Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

old hippy, you'll be waiting forever to get a link from robp. I'm still waiting to hear how Obliq is a pro-choice absolutist, although I suspect that can't be answered coherently because the "pro choice absolutist" phrase only started getting tossed around after robp was called out by me for making absolutist statements.

I didn't call Obliq a pro-choice absolutist. I couldn't and wouldn't want to make that judgment on anyone here as there is limited information on everyone's viewpoints. Obliq's comment was akin to a pro-choice absolutist so I responded to it as such but I wasn't defining them personally as that view point.

I can give you links that pro-choice groups usually take abortion seriously but the other-side, the people who don't, well that is ignorant attitude of the man on the street. Its not something that has been measured, nor would it be easy to measure.

robp

eviltwin wrote: »

I get what you say. Surely if someone feels unstable and wants an abortion its madness to force them to have a child they may not be mentally strong enough to deal with. Makes sense. Kids can drive even the strongest person to dispair.

Yeah I completely agree. A child has to be wanted. However there is a relative shortage of Irish children available for adoption. Part of this is the legal problems but abortion is another factor.

fitz0

robp wrote: »

Yeah I completely agree. A child has to be wanted. However there is a relative shortage of Irish children available for adoption. Part of this is the legal problems but abortion is another factor.

So, a child has to be wanted but if not then the mother must go through 9 months of carrying the unwanted child and all the ups and downs that entails to give the eventual child away? That's tantamount to reducing a woman to an incubator.

Lingua Franca

In response to a post by Obliq you said:

robp wrote: »

The flaw in your post and all pro-choice absolutists is that there is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person.

There was no reason for you to add "and all pro choice absolutists" as a non-sequitur that it would take you a week to come back and explain. It makes no sense whatsoever if we take your explanation at face value.

Nodin

robp wrote: »

Yeah I completely agree. A child has to be wanted. However there is a relative shortage of Irish children available for adoption. Part of this is the legal problems but abortion is another factor.

A minor one. The larger is due to single women keeping their children.

Galvasean

robp wrote: »

No healthy women wants an abortion. They are driven to it by their circumstances. So it is not crazy to say what he said. It sounds like your putting words in his mouth. In the US the rational behind 21% of abortions is the lack of ability to financially support a child. That is horrifying. I know many American feminists are pro-life but pro-choice feminists there have a lot to answer for in their complicity of this.

Perhaps I am misreading you here, but based on the parts I have bolded here it looks as if, in the context of the discussion, if you are implying that being poor is a sign of metal illness, Could you clarify (I'm sure you're sick of being asked to clarify at this point) why you seem to be conflating mental illness with poverty?

robp

Galvasean wrote: »

... if you are implying that being poor is a sign of metal illness, Could you clarify why you seem to be conflating mental illness with poverty?

No, I was making no link whatsoever between the two. Depression is mentioned in a different paragraph that was not discussing abortion! Re-read it and see. A previous poster carelessly implied without intending it that depression = mental asylums. I simply challenged that.

Poverty is risk factor in depression but that is completely besides the point.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

In response to a post by Obliq you said:
There was no reason for you to add "and all pro choice absolutists" as a non-sequitur that it would take you a week to come back and explain. It makes no sense whatsoever if we take your explanation at face value.

Its more logical than your unequivocally false evidence of legal reform of abortion being a medical necessity in Ireland.

pauldla wrote: »

Could I ask you to explain further, please?
Also, as an additional point, what is the typical logic in support of abortion? I'm not clear on what you mean on this, either.

Abortion supporters argue that as there is a demand for abortion it should be available. It is a sort of moral free market argument. Even though the demand has been declining for 10 consecutive years there is still a demand. Choice is the celebrated principle. The right to 'choice' is absolute, supposedly. Others draw the line arbitrarily at certain stages of development for contradictory and sometimes sentimental reasons.

However we don't live in an extreme free market. Our right to choose is contingent on other factors. It is restricted in countless instances when it is to the detriment of society. Two of the reasons it is restricted our
a) to protect those who are vulnerable e.g. disabled people, minorities
b) to protect the longterm interests of people who are well able to look after themselves e.g regulation of medical practice, anti-smoking laws

Women with crisis pregnancies can fall into a) and b). The unborn falls into a). Abortion destroys life. We are not talking about zygotes here. Fetus have beating hearts, arms, legs and working organs. If its not a baby your not pregnant. Christopher Hitchens stated that "[an] unborn child seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix, You can't say the rights question doesn't come up'. That is enough to make abortion wrong. There are also issues linking abortion to certain illness e.g. certain cancers and physiological illness. These are hypotheses which received their fair share of criticism but nonetheless they continual return in novel studies. The abortion industry has an awful record in women's health. Just today it has been slammed by some of our most senior medics

Ireland is a world leader in low maternal mortality. We also have an usually low rate of abortion when we count the UK abortions. These both factors are a sign of an extremely progressive society.

oldrnwisr

robp wrote: »

Ireland is a world leader in low maternal mortality.

