Defending the Truth
Articles | Interviews | Politicians | Groups | Arcade | Experience | Donate
  Defending the Truth > Political Issues > Abortion
Anyone else find it interesting

Abortion How do you feel about abortion? Are you pro-choice or pro-life? Defend your views on abortion in this forum.

Reply
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 34 >
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-13-2007, 04:02 PM   #11 (permalink)
Council Member
 
Catus Felidae's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,326
Country:
Points: 7,014, Level: 55
Points: 7,014, Level: 55 Points: 7,014, Level: 55 Points: 7,014, Level: 55
Level up: 32%, 136 Points needed
Level up: 32% Level up: 32% Level up: 32%
Activity: 29%
Activity: 29% Activity: 29% Activity: 29%
Catus Felidae is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher View Post
Not at all.

Legal custody of a living child is a far different scenario from deciding whether it should live or die.
The ruling had nothing to do with 'custody' except for the fact that it removed the non-custodial parents 'right' to file suit on the child's behalf. FOR ANY REASON!

After this decision, non-custodial parents have no more legal standing to file suit on the child's behalf than does their next door neighbor.

So if YOUR child, in the custody of your ex-whatever develops a life threatening disease, your ex has the right to decide whether or not to continue treatment, or let the child die, and YOU have no legal standing to object.

This decision came about regarding a First Amendment challenge by a father who objected to the school that his child, in the custody of the mother, was attending. The USSC ruled that he, since he didn't have 'majority custody', didn't have legal standing to file suit. The legal ramifications of this decision, as relates to abortion, went right over the heads of most people. After all, who has 'majority custody' of a fetus?
Bother not the cat. For they are sneaky and will piss on thy keyboard.
Sponsored Links
Old 09-13-2007, 04:10 PM   #12 (permalink)
Partisan
Premium Member
 
garysher's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,695
Country:
Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
garysher is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catus Felidae View Post
The ruling had nothing to do with 'custody' except for the fact that it removed the non-custodial parents 'right' to file suit on the child's behalf. FOR ANY REASON!

After this decision, non-custodial parents have no more legal standing to file suit on the child's behalf than does their next door neighbor.

So if YOUR child, in the custody of your ex-whatever develops a life threatening disease, your ex has the right to decide whether or not to continue treatment, or let the child die, and YOU have no legal standing to object.

This decision came about regarding a First Amendment challenge by a father who objected to the school that his child, in the custody of the mother, was attending. The USSC ruled that he, since he didn't have 'majority custody', didn't have legal standing to file suit. The legal ramifications of this decision, as relates to abortion, went right over the heads of most people. After all, who has 'majority custody' of a fetus?

It's a sad sad situation and again highlights the need for adults to be very careful who they marry, and especially for women to be careful about who they choose to father their children.

But majority custody doesn't apply until the child is born.
[IMG][/IMG]

Doggone it darn right you betcha bless your heart maverick
Old 09-13-2007, 04:22 PM   #13 (permalink)
Council Member
 
Catus Felidae's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,326
Country:
Points: 7,014, Level: 55
Points: 7,014, Level: 55 Points: 7,014, Level: 55 Points: 7,014, Level: 55
Level up: 32%, 136 Points needed
Level up: 32% Level up: 32% Level up: 32%
Activity: 29%
Activity: 29% Activity: 29% Activity: 29%
Catus Felidae is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher View Post

It's a sad sad situation and again highlights the need for adults to be very careful who they marry, and especially for women to be careful about who they choose to father their children.

Since the majority of the time, custody goes to the mother, I would venture that it is more especially important for the MAN to be careful about who they have children with.

But majority custody doesn't apply until the child is born.
Wrong. If the ZEF is a child, as you insist that it is, then someone has to have majority custody. And there's no way in hell that it's the father!

Even if it's NOT a child, the pregnant woman has a shit load more 'custody' than the father.


