Abortion

SleepDoc · 15-05-2012 4:46pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You're not channeling Seachmall's spirit are you? I remember having this exact same conversation a few pages ago. I'm not getting in to it again..

So you'll accept the vernacular definition of child then.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't suppose you'll grace us with an explanation of why it's tortured and inaccurate, will you? Never mind, just forget about the analogy. You don't intend on responding to it and nothing will change that.

I did respond to it, albeit not as you would like.

partyatmygaff · 15-05-2012 4:50pm

SleepDoc wrote: »

So you'll accept the vernacular definition of child then.

I'll accept the one(s) me and Seachmall agreed on a few pages back. I'm not accepting an unspecified "vernacular definition".

ChubbyRunner · 15-05-2012 4:51pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's good for them.

Also, i'd be pleased if you could refrain from calling me scum on this thread (Yes we all know what "pond life" means). It's the kind of thing i'd expect on a Youtube argument.

Very sensitive aren't you. My comment wasn't nice but about as nice as using emotive phrases like "child killers" on a thread where post abortion women posted often in states of distress.

SleepDoc · 15-05-2012 4:55pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'll accept the one(s) me and Seachmall agreed on a few pages back. I'm not accepting an unspecified "vernacular definition".

Never mind what a friend on the internet says.

Accept the dictionary definition.

partyatmygaff · 15-05-2012 4:57pm

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

Very sensitive aren't you. My comment wasn't nice but about as nice as using emotive phrases like "child killers" on a thread where post abortion women posted often in states of distress.

I'm not sensitive. I just don't like people insulting me.

As for "emotive phrases", that's a perfectly accurate phrase. It's not "nice" but it's accurate. As for post-abortive women in states of distress, i'm sorry but their current personal condition isn't going to make me tiptoe around the issue and use euphemisms.

If they need support and help, going to a general discussion on abortion on After Hours isn't a good idea anyway. There are better forums on this site for things like that.

partyatmygaff · 15-05-2012 4:59pm

SleepDoc wrote: »

Never mind what a friend on the internet says.

Accept the dictionary definition.

Me and Seachmall already agreed on the "accepted definitions", of which there were two:
1. Child = Human offspring
2. Child = Human in certain age group

I don't want to have this conversation again.

ChubbyRunner · 15-05-2012 5:00pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm not sensitive. I just don't like people insulting me.

As for "emotive phrases", that's a perfectly accurate phrase. It's not "nice" but it's accurate. As for post-abortive women in states of distress, i'm sorry but their current personal condition isn't going to make me tiptoe around the issue and use euphemisms.

If they need support and help, going to a general discussion on abortion on After Hours isn't a good idea anyway. There are better forums on this site for things like that.

well we will have to agree to disagree on that one. I just find it kinda funny you would get upset over a slight and still think its okay to use disgusting terms that could be very upsetting. I think the women who posted probably did to debunk the myth that women have abortions cause they hate kids or can't be bothered having children. Things like this do bring out those tired old myths and its good to know that its not an easy choice and can have long term impacts. Must of been hard for them to read this but I'm glad they came on and made their points. You can't really have a debate on abortion without them.

You can and could have made your points without being cruel but the fact you choose not too kinda says it all really. I think most people reading this have the measure of you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-05-2012 5:01pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

"Done here" for that particular day as I had an exam the next day.

Yeah right, if you say so. You also at one point declared one post was going to be your "final post" and in another you said you were "bringing it to a close" but nice attempt to twist it to try and make it look like you did not return to a thread you claimed you would not be returning to. Nozz's rule strikes again. But pretend whatever you like.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When I say human life in this thread, I almost always am referring to unique human individual organisms. No, there isn't a definition for "human life" in the context of "human rights". That is precisely why I am introducing the biological definition.

My point exactly!!!! Within the context the definition is unclear so instead you go to all the definitions OUTSIDE that context and cherry pick the one that most fits the conclusions you have already decided on. It is confirmation bias. You do the same for example when... from all the indispensable unskipable stages in fetal development... you arbitrary picked one and declared it the "most important" based on nothing but the fact it suited your position on the abortion debate.

