Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Catholic mother kills baby from shame

13

Comments

  • #62
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Turn the other cheek much?

    I was merely commenting. I'm not a Catholic, but I do think the assessment of Catholicism on boards is far from fair :)


  • #63
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Temporary insanity? More like a physoctic break which would have happened around 5 months when the "baby" started to move around inside her.

    actually, denial of pregnancy is not considered to be a psychotic disorder.

    in any event, it is claimed that teh woman in question was unaware she was pregnant, which is different than simply denying it.


  • #64
    chuci
    Closed Accounts Posts: 938 ✭✭✭chuci


    that is just such a waste of lives. What kinda nuts must her parents be to say that a 30 year old felt she had no other way but to kill the baby? and she would have had to have known the baby was there after 28 weeks it begins to seriously move around and give you a fair few kicks.


  • #65
    ~me~
    Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭~me~


    chuci wrote: »
    that is just such a waste of lives. What kinda nuts must her parents be to say that a 30 year old felt she had no other way but to kill the baby? and she would have had to have known the baby was there after 28 weeks it begins to seriously move around and give you a fair few kicks.

    did she not have the baby at 27 weeks?? could be wrong!
    anyway, as much as the baby moves around she may not have known what was happening if she felt something. if she was a heavy woman she wouldnt have felt it as much and it would have been a faint feeling.


  • #66
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I was merely commenting. I'm not a Catholic, but I do think the assessment of Catholicism on boards is far from fair :)
    I'm taking it that you haven't read the Ryan report?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    I'm taking it that you haven't read the Ryan report?

    I'm really not going to open another can of worms here. I just think that there is still a lot that is worthy of praise in Catholicism, and of course much which is also worthy of condemnation of course.


  • #68
    chuci
    Closed Accounts Posts: 938 ✭✭✭chuci


    ~me~ wrote: »
    did she not have the baby at 27 weeks?? could be wrong!
    anyway, as much as the baby moves around she may not have known what was happening if she felt something. if she was a heavy woman she wouldnt have felt it as much and it would have been a faint feeling.

    oh i know she had it at 36 weeks but im saying the report claims that the girl didnt know she was pregnant but at 27 28 weeks the baby starts moving quite a bit and you can see it and feel it.I would just be a bit wary of it. Its just a terrible waste of live esp for the baby all those people wanting a baby so much and then someone like this has a child. life just isnt fair.


  • #69
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,212 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I was merely commenting. I'm not a Catholic, but I do think the assessment of Catholicism on boards is far from fair :)

    Just in the same way that the Catholic church has been fair with all the young children it has fiddled.


  • #70
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Morlar wrote: »
    Just out of curiosity do you ascribe ANY degree of personal responsibility to the woman herself for getting pregnant or of deciding to have an abortion in the example you give there ?

    Yes. I do. Every woman who chooses to have an abortion bears a personal responsibility for her choice.

    Now, back to the big picture. If women are made to feel shame for having pre marital sex and some choose abortion as a result, wouldn't it be better to employ a better anti abortion strategy?


  • #71
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    sam34 wrote: »
    actually, denial of pregnancy is not considered to be a psychotic disorder.

    in any event, it is claimed that teh woman in question was unaware she was pregnant, which is different than simply denying it.

    Pregnancy denial syndrome is a mental break, ok granted if you wanna get technical like a schizophrenic break.

    Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. Distortions in perception may affect all five senses, including sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch, but most commonly manifest as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction.

    What her mind perceived and what was the reality of the situation were two differnt things, trust me when you get to 20 weeks + in a pregnancy and the litle fecking is wriggling inside of you, you should know unless there is something drastically wrong mentally, never mind when it's 30+ weeks and it's using the inside of your rib cage like xylophone and squashing your stomach and bladder all at once.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    dvpower wrote: »
    Yes. I do. Every woman who chooses to have an abortion bears a personal responsibility for her choice.

    Now, back to the big picture. If women are made to feel shame for having pre marital sex and some choose abortion as a result, wouldn't it be better to employ a better anti abortion strategy?

