Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

robdonn

Pherekydes wrote: »

Yes, it is. A miscarriage is an abortion.

Or an abortion is an induced miscarriage.

lazygal

I also want to point out that the eighth amendment doesn't ban abortion-it means I am exactly equal to any embryo or foetus inside me. It affected my maternity care and my right to consent to treatment during prengnancy. It affected my mental health during both my pregnancies because I was on edge wondering whether we'd need to organise travel for a termination if necessary. It affected the care I received in our maternity system and it is affecting my decision about how many children we should have. I don't want to be waiting until the risk to my life is 'enough' for an abortion, or to have to travel if a diagnosis of FFA or severe disability is made, or to be kept alive while rotting because I happen to be pregnant. Abortion is only one part of the eighth amendment. It doesn't stop abortions or women taking risks during pregnancy, it simply makes our pregnancies more difficult than they should be.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Pherekydes wrote: »

Yes, it is. A miscarriage is an abortion.

How so? I'd always assumed a miscarriage was a naturally occurring event, whereas an abortion was a choice made by the the pregnant woman? I'm not being sarcastic or facetious here, I genuinely don't know.

You should state your reasons in replies, I'm not going to accept something is, just because someone says it is

lazygal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

How so? I'd always assumed a miscarriage was a naturally occurring event, whereas an abortion was a choice made by the the pregnant woman? I'm not being sarcastic or facetious here, I genuinely don't know.

You should state your reasons in replies, I'm not going to accept something is, just because someone says it is

Medically a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. If you turn up during a miscarriage, should a hospital assume you've actually caused the miscarriage by taking an abortion pill until it investigates what type of abortion it is, sponanteous or induced?

Delirium

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

How so? I'd always assumed a miscarriage was a naturally occurring event, whereas an abortion was a choice made by the the pregnant woman? I'm not being sarcastic or facetious here, I genuinely don't know.

You should state your reasons in replies, I'm not going to accept something is, just because someone says it is

A miscarriage is the loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. The medical term for a miscarriage is spontaneous abortion, but "spontaneous" is the key word here because the condition is not an abortion in the common definition of the term.

Source

Kantava

When animals lose their pregnancies it is normally referred to as an abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I've done a little bit more research (ie just opening a few websites and looking at them) and I find myself beginning to question my passionately held beliefs. It's an uncomfortable position to find myself in at my time of life

I recommend relishing it rather than feeling uncomfortable. The older we get the less likely we are to change our views or examine them. And even when we do, the older we are the more chance that our views are correct as they have had longer to be tried, tested and matured.

So in our latter years, and even at 36 I already feel this, the joy of learning new things, correcting old errors, and questioning oneself becomes less and less.

For example I went through life for a long time being pro-choice merely because I fell on the "atheist" and "liberal" end of the scale and that's what most such people were. I never questioned WHY I was pro-choice. Then I sat down and really thought it through, learned things, asked myself a lot of "WHY". And it was a thoroughly enjoyable process.

In that particular case my views did not change dramatically. I stayed pro-choice. But I clarified when why how and under what conditions I was pro-choice.

There are other issues I have found, when I stopped to question myself, that I was holding merely because of some default or laziness. I was against incest for example and then really thought about it and realized that "incest" is a catch all term for MANY things. And where "incest" merely refers to the CONSENSUAL sexual or romantic activity between two adults (in other words not a parent and under age child for example) I had no moral or ethical arguments against it.

But there are other issues I have not sat down to think deeply about that I know I hold "default" or "lazy" positions on. Gun ownership. The Death Penalty. Women being banned from wearing the Muslim Headscarf or all over body bags. And quite a lot of others. Meat eating. They are on my "to-do" to really sit down and learn and explore all the arguments from all sides like I have done on so many others issues (like gay marriage, abortion, many secular issues and so forth).

Learn to enjoy, not feel uncomfortable about, exploring your own views, why you hold them, and even changing them. Learn to feel uncomfortable instead about noticing you hold an idea or view.... but have no idea WHY or on what basis you hold it.

There is a lot to learn out there, for all of us. Relish it. It adds joy to life.... a life that, despite what many will tell you, appears to be the ONLY life we get.

