|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why don't Anglicans do enough on abortion?
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
[HOST MODE]
Just to be clear, I'm now posting in my capacity as a host of this board. I am doing this to clear a few things up before they get out of hand, as they have a potential to do so. What I say here should be taken as an official view as host, and seperate from my personal views expressed earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Ms Byronic:
Laura, you weren't 'personally attacked' your posts were disputed in a robust and no-nonsense fashion.
I fail to see how your initial statement (for example, "With respect, they were the most appallingly inaccurate, biased, misleading surveys of the scientific evidence I have yet come across.
Laura's posts would fail to pass muster in the editorial pages of the most blatantly 'pro-choice' publications as their inaccuracy would leave the publication open to legal challenge.") could be considered as anything but a personal attack - an accusation of bias and innaccuracy with an implication that this was a deliberate attempt to mislead, and even that her post was potentially illegal.
Lauras' request that you apologise for this blatant personal attack has been ignored. I will repeat it. Apologise for the personal attack on Laura.
quote:
If you want to take it further and have my posts excised from the thread and my name removed from the list of approved posters you are perfectly free to do so. I would consider such an action to be a Stalinist offence against freedom of speech and unworthy of a 'Christian' website.
This comment is particularly strange. We have two routes initially open to take things further - reasoned discussion here in Purgatory or open a more thread in Hell where more heated exchanges are better suited. In this case Laura has chosen the first, and exhibited considerable self restraint. At this point, after you have apologised for the personal attack, you are welcome to continue to discuss this issue here within the guidelines of Purgatory (if you haven't read them yet I advise you do so).
If you fail to apologise for the personal attack or continue with your current posting style you will, however, attract the unwelcome attention of the Hosts and Administrators. In that case the powers available to suspend your posting rights or ban you entirely may well be enforced. That is inorder to maintain good order on this site so that people here can continue to debate in a reasonable and free manner.
As with any hostly or administrative comment, if you disagree with this then please take it up in the Styx rather than derail this thread. Post the apology to Laura here, however.
Alan
Purgatory Host
[/HOST MODE]
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
Err. Ms Bryonic??
See that little number #3942 next to where it says "apprentice" under your name?
and see the little number #10 next to where it says ADMIN by Laura's name?
That's 3982 reasons why you should be just a tad more respectful..in purgatory at least.
If you want to scratch each others eyes out...take it to hell.
Goodness knows, I sail fairly close to the wind most of the time I know. You made some good points, but tone down a little or else get yourself a soapbox at speakers corner.
That said, I want to go back to a comment Tubbs made earlier in response to some of my posts:
quote:
I’m not sure what took my breath away more – your complete lack of respect for your own peers
It got diverted by the BNP thing, so I didn't get to comment on this aspect.
It seems relevant again since the breast cancer thing has reared it's head again.
Basically, I alluded to the fact that the pro-choice agenda influences a great deal of studies.
What I think people may misunderstand, is that I am not saying the scientist with a pencil and paper in hand is faking results or anything of that nature.
The issue here is publication.
The scientist on the ground who does the research may be completely honest, however, for their findings to become known, their work must be published.
Getting an article published in a respected medical journal means having it approved, by peers, then your boss, then various editorial boards within the journal's establishment.
There is a great deal of competition for column inches in these journals, and as a result, selecting what gets published and what doesn't is a highly political process.
Now, any paper which throws into doubt the safety of a practice performed on 200,000 women a year in britain and 1.2 million women a year in america while generating millions in profit is going to have to have absolutely iron-clad proof to get published.
Hence, there is a publishing bias towards the pro-choice papers.
Hope that makes sense.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
Quoting myself..
quote:
That's 3982 reasons...
err...that'll be 3932 reasons...evidently.
*a puzzled matt scatches his head and wonders if this thread has so fried his brain he can no longer do simple maths..*
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
matt, yes there is competition to publish in journals but that usually means that the scientists writing the paper (and it almost always is a collaboration these days) work harder to make sure their work is of the highest possible standard and then try to get their work in the best possible relevant journal. Good science will always be published somewhere, though I admit there can be a tendancy towards not publishing particularly contraversial work in prestigious journals if there's a fear it may damage the journals reputation - on the other hand less prestigious journals tend to grab them up as if it's true it will greatly increase their reputation.
I'm not sufficiently knowledgable about the prestige of the medical journals which the papers Ms Bryonic cited are published in to judge how good they are. But, that work casting doubts on the safety of abortions re: long term cancer risks was published.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Picking up on a point Matt offered, I have no desire whatsoever to scratch anyone's eyes out. It would ill beseem an administrator, whose arguments are just as up for debate as anyone's. However, it is, as several people have heart-warmingly noted ![[Smile]](smile.gif) , unwise and also poor form to call a person who's been around the block a bit, logically speaking, a dishonest, negligent moron.
[clarification]
[ 06. February 2003, 18:15: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Matt : I can't agree about the profit motive, at least not in the UK, which has a non-profit making health system. If abortion was banned tomorrow, do you really think that medics wouldn't have plenty of other things to keep them occupied - waiting lists are still a reality.
Could it be that many doctors, even those who are themselves not totally happy with abortion, nevertheless recognise that it should be available ? And medical opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to the anti-abortion movement, as I am sure you realise.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
That does indeed explain it better - thank you Matt. I don't know enough about the medical journalism / research field to judge whether or not your rational is accurate tho'. (Hope that makes sense, it's late and I'm sooooo tired ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) )
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Byronic to Ship, 15 Jan: Hello everybody - I'm new here, so please be gentle!
quote:
Ship to Byronic, 6 Feb: Hello Byronic - we're new to you here, so please be gentle!
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Ms. Byronic appears to have insulted and vanished....
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Any chance she was a sock puppet?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Any chance she was a sock puppet?
This possibility has been considered. There is a remarkable similarity in their apparent raisons d' etre (apologies for absence of accenture).
