Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

squod · 09-05-2013 10:44AM

eviltwin wrote: »

I think that clock stopped somewhere around 1970

That's the case. Abortion laws in many countries changed in the late sixties and early seventies. What people here are calling for is similar abortion on demand legislation. The high rates of abortion that follow.

kylith · 09-05-2013 10:51AM

The high rates of abortion that follow because thousands of Irish women would no longer have to travel to a foreign country to receive medical care, you mean. Eleven Irish women have abortions EVERY DAY.

Could you please tell me how abortion legislation will somehow lead to us 'turning back the clock'. What clock? Turning it back to when? I'm ever so curious!

oldrnwisr · 09-05-2013 10:58AM

squod wrote: »

That's the case. Abortion laws in many countries changed in the late sixties and early seventies. What people here are calling for is similar abortion on demand legislation. The high rates of abortion that follow.

Except that that's not the case at all.

There isn't a correlation between restrictive abortion laws and abortion rates.

The worldwide data takes some time to collate but if we look at 2004 for example we see that the Irish abortion rate* was 6.7, compared, for example with Croatia (where abortion is legal) with a rate of 5.7 or Qatar (with similar laws to Ireland) with a rate of 1.2.

A rational conversation can be had about abortion but not if the actual facts are distorted and misrepresented or fallacious arguments are used in support of a particular view.

Sources:

UN Abortion Worldwide Data

Guttmacher Institute - Facts on Induced abortion worldwide

Irish Abortion Figures

Abortion laws worldwide

*Note: Abortion rate defined as number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44.

KCC · 09-05-2013 11:39AM

trickymicky wrote: »

me personally im pro choice. at the end of the day its the womans body and it is their choice at the end of day and i know some people will start saying the father should have a choice too but its the woman that carries the child simples.

If it was simple, there would be no debate. I'm a woman, but in my view, my partner has just an equal right as a father as I do as a mother. Our children are equally ours from conception.

B0jangles · 09-05-2013 12:11PM

KCC wrote: »

If it was simple, there would be no debate. I'm a woman, but in my view, my partner has just an equal right as a father as I do as a mother. Our children are equally ours from conception.

But how would you work this out if one person wants to have the child and the other doesn't, if they have exactly equal rights?

That's just a stalemate isn't it?

mohawk · 09-05-2013 12:17PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Ireland abortion is illegal. Rate is 5%. [4,000+ UK terminations per year, 73,000+ live births.]

IMO the rate in Ireland is probably higher then 5 %. It is impossible to know but know many illegal abortions are currently going on in Ireland via abortifacient drugs? Thousands have been seized but I am sure plenty gets in
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/women-warned-of-dangers-from-illegal-abortion-pills-sold-online-26896287.html

No one wants a high abortion rate in Ireland. I believe there should be access to proper sex education for teenagers (maybe some adults need this too) and affordable contraception for all. We already have the backup of the morning after pill available.

squod · 09-05-2013 01:09PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Except that that's not the case at all.

There isn't a correlation between restrictive abortion laws and abortion rates.

The worldwide data takes some time to collate but if we look at 2004 for example we see that the Irish abortion rate* was 6.7, compared, for example with *Croatia (where abortion is legal) with a rate of 5.7 or Qatar (with similar laws to Ireland) with a rate of 1.2.

A rational conversation can be had about abortion but not if the actual facts are distorted and misrepresented or fallacious arguments are used in support of a particular view.

Sources:

UN Abortion Worldwide Data

Guttmacher Institute - Facts on Induced abortion worldwide

Irish Abortion Figures

Abortion laws worldwide

*Note: Abortion rate defined as number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44.

As I've pointed out innumerable times there certainly and absolutely definitely is massive rates of abortion in countries where abortion on demand is available.

Yearly figures of abortion as a percentage of live births in Ireland ~5%
Yearly figures of abortion as a percentage of live births in Canada ~30%

*Croatia 2011 live births 43361 Abortions 4043 or 8%
Was actually 20% a couple years ago.

From your link.............

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

• In Europe, 30% of pregnancies end in abortion. A higher proportion of pregnancies end in abortion in Eastern Europe than in the rest of the region. [1]

Sarky · 09-05-2013 01:30PM

Oh good, someone's picked a fight with oldrnwisr. Those of you who haven't seen this before, prepare for a delicious feast of information and logic. That squod will probably put him on ignore for.

