17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

nesf

kizzyr wrote:

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.

The doctor described it to myself and simu as the foetus will try to take everything it needs from the mother regardless of how the mother is. It was said to us in a positive light, i.e. don't worry about the foetus it'll take care of itself just make sure you eat enough and take good care of yourself.

kizzyr

Boston wrote:

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

I'm not. I was pointing out that anyone (and I know the poster doesn't so don't jump up and down about that either) who believes that what her was putting forward (and there are many that do) is blindly following something that they were told to follow and believe without thinking things out for themselves. When it comes to abortion I think, that if a woman thinks through everything and still believes that a termination is her only option than this should be her choice to make.

Boston

kizzyr wrote:

I'm not. I was pointing out that anyone (and I know the poster doesn't so don't jump up and down about that either) who believes that what her was putting forward (and there are many that do) is blindly following something that they were told to follow and believe without thinking things out for themselves. When it comes to abortion I think, that if a woman thinks through everything and still believes that a termination is her only option than this should be her choice to make.

It's odd when people talk about "only option" and "pro choice" as part of the same arguement. They fail to see how those two statements are at complete odds.

nesf

Commander Vimes wrote:

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

I was trying to make a general point rather than address everything precisely at you.

Commander Vimes wrote:

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

That's the crux of it alright. I'll get back to you on it in a bit.

Commander Vimes wrote:

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

Yup.

kizzyr

Commander Vimes wrote:

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


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

First off there is no cure at all for someone who is brain dead. When they are brain dead they are being kept alive (or to be totally honest they are a ventilated cadaver) by a machine. You cannot come back from that state.
For me, having an abortion isn't solely about not being pregnant, its about choosing not to become a mother and even if you give your baby up for adoption you have still as a woman become a mother (even if it is just in name at that point because I fully appreciate that it takes more than giving birth to be a mother) and there is a whole lot involved in that. So, for me and this may well not be the case for others, opting for a termination is not only about ending your pregnancy, it is opting not to become a mother who has given a baby away.

kizzyr

nesf wrote:

The doctor described it to myself and simu as the foetus will try to take everything it needs from the mother regardless of how the mother is. It was said to us in a positive light, i.e. don't worry about the foetus it'll take care of itself just make sure you eat enough and take good care of yourself.

I wasn't saying it in a negative light I was simply trying to point out how big a deal it is for a woman to be pregnant. Even women, who desperately want a baby, while pregnant often dislike being pregnant, they love the end result but dislike being pregnant. I know that my sister while adoring her much wanted and much loved three children, really didn't like being pregnant as each pregnancy was really tough for her. However, she chose to put herself through that because she wanted to be a mum three times. It was her choice and one she made knowingly. However, if she had fallen pregnant that third time by accident and the thoughts of being pregnant again filled her with such dread and fear that she opted not to go through with it, then I'd have respected her decision, I'm not saying I would necessarily have agreed with it, but would have respected her right to make that choice.

nesf

Commander Vimes wrote:

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

Here’s the crux of it.

Where I said “I believe that something has a right to life if it is sentient and self-aware” I did not say that something loses its right to life by suddenly losing those traits. I think a distinction needs to be drawn between entities that previously had a right to life and new entities that did not previously possess it. The above question is one of “At what point does an entity lose its right to life after previously having it?” not one of what defines having a right to life. I would feel that there is an important distinction between losing and gaining this right and that it is perfectly valid to argue that one does not lose this right in the converse manner of how one gained it. Basic rights should (in my opinion) be more difficult to lose than to gain.

nesf

kizzyr wrote:

I wasn't saying it in a negative light

I meant it in terms of the doctor said it was functionally a parasite but didn't want to imply the negative connotations that accompany the word.

kizzyr

nesf wrote:

I meant it in terms of the doctor said it was functionally a parasite but didn't want to imply the negative connotations that accompany the word.

Cool:) and thanks too, because when I used the word I too didn't mean it in a negative way but was trying to explain how big a deal it is (physically) to be pregnant.

