Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

robp

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The CC does not want to ease access to abortion-it wants to completely prevent access to abortion.

But you are correct to say it is a human rights issue - the right of a woman to exercise control over her own body.

All abortion is medically unnecessary is it? Reeelllllyyyy????

What about psychologically necessary?

Well for it be necessary for their mental health you would need peer-reviewed studies showing a positive impact on women's mental health outcomes that would prove its requirement. Got some?

Lingua Franca

Ahhh, you're the guy that said there were no such thing as scientific papers verifying a medical need for abortion and when you were presented with some said

robp wrote: »

their only referring to what occurs or could occur in Ireland.

... which makes no sense whatsoever.

28064212

robp wrote: »

Well for it be necessary for their mental health you would need peer-reviewed studies showing a positive impact on women's mental health outcomes. Got some?

Actually, they don't need to do that. Bannasidhe didn't make a general claim that abortion is psychologically necessary, only that there are individual cases where that is true. As such, they only need to produce one example of a case where abortion was psychologically necessary

You, on the other hand, have made the claim that no abortion ever performed is medically necessary, and that no abortion ever performed is psychologically necessary. So I'm afraid you're the one who needs to actually produce some evidence for your outlandish claims

oldrnwisr

robp wrote: »

Well for it be necessary for their mental health you would need peer-reviewed studies showing a positive impact on women's mental health outcomes. Got some?

As it happens, yes.


Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder

This study shows that the incidence rate of psychiatric contact in those seeking first-term abortions went from 14.6 per 1000 person-years before abortion to 15.2 after. The 95% C.I. of the two groups overlapped, showing that there is no evidence to suggest that there is any negative psychological impact arising from abortion.
Pregnancy on the other hand is associated with significant increased negative psychological impact with incidence rates rising from 3.9 before to 6.7 after.
Therefore, it can at least be asserted that in some cases, abortion may lead to more positive psychological outcomes than proceeding with the pregnancy.

Now, you were asked how abortion is medically unnecessary? Care to answer?

eviltwin

robp wrote: »

Well for it be necessary for their mental health you would need peer-reviewed studies showing a positive impact on women's mental health outcomes. Got some?

Surely its common sense that the best thing for the mental wellbeing of a woman who is faced with a crisis pregnancy is given time to think through her options and then decide what is best for her instead of the shambles that exists in this country.

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Ahhh, you're the guy that said there were no such thing as scientific papers verifying a medical need for abortion and when you were presented with some said ... which makes no sense whatsoever.

I remember you dismissing my comments first out of hand without any evidence. Later, you gave two examples. To my memory it was what already happens in Ireland.

This broad area of science is a booming field. Some people who have published will disagree with me. Yet their evidence is limited and has not provided any scientific consensus.

Bannasidhe

robp wrote: »

Well for it be necessary for their mental health you would need peer-reviewed studies showing a positive impact on women's mental health outcomes. Got some?

I don't need to got some. I have oldrnwisr and he's got lots.

robp

eviltwin wrote: »

Surely its common sense that the best thing for the mental wellbeing of a woman who is faced with a crisis pregnancy is given time to think through her options and then decide what is best for her instead of the shambles that exists in this country.

Of course time to think is ideal. Rushing into something is never wise. unfortunately time isn't on their side.

the thing is though the option of adoption is always there. No one is trying to force young single mothers to give up their lives for the sake of a family they didn't plan.

28064212

robp wrote: »

the thing is though the option of adoption is always there.

Unless of course it's medically necessary.

robp wrote: »

No one is trying to force young single mothers to give up their lives for the sake of a family they didn't plan.

"Just" 9 months, during which they will suffer quite a lot

eviltwin

robp wrote: »

Of course time to think is ideal. Rushing into something is never wise. unfortunately time isn't on their side.

the thing is though the option of adoption is always there. No one is trying to force young single mothers to give up their lives for the sake of a family they didn't plan.

The point is though for many women its not that its an unwanted baby, its the pregnancy itself that's unwanted. Women aren't stupid, they know adoption is there, when you go for pregnancy counselling its mentioned. If a woman chooses to abort its not because they don't know other choices are out there.

You asked about studies that show it can be a good thing for a woman's mental health? Why not just ask the women themselves? There have been many abortion threads over the past few months and many women have posted about how it was the right thing for them. That's all you need to know.

Bannasidhe

28064212 wrote: »

"Just" 9 months, during which they will suffer quite a lot

Not to mention the life long 'side effects' - physical and mental.

eviltwin

robp wrote: »

Of course time to think is ideal. Rushing into something is never wise. unfortunately time isn't on their side.

