Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is pathetic reasoning, even for you.

About as good a sign as one can expect on a discussion forum that they feel their position a bit wobbly

It doesn't matter if we can't divide that uptick into those for DS or gender or for some other disability, we would still a big uptick between 11 and 12 weeks as that is the earliest that the results of those tests come back.
If you can't show any uptick at all then you can't claim any pre-12 week abortions are influenced by the results or the NIPT test and therefore can't claim that any pre-12 week abortions could even be because of gender selection.

I'm not too sure where you get the idea that there would be a big uptick. The incidence of DS and the like is so low as to be buried in the bulk. Besides, the UK hasn't got a line in the sand 12 week limit like proposed here.

I think it's safe to say that if there is a demand and a way to meet the demand then the demand will be satisfied.

It just depends on what human nature can contrive by way of demand. And the ingenuity of man to figure out a way of satisfying that demand. You didn't do commerce for the leaving, no?

pleas advice wrote: »

it's 99% accurate for Down Syndrome at 10 weeks (plus about a week),

Ergo: you can either run with the 99% accuracy here and avail of an abortion here. Or you can wait until the 100% accurate test and avail of an abortion in the UK

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm sure it's been pointed out before, but the NIPT is an indicative test. Further screening (invasive) would be required to actually diagnose conditions. Terminations are offered after. So, all in all, later than 12 weeks.

So you're content that women who chose to wait for a 100% test have to travel to England if they want to avail of an abortion?

antiskeptic wrote: »

About as good a sign as one can expect on a discussion forum that they feel their position a bit wobbly

Antiskeptic,
Which group do you think will be aborting due to gender preferences?
If you can't point to one, why did you bring it up?

Are you not concerned about the fact that you yourself are playing into the hands of the baby eating foreigners?

King Mob wrote: »

Antiskeptic,
Which group do you think will be aborting due to gender preferences?
If you can't point to one, why did you bring it up?

Are you not concerned about the fact that you yourself are playing into the hands of the baby eating foreigners?[/QUOTE]

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/thousands-of-women-in-ireland-subjected-to-female-genital-mutilation-1.3316927

People bring their culture with them. It's a reasonable question to ask in light of cultures that abort females over males.

Would it have been reasonable for you to ask me to identify cultures that engage in fgm before it transpired they were doing it here? I'd have been accused of being a racist.

antiskeptic wrote: »

People bring their culture with them. It's a reasonable question to ask in light of cultures that abort females over males.

So again: Which cultures are aborting based on gender?

What's the difference between your "question" and mine?
Why are you not concerned about the baby cannibals that might be out there?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would it have been reasonable for you to ask me to identify cultures that engage in fgm before it transpired they were doing it here? I'd have been accused of being a racist.

Yes it would have been if you are presuming it must happen cause they are foreigners.

I'm only asking you to identify the culture you're referring because so far you've also refused to support your suspicion with any evidence. Just the idea that foreigners are "weird and scary".

But it's clear that you can not identify any such culture, provide evidence they do as you accuse them of, that they'd actually affect the numbers of abortion or evidence that they even exist.
Your "question" is pathetic fearmongering that was a despicable attempt to play of racist ideas.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

If it's good enough for D.S. then it'll be good enough for sex selection.

It's not like you Science-tists are lack faith that those tests won't improve anyway.

So we are agreed, the NIPT test only gives a 4 day window to have an abortion.

Also, its spelled "scientists".

King Mob wrote: »

So again: Which cultures are aborting based on gender?

For the reason given I'll leave you to Google that yourself.

Yes it would have been if you are presuming it must happen cause they are foreigners.

I would be presuming it because cultures don't leave their culture behind just because they leave home. If you don't believe me, then take a walk through Bradford next time you're passing through.

Your "question" is pathetic fearmongering that was a despicable attempt to play of racist ideas.

5 words designed to jiggle the waters. I ain't biting

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So we are agreed, the NIPT test only gives a 4 day window to have an abortion.

Also, its spelled "scientists".

It wouldn't take a degree to dovetail things together. If you can book a Ryanair flight then this should be a cinch.

antiskeptic wrote: »

For the reason given I'll leave you to Google that yourself.

Nope, you made the claim, you back it up.
Otherwise, dismissed as nonsense and scaremongering.

Much as how you can dismiss and ignore my equally non-existent baby eaters.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would be presuming it because cultures don't leave their culture behind just because they leave home. If you don't believe me, then take a walk through Bradford next time you're passing through.

