Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

14-06-2017 12:51AM

Mentally disturbed children giving birth to children first and foremost, their issues are dealt with as second to this. Sounds reasonable to me.

Outlaw Pete - I read a lot of articles from different sources regarding this case, I'll try to find the one that mentions her age, but not tonight. I'm typing this in bed. Regardless of whether she was 14 or 17 she is still a child in the law, though?

One eyed Jack · 14-06-2017 01:18AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Mentally disturbed children giving birth to children first and foremost, their issues are dealt with as second to this. Sounds reasonable to me.

Didn't the consultant psychiatrist employed by the child's guardian ad litem determine that she was not... as you put it "mentally disturbed", and both consultant psychiatrists agreed that she did not have a mental disorder and therefore did not meet the criteria for detention under section 3 of the mental health act?

Outlaw Pete - I read a lot of articles from different sources regarding this case, I'll try to find the one that mentions her age, but not tonight. I'm typing this in bed. Regardless of whether she was 14 or 17 she is still a child in the law, though?

That was me that asked, but yes, under the the Children's Act and the Mental Health Act, a “child” means a person under the age of 18 years, but even then, it wouldn't automatically suggest that anyone could be convicted of having committed a criminal offence when sexual intercourse took place. You suggested it was still rape, but that's not necessarily true, legally at least.

wonderfullife · 14-06-2017 03:12AM

gctest50 wrote: »

Well if a psychiatrist can be trusted with all that, they can be trusted working in a setup with no law restricting abortion at all

If there's absolutely no law restricting it, would that not imply psychiatrists have nothing to do with it? That'd be a mistake.

Anyway, even the current UK model has restrictions.

Women can be (and are) denied abortions if they fail to find 2 doctors who sign off on the fact that abortion would be more detrimental to physical/mental health than continuing with the pregnancy.

Obviously there's efforts underfoot in the UK for their own repeal of the 1967 act.

Zubeneschamali · 14-06-2017 06:15AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

If there's absolutely no law restricting it, would that not imply psychiatrists have nothing to do with it?

Exactly so. I look forward to the report of the Citizen's Assembly later this month.

volchitsa · 14-06-2017 06:20AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nope, what I said was there are number of variables one of which could be that she may have been pregnant as a result of rape (by a family member perhaps) and her suicidal ideation may have been very very real.... just not solely because of she did not want to have the baby she was carrying. I note for example that it was said:

...and that to me is a very interesting choice of words.

Again, it's just one of many possibilities and I think it's a little early to be using her as some kind of prime example of why the 8th needs to be repealed as is currently happening all across social media today. It might turn out that her situation does indeed prove to be something which results in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act / the 8th being looked at, repealed or amended.... but right now to say all that is somewhat premature would be a massive understatement.

None of that relates to my point that the examples you gave to illustrate how she could be refused an abortion for suicide ideation and then be sectioned... for suicide ideation mean doctors sectioning someone they didn't think was suicidal and who didn't have any other signs of mental illness.

You may well have had a point, albeit you didn't measure the full import of what you were saying.

Because my basic question is how is it possible to refuse someone an abortion on grounds of suicide ideation and then lock them up on the same grounds?

The idea that it was because they didn't believe she was suicidal is problematic, to say the least.

And if they did believe she was suicidal, then why don't they appear to have even considered setting the process of POLDPA in motion, with the panel of doctors and whatnot? That didn't commit anyone to an abortion, just to considering one.

volchitsa · 14-06-2017 06:29AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

If there's absolutely no law restricting it, would that not imply psychiatrists have nothing to do with it? That'd be a mistake.

Anyway, even the current UK model has restrictions.

Women can be (and are) denied abortions if they fail to find 2 doctors who sign off on the fact that abortion would be more detrimental to physical/mental health than continuing with the pregnancy.

Obviously there's efforts underfoot in the UK for their own repeal of the 1967 act.

Is the current UK law the best available?

I see Canada seems to have no law at all, and doesn't have any more late term abortions than the average. Late term abortions occur because of issues like fetal disability, pregnancy related illnesses and, in some cases, difficulty of access to earlier terminations. Not because the law isn't strong enough to stop them.

Anita Blow · 14-06-2017 07:25AM

volchitsa wrote: »

None of that relates to my point that the examples you gave to illustrate how she could be refused an abortion for suicide ideation and then be sectioned... for suicide ideation mean doctors sectioning someone they didn't think was suicidal and who didn't have any other signs of mental illness.

You may well have had a point, albeit you didn't measure the full import of what you were saying.

