This is topic Florida: Jeb Bush forcing a rape victim to accept a guardian for the fetus?! in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
Yeah, Jeb Bush is trying to weaken Roe v Wade yet again. Only this time he's doing something even the Republican party promised to stay away from: forcing a rape victim to have a baby.
What he's doing is he's trying to get the fetus a legal guardian other than its mother! Even though the mother is retarded, they should be helping the mother, not trying to take the baby away before its even born! I'm sure many of you realize how utterly legally ridiculous this is. Can you imagine the future if something like this happened? While you are pregant with your baby someone can take it away from you and become its parent! This is really messed up.
I know most of you folks who believe abortion is wrong think it's ok for rape victims to get it, but apparently Jeb Bush has changed his mind, and his promises to lay off of this. Does anyone else see this and "healthcare for the unborn" as just backdoor attempts by Bush & Co. to weaken abortion rights?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Of course that's what it is.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Absolutely. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Oh, yes, Duragon, our motives are so transparently malicious. It's inconceivable that we might actually mean what we say.
[ August 23, 2003, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Emphasis on the mother being retarded which means that regardless of whether or not she's a rape victim she can't be legally responsible for a child. Even people with severe OCD other psychotic disorders loose custody. This is far less special than it is made out to be.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
DCM,
Here is the link on the last post that this topic brought to Hatrack. There should be link within the thread to the news article as well...
At this point in the above thread, the Judge had ordered this rape victim to go through with her birth. The court proceedings were held up because the court had to appoint an individual to speak in behalf of this poor woman because she is so mentally retarded, that she cannot speak for herself or understand her situation, or so the news wire states.
Hope this helps
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
HOORAH for Jeb. He's got as much moxy as his brother. Not only is Roe vs. Wade a poor Supreme Court decision, fetus rights are extremely important.
I really have trouble understanding the pro-infanticide point of view.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Ryan, that was more than an insulting post for people who are pro-choice. Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I know. I'm trying to egg out a response.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Is the kind of response that will elicit the one you're looking for?
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
It looks like a lot fell through the cracks on this one. The woman (identified as J. D. S.) is at least more than 6 months pregnant (one article says she is more than 9 months pregnant, but I'm assuming that is an error). It looks like J. D. S. got no support or assistance when she could reasonably terminate her pregnancy (assuming she wanted to) and now that in all likelyhood there are no doctors who would perform the abortion owing to the viability of the fetus, they want to take her child away from her.
I am pro-choice. It looks to me that J. D. S. was given no choice, and now is not even given the choice to keep her baby as apparently the social system in Florida (and I assume they are not unique in this) won't provide assistance to her that would enable her to keep the baby.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And JDS is also retarded to the point where she is incapable of taking care of herself let alone another human being.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Whoa whoa...let me check this out again:
quote: Emphasis on the mother being retarded which means that regardless of whether or not she's a rape victim she can't be legally responsible for a child
Where is the legal standing for this? Just because one is mentally retarded you lose all the rights of any other citizen?? Yes, she had a guardian appointed in the Spring. So what. I have been involved in many probate and guardianship cases and believe me, some folks have guardians that either don't need them or don't want them. The court is very conservative, at least in Ohio, about this and will usually find in favor of guardianship even if the person has some ability to make some decisions on their own. And just because you have one, it doesn't take away ALL of your rights. I have done some planning with a woman with mild mental retardation who, due to some bad choices (drugs, prostitution, etc.) has had a guardian assigned to her by the state. Did the guardian keep her out of jail? Keep her from running around with prostitutes? Keep her from using drugs? Nope. Guardianship doesn't equal jail, parents, etc. A person that has a guardian can't sign legal documents but it doesn't regulate behavior or choices. A guardian can say "JDS, don't go there" and if JDS has no relationship with the guardian...she can go there. JDS can't sign a contract, but having a baby isn't a legal contract thing. I think (maybe wrongly) that the law is pretty hazy on this. In our state, if a person with a disability is pregnant and is felt to be a danger to herself or the baby, the Department of Children and Family Services would be called to consult and they would make the determination, as they would with ANY parent that may be a danger to their child. Every effort is made to keep the child and mother together if it is at all possible but in the case of JDS, that isn't even being discussed.