The issue is there is nothing in Biology to dictate morality or human rights so a biological definition fails from the outset.

If we want to decide if the fetus has rights we need a definition of "Human life" that relates to human rights and then we have to see if it applies to the fetus.

As I said I am aware of no definition of "Human Life" related to "Human Rights" that allows us to assign human rights to a fetus.

Seachmall · 15-05-2012 5:01pm

SleepDoc wrote: »

Never mind what a friend on the internet says.

We argued for pages about it, you do not want to go down that route.

It is lonely, it is cold, and it really isn't relevant to the discussion on the whole.

Semantics just aren't worth the effort.

SleepDoc · 15-05-2012 5:06pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Me and Seachmall already agreed on the "accepted definitions", of which there were two:
1. Child = Human offspring
2. Child = Human in certain age group

I don't want to have this conversation again.

It's not Dungeons and Dragons.

Write a dictionary if you want to come up with an "accepted definition".

partyatmygaff · 15-05-2012 5:15pm

ChubbyRunner wrote: »

well we will have to agree to disagree on that one. I just find it kinda funny you would get upset over a slight and still think its okay to use disgusting terms that could be very upsetting.

"Disgusting terms" says quite a lot considering they're perfectly accurate terms.

I think the women who posted probably did to debunk the myth that women have abortions cause they hate kids or can't be bothered having children.

A myth that no one has attempted to propagate on this thread.

You can and could have made your points without being cruel but the fact you choose not too kinda says it all really. I think most people reading this have the measure of you.

"Cruel"? When was I ever cruel to anyone? I'm gobsmacked at how you think i'm being cruel to anyone.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah right, if you say so. You also at one point declared one post was going to be your "final post" and in another you said you were "bringing it to a close" but nice attempt to twist it to try and make it look like you did not return to a thread you claimed you would not be returning to. Nozz's rule strikes again. But pretend whatever you like.

1 - 0 : Nozz to PAMG. Game set and match.
You win in the pettiness competition, happy?

My point exactly!!!! Within the context the definition is unclear so instead you go to all the definitions OUTSIDE that context and cherry pick the one that most fits the conclusions you have already decided on. It is confirmation bias. You do the same for example when... from all the indispensable unskipable stages in fetal development... you arbitrary picked one and declared it the "most important" based on nothing but the fact it suited your position on the abortion debate.

I'm not the first or only person who has said that gastrulation is the most important stage in an individual's life. In fact, there's quite a number of people who've said it. In particular, the well known developmental biologist, Lewis Wolpert.

B0jangles · 15-05-2012 6:32pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm not the first or only person who has said that gastrulation is the most important stage in an individual's life. In fact, there's quite a number of people who've said it. In particular, the well known developmental biologist, Lewis Wolpert.

Who interestingly does not support your general position at all.

Lewis Wolpert wrote:

I've spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear ... they are not a human being.

http://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/a-fertilized-egg-is-not-a-human-being/

Lewis Wolpert wrote:

“I’m not against religion,” he explains. “Invoking God to explain evolution and the origin of life doesn’t help one iota, but it makes people feel better. That’s the point, you see? I’m only against religion when it starts to interfere with other things, like telling people they can’t use contraception, or banning abortion, or stopping euthanasia. These bloody religious nuts in Parliament! Nobody else, other than the Catholic Church, ever went around saying a fertilised egg was a human being, and now people are starting to believe it. Authority plays a big role in our beliefs.”

Source: http://www.scienceinschool.org/print/433

dogyworld1 · 15-05-2012 6:34pm

OP got a baby on the way?
you evil ****

shannie · 15-05-2012 6:41pm

I think its absolutely disgusting. I'll be honest and say I never really had an opinion on it until I seen a video about it and it is just terrible what they do to them poor babies, everyone has the right to live and people should be allowed have an abortion just because they 'forgot' to use contraception or it didn't work. Obviously in some terrible cases, like rape, abortion may be a last resort but other than that I really think its terrible.. then again.. who am I too say?

dogyworld1 · 15-05-2012 6:47pm

shannie wrote: »

I think its absolutely disgusting. I'll be honest and say I never really had an opinion on it until I seen a video about it and it is just terrible what they do to them poor babies, everyone has the right to live and people should be allowed have an abortion just because they 'forgot' to use contraception or it didn't work. Obviously in some terrible cases, like rape, abortion may be a last resort but other than that I really think its terrible.. then again.. who am I too say?

