17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

Kernel

PeakOutput wrote:

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

I doubt it will happen the next referendum, however, I have no doubt it will happen in the future, as there is a huge moral decline in this country, as it is being destroyed by greed, consumerism and self-gratification and decadence - the same issues feeding crime and the erosion of community - a topic for another day perhaps.

PeakOutput wrote:

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

Everything is linked, the miracle of life and even the human brain depends on quantum physics and what I believe was an intelligent design (for want of a better term).

PeakOutput wrote:

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

Reflecting on this, I do not believe my views on life at conception would be altered if I was not religious. Logically speaking, when else would 'life' begin? As for living according to ones beliefs, moral beliefs and beliefs for the good of society are always enforced on others. If everyone could live life according to individual beliefs then paedophila or drug use would be acceptable to many people. Of course, that does not mean that we should ever allow such things. As for murder being a moot point, murder is murder my friend.

PeakOutput wrote:

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

Impossible to say what way our society would have turned out in terms of morality without the influence of religions. As for the threat of hell, a way to get the message across in simpler times. Although I subscribe to Pope JP's description of hell being a state of seperation from 'God'.

PeakOutput wrote:

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

Free will. Many people blame God for the evils and sufferings dished out by other mortal people or even as a result of their own actions. However, I have found in my life that sometimes suffering is necessary to help people reach the bigger plan for them. It's a complex plan involving many many variables and as such is often impossible for us to fathom without the benefit of hindsight.

Ruen

If she's in the custody of the HSE and she is legally a minor then it's their decision, I'm sure they have reasons for not letting her leave.

Orion

Kernel wrote:

Because, Faith, only God should decide who should live and die.

Read the damn article. Read the Indo. Read the Times. It's in them all. That 'decision' has already been made. The baby has a maximum lifespan of 3 days.

Baby killers need to be kept in check.

:rolleyes:

Boston

PeakOutput wrote:

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

You've no idea what the majority view of the state with regards to minors having abortions is.

coffee_cake

Kernel wrote:

Baby killers need to be kept in check.

If you want to discuss "baby killing" then go make a thread on infanticide.

Stargal

bluewolf wrote:

If you want to discuss "baby killing" then go make a thread on infanticide.

QFT

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Iago

Kernel wrote:

under the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church

Baby killers need to be kept in check.

oh that's a classic, thanks for lighting up my morning with a good laugh anyway.

Would these moral guidelines be the same ones that saw the inquisition as just?

Would these moral guidelines be the same ones that saw them order bones dug up so that they could be burned and the people in question declared heretics?

Or maybe there the moral guidelines that sees them take money off widows/widowers in order to perform a mass ceremony for their departed partners?

Perhaps you're talking about the moral guidelines that dictate it's ok for the catholic church to hold billions in cash and property while people die from starvation and disease the world over?

Are you refrencing the moral guidelines as laid down by the missionaries who exploited the indegenious populations of the countries they went into?

Maybe it's the moral guidelines that show it's ok to abuse young children, as long as you say you're sorry afterwards and throw a few hail marys in for good measure??

The catholic church is the symbol of everything that was wrong with this country and their constant interfering and domineering role in society is a sham and a disgrace. They're nothing more than a cult gone wrong.

Kernal wrote:

Religion provides sensible moral guidelines that work well to create a good society, as opposed to a Nazi/Orwellian type society

interesting then that Hitler embraced catholicism due to it's ingrained anti-semitist teachings

Nevyn

boreds wrote:

If not, I sincerly hope the young girl finds a Vera Drake to help her out.

Vera Drake only preformed early abortions up to about 3 months.

From a christain/catholic point of view if the baby even lives for an hour it is enough to have it brought into the faith through baptism and gain release from orginal sin and gain grace to enter heaven.

There is the more fundemental christain view as well which will say that
childbirth and it's risks are women's curse for tempting adam in the garden
and that she is being punished for being a fornicator and for having sex outside of marraige.

Should the state be able to force this morality on everyone ?
Even those who are not catholic/christian ?

