Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

1…1516182021

Comments

  • #512
    Death and Taxes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    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?

    Yup, no problem with that, in fact no woman should be required to cite any reason for requesting the termination of an unwanted pregnancy.


  • #513
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    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.

    His point is you are cherry picking the highest stats, if you want to do that it is valid for him to pick the lowest stats as well. The main point is our abortion rate is coming down and looking at the reasons for that. I don't think it is our "ban" on abortion, as teenage pregnancy rates are also coming down too, sex education and just the general availability of more information over the last decade have played a big part.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #514
    Aseth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 423 ✭✭Aseth


    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.


    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.

    This is just a theory. Getting a legal abortion in Poland is next to impossible.


  • #515
    Death and Taxes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    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.

    You are missing the point, abortions are no different than any other elective treatment, the rates indicate a genuine demand for a legitimate service, nothing else.
    Rates only mean anything to you because of your skewed sense of outdated morality, since one groups morality cannot be forced on others neither should any group be deprived of their rights because of the moral stance of others.


  • #516
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    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.

    I'll make this brief because you seem far more interested in voicing your own opinion than acknowledging any contrary points.

    Yes, the USA and some other developed countries have high abortion rates. However, your argument was that liberal abortion laws or abortion on demand is what leads to high abortion rates, or to phrase it more generally, that the abortion rate per country is correlated with the restrictions on abortion.

    What I have shown with hard data is that this argument is a load of dingoes kidneys, as Douglas Adams would say. Due to other socioeconomic factors many developing countries, where abortion is severely restricted have much higher abortion rates than developed countries where abortion is freely available. This shows that demand for abortion is not mitigated by legal sanctions.

    The fact that demand for abortion is not reduced by having stricter laws should not be at all surprising. In criminology terms, the deterrence theory (i.e. that tougher punishments will lead to reduced crime rates) has always hinged on the rational choice theory (i.e. that a prospective criminal will weigh the pros and cons of payoff vs. punishment and make a rational choice). However, what has been found, however is that a) prisoners surveyed quite frequently report not taking punishment into consideration and b) imprisonment does not reduce recidivism. This means, that at a very basic psychological level, there is no basis for believing that strict laws on abortion should even have an effect on abortion rates.

    Now, as for your comment about out-of-date data, just a couple of points.

    Firstly, even if the data were out-of-date, the analysis holds within the dataset given. The only way to strike out the analysis would be to show updated data which reveals a different comparison (which you haven't done).

    Secondly, the authors of the 2007 study have published an updated report in the Lancet where they say:

    "We assessed trends in abortion incidence using rates developed for 1995, 2003, and 2008 with the same methodology. We used linear regression models to explore the association of the legal status of abortion with the abortion rate across subregions of the world in 2008."


    From the expanded dataset, the authors conclude:

    "The abortion rate is lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p<0.05)."

    and

    "Restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates."

    I don't know how much clearer it can get than that.

    As I said before, laws have very little to do with lowering abortion rates. Even in developing countries with strict prohibitions on abortion and severe punishments, the demand for abortion remains. If you want to achieve a lower abortion rate then what you need is a high level of education for women, particularly on their sexual health, access to family planning, access to contraception and safe access to abortion. This last one is especially important since a significant percentage of abortions performed in countries with strict abortion laws are procured illegally, performed by untrained personnel. Consequently, unsafe abortions have been identified by the WHO as responsible for 13% of all maternal deaths.

    As Sarky pointed out, there is a real debate to be had here with a good exchange of ideas, but the debate is not helped by spurious arguments, like yours.


    Sources:

    Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008

    Theory of deterrence

    Rational choice theory

    The effect of prison sentences on recidivism


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    K-9 wrote: »
    His point is you are cherry picking the highest stats, if you want to do that it is valid for him to pick the lowest stats as well. The main point is our abortion rate is coming down and looking at the reasons for that. I don't think it is our "ban" on abortion, as teenage pregnancy rates are also coming down too, sex education and just the general availability of more information over the last decade have played a big part.

    He's citing stats on the effective use of contraception. Open another thread if that's what you two want to discuss.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    the debate is not helped by spurious arguments, like yours.


