Abortion

[TexRex]

If it helps, I also mentioned the Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing in an earlier post in the Britain Thread.

Okay, it does a little. I wasn't aware of the name being attributed to abortion clinics in the UK, so it's not entirely unheard of for it to be mentioned when discussing them. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was brought up in response to mention of an entirely different organization.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Ah, no acknowledgement regarding the role Planned Parenthood plays vis a vis "counselling on options" after previously indicating an apparent absence of such services. Just "Marie Stopes."

Nice.

Edit: So I just got out of the shower, but while I was in it I got a bug up my butt: "I wonder how many times Marie Stopes has been mentioned in this thread."

Despite being aware that there may be false positives in the form of spelling errors and references to other people, I decided to search the thread for the keyword "stopes." What did I find?

View attachment 737236

Two. Your original use and my response to it. Now...two people quoted your comment regarding counselling and neither mentioned Marie Stopes, nor did you reply with regards to the organization that they did mention; Planned Parenthood.

Why mention Marie Stopes? I mean...the thought that immediately came to my mind when I saw the name was "eugenics"--a controversial subject in its own right--and I have the nagging suspicion that I'm not the only one who would make such a connection. In fact, I suspect when Googling "Marie Stopes" you'd be hard-pressed to find a result that doesn't mention eugenics. It sure seems like your desire was to link eugenics to Planned Parenthood by responding to its mention the way you did.

Planned Parenthood ≠ Marie Stopes
Planned Parenthood ≠ eugenics

Sorry was referring to the British abortion services whose providers I listed. But speaking of eugenics, didn't Margaret Sanger say some unpleasant things in the past? But I digress....

If it helps, I also mentioned the Marie Stopes clinic in Ealing in an earlier post in the Britain Thread.

Should that be the case they should be able to get this ban quickly overturned and go back to their democratic right to display pictures of dead foetuses outside the Marie Stopes clinic in Mattock Lane as per my article above.

I'm not sure what the group are going to be doing - the latest article I read showed that they were weighing up their options:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...council-ban-marie-stopes-london-a8316036.html

What's interesting is that from the articles I link to the people who actually verbally abused people outside the clinics were:

a) a random man saying "Enjoy your buffer zone you b******!”
b) 'You are awful, AWFUL people!' It was a loud and angry blast. From the look of astonished horror my son was giving me and the sensation in my throat, I realised the shouting had come from me - taken from:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...erminations-pro-life-protesters-a8303271.html

 

[UKMikey]

Sorry was referring to the British abortion services whose providers I listed. But speaking of eugenics, didn't Margaret Sanger say some unpleasant things in the past? But I digress....


I'm not sure what the group are going to be doing - the latest article I read showed that they were weighing up their options:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...council-ban-marie-stopes-london-a8316036.html

What's interesting is that from the articles I link to the people who actually verbally abused people outside the clinics were:

a) a random man saying "Enjoy your buffer zone you b******!”
b) 'You are awful, AWFUL people!' It was a loud and angry blast. From the look of astonished horror my son was giving me and the sensation in my throat, I realised the shouting had come from me - taken from:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...erminations-pro-life-protesters-a8303271.html

Ironically given the source these are far from independent accounts - one is an interview with the protesters and the other an op ed piece from a lady who alleges that the people she shouted at were "harassing women who are already having a pretty rubbish day".

 

[HenrySwanson]

Ironically given the source these are far from independent accounts - one is an interview with the protesters and the other an op ed piece from a lady who alleges that the people she shouted at were "harassing women who are already having a pretty rubbish day".

So you're potentially calling the Independent reporter a liar (since it happened while she was there - witnessed), and the second source is from someone who said the protesters ceased talking to her when requested and then 2 years later she shouted at the group despite them not approaching her....

"My aunt took me to my appointment. As I passed the protestors outside of the clinic, I held my head up high and glared at them. A man approached me with a leaflet and muttered something about “being a good mummy”. I raised my palms up at him and barked, “Stay away from me!” and he did.

Life moved on and, two years later, I was lucky enough to have my daughter. Last year, my son and I were jogging to the park and ran past the Marie Stopes clinic. I’d honestly forgotten it was there, so firmly had I put that day behind me. The usual cluster of anti-abortion protesters were there at the entrance with their placards and blown-up, very graphic images. We heard someone shout suddenly, “You are awful, AWFUL people!” It was a loud and angry blast. From the look of astonished horror my son was giving me and the sensation in my throat, I realised the shouting had come from me."