I know people who have continued the pregnancy and then watched thier child only have a precious few hours of life but it helped them grieve.

Clearly in this she does not want this.

Will she be kept on sucide watch to make sure she does not self harm enough to qualify to go for an abortion ergo to make sure she continues the pregnancy ?

We have now a state body enforcing a women ( albiet a minor ) to continue a pregnancy.

She should apply for emiancipation but how long will that take ?
Long enough that she has a more painful later term abortion which will be
hard enough on her body, but not as hard on her body and mind them if she was to go full term with the pergnancy.

Fratton Fred

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.

Odd that you quote Nazis, who claimed to be acting in the name of god.

I'm not particulalry pro-choice, but banning abortions is sweeping the problem under the carpet rather than approaching it head on. I have no idea of the figures, but the abortion clinincs in the UK have a constant stream of girls from Ireland coming over for abortions, many of whom are returning a few days later with little or no counselling. But at least the Irish moralists can hold their heads up high and say there are no abortions in Ireland eh?

kizzyr

Ultimately it is a woman's body and so should be a woman's choice. She is the one who has to go through pregnancy and all that it entails, the labour, and giving birth. If she decides not to do this then it should be her choice and the State should not be able to decide this for her. Each individual is different in their beliefs, morals etc and so should be able to make a decision like this for themselves based on their beliefs.
This girl has decided that she does not want to carry on with this pregnancy and what she sees as its futile outcome and if this is right for her then you and I do not have the right to tell her it is wrong.

Kernel

Kernel wrote:

Should every child born with a disability be murdered in the womb simply to serve as a convenience to the mother?

You do know that the baby is going to be born without a higher brain? It wont even be conscious of its existence. I dont know how you can refer to this as a "convenience". That child is destined for an early death.

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote:

Odd that you quote Nazis, who claimed to be acting in the name of god.

eh? what? Is there an ISP on planet muppet nowadays?

Iago

Bambi wrote:

eh? what? Is there an ISP on planet muppet nowadays?

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," Hitler himself told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941. In Mein Kampf he says, "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." And at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926 Hitler declared: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude."

Faith

Kernel wrote:

Because, Faith, only God should decide who should live and die.

I see your post has already been dissected sufficiently above, so all I'll say is this: God has already decided that the baby should die. It has no chance of survival outside its mother's womb. Its mother is the only thing keeping the baby alive right now, and soon that's not going to work.

It's like a person who's completely and utterly brain-dead being kept alive by machines. The only reason that their body is still alive is because a machine is breathing and pumping their blood for them. When you decide to release them to a better place by turning off the machines, that's not murder. Nor is aborting a foetus that's already essentially dead.

ellenmelon

i am so angry over this!!! its HER womb. and the poor wee baby isnt going to have any quality of life whatsoever. so this young girl is going to bond with a baby which she knows is going to die.
i cant understand why the government insist on keeping up with this "holy catholic ireland" charade! isnt it best that religion and politics are kept seperate? its wrong to assume that everyone subscribes to the catholic view of abortions.

oh, by the way...keep your hands off of mine and other womans wombs TDs! its none of your bloody business.

Boston

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Being pro-life doesn't necessarily have anything to do with god. If I had to pick one side or the other, well I definitely wouldn't be pro-choice. I'm not for abortion as a good thing in general and I'm not for absolute choice in general either, in many regards not just abortion. But I believe in having the right to take your own life, and I'm far from blind to the practical arguments for abortion.

Marksie

Kernel wrote:

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

This statement is invalid in this instance as the foetus involved has effectively no brain. There is no will, no choice and no miracle of life for this one.

The likely outcome is an even more traumatised adult.

Kernel wrote:

under the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church

Tell that to the Cathars

HelterSkelter

ellenmelon wrote:

i cant understand why the government insist on keeping up with this "holy catholic ireland" charade! isnt it best that religion and politics are kept seperate?

Why do people automatically assume that anyone who is anti-abortion is Catholic? I'm not religious yet I believe abortion is wrong in the majority of cases.