Because my basic question is how is it possible to refuse someone an abortion on grounds of suicide ideation and then lock them up on the same grounds?

The idea that it was because they didn't believe she was suicidal is problematic, to say the least.

And if they did believe she was suicidal, then why don't they appear to have even considered setting the process of POLDPA in motion, with the panel of doctors and whatnot? That didn't commit anyone to an abortion, just to considering one.

The girl was sectioned for suicidal intent rather than ideation. IE- she voiced credible plans to take her own life which she claimed she would do in the near future.
Again, suicidal intent associated with her pregnancy is not the only criteria for an abortion and I've outlined several scenarios previously. She may well be sectioned for intent arising from a previously undiagnosed depression precipitated by her pregnancy. In this situation, there's reasonable doubt that abortion will cure her depression and the weight of the evidence and best practice is that SSRIs should be tried first.
That is a perfectly sound example of how the girl could be detained for suicidal intent but not qualify for an abortion (because abortion is not the only treatment for her presentation).

As I already stated, the first psychiatrist must be satisfied that all 3 test criteria in the POLDP act have been met before he refers to the 2nd psychiatrist. The report shows he did reference these test criteria- she had suicidal intent associated with her pregnancy but based on the information she gave him, it is unlikely to have cured her.

Samaris · 14-06-2017 08:30AM

Leaving aside the rest of the whole sorry tale, if a girl well under the age to be legally having sex shows up pregnant and desperately wanting not to be, she should be given an abortion.

I've not seen an age for the girl, but from how the article referred to her repeatedly as "young girl" and once as "child", I got the impression she was likely between the ages of 12-15, I'd have probably gone for 14 as well. By 16/17, I would -suspect- the reports would refer to her as "adolescent" or "young woman".

Early teens is too young to be giving birth. It's not good for her, physically or mentally. Yes, this post is based on the unsubstantiated impression that she is approximately fourteen or so. If anyone has deduced surely that she is 16/17, ignore my post.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-06-2017 08:33AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

For people to cast aspersions on the personal belief system of the psychiatrist is unfair and shameful. He doesn't have the opportunity to defend himself on this thread, for a start.

I agree of course. But at the same time I fully understand peoples concerns and fears at how much the current system may potentially allow for such personal belief and bias. The Average Joe Public does not know how the system works, and a story like this can very easily stoke a paranoia narrative in them in a way that someone "in the know" about the system might fail to understand.

Sometimes being in the know on how a system works makes it very difficult to get in the head space of someone who is NOT in the know..... and their concerns and ideas seem.... to use your words "unfair and shameful" unless you can get into their head space and see where their concerns are coming from.

I do hope "head space" is not one of the modern buzz phrases that bothers you

I did try to think of a better one but I am tired today.

wonderfullife wrote: »

One thing I don't believe is that a psychiatrist would risk the health or life of a patient due to a personal belief.

Oh I don't know either way. But I would be cautious of classing this as a mere personal belief like any other. People against abortion often see it as outright murder. And not just any murder, but the murder of the "silent scream" and the most vulnerable and delicate and precious members of our society. I can very much see someone instilled with such a narrative being moved to make decisions they retrospectively justify to themselves as having been "the best for the patient".

Forget not that we live in a world where personal beliefs motivate, what to us on the outside appear to be, the most egregious and heinous acts. The example that comes to mind is always of the parents who watch their own children die painfully of relatively easily manageable medical conditions, solely because they believe medical intervention to be an affront to god. And there have been some court cases in places like the US, and editorials in media, about such cases and events.

When "personal belief" can motivate a loving parent to watch their own child die slowly and painfully, I hold no high level of skepticism for the idea it could color the decisions of even the most well educated and well meaning of mental health professionals.

NEVER underestimate the power of belief. It is pretty much everything in a narrative driven species like ours. The right belief, installed in the right way on someones neck-top computer can cascade through their entire behavioral and decision making matrix.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Would people be outraged if the psychiatrist diagnosed this girl with an acute mental issue, granted her a legal abortion and still sectioned her temporarily?

I can not speak for "people" but I think in my gut I feel that if I decided a person was A) suicidal and

suicidal because pregnant.... I would want to keep as close an eye on her as possible, even if she is being offered an abortion, until such time as she is not pregnant any more.

But of course being pro-choice as I am, I would much rather live in a society where she did not have to jump through hoops of showing herself to be suicidal at all, but could simply CHOOSE to have an abortion up to something like week 16 without having to justify it to anyone, other than the usual safety and evaluation procedures such clinics have in place.

