Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It is stupid in the sense that it is easy to prevent pregnancy - I and most other responsible adults have gone our whole adult lives without any unplanned pregnancy's.

If you are male, you may not actually know that.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

It is not dissimilar to driving without a seat belt, it is just silly and irresponsible, in my opinion.

Not using contraception at all may well be like driving without a seat belt.

Getting pregnant because of poor use of contraception or just bad luck is not. If you really want to use that analogy, it's more like being injured in an accident despite wearing a seatbelt.

The failure rate for perfect use of contraception is about 0.1% a year. That means that of 1000 women using that contraceptive, one will get pregnant per year. With no mistakes having been made by any of those women. That's for every single year those 1000 women are sexually active, so over a reproductive lifetime, say, 25 years, that's 25 unplanned pregnancies even when not a single mistake has been made.

Now try applying the rule "Just don't make any mistakes" to driving cars! Everyone makes mistakes. We deal with them. We don't say "Ah we can't possibly send out an ambulance to you because you should have respected that Stop sign". Or because you shouldn't have taken the car when you hadn't slept well the night before. Or whatever.

It's not a sensible way to run a society, and the idea that we respects life more by telling women "tough sh1t you should have been more careful" is crazy.

robindch

volchitsa wrote: »

The claim I am making (and I suspect evil twin too, by default) is that abortion is never the preferred option for women when they have a genuine alternative. When they are able to make an informed choice and have easy and reliable access to other methods of birth control.

Can't really disagree with that.

eviltwin wrote: »

I was talking in an Irish context. I don't know the first thing about access to contraception in Russia or anywhere else.

Fair enough and thanks for the clarification. I understood from your original post that you were making a general claim and not one restricted to Ireland where alternate means of contraception are easily, and cheaply, available.

volchitsa wrote: »

For an Irish woman I can't see how abortion after abortion would be preferably to reliable contraception which is relatively easy to come by.

I certainly agree that abortion is not preferable, though I do know a couple of women here in Ireland who didn't take the pill, despite it being easily available - at least as they should have if they wished to avoid an unintended pregnancy - and who subsequently had abortions of one kind or another abroad.

robindch

volchitsa wrote: »

That's so different from the situation in Ireland that to use a comparison to Russia in a discussion about Ireland without pointing that out is IMO either disingenuous or ill informed.

On a moderaterly note, I'd like to point out - again - that it's against the forum charter to impute unhelpful motivations to your fellow-posters, moderators included, so please avoid suggesting that your fellow-posters might be "disingenuous", especially when the posters concerned are careful to suggest in a reply to an original claim that the claim might be ambiguous, broad or incomplete.

volchitsa

robindch wrote: »

Can't really disagree with that.Fair enough and thanks for the clarification. I understood from your original post that you were making a general claim and not one restricted to Ireland where alternate means of contraception are easily, and cheaply, available.I certainly agree that abortion is not preferable, though I do know a couple of women here in Ireland who didn't take the pill, despite it being easily available - at least as they should have if they wished to avoid an unintended pregnancy - and who subsequently had abortions of one kind or another abroad.

I find it so odd that this sort of thing is so regularly trotted out in various forms, but only ever for pregnancy, as though not using contraception meant a woman actually wanted to get pregnant - but when someone has an accident of some other sort, even if they've been desperately careless, nobody ever implies they chose to have that accident do they? "Ah but you could have avoided falling down the mountain if you'd checked your equipment better, so therefore you chose to fall down it" - so why is this a thing when it's a pregnant woman?

I mean, sure, let's say those couple of women you mention have no explanation to offer other than stupidity and carelessness - but isn't that how accidents happen in all sorts of domains anyway? Why are women held to a higher standard (one of absolute of perfection really) in the reproductive domain when we know humans make mistakes all the time? They're not being professionally negligent, they just made a mistake in their private sex lives - it happens. So what?

I'm working on the basis that abortion is not child-killing BTW. For those who think it is, then that's rather different, but we've been over the arguments many times now as to why claims to hold that opinion rarely hold up when examined, so let's not go there.

If we consider it instead as something unpleasant like divorce or a car accident, then maybe the notion that women should manage to be 100% superhuman and never get anything wrong or do anything stupid can be seen for what it is - impossible.

robindch

volchitsa wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

[...] I do know a couple of women here in Ireland who didn't take the pill, despite it being easily available - at least as they should have if they wished to avoid an unintended pregnancy - and who subsequently had abortions of one kind or another abroad.

