17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

PeakOutput

Boston wrote:

How do you make that out? The HSE is a public body but it's actions don't neccessary reflect what the public want, or what they believe to be in the best interest of the public. Theres a different there.

well as was said earlier the hse was created by our elected representatives to implement a health service and follow the laws of the land in doing so which are also either created by the government / by referendum.

and whatever about their actions reflecting what the public wants their actions should always be in the best interest of the public.

robinph wrote:

Under 16's I can understand, but does a parent still have legal authority over preventing a 17 year old doing what they want?

you are the responsibility of your parents until you are 18

Orion

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

this is awful. surely even most pro-lifers would be appauled by this

That's a joke right?

We voted in a referendum that there can be no restriction on the right to travel. The HSE have no right to do this. The suicide clause is to do with having an abortion in this country - if a woman's life is in danger abortion is legal. It has nothing to do with preventing a woman travelling anywhere for any reason - nobody even has the right to ask why she's travelling never mind prevent her.

PeakOutput

Macros42 wrote:

That's a joke right?

We voted in a referendum that there can be no restriction on the right to travel. The HSE have no right to do this. The suicide clause is to do with having an abortion in this country - if a woman's life is in danger abortion is legal. It has nothing to do with preventing a woman travelling anywhere for any reason - nobody even has the right to ask why she's travelling never mind prevent her.

as you seem to be more informed on this than I are you sure that the subsequent rights given to the unborn child making it equal to the rights of the mother does not over rule the above???

Orion

Hagar wrote:

I'm not a lawyer but if abortion is illegal in Ireland, to protect the right of the unborn, and if the young girl has stated her intent publically in Ireland then the HSE are bound to try to prevent the abortion by whatever means are at their disposal.

You're no lawyer alright

It is legal to travel. Full stop. End of story. It is not illegal to travel for the purposes of using a service that is legal in the destination country. Any service. It is just as legal to travel to Amsterdam to smoke joints or use prostitutes as it is to travel to England to have an abortion.

Orion

PeakOutput wrote:

as you seem to be more informed on this than I are you sure that the subsequent rights given to the unborn child making it equal to the rights of the mother does not over rule the above???

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

Or if you don't trust Wikipedia The Irish Constitution. Go to Section 40.3.3

3. 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

PeakOutput

Macros42 wrote:

You're no lawyer alright

It is legal to travel. Full stop. End of story. It is not illegal to travel for the purposes of using a service that is legal in the destination country. Any service. It is just as legal to travel to Amsterdam to smoke joints or use prostitutes as it is to travel to England to have an abortion.

should prob read the whole thread before replying

Orion

I did - that's why I used that example

Sam Vimes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

i'm against abortion and for this. there's a big difference between aborting a child that's going to die after five days anyway and killing a perfectly healthy baby because its too inconvenient to give it to one of the thousand's of couples looking to adopt

Bottle_of_Smoke

Macros42 wrote:

That's a joke right?

We voted in a referendum that there can be no restriction on the right to travel. The HSE have no right to do this. The suicide clause is to do with having an abortion in this country - if a woman's life is in danger abortion is legal. It has nothing to do with preventing a woman travelling anywhere for any reason - nobody even has the right to ask why she's travelling never mind prevent her.

Not sure what you mean. I was just generally referring to the idea that the HSE preventing a 17 year old girl from aborting a literally braindead child who will die hours after birth is appauling.

From what I just saw in the news it seems the HSE are stopping her like a parent could as the girl is in their "care"

Orion

Piste wrote:

Shouldn't the X case in 1992 have set a precedent what the HSE couldn't overrule if they tried? So why the fuss?

Actually the X case caused the referenda. The Supreme Court eventually allowed the girl to travel only because there was a risk to her life (albeit from suicide). The referendum on the right to travel meant that there is now no excuse to stop someone from travelling.

There is the argument that the HSE are acting in loco parentis. She is legally a minor. So they may have the legal right. Whether they have the moral right is a whole different kettle of fish.

Orion

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Not sure what you mean. I was just generally referring to the idea that the HSE preventing a 17 year old girl from aborting a literally braindead child who will die hours after birth is appauling.

Oh I agree it's appalling - I meant that you must be joking about the pro-lifers being appalled by this.

Goodluck2me

the point may have been brought up before i havent read the whole thread, but its unconstitutional anyway, and the childs right to life must trump the mothers right not to.

i still think in this case, there should be a common sense arguement, that they are not protetcing the unborns right as its likley not to have a life when its born.( possibly the worst phrasing ever)

WindSock

I sit back now and hope that this case will help give our country a kick up the backside into joining the rest of Europe, bar Poland, they are as backward as us. If not, I sincerly hope the young girl finds a Vera Drake to help her out.

