Vive La France!

[noseall]

I have never posted any misleading data. I posted the only article I was able to Google, which discussed public opinion, on the issue of reducing the abortion time limit.

I haven't read anywhere in regards to doctors, midwives, nurses or women asking for or campaigning for a reduction in the gestation limit. Yes, I have read about concerns and seen the polls, though.
I have however, come across several instances where issues with the two doctor approval process has been discussed or campaigned to have simplified or removed altogether. Something MBK and others conveniently forget when discussing how great the UK abortion process is.

 

[space junkie]

I have never posted any misleading data. I posted the only article I was able to Google, which discussed public opinion, on the issue of reducing the abortion time limit.

Based around the data of earlier studies based on not so perfect intensive care facilities compared to the most advanced uptodate data, of course there will appear to be an advancement in medical science. The data was carefully selected to provide that apparent improvement.

The article was clearly dated and all the polls it referenced were also clearly dated.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the various studies weren't carefully selected to provide the desired results.

I don't think anyone but you was confused by the article.

I wasn't confused, I was aware of the carefully selected studies. the earlier data was for UK and Ireland, the later data was for Sweden, Australia, and Japan. I explained how Japan has an usual birth rate, and how Sweden and Australia were outstanding examples of medical advancement and provision. The data comparison was not equitable, nor valid.
The data was carefully selected to provide the desired results.

It wasn't exactly difficult to understand. And it was actually seven years more recent than the Parliamentary Report which has been so heavily relied on in this discussion. Maybe the real reason you found it difficult to understand was that you struggle with simple data. For instance, when you thought, initially, that the survival rate in the UK for 24-28 week premature babies was 2.5%! When what you were actually quoting was the percentage of babies who are born at 24-28 weeks.

Yes, I aggregated the 24 to 28 weeks because that was the only data available to provide the survival rate. I did explain at the time that it was approximate based on the available data.

Survival Rate of live births, according to stage of pregnancy, approximately, taken from the Bliss website.

Prematurity statistics in the UK | Bliss

View our statistics on the number of babies born premature in the UK and some information about the long term outcomes for these babies.

www.bliss.org.uk

I have never suggested I don't have opinions. What I am able to do, however, which seems beyond your comprehension, is discuss all angles of a topic. Sometimes, I will even post an article which gives a counter opinion to the one I hold, to help further inform the debate.

If my opinion on abortion is so obvious, why don't you tell me what you think it is?

Your initial contributions were based on your apparent neutrality to the discussion. Your comments and arguments since have proven that you are a pro-life supporter.

And you're still relying on insults to further your argument. It doesn't, it shows the fallibility of your argument, despite your claim to only wanting to further the debate.
Insults do not further the debate, they reduce it to stalemate, except the insults have caused the loss of the argument.

 

[JonathanM]

Yes, I aggregated the 24 to 28 weeks because that was the only data available to provide the survival rate. I did explain at the time that it was approximate based on the available data.

The rest of your post is the usual word salad. But let's just concentrate on this aspect, which shows you still don't understand even the most basic data.

You are still confusing survival rate and birth rate. The figure of 2.5%, which you gave for gestation between 24 weeks to 28 weeks, is a birth rate. This means that out of all the births which take place in the UK, 2.5% of them are between 24 weeks and 28 weeks.

The survival rate is completely different. The survival rate is the number of babies who survive, after being born. At 24 weeks the survival rate in the UK is about 40% and at 28 weeks it is about 90%.

Do you see where you are going wrong?

That is still at enormous odds against the recognised viability of survival in UK as 2.5%, for babies between 24 to 28 weeks. Even 28 to 32 week premature babies are considered to have a survival rate of about 5.1%.

 

[fillyboy]

Do you see where you are going wrong?

Are you new here?

 

[JonathanM]

Are you new here?

 

[space junkie]

The rest of your post is the usual word salad. But let's just concentrate on this aspect, which shows you still don't understand even the most basic data.

This part of your comment is ignored as purely intended as insulting comment.

You are still confusing survival rate and birth rate. The figure of 2.5%, which you gave for gestation between 24 weeks to 28 weeks, is a birth rate. This means that out of all the births which take place in the UK, 2.5% of them are between 24 weeks and 28 weeks.

It's the percentage of premature babies between 24 and 28 weeks that require postnatal medical care, and did survive.
It's logical that all premature babies between 24 and 28 weeks premature will require postnatal medical care.

The survival rate is completely different. The survival rate is the number of babies who survive, after being born. At 24 weeks the survival rate in the UK is about 40% and at 28 weeks it is about 90%.

Where is your data to support your claim?
I always present the data and references to support my argument. You never do, you merely make your unsupported claims.

Do you see where you are going wrong?

Do you see where you are going wrong?
Present evidence based on data for UK, from eminent sources, not carefully selected data from various countries with first rate medical facilities and compared to other countries with historically not so good facilities.