So your telling me if your misses
got raped
by a black fella
and fell pregnant
youd keep the baby?

plasmaguy · 15-05-2012 6:55pm

Nah, not on demand, otherwise you'd have some women having abortions every couple of months, probably paid for by the taxpayer via a medical card but also abortion of a fairly mature unborn child is cruel and should only be carried out as a last resort.

I think if a child in the womb gets to a couple months, they've done pretty well, and should be allowed to be born and at least experience some form of life.

plasmaguy · 15-05-2012 6:57pm

dogyworld1 wrote: »

So your telling me if your misses
got raped
by a black fella
and fell pregnant
youd keep the baby?

That's racist! :eek:

Would it be ok if she was raped by a white fella?

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-05-2012 7:10pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

1 - 0 : Nozz to PAMG. Game set and match.
You win in the pettiness competition, happy?

I have no wish to partake in such a competition. If you are in it you are in it alone, but thanks for telling us that is what you are at. I however am in the "Establishing the truth" competition and if I see a blatant falsehood I will call people on it. This is a good thing to do. Firstly it keeps the threads truthful. Secondly it highlights to other people on the thread who is being dishonest and who to watch out for.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm not the first or only person who has said that gastrulation is the most important stage in an individual's life.

Argumentum ad populum? Being wrong doesn't become less wrong just because other people were wrong too. The fact is there are a whole series of events and steps in foetal development that have to happen for a child to be born. Picking one of them and declaring it the "most important" is just a baseless nonsense. It would be like building a tower of bricks in a single column and then declaring the 5th one from the bottom the most important in holding the structure up when ripping out the 3rd, 4th, 6th or 7th will just as successfully bring the whole thing crashing down.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-05-2012 7:13pm

shannie wrote: »

I think its absolutely disgusting. I'll be honest and say I never really had an opinion on it until I seen a video about it and it is just terrible what they do to them poor babies

You are being fooled by disturbing imagery. Just because the development has reached a point where it has started to look human shaped does not make the procedure and more cruel than if it was not baby shaped at all. Up to a certain stage in development there is no "person" in there, no "personhood", no mind, no conciousness, no subjective experience, no pain. Nothing. It has as much moral concerns as a corpse.

But the anti abortion camp do not want you to know that so rather than present the facts they present disturbing imagery instead and hope that your emotions will fill in the gaps where facts and reason should be. And you clearly have bitten the bait.

I can assure you, by- pass surgery in the heart is also a messy and horrific thing to see too. The fact it looks unpleasant says nothing about the morality of it. So let us not pretend the same is not true here.

B0jangles · 15-05-2012 7:21pm

I came across this chart on another forum and though a good bit of it is specific to the U.S. I think some of the points are still applicable generally - specifically the ones about whether people believe that abortion is allowable in cases like rape or incest:

robp · 17-05-2012 9:51am

B0jangles wrote: »

I came across this chart on another forum and though a good bit of it is specific to the U.S. I think some of the points are still applicable generally - specifically the ones about whether people believe that abortion is allowable in cases like rape or incest:

That chart is both confusing and very illogical. Its just deliberately mudding the waters by bringing up abortion clinic bombing. That kind of crime is so so rare and unrepresentative its irrelevant to the entire debate. You will be hard-pressed to meet someone who sees abortion as murder and agrees with that. It also spuriously talks about prosecuting mothers who opt for abortions. What democratic jurisdiction does that? Do even many autocratic countries do that? There many pro-life nations worldwide (~7 in Europe). Which implements this? Its looks like a propaganda-heavy caricature of the pro-life movement. If I had the time I would dismiss each suggestion on moral grounds also.