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Whose in particular?
m (feeling a bit thick-must be the mittelschmerz)
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Greta, old bean, have pity:
Only 21 drinking days till Ash Wednesday....
cheers,
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Matt : I can't agree about the profit motive, at least not in the UK, which has a non-profit making health system. If abortion was banned tomorrow, do you really think that medics wouldn't have plenty of other things to keep them occupied - waiting lists are still a reality.
The motivations for cover up are political (both government and medical politics) as well as purely financial. It's not merely the money made, it's the money that would be lost were law suits etc. The sheer numbers of abortions involved would create a NHS scandal of monumental proportions.
We're talking about a 40% increase in chances of getting breast cancer here...once you start on a cover-up policy, the political implications of going back on that are huge.
You can see a panorama special on it now: "Government has just admitted breast cancer abortion link...yet first paper on this was published in 1957. Why have we been lied to?"
quote:
Could it be that many doctors, even those who are themselves not totally happy with abortion, nevertheless recognise that it should be available ? And medical opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to the anti-abortion movement, as I am sure you realise.
Actually, I disagree. There has been a huge upturn of interest in fetal medicine in recent years. It is now possible to perform surgical procedures on a fetus in the womb. Of course this is incredibly expensive, and if the option is there simply to "flush the fetus" and start again, it makes funding hard to come by. Hence doctors in this field have to assert strongly a moral right for the fetus to be treated.
Many of those working in neo-natal paediatrics are also pro-life because they work with babies which are of such gestational age that they could still be terminated if in the womb. The top neo-natal physician in the country is a staunchly pro-life evangelical Christian.
Increasingly, even normal GPs are highly disallusioned with abortion and get very frustrated with women returning for multiple abortions...using it as a form of birth control.
A great many doctors would like to see the issue taken out of their hands to be honest. Doctors are feeling increasingly unhappy about being moral arbitrators. Many would like to see "abortion on demand" as law, (which technically it isn't at the moment) NOT because they approve of abortion, but precisely because they disaprove of being put in the position of having blood on their hands by signing abortion certificates, as currently they must.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Matt wrote:
quote:
Increasingly, even normal GPs are highly disallusioned with abortion and get very frustrated with women returning for multiple abortions...using it as a form of birth control.
The friend I had at university who’d worked as a nurse in an abortion clinic said that these women made up a small minority of their clientele. But your comments about them being considered extremely frustrating are spot on. She said that she despised them … She also said that most people who attended the clinic she worked at were “victims” of contraceptive failure / a night of stupidity and weren’t ever seen at the clinic again. The other small minority were the horror stories – the rape and incest victims etc.
quote:
The motivations for cover up are political (both government and medical politics) as well as purely financial. It's not merely the money made, it's the money that would be lost were law suits etc. The sheer numbers of abortions involved would create a NHS scandal of monumental proportions.
We're talking about a 40% increase in chances of getting breast cancer here...once you start on a cover-up policy, the political implications of going back on that are huge.
You can see a panorama special on it now: "Government has just admitted breast cancer abortion link...yet first paper on this was published in 1957. Why have we been lied to?"
Paddy mentioned a study undertaken in Finland that “proved” the link between abortion and an increased risk of suicide. A link to the full text of this study is included earlier in the thread. The study’s writers did say that there was a link between abortions and suicide but they also pointed out that all the women in their sample came from lower income groups. They recommended further research into the subject to see how important these other factors were. I suspect that the writers of the cancer studies being cited would say the same as it may be a combination of factors that causes an increased risk rather than just the one.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
A great many doctors would like to see the issue taken out of their hands to be honest. Doctors are feeling increasingly unhappy about being moral arbitrators. Many would like to see "abortion on demand" as law, (which technically it isn't at the moment) NOT because they approve of abortion, but precisely because they disaprove of being put in the position of having blood on their hands by signing abortion certificates, as currently they must.
But the doctor has the choice whether or not to peform abortions or sign certificates doesn't s/he? [This is my understanding anyway - as it is one of the explanations given for why NHS abortions are more difficult to obtain in some areas than in others]
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
This is going back a way on this thread now..
Laura posted a review of Evidence concerning the Abortion/breast cancer link..claiming that there was none.
First, someone said that a pro-life campaigner who believes abortion is in itself immoral would not fight on the breast cancer battleground.
I think this is wrong on two counts.
1) If you believe something is wrong, your primary motive is to contain or put a stop to it, by whatever ligitimate means. If abortion on demand was ended or decreased due to breast cancer, less babies would be aborted. If this is primarily a moral issue, we are primarily concerned with the end moral outcome.
2) I consider abortion immoral to mother and child. I believe that many women are misled into exactly what action it is they are performing when they elect to have an abortion. Abortion has long term psychological impact. Having a pro-life view point for reasons concerning the fetus need not rule out having an anti-abortion view for the benefit of the mother.
Anyway, that said: I promised to research the article Laura posted article and I have.
First, I suggest going to
http://www.cmf.org.uk/index.htm?helix/win03/brecan.htm
After reading that article Laura, if you have any arguments with it, I cordially invite you to e-mail the author of it, Dr. Greg Gardner at g.gardner@euphony.net He will be far better able to discuss it with you than I.
Some relevant information on the source of your article, Planned Parenthood:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nation's oldest and largest abortion provider, is an organization which is supported by U.S. taxpayers. For this reason, it is the most well funded abortion provider in the nation. In the period from 1987 until 1998, Planned Parenthood received a total of $1.4 billion in taxpayer money,(STOPP). PPFA received $176.5 million in government grants and contracts in the period between 1998-99, roughly 75% of which (or $132.4 million) originated from the federal government’s Title X and Title XIX programs. Forty-four million dollars was provided by state and local governments.
PPFA provided 1,939,039 abortions between the years 1977 and 1995. PPFA’s 1998-99 Annual Report reported that it provided 167,928 abortions in 1998 and 165,174 abortions in 1997. PPFA grossed $60 million in sales of the abortifacient Pill in the period 1997-98, and $45 million of that figure represented its net profit.
PPFA’s total revenue at the end of the 1999 fiscal year was $660.7
million. With its expenses reported at $534.9 million, the abortion provider reported a total profit of $125.8 million. Assets were reported at a cool $536.3 million for this “non-profit” organization.
