Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

looksee

Mod Please cut out the squabbling, and stay on topic.

aloyisious

It being April 1st, I thought the report on RTE News re a funding donation to A.R.C from George Soros being returned due to S.I.P.O advice might be a spoof. It seems not....

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwji6-bN7ILTAhVrLsAKHW_5C24QqOcBCBswAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fabortion-rights-campaign-return-e23000-to-foreign-donor-3316866-Apr2017%2F&usg=AFQjCNGrj82SJJzjRySXfakf0-jU1SHqZw

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwji6-bN7ILTAhVrLsAKHW_5C24QqOcBCCEwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Firishcatholic.ie%2Farticle%2Fpro-repeal-group-return-billionaire%25E2%2580%2599s-cash-after-ethics-watchdog-probe&usg=AFQjCNG0jW_zxDXu5ZsiOusS4oS88S8gAQ

infogiver

aloyisious wrote: »

It being April 1st, I thought the report on RTE News re a funding donation to A.R.C from George Soros being returned due to S.I.P.O advice might be a spoof. It seems not....

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwji6-bN7ILTAhVrLsAKHW_5C24QqOcBCBswAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fabortion-rights-campaign-return-e23000-to-foreign-donor-3316866-Apr2017%2F&usg=AFQjCNGrj82SJJzjRySXfakf0-jU1SHqZw

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwji6-bN7ILTAhVrLsAKHW_5C24QqOcBCCEwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Firishcatholic.ie%2Farticle%2Fpro-repeal-group-return-billionaire%25E2%2580%2599s-cash-after-ethics-watchdog-probe&usg=AFQjCNG0jW_zxDXu5ZsiOusS4oS88S8gAQ

George Soros is a billionaire abortion factory magnate but he's no match for the Irish Catholic. Love it.

PopePalpatine

infogiver wrote: »

George Soros is a billionaire abortion factory magnate but he's no match for the Irish Catholic. Love it.

Is this in the latest edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? :rolleyes:

infogiver

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Is this in the latest edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? :rolleyes:

Whatever you say ( :

PopePalpatine

aloyisious wrote: »

It being April 1st, I thought the report on RTE News re a funding donation to A.R.C from George Soros being returned due to S.I.P.O advice might be a spoof. It seems not....

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwji6-bN7ILTAhVrLsAKHW_5C24QqOcBCBswAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fabortion-rights-campaign-return-e23000-to-foreign-donor-3316866-Apr2017%2F&usg=AFQjCNGrj82SJJzjRySXfakf0-jU1SHqZw

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwji6-bN7ILTAhVrLsAKHW_5C24QqOcBCCEwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Firishcatholic.ie%2Farticle%2Fpro-repeal-group-return-billionaire%25E2%2580%2599s-cash-after-ethics-watchdog-probe&usg=AFQjCNG0jW_zxDXu5ZsiOusS4oS88S8gAQ

At least ARC are more honest than Lolek Ltd.

recedite

It looks like Colm O'Gorman might be in a spot of trouble there.

Amnesty International Ireland, meanwhile, said the €137,000 it received was used to campaign for Ireland to “bring its law on abortion into compliance with international human rights law and standards”.

He may view issues such as the SSM campaign and Repeal the 8th as human rights issues, but there is no doubt that they are also political issues when they involve changing the laws in this country.

SIPO are correct in trying to prevent foreign money being used in a campaign to change domestic laws. That goes for either side.

FA Hayek

recedite wrote: »

It looks like Colm O'Gorman might be in a spot of trouble there.

Amnesty International Ireland, meanwhile, said the €137,000 it received  was used to campaign for Ireland to “bring its law on abortion into  compliance with international human rights law and standards”.

He may view issues such as the SSM campaign and Repeal the 8th as human rights issues, but there is no doubt that they are also political issues when they involve changing the laws in this country.

SIPO are correct in trying to prevent foreign money being used in a campaign to change domestic laws. That goes for either side.

O'Gorman likes to talk from two sides of his mouth, hiding behind his role with Amnesty Ireland while taking foreign money to campaign for legislative changes, which is illegal. I am sure he will come out with some 'excuse'.

infogiver

FA Hayek wrote: »

O'Gorman likes to talk from two sides of his mouth, hiding behind his role with Amnesty Ireland while taking foreign money to campaign for legislative changes, which is illegal. I am sure he will come out with some 'excuse'.

