The General Political Thread

[StevenChilton]

Read my post about the WHO study.

What specifically about it?

That countries with anti-abortion laws tend to have more unsafe abortions.

Those countries also tend to be highly undeveloped. If you want to be reasonable you'd compare a Western country with restrictive abortion laws, so let's use Ireland as the obvious example. Ireland has consistently had one of the lowest maternal mortality rates *in the world*. Period. They perform far better than the UK and others on that metric.

It also states that these laws do nothing to lower the number of abortions.

Yes and no, it's more about the culture and resulting legal enforcement. For example abortion rates are high in the Middle East because of gender discrimination (female babies are far more likely to be aborted) and anti-abortion laws aren't properly enforced as a result. You can't simply say 'they don't work' without looking at the context.

Loose abortion laws do result in far higher rates of abortion by the way, which is why it's still very high in Eastern Europe. The Communists (by and large) *loved* abortion as a way of destroying the traditional family. In the latter years of the USSR the number of abortions per year was higher than the number of live births.

[Toffee]

Do you have all your sources ready by the way? I would love to read them.

The WHO says otherwise in regards to numbers of abortions. They claim that restrictive laws don't reduce the number of abortions. They also claim, in a study done alongside the Guttmacher institute and published in The Lancet that "In countries where abortion is completely banned or permitted only to save the woman’s life or preserve her physical health, only 1 in 4 abortions were safe; whereas, in countries where abortion is legal on broader grounds, nearly 9 in 10 abortions were done safely." 45% of all abortions are done unsafely and whilst most of these do occur in developing countries, that would make sense considering Western nations usually have both more lenient abortion laws as well as better access to healthcare.

The following report that I will link is also an interesting read. WHO suggests that it is important to provide proper care for safe abortions (i.e legal and regulated) to prevent risk to many mothers.

It seems that, even in countries with restrictive abortion laws, many abortions do still occur. This includes a great many making trips from Ireland to the UK for abortions. It would therefore make sense that looser laws are applied to safeguard the health of these women since they're going to have the abortion either way.

https://gh.bmj.com/content/3/3/e000692

There is also a piece here which explains ways of preventing unsafe abortions for women. One of those is the introduction of legal abortions. http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/preventing-unsafe-abortion

[StevenChilton]

Do you have all your sources ready by the way? I would love to read them.

Of course, tell me which ones you want.


WHO needs to compare like for like. You can't compare wealthy, Western states which have the rule of law to some failed state in Africa or the ME. I don't usually take WHO seriously on social/cultural issues given it has become highly politicised by heavy NGO involvement over the years (remember our discussion about passive smoking and WHO ignoring, and in several cases covering up, the evidence).

To claim that restrictive laws don't reduce the number of abortions is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read. Every Western country that legalised abortion has seen massive increases. Are you seriously suggesting that the number of Irish abortions will remain the same post-legalisation (obviously accounting for those that currently take place in other countries and will now be undertaken domestically)?

[Toffee]

I'm just relaying what the WHO is saying. It's likely that they are anticipating that if a woman really wants an abortion then she'll get it. By making it illegal you're not really doing anything to restrict the process actually happening, but just making it more unsafe.

The state of the country still does not effect if the abortion is unsafe or not, but rather the likelihood that an unsafe procedure will take place. Of course it could be possible that a number of those unsafe abortions were due to the lack of healthcare structure in a developing country but they're still relevant as it still leaves the same neglect of care to women as in a country where there was adequate healthcare but without legal abortion. It simulates non-access to healthy abortion techniques.

You also tend to dismiss WHO contribution but their findings clearly state that women are more at risk when not allowed access to healthy abortion techniques. Thats pretty obvious and when you take into account that illegal abortions happen irrespective of the countries' law then you may as well have it legal to allow you to look after women who might otherwise partake in unsafe procedures. The WHO may or may not have had some issues in the past but you're always very quick to dismiss their work because it goes against your own political views. It seems to fit as a very safe fallback when statistics go against you. "Oh but they're untrustworthy" even if their figures add up and argument makes sense.

[StevenChilton]

The WHO may or may not have had some issues in the past but you're always very quick to dismiss their work because it goes against your own political views. It seems to fit as a very safe fallback when statistics go against you. "Oh but they're untrustworthy" even if their figures add up and argument makes sense.

Not at all. For example I hate smoking but I'm still against what WHO did over the passive smoking debate. WHO has been in the pocket of NGOs for a very long time. I suspected it'd be the same for abortion so I've just checked. And whadda you know? WHO is firmly up the arse of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

IPPF is a 'permanent partner' of their sexual and reproductive health division: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/about_us/hrp/partners/en/
Even their regional divisions have the regional IPPF network as permanent partners (e.g. IPPF Europe Network is a permanent partner of WHO Europe and so on). As you'd expect IPPF is also listed as a major donor to WHO. Oh, and the Director of WHO Reproductive Health & Research also sits on the medical advisory board of IPPF.

