nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

oldrnwisr

thee glitz wrote: »

What you have said equates to all women seeking abortions medically requiring them, which is not true.

No it really doesn't. I was responding to frostyjacks post here:

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think you're confusing need with want. Some women may want an abortion, but they don't actually need it.

I would happily defund a health provider if it mentioned or even hinted at abortion with it's patients. Punish evil and promote goodness and life; that is the purpose of the act.

specifically the portion I have highlighted. Frosty's implication is although women want abortion, it is never necessary. This is demonstrably untrue. To show this I quoted several examples of medical conditions where abortion is necessary. I don't see how you can infer from this post (or any of my previous posts on this subject) that all abortions are medically necessary. Of course they're not all necessary that's why I cited the specific conditions where abortion is necessary.

frostyjacks

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No it really doesn't. I was responding to frostyjacks post here:

specifically the portion I have highlighted. Frosty's implication is although women want abortion, it is never necessary. This is demonstrably untrue. To show this I quoted several examples of medical conditions where abortion is necessary. I don't see how you can infer from this post (or any of my previous posts on this subject) that all abortions are medically necessary. Of course they're not all necessary that's why I cited the specific conditions where abortion is necessary.

No, I said some women want abortions but don't need them. Where's the stats about women who have an abortion after a one night stand, or an affair, or didn't fancy the responsibility? It would be interesting to compare that with the medical reasons.

oldrnwisr

frostyjacks wrote: »

No, I said some women want abortions but don't need them. Where's the stats about women who have an abortion after a one night stand, or an affair, or didn't fancy the responsibility? It would be interesting to compare that with the medical reasons.

Let's just backtrack a second, shall we?

What you originally said was:

frostyjacks wrote: »

Absolutely. Why on earth would a healthcare provider jeopardise funding by offering needless abortion services? It's dangerous.

Here you clearly imply that providing abortion services is needless. This would imply all abortion services. Then aloyisious replied that these services weren't needless if people sought them out to which you replied that some women want abortion but that they don't need it. The "some" in your post implies that it refers to the subset of women who seek an abortion not some as the subset of women who seek an abortion who need them.
You originally entered this line of discussion by posting in favour of the ban on funding of abortion services. Since some women do need abortions then supporting an outright ban does put the lives of some women in danger, contrary to your claim that such a ban would be good for women.
You really shouldn't try and weasel out of your claim when it is shown to be dead wrong. Especially when you opened your argument with such asbolute claims.

P.S. Since the social circumstances of a woman seeking an abortion is really nobody's business except hers the official statistics don't actually record whether women seeking abortions had one-night stands or not. They do record information that is relevant like the legal grounds under which the abortion is performed or age, parity, treatment type etc. but none of the spurious crap you seem to want.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

No, I said some women want abortions but don't need them. Where's the stats about women who have an abortion after a one night stand, or an affair, or didn't fancy the responsibility? It would be interesting to compare that with the medical reasons.

The reason or circumstances don't matter. I don't think many women would risk an illegal, unsafe abortion if they didn't feel it was absolutely necessary. Need and necessity is not limited to the physical impact of a pregnancy, emotional and mental are just as important.

smacl

frostyjacks wrote: »

No, I said some women want abortions but don't need them. Where's the stats about women who have an abortion after a one night stand, or an affair, or didn't fancy the responsibility? It would be interesting to compare that with the medical reasons.

Best source of stats on this is the HSE report on crisis pregnancy which also includes historical data and some trend analysis. Rates of Irish people travelling for abortion is thankfully going down year on year, which the report attributes largely to increased education and access to contraception including the morning after pill. Given that the Catholic hierarchy are staunchly against contraception, and consider the morning after pill to in fact be a form of contraception, one could argue that decline in rates of abortion correlate with decline of heeding the advice of the Catholic hierarchy. What also correlates with decline in abortion rate Ireland is decline in teenage pregnancy rate, which again points to increased and better use of contraception.

As for a woman needing an abortion, you need to define what you mean by the word need in this context. Do you mean 'will certainly die without an abortion', 'will probably die', 'will possibly die', 'will become impoverished to the extent of becoming homeless', 'will suffer extreme pain', 'will lose your livelihood'. Which?

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

No, I said some women want abortions but don't need them. Where's the stats about women who have an abortion after a one night stand, or an affair, or didn't fancy the responsibility? It would be interesting to compare that with the medical reasons.