Death and Taxes · 09-05-2013 01:38PM

squod wrote: »

That's the case. Abortion laws in many countries changed in the late sixties and early seventies. What people here are calling for is similar abortion on demand legislation. The high rates of abortion that follow.[/QUOTE]

The high rates of abortion are the business of nobody except the woman concerned.
One presumes you favour a system where women are legally forced to go through unwanted and/or unviable pregnancy and childbirth, if so shame on you.

squod · 09-05-2013 01:58PM

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The high rates of abortion are the business of *nobody except the woman concerned.
One presumes you favour a system where women are legally forced to go through unwanted and/or unviable pregnancy and childbirth, if so shame on you.

Forced to go through? WTF are you talking about. Since when am I forcing pregnancy on women?

Who is this *nobody exactly? The nobody who's rights are protected under the constitution? The nobody who doesn't have a say in their own life?

hooradiation · 09-05-2013 02:07PM

squod wrote: »

That's the case. Abortion laws in many countries changed in the late sixties and early seventies. What people here are calling for is similar abortion on demand legislation. The high rates of abortion that follow.

We already have these so called "high rates of abortion" we just have a very Irish solution whereby the people affected go to England to have the procedure done.

Feigning distress about something that's already happening and choosing to present it as a terrible consequence is pretty dishonest.

Try harder.

oldrnwisr · 09-05-2013 02:08PM

squod wrote: »

As I've pointed out innumerable times there certainly and absolutely definitely is massive rates of abortion in countries where abortion on demand is available.

Yearly figures of abortion as a percentage of live births in Ireland ~5%
Yearly figures of abortion as a percentage of live births in Canada ~30%

*Croatia 2011 live births 43361 Abortions 4043 or 8%
Was actually 20% a couple years ago.

From your link.............

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

OK, I'll try and be as clear as I can.

There is no correlation, much less causation, between the restrictiveness of abortion laws and abortion rates. I've already given you specific examples of this (Ireland, Croatia, Qatar) but just to demonstrate the point further, when we look at global regions we see a similar lack of correlation.

From this link, out of 53 African countries, only 3 have abortion on demand (i.e. Tunisia, South Africa, Cape Verde). However, the abortion rate for this group (defined per my last post) for 2003 is 29.
Again from the link, the number of countries comprising Latin America and the Caribbean is 30. Again, only 3 countries have abortion on demand (Cuba, Guyana, Uruguay). The abortion rate for this group is 31.
Now, let's look at North America. Both countries have a category 4 (i.e. abortion on demand) legal system. However, the abortion rate is just 21.
Finally, if we look at the developed world (Europe, USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand) we see that out of 40 countries there are 26 with abortion on demand laws and yet the abortion rate is 19.

What you are doing is committing the fallacy of biased sample. You are cherry-picking values out of the dataset to suit your argument rather than honestly examining the complete set to truly understand the factors involved.

We have a good understanding of the causal factors of social issues like abortion and they are far more complex than the picture you're attempting to paint. The real issues that we need to tackle if we want to reduce abortions globally are women's rights, education, access to and promotion of modern contraceptive methods and access to safe abortion.

We already know that one of the principal factors in the procurement of an abortion is an unplanned pregancy and in this we know that 82% of unplanned pregancies in developing countries result from a lack of uptake in contraception.

The numbers of Irish women seeking abortions abroad has already been falling over the last 10 years from 6320 in 2003 to 4402 in 2010. This has not been implemented through toughening abortion legislation.

Finally, just to put a point on this topic, the people who actually research this area have already concluded that abortion laws have no impact on abortion rates or demand:

"The findings presented here indicate that unrestrictive abortion laws do not predict a high incidence of abortion, and by the same token, highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with low abortion incidence. Indeed, both the highest and lowest abortion rates were seen in regions where abortion is almost uniformly legal under a wide range of circumstances."

Sources:

Induced abortions: estimated rates and trends worldwide

Adding It Up: The Costs and Benefits of Investing in Family Planning and Maternal and Newborn Health

PlainP · 09-05-2013 02:12PM

squod wrote: »

Forced to go through? WTF are you talking about. Since when am I forcing pregnancy on women?

Who is this *nobody exactly? The nobody who's rights are protected under the constitution? The nobody who doesn't have a say in their own life?

You don't have any right to speak for anyone... let alone an unborn fetus who resides within the womb of a woman you don't know and will not care about if she had decided to carry the pregnancy to term.

You can have an opinion but this gives you no right to claim you know what is better for any woman.