My point? Just because a guardian was assigned AFTER the rape doesn't mean it was done for the best of reasons. If she really needed a guardian, why wait for 4 years as they did (at 18, she was her own guardian, disability or not...again, why wait until now? )
One quote that sickens me from the article is this:
quote:J.D.S. has come to be a nameless, faceless symbol
Man, that is saying a lot. We know little to nothing about her and we have a governor saying that the current guardian (approved by the courts to do the job to protect the interests of an individual) isn't capable of assisting the individual with mental retardation to make good decisions. If that is the case, it should be about the guardian the state assigned, not the fetus...or if 9+ months pregnant (!) then the baby.
As the article said, it is moot. She is already into the third trimester (convenient timing, I think) and the baby is coming, if at all (oddly enough, the reporter didn't know if JDS was still pregnant. Odd.)
Sorry to rant incoherantly. I just hate to see the person with the disability reduced to a sidelined character. The life of the unborn fetus is being put WAY above that of a living, breathing human being who some just assume is a walking uterus with no feelings about her baby, no capability to love or have any choices in the life of her baby. That is the horrible thing. All based on a diagnosis of mental retardation and minimal information on who she truly is. They say she is "severely mentally retarded" in one way, but others call her at level of 4 or 5 year old, which may or may not be "severe." Severe, when we use it around here, is someone who can't communicate, take care of personal needs, etc. Most 4 or 5 year olds can communicate and take care of many if not all of their daily needs (which is why most modern doctors and professionals have gotten away from the age-related comparisons...they just don't make sense). I just don't like it.
Grr...
fil
[ August 24, 2003, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: "Ryan, that was more than an insulting post for people who are pro-choice."
"I know. I'm trying to egg out a response."
Let me just point out that this kind of thing really isn't welcomed at Hatrack. Deliberate, inflammatory provocation has led to banning in the past.
Posted by Túrin (Member # 2704) on :
I don't understand why people who are against abortion feel it's okay in the case of rape.
If the fetus is a human being with a human being's value, than murdering it to make everyone more comfortable seems like it would be a bad thing... it's not the child's fault one of his parents is a despicable criminal.
If a fetus isn't a human being with value, then why be against abortion?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Tom: You're right. I just have severe moral issues with abortionists. I saw a video of aborted babies that completely changed the way I looked at the issue. I now view it as an institution as abhorrent as slavery.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Turin and Ryan...am I to assume you are against capital punishment and oppose the war in Iraq, since in both cases human beings are being killed just so people can feel comfortable? Not being inflammatory, but I am just curious if "pro-life" extends only to the unborn.
What if this baby is disabled? Apparently, people are quick to devalue the mother and her input because of her disability. So, is that unborn potentially disabled baby valued as a human? Apparently the mother isn't. Hell, even the mother's guardian isn't valued. I think people throw the term "valued as a human" around a little too easily in these posts, picking and choosing who gets valued and who does not.
You know what we need? More surrogate pro-life mom's out there! Tons of them. Apparently, people are very willing to let someone else bring to term an unwanted child but I wonder how many folks would volunteer to take that responsibilty on themselves. I mean, the technology is there, right? This way, everyone wins. A person without the means or ability to raise a child can then have their responsibility lifted off of their shoulders by a person who is willing to do it for them. For the pro-life people, another child is brought into this world! Is this happening? Am I behind on the times?
fil
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I do support the war in Iraq and Capital Punishment. I support Capital Punishment because the person who decided that another was unworthy of life deserves to die. I support the war in Iraq because we weren't killing out of personal convenience, we decided we would forcible remove an evil man from power. A man who was aiding terrorists and opressing a nation. Those are both worthy causes, a person's financial and personal convenience is not.
If I were a women I would deffinatly think about bringing to term a would be aborted baby. However being a man, I am not that well equipped.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
Ryan:
quote:...we decided we would forcible remove an evil man from power. A man who was aiding terrorists...
Ah! Who was it who trained Bin Laden in the first place? Oh, right! It was us! We were aiding him as a terrorist against the Russians.
Ryan, with all due respect, shut up!
