Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Lingua Franca

Heh, I pmed ShooterSF last night to avoid further derailing and a verbal spanking. :P It is being taken to court by cannabis campaigners and coffeeshop owners on the grounds that it's discriminatory against other EU citizens, so we'll get to find out.

kylith

I'd say that they'll claim that they're not discriminating because of people's nationality, but that they are offering a service only to people who are resident in The Netherlands, regardless of where they originated.

For example, I'd be refused, but Irish friends of mine resident in Amsterdam wouldn't be.

MrPudding

kylith wrote: »

I'd say that they'll claim that they're not discriminating because of people's nationality, but that they are offering a service only to people who are resident in The Netherlands, regardless of where they originated.

For example, I'd be refused, but Irish friends of mine resident in Amsterdam wouldn't be.

Assuming the availability of weed was something that could be grounds for discrimination, this would most likely not be an adequate defence.

I have not done EU Law for a few year, so I can't remember any specific cases, but the issue is this:

People from a particular country are more likely to be residents of that country. By extension, people from other countries are less likely to be residents of another country. Therefore, restricting something to residents of a country will have a disproportionate impact on people not from that country.

MrP

Lingua Franca

Well, another issue is this. People coming across the border from Belgium and Germany are breaking the law by the bringing the weed back to their country, and the authorities in those countries have been complaining to the Netherlands, which is another reason for the wietpass.

kylith wrote: »

I'd say that they'll claim that they're not discriminating because of people's nationality, but that they are offering a service only to people who are resident in The Netherlands, regardless of where they originated.

For example, I'd be refused, but Irish friends of mine resident in Amsterdam wouldn't be.

Not if they didn't have a weed pass. But you could all buy it in Amsterdam instead of a wee border village.

kylith

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Not if they didn't have a weed pass. But you could all buy it in Amsterdam instead of a wee border village.

Ah, you know what I mean.

I'm glad it doesn't seem to have been imposed as strongly as they were talking about. Aforementioned friends were not happy with the prospect of their name, address, and weed buying habits being on a database.

Lingua Franca

It was never gonna happen in Amsterdam anyway, the Mayor of Amsterdam gives no f*cks about what laws the government passes.

The smart shops there didn't close because the cops say it's up to the council to enforce (the shroom ban), the council says it's up to the cops to enforce, and the Mayor doesn't want it enforced.

Brian Shanahan

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Oh ok then. So in the future we dont need any legal system or legislature - just a "if you think its wrong dont do it" natural law kind of approach. Glad we did this.

I'm sorry, but please in future, seeing as you are unwilling to engage with my point, just make facetious comments about it, ignore my posts.

You'll be doing us both a favour.

stanley 2

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Having the death penalty is actively harmful to society (in today's world societies with an active death penalty* are universally more violent and brutal than those without it), having abortion is not (in fact I'll go so far to say having abortion as an active good in society). That is where the difference is.

Now if abortion was being used, say, in the way the Nazis intended to use it in Germany (i.e. as a means of state population control), I would be against it. But as a completely voluntary procedure, outlawing it is wrong.

*For example the death penalty is still legally on the UK books for three cases, 1) arson on a Royal Navy installment, 2) high treason against the monarch, 3) possession and public use of the "auld alliance" Scottish flag. I discount the UK because the penalty is never used, despite half of Scotland breaking 3 above.

unfortunatley it is proportunatly worse for girls but thats the way of life

Bannasidhe

stanley 2 wrote: »

unfortunatley it is proportunatly worse for girls but thats the way of life

What?

lazygal

stanley 2 wrote: »

unfortunatley it is proportunatly worse for girls but thats the way of life

Ah, are we back to your spurious claims of gender specific abortions in the UK? Did you ever find any concrete sources to back them up?

While we're at it, you might finally answer my question on whether you'd be willing to remain attached to a born person for nine months to preserve his or her beautiful life.

OldNotWIse

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm sorry, but please in future, seeing as you are unwilling to engage with my point, just make facetious comments about it, ignore my posts.

You'll be doing us both a favour.

Surely that was your point though? Or do you retract the "if you dont like it, dont do it" comment?

Perhaps you would be doing us both a favour if you tried to understand my posts and not assume that I am being facetious just because their sentiment evades you.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

Ah, are we back to your spurious claims of gender specific abortions in the UK? Did you ever find any concrete sources to back them up?

While we're at it, you might finally answer my question on whether you'd be willing to remain attached to a born person for nine months to preserve his or her beautiful life.