How *I* explored the abortion issue with myself was to try and first find out what the issue actually was. And what I realized was that at the very foundation of the discussion the entire abortion morality debate came down to one simple question..... does the thing being aborted have "rights" or not.... specifically the right to life.

So I *then* started exploring philosophically what it actually is that we assign rights to. What do we hang them on and why?

And then I noticed, quite simply, that the conclusions I came to as what attributes we hang rights off were all attributes that the fetus up to 16, 20.... in fact even arguably 24 weeks..... simply lack. They just are not there. In fact at 16 weeks the faculties for producing them are not even there. The analogy I often use is that if the attributes were radio waves, then not only are radio waves not there.... the broadcasting tower to produce them is not even built yet.

And at that point I realized there simply is no basis I could find.... or that anyone has since shown me..... for affording moral or ethical concern to a 16 week old fetus. It was a moral non-entity for me equivalent to a rock or a table leg.

So perhaps explore some of the same questions introspectively yourself. I was purposefully vague as to my own answers just now above to allow you to answer those questions yourself. But ask yourself what IS the abortion debate really about at a philosophical and moral level. And what attributes of a fetus actually do start making it an entity worth of moral or ethical concern.

I suspect, just from reading you so far, that you will find the only answers you have so far are that you have been hanging moral and ethical concern NOT off any attribute of the fetus itself..... but off words that have emotional value to you........ like "unborn child" and "Human life".

And as I said.... enjoy this introspection rather than feel discomfort. It is a personal growth and challenge that lies before you. All good stuff.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Kantava wrote: »

When animals lose their pregnancies it is normally referred to as an abortion.

Didn't know that either. So the term "abortion", as generally used, is similar to when we use "Biro" instead of "ball point pen"?

In these discussions though, isn't "abortion" generally accepted as the term for a medical termination of a pregnancy?

Kantava

generally yes, but maybe not strictly correct. A spontaneous abortion is what we refer to as miscarriage. spontaneous abortion being the correct term and how it is referred to in scientific papers. miscarriage is sort of a soft term like 'passing away' is when referring to death.

A bit about abortions in sheep
http://www.teagasc.ie/sheep/abortions.asp

robdonn

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Didn't know that either. So the term "abortion", as generally used, is similar to when we use "Biro" instead of "ball point pen"?

In these discussions though, isn't "abortion" generally accepted as the term for a medical termination of a pregnancy?

I'd imagine it's like the use of the word 'theory'.

Ragnar Lothbrok

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I recommend relishing it rather than feeling uncomfortable. The older we get the less likely we are to change our views or examine them. And even when we do, the older we are the more chance that our views are correct as they have had longer to be tried, tested and matured.

So in our latter years, and even at 36 I already feel this, the joy of learning new things, correcting old errors, and questioning oneself becomes less and less.

For example I went through life for a long time being pro-choice merely because I fell on the "atheist" and "liberal" end of the scale and that's what most such people were. I never questioned WHY I was pro-choice. Then I sat down and really thought it through, learned things, asked myself a lot of "WHY". And it was a thoroughly enjoyable process.

In that particular case my views did not change dramatically. I stayed pro-choice. But I clarified when why how and under what conditions I was pro-choice.

There are other issues I have found, when I stopped to question myself, that I was holding merely because of some default or laziness. I was against incest for example and then really thought about it and realized that "incest" is a catch all term for MANY things. And where "incest" merely refers to the CONSENSUAL sexual or romantic activity between two adults (in other words not a parent and under age child for example) I had no moral or ethical arguments against it.

But there are other issues I have not sat down to think deeply about that I know I hold "default" or "lazy" positions on. Gun ownership. The Death Penalty. Women being banned from wearing the Muslim Headscarf or all over body bags. And quite a lot of others. Meat eating. They are on my "to-do" to really sit down and learn and explore all the arguments from all sides like I have done on so many others issues (like gay marriage, abortion, many secular issues and so forth).

Learn to enjoy, not feel uncomfortable about, exploring your own views, why you hold them, and even changing them. Learn to feel uncomfortable instead about noticing you hold an idea or view.... but have no idea WHY or on what basis you hold it.