It always worries me when there are criteria for access to a strongly demanded service. If you tell people "You can only have abortion if you present as suicidal" then people are going to have incentive to present as suicidal. Just like our ridiculous blasphemy law is an incentive to display outrage. And that can never be a good thing, and is only going to complicate the already difficult career of psychiatrists and the people who have to evaluate this.

If I were a girl DESPERATE for an abortion for some reason...... some narrative in my life that made me desperate to not be pregnant........ and I had the impression I needed to convince people I was suicidal to get it. What might I do? Simply put on an act? What if I felt that might not work? Might I be compelled to some level of self harm? Maybe even stage a suicide attempt? What if the staging went wrong and I actually succeeded in killing myself? I might hang myself JUST when I think my dad is going to come in the door..... so he can "save" me.... but he might suddenly turn away from the door thinking "Oh crap, I forgot to buy milk"...............

It never pays to incentivise people to present with a particular negative attribute. IF it can be avoided.

But you are right in everything you say about the improvements required across the entire system. It does not help that it is all a relatively new area for our species. While we are now of course turning the methodologies we have learned from science and epidemiology onto mental health, it is still a very young field relatively speaking and I fear for how much of it is still little more than very well meant guess work. And probably will be for longer than I care to guess at. We have so much more to learn, as well as (or even before we) improve.

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-06-2017 08:33AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why do you always resort to this kind of crap, nozz? Accusing people of distorting positions? You're forever at it.

IF you keep claiming that 2+2=5 would you wonder why people are "forever at" telling you it is actually 4? Perhaps the reason I am "forever at" telling you you have distorted their position is because YOU are "forever at" distorting them. Not occur to you at all, no?

But you are contriving to take offence when in fact I was quite light in the comment. I suggested you were not doing it intentionally, and you were merely in error. But THAT you were distorting THAT particular position, in THAT
particular case is pretty clear. So rather than spew out a generalization narrative of "Oh you are always at this" why not defend yourself, if you can, against the SPECIFIC accusation at hand?

Or is it that you realize you can NOT defend yourself against it, because you DID in fact misunderstand and/or misrepresent the persons position, so it is simply the only course open to you to shift to a generalized statement rather than argue the specific one? I suspect this to be the case here. I suspect you do too.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Firstly, I didn't even comment on the user's position and so how the hell could I bloody well distort it?

Funny you should ask that given that was EXACTLY what I just explained in the post you are pretending to be replying to. The distortion lies in you making an analogy statement to something that was not at all representative of the hypothetical they presented.

The question "In that case cot death should be considered manslaughter too should it?" was not at all one that is representative of, analogous to, or follows on from what the user actually said. And it is for THAT reason I am suggesting you, willfully OR not, misunderstood or misrepresented their post.

So no you did not question "the logic they were using". You misrepresented logic they were not using AS logic they were. Quite a difference there. It is not the "same logic" as you claimed. But a different one of your own devising.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You see... not even the remote hint of my "distorting their position" so maybe give it a rest, yeah.

Except yes, it was. But sure, other than the fact it was, I am sure it wasn't. In the same way black is white in every way other than actually being white. Sorry to call you on a fact, but give it a rest, yeah?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Now, I don't believe it is at all necessary to extrapolate on just why my posing the above question showed just how illogical the user's point was

It is not illogical at all, and merely calling it illogical does not magically make it attain that attribute. The point is clear and cogent and I demonstrated it using YOUR OWN cot death analogy.

IF abortion is to be considered murder then let us consider your cot death analogy. What happens when someone shows up with a corpse claiming cot death. Do we go "Oh that is unfortunate, yeah cot death happens all the time alas, lets go bury this poor child!"?

No. We do not. We in fact undergo a medical examination to ascertain the cause of death and rule out foul play or intention BEFORE we acquiesce to the claim of cot death.

So the users point is that IF abortion were to be called murder then it would be unusual not to put in the same level of effort into ascertaining miscarriage was not the result of intentional foul play, in the same way we would while ascertaining the same about a cot death.

Now I repeat this is not an argument I myself make in the context of abortion, but I merely think it would be better for you if you wish to establish the above argument as illogical.... to do so by SHOWING it to be so in terms of the ACTUAL argument that is being made..... and not a distorted version of the argument you have erected on your own. Doncha think?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

but as it's your good self and you're prone to not paying the remotest heed to points put to you (when they are not congruent with your own at least) ............. I shall:

That is a spurious and disingenuous nonsense you have presented about me there, and the record of all my posts on this forum shows that the opposite is true. I address and deal with QUITE DIRECTLY AND OPENLY with points made to me. You pretending otherwise is nothing more that you deflecting from the fact that you are the one guilty of what you accuse others of.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Women don't play anymore role in the vast majority of miscarriages occurring than they do in the vast majority of cot deaths occurring.... and so therefore to make the point that women who suffer miscarriages should be charged with neglect is no different than saying that women who lose children to cot deaths should also.

