Abortion Discussion

oldrnwisr

recedite wrote: »

The 5 main anti-abortion arguments?
My first impression is that they are close to being his own 5 strawman arguments.
I'm sure some of them are argued by some people, but calling them "the 5 main anti-abortion arguments" is a bit of a stretch.

Not to be pedantic or anything, but they're hardly strawman arguments. For them to be strawmen they would have to be distorted versions of actual anti-abortion arguments. However, the article relates the anti-abortion arguments exactly as they're put forth both by "professional" activists and posters here.


Depression and suicide

"Of all the myths surrounding abortion, I feel that the assertion that it leads to depression and suicide must rank as the most odious. It is a perennial favourite of anti-abortion groups."

Indeed, it has been put forward by Youth Defence:

Abortion and Women's Health

and Family and Life:

Effects of Abortion

not to mention posters here:

christmas2012 wrote:

Im not against abortion,but abortion for all is a huge mistake,arguing whether abortion is a good idea,can also be heartbreak for some,living with the trauma of abortion - the physical procedure itself and the psychological after effects is not something one can live with easily.To a lot of women abortion may seem like purely an academic debate,just a word,but its a lot more than that.

goodie2shoes wrote:

this thread has become nonsensical imo.
people are stating the abortion is a perfect cure for suicidal depression, yet cannot come up with one shred of evidence to substantiate it.

in fact several reports indicate abortion will worsen a women's mental state not improve it. but you lot would rather deal in speculation, opinion and hyperbole.

Abortion and cancer

"As if abortion were not already an emotive enough issue, elements of the anti-abortion movement have long postulated that women who elect to have an abortion are at a much increased risk of cancer, particularly of the breast. "

And again here's Youth Defence saying exactly that:

Abortion and Breast Cancer

and a poster arguing the same thing on this very thread:

mbiking123 wrote: »

Enjoy the D&D game

Am sure it will go better than this one - for you that is

Women with a history of one abortion face a 2.3 times higher risk of having cervical cancer, compared to women with no history of abortion. Women with two or more abortions face a 4.92 relative risk. Similar elevated risks of subsequent ovarian and liver cancer have also been linked to single and multiple abortions. These increased cancer rates for post-aborted women may be linked to the unnatural disruption of the hormonal changes which accompany pregnancy and untreated cervical damage or to increased stress and the negative impact of stress on the immune system.

mbiking123 wrote: »

Indian study: Abortion raises breast cancer risk over 6-fold - http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/indian-study-abortion-raises-breast-cancer-risk-over-6-fold/

The arguments dealt with by David Grimes in the article keep reappearing again and again. It is beneficial to the overall debate and those on both sides that these stock arguments be exposed for the bullsh1t that they are.

Peregrinus

They are not strawman arguments, true. But they are also not "the five main anti-abortion arguments", as the headline claims. I would have said that the main anti-abortion arguments (as in, most frequently advanced, most strongly or passionately argued, gaining the most traction) are rights-based and/or metaphysical. And this article doesn't go near them.

(Worth pointing out that the article doesn't claim that they are the "main" arguments, and in fact starts out by acknowledging the rights-based discourse. The "main" claim appears only in the headline, which was presumably written in haste by some harassed and underpaid subeditor.)

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

All in all, it's a really interesting piece, and he's a writer I've discovered thanks to your link, Sinead, so I'm grateful to you for that. His blog is well worth checking out for all sorts of subjects : http://www.davidrobertgrimes.com

As the Saudi state tortures Raif Badawi, it is vital we remind ourselves that the consequences of respecting belief over respecting people cannot be entertained, and equally important that we recognise Saudi's ugly role in perpetuating extremism at home and abroad.

The conclusion of that piece reminded me of the new cultural center/schools/mosque/"community" accommodation/ complex being built in North Dublin, whose main source of funding is unclear, but seems to be attributed to "charitable organisations and wealthy individuals in the Middle East" and is directed through The Dublin Welfare Society.

