delicate subject - abortion

poet123

Shovel_Lad wrote: »

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.

I have addressed all the points that had merit.

This post sums it up;
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=55725825&postcount=406

Are you seriously suggesting that so many women fit your criteria?

Shovel_Lad

poet123 wrote: »

I have addressed all the points that had merit.

This post sums it up;
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=55725825&postcount=406

you have an interesting and unique definition of "merit" It your eyes this appears to mean "Things that I can answer that don't show my inherent contradictions up, everything else (well everything really) I choose to ignore"

Yet again you didn't think there was enough merit in finding out where the information came from (I'll credit you with that thought, not the other one about being unable to do so)

The actual stats are here:
https://www.wp.dh.gov.uk/transparency/files/2012/05/Commentary1.pdf

Grounds for abortion
A (alone, or with B, C, D) or F or G = 46
B (alone, or with C or D) = 150
C (alone) = 185,973
D (alone, or with C) = 1,455
E (alone, or with A, B, C or D) = 2,307
Total = 189,931
In 2011, 36% of women undergoing abortions had one or more previous abortions.

The categories are:
A The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated;
B The termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
C The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
D The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) of the family of the pregnant woman;
E There is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped
F To save the life of the pregnant woman;
G To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

I can't comment on the actual number of abortions due to rape as these statistics aren't gathered in the above report, and you have not deemed it meritworthy enough to find out where the value of 8% came from.

poet123 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that so many women fit your criteria?

I appreciate that this is something you are either unable or choose not to understand, but, and I'll do it in red to make it obvious: It is NOT my criteria I have no criteria. I am only telling you what all the reports, statistics and medical surveys say. Not speculation, not guesswork, not the random jottings of a confused mind. FACTS. Published, peer reviewed, acknowledged by experts, FACTS.

So, where are your FACTS? Your evidence? Obviously nowhere but in your head. You view your wild ramblings as more meritorious than the truth, if you didn't you would actually provide something to support your view. You obviously never grew out of the "because I say so" stage. You probably never will.

poet123

Shovel_Lad wrote: »

you have an interesting and unique definition of "merit" It your eyes this appears to mean "Things that I can answer that don't show my inherent contradictions up, everything else (well everything really) I choose to ignore"

Yet again you didn't think there was enough merit in finding out where the information came from (I'll credit you with that thought, not the other one about being unable to do so)

The actual stats are here:
https://www.wp.dh.gov.uk/transparency/files/2012/05/Commentary1.pdf

Grounds for abortion
A (alone, or with B, C, D) or F or G = 46
B (alone, or with C or D) = 150
C (alone) = 185,973
D (alone, or with C) = 1,455
E (alone, or with A, B, C or D) = 2,307
Total = 189,931
In 2011, 36% of women undergoing abortions had one or more previous abortions.

The categories are:
A The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated;
B The termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
C The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
D The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) of the family of the pregnant woman;
E There is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped
F To save the life of the pregnant woman;
G To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

I can't comment on the actual number of abortions due to rape as these statistics aren't gathered in the above report, and you have not deemed it meritworthy enough to find out where the value of 8% came from.

I appreciate that this is something you are either unable or choose not to understand, but, and I'll do it in red to make it obvious: It is NOT my criteria I have no criteria. I am only telling you what all the reports, statistics and medical surveys say. Not speculation, not guesswork, not the random jottings of a confused mind. FACTS. Published, peer reviewed, acknowledged by experts, FACTS.

So, where are your FACTS? Your evidence? Obviously nowhere but in your head. You view your wild ramblings as more meritorious than the truth, if you didn't you would actually provide something to support your view. You obviously never grew out of the "because I say so" stage. You probably never will.

You are really digging now. However, having had a look at your posting history I can see why and will leave it there.

It may not be your criteria, but you are emotionally invested in the subject.

littlerat

What, if I'm totally honest, I don't understand is how 1 abortion could be ok, but 2, or 3, or 4 is bad? It's the same procedure, the same morals - I cannot see any genuine differentiation between the number a woman has. Unless the 1st is an embryo then fetus, 2 starts as a fetus and 3 is a baby from the minute it implants?!


Ultimately that differentiation is emotional not logical and I don't think women's health issues (as a subject, not as individual's choices) should be based on emotions of random people who choose the amount.


