Second coming of the Pope to coincide with General Election issue of 8th amendment?

Pherekydes

frostyjacks wrote: »

But aren't abortionists advocating for post-birth abortion? On the basis that a newborn is no different to a fetus? How is that any better than what happened in the old days?

No, it's the idiot "pro-lifers" who think that a blastocyst is no different to an adult woman.

The pro-choicers recognise the difference between the unborn and the born.

The Randy Riverbeast

frostyjacks wrote: »

But aren't abortionists advocating for post-birth abortion? On the basis that a newborn is no different to a fetus? How is that any better than what happened in the old days?

Umm, you can't have an abortion if there's no pregnancy.

I'm sure you can provide a source of this being an actual thing.

frostyjacks

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Umm, you can't have an abortion if there's no pregnancy.

I'm sure you can provide a source of this being an actual thing.

There's lots of links on Google, below is just one. If you've no qualms about killing a baby in the womb, it's not a huge stretch to want it killed the moment it's out of the womb.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

Hotblack Desiato

Every society already has a means for a woman to place a born child into the care of others.

Shrap

frostyjacks wrote: »

There's lots of links on Google, below is just one. If you've no qualms about killing a baby in the womb, it's not a huge stretch to want it killed the moment it's out of the womb.

You are totally and utterly missing the point that an up to 12 week old human foetus is no more a baby than an embryo of any other mammal is a baby.

It is a necessity of our actual being as women that we don't invest too much emotionally in such an unformed life, as so so many pregnancies end in miscarriage anyway at this stage of development. Of course, many women are invested emotionally in the outcome - the result of a wanted baby brought to term, but for those who do not want the outcome of a baby the opposite is true and the under 12 week old foetus holds a very different significance, ie. extremely unimportant.

You can't switch off nature and how women are built to feel and take action according to their circumstances. I do so wish you'd learn this and then you would realise that infanticide has no place in this conversation.

The Randy Riverbeast

frostyjacks wrote: »

There's lots of links on Google, below is just one. If you've no qualms about killing a baby in the womb, it's not a huge stretch to want it killed the moment it's out of the womb.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

So it's something a philosopher came up with and isn't really an actual thing. Thanks.

You have yet to explain how a pregnancy can be ended after a pregnancy has ended.

Mark Hamill

frostyjacks wrote: »

There's lots of links on Google, below is just one. If you've no qualms about killing a baby in the womb, it's not a huge stretch to want it killed the moment it's out of the womb.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

Looking through the links on a google search of "after-birth abortion" and they all seem to be referencing one single article written by two philosophers who put it forward as an ethical thought-argument in a medical journal. The very first link in that search, btw, is a snopes page debunking the notion that their abstract ethical argument was getting any traction anywhere with anyone:

Snopes article wrote:

The paper [] was submitted back in 2011, and outcry at the time was global and almost universally in disagreement with the ideas most believed had been proposed in the original paper.

Snopes article wrote:

Moreover, the points made by the paper’s authors met near-universal objection at the time they were published, and no mainstream political groups (including liberals) leaped to embrace them; we were unable to locate any vocal medical, social, or political entity (mainstream or fringe) actively campaigning for infanticide (or as the articles called it, “after birth abortion”) in mid-2015.

Even the authors of the paper themselves say:

Authors wrote:

However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper. Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, people’s emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.

Moreover, we did not suggest that after birth abortion should be permissible for months or years as the media erroneously reported.

If we wanted to suggest something about policy, we would have written, for example, a comment related the Groningen Protocol (in the Netherlands), which is a guideline that permits killing newborns under certain circumstances (e.g. when the newborn is affected by serious diseases). But we do not discuss guidelines in the paper. Rather we acknowledged the fact that such a protocol exists and this is a good reason to discuss the topic (and probably also for publishing papers on this topic).

However, the content of (the abstract of) the paper started to be picked up by newspapers, radio and on the web. What people understood was that we were in favour of killing people. This, of course, is not what we suggested. This is easier to see when our thesis is read in the context of the history of the debate.

martinjudge73

frostyjacks wrote: »

But aren't abortionists advocating for post-birth abortion? On the basis that a newborn is no different to a fetus? How is that any better than what happened in the old days?

