Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > "Your honor, the fetus calls it's potential grandmother to the stand."

"Your honor, the fetus calls it's potential grandmother to the stand."
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 12:30 PM
 
Alabama's Radical Parental Consent Law Puts Minors on Trial

A new Alabama regulation, the most radical parental consent law in the country, puts minors seeking abortions virtually on trial, appoints a guardian for their fetus, and could drag family, friends, and acquaintances into court.
The state law is explicitly written to make it more difficult for minors to terminate unwanted pregnancies. A young woman seeking a judicial bypass there won't just have to make her case to a judge with a lawyer at her side. She will be facing an adversarial process where she's essentially on trial. Her fetus or embryo will have an appointed advocate whose job it is to argue on behalf of that embryo's interests (which, one would reasonably conclude, are for the young woman to not terminate the pregnancy). She'll also be facing a DA who can call witnesses to challenge or corroborate the young woman's claims of her own maturity. So if she says she's a good student, the DA can call her teachers as witnesses. If she says she's responsible and works an after-school job, the DA can call her supervisor. And if her parents know the young woman is seeking a judicial bypass, the DA can call them too.
One strange aspect of judicial bypass procedures, whether in Alabama or elsewhere, is that they require young women to prove they are mature and thoughtful enough to have an abortion, but of course there's no maturity requirement to have a baby or be a parent, and if young women are refused abortions, a baby is the result.
The Alabama law is even more troubling because both the DA and the guardian ad litem can appeal the judge's ruling, which isn't the case in standard judicial bypass proceedings, where the granting of a bypass is the final word. So even if the judge grants a young Alabama woman a bypass, she still may be blocked from getting the procedure if either the DA or the embryo's guardian decides to challenge the judge's decision — and given that it's now their job to block minors from terminating pregnancies, appeals seem likely. The clinic in Montgomery, for example, only performs abortions up to 12 weeks, so delays because of pending appeals can lead to a situation where a pregnancy progresses past the point where a local clinic can perform a termination.
This is some bold shit. The entire system is rigged.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 01:45 PM
 
The thing that I find absolutely mind-boggling about all of this is that the same people who are pushing for such laws to make it virtually impossible for a teen to terminate and unwanted pregnancy are the same people who will be all beside themselves when that teen ends up on welfare.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The thing that I find absolutely mind-boggling about all of this is that the same people who are pushing for such laws to make it virtually impossible for a teen to terminate and unwanted pregnancy are the same people who will be all beside themselves when that teen ends up on welfare.

OAW
She shouldn't have been such a promiscuous slut and listened to the word of god.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The thing that I find absolutely mind-boggling about all of this is that the same people who are pushing for such laws to make it virtually impossible for a teen to terminate and unwanted pregnancy are the same people who will be all beside themselves when that teen ends up on welfare.

OAW
You forget: As soon as its born they can convict it of stealing a rich guy's oxygen and have it executed. Thats perfectly fine.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You forget: As soon as its born they can convict it of stealing a rich guy's oxygen and have it executed. Thats perfectly fine.
Dude, WTF. There's hyperbole and then there's, well, that.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2014, 06:16 PM
 
I say its harsh but fair.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2014, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I say its harsh but fair.
Harsh? I would describe it more as vitriolic and inane. Also, you and the rest of the world have vastly different ideas of what the word "fair" means.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2014, 11:36 PM
 
The point is that an awful lot of the same crowd who champion every foetus as sacred are as happy as Larry with executing people. Often people whose guilt is far from certain or whose mental capacity should offer some mitigation. Its hypocrisy, which is why the statement is fair.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2014, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Also, you and the rest of the world have vastly different ideas of what the word "fair" means.
How did the rest of the world get dragged into this?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 6, 2014, 10:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The point is that an awful lot of the same crowd who champion every foetus as sacred are as happy as Larry with executing people. Often people whose guilt is far from certain or whose mental capacity should offer some mitigation. Its hypocrisy, which is why the statement is fair.
What an ambiguous load of crap.

Some people somewhere are hypocritical, so that makes it ok to generalize about everyone you disagree with on a particular issue? Yeah, fair.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 06:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What an ambiguous load of crap.

Some people somewhere are hypocritical, so that makes it ok to generalize about everyone you disagree with on a particular issue? Yeah, fair.
In my defence, we are talking specifically about Alabama.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 08:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The point is that an awful lot of the same crowd who champion every foetus as sacred are as happy as Larry with executing people. Often people whose guilt is far from certain or whose mental capacity should offer some mitigation. Its hypocrisy, which is why the statement is fair.
Stereotype much?????????
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
In my defence, we are talking specifically about Alabama.
Ever LIVED there?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 09:44 AM
 
So, any thoughts on the legislation or are we going to continue taking shots at a shit poster?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
In my defence, we are talking specifically about Alabama.
Beats the hell out of Liverpool.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So, any thoughts on the legislation or are we going to continue taking shots at a shit poster?
Full disclosure - I am (mostly) pro-choice.