Do you think such stats actually exist for you to obtain? Can you get them for us?

aloyisious

Delirium wrote: »

Dutch government wants to counter Trump with abortion funds

The Examiner covers this in today's edition. Ms Ploumen also quotes figures from Marie Stopes, which will no doubt make her proposal even more liked by the Anti-abortion lobby here and elsewhere.....
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/dutch-government-to-set-up-international-abortion-fund-to-counteract-donald-trumps-aid-ban-35398349.html

Hotblack Desiato

frostyjacks wrote: »

Where's the stats about women who have an abortion after a one night stand, or an affair, or didn't fancy the responsibility?

They're in A Neo-Fascist's Guide To Misogyny right after the chapter 'But She Was Wearing A Short Skirt, Your Honour'.

Delirium

aloyisious wrote: »

The Examiner covers this in today's edition. Ms Ploumen also quotes figures from Marie Stopes, which will no doubt make her proposal even more liked by the Anti-abortion lobby here and elsewhere.....
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/dutch-government-to-set-up-international-abortion-fund-to-counteract-donald-trumps-aid-ban-35398349.html

True. But then we've seen in this thread that some anti-abortion people are willing to throw patients will life-threatening illnesses under the bus to prevent abortion coming up in discussion. Pro-life for a foetus. Cancer patients not so much. :rolleyes: So not exactly the most rational/logical of people.

Seems the Belgians are joining the Dutch.

Belgians, Dutch join in opposing Trump's anti-abortion plans.

BRUSSELS (AP) — Belgium is joining the Netherlands in backing the creation of an international fund to finance access to birth control, abortion and sex education for women in developing countries in an attempt to make up for U.S. President Donald Trump's ban on U.S. funding.

Alexander De Croo, Belgium's minister for foreign trade and development, says he is fully behind the initiative of his Dutch counterpart to set up an international fund for safe abortions. De Croo says Wednesday that "this decision of the White House has an immediate impact on the lives of millions of girls and women in developing nations."

Trump's executive memorandum signed Monday reinstituted a ban on U.S. funding to international groups that perform abortions or even provide information about abortions.

A day later, The Netherlands said it wanted to set up the fund and invited governments, businesses and social organizations to join in to "compensate for this financial setback."

The ban on performing or even talking about abortions has been instituted by Republican administrations and rescinded by Democratic ones since 1984. Former President Barack Obama last lifted it in 2009.

Source

recedite

A couple of points on this internationalist topic which might be worth considering.

1. Conspiracy theories regarding western and former colonial countries "trying to implement racist birth contol policies" are rife in African countries.

2. The "religious right" in the USA is quite different to the "religious right" in Ireland. In the USA they are not typically RC and not opposed to contraception. But countries whose laws/social policies are heavily influenced by the RCC such as in Latin America and the Philippines, and who have also been heavily influenced by US foreign policy in the past, are sensitive to US style policies being funded and implemented by the US govt. within their countries. It is regarded as political interference.
AFAIK this political sensitivity is the reason why the Mexico policy was extended to contraception in these sort of countries (by a previous US administration).

I'm just saying, this is not a simple matter of providing uncontroversial development aid, like digging village wells or curing blind people.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

A couple of points on this internationalist topic which might be worth considering.

1. Conspiracy theories regarding western and former colonial countries "trying to implement racist birth contol policies" are rife in African countries.

2. The "religious right" in the USA is quite different to the "religious right" in Ireland. In the USA they are not typically RC and not opposed to contraception. But countries whose laws/social policies are heavily influenced by the RCC such as in Latin America and the Philippines, and who have also been heavily influenced by US foreign policy in the past, are sensitive to US style policies being funded and implemented by the US govt. within their countries. It is regarded as political interference.
AFAIK this political sensitivity is the reason why the Mexico policy was extended to contraception in these sort of countries (by a previous US administration).

I'm just saying, this is not a simple matter of providing uncontroversial development aid, like digging village wells or curing blind people.

A number of problems with that excessively positive spin on the policy there, Recedite - your own links don't bear it out : Providing vaccines has been considered as racist by the religious Conspiracy theorists out there - so why doesn't the US ban NGOs from organizing vaccination campaigns?

Digging wells is far from uncontroversial to these CTs too : again, the accusation has been that these wells are poisoned with contraceptive products or worse. So again, by your logic, these should also be not merely discouraged by the US government but actually banned.

But the basic fact is that unlike distributing products in vaccines or in water without people's knowledge, giving women birth control options that they want and need cannot be considered racist by any sane person. And that is not what the Mexico Gag rule was about. As I suspect you know really.

recedite

It can be proven that vaccines and drinking water are not contraceptives.
Actual contraceptives, however, are actual contraceptives.

