Abortion Discussion

militare imperium

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm referring to an actual source that backs up your fairly massive claims rather than repeating the claims.

There is very little research into abortion. Indeed the UK only reports any side effects that occur before the woman leaves the clinic ( https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226929/2013_D_Guidance_note_for_HSA4_paper_form.pdf Page 5 - Section 9 … although Section 10 'Death of Woman' is open ended the form has to be returned within 14 days). The main problem is that because abortion has become a political issue, a right beyond a normal medical procedure, any talk of risks can be discouraged or seen as a covert pro-life attack on safe, legal abortion.

Is there any particular claim you would challenge?
1 - We shouldn't kill people.
2 - People like to see themselves as doing the right thing.
3 - Seeing yourself as having done the wrong thing can create an internal crisis.
4 - People like consistency, despite often holding contrary positions.
5 - The brain tries to make new information fit existing models.
6 - Reduced bonding between mother and child can lead to worse outcomes for the child. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724160/

Approximately 15% of infants in low psychosocial risk and as many as 82% of those in high-risk situations do not use any of the three organized strategies for dealing with stress and negative emotion. These children have disorganized attachment. One recently identified pathway to children’s disorganized attachment includes children’s exposure to specific forms of distorted parenting and unusual caregiver behaviours that are ‘atypical’ … There is evidence to suggest that caregivers who display atypical behaviours often have a history of unresolved mourning or unresolved emotional, physical or sexual trauma, or are otherwise traumatized (eg, post-traumatic stress disorder or the traumatized victim of domestic violence)

A good comparison is with miscarriage, although the child was not wanted, the symptoms can be the same (particularly if the mother was forced into abortion by family etc). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050416100616.htm

"When a woman becomes pregnant after a loss, that pregnancy is a very different experience … These women are in a very different place. Most are emotionally guarded. Many experience high anxiety and stress. There is a loss of innocence and a sense of skepticism."

Studies by other researchers have shown that experiences such as this can influence the obstetrical outcome and can have a negative impact on mother-child bonding and parenting.

militare imperium

Corkfeen wrote: »

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.

How then do you rationalise a decision to abort for social reasons with a complete respect for human life?

I'm not suggesting that they cease to respect human life - but that it is necessary to limit what we call life to preserve this respect. An effect we see (slippery slope) in euthanasia etc - it changes from 'life', to a 'life worth living', to a 'productive life' (ie not a burden) … but the judge of whether this life is worthy of respect (or indeed a life at all) is rarely the one being killed.

(Although I doubt it's necessary to do the act to experience this - it's a changing moral view not an inevitability ... can be counteracted by just cause or recognition of wrongdoing, acceptance is the key to the change)

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.

Everybody has their biases. http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/02/from-harryph-beware-of-experts-claiming-to-have-no-ideological-baggage.html

Piliger

militare imperium wrote: »

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/

Excuse me ... but are you actually suggesting that this blog be considered a reliable factual source for your assertion that "the reporter had to visit several times and specifically enquire about negative consequences in order to get this response" ?

Frito

militare imperium wrote: »

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)

The highlighted part to me suggests cognitive consonance and I suspect this dilemma and it's potential consequence is overstated.

I recall a meta-analysis concluding there was no observable correlation between abortion and mental health problems, so perhaps any statistical increases of abuse or neglect occur in spite of abortion and not because of it.

As far as theory goes, one might argue that any cognitive dissonance arising from abortion could lead to an increased likelihood of fearful/anxious caregiving (which is not strongly correlated with abuse) in an effort to 'correct' the abortion. It is just a theory though and has no place being offered as advice to women (or couples) in the midst of a crisis pregnancy.

militare imperium

Piliger wrote: »

Excuse me ... but are you actually suggesting that this blog be considered a reliable factual source for your assertion that "the reporter had to visit several times and specifically enquire about negative consequences in order to get this response" ?

The blogger knows the people who run the centre (they are relatively well known, if not agreed with, in London) - why would they lie? When caught before they go completely silent. Typically these risks (without context / likelihood) are mentioned in their literature ( http://twitpic.com/b2vjg3 ), not the conversation. I used to know someone who worked there (from university), so kind of know how they work (and I've observed their street counselling - if not their counselling at the centre).

This centre was previously visited and caught ( http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecV_qVr4FU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-ecV_qVr4FU ), the next time the stings happened ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2031572/Abortion-Mail-writers-investigation-counselling-services-poses-disturbing-questions.html - good article! ) they obviously realised it was a journalist ... surprised they didn't spot this one.