It's likely, to me, that if somebody gets pregnant repeatedly and needs abortions, yes something has gone wrong - perhaps there's abuse (by the way - some abusive partners will become very violent if the partner tries to use contraception, those same partners will also insist on abortion at times - it all comes down to control, sometimes those women do not have choices, thinking they can just go and sort contraception easily is ignorant), perhaps there's mental health problems making them unreliable at using protection, perhaps their body reacts badly to hormonal contraception and doesn't provide full protection when it should be. Perhaps they have really just had bad luck.


But ultimately, a termination is the same thing regardless of whether somebody has 1 or 10 of them - the morality cannot be that 1 is fine, 3 is murder.

coolcait

Shovel_Lad wrote: »

Women undergoing repeat abortions are more likely than those undergoing a first abortion to report using a method of contraception at the time of conception

.

I know that the thread has moved on since this post - not least because of the trouble I had in finding the above sentence, which wasn't included in the quote function!

So apologies if this point has already been made.

What evidence is there that women undergoing repeat abortions were actually using a method of contraception at the time of conception?

You've quoted a very carefully worded statement - they reported using contraception. But did they? How could the originators of that statement check whether or not contraception was used?

I've always wondered how the effectiveness of contraception is tested. Is it done in a controlled environment, where 100 couples are carefully monitored through application of a contraceptvie, and through every instance of coitus? (with apologies to Sheldon Cooper)

Or is it based on interviews with users of contraception?

If it's the latter, and the interviewee says "oh, we were using a condom, but it split", or "I was on the pill but didn't realise that forgetting to take it one day, or taking antiobiotics, or taking St Johns Wort, or being sick, having the squits might affect its efficiency". Or " I really didn't realise that there would be a problem if I had sex before I was sick or had the squits". OR "but the jab is foolproof! I was only a couple of days late in getting it".

Would the contraception be at fault, or would it be user error?

Personally, I'm not persuaded that the reported levels of contraceptive failure are entirely free of user failure.

And that's before we even touch on the 'pill failure due to being overweight' argument. Fact or not?

Personally, I believe that any woman who has multiple abortions should have speciallist counselling. It may be that she is the victim of domestic violence and/or repeated sexual assault. It may be that she hasn't a clue how contraception really works. It may be something else.

Hence the need for specialist counselling - to find out the reasons, and address them.

Hiding behind the mantra that 'she's entitled to have those abortions' may not be helping women who really need support.

The counselling will help identify those who need support, and those who need no support, but would benefit from recognition of their right to have the abortions.

MissKeith

poet123 wrote: »

You are really digging now. However, having had a look at your posting history I can see why and will leave it there.

It may not be your criteria, but you are emotionally invested in the subject.

You keep saying that Shovel Lad is digging. Digging what? All I see is then providing you with proven and independent facts and figures that dispute your views and you clutching at straws, biased evidence and strong opinion. This is not how debate works you know.

You have been condescending and rude to a victim of assault, sexual abuse and rape in light of your anti-choice views. You are not pro-choice if you are pro restriction of multiple abortion. You still haven't answered my questions previously. Where do you draw the line and what would you say to a woman like me? I had counselling, I was working with my GP to find a contraception that worked for me and there would have been no chance in hell I would have admitted what my ex was doing to me. Ironically, when I found the courage to run from that relationship, I found a partner who would use condoms. No more unwanted pregnancies, hurray!

As someone has shrewdly pointed out, why is one abortion different to multiple? And process, same procedure, same reasons? What if a woman's reasons for abortion were different? One was a mistake, another failure of birth control, another was medically necessary, another was sexual abuse. Do you say "no, no more abortions for you, you've reached your limit!"?

FatVonD

littlerat wrote: »

What, if I'm totally honest, I don't understand is how 1 abortion could be ok, but 2, or 3, or 4 is bad? It's the same procedure, the same morals - I cannot see any genuine differentiation between the number a woman has. Unless the 1st is an embryo then fetus, 2 starts as a fetus and 3 is a baby from the minute it implants?!


Ultimately that differentiation is emotional not logical and I don't think women's health issues (as a subject, not as individual's choices) should be based on emotions of random people who choose the amount.


It's likely, to me, that if somebody gets pregnant repeatedly and needs abortions, yes something has gone wrong - perhaps there's abuse (by the way - some abusive partners will become very violent if the partner tries to use contraception, those same partners will also insist on abortion at times - it all comes down to control, sometimes those women do not have choices, thinking they can just go and sort contraception easily is ignorant), perhaps there's mental health problems making them unreliable at using protection, perhaps their body reacts badly to hormonal contraception and doesn't provide full protection when it should be. Perhaps they have really just had bad luck.