I'm not putting forward the opinion here that its a racist plot for western governments to provide free contraceptives to African women.
I merely point out that a lot of Africans believe it is.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

It can be proven that vaccines and drinking water are not contraceptives.
Actual contraceptives, however, are actual contraceptives.

I'm not putting forward the opinion here that its a racist plot for western governments to provide free contraceptives to African women.
I merely point out that a lot of Africans believe it is.

You're missing the point spectacularly : sure, a lot of "Africans" believe it's wrong to allow women to control the number of children they have - but that doesn't mean we should participate in that sort of treatment of women. Does it?

If the women want to limit their family sizes, it's not racist to help them do so, and that should not be up for negotiation with the head man of the village. No more than a western NGO should be complicit in providing healthcare facilities for little girls to be genitally mutilated.

And in any case, proving that vaccines or water aren't a secret weapon against native populations is not just a question of handing out test results - that would be to misunderstand the thinking behind this sort of conspiracy theory altogether.

If that were the case your article about vaccines would be about something that once happened but is no longer an issue anywhere. Which is not true.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

sure, a lot of "Africans" believe it's wrong to allow women to control the number of children they have..

You're the one who misunderstands the point.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

You're the one who misunderstands the point.

You haven't actually explained why a foreign charity organization whose role is to provide gynaecological and obstetric healthcare to women should cooperate with misogynistic traditions where the idea that a woman can choose to use contraceptives is shocking.

Or do you mean some other point? Because you're not being very clear here, TBH.

recedite

Its not about whether such NGOs should try to provide their services (they should)
Its about a particular government or state making a decision to fund activities in another state which might be seen as "interference" with the cultural/political/internal policies of the receiver state.

It may well be correct to go ahead anyway. I'm just saying its not completely straightforward when there are political sensitivities involved.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Its not about whether such NGOs should try to provide their services (they should)
Its about a particular government or state making a decision to fund activities in another state which might be seen as "interference" with the cultural/political/internal policies of the receiver state.

It may well be correct to go ahead anyway. I'm just saying its not completely straightforward when there are political sensitivities involved.

So how does that fit in with your earlier point here that it was the Democrats' fault for using the issue as a US political football thereby preventing NGOs from adapting their offer by providing contraceptive services only?

Now you appear to be saying that contraceptive services are also culturally problematic but that NGOs should perhaps have defied their own government's ban from 2001 and provided them anyway?

So why would abortion be different? Because you don't approve of it?

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

Now you appear to be saying that contraceptive services are also culturally problematic but that NGOs should perhaps have defied their own government's ban from 2001 and provided them anyway?

US taxpayer funded contraceptive services are only controversial in a certain countries, in others they could have gone ahead and become well established.

Also NGO's do not have "their own government" hence the NG in NGO.
If an NGO offends some crackpot dictator, they can be thrown out of a country without it having any effect on diplomatic relations between the USA and that country. Unless of course, the US congress has been funding that NGO.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Also NGO's do not have "their own government" hence the NG in NGO.

They very much do when they are getting funding from their home government, as many do.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

US taxpayer funded contraceptive services are only controversial in a certain countries, in others they could have gone ahead and become well established.

So why would the US government - you know, their own government, the one that makes the rules they have to work under - have slapped a ban on provision of contraception in any country, not just the ones that have a problem with that?

You're not making sense here, in your determination to find an excuse to justify what is in reality religion-based opposition to both contraception and abortion.

recedite wrote: »

Also NGO's do not have "their own government" hence the NG in NGO.
If an NGO offends some crackpot dictator, they can be thrown out of a country without it having any effect on diplomatic relations between the USA and that country. Unless of course, the US congress has been funding that NGO.

Again, you're just not making sense - the American government takes a close interest in the well being of US citizens working for NGOs abroad - even when they are accused of spying and the like.

And them getting into local difficulty has got nothing to do with whether or not they are providing contraception - no government will throw aid workers out for that. Though if they did have an issue with contraception, they just wouldn't allow that NGO to work there at all.

It happens that NGOs or individuals get into trouble with a local authority - but more usually because they have been suspected or accused of missionary activities or even spying. Not because they provide contraception - that's a problem with local extremists, not with a government.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

US taxpayer funded contraceptive services are only controversial in a certain countries, in others they could have gone ahead and become well established.

Also NGO's do not have "their own government" hence the NG in NGO.
If an NGO offends some crackpot dictator, they can be thrown out of a country without it having any effect on diplomatic relations between the USA and that country. Unless of course, the US congress has been funding that NGO.

