Abortion

[Snake_Baker]

I sometimes wish Chief had a pickle of the week/month award. Your last sentence would certainly qualify you.

As if you lot need another artificially raised soap box around here.

 

[Chief]

Seems shit is getting real on the Angela Williamson front.

For latecomers - what does that mean?

 

[Oscarman]

For latecomers - what does that mean?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...-after-cricket-aust-spoke-to-premier/10177316

 

[Chief]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...-after-cricket-aust-spoke-to-premier/10177316

""Because she asked for favours from the Government on the one hand, and posted tweets pressuring the Government in relation to a personal matter on the other," the legal documents state."

Pressuring the government. For god's sake.

I'm waiting for our resident free speech outragers to jump on this and post every detail as soon as it becomes public.


Waiting....

 

[Pie eyed]

Is it true that women who have had abortions are statistically more likely to have complications in future pregnancies?

And is it true that women who have had abortions are statistically more likely to suffer mental health problems later in life?

If so, then these seem like issues which deserve public discussion. Women (and men) ought to know, if this is the case.

Maybe you should do a bit of research to answer your own questions?
Just avoid the sites which tell you abortions make you go to hell.
They are run by people who have no access to basic logic.

 

[Pie eyed]

No I haven’t.

Both my mother, grandmother (mums side) and my half sister (dads side) had abortion and have/had mental issues.

In all of those family members they are/were other factors. I’m not sure if an abortion was a cause of their mental health issues.

Back my point , is that the researchers doing the studies would have a cognitive bias as well as I do.

Why would the researchers have a cognitive bias?

 

[eastfreo75]

Why would the researchers have a cognitive bias?

because they are a human beings.

 

[Taylor]

Why would the researchers have a cognitive bias?

How do you have an assessment of someone's mental health, discussing the key impact events defining that person's context without finding out if they have had an abortion when you're there to see if an abortion has impacted that outcome?

There is no double blind study where women were abducted in the night to have abortions performed without their knowledge, preferably when they didn't know they were pregnant, to see what impact it has longer term.

 

[Snake_Baker]

""Because she asked for favours from the Government on the one hand, and posted tweets pressuring the Government in relation to a personal matter on the other," the legal documents state."

Pressuring the government. For god's sake.

I'm waiting for our resident free speech outragers to jump on this and post every detail as soon as it becomes public.


Waiting....

Of course it's an absurd outcome, but what would happen to a CA office holder that espoused strong anti - SJW sentiments?

A: The exact same thing, only with a ramped up level of organised outrage.

The fundamental underpinning of free speech is that it cannot be politically selective.

 

[Leeda]

Opinion : never should it be said that one child 'deleted' solves the world's problems
P.S....there is a theme to my musings today...

 

[Pie eyed]

because they are a human beings.

How do you have an assessment of someone's mental health, discussing the key impact events defining that person's context without finding out if they have had an abortion when you're there to see if an abortion has impacted that outcome?

There is no double blind study where women were abducted in the night to have abortions performed without their knowledge, preferably when they didn't know they were pregnant, to see what impact it has longer term.

Obviously I missed something. I thought the implication was that there was some bias toward the legalisation of abortion in the researchers themselves.

 

[eastfreo75]

Obviously I missed something. I thought the implication was that there was some bias toward the legalisation of abortion in the researchers themselves.

I think is two issues.

One being that mental health is extremely complex and what methodology do you use to determine a causal link between abortion and negative affects on mental health. The three main women in my life has had an abortion(s) and all have major mental issues issues. But isn't as easy as that. All three have other factors that negatively impacted their mental health eg abusive family structures, rape, drug abuse etc.

Two being, the cognitive bias. Pro-lifer would use methodology and make conclusions that would suit their agenda. The pro choicer would be just as biased.

Therefore, I wouldn't trust any study.

 

[Pie eyed]

I think is two issues.

One being that mental health is extremely complex and what methodology do you use to determine a causal link between abortion and negative affects on mental health. The three main women in my life has had an abortion(s) and all have major mental issues issues. But isn't as easy as that. All three have other factors that negatively impacted their mental health eg abusive family structures, rape, drug abuse etc.

Two being, the cognitive bias. Pro-lifer would use methodology and make conclusions that would suit their agenda. The pro choicer would be just as biased.

Therefore, I wouldn't trust any study.