    Like what proper sex and sexuality educations in our schools covering contraception and free contraception to all those under the age of 25?

    Dear gods no that would make far too much sense.


  • #73
    ~me~
    Closed Accounts Posts: 324 ✭✭~me~


    that girl niamh from ham sandwich was eight months pregnant when she went into labour and she had no idea before that- it is possible.


  • #74
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mrmoe wrote: »
    Just in the same way that the Catholic church has been fair with all the young children it has fiddled.

    "Just in the same way as some priests who abused their positions in the Catholic Church have been fair with all the young children it has fiddled." would be more accurate. I don't want to engage in an inaccurate blame game.

    I just think it's incorrect to merely assess an institution based on the bad and ignore the good. Even though I am not a part of this church, I can see what good has come from it.


  • #75
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Pregnancy denial syndrome is a mental break, ok granted if you wanna get technical a schizophrenic break.

    What her mind perceived and what was the reality of the situation were two differnt thingsQUOTE]

    denial of pregnancy is NOT a "schizophrenic break".

    given that i am a psychiatrist and have spent most of my adult life atudying schizophrenia and working with schizophrenics, i am very well aware of what schizophrenia is. denial of a pregnancy does not fit the diagnostic criteria for it at all.

    denial is not a psychotic phenomeon.

    anti-psychotics would not be given to someone in this situation.

    pregnancy denial would best be classified as an extreme defence mechanism, perpetrated by the unconscious mind.


  • #76
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,212 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    Jakkass wrote: »
    "Just in the same way as some priests who abused their positions in the Catholic Church have been fair with all the young children it has fiddled." would be more accurate. I don't want to engage in an inaccurate blame game.

    I just think it's incorrect to merely assess an institution based on the bad and ignore the good. Even though I am not a part of this church, I can see what good has come from it.

    This reminds me of comments made about Mussolini, he may have been a facist but at least he made the trains run on time.


  • #77
    KINGVictor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭KINGVictor


    Mrmoe wrote: »
    Just in the same way that the Catholic church has been fair with all the young children it has fiddled.


    I strongly disagree with your notion...the Catholic church is an institution that has its own principles...whether it makes sense is irrelevant as no one is coerced to be catholic...as thousands of Irish have done-if you dont share their views,ignore them and leave the church.To say the Catholic church is responsible for this despicable act is simply nonsensical.

    I have not read the the Ryan report neither do I intend to (for sanity reasons).What happened is an abberation and horrendous to say the least but I think a lot of people are using the actions of a few mentally sick and idiotic few to villify the whole institution.....We have heard of mums and dads who violently abuse their own biological children,teachers who have gone through various security checks abuse students in their care,Judges and policemen who have are members of peodophile rings etc.....
    My point?...everyone is an individual that has to take responsiblity for their actions.

    Majority of the Abusers in the Catholic Church (In the Ireland,US,Australia and Canada) had Irish ancestry...that does not mean that every Irish Male on the street is a potential sick and abusive entity.

    The state ,church,religious bodies etc can only try their best in ensuring that people they appoint or put in accountable positions are of acceptable character but there is no way they can be positive that this would absolutely be the case......until we have the capability to mind read.


  • #78
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mrmoe wrote: »
    This reminds me of comments made about Mussolini, he may have been a facist but at least he made the trains run on time.

    I've made my views clear anyway. It might be best if we actually stay on topic :)


  • #79
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    sam34 wrote: »
    denial of pregnancy is NOT a "schizophrenic break".

    ok
    sam34 wrote: »
    given that i am a psychiatrist

    And I am the queen of sheba, which is just as provable as your claim tbh
    but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and it's up to the AH mods to deal with you, cos I have never claimed ever ot be a medical professional.
    sam34 wrote: »
    and have spent most of my adult life atudying schizophrenia and working with schizophrenics, i am very well aware of what schizophrenia is.

    Sounds like fun, I hope you enjoy your work.
    sam34 wrote: »
    denial of a pregnancy does not fit the diagnostic criteria for it at all.