    He then goes on to accuse me of ''spurious arguments''. 30 or 40% abortion rates seem fine with the lad. Mind boggles.


  • #518
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Your mind seems easily boggled.

    If you don't want to be accused of spurious arguments, maybe, and this is just a wild stab in the dark here, maybe you should try using some arguments that, uh, aren't spurious? Crazy, I know, but what have you got to lose? I mean it's not as if you have any credibility left after oldrnwisr's posts there.

    But of course you're not listening to me, because, rational person that you are, you put me on ignore when I pointed out some of the gaping flaws in your own claims, using the very links you provided to back them up. I'd love to see the rational argument return, so if you don't mind terribly squod, please up your game considerably or just STFU.

    Maybe someone could pass that along so I don't look like I'm talking to a wall with its fingers in its ears going lalalalala?


  • #519
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    squod wrote: »
    .



    He then goes on to accuse me of ''spurious arguments''. 30 or 40% abortion rates seem fine with the lad. Mind boggles.

    Yeah, I wonder why he thought that.

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


  • #520
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    squod wrote: »
    He's citing stats on the effective use of contraception. Open another thread if that's what you two want to discuss.

    I don't know, I'd have though better and more use of contraception leads to less teenage and unwanted pregnancies, thus leading to less abortions. I'm more interested in reducing the amount of abortions and teenage pregnancies in society, rather than shouting from the rooftops in moral absolutist terms. I find condemning people and opinions as you've done in this thread is a pointless waste of breath and keyboard pushing!

    I'm not particularly ok with the overall idea of abortion, it exists and will always exist, so I'd prefer to minimise the numbers as much as possible, rather than pontificate in a self gratifying way and in the end, useless, way.
    He then goes on to accuse me of ''spurious arguments''. 30 or 40% abortion rates seem fine with the lad. Mind boggles.

    Well I'll let the poster answer for themselves, seems a rather biased way to look at it to me. I'm more interested in looking at countries who've reduced their abortion rates, of which we'd appear to be one and there are a good few others, and look at the reasons why.

    For me, we focus far too much on the US and the UK as regards abortion, we may more often than not share the same views on many topics, but Ireland is way different to them on abortion.

    Eastern Europe is a good example to look at, their rates have dropped massively over the last 10 years or so.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #521
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    K-9 wrote: »
    .

    Eastern Europe is a good example to look at, their rates have dropped massively over the last 10 years or so.

    They've dropped dramatically since the Berlin wall came down and those pesky religious types got to have a say again.

    Education and contraception are different topics from the point the OP raised. We have to ask ourselves if we want to legislate for *thousands of abortions or not. That's what my interest in this thread is. As you can guess, I'm in the no camp.
    Foxhound38 wrote: »

    Why can't we have a rational conversation about this in this country?

    It's because people want to high-jack the subject to suit their' own agenda.



    *Bear in mind all I've ever asked for is a figure from the pro-choice extremists.
    That figure ranges from 4,000 to ''as many as we want''.


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    0066ad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 314 ✭✭0066ad


    How anybody here can defend human rights and yet call, the creation of human life
    "A lump of jellified cells" confuses the mind. I'm not anti abortion or pro abortion everybody
    has to make decisions in life which effect them deeply and it should be their choice alone.

    It is not just a "lump of jellified cells" it is the creation of life, people can argue life doesn't
    begin till birth but it cant start without the creation.


  • #523
    Cosmicfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 245 ✭✭Cosmicfox


    0066ad wrote: »
    How anybody here can defend human rights and yet call, the creation of human life
    "A lump of jellified cells" confuses the mind. I'm not anti abortion or pro abortion everybody
    has to make decisions in life which effect them deeply and it should be their choice alone.

    It is not just a "lump of jellified cells" it is the creation of life, people can argue life doesn't
    begin till birth but it cant start without the creation.

    I'm pro-choice these days but that one took me awhile to get my head around as well.

    I suppose while life does begin at conception, it's not viable until around 20/24 weeks when the brain develops and it can survive if born. There is no argument to be had that the mother is alive and the debate is about whether that un-viable life with no developed brain (I don't care about heartbeats and fingernails which people bring up a lot) should have the same or more rights than the woman carrying it. And if it's right to force a woman to suffer through pregnancy and childbirth for it.

