Eighth Amendment poll

[gallsman]

Your calcs are wrong. Whether deliberately and disingenuously so, only you can clarify.

You've divided the number of abortions into the number of births, rather than the number of total pregnancies (the sum of the two). Even ignoring miscarriages (which further lowers the stat), it becomes 1 in 4.75 rather than 1 in 3.75 as you claim.

Disingenuously and deliberately? I think that either way your implying that it wasn't a genuine mistake which it was, do you really think I would I have been as open as I was about corrections if I was putting in a deliberate mistake.

Very touchy given I didn't have a dig at you at all.

The reason I thought it might have been done deliberately or disingenuously (happy to hear you deny it and admit the mistake instead) was because we're talking about a mistake in basic arithmetic that my 11 year old niece in primary school wouldn't have made.

(See now, that was a dig)

Nothing to add to the stats then?

Well no, I'm not sure what you want me add? I corrected yours, remember?

As for factoring in miscarriages, the logic to the arithmetic is the same. Total pregnancies = births + miscarriages + abortions. I don't know where you get miscarriages should be factored into abortions. The number of abortions is known and doesn't change. If you use the 1 in 10 pregnancies ending in miscarriage as you suggest, it works out that 1 in 5.16 pregnancies is aborted.

[manfromdelmonte]

Got a leaflet in letterbox today from no side with Cristiano Ronaldo's picture on it saying he wouldn't exist if abortion was an option.

The Real Supporters for Life group?

[whitey]

Dont know how many of you were around during the 80s, but there was a great late night TV Political show called NightHawks......Nell McCafferty was a frequent contributor.  Found this clip online of her current views.....very interesting

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T_qiTwhsbEk

[omaghjoe]

Your calcs are wrong. Whether deliberately and disingenuously so, only you can clarify.

You've divided the number of abortions into the number of births, rather than the number of total pregnancies (the sum of the two). Even ignoring miscarriages (which further lowers the stat), it becomes 1 in 4.75 rather than 1 in 3.75 as you claim.

Disingenuously and deliberately? I think that either way your implying that it wasn't a genuine mistake which it was, do you really think I would I have been as open as I was about corrections if I was putting in a deliberate mistake.

Very touchy given I didn't have a dig at you at all.

The reason I thought it might have been done deliberately or disingenuously (happy to hear you deny it and admit the mistake instead) was because we're talking about a mistake in basic arithmetic that my 11 year old niece in primary school wouldn't have made.

(See now, that was a dig)

Nothing to add to the stats then?

Well no, I'm not sure what you want me add? I corrected yours, remember?

As for factoring in miscarriages, the logic to the arithmetic is the same. Total pregnancies = births + miscarriages + abortions. I don't know where you get miscarriages should be factored into abortions. The number of abortions is known and doesn't change. If you use the 1 in 10 pregnancies ending in miscarriage as you suggest, it works out that 1 in 5.16 pregnancies is aborted.

Just you seemed more concerned with playing the man

Its factored into the abortions as some of them would end in miscarriages, a birth isn't a miscarriage.

But you agree then that the number is at least in the very low 5s. This is the number you have been disputing all along..so were they right?

[mrdeeds]

Got a leaflet in letterbox today from no side with Cristiano Ronaldo's picture on it saying he wouldn't exist if abortion was an option.

The Real Supporters for Life group?

Don't know but it looked at bit Messi to me.

[gallsman]

When did I dispute anything? The only thing I did was correct your "stats".

Miscarriages are not factored into abortions. A miscarriage is a miscarriage. Nobody is saying a miscarriage is a birth so don't know why you're pointing that out.

Rate of abortions is the number of abortions out of total pregnancies. The number of abortions is known, and fixed. The number of births is known, and fixed. What is not known is the number of miscarriages. Total pregnancies is simply births + miscarriages + abortions. This is simple arithmetic.

[gallsman]

Oh and one final free one for you. If the miscarriage rate is 1 in 5, that would put abortion at 1 in 6.46 pregnancies.

[omaghjoe]

When did I dispute anything? The only thing I did was correct your "stats".

Miscarriages are not factored into abortions. A miscarriage is a miscarriage. Nobody is saying a miscarriage is a birth so don't know why you're pointing that out.

Rate of abortions is the number of abortions out of total pregnancies. The number of abortions is known, and fixed. The number of births is known, and fixed. What is not known is the number of miscarriages. Total pregnancies is simply births + miscarriages + abortions. This is simple arithmetic.

No its not because the ratio is total births v total abortions.