Or he'll have a temper tantrum and shout over whoever is questioning him.

fran17

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Distinctions are irrelevant if you are not proving anything you say. The simple fact is you have not shown the "majority" of papers are any such thing. You just declared it to be so. Nothing more. And then dodged every attempt I have made since to get you to back up your original statement.

So you can add one distinction or 100 distinctions, but the base statement is still not being supported. At all. Even a little bit.



Recognized by who? You? You are talking about THREE papers. Three. Not 300, not 3000. 3. How exactly do you think THREE papers backs up your statement about the "majority" of such papers? You are simply moving the goal posts now rather than have the simple decency to retract your original statement as the hyperbolic nonsense that it clearly was.

What about, for example, all the papers I cited? Not ones you imagine most other people are citing most of the time. The ones I used?

The simple fact is that you are not finding any citations supporting the claim the fetus is actively and actually EXPERIENCING any pain. And rather than acknowledge that....... because for whatever reason pain is important to your narrative............. you simply make up fantastic generalizations about the entire body of work as a whole.

So basically while screaming "bias" at everyone who fails to support your narrative, you are actually achieving nothing but putting a large very visible flag in your own bias here. And I think it is useful to highlight it as it is in play.

Firstly,distinctions are very relevant in the context of you misrepresenting my stance on an issue in a underhanded attempt to strengthen your own argument.Very relevant indeed.
In relation to your claim that I lack simple decency,you know nothing of me or what morals and beliefs define how I live my life.Your ad hominem attack merely confirms my belief that once your initial plethora of subjective science regarding foetal pain has doubt cast upon it your reaction is frustration and insults.
Now moving on ,there is a significant amount of medical evidence to support the position that the unborn child experiences pain prior to 20 weeks.
A paper for the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology states:

Given the anatomical evidence,it is quite possible that the fetus can feel pain from 20 weeks and is caused distress by intervention from as early as 15 or 16 weeks.

Dr Jean A.Wright,professor and chair of paediatrics at Mercer school of medicine,in 2005 states:

After 20 weeks of gestation,an unborn child has all the prerequisite anatomy,physiology,hormones,neurotransmitters and electrical current to "close the loop" and create the conditions needed to perceive pain.The development of the perception of pain begins at the 6th week of life.By 20 weeks,and perhaps even earlier,all the essential components of anatomy,physiology and neurobiology exist to transmit painful sensations from the skin to the spinal cord and to the brain.

Dr Sunny Anand,Director of pain neurobiology laboratory Arkansas,in 2005 states:

My opinion is,based on evidence suggesting that the type of stimulation that will occur during abortion procedures,very likely most foetuses at 20 weeks after conception will be able to perceive that as painful,unplesant,noxious stimulation.

So the claim that there is a consensus among the medical and scientific community regarding the issue of foetal pain is untrue.There never was and,I imagine,there never will be.

volchitsa

fran17 wrote: »

Firstly,distinctions are very relevant in the context of you misrepresenting my stance on an issue in a underhanded attempt to strengthen your own argument.Very relevant indeed.
In relation to your claim that I lack simple decency,you know nothing of me or what morals and beliefs define how I live my life.Your ad hominem attack merely confirms my belief that once your initial plethora of subjective science regarding foetal pain has doubt cast upon it your reaction is frustration and insults.
Now moving on ,there is a significant amount of medical evidence to support the position that the unborn child experiences pain prior to 20 weeks.
A paper for the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology states:

Dr Jean A.Wright,professor and chair of paediatrics at Mercer school of medicine,in 2005 states:

Dr Sunny Anand,Director of pain neurobiology laboratory Arkansas,in 2005 states:

So the claim that there is a consensus among the medical and scientific community regarding the issue of foetal pain is untrue.There never was and,I imagine,there never will be.

That'll be the same Sunny Anand who is a "fanatic pro life devotee" according to the link below?
http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/11/foetus.html

And I can't help wondering if Jean A Wright may not be the same Jean Wright mentioned in this link about a pro life Christian prayer group? But perhaps not.

Still. What was that you were saying about sources from scientists who were also activists in the field of abortion? Funny that.
You only seem to object to the ones whose views you disapprove of.

fran17

volchitsa wrote: »

That'll be the same Sunny Anand who is a "fanatic pro life devotee" according to the link below?
http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/11/foetus.html

And I can't help wondering if Jean A Wright may not be the same Jean Wright mentioned in this link about a pro life Christian prayer group? But perhaps not.