But AGAIN that is not quite the point being made by the user you were replying to. Rather the point being made is about the difference in effort we make between the two in establishing where blame (if any) lies between the two.

With cot death we actually go to the time and effort to establish what happened, and ascertain if there is ANY reason to think someone (the parent or otherwise) is to blame in terms of foul play or neglect.

So the users point is that anyone who thinks of abortion as murder, has some explaining to do in terms of why we treat the two differently in that regard. THAT is the point being made and THAT is precisely the point you are not addressing. Choosing one of your own invention to address instead, while getting haughty that the difference between the two is being called out and highlighted.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Eh, that was not the user's point at all.... but sometimes the authorities do put the same level of investigation into miscarriages as they do cot deaths, depends on the circumstances.

Except yes it is the point being made. And oh I am absolutely sure they do do such investigations into it SOMETIMES. Which is why I am quick to say that while I am clarifying what I think the point actually IS, I am also quick to say it is not a point I myself make or argue.

but "sometimes" is a key word there. There is still a difference relatively speaking between the two contexts. You show up with a dead child claiming they died in the night and I suspect an investigation will SOMETIMES NOT be performed. You present with a miscarriage and an investigation SOMETIMES WILL be performed.

There is a clear difference there, no? A difference I know the reasons for of course, but a difference that does not fit comfortably in with the people spewing the nonsense "abortion is murder" narrative.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nobody distorted the user's argument ffs.

Except yes, you did, in the ways I explained and have repeated above.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well no, that's not true... as you most certainly did :P

That is forever the difference between you and I alas. When I accuse you of an error, distortion or other failing I present the accusation and THEN (usually at nauseating length) present the reasons I have made it.

While you simply spew out the accusation, and then run away without lending it even a modicum of substance. If I have distorted anything then rather than weakly assert I have.... please show HOW and WHERE I have with some actual substance. Assertion does not a fact make young padewan.

The user was not coming from the pov that we should look more into miscarriages to ensure no foul play or intention was in play.... where the hell did you pluck that one from?? Seriously, maybe read the user's post and quit waffling about what you would like their point to have been... just so you can bloody well point score.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And you're defending this bolloxology?

Clearly and most patently obviously not, and if you were to do more than merely PRETEND to be paying attention to my posts you would see I have lambasted that nonsense in more than one post from that user. I am NOT referring to that user at all in my posts to you. I was referring to the user "......." and your response to them.

The obviously misinformed and judgmental and insulting crap from Jamiekelly is entirely separate from the post of yours I replied to, and the post you were in turn replying to at the time. That Jamiekelly thinks miscarriage is directly related to neglect is a nonsense entirely of his own fantastical invention and maps in no way that I am aware of on to reality.

DO try to keep up here. You replied to "......" and I replied to you. My content has and had nothing whatsoever to do with Jamiekelly. It is you that has suddenly and magically brought him into this. Not I.

Zubeneschamali · 14-06-2017 09:51AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

One thing I don't believe is that a psychiatrist would risk the health or life of a patient due to a personal belief.

Hey, take it up with Professor Casey, who has stated openly that she believes an abortion is never justified under the existing law because of risk of suicide, despite what the law and the constitution say, and the ruling of the Supreme Court in the X-case.

And I did not say that the psychiatrist in this case definitely agreed with Casey, I said I bet, when the facts come out, that we will find that the psychiatrist has well known pro-life views.

I really can't imagine any other reason for the sequence of events.

volchitsa · 14-06-2017 11:35AM

Anita Blow wrote: »

The girl was sectioned for suicidal intent rather than ideation. IE- she voiced credible plans to take her own life which she claimed she would do in the near future.
Again, suicidal intent associated with her pregnancy is not the only criteria for an abortion and I've outlined several scenarios previously. She may well be sectioned for intent arising from a previously undiagnosed depression precipitated by her pregnancy. In this situation, there's reasonable doubt that abortion will cure her depression and the weight of the evidence and best practice is that SSRIs should be tried first.
That is a perfectly sound example of how the girl could be detained for suicidal intent but not qualify for an abortion (because abortion is not the only treatment for her presentation).

Even if she had other problems as well, the pregnancy-suicide link is one that we have made explicit in Irish law and it doesn't say that the pregnancy must be the sole reason for her wanting to commit suicide.