There is a lot to learn out there, for all of us. Relish it. It adds joy to life.... a life that, despite what many will tell you, appears to be the ONLY life we get.

How *I* explored the abortion issue with myself was to try and first find out what the issue actually was. And what I realized was that at the very foundation of the discussion the entire abortion morality debate came down to one simple question..... does the thing being aborted have "rights" or not.... specifically the right to life.

So I *then* started exploring philosophically what it actually is that we assign rights to. What do we hang them on and why?

And then I noticed, quite simply, that the conclusions I came to as what attributes we hang rights off were all attributes that the fetus up to 16, 20.... in fact even arguably 24 weeks..... simply lack. They just are not there. In fact at 16 weeks the faculties for producing them are not even there. The analogy I often use is that if the attributes were radio waves, then not only are radio waves not there.... the broadcasting tower to produce them is not even built yet.

And at that point I realized there simply is no basis I could find.... or that anyone has since shown me..... for affording moral or ethical concern to a 16 week old fetus. It was a moral non-entity for me equivalent to a rock or a table leg.

So perhaps explore some of the same questions introspectively yourself. I was purposefully vague as to my own answers just now above to allow you to answer those questions yourself. But ask yourself what IS the abortion debate really about at a philosophical and moral level. And what attributes of a fetus actually do start making it an entity worth of moral or ethical concern.

I suspect, just from reading you so far, that you will find the only answers you have so far are that you have been hanging moral and ethical concern NOT off any attribute of the fetus itself..... but off words that have emotional value to you........ like "unborn child" and "Human life".

And as I said.... enjoy this introspection rather than feel discomfort. It is a personal growth and challenge that lies before you. All good stuff.

Excellent points nozzferrahhtoo, and much to think over. I'm just turned 50 and have had many life long beliefs that in many ways I've never questioned.

I was raised in a very politically active family and I suspect that many of my views were instilled at an early age in the way that many people here are Catholic just because they were raised in a Catholic family. Having said that, I still do hold all the same views I've always held, but maybe to a lesser degree, and I'm no longer 100% certain that I'm correct in my views, in fact far from it! The certainties of youth, when everything appeared black and white, are long gone.

There are some beliefs I still hold onto and can never see me changing my attitudes to however (and I suspect they tally pretty much with most of your own views judging by what you've written in this thread so far*). Strangely enough I would probably have considered my anti-abortion views to have been in this category, but I have begun to realise that there's far more to this issue than I ever previously imagined.

I'm not sure that for me my views on abortion was ever about the "rights" of the unborn child versus the "rights" of the pregnant woman. It pretty much boiled down to the thoughts of inflicting terrible pain on the unborn child and deciding that no-one had the right to do that, for whatever reason. I remember seeing the pro-life film "The Silent Scream" during my teenage years and that massively re-enforced my views at the time.

*I am a liberal, atheist, vegetarian, anti-racist, pro-LGBT rights, etc, etc

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Like the mother and baby homes, there's money to be made in those hospitals.

Can't see them making much money if they don't take care of the patients, can you? It's not like the mother and baby homes after all....

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

On the point of UK v Ire, the paper doesn't seem to have any specific data on Ireland, it seems to have just grouped data based on regions (e.g. Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Western Europe).

My wild swing turned out to be accurate? Who would've guessed :pac:

Kantava

Absolam wrote: »

Can't see them making much money if they don't take care of the patients, can you? It's not like the mother and baby homes after all....

They take care of patients alright, but on their own terms. :mad:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/05/hospitals-pregnancy-abortion-reproductive-healthcare-catholic-rules-report

Absolam

Kantava wrote: »

They take care of patients alright, but on their own terms. :mad:

So they don't they care a lot less once the pregnancy comes to term? Good to know Wouldn't want to end up in a hospital where they won't care for me unless I'm a foetus.

Kantava

And the situations outlined in that article. That is the situation in Ireland under the eighth amendment. I hope to goodness nothing happens me while I am pregnant in this country. If you are in an emergency situation, theres no option to drive 30 miles down the road here either. I dont feel safe.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

My wild swing turned out to be accurate? Who would've guessed :pac:

Given that you're proven accurate, due to the lack of data on the ratio of abortions, Ire V UK, is it debatable that there actually are any performed on Irish women?

