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 Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

robdonn

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Just checking that everyone here knows how the morning after pill works:

And for those that believe that life begins at conception, which happens before implantation, the morning after pill could be considered an abortion.

One eyed Jack

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Apologies, I missed that. However I still disagree: If you are right and someone else is wrong then that means their "data" is wrong, whether it is scientific, legal or personal. That someone is then in denial about how their data is wrong is irrelevant. If someone argues with a fallacy, then you arguing back with another fallacy wont bring anyone to the correct position in the argument.

We appear to have a very different approach to a discussion. I don't go into a discussion thinking I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I'm open-minded enough to listen to other people's points of view, but depending upon how they argue, there are ways to demonstrate that they are incorrect when they try to pass off incorrect information as factual, particularly easy to do that within a legal context, not so easy to do that within a moral and philosophical context.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So that's no examples then?

I'm not going trawling the forum to point out examples of group think accepting and supporting ill-informed opinions that were blatantly incorrect.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Without any evidence, does any of this wailing deserve response?

It's a bit late to be asking now, isn't it?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The people on this forum all disagree with you, so it must be group-think and arrogance, in fact the whole forum was set up because of those arrogant group-thinkers are afraid of criticism from the religious. Way more believable than you are demonstrably wrong and everyone else can see it :rolleyes:

Now you're just twisting what I said. I never said anything about the people on this forum all disagreeing with me, I don't do that kind of persecution complex mentality at all. I believe that everyone should feel that they can express their opinion without being ridiculed though. It doesn't help, it simply drives people away and creates an echo-chamber of people who believe they are more intellectual than they actually are, and creates an environment where nobody wants to actually question a popularly held belief, for fear of ridicule and ostracisation.

When we talk about an issue such as abortion, you're never going to be able to demonstrate that someone is actually wrong if their belief that abortion is immoral is based upon their personal morality. That's why when it comes to legislating with regard to the issue of abortion in Ireland, I'd rather people were informed with the facts, rather than propaganda from either side.

One eyed Jack

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

woah there, I only linked to the site because that was one of the ones that came up when I was Googling the quote. I believe it originally came from here:
http://www.newsweek.com/beliefwatch-pro-life-atheists-85273

Yeah we kinda covered that one already.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I stand by my claim that Hitchens cannot reasonably be labelled 'pro-life' in the sense that the term is used and understood in Ireland...

Well that's your own understanding of "pro-life" you're applying there, which may appear to be completely reasonable to you, but I wouldn't assume your understanding of the term applies across the board, whatever you mean by "in the sense that the term is used and understood in Ireland". It's all a bit vague really, with people self-identifying as whatever they choose these days, regardless of the understanding of those terms by other people.

Lingua Franca

robdonn wrote: »

And for those that believe that life begins at conception, which happens before implantation, the morning after pill could be considered an abortion.

It's primary function is to inhibit ovulation. No ovulation, no conception.

Edit: not to mention that even with any contraception a fertilised egg is not guaranteed to implant.

Cabaal

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It's primary function is to inhibit ovulation. No ovulation, no conception.

You're still ignoring the sperm and egg part that can occur, in most cases people use morning after pills after unprotected sex to prevent a pregnancy. Otherwise they just use the pill on a regular basis.

Conception can and often will already occur and the morning after pill effectively ends the "life" of the cells.

Lingua Franca

Can occur, not will. As I said, the primary function of the MAP is to prevent ovulation, failing that it will prevent fertilisation, failing that it will prevent implantation and that's the part that can be considered abortion by some. But it's not always ending the "life" of the cells.

inocybe

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It's primary function is to inhibit ovulation. No ovulation, no conception.

Edit: not to mention that even with any contraception a fertilised egg is not guaranteed to implant.

not to mention that if ovulation has already occurred the morning after pill can fail. It's used as an argument against abortion - 'well women have the morning after pill', as if it's that easy :mad:

One eyed Jack

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Can occur, not will. As I said, the primary function of the MAP is to prevent ovulation, failing that it will prevent fertilisation, failing that it will prevent implantation and that's the part that can be considered abortion by some. But it's not always ending the "life" of the cells.

