17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

_blank_

bluewolf wrote:

Chill out :rolleyes:

Thanks again.

bluewolf wrote:

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)

The difference here is that a woman who is raped did not ask to have sex, therefore, by extension, did not ask to deal with the consequences of having sex. One of which is getting pregnant. If she can't deal with having the progeny of a scumbag inside her, then she should have the right to abort.

Isn't the suicide thing already covered in statutes anyway?

bluewolf wrote:

or you just don't like the idea of people having sex...

I have a problem with irresponsible people having sex all over the place and thinking a quick hop across the sea is the answer to all ills associated with getting pregnant as a result.

bluewolf wrote:

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

Aha. If a girl is using contraception, then she is open to the fact that having sex MAY result in pregnancy. The majority know that no contraception is one hundred per cent effective, and therefore by having sex, the potential exists for getting pregnant. Albeit reduced.

I have sex with my own girlfriend, who is on the pill. I still know that the possibility exists that she may be sick/forget and not realise/other things that render the pill ineffective, and I am prepared to deal with this if it happens. I've been lucky so far, but still, I know the risks, and I am prepared to gamble. I like having sex.

If it happens that she gets pregnant, then we'd have to deal with that. In MY opinion, an abortion would be out of the question, and should be. She's the same btw. We've discussed it.

_blank_

bluewolf wrote:

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

This is true.

It's because he's over 18 and can make the case himself, she can't, as she is a minor.

coffee_cake

seansouth wrote:

The difference here is that a woman who is raped did not ask to have sex, therefore, by extension, did not ask to deal with the consequences of having sex. One of which is getting pregnant. If she can't deal with having the progeny of a scumbag inside her, then she should have the right to abort.

Abortion is a consequence too though, it's just not one you like.

I have a problem with irresponsible people having sex all over the place and thinking a quick hop across the sea is the answer to all ills associated with getting pregnant as a result.

So you prefer irresponsible people being parents and raising children all over the place?

Aha. If a girl is using contraception, then she is open to the fact that having sex MAY result in pregnancy. The majority know that no contraception is one hundred per cent effective, and therefore by having sex, the potential exists for getting pregnant. Albeit reduced.

And..? You said you didn't like irresponsible people doing it, what about responsible ones?
I might add that using a seat belt isn't consent to being in a car accident...

I have sex with my own girlfriend, who is on the pill. I still know that the possibility exists that she may be sick/forget and not realise/other things that render the pill ineffective, and I am prepared to deal with this if it happens. I've been lucky so far, but still, I know the risks, and I am prepared to gamble. I like having sex.

If it happens that she gets pregnant, then we'd have to deal with that. In MY opinion, an abortion would be out of the question, and should be. She's the same btw. We've discussed it.

Well that's good for you two, but why should you enforce your opinions on anyone else? Unless you're happy to leave it at personal opinion and would vote pro-choice?

_blank_

bluewolf wrote:

Abortion is a consequence too though, it's just not one you like.

You are correct, of course. I don't like willy-nilly abortions. And I never will.

bluewolf wrote:

So you prefer irresponsible people being parents and raising children all over the place?

Actually, what I'd like to see is some kind of means test, where if it is deemed unfit for people to raise kids, then they are put up for adoption. It will never happen though, but I prefer to think of children being born than ending up the result of an abortion.

bluewolf wrote:

And..? You said you didn't like irresponsible people doing it, what about responsible ones?
I might add that using a seat belt isn't consent to being in a car accident...

Responsible don't have unprotected sex unless they want kids.

I think I understand the car crash analogy. Maybe not.

If I get in a car I put on the seatbelt, because I know that it reduces the risk of me being hurt/killed. It doesn't mean I won't be hurt or killed though. The possibility of an accident is still there. If I was that concerned I wouldn't get into the car, or go for walks. But as I said, I take risks. I like driving a car. And walking. And having sex.

bluewolf wrote:

Well that's good for you two, but why should you enforce your opinions on anyone else?

Ah come on now. I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone, I'm actually enjoying this debate. I like to hear people's point of view. Even though I may not agree with it.

bluewolf wrote:

Unless you're happy to leave it at personal opinion and would vote pro-choice?