I find it so odd that this sort of thing is so regularly trotted out in various forms, but only ever for pregnancy, as though not using contraception meant a woman actually wanted to get pregnant - but when someone has an accident of some other sort, even if they've been desperately careless, nobody ever implies they chose to have that accident do they? [...] They're not being professionally negligent, they just made a mistake in their private sex lives - it happens. So what?

There is a non-zero chance, in the cases which I'm aware of at least, that the women concerned were not always seeking to avoid becoming pregnant with the same enthusiasm that they claimed they were.

volchitsa

robindch wrote: »

There is a non-zero chance, in the cases which I'm aware of at least, that the women concerned were not always seeking to avoid becoming pregnant with the same enthusiasm that they claimed they were.

So you mean they were conflicted about whether or not they wanted/could look after a baby and at some point acted like women have had to do for most of human history, ie said "fecckit I'll take the risk" and then, like many women in past generations too, when faced with an actual pregnancy decided in the end to terminate it?

Again, this is not a new thing. Not for women anyway. Men of course have been able to play the innocent in this game since forever and going by your description some still are.

But for women it's just the ease of access and the much higher level of safety that have made ending the pregnancy a less risky procedure than it was, or indeed than continuing the pregnancy would be.

That's all there is to it : in the past, the abortion itself would have been so risky as to put most women off it. That doesn't mean all, or even most, pregnancies were planned or wanted in the past. The difference now is that abortion is a safe option where before it was a very dangerous one. I think it's a good thing that women no longer have to risk their lives to end a pregnancy, even one they may have thought or hoped they could complete a few weeks before.

smacl

Saddened to see strong new anti-abortion legislation being passed in Alabama, see https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0515/1049535-alabama-abortion-bill/

Republican Senator Clyde Chambliss, arguing in favour of the Alabama bill, said the whole point was "so that we can go directly to the Supreme Court to challenge Roe versus Wade."

The high court, now with a majority of conservative justices after Republican President Donald Trump appointed two, could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision establishing a woman’s right to an abortion.

also

All 27 Republican senators are men.

Charles Ingles

Reading about Alabama and the new stringent abortion law's, maybe this could be the start of the tide turning.
Abortion should only be used in extreme circumstances such as rape or FFA.
I worry what our abortion rates in Ireland will be in 10 or 20 years.

smacl

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Reading about Alabama and the new stringent abortion law's, maybe this could be the start of the tide turning.
Abortion should only be used in extreme circumstances such as rape or FFA.
I worry what our abortion rates in Ireland will be in 10 or 20 years.

The men of Alabama don't even want it allowed in the cases of rape or incest. I can't see it making its way outside of the bible belt.

Charles Ingles

smacl wrote: »

The men of Alabama don't even want it allowed in the cases of rape or incest. I can't see it making its way outside of the bible belt.

Yes I seen that the law seem quite stringent, there has to be a middle ground.

volchitsa

smacl wrote: »

The men of Alabama don't even want it allowed in the cases of rape or incest. I can't see it making its way outside of the bible belt.

And none of the people arguing for this exception during the referendum campaign were ever able to describe a satisfactory way of identifying those cases without further traumatising the rape victim and within a reasonable time frame. It's the main reason why our own government decided there had to be a period when TOP would be available for "personal reasons".

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Yes I seen that the law seem quite stringent, there has to be a middle ground.

So could you describe how you think it would work in a little bit of detail, please? What sort of checks would it require to stop "rape" being merely the excuse used by anyone who wanted a termination?

Cabaal

The religious right wet dream in Alabama has now happened,

Charles Ingles

volchitsa wrote: »

And none of the people arguing for this exception during the referendum campaign were ever able to describe a satisfactory way of identifying those cases without further traumatising the rape victim and within a reasonable time frame. It's the main reason why our own government decided there had to be a period when TOP would be available for "personal reasons".

I've always asked for a trust based system for these cases.
I'm a strong pro-life advocate but that doesn't mean my sympathy isn't with women.
Abortion only in extreme and rare cases

volchitsa

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I've always asked for a trust based system for these cases.
I'm a strong pro-life advocate but that doesn't mean my sympathy isn't with women.
Abortion only in extreme and rare cases

So anyone could just say they'd been raped and they'd be allowed a termination?
Given that women risk prison in some countries to get abortions, and in Ireland for decades had to go through all sorts of expenses and complications to travel for one, don't you think a significant number would just lie?

smacl

Cabaal wrote: »

The religious right wet dream in Alabama has now happened,

With Trump as the least popular president in the states since they started measuring these things and his approval rating declining further in recent polls, I don't see the religious right having control of the reins for much longer.