Look at how they spend the little time they do have. They are trying to find the money, trying to book flights they can afford, trying to find a clinic, somewhere to stay, trying to get time off work, trying to make up excuses why they have to go outside the country.

Your entire time is spent making plans and trying to cover your tracks. If it was an option here women could relax a bit and go to counselling, really work out their true feelings before they do it. I know that there are many women who believe if abortion was available here they would have made different choices.

robp

eviltwin wrote: »

The point is though for many women its not that its an unwanted baby, its the pregnancy itself that's unwanted. Women aren't stupid, they know adoption is there, when you go for pregnancy counselling its mentioned. If a woman chooses to abort its not because they don't know other choices are out there.

You asked about studies that show it can be a good thing for a woman's mental health? Why not just ask the women themselves? There have been many abortion threads over the past few months and many women have posted about how it was the right thing for them. That's all you need to know.

In fairness casual observation is the worst kind of observation. If I went to the magic crystal forum and got a personal testimony of the power of crystals would you trust their value? Intelligent adults make mistakes. More seriously I am going through the paper from Denmark right now and checking it out. Induced First-Trimester Abortion
and Risk of Mental Disorder

The Mad Hatter

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't need to got some. I have oldrnwisr and he's got lots.

"We have a hulk"

Sarky

Why have you ignored oldrnwisr's post, which provides the very evidence you were looking for?

28064212

robp wrote: »

In fairness casual observation is the worst kind of observation. If I went to the magic crystal forum and got a personal testimony of the power of crystals would you trust their value? Intelligent adults make mistakes. More seriously I am going through the paper from Denmark right now and checking it out. Induced First-Trimester Abortion
and Risk of Mental Disorder

I can save you some time:

Conclusions: The finding that the incidence rate of psychiatric contact was similar before and after a first-trimester abortion does not support the hypothesis that there is an increased risk of mental disorders after a first-trimester induced abortion

eviltwin

robp wrote: »

In fairness casual observation is the worst kind of observation. If I went to the magic crystal forum and got a personal testimony of the power of crystals would you thrust their value? More seriously I am going through the paper from Denmark right now and checking it out. Induced First-Trimester Abortion
and Risk of Mental Disorder

In fairness what you are reading is based on studies of women who have been through the process and their first hand testimony. And depending on who funds your research you will find studies that say abortion causes mental distress / abortion doesn't affect women.

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

I remember you dismissing my comments first out of hand without any evidence. Later, you gave two examples. To my memory it was what already happens in Ireland.

This broad area of science is a booming field. Some people who have published will disagree with me. Yet their evidence is limited and has not provided any scientific consensus.

You remember incorrectly. You posted a story about a bunch of pro life medical professionals having an "international" symposium which decided definitively that there was never a medical need for abortion and you agree with them (yet their evidence is limited and has not provided any scientific consensus...) and I dismissed their declaration out of hand because I recognise the symposium to have been a pro-life circle jerk. However, I did directly address you and your comments.

What's interesting is that you claimed to have read both abstracts that gave two examples and that "to (your) memory that was what already happens in Ireland".

One paper gave one example of a specific case. The other paper, well...

ovular infection, ectopic pregnancy, decompensation of a preexisting disease or diseases of pregnancy as pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, HELLP and Ballantyne syndromes, choriocarcinoma

autoimmune diseases of the mother generated by fetal antigens, some types of eclampsia with or without HELLP syndrome due to an immune or exaggerated inflammatory response of the mother, Ballantyne syndrome associated to eclampsia due to fetal-maternal genetic incompatibility, the classic fetus-maternal genetic incompatibility, embryo or fetus diseases caused by their genomic constitution, mainly hydatidiform mole and the triploid, or fetal cancer

That's quite a few more than two. Are you really sure that you actually read them?

And no. This is not what already happens in Ireland, or women wouldn't have to travel to Liverpool to have their triploid babies aborted or to have an abortion so that they can continue with their life extending cancer treatment and there wouldn't be any need for a group of affected women demanding TFMR in Ireland.

For someone that demands a LOT of proof you'd think you might bother to take a look at it when it is provided.

Bannasidhe

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

"We have a hulk"

robp

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As it happens, yes.


Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder

This study shows that the incidence rate of psychiatric contact in those seeking first-term abortions went from 14.6 per 1000 person-years before abortion to 15.2 after. The 95% C.I. of the two groups overlapped, showing that there is no evidence to suggest that there is any negative psychological impact arising from abortion.
Pregnancy on the other hand is associated with significant increased negative psychological impact with incidence rates rising from 3.9 before to 6.7 after.
Therefore, it can at least be asserted that in some cases, abortion may lead to more positive psychological outcomes than proceeding with the pregnancy.