_blank_

Why does the issue have to be so polarised to Pro-Choice and Pro-Life?

I do not identify as a Catholic. I don't identify with ANY religion.

However, I believe that people who go off for abortions just because they were stupid enough to have sex in a way that meant they could possibly become pregnant are wrong. There are sufficient support channels for these people once they have the child. The child could be adopted even.

People who have abortions as a result of being raped, carrying a child that has no chance of surviving outside the womb and a hole host of undefined reasons are right.

That's it. My opinion.

I think it is fúcking sick that this woman is being forced to carry this already dead child to term, only to see it suffer and die.

ellenmelon

HelterSkelter wrote:

Why do people automatically assume that anyone who is anti-abortion is Catholic? I don't have any religion yet I believe abortion is wrong in the majority of cases.

like it or not, there is still the assumption that ireland is a predominantly catholic country. most people ive met that pray outside of abortion clinics are catholics. catholics are fairly outspoken about the issue.
im not far off the mark with my assumption i dont think.

you say that "abortion is wrong in the majority of cases". what do you mean by this? in a situation when abortion would be a tolerable outcome for you, it could on the other hand be a lame excuse for another person. i think this is an issue that cant be a grey area really...you're either pro-life or pro-choice.

Dyr

Iago wrote:

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," Hitler himself told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941. In Mein Kampf he says, "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." And at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926 Hitler declared: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude."

You want me to throw a half dozen quotes from adolph up describing christianity as a curse etc? Very easy to do.

Jumpy

Kernel wrote:

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.

Ah religion, the greatest tool ever invented by any society for population control, you would have thought that education would have stamped it out by now in developed countries, but no, it still seems to exist.
Basic human decency has been the guidelines behind an evolved society not religion, you will find that most of the scumbags are in fact church going folk, morality has bugger all to do with it, just ask the Knights Templar.
Anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence has by now questioned the idea of religion, and dismissed it as rubbish.
This girl should only be prevented from flying if there is a VALID MEDICAL REASON TO DO SO that will not harm her health.

humbert

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You would force a vulnerable girl to go through with a pregnancy that science/medicine says is utterly futile in the hope of a miracle. That makes me angry.

coffee_cake

seansouth wrote:

People who have abortions as a result of being raped...are right.

Is there some biological difference in the fetus conceived of rape or is this the suicidal exception?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

_blank_

bluewolf wrote:

Is there some biological difference in the fetus conceived of rape

I have no idea what this part of your question is supposed to be getting at at all. Of course I am aware that there is no difference.

Your thinly veiled attack on my intelligence if not welcome, thanks.

bluewolf wrote:

or is this the suicidal exception?

If a girl is raped, and gets pregnant, and feels she can't, or doesn't want to, carry the child, then she should be allowed abort it.

I suppose it's the suicidal exception, yes.

I'm not saying that every girl who is pregnant as a result of rape should be forced into an abortion.

humbert

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Ah, fair enough. I agree with you there but things aren't black and white. A single person can reason like that and decide one way or another but the government is trying to act on behalf of a country whose populace is very divided. It's not a great situation but it's better than what was there before.

Time Magazine

Iago wrote:

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," Hitler himself told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941. In Mein Kampf he says, "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." And at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926 Hitler declared: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude."

Yep take Hitler's word. That's always a good idea.

How about you look at his actions instead? He never received any sacraments or went to mass in adulthood. Pius XI issued an encyclical condemning Nazism in 1937. Contrary to the belief that the Church wanted revenge on the Jews, or wanted to finish off Jesus' work, or whatever else Hitler claimed, Catholic "friendship" to Jews were mocked in Nazi press. After Catholics successfully ended the Nazi eugenics programme, their freedom of press was limited in 1941. They tried to nationalise the Protestant churches and planned something similar for the Catholic church soon thereafter.

If you want to state that Hitler supported Christianity during his reign, I ask that you read up on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Maximilian Kolbe first.