Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

doctoremma

Apart from where there might be a clinical diagnosis that is gender-specific, are there any solid arguments for revealing the gender of an unborn child?

seamus

doctoremma wrote: »

Apart from where there might be a clinical diagnosis that is gender-specific, are there any solid arguments for revealing the gender of an unborn child?

Economic necessity? Very useful to know what type of child is coming so you can plan in advance. For a second or third child the argument could be made that by knowing the sex in advance the parents will know whether they need to purchase new gender-specific clothing, etc, or whether they can stick with the hand-me-downs.

doctoremma

seamus wrote: »

Economic necessity? Very useful to know what type of child is coming so you can plan in advance.

Plan what? Do people still decorate nurseries in blue or pink, dependent on gender?

lazygal

seamus wrote: »

Economic necessity? Very useful to know what type of child is coming so you can plan in advance.

What's necessary about that? You just get what every baby needs. We weren't at any disadvantage not knowing the gender. We're not finding out this time either, I don't see how we'd not be able to plan for number two. Just don't get gender specific stuff, no it really that big a deal to plan.

Dades

I don't see why you'd need an argument at all. It's nobody else's secret to keep.

We found out the genders of our kids before they were born. It's not a big deal and doesn't have to be.

lazygal

D P

seamus

doctoremma wrote: »

Plan what? Do people still decorate nurseries in blue or pink, dependent on gender?

I'm sure they do.

lazygal wrote: »

What's necessary about that? You just get what every baby needs. We weren't at any disadvantage not knowing the gender. We're not finding out this time either, I don't see how we'd not be able to plan for number two. Just don't get gender specific stuff, no it really that big a deal to plan.

That's your choice though. Some people would prefer gender-specific items and would consider knowing the sex to be easier to plan.

aloyisious

Dr Reilly say's he'll have the bill before the house before Easter and hope's to have it on the law books before the Dail Summer recess. He said he doesn't foresee any problems with the bill from within the Govt and that there were several dozen heads in the bill.

aloyisious

Drive-time are running an interview/PR item by William Binchy, the Pro-life PR person from outside Leinster House where they are/were holding a protest this afternoon.

JimiTime

Just wondering, those who a for legalising abortion, would you have an issue with abortions on the grounds of gender? Or as a contraceptive of sorts?

If the answer is yes, would you mind elaborating on why?

eviltwin

JimiTime wrote: »

Just wondering, those who a for legalising abortion, would you have an issue with abortions on the grounds of gender? Or as a contraceptive of sorts?

If the answer is yes, would you mind elaborating on why?

Personally I am a bit on the fence. I don't like to think of anyone having an abortion as a form of contraception - why would you put yourself through that when you can just as easily take a pill and save yourself the bother not to mention the money

I think when women are having multiple abortions there are other factors at play, perhaps they work in the sex industry or are being coerced, maybe it their own choice but I think they would need help to look at the reasons behind that. I don't think a woman who is mentally competent would choose abortion as contraception.

However I don't think I have the right to tell any woman her abortion is "bad" and therefore shouldn't be allowed so on those grounds I would not stand in the way of any woman regardless of her decision.

lazygal

I don't care why a woman no longer wants to be pregnant. I'm against forced pregnancy. I don't think any woman should feel she has to make up the 'right' reason for wanting an abortion. No one but the woman needs to know the reason she's ending the pregnancy.

JimiTime

Is there anyone pro legalised abortion that WOULD have an issue?

Knasher

JimiTime wrote: »

Just wondering, those who a for legalising abortion, would you have an issue with abortions on the grounds of gender? Or as a contraceptive of sorts?

If the answer is yes, would you mind elaborating on why?

Abortion as contraceptive is a non issue. If people really were using abortion as contraception, my concern would be to find out what the hell is going on with the supply, education or effectiveness of actual contraceptives that people would opt for an invasive medical procedure instead.

For gender based abortions, on the individual level I don't think the state has any business one way or another. It isn't a decision I agree with, but then it isn't my decision to make. On the macro level, if it is happening to a degree where it is leading to a serious imbalance between the sexes, then that is a very serious issue for society. But it's a problem facilitated but not caused by abortion. China is obviously the best known example, but the cause is very obviously the one child rule and the lack of a social safety net.