 

[TexRex]

But speaking of eugenics, didn't Margaret Sanger say some unpleasant things in the past? But I digress...

Ah, then you were either already familiar with Planned Parenthood and declined to respond to specific assertions made about the services they provide, or you did some digging and choose to only note negatives while still not addressing specific assertions about the services they provide.

Yes, Planned Parenthood offers abortion services. They also perform testing for--and treatment of--sexually transmitted disease. They offer cancer screening and prevention services. They assist in drug addiction recovery for expectant mothers. They deal with contraception. They offer counselling on a number of topics, such as the aforementioned abortion, but also adoption options for women intending to carry a child to birth and discussing financial aid options for women intending to keep a child. And, of course, they're advocates for women's reproductive rights.

Sorry was referring to the British abortion services whose providers I listed.

Yeah...had you said this alone, I probably would have taken it at face value.

Planned Parenthood is still neither BPAS nor Marie Stopes. They may all operate within the same overarching realm of women's reproductive rights and services, but controversial subject matter regarding one doesn't inherently transfer to the others.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Ah, then you were either already familiar with Planned Parenthood and declined to respond to specific assertions made about the services they provide, or you did some digging and choose to only note negatives while still not addressing specific assertions about the services they provide.

Yes, Planned Parenthood offers abortion services. They also perform testing for--and treatment of--sexually transmitted disease. They offer cancer screening and prevention services. They assist in drug addiction recovery for expectant mothers. They deal with contraception. They offer counselling on a number of topics, such as the aforementioned abortion, but also adoption options for women intending to carry a child to birth and discussing financial aid options for women intending to keep a child. And, of course, they're advocates for women's reproductive rights.


Yeah...had you said this alone, I probably would have taken it at face value.

Planned Parenthood is still neither BPAS nor Marie Stopes. They may all operate within the same overarching realm of women's reproductive rights and services, but controversial subject matter regarding one doesn't inherently transfer to the others.

I talk about which I have experience with (BPAS/Marie Stopes). The Sanger topic was because you brought up eugenics and I remembered her statement about weeds:

"It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

So we have prominent forerunners (some may say contributors/pioneers) to the abortion movement having said some pretty controversial things....

 

[huskeR32]

So we have prominent forerunners (some may say contributors/pioneers) to the abortion movement having said some pretty controversial opinions....

Again:

They may all operate within the same overarching realm of women's reproductive rights and services, but controversial subject matter regarding one doesn't inherently transfer to the others.

Also, "abortion movement?" What's that? Nobody's goal is to have more abortions. Language like that proves @TexRex's point that you're not approaching this conversation in good faith.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Again:



Also, "abortion movement?" What's that? Nobody's goal is to have more abortions. Language like that proves @TexRex's point that you're not approaching this conversation in good faith.

Pro-choice movement then? Movement-for-reproductive-rights? Do the words make such a difference.

Silly question - as above we call it a foetus if unwanted and a baby if wanted.

This is not me trying to bring emotion into the argument - rather showing what we do currently in the western world. For example we only choose to show scans of the foetus/unborn child if the mother wants the foetus/unborn yeah this is getting messy.....

For example am I allowed to show this as a joke without it being misinterpreted:

 

[TexRex]

I talk about which I have experience with (BPAS/Marie Stopes).

Which is fine when you're speaking freely about a subject, but if someone asks you why a game of football takes so long, the correct response certainly isn't "I think tennis players grunt because stifling requires energy better applied to striking the ball."

The Sanger topic was because you brought up eugenics

There have been scores of eugenics proponents throughout history and you just happened to pick one directly involved in establishing what would become Planned Parenthood.

"It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

That may seem offensive on the face of it, but Margaret Stanger was an advocate for the poor's access to contraception. More affluent citizens had the means to prevent (at least a fair shot at prevention) conception, but prohibitive costs meant the poor did not. And since the desire to procreate is so innate in the human species (not to mention the enjoyment often derived from the act), a booming poverty-stricken population is more than likely the "defective stock" she was referring to. Moreover, Stanger was a proponent of genetic diversification.

