Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

inocybe

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No

so someone taking a pill to cause the lining of the uterus to shed is as valid as someone taking a pill to try to stop the lining from shedding. Both unnatural, both against 'gods plan', both part of good healthcare.

PopePalpatine

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I appreciate that you are trying to make your argument seem stronger but we both know that abortions at the zygote stage are non existent.

Wow, top-notch cherry-picking there. Scroll down to page 5 of this report on abortion statistics in England & Wales. 79% of abortions there in 2013 were carried out before 10 weeks' gestation.

Tens of thousands of abortions at the zygote stage occur in this country every year, but then again that's what happens when they can't implant themselves into the womb thanks to The Pill.

volchitsa

Lagraso wrote: »

You seem to be overlooking the welfare of the unborn child.

As I said earlier, if there is another reason for withholding the termination, then that needs to be examined on its own merits. But the point being made here was purely a claim about the welfare of the woman.

Little CuChulainn

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I find it interesting that you use the term pro-life as an insult

Er, that wasn't the insult. I insulted the predictable lack of a coherent argument from a pro-life position.

Pro-life is just the term by which anti-choice people prefer to be called. If you prefer to be described as anti-choice, I'll stick to that.

volchitsa

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What evidence are you referring to?

I'm referring to the evidence used in the claim that women who continue a crisis pregnancy have similar outcomes in terms of mental health to those who abort. If you want to see it, you should ask the person who first mentioned it (Whimsical?)

(I'm familiar with it, which is why I know what he/she was referring to, but I'm not going hunting it out. That's up to the person making the claim.)

Little CuChulainn

inocybe wrote: »

so someone taking a pill to cause the lining of the uterus to shed is as valid as someone taking a pill to try to stop the lining from shedding. Both unnatural, both against 'gods plan', both part of good healthcare.

Gods plan? I'm not religious so I can't help you there. Cancer and pregnancy terminations, natural or not, are not part of the human life cycle. They are derogations from it.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Wow, top-notch cherry-picking there. Scroll down to page 5 of this report on abortion statistics in England & Wales. 79% of abortions there in 2013 were carried out before 10 weeks' gestation.

Tens of thousands of abortions at the zygote stage occur in this country every year, but then again that's what happens when they can't implant themselves into the womb thanks to The Pill.

A zygote is a single cell that doesn't remain one for very long. Perhaps we are just not using the same terminology. In general, people won't know they are pregnant at the zygote stage. The morning after pill would be the only way to terminate a pregnancy at this stage.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Er, that wasn't the insult. I insulted the predictable lack of a coherent argument from a pro-life position.

Pro-life is just the term by which anti-choice people prefer to be called. If you prefer to be described as anti-choice, I'll stick to that.

Why would I want to be called anti-choice or pro-life? I think abortion is fine up until 10 to 12 weeks. I'm merely pointing out the futility of trying to come to a national consensus with such weak arguments.

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm referring to the evidence used in the claim that women who continue a crisis pregnancy have similar outcomes in terms of mental health to those who abort. If you want to see it, you should ask the person who first mentioned it (Whimsical?)

(I'm familiar with it, which is why I know what he/she was referring to, but I'm not going hunting it out. That's up to the person making the claim.)

So no evidence.

volchitsa

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

So no evidence.

No indeed, that's why I asked the poster for his/her sources, to ensure we were discussing the same research, but since they won't or can't, I can't be sure, can I? That's what happens when posters claim to quote other more authoritative sources without linking to them.

(I'm sure you couldn't possibly be doing anything so intellectually dishonest as taking that poster's claims about what the research shows on face value, while requiring a link from me! Could you? :rolleyes:)

Little CuChulainn

volchitsa wrote: »

No indeed, that's why I asked the poster for his/her sources, to ensure we were discussing the same research, but since they won't or can't, I can't be sure, can I? That's what happens when posters claim to quote other more authoritative sources without linking to them.

You keep referring to research you are relying on but you won't post it. Why? If it exists just post it, regardless of whether someone else does.

Faith+1

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. There are children born with no brains now leading successful lives and contributing to society.

The Government?

_Whimsical_

volchitsa wrote: »

No indeed, that's why I asked the poster for his/her sources, to ensure we were discussing the same research, but since they won't or can't, I can't be sure, can I? That's what happens when posters claim to quote other more authoritative sources without linking to them.

(I'm sure you couldn't possibly be doing anything so intellectually dishonest as taking that poster's claims about what the research shows on face value, while requiring a link from me! Could you? :rolleyes:)

Just to be clear seeing as you mentioned me in a post I above I did not mention any research specifically our claim to be relying on any, I made it clear that I was giving an opinion, not stating any facts. I responded to what you said was your "understanding" of research that you did not quote and I said it was my opinion that your "understanding" as you explained it was open to error for logically conceivable reasons.

