Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

neonsofa

....... wrote: »

How so?

Having an abortion is no more life changing than any other minor medical procedure.

Some women will have no problems and will continue their life unaffected, others may not find it as easy. And it is not as simple as termination means no baby and as you were, carry on. For many it is, and thankfully they are at peace with their decision, as they should be. But for some it is not as simple or as easy as that. And it can be quite agonising to try and make the right decision sometimes, it's not always a sure clear cut decision that they are happy with unfortunately. And again, that is why I feel that the woman/girls decision on the matter is so important, not what others feel is best, because she is the one who will be living with her decision- however it may or may not affect her.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Sunflower 27

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hair and nails won't grow into a baby.

Zubeneschamali

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Hair and nails won't grow into a baby.

Nor will the fetus in this case.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Hair and nails won't grow into a baby.

Certainly not on their own. But I am constantly awestruck at the advances in medical science and I do wonder if the day will or will not come where, with the right manipulations, there is ANY human cell in your body (remember a significant quantity of the cells in your body are not human) is beyond being used in medically induced reproduction.

Wouldn't it be wonderful when those parents dying for children, but are for whatever reason unable to conceive, will have to do little more than have a patch of cells taken from somewhere in their body and with the right manipulations can be implanted with a joined zygote that is every bit from that point on as "natural" as a child you or I may have?

We can hope. But the potential for any cell to become a child, regardless of whether it is naturally or with the machinations of science..... has never seemed a relevant point for or against abortion to me.

.......

This post has been deleted.

neonsofa

neonsofa wrote: »

Some women will have no problems and will continue their life unaffected, others may not find it as easy. And it is not as simple as termination means no baby and as you were, carry on. For many it is, and thankfully they are at peace with their decision, as they should be. But for some it is not as simple or as easy as that. And it can be quite agonising to try and make the right decision sometimes, it's not always a sure clear cut decision that they are happy with unfortunately. And again, that is why I feel that the woman/girls decision on the matter is so important, not what others feel is best, because she is the one who will be living with her decision- however it may or may not affect her.

what I mean by life changing is that having a baby actually changes a girls life. Having an abortion, may have an emotional affect on that girl, but there will be no life changing. Life will be as before the pregnancy.
Obviously, all people deal with this issues differently & every woman/girl should be aware of all their choices & make whatever decision is best for themselves.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's pretty categorical for something so subjective.

how is it subjective? Having a baby is life changing, is it not?

annascott

I have not read the entire article but do not understand why the mother did not take her to England for the termination without involving authorities here. Was she trying to save money and get the procedure done for free?
It reminds me of the 'x' case from the early 90's. All could have been done quietly if the mother had not taken her daughter to the priest to ask for his blessing!

Galway K9

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

The fact you think miscarriage is due to neglect shows you have no business even debating this.

One of the TOP causes of miscarraiges is
Lifestyle (Cigarettes, Alcohol, Drugs, Environmental Toxins).



Go look at some peer review studies, its not Lifestyle alone as bacterial and PCOS but neglect has alot to do with some miscarraiges. Looks liek your the one who has no business.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Captain Obvious

bubblypop wrote: »

how is it subjective? Having a baby is life changing, is it not?

If you keep it, yes.

kylith

annascott wrote: »

I have not read the entire article but do not understand why the mother did not take her to England for the termination without involving authorities here. Was she trying to save money and get the procedure done for free?
It reminds me of the 'x' case from the early 90's. All could have been done quietly if the mother had not taken her daughter to the priest to ask for his blessing!

Maybe she doesn't have a passport. Maybe she can't afford to travel. Maybe she thought "Abortion is legal where the woman is suicidal. My daughter is suicidal because she is pregnant, therefore she qualifies for a termination in Ireland and we won't have the stress and expense of travelling".

Any road, we should be grateful to this woman and her daughter who, through their strife, have opened our eyes, once again, to the fact that regardless of whether one is entitled to an abortion by law is no guarantee that one will be allowed to have one.

(As an aside, the idea of having to beg to be allowed to have a say over my own body makes me very cross)

Zubeneschamali

annascott wrote: »

I have not read the entire article but do not understand why the mother did not take her to England for the termination without involving authorities here.

Maybe she believed all the spoofology about how abortion is available here per the 8th amendment.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

If you keep it, yes.

It's still life changing, even if you give the child up. Your body has to go through pregnancy & labour, so physically changing.
Also, you still have a child, somewhere. The child may wish to contact you. Your life changes.

Having an abortion, is not life changing

BoatMad

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

No WOMAN should be allowed murder a child if she wants to.

Then it's necessary to castrate all men

In the real world however ....

neonsofa

bubblypop wrote: »

It's still life changing, even if you give the child up. Your body has to go through pregnancy & labour, so physically changing.
Also, you still have a child, somewhere. The child may wish to contact you. Your life changes.

Having an abortion, is not life changing

Again, life changing in the sense that your lifestyle changes, no. But it is still a huge decision to make, sometimes an agonising one that remains with the woman for the rest of her life (not saying it should, or will) and it was in the context of making the decision that OEJ was speaking about in his post which led to this discussion. Deciding to keep the baby obviously leads to significantly more changes to the woman's life, but the decision she has to make is a significant one which requires consideration regardless of the choice she ultimately makes and I think that is the point OEJ was making, that the choice the person makes requires equal amounts of consideration, for different reasons, not that the choices result in the same outcome lifestyle wise. If that makes sense?