That in mind..one might want to consider their motivations carefully.
Having read the article from CMF, I would highlight to you the following conflicts between the two articles:
1) The PP article starts by describing the hormonal hypothesis, and quotes papers that have supported it (Brumsted & Riddick, 1990; Westhoff, 1997). However, in the next sentence, the PP article simply reports: "Attempts to prove this theory, however, have failed". Note that this claim is not followed up by any reference. It is a completely speculative statement, inserted by PP. They also omit studies going as far back as 1980 in rats showing a rise from 6% incidence to 78% incidence for mammary carcinoma in rats who had induced abortion with respect to a control group. (Russo J et a American Journal of Pathology 1980)
2)Their stated reasons for studies being unreliable are highly misleading.
quote:
quoting PP study
A number of factors may render a study unreliable:
Miscarriages and induced abortion affect a woman's body differently but many studies have not distinguished between them.
Many women do not report miscarriages because they are unaware they have had them.
Abortions are often unreported because of the privacy of the decision to terminate a pregnancy.
Their first point is highly misleading. There is no reason for a miscarriage to raise cancer rate because miscarraige usually occurs precisely because hormonal changes do not occur.
If lumped together with abortions in statistical analyisis, this will make results unreliable, BUT it will make them unreliable in the direction of UNDERestimating the link between abortion and breast cancer. This is the first example of a direct attempt to mislead by the PP article.
Their second point concerning non-reporting of miscarriages is again directly misleading. If the true number of miscarriages were known, this *may* suggest that both spontaneous and induced abortion were equally likely to increase breast cancer, but it makes no difference when comparing full term pregnancy with abortion (of either sort).
Their third reason is the key argument of the link-debunkers, yet it is deeply flawed.
It's called the response bias argument and is entirely speculative. It states that "Women who have breast cancer are more likely to admit to having abortions than those who have not". It seems equally arguable, that given abortion can generate denial that women who develop breast cancer might deny abortions.
The only reason for ever proposing this comes from a swedish trial in 1991 (Lindefors-Harris et al) which the PP article draws heavily on.
In their study 7 women who reported abortions weren't on the national registry of abortions and were thus thought to be making them up. This is the only basis for the "response bias" theory.
It was torn apart in 1998 when it emerged the registry wasn't complete anyway, and it was therefore quite plausible the women weren't making it up.
3) This leads to the third point. PP cites a Danish study (Melbye M et al 1997) as clearing muddy waters and showing there to be no conclusive link.
quoting the PP article again:
quote:
Before Melbye's seminal study appeared in 1997 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the body of published research showed inconsistent and inconclusive evidence[quote]
This study is recognised as being one of the worst epidemiological studies of the decade. First, over 60,000 women who had abortions and should have been in the study were excluded.
Second, they considered breast cancer since 1968, but only abortions from 1973! This is utterly bizzare, one cannot put the effect before the cause. It's such a basic mistake it actually smacks of intentional misleading.
4) Intentional misleading seems to be a recurring theme of the PP article however:
Brind carried out an analysis of many studies reaching the conclusion that the majority showed a link between breast cancer and abortion.
The PP article critisises it in the following paragraph:
[quote]In 1996, Joel Brind and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 28 published reports describing 23 studies on induced abortion and breast cancer. Based on these studies, the authors calculated that induced abortion places women at a slightly increased risk for developing breast cancer (Brind et al., 1996). This analysis has been criticized for attempting to calculate the odds for developing breast cancer from widely varying studies (Blettner et al., 1997), some of which have been criticized for methodological flaws and for failing to calculate their results from the raw data of the original studies (Melbye et al., 1997).
Note that last name there? "Melbye"? Sound familiar? Yes. It's exactly the same study which PP had earlier in their article cited as defence of their position!!
The melbye study was one of the handful of which in Brinds analysis did not show an abortion/breast cancer link!! Yet PP are critisising this study, saying it shouldn't have been included in Brind's study because it was flawed!!! This would make Brinds findings STRONGER, not weaker!!!
I had to re-read this article a good few times to actually believe PP had done this. On the one hand, citing an article, then slating it only paragraphs later, and not only that, but making it LOOK like they were discrediting Brind's study, when in fact their slating of Melbye makes Brind's findings even stronger!!!
This is an long post so I'll call it a day there. There could be more, but essentially Laura, the PP article you quoted is not only flawed scientifically, but it's downright devious and dishonest.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Okay, now I'm really confused as I read the quote you posted as
quote:
Before Melbye's seminal study appeared in 1997 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the body of published research showed inconsistent and inconclusive evidence ...
This study is recognised as being one of the worst epidemiological studies of the decade. First, over 60,000 women who had abortions and should have been in the study were excluded <snip>
Brind carried out an analysis of many studies reaching the conclusion that the majority showed a link between breast cancer and abortion.
The PP article critisises it in the following paragraph:
[quote]In 1996, Joel Brind and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 28 published reports describing 23 studies on induced abortion and breast cancer. Based on these studies, the authors calculated that induced abortion places women at a slightly increased risk for developing breast cancer (Brind et al., 1996). This analysis has been criticized for attempting to calculate the odds for developing breast cancer from widely varying studies (Blettner et al., 1997), some of which have been criticized for methodological flaws and for failing to calculate their results from the raw data of the original studies (Melbye et al., 1997).
The bits in bold I read as critcisms of Melbye's "seminal" study rather than defences of it. ![[Confused]](confused.gif) And that PP was disputing Brind's findings as he took data from studies where the orginal methodology was flawed. Is this just me or do others read Matt's quote in the same way ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Me, too.
