Abortion Discussion

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

The science is very clear. Sorry if it contradicts your beliefs.

Could you link to the science you've mentioned several times now? Is the morning after pill acceptable under this science you've mentioned? Are frozen embryos the unborn under this same science?

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

And at no point has anyone given the right of bodily integrity to the unborn, but the woman has. The unborn, by Irish law,has been given the right to life but nothing else, and as with my example nobody can be forced to give up their bodily integrity even if it results in the death of another.

Exactly, and by that reasoning you cannot argue that not giving someone the use of their body makes them responsible for another's life. If you do not give me money you are not held responsible for my poverty. If you do not donate an organ to me you are not responsible for my death. If a woman does not allow the use of her body to continue a pregnancy she is not responsible for the foetus that is terminated as a result.

Termination doesn't happen by magic. You want the machinery of State to be involved - taxpayers, doctors, hospitals, courts and constitution.
You want us all to be blamed because we refuse to collaborate in killing an unborn.

That isn't sensible or even intelligent.

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Termination doesn't happen by magic. You want the machinery of State to be involved - taxpayers, doctors, hospitals, courts and constitution.
You want us all to be blamed because we refuse to collaborate in killing an unborn.

That isn't sensible or even intelligent.

What would happen if all the groups you mentioned refused to cooperate with the provisions in the protection of life during pregnancy legislation and didn't perform 26 terminations of pregnancy last year? Would 26 women dying be ok, along with the unborn, once no one was helping them to end pregnancies?

oldrnwisr

Peregrinus wrote: »

Seriously? It's legally permitted in both the UK and the US, for a start. And, whatever about the formal legal position, it is widely practiced in both China and India, so it's certainly not effectively forbidden.

Except that it isn't permitted in the UK. Following some isolated media reports on the issue, the General Medical Council issued the following guidance in 2012:

Sex selection and abortion: keep within the law

"Three cases of doctors allegedly offering abortions solely because the foetus was not the sex preferred by the parents have been reported in the media. Abortions provided solely on grounds of the sex of the foetus are not legal in the UK. We have launched investigations into the fitness to practise of the doctors involved. We also want to remind all doctors that they must work within the law."




Furthermore, contrary to Two Sheds false assertion here:

Two Sheds wrote: »

... which includes the all-too-common reason of aborting because the unborn is female.

Charming!

there is no actual evidence that sex-selection abortions are performed either in the UK or the US.


Neither the NHS in the UK nor the CDC in the US track the gender of abortions.

In fact since 77.7% (2011) of all abortions in the UK were performed at 3-9 weeks, determining the gender even by the most rigorous tests (i.e. blood sample, CVS or amniocentesis) the results wouldn't be all that reliable.

Furthermore, using one of the few metrics available to even get an indication of whether this phenomenon is happening is birth ratio of girls. Since 1970 in the US this has actually increased albeit only slightly.

Yes, there have been scattered media reports but they are unconfirmed and unrepresentative. The plural of anecdote is not data.


There have been one or two studies claiming that sex-selective abortion is practised in the UK but these studies are deeply flawed, something I have outlined previously here




Sources

NHS Statistics

CDC Statistics

Reduced Ratio of Male to Female Births in Several Industrial Countries

Prenatal sex discernment

rainbow kirby

Two Sheds wrote: »

You choose to ignore the unborn child. How convenient for you!

I find it pretty disgusting tbh that people want to place equal value on a first trimester embryo/foetus and the person who is carrying it.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Termination doesn't happen by magic. You want the machinery of State to be involved - taxpayers, doctors, hospitals, courts and constitution.
You want us all to be blamed because we refuse to collaborate in killing an unborn.

That isn't sensible or even intelligent.

So are you saying that the right to bodily integrity is to be forfeited by women during pregnancy?

lazygal

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Except that it isn't permitted in the UK. Following some isolated media reports on the issue, the General Medical Council issued the following guidance in 2012:

Sex selection and abortion: keep within the law

"Three cases of doctors allegedly offering abortions solely because the foetus was not the sex preferred by the parents have been reported in the media. Abortions provided solely on grounds of the sex of the foetus are not legal in the UK. We have launched investigations into the fitness to practise of the doctors involved. We also want to remind all doctors that they must work within the law."




Furthermore, contrary to Two Sheds false assertion here:





there is no actual evidence that sex-selection abortions are performed either in the UK or the US.


Neither the NHS in the UK nor the CDC in the US track the gender of abortions.