Now I don't know about you but based on all that I'm willing to bet that WHO probably has something of a pro-abortion bias.

[Toffee]

Have you ever considered that the reason they have the IPPF as a permanent partner is because what they do is best for the health of people around the globe? They work with these people because they agree in regards to the topic. That's not a sign of corruption in the slightest. If I donate to a political party, it's because I agree with what they are saying, and the same thing is happening here. You don't have any evidence that WHO is being bribed to change their viewpoint so don't go talking as if you do.

[StevenChilton]

Have you ever considered that the reason they have the IPPF as a permanent partner is because what they do is best for the health of people around the globe? They work with these people because they agree in regards to the topic. That's not a sign of corruption in the slightest. If I donate to a political party, it's because I agree with what they are saying, and the same thing is happening here. You don't have any evidence that WHO is being bribed to change their viewpoint so don't go talking as if you do.

WHO is not being bribed, it's simply been taken over institutionally by pressure groups and NGOs. Google 'Long march through the institutions', it's a tried and tested technique. IPPF is a group primarily concerned with extending abortion rights, it has no business being one of six 'permanent partners' (the other 5 being UN agencies plus the World Bank).

[Toffee]

Have you ever considered that the reason they have the IPPF as a permanent partner is because what they do is best for the health of people around the globe? They work with these people because they agree in regards to the topic. That's not a sign of corruption in the slightest. If I donate to a political party, it's because I agree with what they are saying, and the same thing is happening here. You don't have any evidence that WHO is being bribed to change their viewpoint so don't go talking as if you do.

WHO is not being bribed, it's simply been taken over institutionally by pressure groups and NGOs. Google 'Long march through the institutions', it's a tried and tested technique. IPPF is a group primarily concerned with extending abortion rights, it has no business being one of six 'permanent partners' (the other 5 being UN agencies plus the World Bank).

Except, as I just said, it's entirely probable that the reason the IPPF is allowed to operate closely with WHO is because they agree that extending abortion rights is the correct thing to do in regards to ensuring the wellbeing of women around the globe. You are simply speculating about things which you have no real evidence that they are happening.

[StevenChilton]

Have you ever considered that the reason they have the IPPF as a permanent partner is because what they do is best for the health of people around the globe? They work with these people because they agree in regards to the topic. That's not a sign of corruption in the slightest. If I donate to a political party, it's because I agree with what they are saying, and the same thing is happening here. You don't have any evidence that WHO is being bribed to change their viewpoint so don't go talking as if you do.

WHO is not being bribed, it's simply been taken over institutionally by pressure groups and NGOs. Google 'Long march through the institutions', it's a tried and tested technique. IPPF is a group primarily concerned with extending abortion rights, it has no business being one of six 'permanent partners' (the other 5 being UN agencies plus the World Bank).

Except, as I just said, it's entirely probable that the reason the IPPF is allowed to operate closely with WHO is because they agree that extending abortion rights is the correct thing to do in regards to ensuring the wellbeing of women around the globe. You are simply speculating about things which you have no real evidence that they are happening.

Of course WHO agrees that extending abortion rights is the correct thing to do, there's a revolving door between WHO and IPPF. Your comment could apply to any situation, including the US bank bailouts of 2008.

'So what if many US Treasury officials are ex-Goldman/JPMorgan/Citigroup employees? It's entirely probable that the reason Wall Street is allowed to operate closely with the US Treasury is because they agree that extending bank bailouts is the correct thing to do in regards to ensuring the wellbeing of the financial system around the globe. You are simply speculating about things which you have no real evidence that they are happening.'

[Toffee]

Yes but the REASON they agree is the thing that you are missing. Because it's the right thing to do, because abortion allows for the safeguarding of women's health, regardless of if you agree with it or not. Abortions will happen either way so you may as well facilitate them happening in a safe environment. It's quite funny how you'll do anything to protect cells that some people don't even consider to be alive yet, but you won't do anything to help women who are in need.

[StevenChilton]

Because it's the right thing to do, because abortion allows for the safeguarding of women's health, regardless of if you agree with it or not.

It's not good for the health of the c.200,000 babies who get aborted in the UK per year though is it?

Abortions will happen either way so you may as well facilitate them happening in a safe environment.

Will it? Because the UK didn't have anything close to 200,000 abortions per year pre-1967. Deaths from illegal abortions were around 30 (yes, *30*) per year in the 50s/60s, whilst deaths from legal abortions were around 20 per year. Hardly a national crisis.

It's quite funny how you'll do anything to protect cells that some people don't even consider to be alive yet, but you won't do anything to help women who are in need.

Jesus, we've progressed from 'not actually human' to 'not actually alive'. Can you explain to me how a living cell is not a living thing?

All I want is a return to the 1929 law + the precedent set by the 1938 Bourne case. I think we could all live with that. The 1967 law caused a situation whereby abortion takes place on an industrial scale throughout Britain (over a fifth of pregnancies are aborted) and we've systematically devalued human life, leading to the point where NHS Trusts are burning aborted fetuses to heat hospitals.