Cody Pomeray · 09-05-2013 02:16PM

WileyCoyote wrote: »

How can a lump of jellified cells a few weeks old be classified as having human rights? That is a ludicrus proposition.
Respect for life should start with the life and life choices of the woman, any woman should be freely able to to request and recieve a termination of pregnancy up to a certain point in her pregnancy.
the only contempt I have read in this thread is from those anti women taliban types who are determined to turn back the clock on the rights of women.

With respect, I think this is a logical bananaskin for a pro life argument.

After all, what is a newborn baby but a bunch of jellified cells? An angry, pink bundle of "potential"?

We don't need to deny the baby's human rights.
We just have to deny him his human rights at the expense of another's human rights - that is to say - that right to the woman's free use of her own body.

If the baby can get along without infringing someone else's rights, then he can go ahead, take a number, and welcome to the world.

trickymicky · 09-05-2013 02:24PM

KCC wrote: »

If it was simple, there would be no debate. I'm a woman, but in my view, my partner has just an equal right as a father as I do as a mother. Our children are equally ours from conception.

and i completely respect your views on it and thats a prime example of why abortion will never be legal in this country as the divide on opinions is too big.

Death and Taxes · 09-05-2013 02:26PM

squod wrote: »

Forced to go through? WTF are you talking about. Since when am I forcing pregnancy on women?

Who is this *nobody exactly? The nobody who's rights are protected under the constitution? The nobody who doesn't have a say in their own life?

Anyone who argues against a womans right to choose a termination is arguing in favour of forcing saisd women to carry unwanted or unviable pregnacies to childbirth, that is exactly what you seem to support.
A clump of cells is not a human and has zero rights.

Cody Pomeray · 09-05-2013 03:07PM

WileyCoyote wrote: »

A clump of cells is not a human and has zero rights.

Define "clump of cells" as distinct from you or I.

Nodin · 09-05-2013 03:22PM

squod wrote: »

That's the case. Abortion laws in many countries changed in the late sixties and early seventies. What people here are calling for is similar abortion on demand legislation. The high rates of abortion that follow.

Yeah. That's whats meant to lead to the "dark ages" according to you. Which reminds me......What did you mean by "dark ages" and how does abortion get us there?

Obliq · 09-05-2013 03:25PM

Nodin wrote: »

Yeah. That's whats meant to lead to the "dark ages" according to you. Which reminds me......What did you mean by "dark ages" and how does abortion get us there?

Yes, and dark-ages or not, why doesn't this person count the 4,000 women from Ireland per year, giving us similar abortion rates HERE to the rest of Europe?

TheLastMohican · 09-05-2013 03:25PM

There is a huge amount of manufactured indignation in this thread. I think it should be aborted.

Sarky · 09-05-2013 03:58PM

We were having a really nice rational discussion about abortion for the day or two that squod and Phill Ewen weren't about. It's only a couple of pages back, and it's well worth reading. Lots of good points made from lots of different angles, no sniping or hyperbole or shoddy references or laughably poor logic. It was actually quite lovely to read. Shout-out to drkpower and Cody for playing some damn fine devil's advocate or genuinely being on the other side, as appropriate.

Now, I'm sure it's only a coincidence that when squod wasn't around that the quality of debate picked up significantly, but nevertheless there it is.

Aseth · 09-05-2013 04:18PM

TheLastMohican wrote: »

Yes I realise that raising money can be hard. But the WHO stated that Poland (which isn't exactly Brunei) has laws as strict as Ireland, yet has the highest abortion rate in Europe. How do they do it? There are more terminations there than there are births.

It has because women are going abroad to have it(UK, Germany or Czech rep.). The same reason as in Ireland - in Poland church has power over goverment and politicians have no balls to tell the church to f*ck off.

Nodin wrote: »

...maybe - bear with me now - BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO TRAVEL ABROAD AND PAY PRIVATELY FOR IT. Because they have it on their health service.

Sorry Nodin, you're totally wrong here. The law in Poland is as strict as it is in Ireland.

PopePalpatine · 09-05-2013 06:07PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Define "clump of cells" as distinct from you or I.

I think he might mean that @~10 weeks or so, the foetus doesn't have fully formed nervous or cardiovascular systems, never mind @~5 weeks.

Aseth wrote: »

Sorry Nodin, you're totally wrong here. The law in Poland is as strict as it is in Ireland.

A quick check on Wikipedia tells me that Poland allows abortion in the case of foetal abnormalities (not allowed in Ireland), where it is conceived after rape/incest (not allowed in Ireland) and when the health (as distinct from the life) of the mother is at risk.

squod · 09-05-2013 06:17PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, I'll try and be as clear as I can.

