The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

Have you seen these items that examine if there are risks to mental health following abortion.

The first item is a 2008 study about risks to mental health, as a result of abortion.

It is titled "Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study",

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-disorders-evidence-from-a-30year-longitudinal-study/59A90CBF3A58C58B342CBCFFBBFEBD2E

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19043144

Here are some brief details from the page below:

It states it is by "Corresponding Author Professor David M. Fergusson, Christchurch Health nd Development Study, University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, New Zealand. Email: dm.fergusson@otago.ac.nz."

Professor David M. Fergusson, Christchurch Health nd Development Study, University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, New Zealand. Email: dm.fergusson@otago.ac.nz

"Background"
"Research on the links between abortion and mental health has been limited by design problems and relatively weak evidence".

"Aims"
"To examine the links between pregnancy outcomes and mental health outcomes".


"Method"
"Data were gathered on the pregnancy and mental health history of a birth cohort of over 500 women studied to the age of 30".


"Results"
"After adjustment for confounding, abortion was associated with a small increase in the risk of mental disorders; women who had had abortions had rates of mental disorder that were about 30% higher. There were no consistent associations between other pregnancy outcomes and mental health. Estimates of attributable risk indicated that exposure to abortion accounted for 1.5% to 5.5% of the overall rate of mental disorders".


"Conclusions"
"The evidence is consistent with the view that abortion may be associated with a small increase in risk of mental disorders. Other pregnancy outcomes were not related to increased risk of mental health problems".

There is a list of references to other studies, on the page, and there is a page with commentaries about the report.



https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-disorders-evidence-from-a-30year-longitudinal-study/59A90CBF3A58C58B342CBCFFBBFEBD2E

https://www.forofamilia.org/documentos/VIDA%20-%20Aborto%20y%20salud%20mental%20Comentarios.%20Ingles.pdf

Here is another report, titled APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion

http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/advisory-abortion-mental-health.pdf

Unfortunately for you, I emailed him in relation to pro life groups citing him at the time. Being misleading with studies isn't nice and that is what you are doing. The findings did not indicate abortion is harmful to mental health and more research is needed... Response from him below.

Dear ***,

Thank you for your email . To clarify the issue what our article says is that :

a) We can find no evidence abortion has positive benefits;

b) There is suggestive evidence of small harmful effects but it would be premature to draw strong conclusions,

c) Further and better research is needed before strong conclusions can be drawn about the linkages between mental health and abortion.

The problem with these findings is that they can be misused by both prolife and prochoice advocates. Prolife advocates can argue on the basis of b) that abortion is harmful . Prochoice advocates can argue on the basis of b) and c) that currently there is no credible evidence to suggest abortion has no harmful effects. The latter argument is correct but could be misleading as it implies there is strong evidence of the absence of harmful effects. However an absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence and under these conditions it behoves commenters to be cautious.

I cannot recall my remarks on Irish radio but I suspect there were along the lines that it would be misleading to interpret our findings as suggesting harmful effects for abortion.

I hope that this clarifies matters

David Fergusson

horseburger

pitifulgod wrote: »

Unfortunately for you, I emailed him in relation to pro life groups citing him at the time. Being misleading with studies isn't nice and that is what you are doing. The findings did not indicate abortion is harmful to mental health and more research is needed... Response from him below.

Why do you say unfortunately for me?

In my post, I have included two other items that differ in perspective from the one you mention and I cite text in the other items.

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

You are now denying that you said that it was fine for BPAS to address the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee in 2017, despite the fact that it advocated a stance as far back as 2013

Below are your posts where you said it was fine for BPAS to address both the Assembly and Committee as long as it didn't advocate a stance, despite BPAS having advocated a stance in 2013.

You also seem to be suggesting - when you stated "I said nobody outside of the country should be meddling in the referendum of that country, unless they can bring something to the table that nobody in the country can", - that BPAS can provide some form of abortion and healthcare advice that Irish doctors wouldn't be able to provide.

Then you contradict yourself by saying that BPAS can address the 2017 Citizens' Assembly and 2017 Oireachtas Committee - despite BPAS having given a stated position on abortion laws in Ireland, as far back as 2013. BPAS criticized the Irish government for not providing abortion services.

Here are the two items I referenced.

https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2013/11/15/bpas-serves-notice-to-the-irish-government/

https://glykosymoritis.blogspot.ie/2013/11/ireland-bpas-serves-notice-to-irish.html#!/2013/11/ireland-bpas-serves-notice-to-irish.html

You stated of BPAS - where you were clearly unaware that in 2013 BPAS had indicated a stance on the laws in Ireland - with reference to the attendance of BPAS representatives at the 2017 Citizens' Assembly and 2017 Oireachtas Committee, that "They are perfectly allowed to have and state their opinions but I don't believe those opinions should have anything to do with a referendum at an official level".

