While we're on the subject of abortion...

What does what or how she's paying for it even matter? She's a minor, and therefore, probably why the state took her into their care.

This particular occation is one of the few for which I will side with the idea of abortion.

The mother's choice on the matter would go no further than either her life, or her child's life being threatened. In this particular case, the child cannot live, statistically, three days beyond pregnancy. To me, the trauma of such a birth far outweighs the idea of taking a child's life, because the child's life will be undeniably minute in duration.

It's difficult enough to know your child is going to die days after birth, without having to watch the infant, who is missing a part of it's head and brain, go through a degenerative 72 hour death.

That's incorrect, as states are passing laws against allowing minors to cross state lines to have abortions. IIRC, there was movement on a federal bill to do just that. We aren't any different than the EU in this case.

Minors are not adults numbnuts. They have never enjoyed the same rights as ADULTS.

And those laws are there to prevent minors from hooking up with groups like planned parenthood to get across state lines to have a major medical procedure without the parents consent who under state and federal law are the only ones who make those decisions for a child (barring court intervention of course).

You don't have the right take a parents rights and duty to their kid away just so the kid can have an abortion. Only a court following the law may do that.

And parents do not have the right to force a teenager to give birth against her will, regardless of what the law might say about it.

That's for a court to decide. Not Planned Parenthood or any other abortion on demand group.

um, the mother wants the daughter to abort this foetus that has absolutely no chance of living more than 72 hours...

No, that's for the girl carrying the baby in her belly to decide.

I agree the baby should be aborted. I'm not against this. The Irish are being stupid.

No it's not. As long as she is a minor only her parents or a court order can make such a decision.

You might not like that but that's the way it is and has been for a long time.

Minors do not enjoy the same rights as adults. Never have and probably never will.

Fuckwit, what the fuck is this story about? A TEENAGER a.k.a. a MINOR wanting an abortion by crossing country lines. You claimed that we are entirely different from the EU in this regard when we ARE NOT.

Fuckwit my post was in response to Guiltygear making the claim that if Roe vs Wade was overturned American women would have to sneak out of the country to have an abortion.

A WOMAN IS NOT A MINOR FEMALE. SHE IS AN ADULT FEMALE.

You fucking need to pull your head out of your ass go back and read post 23 and look at it very carefully.

Your the one who brought up the minor aspect when had you fucking paid attention you would have seen I was responding about American WOMEN.

Actually in Ireland as in England, Wales etc a minor aged 16 and over can give consent to medical procedures and doesn't need the consent of the parents.

My post was about America.

That said I've no problem with any law like the one you just described. As long as it is law then it should be followed.

I've already said the Irish are in the wrong. I'm not against abortion (except for late term ones). If a person wants to snuff out a future life that's between them and God.

In this case the Irish are being doubly stupid. One for breaking their own law (as you described) and two for outlawing abortions totally (except in suicidal cases or life and death situations). As we can see in this case the baby will not live once born and to let it come to term would be cruel to it and the girl.

If she's old enough to conceive, she's old enough to decide for herself whether or not she wants to keep it.

And invoking convention or the law does not make your argument for you or justify anything.

You're a dumb animal, RJHJ.

Nothing to do with your posts in this thread, just a general exclamation.

(for everyone else reading this: This is about America)

Actually it does.

Society thankfully doesn't give a damn what you think. Century's of tradition and law say the parent is in charge of the child and therfore also in charge of childs medical decisions.

Now if the law says a 16 year old doesn't need consent then so be it. But until that law exsits the parents make the call unless a court sees a need to override their rights.

Don't like it? Then work to change the law.

Neat.

hmmmmm.......lets see

good job (with a possible even better paying job coming down the pipeline *crosses fingers*), wife, lots of sex, two kids, house, two cars, lots of toys

vs

shut-in whose afraid of the real world, can't hold a job for more then a few months, trouble fitting in, no sex ever (unless you count hands), can't hold a normal conversation without breaking into absurdity and is a future recluse who will probably die alone old and bitter in his parents house

Damn I'm lucky not to be you......

Nothing to do with your posts in this thread, just a general thought about you.

Of course you do.

Source

Informed consent is the key and should be the only applicable standard to whether a minor can receive a procedure without parental consent or notification. If the minor is able to make an informed decision about the procedure, then they should be able to carry out that decision without interference, IMO.

Kill the baby and her. The world needs less Irish.

Kill Ramen too. The world needs fewer people who don't understand the difference between "less" and "fewer."

Once again read my post.

THIS: "Now if the law says a 16 year old doesn't need consent then so be it. But until that law exsits the parents make the call unless a court sees a need to override their rights."

is the same as saying this:

"states begin to digress in terms of the responsibility the minor can take for medical decisions. Exceptions have been carved out for various medical procedures that allow teenage minors to have final say in their medical care."

If the law says they can then I've no problem with it.

I"M NAKED!

AND I LIKE IT!

Anyway, some background on abortion in Ireland for people not in the know...

Abortion has been illegal since 1861.
In 1983, a "pro-life amendment" was voted into the constitution by referendum (64% in favour), due to campaigns by the main establishment party Fianna Fail and the Catholic church.

Court injunctions in 1988 and 1990 barred family planning groups and student bodies from offering both councilling in relation to abortion and aid in order to recieve an abortion abroad, though these were overturned following the Maastrich Treaty in 1993, which required EU members to allow the right to travel and the right to information.

A recent poll finds that 37% of the population believe abortion should be legalised, while 47% believe it should not be.

An absolute disgrace.

*Sigh* catholics.

Why a disgrace, henry?

You can't object to it in democratic terms; clearly, a majority is against abortion. You may not like their opinion, but you cannot show that it is wrong.

You can't really object to it on individual rights grounds, either, unless you consent to the idea that rights precede government.

Your only real objection can be that you know better. But how does such an elitist view coincide with your socialist views?

Or did my last question answer itself?

As far as rights go, they most certainly do precede government.

However, even if one respects the will of the majority, one is not compelled to agree with it. In this instance, the malign influence of the Catholic Church going back decades is what has skewered public opinion so much. Society in Ireland is slowly recovering, but there's some way to go yet.

I've explained previously that my views on abortion are mixed. As far as opinions go on this side of the Atlantic, I'm quite conservative. I don't believe that it should be available "on demand", for example.

However, this case is very clearcut.