I would not agree. You clearly are not familiar with the methods used in legitimate research to eliminate human bias.
Any professional researcher should be able to establish a method which by it's construction negated the import of any bias on their part.
That is assuming your are talking about qualified,professional researchers, not just cult members taking a show of hands at Hillsong on a Sunday.

 

[Pie eyed]

This took me less then 10 seconds.
Maybe you should spend an hour or so.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3929105/

 

[eastfreo75]

I would not agree. You clearly are not familiar with the methods used in legitimate research to eliminate human bias.
Any professional researcher should be able to establish a method which by it's construction negated the import of any bias on their part.
That is assuming your are talking about qualified,professional researchers, not just cult members taking a show of hands at Hillsong on a Sunday.

You are clearly showing a cognitive bias yourself.

 

[cartwright]

Finally... they got there.

+150m safe access zones

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/gi...inalised-queensland?__twitter_impression=true

 

[DaRick]

I agree with the move to decriminalise abortion in Queensland.

Otherwise, my attitude towards abortion is otherwise somewhat complex and relates to my belief that one should balance a woman's reproductive rights, the rights of the fetus/child (people disagree on when one becomes the other) and the needs of broader society (I would not say that there is a need to reduce Australia's birth rate). I would be to the right of your average person on this particular issue.

I would support abortion where maternal life, rape (one can understand why a woman may not wish to have her rapist's baby), mental health, physical health and fetal defects (where these will clearly reduce the child's quality of life) are the issue.

I would support abortion for any of the above reasons without the approval of two doctors up to 12 weeks, because that is the point when a fetus is definitively formed. Most abortions take place by that point anyway. To obtain an abortion for socio-economic reasons up until that point, I would require the support of two doctors, because I am not persuaded that the majority of Australians would be too poor to raise children (unlike the US, which has high levels of poverty/inequality). I would support abortion with the approval of two doctors beyond that point for the reasons listed prior (with obviously reduced possibility of allowing abortion as the pregnancy progresses - I'm no fan of late-term abortions for instance). Ultimately, this is a complex issue for which I have attempted to institute a reasonably complex approach.

Regardless, I understand that in Queensland, abortions have taken place before October 2018, even when the above conditions haven't been satisfied, without penalty to the mother. This law merely formally allows such practice.

(Yeah, I referenced Wiki, so shoot me.)

 

[Niximus]

I would support abortion where maternal life, rape (one can understand why a woman may not wish to have her rapist's baby), mental health, physical health and fetal defects (where these will clearly reduce the child's quality of life) are the issue.

I would support abortion for any of the above reasons without the approval of two doctors up to 12 weeks, because that is the point when a fetus is definitively formed. Most abortions take place by that point anyway. To obtain an abortion for socio-economic reasons up until that point, I would require the support of two doctors, because I am not persuaded that the majority of Australians would be too poor to raise children (unlike the US, which has high levels of poverty/inequality). I would support abortion with the approval of two doctors beyond that point for the reasons listed prior (with obviously reduced possibility of allowing abortion as the pregnancy progresses - I'm no fan of late-term abortions for instance). Ultimately, this is a complex issue for which I have attempted to institute a reasonably complex approach.

How would this work?

A woman seeks an abortion and claims she was r*ped - does she need to prove it?

If it's about the woman's rights vs the fetus' then why do the rights of the fetus change depending on how it was conceived? That makes no sense.

 

[Taylor]

A woman seeks an abortion and claims she was r*ped - does she need to prove it?

It would be easier to use a rape kit at the hospital when you show up post rape, where they file a police report on it.

The stats I saw of abortions in the USA had some tiny percentage of either 0.5% or 0.05% of abortions after a rape. Most were women aged 20-40 who didn't want a baby for lifestyle or financial reasons.

We just need to be honest about it. It's a lifestyle choice similar to getting a puppy for Christmas and having your dog put down by June because you didn't feel like it anymore.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

It's not similar to that at all.

 

[Run n Spread]

It would be easier to use a rape kit at the hospital when you show up post rape, where they file a police report on it.

The stats I saw of abortions in the USA had some tiny percentage of either 0.5% or 0.05% of abortions after a rape. Most were women aged 20-40 who didn't want a baby for lifestyle or financial reasons.

We just need to be honest about it. It's a lifestyle choice similar to getting a puppy for Christmas and having your dog put down by June because you didn't feel like it anymore.