Can the Iona Institute have got it wrong about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

My wild swing turned out to be accurate? Who would've guessed :pac:

Yes it was accurate, but apparently due to lack of data rather than a dramatically reduced rate.

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-abortion-un-francis-fitzgerald-citizens-assembly-2765254-May2016/

Spotlight on the Eighth as study finds strict laws are not effective in reducing abortions
Six of the nine questions that were submitted for Ireland at a UN hearing asked about our stance on access to abortion.

It shows that in countries where abortion is strongly legally restricted – and often performed under unsafe conditions – the incidence of abortion is estimated to be as high as in countries where it is legal.

So its likely not saving many fetus from an abortion like the pro life crowd like to claim

The report also shows that abortion rates are at an all-time low in developed countries where the service is legal.

The continued fall in abortion rates is largely due to the increased use of modern contraception, that has given women greater control over the timing and number of children they want

contraception that the catholic church are against,

Mark Hamill

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I'm not sure that for me my views on abortion was ever about the "rights" of the unborn child versus the "rights" of the pregnant woman. It pretty much boiled down to the thoughts of inflicting terrible pain on the unborn child and deciding that no-one had the right to do that, for whatever reason. I remember seeing the pro-life film "The Silent Scream" during my teenage years and that massively re-enforced my views at the time.

The film has long been debunked as nonsense propaganda:

Critics of the film argued that the fetus could not truly scream or feel pain, as its brain was not yet well developed; medical specialists distinguished between the simple muscle reflexes shown in the video and subjective cognitive behavior, which does not arise until the twenty-fourth week of development. Robert Eiben, who was at the time president of the US National Child Neurology Society, attributed the fetus's movements during the video to reflex, not subjective experience. Similarly, other leading pediatric neurologists and specialist likened the actions of the fetus to the reflexes of brain-dead individuals, whose feet recoil when touched.

Source

John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine called the film's use of special effects deceptive, a form of "technical flimflam." He pointed out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that "the fetus is thrashing about in alarm." Hobbins questioned the titular "scream", noting that "the fetus spends lots of time with its mouth open", that the "scream" may have been a yawn, and also that "mouth" identified on the blurry ultrasound in the film may in fact have been the space between the fetal chin and chest.

Source.

This is why you shouldn't base your opinion on hearing out just one side of an argument.

oldrnwisr

Absolam wrote: »

Great info (as always) but more than a bit irrelevant (as usual). We do need to wait for the report because what I said was "I doubt it will show the number of abortions performed in the RoI (even per capita) is anywhere the number in the UK". I made no comment on any other literature I'm afraid; I was talking about the report. Which we haven't seen. Though I will point out that the summary from the literature you've provided a link to doesn't show the number of abortions performed in the RoI (even per capita) is anywhere the number in the UK either... does it? The summary deals with worldwide statistics; perhaps the full article provides specific data from Ireland and the UK but I'm afraid not everyone has a Lancet subscription that allows them to check. We can however take a look at other available data...
Because whilst it may not be a worthwhile comparison if all you're discussing is worldwide abortion rates, it is a worthwhile comparison if you are talking about the liberalisation of Irish abortion legislation. Specifically if, in the context of such a discussion, someone were to point out that in a worldwide statistical analysis it appears that developed nations with more restrictive abortion laws have the same rate of abortions as developed nations with less restrictive abortion laws, which could point to the conclusion that liberalising abortion laws in Ireland would not increase the rate of abortion in Ireland.

A comparison between Ireland and it's nearest geographic, cultural and economic neighbour who has a more liberal abortion regime might lead one to conclude otherwise; in England and Wales 184,571 abortions were performed in 2014; per capita that's 1 for every 311 people, or .32% depending on how you want to express it. In Ireland, the DoH says that 26 terminations were carried out under the POLDPA in 2014; per capita that's 1 for every 179,739 people, or .00056% depending on how you look at it. Even if legal abortions accounted for only 1% of all abortions performed in Ireland, our rate per capita would be less than a fifth of that of the UK. The number of abortions performed on Irish women in the UK alone in 2014 would more than double that rate per capita if those abortions had been performed in Ireland.