B0jangles · 17-05-2012 12:51pm

robp wrote: »

That chart is both confusing and very illogical. Its just deliberately mudding the waters by bringing up abortion clinic bombing. That kind of crime is so so rare and unrepresentative its irrelevant to the entire debate. You will be hard-pressed to meet someone who sees abortion as murder and agrees with that. It also spuriously talks about prosecuting mothers who opt for abortions. What democratic jurisdiction does that? Do even many autocratic countries do that? There many pro-life nations worldwide (~7 in Europe). Which implements this? Its looks like a propaganda-heavy caricature of the pro-life movement. If I had the time I would dismiss each suggestion on moral grounds also.

It's intended to enquire into the attitudes held by individuals, not states, i.e. if you believe that a fetus 100% equal to a child then you should logically believe that a woman who has an abortion is a guilty of a crime as a woman who kills her baby. If you do not, then what exactly is the distinction? (and by "you" I don't mean you specifically robp)

Rabidlamb · 30-05-2012 10:42am

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/more-irish-women-having-late-abortions-3123731.html

By Eilish O'Regan Health Correspondent

Wednesday May 30 2012

THE number of Irish women who were five or more months pregnant when they had an abortion in the UK increased last year.

The numbers of late pregnancy abortions rose to 114, compared with 109 in 2010, it emerged yesterday. The upper legal limit is 24 weeks.

Overall, the number of women from the Republic terminating pregnancies in the UK fell for the 10th year in a row, down marginally from 4,202 in 2010 to 4,149.

There were 791 abortions among women over the age of 35 years and 257 of these were by women aged 40 or over. Some 148 teenagers under the age of 17 years had an abortion.

Dr Stephanie O'Keeffe, head of the HSE's Crisis Pregnancy programme, said the Netherlands was the only other jurisdiction to which women here were travelling for abortion procedures in significant numbers.

The Pro-Life Campaign welcomed the fall in numbers travelling to Britain for abortions.

I wonder do these figures indicate a true fall in numbers seeking abortions or are expectant mothers traveling further afield to have the procedure.

Sauve · 30-05-2012 10:56am

I can't see why women would travel further tbh...
Maybe it's got something to do with the OTC availability of the morning after-pill recently?
I know it's a longshot, but maybe.

Nothingbetter2d · 30-05-2012 10:57am

LilyCricket wrote: »

Should it be available here?

Regardless of circumstance?

yes... imagine how much savings we could make on child benefits and single mothers allowances

Snowie · 30-05-2012 10:58am

LilyCricket wrote: »

Should it be available here?

Regardless of circumstance?

Who am I to judge on some one or two peoples life circumstances to wish'sIve no opinion as it doesn't affect me...

prinz · 30-05-2012 10:59am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are being fooled by disturbing imagery.

Everyone's fooled but you, wise one.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-05-2012 11:00am

Rabidlamb wrote: »

I wonder do these figures indicate a true fall in numbers seeking abortions or are expectant mothers traveling further afield to have the procedure.

It would be hard to link those figures to anything without much more data. Correlation does not imply causation and you could make up just about anything based on the correlation. For example I could make this up:

Given the figures identifying as catholic has dropped, as has mass attendance we can assume a drop of in interest in Catholic teaching. This should correlate with a rise in the use of contraception which catholic teaching is against. This in turn explains the reduction in unplanned pregnancy and hence in women from the Republic seeking abortion.

All very plausible. It might even be true and I would be far from surprised if it is. Have I a shred of evidence except for correlating the drop in abortions with the drop in mass attendance to back it up however? No. Not a jot. It would need more research and data such as information on any changes in condom sales in the last 10 years.

It is heartening though. Pro choice campaigners are not really "pro abortion". We want there to be a choice and abortion to be available but we also want to reduce the number of people who require it at all. So if the numbers are steadily dropping as the report suggests then this can only be a good thing that all of us on BOTH sides of the abortion debate can be happy to see.

