Re: A 17-year-old can get an abortion, but not join the Marines?
- From: Trent Woodruff <afretired@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:16:29 -0700
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:47:39 -0400, "Randolph M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Trent Woodruff wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:29:06 -0400, "Randolph M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
James Schrumpf wrote:
Anti-War Judge Rejects Foster Teen's Bid to Join Marines
A California judge rejected a foster teen's request for early enlistment
with the Marine Corps -- and a $10,000 signing bonus -- reportedly on the
grounds that the judge didn't approve of the Iraq war.
Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Marilyn Mackel denied 17-year-old
Shawn Sage's request to join the military last October, according to a report
in the Los Angeles Daily News.
"The judge said she didn't support the Iraq war for any reason we're over
there," Marine recruiter Sgt. Guillermo Medrano of the Simi Valley U.S.
Marine Corps recruiting office told the paper.
* * *
In California, a minor girl does not need the consent of her parents or
guardians prior to obtaining an abortion, nor does she need to inform them of
her intentions.
Seems pretty strange that a gal can get an abortion at age 17 with no
questions asked, but can't join the Marines. I thought women's bodies were
theirs to control.
Let's be clear here. Are you advocating the position that a 17-year-old
pregnant woman should be forced to deliver the child if her parents say
so? Or are you instead advocating the position that any 17-year-old who
chooses to join the marines should be allowed to without parental consent?
I'm pretty sure he's advocating that there should be some consistency
in the two positions. And I agree with him.
Well that's what I figured. And if you don't think the two situations
are consistent, I'm assuming that you'd need to make one of the two
changes I suggested in order to make them consistent. So I'm wondering
which of the two he (or you) would prefer, because they both seem to
have problems to me, suggesting that they're really not analogous in the
first place.
You're right that I don't believe they're consistent. To be perfectly
honest, it wouldn't matter in the slightest to me WHICH of your two
options was selected...either would work for me and either would make
it consistent. If I had a gun to my head forcing me to pick, I
suppose I'd go with "parents have some involvement with the child who
is pregnant" (as opposed to your clearly biased take on it). I'm a
believer that, in general, parental involvement is usually a good
thing.
--
....I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When
you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A 17-year-old can get an abortion, but not join the Marines?
- From: Randolph M. Jones
- Re: A 17-year-old can get an abortion, but not join the Marines?
- References:
- A 17-year-old can get an abortion, but not join the Marines?
- From: James Schrumpf
- Re: A 17-year-old can get an abortion, but not join the Marines?
- From: Randolph M. Jones
- Re: A 17-year-old can get an abortion, but not join the Marines?
- From: Trent Woodruff
- Re: A 17-year-old can get an abortion, but not join the Marines?
- From: Randolph M. Jones
- A 17-year-old can get an abortion, but not join the Marines?
- Prev by Date: Re: A brain teaser
- Next by Date: I nominate myself
- Previous by thread: Re: A 17-year-old can get an abortion, but not join the Marines?
- Next by thread: Re: A 17-year-old can get an abortion, but not join the Marines?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|