17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

coffee_cake

kizzyr wrote:

Ah yes infanticide, I had forgotten about this. It may have changed very recently I'm not sure but on the assumption that it has, I will use the past tense on this one. Did you know that until recently if a woman killed her baby within one year of it being born she could not be charged with (and so found guilty of) murder whereas if the father did the same he would be. The reasoning behind it was hormones, PPD etc all affecting the mental state of the mother.

Do you have backing for this?

kizzyr

bluewolf wrote:

Do you have backing for this?

Yes, somewhere but trying (for the moment) not to be too obvious about spending the day here rather than working!! It may be later this evening when I get home that I have enough uninterrupted time to get it. I'm not saying that the woman was allowed to get off scott free she wasn't. It was probably filed under some mental health act and so she was packed off to the Central Mental Hospital or something. The point I was making was that it is legally recognised that motherhood is a massive massive thing for any woman and that some cannot, through no fault of their own, cope with it and so death of an infant may occur. PPD is a dreadful thing and affects many women, some of them badly enough for the death of their infant to be the end result and I was asking those who feel a woman should just put up and shut up with being pregnant rather than have an abortion, if this was the better option.

Boston

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

Its funny that the two posters who seem completely against this are MEN. you dont know what its like to feel pregnan and you never will, you will never have to make the choice on wheather to keep or abort a pregnancy as it is ultimately the choice of the women as it is HER BODY.

I presume you're talking to me. I never said I was against this girl being allowed have an abortion.

I'm sick to death also of certain women making out that men shouldn't have an opinion on this. Men are part of the process through which a new life comes into the world. The minute the child is born they can be held accountable to that child just as much as the mother is, but when the rights of the mother conflict with the rights of the father, the mother rights, in the vast majority of cases, are given preference over the fathers. So forgive me it all the ranting about the childs rights being put before the mothers falls on deaf ears.

kizzyr wrote:

How are you being incompetent? You've taken precautions and for reasons beyond your control they didn't work properly and so you are pregnant. By taking precautions in the first place it is clear that you didn't want a pregnancy to result but it has and now you have a choice to make: go through with this pregnancy that you don't want and so has been forced on you or you can decide not to and terminate it.

No contraception is 100% it is incompetence at life to believe so. You trust your life to a thin piece of rubber, sooner or later you will come up short.

b3t4

Boston wrote:

I'm sick to death also of certain women making out that men shouldn't have an opinion on this. Men are part of the process through which a new life comes into the world.

Ejaculation != pregnancy

Ejaculation, a couple of seconds.
Pregnancy, 9months

A.

kizzyr

b3t4 wrote:

Ejaculation != pregnancy

Ejaculation, a couple of seconds.
Pregnancy, 9months

A.

And pleasurable seconds at that. I've yet to meet a woman who described her pregnancy, labour and delivery of her baby as pleasurable.

Boston

Ah yes, fathers are just sperm donors. I'm not going to win that argument as anyone who follows that line of though is severely delusional.

coffee_cake

Boston wrote:

I'm sick to death also of certain women making out that men shouldn't have an opinion on this. Men are part of the process through which a new life comes into the world. The minute the child is born they can be held accountable to that child just as much as the mother is, but when the rights of the mother conflict with the rights of the father, the mother rights, in the vast majority of cases, are given preference over the fathers. So forgive me it all the ranting about the childs rights being put before the mothers falls on deaf ears.

Personally I think the father should get a fair say in it, but not the ultimate decision since she's the one carrying it. Ideally, should be worked out between then somehow.

Of course that does leave an unwanting father possibly having to pay child support, which would have to be resolved too...

b3t4

As far as pregnancy is concerned fathers are sperm donors. Once the baby is born however things are very different story as you said in your own post.

Abortion is about the termination of a pregnancy which would mean the weight of the decision about an abortion would lie with the woman as the only the woman will have to endure pregnancy.

A.

Tar.Aldarion

Make up your minds..
If a father is just a donor, they should never have to pay child support, ever.
If they are not just sperm donors, they should have a say.