JimiTime

Knasher wrote: »

Abortion as contraceptive is a non issue. If people really were using abortion as contraception, my concern would be to find out what the hell is going on with the supply, education or effectiveness of actual contraceptives that people would opt for an invasive medical procedure instead.

For gender based abortions, on the individual level I don't think the state has any business one way or another. It isn't a decision I agree with, but then it isn't my decision to make. On the macro level, if it is happening to a degree where it is leading to a serious imbalance between the sexes, then that is a very serious issue for society. But it's a problem facilitated but not caused by abortion. China is obviously the best known example, but the cause is very obviously the one child rule and the lack of a social safety net.

Ethically though, on both accounts, you have no issue?

eviltwin

JimiTime wrote: »

Ethically though, on both accounts, you have no issue?

Does it matter?

Say abortion on demand is made legal but there is an exception made for abortions on the grounds of gender. How can they police that? Assuming we might go with the same cut off as the UK then many women will know the gender of their baby within that time frame. All she has to do is give a different reason.

So its all moot really.

I think its sad some cultures have such a low opinion of females that they would abort a girl just because she is a girl but preventing access to abortion isn't the way forward....you have to change those attitudes.

Its hard for us to understand in a culture that loves both boys and girls equally so it seems horrific but we don't understand the dynamics of what goes on in those homes that lead those women to make that choice. I would guess that if a daughter is such a bad thing chances are the wife doesn't have much of a voice either and is open to pressure from her husband and family.

Knasher

JimiTime wrote: »

Ethically though, on both accounts, you have no issue?

Not on the first issue anyway.

For the second one, as I've said it isn't something I'd agree with. But personal distaste isn't an ethical argument, and there are large ethical issues with using personal distaste to overrule the will of another person.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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.

To an extent, we're actually saying similar things - although I think there are some shades of difference in where we take it. I'd expect, given the nature of the issue, that the only evidence we'd ever be capable of seeing with respect to the UK experience would be some blip in the figures that might make us wonder if sex selection was a factor. But, like you say, we'd have to recognise that the blip could be explicable in lots of other ways. And, similar to yourself, I'd guess that the situation is nothing at all like China, where the introduction of cheap ultrasound seems to have made it almost a part of rural culture at this stage.

I'd just feel that, if someone asserts that sex selection abortion very likely happens sometimes in the UK, they're very probably right. In fact, I'm sure that abortions must occur in the UK for far more flimsey reasons than someone being absolutely determined to have a son.

Dades wrote: »

I don't see why you'd need an argument at all. It's nobody else's secret to keep.

We found out the genders of our kids before they were born. It's not a big deal and doesn't have to be.

If I recollect correctly, they usually ask you if you want to know. Some prospective parents want to discover they've a son or a daughter as part of the birth. But I agree, the information doesn't belong to the professionals. There's no reason to deny it to prospective parents, if they want to know.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

eviltwin wrote: »

I would guess that if a daughter is such a bad thing chances are the wife doesn't have much of a voice either and is open to pressure from her husband and family.

You could be right. I'd probably accept any evidence that supported your guess, but that just reflects that I've a predisposition to agree with such views.

However, if we accept your guess on trust for a moment, does this mean that we'd recognise sex selection abortions as evidence of women being forced to abort against their will? If so, that surely conflicts with the idea that the purpose of legalising abortion is to empower women with respect to their own bodies. If we accept what you guess, then we presumable accept that sometimes legal abortion actually gives others power over women's bodies; in this case, it empowers husbands to deny their wives the capacity to give birth to a daughter.

Just a thought.

eviltwin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You could be right. I'd probably accept any evidence that supported your guess, but that just reflects that I've a predisposition to agree with such views.

However, if we accept your guess on trust for a moment, does this mean that we'd recognise sex selection abortions as evidence of women being forced to abort against their will? If so, that surely conflicts with the idea that the purpose of legalising abortion is to empower women with respect to their own bodies. If we accept what you guess, then we presumable accept that sometimes legal abortion actually gives others power over women's bodies; in this case, it empowers husbands to deny their wives the capacity to give birth to a daughter.