Kidchameleon

There can be failures with contrception, they are not 100% effective of course. If you want to avoid pregnancy I would always reccomend using at least two methods.

In my opinion, most unplanned pregnancys can be avoided.

lazygal

People with planned pregnancies need abortions too.

Igotadose

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There can be failures with contrception, they are not 100% effective of course. If you want to avoid pregnancy I would always reccomend using at least two methods.

In my opinion, most unplanned pregnancys can be avoided.

Here's a related question: should there be any restrictions on women's sterilization? In my view, absolutely not ever no reason for it.

It's certainly a way to avoid unplanned pregnancy.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There can be failures with contrception, they are not 100% effective of course. If you want to avoid pregnancy I would always reccomend using at least two methods.

In my opinion, most unplanned pregnancys can be avoided.

Perhaps, but so can most accidents. Prevention is great, absolutely, but it doesn't actually help deal with the consequences of the accidents that do happen, or the unplanned pregnancies that occur, or indeed as Eviltwin points out, the pregnancies that were wanted and planned but may still end up needing to be terminated for the health of the woman for instance.

So can we leave aside the myth that 100% of abortions can be avoided by all women becoming superhumans and never making any mistakes or doing anything stupid ever, and just deal with the issue of the pregnancies that do need to be terminated for whatever reason?

Charles Ingles

volchitsa wrote: »

So anyone could just say they'd been raped and they'd be allowed a termination?
Given that women risk prison in some countries to get abortions, and in Ireland for decades had to go through all sorts of expenses and complications to travel for one, don't you think a significant number would just lie?

Lying is the wrong words you never know what people are going through.
Abortion on demand is a bad idea though numbers will increase year on year if abortion is seen as a form of birth control

lazygal

Igotadose wrote: »

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There can be failures with contrception, they are not 100% effective of course. If you want to avoid pregnancy I would always reccomend using at least two methods.

In my opinion, most unplanned pregnancys can be avoided.

Here's a related question: should there be any restrictions on women's sterilization? In my view, absolutely not ever no reason for it.

It's certainly a way to avoid unplanned pregnancy.

I've had tubal ligation. It has a failure rate of 3 per 1000. No contraception is 100% effective.

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There can be failures with contrception, they are not 100% effective of course. If you want to avoid pregnancy I would always reccomend using at least two methods.

In my opinion, most unplanned pregnancys can be avoided.

The most practical way would be if men took equal responsibility for also using contraception. There are trials on-going in the area of hormonal/non-hormonal contraceptive pills for men and it will be interesting to see how many men will be willing to take them.
Although having said that - I have a granddaughter because two forms of contraception failed. It happens.

Igotadose

lazygal wrote: »

I've had tubal ligation. It has a failure rate of 3 per 1000. No contraception is 100% effective.

There are other sterilizations besides tubals.

But, still, there should be no restrictions. I don't believe in Ireland that there are any *legal* restrictions, however I know doctors are very discouraging. Same is true in the US. Simple reason: sexism. Fake reason: legal indemnification yadda yadda.

Igotadose

lazygal wrote: »

I've had tubal ligation. It has a failure rate of 3 per 1000. No contraception is 100% effective.

Not the point to my question, though. There are arbitrary restrictions placed on a woman's right to surgery. The reason, is sexism, just like what all the anti-abortion arguments come down to. Same is true in the US, and for sure the religious organizations REALLY hate women's sterilization.

volchitsa

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Lying is the wrong words you never know what people are going through.

I agree with your second bit there, but isn't that why it's a bad idea to try to make a list of "acceptable" reasons for terminating a pregnancy? Precisely because someone may not fit into one of your very limited boxes and yet if we knew her real reasons it might well be that most people would agree with her.

Or she may not be able to state her real reasons, eg woman wanting to escape a violent relationship may well have been "sort of" raped (because her consent to sex was not deemed necessary within that relationship) and may feel it's safer to say nothing about any of it and just end the pregnancy without his knowledge in order to get away from him). And that's just one example that I know of.

OTOH, a woman who wasn't raped but fears her relationship may break down if she has another child could be pushed into saying she was raped in order to save her relationship and keep her family together, but it's still a lie.

