Not religious but against abortion

The Boney King of Nowhere

CombineHarvester

Those sorts of studies have been heavily criticised:

http://blackadderiv.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/making-abortion-illegal-reduces-the-abortion-rate/

I'd rather not argue by proxy with links. I'd say that article brings up some interesting points and examples, but they're really speculation, valid as it is. Examples which buck the trend are always going to happen in a large survey, simply by variation, but it's ridiculous to claim these debunk the WHO studies - it may show there are at least exceptions to the trend, but it far too weak to show anything more. You can bet the Ireland/England example was the largest difference he could find as well. It's selective and narrow and nearly useless.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 62

CombineHarvester

16

CondensedMilk

I'd rather not argue by proxy with links. I'd say that article brings up some interesting points and examples, but they're really speculation, valid as it is. Examples which buck the trend are always going to happen in a large survey, simply by variation, but it's ridiculous to claim these debunk the WHO studies - it may show there are at least exceptions to the trend, but it far too weak to show anything more. You can bet the Ireland/England example was the largest difference he could find as well. It's selective and narrow and nearly useless.

You were the one who'd brought up other studies which have been widely criticised. It's commonly known that making something legal makes it more widely available, it is advertised and made more accessible etc. which increases incidences of it. The argument that something should be completely legalised because people will probably do it anyway does not justify the act itself morally. You could say the exact same thing about other illegal acts, e.g. arson or crimes of passion.

Reply 63

username458263

9

CondensedMilk

A lot of time and effort has gone into deciding the limits for abortion, and it certainly isn't a decision taken lightly. I would think they go for the safe end of the range of possible time limits, and if not I'd have a problem with that. I trust they've taken this seriously though, and I trust their competence. I won't pretend I've pored over the ins and outs of setting these limits, and I honestly don't have a good understanding of them (neither do you, I suspect - no offence, 99% of people probably don't), but the professionals do.

As someone else said, several very premature births have resulted in babies being born under 24 weeks and surviving. It just doesn't seem right to assume that these babies, who survived, could have been aborted and explain that with "the professionals know what they're doing". In addition, abortion is legal right up to the point of birth in the UK if there is evidence to suggest that the baby is disabled. There have been cases where a baby is aborted on the basis of having a cleft lip and palate - look that up to see how ridiculously unimportant it is. There have also been cases where evidence has been wrong - I remember reading a newspaper article about a boy, celebrating his first birthday, who had been diagnosed with Down's Syndrome before he was born, and whose mother was given the chance to abort him, who is now a normal, healthy, happy 1-year-old. It's very easy to avoid thinking about the matter by assuming that the lawmakers know what they are doing, but remember: slavery used to be legal, men used to be allowed to beat their wives et cetera et cetera. The fact is abortion law is flawed.

I'd also like to comment briefly, with regards to the argument in the posts above this - the WHO is not impartial in this matter. They are explicitly pro choice. I am therefore inclined to think that their articles may be at best up for debate.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 64

WrigglyMammoth

What I said is as close to the truth as you can hope to grasp.

By all means take the abortion, but don't try to justify it or yourself to a higher moral or intellectually developed standard.

Nah mate, no abortion for me, I'm a guy.

But by all means take your views on abortion, but don't try to justify them or yourself to a higher moral or intellectually developed standard.

Reply 65

CombineHarvester

You were the one who'd brought up other studies which have been widely criticised. It's commonly known that making something legal makes it more widely available, it is advertised and made more accessible etc. which increases incidences of it. The argument that something should be completely legalised because people will probably do it anyway does not justify the act itself morally. You could say the exact same thing about other illegal acts, e.g. arson or crimes of passion.

Saying legalisation is widely known to increase incidence just doesn't cut it. Whatever is being said on paper takes back seat to the real life data, and the real life data says that, for whatever reasons the paper pushers haven't considered, abortion rates are not affected by legality. The point about moral consideration for the act itself isn't even relevant. The studies aren't there to say 'people do it anyway so don't fight it'. The main point being communicated here is that abortion must be made accessible safely for the good of vulnerable women.

Reply 66

derangedyoshi

As someone else said, several very premature births have resulted in babies being born under 24 weeks and surviving. It just doesn't seem right to assume that these babies, who survived, could have been aborted and explain that with "the professionals know what they're doing".

Individual cases which will definitely have been considered. It's not even that new data isn't being taken into account as it arrives, as you'll remember only a couple of years ago this was on the agenda, as it has been in the past and always will be. As for professional mistakes*

In addition, abortion is legal right up to the point of birth in the UK if there is evidence to suggest that the baby is disabled. There have been cases where a baby is aborted on the basis of having a cleft lip and palate - look that up to see how ridiculously unimportant it is. There have also been cases where evidence has been wrong - I remember reading a newspaper article about a boy, celebrating his first birthday, who had been diagnosed with Down's Syndrome before he was born, and whose mother was given the chance to abort him, who is now a normal, healthy, happy 1-year-old. It's very easy to avoid thinking about the matter by assuming that the lawmakers know what they are doing, but remember: slavery used to be legal, men used to be allowed to beat their wives et cetera et cetera. The fact is abortion law is flawed.