Not again with this bull****.

I did already comment on the false arguments proposed by those who are opposed to abortion which you took offense to and yet here you are making exactly the kind of demonstrably false claim I spoke about.

Maternal mortality is a red herring. It has no bearing on the abortion debate and anyone attempting to introduce it is trying to cloud the issue.

First of all, in what universe does having the 11th lowest maternal mortality ratio qualify us as a world leader.

Secondly, if Ireland is a world leader in maternal mortality because of a prohibition on abortion what does that say about Afghanistan, for example, which also has a prohibition on abortion and yet has one of the highest MMR scores.

The Maternal Mortality Ratio is not an argument against abortion. The countries who have the lowest MMR scores tend to be western countries with well developed healthcare systems. In fact, the only honest comment to be made about abortion in relation to MMR is that abortion is a factor in maternal death but only in countries where abortion is illegal. Women seeking to procure black-market, unsafe abortions in countries where it is illegal has been identified as a factor in 13% of maternal deaths.

Data here:

Trends in Maternal Mortality 1990-2010

robp

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Not again with this bull****.

I did already comment on the false arguments proposed by those who are opposed to abortion which you took offense to and yet here you are making exactly the kind of demonstrably false claim I spoke about.

Maternal mortality is a red herring. It has no bearing on the abortion debate and anyone attempting to introduce it is trying to cloud the issue.

First of all, in what universe does having the 11th lowest maternal mortality ratio qualify us as a world leader.

Secondly, if Ireland is a world leader in maternal mortality because of a prohibition on abortion what does that say about Afghanistan, for example, which also has a prohibition on abortion and yet has one of the highest MMR scores.

The Maternal Mortality Ratio is not an argument against abortion. The countries who have the lowest MMR scores tend to be western countries with well developed healthcare systems. In fact, the only honest comment to be made about abortion in relation to MMR is that abortion is a factor in maternal death but only in countries where abortion is illegal. Women seeking to procure black-market, unsafe abortions in countries where it is illegal has been identified as a factor in 13% of maternal deaths.

Data here:

Trends in Maternal Mortality 1990-2010

Why are you suggesting I imply a causality relationship? I never did. We have this low morality rate due to our health system. That is a sign of a advanced country, were women are not failed. Abortion access has no relationship to low mortality in the developed world, Fact. Improving healthcare is a far more effective way of reducing the mortality in the developing world than pushing abortion.

oldrnwisr

robp wrote: »

The statistic speaks for itself. Nothing what so ever is demonstrable false. No where did I imply a simplistic causality relationship. That was your imagination. We have this low morality rate due to our health system. That is a sign of a advanced country. Abortion access has no relationship to low mortality in the developed world, Fact. Improving healthcare is a far more effective way of reducing the mortality in the developing world than pushing abortion.

Look, in case I wasn't clear the last time I'll say it again:

Maternal mortality has no bearing on the abortion debate. The countries with the lowest MMR scores are those with advanced healthcare systems and those with MMR scores lower than ours such as Iceland, Greece, Estonia, for example have abortion on demand. There is no point in mentioning maternal mortality because it has nothing to do with whether abortion should be legalised or not. We do not have a low maternal mortality because of a prohibition on abortion. Abortion is not an unsafe procedure which leads to maternal death or health complications.

Secondly, as far as improving healthcare in the developing world, 13% of maternal deaths are related to women seeking procuring black-market abortions. Now, whatever the benefits to be gained from improving the healthcare systems, access to education for women would probably have a greater impact. However, there would still be a number of women risking their lives by seeking black market abortions. In any case, we are discussing the Irish situation here, so this is all a little irrelevant.

28064212

robp wrote: »

Abortion access has no relationship to low mortality in the developed world, Fact. Improving healthcare is a far more effective way of reducing the mortality in the developing world than pushing abortion.