The person OEJ was responding to was claiming that a younger person doesn't always understand the realities of decisions and therefore shouldnt be making the life changing decisions. They were saying this in reference to a teenager deciding to keep a child and that they need counselling on such, and OEJ- I think- was pointing out that by that logic they should also deem a younger person unable to decide upon termination for themselves- as let's face it a termination is a permanent decision with no going back, despite the fact it results in less change as you say, so a person needs to be sure that the choice they are making is their own and that they are making it for their own reasons not what people deem is statistically the better choice. Basically it should come down to the woman's choice.

I hope that makes sense. We agree on the life changing bit but I think it was not really the point as such in regards to the point OEJ was initially making, if you get me?

Captain Obvious

kylith wrote: »

Maybe she doesn't have a passport. Maybe she can't afford to travel. Maybe she thought "Abortion is legal where the woman is suicidal. My daughter is suicidal because she is pregnant, therefore she qualifies for a termination in Ireland and we won't have the stress and expense of travelling".

Any road, we should be grateful to this woman and her daughter who, through their strife, have opened our eyes, once again, to the fact that regardless of whether one is entitled to an abortion by law is no guarantee that one will be allowed to have one.

(As an aside, the idea of having to beg to be allowed to have a say over my own body makes me very cross)

Most anti abortion people don't give a toss about what you do to your own body. They care about the one inside you. I can't understand how people on both sides of this debate consistently fail to comprehend the actual issue.

Captain Obvious

bubblypop wrote: »

It's still life changing, even if you give the child up. Your body has to go through pregnancy & labour, so physically changing.
Also, you still have a child, somewhere. The child may wish to contact you. Your life changes.

Having an abortion, is not life changing

I disagree. If you give it up it's really just another medical procedure. Sure there are some possible repercussions but the same can be said of abortion. Medical, relationship and emotional repercussions. I get that it's easier to rationalise an abortion for some people if they think of it as a simple medical procedure but, again, it's not an argument that will ever work with anti abortion people because it ignores the main issue.

volchitsa

neonsofa wrote: »

Again, life changing in the sense that your lifestyle changes, no. But it is still a huge decision to make, sometimes an agonising one that remains with the woman for the rest of her life (not saying it should, or will) and it was in the context of making the decision that OEJ was speaking about in his post which led to this discussion. Deciding to keep the baby obviously leads to significantly more changes to the woman's life, but the decision she has to make is a significant one which requires consideration regardless of the choice she ultimately makes and I think that is the point OEJ was making, that the choice the person makes requires equal amounts of consideration, for different reasons, not that the choices result in the same outcome lifestyle wise. If that makes sense?

The person OEJ was responding to was claiming that a younger person doesn't always understand the realities of decisions and therefore shouldnt be making the life changing decisions. They were saying this in reference to a teenager deciding to keep a child and that they need counselling on such, and OEJ- I think- was pointing out that by that logic they should also deem a younger person unable to decide upon termination for themselves- as let's face it a termination is a permanent decision with no going back, despite the fact it results in less change as you say, so a person needs to be sure that the choice they are making is their own and that they are making it for their own reasons not what people deem is statistically the better choice. Basically it should come down to the woman's choice.

I hope that makes sense. We agree on the life changing bit but I think it was not really the point as such in regards to the point OEJ was initially making, if you get me?

Except the person OEJ was responding to (me) actually made the point that this is true for all life changing decisions, so why OEJ, and you, decided that it was only true if the child wanted to remain pregnant is beyond me.

I never said that. It's a complete straw man.

If a child is unable to make major decisions about their lives then what matters is how the adults around them can convince them of what is genuinely best for them without traumatizing them.

Why someone might think it would be better for the child to remain pregnant and have a baby is equally beyond me - except, as I said, when the adult's approach is that the unborn baby is more important than the pregnant child's life chances.

But let's be quite clear about what's going on there : that isn't a decision made in the best interests of the pregnant child.

Captain Obvious

volchitsa wrote: »

Why someone might think it would be better for the child to remain pregnant and have a baby is equally beyond me - except, as I said, when the adult's approach is that the unborn baby is more important than the pregnant child's life chances.

In this particular case it's not just about what's better though, it's about what is legal.

Valmont

This just goes to show that 'sectioning' isn't actually done on medical grounds but simply when someone violates the mores of the society they live in. Sickening.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I disagree. If you give it up it's really just another medical procedure. Sure there are some possible repercussions but the same can be said of abortion. Medical, relationship and emotional repercussions. I get that it's easier to rationalise an abortion for some people if they think of it as a simple medical procedure but, again, it's not an argument that will ever work with anti abortion people because it ignores the main issue.

Carrying a baby to term & giving birth is not just another medical procedure. It takes months from your life & takes your body longer to get back to 'normal' If it ever does.
so, it really is a big deal. And that is not even getting into the medical issues that can arise during pregnancy.

And you are a parent when you give birth, you will always have a child somewhere. So that itself is life changing.
so not really comparable to a small procedure, where your life returns to normal in a few days at most.

neonsofa

Captain Obvious wrote: »

In this particular case it's not just about what's better though, it's about what is legal.

And it's not about what random people on the Internet think is better for the teenager, it is what she feels is best for her- the basic basic principle of being pro choice.

volchitsa

neonsofa wrote: »

And it's not about what random people on the Internet think is better for the teenager, it is what she feels is best for her- the basic basic principle of being pro choice.