Yeah that is where is leading.. We end up with hundreds of positions and laws on what is and isn't supposed to have rights.

What got it for me was an abortion of a baby at 28 weeks because it had a cleft palate. It was nothing other than killing a live, feeling child. Once you accept the pro-choice opinion its downhill as regards rights of the child.

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Yeah that is where is leading.. We end up with hundreds of positions and laws on what is and isn't supposed to have rights.

What got it for me was an abortion of a baby at 28 weeks because it had a cleft palate. It was nothing other than killing a live, feeling child. Once you accept the pro-choice opinion its downhill as regards rights of the child.

You haven't given a source for that claim, but iirc that was a Daily Mail or DT "abortion scare story" and in fact there were no confirmed cases of late abortions for isolated minor defects such as cleft palate. Cleft palate can be a sign of other serious syndromes, so the fact that it was the first sign that something was wrong does not mean that the termination was actually because of the cleft palate.

So if you have some evidence that this 28 week termination you mention was purely for cleft palate and there was nothing else wrong, perhaps you might care to share it with us.

martinjudge73

volchitsa wrote: »

You haven't given a source for that claim, but iirc that was a Daily Mail or DT "abortion scare story" and in fact there were no confirmed cases of late abortions for isolated minor defects such as cleft palate. Cleft palate can be a sign of other serious syndromes, so the fact that it was the first sign that something was wrong does not mean that the termination was actually because of the cleft palate.

So if you have some evidence that this 28 week termination you mention was purely for cleft palate and there was nothing else wrong, perhaps you might care to share it with us.

So there are no terminations at 28 weeks.. Are there?

the reality is once we remove the right to life of the unborn we have no certainty where we will end up. So many groups in our society have fought for their rights, just because someone can't speak does not mean they don't have rights.

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

So there are no terminations at 28 weeks.. Are there?

the reality is once we remove the right to life of the unborn we have no certainty where we will end up. So many groups in our society have fought for their rights, just because someone can't speak does not mean they don't have rights.

You're the one who made the claim, why don't you show us the evidence?
Don't you have any?

martinjudge73

volchitsa wrote: »

You're the one who made the claim, why don't you show us the evidence?
Don't you have any?

What evidence that the laws that exist.. exist? Didn't Mr. Obama even defend LTA? There isn't a dispute here. Late Term abortions happen. I'm not talking about procedures when the mothers life is at risk. I am talking about doctors killing the child.

stinkle

Late term abortions are a rarity in comparison to abortions before 12 weeks. Often they are due to fatal foetal abnormalities, and should absolutely be allowed. It's only relatively recently that such conditions can be diagnosed in utero, 20 weeks is the minimum time that some can be diagnosed. If the parent(s) choose not to proceed with the pregnancy then that's their choice. If they do want to proceed then they can too, no one is forcing their decision one way or another.

Would you have an issue if a couple did proceed with such pregnancy and made decisions about medical care immediately child is born such as switching off a life support machine, and/or administering pain relief? Such decisions are their rights as parents and next-of-kin, so why is it such a problem to respect their decision if they want to prevent any pain and suffering by allowing an unviable pregnancy to continue?

I wonder how many post-12 week abortions in the UK and elsewhere are down to unfortunate Irish women who couldn't access earlier treatment due to finances, logistics of organising travel to a foreign country, possible 14 year prison sentence if she tries to order drugs online, or just the downright paralysing fear of having to go abroad in the first place and maybe not be able to tell anyone. Many women don't actually have a 28-day menstrual cycle, or have a condition that results in irregular periods. It's not totally off-the wall for an Irish woman with PCOS, for example, to realise she's pregnant and with very little time to arrange/fund a trip to the UK, maybe arrange childcare for her existing family, before the 12-week limit for a medical abortion. Surgical abortions are more expensive, so she made need even more time to get funds for that, not to mention maybe a longer stay for follow-up care after surgery.

