[Closed] Is May about to call an election?

That's what staggers me. If he simply said "I don't think homosexuality is a sin" it would be the smallest of smallest white lies. Just say that.

Of if he really can't bring himself to say that just say: "Strict interpretation of the scriptures says Homosexuality (along with eating shellfish) is a sin, I think that's a bit harsh and don't really buy into it.".

It really doesn't seem a tricky issue to kill stone dead.

Ahh, he has:

Tory MP Nigel Evans, who is gay, asked Mr Farron whether he thought being gay was a sin. He replied: ‘I do not.'

Damn you TJ, you've got me agreeing with ninfan on a politics thread!

However:

[quote=outofbreath ]I know this isn't a common viewpoint on STW but I think Ninfan is usually defending sanity, and he usually posts actual links to facts to make his point whereas is detractors usually just go straight for the Ad Hom.

It's not a common viewpoint because it's fundamentally untrue. He is clearly quite sane and intelligent and sometimes comes out with astute observations like he has here (get him on a non-politics thread, particularly one about access and he posts some really useful stuff). However find me a post of his on the Trump thread where he's [s]not trolling[/s] defending sanity. He gets "ad hommed" on there because people are tired of his posting style and it's "oh look, ninfan's trolling again".

Tory MP Nigel Evans, who is gay, asked Mr Farron whether he thought being gay was a sin. He replied: ‘I do not.'

What a nasty fundamentalist.

😐

Last point on Farron - he has consistently voted against or abstained on many issues affecting womens and gay rights where his fundamental religious views are at odds with his own party.

Were they mainly what is commonly referred to in parliament as 'matters of conscience' rather than under the party whip?

He voted for compulsory counselling for women facing abortions.

Would that be a bad thing? I know a couple of ladies who have discussed having an abortion and both found the whole thing a pretty traumatic experience.

He votd for a compulsory " cooling off" period for women seeking abortions

Again, is this a bad idea?

He voted for allowing registrars to be able to refuse to officiate at gay weddings.

He voted to allow someone to exercise their own personal belief? The Bastard! Next thing he'll be round making us all eat heterosexual wedding cake.

He voted for there to be no sanction for registars who refuse to officiate at gay weddings

Should doctors be struck off for refusing to sign off abortions too?

Long record of abstensions as well where his fundamentalist views clash with his parties policy - a cynical ploy so he wouldn't have to be seen for the bigot he is

Hmm, I can think of someone else with a long record of 'fundamentalist' views that clash with his parties policy... should Jezza be barred from leadership of the LP?

Tory MP Nigel Evans, who is gay, asked Mr Farron whether he thought being gay was a sin. He replied: ‘I do not.'

Nigel Evans' supplementary question should have been "What if I'm wearing my sister in law's knickers with a Cucumber in my ****?"

😀

Anything that means women have to wait longer for an abortion is a bad thing IMO especially as there are time limits. No cooling off period and abortion on demand up to a safe date IMO. No counseling unless requested. If you refuse to officiate at a gay (civil) marriage you lose your job.

Tory MP Nigel Evans, who is gay, asked Mr Farron whether he thought being gay was a sin. He replied: ‘I do not.'

(Caveat - these are not my views but this is what I've learnt from evangelicals at uni many moons ago)

The majority of evangelical Christians do not consider being gay (or as they prefer to call it, same-sex attracted) sinful in itself, rather they see it as a reflection of human brokenness; but the practicing of homosexuality is generally understood to be sinful - along with all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage.

So the only option is to remain celibate or hope somehow that the orientation changes over time.

Anything that means women have to wait longer for an abortion is a bad thing IMO

I've got a friend with a son with Downs. He's a cracking lad and he and they have a great life.

They're quite open that they'd decided to have a abortion but the nature of the test they had made them wait a bit (they thought a miscarriage might just happen.)

In that time they changed their minds and have never looked back.

I have a friend who was under a great deal of pressure from a boyfriend to have an abortion. I suspect with counselling she'd have made a different decision. She certainly regrets the abortion now.

As long as there isn't a pressing cut off point approaching I think an appropriate delay [1] to think it over and counselling are a good thing.

Whether they should be required by law is a different question....

[1] I've no idea what that delay might be.

Would that be a bad thing? I know a couple of ladies who have discussed having an abortion and both found the whole thing a pretty traumatic experience.