I'm sorry, being fully employed, I simply don't have the time this week to pursue the breast cancer angle the extent to which it deserves, which I've said I believe is irrelevant to the central question. To the extent that Matt suggests a cover-up based on financial interest, I still think it is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I acknowledged that PP conducts abortions; however, this is irrelevant to the accuracy of the studies they cited, which were done by independent organizations. I mean, organizations most people regard as unbiased. I realize that Matt believes the RCOG to be part of the conspiracy because they supposedly benefit by the availability of abortion. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) For example, this study seems to have been well done, utilizing a large cohort, in Denmark, where the issue isn't much of a controversy, and so you'd expect less political pressure to find either way. JAMA Denmark Study Abstract
I have to say, contrary to the claims of left-wing conspiracy, it's been very much my experience in the field that "pro-lifers" will latch onto anything that might work, anything at all, that might "scare" a woman away from having an abortion. I think that to be intellectually risky approach, as it sets the whole debate on an unsound footing, and distracts from the very important central question. Matt disagrees, and seems to think scare tactics, even if based on incorrect information, are a net good. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
In the end, I think it unlikely that any fear of breast cancer, or anything else that the opposition can manipulate into a fear will stop a woman determined to abort from doing so.
And let's consider the risk even if we assume the 40% figure is true. A 40% increased risk of breast cancer is statistically not much of an increase, considering the lifetime risk of same. As a comparison for the following, consider that smoking increases one's risk of getting lung cancer by 2,000% according to National Cancer Institute figures.
The lifetime risk of breast cancer is thought to be about 8%, risk of death 3.6%. See, e.g., AAFP Article on Breast Cancer risk. That is, over a whole lifetime, eight women in 100 will contract breast cancer, and 3.6 will die of breast cancer. A 40% increase (if true, which seems doubtful) would mean that for women who had had abortions, 11.2 would, over the course of a lifetime, contract breast cancer. That's 3.2 more women per 100.
Other studies have shown an association between breast cancer and the olive oil consumption (twenty-five percent), a birth weight of more than eight pounds in women (thirty percent), and a weight gain of more than forty pounds after age eighteen (forty percent). Nobody is excessively focussing on any of these, that I can tell.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
As a footnote, Brind wrote letters commenting on the Mabye study which were responded to in JAMA (the Jnl. of the American Medical Association), and pretty much showed that he didn't understand the studies he was criticising, or the ones he relied upon. I'll try to find those in an on-line placy for your reading pleasure.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
The bits in bold I read as critcisms of Melbye's "seminal" study rather than defences of it. And that PP was disputing Brind's findings as he took data from studies where the orginal methodology was flawed. Is this just me or do others read Matt's quote in the same way
YES! exactly!!!
Arrrrrghhhhh!! I made this very point!!!!!
Melbye's study showed NO link between breast cancer and abortion. (And they use this study as a keystone of their defence).
Planned Parenthood have been DELIBERATELY misleading, in such a way that no one not well used to reading these papers would cotton on to.
Let me explain:
Brind did something called a meta-analysis. This is a term which needs explaining to understand what PP are sneakily doing here:
A meta-analysis isn't doing a study yourself. Instead it's where you look at all the studies that have been done in a particular field, gather them all together and use statistics to see what the net result of all the studies is.
So, for example, you might have 2 studies showing a weak positive link, and one study showing a very definite negative link for a particular thing.
Using clever statistical equations (which factor in things such as the size of relative studies) you can work out what the big stastical picture is from all these little studies.
Now, ANY meta-analysis will contain some studies which are pro. and some studies which are anti because you simply take ALL the studies on a particular study and throw them in the statistical melting pot and see what comes out.
As a very simple example (it doesn't work quite like this) If one study showed a +20% risk factor and another showed a -5% risk..the result of the meta-analysis would be +15%. In reality the stastics aren't that simple, but that's the principle.
Now, Brind's meta-analysis of over 20 other studies showed a highly significant linkage between breast cancer and abortion.
However, one of the studies included in this meta-analyisis was a study by Melbye. This was one of the studies which showed NO link between abortion and breast cancer. It's inclusion shows Brind's fairness. Had he not included Melbye's data, the link between breast cancer and abortion would have been even more dramatic.
Now, earlier on in the report PP used this study in defence of their argument and they praised it.
Yet only Paragraphs later they critisise Brind for including it! The same study goes from being "seminal" when it suits them, to being "methodologically flawed" when Brind uses it!
BUT THIS IS NOT THE MAIN ISSUE...The main issue is that Brind using it made hisresults LESS impressive, NOT more so! Had he not included the melbye study in his meta-analysis, the link would have been even stronger! They make what is actually a compliment of Brind's findings, look like a flaw in them!
And there is absolutely no way this is an accident. It's entirely intentional.
in summary, their critisism of Brind's use of Melbye is:
1) inconsistent - they quoted it themselves.
2) They seem to be implying that the Melbye study was in some way critical to Brind's results, or it's flaws undermine Brind's results. Quite the opposite!!! It's inclusion made Brind's results less dramatic than they would otherwise be!!!
I had to read this paper a good few times to believe what I was seeing here. It's quite astonishing.
Matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Matt disagrees, and seems to think scare tactics, even if based on incorrect information, are a net good. We'll have to agree to disagree on that
That's not at all what I said. Unfounded scare tactics would be bad, because in the long run it would undermine the pro-life arguments.
You're addition "even if based on incorrect information" is something from your own imagination Laura.
If it is true that there is a significant breast cancer/abortion link and that results in a fall in abortion rates, of course I would consider that a good thing. However, if there is not a significant link, I would not promote lying. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that...
quote:
As a footnote, Brind wrote letters commenting on the Mabye study which were responded to in JAMA (the Jnl. of the American Medical Association), and pretty much showed that he didn't understand the studies he was criticising, or the ones he relied upon. I'll try to find those in an on-line placy for your reading pleasure.
The nature of meta-studies is that you do not need to understand that much about the individual studies involved. The results are the crucial factor. A meta-study is a purely stastical analysis.
Second, Brind did not "rely upon" Mabye study! As I've said several times before now..it was one of the studies which showed NO link...he included it out of fairness.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Thanks for clearing up the issue of whether scaring people off using bad science was good -- I misunderstood your position, Matt. You also misunderstood my contention regarding evidence. I have no doubt that there are studies that may show an association. What I'm looking for is a statistically significant correlation. And there still hasn't been one.
