Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

MrPudding

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah. A few years ago in South America. I am on my phone, in France and about to run out of battery, I will try to dig up dig up some links for you later.

MrP

Sorry, I made a mistake, she was 9. This doesn't mention the chirch siding with the alleged rapist either, will try to find a reference for that bit to, I distinctly remember it, though I have mere members before.

MrP

Peregrinus

Well, I think it does suggest that. We don't find the negative correlation we might reasonably expect between countries with a high abortion rate - the US, England, Russia - and countries with good information, education and access to family planning services - e.g. England, the Netherlands and at least part of the US. There seems to be no clear relationship at all. And that suggests to me that simply providing the services which Planned Parenthood provides will not, of itself, do very much at all to reduce abortion rates.

Overheal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, except there is such an organisation in the US - its name is on the tip of my tongue - and yet they have an abortion rate which is massively, massively high.

So it doesn't seem that such activities have the outcome you suggest they should.

What's the number. Go on don't make a sweeping statement without supporting evidence

Peregrinus

I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition; this phenomenon is well-recognised by those who care about family planning, and entirely uncontroversial. But, since you ask:

Abortions per 100 live births:

US: 29
UK: 28
France: 26
Italy: 24
Denmark: 23
Spain: 20
Germany: 18
Netherlands: 15
Switzerland:15

From here, but I think Google will help you find similar information on many other sites. If you compare abortion rates expressed per 100,000 population rather than per 100 live births, the leading position of the US among prosperous western democracies will become even more striking, since the US also has high rates of, e.g., teen pregnancies that are not terminated by abortion.

So, not much material there to support the thesis that having an institution like Planned Parenthood will tend to lower abortion rates (or the rates of unwanted pregnancies), given that the institution most like Planned Parenthood is, in fact, Planned Parenthood, and the country where it is most active is the US.

volchitsa

MrPudding wrote: »

Sorry, I made a mistake, she was 9. This doesn't mention the chirch siding with the alleged rapist either, will try to find a reference for that bit to, I distinctly remember it, though I have mere members before.

MrP

here you go : http://digital.graphcompubs.com/publication/?i=198105&p=44#{"page":44,"issue_id":198105}

(From Catholics for Choice - a much more detailed account of the incident than I'd come across previously. Well worth reading, it's just as shocking as it appears at first sight, if not more so.)

Anyway, apparently it was the child's biological father whom the bishop put under direct pressure to oppose the abortion. They did want to get the rapist to oppose it too, but since he was in prison by the time the bishop learned of the planned abortion he had no legal right to do so. But that's the thing that stopped them, not the principle of a rapist forcing his victim to remain pregnant!

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition; this phenomenon is well-recognised by those who care about family planning, and entirely uncontroversial. But, since you ask:

Abortions per 100 live births:

US: 29
UK: 28
France: 26
Italy: 24
Denmark: 23
Spain: 20
Germany: 18
Netherlands: 15
Switzerland:15

From here, but I think Google will help you find similar information on many other sites. If you compare abortion rates expressed per 100,000 population rather than per 100 live births, the leading position of the US among prosperous western democracies will become even more striking.

So, not much material there to support the thesis that having an institution like Planned Parenthood will tend to lower abortion rates, given that the institution most like Planned Parenthood is, in fact, Planned Parenthood, and the country where it is most active is the US.

And are you suggesting that the takeout from this snapshot is that not offering the services cited would have either a negligible or positive effect (a reduction) in the abortion rate?

robdonn wrote: »

When did they abolish slavery? I'm afraid slavery is alive and well here in Ireland. The moment a woman becomes pregnant her body becomes property of the government, her basic human right of bodily integrity is taken away from her.

If you want to reduce the rate of abortions then banning abortion is not the way to do it (over 160,000 women since 1980 can attest to that), the only viable solution is to reduce the rate of crisis pregnancies.

So how about instead of forcing women to endure a pregnancy they do not want, we help people to not get pregnant in the first place? How about we provide services that focus on educating people on safe sex, the real risks associated with being sexually active and the correct use of contraception, help people to prevent pregnancy until they are ready to become parents.

Now, if only there was some non-profit organisation out there that could help people plan parenthood....

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

And are you suggesting that the takeout from this snapshot is that not offering the services cited would have either a negligible or positive effect (a reduction) in the abortion rate?

What that snapshot appears to show is that in countries with legal abortion, the more organized opposition there is to it being easily available, the higher the abortion rate. And, I'd guess, the terms at which abortions occur would also show on average later abortions where obstacles to pregnancy termination are put in women's way in order to complicate such access.

It's really not rocket science.

MrPudding

volchitsa wrote: »

here you go : http://digital.graphcompubs.com/publication/?i=198105&p=44#{"page":44,"issue_id":198105}

(From Catholics for Choice - a much more detailed account of the incident than I'd come across previously. Well worth reading, it's just as shocking as it appears at first sight, if not more so.)