No woman wakes up midway through a healthy pregnancy and thinks "you know what? I cant be bothered continuing with this, I'll just head off to the clinic". Do you think women just walk in, jump in an abortion conveyor belt queue and dont get any kind of assessment? Anyone who did have such thoughts would be met with a counsellor and medical team who don't take such issues lightly.

martinjudge73

That just strengthens my argument. abnormalities in human beings don't mean we end their lives.


Baby Jaxon, Born With Anencephaly, Defies the Odds, Turns 1 Year Old.. not only that it talks.. It says I love you mom.. Defied all odds.

That child.. under Irish laws could not be aborted and would be alive.

stinkle

There are many conditions that mean a baby wouldn't survive and would die a horrible death soon after birth. As I said, if parents choose to proceed, then that's their choice, but no woman should be FORCED to continue with an unviable pregnancy.

Imagine the horror of getting bigger and bigger, attending hospital appointments and then going into labour and being in a ward with women who've given birth to healthy babies. Unless you suggest women with unviable pregnancies get sent to a home (they could maybe do some laundry to distract them?) until they give birth, they'll have to get on with their lives for the remaining gestation period and deal with things like randomers asking the usual "when are you due?" "boy or girl"? nosy questions knowing full well that their baby won't survive. That is mental and physical torture to put someone through that.

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

What evidence that the laws that exist.. exist? Didn't Mr. Obama even defend LTA? There isn't a dispute here. Late Term abortions happen. I'm not talking about procedures when the mothers life is at risk. I am talking about doctors killing the child.

No, you made a specific claim about a particular termination that you said was at 28 weeks because of cleft palate.

martinjudge73 wrote: »

What got it for me was an abortion of a baby at 28 weeks because it had a cleft palate. It was nothing other than killing a live, feeling child. [/QUOTE

i'm asking you for evidence that this was only because of a cleft palate and not for something much more serious that compromised the baby's entire future or possibly put the mother at risk if she continued the pregnancy.

The fact that you try to change the subject to avoid replying just shows your dishonesty. It really doesn't strengthen your case, which, if it had any value in the first place, wouldn't require that you lie in order to make it stand up.

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

That just strengthens my argument. abnormalities in human beings don't mean we end their lives.


Baby Jaxon, Born With Anencephaly, Defies the Odds, Turns 1 Year Old.. not only that it talks.. It says I love you mom.. Defied all odds.

That child.. under Irish laws could not be aborted and would be alive.

Here's the thing though - that particular baby didn't require Irish laws in order to be born, did it? It was born in a country which allows abortion. Wasn't it?

This is the thing about choice : families who don't want to terminate a pregnancy won't ever have to. You do realize that, don't you? But a woman like Savita Halappanavar, who was miscarrying, would not have to wait until she first developed an infection before being allowed to speed up the process surgically.

That is the difference and that is why your "example" of a disabled child born in a country which allows abortion cannot be a reason to ban all women from ever having abortions. Because the consequences of such a ban are too serious.

martinjudge73

volchitsa wrote: »

Here's the thing though - that particular baby didn't require Irish laws in order to be born, did it? It was born in a country which allows abortion. Wasn't it?

This is the thing about choice : families who don't want to terminate a pregnancy won't ever have to. You do realize that, don't you? But a woman like Savita Halappanavar, who was miscarrying, would not have to wait until she first developed an infection before being allowed to speed up the process surgically.

That is the difference and that is why your "example" of a disabled child born in a country which allows abortion cannot be a reason to ban all women from ever having abortions. Because the consequences of such a ban are too serious.

Hold on a second... Why does a baby require a choice when it already exists??? Why not respect its rights.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Hold on a second... Why does a baby require a choice when it already exists??? Why not respect its rights.

Are the rights of unborn babies respected when the constitution protects the right of women to travel for abortions they can't have in Ireland?

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

Are the rights of unborn babies respected when the constitution protects the right of women to travel for abortions they can't have in Ireland?

The constitution respects the right to travel. In Ireland the child like Baby Jaxon, Born With Anencephaly would not be aborted as our laws in Ireland don't allow doctors to kill such children.

As regards the right to travel.. its just that, a right to travel.

