Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

[rmanx]

Should men have an opinion on abortion..absolutely.

 

Should they have a hand in deciding what ultimately affects women infinitely more than men....not so sure on that one.

 

When it comes to women' health issues, I don't think any group making policy on the matter should be more than a third made up of men.

 

I am sure men would be upset if all men's health issues were decreed by groups made entirely of women.

[woody2]

Should men have an opinion on abortion..absolutely.

 

Should they have a hand in deciding what ultimately affects women infinitely more than men....not so sure on that one.

 

When it comes to women' health issues, I don't think any group making policy on the matter should be more than a third made up of men.

 

I am sure men would be upset if all men's health issues were decreed by groups made entirely of women.

not really bothered, it should be the best people available and not based on gender

[TheTeapot]

The post office says a number of pills have been intercepted, so I'm guessing it must be of dubious legality? Does this mean that desperate young women can GEF prosecuted for attempted possession on top of everything else?

[woolley]

Should men have an opinion on abortion..absolutely.

 

Should they have a hand in deciding what ultimately affects women infinitely more than men....not so sure on that one.

 

When it comes to women' health issues, I don't think any group making policy on the matter should be more than a third made up of men.

 

I am sure men would be upset if all men's health issues were decreed by groups made entirely of women.

OK. But there are issues where women's health receives far more attention and resource than men's health, for example the concentration of effort on breast cancer. All very laudable and exactly as it should be, but what about prostate cancer?

[Chinahand]

I don't think you are right about that Woolley - the NHS especially has very clear guidelines on resources and funding goes to where it can maximize the quality.person.years saved per pound spent.

 

Prostrate cancer kills men late in life - sadly the quality.person.years saved by curing it are low - they die of something else pretty soon.

 

Breast cancer has a higher metric and hence gets higher funding. This isn't sexism, it is hard-nosed resource management to try to maximize the use of resources.

[rmanx]

 

Should men have an opinion on abortion..absolutely.

 

Should they have a hand in deciding what ultimately affects women infinitely more than men....not so sure on that one.

 

When it comes to women' health issues, I don't think any group making policy on the matter should be more than a third made up of men.

 

I am sure men would be upset if all men's health issues were decreed by groups made entirely of women.

OK. But there are issues where women's health receives far more attention and resource than men's health, for example the concentration of effort on breast cancer. All very laudable and exactly as it should be, but what about prostate cancer?

 

 

I think that has more to do with the likelihood of women developing breast cancer is something like 1 in 8 as opposed to 1 in 14 (lifetime rates after a quick google).

 

It also probably does help that prostate cancer involves a gents rear end, something that carries some stigma to it. As a result, men are less likely to get checked and following on from that less likely to be diagnosed.

[Tarne]

Also men can die of breast cancer too

[Butterflies]

For me, when it comes to an abortion, the only person entitled to an opinion is the person who is pregnant.

[rmanx]

Also men can die of breast cancer too

 

The odds of that are crazy high, although saying that I used to work with a fella who was a male breast cancer survivor.

[hboy]

Also men can die of breast cancer too

Maybe any male who is a massive tit should be concerned.

[woolley]

I don't think you are right about that Woolley - the NHS especially has very clear guidelines on resources and funding goes to where it can maximize the quality.person.years saved per pound spent.

 

Prostrate cancer kills men late in life - sadly the quality.person.years saved by curing it are low - they die of something else pretty soon.

 

Breast cancer has a higher metric and hence gets higher funding. This isn't sexism, it is hard-nosed resource management to try to maximize the use of resources.

I wasn't arguing sexism as such, but I insist that prostate cancer is largely neglected. Both forms kill similar numbers although I accept that the average age of men would be higher. It just needs similar public awareness. There have recently been massive advances in non-invasive screeening for prostate cancer and there should be pressure for it to be widely available.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/9773688/Prostate-cancer-the-neglected-killer-loses-out-on-research-cash.html

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140407090519.htm

[woody2]

For me, when it comes to an abortion, the only person entitled to an opinion is the person who is pregnant.

 

and the father....

Edited February 3, 2017 by woody2

[Roger Mexico]

"Inadequate evidence for abortion reform"

 

What does this actually mean for the proposed changes, can anyone confirm? Usual IOM "news"papers half a story here with no real clue.

