Abortion Discussion

28064212

Absolam wrote: »

Really?
The first statement says that the likelihood of sexual abuse will increase.
The second says that a specific person is more likely to commit sexual abuse.
You honestly can't tell the difference between the two?

Not when the first statement is said directly to the person concerned. Again, if she was in hospital getting a breast augmentation, and the doctor says to her:

1. "There's an increased statistical likelihood of impeded breast-feeding function"
2. "You are statistically more likely to have an impeded breast-feeding function"

Do you see a different meaning there?

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

Really?
The first statement says that the likelihood of sexual abuse will increase.
The second says that a specific person is more likely to commit sexual abuse.
You honestly can't tell the difference between the two?

So the first statement is talking about other people, and has no bearing on the woman the doctor is talking to? Really?

Absolam

28064212 wrote: »

Not when the first statement is said directly to the person concerned. Again, if she was in hospital getting a breast augmentation, and the doctor says to her:

1. "There's an increased statistical likelihood of impeded breast-feeding function"
2. "You are statistically more likely to have an impeded breast-feeding function"

Do you see a different meaning there?

And if she left the hospital after being told there's an increased statistical likelihood of impeded breast-feeding function, and announced that the doctor told her she was statistically more likely to have an impeded breast-feeding function, her statement would be factually incorrect. Because that would not be what the doctor had in fact said.

SW wrote: »

So the first statement is talking about other people, and has no bearing on the woman the doctor is talking to? Really?

No; one statement was made by the counselor. A different statement was reported by the reporter. If you're going to climb on a moral high horse about what someone said, then it should be about what they said, not what they apparently intended to convey, but unfortunately didn't actually say.

28064212

Absolam wrote: »

And if she left the hospital after being told there's an increased statistical likelihood of impeded breast-feeding function, and announced that the doctor told her she was statistically more likely to have an impeded breast-feeding function, her statement would be factually incorrect. Because that would not be what the doctor had in fact said.

If she had said she was told she was statistically more likely to have trouble breast-feeding, that would not be what the doctor said either, because he used the phrase "impeded breast-feeding function". But the actual meaning of the statement would be exactly the same

Absolam

28064212 wrote: »

If she had said she was told she was statistically more likely to have trouble breast-feeding, that would not be what the doctor said either, because he used the phrase "impeded breast-feeding function". But the actual meaning of the statement would be exactly the same

But the meaning of the two statements in the case in point wasn't the same. It's pretty obvious the counselor wanted to dance around the point to give an impression without making the specific statement, because that suited her agenda, but she never made the specific statement. Yet the reporter said she did, because that suited her agenda.

28064212

Absolam wrote: »

But the meaning of the two statements in the case in point wasn't the same

I don't agree. What's the difference in meaning between these two statements?

28064212 wrote: »

If she was in hospital getting a breast augmentation, and the doctor says to her:

1. "There's an increased statistical likelihood of impeded breast-feeding function"
2. "You are statistically more likely to have an impeded breast-feeding function"

Absolam

28064212 wrote: »

I don't agree. What's the difference in meaning between these two statements?

Those aren't the statements in question, these are:

• There is an increased statistical likelihood of sexual abuse if you have an abortion
• You are statistically more likely to sexually abuse children if you have an abortion

And the difference is;
In the first case it is offered that there is an overall increase in the probability of the occurrence of sexual abuse when a specific individual has an abortion. It is not offered who might perpetrate the abuse.
In the second case it is offered that there is an increase in the probability of an individual who has an abortion committing sexual abuse. The person who might perpetrate the abuse is specified, but the relative volume of abuse is not specified.

Bannasidhe

Absolam wrote: »

Those aren't the statements in question, these are:

• There is an increased statistical likelihood of sexual abuse if you have an abortion
• You are statistically more likely to sexually abuse children if you have an abortion

And the difference is;
In the first case it is offered that there is an overall increase in the probability of the occurrence of sexual abuse when a specific individual has an abortion. It is not offered who might perpetrate the abuse.
In the second case it is offered that there is an increase in the probability of an individual who has an abortion committing sexual abuse. The person who might perpetrate the abuse is specified, but the relative volume of abuse is not specified.

Either way - for a crises pregnancy councillor to tell a woman she believes to be in a crises situation that there is a link between having an abortion and the abuse of children is appalling and no amount of hair splitting will change that.

Absolam

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Either way - for a crises pregnancy councillor to tell a woman she believes to be in a crises situation that there is a link between having an abortion and the abuse of children is appalling and no amount of hair splitting will change that.