The fact remains that a baby like Baby Jaxon under Irish laws in Ireland would survive here and would not be subject to a choice as he already has rights. In England he doesn't and might or might not be killed by abortion.

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Hold on a second... Why does a baby require a choice when it already exists??? Why not respect its rights.

That's a nonsense reply. What choice do babies ever get? Did the baby with anencephaly get a choice to be born? I'd rather not exist than live like that, and you can't say that this baby, if it survives and develops to a stage where that level of consciousness is possible, wouldn't feel the same.

Now, you claimed that there was a 28 week foetus aborted purely because of cleft palate, and you haven't been able to provide any evidence that this was true.

Then you tried to exploit the case of a disabled baby born in a country where abortion is a legal right as an argument for banning abortion, while presumably still allowing women to travel abroad for abortions, IOW you actually think this case is an argument for having no effective ban on abortion at all - for people with money. I think you need to unlock your logic a bit there!

martinjudge73

volchitsa wrote: »

That's a nonsense reply. What choice do babies ever get? Did the baby with anencephaly get a choice to be born? I'd rather not exist than live like that, and you can't say that this baby, if it survives and develops to a stage where that level of consciousness is possible, wouldn't feel the same.

Now, you claimed that there was a 28 week foetus aborted purely because of cleft palate, and you haven't been able to provide any evidence that this was true.

Then you tried to exploit the case of a disabled baby born in a country where abortion is a legal right as an argument for banning abortion, while presumably still allowing women to travel abroad for abortions, IOW you actually think this case is an argument for having no effective ban on abortion for those with money. I think you need to unlock your logic a bit there! :roll:

You could use all the above arguments to justify turning of the machine of someone in a coma.

A child is born after 280 days from conception.. At 279 days its a child.. at 269 its still a child.. at 259.. Still a child...

The logic of the pro-choice camp is so construed to justify the unjustifiable that is defies the objective reality of the child.. That actually does exist.

One group will say they ONLY want abortion for X,, another group for X&Y.. and they another for X/Y/Z..

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

The constitution respects the right to travel. In Ireland the child like Baby Jaxon, Born With Anencephaly would not be aborted as our laws in Ireland don't allow doctors to kill such children.

As regards the right to travel.. its just that, a right to travel.

The fact remains that a baby like Baby Jaxon under Irish laws in Ireland would survive here and would not be subject to a choice as he already has rights. In England he doesn't and might or might not be killed by abortion.

Try again. Was he born in Ireland?

If his mother had lived in Ireland, does our constitution allow her to organize an abortion in the UK and to travel for it?

So could his parents have terminated that pregnancy in Ireland, with our "ban" on abortion, and did they in fact, despite living in a country which allows abortions choose not to avail of that right?

IOW, you can't actually show that the fake ban on abortion in Ireland would have increased his chances of being born at all. And in fact, since he was born, his chances finally can't have been any higher in Ireland anyway.

martinjudge73

As regards the abortions of babies with Cleft palette. Well its all public parliamentary commission 2013, I didn't need to invent it. Read the report.

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

You could use all the above arguments to justify turning of the machine of someone in a coma.

A child is born after 280 days from conception.. At 279 days its a child.. at 269 its still a child.. at 259.. Still a child...

The logic of the pro-choice camp is so construed to justify the unjustifiable that is defies the objective reality of the child.. That actually does exist.

One group will say they ONLY want abortion for X,, another group for X&Y.. and they another for X/Y/Z..

But you want abortion for group Z, the ones that can travel abroad. And group X, those whose lives are at risk. Anyone else?

So what's the difference? You just don't choose the same groups as some other people would, but you're still choosing groups who are entitled to have abortions.

And any evidence for your earlier claim about that abortion for cleft palate or can we assume it was just made up?

martinjudge73

volchitsa wrote: »

Try again. Was he born in Ireland?

If his mother had lived in Ireland, does our constitution allow her to organize an abortion in the UK and to travel for it?

So could his parents have terminated that pregnancy in Ireland, with our "ban" on abortion, and did they in fact, despite living in a country which allows abortions choose not to avail of that right?