Who made the argument that abortion lowered the mortality rate? No-one that I can see. You were the only person to raise the issue of the mortality rate

robp

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Look, in case I wasn't clear the last time I'll say it again:

Maternal mortality has no bearing on the abortion debate. The countries with the lowest MMR scores are those with advanced healthcare systems and those with MMR scores lower than ours such as Iceland, Greece, Estonia, for example have abortion on demand. There is no point in mentioning maternal mortality because it has nothing to do with whether abortion should be legalised or not. We do not have a low maternal mortality because of a prohibition on abortion. Abortion is not an unsafe procedure which leads to maternal death or health complications.

Secondly, as far as improving healthcare in the developing world, 13% of maternal deaths are related to women seeking procuring black-market abortions. Now, whatever the benefits to be gained from improving the healthcare systems, access to education for women would probably have a greater impact. However, there would still be a number of women risking their lives by seeking black market abortions. In any case, we are discussing the Irish situation here, so this is all a little irrelevant.

Wrong. All procedures have possible complications.
You brought up the situation in the developing world. I agree though. It has no relevance here.

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

Its more logical than your unequivocally false evidence of legal reform of abortion being a medical necessity in Ireland.

Evidence, please? In the form of a hyper link or links and to non prolife affiliated groups would be perfect, thanks. I have provided plenty of "unequivocally false" proof to you, it's only fair.

It's funny how you respond to being called out on your nonsense with yet another wild absolutist statement. Are you at the stage yet where you flounce off for another week rather than answer questions or provide links?

pauldla

robp wrote: »

...
Abortion supporters argue that as there is a demand for abortion it should be available. It is a sort of moral free market argument. Even though the demand has been declining for 10 consecutive years there is still a demand. Choice is the celebrated principle. The right to 'choice' is absolute, supposedly. Others draw the line arbitrarily at certain stages of development for contradictory and sometimes sentimental reasons.

However we don't live in an extreme free market. Our right to choose is contingent on other factors. It is restricted in countless instances when it is to the detriment of society. Two of the reasons it is restricted our
a) to protect those who are vulnerable e.g. disabled people, minorities
b) to protect the longterm interests of people who are well able to look after themselves e.g regulation of medical practice, anti-smoking laws

First, thanks for taking the time to reply. You are being kept busy here!


Abortion supporters argue that as there is a need for abortion it should be available. Legislating against abortion doesn’t make it disappear. It either drives abortion underground, or sends women to jurisdictions where abortion is more freely available. Both diminish the capacity for women to make informed and reasoned decisions on the matter.


I’m still not clear on the issue you have with choice. Anti-abortion legislation does not do away with choice: it merely puts the decision in somebody else’s hands. I’ve still probably got the wrong end of the stick about what you are saying, though…


IMO, ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ is a false dichotomy. I would describe myself as being both pro-choice and pro-life.

Bannasidhe

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It's funny how you respond to being called out on your nonsense with yet another wild absolutist statement. Are you at the stage yet where you flounce off for another week rather than answer questions or provide links?

Do you think he will 'Goswin'?




*For explanation of 'Goswin's Law see: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81407250&postcount=1522






*

oldrnwisr

robp wrote: »

Wrong. All procedures have possible complications.
You brought up the situation in the developing world. I agree though. It has no relevance here.

Yes, all procedures have complications but to suggest that abortion has a particularly high rate of complications would be false. In fact, abortion is much safer than general surgical procedures with a rate of death approximately 1800 times smaller than the average for general surgical procedures. However, time and again we see pro-life activists banging on about psychiatric disorders and breast cancer and infertility as the dangers of abortion, all of which is bollocks.

Oh, and for the record, I mentioned the developing world for two reasons, one, to show that there is no causal link between abortion prohibition and maternal mortality and two, because the only mention of abortion at all in the analysis of MMR scores relates to black-market abortions in the developing world. However, if you hadn't brought up maternal mortality in the first place, such comments wouldn't have been necessary.

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

Women with crisis pregnancies can fall into a) and b). The unborn falls into a). Abortion destroys life. We are not talking about zygotes here. Fetus have beating hearts, arms, legs and working organs. If its not a baby your not pregnant. Christopher Hitchens stated that "[an] unborn child seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix, You can't say the rights question doesn't come up'. That is enough to make abortion wrong.

Why? Because Christopher Hitchens says it, it's fact and everyone must believe it to be true?

There are also issues linking abortion to certain illness e.g. cancers and physiological illness. These are hypothesis which received their fair share of criticism but nonetheless they continual keep returning in novel studies.

Novel is one word for it. These hypothesis, certainly re: cancer have been proven to be false again and again. They keep returning because pro life parties keep bringing them up. Got anything unequivocal to back that up?