You don't need to tell me what I said, thanks.

I'm trying but really really struggling to see how you are still coming to the conclusions that you are. Both examples you gave, I said they can have their opinion. Both example you gave, I said neither of which should be at an official capacity.
I actually have no idea how you can twist it so you can justify saying I said the opposite. None. You even quote the posts and still. I can't get over the level of gymnastics you've gone through to try and twist it.

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

Why do you say unfortunately for me?

In my post, I have included two other items that differ in perspective from the one you mention.

Did you mention the fact that Fergusson study concludes more studies are needed and that his conclusions do not actually indicate abortion is harmful? It's pretty relevant.

Annasopra

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

http://jrnl.ie/3960632

horseburger

pitifulgod wrote: »

Did you mention the fact that Fergusson study concludes more studies are needed and that his conclusions do not actually indicate abortion is harmful? It's pretty relevant.

I saw the item along with the other items and included links to them.

I included the brief detail from the page about the study and then I went back and included text from the other study and was including text from that next item while you posted snidely suggesting that I had a biased motive.

It was only after I included the links and detail to the other two items that I saw your post where you attributed some kind of motive.

Quit insinuating that I was being selective.

I thought each of the items would be of interest. Clearly not to you anyway.

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

You don't need to tell me what I said, thanks.

I'm trying but really really struggling to see how you are still coming to the conclusions that you are. Both examples you gave, I said they can have their opinion. Both example you gave, I said neither of which should be at an official capacity.
I actually have no idea how you can twist it so you can justify saying I said the opposite. None. You even quote the posts and still. I can't get over the level of gymnastics you've gone through to try and twist it.

Now you are saying that you did say what you had earlier twice denied that you said.

BPAS spoke at the Assembly and Oireachtas Committee four years after it had made statements criticizing laws in Ireland.

And you still try to suggest that they could attend the meetings from a neutral stance on the issue.

I had pointed out to you, that that BPAS had taken a stance on the issue. before you posted your reply,

horseburger

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

None of them argued for no restrictions!!!

What restriction is inherent in this statement?


"supports a woman’s right to make her own decisions regarding reproduction, including the right to free, safe, and legal abortion"

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

Now you are saying that you did say what you had earlier twice denied what you said.

BPAS spoke at the Assembly and Oireachtas Committee four years after it had made statements criticizing laws in Ireland.

And you still try to suggest that they could attend the meetings.

Are you doing this on purpose?

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

I saw the item along with the other items and included links to them.

I included the brief detail from the page about the study and then I went back and included text from the other study and was including text from that next item while you posted snidely suggesting that I had a biased motive.

It was only after I included the links and detail to the other two items that I saw your post where you attributed some kind of motive.

Quit insinuating that I was being selective.

I thought each of the items would be of interest. Clearly not to you anyway.

It's your key citation, you didn't go into any near that level of detail with other studies. You literally linked to the other ones. Eg this is from the apa report you cited and most relevant to this referendum. No?

Based on our comprehensive review and evaluation of
the empirical literature published in peer-reviewed
journals since 1989, this Task Force on Mental Health
and Abortion concludes that the most methodologi-
cally sound research indicates that among women who
have a single, legal, first-trimester abortion of an un-
planned pregnancy for nontherapeutic reasons, the rel-
ative risks of mental health problems are no greater
than the risks among women who deliver an un-
planned pregnancy. This conclusion is generally con-
sistent with that reached by the first APA task force

horseburger

pitifulgod wrote: »

It's your key citation, you didn't go into any near that level of detail with other studies. You literally linked to the other ones. Eg this is from the apa report you cited and most relevant to this referendum. No?

It was the first item I came across, not the "key" one.

I included it a post, then I included the other items. I included them in the post in the order I came across them in a search.

If anything, perhaps you could blame google for a search that brought up the item you dislike, before the other items, and quit insinuating that I was being selective.

If you don't believe me, that I added each item in that order and included the text upon seeing each item, ask the moderator to show you the chronology of my posting.

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

Could you think of a slogan or a euphemism so that I might interpret, whatever it is you are actually saying?

Throughout the SSM marriage campaign, boards was visited by many, many posters who were not against same-sex marriage and had no problems with the gays, sure one of their friends owns a pink shirt, but sadly, they had to vote No because the yes campaign was so gay and offensive and in their face all the time.