IOW, you can't actually show that the fake ban on abortion in Ireland would have increased his chances of being born at all. And in fact, since he was born, his chances finally can't have been any higher in Ireland anyway.

He would not have died in Ireland as we don't have on demand abortion.

martinjudge73

volchitsa wrote: »

But you want abortion for group Z, the ones that can travel abroad. And group X, those whose lives are at risk. Anyone else?

So what's the difference? You just don't choose the same groups as some other people would, but you're still choosing groups who are entitled to have abortions.

And any evidence for your earlier claim about that abortion for cleft palate or can we assume it was just made up?

Necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother are not on demand abortions and already happen in Ireland and have been carried out for decades here on Irish soil.

So why are we discussing lives at risk? Doctors have all the means to manage these risks in Ireland.

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

As regards the abortions of babies with Cleft palette. Well its all public parliamentary commission 2013, I didn't need to invent it. Read the report.

Link please? I'm not going to search for some random parliamentary report on your say-so. We don't even know what country you're talking about.

And not a document of several hundred pages either - you made the claim, you need to back it up a bit better than that!

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

He would not have died in Ireland as we don't have on demand abortion.

But we do for those who can travel. A constitution clause directly after the eighth amendment allows women to travel to kill the unborn. Why shouldn't that be amended?

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother are not on demand abortions and already happen in Ireland and have been carried out for decades here on Irish soil.

So why are we discussing lives at risk? Doctors have all the means to manage these risks in Ireland.

What about threats to a woman's health? Is it ok the threaten health once it's not life threatening?

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

He would not have died in Ireland as we don't have on demand abortion.

If his parents had chosen to go to the UK, then what difference would that have made to him?

This is silly.

martinjudge73

volchitsa wrote: »

Link please? I'm not going to search for some random parliamentary report on your say-so. We don't even know what country you're talking about.

And not a document of several hundred pages either - you made the claim, you need to back it up a bit better than that!

For some reason can't post links. But its all there, public report.. Why invent?

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

For some reason can't post links. But its all there, public report.. Why invent?

Why invent? Because it's a convenient and often used tactic of those who think they should dictate what happens in my uterus. Like the stories about "brave"women who carried babies with no brains to term and said babies are now special Olympians or some such nonsense.

martinjudge73

volchitsa wrote: »

If his parents had chosen to go to the UK, then what difference would that have made to him?

This is silly.

Silly.. well were do we go in a discussion when it bottoms out like this.

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

Why invent? Because it's a convenient and often used tactic of those who think they should dictate what happens in my uterus. Like the stories about "brave"women who carried babies with no brains to term and said babies are now special Olympians or some such nonsense.

Did I invent the 2013 parliamentary report??

The current law permits an abortion to take place up to birth (40 weeks) if tests for disability indicate that the child may be disabled when born. There is a legal limit of 24 weeks for abortions on other grounds.

The Equality Act 2010 protects disabled people from discrimination. The Act prohibits discrimination arising from a disability by preventing one person from treating another less favourably because of their disability.

In light of the current legal position, the Parliamentary Inquiry into Abortion on the Grounds of Disability is seeking evidence from parents, medical practitioners, academia, support groups, disability groups, lawyers and individuals with an interest regarding the current theory, practice and implications of the approach to abortion on the grounds of disability in the UK.

They termed a child with a cleft palette as disabled and aborted him. It happened you can see the report for yourself.

40 weeks is late late term abortion... NO?

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Silly.. well were do we go in a discussion when it bottoms out like this.

So you don't see the relevance of the right to travel to kill something which is supposed to have constitutional protection? Do you think Britain's available abortion services have any bearing on why we let women travel to kill the unborn?

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

For some reason can't post links. But its all there, public report.. Why invent?

Because it isn't true that late abortions are carried out for minor disabilities. It's almost always for major problems,mans it's significant that you have been doing your best not to bring any evidence for this claim you made pages back.

You haven't even said which country you were talking about. How did you come across this story then (since that was how you told it in the first place, like something you'd read about)? Is your bedside reading random parliamentary reports from countries that you don't live in?

