Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

oceanclub

With "special guest" Patricia Casey in attendance, Fianna Fail voted for four anti-choice motions this afternoon (a total of 14 speakers, 13 of whom were for the motions). New tagline - "Fianna Fail - the Iona Institute Party".

P.

legspin

Jernal wrote: »

Folks digs or snipes at a person's marital status are totally out of bounds.
Sorry. Posts deleted.

You wife swapping sodomite....

Flier

recedite wrote: »

To be fair to O'Brien, she is being rational enough about it. She cites a reputable study.
Heres a link to the abstract of the study, as the IT link seems to be broken.
If you have evidence to contradict the study, Fergusson's e-mail address is there, and you can contact him directly.

IMO when prospective parents have too much choice in the timing of procreation they tend to leave it too late in life. If people who were depressed about the onset to puberty could choose to delay it, we would all have done so.
There are probably some women for whom motherhood will bring great joy, and others who will be greatly inconvenienced. The latter will seek abortions, but will not necessarily be feeling suicidal. They will most likely plan it in a rational way.
Of those who are suffering from depression, you can't tell whether motherhood will improve their outlook on life or not. That is the gist of the study.

Just 2 quick points.

Yes, she does cite a reputable study. One study. And then she draws the sweeping conclusion without reference to any other study.

Secondly, the study looks at unintentional and unwanted pregnancy, and the effects of abortion on outcome.

"There is no available evidence to suggest that abortion has therapeutic effects in reducing the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy."

It does not look at unwanted or unintentional pregnancy in women who are suicidal, or even depressed as a result of being pregnant. (The caveat here is that I have read the abstract, not the entire study) Such a study may give a very different answer. Or it may not. But again, Ms O'Brien makes her own conclusion.

Morag

oceanclub wrote: »

With "special guest" Patricia Casey in attendance, Fianna Fail voted for four anti-choice motions this afternoon (a total of 14 speakers, 13 of whom were for the motions). New tagline - "Fianna Fail - the Iona Institute Party".

P.

More like that politcal party who have rejected democracy.

Galvasean

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Fianna Fail are snakes of the highest order.

lazygal

Can we change thread title to include FF APPOVED-THE IONA INSTITUTE?

fisgon

recedite wrote: »

To be fair to O'Brien, she is being rational enough about it. She cites a reputable study.
Heres a link to the abstract of the study, as the IT link seems to be broken.

Breda O'Brien is one of the most insidious of all of the Iona head honchos, precisely because she seems to come across as reasonable and fact based. Breda is constantly quoting studies in her column, but of course she is totally selective in what studies and evidence she chooses.

And this makes her profoundly dishonest. Because of course what she does is to form her opinion, based on the dogma of her religion, and then go looking for evidence for that already formed opinion. In the process she simply ignores any evidence that contradicts what she believes, and only quotes things that back up her point of view.

She gives the outward impression of someone who is rational and moderate, but in fact she is just as imprisoned by dogma as the rest of them.

lazygal

fisgon wrote: »

Breda O'Brien is one of the most insidious of all of the Iona head honchos, precisely because she seems to come across as reasonable and fact based. Breda is constantly quoting studies in her column, but of course she is totally selective in what studies and evidence she chooses.

And this makes her profoundly dishonest. Because of course what she does is to form her opinion, based on the dogma of her religion, and then go looking for evidence for that already formed opinion. In the process she simply ignores any evidence that contradicts what she believes, and only quotes things that back up her point of view.

She gives the outward impression of someone who is rational and moderate, but in fact she is just as imprisoned by dogma as the rest of them.

The most insidious thing about her is that she's a teacher of teenage girls, religion and CSPE I understand. I wonder what 'materials' she uses in the classroom and what methods she employs.

recedite

Flier wrote: »

J
It does not look at unwanted or unintentional pregnancy in women who are suicidal, or even depressed as a result of being pregnant.

It says "Abortion was associated with small to moderate increases in risks of anxiety (AOR 1.28, 95% CI 0.97−1.70; p<0.08), alcohol misuse (AOR 2.34, 95% CI 1.05−5.21; p<0.05), illicit drug use/misuse (AOR 3.91, 95% CI 1.13−13.55; p<0.05), and suicidal behaviour (AOR 1.69, 95% CI 1.12−2.54; p<0.01)."
We aren't told whether those negative behaviours were already there before the pregnancies, or whether they are a result of being pregnant. Maybe that is irrelevant anyway.
But I think the main caveat there is that there should be a similar study done of cases of women who did not choose abortion. As a "control". Would they also show "small to moderate increases in risks" ?