Those are not spurious claims, I remember reading reports from staff who said that it does happen. Sadly, I can't remember the link (to a pro choicer, I guess that translates into "it never happens" )

OldNotWIse

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It was never gonna happen in Amsterdam anyway, the Mayor of Amsterdam gives no f*cks about what laws the government passes.

The smart shops there didn't close because the cops say it's up to the council to enforce (the shroom ban), the council says it's up to the cops to enforce, and the Mayor doesn't want it enforced.

Sounds like an Irish school of thought

Delirium

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What?

probably alluding to abortion based on gender, like what happens in China.

oldrnwisr

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Those are not spurious claims, I remember reading reports from staff who said that it does happen. Sadly, I can't remember the link (to a pro choicer, I guess that translates into "it never happens" )

Hold on a second, lazygal was just asking stanley2 to back up what are indeed spurious claims.

Neither the NHS in the UK nor the CDC in the US track the gender of abortions.

In fact since 77.7% (2011) of all abortions in the UK were performed at 3-9 weeks, determining the gender even by the most rigorous tests (i.e. blood sample, CVS or amniocentesis) the results wouldn't be all that reliable.

Furthermore, using one of the few metrics available to even get an indication of whether this phenomenon is happening is birth ratio of girls. Since 1970 in the US this has actually increased albeit only slightly.

Yes, there have been scattered media reports but they are unconfirmed and unrepresentative. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Sources

NHS Statistics

CDC Statistics

Reduced Ratio of Male to Female Births in Several Industrial Countries

Prenatal sex discernment

MrPudding

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Having the death penalty is actively harmful to society (in today's world societies with an active death penalty* are universally more violent and brutal than those without it), having abortion is not (in fact I'll go so far to say having abortion as an active good in society). That is where the difference is.

Now if abortion was being used, say, in the way the Nazis intended to use it in Germany (i.e. as a means of state population control), I would be against it. But as a completely voluntary procedure, outlawing it is wrong.

*For example the death penalty is still legally on the UK books for three cases, 1) arson on a Royal Navy installment, 2) high treason against the monarch, 3) possession and public use of the "auld alliance" Scottish flag. I discount the UK because the penalty is never used, despite half of Scotland breaking 3 above.

You can discount the UK because there is no death penalty in the UK, neither for any of the reasons you have stated nor any other reason. Membership of the EU would not be possible if there was a legal possibility of sentencing someone to death.

MrP

marienbad

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But when you constantly refer to women being treating as (if my memory serves me) an irrelevance, or being brushed aside and the entire abortion issue being a debacle - are you referring to the fact that the government failed for 20 years to legislate for X or are you referring to the fact that we do not have abortion on demand?

It's relevant because the first scenario is regrettable but being rectified as we speak, and I am not really sure what else can be done on this issue now - we cant change the past.

If its the second scenario you have a problem with, that's your choice but the situation is unlikely to change to suit your opinions any time soon.

So, no point arguing really.

As for women being promoted in their field (or not) I think that is not really an issue here. We have the same opportunities as males in this day and age and if the pattern shows that less women are being appointed to such roles perhaps that is indicative of other issues more so than a government conspiracy to keep women out of these roles so that they can be controlled.

Try reading my posts.

Brian Shanahan

MrPudding wrote: »

You can discount the UK because there is no death penalty in the UK, neither for any of the reasons you have stated nor any other reason. Membership of the EU would not be possible if there was a legal possibility of sentencing someone to death.

MrP

Actually all three are still on the statute books, despite the fact that the UK has a law banning capital punishment on the books.

The UK has a long and proud history of ignoring laws it doesn't think are relevant any more up until the point that they become unignorable and have to be changed or repealed, and to be honest they are not the only legal jurisdiction to do so.

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Actually all three are still on the statute books, despite the fact that the UK has a law banning capital punishment on the books.

Nitpick: the older provisions no longer have the force of law, because they are overriden by the later provision which explicitly bans capital punishment in all circumstances.

It's wrong to say, therefore, that UK law provides for the death penalty; it doesn't. UK (and Irish) laws can be changed either by explicitly amending existing texts, or by adopting new texts which are inconsistent with existing texts. Both methods are equally effective.

aloyisious

Just on the "Auld Alliance" flag, is that the Cross of Andrew flag or the Royal "Lion" flag?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

koth wrote: »

probably alluding to abortion based on gender, like what happens in China.