No thanks, would prefer actual evidence to back up your "question".
Otherwise, dismissed as pretty racist nonsense.

antiskeptic wrote: »

5 words designed to jiggle the waters. I ain't biting

Don't have to. The meaning behind your scaremongering is pretty transparent to all.

So the answer to your "question":
No, there are no such cultures, nor would they affect the number of abortions.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

About as good a sign as one can expect on a discussion forum that they feel their position a bit wobbly

Nice to see you admit that your position is a bit wobbly here, but I feel I should point it's not just on this forum and it's far more than a bit wobbly.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not too sure where you get the idea that there would be a big uptick. The incidence of DS and the like is so low as to be buried in the bulk. Besides, the UK hasn't got a line in the sand 12 week limit like proposed here.

I think it's safe to say that if there is a demand and a way to meet the demand then the demand will be satisfied.

It just depends on what human nature can contrive by way of demand. And the ingenuity of man to figure out a way of satisfying that demand. You didn't do commerce for the leaving, no?

You are claiming that there are people who are going to wait until they can determine sex or DS and then have abortions when they get the answers they don't like. Under our proposed law, they will have a window of less than a week, between 11 and 12 weeks gestation, to determine sex/DS and procure an abortion.
There are multiple countries in the EU currently with 12 week limits (here is a list for you) and if what you are saying is true, then we should be able to see in their numbers extra abortions in week 11, when the people in their countries who want to select for sex/DS get their results.
I didn't do commerce, but I would hope that market research would at least be touch upon.

Present these numbers or retract this stupid, misogynistic and racist claim.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

It wouldn't take a degree to dovetail things together. If you can book a Ryanair flight then this should be a cinch.

Did a cat walk across your keyboard? What has this gibberish got to do with anything?

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

So you're content that women who chose to wait for a 100% test have to travel to England if they want to avail of an abortion?

I'm not the one who brought up this big rush to abort before the 12 week cut-off.

Hitman3000

LoveBothDrogheda Twitter page has put out a call for volunteers to act as security at polling stations to check ID. Hopefully someone will point out to them that voter intimidation is illegal and only the polling officer or clerk cam seek ID. Seems the No campaign has an issue with democracy.

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm not the one who brought up this big rush to abort before the 12 week cut-off.

The demand is there. Any rush is driven by a desire to ensure access to abortion services at home. In so far as there is no rush, the abortions will occur in the UK.

Either you acknowledge a rush. Or you acknowledge women still travelling to the UK.

Are you okay with either?

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

The demand is there. Any rush is driven by a desire to ensure access to abortion services at home. In so far as there is no rush, the abortions will occur in the UK.

Either you acknowledge a rush. Or you acknowledge women still travelling to the UK.

Are you okay with either?

i'm ok with women doing whatever they think is the best for them within the constraints of the law.

pleas advice wrote: »

it is on demand, up to 12 weeks, though

Really? Are doctors forced to perform them ever?

Hitman3000 wrote: »

LoveBothDrogheda Twitter page has put out a call for volunteers to act as security at polling stations to check ID. Hopefully someone will point out to them that voter intimidation is illegal and only the polling officer or clerk cam seek ID. Seems the No campaign has an issue with democracy.

It'd be nice if they went ahead and tried it at a polling station and end up being arrested on charges of personation by the Gardai on complaint of the returning officer in charge at the station.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The demand is there. Any rush is driven by a desire to ensure access to abortion services at home. In so far as there is no rush, the abortions will occur in the UK.

Either you acknowledge a rush. Or you acknowledge women still travelling to the UK.

Are you okay with either?

So you can point to suspicious trends in the UK abortion data that would show that women travel to the UK to take advantage of the later time frame to abort for DS or gender? Will wait for data. Also still waiting for you to identify which foreigners you are racist against.

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Either you acknowledge a rush. Or you acknowledge women still travelling to the UK.

You still haven't produced the stats showing a 12th week rush. In any jurisdiction.

Actually, a woman's health is between her doctor and herself. It's no one else's business.

aloyisious wrote: »

It'd be nice if they went ahead and tried it at a polling station and end up being arrested on charges of personation by the Gardai on complaint of the returning officer in charge at the station.

Someone said a Garda chief in full uniform met them while canvassing and told them ‘I’m not going to allow you to murder babies’

It makes you wonder that AGS will be selective in enforcing the laws.