I don't disagree; I've said so throughout. The video was shocking enough on its' own that the reporter didn't really need to make stuff up to go along with it.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

Those aren't the statements in question, these are:

• There is an increased statistical likelihood of sexual abuse if you have an abortion
• You are statistically more likely to sexually abuse children if you have an abortion

And the difference is;
In the first case it is offered that there is an overall increase in the probability of the occurrence of sexual abuse when a specific individual has an abortion. It is not offered who might perpetrate the abuse.
In the second case it is offered that there is an increase in the probability of an individual who has an abortion committing sexual abuse. The person who might perpetrate the abuse is specified, but the relative volume of abuse is not specified.

If you ignore all context you are correct. Well done.

kylith

Absolam wrote: »

Really?
The first statement says that the likelihood of sexual abuse will increase.
The second says that a specific person is more likely to commit sexual abuse.
You honestly can't tell the difference between the two?

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Are you trying to say that the counsellor meant to imply that having an abortion leads to a statistical increase in child abuse in society in general?

Piliger

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Either way - for a crises pregnancy councillor to tell a woman she believes to be in a crises situation that there is a link between having an abortion and the abuse of children is appalling and no amount of hair splitting will change that.

+1 especially when it is a bare faced lie ....:rolleyes:

Sulla Felix

I'm going to have to row in behind Absolam on this one. The actions of the councillor were despicable enough without adding spin to it. The councillor almost certainly was trying to set the idea in the patients head that they were increasingly likely to be an abusive parent. The councillor was using manipulative language. So was the article. It's worth noting that journalists rarely write their own headlines, their editor would.

Bannasidhe

Sulla Felix wrote: »

I'm going to have to row in behind Absolam on this one. The actions of the councillor were despicable enough without adding spin to it. The councillor almost certainly was trying to set the idea in the patients head that they were increasingly likely to be an abusive parent. The councillor was using manipulative language. So was the article. It's worth noting that journalists rarely write their own headlines, their editor would.

I don't disagree but personally I feel that to focus on the actions of a journalist/editor results in the main issue being sidelined - how many women in crises pregnancies have suffered this kind of emotional abuse from those they turn to for help?

And yes - I do think it is emotional abuse of a person in a vulnerable state.

Also - article worded in sensationalist manner is hardly breaking news.

Absolam

kylith wrote: »

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Are you trying to say that the counsellor meant to imply that having an abortion leads to a statistical increase in child abuse in society in general?

No, what I think the counsellor meant to imply doesn't come into it, only what the counsellor actually said. The reporter couldn't be certain what the counsellor meant to imply (although it seems obvious, it still only seems), she could only be certain of what the counsellor actually said.

iwantmydinner

To be honest, I think the only thing that's important is the message the woman came away with.

Whether she heard "if you have an abortion you are statistically more likely to abuse a child" or "abortions in general lead to statistical increases in child abuse" the message is the same:




"Have an abortion, and consider yourself responsible for child abuse."




And I don't quite have the words to describe how despicable that message is.

Absolam

I think the most important thing is the clinics deliberate attempts to mislead pregnant women. I think another important thing is the papers deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Neither issue should go unaddressed just because the other is more significant, to my mind.

aloyisious

I'm slightly ashamed that I might have been a bit of a bully yesterday. I was on Berkeley Rd going past the Marie Stopes clinic and the small prayer group (two women) when a young woman with a buggy and child left it. One of the group began talking to the young woman and following her down the street, asking her about the child and the baby. The conversation was audible at street level. An offer of leaflets was declined by the young woman, then an offer of directions to O'Connell St, all being made on the move. When the young woman had gone way past the former Motorcycle shop on Blessington St, she was still declining to talk to the older woman who had followed her there. I was several yards in front of them and told the older woman that she was basically harassing the young woman, which she denied but kept following. All this was being observed by the second of the prayer-group women, who had followed them down to Blessington St. The young woman, who seemed European by accent, was visibly upset at the persistence of the older woman. At that time, I realized they were not going to leave the young woman alone, so I took out a camera and made it clear that I would photograph what the older woman was doing to the younger women if she did not leave her alone. She ignored me until I took several photos (since deleted) of the scene and then walked away saying she was not harassing the younger woman. This was the first time that I've seen the prayer-group act like this, in all the times I've seen them following their faith's creed outside the clinic.

EDIT: I did cause embarrassment to the young woman, as she turned her head and face to hide it from camera-view when I started photo-ing. I don't know for sure what she thought of my actions. She may have even thought I was with the group and clearly couldn't know what my intent was.