Abortion's detractors like to cite that quote attributed to PP's "founder" because they feel it reinforces the "sinful" nature of the convention.

So we have prominent forerunners (some may say contributors/pioneers) to the abortion movement having said some pretty controversial things....

We also have people refusing to address assertions repeatedly directed toward them....

 

[UKMikey]

So you're potentially calling the Independent reporter a liar (since it happened while she was there - witnessed), and the second source is from someone who said the protesters ceased talking to her when requested and then 2 years later she shouted at the group despite them not approaching her....

I think you're putting words in my mouth if you think I'm calling anyone a liar. What I said is that the reporter interviewed the protesters and they said "we're not harassing anyone". I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they said. I didn't see any attempt to interview anyone besides the protesters and ask them whether they were being harassed on their way into the clinic. Hence not independent.

The op ed piece is a reminiscence, not a report. I have similar misgivings regarding her recollection as no interviews were conducted with independent witnesses.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The council must have based their decision to implement buffer zones on something.

 

[huskeR32]

Pro-choice movement then? Movement-for-reproductive-rights? Do the words make such a difference.

Of course words make a difference. That's why we have different words.

Calling a group "pro-choice" accurately represents what they want. Calling them an "abortion movement" implies something else.

Silly question - as above we call it a foetus if unwanted and a baby if wanted.

I don't think it's silly at all. The fetus/baby question is instructive to look at, as it illustrates the complexity of the question at hand.

This is not me trying to bring emotion into the argument - rather showing what we do currently in the western world. For example we only choose to show scans of the foetus/unborn child if the mother wants the foetus/unborn yeah this is getting messy.....

You've got that backwards. I'm aware of no laws that require a woman planning to carry to term to look an an ultrasound, but there are several states that require otherwise medically-unnecessary ultrasounds be performed before abortions, and some states even require the doctor to display the ultrasound and describe it to the patient.

So yeah, you're right, it's instructive to look at what "we" choose to do in the western world, which right now consists of trying to shame or emotionally abuse women, hoping to dissuade them from the procedure.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Which is fine when you're speaking freely about a subject, but if someone asks you why a game of football takes so long, the correct response certainly isn't "I think tennis players grunt because stifling requires energy better applied to striking the ball."

No, it's like talking about football (soccer) and you quoting the MLS and me talking about the Premiership

There have been scores of eugenics proponents throughout history and you just happened to pick one directly involved in establishing what would become Planned Parenthood.

Unfortunately you brought it up. You mentioned Marie Stopes personally, so I responded by talking about someone at the forefront of the Planned Parenthood's beginnings

That may seem offensive on the face of it, but Margaret Stanger was an advocate for the poor's access to contraception. More affluent citizens had the means to prevent (at least a fair shot at prevention) conception, but prohibitive costs meant the poor did not. And since the desire to procreate is so innate in the human species (not to mention the enjoyment often derived from the act), a booming poverty-stricken population is more than likely the "defective stock" she was referring to. Moreover, Stanger was a proponent of genetic diversification.

Just like in some cultures a male is preferable to a female. I'm supposing you wouldn't have a problem with killing the weedy female in the hopes you conceive a male?

We also have people refusing to address assertions repeatedly directed toward them....

So what do you want me to address?

I think you're putting words in my mouth if you think I'm calling anyone a liar. What I said is that the reporter interviewed the protesters and they said "we're not harassing anyone". I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they said. I didn't see any attempt to interview anyone besides the protesters and ask them whether they were being harassed on their way into the clinic. Hence not independent.

Ahh so you're talking about the protesters harassing people. That wasn't made clear in your original post, it seemed to be saying that the verbal abuse claims were suspicious

The op ed piece is a reminiscence, not a report. I have similar misgivings regarding her recollection as no interviews were conducted with independent witnesses.

But she's obviously pro-choice....why would she lie?

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The council must have based their decision to implement buffer zones on something.

You're saying that while we demonetise conservative channels on YouTube and ban conservative speakers from coming into the country?

 

[Danoff]

Just like in some cultures a male is preferable to a female. I'm supposing you wouldn't have a problem with killing the weedy female in the hopes you conceive a male?