I'd be questioning that tbh:

Mechanism of action

The primary mechanism of action of progestogen-only emergency contraceptive pills is to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation. The best available evidence is that they do not have any post-fertilization effects such as the prevention of implantation. The U.S. FDA-approved labels and European EMA-approved labels (except for HRA Pharma's NorLevo) levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills (based on labels for regular oral contraceptive pills) say they may cause endometrial changes that discourage implantation. Daily use of regular oral contraceptive pills can alter the endometrium (although this has not been proven to interfere with implantation), but the isolated use of a levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pill does not have time to alter the endometrium. In March 2011, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) issued a statement that: "review of the evidence suggests that LNG [levonorgestreol] ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Language on implantation should not be included in LNG ECP product labeling." In June 2012, a New York Times editorial called on the FDA to remove from the label the unsupported suggestion that levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pills inhibit implantation. In November 2013, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved a change to the label for HRA Pharma's NorLevo saying it cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Other studies still find the evidence to be unclear. While it is unlikely that emergency contraception affects implantation it is impossible to completely exclude the possibility of post-fertilization effect.

Progestogen-only emergency contraceptive does not appear to effect the function of the Fallopian tubes or increase the rate of ectopic pregnancies.

The primary mechanism of action of progesterone receptor modulator emergency contraceptive pills like low-dose and mid-dose mifepristone and ulipristal acetate is to prevent fertilization by inhibition or delay of ovulation. One clinical study found that post-ovulatory administration of ulipristal acetate altered the endometrium, but whether the changes would inhibit implantation is unknown. The European EMA-approved labels for ulipristal acetate emergency contraceptive pills do not mention an effect on implantation, but the U.S. FDA-approved label says: "alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also contribute to efficacy."

The primary mechanism of action of copper-releasing intrauterine devices (IUDs) as emergency contraceptives is to prevent fertilization because of copper toxicity to sperm and ova. The very high effectiveness of copper-releasing IUDs as emergency contraceptives means they must also prevent some pregnancies by post-fertilization effects such as prevention of implantation.

Source: Emergency Contraception, Wikipedia

But then again, your source was this crowd, I'm not surprised that they would want to make sure people were given misleading information.

130Kph

I just had a very expensive, full colour, professional looking 6 page pamphlet pushed through the letterbox whose subtitle was “Am I a child or a choice”.

It’s from Youth Defence (they knocked but I didn’t answer because they looked like the local religious enthusiasts that call from time to time. I wish I had opened the door now

) and it contains all the usual canards & shibboleths e.g. Savita – the real issue was sepsis (ignores her multiple early, rejected requests for an abortion); in rape cases –women need compassion not a quick fix etc. etc.

So YD is pumping big money & effort into propagandising door to door now – I wonder do they sense a change in the zeitgeist?

Kantava

Do you see that the religious are taking over lots of hospitals in US also. Mounting concerns that that is affecting reproductive choices in many hospitals. Seems to be no shortage of money. Full sure thats where the youth defence money is coming from too. Shame they wouldnt invest it in helping homeless families instead.

lazygal

Kantava wrote: »

Do you see that the religious are taking over lots of hospitals in US also. Mounting concerns that that is affecting reproductive choices in many hospitals. Seems to be no shortage of money. Full sure thats where the youth defence money is coming from too. Shame they wouldnt invest it in helping homeless families instead.

Dignity Healthcare is Catholic and scoping out locations here.

Absolam

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, here's the thing. We don't need to wait for the report because this topic has already been studied in the literature. In 2012 Sedgh et al. published this in the Lancet (linked to in my last post):

Great info (as always) but more than a bit irrelevant (as usual). We do need to wait for the report because what I said was "I doubt it will show the number of abortions performed in the RoI (even per capita) is anywhere the number in the UK". I made no comment on any other literature I'm afraid; I was talking about the report. Which we haven't seen. Though I will point out that the summary from the literature you've provided a link to doesn't show the number of abortions performed in the RoI (even per capita) is anywhere the number in the UK either... does it? The summary deals with worldwide statistics; perhaps the full article provides specific data from Ireland and the UK but I'm afraid not everyone has a Lancet subscription that allows them to check. We can however take a look at other available data...

