Oh, I mean, one might say, "okay, a girl can choose to have an abortion without parental consent/involvement at 7". You might get a *ton* of people on board with that because there's only been a handful of cases of pregnancy at 6 or younger. But then there are still those cases and you haven't really fixed the…

Really? I've never heard it used in that context, and I can't find a separate definition for "medically invasive" vs. "surgically invasive". Can you elaborate? Do you have medical training btw? It sounds like you might, I'm just wondering where you got that from. It'd be cool to have a more precise understanding…

Oh... should have responded at the tip of the thread. Well, it's a good analogy anyways, it actually is accurate, because again, "invasive" has a specific technical meaning involving a doctor having contact with mucosa or cutting past the skin, etc. A live birth doesn't need a doctor or anybody else in fact, so it's…

It's actually not, because "invasive" implies a procedure. So a live birth wouldn't be invasive because it doesn't involve a procedure, but a c-section would be.

Absolutely true. What do you think we as a society should do?

"...your analogies were so shit..."

You are quite vitriolic - but you have a full name and an avatar, so I'll give you the courtesy of a response.

I think you're being confrontational - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment.

Right, but the medical definition of invasive is for procedures - it doesn't apply to live birth because it isn't a procedure. A c-section, on the other hand, is.

I don't think I disagree with anything here. But I would ask you - would you let a 9-year-old girl decide whether to have an abortion for herself? 8? 7? 6? These cases do happen. What do you do when a child is just simply to young to understand the procedures necessary for giving birth or getting an abortion?

Again - I think 17 is old enough to make a decision. Just want to reiterate that.

I would say these are valid concerns, but there are other options. Adoption is one, for instance. It doesn't have to end as badly as you envision.

So no - I think a decision should be made, needs to be made, has to be made. In this particular case, I think 17 is old enough to make a decision.

I have to comment, it sounds to me like this is mischaracterizing the point of the law. If you follow through on your argument, for instance, that she's not mature enough to raise a child - then should children be forced to have abortions if they aren't deemed mature enough? Should their babies be removed from them…

No way is my car more comfortable. I'm 6'4", so I can't fit in the back seat. Reclining the front seats means my head rolls off the headrest and my back is uncomfortable. A tent, sleeping pad, bag, and putting a backpack under my knees is infinitely more comfy.

That physics PhD thing isn't gender-specific. I get the exact same reaction, including the douchy comment, from both women and men. (Can women be douchy or is that a gendered attribute? I'll leave it for you to decide...) It actually doesn't help when I say "at Stanford". You might think that'd make it better, but…

Yes, some people are painting Trayvon as a sort of ultimate victim that wouldn't hurt a fly, much less put up a fight.

Hey, take a breath! You said Zimmerman committed a crime by following him with a visible weapon. I thought it was concealed. You said Martin saw it. I thought he didn't. Then you kinda freaked out on me. I just didn't remember your version being accurate. But I could be wrong, so I wondered if you had a link. …

Okay... so you're saying Zimmerman may have been had the gun concealed, but Martin saw it anyways? When did Martin see the gun? I thought that was during the fight, not before. Can you link somewhere that says if Martin saw the gun before they struggled?

I think you're trying to bait me. I'm moving on.