I don't like your choice of words here, but I think what you're talking about is done with IVF in some countries and US states. You can, in some places, generate embryos and then do testing to determine the gender and transfer those for procreation and discard the rest.

Problem?

I know of at least one individual who created a bunch of embryos and got pregnant via one of them (froze the rest for later). After her pregnancy (boy) she determined that she wanted a girl, and was selectively transferring the girl embryos in hopes of a second child.

Problem?

 

[TexRex]

Unfortunately you brought it up. You mentioned Marie Stopes personally, so I responded by talking about someone at the forefront of the Planned Parenthood's beginnings

I mentioned Planned Parenthood as offering counselling services that you noted are unavailable. You proceeded to address another individual citing my indication of these services indeed being available through--Wait, what was that organization? Oh yeah--Planned Parenthood, and you responded that you don't know what services are offered by another organization entirely because they apparently don't allow men to be present.

There was no reason for you to bring up Marie Stopes--represented either as an individual or an organization--in response to assertions regarding Planned Parenthood, except to imply that the two are equal and that controversy surrounding one inherently applies to both.

Of course you're aware of all of the above, as it was all calculated to undermine the discussion and bend it in service of your own agenda. This is nothing new, neither as a convention nor for you; I've observed you employing similar tactics with former forum staffer @Scaff.

 

[Scaff]

You're saying that while we demonetise conservative channels on YouTube and ban conservative speakers from coming into the country?

What a quaint way to describe the far right (and nothing at all to do with the actual discussion).

Silly question - as above we call it a foetus if unwanted and a baby if wanted.

You might, but it seems your simply using transference to try and score points, a rather weak logical fallacy (and certainly not your first).

 

[UKMikey]

But she's obviously pro-choice....why would she lie?

I'm not saying she lied about her report. I'm saying her report doesn't prove that the council were wrong to implement buffer zones outside abortion clinics. She didn't encounter anyone who was harassed but that doesn't mean people weren't harassed on other occasions.

You're saying that while we demonetise conservative channels on YouTube and ban conservative speakers from coming into the country?

Yup.

 

[Touring Mars]

Ireland votes today in a referendum on whether to repeal a clause (the '8th amendment') that gives unborn babies equal rights to the mother, and in effect outlaws abortion in Ireland. A close vote is expected...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/25/close-result-expected-in-irelands-abortion-referendum

 

[Mr Tree]

Ireland votes today in a referendum on whether to repeal a clause (the '8th amendment') that gives unborn babies equal rights to the mother, and in effect outlaws abortion in Ireland. A close vote is expected...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/25/close-result-expected-in-irelands-abortion-referendum

When will the results be out? I'm eagerly anticipating a maybe depressing result

 

[Touring Mars]

When will the results be out? I'm eagerly anticipating a maybe depressing result

Polls close at 10pm, but given the projected closeness of the result - and the importance of the result - I'd expect there to be recounts, challenges etc. that might delay a formal declaration of the result - I'd guess that it will be about this time tomorrow before anyone knows for sure.

 

[Liquid]

I'm seeing a surprising number of "why are men even allowed to vote on this?" from both pro-choice and anti-choice camps.

Disregarding that this shouldn't be put to a vote anyway;

1) Men might not carry pregnancies but they are an integral part of it, both in supporting the woman emotionally as well as conception.

2) It's not just any referendum, it's a constitutional referendum. All of the electorate should be able to vote on changes to the foundation documents of the state. If you don't like that, then this issue shouldn't have been enscribed directly into the constitition in the first place. Thank Charlie Haughey for that.

3) It's as ridiculous an arugment as suggesting that straight people can't support LGBT rights or that white people can't care about civil rights for non-white minorities.

 

[baldgye]

I'm seeing a surprising number of "why are men even allowed to vote on this?" from both pro-choice and anti-choice camps.

Disregarding that this shouldn't be put to a vote anyway;

1) Men might not carry pregnancies but they are an integral part of it, both in supporting the woman emotionally as well as conception.

2) It's not just any referendum, it's a constitutional referendum. All of the electorate should be able to vote on changes to the foundation documents of the state. If you don't like that, then this issue shouldn't have been enscribed directly into the constitition in the first place. Thank Charlie Haughey for that.

