17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

Ruen

Fighting Irish wrote:

her parents are responsible for her, if they agree, she should be allowed do what she wants

The HSE are her legal guardians, they're in loco parentis.

AngryBadger

rainbow kirby wrote:

And this is another reason why abortion should be safe and legal in this country.

No this is one more reason why people should be more responsible with themselves and their kids. I'm not pro-life, but I'm not pro-abortion either. neither is the answer, both are just dramatic excuses.

Boston

Fighting Irish wrote:

her parents are responsible for her, if they agree, she should be allowed do what she wants

Well clearly her parents are severely unfit, otherwise she wouldn't be in the system.

Sam Vimes

rainbow kirby wrote:

And this is another reason why abortion should be safe and legal in this country.

i don't see the correlation between aborting a baby that can't survive more than a few minutes and allowing a queue of women around the block with perfectly healthy babies who don't feel like putting them up for adoption

kizzyr

Commander Vimes wrote:

i don't see the correlation between aborting a baby that can't survive more than a few minutes and allowing a queue of women around the block with perfectly healthy babies who don't feel like putting them up for adoption

Until somehow someday men are forced to endure pregnancy, labour and childbirth they should have no power of granting "permission" to women to decided what will happen to their bodies. I have yet to meet a women who has taken the decision to have an abortion lightly, its not like getting a tooth pulled as there are a huge amount of emotions involved in making this decision. Adoption is not a blanket solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy I wish people would stop throwing it out there as a panacea to all ills.
I came across this analogy, it is a bit extreme but hopefully some of you will get the point: you are drugged and kidnapped one night and when you wake up you discover that you are attached to a world famous musician whose kidneys are failing. His death will be a huge loss to the music world and so his fans have taken you and hooked your body up to his so that he can have the use of your kidneys for almost 10 months. During this time you have to stick to a good healthy diet and cannot drink, your ability to travel and generally live your daily life will be restricted, more and more as the weeks pass. If you disconnect yourself this man will certainly die. What do you do? Does this being you know nothing about have any right to force this on you? Will the world condemn you if you decide to detach yourself and reclaim your life?

This is an extreme scenario I know but I am putting it out there to show that nobody can be expected to give over their body for the use of another if they do not want it to be so.

Boston

kizzyr wrote:

Until somehow someday men are forced to endure pregnancy, labour and childbirth they should have no power of granting "permission" to women to decided what will happen to their bodies.

Well, no say should equal no responsibility.

I get really tired of these "The man keeping down the little woman" arguments. There are plenty of things you're no allowed do with your body and your life. Every day people are forced to die slowly and painfully, trapped, in a hospital bed. I don't have the right to marriage. ah forget it.

kizzyr

Boston wrote:

Well, no say should equal no responsibility.

I get really tired of these "The man keeping down the little woman" arguments. There are plenty of things you're no allowed do with your body and your life. Every day people are forced to die slowly and painfully, trapped, in a hospital bed. I don't have the right to marriage. ah forget it.

I'm not making the argument from the "women are so oppressed" corner. I'm making the point that ultimately because this is something that only women can do surely women should be able to make the decision to continue or not with a pregnancy. After all as she is the one who has to live with all it entails she is also the one who has to live with the consequences of the decision to terminate. I also think it wrong that people when they are terminally ill, in a lot of pain etc are not able to at least discuss their options re: their end of life.
As I said before I myself am in the middle of a great big grey area when it comes to the rights and wrongs of abortion. It is never always right and it can never always be wrong but it should be your free choice as an individual.

