Abortion

Stark

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

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

Yeah I was referring to perfect use.

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

Medusa22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

OldNotWIse

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

I'm pro life but I have to say your post is very much "food for thought". Thanks for the info!

Stark

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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.

There's a mindset that says "breed as much as possible to spread the gift of life" and there's a mindset that says "only have as many children as you can provide a good quality of life to". Now it's clearly wrong to end a life once it's begun (the debatable point is at what point sentient human life emerges from a non-sentient embryo) but nothing wrong with the thinking that you shouldn't have children that you can't look after.

Is it really a good thing that they have high birth rates in poor African countries for instance when those children are born into starvation? Would the better situation not be smaller families but higher quality of life?

Medusa22

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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.

It is quite obvious from my post that I am addressing the suffering of the child. I am not saying that they don't deserve to live, but rather that it would save them from suffering if they didn't. People who are rich are also capable of abusing their children and I never mentioned 'being born with a silver spoon in their mouth' , so don't take your inferiority complex out on me. I believe that we should consider what we are born ''for''. What is the point of living if you suffer to the point that the bad definitely outweighs the good? To pro-create and continue the species? I don't see the point. It comes down to quality of life. I recently read a thread about how long people would like to live. The majority of people agreed that they wanted to live as long as their quality of life was good.

OldNotWIse

Medusa22 wrote: »

It is quite obvious from my post that I am addressing the suffering of the child. I am not saying that they don't deserve to live, but rather that it would save them from suffering if they didn't. People who are rich are also capable of abusing their children and I never mentioned 'being born with a silver spoon in their mouth' , so don't take your inferiority complex out on me. I believe that we should consider what we are born ''for''. What is the point of living if you suffer to the point that the bad definitely outweighs the good? To pro-create and continue the species? I don't see the point. It comes down to quality of life. I recently read a thread about how long people would like to live. The majority of people agreed that they wanted to live as long as their quality of life was good.

Ah yes, that old trick - say it with one sentence and then take it back with another. How do you propose your logic should be applied to the abortion argument so? Will you carry out some kind of pre-emptive analysis of potential parents and say which ones are or are not justified in seeking out terminations? I sincerely hope not.

Or does it just suit your agenda to highlight cases of people less fortunate than you and say, "oh yes, if that person had been aborted they would not have suffered"? Of course we all know this. I could look at someone who had a hideous car accident and was left with no motor function from the neck down, or someone who was blinded in a freak accident, or any of the thousands and thousands of innocent Irish children whose lives were absolutely destroyed by sexual abuse at the hands of the clergy - it's easy for me to say "Oh if these had been aborted they would never have suffered" but what good does that bring to the argument? And moreover, if you cannot predict the future sufferings of the unborn child, then how in Gods name can you use it as a stick to beat the pro-life side with?

Saying that abortion would have stopped suffering is true - but absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Where exactly did you get that I have an inferiority complex? I hope you are not resorting to childish insults in order to validate your own argument. That's not very nice

It doesn't matter if a million people tell you they only want to live until their first wrinkle or wet fart - it has nothing to do with deciding if someone else's live is worthy of being lived.

OldNotWIse

Stark wrote: »

There's a mindset that says "breed as much as possible to spread the gift of life" and there's a mindset that says "only have as many children as you can provide a good quality of life to". Now it's clearly wrong to end a life once it's begun (the debatable point is at what point sentient human life emerges from a non-sentient embryo) but nothing wrong with the thinking that you shouldn't have children that you can't look after.

Is it really a good thing that they have high birth rates in poor African countries for instance when those children are born into starvation? Would the better situation not be smaller families but higher quality of life?[/QUOTE]

Of course, but that is a reason for educating them about and providing them with contraception. It's somewhat simplistic to say that because women in poor African countries are having large families that they cannot care for, women in developed countries should be allowed unrestricted access to abortions. Using extremes (and in fairness I have seen both sides of the argument do this) does not really lend itself well to sensible debate.

Medusa22

Obviously you never read my original post. I have a genetic disease that can be diagnosed in the womb, my mother should have had the choice to abort me if that technology was available then, but because she lives in Ireland she would not have had that choice. My disease is incurable and it is progressive, I know that I will die slowly and painfully. I am happy with my life but if my mother had chosen to abort me, I would understand why she would have chosen to do that, to prevent me from suffering. I believe that abortion should be legal so people have the choice of aborting rather than having a child they don't want which often leads to neglect. You can't pre-empt it but if the person wishes to have an abortion themselves then they should be entitled to have one.

