Miss D termination case

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

I know we risk a pantomime refrain of 'oh yes it does' and 'on no it doesn't', but the simple fact that the law (which is produced by people) sets a limit simply does mean that the idea that the mother has an overriding right is undermined. To create a position where we see no authority as being higher requires an argument that says the UK abortion regime is illiberal as it envisages situations where a woman will be forced to proceed with a pregancy that she wishes to terminate.

Well, alright, just another quick round, then...I'm not arguing that the mother has an over-riding right. I am arguing that she is, and the law recognises that she is, the best judge as long as abortion is a legal option.

Schuhart wrote:

(Incidently, he's behind you.)

Actually, I think he may be behind the curtain...

Schuhart wrote:

The first bit is obviously shared ground - the general desirability of parental involvement where the girl is too young, subject to practical realities. What's left is really just the cutoff date. As we know, that's really arbitrary. I'd have a vague feeling that it should dovetail with general consent - I can't see why we'd deem someone too immature to decide if they want to sleep with someone, but mature enough to decide they need an abortion.

Indeed, but then legislating sex has always been more a matter of emotion than reason.

Schuhart wrote:

I'm just checking - you may have taken this into account in your statement. You'll understand what I've said is 'in the short term' by which I mean a pair of 15 year olds will hardly be taking on substantial parental responsibilities until they've left school. I think its no more than realistic to recognise the grandparents will fill the gap by default. But, of course, when they're 21 and their child is 6, you'd expect them to be taking the lead.

Hmm. My own experience is that, amongst those most likely to have teenage pregnancies, formal schooling is unlikely to take precedence over parenting. Indeed, there are schools that have creches...and not for the teachers.

Schuhart wrote:

One general thought on the thread, half arising from that. We seem to implicitly consider the issue to be a teenager seeking an abortion, but being blocked by her parents on moral grounds. I'd suggest that an equally likely scenario would be a teenager wanting to keep her child, but facing parental doubts because
a) They feel she's too young to have a child and it will mess up her life, particularly if she has school to finish
b) They don't want to be de facto stuck minding their daughter's child, all because some pimply adolescent that they've no respect for got a leg over
c) They don't want the neighbours knowing
Or some combination of all three. I'm not saying that, in principle, it changes where rights and responsibilities lie. But it might be worth bearing that alternative scenario in mind.

Yes, your scenario is certainly possible - indeed, I have heard of it. Where abortion is both legal and acceptable, it might even become a more common scenario - it certainly seems so in Eastern Europe/Russia.

To me, it doesn't change the right to privacy of the girl. I don't know whether the same is true of those who are resolutely opposed to abortion - would PDN/Jakkass/BC resolutely support the right of the girl's parents to knowledge in that case?

Pregnancy is obviously more difficult to cover up than an abortion (post about 5 months in the case of the first pregnancy) - when I was young they still ran 6-month residential AnCo courses the other end of the country for the seriously embarrassed. Of course, that was back in the good old days when girls died giving birth behind stone walls...

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

PDN wrote:

No, I am not implying that. But I am saying that creating a culture where parents have no right to know if their under-age children are involved in sexual activity is very dangerous. I personally would not wish to raise a family in such a society, because it would prevent me from being a good parent.

If you were a good parent, your kids would want to tell you anyway though...

I don't think they should be telling you because they're forced to.
It's not like they're saying they should be prevented from telling you.

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

If you were a good parent, your kids would want to tell you anyway though...

I don't think they should be telling you because they're forced to.
It's not like they're saying they should be prevented from telling you.

I want you to think about the statement you have posted. Thousands of children have been molested in Ireland and, due to threats, shame etc, did not tell their parents. Are you really prepared to argue that all their mothers and fathers were somehow not good parents?

The reason we have laws to protect children is because, being immature, they are not yet equipped to make certain choices. Once they become adults then their sex lives are nobody's business but their own (providing it is with consenting adults).

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

the best judge as long as abortion is a legal option.

I’d have to say as long as abortion is a legal option within her discretion which almost makes it a tautology – she can decide when she’s legally allowed to decide.

To me, law simply reflects whatever society determines through whatever structures it has for deciding such matters. The thought is caught in that line “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.”

Scofflaw wrote:

legislating sex has always been more a matter of emotion than reason.