Sam Vimes

kizzyr wrote:

Until somehow someday men are forced to endure pregnancy, labour and childbirth they should have no power of granting "permission" to women to decided what will happen to their bodies.

its not so much men telling women what to do as the law saying murder is wrong

kizzyr wrote:

I have yet to meet a women who has taken the decision to have an abortion lightly, its not like getting a tooth pulled as there are a huge amount of emotions involved in making this decision. Adoption is not a blanket solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy I wish people would stop throwing it out there as a panacea to all ills.

i was adopted. i turned out fine

kizzyr wrote:

I came across this analogy, it is a bit extreme but hopefully some of you will get the point: you are drugged and kidnapped one night and when you wake up you discover that you are attached to a world famous musician whose kidneys are failing. His death will be a huge loss to the music world and so his fans have taken you and hooked your body up to his so that he can have the use of your kidneys for almost 10 months. During this time you have to stick to a good healthy diet and cannot drink, your ability to travel and generally live your daily life will be restricted, more and more as the weeks pass. If you disconnect yourself this man will certainly die. What do you do? Does this being you know nothing about have any right to force this on you?

are you serious? do you think that in that situation anyone would say "i want to go on the piss. sorry mate, you have to die".

kizzyr wrote:

Will the world condemn you if you decide to detach yourself and reclaim your life?

absolutely. you would be guilty of murder and rightly spend the rest of your life in jail.

being a mother puts loads of restrictions on someone's life. is it ok to kill your child because you want to go out for the night and can't find a babysitter?

imagine you're married and your husband has an accident and requires round the clock care. is it ok to kill him because he's putting restrictions on your life?

having an unwanted pregnancy is an unfortunate situation for a girl to find herself in. i agree that it can cause emotional stress and put their life on hold for 9 months. however, if i was somehow put in a situation where i had to choose between carrying a heavy weight and avoiding beer for a few months or killing someone, i know what i'd choose.

kizzyr wrote:

This is an extreme scenario I know but I am putting it out there to show that nobody can be expected to give over their body for the use of another if they do not want it to be so.

yes, they can. the right to life supercedes all other rights imo. inconvenience does not give anyone a licence to kill

_blank_

embee, I'm going to quote the thing you posted.

embee wrote:

Infants born with anencephaly are usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain.

There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly and the prognosis for affected individuals is poor. Most anencephalic babies do not survive birth, accounting for 55% of non-aborted cases. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth from cardiorespiratory arrest.


In almost all cases anencephalic infants are not aggressively resuscitated since there is no chance of the infant ever achieving a conscious existence. Instead, the usual clinical practice is to offer hydration, nutrition and comfort measures and to "let nature take its course". Artificial ventilation, surgery (to fix any co-existing congenital defects), and drug therapy (such as antibiotics) are usually regarded as being pointless. Some clinicians see no point in even providing nutrition and hydration,

Now, Can any of you read that and say that the pregnancy should be allowed continue.

In my opinion only a godless, cold-hearted, cruel, downright evil person could argue that this woman should be forced to continue with this pregnancy, which can only result in the very quick and traumatic (for the woman) death of the child.

Of course, the child won't feel a thing. It doesn't have the capacity for anything remotely approaching a life. No sight, no hearing, unable to feel pain, no consciousness.

Jesus Christ, anyone who believes that this should be allowed to happen sickens me. There is NO argument for allowing it to happen. None.

Orion

It's in the Irish Times today that the HSE have funded 5 other women to have abortions in England for similar reasons - babies that could not survive outside the womb.

Sam Vimes

seansouth wrote:

embee, I'm going to quote the thing you posted.




Now, Can any of you read that and say that the pregnancy should be allowed continue.

In my opinion only a godless, cold-hearted, cruel, downright evil person could argue that this woman should be forced to continue with this pregnancy, which can only result in the very quick and traumatic (for the woman) death of the child.

Of course, the child won't feel a thing. It doesn't have the capacity for anything remotely approaching a life. No sight, no hearing, unable to feel pain, no consciousness.