Now, you were asked how abortion is medically unnecessary? Care to answer?

I have read the paper and actually I have seen quite a few like this one. Its a hot topic right now. This study is about 2 year old. A paper came out just a few months in China which found the opposite results. The Impact of Prior Abortion on Anxiety and Depression Symptoms During a Subsequent Pregnancy: Data From a Population-Based Cohort Study in China
Personally I am not 100% convinced about the results of the Chinese paper. Its possible abortion could lead to worse mental health outcomes in certain cases but that certainly is not what I am saying. I am going to keep a open mind. About 6 months I believed that but there are major biases in all of these studies which led me to question this.

Going back to the Danish paper no where in the study do they propose abortion as a viable mental health treatment. That is the most important issue. Maybe that is because its based on a difference 2.8 per a 1000 people. Its not very compelling to be honest to say that gives grounds for abortion to be essentially. Irish doctors are legally obliaged to provide every treatment to Irish women such as those with cancer. Being pregnant does not block cancer treatment, its only is a risk for the unborn but its a necessary risk if her life is in danger.

seamus

robp wrote: »

No, incorrect. The catholic church and most major strands of Christianity do not teach literal truth in Genesis. That is well known! Its practically trolling to say otherwise.

Except that's not really the case, is it?
While most major sects distance themselves from literal interpretations, the basis of their core beliefs are rooted in literal consequences of what are supposed to be fables.
Really what I'm talking about is Original Sin. If Genesis is not the literal truth, then there is no basis for the concept of Original Sin. If the story of Adam and Eve is figurative, then basically Original Sin boils down to, "We believe that man is 'fallen', but we have no idea why".
Since the concept of original sin was developed directly out of literal interpretations of Genesis, then it seems completely illogical to on hand dismiss Genesis as being figurative while on the other hand keeping Original Sin in its position as one of the fundamental concepts of the faith.

It's like saying, "Snakes are evil because of what happened in Genesis", then deciding that Genesis isn't literal, but snakes are still evil.

oldrnwisr

robp wrote: »

I have read the paper and actually I have seen quite a few like this one. Its a hot topic right now. This study is about 2 year old. A paper came out just a few months in China which found the opposite results. The Impact of Prior Abortion on Anxiety and Depression Symptoms During a Subsequent Pregnancy: Data From a Population-Based Cohort Study in China
Personally I am not 100% convinced about the results of the Chinese paper. Its possible abortion could lead to worse mental health outcomes in certain cases but that certainly is not what I am saying. I am going to keep a open mind. About 6 months I believed that but there are major biases in all of these studies which led me to question this.

Going back to the Danish paper no where in the study do they propose abortion as a viable mental health treatment. That is the most important issue. Maybe that is because its based on a difference 2.8 per a 1000 people. Its not very compelling to be honest to say that gives grounds for abortion to be essentially.

A couple of points.

Firstly, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in commenting on the relative ages of the studies. What does that have to do with anything? Newer ≠ Better.

Secondly, if you are going to reference a paper it is useful and courteous to present a link to the paper:

The Impact of Prior Abortion on Anxiety and Depression Symptoms During a Subsequent Pregnancy: Data From a Population-Based Cohort Study in China

Like that.

Now, as for the paper you cite, I have some issues with it.

First of all, the conclusion of the paper states:


"These results suggest women who have experienced a previous induced abortion have omnipresent anxiety
and depression symptoms during a subsequent pregnancy, especially during the first trimester. "

The section in bold is especially important, first trimester. Since the incidence of depression is higher in the first trimester (i.e. when the patient first finds out that they are pregnant) it suggests that there may be other factors responsible for the anxiety such as a resurgence of emotions and memories from the previous pregnancy, something not entirely attributable to abortion itself.

The second and larger problem with this paper is that it was conducted in China. We have seen previously that studies conducted in China, specifically regarding abortion outcomes are not substantiated by similar studies conducted in western countries.

For example, this study from China found that there was a 1.5% increased risk of miscarriage:

Induced abortion and risk of subsequent miscarriage

while a similar study from America found no link whatsoever:

Induced Abortion and Subsequent Outcome of Pregnancy in a Series of American Women

Also, with the implementation of the one-child policy in 1979 and the pervasive politicisation of reproductive rights in China in general, it is not safe to make generalisations about something like abortion based on studies conducted under such rarefied conditions.