So if your 14 year old feels it's best for her to leave school and go off on tour with her 25 year old guitarist boyfriend who she assures you is "going to be a star", you'd be ok with that, right?

neonsofa

volchitsa wrote: »

So if your 14 year old feels it's best for her to leave school and go off on tour with her 25 year old guitarist boyfriend who she assures you is "going to be a star", you'd be ok with that, right?

We already went through these ridiculous hypothetical scenarios and I already explained that a pregnancy that has already happened and that will result in a child unless a medical procedure is carried out is entirely different to a teenager planning things. Your hypothetical scenario would be the equivelant of a teenager actually planning for a baby and a parent saying yeah that's grand I'll buy you an ovulation kit. And that is not what is being discussed, we're discussing a teenager that is currently carrying a fetus that she created in her own body. And yes I absolutely think she should decide what happens in that situation. You clearly disagree and I'm not asking you to change your mind, I just obviously don't share your opinion.

volchitsa

neonsofa wrote: »

We already went through these ridiculous hypothetical scenarios and I already explained that a pregnancy that has already happened and that will result in a child unless a medical procedure is carried out is entirely different to a teenager planning things. Your hypothetical scenario would be the equivelant of a teenager actually planning for a baby and a parent saying yeah that's grand I'll buy you an ovulation kit. And that is not what is being discussed, we're discussing a teenager that is currently carrying a fetus that she created in her own body. And yes I absolutely think she should decide what happens in that situation. You clearly disagree and I'm not asking you to change your mind, I just obviously don't share your opinion.

But you haven't explained how it is in the girl's best interests to continue the pregnancy, you're just explaining why you think she should do so, which is not the same thing.

What has buying an ovulation kit got to do with anything? Not like you even need one to get pregnant!

The real issue is that either she's too young to make major decisions about her life or she's not. Expecting her to be more responsible about pregnancy than about anything else is unreasonable, and is in fact based on what are perceived to be the fetus' competing interests, not in her interests.

neonsofa

volchitsa wrote: »

But you haven't explained how it is in the girl's best interests to continue the pregnancy, you're just explaining why you think she should do so, which is not the same thing.

What has buying an ovulation kit got to do with anything? Not like you even need one to get pregnant!

The real issue is that either she's too young to make major decisions about her life or she's not. Expecting her to be more responsible about pregnancy than about anything else is unreasonable, and is in fact based on what are perceived to be the fetus' competing interests, not in her interests.

Like, I said, I don't agree with your stance, I'm gonna leave it at that, if you want clarity on my stance my posts have clearly stated how I feel, the person knows what is best for them and why, not strangers on the Internet using statistics. I'm not going round in circles again with you.
The fact you're even referencing what was quite clearly an off the cuff remark about an ovulation kit in a ridiculous hypothetical scenario where a person would be trying to conceive (many women use them if actively trying to conceive by the way so I'm not sure why it's so alien to you but I digress) shows it is not worth my time engaging any further.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Except the person OEJ was responding to (me) actually made the point that this is true for all life changing decisions, so why OEJ, and you, decided that it was only true if the child wanted to remain pregnant is beyond me.

I never said that. It's a complete straw man.

But that's not what anyone said at all? Nobody said it was only true if the child wanted to remain pregnant. What I was saying is that if you have decided that the child is old enough to decide for herself that she wants to have an abortion, then surely she must also be old enough to decide for herself that she wants to keep the child? The thing she needs in both those scenarios then is support for whatever decision the child herself makes - whether it be to have an abortion, or whether it be to keep the child, and it's a better outcome for all concerned if the child knows and realises that she has people around her who will support her decision and not to put too fine a point on it but to button their lip if they feel they can't support the child's decisions in that case.

It's a better outcome though long term for the child if she knows she has the support of her family and those around her who are willing to make every accommodation possible for her to be able to have a life and to make a life for herself, because any decision she makes at that point will be life changing, and if the child knows that she isn't going to have to sacrifice opportunities like education and that her life isn't over whatever decision she makes, and that she won't be ostracised from her family and her support network because of her decision one way or the other - that is people in her life acting in her best interests, not acting in the interests that they would want for her.

volchitsa wrote: »

If a child is unable to make major decisions about their lives then what matters is how the adults around them can convince them of what is genuinely best for them without traumatizing them.

And how is that any different from the position of the people you're describing here where they think they too feel that the child is unable to make major decisions about their lives for themselves and what matters is how the adults around them can convince them of what is genuinely best for them without traumatising them -

volchitsa wrote: »

Why someone might think it would be better for the child to remain pregnant and have a baby is equally beyond me - except, as I said, when the adult's approach is that the unborn baby is more important than the pregnant child's life chances.

Good luck with that btw if you think you're ever not going to traumatise a person by trying to convince them that you know what's best for them and you're only trying to discuss the situation logically with a walking, talking bag of hormones even if they were never pregnant. A grown woman realising she is facing a crisis pregnancy is already traumatised enough; a child realising she is facing a crisis pregnancy? I believed you earlier when you said that any conversation would have to be done very carefully, and I'm genuinely still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't force a child into a position where they felt they were forced to have an abortion because you knew what was best for them. This is often the position of parents I've spoken to, and they're scared witless for their child's future, because they're often as uncertain for their child's future as she is, and they need support and understanding too. I do get it, just that their opinion whether they like it or not isn't as important in that scenario as the opinions of the child who is actually pregnant.