RaRaRasputin

Medusa22 wrote: »

Obviously you never read my original post. I have a genetic disease that can be diagnosed in the womb, my mother should have had the choice to abort me if that technology was available then, but because she lives in Ireland she would not have had that choice. My disease is incurable and it is progressive, I know that I will die slowly and painfully. I am happy with my life but if my mother had chosen to abort me, I would understand why she would have chosen to do that, to prevent me from suffering. I believe that abortion should be legal so people have the choice of aborting rather than having a child they don't want which often leads to neglect. You can't pre-empt it but if the person wishes to have an abortion themselves then they should be entitled to have one.

Naaa you don't understand at all. Being a vegetable, not having limbs or having a siamese twin attached to your brain doesn't mean that you can't do what everyone else can. Siamese twins could, for instance, could ride a motorcycle with a sidecar! Or do mountain climbing: if one falls down, the other can hold him up! So many fantastic opportunities in life!

RaRaRasputin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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.

Where did anyone claim that only the poorer classes abort babies? If you can afford 20 children have them, if you can't think before you procreate.
Bit edgy on this topic, yes?

OldNotWIse

Medusa22 wrote: »

Obviously you never read my original post. I have a genetic disease that can be diagnosed in the womb, my mother should have had the choice to abort me if that technology was available then, but because she lives in Ireland she would not have had that choice. My disease is incurable and it is progressive, I know that I will die slowly and painfully. I am happy with my life but if my mother had chosen to abort me, I would understand why she would have chosen to do that, to prevent me from suffering. I believe that abortion should be legal so people have the choice of aborting rather than having a child they don't want which often leads to neglect. You can't pre-empt it but if the person wishes to have an abortion themselves then they should be entitled to have one.

I assume your post is directed at me (it's hard to know if you dont use the quote button)

Just because you "would have understood" your mother making this choice does not mean it is right for everyone.

Telling us that a child should not be allowed to live lest they be neglected is typical of the type of propaganda we see peddled out on these threads time and time again. Ironic really, that you support abortion yet your strongest supporting argument smacks of "wont somebody think of the children".

Stark

There's a big difference between killing a child and not having a child. Would you question someone's right to not go through with having a child knowing in advance that their sperm/ova were defective? Why should it be different for an embryo that you know is defective? It would be different if it was a foetus that was say 20 weeks developed where you're actually killing a life.

OldNotWIse

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

Where did anyone claim that only the poorer classes abort babies? If you can afford 20 children have them, if you can't think before you procreate.
Bit edgy on this topic, yes?

Edgy, no. Different opinion to yours, yes. I always find it amazing that so many people enter into "discussions" with the sole view of taking down those who oppose them. They are not interested in debate, they simply want to convert others to their way of thinking, and if those other posters resist (or dare to challenge the views put forward) then we resort to name calling and snide comments (such as "bit edgy on this topic, yes?")

Nobody claimed only the poorer classes abort babies. I was the one who mentioned about being born with a silver spoon and doting parents etc (in an attempt to paint a storybook picture of this wonderful life that some people on here seem to think is the only justifcation for keeping a child alive) It was simply to illustrate the utter silliness of telling people that children who have had it less than perfect would have been better off aborted. Feel free to take it literally and out of context.

af_thefragile

http://www.fugly.com/victims/rebecca_east/text/

**Vai**

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

Where did anyone claim that only the poorer classes abort babies? If you can afford 20 children have them, if you can't think before you procreate.

Just because you can afford 20 kids does not mean you should have them. No one shoud be having more than 2 kids in this day and age when we understand what the overpopulation of the planet is doing to both us and every other species that shares it. Its not just poor people who need to think about this fact.

As for the original point of the thread, of course abortion should be a choice for everyone, even Irish people. Doesnt matter what anyones opinion on it is, it should be treated as a choice like any other.

af_thefragile wrote: »

http://www.fugly.com/victims/rebecca_east/text/

Brilliant, I forgot how funny Evil Sarah was.

Medusa22

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I assume your post is directed at me (it's hard to know if you dont use the quote button)

Just because you "would have understood" your mother making this choice does not mean it is right for everyone.