Kernel

Faith wrote:

The child isn't going to live. No matter what, it's going to die one way or another: either via an abortion, or in a few months. Why not permit her to have to abortion and spare her the emotional trauma that she's going to go through? It all sounds ridiculous.

Because, Faith, only God should decide who should live and die. Tough legislation from the goverrnment under the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church are necessary to prevent willy nilly killing of unborn children.

Baby killers need to be kept in check.

I'm aware that such an opinion is unlikely to garner support from boards users, but it is my belief, and the strong belief of millions of other Catholics. At least try to understand that... although I already know you all wont.

kraggy

Macros42 wrote:

That's a joke right?

We voted in a referendum that there can be no restriction on the right to travel. The HSE have no right to do this. The suicide clause is to do with having an abortion in this country - if a woman's life is in danger abortion is legal. It has nothing to do with preventing a woman travelling anywhere for any reason - nobody even has the right to ask why she's travelling never mind prevent her.

This whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with the Referendum or the legalities/illegalities of abortion.

If the girl was 18 she would be free to travel. But she's not. She's in the care of the HSE who are effectively her guardians. They have a right, as parents do, to prevent the person under their care from leaving this jurisdiction because of her minor status.

Botany Bay

Kernel wrote:

Because, Faith, only God should decide who should live and die. Tough legislation from the goverrnment under the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church are necessary to prevent willy nilly killing of unborn children.

Baby killers need to be kept in check.

I'm aware that such an opinion is unlikely to garner support from boards users, but it is my belief, and the strong belief of millions of other Catholics. At least try to understand that... although I already know you all wont.

I sincerly hope that's sarcasm.

PeakOutput

Kernel wrote:

Because, Faith, only God should decide who should live and die. Tough legislation from the goverrnment under the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church are necessary to prevent willy nilly killing of unborn children.

Baby killers need to be kept in check.

I'm aware that such an opinion is unlikely to garner support from boards users, but it is my belief, and the strong belief of millions of other Catholics. At least try to understand that... although I already know you all wont.

i completely understand your point of view but religon should not be used to run a country for the simple reason that not everyone shares your religous beliefs. now i have no problem with any law or governement as long as they are democratic which is why i can respect the majority of the countries wishes that abortion still be illegal.

however there was a democratic referendum where the majority decided women could choose to go to another country to have an abortion. now the difference between people who use so called logic and people who use religous beliefs is that while i believe that majority rules you believe that one religon should rule no matter what. that is the part of your beliefs i have a problem with (i use you in the royal sense not you personally)

Binomate

Kernel wrote:

Because, Faith, only God should decide who should live and die. Tough legislation from the goverrnment under the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church are necessary to prevent willy nilly killing of unborn children.

Baby killers need to be kept in check.

I'm aware that such an opinion is unlikely to garner support from boards users, but it is my belief, and the strong belief of millions of other Catholics. At least try to understand that... although I already know you all wont.

Your belief is absurd. This whole story is rediculous and the welfare of the 17 year old girl should be in the HSE's best interest. Unless I didn't pick up on your sarcasm, by your logic, unless there is some kind of strict religious government, any sense of morality would become lost in society and everything would turn to complete anarchy.

PeakOutput

kraggy wrote:

If the girl was 18 she would be free to travel. But she's not. She's in the care of the HSE who are effectively her guardians. They have a right, as parents do, to prevent the person under their care from leaving this jurisdiction because of her minor status.

yes but if the girls parents were pro choice she would be permitted to go and if they were pro life she would not.....who in the hse is making the moral decision for her is the issue. now my view is that they should take the moral position of the majority of the people in the state which is ( i believe) she should be allowed to travel to england for an abortin ESPECIALLY as the bab will not survive anyway

InFront

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well I would consider myself very strongly pro-life, and I would not have a problem with the termination of this pregnancy. The problem in question is anencephaly - there's just no question to answer on this. It's extremely rare, but the child has zero possibility of life, none of us have a pro-life position to conceivably take. The foetus in question is essentially dead, I think a lot of pro lifers would agree with that.

The issue is legality, and I do think that is the driving force behind the HSE's move, not religion. I doubt something like anencephaly has even been considered, known about, or given any attention, by those who drew up the consititution, and set legislation. It's a very unfortunate thing to happen to this girl.

the nerve of them getting involved and the fact they are, is enough alone to endanger her mental health
if someone made me go through an experience like this i'm not sure i'd have the strength to deal with the stress and trauma

Kernel

Binomate wrote:

Your belief is absurd. This whole story is rediculous and the welfare of the 17 year old girl should be in the HSE's best interest. Unless I didn't pick up on your sarcasm, by your logic, unless there is some kind of strict religious government, any sense of morality would become lost in society and everything would turn to complete anarchy.