You talked earlier about how inhumane and horrific and all the rest of it that it was that the child's human rights and so on were violated in this specific case mentioned in the OP, but what you would be doing would be no different - you would be effectively removing the child's right to self-determination and their freedom to choose for themselves. This is exactly why a GAL is so, so necessary in cases like these because they speak to the Court for the child and represent the interests, rights and welfare of the child.

volchitsa wrote: »

But let's be quite clear about what's going on there : that isn't a decision made in the best interests of the pregnant child.

Which, your decision where you convince the child that they're making the right decision to agree with what you want for them, or the decision to support the child in whatever decision they make, even if it doesn't jig with what your interests were for them?

Thankfully in Ireland at least, the stigma of young motherhood and the assumptions made about them isn't as prevalent as it once was, and I would suggest this is due in part to better social supports and more opportunities available to them (childcare in this country is still fairly shyte and costs an arm and a leg, but alternative arrangements can be made if everyone is willing to be supportive), and it's due in part too to people being of a more liberal attitude to women now who were teenage mums 20 years ago, and young women today who are teenage mums, who know that they don't have to give up their education or their social life because they decided for themselves that they didn't want to have an abortion.

gctest50

One eyed Jack wrote: »

.

.....and it's due in part too to people being of a more liberal attitude to women now .........

That's very noble of them n all

But why isn't abortion legal then ( same ways as the UK, or Canada)

Or do they think those same women shouldn't worry about such complex matters ?

One eyed Jack

gctest50 wrote: »

That's very noble of them n all

But why isn't abortion legal then ( same ways as the UK, or Canada)

Or do they think those same women shouldn't worry about such complex matters ?

I don't think it's so much 'noble' of anyone, so much as they don't particularly care one way or the other what another person's circumstances are. Of course I'm not oblivious to the tiny minority of curtain twitchers and the high moral horse brigade that are convinced their opinion is actually that important to other people that other people should actually care what they think, but those people because they are in a minority nowadays aren't quite so 'brave' as they once were when they knew they had the majority behind them and 'what will the neighbours think?' was more of a thing.

Why isn't abortion legal? I would suggest that it's because people have far more important things going on in their lives than worrying about other people or issues they aren't affected by. People's priorities are as variable as their opinions and broadening our abortion legislation in this country just doesn't rank all that highly on most people's priority lists. It's a bit like the Children's Referendum - second lowest turnout of the electorate in a referendum, because the people who were being asked to vote felt that they were the least likely to be affected by the outcome one way or the other.

Do they think women shouldn't worry about 'such complex matters'? I don't know that people care all that much either way tbh. Undoubtedly of course there are people that do care about the issue, but I would suggest that there are far more people are of the belief that they don't have to care as they're unlikely ever to find themselves in that situation, and if they do, well some of the women I've talked to believe that they will be able to order a few pills over the internet or they'll travel to the UK or the Netherlands, and their family, friends and neighbours will be none the wiser, or they have the support of their family and friends who have told them that they would support them in any way they could if they were ever to find themselves in that situation and wanted to have an abortion.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But that's not what anyone said at all? Nobody said it was only true if the child wanted to remain pregnant. What I was saying is that if you have decided that the child is old enough to decide for herself that she wants to have an abortion, then surely she must also be old enough to decide for herself that she wants to keep the child?

But I haven't decided, or said, any such thing.

I said if the child is too young to make major life decisions, then it doesnt matter whether that decision is marriage or a baby or an abortion, someone else makes those decisions for them.

I think that was what my previous post just said, it was certainly meant to. So if it didn't, please correct it in your mind.

The thing she needs in both those scenarios then is support for whatever decision the child herself makes - whether it be to have an abortion, or whether it be to keep the child, and it's a better outcome for all concerned if the child knows and realises that she has people around her who will support her decision and not to put too fine a point on it but to button their lip if they feel they can't support the child's decisions in that case.

Third time of asking, why do you expect her to be able to make sensible decisions about pregnancy when you wouldn't for example, get a puppy just because she found it cute, if you weren't prepared to look after the dog financially etc?

It's a better outcome though long term for the child if she knows she has the support of her family and those around her who are willing to make every accommodation possible for her to be able to have a life and to make a life for herself, because any decision she makes at that point will be life changing, and if the child knows that she isn't going to have to sacrifice opportunities like education and that her life isn't over whatever decision she makes, and that she won't be ostracised from her family and her support network because of her decision one way or the other - that is people in her life acting in her best interests, not acting in the interests that they would want for her.

And how is that any different from the position of the people you're describing here where they think they too feel that the child is unable to make major decisions about their lives for themselves and what matters is how the adults around them can convince them of what is genuinely best for them without traumatising them -

Good luck with that btw if you think you're ever not going to traumatise a person by trying to convince them that you know what's best for them and you're only trying to discuss the situation logically with a walking, talking bag of hormones even if they were never pregnant. A grown woman realising she is facing a crisis pregnancy is already traumatised enough; a child realising she is facing a crisis pregnancy? I believed you earlier when you said that any conversation would have to be done very carefully, and I'm genuinely still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't force a child into a position where they felt they were forced to have an abortion because you knew what was best for them. This is often the position of parents I've spoken to, and they're scared witless for their child's future, because they're often as uncertain for their child's future as she is, and they need support and understanding too. I do get it, just that their opinion whether they like it or not isn't as important in that scenario as the opinions of the child who is actually pregnant.