The abortion industry has an awful record in women's health. Just today it has been slammed by our most senior Irish medics

And yet the Irish maternity industry has such a glowing record. Symphysiotomy, anyone? That was a most senior Irish medic, wasn't it? That was a hell of a lot more dangerous and arrogant and detrimental to women's health. We still allow women to give birth in Irish hospitals.

Bannasidhe

There are also issues linking abortion to certain illness e.g. cancers

What????

But I did not have an abortion and I still got breast cancer - twice.:mad:

So even though I carried a child to term, got the stitches and the stretch marks and the sleepless nights, drain on my finances and many many visits to accident and emergency's with active (and accident prone) boy child I still got an illness which is allegedly linked to abortion.

Either that is B.S. or I demand to know to whom I should write a strongly worded letter as I am apparently not in this abortion related high risk category.

I may have to do a 'form' letter as the vast majority of women I know who got breast cancer are also mothers.

eviltwin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What????

But I did not have an abortion and I still got breast cancer - twice.:mad:

So even though I carried a child to term, got the stitches and the stretch marks and the sleepless nights, drain on my finances and many many visits to accident and emergency's with active (and accident prone) boy child I still got an illness which is allegedly linked to abortion.

Either that is B.S. or I demand to know to whom I should write a strongly worded letter as I am apparently not in this abortion related high risk category.

I may have to do a 'form' letter as the vast majority of women I know who got breast cancer are also mothers.

More twisting of the facts by the pro-lifers, isn't that a surprise :rolleyes:

I remember having this argument with a prolife friend of mine. She was convinced that abortion means more risks of cancer. Her "evidence" was the stats that women who have had children have a slightly lower risk of developing certain womens cancers than women who are childless. QED have an abortion, you raise your changes of getting cancer!!!

She ignored the fact that the risk doesn't actually go up in childless women, it stays the same, it just reduces for those with kids and only by a fraction. She ignored the fact that many of those women who have abortions have children or go on to have children in the future and will get the benefit.

I hear all the stories of "abortion causes infertility", "abortion causes internal bleeding" yada yada yada. I wonder how many of those cases were in the first world abortion clinics that are of an excellent standard with well trained staff.

Sin City

Id have to agree. I hate those scaremongering so their own ideology is seen in a better life. If one is to make a statement like that, then provide evidence for your point. Preferably peer reveiwed evidence.

kylith

eviltwin wrote: »

More twisting of the facts by the pro-lifers, isn't that a surprise :rolleyes:

I remember having this argument with a prolife friend of mine. She was convinced that abortion means more risks of cancer. Her "evidence" was the stats that women who have had children have a slightly lower risk of developing certain womens cancers than women who are childless. QED have an abortion, you raise your changes of getting cancer!!!

She ignored the fact that the risk doesn't actually go up in childless women, it stays the same, it just reduces for those with kids and only by a fraction. She ignored the fact that many of those women who have abortions have children or go on to have children in the future and will get the benefit.

What is it about abortion that they claim causes cancer? The only thing I can think of is the change in hormones but if that were any basis then miscarriage would also "cause" cancer.

eviltwin wrote: »

I hear all the stories of "abortion causes infertility", "abortion causes internal bleeding" yada yada yada. I wonder how many of those cases were in the first world abortion clinics that are of an excellent standard with well trained staff.

I think that those arguments are hang overs from the days of back street abortions, which were certainly unsafe; coat hangers and knitting needles not being efficient surgical tools. To see them being used to smear procedures carried out by trained professionals in hygienic locations is exasperating.

Turtwig

robp wrote: »

Ireland is a world leader in low maternal mortality. We also have an usually low rate of abortion when we count the UK abortions. That is a sign of an extremely progressive society.

The average woman in Ireland has a life expectancy of 81 years. The average woman in Ireland who gets an abortion has a life expectancy of 83 years. Statistics are useless unless you explain how they're relevant.

robp

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What????

But I did not have an abortion and I still got breast cancer - twice.:mad:

So even though I carried a child to term, got the stitches and the stretch marks and the sleepless nights, drain on my finances and many many visits to accident and emergency's with active (and accident prone) boy child I still got an illness which is allegedly linked to abortion.

I may have to do a 'form' letter as the vast majority of women I know who got breast cancer are also mothers.

I am very sorry to hear that but when did I say that one will automatically lead to another? Obviously, cancers are very complex, highly varied, multi-origin and can be just random. I said its a hypothesis! Please read my wording more carefully.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you think he will 'Goswin'?

