J C wrote: » You don't need a crystal ball to predict that abortion without gestational age limits will occur if the 8th is repealed. Abortion without gestational age limits is already on our Statute Books ... and the only thing preventing late abortions being carried out is the requirement in the PLDPA for ''to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable" ... which is taken directly from the 8th ... and will fall if the 8th is repealed.
david75 wrote: » TBh JC and I don’t have a crystal ball or anything but I know that will never happen here. Ever. I think you’re probably worrying about the wrong thing in this regard.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
....... wrote: » You really seem to have the lowest opinion of people possible. Do you really think it is the 8th that prevents total anarchy?
volchitsa wrote: » You seem very sure. What evidence do you have for this, seeing as the psychiatrist accepted that girl herself was adamant that her problem was that she needed an abortion and she was clear about her reasons? What evidence would be needed exactly? Or are you saying that nobody can ever prove this, so that any woman who requests an abortion under section 9 of POLDPA is liable to find themselves sectioned instead!?
david75 wrote: » Look at the thread title. We all here in this thread spoke at length about whether Christians can vote for abortion and the fact the majority of people in Ireland are Christians yet in name only and no longer subscribed to the church and have completely amputated faith in their decision making as well as amputating the church from telling them how to think and how to vote.
Nick Park wrote: » Not sure what this has to do with abortion? I'm not a Catholic, but I think the Pope is talking good sense here. Hypocritical nominal Christians are a real pain in the backside. On the other hand, I know a number of atheists who are gracious and people of integrity.
end of the road wrote: » she didn't fit the criteria for an abortion because it could not be proved that she was suicidal because she was pregnant and it could not be proved that an abortion would change her feelings. therefore the psychiatrist felt that sectioning her was the best thing for her so she could be treated and given the help and support she needed and deserved. the psychiatrist wanted to help her and did what he thought was best. was he wrong, maybe he was maybe he wasn't. but i believe he did what he felt was best for her.
volchitsa wrote: » "Wrongly" matters here, because she did fit the criteria for an abortion (suicidal because of her pregnancy) and was not asking for any treatment under MHA. The psychiatrist agreed that she fulfilled the criteria for PLDPA, but then, instead of applying POLDPA he went off on a solo run and misapplied an entirely separate act, for which she needed to be both suicidal and diagnosed with a specific mental illness. He also failed to inform her family, which as she was a minor he was obliged to do, never mind getting parental consent. Yet at the same time he used her mother to take her to the unit where she was interned, allowing the woman to believe thqt she was taking her daughter for an abortion. Those are all very serious breaches of MHA and the rules governing when someone's liberty may legally be removed from them. So serious that a psychiatrist asked about whether this sequence of events could potentially happen said it would simply not be possible. So in effect, she asked for POLDP to be invoked, she fulfilled the criteria, but instead, in a catch 22 which is not going to be found legal if she takes the HSE to court, she was interned under a different law for which she did not fulfill the criteria. This is about the third time I've pointed this out, but if necessary I shall keep on doing so for as long as posters rewrite reality and the law to suit their own desires.
....... wrote: » Yes- I already explained that to you. However in practice locking a woman up instead of giving her an abortion has happened.
....... wrote: » Depends. You wouldnt have an abortion at 8 months if the child was viable, you would deliver it by inducement or C section.
....... wrote: » The three cases are meant to cover emergency situations where only one life can be saved.