PeakOutput

kizzyr wrote:

they use as much energy as it would take to climb Everest everyday!

that is so so so far from true

Sam Vimes

kizzyr wrote:

I'm not. I was pointing out that anyone (and I know the poster doesn't so don't jump up and down about that either) who believes that what her was putting forward (and there are many that do) is blindly following something that they were told to follow and believe without thinking things out for themselves. When it comes to abortion I think, that if a woman thinks through everything and still believes that a termination is her only option than this should be her choice to make.

you're still not quite getting my point. it was nothing to do with blindly following anything, i was just using religion as an example of where people use flawed arguments based on flawed premises. forget i mentioned it

kizzyr wrote:

First off there is no cure at all for someone who is brain dead.

that's not what i asked. i asked what if

kizzyr wrote:

For me, having an abortion isn't solely about not being pregnant, its about choosing not to become a mother and even if you give your baby up for adoption you have still as a woman become a mother (even if it is just in name at that point because I fully appreciate that it takes more than giving birth to be a mother) and there is a whole lot involved in that. So, for me and this may well not be the case for others, opting for a termination is not only about ending your pregnancy, it is opting not to become a mother who has given a baby away.

imo you choose to become a mother when you have sex. if you have sex with a person with aids, you can't subsequently choose whether or not you catch it from them

nesf wrote:

Here’s the crux of it.

Where I said “I believe that something has a right to life if it is sentient and self-aware” I did not say that something loses its right to life by suddenly losing those traits. I think a distinction needs to be drawn between entities that previously had a right to life and new entities that did not previously possess it. The above question is one of “At what point does an entity lose its right to life after previously having it?” not one of what defines having a right to life. I would feel that there is an important distinction between losing and gaining this right and that it is perfectly valid to argue that one does not lose this right in the converse manner of how one gained it. Basic rights should (in my opinion) be more difficult to lose than to gain.

i believe that it is a human being and, while it might not be self-aware yet, if left alone it will become so. we know that it becomes self-aware inside the womb so abortion becomes a race to get it before it does so we don't feel bad about killing it

basically:
you say its not self-aware and so has no rights
i say it is a human being and the fact that it is not yet self-aware* is not important. it still has rights




and until we agree on the above two statements, we might as well lock the thread



*we think. we don't actually know at what point it does become self aware

nesf

Commander Vimes wrote:

i believe that it is a human being and, while it might not be self-aware yet, if left alone it will become so. we know that it becomes self-aware inside the womb so abortion becomes a race to get it before it does so we don't feel bad about killing it

basically:
you say its not self-aware and so has no rights
i say it is a human being and the fact that it is not yet self-aware* is not important. it still has rights




and until we agree on the above two statements, we might as well lock the thread



*we think. we don't actually know at what point it does become self aware

Well, ok, firstly I don't think saying that being human gives you x rights works (more of a philosophical/ethical issue but needs to say how this race is different to all others in order to claim this in my opinion and that leaves us (generally) with the self-aware/sentient thing).

Secondly, potential to become something is different to actually being something. Sperm has potential to become human in a sense, do you have a problem with condoms preventing this from happening or the pill etc.

Thirdly, if we all agreed then there'd be no debate and we'd have no fun arguing about it.

kizzyr

PeakOutput wrote:

that is so so so far from true

Well I don't know the name of the book she had so I can't reference it, I'm going on what she told me and I don't know why she'd have had any reason to lie. Either way, it was just used as an example to show the huge drain a developing foetus has on a woman's body. That cannot be denied.

PeakOutput

Commander Vimes wrote:

and until we agree on the above two statements, we might as well lock the thread

your pro life hes pro choice youa re not going to agree there are fundamental differences that prevent you from agreeing on this subject..............you should not be trying to persuade eachother because that is a futile effort. just persuading someone to follow the catholic religon if they do not believe there is a god

you should be putting your arguments across in such a way that someone who is in the middle can read your arguments and make a decision..........

