Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Cabaal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Cabaal - I think you can see that I've been very clear that misinformation is wrong. Nick has also been very clear.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Yes but Nick has been disingenuous claiming an unbiased service cannot exist, this is certainly not the case.

oldrnwisr

Nick Park wrote: »

It's plain English.

Nobody offers advice from an unbiased perspective. Everyone thinks some outcomes and actions are undesirable. I then gave a rather obvious example where most of us would share a bias of wanting to avoid a situation where someone commits suicide.

I'm simply pointing out that no-one really offers 'unbiased' advice.

Nick Park wrote: »

I never said any did.

My intervention in this thread was to respond to Cabaal's comment that advice should be accurate and unbiased. I simply responded with the reasonable view that they should indeed be accurate but, given human nature, it is probably impossible to eliminate bias.

Do you have anything useful to contribute to that discussion about bias? Or do you just want to pick a fight?

Sorry Nick but that's not the case at all.

The NHS Choices website offers impartial advice on a wide range of health issues. It has a detailed section on abortion and offers facts on the mechanics, risks and criteria for an abortion. The advice offered is not intended to be and cannot be interpreted as advocating for or against abortion.


Abortion (NHS Choices)

The website even counsels against visiting the kind of "advice" centre shown in Cabaal's video.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Last post on this thread I think.

I don't think the NHS page is impartial.

Starting with abortion isn't impartial. Rather starting with unplanned pregnancy and then presenting options for birth, adoption services along with information about termination would be ideal. There's not even a consideration of alternatives.

But then Britain has had a policy of pro-abortion-by-choice since 1967.

I think even that page has a bias. Hopefully they have a broader page like what I've discussed.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Delirium

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Last post on this thread I think.

I don't think the NHS page is impartial.

Starting with abortion isn't impartial. Rather starting with unplanned pregnancy and then presenting options for birth, adoption services along with information about termination would be ideal. There's not even a consideration of alternatives.

But then Britain has had a policy of pro-abortion-by-choice since 1967.

I think even that page has a bias. Hopefully they have a broader page like what I've discussed.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Why would the NHS include information on adoption on a page giving data about abortion?

They have section for adoption.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

My point is starting off with abortion isn't impartial. The discussion needs to start at what do I do about my pregnancy. Starting at abortion in and of itself is biased and not listing alternatives also presents a bias.

This is where I think Nick is right. How you present things also betrays bias. Being honest about it helps. The language we use also betrays bias.

In how an abortion is carried out there's no mention of what happens to the foetus from what I can see. Again, because the assumption is abortion only concerns the mother.

I digress. I've said enough.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Delirium

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

My point is starting off with abortion isn't impartial. The discussion needs to start at what do I do about my pregnancy. Starting at abortion in and of itself is biased and not listing alternatives also presents a bias.

This is where I think Nick is right. How you present things also betrays bias. Being honest about it helps. The language we use also betrays bias.

In how an abortion is carried out there's no mention of what happens to the foetus from what I can see. Again, because the assumption is abortion only concerns the mother.

I digress. I've said enough.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

But it's not 'starting off' with abortion. It's providing information to those seeking information about abortion.

They have other pages, like providing options for young women/teens that are pregnant.

It gives links to information for continuing with the pregnancy as well as a link to the abortion information page.

Adoption isn't mentioned I'd imagine, as that is a post-pregnancy consideration.

oldrnwisr

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't think the NHS page is impartial.

What is your basis for that claim? Can you point to specific examples on the page which are biased. Or is it just the case that anything which doesn't advocate against abortion is automatically biased towards abortion? Where is the evidence for your claim?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Starting with abortion isn't impartial. Rather starting with unplanned pregnancy and then presenting options for birth, adoption services along with information about termination would be ideal. There's not even a consideration of alternatives.

I think you missed the bit where we were talking specifically about abortion. If you want to find about your choices regarding unplanned pregnancy then the NHS has several pages dedicated to it as well as two national services, the BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service) and NUPAS (National Unplanned Pregnancy Advice Service). As Delirium has posted if you want information about specific alternatives such as adoption then you can go to the relevant webpage. However, the link I posted contains information specific to abortion.
The important point, that you seem to have missed, is that there is nothing on the NHS page like the kind of deliberate misinformation shown in Cabaal's video. Trying to link abortion with breast cancer is a deliberate attempt at scaremongering, trying to persuade the patient against having an abortion. Nothing on the NHS page could be construed as trying to persuade a person into or out of having an abortion. It simply presents the facts concerning the risks, methods and eligibility for an abortion. So it is unbiased contrary to Nick's claim.

solodeogloria wrote: »

But then Britain has had a policy of pro-abortion-by-choice since 1967.