Ah, Brind. I understand metanalysis, believe it or not, and have done same; I've even used the "clever equations" you describe. Brind is in a class by himself in the deception arena, though.
In the Humanist magazine, Joyce Arthur discussed Brind. Here's a link to the article -- it is through a pro-choice online source, but the article is from The Humanist, an independent publication. Abortion and Breast Cancer -- A Forged Link
"Brind, a professor of biology and endocrinology at New York City’s Baruch College, is a tireless proponent of the ABC link. He has devoted an entire website to the issue, zealously named www.abortioncancer.com. The website says Brind “has written and lectured extensively” on this topic since 1992, but his lecturing is confined to the anti-abortion speaker circuit, and he has published only one peer-reviewed research paper on the supposed connection between induced abortion and breast cancer. This 1996 paper, a "meta-analysis" study, has been heavily criticized. Brind pooled the data from 23 studies on the ABC link and came up with a 30% increase in risk. However, most of the studies he included were those flawed by reporting bias, so it was a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out". Brind's work has been supplanted by a December 2001 review of 28 studies of the ABC link by a British researcher, who concluded there was "'insufficient data to justify warning women of future breast-cancer risk when counselling them about abortion.'"
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Basically, the anti-abortion movement will jump on any irrelevant piece of information if it thinks it can be used to advance their case.
Fact is that it doesn't work. This thread has done what most similar threads have done in the past - convinced me that they are wrong and need to be opposed.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
However, most of the studies he included were those flawed by reporting bias, so it was a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out".
But this "Flawed by reporting bias" thing is in itself a conclusion that needs to be justified.
It is a speculation that brinds results are due to some kind of reporting bias, and it's not a very well founded one.
The suggested reporting bias is that women who don't have breast cancer are less likely to admit to having abortions, and hence this biases the results. But you can't simply write off all the figures on the basis of that speculation.
Second, as you you understand meta-analysis, I note you didn't pass comment on the planned parenthood article's misleading Melbye reference?
Melbye was one of the few studies which did not show a link in Brind's meta-analysis. As you will no doubt realise, for PP to critsise the methodology of this study in their review of Brind's meta-analysis is misleading, as, if Melbye was excluded as a bad study, the outcome of the meta-analysis would be stronger not weaker. No one would detected that from the PP article.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ms Byronic
Apprentice
# 3942
|
Posted
This will probably be one of my last if not final post on this thread for a while (ever?) - I don't think the hosts will appreciate all the subtle nuances of my finely honed arguments. So apologies in advance for its length.
Earlier on a number of posters including the hosts took umbrage at one of my messages. The hosts demanded that I apologise for the 'personal' nature of my comments.
Well I have no intention of doing so. I stand by everything I wrote.
Hilariously, when I didn't respond immediately to the complaints, some suggested I was a 'sock puppet'. 'A possibility being considered' Laura said grimly. Well just for the record, no I'm not.
As an aside - I think it a pretty poor show for anyone to 'demand' an apology. Apologies should be freely given not coercively extracted. I also find Laura's hysterical demand a bit rich in the light of many of her previous posts - she hardly shrinks from personal comment, abuse and how shall I put it - economy with the actualite - when the argument doesn't go the way she wants.
It smacks of pots and kettles. And giving it but not being able to take it.
I have alluded before to the lack of respect for freedom of speech on this board only for Laura to shriek characteristically: 'Its a straw man'. However my straw man was given substance by Alan Cresswell's threats - for that is what they were - to have me hauled off to hell.
My argument goes beyond the issue of abortion and its link with breast cancer it extends to the bias and partisanship shown by the hosts - which I consider to be foolhardy and damaging. The pro-life point of view is simply not treated respectfully here. As demonstrated by the treatment meted out to posters who express pro-life sentiments. If they do so consistently they are accused of 'crusading'. Those consistently expressing the opposing point of view meet with no such claims, however.
The reason for all this is not hard to divine - Laura and Alan are fanatically pro-choice. Laura thinks pro-lifers are engaging in an issue which is 'none of their business' - her words.
Unfortunately this fanaticism is at variance with her duties as a host on this thread.
It simply is the case that her postings on abortion and breast cancer would not meet the strict criteria of editors in mainstream publications. Her postings are riddled with inaccuracies, she relies heavily on biased sources, libels her opponents and makes unsustainable assertions - (for example that there is no independent statistically significant evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer -
wrong - there is. In fact some 16 statistically significant studies have reported an elevated risk of breast cancer amongst aborting women).
You couldn't get away with that in the print media - I'm an editor, so I should know.
Another bad habit of Laura's is that of rubbishing studies which have reached conclusions she is unhappy with. A phrase in Americaneese which appears with alarming regularity in her posts is 'bad science' - no doubt respected international authority on all scientific disciplines is one of the quivers in her overful bow.
Forgive my sceptism, Laura, but I doubt you know what you're talking about.
There are some 28 studies out of 37 studies have reported an increased risk of breast cancer for aborting women - so thats 28 studies for you to trawl through and denounce at your leisure.
You and others can also denounce the researchers who have reached those conclusions and assert that they are trying to 'frighten' women out of abortions - hmm yes, abortions really are a pleasant trip to the seaside aren't they.
You can also pretend (unconvincingly) that you really do respect the pro-life point of view but don't see the relevance of a risk to mortality and morbidity implied by an elevated risk of breast cancer.
But I disagree. There is a profoundly moral issue at stake - in their zeal to protect and promote abortion, abortionists are showing a casual disregard for women's lives. They are as guilty of tobacco manufacturers in their use of dirty tactics and efforts to deny evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer.
The most that can be said about abortion and breast cancer is that the links are not yet conclusively proven. However, the majority of studies have reported a link and women considering aborton should be informed of this fact. Breast cancer is still the biggest killer of women in the western world.
Its a long way from saying - as Laura did before she was caught out - that the link between abortion and breast cancer has been 'debunked'.
In the 1950s, before a link between consumption of tobacco products and lung cancer had been definitively proven, some conscientious doctors were warning their patients of the weight of evidence linking the two.