[Toffee]

I mistyped when I put alive, I meant actually being a baby. If you really believe those cells are human life and shouldn't be touched then maybe you also should avoid stepping on any grass so as to not become a murderer. The difference between a cluster of cells and a human life is quite large

Illegal abortions were happening regardless of the law, as we both know. So either way they happen. That's fact. Maybe not as many but still a significant amount.

Just because deaths are low that doesn't mean that risk of complications arent high. A large reason for the low number of deaths will have been the NHS helping women who have been through unsafe abortions. That's demonstrated pretty well by the number of women who have complications in places which don't have good health care. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/20/millions-women-risk-backstreet-abortions/ This article is a good read as it shows that worldwide, many women are still dying from botched abortions and millions suffer complications from the same procedures. It's silly to limit yourself to just the UK if you want to properly have a discussion on illegal abortion risks since we're not the only country that matters.

You clearly give a shit about cells, but not about women who are victims of rape, or incest or cannot afford to raise their children. Then conservatives move on to complaining when these women move onto benefits or have to put their kids into care.

I don't actually believe that the law should be all for abortion no matter what. My viewpoint is that abortions should be legal up until the point where the foetus becomes sentient. The reason that I support abortion is because the majority of abortions happen in the early weeks of pregnancy, when it is simply a bunch of cells and not anything close to resembling an actual baby. I also believe that there should be special exemption from going past the sentient stage for certain conditions such as if the baby would have next to no quality of life or if it has no chance of surviving outside of the womb.

[StevenChilton]

I mistyped when I put alive, I meant actually being a baby. If you really believe those cells are human life and shouldn't be touched then maybe you also should avoid stepping on any grass so as to not become a murderer. The difference between a cluster of cells and a human life is quite large

That doesn't make sense.

Illegal abortions were happening regardless of the law, as we both know. So either way they happen. That's fact. Maybe not as many but still a significant amount....Just because deaths are low that doesn't mean that risk of complications arent high. A large reason for the low number of deaths will have been the NHS helping women who have been through unsafe abortions.

'Maybe not as many but still a significant amount' doesn't make sense when we're looking at abortion rates that are 100x what they were pre-1967. Sure, some women will die each year due to backstreet abortions. Pre-1967 it accounted for c.30 deaths a year. Those are acceptable losses.

It's silly to limit yourself to just the UK if you want to properly have a discussion on illegal abortion risks since we're not the only country that matters....You clearly give a shit about cells, but not about women who are victims of rape, or incest or cannot afford to raise their children. Then conservatives move on to complaining when these women move onto benefits or have to put their kids into care.

Why? We're discussing UK abortion laws so that is the only country that matters.And I take it you didn't read the part where I said I'm advocating for the pre-1967 abortion laws, which allowed it in the case of rape etc.

My viewpoint is that abortions should be legal up until the point where the foetus becomes sentient.

Which is at what week?

[Toffee]

It does make sense. If you believe a group of cells is sentient life then you should also avoid grass, plants or anything that involves cells really. Otherwise you might be a murderer. It's the same precedent. If you go for the whole human DNA thing then you should avoid cutting your toenails or your hair, since those are also groups of human cells.

You constantly talk in deaths but you completely avoid the fact that not every woman who has complications and is at risk of complications die. You try and limit yourself to the UK because it suits your argument, when it's appropriate to discuss the whole world since it's a case to occurs all over the planet.

The following quotes are from the Guttmacher institute:

• Treatment of complications has also improved with updated guidelines for postabortion care. Yet, complications from unsafe abortions are still common in developing regions where abortion remains highly restricted. Estimates for 2012 indicate that 6.9 million women in these regions (excluding Eastern Asia) were treated for complications from unsafe abortions, corresponding to an annual rate of approximately seven women treated per 1,000 women aged 15–44. However, estimates (based on a 14-country sample) suggest that, on average, 40% of women who experience complications never receive treatment.

• According to recent estimates, at least 8% of maternal deaths worldwide are from unsafe abortion; at least 22,800 women die each year from complications of unsafe abortion.

The only reason you are sticking to the UK, despite the argument being applicable wherever you are, is because you know that the above statistics are a lot higher than the one fallback line of "30 deaths" that you keep going on about.

And, from what I've read, it's somewhere around 20 weeks that a baby becomes "sentient" although that is obviously a very broad term and open to interpretation.

[StevenChilton]

I still don't understand your comment that 'If you really believe those cells are human life and shouldn't be touched then maybe you also should avoid stepping on any grass so as to not become a murderer'. Yes I believe a human fetus is human life (what could it be otherwise?), why would that mean I shouldn't step on grass?

And you've clearly lost the argument re: the UK so you're now having to include everywhere else. Lots of people die in the Third World as a result of legal abortions, the problem is inadequate healthcare provision in general. And the vast majority of illegal abortions will be carried out by doctors in hospitals anyway.