Let's say someone is suicidal: three different major problems come out in the discussion, and you can start to fix one of them tomorrow. Surely you start by dealing with that one? We have a law for that exact problem, but it wasn't triggered, by which I mean evaluating her according to the protocol.

As I already stated, the first psychiatrist must be satisfied that all 3 test criteria in the POLDP act have been met before he refers to the 2nd psychiatrist. The report shows he did reference these test criteria- she had suicidal intent associated with her pregnancy but based on the information she gave him, it is unlikely to have cured her.

This doesn't really make sense to me, are you saying that in fact the first psychiatrist does all the evaluation, and the others are just there to sign off on it? Or perhaps to refuse it, but not to have equal input in granting it?

My understanding was that if the person is suicidal to the extent of requiring involuntary incarceration, and the pregnancy is causing it the the law says POLDPA is there for that reason?

Where does the law say suicidal intent can have only one single cause, namely the pregnancy? Surely the pregnancy could be the event that tips her over the edge?

Since they let her go to Dublin unaccompanied except by her mother, the intent was either not immediate, or was calmed by the belief that she was going for a termination?

One eyed Jack · 14-06-2017 11:47AM

Samaris wrote: »

Leaving aside the rest of the whole sorry tale, if a girl well under the age to be legally having sex shows up pregnant and desperately wanting not to be, she should be given an abortion.

Ideologically, I agree with you, but, I wouldn't be so quick to say that ideological position should apply regardless of all other circumstances, because what we'd still be talking about here is a child, and so you'd have to take into consideration her family circumstances and so much more, while also considering her mental state and at what stage she is at in her pregnancy to determine whether a medical or surgical abortion would be the best course of action, and the effect that could have on her mental state, and her relationships with her family and so on.

When presented with that situation for real, ideological positions mean fcukall really.

I've not seen an age for the girl, but from how the article referred to her repeatedly as "young girl" and once as "child", I got the impression she was likely between the ages of 12-15, I'd have probably gone for 14 as well. By 16/17, I would -suspect- the reports would refer to her as "adolescent" or "young woman".

I haven't seen any age for the girl either, that's why I asked budgese, because I'd seen 14 been bandied about by a few people. The Irish Times might want to put a particular spin on a story, but they have no way of knowing what age the child is either; they're still a child in law before the age of 18 according to the Child Care Act.

Given that the name of the project is the Child Care Law Project established by the Child Care (Amendment) Act -

It is an independent project established under Section 3 of the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2007, in accordance with the Regulations made under that Act, with the support of the One Foundation, Atlantic Philanthropies and the Department of Children of Youth Affairs. While receiving their support it is entirely operationally independent.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the media often prefer to take liberties with the facts in order to spin a particular narrative, and the Irish Times is no exception where journalistic integrity has (unsurprisingly) been replaced by political ideology, meaning they're no better than the dozens of other tabloid rags I wouldn't wipe myself with nowadays.

Early teens is too young to be giving birth. It's not good for her, physically or mentally. Yes, this post is based on the unsubstantiated impression that she is approximately fourteen or so. If anyone has deduced surely that she is 16/17, ignore my post.

I'd say it depends entirely upon the child and her circumstances tbh before I'd be able to make a determination like that either way, all circumstances considered without impressing my own ideological bias on someone else and assuming they would think the way I do, but that would be my opinion based solely upon my experience. Absolutely other peoples mileage will vary and I'm already well aware that my experience isn't universal.

Persephone kindness · 14-06-2017 11:48AM

The law is an ass. It's wrong.

....... · 14-06-2017 11:59AM

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack · 14-06-2017 12:20PM

....... wrote: »

Oh come on, early teens is too young for someone to be giving birth full stop.

She is still a child herself ffs.

Like I said, I'm not going to impose my ideological bias on anyone, and that's why I say it would depend on the individual child and her circumstances.

It's not so black and white as you imagine it should be at all when you must surely be aware of adult women now who gave birth when they were younger, and their experiences and outcomes and the outcomes for the children they gave birth to?

That's why I said your mileage and experience will undoubtedly vary.

neonsofa · 14-06-2017 12:21PM

....... wrote: »

Oh come on, early teens is too young for someone to be giving birth full stop.

She is still a child herself ffs.

Exactly. Having been pregnant at a young age I can safely say that it can all work out in the end and it is not always a disaster that people make it out to be especially with a good support network, but it's obviously never ideal. And given that this particular child has requested a termination, she obviously knows that it is not right for her regardless of other factors or supports, she herself has decided that she is not in a position to continue with the pregnancy and I think it's unbelievably sad that people are ignoring that or dismissing her feelings on the situation.