You talked earlier about how inhumane and horrific and all the rest of it that it was that the child's human rights and so on were violated in this specific case mentioned in the OP, but what you would be doing would be no different - you would be effectively removing the child's right to self-determination and their freedom to choose for themselves. This is exactly why a GAL is so, so necessary in cases like these because they speak to the Court for the child and represent the interests, rights and welfare of the child.

Which, your decision where you convince the child that they're making the right decision to agree with what you want for them, or the decision to support the child in whatever decision they make, even if it doesn't jig with what your interests were for them?

Thankfully in Ireland at least, the stigma of young motherhood and the assumptions made about them isn't as prevalent as it once was, and I would suggest this is due in part to better social supports and more opportunities available to them (childcare in this country is still fairly shyte and costs an arm and a leg, but alternative arrangements can be made if everyone is willing to be supportive), and it's due in part too to people being of a more liberal attitude to women now who were teenage mums 20 years ago, and young women today who are teenage mums, who know that they don't have to give up their education or their social life because they decided for themselves that they didn't want to have an abortion.

Thsi isn't really relevant to what I actually said. You're talking about how it can be made possible for the girl to stay pregnant without having to leave school etc. that's not the point here.

I'm saying that it's just a fact that a girl who doesn't have a baby at 14 is better off in every way you can think of than one who does. So encouraging her to remain pregnant and have the baby is not what's in her interest, it's because the person believes that it's in the fetus' interest.

Which is a different question.

But the notion that someone who is pro choice should want to allow an 11 or 12 year old to remain pregnant and give birth in the name of choice, or that they are not really pro choice if they think otherwise, is just mad. Because she is a child herself.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

But I haven't decided, or said, any such thing.

I said if the child is too young to make major life decisions, then it doesnt matter whether that decision is marriage or a baby or an abortion, someone else makes those decisions for them.

I think that was what my previous post just said, it was certainly meant to. So if it didn't, please correct it in your mind.

Yes, and you'll notice I said "if" too, because you seemed to be suggesting something nobody had actually said. The point I was originally making is that if you have decided that a child is old enough to decide for herself that she wants an abortion, then surely she is also old enough to decide she wants to remain pregnant and give birth? Nobody is suggesting that she actually has to, or that it's a good idea or a bad idea at that point (well, you're suggesting it's a bad idea, I'm suggesting it's their decision either way and they should be supported either way).

Third time of asking, why do you expect her to be able to make sensible decisions about pregnancy when you wouldn't for example, get a puppy just because she found it cute, if you weren't prepared to look after the dog financially etc?

I wouldn't make a judgement call either way in those circumstances as it's not me will have to live with the consequences of either her decision to have a child or whether to have an abortion. Your mileage for how you define "sensible" may vary, and that's why I would never give a definitive answer one way or the other because I would support them either way no matter what their decision.

To try and work with your example, it would be like if she found a stray puppy, took it home, hid it for five weeks and was able to take care of it in that time, then she would have demonstrated a level of maturity which I would say she was capable of making decisions for herself as to whether she wanted to keep the puppy, or bring it to the local pound.

See? It's really not that difficult to understand that we're pretty much on the same page here, only that I was taking from your original point that you had decided she was mature enough to make the decision for herself to have an abortion, so I questioned why you would think she wouldn't be mature enough to want to remain pregnant and give birth and would need your support either way.

I don't doubt for a minute you would support her either way no matter what her decision.

Thsi isn't really relevant to what I actually said. You're talking about how it can be made possible for the girl to stay pregnant without having to leave school etc. that's not the point here.

I'm saying that it's just a fact that a girl who doesn't have a baby at 14 is better off in every way you can think of than one who does. So encouraging her to remain pregnant and have the baby is not what's in her interest, it's because the person believes that it's in the fetus' interest.

That's exactly the point here, because while it might be the ideal that a 14 (why does 14 keep coming up?) year old child wouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a child that is already pregnant, and we don't know what age she is, and we don't know at what stage in her pregnancy she's at. That's why I keep having to reiterate that for me it would depend entirely upon the circumstances involved, and we could easily be talking about a 12 year old child here who is 8 months pregnant. We could go on positing hypotheticals all day and still get nowhere.

Stop thinking you know what anyone else believes btw, you're clearly not very good at the whole mind reading thing, but you appear to be presenting it as an argument that I should have to argue against. In your opinion, you believe it to be because the person believes it's in the foetus' best interests, but nobody's actually said that now, have they?

But the notion that someone who is pro choice should want to allow an 11 or 12 year old to remain pregnant and give birth in the name of choice, or that they are not really pro choice if they think otherwise, is just mad. Because she is a child herself.

Here, I couldn't give a flying one for who is or isn't pro-choice or who is or isn't anti-choice or whatever the labels du jour are these days that people want to slap on their ideological positions. Not a single fcuk is given, I assure you. Because I don't care for where anyone else stands on the issue in those situations. The only person who's opinions I'm taking seriously in that situation, is the opinions of the child or woman who is pregnant. Everything and everyone else, we can work around them, because that's what supporting someone without terms and conditions attached means.

If you assume they could have a terrible future ahead of them, well apart from suggesting you'd want to get over that, I would be suggesting that you would do everything in your power to make sure that no matter what her decision, you would ensure that she doesn't endure a dystopian future, by actually supporting her, in whatever she decides, for herself!!

