Pretty much.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nebraska Supreme Court rules 16-year-old not mature enough for abortion
- Thread starter Dead Man
- Start date
- Status
Pretty much.
Its the way these disscusions go.
Girl having sex ending with unexpected pregnancy : "She was stupid"
Guy having sex ending with unexpected pregnancy(of the girl): "He made a mistake" or "Congrats on the sex"
There is a clearly different tone with a guy, if there ever is a discussion to begin with on the guys side. Girls almost always take the brunt of the blame when it comes to sex leading to unexpected pregnancies.
As a guy, I'm usually not publicly shamed like women.
Its always the same thing. While a lot of things change, a lot stays the same.
Depends whether you abandon the kids I suppose. A lot of blokes I went to highschool with had kids with their girlfriends when they were in their teens or early twenties and have been great dads, but they have been financially quite dependant on parents and shitty jobs because of that.
I know people will be like "But Biology!" but if you really think sex is this terrible act that requires punishment I don't see why men are exempt from it.
hey_monkey
Banned
Of course. Because none of the goddamn pro-lifers are going to pony up anything extra to take care of them. Not even extra social programs to help take care of them.
I'm so steamed by shit like this. I understand the legal distinctions being made, but the laws themselves are ridiculous. This poor girl. She's never had a chance.
Well some would argue child support, but I really wonder how many men pay for child support? Or women elect for it? Its all murky.
I'll be honest financial support equal body autonomy/rights over ones body is insane. In no way can one ever, ever, ever come close to the other. Its ridiculous to even try to make the argument. It rings really loudly like an MRA argument. :/
Legendary_Red
Banned
That is not for you to decide though. The pro-life state government, courts, and general population have decided that there are enough 'complications' associated with abortion that the procedure should require explicit consent from the parents or guardians bar certain extreme situations.
In the end those a state whose majority consider abortion an abhorrent practice akin to murder will do their best to prevent the practice, it is morally justifiable in their opinions
Frankly, I do not agree with them, but I can't fault someone who is doing what they genuinely believe is the right thing to do.
What a weak argument. Godwin says hi. And it is for anyone to decide moral decisions, you are suggesting nobody should ever question authority or an practise they disagree with, utter rubbish.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
Considering that if she was raped, it would have helped her case immeasurably if she mentiond it, it's fair to assume that she wasn't. Not that it makes any difference to her situation besides your sympathy level.
I don't think it's something the general population has decided, and the state government and courts can be wrong.
hey_monkey
Banned
Nebraska's age of consent is 17 with no close-in-age exception, so legally, she couldn't consent to having sex, correct?
Forgive me, I am no expert on consent law.
Bodily autonomy is a decision that should have consideratio from the person whose rights to bodily autonomy would be take away.
And really, since when have courts or law makers been on the right side of history all the time? They're surely not perfect and any situation where a person has certain rights taken away, we should be concerned. Especially a 16 year old and a life changing experience.
Shes old enough to drive but not old enough to make decision on the direction of her own life(and the longterm effect on her life) and body. I can't abide or endorse this violation of bodily rights in any capacity.
If I can, I'll do everything in my power to see that cases like these don't exists in my lifetime. If I can.
I can when what they believe is wrong, as it is here. "They think they're doing the right thing" doesn't excuse their disgusting monstrous behavior.
hey_monkey
Banned
The differences in legal ages for various things really bother me as well.
I looked for the stats on the safety of abortion, and what do you know: Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, with minimal—less than 0.5%—risk of major complications that might not need hospital care. And in comparison, a woman's risk of death during pregnancy and childbirth is ten times greater. Does not sound like the court really cares about the girl's safety.
The worst part is that she obviously wants SO much to not turn into her neglectful and abusive mother. Forcing her to have a child that will get her kicked out of a second home greatly increases the chances of blaming the child for wherever her life goes from here.
The cycle continues :\
Legendary_Red
Banned
It is not an argument at all, it is simply a reality of the situation. It is up to the states and courts to decide which medical procedures regarding minors requires parental consent, and a pro-life run state gov and court system will of course group abortion into that category.
Hey!
I am suggesting nothing of the sort, but I will play along anyways.Consider the following: What do you think these guys are doing? They are challenging and questioning federal laws on abortion and the Roe v. Wade ruling as much as they can, because that is a practice that they believe is morally reprehensible, just as you believe restricting a women's right to choose is morally reprehensible. Which is not very much different than many state's and their state courts trying to challenge and question past federal laws and rulings on same-sex marriage because that is what they believe is right.
This is actually a really good point. Unfortunately Nebraska does not have a rape exception for parental consent to abortion for a minor.
What a mess of a situation.
And I and anyone else can judge them for it. As you should too.
I'm making note of this day
Devolution
Member
Not mature enough to end a pregnancy but mature enough to go through the 9 month ordeal of pre-natal care, then birth, then raising a child.