    Seem close in some ways to me but then again as I have pointed out I am the Queen of Sheba.

    sam34 wrote: »
    pregnancy denial would best be classified as an extreme defence mechanism, perpetrated by the unconscious mind.

    So you are saying that in your professional as a psychiatrist her unconscious mind killed the baby and endangered her own health due to neglect and which killed her, ouch hate that.

    Say does your medical practice insurance cover you for giving out such opinions online? Cos I know as the Queen of Sheba I don't need such a thing so my medical practice insurance can't be in danger due to what I post or my career or livelihood. Queens can get assassinated mind, but I am used to living with that danger.


  • #80
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    sam34 wrote: »
    going away for the duration of the pregnancy may not always be feasible or practical. and it presumably would involve someone in the family knowing, and the pregnant girl's greatest cause for concern could very well be teh reaction of her own family.

    what do you want proof of? single mothers being frowned on by the church and strict catholics?? im not sure what proof you're looking for. i certainly have witnessed it myself - when (only 6 years ago) a priest refused to baptise my niece because her mother wasnt married.

    there are plenty people out there who have had similar experiences. we've all heard the old biddies whispering and gossiping about single mothers. plenty people will testify to how they were treated in teh magdalene laundries and how corrupt they were made to feel. to say thats just "speculation" is grossly dismissive.

    I am only arguing about against people getting abortions bit. I know what you saying is true, I even agreed up above. Otherwise, the scenario I described above make no sense, if I disagreed with you altogether.

    Maybe, some abortions happened, but considering the ban on it in this country and people being involved being strict Catholics, I would think that it was extremely rare to do it for religious reason, considering that there Religion is really against it.


  • #81
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    wes wrote: »
    So, let me get this straight. You are suggesting that some Women got aboritions due to the Catholics church stance on single mothers. So, we are to assume, that the Women cared enough about what the Catholic church taught about single mothers, to get a abortion, despite the fact that the Catholic church is very much against abortion and they didn't care about there stance on that? I just somehow find it hard to understand your reasoning here. It doesn't really add up.

    To be fair it's easier to hide having had an abortion than it is to hide being a single mother. In a state of panic I'd assume she was thinking about what she could get away with rather than what would be more 'ok' in the eyes of the church.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    ok



    And I am the queen of sheba, which is just as provable as your claim tbh
    but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and it's up to the AH mods to deal with you, cos I have never claimed ever ot be a medical professional.


    how noble of you, thank you.

    Sounds like fun, I hope you enjoy your work.

    i do, i love it.

    Seem close in some ways to me but then again as I have pointed out I am the Queen of Sheba.


    "close in some ways" is not sufficient to make a diagnosis. a brief summary of schizophrenia, such as that provided by you, is not going to be able to encompass all the symptoms of such an illness, and does not give any information regarding differential diagnoses.

    So you are saying that in your professional as a psychiatrist her unconscious mind killed the baby and endangered her own health due to neglect and which killed her, ouch hate that.

    no need to put words in my mouth. i never said her "unconscious mind killed the baby..."

    Say does your medical practice insurance cover you for giving out such opinions online? Cos I know as the Queen of Sheba I don't need such a thing so my medical practice insurance can't be in danger due to what I post or my career or livelihood. Queens can get assassinated mind, but I am used to living with that danger.

    yes, i can give an opinion on a case which is in the public domain without endangering my career or livelihood, but thank you for the concern.


  • #83
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    TPD wrote: »
    To be fair it's easier to hide having had an abortion than it is to hide being a single mother. In a state of panic I'd assume she was thinking about what she could get away with rather than what would be more 'ok' in the eyes of the church.

    True enough, but the church would be against the action and its one of the things they bang on about a lot, so I would hardly consider them responsible for the abortion considering there stance. Sure, there responsible for the negative view of single mothers in society (of which they should be condemned for), but we can't take this stance in isolation and ignore there other stances.

    Don't get me wrong, I am all for the church paying through the nose for what they did to so many children in this country, but I simply don't think the responsible for this.

