17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

Boston · 03-05-2007 2:13pm

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

Your exact words....Bluewolf, for people who actually think of a baby as nothing more then a parasite, an inconvience, I'm not to sure they wouldn't look at abortion like a safey net.

And? How is that anything like what you made it out to be.

Maccattack; You mean like an adoption register, Jesus they must give the adoption thing a go at some stage. :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes · 03-05-2007 3:21pm

Maccattack wrote:

I reckon there should be a register.

A register of ALL the people who are anti abortion. As these people insist on forcing their ideas of right and wrong onto somebody they have never met nor know anything about.

are you against rape? would you rather people didn't do it? if so i think that all people who commit rape should be sent to live in your house since you're forcing your moral objection to rape on them

this is again a pointless statement because you're assuming that a fetus is a clump of cells and your statement only makes sense based on that assumtion.

i don't accept that a fetus is just a clump of cells so to me abortion is as wrong as murder. there's no "forcing of morals" here such as forcing people to wear burkas etc, its saying murder is wrong which is a universal value.

again, my statement only works if a fetus is a person and your statement only works if it isn't. the only point worth arguing about

and isn't it amazingly convenient that the people who would be affected most by an unwanted pregnancy are more likely to believe that a fetus is not a person?

just like how a few hundred years ago whites convinced themselves that black people were of lesser value so they wouldn't feel bad about enslaving them and making them do all the work. its amazing what people can convince themselves of when they don't like the alternative

Maccattack wrote:

When somebody is forced to have an unwanted baby. The baby should then be sent to a person on the list to be looked after until its 18.
Regardless of whether they want a baby or not.

After all. They know best.

i specifically said that women shouldn't be forced to raise babies they don't want. why should i have to?

lostexpectation · 03-05-2007 3:23pm

ok so the Attorney General says they have no power to stop her.
The gardai say they won't stop her
the law says she has freedom to travel

what are the HSE basing their actions on, I know she under there care but she could just walk out the door and they couldnt stop her.

Boston · 03-05-2007 4:17pm

lostexpectation wrote:

the law says she has freedom to travel

The law says a minor can travel without the permission of a guardian? Does british law allow minors to have abortions without the permission of a guardian?

I don't know the answer to that second question, do you?

lostexpectation · 03-05-2007 4:54pm

Boston wrote:

The law says a minor can travel without the permission of a guardian? Does british law allow minors to have abortions without the permission of a guardian?

I don't know the answer to that second question, do you?

oh so the HSE are enforcing british law I see ?

It seems the HSE have taken ' a personal' decision not to allow her have the abortion

LordSutch · 03-05-2007 5:15pm

What is meant by travelling to the UK for an Abortion?

Can she travel up North or has the North left the UK? and if she can travel there, can she have the procedure done up there? or must she travel to Britain?

If the North is still in the UK then cant she take a bus or a train to Belfast, or will she be prevented from crossing the Border?

Does (Irish Media Speak) equate the "UK" to the island of 'Britain' :rolleyes:

(Britain = England Scotland & Wales).
(The UK= England Scotland N.Ireland & Wales).

(Does going to the 'UK' for a Termination actually mean going to 'England')?

Every bloody News broadcast has a different idea on where the poor girl is to have (or not have) a termination ........ England? Britain? or the UK?

Which is it for goodness sake?

Curious

nobodythere · 03-05-2007 5:25pm

I'm strongly against abortion, but this is just one of those rare times when it's the best thing to do

kizzyr · 03-05-2007 5:46pm

ArthurF wrote:

What is meant by travelling to the UK for an Abortion?

Can she travel up North or has the North left the UK? and if she can travel there, can she have the procedure done up there? or must she travel to Britain?

If the North is still in the UK then cant she take a bus or a train to Belfast, or will she be prevented from crossing the Border?

Does (Irish Media Speak) equate the "UK" to the island of 'Britain' :rolleyes:

(Britain = England Scotland & Wales).
(The UK= England Scotland N.Ireland & Wales).

(Does going to the 'UK' for a Termination actually mean going to 'England')?

Every bloody News broadcast has a different idea on where the poor girl is to have (or not have) a termination ........ England? Britain? or the UK?

Which is it for goodness sake?