Jesus Christ, anyone who believes that this should be allowed to happen sickens me. There is NO argument for allowing it to happen. None.

i'm not sure if you're addressing me.

i'm not saying the pregnancy should continue. in this case it should clearly be terminated. however, someone here was suggesting that this is "just one more reason" why abortion should be available on demand, rather than the special case it is

terminating a baby with a fatal condition is completely different to terminating a perfectly healthy baby because its inconvenient

kizzyr

Commander Vimes wrote:

its not so much men telling women what to do as the law saying murder is wrong
i was adopted. i turned out fine
are you serious? do you think that in that situation anyone would say "i want to go on the piss. sorry mate, you have to die".
absolutely. you would be guilty of murder and rightly spend the rest of your life in jail.
being a mother puts loads of restrictions on someone's life. is it ok to kill your child because you want to go out for the night and can't find a babysitter?
imagine you're married and your husband has an accident and requires round the clock care. is it ok to kill him because he's putting restrictions on your life?
having an unwanted pregnancy is an unfortunate situation for a girl to find herself in. i agree that it can cause emotional stress and put their life on hold for 9 months. however, if i was somehow put in a situation where i had to choose between carrying a heavy weight and avoiding beer for a few months or killing someone, i know what i'd choose.
yes, they can. the right to life supercedes all other rights imo. inconvenience does not give anyone a licence to kill

I wasn't saying that there was anything wrong with being adopted and I never would because there isn't and if that is what I implied I truly didn't mean to. My point, in saying that adoption is not a cure for all ills, is that women (again most women) don't just give over their baby after giving birth without a whole load of issues and that is is not as simple as telling someone to stay pregnant, give birth, give the baby up and then you'll be right as rain again in no time.
Murder is wrong but some people do not see abortion as murder. Murder is killing a person, abortion (in their view) is not murder as it is not killing a person it is terminating a pregnancy and destroying a foetus that has the potential to become a person.
People don't have abortions (well most people) lightly so to compare it to someone killing their 3 year old because they can't get a babysitter for the evening is silly. Once you give birth a real live person independent of you exists this is not the case when you are pregnant. This is the same person who has had life experiences that is then the bedridden husband. You can't kill him because he has a mind of his own and can make decisions to determine the outcome of his life. Yes you are caring for him but your body is not being used by him as you care for him.
Women who have abortions don't do it because they can't have a beer for 9 months or because they have to put their life on hold for 9 months. It doesn't end for them after giving birth and I think they should have a choice in continuing the pregnancy or not.
The rights and wrongs of abortion are different for each individual and their moral beliefs, standards and convictions. Some believe it is murder of innocent babies others don't, the choice should be there for each woman to make for herself. Over 6,000 Irish women travel to the UK for abortions every year, given those figures it is obvious that there is a demand for the provision of that service in this country and that not everyone agrees that it is murder.

_blank_

Commander Vimes wrote:

i'm not sure if you're addressing me.

I wasn't

I was addressing anyone who has the sick opinion that this pregnancy should be allowed continue to term.

PinkPrincess26

I think the whole situation is ridiculous. Nobody should be able to tell you what you are and what you are'nt allowed do with your own body, its obsurd and stems bag to the ridiculous law in this country about abortion....

I think every one should have the right to make there own decision.

_blank_

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

I think every one should have the right to make there own decision.

...even the unborn child?

Sam Vimes

kizzyr wrote:

I wasn't saying that there was anything wrong with being adopted and I never would because there isn't and if that is what I implied I truly didn't mean to. My point, in saying that adoption is not a cure for all ills, is that women (again most women) don't just give over their baby after giving birth without a whole load of issues and that is is not as simple as telling someone to stay pregnant, give birth, give the baby up and then you'll be right as rain again in no time.

sure she'll have emotional issues but the alternative is throwing away a little person with the medical waste. i'll live with emotional issues

kizzyr wrote:

Murder is wrong but some people do not see abortion as murder. Murder is killing a person, abortion (in their view) is not murder as it is not killing a person it is terminating a pregnancy and destroying a foetus that has the potential to become a person.