Bother not the cat. For they are sneaky and will piss on thy keyboard.
Old 09-13-2007, 04:26 PM   #14 (permalink)
Partisan
Premium Member
 
garysher's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,695
Country:
Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
garysher is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catus Felidae View Post
Wrong. If the ZEF is a child, as you insist that it is, then someone has to have majority custody. And there's no way in hell that it's the father!

Even if it's NOT a child, the pregnant woman has a shit load more 'custody' than the father.
More legal gymnastics!

The fact is that an unborn baby belongs to both parents, the mother happens to have the blessing of bearing the child, a gift denied to the father.

Even if we go along with your charming assertion that "the pregnant woman has a shit load more 'custody' ", that shouldn't give her the right to kill the baby.

No more so than whichever parent has custody of a growing child.


[IMG][/IMG]

Doggone it darn right you betcha bless your heart maverick
Old 09-13-2007, 04:33 PM   #15 (permalink)
Council Member
 
Catus Felidae's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,326
Country:
Points: 7,014, Level: 55
Points: 7,014, Level: 55 Points: 7,014, Level: 55 Points: 7,014, Level: 55
Level up: 32%, 136 Points needed
Level up: 32% Level up: 32% Level up: 32%
Activity: 29%
Activity: 29% Activity: 29% Activity: 29%
Catus Felidae is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher View Post
More legal gymnastics!

Hmmm. "Legal gymnastics' when discussing law. Shameful.

The fact is that an unborn baby belongs to both parents,

Nope. As long as it is in her body, it belongs solely to her. Should she abort or miscarry, then and only then, does the father have the legal right to 'sue for custody'.

the mother happens to have the blessing of bearing the child, a gift denied to the father.

And I'm sure the majority of fathers are very very glad of that fact. I know that my hubby is. But then he doesn't have a ego problem with women in general.
Even if we go along with your charming assertion that "the pregnant woman has a shit load more 'custody' ", that shouldn't give her the right to kill the baby.

It does give her the right to remove it from her body. AND the ability.

No more so than whichever parent has custody of a growing child.
Sorry it upsets you gary, but the fact remains, that LEGALLY, when the question arises regarding whether to continue treatment or allow the child to die, THAT decision rests solely with the custodial parent.
Bother not the cat. For they are sneaky and will piss on thy keyboard.
Old 09-13-2007, 04:43 PM   #16 (permalink)
Citizen
 
George's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Zielona Gora, Poland
Gender: Male
Posts: 135
Country:
Points: 1,654, Level: 23
Points: 1,654, Level: 23 Points: 1,654, Level: 23 Points: 1,654, Level: 23
Level up: 54%, 46 Points needed
Level up: 54% Level up: 54% Level up: 54%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
George is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catus Felidae View Post
Sorry it upsets you gary, but the fact remains, that LEGALLY, when the question arises regarding whether to continue treatment or allow the child to die, THAT decision rests solely with the custodial parent.
Do I understand this right? If my wife and I divorced and I had custody, I could refuse medical treatment thereby allowing my child to die, and my ex-wife, as the child's mother, would have absolutely no legal rights whatsoever? And you think this is a good thing?

That's one sick, twisted system where one parent can let a child die and the second has no legal rights just because they are divorced.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle
People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.
A. Liebling
What luck for rulers that men do not think.
Adolf Hitler
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi
Old 09-13-2007, 04:48 PM   #17 (permalink)
Partisan
Premium Member
 
garysher's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,695
Country:
Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
garysher is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catus Felidae View Post
Sorry it upsets you gary, but the fact remains, that LEGALLY, when the question arises regarding whether to continue treatment or allow the child to die, THAT decision rests solely with the custodial parent.
Does it upset you?
[IMG][/IMG]

Doggone it darn right you betcha bless your heart maverick
Old 09-13-2007, 04:51 PM   #18 (permalink)
Partisan
Premium Member
 
garysher's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,695
Country:
Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100 Points: 34,629, Level: 100
Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
garysher is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Hmmm. "Legal gymnastics' when discussing law. Shameful.

