Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Obliq

Galvasean wrote: »

If they are peddling mistruths (ie: lies) in public print surely complaints of such would be upheld similar to the recent Kevin Myers opinion piece on homosexuality? I mean if something under the topic of 'opinion' can be taken to task for being factually inaccurate, surely an advert would be just as, if not more susceptible? Certainly, a strong case could be made to the Advertisement Authority.

This is true - saying that "if any medical condition arises during pregnancy, doctors in Ireland will always fully treat the mother, even if it causes the unintentional death of her baby. That's because the intent of this treatment is to save the mother, not kill the baby.
And that's NOT an abortion." is a lie because by definition

"abortion /abor·tion/ (ah-bor´shun)
1. expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception before the fetus is viable.
2. premature stoppage of a natural or a pathological process.". Nothing about intent in that.

Therefore "And an abortion is NOT ever needed to save a mothers life." is also a lie.

Also, there is no proof that "Ireland without abortion, is one of the safest places in the world to have a baby". One does not follow the other.

Obliq

Advertising authority not in a position to deal with it as I recall from the "abortion tears her life apart" campaign by the same crowd. "However, director Frank Goodman said they could not act on them as the campaign has no financial element and so is outside the ASAI’s remit. He told TheJournal.ie:
The ASAI deals with commercial companies, generally companies producing products and services. If this was a fundraising drive, we’d look at it. But it’s expressing a point of view on a matter of public interest.
He said the ASAI was not a statutory body but a self-regulatory organisation for the commercial advertising industry, and had no role in political or religious advertising." http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-billboards-youth-defence-asai-494025-Jun2012/
From what I remember there is no regulation on this kind of advertising. Maybe someone knows better? I'm only aware of this due to trying to complain to bus eireann and the ASAI about the billboard campaign.

MrPudding

Obliq wrote: »

This is true - saying that "if any medical condition arises during pregnancy, doctors in Ireland will always fully treat the mother, even if it causes the unintentional death of her baby. That's because the intent of this treatment is to save the mother, not kill the baby.
And that's NOT an abortion." is a lie because by definition

"abortion /abor·tion/ (ah-bor´shun)
1. expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception before the fetus is viable.
2. premature stoppage of a natural or a pathological process.". Nothing about intent in that.

Therefore "And an abortion is NOT ever needed to save a mothers life." is also a lie.

Also, there is no proof that "Ireland without abortion, is one of the safest places in the world to have a baby". One does not follow the other.

This is a legal work around, a similar kind of justification was used in the conjoined twins case. In these kinds of circumstances you either argue double effect or necessity. YD seem to be taking double effect and using it to argue there are no abortions.

I think they are being a little bit too literal with it, and I expect that is quite intentional. They are taking, in effect, a legal defence using it to argue that something is not what it actually is. I think I am going to go with Shakespeare here, which is probably unusual in an abortion discussion:

"a rose by any other name..."

MrP

Obliq

MrPudding wrote: »

This is a legal work around, a similar kind of justification was used in the conjoined twins case. In these kinds of circumstances you either argue double effect or necessity. YD seem to be taking double effect and using it to argue there are no abortions.

I think they are being a little bit too literal with it, and I expect that is quite intentional. They are taking, in effect, a legal defence using it to argue that something is not what it actually is. I think I am going to go with Shakespeare here, which is probably unusual in an abortion discussion:

"a rose by any other name..."

MrP

I'm thinking you're dead right about it being intentional. Sure, they only have to ask the nearest Jesuit for a lesson in how to lie without ever telling an untruth. The words "cunning linguists" spring to mind, which I'm afraid to say also brings to mind the word c*nts. :eek: Sorry, have to let it out somewhere!

Lingua Franca

Obliq wrote: »

Here's the link to the 'study'.
http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/latest-news/major-medical-symposium-in-dublin-concludes-that-abortion-is-not-medically-necessary-to-save-the-life-of-a-mother/

Can't find where I had read the list of speakers at the symposium and their qualifications/pro-life agenda. Will come across it eventually!

Ok, found the list: http://www.symposiummaternalhealth.com/speakers-2/

And did a wee bit of googling.

Byron C Calhoun
Professor Frédéric Amant of the Catholic University of Leuven.
Priscilla K Coleman
Elard Koch, you'll need to use google translate.
Dr Jean Kagia
Monique V Chireau
Dr John Monaghan

chaired by Eamonn O'Dwyer

and organised by Eoghan De Faoite of Youth Defence.


Well, it was international, that bit turned out to be true. :P

Obliq

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Ok, found the list: http://www.symposiummaternalhealth.com/speakers-2/

And did a wee bit of googling.

Byron C Calhoun
Professor Frédéric Amant of the Catholic University of Leuven.
Priscilla K Coleman
Elard Koch, you'll need to use google translate.
Dr Jean Kagia
Monique V Chireau
Dr John Monaghan

chaired by Eamonn O'Dwyer

and organised by Eoghan De Faoite of Youth Defence.