For someone who talks so much about research and sources while providing nothing yourself you're starting to sound just a little foolish. Perhaps you might want to read the emboldened part of your own post again because you are sounding intellectually dishonest.

emo72

just read this thread, dont know why i did, im a glutton for punishment i guess. im pretty sure we will have a referendum on this in a few short years, probably the next government. then abortion will be legal in ireland. i dont think there is a thing anyone can do about it, its going to happen just a case of when.

volchitsa

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Just to be clear seeing as you mentioned me in a post I above I did not mention any research specifically, I made it clear that I was giving an opinion, not stating any facts. I responded to what you said was your "understanding" of research that you did not quote and I said it was my opinion that your "understanding" was open to error for logically conceivable reasons.

For someone who talks so much about research and sources while providing nothing yourself you're starting to sound just a little foolish. Perhaps you might want to read the emboldened part of your own post again because you are sounding intellectually dishonest.

Follow the links upthread, that's a complete misrepresentation of the discussion I've been involved in. You mentioned evidence given to the Senate, and I replied asking you about it. So you made the assertion, not me.

Now when you are ready to provide some evidence of the claims you made about mental health after abortion, then we can discuss it.

And by that I mean the research itself, not a re-interpretation of it that someone else has made - specifically, my query was whether you are sure that your claim concerns women forced to remain pregnant or only those who chose to remain pregnant.

But you made the claim, it's up to you to back it up.

_Whimsical_

volchitsa wrote: »

You could, but you would still be making an eejit or a liar of yourself.

You have no proof that she won't feel better because the evidence is only related to cases where the woman considered an abortion and decided against it. So all you can truthfully say is that for women who chose to remain pregnant, the outcomes were similar to those who chose to abort. What you cannot truthfully say is what would have happened to those individual women who chose to abort, had they instead been forced to remain pregnant.

This seems to be open to a lot of debate, psychiatrists don't fully agree so don't know how we would find a definitive answer here. While you might be right and I would be very interested in seeing research to suggest that you are for now I would be more inclined to trust the opinion of medical doctors. 113 psychiatrists,90 of all respondents to a survey asked if they felt that abortion was an adequate response to suicidal ideation said no, that there was no medical evidence our research to suggest this was the case.
Source:http://www.thejournal.ie/psychiatrists-abortion-legislation-suicide-885632-Apr2013/

I can't imagine why they'd all be agenda driven pro-lifers happy to skew the facts,or why they would not consider the points you've made about the Irish situation being different and seek research, if it exists,to back up the theory regarding women who have no choice but to continue with a pregnancy. It's their job to provide the most up to date, scientifically credible response to their patients and too tease out flaws in research should there be any and discount inapplicable research.

I'd also imagine sadly that quite a number of pregnant women continue pregnancies in very depressed states, not wanting the baby, but persisting because of pressure from partners, fear of community stigma associated with abortion and due to religious mores they follow. I would think that research does include these groups of women and that their outcomes are probably too varied to draw a definitive conclusion from.
However if there's research to suggest otherwise I'd like to see it to.

With all the claims of what the relevant research apparently doesn't indicate, can I just ask... is that because there is no research at all?

As Volchista has already said, I think, there are very few places in the world where abortions are banned in cases of rape. Therefore there's unlikely to have been any formal academic inquiry into the effects of mandatory pregnancy as against abortion on mothers' mental health outcomes.

However, in the absence of empirical evidence on either side, we can apply logic.

If an otherwise healthy woman suddenly suffers an onset of major depression solely as a result of a forced pregnancy, it stands to reason that giving her the choice to terminate the pregnancy will also terminate the negative stimulus on her mental health.

That's reasonable, right?

What exactly is controversial about that?

_Whimsical_

volchitsa wrote: »

Follow the links upthread, that's a complete misrepresentation of the discussion I've been involved in. You mentioned evidence given to the Senate, and I replied asking you about it. So you made the assertion, not me.

Now when you are ready to provide some evidence of the claims you made about mental health after abortion, then we can discuss it.

And by that I mean the research itself, not a re-interpretation of it that someone else has made - specifically, my query was whether you are sure that your claim concerns women forced to remain pregnant or only those who chose to remain pregnant.

But you made the claim, it's up to you to back it up.

I didn't make a claim,I clearly gave a opinion. You have been making claims as fact and not backing them up.
Tbh I think you're just deluded at this point.

Clandestine

Was trying to watch a music video at work and it looks like IrishLife are already paying for ads that are calling out Amnesty Ireland. Felt like punching my screen.

Electric Sheep

NachoBusiness wrote: »

The aborted have the potential to go on and be: our sisters, our daughters, our cousins, our friends, not just numbers on a page.

Uh, no, they don't. Not unless they get reincarnated.

PopePalpatine

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

This seems to be open to a lot of debate, psychiatrists don't fully agree so don't know how we would find a definitive answer here. While you might be right and I would be very interested in seeing research to suggest that you are for now I would be more inclined to trust the opinion of medical doctors. 113 psychiatrists,90 of all respondents to a survey asked if they felt that abortion was an adequate response to suicidal ideation said no, that there was no medical evidence our research to suggest this was the case.
Source:http://www.thejournal.ie/psychiatrists-abortion-legislation-suicide-885632-Apr2013/

I can't imagine why they'd all be agenda driven pro-lifers happy to skew the facts,or why they would not consider the points you've made about the Irish situation being different and seek research, if it exists,to back up the theory regarding women who have no choice but to continue with a pregnancy. It's their job to provide the most up to date, scientifically credible response to their patients and too tease out flaws in research should there be any and discount inapplicable research.

