Waterford Politics MEGATHREAD

jayboi · 26-06-2012 6:30pm #1

I really wish they head off for themselves. The only thing I will say for them is they're not as pushy as they were.

michellie · 26-06-2012 9:28pm

Where are they so I can avoid them ?

jayboi · 26-06-2012 10:12pm

michellie wrote: »

Where are they so I can avoid them ?

In John Roberts square or as ive come to know it "accost central"

Can someone tell me how in the name of jaysus are they allowed erect a little marquee in the middle of the square.

wmpdd3 · 26-06-2012 10:38pm

considering the council will fine you for putting a ban poster on a pole in town.

Not The Real Scarecrow · 27-06-2012 12:35am

Throw eggs at em......

Sully · 27-06-2012 1:48am

Some of the posters are graphic and they are positioned in as many places as possible. The saying "Wont someone think of the children?" comes to mind.

I'm all for letting people express their views, but within reason.

Potential-Monke · 27-06-2012 3:38am

Just ring the Gardai:

Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 wrote:

7.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to distribute or display any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both.

I know the Gardai have ended their protests before. Get them early, they might stay away.

ziedth · 27-06-2012 11:28am

Like many people have said. Abortion is already illegal (rightly or wrongly) so what the hell are they protesting? One of the few things in life that really really annoys me.

It's an amazingly emotive subject though,

CardBordWindow · 27-06-2012 11:30am

Is that what all those 'Abortion tears her life apart' billboards are about?

OpenTempoFM · 27-06-2012 12:08pm

in cork there is a protest against them
https://www.facebook.com/events/390990254290814/

are the billboards in waterford?!

Cabaal · 27-06-2012 12:28pm

The protesters are afraid, they are afraid of a womens right to have an abortion even in cases of rape, incest or in cases where the women's life is at risk,

This of course should be allowed under the law, otherwise think of the massive physiological damage you'll do to the women, her family etc.

In cases of a risk of death these protesters clearly class the rights of a unborn child as above and beyond the rights of a women who many already have children that depend on her. Makes you wounder what weird minds these people have.

Max Powers · 27-06-2012 1:32pm

Cabaal wrote: »

The protesters are afraid, they are afraid of a womens right to have an abortion even in cases of rape, incest or in cases where the women's life is at risk,

This of course should be allowed under the law, otherwise think of the massive physiological damage you'll do to the women, her family etc.

In cases of a risk of death these protesters clearly class the rights of a unborn child as above and beyond the rights of a women who many already have children that depend on her. Makes you wounder what weird minds these people have.

No political party is willing to touch this with a bargepole, I have criticised her a lot but in fairness, our lady TD (Ciara ???) from Dungarvan area whose name escapes me has talked it up in last year or so only for the politcians to strike down the proposed bill. In the mean time our politicians are happy to have women who were raped travel long distances to another country adding to a stressful situation again for the procedure. Women who have had the tragedy of fetal fatality are also made travel, it must be devastating. re: the posters, they shouldnt be disturbing, if they want to protest, fair enough I suppose, even if i dont agree

CardBordWindow · 27-06-2012 1:37pm

OpenTempoFM wrote: »

in cork there is a protest against them
https://www.facebook.com/events/390990254290814/

are the billboards in waterford?!

There's one opposite the Lombard Street takeaway, and there's one in Grannagh, opposite the red Bridge petrol station.

Cabaal · 27-06-2012 1:44pm

Max Powers wrote: »

re: the posters, they shouldnt be disturbing, if they want to protest, fair enough I suppose, even if i dont agree

Agreed,
They certainly do have the right to protest but the posters should not be in anyway disturbing especially as they are being displayed in a public place.

deisemum · 27-06-2012 3:39pm

What annoys me is how they have balloons to hand out to children and once a child spots the balloon they are confronted with the graphic images.

They're not even thinking of the welfare of the existing children if they think it's acceptable to shock them with these graphic images.

Professey Chin · 27-06-2012 3:40pm

CardBordWindow wrote: »

Is that what all those 'Abortion tears her life apart' billboards are about?

