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 the Fourth

robindch

...continuing on from previous threads on abortion (abortion part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Igotadose wrote: »

Good point Aloysious. With the shenanigans in Westminster, the law's guaranteed to change now, there's zero chance Stormont comes back and the gummint is soon to be off running an election. 21 September can't come soon enough

Well one half ignore the crown as much as they can and the other half would fight the crown to stay loyal to the crown, so it might not be that cut and dry.

Loafing Oaf

Igotadose wrote: »

21 September can't come soon enough

21 October is the deadline, so bit away yet

aloyisious

Igotadose wrote: »

Good point Aloysious. With the shenanigans in Westminster, the law's guaranteed to change now, there's zero chance Stormont comes back and the gummint is soon to be off running an election. 21 September can't come soon enough

Interestingly enough, RTE Radio 1 covered the N/I angle on the 6 news, with Adlene Foster and Baroness Nuala O'Loan. Arlene was decrying the incoming change in law but it's what Nuala said that surprised me, if I heard her right: she said there would be no law against abortion in N/I. If what I heard was right, she seems to infer it would be a free for all.

EDIT: Nuala O'Loan was speaking at the anti-abortion rally today so what she said in reference to mine above would have to be seen in light of her presence on the stage at the anti-abortion rally.

volchitsa

aloyisious wrote: »

Interestingly enough, RTE Radio 1 covered the N/I angle on the 6 news, with Adlene Foster and Baroness Nuala O'Loan. Arlene was decrying the incoming change in law but it's what Nuala said that surprised me, if I heard her right: she said there would be no law against abortion in N/I. If what I heard was right, she seems to infer it would be a free for all.

Abortion not being illegal doesn't make it a free for all. There's no law threatening doctors with prison for unnecessary weight loss surgery but it isn't a free for all, people are refused it when they don't meet the medical criteria.

aloyisious

I tried for the specific nwews podcast, probably too soon. Did pick up this though: https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0907/1074495-belfast-abortion-protest/

aloyisious

volchitsa wrote: »

Abortion not being illegal doesn't make it a free for all. There's no law threatening doctors with prison for unnecessary weight loss surgery but it isn't a free for all, people are refused it when they don't meet the medical criteria.

I'm thinking that Nuala was spreading the scare-words that with no N/I law against abortion, people will be performing abortion ops without legal restriction, a return to backstreet abortion procedures.

Igotadose

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm thinking that Nuala was spreading the scare-words that with no N/I law against abortion, people will be performing abortion ops without legal restriction, a return to backstreet abortion procedures.

Nah. Occam's razor - she's just scaremongering to the choir. When it comes to the forced-birthers, never attribute to incompetence what's due to malice.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Peculiar that his opinion-piece is to that most British of southern newspapers, the Irish Times

It's not southern, it's based in Dublin, so it's eastern :rolleyes:

FFS do you ever read it?

The most "British" of Irish "newspapers", not counting the semi-localised editions of UK rags, would be the Sunday Independent

If you want to keep up with "the royals" and z-list celebs it's the one for you.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

EDIT: Nuala O'Loan was speaking at the anti-abortion rally today so what she said in reference to mine above would have to be seen in light of her presence on the stage at the anti-abortion rally.

Nuala O'Loan is a hardline anti-choicer so not a word out of her mouth on this topic can be believed.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nuala O'Loan is a hardline anti-choicer so not a word out of her mouth on this topic can be believed.

Ta for that. I hadn't seen her head above the parapet before on this issue, just remembered her as Police Ombudsman, assumed wrongly because of that she would be sceptical when it came to the content of group speech and had an uninvolved POV on things. How wrong I was.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's not southern, it's based in Dublin, so it's eastern :rolleyes:

FFS do you ever read it?

The most "British" of Irish "newspapers", not counting the semi-localised editions of UK rags, would be the Sunday Independent

If you want to keep up with "the royals" and z-list celebs it's the one for you.

The Times, used to for the courts coverage and Frank McDonald. I find the Examiner being more into investigative journalism now than the Times. As for the party stable paper...., the weekly version is useful while in McDonalds as its free to read there with a coffee.

Bredabe

The news letter for a church in the county has mentions giannacare and its services every week, for months now.
This week I noticed they have changed the information to include its pro life stand.

Has there been legislation or some kind of obligation for them to say this enacted lately?

splinter65

Bredabe wrote: »

The news letter for a church in the county has mentions giannacare and its services every week, for months now.
This week I noticed they have changed the information to include its pro life stand.