Absolutely. 14 year old girl and 30 year old man is all yuck. 14 year old boy and 30 year old woman has quite a different ring, and we really have to manufacture outrage to pretend we see it as equally a case of a minor being lead astray.

Scofflaw wrote:

My own experience is that, amongst those most likely to have teenage pregnancies,

How extensive is this experience, you old dog?

Scofflaw wrote:

formal schooling is unlikely to take precedence over parenting.

I don’t doubt that can happen, but I suppose in whatever knowledge I’d claim of the matter would involve the daughter not being allowed to forget this is her child but at the same time given enough support and space by the grandparents to finish her education.

Scofflaw wrote:

would PDN/Jakkass/BC resolutely support the right of the girl's parents to knowledge in that case?

I think that would be interesting to know – my feeling is, for better or worse, if the girl is too young to be deemed competent the decision has to involve her parents, even if this means they talk her out of a shaky resolution to proceed with the pregnancy. Is that something that others share? Are we talking about the family having a right to choose, rather than the girl alone having a right to choose?

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

To me, it doesn't change the right to privacy of the girl. I don't know whether the same is true of those who are resolutely opposed to abortion - would PDN/Jakkass/BC resolutely support the right of the girl's parents to knowledge in that case?

I would absolutely support the rights of the parents to know that their daughter is pregnant, even if they are likely to take a wrong course of action on the basis of that knowledge.

PDN

PDN wrote:

I want you to think about the statement you have posted. Thousands of children have been molested in Ireland and, due to threats, shame etc, did not tell their parents. Are you really prepared to argue that all their mothers and fathers were somehow not good parents?

The reason we have laws to protect children is because, being immature, they are not yet equipped to make certain choices. Once they become adults then their sex lives are nobody's business but their own (providing it is with consenting adults).

So you're saying that two 16 year olds consenting to having sex is the same as being molested?

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

So you're saying that two 16 year olds consenting to having sex is the same as being molested?

Good grief! Why can't we have a sensible discussion instead of these silly games? You know fine well that isn't what I'm saying.

I'm saying that children will not always tell their parents everything they should tell them, irrespective of how good or otherwise their parents are.

Michael G

PoleStar wrote:

As for the mention of euthanasia, thats a completely different argument and nothing to do with this debate. I raised it in the case of being kind to animals to illustrate a point.

It isn't really a different question that has nothing to do with this debate. In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer sets out the utilitarian argument for making no distinction between abortion on the one hand and, on the other, infanticide or the killing of a child or adult who is so congenitally mentally damaged as to have no sense of self, like an unborn child or an infant. Once you allowed for his utilitarian premises, there was no discernible fault in his logic.

PoleStar

Michael G wrote:

It isn't really a different question that has nothing to do with this debate. In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer sets out the utilitarian argument for making no distinction between abortion on the one hand and, on the other, infanticide or the killing of a child or adult who is so congenitally mentally damaged as to have no sense of self, like an unborn child or an infant. Once you allowed for his utilitarian premises, there was no discernible fault in his logic.

I do understand the similarity of the argument, however I did not want to get into the other aspect that this debate would get into, i.e. Euthanasia. That is all I meant. I guess all I am saying is that for me, the notion of personal suffering is paramount. And perhaps I am not the one to decide, however to me a child with no brain will suffer. Thus in my opinion abortion in this case minimises suffering, both for the child and the mother. Similar to my animal example.

We could start a new thread on euthanasia if you wish!

Michael G

We could, but I don't think it's a different topic. Arguments for abortion usually rely on the view that an unborn child has not achieved the same rights as its mother or other adults (I use the word adults to include not just grown-up people but also children who have reached a state of self-awareness). The arguments for involuntary euthanasia also invoke born children or adults who are either incapable of achieving self-awareness or have lost it and can never recover it.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

In certain circumstances this would most definitely be the correct course of action.

No, actually it wouldn't.

If a parent is deemed unfit to look after a child the child is not simply given to the grandparents. In fact there is no obligation at all on any social services to even inform the grandparents of this fact unless the parent herself is at risk.

Like it or not it is not the grandparents right to take possession of the child away from the parent just because they think they know best.

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is our responsibility as parents to guide, teach and help our minor children throughto adulthood.

