delicate subject - abortion

Shovel_Lad

I think I'll address this point by point.

poet123 wrote: »

How patronising!!:T:rotfl:

Really? Or just someone that has called you out with facts backed up with references, that you, yourself are incapable of doing.
I have deliberately not stated my personal opinion on abortion, simply drawn attention to current research. The link is the current research, by the way. No other research has been through peer review and published in a medical journal that contradicts it, that makes it the current de facto position, despite what you may think about it.

poet123 wrote: »

The figures are on this thread, which I assume you have read?

Who is it that was being patronising again?

poet123 wrote: »

Quite frankly, I really don't care why repeat abortions are happening, they are in their thousands, and I would assume that most people would think that if the numbers could be lowered by prevention that would be a good thing? Not least for the women involved.
However, by their very number the reasons you cite cannot be wholly responsible for the figures. There are those who are irresponsible and who think they have the "backstop" of abortion to pick up the slack.

If you don't care then why did you bring up the idea that "some women use abortion as a contraceptive" in the first place?

poet123 wrote: »

Your own link ( from 2005, from a study done in 1998/9 so hardly current) also brings up this from Denmark;

I think I've already addressed what "current" means so I won't patronise you by explaining it to you again.

poet123 wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9197806

Which states amongst other things;

Third-time aborters may represent a select group of more fecund women who become pregnant easily when relying on less effective contraceptive behavior. Recommended, to decrease the prevalence of repeat abortions, are more needs-specific postabortion counseling, education of male partners to assume more responsibility for future pregnancy prevention, and availability of postcoital methods.

"Post coital methods" a.k.a. "The Morning After" pill - does this meet with your approval?

poet123 wrote: »

Find me a current up to date study which doesn't include a reference to those using abortion as a replacement for adequate contraception.

And do try to keep the debate civil by avoiding the sly digs and caveats, it smacks of desperation.;)

Hmmm... already done. Remember the definition of current from above? And the "sly" digs were an attempt, not to be uncivil, but to stop you trying to justify your position by posting random snippets from unscientific sources that have no basis in fact but only show uninformed opinion...

poet123 wrote: »

This is an interesting poll from the Telegraph (does that meet with approval?);)

Should there be a limit to how many abortions women can have on the NHS?

No, decisions should be made on an individual basis 33.74% (1,545 votes)

Yes, if there was a limit it would encourage greater responsibilty 66.26% (3,034 votes)

Total Votes: 4,579

Ahhh. I see my caveats didn't work then. But to answer you question "does it meet with approval?" - No. Of course it doesn't. For a start there is no link, but I've done the research for you, so here is the page it is from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9289343/NHS-performed-24-abortions-on-three-teenage-girls.html


But it fails in many, many ways

1. It is a closed question with only 2 choices of answer, meaning that there is no record of people with alternate views who would simply not vote.
2. It doesn't specify what the limit would be. Some people answering "Yes" might think the limit should be 0, others 100
3. It specifically mentions "on the NHS" So how many people are actually answering "Yes" for financial reasons but would answer "No" if the question said "Privately"? We don't know because, there was no scope for this in the answers.
4. It is relatively simple for someone to manipulate the answers. Look back at the page, you'll find the total has increased from 4,579 to 4,582. Those new 3 are all me. I could change the poll outcome completely if I wanted, but I think 3 makes my point.
5. For heavens sake! It is a random, opt-in poll from a newspaper website on a page talking disapprovingly about NHS abortions. It is about as non-scientific, biased and pointless as a survey can get. And yes, you can find my bold text patronising if you like, but you really don't get it do you?

Unless you can provide any proper information backed up with links to scientific research, then your position is untenable and just the uninformed views of someone fueled by an overactive imagination.

DanE2010

MissKeith wrote: »

I tried five different types of contraceptives, three caused havoc with my hormones and didn't work for my body, I got pregnant on one and another made me suicidal. At the age at 19 I didn't want a more drastic permanent type of contraception, can you blame me?

I find your kind of attitude offensive, foul and judgemental.

I can definately relate to you on the contraception front. Hormonal contraceptives wreak havoc with my body, ive had the 4 different pills, the implant, and the mirena coil and each and everyone I had stop due to the side effects.

The mirena coil is really pushed as the way forward where I live, I was offered it for my heavy periods and I ended up having to have it removed as I got an infection, had to go to hospital and the doctor questioned why I was given the coil when I hadnt had a baby yet as it wasnt recommended for those who had not given birth.