I have a busy job which involves lots of travel. Sometimes boards.ie is not available. Be reasonable.

Sin City wrote: »

Id have to agree. I hate those scaremongering so their own ideology is seen in a better life. If one is to make a statement like that, then provide evidence for your point. Preferably peer reviewed evidence.

The peer-reviewed work of dozens of scholars is judged bollocks at the turn of a hat. The science maybe imprecise and flawed but bollocks it is not.
As I have said before risks may be very specific to certain situations or regions. I am not generalising the results. I am sure you folks know how to use Google Scholar.
This study is brand new
Abortions and Breast Cancer Risk in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Women in Jiangsu Province of China
Ai-Ren Jiang et al

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Evidence, please? In the form of a hyper link or links and to non prolife affiliated groups would be perfect, thanks. I have provided plenty of "unequivocally false" proof to you, it's only fair.

Are you at the stage yet where you flounce off for another week rather than answer questions or provide links?

You presented no proof whatsoever that Irish women are endangered by Irish law. You listed a few obscure conditions which were treated with what is not considered to be abortion. On the basis of your evidence they may have well be treat these conditions every Monday in Donegal regional.

You also brought up the C-Case. The cancer patient who decided to go for a abortion on the basis of an Internet website. Her doctor never told her to have an abortion.

I have plans for the next fews day so I can't guarantee I will respond in this time frame. Don't flatter yourself by calling it flouncing.

Sin City

[QUOTE=robp;8145136



The peer-reviewed work of dozens of scholars is judged bollocks at the turn of a hat. I thought this would be pro-science crowd!
As I have said before risks may be very specific to certain situations or regions. I am not generalising the results. I am sure you folks know how to use Google Scholar.
This study is brand new
Abortions and Breast Cancer Risk in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Women in Jiangsu Province of China
Ai-Ren Jiang et al



[/QUOTE]


I support the anti abortion side of things, but I dont believe scaremongering is the way to go. There is no way anyone is going to cross sides, especailly those who are heavily invested in it.

The only way to go is to give good arguements that can be backed up. I generally go down the ethical and potential personhood approach, but using health scares (I havent researched the medical side of things to further the debate so I have no knowledge of what is true and what is fable)

oldrnwisr

robp wrote: »

The peer-reviewed work of dozens of scholars is judged bollocks at the turn of a hat. I thought this would be pro-science crowd!
As I have said before risks may be very specific to certain situations or regions. I am not generalising the results. I am sure you folks know how to use Google Scholar.
This study is brand new
Abortions and Breast Cancer Risk in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Women in Jiangsu Province of China
Ai-Ren Jiang et al

Oh, dear yet another case of deja-vu.

First of all, I have already explained here that using China as an example to support anti-abortion arguments is a bad idea because China has a rarefied relationship with abortion primarily due to the one-child policy. Attempting to draw conclusions about abortion in Ireland or worldwide from such extreme circumstances is unwise and borderline dishonest.

Secondly, the link between breast cancer and abortion is yet another pro-life red herring. There are two reasons for this. First of all, individual studies such as these:

Amiano, P, et al. Breast cancer risk in relation to abortion: Results from the EPIC study. International Journal of Cancer2006;119:1741-1745.


Colditz, GA, et al. Induced and spontaneous abortion and incidence of breast cancer among young women – A prospective cohort study. Archives of Internal Medicine 2007;167:814-820.

have found no link between the two. Second, review papers and meta-analyses combining multiple studies have also found no link:

Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries. Lancet2004;363:1007-1016.

The reason for this whole link being in the public consciousness in the first place is a review paper from 1996:

Brind, J, et al. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1996;50:481-496.

which found an increased risk of breast cancer using 21 studies. However, they failed to include 19 eligible studies making this a case of bad science catching on in the media. (Whether this happened as a result of sloppy methodology or deliberate academic fraud I can't say).

In any case, there is about as much of a link between breast cancer and abortion as there was between autism and the MMR vaccine or for example ice-cream and engineering. None at all.

Lingua Franca

robp wrote: »

You presented no proof whatsoever that Irish women are endangered by Irish law.

You've presented no proof of anything, ever, and you're the one making absolutist statements and hiding when called out. You said there was never any medical need for abortion, I showed you that there was, you rubbished it. Poorly, I might add.

You listed a few obscure conditions which were treated with what is not considered to be abortion.