they don't think its murder because they don't want to, simple as that.they don't want to be pregnant so they convince themselves that the little person inside them isn't really a person

kizzyr wrote:

People don't have abortions (well most people) lightly so to compare it to someone killing their 3 year old because they can't get a babysitter for the evening is silly. Once you give birth a real live person independent of you exists this is not the case when you are pregnant.

well you compared it to killing a full grown person with a dodgy liver

kizzyr wrote:

This is the same person who has had life experiences that is then the bedridden husband. You can't kill him because he has a mind of his own and can make decisions to determine the outcome of his life.

what about people born with mental retardations? they can't make decisions for themselves and some can't really have life experiences. is it ok to kill them?

kizzyr wrote:

Yes you are caring for him but your body is not being used by him as you care for him.

now that's just semantics. the person is in your care and will die without you. the fact that your actual body isn't being used is beside the point

kizzyr wrote:

Women who have abortions don't do it because they can't have a beer for 9 months or because they have to put their life on hold for 9 months.

again, that's the suggestion you made. and if that's not the reason, what is?

kizzyr wrote:

The rights and wrongs of abortion are different for each individual and their moral beliefs, standards and convictions. Some believe it is murder of innocent babies others don't, the choice should be there for each woman to make for herself.

what if a group of people decided among themselves that killing black people wasn't murder? should they be allowed make the choice?

kizzyr wrote:

Over 6,000 Irish women travel to the UK for abortions every year, given those figures it is obvious that there is a demand for the provision of that service in this country and that not everyone agrees that it is murder.

there's a demand for cocaine aswell

kizzyr

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

I think the whole situation is ridiculous. Nobody should be able to tell you what you are and what you are'nt allowed do with your own body, its obsurd and stems bag to the ridiculous law in this country about abortion....

I think every one should have the right to make there own decision.[/QUOTE]
I agree 100%. The rights and wrongs of abortion are down to each individual. No society will ever get full agreement on whether this and other moral dilemmas such as the right to die etc are right or wrong. However the choice should be available, then those that think its wrong can carry on not having abortions and thinking that its wrong and those that feel it is their only option at that time have that option. Not allowing free access to abortion in Ireland doesn't mean its not happening and that Irish women aren't having them, we are simple exporting the problem and because the clinics they are attending aren't in Ireland we can turn a blind eye (something we are spectacularly good at) and pretend that we are still a good clean living Catholic country where the evil that is abortion is not tolerated. :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

I think the whole situation is ridiculous. Nobody should be able to tell you what you are and what you are'nt allowed do with your own body, its obsurd and stems bag to the ridiculous law in this country about abortion....

I think every one should have the right to make there own decision.

what if i decide to kill you?

kizzyr

Commander Vimes wrote:

what if i decide to kill you?

There is a world of difference between killing an existing human being and a foetus.

PinkPrincess26

This is what annoys me about this country...

Were talking about an embryo here, do you know how small an embryo is or what it looks like, i suggest you look it up.......

Sam Vimes

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

This is what annoys me about this country...

Were talking about an embryo here, do you know how small an embryo is or what it looks like, i suggest you look it up.......

you keep telling yourself that.

to a woman who wants a baby, that embryo is most certainly a baby. a woman who wants a baby will kill to protect that embryo. its only those who don't want babies that argue from your perspective

Sam Vimes

kizzyr wrote:

There is a world of difference between killing an existing human being and a foetus.

i don't think there is and i was just rebutting her point directly. all she said was someone should have the choice if something affects your body

PinkPrincess26

Commander Vimes wrote:

what if i decide to kill you?

what a ridiculous statement.....

kizzyr

Commander Vimes wrote:

you keep telling yourself that.

to a woman who wants a baby, that embryo is most certainly a baby. a woman who wants a baby will kill to protect that embryo. its only those who don't want babies that argue from your perspective

Because she is chosing to continue with the pregnancy, its her choice.