Bannasidhe

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm slightly ashamed that I might have been a bit of a bully yesterday. I was on Berkeley Rd going past the Marie Stopes clinic and the small prayer group (two women) when a young woman with a buggy and child left it. One of the group began talking to the young woman and following her down the street, asking her about the child and the baby. The conversation was audible at street level. An offer of leaflets was declined by the young woman, then an offer of directions to O'Connell St, all being made on the move. When the young woman had gone way past the former Motorcycle shop on Blessington St, she was still declining to talk to the older woman who had followed her there. I was several yards in front of them and told the older woman that she was basically harassing the young woman, which she denied but kept following. All this was being observed by the second of the prayer-group women, who had followed them down to Blessington St. The young woman, who seemed European by accent, was visibly upset at the persistence of the older woman. At that time, I realized they were not going to leave the young woman alone, so I took out a camera and made it clear that I would photograph what the older woman was doing to the younger women if she did not leave her alone. She ignored me until I took several photos (since deleted) of the scene and then walked away saying she was not harassing the younger woman. This was the first time that I've seen the prayer-group act like this, in all the times I've seen them following their faith's creed outside the clinic.

Doesn't seem to me that you were the one may have been acting the bully.

militare imperium

eviltwin wrote: »

No, the "logic" seems to be that having an abortion is something that only the kind of woman who hates children would do and that of course with that amount of hated for kids in her why wouldn't she think nothing of sexually abusing one? Sure if she can just murder a child like its nothing child abuse should be a walk in the park! :mad:

This kind of absolute horsesh!t makes my blood boil, you think you have seen these groups scrape the bottom of the taste barrel with their claims but this is a whole new level of sick even for them.

My heart breaks for any woman who maybe has been a victim of sex abuse herself or has someone of that nature in her family who may be swayed by this kind of guilt tripping. How are they allowed to get away with it!!!!

I think the logic is that having dehumanised the unwanted child (in order to make abortion morally acceptable) it is harder to form an attachment with the wanted child in utero - as accepting their humanity reminds you what you have done before. So you may form a less secure attachment to following children, and be more likely to neglect them, etc. (neglect and anger can be abuse just as much as sexual abuse)

Bannasidhe

militare imperium wrote: »

I think the logic is that having dehumanised the unwanted child (in order to make abortion morally acceptable) it is harder to form an attachment with the wanted child in utero - as accepting their humanity reminds you what you have done before. So you may form a less secure attachment to following children, and be more likely to neglect them, etc. (neglect and anger can be abuse just as much as sexual abuse)

By that 'logic' every trained solider is more likely to commit murder having been desensitised to killing.

I'd better steer clear of my bother-in-law and first cousin - actually what should be done with my cousin's daughter - her mother is a trained killer after all....:eek:

iwantmydinner

militare imperium wrote: »

I think the logic is that having dehumanised the unwanted child (in order to make abortion morally acceptable) it is harder to form an attachment with the wanted child in utero - as accepting their humanity reminds you what you have done before. So you may form a less secure attachment to following children, and be more likely to neglect them, etc. (neglect and anger can be abuse just as much as sexual abuse)

Wow.

Source?

gaynorvader

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Wow.

Source?

militare imperium wrote: »

I think the logic is {...}

How could there be a source?

iwantmydinner

gaynorvader wrote: »

How could there be a source?

That was kinda my point.

That "logic" is insane.

militare imperium

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By that 'logic' every trained solider is more likely to commit murder having been desensitised to killing.

I'd better steer clear of my bother-in-law and first cousin - actually what should be done with my cousin's daughter - her mother is a trained killer after all....:eek:

Whilst most soldiers don't actually kill (certainly in the West restraint/discipline is valued more highly), the issues of how we train them on their mental health are very large. Whilst most mental issues (suicide, violence, paranoia, etc) come from the stress of active service, we have to consider the effect on racism, etc (ie if you see Iraqis as a threat when serving - are you less trusting of arabs at home?).

There is also a big difference between a 'just' and 'unjust' killing - even if both are 'wrong', which is why armies have a lot of ethical training (particularly at officer level) alongside effectiveness training.

iwantmydinner wrote: »

That was kinda my point.

That "logic" is insane.

That logic isn't insane - the effect of losing a child on later pregnancies is often noted in adoption. In fact some ethicists posit that it is better to abort than adopt because it allows 'closure' rather than the wonder of what the child is doing now and Damocles' sword of being sought out by the child (and perhaps sadness at not being sought out). The main thrust of this research is that those mothers who adopt or abort need to be supported after the act to ensure proper mental health - often with both these 'solutions' to an unwanted pregnancy the issue is swept under the carpet and the mother is expected to return to normality, so issues not addressed then may manifest later (at the most extreme issues of rape in relationships, sexual abuse of young teens [as in the Rotherham case in England], etc are ignored because the pregnancy is treated as the primary problem - rather than a symptom).

As I understand from information popping up around the internet the 2 pregnancy resource centres that were criticised (ie not the LIFE or Care Confidential ones which are the majority) use this 'counselling' methodology - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YViUJaPcHE0 ... you may agree with the only comment - that the guy is a "mega douchebag".

