Judge says ordering of abortion was justified

Boston Globe ^ | 02/21/2012 | By Peter Schworm

[BykrBayb]

LOL

Thanks!

[philman_36]

The continuing dehumanization of all life in general.
Nobody's life has any value and the continuance of life is subjective, not objective.

[jboot]

Looks like the kitties have emptied the litter box.

IBTZ and IATZ...I rule today!!

[Flycatcher]

IATZ!

[surroundedbyblue]

Oh darn! I missed this one.

My job interferes with my fun! LOL!

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

——The appeals court ruled that the woman had clearly expressed her opposition to abortion as a Catholic, but Harms wrote that “the statements of a person suffering from schizophrenia surely cannot simply be taken at face value.’’-——

Reminds me of old Soviet Union, where “religious” and “psychotic” were synonymous.

[wagglebee]

Good!

[Boogieman]

Any doctor who performs abortions already has shown they don’t take the Hippocratic oath seriously, so why would this be surprising?

BTW, I don’t think the procedure was actually performed in this case, since the daughter won her appeal.

[Maryhere]

The United States of China

[Responsibility2nd]

He may have been a class of ‘98. But zot don’t care.

[metmom]

Or go ahead and defend abortion. You’ve been a FReeper a long time, but (last time I looked) pro-aborts get zotted.

Oooops....

IATZ.....

Just for the record that position surprised me. It was not one I expected from that FReeper.

[metmom]

Hi, BB! You'll be the first person on my "Bully Posse" ping list. :)

Me too. Me too.

[Responsibility2nd]

Just for the record that position surprised me. It was not one I expected from that FReeper.

 

_________________________________________________________

 

 

I've been trying to think of times I've Freeped with the dearly departed bmv. If I remember anything, I tend to remember disagreeing with bmv as he/she took a libertarian POV.

 

See tagline. I hate libertarians. 

 

Anywho. We tried to give bmv a way to walk back that comment. Didn't happen
 

[trisham]

Well, that’s three of us now! :)

[metmom]

If he’s the one I’m thinking of, he was a stalwart in the crevo debates. But I don’t recall any particular libertarian leanings out of that.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The banned played on.

[HiTech RedNeck]

PRO-LIFE BULLAY!

[HiTech RedNeck]

I am not opposed to libertarianism in principle, in the abstract. (The devil is in the details.) What I am opposed to is, that if someone has gone nuts, presuming to stick Caesar jackboots-and-all into that someone’s mind. That is a very anti-libertarian move if anything. Maybe they had to lighten her beneficial medication a bit for the sake of the unborn baby, but it didn’t sound like she was in danger of a suicide, and when the pregnancy is complete they can put her back on her medications and hopefully she will regain some sanity. I could see maybe also putting her on a birth control pill, but a permanent sterilization? No way.

[little jeremiah]

Surprised that bvw holds (held?) such a incredibly Nazi-like view.

[little jeremiah]

In all 50 states, there are laws providing for judicial supervision of people who are not legally competent (e.g., severely retarded, mentally ill, in a coma, etc.). The court can either appoint a guardian for the person, or the court itself can make major decisions for the person (authorizing surgery, authorizing the filing or settlement of a lawsuit, making investments, etc.)

The concept itself is neither new (it goes back to English law) nor controversial in theory. It becomes controversial in a few cases (this one and Terry Schiavo come to mind), but judges in every state every day are making medical and other decisions for incompetent people.

Do you consider that forcing a mentally ill person to abort her child falls under such laws that provide for "juditical supervision"?