Yes, because you're making the assumption that someone is pshycologically damaged - and/or potentially making them feel threatened by having shrinks examine them.

Medicine has a long and sordid history of being used as a tool to control women.

You idiot.

I have a friend who was under a great deal of pressure from a boyfriend to have an abortion. I suspect with counselling she'd have made a different decision. She certainly regrets the abortion now.

Again, you don't think compulsory counselling is a form of pressure?

counselling is a good idea. compulsory counselling is simply wrong. Insisting on a cooling off period is wrong.

These positions that Farron has adopted on abortion is straight from the textbook of anti abortion activists. Its intent is to try to prevent women from having abortions by putting further barriers in their way.

His voting positions on this are at odds with his parties long standing positions so show that indeed he will put his personal fundamentalist religious beliefs above party policy

I'm far more impressed by the fact that Farron is a Christian but hasn't let his personal views influence the policies of his party. That's a huge plus in my eyes and a credit to both Farron and the Lib Dems.

This sums it up for me. He voted for same sex marriage too.

Because Christians often do force their views on other people

I find atheiests and non-believers far far worse in this regard. STW threads are a perfect example, the agressive language used here against people who do have faith is very depressing.

How old is the lad with downs? They might change their minds again.

There are women who regret having an abortion and women who regret not having an abortion and all the anecdotes you can cite. The only ones I know who regret regret because they were under pressure and submitted to it. The woman should decide for herself with no pressure whether it be open or covert - which increasing the bureaucratic hassle constitutes.

counselling is a good idea. compulsory counselling is simply wrong

Because of course the people most in need of counselling, and most prone to PTSD, are usually able to judge for themselves how traumatised they will be, and whether they might need emotional help and support afterwards.

the counselling he voted for was for before not after

Jamba - as I have listed above Farron has shown the exact opposite - that he allows his personal views to override party policy ie he has voted against his parties policy because of his religious views

He is trying to pretend the opposite but his voting record is public

How old is the lad with downs? They might change their minds again.

They might, but I'd like to think a modern day Aktion T4 programme in the name of giving women choice would be a step too far for most.

that he allows his personal views to override party policy ie he has voted against his parties policy because of his religious views

As I asked before, does allowing personal views to override party policy preclude someone from being party leader?

[img] [/img]

How about this then signed by Farron?

Rt Hon Lord Smith of Finsbury
Chairman, Advertising Standards Agency
21st March 2012

We are writing on behalf of the all-party Christians in Parliament group in Westminster and your ruling that the Healing On The Streets ministry in Bath are no longer able to claim, in their advertising, that God can heal people from medical conditions.

We write to express our concern at this decision and to enquire about the basis on which it has been made. It appears to cut across two thousand years of Christian tradition and the very clear teaching in the Bible. Many of us have seen and experienced physical healing ourselves in our own families and churches and wonder why you have decided that this is not possible.

On what scientific research or empirical evidence have you based this decision?

You might be interested to know that I (Gary Streeter) received divine healing myself at a church meeting in 1983 on my right hand, which was in pain for many years. After prayer at that meeting, my hand was immediately free from pain and has been ever since. What does the ASA say about that? I would be the first to accept that prayed for people do not always get healed, but sometimes they do. That is all this sincere group of Christians in Bath are claiming.

It is interesting to note that since the traumatic collapse of the footballer Fabrice Muamba the whole nation appears to be praying for a physical healing for him. I enclose some media extracts. Are they wrong also and will you seek to intervene?

We invite your detailed response to this letter and unless you can persuade us that you have reached your ruling on the basis of indisputable scientific evidence, we intend to raise this matter in Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Streeter MP (Con)
Chair, Christians in Parliament

Gavin Shuker MP (Labour)
Vice Chair, Christians in Parliament

Tim Farron (Lib-Dem)
Vice Chair, Christians in Parliament

NO I don't think it does Ninfan - I was just merely correcting those who claim Farron does not let his religious views colour his political position and showing that indeed the opposite is true - given a choice between his religious convictions and his parties policy he votes with his religious convictions

How about this then signed by Farron?

Yeah, that's mental (and really funny).

But that's nothing to do with the (now debunked) claim that Farron thinks being gay is a little bit naughty.

