Chemo Forced on Connecticut Teen Against Her Will

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What if she doesn't have parents and is in foster care?

Then someone is her legal guardian and they make those decisions. That does not change anything, is it your claim a 17yo should have no say whatsoever over whether they get an abortion, and their parents (or legal guardian) should be the only one to make those decisions for her?

Well then be happy because that is exactly what the court ruled when they forced a girl to have a baby.

Seems that in both cases a minor is still a minor.

Can you link me the court case. I would love to see where a girl and her parents WANTED an abortion, and the State said no to them both.

Although to be clear, your case you presented is the opposite of what I said. They did not allow a medical procedure, I am saying they would be forcing the abortion to occur, against her will.

originally posted by: hutch622
Is she pregnant or has she got cancer . How did this turn into an abortion debate . Eyes on the ball people . Eyes on the ball .

Because they are both medical procedures where a 17yo girl's ability to make decisions about her body are the only thing that matters.

Either a 17yo can make decisions, or they can not. You can not have your cake and eat it too.

originally posted by: hutch622
Is she pregnant or has she got cancer . How did this turn into an abortion debate . Eyes on the ball people . Eyes on the ball .

I posted a link where a girl was forced to carry a to term by the courts because she wasn't legally old enough to make the decision without parental consent. By the time she would come to term she would be but it would be a late term abortion.

Occam presented a hypothetical where a girl was forced to have an abortion. Something that has never happened as far as I know. He has been busy twisting my words.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh really? The state just forced her to have an abortion?
Huh, strange I thought this was about getting cancer treatment.

And I know " We are talking about the state forcing some one to do something"
But still, we know what is being forced and I am telling you my stance, which is not black and white that the state has the right, not about what if they force her to have an abortion.
When the state actually is forcing some one to abort their baby, let me know and we can have the convo on my stance.

And just to reiterate, I am not 100% for or 100% against them doing this.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yeah I know you switched the parameters but I am not playing your game. I posted the case already for what I am referring to if you know of a case with a scenario you came up with then we can discuss it. Just post it.

BTW childbirth is categorized as a medical procedure and mortality rates are higher for giving birth than abortions. Either scenario is a medical procedure one carries more risk than the other.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Occam presented a hypothetical where a girl was forced to have an abortion. Something that has never happened as far as I know. He has been busy twisting my words.

I am not twisting any words. I present a hypothetical situation which this current ruling would directly impact.

This court has decided a 17yo, nor her parents, have the right to make an informed decision about her body. The case you presented was a court deciding that a parent DOES have the right .. exactly the opposite of what this court found.

So again I ask you, if a 17yo chooses to have a VERY risky pregnancy, and her parents support that choice, should a court force an abortion on her in order to extend her life?

It's a direct comparison.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh really? The state just forced her to have an abortion?
Huh, strange I thought this was about getting cancer treatment.

And I know " We are talking about the state forcing some one to do something"
But still, we know what is being forced and I am telling you my stance, which is not black and white that the state has the right, not about what if they force her to have an abortion.
When the state actually is forcing some one to abort their baby, let me know and we can have the convo on my stance.

And just to reiterate, I am not 100% for or 100% against them doing this.

That is sad as I believe most are 100% against either.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh really? The state just forced her to have an abortion?
Huh, strange I thought this was about getting cancer treatment.

No, that is why you don't understand, this has nothing to do with cancer treatment. This has to do with whether a 17yo girl or her parents have the right to make informed medical decisions that are risky, when an alternative path is much less risky.

Substitute cancer for any other ailment.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I posted a link where a girl was forced to carry a to term by the courts because she wasn't legally old enough to make the decision without parental consent. By the time she would come to term she would be but it would be a late term abortion.

Occam presented a hypothetical where a girl was forced to have an abortion. Something that has never happened as far as I know. He has been busy twisting my words.

Yes i get that ,but this is still not about abortion . It is about an 80-85 percent chance of saving a girls life as opposed to virtually nil.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yeah I know you switched the parameters but I am not playing your game. I posted the case already for what I am referring to if you know of a case with a scenario you came up with then we can discuss it. Just post it.

No, you presented a case where the court upheld a parents right to make a decision. This current case says a parent does NOT have the right. You are the one who switched the parameters.

BTW childbirth is categorized as a medical procedure and mortality rates are higher for giving birth than abortions. Either scenario is a medical procedure one carries more risk than the other.

Which is exactly why it's a good comparison, childbirth can be very risky, and the abortion can be safer. So in order to save lives can the state force abortions (cancer treatment) on those under 18 in order to save lives?

a reply to: Jamie1

i can see both sides i just cannot gel with the idea the state can decide what is best for a child....this is the same state that allows smoking....allows drinking (granted after a certain age)...but to use the argument that the state has the best interests of said person at heart is utter utter garbage....same goes with speeding as an example.....the technology exists to limit a vehicles speed relative to the speed zone it is in......(yes a little left of field but useful to put my point across)

if the state is so interested in health of children what will we see next.....kids whom are deemed obese by the state taken from parents to be rehabilitated....

kids that are learning outside the mandated curriculum taken away for re-education ....i could go on but you are smart enough to get where i am coming from

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Occam presented a hypothetical where a girl was forced to have an abortion. Something that has never happened as far as I know. He has been busy twisting my words.