No, there is an important difference between facilitating abortion and advocating abortion. Allowing abortion doesn't mean that the British government or any policy maker wants to force or otherwise persuade any woman to have an abortion. They simply have put in place a legislative environment where women can choose to have an abortion if they need/want to.

The alternative to facilitating abortion would be a ban on abortion which would definitely be biased.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think even that page has a bias. Hopefully they have a broader page like what I've discussed.

Yes, you think so. However, at no point have you offered any specific references to back up this claim. Which, I think, shows up your bias a lot more than any bias on the NHS website.

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

Yes but Nick has been disingenuous claiming an unbiased service cannot exist, this is certainly not the case.

Not disingenuous. I expressed a view that you disagree with. Which, if we do it civilly, is surely the point of a discussion forum?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Suggesting that lazygal has nothing useful to contribute does actually come across as both hostile and disagreeable though.

I actually invited her to respond to what I had posted (the question of bias) rather than her picking a fight. I think I did so in a very restrained manner given that my last interaction with that poster involved her telling lies and misrepresentations about me - something for which she received an inthread rebuke from a moderator but never expressed the slightest apology.

When posters choose to act in a hostile way we have at least three choices in how we respond.
a) We can attack back.
b) We can ignore.
c) We can calmly invite them to engage in the discussion rather than picking a fight.

I chose the third option. I'm sorry, if somewhat baffled, that you interpret that
as hostile and disagreeable.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

That is perfectly reasonable, in that you have stated your bias from the outset. What is unreasonable is where you have a counselling service that is also operating from a bias while claiming to be impartial. The fact that people claiming to be counsellors are providing misinformation to pregnant women to support their own agenda is also clear wrong, unethical and dangerous.

I certainly agree that a counselling service operating from a bias should not claim to be impartial.

I am in favour of all "advice services" being required by law to disclose any links that might influence their services. So, for example, centres associated with a church or a pro-life group should disclose that before any other interaction occurs.

Similarly, anyone with links to, or receiving funding from abortion clinics, should be required by law to state so. Lobbying organisations (such as Iona or Amnesty International) should also be very upfront about their connections and funding.

Everyone has a bias. Seeing abortion as an unacceptable course of action is a bias. Seeing abortion as an acceptable course of action is also a bias. We cannot eliminate such biases. But they should be disclosed at the outset.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

I certainly agree that a counselling service operating from a bias should not claim to be impartial.

I am in favour of all "advice services" being required by law to disclose any links that might influence their services. So, for example, centres associated with a church or a pro-life group should disclose that before any other interaction occurs.

Similarly, anyone with links to, or receiving funding from abortion clinics, should be required by law to state so. Lobbying organisations (such as Iona or Amnesty International) should also be very upfront about their connections and funding.

Everyone has a bias. Seeing abortion as an unacceptable course of action is a bias. Seeing abortion as an acceptable course of action is also a bias. We cannot eliminate such biases. But they should be disclosed at the outset.

When people go to an abortion counselling service for advice about a crisis pregnancy, presumably they want at least some information on abortion? So how is it biased to give them that, as long as other options are also discussed, and no attempt is made to influence the woman either way?

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

When people go to an abortion counselling service for advice about a crisis pregnancy, presumably they want at least some information on abortion? So how is it biased to give them that, as long as other options are also discussed, and no attempt is made to influence the woman either way?

If it is marketed as an abortion counselling service, then the bias is made clear. So, no problem there.

There's more of an issue if an abortion provider (whose reports state that they wish to expand their business by carrying out more abortions) try to present themselves as a "Pregnancy Advice Service".

Here's the crux of the issue. If you can convince yourself that you (i.e. people who see abortion as an acceptable practice) are unbiased, and that anyone who takes a different view (seeing abortion as an unacceptable practice) is biased - then Cabaal's question (shouldn't everyone pro-life or pro-choice support unbiased counselling?) becomes less than honest. What it really means is "Shouldn't all counselling services be confined to those who agree with my view that abortion is an acceptable practice?"

I happen to believe that a diversity of opinions may be expressed. If someone disagrees with me, then it does not follow that they are biased and I am unbiased. We both should acknowledge our respective biases.

Similarly, if someone disagrees with me on an internet discussion forum, that does not mean that they are disingenuous. It means we hold different opinions. And we should be able to express those opinions honestly and civilly without feeling that the other person is an enemy, or misrepresenting them.

That's my view anyway. But the vitriol engendered on the abortion issue (on both sides) is such that it's getting to feel like a very lonely view!

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

I certainly agree that a counselling service operating from a bias should not claim to be impartial.

I am in favour of all "advice services" being required by law to disclose any links that might influence their services. So, for example, centres associated with a church or a pro-life group should disclose that before any other interaction occurs.