See? No mention of the foetus or what's best for the foetus or any of the rest of it, so let's try not to drag that one up again.

volchitsa

/sigh/

You keep saying "if I have decided" that she was old enough to want an abortion, but since I haven't said that, and indeed have said that I don't think she's old enough to make any major life decisions, your post doesn't actually reply to mine, or only tangentially (for example, being 5 weeks pregnant is not the caregiving equivalent of looking after a puppy for five weeks!) Nor have I said her life would necessarily be ruined, merely that it's not in her best interests to be pregnant.


So. The fundamental question, which you keep ignoring, is whether it can ever be in the pregnant child's interests to continue a pregnancy and to give birth?

If you think it can, could you please explain how exactly?
What are the positive effects you expect to see that couldn't be achieved differently, and with far less severe consequences if it goes wrong?

And also, is there any lower age limit below which this does not apply?
Children of 9 have been pregnant : is it in their interests to carry the pregnancy and give birth?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

/sigh/

You keep saying "if I have decided" that she was old enough to want an abortion, but since I haven't said that, and indeed have said that I don't think she's old enough to make any major life decisions, your post doesn't actually reply to mine, or only tangentially (for example, being 5 weeks pregnant is not the caregiving equivalent of looking after a puppy for five weeks!) Nor have I said her life would necessarily be ruined, merely that it's not in her best interests to be pregnant.

Right, and you've already explained that you would try and convince her that it would be in her best interests to have an abortion. How is that not acting in your best interests for her?

What if she were absolutely adamant that she wanted to give birth and became depressed and suicidal as a result of being told she would be having an abortion?

You remove peoples choices back them into a corner, or you impose your own ideology upon them - you're immediately going to make their situation worse, and no amount of "Now, didn't that all work out for the better?", once you've got the outcome you wanted, is going to change that.

Would you detain a child against her will if you thought it was in her best interests? If you would, then why would you expect that other adults are doing so with malicious intent or acting in their own self-interest?

I like the cut of your double standards :pac:


You introduced the example of the puppy btw, I'm not responsible for you wanting to use examples that aren't equivalent in any way shape or form whatsoever.

So. The fundamental question, which you keep ignoring, is whether it can ever be in the pregnant child's interests to continue a pregnancy and to give birth?

If you think it can, could you please explain how exactly?
What are the positive effects you expect to see that couldn't be achieved differently, and with far less severe consequences if it goes wrong?

And also, is there any lower age limit below which this does not apply?
Children of 9 have been pregnant : is it in their interests to carry the pregnancy and give birth?

I'm not ignoring your question. I've said since the very first post where I picked up on Samaris' point, that I would be reluctant to call it either way. You appear to be looking for certainty where I can't give you any. It would be entirely dependent upon the circumstances in each case.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Right, and you've already explained that you would try and convince her that it would be in her best interests to have an abortion. How is that not acting in your best interests for her?

What if she were absolutely adamant that she wanted to give birth and became depressed and suicidal as a result of being told she would be having an abortion?

You remove peoples choices back them into a corner, or you impose your own ideology upon them - you're immediately going to make their situation worse, and no amount of "Now, didn't that all work out for the better?", once you've got the outcome you wanted, is going to change that.

Would you detain a child against her will if you thought it was in her best interests? If you would, then why would you expect that other adults are doing so with malicious intent or acting in their own self-interest?

I like the cut of your double standards :pac:

You introduced the example of the puppy btw, I'm not responsible for you wanting to use examples that aren't equivalent in any way shape or form whatsoever.

I'm not ignoring your question. I've said since the very first post where I picked up on Samaris' point, that I would be reluctant to call it either way. You appear to be looking for certainty where I can't give you any. It would be entirely dependent upon the circumstances in each case.

How on earth would it be in my best interests?
The point is that the child's best interests are clearly to remain a child, not to become a mother.

Not only is that self evident - though I don't think we should always go with our gut instincts, even when it suits me to do so - but more importantly, all the evidence of outcomes for pregnant children and teenagers is that early motherhood is physically, mentally, socially, financially bad for both the girl and for any resulting children, including those born to her later on.

As for double standards, seeing as my first post on this issue pointed out that this was all with the proviso that no force would be used against her, I think you need to reply to what has been written, not make up what you would like to reply to.

Now, is there any age at which you think a child is just too young to take on the demands of pregnancy and childbirth, or do you think an 11 year old may succeed just as well as a 23 year old?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

How on earth would it be in my best interests?
The point is that the child's best interests are clearly to remain a child, not to become a mother.

Not only is that self evident - though I don't think we should always go with our gut instincts, even when it suits me to do so - but more importantly, all the evidence of outcomes for pregnant children and teenagers is that early motherhood is physically, mentally, socially, financially bad for both the girl and for any resulting children, including those born to her later on.

As for double standards, seeing as my first post on this issue pointed out that this was all with the proviso that no force would be used against her, I think you need to reply to what has been written, not make up what you would like to reply to.

Now, is there any age at which you think a child is just too young to take on the demands of pregnancy and childbirth, or do you think an 11 year old may succeed just as well as a 23 year old?

If they both have the supports they need, then the outcomes will be positive for them in both cases, and the opposite of that then - if they don't have the supports they need, then the outcomes will be negative.