PinkPrincess26

Boston wrote:

I presume you're talking to me. I never said I was against this girl being allowed have an abortion.

I'm sick to death also of certain women making out that men shouldn't have an opinion on this. Men are part of the process through which a new life comes into the world. The minute the child is born they can be held accountable to that child just as much as the mother is, but when the rights of the mother conflict with the rights of the father, the mother rights, in the vast majority of cases, are given preference over the fathers. So forgive me it all the ranting about the childs rights being put before the mothers falls on deaf ears.

Ultimately it is the womens choice, as after all it is her body..... I do however think it should be discussed with a partner/husband....... before making any decision. but the final yay or neh comes down to the woman....

If a couple are married well then the father has the same rights as the mother, re custody and he is automatically the childs guardian.

If a couple have a child out of wed lock, the father can apply for guardianship, this will always be given to a father who reguarly see and helps support his child.

Dont make stupid comments that you cant back up.....

PinkPrincess26

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Make up your minds..
If a father is just a donor, they should never have to pay child support, ever.
If they are not just sperm donors, they should have a say.

I think were getting a little off topic here.

and I just have to say typical statement from a typical man.... How surprising


They can have an opinion on it, but the final decision comes down to the Woman AS IT IS HER BODY......

Tar.Aldarion

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

I think were getting a little off topic here.

and I just have to say typical statement from a typical man.... How surprising


They can have an opinion on it, but the final decision comes down to the Woman AS IT IS HER BODY......

I'm not a man. It's a baby, not her body.
I can make blanket stupid statements too.


Typical woman.

PinkPrincess26

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I'm not a man. It's a baby, not her body.
I can make blanket stupid statements too.


Typical woman.

Its not a baby...... Its an EMBRYO IN THE WOMENS BODY SO therefore HER CHOICE

Tar.Aldarion

Big words make you clever. tt

PinkPrincess26

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Big words make you clever. tt

NO BIG WORDS SOMETIMES HELP STUPID PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THINGS MORE CLEARLY........

I think were a little off point here so maybe we can get back to the issue....

aidan_walsh

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0502/abortion.html

The Attorney General has instructed a senior counsel to represent the interests of the unborn in the court case being taken by a 17-year-old girl who wishes to travel to the UK for an abortion.

James Connolly SC told the High Court this morning that he had been instructed by the Attorney General to represent the interests of the unborn.

This means the AG will have two teams of lawyers at the case; the other will represent the State.

Mr Justice Liam McKechnie also heard the Free Legal Aid Board has granted legal aid to the mother of the 17-year-old girl so that she too can be represented.

The challenge by the girl, who is four months pregnant with a baby that cannot survive for more than three days after he or she is born, is due to begin tomorrow.

coffee_cake

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Make up your minds..
If a father is just a donor, they should never have to pay child support, ever.
If they are not just sperm donors, they should have a say.

That's what I was trying to say... kinda.

b3t4

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

If a father is just a donor, they should never have to pay child support, ever.

It's child support not pregnancy support.

If they are not just sperm donors, they should have a say.

They should have a say yes but the final decision is the woman's.

My point was that a lot of men forget the fact that pregnancy isn't a walk in the park and takes an immense toil on a woman's body.

Ah this is completely off topic.

That poor girl must be going through such an awful, awful time right now and I hope that someone, somewhere sees the sense to allow her the right to travel.

I find it heartless that anyone would try to fight that this girl should be forced to endure a pregnancy that will lead to even more torture and heartache

A.

Tar.Aldarion

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

NO BIG WORDS SOMETIMES HELP STUPID PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THINGS MORE CLEARLY........

I think were a little off point here so maybe we can get back to the issue....

Rolleyes.
Let's just state more opinion as fact shall we...

It's child support not pregnancy support.

That is irrelevant.


Anyway, yes, it is ridiculous that the HSE are trying to stop her leave the country, they may not like it but they don't have the right.


Hey bluey, what was different with your opinion?

coffee_cake

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Hey bluey, what was different with your opinion?

