Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

neonsofa wrote: »

Traditional pro life views about the fetus? I'm pro choice and anti church. I am advocating pro choice views, not just when I view the choice as the right one-"statistically"- but when it is the choice of the person experiencing the pregnancy.

For a young teen? Really? Are you as pro choice for everything else? If a 14 year old said she was in love with a 25 year old and wanted to leave school to get married, as her parent would you tell her to go right ahead? Or would you try to bring her down to earth by discussing the consequences in the rest of her life?

whoops ..wrong thread ..

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What the hell are you on about man?

A mature start to the post, lets hope it gets better.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What has you debating at competition level got to do with anything?

YOU brought up the length of my posts in order to deflect from the fact you were not answering anything IN the posts. Something, I note in THIS reply, you are also not doing as you, like Jack, simply shift to making it all about me and/or HOW I make my points and posts, rather than dealing with any of the actual content IN those posts. And that is immensely telling. Ad hominem is the true last vestige of the defeated. When you can not reply to WHAT I write and instead can only fabricate issues with HOW I write..... you are basically waving a large sign that says "I got nuttin".

So rather than rise to that, I instead gave you an EXPLANATION for it. There is a reason my posts are as long as they are. And that is A) I have not had my attention span eroded by the Twitter and Vime and MTV generation I respect the people I reply to enough to think (however wrongly it turns out) that they have not got an attention span limited to one liners C) My ongoing debating background leads me to be very clear and explanatory in my posts D) I type VERY fast relative to.... well anyone I have met....... and so long posts for me come easily and E) Due to the length of texts I study and read in my own life posts of this length do not even seem that long to me at all in the first place.

You think YOU have it hard reading my posts? Try debating this guy sometime I have nothing on him.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

As for asking for citations...are you serious? To back up a simple analogy? You've lost the run of yourself.

No it is YOU who has lost the run of what I am saying, do keep up. I was not asking for citations for the analogy, I was CLEARLY asking for them in relation to your unsubstantiated character attacks on me. When you said I "always" accusing people of distorting me even when they do not for example.... you offered not ONE example it, let alone enough to establish "always". And in fact I can recall NO time I have ever called you on such distortions, where you have successfully shown (even on the few occasions where you have even made the attempt rather than back tracking or running away) that the accusation was a false one.

So yes. If you are going to accuse someone of something it pays to offer evidence for the accusation. There is a difference between saying "You always do X, and here here here and here are examples of you doing it, to show what I mean" and simply declaring "You always do X" and then, quite literally, running away.

If you can not see the difference between the two, then I am not sure how to help you further, though I am willing to make the attempt.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh and any chance you could quit repeating expressions I use... it's what an eight year old does.

Or you could write your own posts and not presume to dictate to me how I should write mine. When I see something as a pointless filler used only to try and incite a reaction then rather than rise to it, it is something I do very often to simply pepper it in a subsequent post so the user can see what a pointless and petty move it was in the first place.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

As for the rest of your post....... NONE of it retorts the simple point I made

Simplistic, not simple. And I quite clearly did address it, so pretending otherwise does not magically change history. The points I am making once again are:

1) The analogy you offered is not a sound one as it was nothing like what the user you were directly replying to was saying and

2) Pointing out that calling miscarriage manslaughter is ridiculous is to miss the point that the purpose of doing so is BECAUSE it is ridiculous.

3) The "abortion is murder" mantra itself is meaningless nonsense with nothing supporting it, so it pays to meet ridiculous nonsense WITH ridiculous nonsense in, as I already said, the same way we do with other things like "Russels Teapot" arguments to name but one.

Now you are welcome to IGNORE those lines of reasoning by all means, but you do not get to simply pretend they do not exist or were not in the post.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

(if you can even remember it at this stage)

Bit rich given, as I demonstrated above, the only one failing to keep up here is you.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The reason my analogy of cot deaths is sound is because women have no culpability in either happening....

And the response to that analogy as I said is that it makes the original users point for them, in that we very clearly treat the two scenarios MASSIVELY different. An inquiry into the cause of an infant found dead in a bed is the NORM. An inquiry into the cause of a miscarriage is the EXCEPTION.

And that is the WHOLE POINT being flung in the face of the "abortion is murder" spewers. If we are to treat abortion as being outright "murder" then it would be logically consistent for us to treat ANY death of such a developing fetus to the same standards we would treat ANY death of an infant found dead in their bead.

And the moment the people spewing that nonsense and empty mantra realize why we do not do that..... and why there is no good reason for us to do that because it is a patently ridiculous thing to do or expect to do......... they will THEN understand why their own mantra is pointless, empty, abject and egregious nonsense.

And that is my point, not the one the rest of this paragraph (which I have snipped out for that reason) is pretending I am making.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

At this stage I wouldn't be surprised if you came back and said most cots are made of wood which have a coat of paint and there is neither paint nor wood in a woman's womb and therefore my analogy fails as a result. If you don't want to be accused of waffling.... then quit waffling would be my advice.

Well if the accusations of waffling are based, like the above paragraph, on imagining me saying something I never said, would never say, and as this post demonstrates subsequently DID NOT come out and say............. then the problem still lies with your waffle, not mine.

But my advice, were it to be sought, would be to wait and see what I DO say and reply to that, rather than try to pre-determine what you WANT ME to say, and deride that instead. Because then the waffle you are deriding as waffle came from you, not me. Which just makes you look doubely ridiculous in the end.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Now, whenever you want to explain (in as succinct and concise a way as you can possibly muster) how the hell it is logically consistent for people such as myself to see miscarriages as manslaughter given our beliefs....