I agree that all those cases sound really ****** up, but I can't honestly take your word for it you've reported them unbiased, unless there's some original source. *Even so, these are individual cases, and anything with one mind involved is bound to have slip ups. It's a different ball park to the international teams of researchers, statisticians and healthcare professionals who deal with this.

I'd also like to comment briefly, with regards to the argument in the posts above this - the WHO is not impartial in this matter. They are explicitly pro choice. I am therefore inclined to think that their articles may be at best up for debate.

Get some better data and we can talk about that. The WHO is an authority on the matter, and any pro-choice position they have isn't based on some deep seated ideology for it as you seem to suggest. Their priority is healthcare based on evidence.

Reply 67

The Boney King of Nowhere

Nah mate, no abortion for me, I'm a guy.

But by all means take your views on abortion, but don't try to justify them or yourself to a higher moral or intellectually developed standard.

Why should I not; I have posited a standard by which I can affirm my other standards

Reply 68

CombineHarvester

16

CondensedMilk

Saying legalisation is widely known to increase incidence just doesn't cut it. Whatever is being said on paper takes back seat to the real life data, and the real life data says that, for whatever reasons the paper pushers haven't considered, abortion rates are not affected by legality. The point about moral consideration for the act itself isn't even relevant. The studies aren't there to say 'people do it anyway so don't fight it'. The main point being communicated here is that abortion must be made accessible safely for the good of vulnerable women.

No that study showed that generally abortion rates weren't affected, specific studies (based on data from the UK/Ireland in my example) have shown different as you'd expect given the different attitudes towards abortion and the varying levels of support and education available depending on which country you're studying. You could reduce the threshold to 16 weeks and provide further support on education, contraception and awareness of pregnancy etc. to prevent DIY abortions occurring. Do you approve of raising the threshold significantly considering your sourced study suggests that making it illegal to have an abortion after 24wks causes more dangerous abortions to occur?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 69

The Boney King of Nowhere

Trigger

It is if i ask them to be involved. I don't remember asking anyone else.

so your womb is the business of another, afterall

Reply 70

WrigglyMammoth

Why should I not; I have posited a standard by which I can affirm my other standards

Of course you have Mr. Mammoth *pats head*

Reply 71

CombineHarvester

No that study showed that generally abortion rates weren't affected, specific studies (based on data from the UK/Ireland in my example) have shown different as you'd expect given the different attitudes towards abortion and the varying levels of support and education available depending on which country you're studying. You could reduce the threshold to 16 weeks and provide further support on education, contraception and awareness of pregnancy etc. to prevent DIY abortions occurring. Do you approve of raising the threshold significantly considering your sourced study suggests that making it illegal to have an abortion after 24wks causes more dangerous abortions to occur?

There are of course many ways to bring down abortion rates, and I have no problem with education and awareness programs, but these should be implemented whatever the situation. Ideally there would be no abortions. The fact remains, with evidence, that banning abortion will increase the amount of dangerous abortions. Maybe you could reduce the threshold and provide more education, but I don't see how restricting abortions is going to help.
As for raising the threshold, my opinion on this is not simply based on the rate of dangerous abortions. Many other factors are involved. I don't agree with raising the threshold simply to reduce dangerous abortions.

edit: typo

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 72

Fallen

17

There are many, many people like you...

I don't really agree with the really late 24-week abortions. I think you should be able to make up your dam'n mind by then (except obviously for medical reasons) but it seems far, far crueller to bring a life into the world when they aren't really wanted. People should have children when they have built up the financial strength and have a stable partnership.

Reply 73

Trigger

18

WrigglyMammoth

so your womb is the business of another, afterall

IF I ASK. Read pls bbz :h:

Reply 74

Trigger

IF I ASK. Read pls bbz :h:

and not at all the property of the inhabiting cluster of cells, who, like you, are dependent upon a larger organism?

Reply 75

Trigger

18

WrigglyMammoth

and not at all the property of the inhabiting cluster of cells, who, like you, are dependent upon a larger organism?

I really don't understand. This may be because i am exhausted but please rephrase.

Reply 76

Trigger

I really don't understand. This may be because i am exhausted but please rephrase.

why does the foetus not get a say?

Reply 77

brokenangel

16

Depends on the situation, young girl father not around then definatly pro-abortion
happily married couple that just dont want kids - anti-abortion

Reply 78

Trigger

18

WrigglyMammoth

why does the foetus not get a say?

It is not self aware, it does not have the ability to make decisions, it cannot survive without leeching off it's mother, it has practically no brain function whatsoever. For me a foetus is no better then a tumour.

Reply 79