    Again, there is a lot that the church can be blamed on, but seeing as they go on and on about abortion, I would say it safe to say its something that isn't there fault.


  • #84
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,212 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    KINGVictor wrote: »
    I strongly disagree with your notion...the Catholic church is an institution that has its own principles...whether it makes sense is irrelevant as no one is coerced to be catholic...as thousands of Irish have done-if you dont share their views,ignore them and leave the church.To say the Catholic church is responsible for this despicable act is simply nonsensical.

    I have not read the the Ryan report neither do I intend to (for sanity reasons).What happened is an abberation and horrendous to say the least but I think a lot of people are using the actions of a few mentally sick and idiotic few to villify the whole institution.....We have heard of mums and dads who violently abuse their own biological children,teachers who have gone through various security checks abuse students in their care,Judges and policemen who have are members of peodophile rings etc.....
    My point?...everyone is an individual that has to take responsiblity for their actions.

    Majority of the Abusers in the Catholic Church (In the Ireland,US,Australia and Canada) had Irish ancestry...that does not mean that every Irish Male on the street is a potential sick and abusive entity.

    The state ,church,religious bodies etc can only try their best in ensuring that people they appoint or put in accountable positions are of acceptable character but there is no way they can be positive that this would absolutely be the case......until we have the capability to mind read.

    "Few" "Abberation" are not exactly words that would equate with the word "Endemic".

    It is true that the Catholic church was not directly involved in the death of this child but do you think that if her mother or this young woman were not of a Catholic background, where sex and child birth outside of marriage is shunned, that she would still have killed the baby? There is no doubt that many Catholic people do good deeds but for me these good deeds do not outweigh the many horrendous things carried out by a significant minority, where these people were enabled by Catholic institutions.


  • #85
    bronte
    Registered Users Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    Shi t like this is why I left the church tbh. It's all rules rules rules with a side order of shame for us girleens. :rolleyes:


  • #86
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    wes wrote: »
    True enough, but the church would be against the action and its one of the things they bang on about a lot, so I would hardly consider them responsible for the abortion considering there stance. Sure, there responsible for the negative view of single mothers in society (of which they should be condemned for), but we can't take this stance in isolation and ignore there other stances.

    Don't get me wrong, I am all for the church paying through the nose for what they did to so many children in this country, but I simply don't think the responsible for this.

    Again, there is a lot that the church can be blamed on, but seeing as they go on and on about abortion, I would say it safe to say its something that isn't there fault.

    Well if the church and her partens (most likely mainly her parents) didn't have such a negative view on single mothers and children born in (or out of?) wedlock, do you really think this would have ended the same way?

    For starters, a less strict Catholic family would probably teach their daughter about contraception and sex. A very strict Catholic family would not teach about contraception, because the church is against it. Sex would be a taboo until the child is married.

    I think it is the strictness with which the parents adhered to the church's rules that caused this to happen. Both the church and the parents are responsible for this. As well as the woman herself obviously.


  • #87
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    TPD wrote: »
    Well if the church and her partens (most likely mainly her parents) didn't have such a negative view on single mothers and children born in (or out of?) wedlock, do you really think this would have ended the same way?

    The church isn't to blame in this case. Yes, Christians consider premarital sex to be wrong, however Christians also revere human life, as do Jews. Spilling blood is thought to be a grave sin. You only have to look to the account of Cain and Abel in Genesis
    Genesis 4:10 wrote:
    And the Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!

    It's not what the church teaches that is the issue, it's how the parents used this teaching. Yes, premarital sex is considered to be wrong and it has been considered to be wrong in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. However, there is forgiveness in Christianity for ones sins, and I don't think this lady's parents told her very much about that. God is a God of mercy.

    It isn't the religion that is the issue, but rather the use thereof.
    TPD wrote: »
    For starters, a less strict Catholic family would probably teach their daughter about contraception and sex. A very strict Catholic family would not teach about contraception, because the church is against it. Sex would be a taboo until the child is married.