There is no correlation, much less causation, between the restrictiveness of abortion laws and abortion rates. I've already given you specific examples of this (Ireland, Croatia, Qatar) but just to demonstrate the point further, when we look at global regions we see a similar lack of correlation.

From this link, out of 53 African countries, only 3 have abortion on demand (i.e. Tunisia, South Africa, Cape Verde). However, the abortion rate for this group (defined per my last post) for 2003 is 29.
Again from the link, the number of countries comprising Latin America and the Caribbean is 30. Again, only 3 countries have abortion on demand (Cuba, Guyana, Uruguay). The abortion rate for this group is 31.
Now, let's look at North America. Both countries have a category 4 (i.e. abortion on demand) legal system. However, the abortion rate is just 21.
Finally, if we look at the developed world (Europe, USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand) we see that out of 40 countries there are 26 with abortion on demand laws and yet the abortion rate is 19.

What you are doing is committing the fallacy of biased sample. You are cherry-picking values out of the dataset to suit your argument rather than honestly examining the complete set to truly understand the factors involved.

We have a good understanding of the causal factors of social issues like abortion and they are far more complex than the picture you're attempting to paint. The real issues that we need to tackle if we want to reduce abortions globally are women's rights, education, access to and promotion of modern contraceptive methods and access to safe abortion.

We already know that one of the principal factors in the procurement of an abortion is an unplanned pregancy and in this we know that 82% of unplanned pregancies in developing countries result from a lack of uptake in contraception.

The numbers of Irish women seeking abortions abroad has already been falling over the last 10 years from 6320 in 2003 to 4402 in 2010. This has not been implemented through toughening abortion legislation.

Finally, just to put a point on this topic, the people who actually research this area have already concluded that abortion laws have no impact on abortion rates or demand:

"The findings presented here indicate that unrestrictive abortion laws do not predict a high incidence of abortion, and by the same token, highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with low abortion incidence. Indeed, both the highest and lowest abortion rates were seen in regions where abortion is almost uniformly legal under a wide range of circumstances."

Sources:

Induced abortions: estimated rates and trends worldwide

Adding It Up: The Costs and Benefits of Investing in Family Planning and Maternal and Newborn Health

You say this and then you take a look at wealthy, well developed nations such as the US, Canada and Italy and everything you've just said turns to mush.

All of those countries have huge abortion rates. Similar to communist Poland as it happens.

Edit; that info is more than 5 years old. There's no longer 105 abortions to 100 live births in Eastern Europe.

Nodin · 09-05-2013 06:25PM

squod wrote: »

You say this and then you take a look at wealthy, well developed nations such as the US, Canada and Italy and everything you've just said turns to mush.

All of those countries have huge abortion rates. Similar to communist Poland as it happens.

Edit; that info is more than 5 years old. There's no longer 105 abortions to 100 live births in Eastern Europe.

Are you going to answer my question now?

squod · 09-05-2013 06:28PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

.......

While we're on the subject the well woman centre recently said that many more women are citing finance as a reason for abortion. About one in five women (they spoke to) travel to the UK for abortions because they can't afford (another) a child.

That strike you as a pro-choice decision?

Obliq · 09-05-2013 06:30PM

Yes.

Cody Pomeray · 09-05-2013 06:32PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I think he might mean that @~10 weeks or so, the foetus doesn't have fully formed nervous or cardiovascular systems, never mind @~5 weeks.

But it's all just a continuum anyway, even post partum.

Even a newborn baby doesn't have a fully developed nervous system.

I just think using "clump of cells" defence is sloppy and unsatisfactory.

There's no need to deny the foetus's 'human rights'. It is logical to say that his human rights exist, but not at the expense of others' corporeal liberty.

Nodin · 09-05-2013 06:33PM

squod wrote: »

While we're on the subject the well woman centre recently said that many more women are citing finance as a reason for abortion. About one in five women (they spoke to) travel to the UK for abortions because they can't afford (another) a child.

That strike you as a pro-choice decision?

It makes far more sense than bringing a child into the world that you can't care for.

You might answer this, seeing as you deem fit to question others on their views -

What did you mean by "dark ages" and how does abortion get us there?

Sarky · 09-05-2013 06:41PM

squod wrote: »

You say this and then you take a look at wealthy, well developed nations such as the US, Canada and Italy and everything you've just said turns to mush.

All of those countries have huge abortion rates. Similar to communist Poland as it happens.

Edit; that info is more than 5 years old. There's no longer 105 abortions to 100 live births in Eastern Europe.

Oh, this should be interesting. Well, to anyone with a penchant for Schadenfreude. <gets popcorn>

Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Comments