Thats the youth defense
Pack of knobs

CardBordWindow · 27-06-2012 4:14pm

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

Thats the youth defense
Pack of knobs

Are they just another anti-abortion group?

Professey Chin · 27-06-2012 4:28pm

CardBordWindow wrote: »

Are they just another anti-abortion group?

Yep. They exist purely to keep abortion out
http://www.youthdefence.ie/

LowOdour · 28-06-2012 1:17pm

Was around the area a few days ago and saw the "protestors". what struck me was the age of the people handing out the leaflets. Some of them didnt look old enough to spell "abortion", let alone have a discussion about it. Now, maybe these people were very well educated on what they were protesting about but I would have my doubts. On the other end of scale, there was a very old priest with the leaflets but he was down one of the streets where there seemed to be nobody passing. Obviously he didnt want the agro of dealing with questions.

robp · 03-07-2012 7:43am

Cabaal wrote: »

The protesters are afraid, they are afraid of a womens right to have an abortion even in cases of rape, incest or in cases where the women's life is at risk,

This of course should be allowed under the law, otherwise think of the massive physiological damage you'll do to the women, her family etc.

In cases of a risk of death these protesters clearly class the rights of a unborn child as above and beyond the rights of a women who many already have children that depend on her. Makes you wounder what weird minds these people have.

There is a hell of a lot of public support for their work.

Its a bit off-topic but it has to be said.
If you read the scientific literature on the subject you will find there is a higher risk of psychological damage to a a women from the actual abortion. Irish medicine is of a very high standard, do you really think women are dying for the sake of saving their babies?, no they are not. Life-saving treatments are always possible in Ireland. I don't think physiological damage to the family is possible but I appreciate thats a typo.

sparkling sea · 03-07-2012 3:13pm

robp wrote: »

There is a hell of a lot of public support for their work.

Its a bit off-topic but it has to be said.
If you read the scientific literature on the subject you will find there is a higher risk of psychological damage to a a women from the actual abortion. Irish medicine is of a very high standard, do you really think women are dying for the sake of saving their babies?, no they are not. Life-saving treatments are always possible in Ireland. I don't think physiological damage to the family is possible but I appreciate thats a typo.

The largest study and major analysis of all existing studies and research in to abortion and post abortion implications was undertaken in 2011 by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) at the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK. It assessed 44 studies from 1990-2011 which examined data on hundreds of thousands of women after they had had an abortion. It found having an abortion in and off itself does not increase a woman's chance of developing mental health problems

It stated "The best current evidence suggests that it makes no difference to a woman's mental health whether she chooses to have an abortion or to continue with the pregnancy."

Disagreeing with abortion is a personal choice as is agreeing with a woman's right to have an abortion. Factual unbiased information is all that is need; emotive biased information is never helpful.

Professey Chin · 03-07-2012 3:18pm

sparkling sea wrote: »

The largest study and major analysis of all existing studies and research in to abortion and post abortion implications was undertaken in 2011 by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) at the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK. It assessed 44 studies from 1990-2011 which examined data on hundreds of thousands of women after they had had an abortion. It found having an abortion in and off itself does not increase a woman's chance of developing mental health problems

It stated "The best current evidence suggests that it makes no difference to a woman's mental health whether she chooses to have an abortion or to continue with the pregnancy."

Disagreeing with abortion is a personal choice as is agreeing with a woman's right to have an abortion. Factual unbiased information is all that is need; emotive biased information is never helpful.

They'll never accept it. Anytime its been brought up to it they find an excuse to ignore it (Ive seen them on fb just ban people, call it slander and in 1 case say that because the person who posted the link had a nickname in their fb title there was no point in addressing them).
Theyve made up their mind. Its closed off and no amount of science or studies matter to them.

robp · 04-07-2012 8:12am

sparkling sea wrote: »

The largest study and major analysis of all existing studies and research in to abortion and post abortion implications was undertaken in 2011 by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) at the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK. It assessed 44 studies from 1990-2011 which examined data on hundreds of thousands of women after they had had an abortion. It found having an abortion in and off itself does not increase a woman's chance of developing mental health problems

It stated "The best current evidence suggests that it makes no difference to a woman's mental health whether she chooses to have an abortion or to continue with the pregnancy."