I posted a list of several conditions, some obscure, some not so obscure that are treated with what is and is considered to be abortion. That was in the very title. As for this nonsense of "not considered to be abortion", it's blatantly obvious that that is something pro-life folk say to get around the fact there sometimes actually is a medical need for abortion. Like ectopic pregnancy removal. It's removing a foetus to save the life of the mother but to keep the pro life lobby happy we'll say "not considered abortion".

You asked for medical needs for abortion, I provided them, now you say "not considered abortion".

On the basis of your evidence they may have well be treat these conditions every Monday in Donegal regional.

How do you figure that? You asked, I answered, now you're saying I said they were common? What?

You also brought up the C-Case. The cancer patient who decided to go for a abortion on the basis of an Internet website. Her doctor never told her to have an abortion.

Yes, well observed! Her doctor didn't give her sufficient information so she had to turn to the internet. This is exactly what the ECHR ruling was about.

I also brought up the Michelle Harte case where her doctor did tell her to have an abortion but you dismissed that too!

I have plans for the next fews day so I can't guarantee I will respond in this time frame. Don't flatter yourself by calling it flouncing.

Flatter myself? Heh no, calling you out on your flouncing off isn't flattering to anyone.

Your post history is just a click away, you know. When you get asked to explain your outrageous absolutist statements or provide links you disappear off to your busy job where the abortion thread on boards.ie is unavailable but the Ash Dieback/Red Squirrel/Who do you consider to be Irish? threads etc strangely are available.

In short: you are disingenuous and constantly shifting the goalposts and focus when, dodging questions and implying that others are being dishonest and/or naive. You make absolutist statements you can't back up. You rubbish other people's proof ("not considered abortion"!) yet never provide any of your own. You have shown absolutely no integrity in your debating style and I wonder why you continue to bother.

DB21

Sin City wrote: »

I support the anti abortion side of things, but I dont believe scaremongering is the way to go. There is no way anyone is going to cross sides, especailly those who are heavily invested in it.

The only way to go is to give good arguements that can be backed up. I generally go down the ethical and potential personhood approach, but using health scares (I havent researched the medical side of things to further the debate so I have no knowledge of what is true and what is fable)

In other words, the usual appeal to emotion bollocks, as opposed to a scientific approach, which would make more sense.

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Your post history is just a click away, you know. When you get asked to explain your outrageous absolutist statements or provide links you disappear off to your busy job where the abortion thread on boards.ie is unavailable but the Ash Dieback/Red Squirrel/Who do you consider to be Irish? threads etc strangely are available.

So it is expected I reply to every single post with an immediate sense of urgency? Some issues are more urgent than others. Ash dieback is an immediate threat facing all of Europe and a lot more important than a 105 page repetitive thread on abortion but your so fixated on scoring points against me you have lost any sense of perspective.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You've presented no proof of anything, ever, and you're the one making absolutist statements and hiding when called out. You said there was never any medical need for abortion, I showed you that there was, you rubbished it. Poorly, I might add.

I posted a list of several conditions, some obscure, some not so obscure that are treated with what is and is considered to be abortion. That was in the very title. As for this nonsense of "not considered to be abortion", it's blatantly obvious that that is something pro-life folk say to get around the fact there sometimes actually is a medical need for abortion. Like ectopic pregnancy removal. It's removing a foetus to save the life of the mother but to keep the pro life lobby happy we'll say "not considered abortion".

You asked for medical needs for abortion, I provided them, now you say "not considered abortion".

How do you figure that? You asked, I answered, now you're saying I said they were common? What?

Yes, well observed! Her doctor didn't give her sufficient information so she had to turn to the internet. This is exactly what the ECHR ruling was about.

I also brought up the Michelle Harte case where her doctor did tell her to have an abortion but you dismissed that too!

In the Harte case the suggestion of abortion as a medical necessity was overruled by the ethics board in the CUH. That boards is composed of doctors. If you can show otherwise please do. if not I expect you to retract.
We also know that in the C-case abortion was not considered medically essential but rather it was a lack of information that caused the problems.
It is entirely disingenuous of you to claim I posted no evidence. In regards to abortion being never medically necessary I have posted much evidence. e.g.

Professor of Obstetrics in TCD John Bonnar.
When we talk about termination or legal abortion, we are talking about intervening in that situation with the direct intention of taking the life of the foetus or unborn. That is what we mean by procured abortion. We do not talk about a doctor dealing with a mother with severe pre-eclampsia as procuring abortion, or dealing with an ectopic pregnancy as procuring abortion, or dealing with cancer of the cervix as procuring
abortion.

from the fifth Oireachtas report

To call treatment for ectopic pregnancy abortion is incorrect. It is done in real hospitals not Marie Stopes clinics. The procedure is in no way elective. Are you telling me its unavailable here? The mind boggles.

