17 yr old girl not allowed an abortion

Macha

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0430/missd.html?rss

For how long are young women's fertility rights going to be determined by old men?

Ridiculous

Faith

I don't understand how the HSE can stop her leaving the country? If that were me, I'd have kept my head down and said I was off to London for the weekend, for a shopping trip.

panda100

From what I can see so far there is no reason why this girl should have been stopped from having a termination. We passed a referendum in 1992 allowing women the freedom to travel between the State and another state for a termination.
However at this stage, it would seem that the HSE has a reason to prevent the girl from traveling to England.Its difficult to comment without all the facts. We must not forget that Proffessor Drumm is a renowned paediatrican andwouldnt make this decision lightly.

cormie

Maybe there is no risk of suicide yet, but perhaps if she gives birth and sees her child die that will trigger emotions in her and she may take her life then.

Crucifix

Can they really confine her to the state? Not providing an abortion is understandable, but surely if she wants to go on holidays to england for a spell that's her business?

biko

So now she has to carry the child 5 months so it can die after birth. Fecking terrible.

The girl is in the care of the HSE and is challenging its decision to contact gardaí and not to let her travel for the abortion unless she presented as a suicide risk.

This is the loophole they tried to close a while ago isn't it?

green123

why is she even asking ?
if she wants to do it why doesnt she just go do it ?

panda100

Crucifix wrote:

Can they really confine her to the state? Not providing an abortion is understandable, but surely if she wants to go on holidays to england for a spell that's her business?

Not a 17year old in state care especailly since it sounds like she has had quite an unstable upbringing. There would be outrage if the HSE allowed her to fly around the world willy nilly.
Also Im assuming she hasnt flown over to England herself as abortions and flights are expensive. So If she was to have a termiantion she would have to have financial support from the HSE.

Bottle_of_Smoke

this is awful. surely even most pro-lifers would be appauled by this

rainbow kirby

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

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Faith

The child isn't going to live. No matter what, it's going to die one way or another: either via an abortion, or in a few months. Why not permit her to have to abortion and spare her the emotional trauma that she's going to go through? It all sounds ridiculous.

Hagar

taconnol wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0430/missd.html?rss

For how long are young women's fertility rights going to be determined by old men?

Ridiculous

Emotive statement, but ultimately isn't the law of the land equally determined by all voters, men and women alike?

humbert

Hagar wrote:

Emotive statement, but ultimatelt isn't the law of the land equally determined by all voters, men and women alike?

While I'm not saying the statement is correct is wasn't the voters that made this specific decision.

I would like to get some clarification as to what grounds the HSE can hold someone in the country. I presume it's because she's 17 and in their care?

PeakOutput

how iunderstand it is the girl is under the car of the hse...ie they are her guardians(for whatever reason) until she is 18...............that is how they can stop her going i think maybe im wrong but all the news bulletins said "she is under the care of the hse" so thats what i take that to mean

it is a disgrace putting her threw the birth etc when the child has no chance at all

Hagar

As a rule the populace don't vote on individual cases, we vote in people who we trust to represent our wishes. If we find that they are not do that we vote them out. Since the HSE was established by our elected representatives it is by extension carrying out the stated wishes of majority of the voters in the State. There will always be a minority who do not wish to abide by the law of the land, the question is how far do we go in allowing them to usurp the rule of law?

PeakOutput

Hagar wrote:

Emotive statement, but ultimately isn't the law of the land equally determined by all voters, men and women alike?

Hagar wrote:

As a rule the populace don't vote on individual cases, we vote in people who we trust to represent our wishes. If we find that they are not do that we vote them out. Since the HSE was established by our elected representatives it is by extension carrying out the stated wishes of majority of the voters in the State. There will always be a minority who do not wish to abide by the law of the land, the question is how far do we go in allowing them to usurp the rule of law?

i dont see any law that prevents citizens from leaving the country

Hagar

I'm not a lawyer but if abortion is illegal in Ireland, to protect the right of the unborn, and if the young girl has stated her intent publically in Ireland then the HSE are bound to try to prevent the abortion by whatever means are at their disposal.

Macha

Hagar wrote:

Emotive statement, but ultimately isn't the law of the land equally determined by all voters, men and women alike?