Telling us that a child should not be allowed to live lest they be neglected is typical of the type of propaganda we see peddled out on these threads time and time again. Ironic really, that you support abortion yet your strongest supporting argument smacks of "wont somebody think of the children".

I'm quoting, so you won't get distracted. Don't you think that it should be decided by the person who is pregnant whether or not they decide to have a child that is going to have a short and painful life? This is for the sake of the child and the parent. It is barbaric not to give a woman that choice. In Ireland a woman has to continue a pregnancy even if the foetus has severe defects. What if a woman is raped and is suffering severe psychological trauma, should she be forced to have the child? I think that abortion should be legal for all women who wish to have one, regardless of the reasons. However, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why a person may need to have an abortion, as listed above. Contraception is extremely important and should ideally prevent unwanted pregnancies but there are plenty of people who just don't bother to use it. If a person is in a situation where they realise that they are not capable of raising a child, both emotionally and financially, they should have the option of aborting that foetus. I really do believe that is the best decision for the foetus.

RaRaRasputin

Sorry, I had just struggled to see the link between genetic diseases and economic income which suddenly popped up out of nowhere.

If I knew my child would be severely disadvantaged (physically/mentally, not economically) I would seriously consider aborting it. Do you think someone confined to a bed can enjoy the same quality of life than a "normal" child? It might be possible but it is surely not an easy way of life for both children and parents. No one wants you to sanction a "pro abortion referendum", just accept that others would chose that option if they thought it was the better one for them in their specific situation.

On a more general note, I can only recommend the movie "Dumplings" which treats this topic quite delicately.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472458/plotsummary

philologos

Stark wrote: »

There's a big difference between killing a child and not having a child. Would you question someone's right to not go through with having a child knowing in advance that their sperm/ova were defective? Why should it be different for an embryo that you know is defective? It would be different if it was a foetus that was say 20 weeks developed where you're actually killing a life.

Indeed, there is a big difference between killing a child and not having one.

That's the point pro-lifers are making. Abortion is killing a child, it's not simply just not having one. That decision can happen much earlier.

A foetus is alive. Things that are dead don't grow and develop on a continuous process to birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death.

I'd prefer if the pro-choicers were simply honest and say, yes it's killing, but that they think that killing a child is justifiable in certain circumstances.

wandatowell

I blame Hitler

PrincessLola

"Lets have unprotected sex, I can always use abortion as a contraceptive"- Said no woman ever.

Its not really about "killing" the child for the pro-lifers, is it?

Think about it, if parents were travelling abroad to have their four year old child killed by a contract killer the government would have them charged with murder.
Pro-lifers don't advocate having women who get abortions charged with murder, they just want to stop acess to abortion, therefore they can't really see it the same as murder, they want to punish people for having sex.

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

I'd prefer if the pro-choicers were simply honest and say, yes it's killing,.

are you going to be honest and say yes washing your hands is killing

IzzyWizzy

PrincessLola wrote: »

"Lets have unprotected sex, I can always use abortion as a contraceptive"- Said no woman ever.

Its not really about "killing" the child for the pro-lifers, is it?

Think about it, if parents were travelling abroad to have their four year old child killed by a contract killer the government would have them charged with murder.
Pro-lifers don't advocate having women who get abortions charged with murder, they just want to stop acess to abortion, therefore they can't really see it the same as murder, they want to punish people for having sex.

I know quite a few women with that attitude here in the UK. Not quite as flippant, obviously, but most definitely with the idea that they can be lax with contraception because they can always have an abortion. I mean, really, with access to contraception being so widespread and free, unplanned pregnancies shouldn't be anywhere near as common as they are. I know a girl who relies on condoms because the pill makes her put on a few pounds. She already had an abortion last year because the condom broke and yet she still refuses to look into more reliable methods of contraception. If she thought she'd be raising a child for 18 years, you can bet she'd be more responsible in her choices.

I'm actually frightened by how lightly a lot of women here seem to take sex and abortions. I wouldn't want it to be like in Ireland, but I couldn't imagine ever thinking an abortion was better than getting a bit fat or better than using a condom during sex. People are very easy on themselves here. Not that I see abortion as a punishment for having sex, not at all, but a lot of people are just immature and irresponsible. One night stands without contraception? What do you expect to happen? My friends back in Ireland are a lot more responsible and I don't doubt for one minute that it's because they don't have the safety net of an abortion clinic nearby.

I still think abortion should be legal but I wish it would go hand-in-hand with better sex education.