But ultimately, a termination is the same thing regardless of whether somebody has 1 or 10 of them - the morality cannot be that 1 is fine, 3 is murder.

I think one unwanted pregnancy can be accidental but surely once you've had one you should be more clued up to the risks and make sure it doesn't happen again?

I don't think anyone is arguing for terminations to be refused to anyone, whatever the number or circumstances but just imagine if they weren't so easy to access, don't you think people might be more careful if, in the back of their mind, they didn't know that, however unpleasant, there was always a termination as a last resort?

amus

FatVonD wrote: »

I don't think anyone is arguing for terminations to be refused to anyone, whatever the number or circumstances but just imagine if they weren't so easy to access, don't you think people might be more careful if, in the back of their mind, they didn't know that, however unpleasant, there was always a termination as a last resort?

Are people more careful in Ireland where abortion is illegal?

I genuinely dont know but the prevalence of women buying potentially unsafe medication online to induce abortion suggests not.

poet123

MissKeith wrote: »

You keep saying that Shovel Lad is digging. Digging what? All I see is then providing you with proven and independent facts and figures that dispute your views and you clutching at straws, biased evidence and strong opinion. This is not how debate works you know.

Shovel lad quoted a peer reviewed study from 1998, there have been no others since. He likened its "currency" to the flat earth debate, as in once it was found to be round, there is no further debate until that situation changes. Clearly, the comparison is flawed. Data changes, society has changed.

He has reasons for wanting to believe that those who have multiple abortions always fall into the category he mentions. Obviously some will, but the stats show that many more don't. Logically and anecdotally (which he refuses to see as valid) amongst those stats will be women who are careless with contraception to the point that they either don't use any, or misuse it, or use abortion as a backstop.

The fact that no studies have been done, does not mean that is not an accurate representation of the situation. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

MissKeith wrote: »

You have been condescending and rude to a victim of assault, sexual abuse and rape in light of your anti-choice views. You are not pro-choice if you are pro restriction of multiple abortion. You still haven't answered my questions previously. Where do you draw the line and what would you say to a woman like me? I had counselling, I was working with my GP to find a contraception that worked for me and there would have been no chance in hell I would have admitted what my ex was doing to me. Ironically, when I found the courage to run from that relationship, I found a partner who would use condoms. No more unwanted pregnancies, hurray!

I have not been rude to you, re read my post and you will see I sympathised with your plight. However, to answer your question we have to remove emotion and your closeness to the issue from the equation. Your reaction to my comments were to insult and abuse me for being honest. If you can't deal with honesty on this subject then this thread is not for you.

There is no solution to every scenario, there may have been no solution to yours, I don't know, you may have been one of those for whom abortion was the only answer. Only you can answer that honestly.

In general however, I do believe that mandatory counselling and monitoring would uncover the reasons behind many abortions and as Coolcait says would be better than what happens now when it seems to be a tick box exercise regardless of the number of abortions you have had previously.

MissKeith wrote: »

As someone has shrewdly pointed out, why is one abortion different to multiple? And process, same procedure, same reasons? What if a woman's reasons for abortion were different? One was a mistake, another failure of birth control, another was medically necessary, another was sexual abuse. Do you say "no, no more abortions for you, you've reached your limit!"?

It seems clear to me that anyone can have a failure of contraception or other issues which cause her to request an abortion, perhaps it can even happen twice. Equally clearly, when it is happening repeatedly there is something amiss. What that might be needs to be addressed. Many healthcare professional are concerned that the figures show there is a problem in this area.

Why is it different if it happens multiple times? Not least because it goes against the spirit of the Abortion Act which was never conceived to replace effective contraception, and of course for the long term health implications to the women involved. The essence of the operation remains the same of course, the number does not change that, or alter the perception of that for either the pro choice or pro life camps.

You should also have read from my previous posts that I am not saying that anyone should be denied an abortion, merely that beyond a certain number alarm bells should be sounding. Is that really such a bad thing?

Oh, and "keep digging" was a little joke with reference to his username.;)

And thank you for the tips on how a debate should be conducted, if I could add one of my own? When you descend to personal insult it ceases to be adult debate.

Errata

MissKeith wrote: »

As someone has shrewdly pointed out, why is one abortion different to multiple? And process, same procedure, same reasons? ?

If women are unable to understand the difference in terms of risk, fertility and future health, and you appear to be one of them, trhere is no explanation that will enable them to understrand.