In fact since 77.7% (2011) of all abortions in the UK were performed at 3-9 weeks, determining the gender even by the most rigorous tests (i.e. blood sample, CVS or amniocentesis) the results wouldn't be all that reliable.

Furthermore, using one of the few metrics available to even get an indication of whether this phenomenon is happening is birth ratio of girls. Since 1970 in the US this has actually increased albeit only slightly.

Yes, there have been scattered media reports but they are unconfirmed and unrepresentative. The plural of anecdote is not data.


There have been one or two studies claiming that sex-selective abortion is practised in the UK but these studies are deeply flawed, something I have outlined previously here




Sources

NHS Statistics

CDC Statistics

Reduced Ratio of Male to Female Births in Several Industrial Countries

Prenatal sex discernment

Excellent as always.

Two Sheds

lazygal wrote: »

What would happen if all the groups you mentioned refused to cooperate with the provisions in the protection of life during pregnancy legislation and didn't perform 26 terminations of pregnancy last year? Would 26 women dying be ok, along with the unborn, once no one was helping them to end pregnancies?

We have already decided that the State should act in such cases and have said why and how it should act.

You want the State to act simply because a woman wants her unborn child to be killed. We have decided that the state should have no role in such an action because we recognise the right to life of every individual. We have also decided that the State should act, within reason, to protect the life of every individual.

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

We have already decided that the State should act in such cases and have said why and how it should act.

You want the State to act simply because a woman wants her unborn child to be killed. We have decided that the state should have no role in such an action because we recognise the right to life of every individual. We have also decided that the State should act, within reason, to protect the life of every individual.

So it is ok to kill the unborn sometimes. How is ok to kill the unborn because a woman's life is at risk, but its not ok to force me to donate organs to my children when their life is at risk?
Any luck with those science links? And your views on the morning after pill and frozen embryos?

Two Sheds

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Except that it isn't permitted in the UK. Following some isolated media reports on the issue, the General Medical Council issued the following guidance in 2012:

Sex selection and abortion: keep within the law

"Three cases of doctors allegedly offering abortions solely because the foetus was not the sex preferred by the parents have been reported in the media. Abortions provided solely on grounds of the sex of the foetus are not legal in the UK. We have launched investigations into the fitness to practise of the doctors involved. We also want to remind all doctors that they must work within the law."




Furthermore, contrary to Two Sheds false assertion here:





there is no actual evidence that sex-selection abortions are performed either in the UK or the US.


Neither the NHS in the UK nor the CDC in the US track the gender of abortions.

In fact since 77.7% (2011) of all abortions in the UK were performed at 3-9 weeks, determining the gender even by the most rigorous tests (i.e. blood sample, CVS or amniocentesis) the results wouldn't be all that reliable.

Furthermore, using one of the few metrics available to even get an indication of whether this phenomenon is happening is birth ratio of girls. Since 1970 in the US this has actually increased albeit only slightly.

Yes, there have been scattered media reports but they are unconfirmed and unrepresentative. The plural of anecdote is not data.


There have been one or two studies claiming that sex-selective abortion is practised in the UK but these studies are deeply flawed, something I have outlined previously here




Sources

NHS Statistics

CDC Statistics

Reduced Ratio of Male to Female Births in Several Industrial Countries

Prenatal sex discernment

Our results also suggest that parental sex preference appears to remain strong among some first-generation immigrants. An upward trend in the sex ratio at birth, leading to a deficit of female births, may most plausibly be attributed to the interaction of persistent son preference among India-born immigrant women whose fertility is declining and to the increased availability of prenatal diagnosis of fetal sex. Female-selective abortion raises issues of ethics and has led to the concern among the British medical services about disclosing the sex of the fetus at the time of the second routine pregnancy ultrasound scan (at 20 weeks of pregnancy). The apparent discrimination against female fetuses also calls into question the adherence of some India-born immigrants to the norms of a Western society.

An Increase in the Sex Ratio of Births to India-born Mothers in England and Wales:
Evidence for Sex-Selective Abortion

In any case, I'm still waiting for a supporter of abortion-on-demand to explain why they support sex-selective abortion.

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

An Increase in the Sex Ratio of Births to India-born Mothers in England and Wales:
Evidence for Sex-Selective Abortion

In any case, I'm still waiting for a supporter of abortion-on-demand to explain why they support sex-selective abortion.