Seems to be a valid statement, so far as it goes.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/uog.2674/full

Efrat, Z., Perri, T., Ramati, E., Tugendreich, D. and Meizner, I. (2006), Fetal gender assignment by first-trimester ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 27: 619–621. doi: 10.1002/uog.2674

<...> Fetal gender assessment by transabdominal ultrasound was performed in 656 singleton pregnancies at 12–14 weeks of gestation.
<...>
Results
Gender assignment was possible in 613 of the 656 (93%) fetuses. <...>
Conclusion
Prenatal gender assignment by ultrasound has a high accuracy rate at 12–14 weeks.<...>

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2001.00259.x/abstract

Junhong, C. (2001), Prenatal Sex Determination and Sex-Selective Abortion in Rural Central China. Population and Development Review, 27: 259–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2001.00259.x

This study analyzes the practice of prenatal sex selection in rural central China. It examines the prevalence and determinants of prenatal sex determination by ultrasound scanning and subsequent sex-selective abortion. The data are derived from a survey of 820 married women aged 20–44 and from in-depth interviews with rural women and men, village leaders, family planning managers, and health providers, conducted by the author in one county in central China in 2000. Prenatal sex determination was a widespread practice, especially for second and higher-order pregnancies. Sex-selective abortion was prevalent and order of pregnancy, sex of fetus, and sex of previous children were major determinants of the practice. A female fetus representing a high-order pregnancy in a family with one or more daughters was the most likely to be aborted. Awareness among rural families that in the population at large a future marriage squeeze was likely did not diminish the demand for sex-selective abortion.

oldrnwisr

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Seems to be a valid statement, so far as it goes.

Valid for China certainly, however stanley 2 made his initial claim about the UK where such a statement is not valid or correct.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Valid for China certainly, however stanley 2 made his initial claim about the UK where such a statement is not valid or correct.

Not correct in what respect? It's not legal in the UK, but then it's not legal in China either. There seems to be some evidence that it sometimes occurs in the UK, as against quite overwhelming evidence that it occurs in China; it's just inevitably never going to be cast-iron in the case of England, as it's like trying to hand out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. I actually don't particularly see the problem. It's quite ludicrous to contend a woman should have an untrammeled right to choose, so she can abort on a whim, but then invent some shred of an ethical issue if she decides she absolutely does not want a daughter.

seamus

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Not correct in what respect?

In that there is no evidence to suggest that gender-selection abortions occur in the UK on any kind of measureable scale.

oldrnwisr

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Not correct in what respect? It's not legal in the UK, but then it's not legal in China either. There seems to be some evidence that it sometimes occurs in the UK, as against quite overwhelming evidence that it occurs in China; it's just inevitably never going to be cast-iron in the case of England, as it's like trying to hand out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

OK, let's backtrack a little here.

This started with stanley 2's comment here:

stanley 2 wrote: »

ok lets say the wrong sex if you go to britain you can get an abortion if your child is the wrong sex

which not only suggested the practice of sex-selection abortions in the UK but also presented it as if somehow this constitutes an argument against abortion.

Now stanley 2 and later OldNotWise made this claim without offering any evidence to support it (something you have also not bothered to do). Instead both they and you are arguing from an appeal to hasty generalisation or more commonly "the person who" fallacy.

There have as I mentioned previously been isolated media reports of sex-selection abortions but these are isolated cases and representative of well, nothing. It's the same argument that christmas2012 tried to make about the danger of abortion based on one experience of a friend of theirs.

Not only that, but the entire line of argument is a red herring in the first place. Somebody doing something which is already illegal does not contribute anything to a debate whether something should be legalised. Nobody, AFAIK, has suggested in this thread that sex-selection should be a legal grounds for abortion.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I actually don't particularly see the problem. It's quite ludicrous to contend a woman should have an untrammeled right to choose, so she can abort on a whim, but then invent some shred of an ethical issue if she decides she absolutely does not want a daughter.

What are you talking about? More importantly why are you arguing against a position I don't hold? I haven't put forth my position on abortion in this thread, mostly because it hasn't been relevant to any of the posts I have responded to. Don't let that get in the way of your nice strawman though.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's quite ludicrous to contend a woman should have an untrammeled right to choose, so she can abort on a whim, but then invent some shred of an ethical issue if she decides she absolutely does not want a daughter.

GCU - a fair point, but do please tone down the rhetoric.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

What constitutes measureable? There seems to be evidence of the practice among some communities in the UK

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00173.x/abstract

Dubuc, S. and Coleman, D. (2007), An Increase in the Sex Ratio of Births to India-born Mothers in England and Wales: Evidence for Sex-Selective Abortion. Population and Development Review, 33: 383–400. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00173.x

<...>In the birth statistics since 1990, we find a four-point increase in the sex ratio at birth for mothers born in India, attributable particularly to an increase at higher birth orders, mirroring findings reported for India. This suggests that sex-selective abortion is occurring among mothers born in India and living in Britain.<...>

Plus, apparently the UK General Medical Council felt it necessary to issue guidance last year

http://www.gmc-uk.org/publications/12225.asp

Three cases of doctors allegedly offering abortions solely because the foetus was not the sex preferred by the parents have been reported in the media.