Some interested parties would no doubt have complained that consumers were being unduly panicked into giving up their cigarettes. But history judges these doctors differently. Who knows how many lives they saved by treating their patients as grown ups and informing them of the potential risks of tobacco consumption.
Oh yes, Laura dislikes my reference to female relatives who suffered from breast cancer - she thinks she would 'win' a family tragedy contest. Well dear, if you want to go head to head with a holocaust survivor's grandchild, fine.
I'm sure by now the hosts are veritably bursting with indignation at my intemperate post. I say to them: If you yourselves insult your posters expect them to respond in kind.
***
Laura, in her own words.
Here for your delectation I reproduce some of Laura's unlovely comments on this thread:
'Paddy, I recommend you stop cutting and pasting bogus statistics and half-truths in interminable posts and engage the issue. None of the statistics (I identified at least two that are baldly incorrect, and I'll go off to get the 'sources on it) Paddy, I recommend you stop cutting and pasting bogus statistics and half-truths in interminable posts and engage the issue. None of the statistics (I identified at least two that are baldly incorrect, and I'll go off to get the sources on it)'
She didn't make good her promise needless to say.
'I hate to say it, but these were many of the reasons that abortion was extremely difficult to obtain under a certain German regime I won't bring up, but just allude to gently'
I'll just to allude to Laura's poverty of historical knowledge gently. Adolf and chums prohibited abortion for fine Aryan specimens, not because of any deeply held belief about the sanctity of life but because they wanted to drive up the birthrate.
They also actively encouraged abortion amongst ethnic groups they disliked, the Jews for instance. According to Adolf Jewish women should be encouraged to abort their children, 'the more the better' he proclaimed. Not the first or last example in history of abortion being used for means of social and racial engineering.
According to Laura:
'As to the birth rate issue (an instrumental and not a principle-based argument), with which many anti-legal-abortion groups here in the US are concerned; they also cite the dropping birth rate, but what they're mostly talking about is the birthrate among whites, for the most part, because they are concerned that America will shortly be overrun by blacks, Latinos, Asians ... in other words, that America will shortly be overrun by Americans.'
An argument for which she provides no credible evidence - in other words a libel.
Funnily enough she doesn't mention the long links between the abortion/birth control movement and the racist eugenics movment. Wasn't it Margaret Sanger, member of the American Eugenics Society and heroine of the abortion movement who called for the extermination of 'human weeds'?
'It was an extraordinary thing for me to look out my window on Wednesday this week and see hundreds of thousands of people marching against something that is none of their business. But since our dear state and federal gov'ts seem determined to get involved, I want there to be a letter on file from the dear Supremes telling them to bugger off.'
How charmingly put!
***
After all that it is a bit rich to squeal about being insulted, don't you think Laura? Like I said, you like to give it but you won't take it. Or putting it differently: Take out the mote from your own eye.
If Laura and Alan think my post insulting I can only suggest that they get out more.
Well so long guys and gals. I expect to be frogmarched out of here any moment now. Its a shame that free speech is not tolerated here while certain individuals are at liberty to lie with impunity and insult without shame. Such is the nature of Stalinism in Cyber space.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ms Byronic
Apprentice
# 3942
|
Posted
Regarding Laura's comment 'garbage in, garbage out' on the work of Professor Joel Brind.
His work has been 'heavily criticised' by those in the abortion industry - not by his peers. In fact the UK's RCOG assessed his work and pronounced it had 'no major methodological flaws and can not be disregarded'.
I think Laura is coming dangerously close to impugning an academic's professional reputation.
This is surely not the job of a host. It could also have legal implications for the website. So I suggest that she desists.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
I have alluded before to the lack of respect for freedom of speech on this board only for Laura to shriek characteristically: 'Its a straw man'. However my straw man was given substance by Alan Cresswell's threats - for that is what they were - to have me hauled off to hell.
*snip*
Its a shame that free speech is not tolerated here while certain individuals are at liberty to lie with impunity and insult without shame. Such is the nature of Stalinism in Cyber space.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
All right, whose sock are you? There is no way anyone could actually say this with a straight face.
On preview, my God, you ARE serious. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Don't you worry your pretty little head about legalities, we've got it covered. Thanks for your concern, though.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Oh, so it's by-ronic? A few posters had previously rendered Ms b's moniker as "bryonic" which made me wonder if she posts elsewhere as "embryonic".
And to think we thought she'd gone...well, after that little hissy-fit maybe she will.
cheers all,
m
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
No, she's currently throwing a temper tantrum in the Styx.
*sigh* I DO wish people who threaten to leave would once, just once, have the common decency to follow through on their threat.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ms Byronic
Apprentice
# 3942
|
Posted
Well yes, I am serious. Thanks for the comment about my bloody attractive boat race - I agree it is cute.
Are you sure you have legalities covered? Really? You shouldn't tempt fate with overconfidence.
Still harping on the sock puppet theme - let it go sister.
This board may be good but it aint that good that people can be bothered to create the said sock puppets.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ms Byronic
Apprentice
# 3942
|
Posted
And - deep sigh - I wish people would read my posts properly - I didn't threaten to leave, I alluded to threats to have me removed by security.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Huh. Considering that I have personally caught out over two dozen sock puppets, I'll have to say that here is yet another instance where you don't know what you're talking about. Though I note that hasn't stopped you from shooting off your mouth to date.
And yes, I'm sure we have the legalities covered. Again, thanks for your concern.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ms Byronic:
And - deep sigh - I wish people would read my posts properly - I didn't threaten to leave, I alluded to threats to have me removed by security.
I guess I'll just have to chalk it all up to wishful thinking. I don't suppose you could take the hint and just go on your own, could you?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Ms B you've said you're leaving so I doubt if you will ever read this, but I have to say that I found your outburst extraordinary. You are still fairly new about here, so the convention is that you should be treated gently, therefore all I will say is that everything you accused Laura of I found to be true of your own post. If you want to stay around, please read more widely on other threads to see how debates here are conducted. And if you really want to have a go at someone then start a thread in Hell - that's what it's there for.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Admin hat on
Ms Byronic, as you have opened a thread in the Styx, I will shortly be posting there in response.