    Personally I value the life of the woman over that of an un viable life inside her. I'd be devastated if anyone I cared about was injured/killed by attempting to self abort/getting it done illegally and I don't like the way women are sent to another country for others to 'deal' with so Ireland can say it's pro-life. The argument now is really just a case of pro-'send them abroad and pretend it doesn't happen' or pro-'allow women to have abortions in their own country'.

    Maybe one day someone will invent a machine to carry un-wanted pregnancies by embryo transfer or whatever and we'll never have to argue about it again.


  • #524
    OCorcrainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 428 ✭✭OCorcrainn


    This article should help put things into perspective for some people.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/09/us/ohio-missing-women-found/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


  • #525
    LizT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,089 ✭✭✭✭LizT


    OCorcrainn wrote: »
    This article should help put things into perspective for some people.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/09/us/ohio-missing-women-found/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


    It's a very sad case, I can't see how it's related to the topic of abortion though.


  • #526
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    squod wrote: »
    They've dropped dramatically since the Berlin wall came down and those pesky religious types got to have a say again.

    Probably plays a part, I just wouldn't dismiss it so easily. I don't know enough about their attitudes to dismiss the huge drop in numbers so condescendingly and dismissively. I'd want to read a bit more into it.

    I'd have thought a huge drop in abortion numbers was a good thing? If you dismiss that huge drop so easily, maybe I should start questioning your moral fibre? A 50% drop in abortion numbers is just statistics to you, isn't it? You don't care about babies saved? Great form of debate isn't it?
    Education and contraception are different topics from the point the OP raised. We have to ask ourselves if we want to legislate for *thousands of abortions or not. That's what my interest in this thread is. As you can guess, I'm in the no camp.

    The No, no, no camp Thatcher and hardline Unionists were in, didn't do them much good. Shouting at people like extremist ideologues does nobody any good, just increasing the self satisfying smugness from the extremists, while others get on with the business of dealing with lifes realities.
    It's because people want to high-jack the subject to suit their' own agenda.

    Indeed, you'd never do that.

    *Bear in mind all I've ever asked for is a figure from the pro-choice extremists.
    That figure ranges from 4,000 to ''as many as we want''.

    Pro life extremists shouting at pro-choice extremists achieves nothing, if anything it just leads to 21 years of doing absolutely nothing, while everybody else ponders why we let this inertia happen.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #527
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    squod wrote: »
    They've dropped dramatically since the Berlin wall came down and those pesky religious types got to have a say again.

    So it had nothing to do with education and availability of contraception, both of which your vaunted religious types frown upon? Dismissing those factors as unrelated and claiming it's because of religious people is more than a little arrogant, and it's downright short-sighted.

    Could you at least TRY to engage with those of us trying to have a rational conversation about abortion? Y'know? Without slinging mud, or misrepresenting figures, or resorting to tacky emotional arguments? Or, for that matter, ignoring people who either don't agree with you or showed you to be wrong?


  • #528
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    squod wrote: »
    They've dropped dramatically since the Berlin wall came down and those pesky religious types got to have a say again.
    .

    ...or because they then had access to cheap contraception.

    By the way - What did you mean by "dark ages" and how does abortion get us there?
    progress.gif


  • #529
    FullblownRose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭FullblownRose


    Valetta wrote: »
    Some of us choose to give them that right.


    ''Choose'' being the operative word- that's your choice. It's not a choice to make for everyone else, it's not for anyone to deprive others of their right to choose.


  • #530
    Aseth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 423 ✭✭Aseth


    According to Public Opinion Research Center(CBOS) in 2011 we had 669 legal abortions in Poland. However estimations talk about 150 000 of illegal abortions per year. A polish doctor working in a medical center in Germany(near the border) says he has about 1000 women(each year) from Poland requesting abortion.


  • #531
    kfk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭kfk


    A question for the pro choice supporters. Should there be a time limit on termination, 3 months, 6 months etc. What limit, if any would you impose on termination of a healthy foetus?