There is nothing stopping you from guiding teaching or offering to help your children. This issue only comes into play in the first place if the parent or future parent, does not wish to inform her own parents that she is pregnant. And if that is the case I seriously doubt that she feels that her parents will "guide, teach and help" her if they knew she was pregnant.

BrianCalgary wrote:

You can leave your daughters to the 4 winds if you so desire.

I would hope that I would be the kind of parent that my children felt they could come freely to and tell me any major issue that they are facing without fearing what my response would be.

And to be honest if it ever was the case that my daughter felt she needed to keep something as major like a pregnancy a secret from me I would be more worried about what type of parent I was, than demanding that her doctor inform of what the fact she was pregnant.

Remember BC that privacy laws like this a brought in to protect children from their parents.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I would absolutely support the rights of the parents to know that their daughter is pregnant, even if they are likely to take a wrong course of action on the basis of that knowledge.

Why?

If your daughter if going to have an abortion and does not want you to know that she is pregnant what would you do with this information?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

I would hope that I would be the kind of parent that my children felt they could come freely to and tell me any major issue that they are facing without fearing what my response would be.

And to be honest if it ever was the case that my daughter felt she needed to keep something as major like a pregnancy a secret from me I would be more worried about what type of parent I was, than demanding that her doctor inform of what the fact she was pregnant.

Wicknight, we agree.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Why?

If your daughter if going to have an abortion and does not want you to know that she is pregnant what would you do with this information?

The question was actually in relation to a child that didn't want an abortion.

Either way, parents have the right to be informed of such a major issue in their child's life. The parents are responsible for their child. That responsibility cannot be fulfilled if the State connives in keeping parents in ignorance. The very idea reeks of totalitarianism.

PDN

By the way, in post 252 Wicknight has put something in quotes with my name on it, but I never said anything about leaving your daughters to the 4 winds. I don't know who he's quoting, but it ain't me!

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Good grief! Why can't we have a sensible discussion instead of these silly games? You know fine well that isn't what I'm saying.

I'm saying that children will not always tell their parents everything they should tell them, irrespective of how good or otherwise their parents are.

I accept your point that children may not tell their parents something they should, as evidenced by keeping abuse secret, no matter how good or otherwise their parents are.

However, we are talking about an automatic right to privacy, and the right not to tell your parents about something.

Assume for a moment that child A is being abused, and doesn't tell her parents, even though they are very good parents indeed (for rhetorical purposes, let's assume they are perfect parents).

Will she, or would she, tell a counsellor? Given she won't tell her parents, is she more or less likely to tell a counsellor if the counsellor is legally obliged to pass that information on to her parents?

Is it better that she tells someone? I certainly think so,and I think if you won't tell your parents, you won't go within a mile of a counsellor who would be legally obliged to do so.

The same thing goes for abortion. If the girl is in need of advice and counselling, emotional support and a listening ear, but will not tell her parents, then it is better to provide a service that provides all those things.

It may not be perfect, but one should not allow the best to be the enemy of the good - particularly when the 'best' solution is unrealistic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

The question was actually in relation to a child that didn't want an abortion.

Either way, parents have the right to be informed of such a major issue in their child's life. The parents are responsible for their child. That responsibility cannot be fulfilled if the State connives in keeping parents in ignorance. The very idea reeks of totalitarianism.

No, the very idea reeks of privacy, which is almost the diametric opposite of totalitarianism. You're merely attempting to substitute your rules for the State's rules - and yours are the more totalitarian set of rules.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

By the way, in post 252 Wicknight has put something in quotes with my name on it, but I never said anything about leaving your daughters to the 4 winds. I don't know who he's quoting, but it ain't me!

Apologies, fixed now

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The parents are responsible for their child. That responsibility cannot be fulfilled if the State connives in keeping parents in ignorance. The very idea reeks of totalitarianism.

The parents have a responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the child.

But that of course doesn't mean the parents will always act in the best interests of the child, and often parents being ignorant of a situation of a child is actually in the best interests of the child.

If a child refuses to tell her parents that she is pregnant there is probably a reason for this. If this is the case is it in the best interests of the child that the parents are informed against her request for privacy?

