Pherekydes wrote: » Yes, it is. A miscarriage is an abortion.
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » How so? I'd always assumed a miscarriage was a naturally occurring event, whereas an abortion was a choice made by the the pregnant woman? I'm not being sarcastic or facetious here, I genuinely don't know. You should state your reasons in replies, I'm not going to accept something is, just because someone says it is
A miscarriage is the loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. The medical term for a miscarriage is spontaneous abortion, but "spontaneous" is the key word here because the condition is not an abortion in the common definition of the term.
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » 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
Kantava wrote: » When animals lose their pregnancies it is normally referred to as an abortion.
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » Didn't know that either. So the term "abortion", as generally used, is similar to when we use "Biro" instead of "ball point pen"? In these discussions though, isn't "abortion" generally accepted as the term for a medical termination of a pregnancy?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I recommend relishing it rather than feeling uncomfortable. The older we get the less likely we are to change our views or examine them. And even when we do, the older we are the more chance that our views are correct as they have had longer to be tried, tested and matured. So in our latter years, and even at 36 I already feel this, the joy of learning new things, correcting old errors, and questioning oneself becomes less and less. For example I went through life for a long time being pro-choice merely because I fell on the "atheist" and "liberal" end of the scale and that's what most such people were. I never questioned WHY I was pro-choice. Then I sat down and really thought it through, learned things, asked myself a lot of "WHY". And it was a thoroughly enjoyable process. In that particular case my views did not change dramatically. I stayed pro-choice. But I clarified when why how and under what conditions I was pro-choice. There are other issues I have found, when I stopped to question myself, that I was holding merely because of some default or laziness. I was against incest for example and then really thought about it and realized that "incest" is a catch all term for MANY things. And where "incest" merely refers to the CONSENSUAL sexual or romantic activity between two adults (in other words not a parent and under age child for example) I had no moral or ethical arguments against it. But there are other issues I have not sat down to think deeply about that I know I hold "default" or "lazy" positions on. Gun ownership. The Death Penalty. Women being banned from wearing the Muslim Headscarf or all over body bags. And quite a lot of others. Meat eating. They are on my "to-do" to really sit down and learn and explore all the arguments from all sides like I have done on so many others issues (like gay marriage, abortion, many secular issues and so forth). Learn to enjoy, not feel uncomfortable about, exploring your own views, why you hold them, and even changing them. Learn to feel uncomfortable instead about noticing you hold an idea or view.... but have no idea WHY or on what basis you hold it. There is a lot to learn out there, for all of us. Relish it. It adds joy to life.... a life that, despite what many will tell you, appears to be the ONLY life we get. How *I* explored the abortion issue with myself was to try and first find out what the issue actually was. And what I realized was that at the very foundation of the discussion the entire abortion morality debate came down to one simple question..... does the thing being aborted have "rights" or not.... specifically the right to life. So I *then* started exploring philosophically what it actually is that we assign rights to. What do we hang them on and why? And then I noticed, quite simply, that the conclusions I came to as what attributes we hang rights off were all attributes that the fetus up to 16, 20.... in fact even arguably 24 weeks..... simply lack. They just are not there. In fact at 16 weeks the faculties for producing them are not even there. The analogy I often use is that if the attributes were radio waves, then not only are radio waves not there.... the broadcasting tower to produce them is not even built yet. And at that point I realized there simply is no basis I could find.... or that anyone has since shown me..... for affording moral or ethical concern to a 16 week old fetus. It was a moral non-entity for me equivalent to a rock or a table leg. So perhaps explore some of the same questions introspectively yourself. I was purposefully vague as to my own answers just now above to allow you to answer those questions yourself. But ask yourself what IS the abortion debate really about at a philosophical and moral level. And what attributes of a fetus actually do start making it an entity worth of moral or ethical concern. I suspect, just from reading you so far, that you will find the only answers you have so far are that you have been hanging moral and ethical concern NOT off any attribute of the fetus itself..... but off words that have emotional value to you........ like "unborn child" and "Human life". And as I said.... enjoy this introspection rather than feel discomfort. It is a personal growth and challenge that lies before you. All good stuff.
Cabaal wrote: » Like the mother and baby homes, there's money to be made in those hospitals.
robdonn wrote: » 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).
Absolam wrote: » Can't see them making much money if they don't take care of the patients, can you? It's not like the mother and baby homes after all....
Kantava wrote: » They take care of patients alright, but on their own terms. :mad:
Absolam wrote: » My wild swing turned out to be accurate? Who would've guessed :pac:
Spotlight on the Eighth as study finds strict laws are not effective in reducing abortions Six of the nine questions that were submitted for Ireland at a UN hearing asked about our stance on access to abortion.
It shows that in countries where abortion is strongly legally restricted – and often performed under unsafe conditions – the incidence of abortion is estimated to be as high as in countries where it is legal.