BTW my thinking on this is that the politicians are barking up the wrong tree on this. As they are going to legislate for the x-case, it should be on the basis that a 14 year old rape victim is not a suitable candidate for motherhood. Not on the principle that someone who threatens self-harm should be given whatever they want.

Flier

recedite wrote: »

It says "Abortion was associated with small to moderate increases in risks of anxiety (AOR 1.28, 95% CI 0.97−1.70; p<0.08), alcohol misuse (AOR 2.34, 95% CI 1.05−5.21; p<0.05), illicit drug use/misuse (AOR 3.91, 95% CI 1.13−13.55; p<0.05), and suicidal behaviour (AOR 1.69, 95% CI 1.12−2.54; p<0.01)."
We aren't told whether those negative behaviours were already there before the pregnancies, or whether they are a result of being pregnant. Maybe that is irrelevant anyway.
But I think the main caveat there is that there should be a similar study done of cases of women who did not choose abortion. As a "control". Would they also show "small to moderate increases in risks" ?

BTW my thinking on this is that the politicians are barking up the wrong tree on this. As they are going to legislate for the x-case, it should be on the basis that a 14 year old rape victim is not a suitable candidate for motherhood. Not on the principle that someone who threatens self-harm should be given whatever they want.

Em....my point is that the question asked in the study was not 'what the effects of abortion was on pregnant women with suicidal ideation', but, that the study found an increase in suicidal ideation in women with an unwanted pregnancy who had an abortion. These are absolutely not the same question and Breda O'Brien draws unhelpful conclusions which are absolutely irrelevant to the current debate surrounding legislation in Ireland.

And, no, if politicians are going to legislate for the x case, it should be on the basis of the x case, ie where a 14year old girl was suicidal after becoming pregnant and was asserting her right to life. Her suitability or otherwise for motherhood has nothing to do with it.

Hotblack Desiato

lazygal wrote: »

The most insidious thing about her is that she's a teacher of teenage girls, religion and CSPE I understand. I wonder what 'materials' she uses in the classroom and what methods she employs.

This. I find it frightening that people like her are allowed teach nonsense to kids.

recedite

Flier wrote: »

And, no, if politicians are going to legislate for the x case, it should be on the basis of the x case, ie where a 14year old girl was suicidal after becoming pregnant and was asserting her right to life. Her suitability or otherwise for motherhood has nothing to do with it.

I don't understand your first point, but on this second point you are technically correct in that politicians must legislate in line with the Supreme Court judgement of what is constitutional, at the least. But this means that a more resilient under age/rape victim/or whatever will not be allowed to get an abortion, just because they could (if they were really pushed) cope without killing themselves. I would prefer not to put them through that. The politicians could go further and allow abortion for these women who are obviously unsuited to continuing their pregnancy, but they won't because they don't have to on the basis of that judgement. The end result will be that the "more resilient" women will be encouraged and forced to feign suicidal ideation; hence all the nonsense being drawn up about panels of doctors and the talk about mistrust of women.

Flier

recedite wrote: »

I don't understand your first point, but on this second point you are technically correct in that politicians must legislate in line with the Supreme Court judgement of what is constitutional, at the least. But this means that a more resilient under age/rape victim/or whatever will not be allowed to get an abortion, just because they could (if they were really pushed) cope without killing themselves. I would prefer not to put them through that. The politicians could go further and allow abortion for these women who are obviously unsuited to continuing their pregnancy, but they won't because they don't have to on the basis of that judgement. The end result will be that the "more resilient" women will be encouraged and forced to feign suicidal ideation; hence all the nonsense being drawn up about panels of doctors and the talk about mistrust of women.

Ok, the first point is that the study quoted does not look at women who are pregnant and suicidal, and the outcome of abortion on their case. It just looks at women who are pregnant and don't want to be, and the outcome of abortion. So the conclusions are irrelevant in the situation we are trying to legislate for here.

Secondly, of course I agree with you. No child, weather she is a victim of rape or not, should be forced to continue with a pregnancy unless that is her express wish. Unfortunately, to legislate for that in the current environment would need another referendum. I hope that in the not to distant future, we will be here discussing the new wording for that referendum.

Nodin

According to "Rabble", this shower share an address with Iona
http://www.pureinheartireland.com/

On sunday may the fifth theres a free lecture on how 'sex still has a price tag'
http://www.pureinheartireland.com/#!news-&-events/vstc4=events-for-your-diary

Due to the wonders of Technology, yez can preview it here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0ezYNWIDB0

The "fun" starts from about 3.30 on.....

fisgon

Nodin wrote: »

According to "Rabble", this shower share an address with Iona
http://www.pureinheartireland.com/

.

Had a look at their website. Jaw dropping stuff.

What I do find interesting is the same tone that you hear from a lot of the anti-abortion voices that are coming out at the moment. It is a sense of profound moral superiority.