I will not, however, be replying to all the points of your lengthy post above, however, because most of it is irrelevant to the issue to which you should be turning your attention.
At the top of p. 9 of this thread, Alan Cresswell posted with his host hat on and said you should apologize for your personal attacks (commandment 3). As you have refused to do so, you are in violation of commandment 6: Respect the hosts.
If your next post on this thread is not an apology, I will suspend your posting privileges for two weeks.
RuthW
Member Administrator
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ms Byronic
Apprentice
# 3942
|
Posted
Did you? Well show me how in my capacity as a host I have posted inaccurate or libellous comments. Show me something I have got wrong and I will honestly admit to it.
And cheers Erin, you're quite the charmer aren't you?
If you want the thread to be anodyne and bland, go ahead throw difficult customers off. It won't do anything for the quality of debate though.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Admin hat still on
I'm going to assume we cross-posted, Ms Byronic, and that you did not see my post before hitting "reply" on your last post.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I'm absoluted stunned at all this. What can I say? To the points worthy of address, I'll say that Ms. B entirely misunderstands my position. To the extent that I have occasionally made strong remarks in connection with my views on this very fraught subject, or that these remarks have gotten in the way of expressing my reasoning on these subjects, I am sorry to have clouded the issue.
I'll clarify.
1. I respect the principled pro-life position, although I disagree with it. I have been engaging these issues for many years, and my position is also principled. I have yet to hear a pro-life representative on this thread acknowledge my principle, behind which lies much thought, on this score. Maybe today will be my lucky day.
2. As to the fraught issue of the abortion-breast cancer link, I hereby state that I will cheerfully accept a convincing study that shows a link between abortion and breast cancer. I accept the studies that say that my alcohol consumption puts me at higher risk, even if I don't like that result. I have yet to see a convincing study. Mr. Brind's work, while passionate, does not rise to the level of establishing a positive link in order to be conclusive on the issue, which science rarely is in any case.
3. Hey, I'll go even farther -- to the extent that having children early in life (which I did personally, by the way) confers some protection against breast cancer (which is reasonably well-established, I believe), then abortion *and* not having children early must both represent some level of, if not risk, then a missed opportunity to receive a protective benefit.
4. But, (and I think I'm saying this for the fifth time, at least), whether or not abortion raises the risk of breast cancer does not and never will affect my view of whether abortion should remain legally accessible.
Because, as I see it, the first and most important question is: is abortion morally right/wrong? Yes? No? Under certain circumstances? Never?
The second question is: Assuming it's right/wrong how ought society to treat demand for it?. E.g., should it be legal? Until when? What rights has a fetus? By itself? As against a grown woman? What responsibilities does a woman have toward the fetus? What rights/responsibilities has a man?
The third to millionth questions are: What else do we know about abortion? Does it causes other conditions? Does it hurt women? Psychologically damage? Help? Etcetera.
And that's how I see it.
Peace to you all.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
....and one other thing.
I formally apologize to Matt the Mad Medic for not taking his suggestion to drop the whole bloody ABC thing ages ago. He was absolutely right that this is not a good forum in which to *debate* the state of medical research. In contentious issues, this means that both sides end up waving studies in each other's faces, and criticising the methodology of the other's studies. And that this is especially unfortunate when the scientific argument is a major distraction from the main point at issue. Matt, you were right. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
(More tidy-up)
Matt, you said
quote:
But this "Flawed by reporting bias" thing is in itself a conclusion that needs to be justified.
It is a speculation that brinds results are due to some kind of reporting bias, and it's not a very well founded one.
The suggested reporting bias is that women who don't have breast cancer are less likely to admit to having abortions, and hence this biases the results. But you can't simply write off all the figures on the basis of that speculation.
Second, as you you understand meta-analysis, I note you didn't pass comment on the planned parenthood article's misleading Melbye reference?
Melbye was one of the few studies which did not show a link in Brind's meta-analysis. As you will no doubt realise, for PP to critsise the methodology of this study in their review of Brind's meta-analysis is misleading, as, if Melbye was excluded as a bad study, the outcome of the meta-analysis would be stronger not weaker. No one would detected that from the PP article.
But, Matt, IIRC you made the same unfounded contentions about the RCOG, that they must be biased, and their study is no good. I'm not saying that Brind is wrong because he's biased. I'm saying he's wrong AND he's biased. It's okay to be biased if you don't color your work with it.
I understand your point regarding the meta-analysis and Mabye's study. I certainly concede that PP's article could be regarded as misleading on that specific score, if you read it in the manner described. That does not mean that Brind is right, though.
[ 12. February 2003, 17:25: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
[tangent] quote:
Breast cancer is still the biggest killer of women in the western world.
Wrong!!!
The death rate from heart disease is very much higher.
[/tangent]
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Because, as I see it, the first and most important question is: is abortion morally right/wrong? Yes? No? Under certain circumstances? Never?
The second question is: Assuming it's right/wrong how ought society to treat demand for it?. E.g., should it be legal? Until when? What rights has a fetus? By itself? As against a grown woman? What responsibilities does a woman have toward the fetus? What rights/responsibilities has a man?
The third to millionth questions are: What else do we know about abortion? Does it causes other conditions? Does it hurt women? Psychologically damage? Help? Etcetera.
And that's how I see it.
Peace to you all.
Couldn't be more clear - and admirably put.
They are independent propositions however - a private moral decision, or a widely held consensus that something is morally wrong does not mean that demand for it should necessarily be unmet or that there has to be a law or policy banning it. Law-makers may be elected to regulate it or not and permit individuals the moral choice whether to join in or not.
You may, for example, consider prostitution or gambling* morally wrong on grounds of human exploitation or abuse or on grounds of the risk of participation of organised crime. It does not follow from that the State should not regulate who provides these things and how those activities should be regulated, in order to meet demand by those who regard prostitution or gambling as morally neutral or morally acceptable.