 

To be fair, for once the culprit here isn't Isle of Man Newspapers but the rather odd 'Report' that the DHSC have produced:

 

Termination of Pregnancy (Medical Defences) Act 1995: Feasibility of an Amendment Bill during the 2017/18 legislative session

which the Newspaper has just copied. Most of this document reviews the current state of the law on the Island and in the British Isles and Gibraltar (presumably abortions don't take place anywhere else) and the prospects for changes. However Section 3 starts (and is quoted by IOM Newspapers):

Evidence of physical or mental harms resulting from termination of pregnancy

There is a lack of high quality, prospective studies to enable robust conclusions about the impacts of termination of pregnancy on long term physical (including reproductive) or mental health.

 

It then goes on to summarise various large studies that show there is absolutely no real evidence that abortion causes mental or physical harm compared to continuing the pregnancy. It then concludes:

The evidence of harm from termination of pregnancy compared to continuance of an unwanted pregnancy is, therefore, inadequate to drive clinical evidence based legislation.

 

Which doesn't make any sense (even as English). They seem to be suggesting that abortion should only be properly legalised if it is actually safer than having the baby - but no one is claiming that it is (and it it was they would presumably be obliged by their own logic to make it compulsory for all pregnancies).

 

Decades of work have found absolutely no evidence that there are increased medical or psychological risks from having a legal and properly carried out abortion compared to having a baby.Of course compared to the risks of an illegal abortion, a legal abortion is much safer. And you can bet your life that the anti-abortionists would be proclaiming it very loudly if there was any evidence going the other way[1].

 

I don't really know what Beecroft[2] and DHSC are playing at here. A number of possibilities suggest themselves:

 

[a] Beecroft and/or those advising her are strongly opposed to abortion on 'moral' grounds[3], but don't have the guts to admit it. So they are dreaming up any old nonsense to bamboozle the politicians.

 

They are scared they might lose medical staff who are 'morally' opposed.

 

[c] There is wider opposition from influential people or organisations, Whittaker for example is a devout Roman Catholic who attended a seminary (as did John Quinn and indeed Robertshaw). You also wonder about the Gubay Charitable Foundation.

 

[d] The DHSC managers simply don't want to pay for something that they think the public are already paying for. Obviously anyone with half a brain can see that the cost of an abortion is minimal compared to all the future costs needed to support an unwanted child and its mother - especially when it is the very poorest who will be unable to travel to the UK for a termination. But of course those costs will come out of a different budget , so they don't really count.

 

Judging by the way so many decisions are reached by the Manx Government it's probably [d]

 

 

[1] There's a rather half-hearted attempt to do something on this where the Report says "The [scottish] study found that risk of preterm birth after termination is lower than that after miscarriage but higher than after a previous live birth". But of course the true comparison should not be with second births but with first ones.

 

[2] Beecroft voted against Dr Allinson introducing his Bill and tried to take the same line in the debate:

 

Any legislation that we bring forward should be based on evidence. So I went to the Department, and I asked them what evidence did we have, to see if it supported one side or the other of the two arguments. Whilst evidence is there, it does not come down clearly on either side – if it is medical evidence. I think that is the point: that from the Department’s point of view, we have to look at medical evidence, and there is none to support either side. It does not come down clearly either way.

 

which ignores the fact that the 'medical evidence' is irrelevant, once abortion is shown to be safe - which it is.

 

[3] Obviously if they genuinely think it is so abhorrent they should also prevent women leaving the Island to have one, by the compulsory pregnancy testing of all women as they are about to depart and the prevention of them travelling if they do turn out to be pregnant. Strangely no anti-abortionists advocate this - no doubt they want to keep the option of a convenient termination for them and their own.

[Gladys]

For Gods sake Gladys ..stop encouraging them.

 

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/shut-up-men.jpg

What? Encourage discussion?

[TheTeapot]

Thanks roger for your detailed post.

 

I'm not entirely sure how they cannot find any evidence of an increased phycological risk of having an abortion. Women can be left with terrible feeling of guilt and despair over an abortion, perhaps their lack of evidence comes from the fact that because of our ridiculous laws you are not allowed to talk to health professionals about it, it has to be kept secret and so women suffer quietly in their own minds. I think you could well be right with your selection of 'd' - they're already paying for it themselves so why should we - and so teenage girls will continue to bleed in airports because it doesn't cost us anything.

 

Also, if it is evidence of harm that these anti abortionists are looking for, well I'd like some evidence for the basis of their preposterous beliefs, a book that might have been written a couple of hundred years after the events it describes isn't good enough.

Edited February 3, 2017 by TheTeapot