Overheal

On the mental health thing, I don't think you can say anything definitively. I've posted examples of women undergoing more emotional stress because of a pregnancy than an abortion.

volchitsa

Overheal wrote: »

On the mental health thing, I don't think you can say anything definitively. I've posted examples of women undergoing more emotional stress because of a pregnancy than an abortion.

It's yet another demonstration that correlation is not causation :
It's self evident that a woman who feels an abortion is the least worst outcome is probably in a tougher place in her life than someone who is thrilled to bits that she's pregnant, even if that's only in terms of support from a partner etc. Some will be in abusive relationships or have other pre-existing problems, that both lead to the decision that having a baby isn't a realistic option and (possibly) to mental health issues then or later.

And it certainly doesn't show that being forced to have the baby would improve the outcome. Far from it.

Overheal

No, and in fact in my experience I've had more feedback from women who underwent abortion and had a positive experience ("positive" being a relative term, nobody needs to cherry pick that for a strawman argument) vs. like I said, the one girl who adopted, not only had a bad time, but that bad time resulted in another termination.. so.. yeah. Again though, all anecdotal, and I'm just a man on a keyboard you don't know. That is also not to say those women didn't have any issues coping with their abortion, or are otherwise reminded of it regularly in unnerving fashion. They just didn't speak to me about it, which given social convention, is unsurprising either way.

krankykitty

I'm sure most of the issues women have coping with an abortion is down to the atmosphere of stigma, shame and secrecy around abortion that certain members of our society continue to foster.

robindch

Pope Frank has announced that he's going to decide that, for one year only, abortion is not as unforgivable as it used to be:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/pope-francis-to-allow-priests-to-forgive-abortion-1.2336167

Irish Times wrote:

Pope Francis this morning said that, as part of the celebration of the Holy Year of Mercy, he will permit priests to absolve women of the sin of abortion. While the Pope’s announcement does not change Catholic teaching on abortion, it once again highlights his intense belief that the Church must enable believers to experience “a true moment of encounter with the mercy of God.”

Under current Catholic teaching, women who procure an abortion are de facto excommunicated from the church. Given that excommunciation is the most severe ecclesiastical penalty imposed by the Church, only the Pope himself or a local Bishop or a priest authorised by either the Pope or the Bishop has the power to absolve from excommunication. However, throughout Holy Year, which runs from December 8th, 2015 to November 20th, 2016, all priests will be empowered to administer absolution for the “sin” of abortion.

The Pope made his announcement in a letter to Archbishop Rino Fisichella, head of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelisation, in which he outlines “several points which I believe require attention” during the celebration of the Holy Year. The letter offers the clearest explanation yet of how Francis conceives this Holy Year, and the practise of indulgences linked to it.

Francis says that, whether in their own diocese or as a pilgrim to Rome, he wants the faithful to have a “genuine experience of God’s mercy”, adding that in the obtaining of an Indulgence, “it is important that this moment be linked, first and foremost, to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession)...” The Pope then goes on to consider the position of the elderly and the sick, saying that they may obtain the Jubilee Indulgence “through the various means of communciation”.

In relation to those in prison, he points out that Jubilee Year has always represented an opportunity for a great amnesty, adding that prisoners may obtain the Indulgence in prison chapels. Earlier this week, daily “Il Fatto Quotidiano” reported that the Pope’s desire that up to 1,000 prisoners attend one of his public audiences during Holy Year had prompted reservations amongst the Italian police authorities, worried that some prisoners might use the occasion to attempt an escape.

Finally, Francis turns his attention to the question of abortion, “one of the serious problems of our time”, saying: “The tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness, as if not realising the extreme harm that such an act entails. Many others, on the other hand, although experiencing this moment as a defeat, believe that they have no other option. I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion.

“I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision. I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal. I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonising and painful decision. What has happened is profoundly unjust; yet only understanding the truth of it can enable one not to lose hope. The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented...” Pope Francis then adds that, “for this reason” and “not withstanding anything to the contrary” he will concede to all priests “the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it.”