Samaris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why isn't abortion legal? I would suggest that it's because people have far more important things going on in their lives than worrying about other people or issues they aren't affected by. People's priorities are as variable as their opinions and broadening our abortion legislation in this country just doesn't rank all that highly on most people's priority lists. It's a bit like the Children's Referendum - second lowest turnout of the electorate in a referendum, because the people who were being asked to vote felt that they were the least likely to be affected by the outcome one way or the other.

Do they think women shouldn't worry about 'such complex matters'? I don't know that people care all that much either way tbh. Undoubtedly of course there are people that do care about the issue, but I would suggest that there are far more people are of the belief that they don't have to care as they're unlikely ever to find themselves in that situation, and if they do, well some of the women I've talked to believe that they will be able to order a few pills over the internet or they'll travel to the UK or the Netherlands, and their family, friends and neighbours will be none the wiser, or they have the support of their family and friends who have told them that they would support them in any way they could if they were ever to find themselves in that situation and wanted to have an abortion.

If people really don't care and don't feel the need to care, they could always stfu and let the people who DO care do something about it before there's another tragedy or disgraceful action against a person vulnerable to being mistreated by our ridiculous and vague laws that call it a crime here but are happy to export the situation to the neighbouring country.

Not a specific dig at you if you do care about the situation, mind. But definitely a dig at people who feel that way and still bollock on about it. It's not at the TOP of my list of things I worry deeply about, but it's on the list.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they both have the supports they need, then the outcomes will be positive for them in both cases, and the opposite of that then - if they don't have the supports they need, then the outcomes will be negative.

Well no, that's not what the evidence says. Early motherhood is closely associated with poor outcomes on just about every measure there is.

That these poor outcomes can be alleviated to varying extents by sufficient levels of support doesn't change the underlying fact that you haven't been able to name a single way in which very early motherhood can possibly be good for the girl. That's because it can't.

kylith

volchitsa wrote: »

But I haven't decided, or said, any such thing.

I said if the child is too young to make major life decisions, then it doesnt matter whether that decision is marriage or a baby or an abortion, someone else makes those decisions for them.

I think that was what my previous post just said, it was certainly meant to. So if it didn't, please correct it in your mind.



Third time of asking, why do you expect her to be able to make sensible decisions about pregnancy when you wouldn't for example, get a puppy just because she found it cute, if you weren't prepared to look after the dog financially etc?



Thsi isn't really relevant to what I actually said. You're talking about how it can be made possible for the girl to stay pregnant without having to leave school etc. that's not the point here.

I'm saying that it's just a fact that a girl who doesn't have a baby at 14 is better off in every way you can think of than one who does. So encouraging her to remain pregnant and have the baby is not what's in her interest, it's because the person believes that it's in the fetus' interest.

Which is a different question.

But the notion that someone who is pro choice should want to allow an 11 or 12 year old to remain pregnant and give birth in the name of choice, or that they are not really pro choice if they think otherwise, is just mad. Because she is a child herself.

First off, I agree with you: It is not in a 14yo's best interest to remain pregnant, emotionally or physically. They even knew that in Shakespeare's time. However my concern would be that 'not allowing' (i.e. pushing her toward termination) her to carry the pregnancy if she is adamant that she wants to could be just as psychologically damaging.

Teenagers aren't stupid, they (should) know where babies come from and IME the younger they are the less able they are to look rationally at the topic and the more likely to be swayed by pro-life ideas and unable to separate the idea of a baby from the reality of a foetus and the physical and mental toll of birth and raising a child.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Teenagers aren't stupid, they (should) know where babies come from and IME the younger they are the less able they are to look rationally at the topic and the more likely to be swayed by pro-life ideas and unable to separate the idea of a baby from the reality of a foetus and the physical and mental toll of birth and raising a child.

I'm a bit confused by this bit - we're agreed that teenagers aren't stupid (I would go so far as to say I've never met a stupid child either, and I've worked with quite a few!), but then you make the second point about what they are more likely to be swayed by, as though they are complete dullards!

It just seems directly contradictory is all.

volchitsa

kylith wrote: »

First off, I agree with you: It is not in a 14yo's best interest to remain pregnant, emotionally or physically. They even knew that in Shakespeare's time. However my concern would be that 'not allowing' her to carry the pregnancy if she is adamant that she wants to could be just as psychologically damaging.

Teenagers aren't stupid, they (should) know where babies come from and IME the younger they are the less able they are to look rationally at the topic and the more likely to be swayed by pro-life ideas and unable to separate the idea of a baby from the reality of a foetus and the physical and mental toll of birth and raising a child.

I agree. And I said that no force would be acceptable (which in itself distinguishes my view from a significant number of pro life people who hummed and hawed about Ms Y being forcibly restrained).

But it's also a fact that the more they are led to believe that it's already a baby etc etc, i.e. the more they're exposed to pro life propaganda, the harder they are likely to find the idea of terminating the pregnancy no matter how the idea of a future as a mother may terrify them.

That's why I mentioned puppies - how many people, never mind children or young teens, could avoid wanting to take a lost puppy home, no matter how impractical they knew the subsequent care of a dog would be.

It's odd that it would be considered irresponsible to encourage children to take on pets if the parents can't ensure that care will be available for the next decade or so, but we're expected to say that being "pro choice" for adult women means one should be neutral on the idea of a young teen being encouraged to do the same about a baby.

