pleas advice wrote: » any link to the ad?
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
recedite wrote: » ... Just like a lot of early abortions via abortion pill would never reach the stats...
NuMarvel wrote: » There's no basis for believing that there's "a lot" of unrecorded usage of the abortion pill in Britain.
recedite wrote: » Really? Who actually records these statistics then?
NuMarvel wrote: » In Britain, it's recorded by the hospitals and clinicians who provide the abortion pills. And I've seen nothing that suggests, never mind proves, that these figures are wrong.
recedite wrote: » I'm not going to get involved in a pointless dispute over statistics.
NuMarvel wrote: » That's not surprising considering you don't have any statistics to back up your claim in the first place.
recedite wrote: » What, statistics to back up the claim that available statistics are not sufficient to support the level of nitpicking going on here? You are taking nitpicking to a whole new level
aloyisious wrote: » Cora Sherlock was interviewed on the 1PM RTE 1 News today. The interviewer didn't give her much wriggle-room and focused on the 8th, the situation in Northern Ireland in comparison to England and the Republic on the abortion law situation. He kept his questions on that angle, not mentioning the UK at all, just N/I, the republic and England. I got to thinking how much the anti-abortion campaign here in the republic must be hoping and praying that the two prominent N/I political parties stay on their present track, that the religious-political set-up in N/I doesn't have a sea-change towards the women's health issue when it comes to abortion instead of the present one where the parties are seemingly more interested in keeping their political future secure there at the moment.
pleas advice wrote: » mostly this it does kinda cross a line thats getting close to 'eugenics' as well though (I know it wont be mandatory, or state sponsored, but the feeling is there)
end of the road wrote: » exactly. in my opinion it's the start of creating a world where everyone is the same, where once it has reached it's outcome people will be deluded into thinking imperfection doesn't exist.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Downs has nothing to do with eugenics anyway. The overwhelming majority of Downs pregnancies arise spontaneously from genetically normal parents. Whether we have 0% abortion or 100% abortion there will still be the same instance of the Downs chromosomal defect arising in the future.
Peregrinus wrote: » Which means that approbation of the termination of pregnancies where Downs has been diagnosed is not about eliminating Downs. It's about eliminating people with Downs.
volchitsa wrote: » Because a pregnancy is a person now is it? There are lots of peole with Downs about the place, and nobody is suggesting eliminating them. You should really get a grip. Maybe come back when you've calmed down a bit? :rolleyes:
smacl wrote: » Only if you accept that a foetus is a person . . .