    Again, what are you determining what is "strict" by. I don't think a family has to compromise their view on contraception or sex if their faith doesn't allow. However, teaching that it isn't the end of the world if you mess up, and that we as your parents will be there to advise you what you should do if you make a mistake as we all do (this is made crystal clear in all forms of Christianity), and how one can put ones self right with God. Even to just be there to pray with them if they feel that faith is that important could be a good idea. That is what a loving Christian parent would do without compromising their beliefs.
    TPD wrote: »
    I think it is the strictness with which the parents adhered to the church's rules that caused this to happen. Both the church and the parents are responsible for this. As well as the woman herself obviously.

    I don't think it's the strictness, or the churches rules. I think it's just the way they handled it. Legalism is where this goes wrong, there has to be love. Love comes above the law, this is what Christianity in general teaches at its most basic.


  • #88
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    bronte wrote: »
    Shi t like this is why I left the church tbh. It's all rules rules rules with a side order of shame for us girleens. :rolleyes:

    Well that is what you get for having a "shame cave" oh daughter of eve.


  • #89
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    TPD wrote: »
    Well if the church and her partens (most likely mainly her parents) didn't have such a negative view on single mothers and children born in (or out of?) wedlock, do you really think this would have ended the same way?

    Well, seeing as I don't know her reason, I can't possibly answer that. The article headline make a claim about "shame", but there is nothing in the article to actual confirm why she did it. We simply don't have that information. So how can you blame the Catholic church? Her parents being Religious doesn't tell us why she did it.
    TPD wrote: »
    For starters, a less strict Catholic family would probably teach their daughter about contraception and sex. A very strict Catholic family would not teach about contraception, because the church is against it. Sex would be a taboo until the child is married.

    I think it is the strictness with which the parents adhered to the church's rules that caused this to happen. Both the church and the parents are responsible for this. As well as the woman herself obviously.

    How do you know this? There is no actual information on why she did it. We just know her parents are Religious. Again, there is feck all in the article to support your view of why she did what she did. This is the point, I have been making since the start. Those blaming the Catholic church, are basically jumping to a conclusion, the same one the article writer does in the headline, but the article itself doesn't establish the Womans reasoning at all.


    **EDIT**
    So am I missing some information about her motivations or something? She herself clearly wasn't very strict in her Religious observance, due to her boy friend. The article says she was raised in a strict family, but this doesn't mean she was still strict and her having a boy friend would suggest she wasn't. Again, the information provided isn't enough to come to any conclusion as to why she did it. Hence, why I think the Catholic church shouldn't be held responsible. I simply don't think the case presented based on the information presented shows them to share any responsibility in this.


  • #90
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Legalism is where this goes wrong, there has to be love. Love comes above the law, this is what Christianity in general teaches at its most basic.


    Funny that so does the O.T.O. and Crowley.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    wes wrote: »
    Well, seeing as I don't know her reason, I can't possibly answer that. The article headline make a claim about "shame", but there is nothing in the article to actual confirm why she did it. We simply don't have that information. So how can you blame the Catholic church? Her parents being Religious doesn't tell us why she did it.



    How do you know this? There is no actual information on why she did it. We just know her parents are Religious. Again, there is feck all in the article to support your view of why she did what she did. This is the point, I have been making since the start. Those blaming the Catholic church, are basically jumping to a conclusion, the same one the article writer does in the headline, but the article itself doesn't establish the Womans reasoning at all.


    **EDIT**
    So am I missing some information about her motivations or something? She herself clearly wasn't very strict in her Religious observance, due to her boy friend. The article says she was raised in a strict family, but this doesn't mean she was still strict and her having a boy friend would suggest she wasn't. Again, the information provided isn't enough to come to any conclusion as to why she did it. Hence, why I think the Catholic church shouldn't be held responsible. I simply don't think the case presented based on the information presented shows them to share any responsibility in this.

    Fair enough, you're right. I was just going on what the article implied. It does seem like a quite possible explanation for the events though.


Advertisement