Similarly, anyone with links to, or receiving funding from abortion clinics, should be required by law to state so. Lobbying organisations (such as Iona or Amnesty International) should also be very upfront about their connections and funding.

Everyone has a bias. Seeing abortion as an unacceptable course of action is a bias. Seeing abortion as an acceptable course of action is also a bias. We cannot eliminate such biases. But they should be disclosed at the outset.

I agree with all of the above in principal and think that any counselling service should be fully transparent in terms of how it is funded, exactly what it will or won't provide in terms of service, and who owns and runs it. That said, I wonder who exactly would use an openly pro-life crisis pregnancy counselling service?

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

I agree with all of the above in principal and think that any counselling service should be fully transparent in terms of how it is funded, exactly what it will or won't provide in terms of service, and who owns and runs it. That said, I wonder who exactly would use an openly pro-life crisis pregnancy counselling service?

Someone who is pregnant, in a difficult situation, but who is open to the idea that killing an unborn child is not a good course of action.

Not as unusual as you might think.

eviltwin

Nick Park wrote: »

Someone who is pregnant, in a difficult situation, but who is open to the idea that killing an unborn child is not a good course of action.

Not as unusual as you might think.

That would make sense if the non pro life ones were promoting abortion. They aren't. There is a legal obligation for pregnancy counselling to talk about adoption as an option and they only hire accredited counsellors.

lazygal

Nick, any chance you could post the names of the pro abortion associations to which you referred?

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

If it is marketed as an abortion counselling service, then the bias is made clear. So, no problem there.

There's more of an issue if an abortion provider (whose reports state that they wish to expand their business by carrying out more abortions) try to present themselves as a "Pregnancy Advice Service".

Here's the crux of the issue. If you can convince yourself that you (i.e. people who see abortion as an acceptable practice) are unbiased, and that anyone who takes a different view (seeing abortion as an unacceptable practice) is biased - then Cabaal's question (shouldn't everyone pro-life or pro-choice support unbiased counselling?) becomes less than honest. What it really means is "Shouldn't all counselling services be confined to those who agree with my view that abortion is an acceptable practice?"

I happen to believe that a diversity of opinions may be expressed. If someone disagrees with me, then it does not follow that they are biased and I am unbiased. We both should acknowledge our respective biases.

Similarly, if someone disagrees with me on an internet discussion forum, that does not mean that they are disingenuous. It means we hold different opinions. And we should be able to express those opinions honestly and civilly without feeling that the other person is an enemy, or misrepresenting them.

That's my view anyway. But the vitriol engendered on the abortion issue (on both sides) is such that it's getting to feel like a very lonely view!

No that's not what I meant. I may have been careless in calling it that, because by your logic, an abortion counselling service would be perfectly entitled only to counsel for abortion, and that's not what I was saying.

Let me try again. If someone with a crisis pregnancy comes to a pregnancy counselling service, is it reasonable to assume they want - and are entitled to -reliable information on all the options available, and not just on those the counsellor feels are right for that person?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Nick, any chance you could post the names of the pro abortion associations to which you referred?

In the UK (which is the model to which many of the pro-abortion lobby in Ireland profess to wish to emulate) I would apply that label to the misleadingly-named BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service). This organisation offers 'pregnancy advice' which frequently involves referring clients to their own abortionists (a set up where they receive payment for each abortion conducted). They have also published reports that state their aims to expand by performing more abortions.

In Ireland, it would be accurate to use such a label to those branches of the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) which were caught telling clients how to illegally import abortion pills (which really should not be taken without medical supervision) and that they could lie to their doctors about having had an abortion (something that could put their own lives at risk). It would take a brass neck to claim that such centres are 'unbiased'.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

In the UK (which is the model to which many of the pro-abortion lobby in Ireland profess to wish to emulate) I would apply that label to the misleadingly-named BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service). This organisation offers 'pregnancy advice' which frequently involves referring clients to their own abortionists (a set up where they receive payment for each abortion conducted). They have also published reports that state their aims to expand by performing more abortions.

In Ireland, it would be accurate to use such a label to those branches of the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) which were caught telling clients how to illegally import abortion pills (which really should not be taken without medical supervision) and that they could lie to their doctors about having had an abortion (something that could put their own lives at risk). It would take a brass neck to claim that such centres are 'unbiased'.

Oh Nick, abortionists, really?! This is like your late term bridesmaid claims.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Oh Nick, abortionists, really?! This is like your late term bridesmaid claims.

An abortionist. Someone who carries out abortions.

Or, in the literature of the group concerned, "a BPAS health care professional".

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

An abortionist. Someone who carries out abortions.