Hmm. I'd like a referendum where we get to vote on :

1. No abortion, EVAR
2. Abortions for all, come and get 'em.
3. Abortion for certain circumstances as outlined, as much as we can, with allowances for cases we didn't think up at the time of the vote, but with very strict controls. Suicidal, rape and other issues aswell - ie, baby will be dead anyway so lets save the mother the trauma.

PeakOutput

still avoiding the original topic lads

coffee_cake

seansouth wrote:

You are correct, of course. I don't like willy-nilly abortions. And I never will.

Me neither, but I'll stay pro-choice first trimester until the time that there are no unwanted pregnancies for anyone.

I prefer to think of children being born than ending up the result of an abortion.

Again same, but I don't follow that people should just have the children and put up with them anyway if they really feel they can't.
As for adoption, it might work but look at places like the USA where there are children who'll always be left unadopted and then thrown out at 18 on their own because potential parents are so picky.

Responsible don't have unprotected sex unless they want kids.

I mentioned the use of contraception and asked about those cases, since there's still a chance of pregnancy

I think I understand the car crash analogy. Maybe not.

If I get in a car I put on the seatbelt, because I know that it reduces the risk of me being hurt/killed. It doesn't mean I won't be hurt or killed though. The possibility of an accident is still there. If I was that concerned I wouldn't get into the car, or go for walks. But as I said, I take risks. I like driving a car. And walking. And having sex.

Sure. But if you do take the risk of getting into the car, even using a seatbelt, do you really want to be told in the case of an accident you'll just have to put up with whatever the injury is instead of curing it?

Ah come on now. I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone, I'm actually enjoying this debate. I like to hear people's point of view. Even though I may not agree with it.

fair enough but I assume any prolifer here would vote as such if there was a referendum, which would be forcing an opinion

Hmm. I'd like a referendum where we get to vote on :

1. No abortion, EVAR
2. Abortions for all, come and get 'em.
3. Abortion for certain circumstances as outlined, as much as we can, with allowances for cases we didn't think up at the time of the vote, but with very strict controls. Suicidal, rape and other issues aswell - ie, baby will be dead anyway so lets save the mother the trauma.

I'd be first trimester with exceptions for suicidal, similar trauma, and other serious medical issues
I still think making an exception just for rape, while I understand it and would hope there should be one, is inconsistent if one is pro-life.

Sorry about derailing, people - will get back on topic now

_blank_

PeakOutput wrote:

still avoiding the original topic lads

Well, not really.

I think the abortion should be carried out in this country, she shouldn't even have to travel to another jurisdiction to have it.

bluewolf wrote:

I still think making an exception just for rape, while I understand it and would hope there should be one, is inconsistent if one is pro-life.

But I'm not pro-life per se. Nor am I pro-choice per se.

There is a grey area. I'm in it

bluewolf wrote:

Sorry about derailing, people - will get back on topic now

Aye.

Lemming

I find some of the commentary regarding the HSE as 'acting guardians' to be interesting in tackling a very fundamental core issue around this case.

First of all, show me a parent who would willfully "permit" their child to endure this kind of horrifying mental anguish for the sake of their own pious morality, and I'll show you a monster.

Now, with the above in mind, what I want to raise as a question here, is that in acting as the child's guardian, the HSE is not acting in the best interest of the girl, but on a vile and pompous piety mindset that epitomises the dregs of human cruelty. Clearly somebody within the HSE is making this call as "her guardian" and is hiding behind a thinly veiled sheild of anonimity.

This isn't an issue of travel, it's an issue of 'parental consent'. This is the fundamental issue. Who within the HSE is making the call as 'parent' to block her? Because it makes an utter mockery of the HSE's ability and credibility to fulfill its mandate - to provide care and assistance for the needy and the vulnerable in our society. That such trust is left wide open to abuse speaks volumes about us as a society, and to our political masters who are currently running scared and afraid to stand up and tackle the issue for fear of not getting a cushy number in Leinster house in a few weeks.