Just a thought.

There are always going to be a proportion of women who have abortions due to pressure or manipulation by others, their parents, partners etc. You are right in what you are saying but we can't legislate against the majority who do have abortions because its what they want just to protect the minority who are vulnerable.

The bigger issue for those women I would say is the environment they are living in, the people they are living with. Going ahead with the pregnancy isn't going to change that.

JimiTime

eviltwin wrote: »

Does it matter?

Say abortion on demand is made legal but there is an exception made for abortions on the grounds of gender. How can they police that? Assuming we might go with the same cut off as the UK then many women will know the gender of their baby within that time frame. All she has to do is give a different reason.

So its all moot really.

I think its sad some cultures have such a low opinion of females that they would abort a girl just because she is a girl but preventing access to abortion isn't the way forward....you have to change those attitudes.

Its hard for us to understand in a culture that loves both boys and girls equally so it seems horrific but we don't understand the dynamics of what goes on in those homes that lead those women to make that choice. I would guess that if a daughter is such a bad thing chances are the wife doesn't have much of a voice either and is open to pressure from her husband and family.

It matters to my question so its not moot to me I'm just looking for insight into the mentality.

JimiTime

Knasher wrote: »

Not on the first issue anyway.

For the second one, as I've said it isn't something I'd agree with. But personal distaste isn't an ethical argument, and there are large ethical issues with using personal distaste to overrule the will of another person.

And in terms of your personal distaste, does that emanate from the fact that people would be not wanting a particular gender, rather than anything to do specifically with the abortion on gender grounds?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

eviltwin wrote: »

<...> we can't legislate against the majority who do have abortions because its what they want just to protect the minority who are vulnerable.

I don't disagree, and the same principle applies in other situation. I just think that, while it is a speculative point, it does illustrate that there's no irrefutably and absolute correct position on this. All levels of regulation involve some kind of a balance between avoiding harm and creating harm, and it's really a matter of judgment as to where that balance can be struck. Also, there's always going to be a gap between what regulation intends and what people actually do.

I'd expect it's harder for people with a pro-life outlook to come to this view - and I'm not in any sense criticising them for that, it's just that it is harder to be willing to compromise if you genuinely take the position that, from conception, there's a life present that deserves full rights.

Galvasean

Heard a piece on Phantom FM earlier stating that the Pro Life Campaign have published a survey which shows that 66% of Irish people are in favour of a ban on abortion and support current medical practices. Having looked it up (as I found that % to be remarkably high and quite unlike an statistics I've seen before in relation to the topic), I found this on the Irish Examiner
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/66-back-status-quo-on-abortion-says-survey-for-pro-life-campaign-585627.html

"The poll, for the Pro Life Campaign, revealed 66% are in favour of constitutional protection for the unborn child that bans abortion but allows medical intervention to save the life of a woman."

- Sounds to me like the tactic we've seen on here, ie: calling certain abortions 'terminations'.

"Some 970 adults were questioned last month for the survey, carried out by Millward Brown."

- This feels like a fairly small sample rate to represent the opinion of a nation.

I don't suppose anyone knows where to find the full study or find the demographs of who the asked?

edit: I looked up Millward Brown and they appear to be a marketing company...

Nodin

Yes, I've just seen this on the Times, between blowing my nose and blaming the gays for my miserable state.....

The first question was: “In current medical practice in Ireland, the doctor treats the expectant mother and her baby as two patients and does his/ her best to safeguard both in a crisis situation. Do you consider that this practice should be protected and safeguarded by law or not?”
Some 66 per cent of respondents answered Yes, 15 per cent said No and 19 per cent had no opinion. Some 81 per cent of the respondents expressing an opinion answered Yes.