Those people were always going to vote No, they just wanted to shift the blame for their intolerance to the other side.

Likewise here you are posting absolute walls of prolife talking points and videos while pretending that you are on the fence and now threatening to vote No if we aren't super nice to you.

You are not fooling anyone.

seamus

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

http://jrnl.ie/3960632

Dublin City Council runs the register for the DCC area. There are 31 city or county county councils in Ireland, each who make up their own rules for managing the register in their location.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

So who is it we can trust? What body or institution of the state can we point to and say they're the ones we can trust to make the right decisions on this matter?

The bishops, of course, like in the 1930s.

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Are you doing this on purpose?

What on purpose?

Do you not consider that it is important to mention that you were clueless that BPAS had taken a definite stance on the issue, four years before the meetings that its representatives addressed in Dublin in 2017, the meetings you said it was ok for it to address as long as it didn't take a stance on the issue?

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

Quit insinuating that I was being selective.

Your post and other posts do read as though you are being selective, because you are being selective, very selective.
Thats your perogative, but why deny it?

horseburger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Throughout the SSM marriage campaign, boards was visited by many, many posters who were not against same-sex marriage and had no problems with the gays, sure one of their friends owns a pink shirt, but sadly, they had to vote No because the yes campaign was so gay and offensive and in their face all the time.

Those people were always going to vote No, they just wanted to shift the blame for their intolerance to the other side.

Likewise here you are posting absolute walls of prolife talking points and videos while pretending that you are on the fence and now threatening to vote No if we aren't super nice to you.

You are not fooling anyone.

If you bothered your arse to do a bit of research on my posting history on boards, you would realise from my posts that I voted yes in the marriage referendum 2015.

In my posts I argued against what people had stated against the Yes vote in 2015 about civil marriage and I compared what was argued against civil marriage in 2015, to earlier comments, made arguing against civil partnerships.

I also referenced during the marriage referendum how the argument about how the conscious clause in the case of Buella Print in Drogheda was contradictory, because the guy that asked for invitations to be printed out, were not for civil marriage, but for civil parnerships.

I'm my posts, I argued that this was a contradiction in the argument against civil marriage, because other advocates for a no vote were stating that civil partnerships were fine, but the same people had argued against civil partnerships in 2009.

In the case of Buella Print, the owners had said to the guy from the salon in Drogheda, that they opposed civil marriage for religious reasons.

The stance by the business owners didn't stand up, I argued, because they had been asked to print up civil partnership invitations.

Nice try at pigeon hole-ing , all the same.

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

What on purpose?

Do you not consider that it is important to mention that you were clueless that BPAS had taken a definite stance on the issue, four years before the meetings that its representatives addressed in Dublin in 2017, the meetings you said it was ok for it to address as long as it didn't take a stance on the issue?

So you are doing it on purpose.

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

If you bothered your arse to do a bit of research on my posting history on boards, you would realise from my posts that I voted yes in the marriage referendum 2015.

In my posts I argued against what people had stated against the Yes vote in 2015 about civil marriage and I compared what was argued against civil marriage in 2015, to earlier comments, made arguing against civil partnerships.

I also referenced during the marriage referendum how the argument about how the conscious clause in the case of Buella Print in Drogheda was contradictory, because the guy that asked for invitations to be printed out, were not for civil marriage, but for civil parnerships.

I'm my posts, I argued that this was a contradiction in the argument against civil marriage, because other advocates for a no vote were stating that civil partnerships were fine, but the same people had argued against civil partnerships in 2009.

In the case of Buella Print, the owners had said to the guy from the salon in Drogheda, that they opposed civil marriage for religious reasons.

The stance by the business owners didn't stand up, I argued, because they had been asked to print up civil partnership invitations.

Nice try at pigeon hole-ing , all the same.

I think you entirely missed his point..

horseburger

baylah17 wrote: »

Your post and other posts do read as though you are being selective, because you are being selective, very selective.
Thats your perogative, but why deny it?

Well then why don't you post videos and articles from organisations advocating a yes vote and a no vote and suggest a discussion about the points they are making.

You could, yourself, just as easily highlight particular arguments made during debates and examine and scrutinize the points made.

Here's one for example.

How does Ruth Coppinger justify - or even get away with stating to Eamon O'Cuiv in the Dáil on 7th March 2017, that a pregnant woman isn't a mother till the baby is born?

Is there any pregnant woman who wouldn't be completely insulted by that comment considering the care and nuture they provide during the pregnancy to ensure the development of the baby?