There may not be a significant body of evidence in this area for the moment but this means that claims such as those being made by pro-life groups here and internationally are without foundation.

Oh, and finally, I did not suggest that the Danish paper speaks of abortion as a viable mental health treatment. You asked whether or not abortion was associated with positive mental health outcomes. The reduction or elimination of a negative outcome is a positive outcome.

As I have said before, there is a real debate to be had here about abortion and the balance of rights between mother and baby but clouding the issue with irrelevant, emotive and demonstrably false claims doesn't help.

robp

seamus wrote: »

Except that's not really the case, is it?
While most major sects distance themselves from literal interpretations, the basis of their core beliefs are rooted in literal consequences of what are supposed to be fables.
Really what I'm talking about is Original Sin. If Genesis is not the literal truth, then there is no basis for the concept of Original Sin. If the story of Adam and Eve is figurative, then basically Original Sin boils down to, "We believe that man is 'fallen', but we have no idea why".
Since the concept of original sin was developed directly out of literal interpretations of Genesis, then it seems completely illogical to on hand dismiss Genesis as being figurative while on the other hand keeping Original Sin in its position as one of the fundamental concepts of the faith.

It's like saying, "Snakes are evil because of what happened in Genesis", then deciding that Genesis isn't literal, but snakes are still evil.

You probably should raise that question with a catholic theologian. I am not a theologian! There are cases as early as the 4th cen of major church figures warning not to read literal truth from the bible. Its a very interesting and misunderstood topic but it is a bit off-topic unfortunately.

robp

oldrnwisr wrote: »

A couple of points.


As I have said before, there is a real debate to be had here about abortion and the balance of rights between mother and baby but clouding the issue with irrelevant, emotive and demonstrably false claims doesn't help.

If my posts came across as emotive that certainly was a mistake but one I don't do often. I appreciate the input of evidence in your post which is usually absent in these debates. Clearly its a point of view but in no way does does it translate into abortion being medically essential. That was never a false claim. My first post was incorrectly absolute but its certainly a relevant comment for the thread! I am baffled by how it could be otherwise.

So far no response so far has indicated the medical necessity. Lingua Franca earlier listed a raft of medical conditions but no examples of where these conditions were not properly treated in Ireland. I would geniuly be interested to find some examples. Elsewhere the case of Michelle Harte is brought up as a example but an expert group including doctors in Cork's CUH decided it wasn't so its a weak claim!

28064212

robp wrote: »

If my posts came across as emotive that certainly was a mistake. I appreciate your input of evidence in your post which is usually absent in these debates. Clearly its a valid point of view but in no way does does it translate into abortion being medically essential. That was never a false claim. I agree my first post was incorrectly absolute but its certainly relevant!

So far no response so far has indicated the medical necessity. Lingua Franca earlier listed a raft of medical conditions but no examples of where these conditions were not properly treated in Ireland. I would geniuly be interested to find some examples. Elsewhere the case of Michelle Harte is brought up as a example but an expert group including doctors in Cork's CUH decided it wasn't so its a weak claim!

You're asking why there aren't anecdotal cases of private medical cases, when the vast majority of problem cases are shipped overseas? Medical conditions exist for which abortion is the only option, or both mother and child will die. Lingua Franca listed many of them. Are you seriously claiming that every single one of those can always be resolved without aborting the foetus?

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

Elsewhere the case of Michelle Harte is brought up as a example but an expert group including doctors in Cork's CUH decided it wasn't so its a weak claim!

http://www.tv3.ie/videos.php?video=31031&locID=1.65.370&page=20

She said that she was told at by her doctors at CUH that she needed one and that she just needed an ethics committee to pass it. They didn't. "They said it wasn't having an immediate threat, as in on that day, and therefore they couldn't carry out the abortion".

Hardly a "weak claim!".

The HSE said the Ethics Forum meets within 48 hours for emergency meetings and carefully considers any case brought before it in the light of the Irish Constitution and amendments to it.

However, it would not reveal the names of the people serving on the Forum, but said it was made up of "medical and non-medical people from a wide spectrum including people with legal, theology and philosophy backgrounds and a member of the public, all of whom volunteer their time"

"The Forum was set up in acknowledgement of ethical difficulties that arise from time to time for patients, their families and hospital staff," a HSE South spokesperson said.

The European Court of Human Rights last week ruled that Ireland had breached the human rights of another woman with cancer who had to leave Ireland to get an abortion.

So we have Michelle Harte and C vs Ireland as examples of women who were not offered adequate treatment or support during cancer treatment.