Orion

Lemming wrote:

Now, with the above in mind, what I want to raise as a question here, is that in acting as the child's guardian, the HSE is not acting in the best interest of the girl, but on a vile and pompous piety mindset that epitomises the dregs of human cruelty. Clearly somebody within the HSE is making this call as "her guardian" and is hiding behind a thinly veiled sheild of anonimity.

QFT. I did mention in loco parentis - but only as a devil's advocate argument - not as my agreement with it.

Lemming

Macros42 wrote:

QFT. I did mention in loco parentis - but only as a devil's advocate argument - not as my agreement with it.

This is kind of what I'm driving at Macros, somebody with a clearly hardline anti-abortion mindset is pushing this and is also, clearly, not acting in the best interest of the child under their care. If this was an actual parent I'd call it child abuse. But what happens when the abuser is also directed by the state body that is supposed to protect the child?

NeMiSiS

"I find some of the commentary regarding the HSE as 'acting guardians' to be interesting in tackling a very fundamental core issue around this case.

First of all, show me a parent who would willfully "permit" their child to endure this kind of horrifying mental anguish for the sake of their own pious morality, and I'll show you a monster.

Now, with the above in mind, what I want to raise as a question here, is that in acting as the child's guardian, the HSE is not acting in the best interest of the girl, but on a vile and pompous piety mindset that epitomises the dregs of human cruelty. Clearly somebody within the HSE is making this call as "her guardian" and is hiding behind a thinly veiled sheild of anonimity.

This isn't an issue of travel, it's an issue of 'parental consent'. This is the fundamental issue. Who within the HSE is making the call as 'parent' to block her? Because it makes an utter mockery of the HSE's ability and credibility to fulfill its mandate - to provide care and assistance for the needy and the vulnerable in our society. That such trust is left wide open to abuse speaks volumes about us as a society, and to our political masters who are currently running scared and afraid to stand up and tackle the issue for fear of not getting a cushy number in Leinster house in a few weeks."

Lemming, that is an excellent post, one of the best I think I have ever read.
TK

nesf

I'm amazed by the fact that we've had Hitler, Catholicism, Pro-Life and Pro-Choice arguments all appear on the same thread and it hasn't descended into chaos.



I think this is the kind of situation where a lot of (reasonable) pro-choice and pro-life people meet in the middle and agree that abortion might just about be ok here under these kind of unusual circumstances. There is quite a bit of ground for discussing the middle ground of the debate here and I'd appreciate it if people kept hardline views to a minimum. I don't want this spiralling off into a rebuttal orgy between a bunch of hardliners on both sides. There is room for meaningful debate here, use it.

Orion

nesf wrote:

I'm amazed by the fact that we've had Hitler, Catholicism, Pro-Life and Pro-Choice arguments all appear on the same thread and it hasn't descended into chaos.

LOL That's so true. It is amazing.

Lemming

nesf wrote:

I'm amazed by the fact that we've had Hitler, Catholicism, Pro-Life and Pro-Choice arguments all appear on the same thread and it hasn't descended into chaos.

Godwin must be in spasms about now

Boston

Lemming wrote:

This is kind of what I'm driving at Macros, somebody with a clearly hardline anti-abortion mindset is pushing this and is also, clearly, not acting in the best interest of the child under their care.

I don't know if thats actually true. The HSE stance on abortion is pretty clear. They would have to actively facilitate the abortion (pay for it and give permission to travel) this is something that I don't think their codes of practice will allow. They also have a responsibility to ensure that the girl doesn't leave their care, so they can't allow her to leave the country on her own either, and must take steps to prevent her leaving. There's allot going on here.

Lemming

Boston wrote:

I don't know if thats actually true. The HSE stance on abortion is pretty clear. They would have to actively facilitate the abortion (pay for it and give permission to travel) this is something that I don't think their codes of practice will allow. They also have a responsibility to ensure that the girl doesn't leave their care, so they can't allow her to leave the country on her own either, and must take steps to prevent her leaving. There's allot going on here.

