Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

any link to the ad?

I'll go to Castle St in Bray where the Ad is on a large billboard on the side of a building, take a photo of it, download the image onto my PC and post it up here later today. That's the only way to give a link that I know of to the Ad.

.......

This post has been deleted.

oldrnwisr

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, no that wouldn't be a trutful statement either. The reality is as follows:

UK 2016 Statistics

Live births - 774,835
Abortions - 185,596
Miscarriages - 249,660
Stillbirths - 3,430

Total - 1,213,521

Therefore, the number of abortions as a percentage of total pregnancies is 15% or closer to 1 in 7.

Sources

UK Abortion Statistics 2016

UK Vital statistics: population and health reference tables

Acute gynaecology and early pregnancy

.......

This post has been deleted.

pleas advice

Ha! There's clutching at straws, and then there's ...^^^

.......

This post has been deleted.

aloyisious

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ta for the photo. On seeing your photo with the Ad and billboard, I went down to take a photo of the Ad on the billboard in Bray but it's been pasted over by a Vegan campaign Ad. It seems from the anti-abortion Ad I saw in Bray and the one in your photo that the campaigners behind it are being economic with the facts as the one I saw bore the words [In Britain "limited abortion" kills 1 in 4 babies] on it. Like in your photo, it had puntution marks but they were around both limited and abortion. Given that there are two versions of the Ad on the loose in public, it's possible that other billboards carry similar but different Ads around the country.

Hotblack Desiato

Them and the vegans aren't such strange bedfellows - they have beliefs akin to a religion, and want everyone to follow their doctrine whether they like it or not.

.......

This post has been deleted.

recedite

Nitpicking people seem very unhappy with an unborn baby being described as a baby, and with miscarriages being excluded excluded from the stats. And lets face it, there are no accurate stats on miscarriages, because a lot of them would never be reported. Just like a lot of early abortions via abortion pill would never reach the stats.

So, would people be happy enough with the a placard that read "one in five healthy British pregnancies end in abortion" ?

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

... Just like a lot of early abortions via abortion pill would never reach the stats...

There's no basis for believing that there's "a lot" of unrecorded usage of the abortion pill in Britain. That only happens in places like Ireland where women can't access safe and legal abortions.

.......

This post has been deleted.

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

There's no basis for believing that there's "a lot" of unrecorded usage of the abortion pill in Britain.

Really? Who actually records these statistics then?

recedite

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There can be many different reasons for a miscarriage, including accidents and traumas, but usually it is just the human body's way of dealing with a FFA at a very early stage. Therefore they can't be included in a statistic of healthy pregnancies; being by definition a pregnancy in which something has gone wrong.

So I guess we're back to the 1 in 5 being quite accurate then.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Really? Who actually records these statistics then?

If it were possible to record accurate statistics on miscarriages, presumably all parties interested in the debate on abortion, as well as the UK health authorities, as it is "evidenced" that some parties are using stats to strengthen their arguments. If the miscarriages and morning-after pill abortions are unrecorded, then the stats used in anti-abortion Ads must be suspect as being based on estimates and speculation.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

Really? Who actually records these statistics then?

In Britain, it's recorded by the hospitals and clinicians who provide the abortion pills. And I've seen nothing that suggests, never mind proves, that these figures are wrong.

Hotblack Desiato

When you're a Trump and Brexit fan, you don't need facts.

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

In Britain, it's recorded by the hospitals and clinicians who provide the abortion pills. And I've seen nothing that suggests, never mind proves, that these figures are wrong.

Do these hospitals also record mail order pills and/or pills administered by family doctor practices? (two doctors required apparently)
I'm not going to get involved in a pointless dispute over statistics. Even if the statistics were accurate, there are so many ways of manipulating them.

That's before you even get into the reliability of the original reporting.
Just think about the Garda breathalyser statistics. You'd think that would be a rock solid statistic, but no.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

I'm not going to get involved in a pointless dispute over statistics.

That's not surprising considering you don't have any statistics to back up your claim in the first place.

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

That's not surprising considering you don't have any statistics to back up your claim in the first place.

What, statistics to back up the claim that available statistics are not sufficient to support the level of nitpicking going on here?
You are taking nitpicking to a whole new level

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

What, statistics to back up the claim that available statistics are not sufficient to support the level of nitpicking going on here?
You are taking nitpicking to a whole new level

Didn't realise we'd redefined nitpicking to mean "pointing out when someone is making stuff up to suit themselves".

aloyisious

Cora Sherlock was interviewed on the 1PM RTE 1 News today. The interviewer didn't give her much wriggle-room and focused on the 8th, the situation in Northern Ireland in comparison to England and the Republic on the abortion law situation. He kept his questions on that angle, not mentioning the UK at all, just N/I, the republic and England.

I got to thinking how much the anti-abortion campaign here in the republic must be hoping and praying that the two prominent N/I political parties stay on their present track, that the religious-political set-up in N/I doesn't have a sea-change towards the women's health issue when it comes to abortion instead of the present one where the parties are seemingly more interested in keeping their political future secure there at the moment.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

Cora Sherlock was interviewed on the 1PM RTE 1 News today. The interviewer didn't give her much wriggle-room and focused on the 8th, the situation in Northern Ireland in comparison to England and the Republic on the abortion law situation. He kept his questions on that angle, not mentioning the UK at all, just N/I, the republic and England.