Delirium

militare imperium wrote: »

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.

What has a decision by the Advertising Standards got to do with the claim the centres are unregulated?

militare imperium

SW wrote: »

What has a decision by the Advertising Standards got to do with the claim the centres are unregulated?

As in "they are regulated as to what they can say about themselves" ... but not even the counsellors inside abortion facilities are regulated.

Delirium

militare imperium wrote: »

As in "they are regulated as to what they can say about themselves" ... but not even the counsellors inside abortion facilities are regulated.

The centres where abortions are carried are regulated by the government AFAIK. They have a list of procedures and legal requirements they must meet to be approved to carry out abortions.

militare imperium

SW wrote: »

The centres where abortions are carried are regulated by the government AFAIK. They have a list of procedures and legal requirements they must meet to be approved to carry out abortions.

But the counselling aspect isn't regulated, unless the counsellor is also performing the medical assessment (How pregnant are you? Which grounds for abortion do you meet? Medical or surgical procedure?).

Counselling itself isn't required, and generally is on a request only basis - some can be confused into thinking that the medical assessment is supposed to be some sort of counselling (because of questions about mental health or how you will cope), but it isn't.

iwantmydinner

Militare, I'm really struggling with your posts.

Where do you stand on legal access to abortion?

Turtwig

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Militare, I'm really struggling with your posts.

Where do you stand on legal access to abortion?

Regardless of the legal position, the arguments s/he is making should still stand/fail on their own merit.

militare imperium

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Militare, I'm really struggling with your posts.

Where do you stand on legal access to abortion?

I think abortion is generally not acceptable (I would say that the pregnancy is not the problem, excluding to save the life of the mother), but my attitude is that it's more important to make abortion unneeded by properly supporting women than to make it illegal (free will).

As part of the supporting thing, I don't judge those who have had abortions - but I think it is a real indictment of society that we fail to support people (I would say the same with regard to those suffering mental illness - counselling suicidal people I was surprised at how often their families can't cope and cut them off).

Brian Shanahan

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)

I'll take a moment to point out that that's not actually logic. It's just making up a conclusion and randomly associating it with an action.

Sarky

militare imperium wrote: »

Let's break it down into points.

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.

Contradiction in that quote aside, science says no such thing. Life is a process that started a few billion years ago and never stopped.

militare imperium

Sarky wrote: »

Contradiction in that quote aside, science says no such thing. Life is a process that started a few billion years ago and never stopped.

1 - I meant that Science alone cannot solve our problems, we cannot escape hard decisions by relying on science - we have to apply it to an ethical framework. Science tells us what is possible, ethics tells us what is acceptable. (In the same way as science has to be contrasted with liberty in terms of smoking or drug laws)

2 - Start of life for that particular organism. ie at conception the zygote is independent (by virtue of its DNA, as in a tapeworm is not part of a human despite being dependent on it) and shows all the signs of life appropriate for that stage of life (ie reproduction doesn't occur, movement and sensitivity are less obvious).

Sarky

I had to endure a train journey earlier sitting next to a lovely little old lady who claimed that the recent bad weather in Cork was because "they legalised abortion here." She also claimed the trouble with America today was the whole 'marriage equality' thing, and darkly hinted that worse was in store for Ireland because "sure 'tis all prophecy, isn't it?"

So that was a thing that happened.

PopePalpatine

Ah, so you've met one of the Nic Mhathunas?

Brian Shanahan

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Ah, so you've met one of the Nic Mhathunas?

Or one of the Bennises.

Sarky

So last week a nice lady some of us may well know was given the @ireland account on Twitter to curate for the week. She ended up tweeting the story of an abortion she had when she was 18. Not the easiest thing to do, considering some of the conservative hacks happy to spit vitriol over anyone not shouting about the tiny baybeez.

It garnered rather a lot more praise than condemnation though, and it's made the BBC and Al Jazeera. Not too shabby.

aloyisious

I had a quiet laugh at the "she shouldn't have been given control of the account, she had a clear agenda" bit in the Beeb report, so human in failing to realize how silly some quotes can be.

the_monkey

Those protestors are the sc*m of the Earth, pushing the idea that an abortion is the same as murdering a newborn baby.

Sick sick sick people.

Turtwig

the_monkey wrote: »

Those protestors are the sc*m of the Earth, pushing the idea that an abortion is the same as murdering a newborn baby.