Well I don't know the name of the book she had so I can't reference it, I'm going on what she told me and I don't know why she'd have had any reason to lie. Either way, it was just used as an example to show the huge drain a developing foetus has on a woman's body. That cannot be denied.

i didnt mean to sound like i was getting at you i should of said that i am sure the book was using it as a metaphor not a fact

wordofmouth

Been reading through this thread and there are some very good valid points aside from all the hitler sh1te...:rolleyes:
But quick question. Do the HSE have this girl physically incarcerated? Why can't she and her boyfriend just go? Do the HSE have photos of them up on every ferry port and airport with orders to the border authorities to stop them? Don't snap at me I'm just curious!:o

It can't be the fear of the consequences of coming back post abortion, having broken the HSE's wishes thats keeping them here surely?

InFront

I don't know how they are physically stopping her, to be honest. The HSE went to the police and asked them what they should do if she absconded, and the police apparently told them that they had no real power of arrest or restraint over her.

The HSE seems to be only restraining her in a parental manner... I don't know how they are managing to do this. It's an interesting question though.

lostexpectation

Boston wrote:

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

well why arn't the HSE giving consent?

An affidavit from the girl’s mother, known as Miss A, was also read out claiming a social worker warned her the HSE was acting in loco parentis.

The HSE also advised the mother her daughter was not allowed to leave the State and that a court case would end up in a media circus.

The social worker did not tell the girl’s mother that gardaí had been notified, the court heard.

Mr Fitzsimons added that the HSE did not have the power to act for Miss D’s parents.

more evidence of threats and lies from the HSE social worker

JC 2K3

Boston wrote:

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?

No, because if everyone went around harming each others(non-fatally) it would destroy the collective security which is society, something killing unborn babies won't.

Commander Vimes wrote:

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

I believe it is a person which it is acceptable to kill.

Commander Vimes wrote:

and if it is true that no one has the right to tell me what i can do with my body, why are drugs illegal? surely i have the right to inject whatever i want into my body?

You should have the right, it's another stupid law.

WindSock

Will I say it? Yeah why not....what about the old story of ejaculating and periods 'killing' the potential unborn?

WindSock

And back on topic- I'd imagine the HSE are stopping the girl by not providing her with funds maybe? Even though they paid already fora few women to do it already this year apparently.

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote:

No, because if everyone went around harming each others(non-fatally) it would destroy the collective security which is society, something killing unborn babies won't.


I believe it is a person which it is acceptable to kill.

you have some very strange views JC. i didn't think i'd ever see the words "I believe it is a person which it is acceptable to kill" in a sentence. you seem to think that its ok to kill someone as long as killing that person has no effect on society as a whole. what about the effect that it has on that person?

and even if i accept your exceedingly odd view, millions of people worldwide hate the idea of abortion. hearing that abortions are taking place upsets these people. abortion clinics across america have daily protests outside them. so even by your odd definition abortion is wrong because it affects millions of people

nesf wrote:

Secondly, potential to become something is different to actually being something. Sperm has potential to become human in a sense, do you have a problem with condoms preventing this from happening or the pill etc.

a sperm contains 23 chromosomes from the man. the egg contains 23 chromosomes from the woman. the embryo contains an entirely new genetic pattern. it is not the man's and it is not the woman's. this genetic pattern has never existed before and will never exist again. this stage is the first point where new life has been created.

it is a completely new organism which happens to be living inside a woman for the moment. the embryonic stage is no different in this organism's development to the puberty stage. they're all just steps on the ladder of development. so you see, its not her body. she has a lodger

Boston

lostexpectation wrote:

well why arn't the HSE giving consent?

That has been explained several times already and should be obvious.

JC 2K3 wrote:

No, because if everyone went around harming each others(non-fatally) it would destroy the collective security which is society, something killing unborn babies won't.

Thats your opinion, it's not fact.

JC 2K3

Commander Vimes wrote:

you have some very strange views JC. i didn't think i'd ever see the words "I believe it is a person which it is acceptable to kill" in a sentence. you seem to think that its ok to kill someone as long as killing that person has no effect on society as a whole. what about the effect that it has on that person?

Well forgive me for being seemingly heartless, but that person is gone and doesn't exist. An unborn baby is the only person which it is acceptable to kill as it is the only case where one can be sure of that person having no connection with society.