I'm with you that this legislation will cause more grief than it saves. A lot more.

What about when the court prevents a teen from having a baby. Is that case public record? Will the child grow up to discover that their biological mother "sued" to have an abortion? Could you imagine finding out mom wanted you aborted before you were born? :shudders:

I can understand the viewpoint that spawned this legislation, but as with all things government, there will be huge unintended negative consequences for everyone involved and frankly it's not the government's place to make these types of decisions for citizens.

I hope the ACLU wins.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
In my defence, we are talking specifically about Alabama.
I am confused.

Are you outright admitting your prejudice based on your perception of a group of people's religious and political views? Or do your stereotypes apply only to those people you disagree with? Or is it only people in Alabama?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Full disclosure - I am (mostly) pro-choice.

I'm with you that this legislation will cause more grief than it saves. A lot more.
The grief isn't the point. The entire process is set-up to discourage abortion by putting the teenager through judicial misery and embarrassment. Not to mention all the loopholes that have been thoughtless or thoughtfully put in. Who would argue that having to go through a judge before wasn't stringent enough?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I am confused.

Are you outright admitting your prejudice based on your perception of a group of people's religious and political views? Or do your stereotypes apply only to those people you disagree with? Or is it only people in Alabama?
Excuse me, but how is this not a generalization?

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Also, you and the rest of the world have vastly different ideas of what the word "fair" means.
Or can we focus on the topic at hand instead? As in drop the focus on War.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 03:07 PM
 
One strange aspect of judicial bypass procedures, whether in Alabama or elsewhere, is that they require young women to prove they are mature and thoughtful enough to have an abortion, but of course there's no maturity requirement to have a baby or be a parent, and if young women are refused abortions, a baby is the result.
You have to be a part of a judicial proceeding to prove you are mature enough to have an abortion, but don't need to prove your maturity or means to raise the child? This is absolutely ass backwards. How in the hell do things like this come to fruition? How in the world are people so utterly foolish?

The clinic in Montgomery, for example, only performs abortions up to 12 weeks, so delays because of pending appeals can lead to a situation where a pregnancy progresses past the point where a local clinic can perform a termination.
It is like they got the idea for this from carnival games. Rigged does not give the description of this justice.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by abbaZaba View Post
You have to be a part of a judicial proceeding to prove you are mature enough to have an abortion, but don't need to prove your maturity or means to raise the child?
It shows where the real concern lies.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 03:39 PM
 
It's stuff like this which stops me from getting fully behind state's rights.

I like the theory, but there are certain states determined to break it for everyone.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 03:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's stuff like this which stops me from getting fully behind state's rights.

I like the theory, but there are certain states determined to break it for everyone.
I dunno, I feel like stuff like this has nothing to do with state's rights. This is just legislative maneuvering to push the line on what is an already recognized right for women. The problem isn't state's rights, it's states who try to ignore people's rights. Same thing goes for gay marriage.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Stereotype much?????????
Apparently.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Ever LIVED there?
Nope.

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Beats the hell out of Liverpool.
In Liverpool they would simply steal your foetus if it isn't nailed down.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I am confused.

Are you outright admitting your prejudice based on your perception of a group of people's religious and political views? Or do your stereotypes apply only to those people you disagree with? Or is it only people in Alabama?
I was being critical of people who claim to be pro-life and pro-death at the same time which I'm lead to believe is common in Alabama to the point where it seems to be the position of the state government. I imagine it applies to other states too. Texas springs immediately to mind given its enthusiasm for executions, though I hear there are large areas of a much more liberal leaning in Texas and I'm not aware of the same in Alabama.

Am I stereotyping? Maybe. But isn't Alabama both pro-life and pro-death penalty? Am I wrong about that? They are a death penalty state are they not? And now they have this ridiculous new legislation that is the subject of this thread which clearly illustrates that a significant portion of the powers that be are also pro-life. I don't think this is likely to surprise anyone is it?
My original comment that seems to have caused such outrage is just a gross exaggeration of this hypocrisy designed to highlight how incompatible these views ought to be.