....... · 14-06-2017 12:26PM

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack · 14-06-2017 12:34PM

....... wrote: »

No Jack - I can categorically state that it is never a good idea for a child to be giving birth.

You can categorically state what you want, it wouldn't make a difference to anyone else really.

Any child giving birth is doing so as the result of rape - a young teenager is below the age of consent.

As I said earlier - that's not necessarily true, legally at least. Colloquially you could call it rape if you want though, with no legal basis.

I dont believe I know anyone who was forced to give birth as a young teenager no.

Yeah, that's what I asked alright.

(except it isn't)

PopePalpatine · 14-06-2017 12:38PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Hey, take it up with Professor Casey, who has stated openly that she believes an abortion is never justified under the existing law because of risk of suicide, despite what the law and the constitution say, and the ruling of the Supreme Court in the X-case.

Or take it up with 200 of her comrades.

....... · 14-06-2017 12:42PM

This post has been deleted.

Captain Obvious · 14-06-2017 12:43PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Except it isn't, as has been discussed a lot in this thread.

Deleted User wrote: »

Suicidal people are rarely sectioned, even suicidal children.

That is generally because they are either not considered an immediate threat to themselves or because they agree to be voluntarily admitted.

wonderfullife · 14-06-2017 12:54PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I really can't imagine any other reason for the sequence of events.

Well, I could imagine a sequence of events where a suicidal child is sectioned regardless of personal beliefs of the psychiatrist. Easily.

volchitsa wrote: »

Is the current UK law the best available?

I see Canada seems to have no law at all, and doesn't have any more late term abortions than the average. Late term abortions occur because of issues like fetal disability, pregnancy related illnesses and, in some cases, difficulty of access to earlier terminations. Not because the law isn't strong enough to stop them.

I don't know but I don't think it's a good idea that there should be no government oversight at all on anything to do with pregnancy.

Persephone kindness · 14-06-2017 12:56PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Or take it up with 200 of her comrades.

That is EXACTLY what I would expect of that profession.

aidan24326 · 14-06-2017 01:12PM

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

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

Thank you for that insightful contribution.

Persephone kindness wrote: »

That is EXACTLY what I would expect of that profession.

Doesn't surprise me either. Quacks quacking.

volchitsa · 14-06-2017 01:32PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

I don't know but I don't think it's a good idea that there should be no government oversight at all on anything to do with pregnancy.

Government oversight is not the same as a possible 14 year prison sentence of the doctor is found to have made a mistake!

Pretty sure there is some method of government oversight in Canada too, so that's not the issue.

One eyed Jack · 14-06-2017 01:32PM

....... wrote: »

You said it depends on circumstances. This is rubbish. Children should not be giving birth.

It does depend upon the circumstances, otherwise using your same logic consistently - children should not be having abortions. This is why I said that when presented with the situation in reality, ideological positions mean fcukall.

A child cannot give consent, ergo, its a rape. We dont have romeo and juliet law in Ireland.

Genuinely, before you start claiming that as fact, you should familiarise yourself with the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences Act) 2017, this part in particular -

(8) Where, in proceedings for an offence under this section against a child who at the time of the alleged commission of the offence had attained the age of 15 years but was under the age of 17 years, it shall be a defence that the child consented to the sexual act of which the offence consisted where the defendant—

(a) is younger or less than 2 years older than the child,

(b) was not, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, a person in authority in respect of the child, and

(c) was not, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, in a relationship with the child that was intimidatory or exploitative of the child.”.

I know you are a fan of goalpost changing.

You stated I must know adult women who gave birth when they were young.

I dont know anyone who was forced to give birth as a young teenager.

I do some some women who gave birth at age 16 but they were not forced to do so. In all cases the adult women express regret. I do not know any adult women who say it was a good idea for them to have given birth as teenagers.

Who changed the goalposts there exactly? I didn't ask you anything about women who were forced to give birth when they were young, so you moved the goalposts by offering an answer to a question that wasn't asked.

Having said that, if it may clear up any confusion - I was responding to Samaris' point that "early teens is too young to be giving birth. It's not good for her, physically or mentally", and I clarified my opinion by saying that it was my opinion based solely upon my experience, and was in no way universal, because while I might take an ideological position that crisis pregnancies shouldn't happen, and aren't ideal for anyone, reality is that they do happen, and in cases where they do happen, I would sooner consider all circumstances than impose my own ideology on someone else's situation.

That's not saying I would ignore her wishes, but I would have thought that much was obvious. I'm not a complete cnut.