 

[JonathanM]

It's the percentage of premature babies between 24 and 28 weeks that require postnatal medical care, and did survive.
It's logical that all premature babies between 24 and 28 weeks premature will require postnatal medical care.

Here is some information from the NHS which shows that, at 24 weeks, 4 babies in 10 die, and 6 babies in 10 survive. I have to confess that I had misremembered those two figures as being the other way round. But that means the survival figure is actually even higher, at 60%! Rather than the 40% I had thought. Do you still believe that, in the UK, only 2.5% of babies born at 24 weeks will survive?

https://www.liverpoolwomens.nhs.uk/media/4752/having-an-extremely-prem-baby-leaflet.pdf

 

[JonathanM]

In fact, don't bother answering that question. I've given you enough chances to have a sensible discussion. Please don't engage with me again. I've certainly learnt my lesson!

 

[motorbiking]

Took you long enough ..

 

[Odds]

es lebe Deutschland!

​

Abortions in Germany should be legalised within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, a government-appointed commission is expected to recommend on Monday. While abortion is rarely punished, it remains illegal in Germany, except for specific circumstances including when a woman’s life is in danger, or she is a victim of rape, while the prerequisite for any termination is a consultation with a state-recognised body.

Advocates of a law change have welcomed the investigation into the country’s legal framework, calling the law outdated and detrimental to women. Even in the cases not considered illegal, the procedure must take place within the first three months, except when there is a compelling reason to carry it out later. The all-female expert commission on reproductive self-determination and reproductive medicine was set up by Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party government after the desire to change the 153-year-old law was anchored in its coalition agreement.

However, opposition lawmakers, in particular from the conservative Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union alliance and the far-right Alternative für Deutschland, say as it stands the existing law enjoys broad acceptance and offers necessary protection to the unborn. They argue that despite being illegal, abortions are accessible and it is extremely rare for them to lead to prosecutions. If the recommendations are acted upon, they have said they will turn to the constitutional court.

The Granudia

 

[noseall]

es lebe Deutschland!

​

Abortions in Germany should be legalised within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, a government-appointed commission is expected to recommend on Monday. While abortion is rarely punished, it remains illegal in Germany, except for specific circumstances including when a woman’s life is in danger, or she is a victim of rape, while the prerequisite for any termination is a consultation with a state-recognised body.

Advocates of a law change have welcomed the investigation into the country’s legal framework, calling the law outdated and detrimental to women. Even in the cases not considered illegal, the procedure must take place within the first three months, except when there is a compelling reason to carry it out later. The all-female expert commission on reproductive self-determination and reproductive medicine was set up by Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s three-party government after the desire to change the 153-year-old law was anchored in its coalition agreement.

However, opposition lawmakers, in particular from the conservative Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union alliance and the far-right Alternative für Deutschland, say as it stands the existing law enjoys broad acceptance and offers necessary protection to the unborn. They argue that despite being illegal, abortions are accessible and it is extremely rare for them to lead to prosecutions. If the recommendations are acted upon, they have said they will turn to the constitutional court.

The Granudia

Vive Deutschland !

 

[ReganAndCarter]

In fact, don't bother answering that question. I've given you enough chances to have a sensible discussion. Please don't engage with me again. I've certainly learnt my lesson!

View attachment 339001

Looks like Himmy's gone again. Searching his name produces no results. That was a very quick visit from the bore-meister in chief.

 

[Odds]

Vive Deutschland !

The Poles are at it, too...

Politicians in Poland have voted to move forward with draft legislation aimed at lifting the country’s near-total ban on abortion, in what campaigners described as a crucial first step towards loosening some of Europe’s most restrictive abortion laws.

...so when the wangers in 'ere bang on about the "rise of the far-right" in the EU, it can be said ripples of tolerance and common sense are still there, if you know where to look.

 

[noseall]

The Poles are at it, too...

Politicians in Poland have voted to move forward with draft legislation aimed at lifting the country’s near-total ban on abortion, in what campaigners described as a crucial first step towards loosening some of Europe’s most restrictive abortion laws.

...so when the wangers in 'ere bang on about the "rise of the far-right" in the EU, it can be said ripples of tolerance and common sense are still there, if you know where to look.

Abortion affects only women (biologically). The pale male stale gammon men of this world, see it as their quest to control, what they see as an emotional and weak species.

The reality is abortion exists for a very good reason. The RWR in the US are tying themselves in knotts presenty, in their attempts to oppose abortion, while at the same time trying to appease the voters. A bunch of disingenuous, religious idiotic morons, if ever I saw.

Women will get their abortion, one way or another.

 

[motorbiking]

Has it ever occurred to you that people (all people) want some level of control over abortion because it’s the destruction of a potential human.

You say it only affects the woman, but I think it’s fair to say the unborn are also affected.

You will never convince anyone to change their mind if you refuse to consider their point of view.