17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

Boston

The_Minister wrote:

I would. Wouldn't you? She wants to pay someone to scramble its brains then scoop it out (when you get right down to it). Ergo, she is as responsible as someone who takes a hit out on someone. (Same type of responsibility, not the same level). She ordered it killed.

Responsible in what way like? She's responsible for her actions in the same way that someone who hires a hitman is responsible for their, but there not the same acts.

takola

The_Minister wrote:

I would. Wouldn't you? She wants to pay someone to scramble its brains then scoop it out (when you get right down to it). Ergo, she is as responsible as someone who takes a hit out on someone. (Same type of responsibility, not the same level). She ordered it killed.

Thaedydal, your link does not explain why babies in the womb kick when they hear music.

WIKIPEDIA wrote:

Infants born with anencephaly are usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain.

There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly and the prognosis for affected individuals is poor. Most anencephalic babies do not survive birth, accounting for 55% of non-aborted cases. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth from cardiorespiratory arrest.


In almost all cases anencephalic infants are not aggressively resuscitated since there is no chance of the infant ever achieving a conscious existence. Instead, the usual clinical practice is to offer hydration, nutrition and comfort measures and to "let nature take its course". Artificial ventilation, surgery (to fix any co-existing congenital defects), and drug therapy (such as antibiotics) are usually regarded as being pointless. Some clinicians see no point in even providing nutrition and hydration, arguing that euthanasia is morally and clinically appropriate in such cases.

Please read that. I couldn't hold a 17 year old girl responsible for murder because she had decided not to continue a pregnancy for a child that has no hope of a life. It will never feel anything. From the sounds of it, it will never hear it's mothers voice, or see her. The only thing alive in the child is the body. That 17 year old girl is alive in every sense of the word. How do you think she will cope with having to keep herself detached from the baby inside her? Knowing that he/she will die anyway. I couldn't live with that.

Boston

kizzyr wrote:

If the girl believes it is not a baby and therefore not a person at this stage of development then she does not see herself as an assassin as you describe her.

That logic is deeply flawed. If I where to believe that someone was not a person, by they brain dead, living like an animal, whatever, I could still not kill them. Personal perception shouldn't be a deciding factor.

Sam Vimes

bluewolf wrote:

As opposed to what? You believe otherwise because you want to. That's how opinions work...

i'm not a retard. don't talk to me as if i am. i'll try to spell out my point because you don't seem to be getting it:

if pregnancy lasted a week, caused no pain or stress and the baby was immediately taken away to a loving family, i don't think we'd be having this debate. pregnancy is a lot of hassle so people convince themselves of things that aren't true. they don't weigh up the evidence and make an objective decision, they decide what's right beforehand and ignore all evidence to the contrary

i believe a fetus is a baby because if my mother thought like you i'd be rotting medical waste right now (i was adopted)

bluewolf wrote:

Then say so instead of "new life"

i apologise. since i hadn't mentioned animals at any point i assumed people would not think i was talking about them. unless i specifically mention animals, assume i'm not talking about them

bluewolf wrote:

Abortion is a consequence, it's just one you don't like

what are you talking about? if you jump out of a plane, falling is a consequence. if you shoot yourself in the head, dying is a consequence. you make a choice, and then something is caused by that choice

getting pregnant does not cause an abortion. it is not a consequence of anything

bluewolf wrote:

I'm not even being sarcastic...

i'd consider "well done. you learned that other people have opinions" or whatever you said to be sarcastic. maybe condescending or just insulting would be better words

Thaedydal wrote:

Muscle spasm does not equal life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Galvani

he passed an electric current through a nerve and discovered that our nerves are controlled by electricity. a baby kicking is a completely different situation.

and are you saying that a fetus is not alive?

Sam Vimes

takola wrote:

Please read that. I couldn't hold a 17 year old girl responsible for murder because she had decided not to continue a pregnancy for a child that has no hope of a life. It will never feel anything. From the sounds of it, it will never hear it's mothers voice, or see her. The only thing alive in the child is the body. That 17 year old girl is alive in every sense of the word. How do you think she will cope with having to keep herself detached from the baby inside her? Knowing that he/she will die anyway. I couldn't live with that.

i don't think anyone does. anyone who thinks that girl should be denied an abortion needs their head examined. what we're talking about is the whole thing of "its my body, its my choice" when in fact its no longer just their body and not their choice

b3t4

Boston wrote:

If men are sperm donors, women are walking talking wombs for the duration of the pregnancy.

There's just a good bit more involved in being a womb isn't there.

only the woman lives with the abortion

I never said any such thing.

A.

kizzyr

Boston wrote:

That logic is deeply flawed. If I where to believe that someone was not a person, by they brain dead, living like an animal, whatever, I could still not kill them. Personal perception shouldn't be a deciding factor.