Outlaw Pete · 14-06-2017 01:39PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

IF you keep claiming that 2+2=5 would you wonder why people are "forever at" telling you it is actually 4? Perhaps the reason I am "forever at" telling you you have distorted their position is because YOU are "forever at" distorting them. Not occur to you at all, no?

Wasn't just talking about myself, I see you debate with many users and usually within three or four posts you are accusing them of distorting your position and misrepresenting your views..... they rarely if ever were.

But you are contriving to take offence when in fact I was quite light in the comment. I suggested you were not doing it intentionally, and you were merely in error. But THAT you were distorting THAT particular position, in THAT
particular case is pretty clear. So rather than spew out a generalization narrative of "Oh you are always at this" why not defend yourself, if you can, against the SPECIFIC accusation at hand?

Or is it that you realize you can NOT defend yourself against it, because you DID in fact misunderstand and/or misrepresent the persons position, so it is simply the only course open to you to shift to a generalized statement rather than argue the specific one? I suspect this to be the case here. I suspect you do too.

Funny you should ask that given that was EXACTLY what I just explained in the post you are pretending to be replying to. The distortion lies in you making an analogy statement to something that was not at all representative of the hypothetical they presented.

The question "In that case cot death should be considered manslaughter too should it?" was not at all one that is representative of, analogous to, or follows on from what the user actually said. And it is for THAT reason I am suggesting you, willfully OR not, misunderstood or misrepresented their post.

So no you did not question "the logic they were using". You misrepresented logic they were not using AS logic they were. Quite a difference there. It is not the "same logic" as you claimed. But a different one of your own devising.

Except yes, it was. But sure, other than the fact it was, I am sure it wasn't. In the same way black is white in every way other than actually being white. Sorry to call you on a fact, but give it a rest, yeah?

It is not illogical at all, and merely calling it illogical does not magically make it attain that attribute. The point is clear and cogent and I demonstrated it using YOUR OWN cot death analogy.

IF abortion is to be considered murder then let us consider your cot death analogy. What happens when someone shows up with a corpse claiming cot death. Do we go "Oh that is unfortunate, yeah cot death happens all the time alas, lets go bury this poor child!"?

No. We do not. We in fact undergo a medical examination to ascertain the cause of death and rule out foul play or intention BEFORE we acquiesce to the claim of cot death.

So the users point is that IF abortion were to be called murder then it would be unusual not to put in the same level of effort into ascertaining miscarriage was not the result of intentional foul play, in the same way we would while ascertaining the same about a cot death.

Now I repeat this is not an argument I myself make in the context of abortion, but I merely think it would be better for you if you wish to establish the above argument as illogical.... to do so by SHOWING it to be so in terms of the ACTUAL argument that is being made..... and not a distorted version of the argument you have erected on your own. Doncha think?

That is a spurious and disingenuous nonsense you have presented about me there, and the record of all my posts on this forum shows that the opposite is true. I address and deal with QUITE DIRECTLY AND OPENLY with points made to me. You pretending otherwise is nothing more that you deflecting from the fact that you are the one guilty of what you accuse others of.

But AGAIN that is not quite the point being made by the user you were replying to. Rather the point being made is about the difference in effort we make between the two in establishing where blame (if any) lies between the two.

With cot death we actually go to the time and effort to establish what happened, and ascertain if there is ANY reason to think someone (the parent or otherwise) is to blame in terms of foul play or neglect.

So the users point is that anyone who thinks of abortion as murder, has some explaining to do in terms of why we treat the two differently in that regard. THAT is the point being made and THAT is precisely the point you are not addressing. Choosing one of your own invention to address instead, while getting haughty that the difference between the two is being called out and highlighted.

Except yes it is the point being made. And oh I am absolutely sure they do do such investigations into it SOMETIMES. Which is why I am quick to say that while I am clarifying what I think the point actually IS, I am also quick to say it is not a point I myself make or argue.

but "sometimes" is a key word there. There is still a difference relatively speaking between the two contexts. You show up with a dead child claiming they died in the night and I suspect an investigation will SOMETIMES NOT be performed. You present with a miscarriage and an investigation SOMETIMES WILL be performed.

There is a clear difference there, no? A difference I know the reasons for of course, but a difference that does not fit comfortably in with the people spewing the nonsense "abortion is murder" narrative.

Except yes, you did, in the ways I explained and have repeated above.

That is forever the difference between you and I alas. When I accuse you of an error, distortion or other failing I present the accusation and THEN (usually at nauseating length) present the reasons I have made it.