So... even if there are statistics that appear to show that restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates, it's pretty apparent that Ireland's abortion rates are quite likely to be higher if it enacts less restrictive abortion laws, would you not say? Which is why I made the comparison

OK, let's rewind slightly, shall we?

In response to robdonn's now redacted post, OscarBravo offered the following comment:

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is a point that needs to be emphasised over and over as the single key point in the debate over abortion: making abortion illegal doesn't prevent abortion; it just makes it less safe.

to which you responded:

Absolam wrote: »

I'm going to take a wild swing and say I doubt it will show the number of abortions performed in the RoI (even per capita) is anywhere the number in the UK, regardless of the conditions they're performed under.

Now, OscarBravo is correct, restrictive abortion laws are not correlated with low abortion rates. However, your comment makes the implication that Ireland's low abortion rate compared to the UK is a result of our restrictive abortion laws. That assertion is wrong.

And here's why.

While we have already looked at how the global rates don't support your argument, looking at individual examples also shows that abortion rates are not correlated with abortion laws.

In 2004, Ireland's abortion rate was 6.7 (as defined previously). In this same year the abortion rate of Croatia (where abortion is legal) was 5.7, while the abortion rate of Qatar (whose laws are similar to Ireland) was 1.2. Therefore there is no correlation between abortion rate and legislation.

Also, as I have already mentioned, the number of abortions obtained by Irish women in 2003 was 6320 (down from a peak of 6673 in 2001). This figure then declined steadily down to 4402 in 2010. Obviously, there were no tightening of abortion legislation in this period to account for such a drop. Which means that the abortion rate of a country is not dictated by it's abortion laws.

Of course we already know this because we understand the factors which affect the abortion rate, access to contraception, sex education in schools, religiosity and other less relevant factors (in an Irish context) such as infant mortality and gender disparity in education.

In Ireland we have an educated populace, an efficient healthcare system, easily accessible contraceptives, family planning services, gender equality in education and sex education which is not abstinence only. These are the factors which affect our abortion rate, not our abortion laws.

Your analysis above is overly simplistic and wrong. Firstly, and most importantly, it only includes terminations conducted in Ireland and not terminations conducted on Irish women in other jurisdictions. Considering only abortions on Irish soil is a dishonest argument. Secondly, you are measuring abortions per capita. This is meaningless. Men don't have abortions and neither to 5 or 85 year olds. This is why abortion rates are quoted as the number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44. So, for example in 2005, Ireland had a rate of 5.9 compared to 17.0 in the UK which is 35% and not "less than a fifth" as you state.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well since you have, as per usual, dodged the majority of my posts above.... I will skip forward to this one.

Yes, you are talking nonsense when you get all haughty and uppity at people calling a fetus a fetus. Because that is what it is. If people using proper terminology bothers you in a conversation then your never ending quest to unearth and dance in front of the altar of biases would best be served standing before the nearest mirror to you.

I'm not getting haughty nor uppity at all, and haven't done at any stage of this discussion, so your constant characterisations simply don't fit. I can point out that the terminology matters depending upon what context one is referring to either a foetus, the unborn, the unborn child, the preborn baby, the wanted baby, the unwanted baby, the clump of cells, the blastocyst, the embryo, and many, many other variations on a theme so to speak. It is all of those things. The use of the terminology though, is important, because if I'm speaking in one context and you're speaking in another, then we're just talking over each other and the discussion is pointless.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The issue is, and the one you run away and ignore my posts whenever I query you on it.... like _every_ _single_ _time_..... is that some people seem to think that JUST before birth the child should have no rights, and JUST after birth it does.

And people like myself are wondering what the basis for that thinking actually is. And the best YOU have ever offered in response to that is to restate the problem in a circular manner, rather than answer the question. In other words when I ask "why is it done / should it be done that way" you effectively answer "because in law/legislation that is what we do".