Disagreeing with abortion is a personal choice as is agreeing with a woman's right to have an abortion. Factual unbiased information is all that is need; emotive biased information is never helpful.

I am aware of this study but its not clear cut. There is contradicting results. for example.If you read

Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis
and analysis of research published 1995–2009

Conclusions
This review offers the largest quantitative estimate of
mental health risks associated with abortion available
in the world literature. Calling into question the conclusions
from traditional reviews, the results revealed a moderate to
highly increased risk of mental health problems after
abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based
medicine, this information should inform the delivery of
abortion services.

The point is until there is a more clear picture we should err on the side of caution, and to say there is no risk is only an interpretation.

@The Great Chinholio, I wouldn't be so quick to judge until I read everything on the subject. Its wise to be wary of 'never and always'.

04-07-2012 9:10am

robp wrote: »

I am aware of this study but its not clear cut. There is contradicting results. for example.If you read

Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis
and analysis of research published 1995–2009

A study which has been comprehensively debunked.

That paper was an analysis of 22 different studies, most of which were hers. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists came out and pointed out it contradicted 3 previous analyses, and that her paper fails to examine "if these women had pre-existing mental health complications such as dependency issues and mood disorders before the abortion" (http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/statement/rcog-statement-bjpsych-paper-mental-health-risks-and-a). She's also been criticized by the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-sleuth/201111/more-review-claiming-abortion-hurts-womens-mental-health) because she "did not adequately control for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion"

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges found the same, that "previous mental health problems were not controlled for within the review" (http://aomrc.org.uk/publications/reports-a-guidance/doc_download/9432-induced-abortion-and-mental-health.html - PDF). They also found that "the Coleman review failed to provide any details about quality assessment, included a number of studies that were of low quality and failed to control for previous mental health problems". By the way, the conclusion of that report is enlightening: "Overall, we have therefore largely confirmed the findings of the APA and Charles reviews, both through our narrative review and meta-analysis. When a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, rates of mental health problems will be largely unaffected whether she has an abortion or goes on to give birth."

When there was an attempt to replicate her findings (by researchers at the University of California, somewhat more reputable than Bowling Green State University), they found that her results were not replicable, and "We were unable to reproduce the most basic tabulations of Coleman and colleagues. Moreover, their findings were logically inconsistent with other published research -- for example, they found higher rates of depression in the last month than other studies found during respondents' entire lifetimes. This suggests that the results were substantially inflated" (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/12/study_disputes_abortion_mental.html).

robp · 04-07-2012 12:11pm

28064212 wrote: »

A study which has been comprehensively debunked.

That paper was an analysis of 22 different studies, most of which were hers. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists came out and pointed out it contradicted 3 previous analyses, and that her paper fails to examine "if these women had pre-existing mental health complications such as dependency issues and mood disorders before the abortion" (http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/statement/rcog-statement-bjpsych-paper-mental-health-risks-and-a). She's also been criticized by the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-sleuth/201111/more-review-claiming-abortion-hurts-womens-mental-health) because she "did not adequately control for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion"

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges found the same, that "previous mental health problems were not controlled for within the review" (http://aomrc.org.uk/publications/reports-a-guidance/doc_download/9432-induced-abortion-and-mental-health.html - PDF). They also found that "the Coleman review failed to provide any details about quality assessment, included a number of studies that were of low quality and failed to control for previous mental health problems". By the way, the conclusion of that report is enlightening: "Overall, we have therefore largely confirmed the findings of the APA and Charles reviews, both through our narrative review and meta-analysis. When a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, rates of mental health problems will be largely unaffected whether she has an abortion or goes on to give birth."

When there was an attempt to replicate her findings (by researchers at the University of California, somewhat more reputable than Bowling Green State University), they found that her results were not replicable, and "We were unable to reproduce the most basic tabulations of Coleman and colleagues. Moreover, their findings were logically inconsistent with other published research -- for example, they found higher rates of depression in the last month than other studies found during respondents' entire lifetimes. This suggests that the results were substantially inflated" (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/12/study_disputes_abortion_mental.html).