Anyway, apparently it was the child's biological father whom the bishop put under direct pressure to oppose the abortion. They did want to get the rapist to oppose it too, but since he was in prison by the time the bishop learned of the planned abortion he had no legal right to do so. But that's the thing that stopped them, not the principle of a rapist forcing his victim to remain pregnant!

Thanks for that, much more detail than I had seen previously too. I don't know how anyone could read that and still think the RCC was worth listening to on anything. What a disgusting episode. That bishop and his lackeys should be ashamed of themselves. People like this make me wish god did exist, because then hell would exist and that is where people like that bishop would go.

MrP

volchitsa

MrPudding wrote: »

Thanks for that, much more detail than I had seen previously too. I don't know how anyone could read that and still think the RCC was worth listening to on anything. What a disgusting episode. That bishop and his lackeys should be ashamed of themselves. People like this make me wish god did exist, because then hell would exist and that is where people like that bishop would go.

MrP

A couple of points that particularly struck me in that account: one is that Fischinella, the bishop who realized how badly this excommunication reflected on the church and tried to "soften" the church's initial approach by talking about the need for mercy, was the one who was criticized by Vatican hierarchy - not the bishop who'd leant on the hospital and the father and who'd issued the excommunication. Clearly the Vatican's immediate reaction was to punish the abortion, even to save the child's life, and not the rape that had led to the life-threatening pregnancy.

Another is that Pius XXII (iirc) - one of the 2 Popes currently in the process of being made a saint anyway - actually banned abortion including to save the woman's life. Has that ruling ever actually been denied by the Vatican since then, or is it still technically valid?

I think that question needs to be asked of Iona and their ilk. It's a shame we don't have public service broadcasting with an ounce of independence from the church - Breda O Brien is on RTE constantly whenever there's an issue over abortion, and I've never heard anyone asking her or anyone else who wants the church's teachings to be reflected in our laws what exactly the church's teaching is. They're always allowed to fudge their answers.

Overheal

That there is some moral bankruptcy imo.

The Randy Riverbeast

Wasn't there a case in the US where a woman who was pregnant with twins had a miscarriage due to the on call doctor not bothering to come when called so they sued the Catholic hospital. The hospitals lawyers then claims that the fetuses werent people so they cant be responsible.

Cant remember exact details but it was definitely woman lost twins(or at least one of them), hospital went against its ethos to save a few dollars.

lazygal

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/26/us/colorado-fetus-lawsuit/

The woman and her unborn twins, which weren't people apparently, all died.

PopePalpatine

I'm pretty sure the RCC also canonised a woman for dying instead of having an abortion during JPII's reign.

robdonn

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the RCC also canonised a woman for dying instead of having an abortion during JPII's reign.

Gianna Beretta Molla

lazygal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the RCC also canonised a woman for dying instead of having an abortion during JPII's reign.

So it's not ok to kill the unborn when a pregnant woman has a risk to her life?

Eta having read the wiki of the case I'm not sure I'd have said she died because of refusing an abortion. I am sure many women would choose a course of treatment that would have a lesser impact on the foetus. I chose to forgoe some dental treatment during two pregnancies because I wasn't happy with the risks. If a woman is making a choice freely, regardless of the risks to her, I support that. There's cases in which I'd choose to terminate but that is a choice too.

frag420

lazygal wrote: »

If a woman is making a choice freely

Therein lies the issue, women in Ireland are not afforded this human right! The irony being its usually old supposed virgin men dressed in dresses dictating what a woman can do with her own body!

Overheal

frag420 wrote: »

Therein lies the issue, women in Ireland are not afforded this human right! The irony being its usually old supposed virgin men dressed in dresses dictating what a woman can do with her own body!

Not all of them were virgins, many have been proven to be fond of orphans. Conflict of interest to support a woman's choice then, no?

Two Sheds

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah. A few years ago in South America. I am on my phone, in France and about to run out of battery, I will try to dig up dig up some links for you later.

MrP

Shure everybody knows that off-topic whataboutery drains your battery.

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

Shure everybody knows that off-topic whataboutery drains your battery.

[Looking at thread title.] [Cant see any nationality in particular.]

So how exactly is that whataboutery?
Or are you confusing that with "something that you have no reply to"?

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

Shure everybody knows that off-topic whataboutery drains your battery.

MrP referred to a story about a child having an abortion, in a thread discussing abortion.

Do you understand what off-topic means?

pauldla

Delirium wrote: »

MrP referred to a story about a child having an abortion, in a thread discussing abortion.

Do you understand what off-topic means?

We can add it to the list, along with 'ad hominem' and 'tu quoque'. And 'trap', now that I think of it...:D

Two Sheds

Delirium wrote: »

MrP referred to a story about a child having an abortion, in a thread discussing abortion.

Do you understand what off-topic means?