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Then why make the comparison? You offered what seemed like a rebuttal to OscarBravo's point using the comparison between Ireland and the UK as evidence for this. Now as I posted previously the abortion rate for Irish women has been steadily declining since 2003 which, even if we ignore other factors, means that the Ireland v. UK comparison is meaningless in the context of OscarBravo's point.

Because whilst it may not be a worthwhile comparison if all you're discussing is worldwide abortion rates, it is a worthwhile comparison if you are talking about the liberalisation of Irish abortion legislation. Specifically if, in the context of such a discussion, someone were to point out that in a worldwide statistical analysis it appears that developed nations with more restrictive abortion laws have the same rate of abortions as developed nations with less restrictive abortion laws, which could point to the conclusion that liberalising abortion laws in Ireland would not increase the rate of abortion in Ireland.

A comparison between Ireland and it's nearest geographic, cultural and economic neighbour who has a more liberal abortion regime might lead one to conclude otherwise; in England and Wales 184,571 abortions were performed in 2014; per capita that's 1 for every 311 people, or .32% depending on how you want to express it. In Ireland, the DoH says that 26 terminations were carried out under the POLDPA in 2014; per capita that's 1 for every 179,739 people, or .00056% depending on how you look at it. Even if legal abortions accounted for only 1% of all abortions performed in Ireland, our rate per capita would be less than a fifth of that of the UK. The number of abortions performed on Irish women in the UK alone in 2014 would more than double that rate per capita if those abortions had been performed in Ireland.

So... even if there are statistics that appear to show that restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates, it's pretty apparent that Ireland's abortion rates are quite likely to be higher if it enacts less restrictive abortion laws, would you not say? Which is why I made the comparison

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Does a miscarriage kill a child?

Does a miscarriage not result in the death of an unborn child?

Absolam

Kantava wrote: »

Do you see that the religious are taking over lots of hospitals in US also. Mounting concerns that that is affecting reproductive choices in many hospitals. Seems to be no shortage of money. Full sure thats where the youth defence money is coming from too. Shame they wouldnt invest it in helping homeless families instead.

From their website it doesn't look like helping homeless families is part of their remit? I'm a big fan of the Laura Lynn Hospice myself (they can use any spare cash anyone has folks!), and I have to admit they don't invest in helping homeless families either. I can't say it's a shame though; it would be a shame if they didn't do what they set out to do, not what someone who disagrees with them would prefer they do.

Cabaal

Kantava wrote: »

Do you see that the religious are taking over lots of hospitals in US also. Mounting concerns that that is affecting reproductive choices in many hospitals. Seems to be no shortage of money. Full sure thats where the youth defence money is coming from too. Shame they wouldnt invest it in helping homeless families instead.

As we've learned, they care alot less once the pregnancy comes to term.
Up until then the pro life side in the USA are even happy when doctors are murdered and their property is fire bombed

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

As we've learned, they care alot less once the pregnancy comes to term.

That must be why they're taking over lots of hospitals right enough

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

That must be why they're taking over lots of hospitals right enough

Like the mother and baby homes, there's money to be made in those hospitals.

nozzferrahhtoo

Well since you have, as per usual, dodged the majority of my posts above.... I will skip forward to this one.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yet we still have posters here arguing about birth canals and foetuses, which to me at least, is just talking nonsense.

Yes, you are talking nonsense when you get all haughty and uppity at people calling a fetus a fetus. Because that is what it is. If people using proper terminology bothers you in a conversation then your never ending quest to unearth and dance in front of the altar of biases would best be served standing before the nearest mirror to you.

The issue is, and the one you run away and ignore my posts whenever I query you on it.... like _every_ _single_ _time_..... is that some people seem to think that JUST before birth the child should have no rights, and JUST after birth it does.

And people like myself are wondering what the basis for that thinking actually is. And the best YOU have ever offered in response to that is to restate the problem in a circular manner, rather than answer the question. In other words when I ask "why is it done / should it be done that way" you effectively answer "because in law/legislation that is what we do".

Restating the problem does not answer the question. The issue being that mere location.... one end of the birth canal or the other..... seems to be a baseless, non-sensical, entirely ludicrous and arbitrary, meaningless way to draw that particular line in the sand.

robdonn

Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional, and subregional levels and trends

Background
Information about the incidence of induced abortion is needed to motivate and inform efforts to help women avoid unintended pregnancies and to monitor progress toward that end. We estimate subregional, regional, and global levels and trends in abortion incidence for 1990 to 2014, and abortion rates in subgroups of women. We use the results to estimate the proportion of pregnancies that end in abortion and examine whether abortion rates vary in countries grouped by the legal status of abortion.