I'm still waiting for you to post the links to the science you mentioned and to state whether the morning after pill and creating frozen embryos as part of IVF is acceptable.

Two Sheds

lazygal wrote: »

So it is ok to kill the unborn sometimes. How is ok to kill the unborn because a woman's life is at risk, but its not ok to force me to donate organs to my children when their life is at risk?
Any luck with those science links? And your views on the morning after pill and frozen embryos?

Do you support abortion-on -demand?

oldrnwisr

Two Sheds wrote: »

An Increase in the Sex Ratio of Births to India-born Mothers in England and Wales:
Evidence for Sex-Selective Abortion

Yes, I'm aware of the paper given that I posted a link in my last post to my analysis of it. Since you didn't seem to read that post, allow me to recap:

oldrnwisr wrote:

Having read through the paper, I have to say I'm not exactly bowled over. Above all the authors seem to be making a fallacious argument, specifically the fallacy of insufficient sample.

The first point to note is that we are talking about comparing births to Indian born mothers vs. non-Indian born mothers. As a percentage of the whole, Indian born mothers represent just 1.5% of all births in the period 1969-2005. This is already a very small subset of the overall dataset.

Next, the "increase" in sex ratio is only apparent when births from 1990-2005 are examined. So now, the authors have taken a subset of a subset.

The principal problem with the study is that the sex ratio is only seen to be significantly elevated if data from 1969-1989 is excluded. The sex ratio for Indian mothers for the entire dataset is 105.4, which is unremarkable compared to other nationalities such as Europe with 105.7 or even the UK with 105.6. In fact the overall average from 1969-2005 for all births is 105.5. Not much of a trend there.

So, the only thing that this 1990-2005 trend suggests, if it suggests anything at all is that there is a temporal causation for this change in sex ratio. So what happened to cause such a sudden shift from 1990-2005. The authors suggest that:

"Instead, our results suggest that it is largely due to the extensive use of sex-selective abortion in the wake of widespread availability of prenatal sex-determination techniques."

The problem is that this is entirely speculative. Only 8% of recorded abortions in the UK are performed after the point at which sex can reliably be determined. This proportion wouldn't explain such a rapid shift in sex ratio in the specified period.

It could be the result of increased immigration from India since the authors speculate that the tendency could be greater among first-generation immigrants. Since the number of immigrants from India rose from 18,000 to 129,000 per year between 1998 and 2007 this could account for the rise. The problem here, though is that this is still only correlative. The authors attempt to link the established patterns in India but note the unreliability of Indian statistics.

Finally, the authors fail to take account of natural mechanisms which may cause variations in sex ratio between certain national groups. While the evidence available suggests that characteristics such as age, social class, birth order etc. have no measurable effect on sex, studies have shown factors such as environmental exposure having an effect on sex. It is possible that this Indian-UK disparity may occur as a result of environmental rather than social factors."

So, like I said previously, there is no evidence for sex-selective abortions in the UK.

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Do you support abortion-on -demand?

What do you think? Are you then going to ask me about sex selective abortion? Or abortion after 24 weeks?

I support the right of a woman to choose whether to remain pregnant. I myself remained pregnant twice. I would like the choice about whether to remain pregnant in the future to be mine. Unless you think its okay that women who have the means and ability to travel have more choices about prengnacy than those who don't?

Again, do you support the morning after pill and the creation of embryos for IVF?

Two Sheds

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware of the paper given that I posted a link in my last post to my analysis of it. Since you didn't seem to read that post, allow me to recap:

Let me guess - it suits your point of view.

Two Sheds

lazygal wrote: »

What do you think? Are you then going to ask me about sex selective abortion? Or abortion after 24 weeks?

I support the right of a woman to choose whether to remain pregnant. I myself remained pregnant twice. I would like the choice about whether to remain pregnant in the future to be mine. Unless you think its okay that women who have the means and ability to travel have more choices about prengnacy than those who don't?

Again, do you support the morning after pill and the creation of embryos for IVF?

Why do you support women killing their unborn simply because she's female? That seems very backward.

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Why do support women killing their unborn simply because she's female? That seems very backward.

Do you support the morning after pill and embryos created for IVF purposes?

Why do you support forcing all pregnant girls and women to remain pregnant regardless of any other considerations, unless they might die in which case its ok to kill the unborn? Seems very backward.

oldrnwisr

Two Sheds wrote: »

Let me guess - it suits your point of view.

No not at all.