Restating the problem does not answer the question. The issue being that mere location.... one end of the birth canal or the other..... seems to be a baseless, non-sensical, entirely ludicrous and arbitrary, meaningless way to draw that particular line in the sand.

It's not that I'm dodging or running away from anything, but yes, I do ignore your posts for the most part because you appear to be incapable of civil, robust discussion without snide remarks and passive aggressive bitching and copious use of the copy and paste function to fluff out your already verbose missives. That's just your style of argument.

Then when I come to read something I think might actually be worth discussing, it's so ridiculous an "argument", that it simply isn't worth my time entertaining. Nobody should have to deal with that level of stupid that tries to argue over "location of the foetus" ffs. It's quite simple:

Before it's born, it's a foetus, inside a pregnant woman, who does not want to continue her pregnancy. After it's born, it's no longer a foetus, but an individual human being upon which we confer human rights. That's a much better arbitrary point upon which to hang human rights than hanging them on a foetus which has not yet been born, and having those rights over-ride the rights of the woman (not just a birth canal or a womb or a biological incubator) who does not want to continue her pregnancy.

Yet you would have her forced to continue her pregnancy and force her to give birth against her will because medical and scientific technology has advanced to a point where we can now detect brain activity in the foetus at 12-16 weeks. Your position gives very little regard to the life and welfare of the woman in your "pro-choice" scenario, which appears to be anything but pro-choice, and more pro-your-choice. As I have always understood the term "pro-choice", it is the position that advocates for a woman's right to have an abortion.

Using your "location" argument, the foetus has more rights over a woman's body than she has over her own body, because, and I hate to be so obvious here, but, when a woman is pregnant is when she would need an abortion. Women don't need to have an abortion after they've been forced to give birth. The right to an abortion can only be exercised while a woman is pregnant, not before or after, and in that scenario, you bet the location of the foetus is important, because it's inside her body! When it's outside her body, it's not a foetus any more, and a right to an abortion is no longer a relevant concern.

Ragnar Lothbrok

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The film has long been debunked as nonsense propaganda:

Source

All I was pointing out was that when I was in my late teens I saw the Silent Scream film and it had a big impact on me, completely reinforcing my already strong anti-abortion feelings. I didn't think of it as propaganda at the time, purely because it backed up my own prejudices.

Source.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is why you shouldn't base your opinion on hearing out just one side of an argument.

I'm starting to realise that :eek:

lazygal

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

All I was pointing out was that when I was in my late teens I saw the Silent Scream film and it had a big impact on me, completely reinforcing my already strong anti-abortion feelings. I didn't think of it as propaganda at the time, purely because it backed up my own prejudices.

Source.



I'm starting to realise that :eek:

The Silent Scream was made precisely to invoke that reaction in you. It seems its still doing the rounds in some schools to this day. It's meant to make you anti abortion in all circumstances, which is why it is so important that children are taught to critically analyse what they are told by teachers, parents and everyone else.

ETA I'm ashamed of this now but I would have been very prolife, due to the education I received in school, which constantly called a foetus a baby and the teachers who asked us why would we kill a baby when it is innocent and other couples are desperate for babies, and many other prolife lines. It is good to have your views challenged and to come to question why you hold them and if they are in fact wrong.

Absolam

Kantava wrote: »

And the situations outlined in that article. That is the situation in Ireland under the eighth amendment. I hope to goodness nothing happens me while I am pregnant in this country. If you are in an emergency situation, theres no option to drive 30 miles down the road here either. I dont feel safe.

Well.. what objective basis would you say there is for not feeling safe? What proportion of mothers would you say have died in Irish hospitals as a result of legislation that gives an equal right to life of the foetus? Ireland ranks 16th best out of 184 nations on the CIA World Factbooks worldwide maternal mortality rate (the annual number of female deaths per 100,000 live births from any cause related to or aggravated by pregnancy or its management (excluding accidental or incidental causes); 21 places ahead of the UK, who are 12 places ahead of the US. Based on that there aren't a heck of a lot of countries where you ought to feel safer....

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Given that you're proven accurate, due to the lack of data on the ratio of abortions, Ire V UK, is it debatable that there actually are any performed on Irish women?