It says at the end that the "Pro life campaign welcomed" the numbers? I rather warrant the Pro Choice campaign do too and it is poor form of the article to miss that. The "Pro Life" campaign are all too good at making it seem like the Pro Choice side are actually hoping for increases in such figures. The Pro Choice side need to be MUCH more active in letting people know that we want a reduction in the numbers of abortions too. Terms like "Pro Abortion" used instead of "Pro Choice" are designed specifically to paint the opposite picture.

prinz wrote: »

Everyone's fooled but you, wise one.

As a better man than I once said, if I see further than most it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Fatuous comments like yours however do not change the fact that using disturbing imagery rather than reason and argument is often the recourse of those without a cogent argument to actually make.

seamus · 30-05-2012 11:20am

Sauve wrote: »

I can't see why women would travel further tbh...
Maybe it's got something to do with the OTC availability of the morning after-pill recently?
I know it's a longshot, but maybe.

At a guess I would say that it's down to a changing age profile of women in Ireland and is not unrelated to the massive increase in births in the country. In short, there are fewer younger women having unplanned pregnancies and more older women having more planned pregnancies.

I would also say to a certain extent that an older woman with an unplanned pregnancy is probably more likely to proceed with it than a younger woman. So as the population gets older, the rate of abortions drops.

Sauve · 30-05-2012 11:34am

Yeah that makes sense.
Teenagers today have so much more information and methods of contraception available to them. There really is no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy imo.

Stark · 30-05-2012 11:38am

Sauve wrote: »

Yeah that makes sense.
Teenagers today have so much more information and methods of contraception available to them. There really is no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy imo.

Aside from contraception not being 100% effective? I know people who've gotten pregnant while using both condoms and birth control pills. And sex education in schools still seems to consist of "don't do it".

Sauve · 30-05-2012 11:48am

Stark wrote: »

Aside from contraception not being 100% effective? I know people who've gotten pregnant while using both condoms and birth control pills. And sex education in schools still seems to consist of "don't do it".

Absolutely, but the instance of this happening where the contraception has not only been used, but been used correctly is extremely low. Both methods offer a success rate of over 95% if used correcty, so using both, it is more than highly unlikely that pregnancy will occur.
Of course it can happen and I'm not by any means saying your friends are lying, but I would suggest that generally, a lot of these claims are fabricated.

Stark · 30-05-2012 11:55am

The odds aren't that low.

95% effective means a 1 in 20 chance of the birth control method failing. Even by doubling up, your risks are still 1 in 400. Take a few sexually active couples and with those odds, chances are one couple will be pregnant within a year.

30-05-2012 12:02pm

Sauve wrote: »

I can't see why women would travel further tbh...
Maybe it's got something to do with the OTC availability of the morning after-pill recently?
I know it's a longshot, but maybe.

I'd say it's a variety of reasons.

I would guess that:
- the proportion of women travelling further is increasing
- MAP availability in pharmacies, and at cheaper prices than going to a doctor
- awareness of abortion
- awareness of charities and helplines
- contraceptive education
- education in general
are all contributing towards a drop in the rate of abortions but mainly as a result of a drop in the rate of unwanted pregnancies. So a win for both pro-lifers and pro-choicers.

pc7 · 30-05-2012 12:08pm

Or are people not supplying truthful information when asked?

Pushtrak · 30-05-2012 12:11pm

Sauve wrote: »

Absolutely, but the instance of this happening where the contraception has not only been used, but been used correctly is extremely low. Both methods offer a success rate of over 95% if used correcty, so using both, it is more than highly unlikely that pregnancy will occur.
Of course it can happen and I'm not by any means saying your friends are lying, but I would suggest that generally, a lot of these claims are fabricated.

As has already been pointed out, even with low odds, it can and does happen. That isn't relevant though. It is only muddying the waters. A person should have the legal right to abortion in Ireland, and not have to go to another country. Over 4400 Irish women travelled to England and Wales for abortion in 2010. Is the money they are spending better spent abroad on abortions than it might actually staying in the country? Economically, it is stupid. Those who can not afford this trip, then may be inclined to go with a coat hanger approach.