Has there been legislation or some kind of obligation for them to say this enacted lately?

I don’t understand what your query is here. Can you be a bit clearer?

aloyisious

Bredabe wrote: »

The news letter for a church in the county has mentions giannacare and its services every week, for months now.
This week I noticed they have changed the information to include its pro life stand.

Has there been legislation or some kind of obligation for them to say this enacted lately?

Nope, I don't think you can legislate to make honesty compulsory.

splinter65

aloyisious wrote: »

Nope, I don't think you can legislate to make honesty compulsory.

I don’t follow at all. Where is the dishonesty?
http://giannacare.ie/

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t follow at all. Where is the dishonesty?
http://giannacare.ie/

Pro life people seem to be ok with lies

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rogue-anti-abortion-agency-gianna-care-planning-new-site-in-galway-xtvhtwrt6

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/anti-abortion-clinic-tells-women-sex-and-abortion-could-kill-them

https://galwaydaily.com/news/controversial-anti-abortion-group-plans-galway-crisis-pregnancy-centre/

Just in case anyone states that they can't read the times article

Igotadose

Mutter...grumble...

I'm in an FB group, "gaelige amhain,' where we discuss various things about Irish, in Irish. Helpful to me as I'm learning, I have the Irish language ability of a slightly conversant 5 year old, but I can copy/paste into Google Translate with the best of them.

Well guess what. The pro-life phonies have shown up whining about the law changes coming to Northern Ireland. They pop up whenever there's a rally in favor of their pile of lies. My problem is, my Irish isn't good enough to refute them. If yours is, or know someone who might help, here's the group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/166677873392308/

aloyisious

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t follow at all. Where is the dishonesty?
http://giannacare.ie/

Would you prefer me to write duplicitious use of the English language on posters and in the literature used by the anti-abortion side of the debate instead of dishonesty?

splinter65

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you prefer me to write duplicitious use of the English language on posters and in the literature used by the anti-abortion side of the debate instead of dishonesty?

No just show me the instances of giannacare presenting themselves dishonestly.

eviltwin

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t follow at all. Where is the dishonesty?
http://giannacare.ie/

I went to one of their support meetings. It was pure manipulation of vulnerable women.

One of the oddest things I heard at it was non abortion related, a member of the group was told that reiki was a means for the devil to enter the body.

It's run by religious fundamentals so what do you expect

aloyisious

splinter65 wrote: »

No just show me the instances of giannacare presenting themselves dishonestly.

Perhaps you could go back to the question I responded to [Originally Posted by Bredabe The news letter for a church in the county has mentions giannacare and its services every week, for months now. This week I noticed they have changed the information to include its pro life stand - Has there been legislation or some kind of obligation for them to say this enacted lately?] with my response "Nope, I don't think you can legislate to make honesty compulsory" reread them and you might see there is more than a touch of sarcasm included.

If you are aware of the history of anti-abortion groups operating here [which I certainly hope you are] in Ireland, you might see that there is good reason to be a touch sceptical about the honesty of publications from those groups. I made no reference to giannacare, the body which you seem most worried about. If giannacare wishes to associate itself with the other groups then maybe you could advise it of the other groups publication and advertising history at and for events and rallies here, given their strong reluctance to be upfront in answers to questions posed to them.

Imreoir2

Igotadose wrote: »

Mutter...grumble...

I'm in an FB group, "gaelige amhain,' where we discuss various things about Irish, in Irish. Helpful to me as I'm learning, I have the Irish language ability of a slightly conversant 5 year old, but I can copy/paste into Google Translate with the best of them.

Well guess what. The pro-life phonies have shown up whining about the law changes coming to Northern Ireland. They pop up whenever there's a rally in favor of their pile of lies. My problem is, my Irish isn't good enough to refute them. If yours is, or know someone who might help, here's the group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/166677873392308/

I would suggest contacting Gaeil ar son Rogha, they were the pro-choice group for Irish speakers during the referendum. They would have plenty of people who are well able to refute their arguments in Irish.

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t follow at all. Where is the dishonesty?
http://giannacare.ie/

have a look at the 81% claim in the FAQ then read the paper that is used as the source.

oldrnwisr

Just to expand briefly on uptherebels point about the giannacare citation for the benefit of the readers here, the only positive evidence that giannacare provide in support of the services they provide is a reference to a 2011 paper published in the British Journal of Psychiatry by Priscilla Coleman. However, this study is about as textbook an example of flawed and unethical science as its possible to get.

And here's why.