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm sorry, but this woman can't comminicate, she has the mental capacity of a two year old. Whatever your opinion on abortion I would say it is abundantly obvious that she is not capable of making a decision as important as whether or not to have an abortion, or of keeping the child if it's born.
[ August 24, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: blacwolve ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
We trained many of the men who became the Taliban too. We rectified the mistake. I heard no one complaining then! We didn't train Laden as a terroist aginst the Russians, because it wasn't terrorism. He was fighting a war against invaders, which was a noble cause.
Godric with all due respect shut up!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I believe Godric's point is that we have zero evidence that Saddam was actively aiding terrorists.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Except for the terrorist camps.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Are we doing that discussion again?
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Me, I'm wondering whether Ryan actually thinks we "rectified" the Taliban. Ryan, are you one of those people who believes that Afghanistan is no longer in the news because we've fixed its problems? Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I wish it was completely ok. I only meant that we tried to remove them and succeeded.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except that we didn't actually remove them. We did the equivalent of kicking a nest of spiders; we killed a few, dispersed most of the rest, and are now in the position of waiting for 'em to clump back up.
By all accounts, Afghanistan is again being ruled by Islamic fundamentalists; the warlords outside Kabul -- who run most of the country -- are little more liberal than the Taliban.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Ryan, you talk about abortion being for financial convenience - what about the situations where the woman is in grave risk of being physically or psychiatrically damaged by continuing with the pregnancy?
Is it right for the State to force her to undertake that risk? What if it's almost a certainty that damage will occur?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
If it is a mother or baby situation, then yes I think the mother should have the right to choose. However that is the only reason.
A life balances the scale in its direction in most cases.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Even Catholicism will allow pregnant women to be treated for illness, even IF the fetus could be killed. Why? Because they are treating the illness, not directly trying to kill the fetus. Moral semantics, but it works. Why lose two lives when you can save at least one?
And if you're pro-life, you absolutely should also be against capital punishment. A life is a life. We have the capability now to keep someone locked up for their natural life. We've no need anymore to kill them ourselves to keep them from society.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
A life is not a life in my opinion. An unborn baby has all the innocence that no one lving could ever have. Timothy McVeigh has little or more innocence that Hitler. The average death row inmate is guilty of the most heinous of crimes and cannot be compared in any way to an unborn child.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
They're both human.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
It's not about being human, mack. It's about potential.
(And Sweet Jebus, Ryan. Maybe if you ran around and kicked everyone in the shins you could possibly be more alienating.)
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I get that drift, Ralphie. I'm not THAT dense.
But there's a de-valuation from one life to another, though it's a human life. And what if folks ARE found innocent who are on death row? Or who have already been executed? Both have happened.
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote: (And Sweet Jebus, Ryan. Maybe if you ran around and kicked everyone in the shins you could possibly be more alienating.)
LOL, Im sorry i just really had to laugh at that. And of course provide my two cents on the issue. To me, its concievable that people would be pro death penalty and pro life for one reason. Their religion gives them the cover to do so. IMO, there is no difference between murder here and murder there. Man that quote was funny though.
Oh and Ryan I just wanted to give you this quote. "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability"
George Bush Sr.-A World Transformed 1998
My question, was it still worth it in Iraq?
[ August 24, 2003, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Jerryst316 ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
quote:To me, its concievable that people would be pro death penalty and pro life for one reason. Their religion gives them the cover to do so. IMO, there is no difference between murder here and murder there.
I don't get this at all, Jerry. Killing with just cause and killing without seem like two different things to me entirely. The former is only aimed at a few heinous criminals such as murderers and rapists; it's meant to preserve as much life as possible. And I don't buy the "we can keep them locked up forever" argument--way too many people get out eventually, one way or another.
[ August 24, 2003, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
::shrugs:: I know I can't convince other people. I just sleep safer knowing that Saddam Hussein will never have a nuclear bomb.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I agree with Maccabeus.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
As far as the issue here, my understanding was that the mother's retardation was so severe that she really was not capable of expressing wishes or making informed decisions. Given this, isn't the choice here between "forcing" her to carry the fetus to term or "forcing" her to have an abortion? How is forcing her to have the baby any more evil than forcing her to have an abortion?