I't hard to imagine that it could be debatable that there actually are any abortions performed on Irish women, given that there are statistics for abortions performed on Irish women, both in Ireland under the POLDPA, and in the UK. What do you think is debatable about it?

aloyisious wrote: »

Can the Iona Institute have got it wrong about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions?

You haven't actually said what they've said about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions, so it's hard to say

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

So its likely not saving many fetus from an abortion like the pro life crowd like to claim

That's a bit of a tricky assertion when the report doesn't present any data on Ireland though, particularly when there's such a significant difference between the number of abortions in Ireland compared to the number in the UK....

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Yes it was accurate, but apparently due to lack of data rather than a dramatically reduced rate.

I don't think anyone was suggesting there would be a dramatically reduced rate, were they? I was saying I think there would be a significant difference between the number of abortions per capita in Ireland compared to the UK, and Oldrnwisr was saying that the abortion rate for Irish women has been steadily declining since 2003, though in fairness he didn't say whether he considered it was doing so 'dramatically' I don't think.

Absolam

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, let's rewind slightly, shall we? In response to robdonn's now redacted post, OscarBravo offered the following comment: to which you responded: Now, OscarBravo is correct, restrictive abortion laws are not correlated with low abortion rates. However, your comment makes the implication that Ireland's low abortion rate compared to the UK is a result of our restrictive abortion laws. That assertion is wrong.

Well no... you may well have taken it that way. But my implication (which I think I fleshed out in my reply to you) was actually that we ought not to infer from a worldwide statistical analysis showing that developed nations with more restrictive abortion laws have the same rate of abortions as developed nations with less restrictive abortion laws, that a relaxation of Irish abortion legislation would not lead to an increase of abortions in Ireland; it manifestly would. Yes, you're talking about a similar argument, coming from the opposite side as it were, but that's not the argument I was making.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

And here's why. While we have already looked at how the global rates don't support your argument, <...>

Which as usual would appear to be a fantastically well supported rebuttal if that were the argument I was making, but as usual it wasn't, as you could tell from my previous reply to you

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Your analysis above is overly simplistic and wrong. Firstly, and most importantly, it only includes terminations conducted in Ireland and not terminations conducted on Irish women in other jurisdictions. Considering only abortions on Irish soil is a dishonest argument. Secondly, you are measuring abortions per capita. This is meaningless. Men don't have abortions and neither to 5 or 85 year olds. This is why abortion rates are quoted as the number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44. So, for example in 2005, Ireland had a rate of 5.9 compared to 17.0 in the UK which is 35% and not "less than a fifth" as you state.

Actually, whilst it's simplistic, it's not wrong. I did include terminations not conducted in Ireland, remember I said

Absolam wrote: »

The number of abortions performed on Irish women in the UK alone in 2014 would more than double that rate per capita if those abortions had been performed in Ireland.

And there's nothing dishonest about considering the number of abortions performed on Irish soil if you're discussing legislating to permit abortions on Irish soil; it's entirely to the point. I think it's entirely fair to say that I have done my best not to stray from talking about abortion in Ireland, whereas others (like yourself) have chosen to muddy the discussion with abortions performed on Irish people in other jurisdictions. We don't really get a say on what happens in those jurisdictions; we do get a say on what happens in Ireland.

As for whether you want to discuss rates on a per capita basis or otherwise I think it's probably just a matter of which statistics you think suit your argument best; I've no real objection to to the kind of statistic you're talking about (if it's accurate), as you'll see.
You quoted statistics based on the number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44; fair enough, though quoting 2005 stats when you've already said the abortion rate for Irish women has been steadily declining since 2003 (or, depending on your post, that the numbers of Irish women seeking abortions abroad has been falling since 2003, which is a different thing, but anyways) would make their relevance questionable (I don't see what's wrong with using the most up to date statistics available, do you?)... and even then, when you say "In 2004, Ireland's abortion rate was 6.7 ", aren't you taking your number from the British Department of Health table (as defined previously)? So, that's not actually Ireland's abortion rate at all, but the UKs DoH assessment of abortions carried in England & Wales on women who said they were from the Republic. Rendering your statistic for 'Ireland' somewhat spurious to say the least, and considerably more 'wrong' than my own I'd say.