On the basis of what you've written above, do you think it might apply to Don in reference to the US service provider Planned Parenthood Federation, as he's withdrawing US govt funding from it because of it's foreign abortion activities? It isn't even due to opposition to PPF from African Govts, just from the US Govt.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

in reference to the US service provider Planned Parenthood Federation, as he's withdrawing US govt funding from it because of it's foreign abortion activities?

That is an abortion provider. Abortion and contraceptives are two different issues. The Republicans are generally against encouraging abortion either inside or outside the USA.
They are not opposed to encouraging contraceptives, unless it causes a political problem abroad.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

They are not opposed to encouraging contraceptives, unless it causes a political problem abroad.

Except that isn't true, something you've already ignored.
For the second time, here's the wiki link on the history of the Gag rule:

The policy originally enacted from 1984–1993 spoke to abortion only, not family planning in general. However, in 2001, the policy was re-implemented and expanded to cover all voluntary family planning activities, and critics began to refer to it as the "global gag rule."

A study of nations in sub-Saharan Africa suggests that unintended pregnancies increased and abortions approximately doubled while the policy was in effect.

You'll note that they didn't ban contraceptives from those countries where they were already illegal, or even just disapproved of. They banned them completely
That's because it isn't primarily about facilitating relationships between the Us and those countries, it's about preventing people from having access to family planning methods for internal US, mainly religious, reasons.

Nor did they care much about reducing abortions. Seeing as the rate doubled during that time.
It's a purely ideological move, and is about US ideologies, not about the countries the NFOs are working in.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

That is an abortion provider. Abortion and contraceptives are two different issues. The Republicans are generally against encouraging abortion either inside or outside the USA.
They are not opposed to encouraging contraceptives, unless it causes a political problem abroad.

I suppose contraceptive measures are seen as more acceptable/less tasteless than abortion then, seeing as how they are preventive measures, rather than terminative measures. I'm actually surprised that people (and I am not including you here - regardless of your postings as that would be based solely on my reading/interpretation) of a particular stated belief; that of protecting life, will argue that they are one and the same according to their personal creed. I don't know if either US party has a (preferably) fixed position on the issue. Life (no pun) has taught me to accept human life is very complicated.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

I suppose contraceptive measures are seen as more acceptable/less tasteless than abortion then, seeing as how they are preventive measures, rather than terminative measures.

That would be the protestant evangelical view, on which the US republican view could be said to be based. It is quite different to a typical Irish conservative view which would be based on RC doctrine.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

That's because it isn't primarily about facilitating relationships between the Us and those countries, it's about preventing people from having access to family planning methods for internal US, mainly religious, reasons.

In terms of contraception though, I was under the impression that it was more for the former reason, and not the latter.
But I can't say I understand too much about the rationale for the change in 2001.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

In terms of contraception though, I was under the impression that it was more for the former reason, and not the latter.
But I can't say I understand too much about the rationale for the change in 2001.

And do you have a source for this impression? Or are you just speculating that this is so because it's a requirement for your earlier claim that NGOs would by now have sorted out the incompatibility and be freely delivering contraceptives without "contamination" from abortion services if those stupid Dems hadnt kept removing the Gag rule?

Because you seemed fairly sure of the reasons for it before, and now you're claiming ignorance. So which is it?

Occam's razor doesn't really like the idea of two different policies, contraception and abortion, being lumped together in the same ruling for two radically different reasons, one internal politics the other external, when the much simpler explanation is that abortion and contraception are in fact simply two targets of differing "importance" for the same religious lobby in the US. They go for abortion first, and then contraception when they feel sufficiently emboldened.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

.. abortion and contraception are in fact simply two targets of differing "importance" for the same religious lobby in the US. They go for abortion first, and then contraception when they feel sufficiently emboldened.

Why would this lobby be against contraception?

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Why would this lobby be against contraception?

I don't know why you expect me to answer ever more random questions when you're still dodging the basic ones! :rolleyes:

You made a false claim, that only abortion was concerned by the Gag rule, I showed you this hadn't always been the case in the past, so it was wrong to say, as you did, that had the Dems not rolled back the rule when in power, NGOs would now be free to provide contraception.

You then began inventing (apparently) other unrelated reasons for why the US government might have added contraception to the rule without being against contraception themselves. But you haven't shown any evidence of this. So in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's logical to assume that the objection to contraception is a religiously based one about the evils of unmarried sex and whatever. But who cares why they're such fundamentalist nut cases really.

aloyisious

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/abortion-campaigners-seek-to-learn-from-gay-marriage-debate-1.2962411