Do I have the facts wrong here? Bob, I know you've been following this story since it broke several months ago . . . edumacate me?
btw, Duragon, the correct spelling is "Jeb! Bush." The name must be pronounced this way as well. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:::shrugs:: I know I can't convince other people. I just sleep safer knowing that Saddam Hussein will never have a nuclear bomb.
It's absolutely not about any particular issue, Ryan. You don't alienate people because of your beliefs. In fact, being LDS, your beliefs are probably the BEST represented here, and you are by no means the only strongly conservative voice on the board.
It's the presentation that alienates. You can either hand someone a glass of water, or throw the contents in their face. Even if people don't agree with you when you hand them the glass, at least you aren't tempting them to break it over your head.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I'm not LDS. And I'll definantly consider what you say.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies. For some reason I thought you were. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
His sparkling wit, prolly.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I do agree that if this woman really doesn't have the capacity to make a decision about the fetus (and the reference said 4 or 5, not two, and even that is vague and not helpful), then SHE needs a guardian. Which the state already has provided. The bigger concern is that Jeb wants the FETUS to have the guardian.
If the mentally retarded woman can't make the decision, then the guardian does. Period. Jeb is using this issue to forward his own agenda and honestly seems to care little about the mother, the fetus, the current guardian or the law, for that matter.
"Potential life" is worth saving? What about the possibility of redemption and forgiveness?? I thought Christians and other religious folk put a lot of stock in both of these tenets? So a criminal who may or may not repent has no "potential" to become something better? This sounds very...well...secular to me!
And as for the war, we aren't killing hundreds and thousands of Saddams...we are killing his soldiers, who may or may not have a choice whether they want to be there. In fact, I have read reports of lines of conscripts being herded by pistol toting officers. If the conscript turned to run, they were shot by their officers. If they remained to fight, they were shot by our soldiers.
Killing is killing, "potential" or not. If one uses religion to oppose killing (heck, in two major religions at least it is a Commandment!!), then shouldn't it be ALL killing? There doesn't seem to be any asterisks or caveats or loopholes. "Thou shall not kill" and that is it.
Hypocrits, I think. For the record, while I am pro-choice publicly, my PERSONAL conviction and that of my wife is pro-life (meaning ALL life). We won't have an abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurred, unless my wife's health is in jeopardy. We just don't believe it is our place to tell others how to live their life.
fil
[ August 25, 2003, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
You know, I'd be perfectly happy giving up capital punishment if it meant an end to legal abortion. That sounds like a lovely compromise.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I agree Jen. Fil, a lot of Christians agree. Murderers can be forgiven by both God and man, however I think they should still pay for their crimes. They may have sent a person to hell before they had a chance to hear the gospel. I still think they should die.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
fil, actually there are several words for killing in Hebrew and from what I understand the one used here would be better translated "murder"--it does not apply to all killing. Which makes sense considering that soon thereafter the penalty is given as death...
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Killing with just cause and killing without seem like two different things to me entirely. The former is only aimed at a few heinous criminals such as murderers and rapists; it's meant to preserve as much life as possible.
I'm not quite sure how it is "just cause" to kill someone who has been locked up and is no longer a threat. I think the word "revenge" is more appropriate.
quote:And I don't buy the "we can keep them locked up forever" argument--way too many people get out eventually, one way or another.
I agree that needs to be fixed. If you're guilty of a crime that would merit the death penalty, you should be locked away from society permanently. Are you saying that rather than fix that, we should just kill them?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:They may have sent a person to hell before they had a chance to hear the gospel
If they never had a chance to hear it, then they aren't going to hell. I think I'm not alone when I say I refuse to believe in a God that would send people to hell because they hadn't had a chance to hear 'bout him.
And we have the ABILITY to keep folks locked up for life. We just don't exercise it because we have capital punishment instead.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The bottom line in the JDS case is that she should have had a legal guardian all her life. The state laws had a gap in them that would allow guardianship to lapse when someone turns 18, whether or not they were mentally capable of making decisions.
The fact that she had no guardian meant that the process to appoint one had to start as soon as something "serious" happened to her. Like getting raped and becoming pregnant.
Here's what ticks me off about the situation:
1) The state dragged its feet on assigning her a guardian. That automatically meant that she would be in her third tri-mester and/or actually have given birth by the time she had/has a guardian. I don't know for sure that this was a deliberate action on the part of the state, but it sure looks like it to me.