There is a difference between the two. The foetus is a parasite, it may not sound nice or pleasant but that is what it is. It lives off the woman's body until it is capable of existing independently of her. At this stage it has none of the life experiences that make people what they are, none.
Someone who is brain dead is not living, ( animals are sentient beings, people that are brain dead are not) they are dead, they are being kept alive by machines and there is no hope, none at all, of them ever ever recovering from this state. I also think it is wrong that these bodies are kept "alive" because as with this abortion debate, there is no proper legal framework around what happens in these situations and that (as with this girl and the others before her and the ones yet to come) the families of these people who are brain dead / in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) have to fight through the courts to have the right to turn the machines off and put an end to their pointless suffering.

Siogfinsceal

Hagar wrote:

Emotive statement, but ultimately isn't the law of the land equally determined by all voters, men and women alike?

yes put the last vote we had on it was wether or not information coul dbe provided or something liek that> I cant understand why they dont have a proper vote - to see if we all want to legalise abortion similar to it is in england or not?

the poor girl having to stay pregnant for 5 months longer to see her baby die. Is it not much easier on her mental helth to get an abortion its madness the baby will die anyway!

WindSock

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

If a father is just a donor, they should never have to pay child support, ever.

Ah yes, I was thinking of this wee ditty only yesterday. It made me think if men that didnt/werent let stick around for the baby, then they didnt have to pay child support, then there may be less accidental pregnancies happening. Just a thought, off topic nonetheless.

Sam Vimes

kizzyr wrote:

There is a difference between the two. The foetus is a parasite, it may not sound nice or pleasant but that is what it is. It lives off the woman's body until it is capable of existing independently of her. At this stage it has none of the life experiences that make people what they are, none.

imo, having human dna is the definitive definition of a human. anything else is open to interpretation

kizzyr wrote:

Someone who is brain dead is not living, ( animals are sentient beings, people that are brain dead are not) they are dead, they are being kept alive by machines and there is no hope, none at all, of them ever ever recovering from this state. I also think it is wrong that these bodies are kept "alive"

but what if you knew that in 9 months, a cure would be found and the brain dead person would make a complete recovery (similar to a baby developing). would you still support letting him die?

and btw, i don't think animals are classed as sentient

Siogfinsceal

someone set up a poll so people can vote wether she be allowed have an abortion or not?

The way I see it religion should play no part in this. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion regardless of their religion/nationality. I am totally pro choice myself. The way I see it allowing abortion in ireland would be fair- those that want one can have one and those that dont want one can leave it
Those of you who are pro -life for catholic or other reasons - great dont have an abortion no one is asking you to! but dont try and push your will or your views on those that do!
My body and beliefs are my own and if at some stage I needed an abortion I would go and have one and that would be no ones business that my own.

Its typical ireland pretending we are a non- abortion country - girls are travelling over all the time to england! what would the goverenment prefer - lots of unwanted children for the tax payers to pay for? mistakes can happen even with contraception and id much rather someone went to england rather than have a child they dont want.
We have had referendums but none of them have opened the door - we need a real referendum - do we allow abortion as they do in the uk or dont we - let the irish people speak and decide!!

kizzyr

Commander Vimes wrote:

imo, having human dna is the definitive definition of a human. anything else is open to interpretation


but what if you knew that in 9 months, a cure would be found and the brain dead person would make a complete recovery (similar to a baby developing). would you still support letting him die?

and btw, i don't think animals are classed as sentient

There is no recovery from a persistent vegetative state / being brain dead none.

WindSock

Here's my answer for everytime I get into a discussion with a pro lifer. If you don't like abortion, then don't have one

kizzyr

boreds wrote:

Here's my answer for everytime I get into a discussion with a pro lifer. If you don't like abortion, then don't have one

I agree, it comes down to something as simple as that. If something is morally abhorrent to you don't do it if it is something you can reconcile yourself to then that is your choice.

Boston

b3t4 wrote:

There's just a good bit more involved in being a womb isn't there.


I never said any such thing.

A.

You don't deny it.

carveone

My 2c: Abortion is one of those topics that noone will ever agree on. Ever.

But isn't this more about freedom to travel? (I'm saying that with a little voice saying "suuuuure it is". So I'm not being naive here). And we voted on that already in 92. The AG just said as much - noone has the power to stop her.

It seems that this is more about the right of a 17 year old to check herself out of care (some care!) and go on a "trip" to england. If I was 17, could I check myself out of, say, hospital? I've actually got no idea myself. What rights does a 17 year old have? You can work. You can marry. You can certainly be tried as an adult...

JC 2K3

Boston wrote:

That logic is deeply flawed. If I where to believe that someone was not a person, by they brain dead, living like an animal, whatever, I could still not kill them. Personal perception shouldn't be a deciding factor.

I dunno, I think personal perception should be the deciding factor. As killing a foetus will not have any effect on the world as killing another person would I personally feel that if the parents authorizing the abortion can live with it then why not?

Boston

JC 2K3 wrote:

I dunno, I think personal perception should be the deciding factor. As killing a foetus will not have any effect on the world as killing another person would I personally feel that if the parents authorizing the abortion can live with it then why not?

Are you seriously making out that if you can live with something then it's ok to do it?

JC 2K3

As long as there are no consequences for society, then yes.

Boston

JC 2K3 wrote:

As long as there are no consequences for society, then yes.

