Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

SwD wrote: »

Agreed.

Although enforcement is where the inherent problem lies, for those men who fail to adhere to their responsibilities.

I do think the State has a right to garnish wages from fathers, what confuses is me how people say it's a woman's choice to terminate the kid but that it's not the father's choice on whether he should support a child he doesn't want.

jaja321 wrote: »

Of course. I'm referring to treatments outside of abortion. So surely we should be following best practice here (even if our laws on abortion itself may not)

Best practice would depend upon the individual circumstances of each case, which would explain why it could be used in the first place to detain the girl under the MHA, and then the decision to detain her revoked by a Judge afterwards.

Deleted User wrote: »

Wait a minute, did you really just suggest that people with psychiatric issues simply need to be locked away on a "naughty step" until they cop themselves on?

Why yes I did.

When you find yourself rolling around on the ground or throwing the remote across the room the best thing to do is to take 5 minutes.

Its the same principle.

Don't make decisions when you're overly emotional.

Take 5.

Think.


.....Then act.

Without knowing the full details of this case it would seem, at face value at least, as if these people may have thought they could just saunter up, declare that the girl was suicidal and ask where and when they would be having the abortion..... but it backfired and the girl was sectioned instead.

Also, could be that the psychiatrist felt that perhaps the mother was hiding something from them and wanted to be able to talk to the girl away from her. She could have been the victim of rape for example (appears she was statutorily anyway) and the abortion was being had as a means of protecting someone. Or maybe it was just felt that the mother was manipulating the girl into thinking she wanted an abortion when in fact she didn't.

Either way, much too early to have an kind of informed opinion and nowhere near as black and white as some are suggesting it is.

People with absolutely no clue as to this girls mental status or what effect an abortion could have on it, second guessing her medical team and insisting that she be given an abortion. Quite simply using this girl as a political football. How easily the mask slips.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Irish society does not give a parent the right to abandon their child and not contribute in any way, outside of adoption.

I do not believe a man should be free to abandon his child and not contribute to its life!

Do you think a man should be allowed to abandon his child then and not have to contribute to its life in any way.

Neither do I, which is why I also oppose abortions of convenience. The point wasn't that I believe men should have that right, it's that the pro-Repeal crowd seem to have this dichotomy where women get a choice on whether to have a child but men don't get this choice.

AnGaelach wrote: »

And there is absolutely nothing to stop a woman getting on a flight and going to wherever she wishes to have an abortion.

Still burying all the little problems



Cos the pathetic excuse of the a country still has it's training wheels on

eviltwin wrote: »

Are you okay with abortion if we allow men to have an opt out?

Certainly not. This isn't just an equality thing in my view, I was merely highlighting the dichotomy that exists in many people's thinking.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually, the issue is about forcing the State to allow a woman to kill something. This isn't an argument for us imposing abortion restrictions, it's you arguing for removing those abortion restrictions. It's a very fine distinction that needs to be made, but it must be made.

Abortion isn't a right, it's about whether or not we make it a right.

gctest50 wrote: »

Still burying all the little problems

Cos the pathetic excuse of the a country still has it's training wheels on

I think you should look at the post I was replying to, I'm sure you can see the facetiousness of my post if you try hard enough.

My heart is breaking for this 14 year old girl. She must have been terrified being held against her will.
The core issue here is that a young woman rights were taken away from her. We have learned nothing in this country.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nobody forces her to travel for it.

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with trying to make rational decisions.

But you think people with psychiatric illnesses just need to be put on the naughty step (sectioned) until they just decide to get over it?

until they reach a point of calm reason yes.

you don't have to keep them there til they change their mind.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The nature of human reproduction makes it legally and morally a minefield to attempt to give the father any choice post conception point in terms of whether or not the baby should be brought to term.

It is a woman's body after all the carries the child to term.
To assign anyone any legal rights over a living and sane woman's body just sounds all kinds of dangerous and wrong to me.

Delirium wrote: »

Or do you mean that a man could compel a woman to have an abortion (or stop her)? In which case, why do you think pro-choice people would support that????

I'm not in favour of giving fathers the power to compel an abortion, no. I'm not in favour of giving anyone grounds to have an abortion except in cases of foetal abnormalities, rape (so long as we can conclusively prove it to be the case) or threat to the mother's life.

Delirium wrote: »

Are you talking about a legal framework to allow the man to absolve himself of any resposibilities for the child? Which has nothing to do with availability of abortion tbh.

The point being framed is the dichotomy of thinking that pervades a lot of the pro-Repeal crowd.

The argument is that person A should be allowed to do action A because it is their choice as a rational and individual person. This argument seems to fall on deaf ears when it is turned around:

"A woman should have the right to terminate a life because she doesn't want to raise a child"
"A man doesn't have the right to abandon his child because it's a life"