Findings
We estimated that 35 abortions (90% uncertainty interval [UI] 33 to 44) occurred annually per 1000 women aged 15–44 years worldwide in 2010–14, which was 5 points less than 40 (39–48) in 1990–94 (90% UI for decline −11 to 0). Because of population growth, the annual number of abortions worldwide increased by 5·9 million (90% UI −1·3 to 15·4), from 50·4 million in 1990–94 (48·6 to 59·9) to 56·3 million (52·4 to 70·0) in 2010–14. In the developed world, the abortion rate declined 19 points (−26 to −14), from 46 (41 to 59) to 27 (24 to 37). In the developing world, we found a non-significant 2 point decline (90% UI −9 to 4) in the rate from 39 (37 to 47) to 37 (34 to 46). Some 25% (90% UI 23 to 29) of pregnancies ended in abortion in 2010–14. Globally, 73% (90% UI 59 to 82) of abortions were obtained by married women in 2010–14 compared with 27% (18 to 41) obtained by unmarried women. We did not observe an association between the abortion rates for 2010–14 and the grounds under which abortion is legally allowed.

Interpretation
Abortion rates have declined significantly since 1990 in the developed world but not in the developing world. Ensuring access to sexual and reproductive health care could help millions of women avoid unintended pregnancies and ensure access to safe abortion.

On the point of UK v Ire, the paper doesn't seem to have any specific data on Ireland, it seems to have just grouped data based on regions (e.g. Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Western Europe).

In the news:

Abortion study: 25% of pregnancies terminated, estimates suggest - BBC

Criminalising abortion does not cut number of terminations, says study - The Guardian

Major abortion study claims Ireland still under-estimating true number - Independent.ie - See Delirium's post below

Delirium

Major abortion study claims Ireland still under-estimating true number

Ireland has again been sharply admonished for its failure to legislate for wider abortion law before a hearing of United Nations member states in Geneva.

Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald was taken to task yesterday by delegations from several countries including the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Lithuania at the human rights' periodic review.

The failure to extend abortion to women with fatal foetal abnormalities or victims of rape or incest was criticised despite the minister's pledge that the new government will set up a Citizen's Assembly to make recommendations on changes including consideration of repeal of the Eighth Amendment.

It comes as the lead author of a major global study on abortion rates said Ireland's official figures - based largely on statistics provided by UK clinics - is an under-estimate of the true number of pregnancies being terminated.

Dr Gilda Sedgh of the Guttmacher Institute in New York who led the study published in the Lancet Journal told the Irish Independent the rate of four abortions per 1,000 women of child bearing age would not stand up to scrutiny. It is based on figures showing around 4,000 women from the Republic have abortions in the UK annually.

She said it is unclear how many women are having medical abortions by buying drugs over the internet.

"We also do not know how many women are really travelling to England or elsewhere and not going on record on their address."

The official abortion rate for northern European countries is 18 per 1,000 women but it is not possible to say what the real picture in Ireland is.

The study found that generally the abortion rate in countries where abortion is banned or restricted is on average the same as that in countries where it is available on demand.

silverharp

how does "18 per thousand" translate into % of women who will have had an abortion in their lifetime? It seems to be somewhere between I/5 and 1/4 in the US.

Ragnar Lothbrok

lazygal wrote: »

Does a miscarriage kill a child?

Miscarriage isn't the same as abortion, though, is it? Miscarriage isn't a choice whereas abortion is.

lazygal wrote: »

Ragnar Lothbrok, are you also opposed to IVF?

Not at all. Don't understand the relevance to be honest. IVF can produce life, abortion ends life.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What about the morning after pill? Is it acceptable to use one, even though it amounts to the same thing?
If someone kills a pregnant woman, should they be tried for two murders?

I'm not against the morning after pill.

