13 year old girl denied abortion (2 Viewers)

[Generator]

on that note then wouldn't the state have the right to intervene on any person's abortion? what makes the 13 year old's abortion able to be intervened, but not others?

The state is her legal guardian.

 

[funky_a]

IMO I don't think anyone has the right to intervene in her choices. She's 13 and she probably isn't capable of providing for herself let alone a child. And putting a baby up for adoption just because she can't take care of it is not a justified reason or right for the child to be born. Especially considering how much children are up for adoption nowdays anyway.

 

[ur_inner_child]

hope the 13 year old's physically capable... if she really does have the baby...

cuz i have an image of 13 year old nikki webster giving birth

and i think she'd die an hour into it.



EDIT: great. now i have an image of nikki webster's vagina.

 

[MasterP]

Just think how that 5 year old managed. Rip it up.

 

[glycerine]

The state has EVERY right to intervene, especially if it means the protection of a human life. There are of course quality of life issues, but if she wasn't raped then the child deserves a chance to live, and a set of infertile parents deserve a chance to give this child a good life. If she WAS raped, then I would (guardedly) support an abortion ASAP on the basis that the child would not have a good quality of life knowing he or she were the progeny of a rapist.

why should she have to go through that?? like i said, chances are if shes having sex already, its because after a lifetime of neglect and abuse, that shes been taught to perceive herself as a sexual object. you cannot tell me you honestly think this girl has a healthy, well developed sense of self. you are such an idiot in these matters. i'm sorry, but i stand by that statement - you rarely if ever consider the welfare of already living, breathing human beings over potential children. ffs, this girl is a child herself.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Just think how that 5 year old managed. Rip it up.

holy crap

i'm going to throw up

 

[_muse_]

http://www.sexualrecords.com/WSRprev.html

Seems like a 5 year old gave birth to a baby that lived for 40 years...

how the fuck does that work, i mean obviously it was rape.. but how the hell did they have the baby? They're body wouldnt be strong enough! and her hips? oh god.. this makes me depressed. I thought the minimum age for getting your period was 8 or 9? but now it seems it can be 5 years old!!

i find it disturbing that the courts decided an abortion couldnt be had. I mean, can a 13 year old be mentally and physically mature enough to have a baby? i dunno, i dont know anything current affairs or news.. that newspaper article just got to me...

 

[ur_inner_child]

The state has EVERY right to intervene, especially if it means the protection of a human life. There are of course quality of life issues, but if she wasn't raped then the child deserves a chance to live, and a set of infertile parents deserve a chance to give this child a good life. If she WAS raped, then I would (guardedly) support an abortion ASAP on the basis that the child would not have a good quality of life knowing he or she were the progeny of a rapist.

quality of life may NOT mean that its about the quality of the life of the baby.

if the 13 year old dies while she gives birth to the baby

i'd like to play the blaming game with you.

 

[iambored]

The state is her legal guardian.

so that means parents would be able to stop an abortion? if yes i didn't realise that.

 

[glycerine]

so that means parents would be able to stop an abortion? if yes i didn't realise that.

thats a state to state thing in most places. in nsw you can have an abortion without parental knowledge and/or permission if you're 14

 

[townie]

Tho i'm not sure how pregnant she is, if wats inside her doesnt have a brain yet, it isnt a human life yet phanatical, potential life it may be, but life it is not

 

[glycerine]

they said she was 13 weeks which is the beginning of the second trimester i think.
to be fair, chances are she hasn't had her period long enough to recognise when her cycle is interrupted and thus didn't know right away. having the court hold it up is the WORST thing they can do.

 

[townie]

they said she was 13 weeks which is the beginning of the second trimester i think.
to be fair, chances are she hasn't had her period long enough to recognise when her cycle is interrupted and thus didn't know right away. having the court hold it up is the WORST thing they can do.

i agree.

i usually prefer abortions to be in the first trimester, but things like this are extenuating circumstances, i think being 13, she has more right to an abortion, she's got her whole life ahead of her, she should be in school, not caring for a baby or endangering its health by carrying it

 

[glycerine]

yeh, at the end of the day, she's had enough fucking up her life already. she shouldn't be further marginalised by being forced against her will to go through pregnancy. personally i think shes more likely to be too immature to understand the implications of carrying the baby to term than the implications of abortion.

 

[sugared plum]

The state has EVERY right to intervene, especially if it means the protection of a human life. There are of course quality of life issues, but if she wasn't raped then the child deserves a chance to live, and a set of infertile parents deserve a chance to give this child a good life. If she WAS raped, then I would (guardedly) support an abortion ASAP on the basis that the child would not have a good quality of life knowing he or she were the progeny of a rapist.

dude, you are contradicting yourself.
you say, no abortion: all human life important.
then, some life is more important than other.

who is qualified to judge one human life is more valuable/of better quality than another? so disabled people shouldn't have kids? gays? poor people? people who haven't got a degree? people who got less than 99 in their hsc? single people?

yr argument never works.

that is why it is entirely the mother's choice. bodily autonomy.
for example if my sibling has cancer, and s/he needs my bone marrow to survive, i can refuse to give that bone marrow, and therefore my sibling will die. it is inconsequentila that my sibling is a brilliant something, or a serial killer.
it is my body, i say what happens.

(and in nsw at least, all sex under 16 is rape. children cannot consent)

 

[Benny_]

Well said plum. That just about sums up this debate for me.

 

[transcendent]

How incredibly stupid. I believe she may be immature but regardless of laws ( which I personally find to be more of a hinderance then anything ) couldn't the courts see or at least speculate the problems with not allowing the 13 year old girl to go ahead with the abortion? What is the 13 year old going to do to take care of the baby? She might as well abandon it or dump it in an orphanage, preferably the orphanage cause the baby will have a better life. Do we seriously need another person in the world? I don't get this right to life debate. You are either alive and focus on maintaining and caring for those living or you are dead. Doesn't the world have anything better to do? Seriously if you are pro-life and you prevent abortion and the mother doesn't want it you damn well take that baby and care for it. If you're not willing to do that fuck off and stop forcing your ideals onto other people.

 

[katie_tully]

The state has EVERY right to intervene, especially if it means the protection of a human life. There are of course quality of life issues, but if she wasn't raped then the child deserves a chance to live, and a set of infertile parents deserve a chance to give this child a good life. If she WAS raped, then I would (guardedly) support an abortion ASAP on the basis that the child would not have a good quality of life knowing he or she were the progeny of a rapist.

Which human life are we protecting? The life of an unborn fetus which relies upon the life of the mother? Why does the fetus apparently have more rights than a 13 year old female?
You say unfertile parents should have the right to give the child a life, last time I checked there were a few already born orphans in need of parents ... rolls eyes?

She's homless, you clown. Also, what's with everybody saying it serves her right? As mention before, we don't know her circumstances. Being homeless at 13 has probably made her alot more street wise than most of you at 13. Believe it or not, not everybody was still pissing the bed when they were 13. She could have slept with somebody as a means to recieve money so that she could feed or shelter herself, and now she is facing having to look after a child. I dare say though, if she has the child it will be taken off her by the state and fostered out, which is going to leave her emotionally devestated.

 

[Monkey Butler]

so that means parents would be able to stop an abortion? if yes i didn't realise that.

No, it's just because she's a ward of the state, and the state isn't allowed to let her have it. It's in the second last paragraph of the article.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

God just let her have the abortion.