A brief introduction to the paper. This paper was published in 2011 and purports to be a systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between abortion and mental health. It cites 22 studies and finds that:

"Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion."

We don't have to dig very deeply to find problems with this paper.

Problem 1 - Data misuse
The first indication of a problem with this paper is in the methodology where the author states:

"the sample comprised 22 studies, 36 measures of effect and 877 181 participants (163 831 experienced an abortion)"

This is a dishonest approach to methodology. A meta-analysis is designed to synthesise data from small independent studies in order to see if there's a larger effect. The key word here is independent. If you've got 22 studies then the maximum measures of effect you can have is 22, not 36. Also the 22 studies included in the review actually stem from 14 datasets so there should only be 14 measures of effect. Anything beyond that is double counting.

Problem 2 - Ethical considerations
In the paper the author declares no conflicts of interest. However this is doubly wrong. First, the author fails to mention in the paper that of the 22 papers included in the review, she is the author of 11 of the papers. This is a breach of established guidelines on conducting a meta-analysis. The Cochrane Collaboration guidelines on conducting a meta-analysis state:

“there should be an independent assessment of eligibility and risk of bias by a second author [of the meta-analysis] with no conflict of interest.”

However, Coleman is the sole author of the paper.

Second, she is also a prominent anti-abortion campaigner who has previously spoken about using journals as a platform for campaigning. She has stated:

"We need to develop organised research communities to continue the research, apply for grants, recruit young academics, critique data produced by pro-choice researchers, challenge politically biased professional organisations, train experts to testify and disseminate cohesive summaries of evidence."

Problem 3 - Selection criteria
There are several problems with the paper which fall under the category of selection criteria, i.e. deciding which papers to include in the study.
First, there is a general lack of transparency. While the author includes the databases searched and some general criteria, she fails to include the search terms and also fails to detail why certain papers which fulfil the criteria were still excluded from the analysis.
Second, the author fails to acknowledge or comment on the existence of publication bias. The idea of a systematic review is to examine what the individual papers in a field suggest when examined as a single entity. But the prerequisite for that is that you have a level playing field to begin with, i.e. that negative studies haven't been left unpublished. However, in this instance, Ben Goldacre and William Lee have demonstrated that there is in fact significant publication bias in this field. This should require a large caveat in the interpretation of the results but there is none.

Third, the author fails to account for the quality of the included studies. Three of the studies included were rated Poor for methodology by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Further, in their own systematic review of the literature in 2011, 13 of the studies included in the Coleman paper were excluded because of methodological issues. Five studies were excluded because of inappropriate control of prior mental health (i.e. the papers in question didn't find out whether or not the women involved already had mental health problems before abortion). Four studies were excluded because they failed to compare groups properly (e.g. women who had abortions were compared against women who had both planned and unplanned full-term pregnancies). One study was excluded because it had overlapping groups (i.e. women who had had both an abortion and an unplanned full-term pregnancy). One study was excluded because it contained no relevant data and finally two studies were excluded because of inadequate controls relating to how the data itself was measured.

Finally, in addition to including poor quality studies in the paper, the author also fails to acknowledge that a 2008 literature review which the author references highlighted the relationship between study quality and health outcomes:

"The highest quality studies had findings that were mostly neutral, suggesting few, if any, differences between women who had abortions and their respective comparison groups in terms of mental health sequelae. Conversely, studies with the most flawed methodology found negative mental health sequelae of abortion."

Problem 4 - Reporting errors
There are two issues here, one minor and one much more significant but they are interconnected.

First, the author of the paper misleadingly reports the risk in the paper abstract as relative risk increase. You see, there are three ways that you can report on risk in a study. You can report the relative risk increase as the author has done here, you can report the objective risk increase or you can report the natural frequency.

For example, let's say that you're studying the risk of increase in heart attacks from coffee consumption. You find that drinking more than four cups of coffee a day leads to a 50% increase in risk. Now, let's say that out of every 100 people, 10 people get heart attacks. This is the natural frequency. So you can report your risk as an increase in the natural frequency, so in our hypothetical example, a 50% increase in risk means that an extra 5 people per 100 will get heart attacks (15 per 100 vs. 10 per 100). You can also report the objective risk increase. So in our hypothetical study, the baseline risk is 10%. The relative increase is 50% so the objective increase is just 5%.

Reporting only the relative risk increase is misleading because it fails to take into account baseline risk. For example, last month the Irish Independent ran the following irresponsible and thoroughly clickbait-y headline:

"C-section babies 'are one-third more likely to develop autism' but cause still unknown."