Curious

Abortion isn't available in Northern Ireland.
On the subject of her being a minor, she is in the eyes of the law as regards voting, buying alcohol etc but once you reach the age of 16 you are afforded more control over what happens to your body and the level of this control increases again at 17 and then once you are 18 you're able to make all of your decisions for yourself. At 17 you and not your parents/guardians are asked to sign the consent forms for any medical procedure which is why this girl under the law has the right to request and be granted a termination of her pregnancy.
The rights of the unborn are protected in the Constitution of Ireland, what about the right not to become a parent? This right has been proven in the recent case of the woman who wanted her frozen embryos (note they were always called embryos NOT babies) implanted and her ex said no. His right not to become a parent again was protected so what about this girl and all the others who want to exercise this right?

Sam Vimes · 03-05-2007 5:52pm

kizzyr wrote:

The rights of the unborn are protected in the Constitution of Ireland, what about the right not to become a parent? This right has been proven in the recent case of the woman who wanted her frozen embryos (note they were always called embryos NOT babies) implanted and her ex said no. His right not to become a parent again was protected so what about this girl and all the others who want to exercise this right?

his right not to become a parent WITHOUT HIS CONSENT was protected. having sex with someone provides that consent. also, he wanted to prevent the conception of a child, he didn't want to kill one that was currently developing

and no one's asking women to raise the kids for 18 years, just to give birth to them

and yet again, a pointless statement because if you saw the fetus as a person instead of a clump of cells you wouldn't be making that point.

i'll say it again, the only issue is whether or not a fetus is a person. anything else is beside the point

kizzyr · 03-05-2007 6:03pm

Commander Vimes wrote:

h

is right not to become a parent WITHOUT HIS CONSENT was protected. having sex with someone provides that consent. also, he wanted to prevent the conception of a child, he didn't want to kill one that was currently developing

Thats not true. You are consenting to having sex and thats it. You are not actively deciding to have a child and become a parent and more than you are consenting to contracting an STD by having sex.

and no one's asking women to raise the kids for 18 years, just to give birth to them

If giving birth was as easy as that then no one would ever be worried about it and all that it entails. A woman can die during child birth and even pulling back from that extreme her body goes through the most unimaginable pain, tearing etc by the very act of giving birth.

and yet again, a pointless statement because if you saw the fetus as a person instead of a clump of cells you wouldn't be making that point.

I fully agree (having point this out several times myself) that this argument turns on whether or not you see a baby/person from the moment of conception of at first a zygote then embryo then foetues and eventually a baby.Which is why I believe in the freedom of choice. I believe the baby with time can develop from the zygote and later foetus. I do not believe that it is baby until it is a viable life form outside of the uterus. With the freedom of choice those that are of a similar belief can avail of a termination if they so wish, those (like you) who believe that this is wrong do not have to avail of this choice.

i'll say it again, the only issue is whether or not a fetus is a person. anything else is beside the point

No medical practitioner will call a zygote or foetus a baby because it isn't. As I said before when you miscarry you miscarry and the event is recorded as such. If you are far enough along in your pregnancy and you miscarry you will then be given a death certificate and the remains to bury because at this stage it was a baby not before.

PeakOutput · 03-05-2007 6:07pm

Commander Vimes wrote:

and yet again, a pointless statement because if you saw the fetus as a person instead of a clump of cells you wouldn't be making that point.

its not a pointless statement as it is coming from his opinion just like your opinion is that it is not a bunch of cells(it is a bunch of cells that cannt be debated....weather it is a person aswell is what is debateable). it is just convenient for you to disregard it as pointless as it does not fit in with one particular part of your beliefs

Kernel · 03-05-2007 6:52pm

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.

By that logic, newborn babies up to erm... 2 years old are also parasites. They can't survive on their own. So is it ok to kill them if we feel like it?

nesf · 03-05-2007 6:56pm

This thread is rapidly heading towards closure unless people start respecting other's views more. Comments like this:

Commander Vimes wrote:

and yet again, a pointless statement because if you saw the fetus as a person instead of a clump of cells you wouldn't be making that point.

Just beg the question and don't add anything meaningful to the discussion other than truisms like "If you were pro-Life then you'd be against abortion!".

I fully respect people's opinions on this topic are split and divisive but that doesn't mean ye get to not show respect for each other. That goes for all sides and not just Commander Vimes (I wasn't trying to single you out above it's just a good example of the kind of discussion I don't want to see in this thread).