I'd also imagine sadly that quite a number of pregnant women continue pregnancies in very depressed states, not wanting the baby, but persisting because of pressure from partners, fear of community stigma associated with abortion and due to religious mores they follow. I would think that research does include these groups of women and that their outcomes are probably too varied to draw a definitive conclusion from.
However if there's research to suggest otherwise I'd like to see it to.

You do realise that survey was sent to 305 psychiatrists (of 350 in this country), and only 127 of them actually responded? It sounds suspiciously like convenience sampling to me.

efb

https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11377165_978063605539845_207112997447274035_n.jpg?oh=22706a13d7356a574e5e24d7563ac054&oe=55ECB116

K4t

emo72 wrote: »

just read this thread, dont know why i did, im a glutton for punishment i guess. im pretty sure we will have a referendum on this in a few short years, probably the next government. then abortion will be legal in ireland. i dont think there is a thing anyone can do about it, its going to happen just a case of when.

Over my dead baby!

Lux23

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

If someone wants to leave the country to have an abortion in a country where it's legal you can't stop them. It doesn't mean making abortion legal here would be right.

Why? If it's ok for someone to have an abortion elsewhere, why can't they just have it here?

eviltwin

Let's put it to the people and get some definite answer once and for all

Mrmoe

I would generally be anti abortion but I would concede that it will come in at some stage. In some circumstances it probably is a needed and kind option. However, the main argument usually put forward is that women should be allowed bodily integrity and abort the unborn life if she wants it. Should a woman at 38 weeks be allowed an abortion the same as one at 20 weeks? If there isn't then there is hypocrisy in this rationale.

eviltwin

Mrmoe wrote: »

I would generally be anti abortion but I would concede that it will come in at some stage. In some circumstances it probably is a needed and kind option. However, the main argument usually put forward is that women should be allowed bodily integrity and abort the unborn life if she wants it. Should a woman at 38 weeks be allowed an abortion the same as one at 20 weeks? If there isn't then there is hypocrisy in this rationale.

At 38 weeks you would end the pregnancy by induction. It's not abortion. Let's try and keep the debate logical, how many women do you think will wait until week 38?

TheGoldenAges

The way I look at it is there has to be a way out for a woman, there can't be like this line in the sand that says if you're pregnant you have to have the child, it's not right. Like I respect and get the pro-life argument. But as a free society, I think we need women to decide what is right for themselves. For me, 10/11 weeks should be the cutoff, after that unless for medical reasons (rape victims, suicide, faetal abnormalities, health of mother etc.) you have to have the child.

That gives you time to figure out are you pregnant, how does you (the mother) feel and have time to think it over because then the baby starts really developing. Everyone brings up the rape victim case (obviously she should have the right), my concern really is for the 16 or 18 year old girl who gets pregnant, hides it for a long time because she's scared and has to have it (which is what happens in Ireland regularly). How is she gonna support it? At the moment, our society barely has the resources to deal with the exponential population growth and we already have so many people already who can't support themselves, why do we want more?

But at a certain hard point (I'll let medical professionals argue over this and come to a unanimous position) then it's illegal. Like we need to come to a point that gives you enough time to make a decision and once that's over your decision is made for you. Frankly (for me anyway) the right of the zygote at two months shouldn't have the rights of a baby at 6/7/8 months.

There's already a problem of kids not being given the best prospects they could potentially have as babies are being born into situations where a mother and father really aren't ready to be parents (whether that be financial, emotional issues etc.). There shouldn't be a stigma of women being shamed when they try to get access to these services.

I hope the pro-life and pro-choice arguments can meet in the middle where it's okay that if a person can't really give the child the best possible chance to prosper and be happy at that time then that should be good thing, the harsh truth is that sometimes the best thing for both is for the child to not be born. Like I can't know what's best in every situation and the state shouldn't either.

Lux23

Mrmoe wrote: »

I would generally be anti abortion but I would concede that it will come in at some stage. In some circumstances it probably is a needed and kind option. However, the main argument usually put forward is that women should be allowed bodily integrity and abort the unborn life if she wants it. Should a woman at 38 weeks be allowed an abortion the same as one at 20 weeks? If there isn't then there is hypocrisy in this rationale.

You can't have an abortion at 38 weeks.

Mrmoe

eviltwin wrote: »

At 38 weeks you would end the pregnancy by induction. It's not abortion. Let's try and keep the debate logical, how many women do you think will wait until week 38?

Probably a small amount I would guess. What about 30 weeks? Or 25 weeks? Surely you would set a time frame?

eviltwin

Mrmoe wrote: »

Probably a small amount I would guess. What about 30 weeks? Or 25 weeks? Surely you would set a time frame?

No I wouldn't.

IrishWandering

Now, what is the relevance of 'miniature flags' in the title?

Mrmoe

eviltwin wrote: »

No I wouldn't.

Do you honestly think a majority of people would be in favour of that though? From any debate I have seen on here I would say the majority would favour abortion before 24 weeks but that would be it.