The yazmin pill made me suicidal, the implant caused terrible headaches, weight gain, I could go on but the jist is my body didnt agree with any of them.

I would love to find a contraception that doesnt seriously impact on my life like every single one have previously!

Im thinking of getting the copper coil as that is hormone free, but ive read that it can cause really painful heavy periods.......oh and ive heard that alot of women have still got pregnant with the copper coil..........decisions decisions.......

I think the problem with the awful side effects of contraception is a big factor in all of this, contraception can really interfere with the lives of many women and I can totally see why some women just stick to condoms.

Think its about time a male contraception was developed and rolled out, see how the men like water retention and constant headaches!

poet123

Shovel_Lad wrote: »

I think I'll address this point by point.
Really? Or just someone that has called you out with facts backed up with references, that you, yourself are incapable of doing.
I have deliberately not stated my personal opinion on abortion, simply drawn attention to current research. The link is the current research, by the way. No other research has been through peer review and published in a medical journal that contradicts it, that makes it the current de facto position, despite what you may think about it.

Who is it that was being patronising again?

If you don't care then why did you bring up the idea that "some women use abortion as a contraceptive" in the first place?

I think I've already addressed what "current" means so I won't patronise you by explaining it to you again.

"Post coital methods" a.k.a. "The Morning After" pill - does this meet with your approval?

Hmmm... already done. Remember the definition of current from above? And the "sly" digs were an attempt, not to be uncivil, but to stop you trying to justify your position by posting random snippets from unscientific sources that have no basis in fact but only show uninformed opinion...

Ahhh. I see my caveats didn't work then. But to answer you question "does it meet with approval?" - No. Of course it doesn't. For a start there is no link, but I've done the research for you, so here is the page it is from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9289343/NHS-performed-24-abortions-on-three-teenage-girls.html


But it fails in many, many ways

1. It is a closed question with only 2 choices of answer, meaning that there is no record of people with alternate views who would simply not vote.
2. It doesn't specify what the limit would be. Some people answering "Yes" might think the limit should be 0, others 100
3. It specifically mentions "on the NHS" So how many people are actually answering "Yes" for financial reasons but would answer "No" if the question said "Privately"? We don't know because, there was no scope for this in the answers.
4. It is relatively simple for someone to manipulate the answers. Look back at the page, you'll find the total has increased from 4,579 to 4,582. Those new 3 are all me. I could change the poll outcome completely if I wanted, but I think 3 makes my point.
5. For heavens sake! It is a random, opt-in poll from a newspaper website on a page talking disapprovingly about NHS abortions. It is about as non-scientific, biased and pointless as a survey can get. And yes, you can find my bold text patronising if you like, but you really don't get it do you?

Unless you can provide any proper information backed up with links to scientific research, then your position is untenable and just the uninformed views of someone fueled by an overactive imagination.

I don't propose to go through your points individually;)

I will just say that anyone who believes that data which is from 1998/9 is current or in any way representative of the current situation is, quite simply, in cloud cuckoo land.

With regard to the poll, who said it was scientific? It is just a poll which is indicative, not representative.

When I said I didn't care about the reasons I thought it was obvious that meant I cared about the solution more than the issues behind the stats....clearly not, got it now?

I have no issue with the MAP, why would I?

I do have an issue with this from your link, but which you glossed over because it supports my pov.

Third-time aborters may represent a select group of more fecund women who become pregnant easily when relying on less effective contraceptive behavior.

Keep digging SL;) Australia is achievable.

Shovel_Lad

poet123 wrote: »

I don't propose to go through your points individually;)

I will just say that anyone who believes that data which is from 1998/9 is current or in any way representative of the current situation is, quite simply, in cloud cuckoo land.

With regard to the poll, who said it was scientific? It is just a poll which is indicative, not representative.

When I said I didn't care about the reasons I thought it was obvious that meant I cared about the solution more than the issues behind the stats....clearly not, got it now?

I have no issue with the MAP, why would I?

I do have an issue with this from your link, but which you glossed over because it supports my pov.

Third-time aborters may represent a select group of more fecund women who become pregnant easily when relying on less effective contraceptive behavior.

Keep digging SL;) Australia is achievable.

Believe it or not, back in the 16th Century Galileo Galilei did the research and found that the Earth orbited the Sun. That research is still current. Until further research disproves the position, it will remain current. I'm not sure of where you are currently in orbit of, but my feet are firmly on the ground.