Corkfeen

militare imperium wrote: »

I think the logic is that having dehumanised the unwanted child (in order to make abortion morally acceptable) it is harder to form an attachment with the wanted child in utero - as accepting their humanity reminds you what you have done before. So you may form a less secure attachment to following children, and be more likely to neglect them, etc. (neglect and anger can be abuse just as much as sexual abuse)

Got anything to prove or support this claim? Rather than vague assumptions and conclusions.

Bannasidhe

Corkfeen wrote: »

Got anything to prove or support this claim? Rather than vague assumptions and conclusions.

Psycho-babble is psycho-babble.

militare imperium

Corkfeen wrote: »

Got anything to prove or support this claim? Rather than vague assumptions and conclusions.

Let's break it down into points.

I think the logic is that having dehumanised the unwanted child (in order to make abortion morally acceptable)

1 - Human Life is to be respected,and cannot be taken without just cause/proper authority. (ie personal self defence, just wars, state punishment)
1 (a) - Whilst human life has been treated as cheap in the past, sickly babies discarded on the rubbish tips of Rome etc, since the time of Christianity it has been seen as sacred (although not always treated as such).
1 (b) - The question of when 'life' begins cannot be solved by Science. Science says that life begins at conception as the cells have different DNA and exhibit signs of life. The idea of personhood/humanity appearing at a particular point is a philosophical matter.
2 - Everybody wants to do the 'right thing'. That is, if a person is acting without duress, they will do what they believe to be right - or where a situation makes the less favourable thing more likely they will rationalise it as the right thing. ("if we did for ourselves what we do for our country, what rascals we should be" Count Camillo Cavour)

...having dehumanised the unwanted child it is harder to form an attachment with the wanted child in utero

3 - This is a continuation of the above rationalisation theory - and the human bias against ideas contrasting with those we already hold (confirmation bias, etc) - that if you have decided the foetus at the stage you aborted was not human - why would you care for this thing now? If you give this foetus value, then are you recognising the value of the aborted child - and you have a dilemma, did you do a bad thing? (This dilemma would not occur if you can see the abortion as just)

So you may form a less secure attachment to following children, and be more likely to neglect them, etc. (neglect and anger can be abuse just as much as sexual abuse)

4 - If you do not form a close bond with a child you are more likely to neglect them, be less forgiving, etc (seen with step children, or children of mothers who suffered post-birth depression).

…So probably just as vague, after all I studied politics not psychiatry - but having spoken to people with various experiences of abortion (ranging from a lack of guilt, to severe depression - including people who have had failed abortions and medical complications), and taking 'annabel' in the best way this is how I understand it.

Corkfeen

I'm referring to an actual source that backs up your fairly massive claims rather than repeating the claims. You're assuming that a person ceases to respect human life as a result of an abortion,this isn't in any way true. A person who has an abortion does not respect human life less and it's a rather hurtful perspective.

Since you're from a politics background,you should realise your expertise on the subject is unreliable hence an even greater need for a source to backup the claim.

militare imperium

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What is enraging me is the thought that a woman faced with a crises pregnancy seeks advice from a 'professional' only to have this kind of guilt trip laid on top.

Absolam wrote: »

But the report starts with "a reporter from The Telegraph is told by an abortion counsellor that a termination could make them more likely to sexually abuse children in the future", which, when it comes to quoting what was said, becomes "“There’s also, an increased statistical likelihood of child abuse”, Annabel said", which is actually not the same as the headline. Both the clinic and the reporter are being more than slightly selective with the truth in my opinion.

Watching the video, there's no doubt the woman in the clinic is trying to lead the reporter to that conclusion, which is appalling, but there's no doubt either that the reporter wasn't actually told that a termination could make them more likely to sexually abuse children in the future, so the headline is also appalling.

As I understand it the reporter had to visit several times and specifically enquire about negative consequences in order to get this response.

http://carolinefarrow.com/2014/02/12/rejecting-the-frame/

I gather the usual spiel is "What are your problems that make you want an abortion? ... That's a baby, you know? Here - look! How can we help you to fix those problems that make you think of abortion? We can help with those problems by…"

Basically Care Confidential / Life do the stereotypically female response of "let's talk about you, your feelings, etc" … the organisations using the Monsignor's techniques do the stereotypically male response of "win the argument - provide practical solutions".

SW wrote: »

+100000000

According to the article, the centres like the one mentioned in the story are entirely unregulated.

Not entirely - http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2011/7/Albany-Womens-Centre/TF_ADJ_50995.aspx

I think the UK doesn't regulate counselling AFAIK - otherwise the Samaritans would be drowning in paperwork for every volunteer they put on the phones after a 12 hour course and some shadowing. I think it just regulates psychotherapists.