They repeat the word "purity" over and over, and assume for themselves this position of judging the youth of Ireland for their lack of said purity. It's the same old tired hatred of sex that Catholicism has been peddling for centuries. Added to that, of course, is the undercurrent of assurance that they know better than us, that they are better than us, purer, more moral.

This is the subtext from a lot of the anti-abortion preaching from people within Fine Gael and Fianna Fail at the moment, a lot of the rhetoric from the Iona characters. The same refrain as always, we know better than you, if you don't share our view you are morally deficient. We are the principled ones, you are lacking.

Sarky

Plenty of groups going on about "purity" down through history. There was a big one around 1930-40 in Europe, if I recall, can't quite remember the name, but sadly for them they didn't manage to get recognition as a "real" religion.

Turtwig

They could do with better proof reading. :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

'Sex still has a price tag'?

Reminds me of a movie quote (NSFW) - 'The Last Detail'
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070290/quotes?item=qt0444467

kylith

I'm loving "Pam Stenzel speaks to over 500,000 young people personally each year", the 'personally' would indicate to me that she speaks to these young people individually, which would (if my maths are correct, which they're probably not) mean she speaks to 1370 people a day, or 57 every hour for a total of a hair over one minute each, assuming that she doesn't take any breaks to eat or sleep. You have to admire dedication like that.

SebBerkovich

kylith wrote: »

I'm loving "Pam Stenzel speaks to over 500,000 young people personally each year", the 'personally' would indicate to me that she speaks to these young people individually, which would (if my maths are correct, which they're probably not) mean she speaks to 1370 people a day, or 57 every hour for a total of a hair over one minute each, assuming that she doesn't take any breaks to eat or sleep. You have to admire dedication like that.

Taking into account her 27 years of experience that makes it 13,500,000 young people she's "personally" spoken to.
Must be some kind of record.

lazygal

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Taking into account her 27 years of experience that makes it 13,500,000 young people she's "personally" spoken to.
Must be some kind of record.

Its a miracle!

Stark

Reminds me of some homophobic journalist who was spewing on about homosexuals having "tens of thousands" of sexual partners in a life time before. When I did the maths on it, I think it worked out to 3 "meals" a day.

Turtwig

The question I have though : Is she a clinical psychologist?

Bannasidhe

Stark wrote: »

Reminds me of some homophobic journalist who was spewing on about homosexuals having "tens of thousands" of sexual partners in a life time before. When I did the maths on it, I think it worked out to 3 "meals" a day.

Tell me about it.

Oy, am I stuffed!

SebBerkovich

Stark wrote: »

Reminds me of some homophobic journalist who was spewing on about homosexuals having "tens of thousands" of sexual partners in a life time before. When I did the maths on it, I think it worked out to 3 "meals" a day.

I hope Right Wingers never develop "Math Technology", all the hilarity we'd miss out on.

Turtwig

Stark wrote: »

Reminds me of some homophobic journalist who was spewing on about homosexuals having "tens of thousands" of sexual partners in a life time before. When I did the maths on it, I think it worked out to 3 "meals" a day.

That'd be a lot of cream and a lot of pie.

kylith

Jernal wrote: »

That'd be a lot of cream and a lot of pie.

It sure would. Gentlemen would certainly need some sort of soothing ointment.

Genghiz Cohen

"The spirit is willing but the flesh, is spongy and brused."

Nodin

fisgon wrote: »

Had a look at their website. Jaw dropping stuff.

.............

Theres some seriously old school bullshit on there allright.

As the Jubilee year approached the group began to plan a pilgrimage to Rome for world youth day, in the summer of the year 2000. World Youth Day was a gathering of young people that Pope John Paul II had started in the
1980's. The group was made up of many students at this point, so they
decided to fundraise money to pay for the pilgrimage. They organised a
fundraising night but there was a very small turn out. They feared that to
raise enough money for the young people, many more fundraising nights would be needed. However, during this night the priest was handed an envelope with a donation inside.

He placed it in his jacket pocket and only opened the
envelope when he got home. To his amazement he found a cheque for £5000. To his amazement, it was the exact amount of money needed after the night of fundraising, he thanked God for this astonishing gift. Now all
the young people could go to Rome and no one would be disappointed.

(my bold)
http://www.pureinheartireland.com/#!about

Thats god for ye. He wasn't there for Archbishop Romero, 400,000 Guatamalans, millions of Jews and countless others, but by jaysus he won't let the childer miss out on a trip to GHQ in Italy ( especially when Ruairi has to get holy water for his mammys ankle, as its the only think that works, so she sez).

SebBerkovich

[edit] posted in the wrong place [/edi]