The second question was: “Are you in favour of, or opposed to, constitutional protection for the unborn that prohibits abortion, but allows the continuation of the existing practice of intervention to save a mother’s life in accordance with Irish medical ethics?” Some 63 per cent of respondents answered Yes, 19 per cent said No and 18 per cent had no opinion. Some 77 per cent of those expressing an opinion said Yes.
Asked what the significance of such findings was, Pro-Life Campaign spokeswoman Seana Stafford said: “I think the poll challenges the notion that there is a broad middle ground support for abortion.” The poll was carried out in the second half of January with a nationally representative sample of 970 adults.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0222/1224330367337.html

aloyisious

RTE has reported that the German Bishops conference has decided that to allow women (rape victims) use the morning-after pill in some circumstances is compatible with RC Church teaching, and has also approved psychological and other supports for the women. This follows on from two German RC-ethos Hospitals refusal to provide a rape victim with the morning-after pill, because the hospitals believed it was incompatible with church teachings.

aloyisious

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, I've just seen this on the Times, between blowing my nose and blaming the gays for my miserable state.....


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0222/1224330367337.html

Is that separate from the report in the Times that one of the reasons that Pope Benedict is retiring is because of pressure from a Gay group within the Vatican

Delirium

Galvasean wrote: »

Heard a piece on Phantom FM earlier stating that the Pro Life Campaign have published a survey which shows that 66% of Irish people are in favour of a ban on abortion and support current medical practices. Having looked it up (as I found that % to be remarkably high and quite unlike an statistics I've seen before in relation to the topic), I found this on the Irish Examiner
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/66-back-status-quo-on-abortion-says-survey-for-pro-life-campaign-585627.html

"The poll, for the Pro Life Campaign, revealed 66% are in favour of constitutional protection for the unborn child that bans abortion but allows medical intervention to save the life of a woman."

- Sounds to me like the tactic we've seen on here, ie: calling certain abortions 'terminations'.

"Some 970 adults were questioned last month for the survey, carried out by Millward Brown."

- This feels like a fairly small sample rate to represent the opinion of a nation.

I don't suppose anyone knows where to find the full study or find the demographs of who the asked?

edit: I looked up Millward Brown and they appear to be a marketing company...

A good analysis of the poll, and it's obvious flaws which cause problems for getting a good understanding of the data it collected.

seamus

JimiTime wrote: »

It matters to my question so its not moot to me I'm just looking for insight into the mentality.

Well there's a reason why it's called pro-choice and not pro-abortion.

It's because you'll find that people in that camp are fighting for the right to choose, not necessarily for the right to abortion.

It's a subtle distinction, but an ethical one. You can wholeheartedly fight and support for the individual's right to choose, even though you may not support what they do with that right (exactly like the right to free speech).

It's a bit of an odd divide in the debate because someone can be both pro-choice and pro-life - that is they consider the unborn to be "life", but give greater weight to the mother right of choice, even if they hate what she may do with it.
But you cannot be pro-life and pro-choice - opposing abortion in effect opposes the individual's right to choose.

Brian Shanahan

Galvasean wrote: »

"Some 970 adults were questioned last month for the survey, carried out by Millward Brown."

- This feels like a fairly small sample rate to represent the opinion of a nation.

That's not actually too bad. Most political opinion polls are carried out on sample sizes of slightly over 1,000 people (and not just in Ireland either). Given what we know of statistical probabilities and the number-crunching power of modern computers, an unbiased sample size of roughly 1,000 people should be within 1-2% of the actual current opinion 95% of the time.

The problems I'd have with a sample of 970 people would be to do with the possibility of bias and how the findings were reported. For bias, using the above sample as an example, there might have been a predisposition to pick members of anti-abortion group as respondants, or even (outside of the control of the surveyors) for anti-abortion supporters to be more likely to take the time out to answer the survey and thus skew the results (even with best practice this happens).
For reportage, I'd look at what findings and information about the survey process is being released, what kind of bias are the reporters bringing to the table (reporters told to report one angle will only talk about items relevant to that angle), and how the figures are reported (there may be a wider than normal 95% confidence width from the survey, meaning that the actual population support could be much lower/higher than reported).

All these issues are equally problematic no matter who is doing the survey and on what issue, so don't think I'm singling out any group here.