Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

they rarely if ever were.

Sigh. Except when I say they were, they were.

But AGAIN you move to generalized statements with no substance. Sigh.

No arguments, no citations, no examples, nothing I can point at and evaluate your comment as right or wrong. Sigh.

This is just an MO of yours when you have no content to offer. Sigh. You slip in generalized accusations with no substance..... so you can accuse me of things without actually directly accusing me of anything. Sigh.

When you slip back into "You always do...." "Youre always....." and can not offer any examples (even when asked) of what it is you are even talking about.... then you clearly got nothing. Sigh.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sigh.

I am sure you can see from above how little that adds to anything.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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....

Nope not what I am doing at all, just another of your generalized "always" nonsense. What I ALWAYS do in fact is when I find someone who is simply not getting my point, is I explain it better, with more length and examples and arguments and content and substance.

What you and your cohort Jack like to do is screech words like "waffle" back at me, so you can reply without ACTUALLY replying in any way, and then run away from the content of the post in question. Pretty Weak.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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??

I come from a debating background. At school level, at college level, at competition level. I have debated in private, in competition settings, and before audiences. So yes, if I someone made a poor point, a poor analogy, or a poor misrepresentation of someone elses statements I would very much allocate time to pulling them on it.

I also come from a background of having escaped the Vime and Twitter and MTV generation and as such as I have a relatively superhuman attention span compared to many of my peers. What you bemoan as a "long" post is a bare flicker in my consciousness. I consume philosophical and medical and scientific tomes on a whim in a world where some people are worried that Twitter might extend their message length a bit and make them too much to read. So I am afraid I can not really apologize for being able to produce longer and more details responses to people than the one liner cop outs I all too often get in reply. I generally try (and take this in the spirit it was intended) to only reply to people on forums like this to people I credit with enough intelligence and concentration to be able to deal with it.

But as for the "half an hour" comment, I suspect you are underestimating just how fast I type. Probably by a factor of about 3 or 4 if I map the "half an hour" comment onto the post in question.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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......

Or you could stop making this about ME in order to dodge replying to what I actually wrote? As I said earlier about two users, and I can include you as the third.... it is certainly VERY telling when someone runs away from WHAT you say and instead attacks HOW you say it. Observe how jack was left with no response other than to comment on my use of the CAPS button. That was literally all the reply he had left to offer, and you do no better here.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

But as I said there is a MASSIVE difference in how we investigate the death of an infant to establish it WAS indeed "cot death" and no foul play, and how we investigate (or do not, as it generally is) the cause of miscarriage.

And I agree, and have said it to you not once but twice now, that this comparison of miscarriage and manslaughter is not MY point nor one I make or find useful.

But SOLELY in the context of people spouting the "abortion is murder" narrative it is a distinction that is worth highlighting to them as part of explaining to them what a complete nonsense that narrative actually is. When someone understands fully why we DO in fact treat miscarriage in a massively different way to finding a child dead in a bed......... they will then have the tools to begin to understand why the "abortion is murder" slogan is a nonsense.

And that is simply the distinction I think you missed when replying to "......." and which I highlighted to you in my first reply.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

First of all, that was not the user's point and is something you have attributed to them.... but no matter

Except it IS the point and it DOES matter. It is the whole basis for the rebuttal of the "abortion with murder" narrative with the "miscarriage is manslaughter" counter narrative. That the latter is a nonsense is OBVIOUS. It is MEANT to be in the same way as Russels Teapot argument against god is MEANT to be a silly argument. It is contrived to be silly in order to highlight the silliness of the former.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I did address this point when YOU raised it and you have ignored it

Nope, I have ignored nothing and have replied to everything you have presented to me. You are making stuff up now. Again. As is your wont. And given I directly replied..........

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I even linked to a case

....... to this section of your previous post your claim I "ignored" anything is on the face of it a clear and outright lie. Again the follow on point I made in that case is that what is interesting there is that investigation in one case is the NORM, while in the other case it is the EXCEPTION. And that is exactly the distinction I have been highlighting in ever point I have made since replying to your "......" reply.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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)

Indeed, and I have read a lot of your posts on OTHER topics and have found no fault with any of them. You seem to have your head screwed on very well on many subjects. I do believe you and I even have an almost 1:1 identical taste in music to the point we even get similarly excited, like a young child on christmas morning, at the prospect of certain gigs we are about to go to.

But when it comes to the subject of abortion the wheels appear to come off and you go off on some of the most egregious nonsense I have seen on the forum and I have yet to discern where, why and how this is happening. And peoples rebuttals of your points on that topic, especially mine (it seems to me at least, there may be users who have a worse effect on you) seem to make you see red in a way that only lessens how much sense you make.