Well, it was international, that bit turned out to be true. :P

Thanks for that! Not at all a pro-life agenda then?;)
Some of the research material was presumably belonging to Dr.Priscilla Coleman then? - "Her research has mostly met with poor reception from her professional colleagues. Researchers were unable to reproduce Coleman's results on abortion and mental health despite using the same dataset,[4] and have described her findings as "logically inconsistent" and potentially "substantially inflated" by faulty methodology.[5] The American Psychological Association (APA) and other major medical bodies have concluded that the evidence does not support a link between abortion and mental health problems"

And hard to know WHAT Elard Koch found, or HOW it was found, but that's probably down to google translate - " The study concluded that increasing the level of education has a positive impact on the decline in maternal deaths, modulating other key factors such as access and utilization of health services, changes in reproductive behavior and improved health system. "Then the reduction of maternal mortality ratio is not related to the legal status of abortion"
Interesting.

Obliq

Seems Elard Koch actually managed to prove that the legal status of abortion has no connection with maternal mortality rates. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036613

"Conclusion
Increasing education level appears to favourably impact the downward trend in the MMR, modulating other key factors such as access and utilization of maternal health facilities, changes in women's reproductive behaviour and improvements of the sanitary system. Consequently, different MDGs can act synergistically to improve maternal health. The reduction in the MMR is not related to the legal status of abortion."

Edit: Oh, he's saying in a country that made abortion illegal, the maternal mortality rate hasn't gone up. Hmm. Wonder where chilean women are going for abortions now then?

Obliq

AND....Here's what ACTUALLY happens in Chile. http://www.ssds.net/ssds-products/peer-reviewed-pubs/Shepard-et-al--Abortion-Policies-in-Chile.pdf
Reminds me of a country....somewhere......ehhh, OH YEAH. Here:mad:

Jan Hus

Abortion is wrong. Killing an innocent child for another person's comfort is barbaric - like something out of the Roman Amphitheatre. It's like saying I want a lion skin rug and am going to kill one to get it.

Obliq

Jan Hus wrote: »

Abortion is wrong. Killing an innocent child for another person's comfort is barbaric - like something out of the Roman Amphitheatre. It's like saying I want a lion skin rug and am going to kill one to get it.

Oh, here we go. Abortion is wrong for who? The 12 Irish women every day who go for abortions to UK don't agree. Neither do I.
We humans are barbaric, haven't you noticed? We raise animals in tiny boxes and kill them for food in many different and upsetting ways. We buy clothes made by small starving children. We humans even shoot 14yr old girls who write about wanting an education. Get a bleedin grip. I'm sick to death of folks who think they're RIGHT all the time. SAYS WHO?

Jan Hus

Obliq wrote: »

Oh, here we go. Abortion is wrong for who? The 12 Irish women every day who go for abortions to UK don't agree. Neither do I.
We humans are barbaric, haven't you noticed? We raise animals in tiny boxes and kill them for food in many different and upsetting ways. We buy clothes made by small starving children. We humans even shoot 14yr old girls who write about wanting an education. Get a bleedin grip. I'm sick to death of folks who think they're RIGHT all the time. SAYS WHO?

So you are saying that because of human nature, the Holocaust was justified?

Jan Hus

Obliq wrote: »

Oh, here we go. Abortion is wrong for who? The 12 Irish women every day who go for abortions to UK don't agree. Neither do I.
We humans are barbaric, haven't you noticed? We raise animals in tiny boxes and kill them for food in many different and upsetting ways. We buy clothes made by small starving children. We humans even shoot 14yr old girls who write about wanting an education. Get a bleedin grip. I'm sick to death of folks who think they're RIGHT all the time. SAYS WHO?

Says the UN when it guarantees the right to life.

Morgase

Jan Hus wrote: »

Abortion is wrong. Killing an innocent child for another person's comfort is barbaric - like something out of the Roman Amphitheatre. It's like saying I want a lion skin rug and am going to kill one to get it.

Nah, it's nothing like killing lions for rugs.

Nodin

Jan Hus wrote: »

So you are saying that because of human nature, the Holocaust was justified?

I can see you're here for a calm and rational discussion.

Obliq

No, I'm saying that lots of things about human nature is not palatable or nice. I recognise that people who are anti-choice think that killing a fetus is unjustifiably wrong, but I, and many, many others think it IS justifiable in terms of COMPASSION for the life of the pregnant woman (who for whatever reason, does not want to continue her pregnancy).
I was a bit rude, and that's unlike me, but to be honest it gets my back up when someone's only premise for their opinion is that "to think otherwise is wrong". I hope you will read over a lot of the arguements, for and against, on this thread and then come back with a reasoned and perhaps more broad minded take on whether you are always right in your belief.

Jan Hus

Obliq wrote: »

No, I'm saying that lots of things about human nature is not palatable or nice. I recognise that people who are anti-choice think that killing a fetus is unjustifiably wrong, but I, and many, many others think it IS justifiable in terms of COMPASSION for the life of the pregnant woman (who for whatever reason, does not want to continue her pregnancy).
I was a bit rude, and that's unlike me, but to be honest it gets my back up when someone's only premise for their opinion is that "to think otherwise is wrong". I hope you will read over a lot of the arguements, for and against, on this thread and then come back with a reasoned and perhaps more broad minded take on whether you are always right in your belief.