To put it another way,I know that my private moral stance on abortion is not necessarily equivalent to the public consensus on whether seeking or performing an abortion is morally acceptable behaviour. The evolution of public law and public policy on abortion depends upon who is elected to create law and public policy on abortion and thus to influence such things as whether abortion should be a crime, whether it should be available in hospitals, whether it should be funded by Medicare or the NHS and so on. The rest of us - whether pro-life or pro-choice - are standing on the sidelines trying to influence that process. That is not to belittle moral debate between the two camps or to deny the power of public opinion. It is simply, currently, the way the system works.
It does seem to me that both sides may have unexamined assumptions about the morality of killing.
A number of the pro-life opinions on this thread have sought to use one set of facts or another in a selective manner to argue the correctness of a moral position that amounts to "Killing is wrong. Abortion involves killing therefore abortion is wrong." (The use of competing epidemiology studies in incidence of breast cancer is a case in point. Abortion is wrong because it might give you breast cancer?) Yet we don't have a consistent moral position on when killing is wrong. The same act of killing may be murder, death in war or justified as self-defence or non-culpable due to insanity.
The pro-choice side must also square up to the question of killing - in their case of the balance between the interests of the "humans" over those of the "becoming humans", whether justified on the grounds of choice, financial circumstances, threats to maternal health, genetic disorders and so on. The debate over how late in gestation should abortions be performed illustrates this. Implicit in the debate over survival outside the womb, foetal brainwaves and so on is the question of in what circumstances do the interests of the "becoming humans" deserve protection or even prevail over those of the "humans". Abortion is terribly final - that particular "becoming human" won't be coming around again in our belief system. That finality means, for example, that it's not enough to say "It's going to happen, so let's regulate it or provide it", without examining the justification of killing.
I have undoutedly over-simplified by not providing more specific examples or directly engaging in debate with other participants - but then it seems to me that both sides must examine their stances against Laura's three questions.
Can't add any more right now - it's getting late here.
* Why those two? They are both examples of legal, regulated industries in New South Wales - and there are good moral arguments against both activities, just as there were equally good public policy reasons for regulating them. I feel moved to starts threads on both, so I shall check Dead Horses and Limbo first.
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
Laura - I wanted to post this yesterday but my connection suddenly disappeared. I'll cut & paste what I wrote then, anyway...
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Maybe today will be my lucky day.
Laura, it’s your lucky day.
I know that I haven’t posted on this thread (I, well, I just couldn’t bring myself to) and maybe that means that jumping in now is inappropriate, so sorry if that’s so.
However, I wanted to say that as someone who holds to a pro-life position, I absolutely and unreservedly acknowledge that your position, Laura, is principled, well thought-out and (hold onto your hats everyone) reasonable.
We disagree – probably strongly – but that is hardly amazing where an issue is so emotive and difficult to handle.
But frankly if we can’t all get over ourselves and work as much as we can to help and support women who find themselves facing a crisis pregnancy whatever we think about their eventual decision we’re all in trouble. The legality or otherwise of terminations has little to do with this, it seems to me.
And if that makes me not ‘pro-life’ in the eyes of some others, frankly, I can live with that.
bird
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Thanks Birdie, and you make some excellent points about the need to work together to help people.
Duo Seraphim,
Yes. I agree that these are also independent questions -- in keeping with what you say, I do not (yet) support legalized euthanasia in the United States, for all sorts of *policy* reasons,though I do not think that suicide when suffering painfully from a terminal illness is wrong. There are those who believe prostitution wrong, but who think it probably ought to be legalized and regulated, for policy reasons.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I think the status of the humans are always higher than those of the becoming humans.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
MM, that is my position too, as outlined earlier. However I still think that the foetus, as personne en devenir is worthy of enormous respect, and I am concerned about the high abortion rate in this country and elsewhere. It seems to me that if really reliable contraception was easily available then we ought to see a dramtic decline in the number of abortions, and maybe even an emotional change in the way in which it is regarded.
Therefore it puzzles me that some of those most deeply opposed to abortion (on the grounds that the fetilized agg is fully human) are also deeply opposed to contraception (because the sexual act must always be open to the possibility of creating life). I can understand the logic of their position, but only if the debate takes place in a completely abstract and theoretical manner. Once you include the effects of this position on the lives of individuals ISTM that this appraoch is untenable.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I agree with you on all those points, Wandering. I think that it would be useful if we could all pool our thoughts to consider how abortion might be minimised - but unfortunately I have found that the anti-abortion movement are not interested in anything other than the total prevention of abortion.
I also feel very angry when those who oppose legal abortion also vote for cuts in single parent benefits and/or access to housing on the grounds that they 'should have been more responsible'
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by birdie:
However, I wanted to say that as someone who holds to a pro-life position, I absolutely and unreservedly acknowledge that your position, Laura, is principled, well thought-out and (hold onto your hats everyone) reasonable.
We disagree – probably strongly – but that is hardly amazing where an issue is so emotive and difficult to handle.
But frankly if we can’t all get over ourselves and work as much as we can to help and support women who find themselves facing a crisis pregnancy whatever we think about their eventual decision we’re all in trouble. The legality or otherwise of terminations has little to do with this, it seems to me.
And if that makes me not ‘pro-life’ in the eyes of some others, frankly, I can live with that.
bird
Birdie, you have got this so right. I, too, hold a pro-life position - in my case based on my conviction that a civilised society must protect those who cannot protect themselves, including "becoming humans" who deserve the chance to be born.
But we must also act in justice to those who are facing the decision to terminate their crisis preganancy. We owe it to them to address the social and financial issues that made the pregnancy a "crisis" in the first place. Is it lack of opportunity of education or work? Of cheap readily available child care? Of adequate paid maternity leave? (In Australia, this is currently left to the conscience or otherwise of individual employers.) Of access to reliable contraception? Or that they know that they have our love and support, whatever their decision?
< Tangent Alert
Laura, you and I would agree both on maintaining the current legal ban on euthanasia and on the right of the terminally ill to choose suicide. That choice must,however, be their clear and voluntary choice, reached independantly and without pressure, actual or perceived.
End of Tangent Alert.>
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