If you're interested in working to that kind of statistic though, the number of women between 15 and 55 (best I could manage at short notice) in the RoI in 2014 was 1,344,523, and the UK DH said there were 3,754 abortions performed on women from Ireland that year, so an accurate statement would be that the reputed number of abortions performed on Irish women in the UK, per 1000 women aged 15 - 55 in Ireland, was 2.8. The age-standardised abortion rate for England and Wales was 15.9 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44, so 2.8 to 15.9 is, oddly enough, 17.6%... or a fair bit less than a fifth Leave out all the women aged 45 to 55 and maybe it'll come out about a fifth? Seems those statistics come out pretty similar to what I was saying for per capita numbers (which were also 2014 numbers) in the end anyway...

Now, Croatia and Qatar are interesting places, but I'm not sure I think there's any reasonable way to relate them to the situation in Ireland so I'll set them aside if you don't mind; I understand you feel there is no correlation between abortion rate and legislation in those countries, though when you say Croatia has legal abortion and a rate of 5.7, but Qatar doesn't and has a rate of 1.2 (about a fifth of Croatia's, wow! what are the chances?), you have to admit the assertion sounds a bid dodgy? Anyway, I don't understand why you think they're relevant so maybe we'll leave them be. Nor do I understand why you think the decreasing number of abortions obtained by Irish women ought in some way to be linked to tightening of abortion laws, particularly in a country where they're not obtaining those abortions; that it manifestly wasn't linked doesn't mean that the abortion rate of a country isn't dictated by it's abortion laws (or influenced, which would be a more accurate assertion), it simply shows that there are other factors that influence the number of abortions obtained by Irish (or any) women as well; factors like the ones you yourself pointed out, which probably account for the fact that the abortion rates in Croatia & Qatar have also been dropping over the last decade or two. I realise you probably set up 'dictated' as a bit of a strawman for yourself there, when you know you should have said 'influenced', but influence I think is probably the right word. I also think you know well you're not actually taking about the abortion rate of Ireland when you talk about the abortion rate of Irish people in the UK, and I think you know well that kind of misrepresentation is wrong too.

Still, your use of statistics on abortion in the UK does drive home the point I was making in my post; in the UK 3,754 abortions were performed on Irish women in 2014, in Ireland 26 abortions were performed under the POLDPA. A relaxation of Irish legislation that would have permitted those UK abortions to occur in Ireland would have resulted in a 1444% increase in the number of abortions in Ireland. So it hardly seems that Ireland's abortion rate would not increase if we liberalised abortion legislation, despite the fact that in a worldwide statistical analysis it appears that developed nations with more restrictive abortion laws have the same rate of abortions as developed nations with less restrictive abortion laws.

You may say there is no correlation, much less causation, between the restrictiveness of abortion laws and abortion rates. But I think if you said that making abortion laws less restrictive in Ireland would not increase the abortion rate in Ireland, you'd be making a liar of yourself.

rainbow kirby

Absolam wrote: »

Well.. what objective basis would you say there is for not feeling safe? What proportion of mothers would you say have died in Irish hospitals as a result of legislation that gives an equal right to life of the foetus? Ireland ranks 16th best out of 184 nations on the CIA World Factbooks worldwide maternal mortality rate (the annual number of female deaths per 100,000 live births from any cause related to or aggravated by pregnancy or its management (excluding accidental or incidental causes); 21 places ahead of the UK, who are 12 places ahead of the US. Based on that there aren't a heck of a lot of countries where you ought to feel safer....

The 8th overrides your right to informed consent. As soon as you become pregnant in Ireland medical professionals can state that what they are doing is in the best interests of the foetus and they do not have to take your wishes into account at all. Also knowing that international standards of care for certain complications may not be followed because they might be considered "abortion". Knowing that you could have your treatment for other conditions stopped because it may affect the foetus, regardless of your choice. Knowing that in a fatal abnormality case that you'll either have to be a walking coffin until the end or pay thousands to leave your country to have a mid-late 2nd trimester termination procedure.

Safety in pregnancy is a hell of a lot more than whether you come out of it alive or not.