While you simply spew out the accusation, and then run away without lending it even a modicum of substance. If I have distorted anything then rather than weakly assert I have.... please show HOW and WHERE I have with some actual substance. Assertion does not a fact make young padewan.

The user was not coming from the pov that we should look more into miscarriages to ensure no foul play or intention was in play.... where the hell did you pluck that one from?? Seriously, maybe read the user's post and quit waffling about what you would like their point to have been... just so you can bloody well point score.

Clearly and most patently obviously not, and if you were to do more than merely PRETEND to be paying attention to my posts you would see I have lambasted that nonsense in more than one post from that user. I am NOT referring to that user at all in my posts to you. I was referring to the user "......." and your response to them.

Sigh.

Nozz, you're doing what you always do and that is to ramble away by posting as much convoluted waffle as you can in the hope that the fact that you are wrong gets missed.... and I suspect it just might. What would you do if someone made the analogy I had to you in person? Would you ramble on like the above for a half an hour or more in front of them?? Seriously man, if you want users to engage with you maybe try and be concise so that it won't take them half the bloody day to reply to you......

The obviously misinformed and judgmental and insulting crap from Jamiekelly is entirely separate from the post of yours I replied to, and the post you were in turn replying to at the time. That Jamiekelly thinks miscarriage is directly related to neglect is a nonsense entirely of his own fantastical invention and maps in no way that I am aware of on to reality.

DO try to keep up here. You replied to "......" and I replied to you. My content has and had nothing whatsoever to do with Jamiekelly. It is you that has suddenly and magically brought him into this. Not I.

It was Jamiekelly's logic that the user I replied to was defending, they raised the point (you'll no doubt ramble on about that now) but look, it makes no difference as either way you have posted nothing to support the absurd view that it should be logically consistent for those that see abortion as murder to then see miscarriages as manslaughter. It's an extremely illogical thing to say..... as illogical as saying cot deaths are manslaughter given that the mother will have had a similar same role to play in those.... i.e. none.

As for this:

So the users point is that anyone who thinks of abortion as murder, has some explaining to do in terms of why we treat the two differently in that regard. THAT is the point being made and THAT is precisely the point you are not addressing.

First of all, that was not the user's point and is something you have attributed to them.... but no matter, as I did address this point when YOU raised it and you have ignored it. If medics suspect foul play when presented with a woman who claims she has miscarried, they will investigate it and as said, women have been jailed as a result. I even linked to a case and so how can you say I didn't address that point?

Look, nozz.............. I believe some abortions are murder (am on record of saying as much and for endorsing the jailing of certain women who have been imprisoned) but there is not a snow's chance in hell I would therefore see miscarriages as manslaughter..... it's probably one of the most illogical things I have ever read on Boards over the years.... but yet here you are attempting to give that preposterous view based on farcical logic... credence. Why bother, it has none, not even a smidgen.

volchitsa · 14-06-2017 01:42PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Having said that, if it may clear up any confusion - I was responding to Samaris' point that "early teens is too young to be giving birth. It's not good for her, physically or mentally", and I clarified my opinion by saying that it was my opinion based solely upon my experience, and was in no way universal, because while I might take an ideological position that crisis pregnancies shouldn't happen, and aren't ideal for anyone, reality is that they do happen, and in cases where they do happen, I would sooner consider all circumstances than impose my own ideology on someone else's situation.

That's not saying I would ignore her wishes, but I would have thought that much was obvious. I'm not a complete cnut.

Look, it absolutely is too young, in fact it's actually dangerous for the girl, and also has a much higher rate of disability in the resulting baby. Those are just facts.

However if the girl doesn't want an abortion, then obviously the risk of traumatizing her by forcing her into one would have to be taken into account, and I imagine in all but the most extreme danger, the girl would be helped to continue her pregnancy.

But that should only be because that seemed to be the least traumatic course for her, not because there was some effort to make her continue the pregnancy against her wishes.

It still wouldn't mean that giving birth at a young age is not in itself likely to be harmful to her, because it is.

neonsofa · 14-06-2017 01:47PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Having said that, if it may clear up any confusion - I was responding to Samaris' point that "early teens is too young to be giving birth. It's not good for her, physically or mentally", and I clarified my opinion by saying that it was my opinion based solely upon my experience, and was in no way universal, because while I might take an ideological position that crisis pregnancies shouldn't happen, and aren't ideal for anyone, reality is that they do happen, and in cases where they do happen, I would sooner consider all circumstances than impose my own ideology on someone else's situation.
.

And the reason they said early teens is too young is because it is not ideal, just like you have said. There are absolutely times where people make it work but that does not mean it is good for them.

Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

Comments