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    kfk wrote: »
    A question for the pro choice supporters. Should there be a time limit on termination, 3 months, 6 months etc. What limit, if any would you impose on termination of a healthy foetus?
    Viability.

    Assess viability. If the child is not viable, that's unfortunate. If the child is viable, remove the child and if the mother doesn't want the child, that's unfortunate but it's no longer up to her.

    Just as she entitled to her bodily liberty, so too is a newborn.


  • #533
    LowKeyReturn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 934 ✭✭✭LowKeyReturn


    FullblownRose wrote: »
    ''Choose'' being the operative word- that's your choice. It's not a choice to make for everyone else, it's not for anyone to deprive others of their right to choose.

    Article 40.3.3 - chosen as a nation and will change when the majority agree it's right. There are many choices people don't get to make in isolation.

    We can and are having a rational debate on abortion. There are a large number of nuts on both side however. The silver bullet is, as it frequently is, education. People, like myself, that are anti-abortion aren't all religious.

    As for a time limit on abortions many in the pro-choice camp disagree with late term abortions. Simply have a google and make the decision for yourself.


  • #534
    looking_around
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    kfk wrote: »
    A question for the pro choice supporters. Should there be a time limit on termination, 3 months, 6 months etc. What limit, if any would you impose on termination of a healthy foetus?

    3, 4 months at the absolute latest.
    After that ONLY if the foetus is likely to die or there's serious risk to the mother.


  • #535
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Viability.

    Assess viability. If the child is not viable, that's unfortunate. If the child is viable, remove the child and if the mother doesn't want the child, that's unfortunate but it's no longer up to her.

    Just as she entitled to her bodily liberty, so too is a newborn.

    A child born in or around the limits of viability is likely, if it lives, to have quite significant, even profound disability.

    Can we just consider that an unfortunate consequence also? And does all responsibility for that unfortunate child simply vest in the state (or in any adoptive family that might wish to adopt such a profoundly disabled child?)


  • #536
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    A child born in or around the limits of viability is likely, if it lives, to have quite significant, even profound disability.

    Can we just consider that an unfortunate consequence also?
    Absolutely.
    And does all responsibility for that unfortunate child simply vest in the state (or in any adoptive family that might wish to adopt such a profoundly disabled child?)
    Of course.

    Usual rules apply.


  • #537
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »

    Usual rules apply.

    I'm not sure I have heard of those usual rules. But if that is your view, then fair enough.


  • #538
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    I'm not sure I have heard of those usual rules. But if that is your view, then fair enough.
    Usual rules as in Mothers not wanting their newborns... the newborn is taken into the care of the HSE, usually under an initial foster care arrangement.


  • #539
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Usual rules as in Mothers not wanting their newborns... the newborn is taken into the care of the HSE, usually under an initial foster care arrangement.

    I was talking most particularly about the profound disability caused by a decision to deliver at the limits of viability.


  • #540
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    I was talking most particularly about the profound disability caused by a decision to deliver at the limits of viability.
    I don't understand your question... the state currently 'accepts' disabled children for adoption. Obviously that should continue.

    The fact that the disability may have been made more likely by a maternal decision is irrelevant. Even as things stand, there are maternal decisions during pregnancy - smoking for example - which can cause congenital heart defects and problems relating to low birth weight. Similarly, the health agencies deal with adopted babies who were born with defects as a result of illicit drug abuse or addiction.

    I think an induction which may lead to a birth defect should be seen in the exact same light - inadvisable, and very unfortunate, but there you go.


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    I don't understand your question... the state currently 'accepts' disabled children for adoption. Obviously that should continue.

    The fact that the disability may have been made more likely by a maternal decision is irrelevant. Even as things stand, there are maternal decisions during pregnancy - smoking for example - which can cause congenital heart defects and problems relating to low birth weight. Similarly, the health agencies deal with adopted babies who were born with defects as a result of illicit drug abuse or addiction.

    I think an induction which may lead to a birth defect should be seen in the exact same light - inadvisable, and very unfortunate, but there you go.
    Are you suggesting that the right to bodily integrity/autonomy should be absolute no matter how grave the consequences?


Advertisement