Woman Jailed for Purchasing Abortion Pills for Teen Daughter

Just because a woman wants breast implants does that mean she should be able to walk into a doctors office and demand it be done today. If it's elective you can wait 24hours.

I think it's become abundantly clear that the left doesn't give a shit about the poor under any circumstances in any subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are too stupid for conversation, but I'll try to straighten you out just the same. The argument made on behalf of these counselling/delaying tactic laws is that women are too stupid to understand their options. If that is the case, then we are better off providing counseling and education before they get pregnant in the first place. My view is that most aren't as stupid as the supporters of these laws believe, but either way, I prefer pre-pregnancy efforts, rather than this fetishized focus on abortion.

Get it now? No, I'm sure you don't, so why don't you make another post about guns?

Some things are more elective than other things. Also, have plastic surgery clinics been so legally restricted that it's hard to find a place that will insert some silicone bags?

And he STILL hasnt addressed the main subject of the article. He's done nothing but whine like a little baby this entire thread. He went on a tangent about the morning after pill which didn't have shit to do with the article. When that got pointed out to him its been all conservative and religious bashing ever since. It's hard to have a normal conversation with someone who does nothing but repeat the same tripe over and over.

Is he even capable of admiting that this woman who gave her daughter pills which caused her harm bears SOME responsibility here? Asking for a lot I know but let's see if there's ANY mistakes people make that isn't the fault of his favorite boogeymen.

It was directly below TR's post because I was responding to TR.

Far left wackos like confederate herp derp do NOT represent the left. Sane lefties have no problem with a woman getting all the facts before making an important decision about their pregnancy.

Why? Do you think she didn't have enough time to think about it while she was saving up her $10,000?

That is bad. That said, according to the link I provided earlier only 0.4% of abortions are had by women 15 or under. The majority, as in over 50%, are women in their 20's so that vast, vast numbers are adult women and you're saying you want them all treated like ignorant children because of that 0.4%? That is a rather insulting attitude towards women, don't you think?

You're the one who said that fifteen year olds don't know how to avoid getting pregnant not me. I think most teenagers know how a baby is made. What is in doubt is their comprehension of the consequences and the options they have after they find out they are going to be parents. There's no reason why a doctor shouldn't explain to them what their options are and how the go about it. There needs to be some parenting involved and that's something you can't legislate. And if the girl wants to go talk to her local priest or pastor. A decision like that should not be made in the time it takes to a sew a Jeopardy question.

The reason I keep bringing up guns and nobody has an answer so far (guns are bad m'kay is not an answer), is because most of you are treating the right to an abortion as special. It's more important. I'm asking you to apply an equal amount of importance and apply the same logic to all rights. For example, it's perfectly fine to have to wait seven days before purchasing a fire arm, but god forbid you wait one day before killing a human being. Another example; Garamet suggested that tax payers should pay someone for the burden of travel and waiting because of "draconian" laws of the state that's forcing an inconvenience on them. Would you apply that same logic to guns? If the state I live in makes it very hard to purchase a gun, but my neighboring states has guns galore, would you support a tax payer funded expedition to purchase a gun? Keep in mind I'm waiting a week, not a day. That's a week's pay. Would you pay for a trip to NY. because I gotta have my NY Times and after all my first amendment rights say I have a right to read the newspaper of my choosing?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've abundantly addressed the topic but you don't like the answer so you cover your eyes and ears then start calling people names. As I have repeatedly said this specific case is a direct result of restrictive abortion laws which leave women feeling they have no better choice then to try illegal back ally type stuff. If you make women's health clinics safe, legal, and easily assessable then this type of shit doesn't happen.

That is about the third time I have directly answered your question in this thread so either read my answers or stop asking for them but the usual TR "I'll demand answers but ignore the ones I get and instead just call people names" game gets old real fast.

wow you took the bait: hook, line, and sinker...

What's not being said (so far as I've skimmed) is today's equivalent to yesterday's back-alley coat hanger abortion is RU486 over the internet. It's a lot safer than its predecessor but morally about the same.

Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, and was brought about by the same circumstances: less wealthy people had to resort to unsound practices for abortion while the well healed could jet off to a state that allowed it, or another country.

The pressures being brought by states restricting abortion clinics are a throwback to the bad old days and should be stopped.

The pro-life supporters should put their voices and money behind sex-ed and providing condoms in schools. I like France's solution: every pharmacy has condom vending machine outside. Counseling after the fact is too late.

edit: dinner said it...

Throwing this out for a second, but my theory on that is most teens can barely see past the tips of their own noses. They may think raising a baby is easier than it is and not truely grasp how much it costs, money or emotionally.