And we've had no lower age limit given either. 9 year olds should be expected to make a choice about having a baby? Really?

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I completely agree with you that the issue here isn't about abortion, but I don't think there's anything crooked about it, particularly when it's obviously a minor we're talking about here and the fact that a GAL was appointed to advocate on her behalf.

It's not unusual for the media to want to portray the circumstances of the case in a particular light though according to their own agenda, to give the appearance of something being crooked about the way the case was handled.

There was a Guardian Ad Litem for the unborn appointed first.

Samaris

kylith wrote: »

First off, I agree with you: It is not in a 14yo's best interest to remain pregnant, emotionally or physically. They even knew that in Shakespeare's time. However my concern would be that 'not allowing' (i.e. pushing her toward termination) her to carry the pregnancy if she is adamant that she wants to could be just as psychologically damaging.

One issue with that in this case is that she was adamant that she did not want to carry the pregnancy through. And for claiming her rights under the 8th, she was sectioned against her will and against her mother's will. That's what happened when they went to the State for help, which the State had previously promised via this wishy-washy abusable piece of legalese.

No-one should be forced into an abortion, I agree. But that wasn't the situation here.

There were warnings that something like this -could- happen (same as there's warnings that someone could at some point use abortion for contraception). Well, it has. Now what do we do about it?

Annasopra

Samaris wrote: »

One issue with that in this case is that she was adamant that she did not want to carry the pregnancy through. And for claiming her rights under the 8th, she was sectioned against her will and against her mother's will. That's what happened when they went to the State for help, which the State had previously promised via this wishy-washy abusable piece of legalese.

No-one should be forced into an abortion, I agree. But that wasn't the situation here.

There were warnings that something like this -could- happen (same as there's warnings that someone could at some point use abortion for contraception). Well, it has. Now what do we do about it?

Repeal the 8th and change the legislation. Thats the only way to deal with it in my view.

Samaris

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Repeal the 8th and change the legislation. Thats the only way to deal with it in my view.

There's been too many cases showing it is not fit for purpose. And it is and always was going to be highly abusable.

RobertKK

People want safe and legal abortion like they have in England...
http://www.thejournal.ie/doctor-nurses-charged-abortion-irish-woman-2146297-Jun2015/

Samaris

RobertKK wrote: »

People want safe and legal abortion like they have in England...
http://www.thejournal.ie/doctor-nurses-charged-abortion-irish-woman-2146297-Jun2015/

Yes. Many of us do.

And yes, you can throw up cases where things went badly wrong (I wonder now if the pressure of having the abortion rates of -two- countries being crammed into one could possibly maybe contribute to poor management of individual cases in the UK?), just like with any other medical procedure.

So safe and legal abortion HERE overseen by the State (which is morally craven currently in hiding its head under a parapet) is far more preferable than exporting the problem to England and pretending that we virtuous Irish never are faced with an impossible pregnancy. Hospitals would have the complete medical records of the individuals involved, would know about potential complexities and contra-indications. Medical carers would be able to care for their patients with full knowledge of their situation. We could treat the whole problem (and it is a problem now and will be as long as we're in legal limbo) as mature, functioning adults rather than cowards afraid to face a difficult situation - a situation made more difficult by our legal system.

Also, what the hell happens to this situation once Brexit goes ahead?

Should I link cases where a refusal to terminate a pregnancy has lead to deaths?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Well no, that's not what the evidence says. Early motherhood is closely associated with poor outcomes on just about every measure there is.

That these poor outcomes can be alleviated to varying extents by sufficient levels of support doesn't change the underlying fact that you haven't been able to name a single way in which very early motherhood can possibly be good for the girl. That's because it can't.

volchista you keep referring back to evidence based on statistics as though they're meant to carry any weight in people making decisions for themselves based on their own circumstances and their own feeling that they know better than anyone else what's best for themselves and what they are and aren't capable of.

I already said I'm not disputing the statistics, they are what they are - evidence gathered after the fact. You're using statistics pre-emptively and attempting to map a broader context onto an individual perspective. That's not how statistics actually work! If they did work like that, then you would have people arguing that the only people who should be licensed to have children are white people who's incomes are above a certain threshold, working in careers where they also get to spend an appropriate amount of bonding time with their children in the best interests of the childs personal and social development...

Because ain't no good outcomes ever came of them coloured folk having the babies an' gittin' all pregnant agin' n agin'... statistically speaking, of course!

RobertKK

Samaris wrote: »

Yes. Many of us do.

And yes, you can throw up cases where things went badly wrong (I wonder now if the pressure of having the abortion rates of -two- countries being crammed into one could possibly maybe contribute to poor management of individual cases in the UK?), just like with any other medical procedure.

So safe and legal abortion HERE overseen by the State (which is morally craven currently in hiding its head under a parapet) is far more preferable than exporting the problem to England and pretending that we virtuous Irish never are faced with an impossible pregnancy. Hospitals would have the complete medical records of the individuals involved, would know about potential complexities and contra-indications. Medical carers would be able to care for their patients with full knowledge of their situation. We could treat the whole problem (and it is a problem now and will be as long as we're in legal limbo) as mature, functioning adults rather than cowards afraid to face a difficult situation - a situation made more difficult by our legal system.

Also, what the hell happens to this situation once Brexit goes ahead?

Should I link cases where a refusal to terminate a pregnancy has lead to deaths?

Please do quote a case in Ireland.