Her comment got damn all coverage or criticism in the way that it would if a male politician like Ronan Mullen or Danny Healy Rae had said it.

Why is that?

Why didn't Broadsheet or Newsworthy tweet it and write articles transcribing her comments, like they have done with other public representatives?

horseburger

pitifulgod wrote: »

I think you entirely missed his point..

No I did not, but thanks anyway.

lazygal

I wasn't a mother until my first child was born. I was just pregnant.

NuMarvel

horseburger wrote: »

No I did not, but thanks anyway.

If you think he was saying you were in favour of the No vote in the 2015 referendum, then ya, you did.

January

RobertKK wrote: »

Some wouldn’t believe the Gardai are involved over the illegal removal of retain the 8th posters.

https://twitter.com/giftedtim/status/985981154024189953?s=21

Say the Garda would be very interested in this too.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10160261450765608&id=576200607

What's your thoughts on that Robert

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

Well then why don't you post videos and articles from organisations advocating a yes vote and a no vote and suggest a discussion about the points they are making.

You could, yourself, just as easily highlight particular arguments made during debates and examine and scrutinize the points made.

Here's one for example.

How does Ruth Coppinger justify - or even get away with stating to Eamon O'Cuiv in the Dáil on 7th March 2017, that a pregnant woman isn't a mother till the baby is born?

Is there any pregnant woman who wouldn't be completely insulted by that comment considering the care and nuture they provide during the pregnancy to ensure the development of the baby?

Her comment got damn all coverage or criticism in the way that it would if a male politician like Ronan Mullen or Danny Healy Rae had said it.

Why is that?

Why didn't Broadsheet or Newsworthy tweet it and write articles transcribing her comments, like they have done with other public representatives?

A pregnant woman does not become a mother merely through pregnancy, to become a mother a woman must give birth.
Its a quite simple fact really.

horseburger

NuMarvel wrote: »

If you think he was saying you were in favour of the No vote in the 2015 referendum, then ya, you did.

He said I wasn't fooling anyone. What do you suppose he meant by that other than insinuate I was one of the people who hopped onto boards to post during the marriage referendum and voted no?

He stated this "Throughout the SSM marriage campaign, boards was visited by many, many posters who were not against same-sex marriage and had no problems with the gays, sure one of their friends owns a pink shirt, but sadly, they had to vote No because the yes campaign was so gay and offensive and in their face all the time."

What else do you think he was insinuating?

horseburger

baylah17 wrote: »

A pregnant woman does not become a mother merely through pregnancy, to become a mother a woman must give birth.
Its a quite simple fact really.

Christ above.

Do you seriously believe that if Ronan Mullen or Danny Healy Rae had said it that they would not have been accused of disrespect and sexism and devaluing women?

lazygal

horseburger wrote: »

Christ above.

Do you seriously believe that if Ronan Mullen or Danny Healy Rae had said it that they would not have been accused of disrespect and sexism and devaluing women?

No. The constitution calls every pregnant person a mother. I didn't call myself a mother until my child was born. Pregnancy doesn't make you a mother any more than being a hospital porter makes you a nurse.

captbarnacles

horseburger wrote: »

Christ above.

Do you seriously believe that if Ronan Mullen or Danny Healy Rae had said it that they would not have been accused of disrespect and sexism and devaluing women?

??????????

None of the women I know considered themselves a mother until their first child was born. Zero. Zip.

horseburger

lazygal wrote: »

No. The constitution calls every pregnant person a mother. I didn't call myself a mother until my child was born. Pregnancy doesn't make you a mother any more than being a hospital porter makes you a nurse.

Well not everyone agrees with you

https://community.babycenter.com/post/a27596905/if_youre_pregnant_are_you_a_mom_poll

A short item on the page above:

"This Mother's Day I wished everyone on my Facebook who is a mother a Happy Mother's Day. This included mothers-to-be. Well, DH (dear husband) didn't acknowlege me at all today. I'm 38 weeks pregnant. His mother asked him what he was doing for me today and he said: "nothing. she's not a mother yet."

"That kind of hurt me. I mean, I am not minimizing the amount of work it is to be a mother when the baby/child is here. But growing this baby is a lot of work too!"


Is a pregnant woman a mother and should she be acknowledged on Mother's Day?

Is a pregnant woman a mother and should she be acknowledged on Mother's Day?


Yes she is and yes she should be.
359


Technically yes, she's a mother. But she shouldn't expect anything for Mother's Day.
112

She's not a mother and shouldn't be acknowledged on Mother's Day.
68

Total Votes: 539 Please login in to cast your vote