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Did I invent the 2013 parliamentary report??




They termed a child with a cleft palette as disabled and aborted him. It happened you can see the report for yourself.

40 weeks is late late term abortion... NO?

Why can't you post any evidence of this? Why are you so obsessed with the reasons behind abortions?

martinjudge73

volchitsa wrote: »

Because it isn't true that late abortions are carried out for minor disabilities. It's almost always for major problems,mans it's significant that you have been doing your best not to bring any evidence for this claim you made pages back.

You haven't even said which country you were talking about. How did you come across this story then (since that was how you told it in the first place, like something you'd read about)? Is your bedside reading random parliamentary reports from countries that you don't live in?

I'm making it up am I? Also its on the record..

MPs: Abortions being carried out for cleft palates
Abortion laws should be urgently reviewed amid evidence that pregnancies are being terminated up until full term simply because of cosmetic flaws, according to a committee of MPs and peers

it has led to foetuses being aborted purely because screening has detected a cleft lip or club foot, conditions which can be dealt with after birth, according to the committee. Under the 1967 Abortion Act, a termination can be carried out up until 24 weeks gestation if two doctors agree that the physical or mental health of the woman or the child would be at risk if the pregnancy were to continue.

martinjudge73

2,700 abortions after 24 weeks in the UK a year. That is late term abortion.

lazygal

martinjudge73 wrote: »

2,700 abortions after 24 weeks in the UK a year. That is late term abortion.

And your point is.....?
Why can unborn children, which have constitutional protection, be brought elsewhere to be killed?

martinjudge73

lazygal wrote: »

And your point is.....?
Why can unborn children, which have constitutional protection, be brought elsewhere to be killed?

My point is even in the UK they are not happy with those laws.. What is why they reviewed them in the commons. Hundreds of children with downs syndrome being killed every year.

We don't allow disabled children to be killed in our Country under our laws.

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Did I invent the 2013 parliamentary report??

They termed a child with a cleft palette as disabled and aborted him. It happened you can see the report for yourself.

40 weeks is late late term abortion... NO?

But it's still just an assertion, with no evidence whatsoever that cleft palate was all that was wrong with this child, and secondly your story is changing - You said it was a 28 week abortion earlier.

And still you haven't shown any evidence (how many parliamentary reports a year are there? You expect us to read through them all on the strength of such vague indications? Even the term has changed).

And I'm really intrigued about how you came across this information yourself, if the only source you can name is a parliamentary commission? Do you read them all, or only the ones your spin doctors tell you to read?

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

My point is even in the UK they are not happy with those laws.. What is why they reviewed them in the commons. Hundreds of children with downs syndrome being killed every year.

We don't allow disabled children to be killed in our Country under our laws.

No, we allow them to be taken abroad though. Is there any difference in terms of outcomes for the disabled person involved?

And since you've moved on to Down's syndrome, it's worth pointing out that in the UK - where the parents are allowed the choice of whether or not they want to continue a pregnancy when the future baby has Downs - their country treats those who are born with infinitely more respect and care than Ireland does.

Which country is more pro-life : the one that tells the woman "You can make the choice that you think is right for you family and we'll support you as much as possible", or the one that simply doesn't want to know either way, refuses to get involved, and when the child is born then makes the family jump through all sorts of hoops to get a chance of a decent education for the child? And very often just refuses any extra help at all, because the handicap "isn't disabling enough".

I know which one I would rather be or have a Downs child in. And it isn't Ireland.

volchitsa

martinjudge73 wrote: »

I'm making it up am I? Also its on the record..

Ah now we're getting somewhere! You forgot the source, unfortunately. I wonder why. Could it possibly be that it isn't actually as objective as the Parliamentary Commission itself, but rather some scare version in the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph or other rag, as I suspected right at the beginning?

oldrnwisr

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Did I invent the 2013 parliamentary report??

It would seem so.

Your seeming unwillingness to link to the report despite multiple requests to do so combined with the fact that your claim doesn't reconcile with the published data is awfully suspect.

From 2010-2014 there were no abortions for cleft palate (ICD-10 code Q35-37) recorded in the UK statistics over 24 weeks.