If someone is lying to get some kind of healthcare, that's fraud, even if you don't want to call it that. IMO that discredits the whole healthcare and legal systems.

Abortion on demand is a bad idea though numbers will increase year on year if abortion is seen as a form of birth control

So you're suggesting we should have laws that we know aren't going to be respected because of personal distaste for abortion. Abortions happen though, and we saw over 30 years where laws based on wishful thinking about cute babies and glowing mothers lead. Women were seriously harmed and not just women who wanted abortions. Let's not go there again. Time to be grown up about this and accept that unpleasant things are sometimes the least worst option.

robindch

volchitsa wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

There is a non-zero chance, in the cases which I'm aware of at least, that the women concerned were not always seeking to avoid becoming pregnant with the same enthusiasm that they claimed they were.

So you mean they were conflicted about whether or not they wanted/could look after a baby and at some point acted like women have had to do for most of human history, ie said "fecckit I'll take the risk" and then, like many women in past generations too, when faced with an actual pregnancy decided in the end to terminate it?

That's one possible motivation and one would have to ask the women concerned to say whether your assessment of their motivation is accurate or not.

To be more specific about the facts - here in Ireland, there exists a number of women whom I know, who - despite the easy availability of contraception - decided to tell their partners, or allow their partners to continue assuming, that they were using contraception when they were not using contraception, or were not using it reliably. The women concerned became pregnant and a number of them subsequently had an abortion abroad. A number of these women did not have an abortion abroad and went on to give birth.

These are the facts and I am not speculating upon the motivations of the individuals concerned. I know these facts from conversations with the men and women concerned, and from comments which the men and women concerned made to their own friends and family and I have no reason to doubt them.

volchitsa

Igotadose wrote: »

Not the point to my question, though. There are arbitrary restrictions placed on a woman's right to surgery. The reason, is sexism, just like what all the anti-abortion arguments come down to. Same is true in the US, and for sure the religious organizations REALLY hate women's sterilization.

Very true, and that's why you almost certainly won't get an answer from the posters who say that fertility can be 100% controlled by the woman (though never by the man, funny enough. Poor men, with all those manipulative women!)

So we're left with two important facts there:
1. that even "sterilisation" has a significant failure rate, especially for younger women, so "zero unwanted pregnancies" is no more achievable than "zero workplace accidents", despite all the efforts made to prevent them, and
2. that the very same people who want to ban abortions are often those who don't want women to be allowed to get sterilised either, unless they have done their reproductive duty first of course.

volchitsa

robindch wrote: »

That's one possible motivation and one would have to ask the women concerned to say whether your assessment of their motivation is accurate or not.

To be more specific about the facts - here in Ireland, there exists a number of women whom I know, who - despite the easy availability of contraception - decided to tell their partners, or allow their partners to continue assuming, that they were using contraception when they were not using contraception, or were not using it reliably. The women concerned became pregnant and a number of them subsequently had an abortion abroad. A number of these women did not have an abortion abroad and went on to give birth.

These are the facts and I am not speculating upon the motivations of the individuals concerned. I know these facts from conversations with the men and women concerned, and from comments which the men and women concerned made to their own friends and family and I have no reason to doubt them.

I'm puzzled as to what your point is. Some women set out to have children for "unworthy" reasons, sure, to keep a man or whatever. That has always existed, even before contraception was legal. Some men lie to women to get sex too. People can be underhand and manipulative, true.

What's that got to do with whether or not those or other women are then entitled to give up on their attempted blackmail by terminating the pregnancy?
Or perhaps you mean that if they couldn't have an abortion the man would be "obliged" to stick by them? That has never been a foregone conclusion!

It's really not clear to me what you wish us to conclude from that in the context of abortion law.

robindch

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm puzzled as to what your point is.

I am replying to your point:

volchitsa wrote: »

The claim I am making [...] is that abortion is never the preferred option for women when they have a genuine alternative. When they are able to make an informed choice and have easy and reliable access to other methods of birth control.

The facts I've quoted above suggest that abortion can be an option for women when an alternative exists.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

The men of Alabama don't even want it allowed in the cases of rape or incest. I can't see it making its way outside of the bible belt.

They know this law is unconstitutional, they want to challenge Roe v Wade.

Disgraceful way for legislators to behave, and even if Roe v Wade is not struck down and this law is, they'll be happy to have caused suffering to women in the meantime and they'll do it all over again shortly.


First thing Obama should have done on his first day of his first term in office, was have the floors outside the Supreme Court polished.