Individual cases are dealt with differently in the courts. It is no secret that the majority of judges are male and older, rather than younger.

Take for example the X Case in 1992. Initially the 14 year old rape victim was prevented from leaving Ireland for an abortion. It was only after a public outcry that the Supreme Court overturned the original injunction and she was allowed to go to England.

I think it is ultimately the woman's, even if she is under 18.

PeakOutput

Hagar wrote:

I'm not a lawyer but if abortion is illegal in Ireland, to protect the right of the unborn, and if the young girl has stated her intent publically in Ireland then the HSE are bound to try to prevent the abortion by whatever means are at their disposal.

are the gardai legally bound to stop you from travelling if they find out you are going to amsterdam to buy hash and smoke their or to use hookers?????

even if they are

panda100 wrote:

We passed a referendum in 1992 allowing women the freedom to travel between the State and another state for a termination.

therefore the hse have nothing to do with it

Hagar

If that is the case then I stand corrected the HSE should not interfere.

humbert

In this case though the unborn is guaranteed a prompt and certain death but the HSE is forcing a fragile young girl to go through with the pregnancy. They may be following the strict letter of the law but all that proves is that the law didn't foresee this eventuality because there is no ethical defence for this course of action.

Also I believe a person who goes to England to get an abortion is breaking no law, in the same way I can go to the Netherlands and smoke weed without breaking any law, but I'm open to correction on that.

EDIT: too slow....

PeakOutput

humbert wrote:

EDIT: too slow....

booyeaaahh


i should add that i dont know if that is what happened in 1992 as i was a mature 7 year old at the time but im assuming it is


edit; just spoke to my pro life extremist father and he said that the referendum did happen but since then a law has been passed giving the unborn child equal rights to the mother which apparently nullifies the referendum

Piste

Shouldn't the X case in 1992 have set a precedent what the HSE couldn't overrule if they tried? So why the fuss?

robinph

Can she not pop down to one of the embassy's and claim asylum due to being mistreated by the state? They then fly her out and let her get proper medical attention elsewhere.

PeakOutput

robinph wrote:

Can she not pop down to one of the embassy's and claim asylum due to being mistreated by the state? They then fly her out and let her get proper medical attention elsewhere.

ehhh what???

that would only have even a chance of working if she was a citizen of said embassies country

Boston

I don't see the difference between this and a parent refusing to allow a 17 year old to travel(as I recall from when I travelled as a kid i need parental permission). They have the right to stop her as she is in their care. Now why they wish to stop her is another question.

Also pro lifers don't believe that abortion is wrong in all cases. Well some might, but you don't need to adopt such a strict line to be pro-life.

robinph

PeakOutput wrote:

ehhh what???

that would only have even a chance of working if she was a citizen of said embassies country

OK so it's a bit far fetched admittedly, but is only along the same lines as any other asylum seekers that come to our shores due to claims of mistreatment if they stay in their own countries.

PeakOutput

Boston wrote:

I don't see the difference between this and a parent refusing to allow a 17 year old to travel

well the difference is by extension the hse's opinion is meant to be that of the nations

Boston

PeakOutput wrote:

well the difference is by extension the hse's opinion is meant to be that of the nations

How do you make that out? The HSE is a public body but it's actions don't neccessary reflect what the public want, or what they believe to be in the best interest of the public. Theres a different there.

robinph

Boston wrote:

I don't see the difference between this and a parent refusing to allow a 17 year old to travel(as I recall from when I travelled as a kid i need parental permission).

Under 16's I can understand, but does a parent still have legal authority over preventing a 17 year old doing what they want?

PeakOutput

Boston wrote:

How do you make that out? The HSE is a public body but it's actions don't neccessary reflect what the public want, or what they believe to be in the best interest of the public. Theres a different there.

well as was said earlier the hse was created by our elected representatives to implement a health service and follow the laws of the land in doing so which are also either created by the government / by referendum.

and whatever about their actions reflecting what the public wants their actions should always be in the best interest of the public.

robinph wrote:

Under 16's I can understand, but does a parent still have legal authority over preventing a 17 year old doing what they want?

you are the responsibility of your parents until you are 18

Orion

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

this is awful. surely even most pro-lifers would be appauled by this

That's a joke right?

