Judge says he can order abortion for disabled Nevada woman

[Cecilie1200]

He should enforce the abortion. The woman has the mental age of a six year old. Her parents are blinded by their Catholic faith.

Ahh, so the concept of "legal guardianship" and "private medical decisions" goes right out the window with you just as soon as there's even a HINT that someone is making those "private medical decisions" based on religious beliefs, is that it? What the fuck happened to "keep your laws off my body", huh? What about "government get out of my vagina"? Where'd THAT go?

Let me ask you something, you hypocritical twat. What if the situation was reversed, and her parents were demanding the right to decide to abort the baby, and the judge was inserting himself into the situation and demanding the right to hold hearings on ordering her to give birth? Would you still view it as the judge's business? Or is it just that you have some sort of vested interest in ALWAYS defaulting to "let's kill the baby"?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The state is currently her guardians, however I think precedent will prove him wrong if he chooses to rule in favor of an abortion.


Having read about the case, I doubt he will choose to abort.

I would like to know where you got "the state is currently her guardians" from that article, since it stated quite clearly that HER PARENTS are her legal guardians.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just because she can't raise a child is not a valid reason to force someone to have a medical procedure against the will of their guardians.

At least YOU'RE consistent. I have to give you credit for that.

 

[AmyNation]

The state is currently her guardians, however I think precedent will prove him wrong if he chooses to rule in favor of an abortion.


Having read about the case, I doubt he will choose to abort.

I would like to know where you got "the state is currently her guardians" from that article, since it stated quite clearly that HER PARENTS are her legal guardians.

I posted the article where they mention the issue of guardianship in this thread.


IMO, the group home and the woman's parents should be investigated for neglect. As long as the woman's doctor believes the pregnancy isn't putting her life at risk, she should be able to continue it, because her parents want that, and when the child is born her parents can make the decision to either keep it themselves or put it up for adoption.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just because she can't raise a child is not a valid reason to force someone to have a medical procedure against the will of their guardians.

Her parents have no right to force their religious beliefs upon their daughter. Take away the right to argue in favor of their religion and see what argument they have.

This says they DO have a right:

The parents argue that as their daughter's legal guardians, they have exclusive authority over her health care decisions.

It was right there in the article. What'd you do, neglect to read it and just run in here and start kneejerking?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just because she can't raise a child is not a valid reason to force someone to have a medical procedure against the will of their guardians.

if the state is her guardian...... why not?

Because the state ISN'T her guardian, apparently.

 

[Katzndogz]

The democrat liberals are redefining parents and guardians to mean mere caretakers with the ultimate decison making ability remaining with the state.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The state is currently her guardians, however I think precedent will prove him wrong if he chooses to rule in favor of an abortion.


Having read about the case, I doubt he will choose to abort.

I thought I read the parents have guardianship? After I posted that I read about those with seizures and having children. They need to be monitored by doctors and some removed from their anit-seizure meds BUT apparently a normal birth can occur and no health damages to child or mother.

Well, yeah. Women with epilepsy have babies all the time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Judge doesn't have the authority, he's asking the State Supreme Court to give him that.

What I want to know is, how the hell did this judge get involved in the first place? One assumes he didn't just hear about the situation and take it upon himself to start making judicial pronouncements, although I guess these days, you can't put anything past meddlesome public officials who think it's their job to remake the world for everyone else.

Nevertheless, this sort of thing usually comes about because someone somewhere brought a suit to counter the parents' medical decision, so I'd like to know who that was, and why.

 

[AmyNation]

The Judge doesn't have the authority, he's asking the State Supreme Court to give him that.

What I want to know is, how the hell did this judge get involved in the first place? One assumes he didn't just hear about the situation and take it upon himself to start making judicial pronouncements, although I guess these days, you can't put anything past meddlesome public officials who think it's their job to remake the world for everyone else.

Nevertheless, this sort of thing usually comes about because someone somewhere brought a suit to counter the parents' medical decision, so I'd like to know who that was, and why.

I assume it happened the way most crimes are reported. If a 6 year old showed up at the hospital with signs of sexual abuse, the doctor would report it. If a woman with the mind of a 6 year old shows up pregnant, that's a crime.

 

[whitehall]

Having the mental capacity of a 6 year old and becoming pregnant probably indicates rape. The pro-abortion crowd always maintained that an abortion is justified in the case of rape or incest so it opens up an interesting question of whether the government (the judge) can order an abortion to be performed against the will of the victim or her family.

 

[jillian]

Having the mental capacity of a 6 year old and becoming pregnant probably indicates rape. The pro-abortion crowd always maintained that an abortion is justified in the case of rape or incest so it opens up an interesting question of whether the government (the judge) can order an abortion to be performed against the will of the victim or her family.

i think the problem isn't whether abortion is appropriate where the person raped CHOOSES to have one.

but this person's guardians aren't choosing it. and really, it's up to them...unless their decision is abusive... which i think it is.

but the issue is about the girl's ability to consent.

perhaps it's the "CONSENT" or "CHOICE" part that confuses you.

 

[AmyNation]

How is their choice abusive?

 

[AmyNation]

The woman was clearly raped. Repeatedly. Children cant consent to sex, and neither can a woman with the mind of a child. The woman's opinion on having an abortion or not should also not be in question, as she can't make those choices either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How is their choice abusive?

Because it allows the baby to live, and Jillian doesn't hold with that sort of shit. She believes that the very existence of a baby is a horrific nightmare of epic proportions unless you very deliberately set out to become pregnant, and sometimes even then.

You're going to think this is an incredibly extreme interpretation, but the truth is, whether it's intentional or not, that IS what "pro-choice" arguments often come down to in their essentials.

 

[AmyNation]

....

Yeah I'm going to just say "that's your interpretation" and leave it at that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The woman was clearly raped. Repeatedly. Children cant consent to sex, and neither can a woman with the mind of a child. The woman's opinion on having an abortion or not should also not be in question, as she can't make those choices either.

I agree that the pregnancy is obviously the result of rape, because she's incapable of providing legal consent. I don't know necessarily about "repeatedly". It would be a monumentally bad coincidence for a one-time incident to result in pregnancy, but it DOES happen.

 

[AmyNation]

The woman was clearly raped. Repeatedly. Children cant consent to sex, and neither can a woman with the mind of a child. The woman's opinion on having an abortion or not should also not be in question, as she can't make those choices either.

I agree that the pregnancy is obviously the result of rape, because she's incapable of providing legal consent. I don't know necessarily about "repeatedly". It would be a monumentally bad coincidence for a one-time incident to result in pregnancy, but it DOES happen.

According to her parents, she often slipped out of the home and prostituted herself at the local truck stop.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The woman was clearly raped. Repeatedly. Children cant consent to sex, and neither can a woman with the mind of a child. The woman's opinion on having an abortion or not should also not be in question, as she can't make those choices either.

I agree that the pregnancy is obviously the result of rape, because she's incapable of providing legal consent. I don't know necessarily about "repeatedly". It would be a monumentally bad coincidence for a one-time incident to result in pregnancy, but it DOES happen.

According to her parents, she often slipped out of the home and prostituted herself at the local truck stop.

I see. One wonders if those she had sex with at the truck stop were aware of the extent of her mental incapacity. They almost certainly knew she was retarded, but it's definitely a question whether they conversed with her long enough to realize HOW retarded.

 

[AmyNation]

I think it would be impossible to procecute a rape case on any of the men, although she was clearly raped.

However that's why I said any investigation should be on the home and the parents.