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Pope Frank has announced that he's going to decide that, for one year only, abortion is not as unforgivable as it used to be:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/pope-francis-to-allow-priests-to-forgive-abortion-1.2336167

I predict a run on abortions. Either that or no one will give a fcuk what this despicable and irrelevant organisation has to say. One or the other.

MrP

recedite

The real aim seems to be to have an amnesty for historical abortions. Lure a load of reticent middle aged women in for a tearful confession, forgive all, and then get them attending mass and helping out with church activities as enthusiastic regulars.

Also it looks like the Vatican dungeons will be opened and the heretics released...:pac:

In relation to those in prison, he points out that Jubilee Year has always represented an opportunity for a great amnesty, adding that prisoners may obtain the Indulgence in prison chapels.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Also it looks like the Vatican dungeons will be opened and the heretics released

Did Frank not get the news about Cardinal Wesołowski?

Shrap

Rubberbandits nail it again on correct interpretation of latest Popey whitterings:

Absolam

Can't really say it's insignificant for those as like a bit of magic though.....

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

Can't really say it's insignificant for those as like a bit of magic though.....

Whatevs.

The significance is mighty similar to the recent practice of parking a BVM in the middle of a Cilín and having the place blessed by the priest. It's in extremely poor taste and downright disrespectful, in my book. Also, an attempted appropriation of people's freedom of conscience. But again, whatevs.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Whatevs.
The significance is mighty similar to the recent practice of parking a BVM in the middle of a Cilín and having the place blessed by the priest. It's in extremely poor taste and downright disrespectful, in my book. Also, an attempted appropriation of people's freedom of conscience. But again, whatevs.

Well, notwithstanding whatevs, I suspect it will make some people happier. I can't see really how offering a broader opportunity to relieve oneself of a feeling of guilt (however misplaced someone else might feel that feeling of guilt is) is in poor taste or disrespectful, but perhaps whatevs?
And whilst others might think allowing them greater freedom to relieve themselves of that guilt somehow attempts to appropriate their freedom of conscience, I would suggest that freedom was surrendered when the person decided they were guilty in the first place; so before the opportunity to assuage it arose. But perhaps, as you say, whatevs. There's always another point of view

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

Well, notwithstanding whatevs, I suspect it will make some people happier. I can't see really how offering a broader opportunity to relieve oneself of a feeling of guilt (however misplaced someone else might feel that feeling of guilt is) is in poor taste or disrespectful, but perhaps whatevs?
And whilst others might think allowing them greater freedom to relieve themselves of that guilt somehow attempts to appropriate their freedom of conscience, I would suggest that freedom was surrendered when the person decided they were guilty in the first place; so before the opportunity to assuage it arose. But perhaps, as you say, whatevs. There's always another point of view

I can see your point and if it helps someone feel better about themselves I'm all for it but I think we'd be better helping these women feel better from within rather than perpetuating the idea that in order to move on they need forgiveness from the church. A woman who avails of this probably hasn't forgiven herself and she won't move on until she can.

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

I can see your point and if it helps someone feel better about themselves I'm all for it but I think we'd be better helping these women feel better from within rather than perpetuating the idea that in order to move on they need forgiveness from the church. A woman who avails of this probably hasn't forgiven herself and she won't move on until she can.

But from the Church's point of view (and theirs), in order to move on they do need forgiveness from the Church (or more accurately God).
Nothing to do with what we'd be better doing, but as you say, a woman who needs to avail of this won't move on until she forgives herself, and this would appear to make it easier to do so.

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

But from the Church's point of view (and theirs), in order to move on they do need forgiveness from the Church (or more accurately God).
Nothing to do with what we'd be better doing, but as you say, a woman who needs to avail of this won't move on until she forgives herself, and this would appear to make it easier to do so.