We voted in a referendum that there can be no restriction on the right to travel. The HSE have no right to do this. The suicide clause is to do with having an abortion in this country - if a woman's life is in danger abortion is legal. It has nothing to do with preventing a woman travelling anywhere for any reason - nobody even has the right to ask why she's travelling never mind prevent her.

PeakOutput

Macros42 wrote:

That's a joke right?

We voted in a referendum that there can be no restriction on the right to travel. The HSE have no right to do this. The suicide clause is to do with having an abortion in this country - if a woman's life is in danger abortion is legal. It has nothing to do with preventing a woman travelling anywhere for any reason - nobody even has the right to ask why she's travelling never mind prevent her.

as you seem to be more informed on this than I are you sure that the subsequent rights given to the unborn child making it equal to the rights of the mother does not over rule the above???

Orion

Hagar wrote:

I'm not a lawyer but if abortion is illegal in Ireland, to protect the right of the unborn, and if the young girl has stated her intent publically in Ireland then the HSE are bound to try to prevent the abortion by whatever means are at their disposal.

You're no lawyer alright

It is legal to travel. Full stop. End of story. It is not illegal to travel for the purposes of using a service that is legal in the destination country. Any service. It is just as legal to travel to Amsterdam to smoke joints or use prostitutes as it is to travel to England to have an abortion.

Orion

PeakOutput wrote:

as you seem to be more informed on this than I are you sure that the subsequent rights given to the unborn child making it equal to the rights of the mother does not over rule the above???

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

Or if you don't trust Wikipedia The Irish Constitution. Go to Section 40.3.3

3. 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

PeakOutput

Macros42 wrote:

You're no lawyer alright

It is legal to travel. Full stop. End of story. It is not illegal to travel for the purposes of using a service that is legal in the destination country. Any service. It is just as legal to travel to Amsterdam to smoke joints or use prostitutes as it is to travel to England to have an abortion.

should prob read the whole thread before replying

Orion

I did - that's why I used that example

Sam Vimes

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

i'm against abortion and for this. there's a big difference between aborting a child that's going to die after five days anyway and killing a perfectly healthy baby because its too inconvenient to give it to one of the thousand's of couples looking to adopt

Bottle_of_Smoke

Macros42 wrote:

That's a joke right?

We voted in a referendum that there can be no restriction on the right to travel. The HSE have no right to do this. The suicide clause is to do with having an abortion in this country - if a woman's life is in danger abortion is legal. It has nothing to do with preventing a woman travelling anywhere for any reason - nobody even has the right to ask why she's travelling never mind prevent her.

Not sure what you mean. I was just generally referring to the idea that the HSE preventing a 17 year old girl from aborting a literally braindead child who will die hours after birth is appauling.

From what I just saw in the news it seems the HSE are stopping her like a parent could as the girl is in their "care"

Orion

Piste wrote:

Shouldn't the X case in 1992 have set a precedent what the HSE couldn't overrule if they tried? So why the fuss?

Actually the X case caused the referenda. The Supreme Court eventually allowed the girl to travel only because there was a risk to her life (albeit from suicide). The referendum on the right to travel meant that there is now no excuse to stop someone from travelling.

There is the argument that the HSE are acting in loco parentis. She is legally a minor. So they may have the legal right. Whether they have the moral right is a whole different kettle of fish.

Orion

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Not sure what you mean. I was just generally referring to the idea that the HSE preventing a 17 year old girl from aborting a literally braindead child who will die hours after birth is appauling.

Oh I agree it's appalling - I meant that you must be joking about the pro-lifers being appalled by this.

Goodluck2me

the point may have been brought up before i havent read the whole thread, but its unconstitutional anyway, and the childs right to life must trump the mothers right not to.

i still think in this case, there should be a common sense arguement, that they are not protetcing the unborns right as its likley not to have a life when its born.( possibly the worst phrasing ever)

WindSock

I sit back now and hope that this case will help give our country a kick up the backside into joining the rest of Europe, bar Poland, they are as backward as us. If not, I sincerly hope the young girl finds a Vera Drake to help her out.