Abortions provided solely on grounds of the sex of the foetus are not legal in the UK. We have launched investigations into the fitness to practise of the doctors involved. We also want to remind all doctors that they must work within the law.

What frequency would be needed for this to be an issue?

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What are you talking about? More importantly why are you arguing against a position I don't hold? I haven't put forth my position on abortion in this thread, mostly because it hasn't been relevant to any of the posts I have responded to. Don't let that get in the way of your nice strawman though.

I'm not particularly casting asparagus, I'm just trying to bring out the facts of the matter. Possibly, they've no significance at all.

Brian Shanahan

aloyisious wrote: »

Just on the "Auld Alliance" flag, is that the Cross of Andrew flag or the Royal "Lion" flag?

The amber and red Lion flag, fimbrated with the fleurs de lis (hence the Auld Alliance tag).

Edit: as it is a direct reference to Scottish independance.

OldNotWIse

marienbad wrote: »

Try reading my posts.

I did.

Try a more substantive and less predictable and jaded comeback.

oldrnwisr

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What constitutes measureable? There seems to be evidence of the practice among some communities in the UK

Plus, apparently the UK General Medical Council felt it necessary to issue guidance last year

What frequency would be needed for this to be an issue?

I'm not particularly casting asparagus, I'm just trying to bring out the facts of the matter. Possibly, they've no significance at all.

To start in reverse order, thanks for the clarification. I agree that if choice is your sole arbiter of permissibility then ethical issues like this would not be issues. I just wanted to make it clear that that's not my position. Also, I too am a little confused why this is an issue at all, its just that stanley 2 doesn't seem too keen on elaborating on it.

Secondly, I'm not sure what frequency would make it an issue but nothing I have seen so far suggests that it is anything other than a few isolated incidents. It's kinda like those overprotective parent stories you see from time to time in the media. Just because some child takes his eye out with a wii remote doesn't mean that wii remotes are inherently unsafe and in need of prohibition. You can't make generalisations about a large population from such a small sample.

Finally, there's the study you presented. Thanks for that. At least its something to work on.

Here is the full text for anyone interested:

An Increase in the Sex Ratio of Births to India-born Mothers in England and Wales: Evidence for Sex-Selective Abortion

Having read through the paper, I have to say I'm not exactly bowled over. Above all the authors seem to be making a fallacious argument, specifically the fallacy of insufficient sample.

The first point to note is that we are talking about comparing births to Indian born mothers vs. non-Indian born mothers. As a percentage of the whole, Indian born mothers represent just 1.5% of all births in the period 1969-2005. This is already a very small subset of the overall dataset.

Next, the "increase" in sex ratio is only apparent when births from 1990-2005 are examined. So now, the authors have taken a subset of a subset.

The principal problem with the study is that the sex ratio is only seen to be significantly elevated if data from 1969-1989 is excluded. The sex ratio for Indian mothers for the entire dataset is 105.4, which is unremarkable compared to other nationalities such as Europe with 105.7 or even the UK with 105.6. In fact the overall average from 1969-2005 for all births is 105.5. Not much of a trend there.

So, the only thing that this 1990-2005 trend suggests, if it suggests anything at all is that there is a temporal causation for this change in sex ratio. So what happened to cause such a sudden shift from 1990-2005. The authors suggest that:

"Instead, our results suggest that it is largely due to the extensive use of sex-selective abortion in the wake of widespread availability of prenatal sex-determination techniques."

The problem is that this is entirely speculative. Only 8% of recorded abortions in the UK are performed after the point at which sex can reliably be determined. This proportion wouldn't explain such a rapid shift in sex ratio in the specified period.

It could be the result of increased immigration from India since the authors speculate that the tendency could be greater among first-generation immigrants. Since the number of immigrants from India rose from 18,000 to 129,000 per year between 1998 and 2007 this could account for the rise. The problem here, though is that this is still only correlative. The authors attempt to link the established patterns in India but note the unreliability of Indian statistics.

Finally, the authors fail to take account of natural mechanisms which may cause variations in sex ratio between certain national groups. While the evidence available suggests that characteristics such as age, social class, birth order etc. have no measurable effect on sex, studies have shown factors such as environmental exposure having an effect on sex. It is possible that this Indian-UK disparity may occur as a result of environmental rather than social factors.

Ultimately, I'm still skeptical of the existence of this phenomenon on anything more than an isolated level. I do, however, welcome the evidence. Thank you.