The births already have miscarriages factored out the abortions do not. Therefore the miscarriage rate is only factored into abortion


You said that the 1in5 stat claimed by the No campaign was wrong.
And by the way that's the abortion :  birth ratio by the way not the miscarriage ratio.

[gallsman]

When did I dispute anything? The only thing I did was correct your "stats".

Miscarriages are not factored into abortions. A miscarriage is a miscarriage. Nobody is saying a miscarriage is a birth so don't know why you're pointing that out.

Rate of abortions is the number of abortions out of total pregnancies. The number of abortions is known, and fixed. The number of births is known, and fixed. What is not known is the number of miscarriages. Total pregnancies is simply births + miscarriages + abortions. This is simple arithmetic.

No its not because the ratio is total births v total abortions.

The births already have miscarriages factored out the abortions do not. Therefore the miscarriage rate is only factored into abortion


You said that the 1in5 stat claimed by the No campaign was wrong.
And by the way that's the abortion :  birth ratio by the way not the miscarriage ratio.

a) show me, precisely, where I ever said anything of the sort.

b) the ratio is abortions to pregnancies.

[sid waddell]

If anybody knows the score about the shameful attitude to women's health that prevailed and still prevails in Ireland, it's Vicky Phelan:

https://twitter.com/PhelanVicky/status/997104227418890240

I am voting Yes for the women of Ireland who have been let down by our health service and by our government time and time again. If we really want women to be placed at the centre of their own care, Vote Yes to allow us to make the choice about our own care #WhoNeedsYourYes

[armaghniac]

If anybody knows the score about the shameful attitude to women's health that prevailed and still prevails in Ireland, it's Vicky Phelan:

https://twitter.com/PhelanVicky/status/997104227418890240

I am voting Yes for the women of Ireland who have been let down by our health service and by our government time and time again. If we really want women to be placed at the centre of their own care, Vote Yes to allow us to make the choice about our own care #WhoNeedsYourYes

This is a spurious connection. The failure of screening could have affected any screening programme, including one for men only.

[omaghjoe]

When did I dispute anything? The only thing I did was correct your "stats".

Miscarriages are not factored into abortions. A miscarriage is a miscarriage. Nobody is saying a miscarriage is a birth so don't know why you're pointing that out.

Rate of abortions is the number of abortions out of total pregnancies. The number of abortions is known, and fixed. The number of births is known, and fixed. What is not known is the number of miscarriages. Total pregnancies is simply births + miscarriages + abortions. This is simple arithmetic.

No its not because the ratio is total births v total abortions.

The births already have miscarriages factored out the abortions do not. Therefore the miscarriage rate is only factored into abortion


You said that the 1in5 stat claimed by the No campaign was wrong.
And by the way that's the abortion :  birth ratio by the way not the miscarriage ratio.

a) show me, precisely, where I ever said anything of the sort.

b) the ratio is abortions to pregnancies.

I pretty sure you said it maybe you didnt if someone wants to trawl thru your posts again to find it they are welcome to. But a good few others have claimed it is BS when it does not appear to be


Anyway the ratio is the no. abortions to (likely) successful pregnancies The aim of the stat is to give an idea of how many extra babies would have been born had they not been aborted

This is:
(number of babies born) + (number of babies aborted - the number of pregnancies that likely would have ended in miscarriage)
vs
(number of babies aborted - the number of pregnancies that likely would have ended in miscarriage)

The number of babies born already has went through the miscarriage factor by having actual miscarriages therefore you can't factor it back into that number again so it will skew the results.


Anyway looks like round about 1 in 5 it is then. Not that it matters to me or you whether it is 1 in 2 or 1 in 20 we are going to believe what we are going to believe as you believe choice usurps life while I am the reverse.

[gallsman]

You are wrong. Your "calculations" were wrong. You don't know what you're on about.

As for:

I pretty sure you said it maybe you didnt if someone wants to trawl thru your posts again to find it they are welcome to. But a good few others have claimed it is BS when it does not appear to be

You have already claimed that "I said" the 1 in 5 stat is wrong. Now you're "pretty sure" I said it but can't be bothered to "trawl" through posts.

Prove I said it or admit you were wrong. Failure to do either makes your a liar

I'll give you a hint: I didn't say it. Not once. Haven't commented on it in the slightest. Perhaps your reading is as bad as your 'rithmetic.

The great minds of the No campaign, folks.

[Boycey]

As per usual on here a debate has turned into an 'I know more than you' competition!

[gallsman]

As per usual on here a debate has turned into an 'I know more than you' competition!

Not in the slightest. He posted multiple incorrect statements. I corrected him. He took it thick and had a wee hissy fit. Nothing more to it than that.