My belief is absurd? I wonder if you would say that to a muslim? My belief is not absurd, my belief is valid and shared by the majority of this country. I believe in the sanctity of human life, that it is divine, and that it happens at the moment of conception. Valid beliefs, unless you can convince me otherwise of the miracle of life? (short tip: no, you can't. many have tried with scientic dogma, but at the core of quantum physics/atomic structure/chemistry/cellular development and the structure and functioning of deoxy-ribonucleic acid is a great big 'dunno').

The girl had free will, the baby hasn't had any choice in the matter.

As for religion and morality. Religion provides sensible moral guidelines that work well to create a good society, as opposed to a Nazi/Orwellian type society.

Kernel

Kernel wrote:

My belief is absurd? I wonder if you would say that to a muslim? My belief is not absurd, my belief is valid and shared by the majority of this country. I believe in the sanctity of human life, that it is divine, and that it happens at the moment of conception. Valid beliefs, unless you can convince me otherwise of the miracle of life? (short tip: no, you can't. many have tried with scientic dogma, but at the core of quantum physics/atomic structure/chemistry/cellular development and the structure and functioning of deoxy-ribonucleic acid is a great big 'dunno').

The girl had free will, the baby hasn't had any choice in the matter.

As for religion and morality. Religion provides sensible moral guidelines that work well to create a good society, as opposed to a Nazi/Orwellian type society.

I see your point BUT
do you really think its vital to put this young girl through the trauma of watching her first born die?

Kernel

PeakOutput wrote:

i completely understand your point of view but religon should not be used to run a country for the simple reason that not everyone shares your religous beliefs. now i have no problem with any law or governement as long as they are democratic which is why i can respect the majority of the countries wishes that abortion still be illegal.

however there was a democratic referendum where the majority decided women could choose to go to another country to have an abortion. now the difference between people who use so called logic and people who use religous beliefs is that while i believe that majority rules you believe that one religon should rule no matter what. that is the part of your beliefs i have a problem with (i use you in the royal sense not you personally)

I also understand your belief, however, if the 17 year old mother is in the care of this state, and this state has democratically decided that abortion remain illegal, then what sense would it make for the state to allow this girl to travel abroad to have the abortion?? I think it would make a mockery of our national policy. Although, I freely admit that in all cases I am 100% against abortion.

InFront

Do you understand what anencephaly means? There is no hope for that child.
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/uvahealth/peds_neuro/anenceph.cfm
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN014.html
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/CNSHTML/CNS076.html

Kernel

coolsmileygirl wrote:

I see your point BUT
do you really think its vital to put this young girl through the trauma of watching her first born die?

I feel great sympathy for the girl, however, she doesn't have to watch her baby die. Relations of mine have been born with short life expectancies, due to illness, but in all cases, we have all been glad that they have been in our lives for even a short time. Should every child born with a disability be murdered in the womb simply to serve as a convenience to the mother?

Eugenics is the next step tbh.

PeakOutput

Kernel wrote:

My belief is absurd? I wonder if you would say that to a muslim? My belief is not absurd, my belief is valid and shared by the majority of this country. I believe in the sanctity of human life, that it is divine, and that it happens at the moment of conception. Valid beliefs, unless you can convince me otherwise of the miracle of life? (short tip: no, you can't. many have tried with scientic dogma, but at the core of quantum physics/atomic structure/chemistry/cellular development and the structure and functioning of deoxy-ribonucleic acid is a great big 'dunno').

The girl had free will, the baby hasn't had any choice in the matter.

As for religion and morality. Religion provides sensible moral guidelines that work well to create a good society, as opposed to a Nazi/Orwellian type society.

your belief is not absurd imo but i think you ar living in the past if you think the majority of the country are practicing catholics

as regards your opinion on science. I think you might be confusing the creation of the universe with the creation of life.

the baby is dead man.........its very sad but why do you put your faith, one the mother may not even share which is her choice given to her by YOUR god, and beliefs ahead of her welfare.

if you truly believe that religon creates a good society you truly are in dreamland............firstly religon and morals are two indepandant things people can have one without the other. secondly religon has been at the center of almost every major conflict in modern times. in my opinion religon causes more problems than it solves. even though i do not agree with your beliefs i do not try to force mine on you that is all i ask of you in return

Kernel wrote:

has democratically decided that abortion remain illegal, then what sense would it make for the state to allow this girl to travel abroad to have the abortion??

we democratically decided to allow women to go abroad for abortions so thats not an argument

Kernel

PeakOutput wrote:

your belief is not absurd imo but i think you ar living in the past if you think the majority of the country are practicing catholics

Not necessarily practicing Catholics, but Catholic in terms of belief structure, and certainly against abortion.

PeakOutput wrote:

as regards your opinion on science. I think you might be confusing the creation of the universe with the creation of life.