If an embryo and the foetus it becomes after week 6 really is a human being, a person with a personality then why when something goes wrong with the pregnancy and the woman miscarries is what has happened termed a miscarriage and written up as such RATHER than being termed a death and a death certificate being written up? AFAIK this doesn't happen until week 26 when it is very occasionally possible that the foetus would have been viable outside the uterus and so is considered a person.

PinkPrincess26

Commander Vimes wrote:

you keep telling yourself that.

to a woman who wants a baby, that embryo is most certainly a baby. a woman who wants a baby will kill to protect that embryo. its only those who don't want babies that argue from your perspective

I have a child. I chose to have that child, at the time my circumstances allowed me to have a child.

But regardless of what circumstances a women is in, she should have the choice to do what she wants with her own body.

Its no one else right.

Boston

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

I have a child. I chose to have that child, at the time my circumstances allowed me to have a child.

But regardless of what circumstances a women is in, she should have the choice to do what she wants with her own body.

Its no one else right.

Some would argue that you excercised your right and made your choice by getting pregnant in the first place.

PinkPrincess26

Boston wrote:

Some would argue that you excercised your right and made your choice by getting pregnant in the first place.

I decided to have sex. I decided to get pregnant. I decided to go through with the pregnancy.

But if I didnt want to go through with the pregnancy, that right should me mine and no-one elses.

Nevyn

It seems to me that the HSE did not want to send someone over to accompany the teen and to sign the papers. They will throw money atthe issue to kept thier hand clean and keep the issue out of the country rather then tackle it, but then again that would be the current goverment policy trickling down.

Will this country grow up in the next 20 years to treat reproductive rights as just that rights ?
A woman can still not pay to have a tubal ligiation preformed in this country under the age of 25.
Over the age of 25 if she has 4 children or over the age of 35 if she has two children, but a 21 year old can not decide to have a tubal ligation ( which can be reversed if she wishes ) and pay for it privatly in thise country. In the Uk after she has undergone a screen process the NHS will pay for it.

As for young Miss D, she has been let down again and again by the state.
Why did it take so long for her to be put in care ?
Why was she never educated properly about sexual health and contraception ( an ounce of prevention is better then a pound of cure ) ?
Why is it that the cost of contraception is so prohibitive so many young people ?
and honestly I would hate to think that she considered having a child at 17 as a way out of home
and on to a housing list and as way for indepandace.

Her circumstances are certainly tragic and everyday makes her condition more complex and harder for her to recover from but fair play to her for allowing the case to be tried publically
( with the instructions she is nto to be identified ) as this case due to the fact she is a minor
and is in conflict with those standing in loco parentis could have been tried in camera.

ellenmelon

Kernel wrote:

Very selfish attitute. And no doubt, you also don't believe the father should have any say in what happens to the child either?

you think its selfish. i dont.

in this specific case that started the thread, it was the father that brought the case to court so that his girlfriend could go to england to have the termination.he had more than a say dont you think? i still dont see how its selfish. when a girl finds out she's pregnant, its usually only a few weeks in and it doesnt resemble a child as would be commonly known yet. most girls and women do let their partners know about the pregancy if they feel that the guy could cope with it..its their relationship and its up to her to decide whether she'll tell him. its really ideal that she does, though even if he was against it would he be so heartless as to make his girlfriend go to full term with an unwanted baby? sometimes the partner will agree with the woman and they will terminate..(im sure i mentioned my friend previously who terminated her pregnancy, after consulting with her partner. they were so young..only just 17 and basically homeless. they are now settled with an awesome 2 year old kid!)
in the case of a one night stand..i mean, arent they usually casual affairs? an unexpected "hey! im pregnant!" would be unwelcome some cases aye.

Sam Vimes

Boston wrote:

Some would argue that you excercised your right and made your choice by getting pregnant in the first place.

very good point.


having sex is the choice, pregnancy is the consequence. if i kill someone i can't tell the judge that i choose not to go to jail. i would have already made my choice