Then there is embryo or fetus diseases caused by their genomic constitution, triploid.

My friend had to have her triploid baby aborted in England but that's anecdotal which is no evidence at all.

If you want to hear more examples, lift the stigma and more women will come out and tell their stories. As mentioned above, these are private cases shipped abroad. There is an article somewhere about the Liverpool Women's hospital and how they have a room they have nicknamed the shamrock room, because it's where Irish women go for specifically medical terminations.

And to be honest, I don't know why I'm bothering. You will just go on demanding more evidence that you clearly don't read and then dismiss it and ask for more.

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

http://www.tv3.ie/videos.php?video=31031&locID=1.65.370&page=20

She said that she was told at by her doctors at CUH that she needed one and that she just needed an ethics committee to pass it. They didn't. "They said it wasn't having an immediate threat, as in on that day, and therefore they couldn't carry out the abortion".

Hardly a "weak claim!".



So we have Michelle Harte and C vs Ireland as examples of women who were not offered adequate treatment or support during cancer treatment.

Then there is embryo or fetus diseases caused by their genomic constitution, triploid.

My friend had to have her triploid baby aborted in England but that's anecdotal which is no evidence at all.

If you want to hear more examples, lift the stigma and more women will come out and tell their stories. As mentioned above, these are private cases shipped abroad. There is an article somewhere about the Liverpool Women's hospital and how they have a room they have nicknamed the shamrock room, because it's where Irish women go for specifically medical terminations.

And to be honest, I don't know why I'm bothering. You will just go on demanding more evidence that you clearly don't read and then dismiss it and ask for more.

The C case? Are you kidding me? That woman who suffered from cancer decided to go for a abortion on the basis of an internet website. Her doctor never her told to have an abortion. Its was a failing that there was nowhere she could go to hear her rights. That was wrong. She didn't need an abortion though. Cases A and B failed which is telling. It's absolutely untrue to claim that pregnant women with cancer can't be treated in Ireland. Medical treatments for cancer which causes unintentional harm to the unborn baby is not an abortion, and this treatment is therefore fully accessible to all Irish women. Remember also the Court found that there is “no human right to abortion” stemming from the European Convention on Human Rights. Don't get me wrong the C case is important, but because they argue for a legal inconstancy in Irish law.

I had a look at your link on embryo or fetus diseases caused by their genomic constitution, triploid by KATHY SHERIDAN and CARL O’BRIEN. Clearly you didn't read it because it says

Where there is no risk to the life of a mother – as in the case of the four women

Michelle Harte was never denied the treatment for her cancer that she needed. Irish doctors would be breaking Irish law if they denied it to her. She wanted an abortion because the child probably would have died anyway. That does not quality as a risk to her life.

You accuse me of not reading the evidence provided but obviously you do not read or understand the cases you cite.

28064212

robp wrote: »

Michelle Harte was never denied the treatment for her cancer that she needed. Irish doctors would be breaking Irish law if they denied it to her.

That is incorrect. Any Irish doctor that provides an abortion is breaking the law. The issue is that the law is unconstitutional. This is how the law reads (Offences Against the Person Act 1861)

Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable

It is impossible to reconcile this with the constitutional article which the Supreme Court have interpreted as a right to an abortion where the mother's life is at risk. There is no law that provides that right

Also:

28064212 wrote: »

You're asking why there aren't anecdotal cases of private medical cases, when the vast majority of problem cases are shipped overseas? Medical conditions exist for which abortion is the only option, or both mother and child will die. Lingua Franca listed many of them. Are you seriously claiming that every single one of those can always be resolved without aborting the foetus?

Lingua Franca

:pac:

robp wrote: »

Lingua Franca earlier listed a raft of medical conditions but no examples of where these conditions were not properly treated in Ireland. I would geniuly be interested to find some examples.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Provides examples of where these cases were not treated in Ireland

robp wrote: »

No fair! The goalposts are over here now! NEED MOAR EVIDENCE

:rolleyes:

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by robp View Post
No fair! The goalposts are over here now! NEED MOAR EVIDENCE

:rolleyes:

The raft of medical conditions listed by lingua franca do not require abortion for treatment. You have misquoted me for the purpose of mocking me. Instead of backing up your false claims your resorting to satirising me. It looks like its almost time to rest my case.

It is impossible to reconcile this with the constitutional article which the Supreme Court have interpreted as a right to an abortion where the mother's life is at risk. There is no law that provides that right

28064212,
yes, a legal inconsistency. That is what I tried to stress previously. Yet, in current medical science it is purely an elective procedure.