The report also shows that abortion rates are at an all-time low in developed countries where the service is legal.
The continued fall in abortion rates is largely due to the increased use of modern contraception, that has given women greater control over the timing and number of children they want
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » I'm not sure that for me my views on abortion was ever about the "rights" of the unborn child versus the "rights" of the pregnant woman. It pretty much boiled down to the thoughts of inflicting terrible pain on the unborn child and deciding that no-one had the right to do that, for whatever reason. I remember seeing the pro-life film "The Silent Scream" during my teenage years and that massively re-enforced my views at the time.
Critics of the film argued that the fetus could not truly scream or feel pain, as its brain was not yet well developed; medical specialists distinguished between the simple muscle reflexes shown in the video and subjective cognitive behavior, which does not arise until the twenty-fourth week of development. Robert Eiben, who was at the time president of the US National Child Neurology Society, attributed the fetus's movements during the video to reflex, not subjective experience. Similarly, other leading pediatric neurologists and specialist likened the actions of the fetus to the reflexes of brain-dead individuals, whose feet recoil when touched.
John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine called the film's use of special effects deceptive, a form of "technical flimflam." He pointed out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that "the fetus is thrashing about in alarm." Hobbins questioned the titular "scream", noting that "the fetus spends lots of time with its mouth open", that the "scream" may have been a yawn, and also that "mouth" identified on the blurry ultrasound in the film may in fact have been the space between the fetal chin and chest.
Absolam wrote: » 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... 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
oscarBravo wrote: » This is a point that needs to be emphasised over and over as the single key point in the debate over abortion: making abortion illegal doesn't prevent abortion; it just makes it less safe.
Absolam wrote: » I'm going to take a wild swing and say I doubt it will show the number of abortions performed in the RoI (even per capita) is anywhere the number in the UK, regardless of the conditions they're performed under.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Well since you have, as per usual, dodged the majority of my posts above.... I will skip forward to this one. 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.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 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.
Mark Hamill wrote: » The film has long been debunked as nonsense propaganda:Source
Mark Hamill wrote: » This is why you shouldn't base your opinion on hearing out just one side of an argument.
Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: » All I was pointing out was that when I was in my late teens I saw the Silent Scream film and it had a big impact on me, completely reinforcing my already strong anti-abortion feelings. I didn't think of it as propaganda at the time, purely because it backed up my own prejudices.Source. I'm starting to realise that :eek:
Kantava wrote: » And the situations outlined in that article. That is the situation in Ireland under the eighth amendment. I hope to goodness nothing happens me while I am pregnant in this country. If you are in an emergency situation, theres no option to drive 30 miles down the road here either. I dont feel safe.
aloyisious wrote: » Given that you're proven accurate, due to the lack of data on the ratio of abortions, Ire V UK, is it debatable that there actually are any performed on Irish women?
aloyisious wrote: » Can the Iona Institute have got it wrong about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions?
Cabaal wrote: » So its likely not saving many fetus from an abortion like the pro life crowd like to claim
robdonn wrote: » Yes it was accurate, but apparently due to lack of data rather than a dramatically reduced rate.
oldrnwisr wrote: » OK, let's rewind slightly, shall we? In response to robdonn's now redacted post, OscarBravo offered the following comment: to which you responded: Now, OscarBravo is correct, restrictive abortion laws are not correlated with low abortion rates. However, your comment makes the implication that Ireland's low abortion rate compared to the UK is a result of our restrictive abortion laws. That assertion is wrong.
oldrnwisr wrote: » And here's why. While we have already looked at how the global rates don't support your argument, <...>
oldrnwisr wrote: » Your analysis above is overly simplistic and wrong. Firstly, and most importantly, it only includes terminations conducted in Ireland and not terminations conducted on Irish women in other jurisdictions. Considering only abortions on Irish soil is a dishonest argument. Secondly, you are measuring abortions per capita. This is meaningless. Men don't have abortions and neither to 5 or 85 year olds. This is why abortion rates are quoted as the number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44. So, for example in 2005, Ireland had a rate of 5.9 compared to 17.0 in the UK which is 35% and not "less than a fifth" as you state.
Absolam wrote: » 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.
Absolam wrote: » Well.. what objective basis would you say there is for not feeling safe? What proportion of mothers would you say have died in Irish hospitals as a result of legislation that gives an equal right to life of the foetus? Ireland ranks 16th best out of 184 nations on the CIA World Factbooks worldwide maternal mortality rate (the annual number of female deaths per 100,000 live births from any cause related to or aggravated by pregnancy or its management (excluding accidental or incidental causes); 21 places ahead of the UK, who are 12 places ahead of the US. Based on that there aren't a heck of a lot of countries where you ought to feel safer....