Or, in the literature of the group concerned, "a BPAS health care professional".

If the woman swallows abortion pills is she an abortionist too?
It's actually really great that you're using terms like this and "life equality amendment" along with the bridesmaid story, and I hope you're going to continue. Youth Defence would be pleased.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

If the woman swallows abortion pills is she an abortionist too?

Most people would see a difference between a woman who swallows an abortion pill and a person who is paid to carry out abortions.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Most people would see a difference between a woman who swallows an abortion pill and a person who is paid to carry out abortions.

What is the difference? Why is one an abortionist but not the other?
Is it the same type of difference between the morning after pill and an abortion at 24 weeks to fit into a bridesmaid dress?

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

Most people would see a difference between a woman who swallows an abortion pill and a person who is paid to carry out abortions.

Yeah, the first quite likely just wants to fit into her bridesmaid's dress, as you told us, whereas the second is a doctor who may well be trying to save a woman's health or even her life.

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

What is the difference? Why is one an abortionist but not the other?
Is it the same type of difference between the morning after pill and an abortion at 24 weeks to fit into a bridesmaid dress?

I mentioned the bridesmaid incident, as you well know, in conjunction with another case where a young woman told me she had, at 14-years of age, taken a morning after pill after being raped. In both cases I accepted at face value what these two women told me. I didn't challenge the veracity of the rape account, or of the other woman's reason for getting an abortion. I listened respectfully to what they both had to say because I think that is the best way to approach people. Often, by listening rather than just trying to push your point of view, you can learn an awful lot. What I learned in this case, and I shared it in this thread as a reasonable position, is that you cannot treat all abortions as if they were the same. Therefore it is unreasonable, as you were doing, to suggest that the legal response to abortion should be the same in every case.

So, yes, I do think a woman risking her life by illegally importing and taking an abortion pill without medical supervision (as suggested by an 'advice' service) is different from a 'health care professional' carrying out abortions as his or her main source of income.

And you, of course, are free to argue that they are exactly the same thing.

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

Yeah, the first quite likely just wants to fit into her bridesmaid's dress, as you told us, whereas the second is a doctor who may well be trying to save a woman's health or even her life.

I mentioned that incident (in conjunction with another atypical case at the opposite end of the spectrum) to demonstrate the stupidity of acting as if all abortions are the same. I clearly and emphatically stressed that it was an incredibly rare case.

So, in now portraying that as "quite likely", you are being deeply dishonest and misrepresenting me.

Are you unwilling to engage honestly in discussion with those who hold a different view from you?

lazygal

Nick, pride goes before a fall. You can't go around telling everyone you're the only one engaging properly in a debate while making claims about late term abortions and using terms like abortionist.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

I mentioned that incident (in conjunction with another atypical case at the opposite end of the spectrum) to demonstrate the stupidity of acting as if all abortions are the same. I clearly and emphatically stressed that it was an incredibly rare case.

So, in now portraying that as "quite likely", you are being deeply dishonest and misrepresenting me.

Are you unwilling to engage honestly in discussion with those who hold a different view from you?

See, I don't actually believe that story. It doesn't make sense. Weddings are planned months in advance, women don't just waken up 6 months pregnant and realize that they forgot to tell the bridesmaid they would need a maternity-style bridesmaid dress (I think the term is actually matron of honour, when the attendant is married /pregnant etc). It just beggars belief that pregnancy could be an obstacle to being a bridesmaid, and it beggars belief that a woman would go through the first, most unpleasant months of pregnancy and then suddenly, when the worst is over and the baby is nearly there, so to speak, just decide, feck it I'd rather be able to drink at my mate's wedding.

Why would you think she wouldn't be delighted to show off her bump at the wedding? The days are gone when women had to hide their pregnancies.

So yeah, I'm calling <snip> on that.

As for how rare it is, since I don't believe it happens at all, I'd say very very rare - but if it were true, how could you possibly say whether it was rare or not, you don't know that many women's reasons for abortion, do you? So it could be fairly commonplace, for all you can say.

Of course if you just made it up, mind, then you can of course be confident that it's very very rare. :rolleyes:

Delirium

volchitsa wrote: »

Yeah, the first quite likely just wants to fit into her bridesmaid's dress, as you told us, whereas the second is a doctor who may well be trying to save a woman's health or even her life.

MOD NOTE

I've not seen anything posted by Nick to suggest that he would agree with that summation of his position (especially given his post removing any confusion on his reference to the pregnant bridesmaid).

It would be appreciated if posters didn't deliberately misrepresent others positions as it could been seen as nothing more than an attempt to antagnoise rather than engage in the actual discussion.

Thanks for your attention.

lazygal

Pretty sure there's a commandment somewhere about bearing false witness.