I've never really considered the murder question. I suppose if it can be proved that the murderer fully intended to kill the unborn child as well as the pregnant woman, it would be murder. If the killer didn't realise the woman was pregnant it would be manslaughter. Just guessing here.

robdonn

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Not at all. Don't understand the relevance to be honest. IVF can produce life, abortion ends life.

I believe that argument is about viable embryos being frozen or discarded during the IVF process, since only one or two (according to HFEA) are used.

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't go into a discussion thinking I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I'm open-minded enough to listen to other people's points of view

Why do you present these as contrary positions? When most people put forward a specific position in a discussion, they generally do that because they think it is right. Being open-minded doesn't mean you aren't allowed have an opinion and disagree with people, it means you accept your opinions aren't infallible and give people the courtesy of presenting their opinions and examine them with as little bias as possible.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not going trawling the forum to point out examples of group think accepting and supporting ill-informed opinions that were blatantly incorrect.

So then why should we accept your claims that they exist? Anything else you say is irrelevant, you made broad sweeping claims about this forum and are unable to back them up with a single example. That which is presented without evidence can be ignored without evidence.

Mark Hamill

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm not against the morning after pill.

Going by the short discussion yesterday on the mechanism of the morning-after pill, it doesn't have the mechanism I thought so my question doesn't ask what I though it did. I am trying to understand from what point you consider an egg to be an unborn child. From fertilisation, from implantation, from 1 week etc. The morning after pill works on preventing fertilisation, but not implantation (apparently, although copper IUDs may prevent implantation?), so I'll just be more direct:
At what point are you against pregnancy ending/avoiding activities?
Presumably you are fine with things which prevent fertilization of the egg (condoms, MAPs etc), but what bout once the egg if fertilized and is trying to implant? What about the first day after implantation or the first week?

Ragnar Lothbrok

robdonn wrote: »

I believe that argument is about viable embryos being frozen or discarded during the IVF process, since only one or two (according to HFEA) are used.

I'm learning quite a lot through this discussion on boards.ie

One contributor earlier (think it was Mark Hammill) described my arguments as being based ignorance, and I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps he wasn't correct. All my views on abortion, and I have generally held very strong views, have been based on a simple "it's wrong to kill a baby" attitude. It's a view I've held for as long as I can remember.

However, in the past few days of reading some of the replies on this thread, I've done a little bit more research (ie just opening a few websites and looking at them) and I find myself beginning to question my passionately held beliefs. It's an uncomfortable position to find myself in at my time of life

robdonn

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm learning quite a lot through this discussion on boards.ie

One contributor earlier (think it was Mark Hammill) described my arguments as being based ignorance, and I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps he wasn't correct. All my views on abortion, and I have generally held very strong views, have been based on a simple "it's wrong to kill a baby" attitude. It's a view I've held for as long as I can remember.

However, in the past few days of reading some of the replies on this thread, I've done a little bit more research (ie just opening a few websites and looking at them) and I find myself beginning to question my passionately held beliefs. It's an uncomfortable position to find myself in at my time of life

I think it all just comes down to things generally not being nearly as straight forward as we think they are, and that realisation should apply to people on both sides of the argument. I too learned something new about the morning after pill!

My only takeaway from discussing this topic is that you should allow your opinion to be fluid. Some people will slam you for it saying that you're being wish-washy, but in reality you are just adjusting your world view as you learn new information which is how it should be.

I have my own internal conflict with my own opinions, one side of my brain says that a woman's bodily integrity should always be upheld so she should be allowed end her pregnancy whenever she wants, but then another part of my brain says that a foetus that has reached the point of viability dictated by the availability of modern medicine that doesn't suffer from fatal foetal abnormalities (or conditions that would severely effect their quality of life) should be allowed to live. The foetus could be delivered early, but this could cause quality of life reducing ailments, plus then there is the issue of the mother maintaining anonymity plus the mental stress that the mother would suffer knowing her rejected child is out there in the world somewhere.

Nobody ever claimed that this was an easy subject, and being a hard subject is one of the qualities that makes it so important.

Pherekydes

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Miscarriage isn't the same as abortion, though, is it?

Yes, it is. A miscarriage is an abortion.

lazygal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Not at all. Don't understand the relevance to be honest. IVF can produce life, abortion ends life.

IVF processes destroy many embryos, not to mention those frozen embryos without any chance of a right to life outside the freezer.