I am not twisting any words. I present a hypothetical situation which this current ruling would directly impact.

This court has decided a 17yo, nor her parents, have the right to make an informed decision about her body. The case you presented was a court deciding that a parent DOES have the right .. exactly the opposite of what this court found.

So again I ask you, if a 17yo chooses to have a VERY risky pregnancy, and her parents support that choice, should a court force an abortion on her in order to extend her life?

It's a direct comparison.

They cant answer honesty, because they are moral equivalents, and in one they are emotionally driven to agree with the state, and the other they dont want to but know a vote for one is also precedent for the other.

Why not just say borh are messrd the eff up, and neither is their bisiness?

originally posted by: hutch622

Yes i get that ,but this is still not about abortion . It is about an 80-85 percent chance of saving a girls life as opposed to virtually nil.

It's about abortion as much as it is about cancer ... and you are correct, not at all.

This is about whether the State has the right to force a 17yo to take a medical treatment to save her life, when no or other treatment has a grim outcome. Change cancer for anything else. The reason abortion is a good substitute is because this court has already ruled a 17yo CAN make that decision.

Can the court force treatment (chemo, abortion) to save a 17yo girl's life from (cancer, death from childbirth) near certain death?

If they can force one treatment, why not both, since both have the exact same principle, and both are based on whether the girl can make a decision about her body that impacts her life.

ETA: This has nothing to do with whether abortion in and of itself is good or bad, it's about who should make the choice. The girl/parents, or the State.

a reply to: hutch622

Yeah I know. Sorry it got side tracked.

I posted the case because of the similarities where the state forced something against a minor's wishes where in both cases they would soon be old enough t make the decision on their own.

My stance has been that parents are responsible for their children as minors. I think the court shouldn't have forced anything.

What I had said is if the parents were allowed to pursue alternative treatments and it went fine then all is good however if they pursued some hokus pokus rout and their daughter died because of it then they should be prosecuted the same as other parents have been prosecuted for withholding adequate medical treatment. Parents are ultimately responsible for the wellbeing of a minor.

Occam seems to be upset about that.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The reason abortion is a good substitute is because this court has already ruled a 17yo CAN make that decision.

And now they have ruled on cancer . End of story .

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: hutch622

Yeah I know. Sorry it got side tracked.

I posted the case because of the similarities where the state forced something against a minor's wishes where in both cases they would soon be old enough t make the decision on their own.

Completely false, and I already destroyed that argument. YOUR case the court upheld the PARENTS right to choose, not the States. This case upheld the parent did NOT have the right to choose. They are completely opposite rulings.

My stance has been that parents are responsible for their children as minors. I think the court shouldn't have forced anything.

I agree with that. I also know at 17 I was of sound mind to make my own decision.

What I had said is if the parents were allowed to pursue alternative treatments and it went fine then all is good however if they pursued some hokus pokus rout and their daughter died because of it then they should be prosecuted the same as other parents have been prosecuted for withholding adequate medical treatment. Parents are ultimately responsible for the wellbeing of a minor.

If the parents withheld information from their daughter that in turn caused her to spurn chemo, I'm with you. If they did not, and their daughter decided she would rather be dead than go through chemo, I have no problems with them honoring that, and looking for the best possible alternatives. Her dying would not be enough to make them culpable. Them keeping her from an informed decision I think would be.

Occam seems to be upset about that.

How can I be upset about that when I am not upset about anything? I take that back, my manager changed my schedule again without notifying me and now I need to work on my day off, that upset me, I am over it though.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The reason abortion is a good substitute is because this court has already ruled a 17yo CAN make that decision.

And now they have ruled on cancer . End of story .

Yes, and their ruling is in conflict.

You want it to be end of story because it is causing you cognitive dissonance. What ruling is right? Can a 17yo and/or her parents make a choice about their body, or do they not have the right to choose?

Which one is right?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Which one is right?

The life of a young girl .

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This is what I meant by you twisting my words.


I made a parallel. Explained how it was a parallel.

YOU tried to turn it into something else. You have been busy building a straw man to knock down and I haven't been playing your game.

We disagree that 17 is old enough to make such a decision. The courts have ruled and as hutch said. End of story.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Which one is right?

The life of a young girl .

So then the State can force a young girl to get an abortion if they believe it will save her life.

All you had to do was just say it rather than run in circles.

If you believe the government should be able to compel someone to get an abortion because it will save their life we disagree, as much as 2 people can.