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

You'll find the relevant data in Table 9/Table 9a (in later reports).

Furthermore, your comment that:

martinjudge73 wrote: »

2,700 abortions after 24 weeks in the UK a year. That is late term abortion.

is also, unsurprisingly, wrong.

There's nowhere near that many late-term abortions in the UK.

2010 - 147
2011 - 146
2012 - 160
2013 - 190
2014 - 211

Moreover, as volchitsa points out, as the data above shows, these abortions are not being performed for minor conditions. They are overwhelmingly carried out because of serious life-threatening abnormalities, things like malformations of the corpus callosum, arhinencephaly, holoprosencephaly and septo-optic dysplasia none of which could even loosely defined as mild disabilities.


While we're here, a couple of other points about your "arguments" thus far

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Where did you get the "non-sentient, non-feeling".. Oh we ONLY want an abortion up to 12 weeks.. no make that 16... Sorry lets make it 20.. Lets donate the organs.. lets make it a late term abortion.. We even have doctors who want disabled children killed.


Where does it end.

Slippery slope fallacy

martinjudge73 wrote: »

We have nine maternal deaths per 100,000 live births.

So despite what pro-choice amnesty int media briefings say.. we have not way near the bottom of the league or anywhere near it.

Its safer to have a child in Ireland than the USA, and no worse that the UK.

No, nine maternal deaths per 100,000 doesn't put us near the bottom of the league, but it does put us in 31st place which isn't exactly something we should be proud of. We had a much better record during the boom when we were right up near the top.
Oh, and we are worse than the UK. The UK only has eight deaths per 100,000 at the moment and a pregnant woman in the UK has a 1 in 6900 chance of dying compared to 1 in 5500 here.

Oh, and the figures come from the WHO not Amnesty, just FYI.

WHO Trends in Maternal Mortality 1990-2013

martinjudge73 wrote: »

Really well according to the UK they have about the rate is 4 o 5% compared to 14% of UK citizens.

So because we don't have abortion on demand it means there are less abortions. the figures don't lie.

If we had on demand abortion in Ireland we would have more abortions.

Well in one sense, the number of abortions in Ireland would rise because currently we're exporting the problem and pretending that it doesn't exist. However, in another more important sense, you're wrong. The restrictiveness of a country's laws on abortion are not correlated with the number of abortions. This has been well studied and established.

From this link, out of 53 African countries, only 3 have abortion on demand (i.e. Tunisia, South Africa, Cape Verde). However, the abortion rate for this group (number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44) for 2003 is 29.
Again from the link, the number of countries comprising Latin America and the Caribbean is 30. Again, only 3 countries have abortion on demand (Cuba, Guyana, Uruguay). The abortion rate for this group is 31.
Now, let's look at North America. Both countries have a category 4 (i.e. abortion on demand) legal system. However, the abortion rate is just 21.
Finally, if we look at the developed world (Europe, USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand) we see that out of 40 countries there are 26 with abortion on demand laws and yet the abortion rate is 19.

Induced abortions: estimated rates and trends worldwide

"The findings presented here indicate that unrestrictive abortion laws do not predict a high incidence of abortion, and by the same token, highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with low abortion incidence. Indeed, both the highest and lowest abortion rates were seen in regions where abortion is almost uniformly legal under a wide range of circumstances."

Cabaal

martinjudge73 telling lies in their posts and using incorrect and inaccurate data,

I am shocked I tell you, shocked :pac:

lazygal

Oldrnwsr: "applause emoji required"

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

Oldrnwsr: "applause emoji required"

The web provides:

http://giphy.com/search/applause/

More seriously, and independent of one's views on abortion, it's quite disappointing, given the religious proclivity to bang on about honesty and decency, that the balance of misrepresentation in the abortion debate lies unambiguously on the religious/anti-side.

Mark Hamill

martinjudge73 wrote: »

We don't allow disabled children to be killed in our Country under our laws.

But we do allow disabled children to be killed in other countries under our laws. So, besides loosing the pay wall, what would be the difference if we did allow those abortions to take place here?