Well I wasn't taking the NO PAYING SUPPORT EVARRR route, more like "there's a bit of a double standard that should be sorted imo"

Tar.Aldarion

Yes, yes, so we are saying the same thing, but I am taking out the shock tactics to get a good rowdy debate going.

Sam Vimes

Lemming wrote:

You're not preventing "someone" dying. Go consult a medical textbook to show otherwise. You're the one making the unqualified statement challenging medical fact, it's up to you to prove your statement.

it may not be conscious. it may be unable to survive without a womb. however, it is most certainly alive

Lemming wrote:

No it doesn't actually. you really do need to think your arguments through. My eating meat but not people is not hypocrasy since I'm not the one arguing that life should be protected and then go and tuck into a nice big fat juicy burger.

so you think its ok to kill people then do you? come on now, saying that human life is more important than animal life is not hypocracy and you know it

Lemming wrote:

In that case your statement is utterly unfounded and based on pure opinion rather than fact. So drop the pseudo-science. It's not science. It's personal belief.

well how does a medical text book define a person then? i'd describe it as a living being with dna matching the human genome.

Lemming wrote:

When it's born. And I think you'll find the state agrees since a birth cert will be issued and the child recognised as a citizen of the state with all the privelges entailed. Until it's born, no such recognition will be conferred by the state on what is a "possible" person and citizen.

again, we're not talking about the legalities of it, we're talking about the morality of it. and of course, this neglects the fact that an abortion is illegal after 24 weeks in england. they don't agree with you that a fetus has no rights it seems.

Lemming wrote:

I don't need to. you're the one trying to argue against medical treatise. Doesn't work that way ... Sorry, better luck next time.

just because you say i am doesn't mean i am. a fetus is a living being. it has human dna and given enough time will become a full human. a baby is also not fully developed but we don't kill them

Lemming wrote:

And as an aside, if you cannot be bothered to look - and freely admit to it - why the f*ck should I indulge you laziness?

i wasn't actually suggesting you look up a text book, i was firing your own comment back at you

Sam Vimes

kizzyr wrote:

Once it is possible for it to survive outside the uterus. This can happen 2 days before the due date, it can happen 2 weeks before the due date. This is why there are cut off points for abortion.

a baby can kick long before it can survive outside the womb. signs of consciousness i think

PeakOutput

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

Boston wrote:

I presume you're talking to me. I never said I was against this girl being allowed have an abortion.

I'm sick to death also of certain women making out that men shouldn't have an opinion on this. Men are part of the process through which a new life comes into the world. The minute the child is born they can be held accountable to that child just as much as the mother is, but when the rights of the mother conflict with the rights of the father, the mother rights, in the vast majority of cases, are given preference over the fathers. So forgive me it all the ranting about the childs rights being put before the mothers falls on deaf ears.

Ultimately it is the womens choice, as after all it is her body..... I do however think it should be discussed with a partner/husband....... before making any decision. but the final yay or neh comes down to the woman....

If a couple are married well then the father has the same rights as the mother, re custody and he is automatically the childs guardian.

If a couple have a child out of wed lock, the father can apply for guardianship, this will always be given to a father who reguarly see and helps support his child.

Dont make stupid comments that you cant back up.....

if you believe the father should not have any say then whats the problem with the father having a contract to sign that you will never hold the father financially liable for the child

if you want support from the father he gets a say if you dont he dosnt. if you believe anything other than this you are a hypocrite

also his statement about mothers being treated preferentialy in the courts is factually and statistically correct

Nevyn

Commander Vimes wrote:

a baby can kick long before it can survive outside the womb. signs of consciousness i think

Muscle spasm does not equal life

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

In about 1766, Galvani began investigating the action of electricity upon the muscles of frogs. By observing the twitching in the muscles of frog legs suspended by copper hooks on an iron rail, Galvani was led to the invention of the metallic arc. The arc was made of two different metals, such than when one metal was placed in contact with a frog’s nerve and the other in contact with a muscle, a contraction would occur.[3]
Statue of Galvani in Bologna.
Statue of Galvani in Bologna.