Then they're not acting as 'guardian' but as state institution. The point of the HSE is to do what is in the interest of those in their care. This is not in anybody's interest except extreme fringe religious elements. They may not have to facilitate the abortion in so much as giving financial aid, but they are actively "blocking" her from travelling - that goes above a simple "sorry we're not paying" line. As I said, that particular decision strikes me as being driven from somebody within the HSE, not the HSE itself.

nesf

Lemming wrote:

The point of the HSE is to do what is in the interest of those in their care.

A small point but the HSE should do what is in the interest of the population not necessarily what is in the interests of an individual patient should those two interests conflict.

I believe that this is more complicated that it first appears. I'm also not sure about the whole guardian issue and exactly how much responsibility the HSE must take when someone is in "their care". I don't think it's as simple as them backing up a fringe religious view.

Boston

Well someone at some level in the HSE has to give the girl permission to travel. Someone has to sign a piece of paper and they are unwilling to do that. Failing that it is there responsibility to ensure that she doesn't leave the country regardless of why. They can't just refuse to give permission and then wash there hands of the girl.

I think it's probably more likely that some civil servant somewhere doesn't want to put their neck on the line and go against policy. The safe bet is to not give permission. Self preservation is a much more likely motivator.

Binomate

Girls gaurdian = HSE.
HSE = public body.
Public Body = Democratic people's choice.
Democratic people's choice = Allowing mothers to travel to the UK to abort their children.

Lemming

nesf wrote:

I believe that this is more complicated that it first appears.

I don't think this issue is actually all that murky when you strip away the abortion element. It's crystal clear once you look at it under the cold light of day.

I'm also not sure about the whole guardian issue and exactly how much responsibility the HSE must take when someone is in "their care". I don't think it's as simple as them backing up a fringe religious view.

I never said it was the HSE backing up a fringe view. I said it was the HSE's powers being abused by somebody within who does harbour such views.

If the HSE becomes guardian, then they must also accept all that comes with it rather than shrugging and saying "but the union agreement was ... " or some such, as is pretty much what led to other recent and obscenely tragic events elsewhere in the country.

The HSE in both claiming to represent the body populace and the individual (as guardian), has to recognise that it cannot dogmatically follow one over the other. A balance has to be met, and that is not happening here, due to as I suspect, willful colouring of judgement by people(s) within the HSE.

Boston wrote:

I think it's probably more likely that some civil servant somewhere doesn't want to put their neck on the line and go against policy. The safe bet is to not give permission. Self preservation is a much more likely motivator.

Is this any better than willfully abusing the HSE's position based on personal religious conviction?

TBH, I find it even worse. Cowardly.

In either case, it utterly undermines the HSE (as if it needed help doing that already) and allows for a horrifying act of abuse to be carried out against a vulnerable member of society

Boston

I agree. Just saying that knowing the civil service its far more likely that it's a case of passing the buck then anyone actually taking the pro-life stance and forcing it through.

nesf

Lemming wrote:

I don't think this issue is actually all that murky when you strip away the abortion element. It's crystal clear once you look at it under the cold light of day.

I'll agree to disagree. I don't know enough about this case to really comment on this part.

Lemming wrote:

I never said it was the HSE backing up a fringe view. I said it was the HSE's powers being abused by somebody within who does harbour such views.

If the HSE becomes guardian, then they must also accept all that comes with it rather than shrugging and saying "but the union agreement was ... " or some such, as is pretty much what led to other recent and obscenely tragic events elsewhere in the country.

The HSE in both claiming to represent the body populace and the individual (as guardian), has to recognise that it cannot dogmatically follow one over the other. A balance has to be met, and that is not happening here, due to as I suspect, willful colouring of judgement by people(s) within the HSE.

I agree a balance must be met but the HSE might already have in place rules that prevent them aiding in abortions within this country (I don't know for sure tbh). If this is the case then their hands are tied by their own rules.

*shrugs*

calsatron

But what happens when the next 17yr old under the HSE's care wants an abortian because the child has x% chance of y condition that may impact the child's life in z way?

The HSE can't condone any of its charges having abortians for any reason other than those stated in the current legislation because that puts them down the slippery path to becoming the arbiter of what condition results in a permissable termination and which doesn't.