Still. What was that you were saying about sources from scientists who were also activists in the field of abortion? Funny that.
You only seem to object to the ones whose views you disapprove of.

The Dr.Anand I refer to graduated top of his class at the university of Indore,India.Earned his degree at Oxford university and a post doctoral fellowship in anesthesiology from Harvard medical school.A more qualified opinion you could not find,period.In relation to Dr.Wright,well when your true wondering then get back to me.
The individuals whom I questioned the motives of directly profit from the procurement of abortion.Their conclusions regarding foetal pain significantly increase the opportunity for further profit.Other than defending the unborn child from horrific pain or death,what do these doctors,who's opinions you disparage,have to gain in relation to their conclusions?

recedite

Sunny Anand video; https://vimeo.com/128110681
An odd character. He seems to be a high achiever in the material world, but also a deep thinker and very "spiritual".

volchitsa

fran17 wrote: »

The Dr.Anand I refer to graduated top of his class at the university of Indore,India.Earned his degree at Oxford university and a post doctoral fellowship in anesthesiology from Harvard medical school.A more qualified opinion you could not find,period.In relation to Dr.Wright,well when your true wondering then get back to me.
The individuals whom I questioned the motives of directly profit from the procurement of abortion.Their conclusions regarding foetal pain significantly increase the opportunity for further profit.Other than defending the unborn child from horrific pain or death,what do these doctors,who's opinions you disparage,have to gain in relation to their conclusions?

Right, so it is the same guy. Something of a spiritual guru apparently. Which may explain what he feels he has to gain by taking a deliberately provocative and anti scientific stance, with a veneer of science on top.

fran17

volchitsa wrote: »

Right, so it is the same guy. Something of a spiritual guru apparently. Which may explain what he feels he has to gain by taking a deliberately provocative and anti scientific stance, with a veneer of science on top.

This elusive entity which you feel he gains being?

volchitsa

fran17 wrote: »

This elusive entity which you feel he gains being?

Attention, for one thing.

fran17

volchitsa wrote: »

Attention, for one thing.

Well given the man's impeccable credentials and the fact that he has published over 250 peer-reviewed articles on the issue of pain and stress,and been given numerous awards for his work worldwide,the notion of attention being his motivation is farcical.
Maybe its just possible that he actually has the interests of the unborn child at heart and believes,just as the generations of physicians before him believed,that "firstly,do no harm".Of course I'm assuming that,as a supporter of abortion,you hold the modern Hippocratic oath with disdain similar to which you hold for the unborn?

volchitsa

fran17 wrote: »

Well given the man's impeccable credentials and the fact that he has published over 250 peer-reviewed articles on the issue of pain and stress,and been given numerous awards for his work worldwide,the notion of attention being his motivation is farcical.
Maybe its just possible that he actually has the interests of the unborn child at heart and believes,just as the generations of physicians before him believed,that "firstly,do no harm".Of course I'm assuming that,as a supporter of abortion,you hold the modern Hippocratic oath with disdain similar to which you hold for the unborn?

What's farcical is thinking that is a reply to my point.

The Hippocratic oath bans surgery - should we do the same?

Irish and UK doctors don't take the Hippocratic oath - are they less moral than those few places which do have a form of the oath? (Which will have had to be thoroughly modernized to allow surgery. And possibly dentistry. And of course abortion.)

And as for Dr Sunny Anand. Well. "Whoosh" as far as you're concerned clearly.
I was talking about his apparent lack of satisfaction with "merely" being a doctor, and his need for public adulation as a spiritual guru whose utterances are studied by his followers.

And then there's my original point, which is that you claimed that a scientist's scientific work and credentials were only to be taken seriously if he had no other possible conflict of interest. If you were being honest about that, the same thing applies to Dr Sunny Anand, because he's not a neutral observer, he has another agenda.

That you refuse to acknowledge that shows that you don't care about scientific objectivity, you're only interested in dismissing scientists whose position you don't agree with, by grasping at whatever straws you can find.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

I was talking about his apparent lack of satisfaction with "merely" being a doctor, and his need for public adulation as a spiritual guru whose utterances are studied by his followers.

I think Sai Baba was "the guru" which you should know as you quoted from a website run by Sai Baba fans. Anyway its a bit much to criticise somebody's medical credentials just because they have some private affiliation to some vaguely buddhist type philosophy-religion.

fran17

volchitsa wrote: »

What's farcical is thinking that is a reply to my point.