Also if the parents are informed against the wishes of the child, what would the parents do with this information?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Apologies, fixed now

No problem. I get in enough trouble for what I have said without having to answer for what someone else has said.

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Assume for a moment that child A is being abused, and doesn't tell her parents, even though they are very good parents indeed (for rhetorical purposes, let's assume they are perfect parents).

Will she, or would she, tell a counsellor? Given she won't tell her parents, is she more or less likely to tell a counsellor if the counsellor is legally obliged to pass that information on to her parents?

Is it better that she tells someone? I certainly think so,and I think if you won't tell your parents, you won't go within a mile of a counsellor who would be legally obliged to do so.

The same thing goes for abortion. If the girl is in need of advice and counselling, emotional support and a listening ear, but will not tell her parents, then it is better to provide a service that provides all those things.

It may not be perfect, but one should not allow the best to be the enemy of the good - particularly when the 'best' solution is unrealistic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am wondering what the law is in Ireland.

Here in Canada if a kid gives me a hint of any abuse I am legally bound to report it, or else I am considered and accessory.

Although the law is well intentioned it can have difficulties of it's own.

PDN

PDN wrote:

Good grief! Why can't we have a sensible discussion instead of these silly games? You know fine well that isn't what I'm saying.

I'm saying that children will not always tell their parents everything they should tell them, irrespective of how good or otherwise their parents are.

Sorry I had to rush off so I didn't make my post longer and explain

there's no connection between being molested and a knowing, understanding legal child having sex. And if you have to demand legal rights before the latter will have a conversation with you on something so important, then I think the question of being a good or bad parent is long past.

tbh I think a counsellor should strongly suggest that the girl talk to her parents unless there's a particularly bad relationship, but a girl isn't going to talk to a counsellor for help if they're just going to turn around and tell on her

Michael G

Is it true that the young woman in this case has decided not to have an abortion after all?

Asiaprod

Michael G wrote:

Is it true that the young woman in this case has decided not to have an abortion after all?

Yes, I believe that was her final choice. I think she is going to induce the pregnancy and acccept the inevitable.

panda100

Asiaprod wrote:

Yes, I believe that was her final choice. I think she is going to induce the pregnancy and acccept the inevitable.

Really?So she's not going to England?She's actually going to give birth to the baby?

Asiaprod

panda100 wrote:

Really?So she's not going to England?She's actually going to give birth to the baby?

No, my understanding is she is going to England and will return to bury the child in Ireland. I thought that being induced in this case was like a premature inducement and could not be conducted in Ireland. I think you would need to confirm this as I am not really following the issue that closely over here.

PoleStar

Must clarify the misconceptions here.

She is going to have an abortion.

As has been stated it will be a medically induced abortion as opposed to a surgical abortion however it is still an abortion.

Asiaprod

PoleStar wrote:

Must clarify the misconceptions here.

She is going to have an abortion.

As has been stated it will be a medically induced abortion as opposed to a surgical abortion however it is still an abortion.

Thanks for clearing that up for us. That was kind of what I thought but not being medical was not sure how to say it.

panda100

I thought Id just write this here instead of starting a new thread. Im really intrested in getting involved with a pro life group in Ireland.However,I am continually really disgusted at the behaviour of pro life groups. I dont think it was right for them to protest outside the forecourts for what was a really sensitive,confidential case. The only sorta active pro life group seems to be youth defence. Ive heared really bad things about them so Im very wary of becoming involved in a group like this.However,Ive only heared bad stuff about youth defence from pro choice people so it would be good to get unbiased opinion of what there like. Does anyone know of any other active pro life groups in Ireland apart from youth defence?

PDN

panda100 wrote:

I thought Id just write this here instead of starting a new thread. Im really intrested in getting involved with a pro life group in Ireland.However,I am continually really disgusted at the behaviour of pro life groups. I dont think it was right for them to protest outside the forecourts for what was a really sensitive,confidential case. The only sorta active pro life group seems to be youth defence. Ive heared really bad things about them so Im very wary of becoming involved in a group like this.However,Ive only heared bad stuff about youth defence from pro choice people so it would be good to get unbiased opinion of what there like. Does anyone know of any other active pro life groups in Ireland apart from youth defence?

You could check these people out: http://www.prolifecampaign.ie/
I don't know much about them myself.