Lol these fucking backwards ass idiots.
Lol these fucking backwards ass idiots.
You might disagree with abortion and think its murder, that's fine. I have no problem with people taking a different view, but I think its a bit reprehensible to make this young girl the battleground for this longstanding policy debate.
Keep in mind she can not have legally consented to the sex, I'm personally ok with people having to bear the consequences of their actions, but only if they're able to be made responsible for their actions. This girl is sixteen for fucks sake. There's a good reason we don't give them a raft of rights normally allowed to adults. It's because they AREN'T responsible. They're kids. She's going to be made to pay, for the rest of her life, for something that's legally out of her control.
Edit: She can go interstate can't she?
Keep in mind she can not have legally consented to the sex, I'm personally ok with people having to bear the consequences of their actions, but only if they're able to be made responsible for their actions. This girl is sixteen for fucks sake. There's a good reason we don't give them a raft of rights normally allowed to adults. It's because they AREN'T responsible. They're kids. She's going to be made to pay, for the rest of her life, for something that's legally out of her control.
Edit: She can go interstate can't she?
Apparently yes.
hey_monkey
Banned
And even if she gives the child up for adoption, pregnancy alters the fucking body forever. Especially young bodies.
Devolution
Member
Women/girls under 22 are more likely to suffer complications yup. It's so insanely tragic and wrong.
I can't believe how anyone can argue that the judge actually cares about the girl's health or future.
hey_monkey
Banned
Gosh, maybe if she manages to get the abortion out of state, after all this she'll lose her foster family and get placed somewhere she can be abused more.
america fuck yeah
I am so sad. World makes me sad.
america fuck yeah
I am so sad. World makes me sad.
Legendary_Red
Banned
We overlook this all the time when it comes to minors. What the medical considerations are made for is this:
A little six year old girl is stricken with cancer and requires a risky chemo operation. Mommy and daddy have the right to decide whether or not to go through with it, because obviously a 6 year old girl is not mature enough to understand the implications and make her own choice.
When you define someone as 'mature' and able to make their own decisions regarding such situations is grey territory. When do you become 'mature,' 18 years old is just a number we pulled out of our hats, why isn't it 17? Or 19? Is is because we dislike odd numbers? Why not 20? Did we just make it like that because most people graduate out of high school at around that age and it is practical?
Which of course why there is a 'unless we [courts] decide he/she is mature enough to decide their own choices' clause. But of course the courts are probably run by old conservative pro-life Christians.
One solution to this dilemma would be to pull a California abortion law on a federal level which allows minors to have abortions without consent or notification of their parents/guardians, but then pro-life conservative states would find new ways to block this and make abortion difficult, because they believe it is morally abhorrent and we would be back at square one. The only real permanent solution would be for everyone to share the same opinion on the issue, either pro-life or pro-choice, one day.
By all means please do so, people need to stop being so passive and quiet when it comes to political and social issues they feel strongly about, and start letting their voices be heard.
Nikodemos
Member
This is actually an incredibly shitty comparison. Children heal much better from the after-effects of radio/chemo (due to their bodies being still in the growth and construction stage) so a child should always go for treatment. Parents refusing therapy for their cancer-sick child (for any reason other than purely financial, i.e. they're completely poor and simply can't afford it, though all poor parents I know would rather sell their own organs on the black market before allowing their child to suffer) ought to be summarily executed.
AdventureRacing
Member
Except that's just as wrong. If they still aren't responsible enough to take advantage of birth control do you really want them raising a child? One that is unwanted no less.
The very idea that you can force someone through pregnancy because they're not mature enough for abortion is incredible to me.
Makes me wonder if they have seen someone giving birth, or better yet having complications. It's a fucking scary process, just last week i saw a women have a huge bleed following birth. Despite modern technology child birth can still be quite dangerous before we get into the long term changes to the body and the fact that an unwanted child is being born.
Well, actually, one of the reasons I decided against radiation therapy for my cancer was because being relatively young, there could be more complications than benefits. But I agree it's a shitty comparison. A sixteen-year-old is also not six.
Devolution
Member
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The title of the article and the summary of the holding that opens the article are inaccurate. SCONE (as I'll refer to the Supreme Court of Nebraska) did not decide that the girl was not mature enough to have an abortion, much less that she was mature enough to give birth and care for the child. If I were to rewrite the opening paragraph of the article so as to accurately reflect SCONE's holding, I'd do it like this:
That's much less inflammatory and wouldn't generate nearly as many clicks, but, like I said, it's at least accurate.
As an aside, the dissent didn't believe that SCONE should have permitted the girl to have an abortion without parental or guardian consent. The dissent argued that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case, and so it should have been dismissed without more.
The text of the opinion begins on page 642 of this link.
EDIT: Actually the Houston Chronicle article on this case is very good. I suggest anyone interested in what the court held give it a read.