The Hippocratic oath bans surgery - should we do the same?

Irish and UK doctors don't take the Hippocratic oath - are they less moral than those few places which do have a form of the oath? (Which will have had to be thoroughly modernized to allow surgery. And possibly dentistry. And of course abortion.)

And as for Dr Sunny Anand. Well. "Whoosh" as far as you're concerned clearly.
I was talking about his apparent lack of satisfaction with "merely" being a doctor, and his need for public adulation as a spiritual guru whose utterances are studied by his followers.

And then there's my original point, which is that you claimed that a scientist's scientific work and credentials were only to be taken seriously if he had no other possible conflict of interest. If you were being honest about that, the same thing applies to Dr Sunny Anand, because he's not a neutral observer,he has another agenda.

That you refuse to acknowledge that shows that you don't care about scientific objectivity, you're only interested in dismissing scientists whose position you don't agree with, by grasping at whatever straws you can find.

Hmmmm you seem to have overlooked the word modern in my reference to the Hippocratic oath.In ancient times the Greeks,as the Romans,believed the body to be sacred and it was not until Christian times,believing in an immortal soul,that great strides were made regarding human anatomy.Today's equivalent is the Declaration of Geneva and it is still widely availed off in western society.One of its declarations reads "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life" so I await your dismissal of this oath on that basis.
Again you are dodging my question,I have established that the doctor used as a reference here in defence of abortion is directly gaining financially from the conclusions she drew regarding foetal pain.Other than seeking to protect the unborn child from experiencing pain,what is Dr.Anand gaining?

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

I think Sai Baba was "the guru" which you should know as you quoted from a website run by Sai Baba fans. Anyway its a bit much to criticise somebody's medical credentials just because they have some private affiliation to some vaguely buddhist type philosophy-religion.

Except I'm not the one dismissing experts' credentials for entirely speculative reasons. I'm just pointing out that that line of ad hominem dismissal has to work for both sides or for neither.

Personally, I think we should judge people's scientific work on the science, and not on what we think about them as people or any other spurious reason.

nozzferrahhtoo

fran17 wrote: »

Firstly,distinctions are very relevant in the context of you misrepresenting my stance on an issue in a underhanded attempt to strengthen your own argument.Very relevant indeed.

Except I am not misrepresenting ANYTHING at all. YOU, not me but YOU claimed this..........

"The majority of these publications are associated with either abortion providers or advocates of such"

.......... and the linguistic squirming you have resorted to ever since I called you on it is plain for all to see. You simply can not back up the claim, and yet you simply refuse to retract it or admit it.

fran17 wrote: »

Your ad hominem attack merely confirms my belief that once your initial plethora of subjective science regarding foetal pain has doubt cast upon it your reaction is frustration and insults.

There is no ad hominem attack, just an accurate description of what has been happening here so far. Calling a spade a spade, when it is in fact a spade, is not an insult to the spade.

Nor is the science "subjective". It is YOU claiming there is fetal pain in play and the best support you have offered for that position is to merely ignore all the counter ACTUAL science I have quoted and cited against it.

fran17 wrote: »

Now moving on ,there is a significant amount of medical evidence to support the position that the unborn child experiences pain prior to 20 weeks.

No. There seriously is not. What there IS, is plenty of evidence that the fetus can respond to stimulus, and that a lot of these responses can be detrimental to the long term well being of the fetus' development. More than this however there is not.

fran17 wrote: »

A paper for the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology states:

"A" paper? Could you be more precise here and link/cite/name the exact sources you are using so we can follow them up? Otherwise you could simply be making things up, and writing the quotes yourself.

fran17 wrote: »

Dr Jean A.Wright,professor and chair of paediatrics at Mercer school of medicine,in 2005 states: After 20 weeks of gestation,an unborn child has all the prerequisite anatomy, physiology, hormones, neurotransmitters and electrical current to "close the loop" and create the conditions needed to perceive pain.The development of the perception of pain begins at the 6th week of life.By 20 weeks,and perhaps even earlier,all the essential components of anatomy,physiology and neurobiology exist to transmit painful sensations from the skin to the spinal cord and to the brain.

A few problems here.

First you have jumped from a paper about "before" 20 weeks to "after" 20 weeks. Remember the VAST majority of chosen abortions are happening in or before week 12. Pretty much all of them by week 16. You are hopping around the time line more frantically than a barefoot midget walking on a sea of hot coals.