Sam Vimes · 03-05-2007 7:00pm

kizzyr wrote:

No medical practitioner will call a zygote or foetus a baby because it isn't. As I said before when you miscarry you miscarry and the event is recorded as such. If you are far enough along in your pregnancy and you miscarry you will then be given a death certificate and the remains to bury because at this stage it was a baby not before.

we're talking about what is morally right, not what is the current legal situation

PeakOutput wrote:

its not a pointless statement as it is coming from his opinion just like your opinion is that it is not a bunch of cells(it is a bunch of cells that cannt be debated....weather it is a person aswell is what is debateable). it is just convenient for you to disregard it as pointless as it does not fit in with one particular part of your beliefs

every single thing i'm saying is based on the assumption that a fetus has a right to life. every single thing the other side are saying is based on the assumption that it is a clump of cells that can be discarded.

there's no point bringing anything else into the debate unless we accept the other's premise. here's an example of a proof that god exists:

premise 1: the bible says god exists

premise 2: god wrote the bible

premise 3: god is infallible

conslusion: god exists

i don't accept premise 2 or 3 so there is absolutely no way i would accept a conclusion drawn from those premises. so there is no point debating anything else until we can agree on a premise

lostexpectation · 03-05-2007 7:01pm

who was in the HSE the lied to and threatened this girl?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0503/abortion.html
The court also heard that the girl was told a court order had been granted preventing her travelling when she was taken to see a psychiatrist by the HSE. No such order existed.

doesn't sound very caring or professional they should be sacked for bringing their personal opinion to the case

sounds exactly like the rogue religiously motivated pregnancy agency using underhand delaying tactics to make it more difficult to have an abortion.

the Hse said they'd have to ask the judge who order the original interim care order on the girl but that isn't true it seems

Sam Vimes · 03-05-2007 7:03pm

nesf wrote:

This thread is rapidly heading towards closure unless people start respecting other's views more. Comments like this:

Just beg the question and don't add anything meaningful to the discussion other than truisms like "If you were pro-Life then you'd be against abortion!".

I fully respect people's opinions on this topic are split and divisive but that doesn't mean ye get to not show respect for each other. That goes for all sides and not just Commander Vimes (I wasn't trying to single you out above it's just a good example of the kind of discussion I don't want to see in this thread).

sorry i don't think you're understanding me. you might have missed earlier posts. i'm saying that there's no point debating based on the assumption that a fetus has no rights. i don't accept the assumption so there's zero chance that i'm going to accept any conclusions based on it.

his comment would only be true if it was assumed that a fetus has no rights. since he's basically trying to convince me he's right, there's no point saying it because i don't accept the assumptions he's made in order to make that statement

until we can agree on that one way or the other, the debate's just going to go around in circles

nesf · 03-05-2007 7:04pm

Kernel wrote:

By that logic, newborn babies up to erm... 2 years old are also parasites. They can't survive on their own. So is it ok to kill them if we feel like it?

Eh, no. A newborn isn't a parasite, it is not only the mother who it is dependent on. It could be dependent on anyone, it just needs someone to take care of it. The parasite argument has its flaws but what you pointed out above isn't one of them.

kizzyr · 03-05-2007 7:05pm

Kernel wrote:

By that logic, newborn babies up to erm... 2 years old are also parasites. They can't survive on their own. So is it ok to kill them if we feel like it?

They don't live off you at 2 years old thats the difference, a developing foetus takes absolutely everything from the body of the woman. In fact they demand so much of a woman's body that in the first 3 to 4 months of pregnancy they use as much energy as it would take to climb Everest everyday!
My sister (who has 3 children of her own) while pregnant has always likened the babies she carried to parasites given all they took from her while developing and growing. She wasn't doing or saying that in a cruel way she was simply stating a fact.

nesf · 03-05-2007 7:05pm

Commander Vimes wrote:

sorry i don't think you're understanding me. you might have missed earlier posts. i'm saying that there's no point debating based on the assumption that a fetus has no rights. i don't accept the assumption so there's zero chance that i'm going to accept any conclusions based on it. until we can agree on that one way or the other, the debate's just going to go around in circles

Yeah, I got that when I read your later post. You're correct, people need to argue the premises not the following conclusions. Apologies for taking you out of context and misinterpreting you.