It's a Lifestyle choice in the sense you sign up for a mortgage but rescind in the cooling off period before things become irreversible.

Otherwise if it is the equivalent of killing a puppy (murder in other words) why should abortion be allowed after rape? Surely murder is more serious a crime?

 

[DaRick]

How would this work?

A woman seeks an abortion and claims she was r*ped - does she need to prove it?

If it's about the woman's rights vs the fetus' then why do the rights of the fetus change depending on how it was conceived? That makes no sense.

I recall stating that a woman's reproductive rights and the right of the fetus/child need to be balanced against one another. In that regard, I believe that a woman's reproductive right not to bear a child would trump the right of the fetus/child in the case of rape, but not necessarily in other situations. I'm respectfully not sure that there is a real conflict.

Again, abortion is a complex issue requiring a complex approach.

It would be easier to use a rape kit at the hospital when you show up post rape, where they file a police report on it.

The stats I saw of abortions in the USA had some tiny percentage of either 0.5% or 0.05% of abortions after a rape. Most were women aged 20-40 who didn't want a baby for lifestyle or financial reasons.

We just need to be honest about it. It's a lifestyle choice similar to getting a puppy for Christmas and having your dog put down by June because you didn't feel like it anymore.

The first two statements seem reasonable, but I disagree with the third. Abortion isn't post-term infanticide.

Rape kits would need to be freely accessible though. Their costs can be prohibitive.

 

[Run n Spread]

I agree with the move to decriminalise abortion in Queensland.

Otherwise, my attitude towards abortion is otherwise somewhat complex and relates to my belief that one should balance a woman's reproductive rights, the rights of the fetus/child (people disagree on when one becomes the other) and the needs of broader society (I would not say that there is a need to reduce Australia's birth rate). I would be to the right of your average person on this particular issue.

I would support abortion where maternal life, rape (one can understand why a woman may not wish to have her rapist's baby), mental health, physical health and fetal defects (where these will clearly reduce the child's quality of life) are the issue.

I would support abortion for any of the above reasons without the approval of two doctors up to 12 weeks, because that is the point when a fetus is definitively formed. Most abortions take place by that point anyway. To obtain an abortion for socio-economic reasons up until that point, I would require the support of two doctors, because I am not persuaded that the majority of Australians would be too poor to raise children (unlike the US, which has high levels of poverty/inequality). I would support abortion with the approval of two doctors beyond that point for the reasons listed prior (with obviously reduced possibility of allowing abortion as the pregnancy progresses - I'm no fan of late-term abortions for instance). Ultimately, this is a complex issue for which I have attempted to institute a reasonably complex approach.

Regardless, I understand that in Queensland, abortions have taken place before October 2018, even when the above conditions haven't been satisfied, without penalty to the mother. This law merely formally allows such practice.

(Yeah, I referenced Wiki, so shoot me.)

This is a bit disjointed sorry. What do you mean by the rights of broader society? What should the need to increase/reduce the Birth Rate have to do with anything?

 

[Niximus]

It would be easier to use a rape kit at the hospital when you show up post rape, where they file a police report on it.

A rape kit isn't going to prove a rape occurred and neither is a police report.

What about when there are those things but not enough evidence?

It's a pointless distinction to make.

The stats I saw of abortions in the USA had some tiny percentage of either 0.5% or 0.05% of abortions after a rape. Most were women aged 20-40 who didn't want a baby for lifestyle or financial reasons.

We just need to be honest about it. It's a lifestyle choice similar to getting a puppy for Christmas and having your dog put down by June because you didn't feel like it anymore.

I think we need to be honest that for many 'pro-life' people it has nothing to do with the rights of a fetus - if it did then the manner of conception would be irrelevant. Why would a rape baby have less rights than a non-rape baby, it makes no sense?

If you understand that it's actually about punishing promiscuity then it all makes sense. A r*ped woman is innocent and of course she shouldn't be forced to birth the rapist's baby. If it's not rape though then she should have just kept her legs shut if she didn't want a baby...

 

[Taylor]

Birth control after rape holds off ovulation as far as I know. It's the morning after pill.

Again, hundreds of thousands of lifestyle abortions sneaking in on the coat tails of a tiny fraction of rape abortions.

Build a system to suit 99% and we will be fine