Meanwhile the 20 somethings that usually get abortions are in college and better educated on the subject. And being in college, they also have that much more to lose with an ill timed pregnancy.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/4/gpr090406.html/en-en/

A good link about what is wrong with these so called informed consent laws. As Gul previously said they mandate a lot of lies and scientifically unsupportable misinformation. Falsely claiming abortion causes breast cancer, falsely makes claims about mental illness being caused by abortion, doesn't actually list all options and instead tries to steer patient to just one decision, emotionally manipulative. The list goes own and on. This is just bad policy any way you slice it.

No, I said proper sex ed taught before people become sexually active when teamed up with access to birth control both lowers teen pregnancy rates and improves public health by reducing disease transmition. That is factually true and we see the states which do that have the lowest teen pregnancy rates while the states which don't have the highest teen pregnancy rates.

I would say that is very true. That said why pass laws filled with medically untrue information and treat adult women the same as children? Especially since 99.6% of women seeking abortions are not young children.

Again, the numbers of who gets abortions and what age they are is provided in the link I previously posted.

Precisely this.

Now I could be completely wrong about this, as I've never been in any similar situation in the US. But I have a hard time imagining that it is usual for clinics or any kinds of doctors in the US to perform major procedures on people who have walked in off the street, right at that minute. Providing some information about the procedure, if only for legal reasons to allow informed consent, doing some preliminary medical tests and possibly preparing the patient's body for the procedure, has to come first, doesn't it? At least whenever I went to a doctor in Europe, that seemed to be how modern Western medicine works, purely on a technical basis, no matter your politics.

Which seems to imply to me that anti-choice people insisting on these laws are dishonest about the kind of basic information and the intended function that they're after. But reacting to that dishonesty shouldn't force us to clamour for unprepared, spot-of-the-moment abortions, because the proposed dichotomy is false.

Packard, that seems fair.

You haven't addressed the actions of the mother once.

Define easily accessable because from what I've read she had access. At what point are the women themselves responsible for their own actions? This woman bought a drug online that she didn't know much about and gave it to her daughter. That's why she is going to be spending time in prison. No one forced her to that.

Ok, now you are just lying. Reread my last post to you, read it half a dozen times if that is what it takes for you to understand it. It directly deals with why cases like this one happen and how to stop them from happening in the future.

Condoms are readibly available in most convienent stores and they are quite cheap.

And yet abstinence first programs in schools and sometimes medical practices are mandated to lie to teens and tell them that condoms won't work.

So is she responsible for her own actions or not?

I seem to recall that claim a few years ago from some left wing blogs and come to find out the teens were told that condems weren't 100 percent effective which is actually true. I doubt anyone would claim that condemns are completely useless. Beyond preventing pregnacies they are also useful in preventing sexually transmitted diseases.

I have to say it's not hard to imagine a parent giving their daughter inaccurate information about adoption, in order to make the abortion option look better, because they don't want the embarrassment of having to explain their daughter's pregnancy to their friends and neighbors.

Indeed they aren't. To the extent that you weigh their ineffectiveness, this would negate your earlier point. But in fact they're very effective, albeit not perfect, and so pointing to their availability, as you did, does make sense in this context.

As an argument for abstinence only, however, their ineffectiveness has to be grossly overstated to make any impact, and apparently that does seem to be exactly what's happening. Somewhere between "Nobody ever said they were completely useless" and "They admittedly aren't 100% effective", teens will decide whether or not it's sensible to use condoms when they have sex. I think it is. I also think they're being told differently, and if everyone around them tells them differently, I can't completely fault them for not being accurately informed.

Thank you this is what I've been trying to get across. Now that a man has said it they agree.

They are usually in a locked cabinet. Your pimply faced teen about to dip his wick has to run the gauntlet of the pharmacist asking questions, and annoying holier than thou looks by the middle aged check-out clerk. I don't think you realize how formidable these obstacles are to a 15 year old. And they may be beyond his meager allowance. We're still "summer of 42" and this is 2014.

The other place they are readily available are in nasty gas-station or bar toilets. In some locations.

The social stigma placed on a simple purchase of condoms is stunning.

They should be in vending machines on the streets. Schools should have a basket of them for the taking (along with brochures on their correct use). It's like you people intend for unwed teen pregnancies to occur.

Nah, that's just because I'm so incredibly eloquent and smart.

Here's a distinction I'm noticing. In T.R's state they're readily available. In states where States Rights (read: the rights of the people who've bought off the legislators) trump human rights, they're treated like contraband.

Gee, I wonder which states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy?