17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

ellenmelon

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

its her womb, its none of ANYONES business but her's.

HelterSkelter

ellenmelon wrote:

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.

That is true to an extent, but the people in favour of abortion always try to lump anyone who is anti-abortion in the same basket as the catholics. You don't have to be catholic to believe abortion is wrong in the same way that you don't have to be catholic to believe stealing or rape is wrong.

ellenmelon wrote:

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.

It is not black and white issue at all. Actually I agree with seansouth's post below, that's how I feel about abortion in general.

seansouth wrote:

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.

Time Magazine

ellenmelon wrote:

its her womb, its none of ANYONES business but her's.

He's MY husband who are you to say I'm not allowed murder him?

The argument here, love, is that it's not just her womb. Nobody is saying she shouldn't be allowed have a hysterectomy in due course. The issue on abortion is that it's not just her womb, it's something that will become a human.

Now whether or not it's a greater potential moral tragedy to have the girl suffer the pregnancy and inevitable death rather than the potential moral tragedy of aborting a foetus, well that's debatable, and that's what this thread is for.

HelterSkelter

ellenmelon wrote:

its her womb, its none of ANYONES business but her's.

Do you feel like that in all cases where a woman wants an abortion or just in this one? For example if a pregnant woman decides having a baby is going to disrubt her life too much and she wants an abortion, do you feel the same?

_blank_

Ibid wrote:

The argument here, love, is that it's not just her womb.

WTF with the patronising? Fúck sake.

humanji

Ibid wrote:

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.

Hitler saw himself as religious, whether he really was or not. There are many people in Ireland who see themselves as Catholic, yet have never read a Bible.

Regardless, the comment was made because Kernel somehow saw a difference between oppressive rule by nazis and oppressive rule by the church.

humanji

Ibid wrote:

The argument here, love, is that it's not just her womb. Nobody is saying she shouldn't be allowed have a hysterectomy in due course. The issue on abortion is that it's not just her womb, it's something that will become a human.

But it's not. It basically is already dead. It has no chance at life. This isn't an abortion, since life isn't being aborted. Do you honestly believe that this girl should suffer more, simply because it'll make you morally right?

ellenmelon

HelterSkelter wrote:

That is true to an extent, but the people in favour of abortion always try to lump anyone who is anti-abortion in the same basket as the catholics. You don't have to be catholic to believe abortion is wrong in the same way that you don't have to be catholic to believe stealing or rape is wrong.


It is not black and white issue at all. Actually I agree with seansouth's post below, that's how I feel about abortion in general.

did i say i was in favour of abortion? no. was i lumping you in with catholics? i dont think so. we're talking about the irish position on it and maybe im wrong but dont a lot of irish still consider themselves catholic?

---

it still makes me sick that people like yourself judge woman on what they do with their bodies. thats not a personal attack, i just cant get past it.

if we're going to say abortion is wrong, then im against vasectomies. no man should be allowed to stop the chance of a life being brought into the world. why does no one speak up about this? just putting that question out there.

ellenmelon

HelterSkelter wrote:

Do you feel like that in all cases where a woman wants an abortion or just in this one? For example if a pregnant woman decides having a baby is going to disrubt her life too much and she wants an abortion, do you feel the same?

all cases. im not going to be half arsed about it aye. its their decision. of course it would be far more positive if they used contraception but whatever..i cant talk!

Mr. Incognito

I'm so sick of these debates getting hi-jacked by the Pro-Life, Pro-Choice idiots.

And talking about Hitler? WTF That's off topic, pointless and doesn't even merit a response.

It's a personal decision. At the moment the democrtic mandate say's it's illegal. 7,000 women are travelling every year. That's a pretty big mandate the other way, but that's beside the point.

The point here is the girl is in the care of the HSE. The case is being brought by her boyfriend. They, as a couple have decided to travel to terminate this pregnancy. Leaving the morals of that aside for one moment they informed the HSE as they needed their permission for her to leave the country. The HSE are responsible for the girl presently as she has had problematic relationships at home with her mother and her father is not in her life.

The HSE is responsible for her well-being. If she was in the care of her aunt for instance and not the HSE what do you think her aunt would do even if she was a staunch catholic and viewed abortion with distaste.
She would probably weigh up the considerations and allow her to travel as that was her and her partners choice and she is old enough to make it. She certainly wouldn't ring up the local garda station and instruct them to keep an eye out and make sure she doesn't flee. The HSE putting the girl and her partner through unwarranted stress, and making them a focus of media attention at a very vunerable and stressfull time. I'm sure she has a lot of guilt and pain about terminating this pregnancy. Maybe she doesn't want to see the child in agony after its birth. The HSE is being irresponsible and is not acting in her interest as it is charged to do.

jhegarty

Macros42 wrote:

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.


:rolleyes:

So you think ok if the baby will only live 3 days... but how about if it was a 5 days or a month , is it ok if child will live 5 years...


Where do you draw the line , how many days, hours and minutes ?


And would it be ok to go around a hospice killing people who have 3 days to live... or 5 days .... where would you draw the line there ?

kizzyr

Ibid wrote:

He's MY husband who are you to say I'm not allowed murder him?

The argument here, love, is that it's not just her womb. Nobody is saying she shouldn't be allowed have a hysterectomy in due course. The issue on abortion is that it's not just her womb, it's something that will become a human.

Now whether or not it's a greater potential moral tragedy to have the girl suffer the pregnancy and inevitable death rather than the potential moral tragedy of aborting a foetus, well that's debatable, and that's what this thread is for.

Your husband is a separate independent sentient being already, killing him is killing a fully formed person, NOT something that has the potential to become a person in due course. There is a world of difference between that and terminating a pregnancy.
It is the woman's uterus, it is her body and SHE and no one else should be able to decide, in line with HER moral beliefs and convictions what happens to and with it. I can tell you at 17 years old if that girl presented to a doctor looking to have a hysterectomy or her tubes tied she would be refused because she is too you so its not as simple a choice as that is it really?

ellenmelon

seansouth wrote:

WTF with the patronising? Fúck sake.

thanks for saying that. im just like eh what? im not a child.

Iago

Ibid wrote:

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.

Hitler supported the catholic church, and the catholic church in turn supported Hitler. That's not the essence of the debate here but it is another of the immoralistic and atrocious acts that have become synomous with the catholic church over the centuries.

Jumpy

SetantaL wrote:

And talking about Hitler? WTF That's off topic, pointless and doesn't even merit a response.

Its Godwins Law. It is ALWAYS allowed. Arguing this point will get you banned from the internet.

ellenmelon

Ibid wrote:

He's MY husband who are you to say I'm not allowed murder him?

The argument here, love, is that it's not just her womb. Nobody is saying she shouldn't be allowed have a hysterectomy in due course. The issue on abortion is that it's not just her womb, it's something that will become a human.

Now whether or not it's a greater potential moral tragedy to have the girl suffer the pregnancy and inevitable death rather than the potential moral tragedy of aborting a foetus, well that's debatable, and that's what this thread is for.

uh yeah. dont call me love.

wtf is with "its not just her womb"! why are you insisting on pressuring your views on someone?

HelterSkelter

kizzyr wrote:

It is the woman's uterus, it is her body and SHE and no one else should be able to decide, in line with HER moral beliefs and convictions what happens to and with it. I can tell you at 17 years old if that girl presented to a doctor looking to have a hysterectomy or her tubes tied she would be refused because she is too you so its not as simple a choice as that is it really?

So if the unborn baby inside the woman is a girl (and I'm not talking about this case with the 17-year old girl, just general abortion cases), who also has a uterus, when does this unborn baby girl gain all these rights to decide what should happen to HER uterus and HER body?

HelterSkelter

lads, give it a rest with the Hitler **** will ya, it's totally off-topic and distracting from the debate.

Time Magazine

seansouth wrote:

WTF with the patronising? Fúck sake.

It was to STOP HER GETTING, LIKE, TOTALLY WORKED UP!! (and missing the point)

humanji wrote:

Hitler saw himself as religious, whether he really was or not. There are many people in Ireland who see themselves as Catholic, yet have never read a Bible.

Regardless, the comment was made because Kernel somehow saw a difference between oppressive rule by nazis and oppressive rule by the church.

Yes, because there's no difference between seeking the banning of abortions and mass-imprisonment and -execution of opposers, racial and social groupings.

humanji wrote:

But it's not. It basically is already dead. It has no chance at life. This isn't an abortion, since life isn't being aborted. Do you honestly believe that this girl should suffer more, simply because it'll make you morally right?

No, read my post. You're being presumptuous. I said the debate is not whether or not she owns her own womb.

SetantaL wrote:

<snip>

Excellent post.

kizzyr wrote:

Your husband is a separate independent sentient being already, killing him is killing a fully formed person, NOT something that has the potential to become a person in due course.

I'm male and don't actually have a husband. I agree it is of course different, I'm not sure we agree on the extent of the difference.

There is a world of difference between that and terminating a pregnancy.
It is the woman's uterus, it is her body and SHE and no one else should be able to decide, in line with HER moral beliefs and convictions what happens to and with it. I can tell you at 17 years old if that girl presented to a doctor looking to have a hysterectomy or her tubes tied she would be refused because she is too you so its not as simple a choice as that is it really?

Gah I can't stand this moral wishy-washy Joe Duffy crap. One of the defining features of society and civilisation is forcing the will of many onto the will of one. That is the fundamental force behind legislation. Of course one's rights should not be impinged, but it's not just her rights. There is a kid here, this is part of the issue. You speak so much about individual freedoms but you do not mention the right of the unborn who in four months will be a full human being, albeit with a lifespan of about sixty seconds or five days or whatever it might be. As jhegarty rightly points out, what if it was to live a year?