I think it's manipulative. I would imagine the penance will be speaking out against abortion or doing something else pro active for the pro life movement. Now maybe I'm wrong but I find it very hard not to be cynical about it. Forgiveness implies wrongdoing and I don't think these vulnerable women should be encouraged to see their decision as a bad thing.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

I can't see really how offering a broader opportunity to relieve oneself of a feeling of guilt (however misplaced someone else might feel that feeling of guilt is) is in poor taste or disrespectful, but perhaps whatevs?

The feeling of being relieved of one's guilt may be positive, but seems a bit circular when it's coming from the institution who created that guilt in the first place?

Many women obviously have a level of guilt after having an abortion, this is undeniable, but it is confounded further by the disappointed head-shaking of an almighty, especially if it is considered to be a 'reserved sin', a worse sin than most that requires near bureaucratic level of paperwork to absolve one of.

Since the church won't remove itself from the moral judgements of people completely, surely they could just reduce abortion from it's above average level and make it permanently available for priests to absolve rather than simply a token gesture with a best-before date? If a priest can be given that responsibility for a year, why couldn't they do it all the time?

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

I think it's manipulative. I would imagine the penance will be speaking out against abortion or doing something else pro active for the pro life movement. Now maybe I'm wrong but I find it very hard not to be cynical about it.

Have you ever heard of anyone being given such a penance? Imposed penance is supposed to take into account the penitent's personal situation and serve to support her spiritual good. It should correspond as much as possible to the gravity of the sins confessed and may be a prayer, an offering, works of mercy, sacrifices or service to another. It's not intended to be punishment; it's supposed to be an expression of desire to make amends and to repair something of the disorder caused by the sin.

eviltwin wrote: »

Forgiveness implies wrongdoing and I don't think these vulnerable women should be encouraged to see their decision as a bad thing.

Forgiveness does imply wrongdoing; in this case the killing of another person is the stated wrongdoing (no implication, it's pretty straightforward). The fact is, any woman seeking absolution for having an abortion already sees their decision as a bad thing. I don't think making it easier for them to obtain that absolution should be seen as a bad thing.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

The feeling of being relieved of one's guilt may be positive, but seems a bit circular when it's coming from the institution who created that guilt in the first place?

I guess that's a matter of your point of view; the Church would say the sinner created the guilt by committing the sin, and their purpose is not to alleviate the guilt but to provide absolution for the sin.

robdonn wrote: »

Many women obviously have a level of guilt after having an abortion, this is undeniable, but it is confounded further by the disappointed head-shaking of an almighty, especially if it is considered to be a 'reserved sin', a worse sin than most that requires near bureaucratic level of paperwork to absolve one of.

I'm not sure the Church sees it's role as being to minimise the guilt people feel over committing sins, but anyways, it's not a 'reserved sin', it's a censure for a sin whose remission is reserved to the Ordinaries of the Church.

robdonn wrote: »

Since the church won't remove itself from the moral judgements of people completely, surely they could just reduce abortion from it's above average level and make it permanently available for priests to absolve rather than simply a token gesture with a best-before date? If a priest can be given that responsibility for a year, why couldn't they do it all the time?

I'm sure they could; certainly it seems to be effectively the case in some areas. But whether they should is probably something the Pope is having a bit of a think about, hence the Jubilee notion.

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

Have you ever heard of anyone being given such a penance? Imposed penance is supposed to take into account the penitent's personal situation and serve to support her spiritual good. It should correspond as much as possible to the gravity of the sins confessed and may be a prayer, an offering, works of mercy, sacrifices or service to another. It's not intended to be punishment; it's supposed to be an expression of desire to make amends and to repair something of the disorder caused by the sin.

Forgiveness does imply wrongdoing; in this case the killing of another person is the stated wrongdoing (no implication, it's pretty straightforward). The fact is, any woman seeking absolution for having an abortion already sees their decision as a bad thing. I don't think making it easier for them to obtain that absolution should be seen as a bad thing.