Commander Vimes wrote:

and even if i accept your exceedingly odd view, millions of people worldwide hate the idea of abortion. hearing that abortions are taking place upsets these people. abortion clinics across america have daily protests outside them. so even by your odd definition abortion is wrong because it affects millions of people

If you apply that logic to the situation I think you'll find that many other things ought to be made illegal also.

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote:

Well forgive me for being seemingly heartless, but that person is gone and doesn't exist. An unborn baby is the only person which it is acceptable to kill as it is the only case where one can be sure of that person having no connection with society.

i've been trying to come up with a response to that for the last ten minutes but i've failed. i have no idea how to talk to someone who thinks its ok to kill someone as long as it doesn't upset people. seriously mate, that is not normal


murder is wrong because you've killed someone, not because its upsets people ffs.

JC 2K3 wrote:

If you apply that logic to the situation I think you'll find that many other things ought to be made illegal also.

agreed. its extremely flawed logic. its your logic


edit: i've thought of a way that it affects society. thousands of women have commited suicide after having abortions

nesf

Commander Vimes wrote:

murder is wrong because you've killed someone, not because its upsets people ffs.

Arguably we consider murder to be wrong precisely because it upsets a lot of people quite a lot and has done for a very long time. If it didn't upset people then we probably wouldn't consider it to be wrong...

The_Minister

I don't think that anyone who has ever been murdered has been upset afterwards.

Sam Vimes

The_Minister wrote:

I don't think that anyone who has ever been murdered has been upset afterwards.

here's an analogy to the idea that murder is only if it upsets people who are still alive:

if you do something wrong and no one finds out about it, have you actually done anything wrong?

Sam Vimes

nesf wrote:

Arguably we consider murder to be wrong precisely because it upsets a lot of people quite a lot and has done for a very long time. If it didn't upset people then we probably wouldn't consider it to be wrong...

so let me put this to you then:

imagine a homeless person comes into your town and you talk to him for a while and you find out that he's been homeless for 20 years and has no family and no friends, ie no one to miss him. is it ok to kill him?

nesf

Commander Vimes wrote:

so let me put this to you then:

imagine a homeless person comes into your town and you talk to him for a while and you find out that he's been homeless for 20 years and has no family and no friends, ie no one to miss him. is it ok to kill him?

You miss my point. I'll try and be clearer. I'm not condoning killing someone. I'm putting the point to you that killing someone might not be wrong in and of itself but because we as a race have disagreed with killing people (at least one's in our own tribe/group) for a very long time. We might as a race be pre-programmed to consider murder within our group as a bad thing and should be punished (and thus wrong) but that doesn't mean that murder is wrong in an absolute manner.

Does that make more sense?

_Kaiser_

OK I read the first 6 or 7 pages but lost interest in the whole Nazi-ism and the Catholic Chruch argument..

I personally believe that in the modern world, the Church has no place (or say) in the running of the State. Unfortunately (as evidenced by this very thread), their influence still casts a long shadow over Irish society. Furthermore, the abuse inflicted upon generations of Irish people by Nuns and Christian brothers has destroyed any credibility they might have.

I believe the Catholic religion should no longer be taught in schools as it's increasingly inappropriate (and irrelevant) in our growing multi-cultural society. Religion belongs at home, and if parents took a more active role in the raising and education of their children anyway, it could only be a good thing.

With regards to this debate, regardless of whether you believe this foetus has individual human rights or not, the facts are that it will not survive anyway and thus forcing the mother to go through with the pregnancy so the pro-life element can assuage their consciences is morally and ethically wrong. There can be no valid reason for asking this 17 year old girl to suffer like that.

On the larger issue of the right to abortion generally, I believe that each circumstance is different and that neither State nor Church has any rights or say in the matter. Certainly they can provide options and advice - in fact better education is the key to the whole debate - but strictly in an objective manner only. It is ultimately the girl's/woman's decision, and noone should be forced to have a child against their will.

The girl at the centre of this latest debate should be allowed to travel abroad immediately.