Anonymous 5, a 16-year-old girl, is not mature enough to decide for herself to obtain an abortion. Instead, she must first have a parent or guardian consent to the procedure.
So ruled the Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday.
So ruled the Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday.
That's much less inflammatory and wouldn't generate nearly as many clicks, but, like I said, it's at least accurate.
As an aside, the dissent didn't believe that SCONE should have permitted the girl to have an abortion without parental or guardian consent. The dissent argued that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case, and so it should have been dismissed without more.
The text of the opinion begins on page 642 of this link.
EDIT: Actually the Houston Chronicle article on this case is very good. I suggest anyone interested in what the court held give it a read.
Legendary_Red
Banned
It is a matter of legality, not morality. Someone has to sign that consent forum okaying the surgery or procedure, and we certainly as hell wouldn't let a little kid do that, hence the requirement for parental consent.
hey_monkey
Banned
I'm gonna veer off topic here, but...
We know this girl was in foster care post abuse. It's not like she had loving parents looking out for her. She's worried, too, that her foster parents would kick her out for being pregnant, which means she's probably not getting support and sex education from them. I wonder how much sex education she had, if any, in school. Not required by the state of Nebraska. Also have to have parent's permission to obtain birth control, which means she's relying on the male to use a condom.
Anyone who thinks anti-abortion and anti-birth control laws are only about religion and morality is terribly naive.
We know this girl was in foster care post abuse. It's not like she had loving parents looking out for her. She's worried, too, that her foster parents would kick her out for being pregnant, which means she's probably not getting support and sex education from them. I wonder how much sex education she had, if any, in school. Not required by the state of Nebraska. Also have to have parent's permission to obtain birth control, which means she's relying on the male to use a condom.
Anyone who thinks anti-abortion and anti-birth control laws are only about religion and morality is terribly naive.
Your quibbles about the title of the article aside (I think it pretty accurately reflects the situation), I have added the Houston Chronicle to the OP.
I think this section is pretty telling:
Devolution
Member
Girls obviously can't decide for themselves that they don't want to go through a fucking pregnancy and birth!
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
I tried to explain my logic on NYC's plan to offer kids plan B. At the time a girl becomes pregnant, she is showing that she is making the decisions. It's no longer the parents decision. It's inherently the kids decision at that point. To force the parent to her involved is an attempt to reclaim that decision. Abortion involves an operation but we have backwards thinking. If you allow them to have the baby, they become emancipated and have to make their own decisions. Maybe there is a desire to punish people and force them to 'own' their decisions. I don't know what the solution is bit the logic is faulty.
Well, the suicide rate for girls is incredibly high after having an abortion. I can't think of a harder human choice, and one that with regret brings unbearable mental torment...
...but deciding to give birth isn't exactly an easy choice either. Neither is giving a child up for adoption if feel unready for motherhood.
Lose/lose decision for the girl either way. IMO the state should just stay out of it.
...but deciding to give birth isn't exactly an easy choice either. Neither is giving a child up for adoption if feel unready for motherhood.
Lose/lose decision for the girl either way. IMO the state should just stay out of it.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The dissent was very interesting, though I think the dissenters' conclusion that the court lacked jurisdiction is wrong. That's important, because it defuses the worst of the constitutional problems that the dissent worries about.
EDIT:
Ironically, that also seems to be the official position of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, whose regulation the dissent quotes as follows:
NDHHS said:
The interplay between the Department's regulations and the new law passed in 2011 is what causes the problems that the dissent raises.
hey_monkey
Banned
I just googled that and got a bevy of pro-life site results trumpeting those. Got a relatively unbiased source?
eta: directed at crozier
eta: directed at crozier
I hate to bring up puritan logic but it is exceedingly religious in nature, this controversy such as it is really is about the religious right desperately trying to flex their muscles during a slow shift in the public perceptiob and a healthy decline of their base strength. It might take years but they won't be as strong as they are today, especially holding the views that they have, so this always feels like political posturing to stranglehold people due to desperation of threat of decline in relevance. I can't wait until the day the religious right becomes a murmur in politics so we can have more progress with gay and womens rights and maybe legalize maruijana federally. Just to name a few.
Some statistics on that would be welcome.
How about the New York Times?
nyt said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21abortion.t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
Oh, wait! That article says that crozier is totally wrong! My bad. Well, I'm sure he can find some solid research that's not full of methodological flaws created by ideological bias!
Here's one for Denmark:
http://www.medscimonit.com/abstract/index/idArt/883338
There are comparable studies for Finland, the United States, etc. You're going to find most of the links from pro-life sites, of course.
Devolution
Member
That's exactly what we don't want.
No one forced her to become pregnant. I understand that the girl has gone through some tough times in her young life mostly because of her parents. It is still not a reason to have an abortion. She should go through the pregnancy and then give up the baby for adoption if she wanted to. It sucks, but it is better than killing an unborn child.
- Status