In 1783, according to popular version of the story, Galvani dissected a frog at a table where he had been conducting experiments with static electricity, Galvani's assistant touched an exposed sciatic nerve of the frog with a metal scalpel, which had picked up a charge.[citation needed] At that moment, they saw sparks in an electricity machine and the dead frog's leg kick as if in life. The observation made Galvani the first investigator to appreciate the relationship between electricity and animation — or life. This finding provided a basis for the current understanding that electrical energy (carried by ions), and not air or fluid as in earlier balloonist theories, is the impetus behind muscle movement. He is typically credited with the discovery of bioelectricity.

Galvani coined the term animal electricity to describe whatever it was that activated the muscles of his specimens. Along with contemporaries, he regarded their activation as being generated by an electrical fluid that is carried to the muscles by the nerves. The phenomenon was dubbed "galvanism", after Galvani, on the suggestion of his peer and sometime intellectual adversary Alessandro Volta.

Glowing

The only positive point (probably too strong a word) about this girl going full term with the pregnancy is that she would get the chance to say goodbye to her child. She could grieve safe in the knowledge that she had nothing to do with his or her death.

Just my two cents.

takola

Does that mean you would hold her responsible for the babies death if she had an abortion Glowing?

The_Minister

takola wrote:

Does that mean you would hold her responsible for the babies death if she had an abortion Glowing?

I would. Wouldn't you? She wants to pay someone to scramble its brains then scoop it out (when you get right down to it). Ergo, she is as responsible as someone who takes a hit out on someone. (Same type of responsibility, not the same level). She ordered it killed.

Thaedydal, your link does not explain why babies in the womb kick when they hear music.

Boston

PinkPrincess26 wrote:

Ultimately it is the womens choice, as after all it is her body..... I do however think it should be discussed with a partner/husband....... before making any decision. but the final yay or neh comes down to the woman....

If a couple are married well then the father has the same rights as the mother, re custody and he is automatically the childs guardian.

If a couple have a child out of wed lock, the father can apply for guardianship, this will always be given to a father who reguarly see and helps support his child.

Dont make stupid comments that you cant back up.....

Who mentioned guardian ship? Point to me the stupid comment i made about guardian ship, go on, back up your own comments.

Fathers, epscially those that have a child out of wed lock, have nothing like the rights that the mother has. The mother is always considered the primary parent in cases of dispute unless she is shown to be unfit in someway.

As far as pregnancy is concerned fathers are sperm donors. Once the baby is born however things are very different story as you said in your own post.

If men are sperm donors, women are walking talking wombs for the duration of the pregnancy.

Abortion is about the termination of a pregnancy which would mean the weight of the decision about an abortion would lie with the woman as the only the woman will have to endure pregnancy.

For some, from the second they find out about the pregnancy, its a baby. For them its very real and the termination of the pregnancy is as painfull as loosing a baby. And these people aren't rare btw. So when you say only the woman endures the pregnancy and only the woman lives with the abortion, thats not necessarily true.

kizzyr

The_Minister wrote:

I would. Wouldn't you? She wants to pay someone to scramble its brains then scoop it out (when you get right down to it). Ergo, she is as responsible as someone who takes a hit out on someone. (Same type of responsibility, not the same level). She ordered it killed.

Thaedydal, your link does not explain why babies in the womb kick when they hear music.

If the girl believes it is not a baby and therefore not a person at this stage of development then she does not see herself as an assassin as you describe her. As for "scrambling its brains" as you so eloquently put it, in this case the foetus has nothing going on up there, in fact it doesn't even have an "up there" and could well die in utero. Then, this girl, who has already had a pretty harsh hand dealt to her, will have to go through the labour and delivery of a stillborn and all not to offend the sensibilities of some people who are insisting, despite the total lack of scientific proof, that this is a person with equal rights to her. Except her rights aren't equal they don't even seem to count right now do they?