....... wrote: » The protection should be removed because it causes medical uncertainty and women die because of it.
end of the road wrote: » no it hasn't. even if she was given an abortion she would possibly have been sectioned as the original psychiatrist rightly or wrongly, felt it was the best way to help her. the protection doesn't need to be removed as it isn't causing those problems. bad management and bad interpretation of it is what is causing the problems. that can easily be solved without removing the vital protections for the unborn.
wrote: Originally Posted by J C Why should there be no gestational limits for killing an unborn child, even when the mother's life is at risk?
wrote: ....... Because the mother is more important than the child. The mother may have other children to take care of, may have a partner or husband, may be the breadwinner for the family etc.
wrote: ....... Yourself and Nick are going off down a makey uppey slippery slope suggesting that there will be abortion on demand with no gestational limits. No one has suggested that.
wrote: .......There is no country where it is currently the case, and that you seem to think repealing the 8th would lead to it is either naive, wilful scaremongering or just plain stupidity.
wrote: .......What is the story with the random bolding in your posts? its like reading badly written religious pamphlets.
volchitsa wrote: » The law allows it though, so what you think of it doesn't really matter.
volchitsa wrote: » The law doesn't allow children, or even women, to be locked up using the MHA instead of getting the abortion they requested, as the POLDPA allows them to. That is not part of the POLDPA, and not part of the MHA either.
volchitsa wrote: » Especially as the 13th amendment allows women to have abortions without being suicidal, and yet you seem prepared to put up with that. Why does respect for the law seem to take priority for you in one case but not the other?
volchitsa wrote: » It's exactly why she was locked up : she didn't go to a psychiatrist for help with depression, she went because that is the correct procedure for someone in her position who wanted an abortion. She fulfilled the criteria for an abortion under the POLDPA but instead of that, a completely different law was used to imprison her. She did notfulfill the criteria for being sectioned under that law, and had not asked for help that required that law to be invoked. It is exactly what psychiatrists said would not and could not happen if a mental health sectiopn were put in the POLDPA, because that would be illegal and abusive.
volchitsa wrote: » Or maybe s/he is pro life, and was never going to allow anyone to have an abortion. You are ignoring how the MHA works, which is that it is not enough to feel that someone is depressed etc, and also that there is no alternative pathway in the POLDPA which invokes the MHA instead of an abortion. It doesn't matter that the psychiatrist felt there were other solutions - locking someone up using the MHA if they are not suffering from a diagnosed mental illness is not one of those options. The POLDPA may well be bad law in appearing to mean that someone can apply for an abortion under it and then find themselves swept up by the MHA as a way of refusing to grant the abortion they have requested using the correct procedures. That doesn't change the fact that the MHA does not function as a subsidiary option to POLDPA and that this is not a legal use of the MHA. No matter how much you want it to be.
volchitsa wrote: » I really wonder whether there is any limit to the human rights abuses and law breaking that some people will condone as long as the results suit their personal opinions. She was abusively sectioned. The fact that the psychiatrist said he was using the MHA doesnt make it so, he did not do so in accordance with the Act itself and therefore the MHA did not apply. For example : she was a minor. Her parents should therefore have been made aware of the need to section her - actually they should have given their permission, unless there were exceptional reasons. Instead her mother believed she was bringing her to have an abortion. For that reason alone, and especially in the absence of any established diagnosis of mental illness, removing her liberty was a massive abuse of her human rights. But clearly some people here are prepared to condone any abuse carried out on a woman, or child, as long as it prevents her having an abortion.
volchitsa wrote: » Oh and by the way, the claim that she was 6 months pregnant is pure speculation, since her identity was not released to the press. Remember all the "mistakes" about the Ms Y case, where the same newspaper that printed that this child was 6 months pregnant also wrote that Ms Y had not cone to the attention of the HSE until shortly before the POLDPA was invoked concerning her. Completely untrue, and only one of their "mistakes" about the case - all of which wrongly supported the HSE's case.
volchitsa wrote: » But even if she was at six months, first off, there is no gestational limit in the POLDPA,
J C wrote: » ... and so do I, when it comes to killing unborn children. The 'human rights' you talk about is the so-called 'right' to kill your own child. ... which is bizzarrely oblivious to the 'human rights' of the unborn Human Being that is being killed.
volchitsa wrote: » I really wonder whether there is any limit to the human rights abuses and law breaking that some people will condone as long as the results suit their personal opinions.