2) The state pushed for a guardian for the fetus knowing full well that this issue has been brought through the court system in FL before and the clear decision was that a fetus does not need a guardian. The mother or the mother's legal guardian is responsible. But here they found a "test case" in which the mother-to-be did not have a guardian and was not competent herself and they seized it as an opportunity.
It's cynical and back door and that's why I don't like it.
I have no problem with open frank debate and even contentious court cases regarding abortion. My personally feelings on it aside, I do feel as if there has been far too little open debate on the issue.
And that's the problem. We have "tactics" instead of debate. And I don't like it when our legal system is used that way. It leaves us in unsatisfactory positions where we have legal precedents, but no clear laws.
Examples that should be cleared up: 1) Separation of church and state -- we need a definitive law/laws.
2) Abortion
3) Handling disputed election results (e.g., 2000 in FL)
I'm sure there are others.
The bottom line for JDS' fetus, for me, is that it should be aborted if delivering it full term would harm her more than the abortion procedure itself. (Or have the greater chance of harm.)
That's a question for her doctors, not the court and certainly not a bunch of people who are trying to use this case to make a point about abortion, either way.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
mack, Zan, and fil, you all make pretty good points. However, I don't use faith or Christianity or the Bible to justify my stance, because I no longer consider myself Christian. Therefore, I don't think it hypocritical to say that it's OK to kill some humans and not others. You may think I'm wrong, but hypocrisy is when your actions are inconsistent with your views, and I don't believe they are. Just because my conclusions are different from yours doesn't mean they are hypocritical.
From a secular standpoint, I believe it is possible to lose your standing as a human being through your inhuman actions, and so to lose your right to life. Is it vengeance? Yeah. But, while I haven't known the absolute worst segment of society (I guess), I know from firsthand experience that there are monsters, that there are people who do nothing but destroy, and the way we protect ourselves from the destroyers is to destroy them, as dispassionately as we would destroy a rabid dog.
Maybe I would be more comfortable with protecting ourselves from this element by locking them away permanently if such people really did stay locked away permanently. But it is clear that in our legal system, destroyers of lives get sentences that are too lenient to begin with, and typically don't even serve these sentences to completion. Getting back to the rabid dog example, how come we don't inarcerate rabid dogs, but simply destroy them? Maybe it's impractical to create housing for all the rabid creatures, or maybe it's more humane to simply end their misery.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I wasn't aware of the distinction between a guardian for her and a guardian for the fetus. Your logic is sound; a guardian for her is all that is needed under current legal definitions.
I don't agree with your bottom line, but one way or another that decision is not up to either of us.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Icarus, I'm sorry if I insinuated that you were being hypocritacal. Actually, I don't look at my stance as being Christian, although I am. I just don't think we have the right to take another life if we aren't in jeopardy. That's why I think "life sentance without parole" should mean exactly what it says.
Bob, I agree with you that Jeb has done some pretty underhanded things here. But I don't agree with your bottom line, either.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think you used the word hypocrisy, or if you did, I didn't feel singled out by it. No offense taken.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Icky, I don't base my belief on faith for that. Instead, it's just how I feel as a human being.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
My view on the death penalty is that it doesn't provide solutions, and has a number problems associated with it.
The death penalty is supposedly a painless affair for the convict, when the crime committed often inflicts a great deal of pain on the victims. The punishment hardly matches the crime.
Family members of the victim are often allowed to watch the execution. How can the family get any sense of retribution from the convict when he feels no pain? And even if they did garner some sort of vengeful sastisfaction, I find it morally reprehensible that they could feel sated by watching such an execution.
If the family doesn't feel satisfied (or does, and is, in my opinion, morally corrupt), and the convict doesn't feel any semblance of the pain they created from their actions, who is truly punished, and who benefits?
The state benefits, and the convict's family is punished. The state no longer has to support the convict, and while the expense of an execution is high, the cost of living for a typical criminal far exceeds it. The family of the convict is punished by having a loved one, however wretched he may be, taken from them. I can't imagine the pain felt by a parent, spouse, or child when the state kills a person they love.