I simply pointed out the mistakes in logic, methodology and science made by the authors of the paper. If you want to point where I've went wrong or support their conclusions with other evidence then bring it on.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Why do you support women killing their unborn simply because she's female? That seems very backward.

Why do you keep asking questions without answering any?

Do you believe that the right to bodily integrity is to be forfeited by women during pregnancy?

Two Sheds

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No not at all.

I simply pointed out the mistakes in logic, methodology and science made by the authors of the paper. If you want to point where I've went wrong or support their conclusions with other evidence then bring it on.

Anonymous internet guy dissects academic paper. Yes, of course I'd like to waste spend my time bickering with you.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Anonymous internet guy dissects academic paper. Yes, of course I'd like to waste spend my time bickering with you.

Then why are you here?

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

Why do you keep asking questions without answering any?

Do you believe that the right to bodily integrity is to be forfeited by women during pregnancy?

I have an aversion to silly questions. Life's too short to engage with them.

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

Then why are you here?

To sit at your feet and sip from the cup of your wisdom.
Didn't you know?


Any chance we can get an abortion-on-demand supporter to justify their support for sex-selective abortion?

Kev W

Two Sheds wrote: »

To sit at your feet and sip from the cup of your wisdom.
Didn't you know?


Any chance we can get an abortion-on-demand supporter to justify their support for sex-selective abortion?

You don't get to tell people their opinions and then demand they defend the position you've invented.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Any chance we can get an abortion-on-demand supporter to justify their support for sex-selective abortion?

And why would you want that? The majority of people that have responded here do not support sex-selective abortion. You are looking for the extremes in the pro-choice side and avoiding the basics that everyone supports, like going to a Christian forum and looking to pick an argument with the tiny minority that promote killing gays because the bible says so and declaring that all religion is evil because that belief is there, no matter it's size.

robindch

Mod:

Two Sheds wrote: »

I have an aversion to silly questions. Life's too short to engage with them.

You're on a discussion board where people discuss things.

If you're asked a question, it's polite to answer it, especially if it's asked politely and clearly. People are free to conclude what they wish to conclude if you avoid answering it of course, especially if you choose to make it obvious you're avoiding the question.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

I have an aversion to silly questions. Life's too short to engage with them.

Ok, here is a list of some of the silly questions that you've avoided this morning:

lazygal wrote: »

Do you support the morning after pill and embryos created for IVF purposes?

Why do you support forcing all pregnant girls and women to remain pregnant regardless of any other considerations, unless they might die in which case its ok to kill the unborn? Seems very backward.

lazygal wrote: »

Again, do you support the morning after pill and the creation of embryos for IVF?

lazygal wrote: »

So it is ok to kill the unborn sometimes. How is ok to kill the unborn because a woman's life is at risk, but its not ok to force me to donate organs to my children when their life is at risk?
Any luck with those science links? And your views on the morning after pill and frozen embryos?

robdonn wrote: »

So are you saying that the right to bodily integrity is to be forfeited by women during pregnancy?

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Women have almost always been oppressed, in many societies.
Telling mothers it's ok to kill their child, while providing the means to do so (and charging them), is a continuation of that oppression.

Some of us want to change that. We call it 'progress'.

And will we put the negros back in chains because its opression to provide them the option of freedom and to pursue their own life that is full of their own personal costs (food, shelter, etc) that was once normally paid by their benevolent plantation owner? Thats the same frame of logic you seem to be applying here.

robindch

Mod:

Two Sheds wrote: »

That seems very backward.

lazygal wrote: »

Seems very backward.

And none of this kind of thing either folks.

krankykitty

Two Sheds wrote: »

Sex-selective abortion is a key component of the war on women.

Have you considered your role in their oppression?

How exactly is banning or restricting abortion for all women oppressing women who feel obliged to abort because of societal pressures in their own cultural background/community because of sex? As I said in my post, that you conveniently ignored, the way to address this is to look at the cultural situation that puts women in this position. That's the oppression, not the availability of abortion. If legal abortion is unavailable, it doesn't stop abortion happening. It makes dangerous unregulated backstreet abortion happen. Do you think the men who force women to have abortions because of the sex of the baby would have qualms about putting a woman through an illegal backstreet abortion?

By this logic we should ban knives because some people use them to stab others with, rather than cut up their dinner.

How dare you suggest to me that I have a role in their oppression. Have YOU considered your role in the oppression of women worldwide by wishing to curtail their reproductive options?