As I have continually said, back up your statements with links to proper research that supercedes the current view and I will modify my opinion. Only you won't will you? Because you can't. If you could you would have done so by now. You continue to rely on hearsay and fantasy to support your curious view of truth.

You asked if I was satisfied with a poll you posted in response to my request for anything remotely scientific or accurate in support of your position. I answered that it wasn't. And it isn't indicative at all, it is totally random. You might as well say tossing a coin is indicative (I suspect you would say this if you wanted it to come down heads and it did)

If it is the best that you can come up with to support your view then that says more about how tenuous your position is than anything I can add.

On a final note:
I did not gloss over that line at all. You don't seem to understand that "Less effective contraceptive behaviour" means contraception that has failed, not "no contraception". Your stated point of view as expressed in the post I initially commented on included explicit reference to women "using abortion as contraception". This statement does not support that as the women were using "contraception as contraception" but the contraception failed.

And, by the way, I'm not digging, I haven't expressed a view - just supplied facts with references. I would only be approaching Australia if I expressed views as fact then when called out on them couldn't provide any evidence to back them up.

Torry_Quine

I think that for the majority of women there is a method of contraception which used correctly will prevent pregnancy. However we must accept that people being people there will be mistakes with it such as relying on hormonal contraception when using antibiotics or forgetting to take it regularly. Also even within relationships sex is not always consentual which can lead to an unplanned pregnancy.

As women we should never be condemnatory or judgemental to one another and our life choices.

I do think though that the MAP is an abortifacient and should be correctly described as such but totally understand why it seems like a good thing to do after unprotected sex.

poet123

Shovel_Lad wrote: »

Believe it or not, back in the 16th Century Galileo Galilei did the research and found that the Earth orbited the Sun. That research is still current. Until further research disproves the position, it will remain current. I'm not sure of where you are currently in orbit of, but my feet are firmly on the ground.

As I have continually said, back up your statements with links to proper research that supercedes the current view and I will modify my opinion. Only you won't will you? Because you can't. If you could you would have done so by now. You continue to rely on hearsay and fantasy to support your curious view of truth.

You asked if I was satisfied with a poll you posted in response to my request for anything remotely scientific or accurate in support of your position. I answered that it wasn't. And it isn't indicative at all, it is totally random. You might as well say tossing a coin is indicative (I suspect you would say this if you wanted it to come down heads and it did)

If it is the best that you can come up with to support your view then that says more about how tenuous your position is than anything I can add.

On a final note:
I did not gloss over that line at all. You don't seem to understand that "Less effective contraceptive behaviour" means contraception that has failed, not "no contraception". Your stated point of view as expressed in the post I initially commented on included explicit reference to women "using abortion as contraception". This statement does not support that as the women were using "contraception as contraception" but the contraception failed.

And, by the way, I'm not digging, I haven't expressed a view - just supplied facts with references. I would only be approaching Australia if I expressed views as fact then when called out on them couldn't provide any evidence to back them up.

Within those figures is the % for women who have the issues you mention. That % is not the same as the figures for repeat abortions.

Your point about Galileo Galilei is not relevant because that kind of fact is not the same as data which changes from year to year, surely you can grasp that? In 1998 the data collected will bear no relation to the data which would be collected in 2012. Society has changed and that change would be reflected in the data.

"Less effective contraceptive behaviour" does not mean contraception that has failed, it could mean no contraception has been used but that the rhythm method was employed for example. Your take on it is conjecture, opinion, not fact.

Keep digging:D

poet123

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I think that for the majority of women there is a method of contraception which used correctly will prevent pregnancy. However we must accept that people being people there will be mistakes with it such as relying on hormonal contraception when using antibiotics or forgetting to take it regularly. Also even within relationships sex is not always consentual which can lead to an unplanned pregnancy.

As women we should never be condemnatory or judgemental to one another and our life choices.

I do think though that the MAP is an abortifacient and should be correctly described as such but totally understand why it seems like a good thing to do after unprotected sex.

You really believe that someone who has had five or more abortions would not benefit from some home truths re responsibility? You surprise me.

Shovel_Lad

Still nothing to backup your point of view I see. No surprise there then.

poet123

Shovel_Lad wrote: »

Still nothing to backup your point of view I see. No surprise there then.

No answers from you to the points raised? No surprise there.

Shovel_Lad

I've answered lots of your points, though your last post asked none. You have answered none of mine, though I have asked repeatedly. How about a little quid pro quo?

p.s. What "Home Truths" would you offer to those with "a history of physical or sexual abuse"? a.k.a. The majority of those with a record of repeat induced abortion.