Well there are plenty of papers you are not mentioning which support her findings. Regarding some of the criticisms of Coleman's paper some are clearly erroneous or aggressively ideology driven.

E.G. a letter in responses in the BJPsych

On the contrary, most respondents have not been neutrally assessing the paper of a peer: they have angrily attacked a perceived threat.

In fairness I wouldn't say all criticism are invalid. Coleman's findings do look inflated but not void.

We will have to wait to see the cracks appear in the NCCMH's paper.

04-07-2012 12:35pm

robp wrote: »

Well there are plenty of papers you are not mentioning which support her findings.

What papers are these?

robp wrote: »

Regarding some of the criticisms of Coleman's paper some are clearly erroneous or aggressively ideology driven.

E.G. a letter in responses in the BJPsych

Which criticisms? I never mentioned any letter in the BJP, I brought up the criticisms of her methods and her erroneous interpretations of her findings

robp wrote: »

Coleman's findings do look inflated but not void.

Inflated is one way of describing it. Another would be to point out that she included cases where the woman developed mental health problems before ever falling pregnant. I'm interested to hear how you justify that? Is abortion such a traumatic event the effects can travel backwards through time?

Her entire study has been "decisively debunked": http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2012/03/05/

robp wrote: »

We will have to wait to see the cracks appear in the NCCMH's paper.

Bring up the problems with it now. Stop making random statements with nothing to back them up.

Just so we're clear, you're saying that the:

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
Royal College of Psychiatrists
American Medical Association
American Psychological Association
Academy of Medical Royal Colleges

are all wrong, and that a professor at the school of Family and Consumer Sciences at the 8th largest college in the state of Ohio, whose methods have been shown to be faulty by both her peers and her superiors, should somehow be taken as having an equal say at this table?

sparkling sea · 04-07-2012 1:31pm

As I have said the largest study took place in 2011 - there was no hidden agenda - no ulterior motives - no added variables - it was peer reviewed - it was measurable, etc etc.

It stated "The best current evidence suggests that it makes no difference to a woman's mental health whether she chooses to have an abortion or to continue with the pregnancy."

No such study appears to exists on the mental health implications for women who choose to continue with their unwanted pregnancy. Although not all unwanted pregnancy will translate into unwanted births, some do, this may possibly have mental health implications for some women, family members and children involved.

robp · 04-07-2012 2:05pm

28064212 wrote: »

What papers are these?
Which criticisms? I never mentioned any letter in the BJP, I brought up the criticisms of her methods and her erroneous interpretations of her findings

Inflated is one way of describing it. Another would be to point out that she included cases where the woman developed mental health problems before ever falling pregnant. I'm interested to hear how you justify that? Is abortion such a traumatic event the effects can travel backwards through time?

Her entire study has been "decisively debunked": http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2012/03/05/

Bring up the problems with it now. Stop making random statements with nothing to back them up.

Just so we're clear, you're saying that the:
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

Royal College of Psychiatrists

American Medical Association

American Psychological Association

Academy of Medical Royal Colleges

are all wrong, and that a professor at the school of Family and Consumer Sciences at the 8th largest college in the state of Ohio, whose methods have been shown to be faulty by both her peers and her superiors, should somehow be taken as having an equal say at this table?

Although the Guttmacher Institute, a NGO founded by the largest provider of abortion in USA is not exactly neutral but I take the Royal College of Psychiatrists, American Medical Association etc very seriously and if they had a official statements or if the paper was withdrawn it would be completely debunked. As it is its just heavily rejected by alot of peers.Maybe pedantic distinction but its worth saying. Even on basis of using women with previous mental health problems an effect of abortion is worthy of acknowledgment. There are plenty of other serious papers which had similar claims as Colemans's just much more modest. These have escaped that level of criticism.
In my opinion its bit naive to think that one study however large and recent can cover every possibility and ever confounding factor. The will be more studies on this future and they will have their own story to tell.