It is quite ironic but one of the paper you cited Scientific ethics of therapeutic abortion also did not throw around the term abortion. It in fact agrees to use another name therapeutic interruption of pregnancy.

It is very hard for the goal posts not to shift constantly when the debate has a 1:5-8 ratio. A tidy focused debate is not possible with that level of imbalance.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Oh, dear yet another case of deja-vu.

First of all, I have already explained here that using China as an example to support anti-abortion arguments is a bad idea because China has a rarefied relationship with abortion primarily due to the one-child policy. Attempting to draw conclusions about abortion in Ireland or worldwide from such extreme circumstances is unwise and borderline dishonest.

In any case, there is about as much of a link between breast cancer and abortion as there was between autism and the MMR vaccine or for example ice-cream and engineering. None at all.

The MMR vaccine and autism case is a poor analogy as there was blatant fraud there. Fraud was not part of the abortion and cancer link papers. Every country is unique. What is found in China might not apply to Sweden but that in no way undermines the link in China. It is unclear how the One Child Policy would create an abortion link to cancer or a false correlation but I appreciate it is not outlandish. For it to be rudely dismissed as bollocks is muck ignorant. It implies you have some secret knowledge unknown to the reviewers. I stressed in my post the link might be regional. The paper as of Oct 2012 stands as a credible piece of work.

Lingua Franca

No, but I'd expect you to reply to several posts asking you to explain yourself within a week instead of pretending you hadn't been online at all! Especially since you'd shown you'd obviously caught up on the thread and read all of the posts asking you to explain yourself.

It now looks like you just waited until the furore died down to come back hoping that no one would notice you hadn't answered the questions put to you.

robp wrote: »

That boards is composed of doctors. If you can show otherwise please do. if not I expect you to retract.

I posted plenty of links re: Michelle Harte and the reason why she was denied the abortion her doctor recommended. But here we go again:

The HSE said the Ethics Forum meets within 48 hours for emergency meetings and carefully considers any case broight 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"

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=18394

I retract nothing, and will once again suggest you read and comprehend posts before responding to them.

I never said or implied that ectopic pregnancy removal wasn't available in Ireland. You're getting pretty ridiculous at twisting words now.

robp wrote: »

It is quite ironic but one of the paper you cited Scientific ethics of therapeutic abortion[/I] also did not throw around the term abortion. It in fact agrees to use another name therapeutic interruption of pregnancy.

:pac:

It doesn't actually. It says "As the intention is not to kill the fetus, this action should be named "therapeutic interruption of pregnancy"." and then immediately uses the term therapeutic abortion again.

As pointed out before: you stated categorically that there was never any medical need for abortion. When it was shown to you that there in fact was you fell back to "those aren't considered abortions" and demanded that I provide proof that these aren't treated in Ireland, despite that I never said that they weren't! You've repeatedly tried and failed to put words into my mouth that just aren't there.

ETA: you're playing semantics around the use of the word abortion. An abortion is expulsion or removal of the foetus. Miscarriage is noted on medical records as "spontaneous abortion". What, in your head, is a "medical abortion" if to you all medical abortions are "therapeutic interruption of pregnancy" and why make so many demands for proof that they're sometimes medically necessary if you intended to dismiss it all with "no, those are called something different and therefore not the same thing!"? Why bother? Was it possibly... points scoring?

There is one exception: I do agree with that paper, that foetuses incompatible with life are a medical case for abortion, and those are definitely not treated in Ireland. Evidence of that has already been provided, before you ask.

Once more you've proved to be disingenuous; all throughout this thread you have been called out for twisting words, misquoting, exaggerating, demanding evidence (and now retractions!), making absolutist statements and sly digs at other posters. That is why there is a problem with this debate for you. I'm not points scoring, I'm defending myself against you putting words into my mouth after failing to show any reading comprehension and I'm sick to the back teeth of you demanding evidence that has already been posted, just because you failed at reading comprehension the first time around.

Think about this: if you have to twist words, demand proof of something that was never claimed, go into non sequiteurs and pretend you haven't been around to answer questions when you clearly have, be disingenuous and underhand... are you sure you're totally in the right on this topic? Why should anyone take your posts seriously when you can't show the same respect?