Legal gymnastics when discussing a child's life. Shameful
And I'm sure the majority of fathers are very very glad of that fact. I know that my hubby is. But then he doesn't have a ego problem with women in general.

And I'm sure the majority of MOTHERS are very very glad of this too. You seem to be an exception.


Even if we go along with your charming assertion that "the pregnant woman has a shit load more 'custody' ", that shouldn't give her the right to kill the baby.

It does give her the right to remove it from her body. AND the ability.

And that "right" is what is wrong.

BTW women still need medical assistance to "remove" - aka KILL - the baby
[IMG][/IMG]

Doggone it darn right you betcha bless your heart maverick
Old 09-13-2007, 04:54 PM   #19 (permalink)
Council Member
 
akuma's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Here
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,472
Country:
Points: 4,188, Level: 41
Points: 4,188, Level: 41 Points: 4,188, Level: 41 Points: 4,188, Level: 41
Level up: 19%, 162 Points needed
Level up: 19% Level up: 19% Level up: 19%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Send a message via Yahoo to akuma
akuma is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George View Post
Do I understand this right? If my wife and I divorced and I had custody, I could refuse medical treatment thereby allowing my child to die, and my ex-wife, as the child's mother, would have absolutely no legal rights whatsoever? And you think this is a good thing?

That's one sick, twisted system where one parent can let a child die and the second has no legal rights just because they are divorced.
If your ex-wife found out what you were doing, she can get a court order to get custody and have your child get medical care.
One pill makes you larger and one pill makes you small,
And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all.
Old 09-13-2007, 05:03 PM   #20 (permalink)
Council Member
 
Catus Felidae's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,326
Country:
Points: 7,014, Level: 55
Points: 7,014, Level: 55 Points: 7,014, Level: 55 Points: 7,014, Level: 55
Level up: 32%, 136 Points needed
Level up: 32% Level up: 32% Level up: 32%
Activity: 29%
Activity: 29% Activity: 29% Activity: 29%
Catus Felidae is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George View Post
Do I understand this right? If my wife and I divorced and I had custody, I could refuse medical treatment thereby allowing my child to die, and my ex-wife, as the child's mother, would have absolutely no legal rights whatsoever? And you think this is a good thing?

This situation would only arise if the child had gotten to the point where further treatment was considered to be useless. (Hospitals are very good at covering their butts by having the courts appoint a guardian for children whose parents refuse treatment for a curable condition.) But, yes. At that point, the non custodial parent has no more right to file a Constitutional challenge regarding the child's 'right to live' than does the hospital janitor.

A non-custodial parent does not have legal standing to file suit to object to a child's religious teachings, privacy, plea bargains, or anything else that falls under 'a child's constitutional rights'.

BTW...there have been cases where the hospital has sought and gotten an order to discontinue treatment over the parents, custodials and non-custodials, wishes.

Denial of treatment is very common in the cases of premature infants. Should your girlfriend give birth to your child prematurely, and decide to withhold treatment and opt for 'comfort care' instead, YOU would have no legal recourse save filing for custody. Thereby giving you 'majority custody'.

Do *I* think that it's a good thing? That depends. Is the non-custodial parent acting in the best interest of the child, or just trying to be a bother to the custodial parent?

That's one sick, twisted system where one parent can let a child die and the second has no legal rights just because they are divorced.
Not because they are divorced, but because when it's a tie, no one 'wins'. Just as when the discussion is the rights of a ZEF to a womans body, Someone has to have the final say.
Bother not the cat. For they are sneaky and will piss on thy keyboard.
Reply
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 34 >

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 AM.

Defending the Truth - FAQ - Rules - Contact Us - Donate - Archive - Top

 Top Political Sites
Poltical Topsites 

Recommended Sites