If you're so up-tight about the rights of the individual and it being "HER womb" and all that jazz, I presume you don't want society to force taxes on "MY money", no? If you don't have definitive moral absolutes, who cares if society thinks we should have unemployment benefit and all these other good things?

Realisitically I argue for taxes, many of them, because society can enforce what it thinks is right within reason [and yes, before any tries to take this line, forcing full-term pregnancy is within reason because, as you all are at pains to point out, it is basically just that and the nearly immediate death of the new-born. We're not talking about incarceration, or death by lethal injection because she's a red-head here]. I say society can enforce what it thinks is right because there are moral absolutes; otherwise I cannot consider votes for women as moral progress because there can be no such thing as progress in a world without a scale.

Iago wrote:

Hitler supported the catholic church, and the catholic church in turn supported Hitler. That's not the essence of the debate here but it is another of the immoralistic and atrocious acts that have become synomous with the catholic church over the centuries.

Oh for ****'s sake would you read my post? Hitler wanted to disband the catholic church and take it under the state's control. The Pope - the bloody Pope, the highest possible authority in the catholic church who can supercede the Bible - issued a public encyclical condemning Nazism and had it read in every church in Germany as early as 1937: 2 years before the West declared war and several years before the Holocaust began. What else more do you want to show that the church did not support Hitler?

Because I can probably give it to you, had you read my post or know anything about what you're talking about. Priests were expressly forbidden from active political association, especially against a party that had been fundamentally and unequivocally condemned. What about several senior Church members' successful attempts to sneak Jews out of Germany? Did you read about either of the men I specifically linked to? What about The Kreisau Circle and the White Rose, both driven by religion and specifically Christian beliefs?

Gah! What am I doing, defending the Church, against calls they supported the Nazis, in an abortion thread?

I give up on this thread. I shouldn't venture into After Hours.

kizzyr

Ibid wrote:

I'm male and don't actually have a husband. I agree it is of course different, I'm not sure we agree on the extent of the difference.

Gah I can't stand this moral wishy-washy Joe Duffy crap. One of the defining features of society and civilisation is forcing the will of many onto the will of one. That is the fundamental force behind legislation. Of course one's rights should not be impinged, but it's not just her rights. There is a kid here, this is part of the issue. You speak so much about individual freedoms but you do not mention the right of the unborn who in four months will be a full human being, albeit with a lifespan of about sixty seconds or five days or whatever it might be. As jhegarty rightly points out, what if it was to live a year?QUOTE]
I don't think I've ever once tuned in for a Joe Duffy show;) The crux of the abortion debate is whether or not you think that a foetues is a child or has the potential to become a child. Those who think that it is a child, (for example Catholics, who believe in ensoulment at the moment of conception) are against abortion and that is their choice. However there are many people who believe that it is simply a foetus with the potential to become a person once its been born or is far enough along in its gestation period to be viable as a person. They believe that termination of a pregnancy and this potential of life is as a fully establised person, their choice.
As a State we don't want abortions to be freely carried out here so we export the problem, the thousands of women who travel to the UK every year for a termination are proof of that fact, yet with this girl we are going one step futher and preventing her from having access to something she believes is right for her and that is wrong.

coffee_cake

seansouth wrote:

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.

Chill out :rolleyes: I was asking why there should be a difference since if you're on the side of the fetus, and there is no difference in the fetus depending on conception method, then it's highly inconsistent to make a rape exception unless it's the exception where the woman is suicidal (in which case, why not extend it to any woman who is suicidal, not just rape) or you just don't like the idea of people having sex...

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.

What if a girl uses contraception, it fails, and she feels she can't or doesn't want to continue the pregnancy?

HelterSkelter wrote:

So if the unborn baby inside the woman is a girl (and I'm not talking about this case with the 17-year old girl, just general abortion cases), who also has a uterus, when does this unborn baby girl gain all these rights to decide what should happen to HER uterus and HER body?

When it is actually a baby and not a fetus or embryo, and actually has a uterus.
When it at least has a functioning brain and can have some possibility of sentience. Otherwise it's an unformed clump of cells.

The Queen

kizzyr wrote:

I don't think I've ever once tuned in for a Joe Duffy show;) The crux of the abortion debate is whether or not you think that a foetues is a child or has the potential to become a child. Those who think that it is a child, (for example Catholics, who believe in ensoulment at the moment of conception) are against abortion and that is their choice. However there are many people who believe that it is simply a foetus with the potential to become a person once its been born or is far enough along in its gestation period to be viable as a person. They believe that termination of a pregnancy and this potential of life is as a fully establised person, their choice.
As a State we don't want abortions to be freely carried out here so we export the problem, the thousands of women who travel to the UK every year for a termination are proof of that fact, yet with this girl we are going one step futher and preventing her from having access to something she believes is right for her and that is wrong.