But even on this statemement we are very much in agreement IN GENERAL, though I reckon the boundry lines of WHERE that agreement lies very. Because I too find SOME abortions to be murder. If we abort a child at 39 weeks for example, I would be hard pressed indeed to describe that as anything BUT murder.

So we seem to agree SOME abortions are murder, but I get the impression you think any abortion after something LIKE (I am not sure, do not mean to put words or anything in your mouth here) 12ish weeks begins very much to qualify. Whereas I would only find my moral and ethical concerns being tested and pressured somewhere closer to the 20,22,24 area.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

Again however I should repeat what I wrote just above in reference to Russels Teapot. A lot ( I can not speak for them all, but I feel most) of the people making this "miscarriages are manslaughter" comments are doing it KNOWING it is a ridiculous statement. But they are doing so to MIRROR the ridiculousness of the "abortion is murder" narrative. They are not saying it because they ACTUALLY THINK miscarriage is manslaughter but because they think it is an analagous nonsense that serves to shed light on the nonsense it is a reply to.

And the Russels Teapot is a good example of what I mean there. Or the Flying Spaghetti monster. No one (ok near almost no one, I am sure the rule of "there is always one" applies here too) actually thinks there is a FSM or a teapot........ but they bring it up to highlight how ridiculous is "Well have you any evidence there is NO god" approach to apologetics is. They are making an intentionally farcical and ridiculous statement in order to highlight the farce and ridicule of the original statement.

And the same as at play here. Mostly. As I said Jamiekelly's nonsense is a world apart on it's own and I do not include him in ANY of this. As another user said, his equation of miscarriage with neglect basically disqualified him from speaking with the grown ups.

....... wrote: »

No Jack. I have no problem with children being provided with abortions. It is a far preferable outcome for a pregnant child.

You must surely be able to understand that what you prefer, would only be applicable to you and your circumstances, so if you were facing the prospect of becoming a grandparent to a child while your own child was still a child, then you could say categorically that you are absolutely right, because you would be your child's legal guardian.

Take that to someone else who doesn't agree with abortion under any circumstances who has a child who is pregnant - whole different ball game I assure you.

Fair enough - that is law for the past 2.5 months. Im not up to date enough in law studies it would appear.

But - we are talking about a 14 year old here are we not?

What's that phenomenon when a number keeps appearing? There's that 14 again, and I don't know where anyone is getting it from. It's not your fault or anything, but honestly I don't know what age the child in question is. I just know that she hadn't yet reached 18 years of age at the time she was detained.

You actually didnt say anything like "crisis pregnancies shouldnt happen", thats another bit of goal post moving.

No it's not. Goal post moving is changing the point completely as you did. My point is still the same, I just clarified it to clear up any confusion rather than causing any further confusion by referring to adult women who were forced to give birth.

Young pregnancies happen. What we are discussing is that children should not be forced to give birth as a result. And they should not. It does not depend on some vague and fluffy notion of "circumstances".

Ok then, we'll all agree to your decree and everything will be right with the world.

That's exactly the kind of vague, fluffy notions and ideological bollocks I'm talking about when you try to impose your own ideologies on other people who aren't you. Of course I would take into account all circumstances.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I imagine you are right, but I wonder if in a society that allows abortion more readily (say UK, Canada or hopefully Ireland in the future) it is STILL a conversation worth having.

It is one of those conversations that merely suggesting having it, will be enough to have people brand you an evil monster.... even if you fully EXPECT to come down on their side after the conversation.

But I wonder if the conversation of whether we should allow a child to remain pregnant, even if the child themselves thinks they want to remain pregnant, is one that would some say be useful to have.

Just thinking out loud there really, not a direct response to you. No idea if it would be a useful conversation to eventually have, but I can imagine at least the form arguments in that conversation would take. Ranging from "informed consent" as to whether she can knowingly and MEANINGFULLY consent to wanting to remain pregnant.......... to the well being of a child born into a world with parent(s) too young to meaningfully care for it....... to, as you say yourself, the health implications of one so young being pregnant and giving birth.

That it would be a thin ice / minefield conversation of emotion and rage to actually witness however.... is clear.

That is something that would have to be explored with the person on a case by case basis imo, because like OEJ said, circumstances are different in each case and so is the support each person will receive when baby arrives. Those who are quite young are (were, at least) automatically referred to a social worker in the maternity hospital to discuss their support network etc and offer guidance or referrals if needed.

....... wrote: »

You seem to think I am making the point of what I think is best.

I assure you I am not.

It is a simple objective fact that it is better for a child not to give birth than to give birth. Its not healthy for children to give birth either mentally or physically. There is no set of circumstances that changes this.

Its not really a shades of grey situation. In fact, I find it disturbing that someone could hold the view that its ok for children to give birth under any circumstances. It really isnt.