Kernel

Faith wrote:

The child isn't going to live. No matter what, it's going to die one way or another: either via an abortion, or in a few months. Why not permit her to have to abortion and spare her the emotional trauma that she's going to go through? It all sounds ridiculous.

Because, Faith, only God should decide who should live and die. Tough legislation from the goverrnment under the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church are necessary to prevent willy nilly killing of unborn children.

Baby killers need to be kept in check.

I'm aware that such an opinion is unlikely to garner support from boards users, but it is my belief, and the strong belief of millions of other Catholics. At least try to understand that... although I already know you all wont.

kraggy

Macros42 wrote:

That's a joke right?

We voted in a referendum that there can be no restriction on the right to travel. The HSE have no right to do this. The suicide clause is to do with having an abortion in this country - if a woman's life is in danger abortion is legal. It has nothing to do with preventing a woman travelling anywhere for any reason - nobody even has the right to ask why she's travelling never mind prevent her.

This whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with the Referendum or the legalities/illegalities of abortion.

If the girl was 18 she would be free to travel. But she's not. She's in the care of the HSE who are effectively her guardians. They have a right, as parents do, to prevent the person under their care from leaving this jurisdiction because of her minor status.

Botany Bay

Kernel wrote:

Because, Faith, only God should decide who should live and die. Tough legislation from the goverrnment under the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church are necessary to prevent willy nilly killing of unborn children.

Baby killers need to be kept in check.

I'm aware that such an opinion is unlikely to garner support from boards users, but it is my belief, and the strong belief of millions of other Catholics. At least try to understand that... although I already know you all wont.

I sincerly hope that's sarcasm.

PeakOutput

Kernel wrote:

Because, Faith, only God should decide who should live and die. Tough legislation from the goverrnment under the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church are necessary to prevent willy nilly killing of unborn children.

Baby killers need to be kept in check.

I'm aware that such an opinion is unlikely to garner support from boards users, but it is my belief, and the strong belief of millions of other Catholics. At least try to understand that... although I already know you all wont.

i completely understand your point of view but religon should not be used to run a country for the simple reason that not everyone shares your religous beliefs. now i have no problem with any law or governement as long as they are democratic which is why i can respect the majority of the countries wishes that abortion still be illegal.

however there was a democratic referendum where the majority decided women could choose to go to another country to have an abortion. now the difference between people who use so called logic and people who use religous beliefs is that while i believe that majority rules you believe that one religon should rule no matter what. that is the part of your beliefs i have a problem with (i use you in the royal sense not you personally)

Binomate

Kernel wrote:

Because, Faith, only God should decide who should live and die. Tough legislation from the goverrnment under the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church are necessary to prevent willy nilly killing of unborn children.

Baby killers need to be kept in check.

I'm aware that such an opinion is unlikely to garner support from boards users, but it is my belief, and the strong belief of millions of other Catholics. At least try to understand that... although I already know you all wont.

Your belief is absurd. This whole story is rediculous and the welfare of the 17 year old girl should be in the HSE's best interest. Unless I didn't pick up on your sarcasm, by your logic, unless there is some kind of strict religious government, any sense of morality would become lost in society and everything would turn to complete anarchy.

PeakOutput

kraggy wrote:

If the girl was 18 she would be free to travel. But she's not. She's in the care of the HSE who are effectively her guardians. They have a right, as parents do, to prevent the person under their care from leaving this jurisdiction because of her minor status.

yes but if the girls parents were pro choice she would be permitted to go and if they were pro life she would not.....who in the hse is making the moral decision for her is the issue. now my view is that they should take the moral position of the majority of the people in the state which is ( i believe) she should be allowed to travel to england for an abortin ESPECIALLY as the bab will not survive anyway

InFront

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well I would consider myself very strongly pro-life, and I would not have a problem with the termination of this pregnancy. The problem in question is anencephaly - there's just no question to answer on this. It's extremely rare, but the child has zero possibility of life, none of us have a pro-life position to conceivably take. The foetus in question is essentially dead, I think a lot of pro lifers would agree with that.

The issue is legality, and I do think that is the driving force behind the HSE's move, not religion. I doubt something like anencephaly has even been considered, known about, or given any attention, by those who drew up the consititution, and set legislation. It's a very unfortunate thing to happen to this girl.