3) It's as ridiculous an arugment as suggesting that straight people can't support LGBT rights or that white people can't care about civil rights for non-white minorities.

As an Englishman (and so an outsider), seems fair enough for only women to be allowed to vote on this matter. It's women and women alone who decide on whether they will or wont have an abortion, so it seems fair that it should be women and women alone who get to decide the law.

 

[Liquid]

As an Englishman (and so an outsider), seems fair enough for only women to be allowed to vote on this matter. It's women and women alone who decide on whether they will or wont have an abortion, so it seems fair that it should be women and women alone who get to decide the law.

Should only gay people have been allowed to vote for the equal marriage bill they had a few years ago?

 

[baldgye]

Should only gay people have been allowed to vote for the equal marriage bill they had a few years ago?

The two things are not comparable, which is why I ignored that point. Men don't physically change to be able to carry children.

 

[Liquid]

The two things are not comparable, which is why I ignored that point. Men don't physically change to be able to carry children.

No but the principle of it being an issue for one particular group and other groups therefore being excluded is still accurate.

 

[baldgye]

No but the principle of it being an issue for one particular group and other groups therefore being excluded is still accurate.

No, it isn't.
How does allowing, or not allowing abortion affect everyone?
Sexuality is/can be fluid and can change for a person over the coarse of their life. The ability to carry a child in a womb isn't.

 

[Touring Mars]

As an Englishman (and so an outsider), seems fair enough for only women to be allowed to vote on this matter. It's women and women alone who decide on whether they will or wont have an abortion, so it seems fair that it should be women and women alone who get to decide the law.

Given that the entire debate is about whether unborn children should be afforded the same rights as pregnant women, I can't see how it makes any sense to only ask women what their views are. I don't disagree with the notion that abortion is a choice for a pregnant woman to make, but that doesn't mean that women should be the sole arbiters of whether abortion ought to be legal or not.

 

[Famine]

What about trans people? Allowed to vote, or not, on abortion on the basis of their birth gender or assigned gender?

If only people who can carry children can vote, should infertile women, women with delated onset puberty and post-menopausal women be excluded?

 

[baldgye]

Given that the entire debate is about whether unborn children should be afforded the same rights as pregnant women, I can't see how it makes any sense to only ask women what their views are. I don't disagree with the notion that abortion is a choice for a pregnant woman to make, but that doesn't mean that women should be the sole arbiters of whether abortion ought to be legal or not.

I can understand the logic behind it though. I'm not sure if I agree with it or not, but it's interesting. I'd be interesting in reading up reports about the result and polling between Irish men and women to see how it was split.
Like I said, as an outsider my opinion isn't all that meaningful, but it's refreshing to hear, given that in the not-so distant past all decisions for women where made by men, and men alone.

What about trans people? Allowed to vote, or not, on abortion on the basis of their birth gender or assigned gender?

If only people who can carry children can vote, should infertile women, women with delated onset puberty and post-menopausal women be excluded?

I honestly don't know and when I was replying to Liquid I did wonder, how exactly you would define/draw the lines.
Like I said, I can see the logic and think it's a fair enough concept.

 

[Liquid]

How does allowing, or not allowing abortion affect everyone?

By saving lives.

Husbands, boyfriends, parents and children have suffered the loss of their wives, girlfriends, daughters and mothers when women have died as a direct result of the eight amendment to the constitution of Ireland.

 

[Mr Tree]

No, it isn't.
How does allowing, or not allowing abortion affect everyone?
Sexuality is/can be fluid and can change for a person over the coarse of their life. The ability to carry a child in a womb isn't.

No but it's law and it's also the mans child/responsibility so why shouldn't a man be allowed to vote.

Also a hetero sexual won't suddenly become gay so why is a hetero sexual allowed to vote on gay rights?

And I opened up the door so I'll ask this question. When considering repreductive rights I agree that a woman should be able to choose. But what I find a side th isn't talked about much is men who have zero emotional.support when thzy wanted to keep the baby and the woman doesn't. Or the other way around a man has no way to stop a woman from carrying the child to full term, as it should be. But then when the kid gets born you're legally obliged to be the father and give child support. Which means a woman can deceide to keep it and a man has no say in it but his life is significantly altered. Acting as if having babies has no affect on men is idiotic.