So you are STILL missing the point then? Because establishing that is NOT what the point was, is, or likely ever will be. I explained, once again, above what the point actually is in the context of the "abortion is murder" nonsense some people spew. So that will be the only point I intend to establish here. Not the one you have invented on my behalf.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

if you post another long winded, convoluted wall of text which in no way retorts any point that I have made nor backs up the one made here by others which you have endorsed..... then I won't be replying to you.....

Given I have not done any such thing even once, the "another" mantra above is just nonsense of your own invention. But we can certainly test out your honesty at this point given I have not made one point in this post that I have not made in the previous ones. I have just repeated my points, and once again pulled YOUR words out of MY mouth as I so often have to do.

But at this point I have rebutted and torpedoes pretty much EVERY point you have thrown at me, so claiming I have addressed "none" of them is bordering on sheer comedy.

So by your own admission/claim you will not and can not be replying to this post. We shall see if "nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet forums" holds true again shan't we? A law I made up once as a tongue in cheek joke, but has validated itself comically well over the years.

volchitsa wrote: »

Neonsofa said she was "a young teenager bringing up a baby" : 13 or 14 year olds are grand to be bringing up babies now are they? If she'd decided she wanted to leave school would a sensible person "support her in her decision" without pointing out the consequences? Really? There's a reason why young teenagers don't get to make life changing decisions all by themselves.

Would that same logic not apply then in relation to a young teenager who wanted to have an abortion? Now that is your logic, not mine, and you base your logic on statistics (which I don't dispute btw!), but, at an individual level, statistics mean fcukall. Statistics are compiled after the fact, in order to support a particular point of view, in a broader context, as opposed being indicative of anything at an individual level.

That's why at an individual level, it would depend upon more than just statistics in order to provide that individual with support that is appropriate for their circumstances, and that's why "attempting to discuss a persons options logically" with someone using your logic as opposed to their logic, isn't likely to lead to the best outcome for them. That's why I completely agreed with you earlier when you said that any conversation would have to be done very carefully, but attempting to impose your own perspective and your own beliefs and your own statistically based evidence upon someone else, contrary to their perspective, is never likely to go down well and may well end up in them completely shutting you out because they don't feel they are being listened to!

But suddenly because it's a pregnancy, everything changes - but the person doesn't change, so you're simply applying your beliefs around fertilization being a new person (which is basically a religious belief, just to get back to your claim earlier that I was having a go at religion) and not treating this as you would any other life changing decision the child wanted to make.

But that's just your belief, nothing else. So no, you would not be supporting her properly IMO.

You're assuming I would impose my own beliefs on someone else in that situation. It's a fair and logical assumption to conclude given the evidence you have available to you and based upon your knowledge and experience, but you'd be wrong in making that assumption as I can tell you now I would never and have never imposed my personal beliefs on any young girl or woman in that situation. Not even once, because that would be making it about me, and not them.

You're free of course to believe what you want, and the evidence available to me suggests that it would be logical that you shall continue to do so, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. If you can point to any evidence of me ever using a religious argument to argue either for abortion, or against the 8th amendment on here, knock yourself out, I'll guarantee you won't find any. It's not something I've ever done offline either.

And as for the claim that this incitement is "support", it's further undermined by the fact that you're discussing it as part of your defence of a pregnant child having been sectioned without her next of kin even being informed, and that child turning out not to be mentally ill at all. IOW, your belief[ is that pretty much anything can be done to keep the child pregnant, but you want to pretend that manipulating her into agreeing to do so is "support". It isn't

I think I see now where the misunderstanding may have arisen here. I'm not defending anything, I'm not attacking anything or anyone either. We're both speculating here on the likelihood of a number of different scenarios based upon our experience and our knowledge of the law, and honestly I will admit I'm a bit perplexed that you don't appear to have been aware of just how much control the State and the HSE and Tusla and a whole plethora of Government and non-government agencies and agents of the State and interested parties can bring to bear upon a woman or a child in order to force the outcome one way or the other for their own ends.

I would never use manipulation on anyone, it's an insidious practice that I have absolutely no time for, because I prefer that people make decisions for themselves, because I regard their welfare as far more paramount than my ideology.

bubblypop wrote: »

having an abortion, is not life changing, having a baby is life changing.

That's pretty categorical for something so subjective.

....... wrote: »

How so?

Having an abortion is no more life changing than any other minor medical procedure.

Some women will have no problems and will continue their life unaffected, others may not find it as easy. And it is not as simple as termination means no baby and as you were, carry on. For many it is, and thankfully they are at peace with their decision, as they should be. But for some it is not as simple or as easy as that. And it can be quite agonising to try and make the right decision sometimes, it's not always a sure clear cut decision that they are happy with unfortunately. And again, that is why I feel that the woman/girls decision on the matter is so important, not what others feel is best, because she is the one who will be living with her decision- however it may or may not affect her.

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Hair and nails won't grow into a baby.

Certainly not on their own. But I am constantly awestruck at the advances in medical science and I do wonder if the day will or will not come where, with the right manipulations, there is ANY human cell in your body (remember a significant quantity of the cells in your body are not human) is beyond being used in medically induced reproduction.

Wouldn't it be wonderful when those parents dying for children, but are for whatever reason unable to conceive, will have to do little more than have a patch of cells taken from somewhere in their body and with the right manipulations can be implanted with a joined zygote that is every bit from that point on as "natural" as a child you or I may have?

We can hope. But the potential for any cell to become a child, regardless of whether it is naturally or with the machinations of science..... has never seemed a relevant point for or against abortion to me.

I have not read the entire article but do not understand why the mother did not take her to England for the termination without involving authorities here. Was she trying to save money and get the procedure done for free?
It reminds me of the 'x' case from the early 90's. All could have been done quietly if the mother had not taken her daughter to the priest to ask for his blessing!