Not at all. The miracle of the universe, and the miracle of life are one in the same. Inextricably linked to the divine order of existence.

PeakOutput wrote:

the baby is dead man.........its very sad but why do you put your faith, one the mother may not even share which is her choice given to her by YOUR god, and beliefs ahead of her welfare.

It's not her choice though, in the same way I don't have the choice to murder someone who is providing a problem to me (emotionally/psychologically or otherwise) because the state rightfully restricts my actions. To allow this case allows a multitude of other cases, as if this is allowed, other disabled foetuses will be taken to the Supreme Court to contest the point of law overturned.

PeakOutput wrote:

if you truly believe that religon creates a good society you truly are in dreamland............firstly religon and morals are two indepandant things people can have one without the other. secondly religon has been at the center of almost every major conflict in modern times. in my opinion religon causes more problems than it solves. even though i do not agree with your beliefs i do not try to force mine on you that is all i ask of you in return

Religion didn't cause those problems. Political aims which manipulated religion caused them. The free society you presently enjoy has evolved under the moral direction of Christian guidelines.

Binomate

Kernel wrote:

My belief is absurd? I wonder if you would say that to a muslim? My belief is not absurd, my belief is valid and shared by the majority of this country. I believe in the sanctity of human life, that it is divine, and that it happens at the moment of conception. Valid beliefs, unless you can convince me otherwise of the miracle of life? (short tip: no, you can't. many have tried with scientic dogma, but at the core of quantum physics/atomic structure/chemistry/cellular development and the structure and functioning of deoxy-ribonucleic acid is a great big 'dunno').

Don't worry, I think Islamic belief is just as absurd as your christian beliefs. If a muslim said something as extremely rediculous as what you've said, by no means would I refrain from challenging their beliefs simply because it's meant to be protected under the sacred no go area of conversation people called belief. In fact, I was going to use sharia law as an example of just how well dogmatic religion and the power of government go so well hand in hand. In places like Iran where people are stoned to death for things like being gay, or having affairs.

The thing that annoys me about your post is that you're basing your morality on a magical figure that you've no idea exists.

Kernel wrote:

The girl had free will, the baby hasn't had any choice in the matter.

The baby doesn't have free will. The baby will die no matter what. It's just a matter of whether the baby should cause the mother to suffer before it dies or whether the baby should be killed preventing the suffering of the mother. Two different ways of getting from A to B, only one path is a hell of a lot nicer for both parties involved.

Kernel wrote:

As for religion and morality. Religion provides sensible moral guidelines that work well to create a good society, as opposed to a Nazi/Orwellian type society.

I laughed out loud. I really did. Ok, Lets put God and Nazis in the same sentance. Lets compare how many people God had supposedly murdered in the bible to how many people Hitler killed. Sure is a fantastic book of Morals. Lets revise how God mass murdered all the first born children in egypt because he favoured Moses. How's that for an example of the wonderfull morals the Bible teaches. How about when God killed everything with a giant flood because he fucked up his beta modle of earth.

What ever on relying on an authority figure to gather your sense of morality, It's this line of thinking that is completely beyond me. All I have to say is look at Iran.

PeakOutput

Kernel wrote:

Not necessarily practicing Catholics, but Catholic in terms of belief structure, and certainly against abortion.

well i think you will be proved wrong when this issue is put up for referendum again but thats jsut an opinion so no point arguing about it

Not at all. The miracle of the universe, and the miracle of life are one in the same. Inextricably linked to the divine order of existence.

they are linked only in that we do not know what was before the universe and when the universe was created life evolved from there

It's not her choice though, in the same way I don't have the choice to murder someone who is providing a problem to me (emotionally/psychologically or otherwise)

religon is a large part of your opinion on abortion and she has the right to not believe the same things and live her life in accordance with HER beliefs and not yours. what she wants to do is not against the law therefore your point on murder is moot

To allow this case allows a multitude of other cases, as if this is allowed, other disabled foetuses will be taken to the Supreme Court to contest the point of law overturned.

there is no point of law here.......it is not illegal for anyone to travel to england and get an abortion we are not dealing with an abortion in ireland debate

Religion didn't cause those problems. Political aims which manipulated religion caused them. The free society you presently enjoy has evolved under the moral direction of Christian guidelines.

there were morals before christ was on earth and there would be morals if he never existed as i said morals and religon are independant i can have strong morals without the threat of going to hell i have them just because it is the correct way to live


basically i do have some sort of faith it is nowhere near any man created religon that i have found yet but i do believe in some form of supreme being.................the main reason that i do not agree with the man made religons is that an i have looked into do not follow a rational god. a god that would punish a 17 yr old girl for having an abortion when the child is going to die anyway and is more than likely suffering (the suffering of the mother is not in question here) is not a god i would follow