There was a photo on F/B earlier today of a poster near the Children's Hospital in Crumlin, which was probably done to stir anger, with a comment by Joan Collins TD about it on the page. The poster read that yes voters should have been aborted and didn't seem to have an I/D mark for the producing and posting agent behind it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The demand is there. Any rush is driven by a desire to ensure access to abortion services at home. In so far as there is no rush, the abortions will occur in the UK.

Either you acknowledge a rush. Or you acknowledge women still travelling to the UK.

Are you okay with either?

Given your knowledge of the abortion issue, which do you believe will come first, the rush or the women travelling to the UK?

..... This about takes the biscuit for promo-ad of the year.

pleas advice

Pherekydes wrote: »

Actually, a woman's health is between her doctor and herself. It's no one else's business.

yes, and when it involves another being, it is regulated by law.

pleas advice wrote: »

yes, and when it involves another being, it is regulated by law.

Probably the new data regulation law as and from tomorrow as well.

aloyisious wrote: »

Given your knowledge of the abortion issue, which do you believe will come first, the rush or the women travelling to the UK?

..... This about takes the biscuit for promo-ad of the year.

Spare a thought for the LHGTB

Pherekydes

pleas advice wrote: »

yes, and when it involves another being, it is regulated by law.

But it doesn't involve another being. Unless we have different definitions of the word 'being', as in human being?

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are contriving to miss the point I am making by pretending I am having some difficulty with terms. The entire point I am making is that moral and ethical concern towards a sentience should be platform independent. In other words it is not at all "difficult" to call something a "Human Being" but it is entirely irrelevant....
There is nothing to "let me off" of in the first place. I was acknowledging that there are animal behaviours that mimic and resemble the kinds of things we practice in our moral and ethical philosophy. That acknowledgement however does not in any way suggest that there is reason to think that said animals are actually holding a concept of "rights" or perpetuating an actual moral philisophy.

OK, here's the thing animals do not mimic or resemble human behaviour. They are the same behaviours. An elephant examining its teeth in the mirror is showing intelligence, consciousness and self awareness. Much more than a human infant could show in fact. Yet we ascribe more rights to the human infant. What I am saying, and what you refuse to accept, is that we give those rights to the infant on the basis that it is human being, a close relative to ourselves. Our species, in a purely taxonomic sense.

Also I might add that the earthworm is sentient, because unlike a rock it feels. Which makes a mockery of your "human rights for sentient beings" argument.

It was pointed out by another poster that you started using the word "sentience" 8 or 9 years ago to replace the word "consciousness" which you had been using previously.

I respectfully suggest now, that there is no single word for what you want to convey; you wish to describe a fully formed higher intelligence that is equal to that of an adult human. Maybe try "human consciousness" in future, if you are trying to exclude both the animals and the human foetus. Unfortunately it might also mean that people in a coma or with a severe brain damage lose their human rights, but you'll be nearly there with it.

Delirium wrote: »

Can you give examples of where an abortion would be available in England but not in Ireland (under legislation post-repeal of the 8th)?

You're slipping off message there

Harris is saying his proposed regime is "much more restrictive" than that in England.

Overheal wrote: »

So you can point to suspicious trends in the UK abortion data that would show that women travel to the UK to take advantage of the later time frame to abort for DS or gender? Will wait for data. Also still waiting for you to identify which foreigners you are racist against.

I'm sure you know the answer is Asians, and you also know that antiskeptic is far too polite to give it. Lucky I'm here then, to resolve the impasse :pac:.
Chinese, well known for aborting girls. Among Indians, it seems to be more a thing in the north of the country, for whatever reason.

The widespread practice of sex-selective abortion is believed to be a main cause of the extremely skewed sex ratios at birth in India, where it was recently estimated that only 882 girls are born for every 1,000 boys, and China, where 832 girls are born for every 1,000 boys.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would it have been reasonable for you to ask me to identify cultures that engage in fgm before it transpired they were doing it here? I'd have been accused of being a racist.

Races are different from religions which are different from cultures etc, etc. What each of these things is, or at least, how the ideas are used at any rate, is open to extensive discussion.

It is, however, common in debates for people to conflate them, intentionally or otherwise, so that they can, for example, level accusations of irrational race-based prejudice (hence racism) against an opponent, when in fact, the issue has nothing to do with race, and is instead due to the religion to which the offending parties belong.