Sam Vimes · 03-05-2007 7:09pm

nesf wrote:

Eh, no. A newborn isn't a parasite, it is not only the mother who it is dependent on. It could be dependent on anyone, it just needs someone to take care of it. The parasite argument has its flaws but what you pointed out above isn't one of them.

a virus is a parasite and it can live off any body. being tied to one body isn't a prerequisite of being a parasite. in fact, to the earth, we're all parasites

Boston · 03-05-2007 7:09pm

lostexpectation wrote:

oh so the HSE are enforcing british law I see ?

Well if english law requires consent from a guardian, its hard to see how to get around it.

Sam Vimes · 03-05-2007 7:12pm

kizzyr wrote:

They don't live off you at 2 years old thats the difference, a developing foetus takes absolutely everything from the body of the woman. In fact they demand so much of a woman's body that in the first 3 to 4 months of pregnancy they use as much energy as it would take to climb Everest everyday!

i might accept that a fetus is a parasite (albeit one with a human right to life) but where did you get the information that being pregnant takes as much energy in a day as it does to climb everest?

nesf · 03-05-2007 7:14pm

Commander Vimes wrote:

a virus is a parasite and it can live off any body. being tied to one body isn't a prerequisite of being a parasite

No but the parasite argument (a philosophical argument that I'm thinking of anyway) justifies abortion based on the unborn child being a parasite on the mother during pregnancy. It's a very specific argument that I assumed that kizzyr was referring to. I might have been wrong though.

kizzyr · 03-05-2007 7:15pm

Commander Vimes wrote:

we're talking about what is morally right, not what is the current legal situation

every single thing i'm saying is based on the assumption that a fetus has a right to life. every single thing the other side are saying is based on the assumption that it is a clump of cells that can be discarded.

there's no point bringing anything else into the debate unless we accept the other's premise. here's an example of a proof that god exists:

premise 1: the bible says god exists

premise 2: god wrote the bible

premise 3: god is infallible

conslusion: god exists

i don't accept premise 2 or 3 so there is absolutely no way i would accept a conclusion drawn from those premises. so there is no point debating anything else until we can agree on a premise

That couldn't be further from proof than I am from being the man in the moon. God did not write the bible. The bible is a collection of stories written by a group of men who lived in a time of a man called Jesus Christ. They believed that this man was the son of God. Many years after he died they wrote their experiences of what happened when he was alive. These stories, written many years after the fact and unchallenged at that, have since been altered to suit the political aspirations of the many rules through the ages so the bible is a work the truth of which no one can ascertain. It gives no proof that God exists. Take the story of Adam and Eve, now if you or anyone else truly believes that that is they human beings as they are today came about then I just cannot debate with such people who blindly accept something that cannot be validated while in contract the theory of evolution can.
It is your choice to believe in an infallible God as described in a book that you think is the ultimate in truth and I respect that as should you respect my right not to believe it and to believe it is my choice and right as a woman to decide what happens with and to my body in so far as I can, and if I decide to opt for a termination of the development of a foetus in my body then that is my right and decision to make.

Sam Vimes · 03-05-2007 7:18pm

kizzyr wrote:

That couldn't be further from proof than I am from being the man in the moon. God did not write the bible. The bible is a collection of stories written by a group of men who lived in a time of a man called Jesus Christ. They believed that this man was the son of God. Many years after he died they wrote their experiences of what happened when he was alive. These stories, written many years after the fact and unchallenged at that, have since been altered to suit the political aspirations of the many rules through the ages so the bible is a work the truth of which no one can ascertain. It gives no proof that God exists. Take the story of Adam and Eve, now if you or anyone else truly believes that that is they human beings as they are today came about then I just cannot debate with such people who blindly accept something that cannot be validated while in contract the theory of evolution can. .

wooooooow you really missed the point of what i was saying. i'm an atheist. i was giving that as an example of a bad argument. read what i wrote below the "proof". my point was that until we agree on whether or not a fetus is a person we're not going to agree on anything else

kizzyr wrote:

it is my choice and right as a woman to decide what happens with and to my body in so far as I can, and if I decide to opt for a termination of the development of a foetus in my body then that is my right and decision to make.