I accept that there are valid grounds for abortion viz when the mother herself is at risk. Beyond that I feel that if the woman does not want the child she can put him or her up for adoption after the birth. Prior to that the comfort of the mother (again unless her life is at risk) cannot outweigh the life of the baby.

Obliq

Jan Hus wrote: »

I accept that there are valid grounds for abortion viz when the mother herself is at risk. Beyond that I feel that if the woman does not want the child she can put him or her up for adoption after the birth. Prior to that the comfort of the mother (again unless her life is at risk) cannot outweigh the life of the baby.

If she is a married woman she cannot put the baby up for adoption.

Your personal feeling that the comfort of the mother cannot outweigh the life of the baby is not shared by me. If a woman is "uncomfortable" about being pregnant (and within that extremely loose term, I'm assuming you include women who are desperate, distressed, terrified, suicidal, horrified, troubled with mental health issues, abused emotionally and physically), in my opinion, compassion for that woman outweighs the "right to life" of a tiny entity who knows nothing about it at all.

Jan Hus

Obliq wrote: »

If she is a married woman she cannot put the baby up for adoption.

Your personal feeling that the comfort of the mother cannot outweigh the life of the baby is not shared by me. If a woman is "uncomfortable" about being pregnant (and within that extremely loose term, I'm assuming you include women who are desperate, distressed, terrified, suicidal, horrified, troubled with mental health issues, abused emotionally and physically), in my opinion, compassion for that woman outweighs the "right to life" of a tiny entity who knows nothing about it at all.

Married women will soon be able to. Not to mention very few married women have abortions.
Uncomfortable by the way did not include suicidal, at least if the victim is underaged and/or the pregnancy was not her fault.

MagicMarker

Nodin wrote: »

I can see you're here for a calm and rational discussion.

I like the part where they compared killing a child to killing a lion.

Sulla Felix

Galvasean wrote: »

If they are peddling mistruths (ie: lies) in public print surely complaints of such would be upheld similar to the recent Kevin Myers opinion piece on homosexuality? I mean if something under the topic of 'opinion' can be taken to task for being factually inaccurate, surely an advert would be just as, if not more susceptible? Certainly, a strong case could be made to the Advertisement Authority.

It'd be even easier because they'll fall under advertising standards rather than reporting standards.

whatdoicare

Jan Hus wrote: »

Not to mention very few married women have abortions.

Actually this part is not true at all- actually it's the opposite, the majority are married and already mothers. I read about the UK stats stating this and it was stated on TV3 in a documentry not so long ago. I couldn't find the UK one but this is an article which has a link to the American stats:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/10/most_surprising_abortion_statistic_the_majority_of_women_who_ter.html

PopePalpatine

Nodin wrote: »

I can see you're here for a calm and rational discussion.

Considering that he's backing up J C in the creationism thread on "t'udder forum", I don't think rationality is his strong point...

Galvasean

Hmm, so the dirt is being dug up on Youth Defense, exposing them as the frauds they are until suddenly, as if by magic, an unrecognised poster appears throwing about Godwins and other distractions. Call me a cynic, but it almost looks like a diversionary tactic to me.

Bannasidhe

Galvasean wrote: »

Hmm, so the dirt is being dug up on Youth Defense, exposing them as the frauds they are until suddenly, as if by magic, an unrecognised poster appears throwing about Godwins and other distractions. Call me a cynic, but it almost looks like a diversionary tactic to me.

Does that mean they are here? A'watching and A'reading what we are a'saying an a'writing?

Just in case may I extend a hearty

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Does that mean they are here? A'watching and A'reading what we are a'saying an a'writing?

Just in case may I extend a hearty

Ha! Nice one - that frog is exactly the kind of I was after.
I'm thinking I need one of these though, for the times I'm feeling the weight of my halo and want to take it off for a minute......


Damn, that was supposed to be on fire and moving. Must be divine retribution.

Obliq

Sulla Felix wrote: »

It'd be even easier because they'll fall under advertising standards rather than reporting standards.

Post #1353, pg 91 - Don't think the Advertising authority has any authority if they're not selling something. :mad:

Nodin

Morgase wrote: »

Nah, it's nothing like killing lions for rugs.

Very true. Theres at least one rug in a lion, wheras you'd have to through a fair few babies.

fitz0

MagicMarker wrote: »

I like the part where they compared killing a child to killing a lion.

Here we go again.

Obliq

http://www.facebook.com/l/MAQHDkKSYAQG2qZgRLU8LRZeBPf6cYyky0d-Ka5GAlCEiFA/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19986107%23TWEET282687

Uruguay becomes the second Latin American country to legalise abortion for all women.

Galvasean

Obliq wrote: »

Post #1353, pg 91 - Don't think the Advertising authority has any authority if they're not selling something. :mad:

I'd imagine there must be some form of governing body that can step in and take a look. Printing bare faced lies in national media must be illegal in some way shape or form.

edit: the Press Ombudsman perhaps? That's how the Kevin Myers case came to task:
http://www.krank.ie/category/society/marriage-equality-and-belong-to-youth-services-complaint-upheld-against-irish-independent/