And this is exactly why I clarified my point, because I knew there would be someone would try and characterise my point that way when that's not what I said at all.

neonsofa wrote: »

That is something that would have to be explored with the person on a case by case basis imo, because like OEJ said

Sure, but there are MANY Things I would like to see being taken on a case by case basis but alas we do not live in a world where we can do that as often as we might like.

So we tend to draw certain lines in the sand to account as best as we can for all we know about the world. Things like age of consent and age for alcohol and the like.

I know 16 year olds who should be let drink, and I know 35-40 year olds (myself included) who should never be let near the stuff. I know when I lost my virginity (both of us 12 just shy of 13) I was ready for sex as was she. I know 21 year olds who are not.

So yes, ideally we should take stuff like this on a case by case basis I wholly agree. But we do not often live in a world where our ideals become realized. So whatever the outcome.... if any......... I just feel it may eventually become a discussion at least worth the having.

But as I said, it was a thinking out loud more than a point I actually stand behind with any conviction.

wonderfullife wrote: »

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

Now imagine you are appointed Guardian Ad Litem to the girl. What do you imagine would cause you, after talking to the girl, to immediately hire a different psychiatrist, apply to a different judge and get the girl out? Would that be in her best interests, the interests you are legally bound to follow, if you thought she even might have been suiciidal for reasons unrelated to her pregnancy when sectioned?

The reported facts suggest to me that the GAL had reason to believe the whole "sectioned for mental illness" thing was bullsh!t, and the 2nd psychiatrist and the 2nd judge agreed very quickly.

volchitsa wrote: »

Was this in Ireland? I believe it's illegal here. And probably unethical anywhere else too.



(BTW, I realize you are replying as something of an aside, but I'm a little uncomfortable to see talk of "taking away control" used about advice given, on a thread about a child being sectioned. That's not the level of coercion we're discussing here at all, and that needs to be pointed out over and over if necessary.)

In Ireland yep.

And I'm not sure what you mean by your second point.

neonsofa wrote: »

In Ireland yep.

That's illegal in Ireland. Did you report them? If not, why not? If it was strong enough advice to make you feel under pressure, that is?

neonsofa wrote: »

And I'm not sure what you mean by your second point.

Really? The child was sectioned in a mental hospital. It depends on how forcefully given the advice you got was, I suppose. :rolleyes:

volchitsa wrote: »

Do you have a link for your claim that the first psychiatrist triggered the POLDPA and that this led to her having an abortion? I can find neither of these things, but then I'm not on Reddit.

Secondly, do you have an explanation for the claim that neither the mother nor the daughter knew she was going to Dublin to be sectioned, but believed she was going for an abortion? Is that untrue, and if so, what actually happened?

Thanks.

Its not that I was arguing the details of the case.

Its that I'm letting the fear mongers know that their anti-woman conspiracy BS is being called on a international stage far far larger than boards.

It wont work.

volchitsa wrote: »

That's illegal in Ireland. Did you report them? If not, why not? If it was strong enough advice to make you feel under pressure, that is?


Really? The child was sectioned in a mental hospital. It depends on how forcefully given the advice you got was, I suppose. :rolleyes:

As a young teenager who was raising a baby it was not top priority in my life to be making complaints, rightly or wrongly, though I agree I should have. I was strong minded enough to be happy with my own decision and to disregard what I had discussed with them. Others may not have been. I did not say it put me personally under pressure, I just said it was my experience.

There is no need whatsoever to be rude. You responded to my post with a point that I did not understand in the context of what I had written, so if you would like for me to take your point on board then feel free to explain it further. Otherwise, it does your argument no favours to be making snide remarks and using sarcastic emojis when responding to people who just genuinely don't understand what you mean.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Most people don't like being detained against their will.

You entirely missed my point, almost as if you didn't read it.

Would YOU, if appointed guardian ad litem for a girl who has been sectioned as suicidal by a consulting psychiatrist, immediately hire a different psychiatrist, apply to a different judge and spring her?

Would you also apply to the court to release her on the grounds that her constitutional right to travel for an abortion is being infringed?

You don't have to join very many dots to see what happened here.

bubblypop wrote: »

but that whole post is someones take on the situation, as reported, the same as anyone else.

I know.

And their 'calm the fck down' opinion was the highest upvoted, i.e. most shared opinion.

So if anyones thinking about using this story to peddle tabloid level bullsht its clearly not going to work on the public.

Nobody with a brain is buying the various dramas that have been loosely tied to the story itself by fact-free, hair trigger, drama queens looking for a juicy political conspiracy that fits their agenda.

greencap wrote: »

Well, I've no real interest or preference when it comes to such laws.

So in the meantime I'm alright jack.

How about you?

There's a change

It looks like you are just reading down through that reddit thread and regurgitating it

That's the path it takes after the comment you pasted in a few pages back