and again, i don't accept that a pregnant woman is the sole owner of her body so i don't accept the conclusion that she can do what she wants with it. as i said, its just going around in circles

the woman's choice was to have sex. the consequence of that choice is that she has a human growing inside her who has as much right to life as she does

and if you want to argue legalities (i thikn it was you doing that) then in this country its not your right to have an abortion

Sam Vimes · 03-05-2007 7:21pm

nesf wrote:

No but the parasite argument (a philosophical argument that I'm thinking of anyway) justifies abortion based on the unborn child being a parasite on the mother during pregnancy. It's a very specific argument that I assumed that kizzyr was referring to. I might have been wrong though.

even if it is a parasite, as far as i'm concerned its a parasite with human rights. someone earlier made the analogy of a man with a failing liver who is surgically attached to you. sure he's a parasite and living off you but you can't just kill him because he's a person and has a right to life

she was making the argument for the other point of view but i think it backfired on her

nesf · 03-05-2007 7:23pm

Commander Vimes wrote:

wooooooow you really missed the point of what i was saying. i'm an atheist. i was giving that as an example of a bad argument. read what i wrote below the "proof". my point was that until we agree on whether or not a fetus is a person we're not going to agree on anything else

Actually, and this is where you and I probably disagree, the issue isn't one of whether the fetus is a person but whether it has an intrinsic right to life of its own. Just being alive doesn't cut it since we don't grant many things that are alive a right to life so you have to get down and define why exactly it should have a right to life.

Personally, I think that sentient beings (irrespective of species since I think definitions based on "being human" are problematic) and being self-aware are the criteria. Teasing out exactly those definitions is problematic, but it's a starting point in the argument I think. Where you and I disagree is probably (I don't know for sure) that I only think actually sentient and self-aware beings have a right to life not things with the potential to become so.

Boston · 03-05-2007 7:27pm

kizzyr wrote:

That couldn't be further from proof than I am from being the man in the moon. God did not write the bible. The bible is a collection of stories written by a group of men who lived in a time of a man called Jesus Christ. They believed that this man was the son of God. Many years after he died they wrote their experiences of what happened when he was alive.
These stories, written many years after the fact and unchallenged at that, have since been altered to suit the political aspirations of the many rules through the ages so the bible is a work the truth of which no one can ascertain. It gives no proof that God exists. Take the story of Adam and Eve, now if you or anyone else truly believes that that is they human beings as they are today came about then I just cannot debate with such people who blindly accept something that cannot be validated while in contract the theory of evolution can.
It is your choice to believe in an infallible God as described in a book that you think is the ultimate in truth and I respect that as should you respect my right not to believe it and to believe it is my choice and right as a woman to decide what happens with and to my body in so far as I can, and if I decide to opt for a termination of the development of a foetus in my body then that is my right and decision to make.

Oh for the love of Jesus Christ almighty and Allah to, read his post. Your being hysterical woman.

Sam Vimes · 03-05-2007 7:28pm

nesf wrote:

Actually, and this is where you and I probably disagree, the issue isn't one of whether the fetus is a person but whether it has an intrinsic right to life of its own. Just being alive doesn't cut it since we don't grant many things that are alive a right to life so you have to get down and define why exactly it should have a right to life.

well i didn't say it has rights because its alive, i said it has rights because its a person. by definition a person has human rights

nesf wrote:

Personally, I think that sentient beings (irrespective of species since I think definitions based on "being human" are problematic) and being self-aware are the criteria. Teasing out exactly those definitions is problematic, but it's a starting point in the argument I think. Where you and I disagree is probably (I don't know for sure) that I only think actually sentient and self-aware beings have a right to life not things with the potential to become so.

so you'd pull the plug on your brain dead granny even if you knew medical science could cure her?

and more importanly, do you think we'd be having this debate if pregnancy was over in a week and had no repercussions or do you agree with me that it only became an issue because its a lot of hassle and people wanted a way out of dealing with it?

and we've finally got to the actual point of the debate. yay

kizzyr · 03-05-2007 7:29pm

Commander Vimes wrote:

i might accept that a fetus is a parasite (albeit one with a human right to life) but where did you get the information that being pregnant takes as much energy in a day as it does to climb everest?

It was something my sister, while pregnant for the first time, read in one of her many hundreds of "explaining your pregnancy" books and it was to explain why in the first trimester of their pregnancy women are so overly tired.