No I haven't but I don't believe the church does anything unless they can gain from it. It's normal practice for pro life groups to use women who regret their abortions in their activities often in a very demeaning way. I wouldn't expect the church to behave any differently. The issue of abortion being wrong is subjective, obviously the church see it as wrong, the woman herself may do so too. I don't believe it is helpful to reinforce that, from a mental health point of view of a woman is suffering under a weight of guilt she needs proper counselling to support her. Priests are not suitable for that role. The well being of the person seeking forgiveness should be paramount.

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

No I haven't but I don't believe the church does anything unless they can gain from it.

In fairness, the Church is fairly upfront about that; it's out to gain as many souls as possible for the glory of God (something like that anyways).

eviltwin wrote: »

It's normal practice for pro life groups to use women who regret their abortions in their activities often in a very demeaning way. I wouldn't expect the church to behave any differently.

I can't say I've come across that, but I'm sure you think it's true. I'm not sure why you expect the Church to act in the same way as pro life groups; they obviously share some objectives to a degree, but then so do life insurance companies and house burglars but we don't expect them to behave similarly.

eviltwin wrote: »

The issue of abortion being wrong is subjective, obviously the church see it as wrong, the woman herself may do so too.

True; I agree the concepts of right and wrong are subjective.

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't believe it is helpful to reinforce that, from a mental health point of view of a woman is suffering under a weight of guilt she needs proper counselling to support her. Priests are not suitable for that role. The well being of the person seeking forgiveness should be paramount.

Perhaps that's because your subjective view is that it's not wrong?
I imagine someone suffering under a weight of guilt, as you say, may need counselling and support. I imagine removing the guilt would be even more worthwhile; making absolution more readily available does just that, and priests are perfectly suited for that role. If you feel the well being of the person seeking forgiveness should be paramount, then you should be cheering this move by the Pope; not only are people being freed of their guilt, their souls are being saved for heaven. Hurrah!

eviltwin

I am speaking purely from the mental health aspect. It's not good to carry guilt around. Guilt can ruin lives. Now maybe the act of confession will help some people and that's great but it's not the job of a priest to be a counselling service. If someone is suffering they need a professional. The pope is getting lots of praise for this but it's self serving, it's a shame they are using very vulnerable woman as a PR stunt like this. I hope decent Catholics will encourage women who are struggling to go to a trained professional rather than a church.

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

I am speaking purely from the mental health aspect. It's not good to carry guilt around. Guilt can ruin lives. Now maybe the act of confession will help some people and that's great but it's not the job of a priest to be a counselling service.

Right, but the Church is speaking from the eternal salvation aspect. It's not good to go to hell, and apparently it lasts longer than most lives. It is the job of a priest to save souls from damnation. I think. They're supposed to give it a go anyway.

eviltwin wrote: »

If someone is suffering they need a professional.

Priests are professionals; and in this case their actions can remove the cause of that suffering. You don't think that's a good thing?

eviltwin wrote: »

The pope is getting lots of praise for this but it's self serving, it's a shame they are using very vulnerable woman as a PR stunt like this. I hope decent Catholics will encourage women who are struggling to go to a trained professional rather than a church.

I don't know about that, what is the Pope getting out of it? I'd suggest it's God serving; potentially more souls for heaven. As for using very vulnerable woman as a PR stunt, well, you might need to explain that a bit. If you don't believe in sin and absolution already, I don't think making very vulnerable women a little happier in themselves is going to sell you on the idea.

Personally, I hope decent people regardless of their religious proclivities will encourage women who are struggling to take the action that best addresses their needs, regardless of their personal prejudices.

eviltwin

What training do priests have in dealing with mentally vulnerable people? And what is the onus on, the best outcome for the individual or the best outcome for the church?

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

No doubt in 12 months time they'll extend the offer so people can avail of it for 199.99 and they can even make 6 easy payments to avail of the offer. Hurry, lines are open now!

The Vatican accepts all major credit cards, land, donations in wills etc

Cabaal

eviltwin wrote: »

What training do priests have in dealing with mentally vulnerable people? And what is the onus on, the best outcome for the individual or the best outcome for the church?

Oh, Oh, Oh, I can answer that!!!