw,

[IntrepidIsMe]

"Truly know better"? How should one know if someone knew better or not? If it's illegal to do something then you could assume so, but that of course isn't necessarily true, depending on age and other things.

I can see both sides of the arguements, but with the laws in place as they are, it just seems to be pretty moronic.

However, it's also kind of sick to force someone through a pregnancy, no matter what age they are. Telling someone that their life is going to change, that they'll have to suffer through pain, embarrassment, and possibly worse, and that there's nothing they can do about it because of your (the parent) opinion? That's pretty messed up.

[Republican_Man]

Well, they should have thought of that before getting into bed. (That's why abstinence in school is key.)

[IntrepidIsMe]

Then I suppose the state shouldn't have let them in bed, if they can't handle it.

Taadaa.