It's unfortunate in this case without a doubt but personally its my opinion that its the correct decision. The HSE's hands are tied by current legal morass surrounding the whole issue.

Lemming

nesf wrote:

I'll agree to disagree. I don't know enough about this case to really comment on this part.

Sorry, I know little more than the next person. I just think that if you remove the abstract and often emotive concept of abortion from the equation, the argument boils down to something far more simple. As I said, 'parental consent'.

I agree a balance must be met but the HSE might already have in place rules that prevent them aiding in abortions within this country (I don't know for sure tbh). If this is the case then their hands are tied by their own rules.

In that case, the HSE cannot dispense its duties and should not be handed 'guardian-ship' if it is unable, or unwilling as Boston commented, to consider the needs of those under their care.

Making a child go through something as dangerous and painful as child-birth (when it's medically been stated that it's a moot point given the foregone conclusion of the birth) for the sake of pompous f*cking morality is an obscenity worthy of the worst examples of human cruelty. I thought we left the dark ages (and Inquisition) behind and didn't look back? Evidently I was wrong.

As an aside, will the HSE provide all of the psychiatric counselling this girl will need once the baby is born and dies? Will it pay for the medical and funeral costs? Will the person who made this decision attend the funeral so they can see the sheer devestation they've caused? How about the girl's funeral if she does go and commit suicide after this? One life is already dead. By sticking to this decision, they are condemning a second life to, at best, an extremely disturbed existence.

nesf

Lemming wrote:

In that case, the HSE cannot dispense its duties and should not be handed 'guardian-ship' if it is unable, or unwilling as Boston commented, to consider the needs of those under their care.

Making a child go through something as dangerous and painful as child-birth (when it's medically been stated that it's a moot point given the foregone conclusion of the birth) for the sake of pompous f*cking morality is an obscenity worthy of the worst examples of human cruelty. I thought we left the dark ages (and Inquisition) behind and didn't look back? Evidently I was wrong.

Honestly, I agree for the most part with your position but I'm not convinced that the HSE is necessarily "wrong" here. It might have no choice considering the mandate set down by the people over all of this. The girl should be left travel I agree, but a legal workaround for the HSE needs to be found I think.

coffee_cake

calsatron wrote:

But what happens when the next 17yr old under the HSE's care wants an abortian because the child has x% chance of y condition that may impact the child's life in z way?

You do realise the child isn't going to HAVE a life, right?
Unless things have changed since I read about this yesterday on rte news teletext and someone can tell me this for sure, it has anencephaly

Anencephaly is a cephalic disorder that results from a neural tube defect that occurs when the cephalic (head) end of the neural tube fails to close, usually between the 23rd and 26th day of pregnancy, resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp. Infants with this disorder are born without a forebrain, the largest part of the brain consisting mainly of the cerebral hemispheres (which include the isocortex, which is responsible for higher level cognition, i.e., thinking). The remaining brain tissue is often exposed - not covered by bone or skin.

Nevyn

Aprently attending the funerals is a preferible option then theHSE sending an employee to accompany the girl to the UK and sign the forms for the abortion.

Mr. Incognito

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0501/breaking8.htm

Latest update. State does not have authority to prevent her from going. It seems like someone got their facts mixed up and said she could only go if she was suicidal. This confuses the stance after the X case with the stance after teh Referendum where the right to travel was not to be restricted.

nesf

bluewolf wrote:

You do realise the child isn't going to HAVE a life, right?
Unless things have changed since I read about this yesterday on rte news teletext and someone can tell me this for sure, it has anencephaly

That wasn't the point of what calsatron was making. It is that this case will set precendent and even though this case is fairly clear cut in that it's a fatal condition the implications from this case on cases where it's not necessarily fatal (i.e. x% chance of it being fatal) that is also highly important since this involves a very specific public body.

enda1

If i walk into a police station and say im going to go over to the netherlands to fcuk a load of prostitutes and smoke the ganga, no one is going to stop me.

Its ridiculus the idea that the state should stop her going over on the basis that she is going to commit a 'crime' there.