Oh dear! Y'know you could always read the op.
This isn't the Abortion thread. It's a thread to discuss the issues around Planned Parenthood and some videos.

As per usual, some posters can't resist turning it into their favourite hobby-horse of attacking the RCC (the real reason they support abortion).

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

Oh dear! Y'know you could always read the op.
This isn't the Abortion thread. It's a thread to discuss the issues around Planned Parenthood and some videos.

As per usual, some posters can't resist turning it into their favourite hobby-horse of attacking the RCC (the real reason they support abortion).

It's actually a thread called "sanctity of life" and it's in Christianity.

So how is the fact that the Catholic Church in Brazil played an active role in attempting to block a life-saving abortion for a raped child not relevant to this thread then?

If you only want to discuss specifically North American aspects of the question then that should be done in the North American current affairs section, and not in Christianity. I suggest you start a thread either in "after hours" or else in Abroad/ US. But we're all on topic here. You go right ahead over there if you like.

EDIT : Out of interest, I looked at the OP, which begins "Well the devil has shown his true colors" so I think that keeps us very much on topic : where do you think the devil's hand can be seen in this instance?

I think the excommunication of a mother for authorizing a life saving abortion for her raped 9 year old, even if the rapist had been similarly excommunicated would be a good candidate. Don't you?

And in fact, not only was the rapist not excommunicated, but the bishop doing the excommunicating apparently wanted him to assert paternal rights over his "child". You think that's likely to be God's will?

Seriously?

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

Oh dear! Y'know you could always read the op.
This isn't the Abortion thread. It's a thread to discuss the issues around Planned Parenthood and some videos.

As per usual, some posters can't resist turning it into their favourite hobby-horse of attacking the RCC (the real reason they support abortion).

am946745 wrote: »

Well the devil has shown his colours. The abortion industries dirty side.

Glad to see its not making the rounds in pro-life circles but also in secular Media.

Sickening.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/14/planned-parenthood-defends-selling-body-parts-of-aborted-babies-calls-body-parts-tissue/

Its worth noting that mothers are being paid for the "donated" body parts of their children.

First line clearly refers to abortion and it's glaringly obvious that those that are calling for PP to be closed down are doing so out of opposition to abortion. It is not because of tissue donation.

And it's somewhat stupid to state that people only support abortion being available because they're anti-RCC :rolleyes:

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

As per usual, some posters can't resist turning it into their favourite hobby-horse of attacking the RCC (the real reason they support abortion).

The real reason? Do you honestly think that anyone here who supports access to abortions does so simply because it goes against the RCC?

Two Sheds

Delirium wrote: »

First line clearly refers to abortion and it's glaringly obvious that those that are calling for PP to be closed down are doing so out of opposition to abortion. It is not because of tissue donation.

And it's somewhat stupid to state that people only support abortion being available because they're anti-RCC :rolleyes:

Check the record of almost any discussion on abortion.

Without fail, some pro-choice posters will pounce on any angle, however tenuous, to drag their pet hate, the RCC, into the discussion. It really is laughable.

But it's also a little unsettling to think that there may be quite a few adults out there with such deep-seated religious hangups.

Make your choices, live your life and grow up, <snip>!

The Randy Riverbeast

If we arent allowed to discuss Christianity in the Christianity forum can someone put that into the charter? I feel the name of the forum is causing confusion.

Two Sheds wrote: »

Make your choices, live your life and grow up, <snip>!

The irony.

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

Check the record of almost any discussion on abortion.

Without fail, some pro-choice posters will pounce on any angle, however tenuous, to drag their pet hate, the RCC, into the discussion. It really is laughable.

So why do you think a discussion that you claim is about Planned Parenthood and nothing else was opened in the Christianity forum?

And did you object to that as being off topic, before Christianity (or at least the Catholic Church) was explicitly mentioned?

Two Sheds

volchitsa wrote: »

So why do you think a discussion that you claim is about Planned Parenthood and nothing else was opened in the Christianity forum?

And did you object to that as being off topic, before Christianity (or at least the Catholic Church) was explicitly mentioned?

Yep. My first post -

Two Sheds wrote: »

I came across this story on the web but I'm very surprised to find it here under Religion and Spirituality, when, afaik, no report has even mentioned spirituality or religion, and certainly not in the video. Is the alleged sale of baby parts a religious issue?

According to reports, there are up to a dozen more videos about to be released, which will portray PP in a very unsavoury light.

volchitsa

Two Sheds wrote: »

Yep. My first post -

Okay fair enough, though tbf page 5 was a bit late to have any effect, but obviously that's not your fault.

Do you agree that the OP, who chose the forum, was clearly writing from an anti-abortion and pro-religion point of view, so that he clearly felt there was a connection?

And that in the context of this thread, whose OP mentions the devil and which is still in the Christianity section, it is perfectly relevant to discuss clerical attempts to prevent a specific abortion?