Sick sick sick people.

That is a little harsh.

Fair enough disagree with them, but please understand that they have a different philosophical view on when life begins. To them, life begins at the moment of conception. It's a little too black and white, but that is there belief and a natural consequence of that is the the embryo is the exact same a grown adult. Killing both are equal. Everyone feels a strong claim to human rights and ethics. These people are repulsed by murder and once you take the view that life begins at concept the natural conclusion is that artificial destruction of that life is murder. If you're repulsed by murder of adults and you consider adults and embryos as the same personhood wise, then surely the sick thing would be not being repulsed by abortion?

rorypb1

the_monkey wrote: »

Those protestors are the sc*m of the Earth, pushing the idea that an abortion is the same as murdering a newborn baby.

Sick sick sick people.

Protesters of anything, come in all shapes and sizes, from the reasonable to extreme. All atheists are not pro abortion, all theists are not anti abortion.
Killing someone without knowing it is not murder.
A child and an adult are not the same, but they are human life.
Some people believe we don't have the right to take, or prevent another other human life. Whatever you think of it, an unborn child, e.g. the one below at 12 weeks, from getty images, is human life.

gaynorvader

rorypb1 wrote: »

Protesters of anything, come in all shapes and sizes, from the reasonable to extreme. All atheists are not pro abortion, all theists are not anti abortion.
Killing someone without knowing it is not murder.
A child and an adult are not the same, but they are human life.
Some people believe we don't have the right to take, or prevent another other human life. Whatever you think of it, an unborn child, e.g. the one below at 12 weeks, from getty images, is human life.

Is this (left) also a human?


Just because something looks human, doesn't make it one. The image by itself is a poor argument.

Piliger

the_monkey wrote: »

Those protestors are the sc*m of the Earth, pushing the idea that an abortion is the same as murdering a newborn baby.

Sick sick sick people.

Sick is right. Totally sick, and amoral.

Piliger

rorypb1 wrote: »

Some people believe we don't have the right to take, or prevent another other human life. Whatever you think of it, an unborn child, e.g. the one below at 12 weeks, from getty images, is human life.

Bull$hit. No matter what you say, it is not a human life. It is a potential human life and it is dependent on the mother's body. She has the right to withdraw her body.

Are these human lives ?

Cabaal

rorypb1 wrote: »

A child and an adult are not the same, but they are human life.

Potential human life,

What about the half of a potential human life that is sperm
Its alive, hell it even has a sense of smell.

Should you condemn somebody for masturbation? (yes, I know the catholic church has already been doing this)

kylith

rorypb1 wrote: »

Protesters of anything, come in all shapes and sizes, from the reasonable to extreme. All atheists are not pro abortion, all theists are not anti abortion.
Killing someone without knowing it is not murder.
A child and an adult are not the same, but they are human life.
Some people believe we don't have the right to take, or prevent another other human life. Whatever you think of it, an unborn child, e.g. the one below at 12 weeks, from getty images, is human life.

But is it worth more than the life of a grown woman with hopes, dreams, aspirations, and a fully functioning brain, none of which a foetus has? Would you look me in the eye and tell me that my 32 years of life and experiences and hopes should be second to a 12 week old foetus the size of a hamster that could spontaneously abort itself any minute? Should I be forced to risk my life for something which is not independently alive?

Mark Hamill

rorypb1 wrote: »

Pictures of foetuses as developed as that are very inaccurate, the following is closer to what a 12 week foetus looks like:

Scale is also commonly left out of those pictures. A 12 week foetus is about 5 or 6cm long.

Sulla Felix

Whether a given piece of meat can sustain itself independently is probably a bad metric on which to base our definition of human or not. Concious thought might be better but that raises it's own issues.

Surgically remove the foetus at any stage and remove all artificial supports and the organism will die, be it at 12 weeks or 36 weeks. Then again remove all supports from a child of 1 and it'll be a matter of days or weeks before it perishes. Does that make the child less human than an adult?

Anyway, I think the abortion issue it hinges on whether a given person thinks human life is generally worth preserving. I happen to think it's not so there's no mental acrobatics required for me to support the purposeful ending of a human life in the womb. For some people they do think human life is preserving so for them to support abortion they have to find a way in which they can think of the foetus as in- or ab- or non- human.

I'd love to do some trolly dilemna surveys around this area. I've a feeling there's a sizeable proportion of people who, if forced to face the concept, would find the value the ascribe to human life is variable and most importantly, relative.