Originally Posted by abbaZaba View Post
How in the hell do things like this come to fruition? How in the world are people so utterly foolish?
Apparently I'm not allowed to say.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I dunno, I feel like stuff like this has nothing to do with state's rights. This is just legislative maneuvering to push the line on what is an already recognized right for women. The problem isn't state's rights, it's states who try to ignore people's rights. Same thing goes for gay marriage.
I'm inclined to agree that states don't appear to be trustworthy when it comes to personal freedoms and rights that aren't laid out in your Constitution or Bill of Rights. So should abortion and gay marriage be included in an amendment to one of those documents? Do they ever amend the Bill of Rights?
Would such an amendment change much? I guess some states would still be able to try to pull this sort of crap, limit the opening hours on abortion clinics, restrict gay marriage licenses or who can perform them etc etc. Perhaps it would make it easier for the higher courts to overturn these despicable practices at least?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I dunno, I feel like stuff like this has nothing to do with state's rights. This is just legislative maneuvering to push the line on what is an already recognized right for women. The problem isn't state's rights, it's states who try to ignore people's rights. Same thing goes for gay marriage.
If this is what Alabama does without state's rights, what do you think they'd do with them?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 04:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If this is what Alabama does without state's rights, what do you think they'd do with them?
It depends on what latitude you think states right should have. Or perhaps, my impression of what they are is mistaken. What do abilities do you refer to when you refer to state's rights?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Excuse me, but how is this not a generalization?
Can you explain to me how it is? I'm asking for specific clarification on his generalization.


Or can we focus on the topic at hand instead? As in drop the focus on War.
How is it not relevant to the topic at hand? If one of the participants is going to make blanket generalizations we ought to snuff that out right now if we'd like to be able to have an honest discussion. At the very least we can demonstrate his folly so as not to scare off those who would have something substantial to say directly about the topic. I suppose we've done that, so as you wish.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2014, 08:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If this is what Alabama does without state's rights, what do you think they'd do with them?
Perhaps they would not feel the need for such extreme "statement" legislation in direct response to what they feel is federal encroachment on a matter that should fall under state's rights.

Escalation of division and all that.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2014, 03:17 AM
 
Honestly, if that's the rationale, then I know I don't want them to have more rights.

You don't use your state's population of young adults as shock troops for your pissing match with the Federal Government.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2014, 10:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
How is it not relevant to the topic at hand? If one of the participants is going to make blanket generalizations we ought to snuff that out right now if we'd like to be able to have an honest discussion.
My argument is his initial statement was utterly devoid of value. Arguing it constitutes a derail.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Can you explain to me how it is? I'm asking for specific clarification on his generalization.
I'll take my own advice and drop it to focus on the topic at hand.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Perhaps they would not feel the need for such extreme "statement" legislation
It's not a statement. It's trying to ban abortion for teens without outright doing so.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2014, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You don't use your state's population of young adults as shock troops for your pissing match with the Federal Government.
Well, that's nothing new, per se. Both parties are guilty of this; The latest example being not expanding medicaid for the underprivileged because Obama.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2014, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Honestly, if that's the rationale, then I know I don't want them to have more rights.

You don't use your state's population of young adults as shock troops for your pissing match with the Federal Government.
The state's population of young adults needs to wake up to what their government is doing. It is much easier to effect positive change at the state level than the federal.

We ought to remove the potential for this outright by limiting government's role in dictating our private lives.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2014, 12:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post

It's not a statement. It's trying to ban abortion for teens without outright doing so.
Regardless of how you describe the legislation, my point remains.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2014, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Regardless of how you describe the legislation, my point remains.
Not really. What does removing affirmed rights have to do with Federal encroachment? Rights are not negotiable to some outspoken minority just because they may be a local majority.

Edit: And you really think they're more concerned with making a statement than actually preventing abortions? Really?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2014, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Not really. What does removing affirmed rights have to do with Federal encroachment? Rights are not negotiable to some outspoken minority just because they may be a local majority.

Edit: And you really think they're more concerned with making a statement than actually preventing abortions? Really?
Would you be opposed to people euthanizing their toddlers by the millions, just because they're inconvenient, grossly dependent on their parents, and require around the clock supervision? That's the way the pro-life sects look at the issue. Is it backwards? Yes, from a purely scientific perspective, but when you add philosophical complexities it's much more tangled. Such as, did you know that Taoists, Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus are opposed to abortion on a level that puts even Fundamentalist Christians to shame? Should the UN step in and force Malaysia to legalize them? How about the EU forcing Ireland, Poland, and Denmark*? It's complicated and frankly the US is nearly as diverse as the EU when it comes to perspectives on morality, and within certain parameters states should be allowed to form their own conscience regarding such issues.

(*Yes, a woman has to get special authorization to get an abortion in Denmark or Poland, and it's nearly impossible to get one in Ireland, unless the woman's life is in immediate danger.)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:45 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2