Morag · 30-05-2012 12:12pm

Or that those figures are only from BPAS and only are women who give an irish address, if they give a UK address then it's not counted. Also the Uk is not the only option so women are traveling to Holland, Belgium and Sweden, some for fear of meeting people they might know in the UK and those countries don't report back the number of irish women attending clinics for abortions.

Mr Bump · 30-05-2012 12:16pm

No it should not be legal just like that, circumstances should be taken into account in some cases

LilyCricket wrote: »

Should it be available here?

Regardless of circumstance?

prinz · 30-05-2012 12:20pm

Pushtrak wrote: »

Is the money they are spending better spent abroad on abortions than it might actually staying in the country? Economically, it is stupid..

Yay, we could start making soap too.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Those who can not afford this trip, then may be inclined to go with a coat hanger approach.

You can't have it every which way. On the one hand people are saying the numbers have dropped because the women have gone further afield, in the next breath it's because they can't afford to get to the UK...

Sauve · 30-05-2012 12:21pm

Stark wrote: »

The odds aren't that low.

95% effective means a 1 in 20 chance of the birth control method failing. Even by doubling up, your risks are still 1 in 400. Take a few sexually active couples and with those odds, chances are one couple will be pregnant within a year.

I know I'm just nit-picking now but take into account the fact that the average woman is only highly fertile for a certain part of the month. I was also being overly cautious with the 95%- it's actually closer to 99%.
I know what you're saying alright, contraception can fail, but the numbers don't tally with the amount of people who claim to have been using both methods.

Stark · 30-05-2012 12:27pm

Sauve wrote: »

I was also being overly cautious with the 95%- it's actually closer to 99%.

Depends on whether you use "typical use" or "perfect use" figures. In the typical use scenario, with most people's levels of sex education, the typical effectiveness rate for condoms is 85%. 98% in the perfect use scenario. For the pill, it's 92%/99.7% respectively. 95% is probably a good compromise figure.

(Figures source: http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html).

Pushtrak · 30-05-2012 12:31pm

Sharrow wrote: »

Or that those figures are only from BPAS and only are women who give an irish address, if they give a UK address then it's not counted. Also the Uk is not the only option so women are traveling to Holland, Belgium and Sweden, some for fear of meeting people they might know in the UK and those countries don't report back the number of irish women attending clinics for abortions.

Good points, all.

Mr Bump wrote: »

No it should not be legal just like that, circumstances should be taken into account in some cases

Such as how many weeks pregnant. Anything above that would be exceptions such as risk to the life of the mother if beyond that.

prinz wrote: »

Yay, we could start making soap too.

?

You can't have it every which way. On the one hand people are saying the numbers have dropped because the women have gone further afield, in the next breath it's because they can't afford to get to the UK...

Er, try read my post again. I pointed out large numbers who go to the UK. I also pointed out not everyone who'd be in the situation of wanting to go to the UK could necessarily afford it. Would you say this is not the case? Do you assume unwanted pregnancy has a direct correlation to being able to afford to go to the UK? I don't hold to the opposite correlation, but am pointing out that people do exist for whom flight to the UK is not an option.

Sauve · 30-05-2012 12:31pm

Yeah I was referring to perfect use.

I shudder to think what some people get up to with condoms....

Medusa22 · 30-05-2012 3:36pm

I am pro-choice, not everyone has to agree with abortion but everyone should have the choice. As for the people who believe that abortion will become the new contraception, is that any worse than people having children who they neglect. The jeremy kyle show is the perfect example of why people should use protection but failing that, should have had abortions if they don't even bother to look after their children and yet continue to have them. This inevitably leads to even more damaged people in the world. I also have a progressive and degenerative disease that will kill me slowly over the years, my mother should have had the choice of abortion, both for myself and for her. Abortion isn't always about being selfish, but thinking of the how the child will suffer aswell.

OldNotWIse · 31-05-2012 2:33pm

Medusa22 wrote: »

I am pro-choice, not everyone has to agree with abortion but everyone should have the choice. As for the people who believe that abortion will become the new contraception, is that any worse than people having children who they neglect. The jeremy kyle show is the perfect example of why people should use protection but failing that, should have had abortions if they don't even bother to look after their children and yet continue to have them. This inevitably leads to even more damaged people in the world. I also have a progressive and degenerative disease that will kill me slowly over the years, my mother should have had the choice of abortion, both for myself and for her. Abortion isn't always about being selfish, but thinking of the how the child will suffer aswell.