I got to thinking how much the anti-abortion campaign here in the republic must be hoping and praying that the two prominent N/I political parties stay on their present track, that the religious-political set-up in N/I doesn't have a sea-change towards the women's health issue when it comes to abortion instead of the present one where the parties are seemingly more interested in keeping their political future secure there at the moment.

SF will be under a lot of pressure on this issue if repeal the 8th is voted down. Assuming they come out for 'unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks' in the republic, they will be facing loud calls across Britain and Ireland to explicitly support the extension of British abortion law to NI, given that any liberalisation of the law in the republic will be off the agenda for some years. But doing so would place another massive wedge between themselves and the DUP...

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

mostly this it does kinda cross a line thats getting close to 'eugenics' as well though (I know it wont be mandatory, or state sponsored, but the feeling is there)

But a "feeling" is pretty much all it is. That simply is not what Eugenics means. Giving people the OPTION to abort a fetus with a defect is nothing to do with Eugenics.

end of the road wrote: »

exactly. in my opinion it's the start of creating a world where everyone is the same, where once it has reached it's outcome people will be deluded into thinking imperfection doesn't exist.

Ahhh slippery slope fear mongering then? No, the death of one genetic defect condition that has a detrimental effect on many is not a step towards making everyone the same any more than the introduction of Glasses to mediate optical conditions was.

Hotblack Desiato

Downs has nothing to do with eugenics anyway. The overwhelming majority of Downs pregnancies arise spontaneously from genetically normal parents. Whether we have 0% abortion or 100% abortion there will still be the same instance of the Downs chromosomal defect arising in the future.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Downs has nothing to do with eugenics anyway. The overwhelming majority of Downs pregnancies arise spontaneously from genetically normal parents. Whether we have 0% abortion or 100% abortion there will still be the same instance of the Downs chromosomal defect arising in the future.

Which means that approbation of the termination of pregnancies where Downs has been diagnosed is not about eliminating Downs. It's about eliminating people with Downs.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which means that approbation of the termination of pregnancies where Downs has been diagnosed is not about eliminating Downs. It's about eliminating people with Downs.

Because a pregnancy is a person now is it? There are lots of peole with Downs about the place, and nobody is suggesting eliminating them.
You should really get a grip. Maybe come back when you've calmed down a bit? :rolleyes:

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Because a pregnancy is a person now is it? There are lots of peole with Downs about the place, and nobody is suggesting eliminating them.
You should really get a grip. Maybe come back when you've calmed down a bit? :rolleyes:

No, I'm not saying a pregnancy is a person. Perhaps it is you who should calm down, and address what I actually say rather that what you have decided to impute to me.

I'm saying that terminating a pregnancy where Downs has been diagnosed does not eliminate Downs, the condition, for the reason pointed out by Hotblack. However many Downs pregnancies you terminate, this will not reduce the future incidence of Downs at all.

What terminating Downs pregnancies does do is to reduce or eliminate entirely the number of people in the community who suffer from Downs, because those people will never be born. This, I think, is an outcome that is implicitly sought and/or welcomed by those who express approval for high rates of termination where Downs is diagnosed.

And you can see, can't you, why people in the community who suffer from Downs would find this attitude highly offensive? It may not be a direct threat to them personally or individually, but they are likely to see it as a condemnation or dismissal of who they are. Advocating policies that aim to reduce the number of Downs people in society is likely to strike Downs people in much the way that advocating policies that aim to reduce the number of gay people, or policies that aim to reduce the number of black people, is likely to strike gay people, or black people.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which means that approbation of the termination of pregnancies where Downs has been diagnosed is not about eliminating Downs. It's about eliminating people with Downs.

Only if you accept that a foetus is a person, which clearly anyone who is pro-choice does not. Until such time as there is a majority consensus as to the point in gestation at which we consider a fertilised ovum / embryo / fetus / unborn child, or whatever other term you care to use, to be a person we can't reasonably talk about killing babies or eliminating people.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Only if you accept that a foetus is a person . . .

No. If you terminate a Downs pregnancy now, you do so with the intention of preventing the birth of what would, if born, undoubtedly be a person. And if you generally welcome or approve of high rates of termination for Downs pregnancies, that indicates that you are seeking to reduce or eliminate the phenomenon of persons with Downs.

The outcome you would be seeking here, the considerations that motivate you, would not be fewer Downs pregnancies; Downs pregnancies are not, in themselves, any more or less burdensome than non-Downs pregnancies. What you're seeking to achieve is fewer Downs people. And Downs people are bound to notice this, and to react to it.

All of this is true whether or not you regard the foetus as a person.

Please note that I am not expressing any judgment of a pregnant woman who, on getting a diagnosis of Downs, elects to terminate her pregnancy. I entirely understand that choice, and would defend her right to make it. What I am talking about is others welcoming that choice, and regarding it as a good thing that the choice should frequently or generally be made in cases where Downs is diagnosed. That makes a statement about Downs people which must be highly offensive.