Second the quote does not in any way say that the fetus feels pain. It says the conditions needed to do so are in place. Which is a MASSIVELY different thing to say. The requirements to transmit things to the brain are in place? Great but ARE they doing so? And is the brain doing anything WITH them when they are? THAT is what is important.

So your quote....... quite simply......... does not say what you appear to want people to think it does. The quote merely lays out what SOME of the PREREQUISITES for the experience of pain are, and when SOME of them are in place. NOTHING in the quote........ not just little but NOTHING......... suggests the fetus IS experiencing any pain at all though.

fran17 wrote: »

Dr Sunny Anand,Director of pain neurobiology laboratory Arkansas,in 2005 states: My opinion is

Great, so you can trawl the literature and find someone expressing an OPINION that matches yours. Anyone can do that.

What I note you did NOT quote, cite or offer is anything that actually supports such an opinion. Which is what would be useful and relevant.

Finding people to share our opinions is childs play. Finding arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that SUPPORTS the opinion however........... not so much.

But it is funny that you invent entirely unsupported and hyperbolic nonsense such as "the majority" of papers being in some way biased yet while trawling the literature desperate to find an OPINION that matches yours........... you happily cherry pick ONE from a well known highly biased anti abortion speaker.

Delirium

Another article on the misinformation anti-abortion crisis pregnancy agencies are spreading about abortion.

Sex kills, anti-abortion clinic tells women (full article)

Two unregulated crisis pregnancy agencies with connections to Irish pro-life groups have been caught giving misleading “advice” about the consequences of abortion, having sex and using contraception.

A new undercover investigation by The Times has secretly recorded counsellors at the Ask Majella crisis pregnancy agency claiming that abortion causes breast cancer and can increase a woman’s chances of losing all of her reproductive organs. They also said that contraception was dangerous and women could “die” from having sex.

A second undercover investigation at Gianna Care, a crisis pregnancy service that started as a Youth Defence activist group, recorded a counsellor telling the undercover reporter that all women who have an abortion regret it. Both agencies claimed to offer “the truth”.

JoeyRed2

Delirium wrote: »

JoeyRed2 wrote: »

Abortion should be illegal.. I don't understand why it's not.

so you don't think abortion should be allowed where the womans life is at risk, as currently allowed by Irish law? :eek::eek:

No. It's completely immoral and it can't be tolerated.

Delirium

JoeyRed2 wrote: »

No. It's completely immoral and it can't be tolerated.

And how exactly is it moral to allow the woman to die when her death is preventable? Why is one wrong and the other okay?

MrPudding

Delirium wrote: »

And how exactly is it moral to allow the woman to die when her death is preventable? Why is one wrong and the other okay?

Because babies. Oh, and gods.

MrP

Delirium

A woman posted over on Reddit that is was taking the abortion pill in Dublin.

She potentially faces 14 years in prison if the authorities track her down and confirm that she took the abortion pill.

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

A woman posted over on Reddit that is was taking the abortion pill in Dublin.

Whiff of propaganda off that whole story IMO.

She potentially faces 14 years in prison if the authorities track her down and confirm that she took the abortion pill.

Isn't a lot of this thread arguing that the potential of something happening is meaningless? I'd say it's particularly meaningless in the circumstances above.

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whiff of propaganda off that whole story IMO.

Are you suggesting that the woman hasn't taken the abortion in Ireland?

Isn't a lot of this thread arguing that the potential of something happening is meaningless? I'd say it's particularly meaningless in the circumstances above.

Wouldn't agree. Having the possibility of 14 years in prison hanging over you isn't something to be indifferent about.

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the woman hasn't taken the abortion in Ireland?

I couldn't be sure whether this particular woman has or she hasn't, but the idea of posting her account on social media and the way it's written, simply comes across to me like a propaganda piece.

Wouldn't agree. Having the possibility of 14 years in prison hanging over you isn't something to be indifferent about.

In order for anyone to be convicted of any offence following a report of an alleged crime, the authorities would require some form of corroboration and evidence. I don't see much of either in that story. The anonymous author can be as indifferent as they want, knowing that a conviction would be unlikely, let alone the maximum sentence being imposed upon conviction if the authorities could even make a case where a woman would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of her peers. Her peers on reddit appear to be supportive. Then again, it is reddit, so that's to be expected.