And there is a basic hypocracy involved with capital punishment, as well. If the state sponsors execution, the killing of a human being, how can killing be a crime? Or are we part of a criminal government?
Saying all that, I do support the death penalty in certain situations, mostly international war crimes and for certain acts of treason.
[EDIT] Like fil, I'm pro-choice publicly, but personally I would never think of asking a spouse for an abortion unless there was some health complication with her or the child.
[ August 25, 2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think it's fair to consider people morally "reprehensible" or "corrupt" because of what helps them deal with their grief. Neither of us can know what that level of grief is like. It shouldn't be too hard to imagine that grief of that sort can make a person want some things that to you seem inappropriate.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: The state benefits, and the convict's family is punished. The state no longer has to support the convict, and while the expense of an execution is high, the cost of living for a typical criminal far exceeds it.
I don't think that's true Wheat. I've read several places that executions cost far more than life imprisonment. Here's the result from a quick Google search. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've read the same thing, Zan.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I agree with what Icarus said at the top of the page.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Icarus said:
quote:Getting back to the rabid dog example, how come we don't inarcerate rabid dogs, but simply destroy them? Maybe it's impractical to create housing for all the rabid creatures, or maybe it's more humane to simply end their misery.
Well, first of all, rabid dogs are infectious and have a disease that's going to kill them very soon. I think maybe a better example in this case would dogs that are killed after savagely attacking human beings.
But the fact is the reason we kill them rather than house them is convenience. It's cheaper - with animals, anyway. Since animals don't have any legal standing we can kill them for any or no reason at all, as long as we do it humanely - although if most of us got to witness the deaths of the poultry, beef, etc that we eat, we'd probably wonder what kind of definition of "humane" was being used in the industry.
The law draws a sharp line between animals and persons. You're not alone in thinking maybe there are some cases in which the line should be moved or blurred. Animal rights activists would like to give legal standing and protections to some animals. Some ethicists would like to deny the legal status of personhood to infants with disabilities, people with alzheimers, people of any age with severe mental retardation. The reason's the same - to protect some from being killed while making the killing of others easier.
Personally, I'm very comfortable with the line where it is.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
The issue here is the horrific legal precedent that could be set, making assumptions that could circumvent the right to ANY abortion.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
No. This woman is incapable of making a logical, rational decision. They would withold abortion from anyone who was mentally instable or mentally incapable of such a serious decision. They did (finally) give her a guardian to act in her stead. This is also done in other situations where the person in question cannot make the decision for his or herself (not just with abortions). Were she able to make her own decision, she would be allowed to. When she cannot, they are acting conservatively and trying to preserve what they can for the good of the most.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
So even if the decision itself is just we still shouldn't do it because somehow it could lead to greater infringement on abortion which most people don't exactly consider a fundamental right anyway?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: They would withold abortion from anyone who was mentally instable or mentally incapable of such a serious decision.
No they wouldn't. If the woman had been in a car accident and were comatose and had living parents and was raped, the parents would make the decision. I wonder if Jeb! would want a guardian for that situation, also.
I think that if these people really gave a crap about "people," this woman wouldn't have been without a guardian for 4 years. And if she'd had a guardian, then the fetus wouldn't have needed one. Unless of course, he's actually trying to say that if your wife is in a coma, you aren't allowed to make decisions for her. I certainly hope that the fetus' guardian has the same beliefs you do.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
The parents would be considered the guardian(s).
Does this woman have any living relatives?!
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Those situations are a bit different.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
You think?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
If the woman in the coma would have her parents as a guardian and this woman is about as able to make decisions for herself, why doesn't she have a guardian? Who seriously thought that woman with the mental capacity of a 5 year old should be without a guardian?
And if the woman with parents/guardians doesn't need a guardian for her fetus, why does this mentally retarded woman?
Somewhere, somehow the system broke down and Jeb! is trying to take advantage of it, rather than fix it.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I meant, does the woman with the guardian have parents? I mean, alive parents.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Been doing some reading on this. JDS (the mother) is a bit clearer to me as a person (as you know by now, that is important to me). She is a 22 year old woman with cerebral palsey and autism. She is also on psychotropic medications. She was abandoned as a child and pretty much sounds like a ward of the state, living in one nursing home since she was 3 years old. She apparently has no family to step in.
