Xanax Buy In Uk Fox News today yesterday had a story that made me happy as a pro-life person.
https://inteligencialimite.org/2024/08/07/8wbticdfe8 COLUMBUS, Ohio – An Ohio judge allowed a pregnant 17-year-old to get married without her parents’ consent after the bride-to-be said she could be forced to have an abortion if she stayed at home.
The Columbus Dispatch reports the couple, who each turn 18 in a few months, got married Tuesday after a hearing.
https://mandikaye.com/blog/ilepurx2g Ohio law requires parents to sign off on the marriage of anyone younger than 18, but judges can waive the requirement. The bride’s mother says she’s outraged the judge did so without hearing from her or her husband. She also denies pushing her daughter toward abortion.
The groom’s father tells The Dispatch that his daughter-in-law felt that she in was an unsafe environment.
https://solomedicalsupply.com/2024/08/07/sda7pzbneu But, this brings up an interesting philosophical topic. When is it justified for a judge to interfere and judge in favor of a minor? It is easy to cheer when a judge rules to allow a 17-year-old to get married without her parents’ consent because she claims that her parents will force her to have an abortion? Many people were also happy to back a judge who ruled in 2009 that a 17-year-old Muslim girl who became a Christian could stay in Florida with a Christian pastor and his family because she feared that she would be the victim of a mercy killing.
But, would we be as happy if a judge simply allowed a pregnant 17-year-old to get married despite her parents objection if there were no other reason involved? And, can you imagine the reaction in this country should a judge allow a 17-year-old Christian girl who became a Muslim to stay in another state with a Muslim imam and his family because she feared that her family would send her to a deprogramming center?
https://eloquentgushing.com/xw9y22q7h1t Both cases are close to identical. But, the difference between the two cases is that the first two were cases that generally have the emotional support of Christians, while the second two do not tend to have such support. As much as we all intellectually state that we want fair and impartial courts, we feel validated when a judge agrees with us and feel quashed when a judge does not.
Yet, we have to remember what our stance theoretically is. We want fair and impartial courts. This means that there will at times be decisions that are equally applied the same way in similar circumstances. Sometimes the decisions will be decisions that we will not like as Christians. No, I am not talking about areas to which we are clearly and morally opposed. But, I am talking about cases such as the hypothetical one that I made about the Christian girl becoming a Muslim. Fair and impartial courts must make similar decisions in similar cases otherwise they are not fair and impartial. But, sometimes it is very tough to be fair and impartial.
Ordering Xanax Online Illegal
I think you kind-of answered one of your own questions though? I mean, the difference between the Muslim-Christian convert case and the Christian-Muslim convert case is not just a matter of Christian emotional appeal, right? It’s also a matter of murder vs. something “less” than murder. Christians and non-Christians would tend to recognize that murder is a greater evil than a “deprogramming center” – bad as it may be.
https://homeupgradespecialist.com/65xtt1u3cdq I think you’re showing the importance of recognizing that “fair and impartial” can lead to a dangerous “arbitrary and relative” … ?
It most definitely can lead to “arbitrary and relative.” That is one of the dangers of saying that judges may only refer to certain principles. Common sense is not one of those principles. But, having said that, I have lived in a country whose constitution is immense because judges can only interpret on exactly what is written, with no room for interpretation. Our Founding Fathers were trying to avoid both problems. They did want to give some flexibility to judges, in accord with common law principles already existing in England.
Let me mention that many people would argue that a deprogramming center may not be physical murder, but it can certainly be a form of emotional and intellectual manslaughter. The person may remain physically alive, but the original person is gone. That is why deprogramming is no longer used as a technique. It is too hard to differentiate it from brainwashing.