QFT.

It is, in my opinion, ridiculous that the HSE are preventing her from getting this done. Yes, they are acting as the girls parents. But in all honesty, what parents would make their child go through this? They would, I imagine in most cases, leave the choice up to her. If she is old enogh to have sex, she is old enough to make this decision.
I was too young to vote in the referendum which made abortion here illegal. But even then I thought it should not be made illegal. Sending thousands of women overseas is crazy. Ireland is growing quickly. There are more and more non-catholics living here. The view of the Catholic church should not be used to run a country with so many varying religions and beliefs being practiced.

kizzyr

HelterSkelter wrote:

So if the unborn baby inside the woman is a girl (and I'm not talking about this case with the 17-year old girl, just general abortion cases), who also has a uterus, when does this unborn baby girl gain all these rights to decide what should happen to HER uterus and HER body?[/QUOTE]
This is where people part ways: some believe that the foetus is an as yet unborn human being others believe it is a foetus and do not believe that if a woman does not want to give her body over to the pregnancy then she shouldn't have to.

PeakOutput

Boston wrote:

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

can you prove to me that the majority hold the view that she shouldnt be allowed go????? no you cant, the same way i cant prove the majority think she should which is why i say "i believe" implying it is my opinion

so while i have no idea of the figures neither do you so what was the point of your post


there have been a few pages now of pro life v's pro abortion...........that is not the issue

the issue is why does the hse stop her from travelling when it is completely legal to do so. people will say because it is illegal in ireland for people to have an abortion and they must enfroce that national stand point by not allowing people in their care the cop out of going to england to do it.......fair enough id say BUT a referendum decided to allow women to go to england to have an abortion so it is in fact the national position that we do not allow it here but you can go there and get it done.......

so why is this not the position of the hse is the question

Crucifix

jhegarty wrote:

So you think ok if the baby will only live 3 days... but how about if it was a 5 days or a month , is it ok if child will live 5 years...


Where do you draw the line , how many days, hours and minutes ?


And would it be ok to go around a hospice killing people who have 3 days to live... or 5 days .... where would you draw the line there ?

In this case, I don't think the baby's brain is developed enough to really experience anything within it's 3 days. If I was in a hospice and I was going to live 3 days with no higher brain activity then die; sure switch me off, what would I care.

Jumpy wrote:

Its Godwins Law. It is ALWAYS allowed. Arguing this point will get you banned from the internet.

No no no, if you Godwin something you've automatically lost the arguement. We aren't supposed to discuss it, we're suppose to dismiss everything that person says in the thread.

Elessar

I don't think anyone has even thought of this about this case so far..

Where is the father, and why is he not given a say in the fate of his child?

coffee_cake

Crucifix wrote:

In this case, I don't think the baby's brain is developed enough to really experience anything within it's 3 days. If I was in a hospice and I was going to live 3 days with no higher brain activity then die; sure switch me off, what would I care.

It's born without its entire forebrain, it won't gain consciousness nevermind experience anything. (Not that I'm disagreeing with you )

"Going around killing people" wasn't a valid comparison since this isn't exactly a person, it's not going to have its brain...

humanji

Ibid wrote:

Yes, because there's no difference between seeking the banning of abortions and mass-imprisonment and -execution of opposers, racial and social groupings.

Well, we'll ignore the churches mass-imprisonment and -execution of opposers, racial and social groupings for the moment. I was pointing out that Kernel was (apart from going OT) saying that religion helped "create a good society, as opposed to a Nazi/Orwellian type society", even though it's because of religion that this 17 year olds girls well being is being ignored, and the greater good being pressed upon her.

Ibid wrote:

No, read my post. You're being presumptuous. I said the debate is not whether or not she owns her own womb.

But in this case, it is just her womb, because the child can't survive. It is basically dead, so there is no need to worry about it's well being. This poor 17 yo is going to be traumatised a hell of a lot more from being forced to have the child, than she would for just the abortion.

People can argue the greater scheme of things if this sets precedence that it'll affect their lives, but it's the life of this girl that everyone should be concered about. It seems unfair to put law, politics or religion ahead of her well being.

coffee_cake

Elessar wrote:

I don't think anyone has even thought of this about this case so far..

Where is the father, and why is he not given a say in the fate of his child?

I thought that the boyfriend was the one that helped launch her appeal in the first place...

Crucifix

Elessar wrote:

I don't think anyone has even thought of this about this case so far..

Where is the father, and why is he not given a say in the fate of his child?

SetantaL wrote:

The case is being brought by her boyfriend. They, as a couple have decided to travel to terminate this pregnancy.

.