Here is a new twist that scares me a bit with this. Jeb! (I like that exclamation point) asked the courts to assign two guardians, one for the fetus and one for the woman. This happened first that I could find in May and at that time, she was 6 months pregnant. Two women (I haven't found out much about them beyond their names) filed for guardianship of the fetus, though only one (the one NOT making the big stink whose name is Wixtrom) wanted to look into guardianship AFTER the child was born.
Anyway, the scary part. One of the reasons that it appears they are doing this is not just because of the decision of the mother. That point is moot because she has a guardian making decisions and that guardian has clearly made the decision to let the pregnancy proceed naturally. So why pursue guardianship for the fetus (beyond the political, which I won't rule out)? One of the potential reasons I found was that one of the potential guarians of the fetus cited concerns that the mother's need for medication or her medical conditions could be harmful to the baby. What does this mean? Could it mean that the guardian for the fetus would get involved if the mother's life was at risk because of the fetus? Or if the fetus was at risk because of the care for the mother, such as saying that JDS shouldn't take her medications or JDS has to do...something. What this sounds mysteriously like is that where the mother's health is at risk, they would rather see something dreadful happen to the mother vs. harm the unborn baby.
This isn't just paranoia. A person with CP has physical issues that could be very complicated by the changes the body needs to make during pregnancy. Who knows what the potential risk is to the fetus with all the medications she is on? And who knows, when it gets to the end, that the mother can survive childbirth?
In short, would there be two guardians battling to save the life of their wards if there were concerns? Clearly, even most pro-life folks would say that if the mother's health was at risk, her needs must be taken first. But in this case, the disabled mother's life is devalued due to disability, in my humble opinion.
Maybe I am building a case out of straw, but why else would a fetus need a guardian if the mother is either competent...like my wife, for example...or incompetent but already has a guardian...like JDS? Can't think of anything else. Politics (most likely) or bad ethics (read Peter Singer lately?).
fil
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Man. That sucks. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
fil, I agree with you. My only point was that if a healthy woman suddenly became incapictated and had family, someone would appointed her guardian. That didn't happen. When JDS aged out of foster care, the state basically just dumped her. She should have had a guardian all along and if she had, or if she had family, the question of a guardian for the fetus wouldn't have even come up. And rather than Jeb! realizing that there was a problem that needed to be fixed, he is using the situation to push a political agenda.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Right.
Though that IS what states do. When foster kids age out of foster care, they get dumped.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
My God, it's bad enough that this poor woman was abandoned, has CP and autism, and was raped while institutionalized. Now she's an unknowing political pawn in the abortion cultural war?
I hope this fetal guardianship thing backfires on the people using her and her child to advance their political goals. It's bad politics and bad ethics.
Fil is right, her disabilities have led people to discount her humanity. That's the only reason I can see that anyone would appoint a guardian for the fetus. Has anyone ever heard of a guardian appointed to a fetus? And what if the guardians disagree? Some poor judge would have to sort the whole mess out. What a sad situation.
[ August 25, 2003, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Right mack, but most foster kids aren't mentally 5 when the age out of the system. A 5 year old should have a guardian.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yes.
*Weird look*
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Mac's right, though (can I call you mac?). There are plenty of foster kids that are 'dumped' at age 18, mental age of 5 or not. There are plenty of kids who live in the foster care system that need support even though they are 18 and may not even have any mental disabilities! Most typical 18 year olds aren't unceremoniosly kicked out of their support system by their caregivers, but that is literally what our local DCF will at times do, though at least my agency (County Board of Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities) is working very hard to id kids early that will need our support at age 18 to prevent the very incident that is happening in Florida. Typically, 18 year olds still have access to the folks that raised them but that isn't the case with most kids in the foster care system. That is the saddest situation of all.
But this only gets the obvious kids like JDS was, someone with clearly identified disabilities and need for continued support. JDS got lost down there because she lived in a nursing home since age 3 and didn't need to move at 18. Where kids at 18 get identified is when a foster agency/home says they can't support an 18 year old and we get the call. But in the case of JDS, she just hung out and no one cared to notice. I think at LEAST as a part of this mess that nursing home should get a stern looking into.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)