Don't call me disngenuous, by the way. I have been completely upfront and provided you with everything you asked for, which you clearly had no intention of reading. You seem to have a habit of turning words used to describe your posts around on people... "pro choice absolutist" indeed!

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No, but I'd expect you to reply to several posts asking you to explain yourself within a week instead of pretending you hadn't been online at all! Especially since you'd shown you'd obviously caught up on the thread and read all of the posts asking you to explain yourself.

It now looks like you just waited until the furore died down to come back hoping that no one would notice you hadn't answered the questions put to you.
I posted plenty of links re: Michelle Harte and the reason why she was denied the abortion her doctor recommended. But here we go again:

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=18394

I retract nothing, and will once again suggest you read and comprehend posts before responding to them.

I never said or implied that ectopic pregnancy removal wasn't available in Ireland. You're getting pretty ridiculous at twisting words now.

:pac:

It doesn't actually. It says "As the intention is not to kill the fetus, this action should be named "therapeutic interruption of pregnancy"." and then immediately uses the term therapeutic abortion again.

As pointed out before: you stated categorically that there was never any medical need for abortion. When it was shown to you that there in fact was you fell back to "those aren't considered abortions" and demanded that I provide proof that these aren't treated in Ireland, despite that I never said that they weren't! You've repeatedly tried and failed to put words into my mouth that just aren't there.

ETA: you're playing semantics around the use of the word abortion. An abortion is expulsion or removal of the foetus. Miscarriage is noted on medical records as "spontaneous abortion". What, in your head, is a "medical abortion" if to you all medical abortions are "therapeutic interruption of pregnancy" and why make so many demands for proof that they're sometimes medically necessary if you intended to dismiss it all with "no, those are called something different and therefore not the same thing!"? Why bother? Was it possibly... points scoring?

There is one exception: I do agree with that paper, that foetuses incompatible with life are a medical case for abortion, and those are definitely not treated in Ireland. Evidence of that has already been provided, before you ask.

Once more you've proved to be disingenuous; all throughout this thread you have been called out for twisting words, misquoting, exaggerating, demanding evidence (and now retractions!), making absolutist statements and sly digs at other posters. That is why there is a problem with this debate for you. I'm not points scoring, I'm defending myself against you putting words into my mouth after failing to show any reading comprehension and I'm sick to the back teeth of you demanding evidence that has already been posted, just because you failed at reading comprehension the first time around.

Think about this: if you have to twist words, demand proof of something that was never claimed, go into non sequiteurs and pretend you haven't been around to answer questions when you clearly have, be disingenuous and underhand... are you sure you're totally in the right on this topic? Why should anyone take your posts seriously when you can't show the same respect?

Don't call me disngenuous, by the way. I have been completely upfront and provided you with everything you asked for, which you clearly had no intention of reading. You seem to have a habit of turning words used to describe your posts around on people... "pro choice absolutist" indeed!

Nonsense, I didn't coin the term pro-choice absolutist. Its out there floating on the web if you look. Its a logically consistent term. Furthermore, there is nothing sinister about the word absolute. I am a pro-life absolutist and I am also anti-capital punishment absolutist. During my week hiatus I was in Zagreb working with the Croatian Academy of the Sciences and abortion was the last thing on my mind. Anyway I read back over the posts then and during that time the narrative was dominated by posts simeonsdad. Furore? What furore I last posted on how the Chinese count birthdays!

We have a different idea of what abortion means. You argue I am playing semantics around the use of the word abortion. Well if I am its only through the influence of the medical establishment. Curiously, your silent on Prof John Bonnar's quote. I can cite more like it if you wish.

There are several conditions were the child is likely to be doomed but the mother's life is in no way risked. In these cases in Ireland the pregnancy is not ended because it would not impact the mother's health. The doctors will take take measure that allow an early and very easy delivery. Even if the child dies within months, those few months are typically an enormous consolation to the parents.

We only have flaky second-hand information on what Michelle Harte's doctor said to her but in the interviews she is inaccurate on some details of chemo-treatment. Its problematic. Clearly a sufficient number of her doctor's colleagues disagree to overrule that advice.

Demanding evidence is a good and admirable thing!

My only real point that Irish law is in no way incompatible with the highest standards of care, as there is no conflict of interest between mother and child. If ectopic pregnancy can be treated here I don't see any reason why any of the much rarer conditions you mentioned can't be treated here. In fact I know they are.


BTW for clarity. A 'medical abortion' is simply an abortion achieved through non-surgical techniques. It bears no relationship to it being an essential treatment.