Kracken · 04-07-2012 2:38pm

The one thing in all of this is that, if a woman is pregnant she is one that decides her choice. If you take that choice away then you are saying that they are not entitled to decide what happens to any other aspect of their life. It should be all or nothing...

04-07-2012 2:54pm

robp wrote: »

Although the Guttmacher Institute, a NGO founded by the largest provider of abortion in USA is not exactly neutral

Did you actually read the link? If you had, you would have seen that the Steinberg-Finer paper was published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, and that the editor-in-chief of the JPR said "the Steinberg-Finer critique has considerable merit and that the Coleman analysis does not support their assertions that abortions led to psychopathology in the NCS data." It describes Coleman’s justification for using lifetime diagnoses as “unpersuasive” and calls the approach of using lifetime diagnoses a “flawed method.”

robp wrote: »

but I take the Royal College of Psychiatrists, American Medical Association etc very seriously and if they had a official statements or if the paper was withdrawn it would be completely debunked.

Did you actually read the links I posted or do any searching?
A statement from the RCOG
The AOMRC paper PDF (You do realise the NCCMH is part of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, right?): "the Coleman review failed to provide any details about quality assessment, included a number of studies that were of low quality and failed to control for previous mental health problems"
The APA report (PDF): "inadequate control through exclusion for prior mental disorder"

robp wrote: »

Even on basis of using women with previous mental health problems an effect of abortion is worthy of acknowledgment.

Are you serious? You honestly think that a woman who has (for example) schizophrenia before falling pregnant and having an abortion should be included as an example of abortion causing schizophrenia? You don't think that's totally unjustifiable?

robp wrote: »

There are plenty of other serious papers which had similar claims as Colemans's just much more modest. These have escaped that level of criticism.

Post them or stop making woolly claims about papers 'out there'

robp wrote: »

In my opinion its bit naive to think that one study however large and recent can cover every possibility and ever confounding factor. The will be more studies on this future and they will have their own story to tell.

Three previously published systematic reviews and the RCOG guideline development group. Versus one by a vested interest which has been comprehensively debunked. And those three reviews cover dozens of studies, each of those reviews are a meta-analysis of previous studies

robp · 04-07-2012 5:59pm

28064212 wrote: »

Did you actually read the link? If you had, you would have seen that the Steinberg-Finer paper was published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, and that the editor-in-chief of the JPR said "the Steinberg-Finer critique has considerable merit and that the Coleman analysis does not support their assertions that abortions led to psychopathology in the NCS data." It describes Coleman’s justification for using lifetime diagnoses as “unpersuasive” and calls the approach of using lifetime diagnoses a “flawed method.”

Did you actually read the links I posted or do any searching?
A statement from the RCOG
The AOMRC paper PDF (You do realise the NCCMH is part of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, right?): "the Coleman review failed to provide any details about quality assessment, included a number of studies that were of low quality and failed to control for previous mental health problems"
The APA report (PDF): "inadequate control through exclusion for prior mental disorder"

Are you serious? You honestly think that a woman who has (for example) schizophrenia before falling pregnant and having an abortion should be included as an example of abortion causing schizophrenia? You don't think that's totally unjustifiable?

Post them or stop making woolly claims about papers 'out there'

Three previously published systematic reviews and the RCOG guideline development group. Versus one by a vested interest which has been comprehensively debunked. And those three reviews cover dozens of studies, each of those reviews are a meta-analysis of previous studies

I didn't say it shouldn't be controlled for rather, what I indicated is that the effects of abortion on women with mental health conditions is no less important. Unfortunately Coleman's flawed methodology didn't target this. When I said their is support of her findings, I should have clarified that I was referring to the link between mental health and abortion and not her actual data. The most up to date papers verify this link in certain conditions is one example. Simple causality is not going on but the data is hinting something.
The APA report even agreed with my concluding remark, thats its too simplistic to expect all the answers at this stage. As we sift through this one unpopular paper we are forgetting that the NCCMH Steering group concluded

amongst women who have had mental health problems before the abortion are at greater risk of mental health problems after the abortion.

In other words healthy women are usually not at risk but women with problems are at increased risk. Unless I am misreading this?

Waterford Politics MEGATHREAD

Comments