Yes I am sure all those who were abused or neglected as children would prefer to have been killed in-utero instead. Think about the people who might fall under your generalisations before posting...

Medusa22 · 01-06-2012 10:16am

Well done, 'killed in-utero' - very emotive words :rolleyes:. I stand by what I said, I really don't see why you would prefer it if these children suffered needlessly just because they would still be alive. You know exactly what I meant.

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-06-2012 11:19am

Sauve wrote: »

There really is no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy imo.

Sauve wrote: »

instance of this happening where the contraception has not only been used, but been used correctly is extremely low.

Not really because you are leaving one important factor out of your calculations. The Number of people involved and the number of times they have sex. The odds of any one person winning the Lotto are also minuscule but because of the number of people playing someone usually does.

It sounds good on paper to throw numbers like 85, 95, 98 or even 99% around. They sound huge relative to the number 100%. Even 1% however is going to lead to a far from insignificant number of unplanned pregnancies given the number of people involved and the number of times people have sex.

Lets make up some random numbers... they do not have to be too accurate.... to see just how big an effect 1% can have.

Imagine 1million people are having sex 3 times a month. That's 3 million shots at target. As one has to do it during the fertile period we can divide this by 4. (Remember fertile period does not just refer to when the woman is fertile as sperm can "hang around" for a couple of days too). 750,000 shots at target.

If using condoms alone and even if assuming near perfect use of them we can apply 1% and still get 7500 conceptions. Per month.

Now as I said the numbers are makey uppey and some too high some too low. The point is to highlight that we can easily be misled by seemingly overwhelming statistics such as 99% and under estimate just how significant 1% can be. Let alone the 15%-85% that can often be applicable to condom use.

Numbers and statistics are powerful things and can be grossly misused to confuse people into agreeing with something really bogus.

For example you rarely hear someone in court being accused of possession of 1g of cocaine. The prosecution will normally say 1000mg instead because it sounds larger.

Similarly %s are dangerous and if two experiments are run and one has a 0.00001% success rate and the other 0.00002% then neither experiment is very significant. That won't stop news papers running stories saying "new drugs 100% more successful than the old one" which although perfectly accurate numerically is clearly misleading.

paddyandy · 01-06-2012 12:39pm

The western Tradition in recent years has got to believing that we are born solely for the purpose of having fun and enjoying ourselves .This is very recent and like most of our evils that are new to us .It's all part of the Mass MEDIA package We had very few problems before tv. .Are we born for fun ???

nozzferrahhtoo · 01-06-2012 12:44pm

I would not rush to say we are born "for" anything. Life does not owe us reasons. Concepts of "why" are we here are all too often just human constructs that do not map usefully to reality in any way and serve more to muddy the waters and hamper discourse.

OldNotWIse · 01-06-2012 1:41pm

Medusa22 wrote: »

Well done, 'killed in-utero' - very emotive words :rolleyes:. I stand by what I said, I really don't see why you would prefer it if these children suffered needlessly just because they would still be alive. You know exactly what I meant.

Excuse me? Emotive words? The foetus is killed (sorry, "extinguished" do you prefer that word?) in-utero. "In-utero" is actually a proper scientific term, I dont see why you would have a problem with using scientific terminology?

You are perfectly entitled to "stand by what you said" but if you come on here and say something, other posters are also entitled to question it or raise a counter argument. Otherwise, what is the point of a discussion?

I dont "prefer if children suffer needlessly" but I make the point that saying some children would have essentially, been better off being aborted is such a crass and crude sweeping statement that I feel I have to address it. I know of plenty of people who were neglected, abused etc as children, to say that their lives are somehow less worthy than those who were born with silver spoons in their mouths and doting parents is a ridiculous, insensitive thing to say...regardless of what side of the abortion fence you sit on.

Abortion

Comments