This headline is completely misleading because it makes the problem much more significant than it really is. The reality is that (as reported by Reuters), the objective risk of autism increased from 0.8% to just over 1%.

The second reporting problem is that the author also cites the population attributable risk results. This is a measure of how many people would not experience the outcome if the intervention were taken away. This means that this is the percentage of women who would not experience mental health issues if they didn't have an abortion which the author quotes as 10%. However, a population attributable risk is only useful when you have already demonstrated a causal relationship. The author of this study hasn't even demonstrated a firm correlation nevermind causation. Further, the author's method for calculating PAR is designed for outcomes which are rare among the population which is true for none of the mental health outcomes included in the paper.

Other problems
We have covered the main problems with the paper but there are other problems which are either more technical, more minor or more boring depending on your perspective and which we need not cover in more detail here. These include the author not adhering to her stated analysis criteria, the problem with multiple comparisons, problems with adjusting for confounding variables, problems with weighting of effect sizes and problems with applying appropriate controls to both the subjects and the effects measures.

So, getting back to the current topic:

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t follow at all. Where is the dishonesty?
http://giannacare.ie/

You want to know where the dishonesty is? Fine.

It's dishonest to cite a paper on your website which has already been debunked by multiple authors (there have been 10 published rebuttals at last count) and which has been described by the Royal College of Psychiatrists as:

"“cannot be regarded as a formal systematic review.”

It's even more dishonest to describe the science on the issue as "undeniable" when all you've got is one discredited paper.

It's also dishonest to cite risks of abortion without quantifying those risks in terms of numbers. For example, Gianna Care cite death as a risk of abortion. While that is true, without providing the statistics on this risk Gianna is being misleading and scaremongering. Just to show what I mean, the death rate from general surgical procedures in the US is approximately 1.3%. The death rate from abortions in the US is approximately 0.0014%. In 2008, for example, there were 825,564 abortions performed in the USA. In that period there were only 12 deaths from abortions or complications thereof. So abortion is 1800 times less risky than any standard hospital operation.

Predicting Risk of Death in General Surgery Patients on the Basis of Preoperative Variables Using American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Data

Abortion Surveillance 2009

That and the other details linked to by DubInMeath show the dishonesty of Gianna Care. I hope that helps to clear things up.

Hotblack Desiato

The Abortion Rights Campaign 2019 March For Choice is on Saturday 28th September, meeting at 2pm at the Garden of Remembrance, Dublin.

Abortion is now legal but there are problems including -

- Lack of access in many areas
- The medically unneccessary three day wait
- Difficulties facing those who must travel within Ireland
- Lack of ultrasound facilities in many areas
- No abortion access in Northern Ireland.

An estimated one-third of Irish women having abortions are still travelling to Britain. This is what we voted to end.

https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/
https://twitter.com/freesafelegal

aloyisious

I watched the BBC 1 TV show last night for studio local audience discussion of current affairs in N.I. where a News Letter journalist talked about the personal attacks on him by Ian Jnr & another DUP member because of an article he wrote for the News Letter on the local issue of abortion. DUP careful crafted response letter to what it would do about Ian included a line where it denied it was backing the introduction of abortion in N.I. because of its row with SF over the Irish language and another issue, re the DUP not agreeing with SF to get Stormont up and running again. It seems the DUP has stymied any attempt by itself to interfere with the introduction of abortion in N.I.

Hotblack Desiato

Can't make head nor tail of that, sorry.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Can't make head nor tail of that, sorry.

Short translation is "Ulster says 'No!'"

aloyisious

Ian got ratty with the journalist at a personal level over the News Letter article. The paper took Ian's actions up with the DUP & it issued a letter dodging Ian's activity, focusing instead on the journalists article covering the DUP & the lack of assembly sittings due to its row with SF. The article said that the DUP position in the Irish language row meant it wouldn't do anything to get the assembly back running, an essential means to try delay the incoming abortion law changes in NI. The DUP didn't like the article saying it was NOT doing anything to stop abortion coming to NI, despite its stated position opposing abortion in NI.

Down this side of the border it seems the group/s opposing the operation of abortion law here are going for more protest actions across from the NMH on a long term basis, coincidentally near the date for the upcoming PRO RIGHT TO CHOOSE rally from Parnell Square, presumably to garner some of the media publicity the rally will arouse.

Ta Hotblack_Desiato. poor choice of words by me.

Hotblack Desiato

It's not a pro-abortion rally ffs!!!