There are quiet a few terrible things that people can do and live with. That doesn't make them ok or right.

JC 2K3

To make that statement you must define "terrible".

If "terrible" means consequences to society outside those who chose to do something then I'm against it.

For example, someone might consider me taking drugs to be "terrible", but with no consequences to anyone but me I don't see it as wrong. However, if I were to kill another adult society would suffer a blow and that would be wrong.

Boston

JC 2K3 wrote:

To make that statement you must define "terrible".

If "terrible" means consequences to society outside those who chose to do something then I'm against it.

For example, someone might consider me taking drugs to be "terrible", but with no consequences to anyone but me I don't see it as wrong. However, if I were to kill another adult society would suffer a blow and that would be wrong.

Hmm, I put a guy in hospital once with two broken arms. I can live with it, it had no knock on affect on society as a whole. Does that make it right?

Sam Vimes

boreds wrote:

Here's my answer for everytime I get into a discussion with a pro lifer. If you don't like abortion, then don't have one

i don't like rape either and i don't intend to rape someone but i'd like to think that other people aren't doing it either

JC 2K3 wrote:

As long as there are no consequences for society, then yes.

can i kill homeless people then?

abortion affects at least one person and on a side note, the incidence of suicide after having an abortion is far higher than after carrying to full term

kizzyr wrote:

There is no recovery from a persistent vegetative state / being brain dead none.

ah but that's not what i asked. i asked what if someone was currently brain dead (not a person by your definition) but medical science could fix him with 9 months of work. would you still authorise pulling the plug because he currently doesn't meet your definition of a person?

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote:

To make that statement you must define "terrible".

If "terrible" means consequences to society outside those who chose to do something then I'm against it.

the unborn baby didn't choose. again we get back to the point of the debate: is a fetus a person

everything else in this debate is irrelevant because all my arguments hold true if it is and all your arguments hold true if its not. that is the only thing we disagree on

examples:

a woman has the right to choose but not if that involves someone dying (you don't consider a fetus someone)

it doesn't affect anyone who didn't choose to do it (you don't consider the fetus anyone)

pregnancy is very stressful for the mother (you wouldn't mind if you thought the fetus was a person)

the fetus is a just parasite (clearly she doesn't think its a person)

etc etc etc

the only thing worth arguing about is whether or not a fetus is a person.

i believe it is and i firmly believe that pro abortion people just convince themselves that it isn't because they don't want a baby

Boston

Commander Vimes wrote:

i believe it is and i firmly believe that pro abortion people just convince themselves that it isn't because they don't want a baby

I agree with the rest of your point, it does come down to if you see the fetus as a person.

But on your last point, I've have to say it isn't that clear cut. There are women for whom carrying a child to term will have serious mental and physical implications. Now they may be fully capable of carrying a child to term but they may even dearly love to have a baby but the long term health affects are so sever that termination is a valid option.

Post natal depression is a scary thing as is a difficult birth.

Sam Vimes

Boston wrote:

I agree with the rest of your point, it does come down to if you see the fetus as a person.

But on your last point, I've have to say it isn't that clear cut. There are women for whom carrying a child to term will have serious mental and physical implications. Now they may be fully capable of carrying a child to term but they may even dearly love to have a baby but the long term health affects are so sever that termination is a valid option.

Post natal depression is a scary thing as is a difficult birth.

then that's a different situation. what i'm against is abortion as a form of contraception

PinkPrincess26

Commander Vimes wrote:

then that's a different situation. what i'm against is abortion as a form of contraception

Contraception prevents someone from getting pregnant. so therefore your comment doesnt make sence.....

I can only say again what I've said before... An embryo is not a baby.
I didnt think an embryo was a baby when I was having my own child. an embryo is an embryo.

No one has the right to tell anyone what they can and can't do with their own body

Tar.Aldarion

His comment makes sense.
He is talking about somebody that has unprotected sex, and if they get pregnant will have an abortion willy nilly, using it as their 'contraception'.

PinkPrincess26

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

His comment makes sense.
He is talking about somebody that has unprotected sex, and if they get pregnant will have an abortion willy nilly, using it as their 'contraception'.

It doesnt make sence...

Contraception- the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.

This was right out of the dictionary, imagine that..... I dont see abortion on that list...

Mr. Presentable

Thaedydal wrote:

Muscle spasm does not equal life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Galvani

How is this relevant?

Anyhow, to return to the topic. We are not getting full information here:

1 Why did the girl tell the HSE she was going to terminate?
2 Did she ask them to do it, or pay for it to be done?
3 The HSE has no power to stop anyone travelling anywhere, so who does?
4 How did the hospital come to discover at an early stage that the foetus had anencephaly unless they were looking for it? And it's not a standard test.
5 Is she a traveller? anencephaly is very rare, but within the traveler (sic) community it is relatively common due to inbreeding.


The right to life of the unborn is in our constitution, this is why, regardless of whether the baby would die in the first days, it is entitled to be born under Irish Law.

No one would deny that this is a terrible, tragic situation, but without the test the child would be born and die naturally, and perhaps should be afforded that dignity - if dignity be the right word.