And he's not the only party leader with weird views on medicine:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-signed-parliamentary-motion-in-support-of-homeopathy-in-2010-10393413.html

Its not debunked at all. He has refused point blank to debunk it relying on weasel words that have convinced some

That letter is mental, but you know what it's not going to stop me voting Lib Dem, and nor will it stop me from thinking that the Lib Dems having some influence on government policy was (and would be) a good thing.

psst: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/tim-farron

Its not debunked at all.

Tory MP Nigel Evans, who is gay, asked Mr Farron whether he thought being gay was a sin. He replied: ‘I do not.'

Tory MP Nigel Evans, who is gay, asked Mr Farron whether he thought being gay was a sin. He replied: ‘I do not.'

Yeah, but that involved a nasty Tory and a nasty fundamentalist so let's just ignore it. Besides, it's only Christians who are nasty bad people.

TJ of course you are a bigot

Geetee - I loathe and despise religion and the religious, I believe all people who believe in god(s) are feeble minded.

I think the religious, religion and belief in god as an incredibly regressive, negative, dangerous and harmful mental illness. It is a force of incredible harm and holds back the human race.

Its not biogotry.

You do know racists quote science to support their views too.

That letter is mental, but you know what it's not going to stop me voting Lib Dem,

Wouldn't stop me either. But if he said it was a sin to w**k vigorously in a cupboard with an orange in mouth my while wearing my sisters bra and watching videos of Jedward, that might put me off him. Has he made an media comment on that?

It is a force of incredible harm and holds back the human race.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

In 1950 Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity, a Roman Catholic religious congregation which had over 4,500 sisters and was active in 133 countries in 2012. The congregation manages homes for people dying of HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis; soup kitchens; dispensaries and mobile clinics; children's- and family-counselling programmes; orphanages, and schools. Members, who take vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, also profess a fourth vow: to give "wholehearted free service to the poorest of the poor".

More good in her toenail than in a thousand Dawkins.

Weasel words CFH

Previously to that one he was asked "do you consider homosexuality a sin" " We are all sinners" and he made the same "homosexuality is a not a sin" comment in a previous media interview but when pressed "do you consider homosexual sex a sin" he refused to answer.

So what he is doing here is that stating being homosexual is not a sin but having homosexual sex is. thius is in accodance with his views on the bible

He is on record as saying every word in the bible is 100% true or its all false. Now the bible on homosexuality states " he who lies with a man as with a woman is a sinner" so in Farrons head as he believes every word in the bible is 100% true then he believes homosexual sex is a sin.

What he is doing is attempting to use weasel words on this and he was caught out refusing to say whether he thought homosexual sex is a sin

Geetee - I loathe and despise religion and the religious, I believe all people who believe in god(s) are feeble minded.
I think the religious, religion and belief in god as an incredibly regressive, negative, dangerous and harmful mental illness. It is a force of incredible harm and holds back the human race.

Its not biogotry.

Believing people are feeble minded when you have never met them or listened to them explain their views - that's prejudice and yes, bigotry. Sorry - you're bang to rights. If you're not happy with this label then don't just complain - have a sit down and a bit of a think. Re-assess your views.

Its not debunked at all. He has refused point blank to debunk it relying on weasel words that have convinced some

Ah, failure to deny an accusation is now a sign of guilt... I fear we've been here before.

Whose the bigot again?

Some odd definition of bigotry there mefty - well done for digging up a years old post and for ignoring the fact I apologised for it afterwards

CFH - Mother Theresa - a really bad example. But lets not get sidetracked down this road

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa

Chaps - I apologised for that post afterwards - ill considered and yes - even tho thats not nice it does not amount to bigotry

On the other hand I think Tim Farron seems a nice bloke, I don't think he has what it takes to run the country but that is beside the point, he also has the right not to be castigated for his faith especially when it has no effect on his party's policy. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that the LibDems are the most ridiculously democratic party where policy is made by the members, so whatever his views he will be bound by that.

Chaps - I apologised for that post afterwards

Sorry then - I did try and find the original post.

Oi - I started a thread for this: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/tim-farron

ninfan - its not failure to respond to an accusation - its a straight refusal to answer a question

when pressed "do you consider homosexual sex a sin" he refused to answer.

Tricky though, because I imagine gay people do all kinds of things just like heteros do. So maybe Farron thinks oral's ok, but fisting isn't. He really would have to go into an embarrassing amount of detail to set out his views. According to Stephen Fry most gay couples don't do anal so it's not enough to just say bottie-sex is fine.

Although I do quite like the idea of the Liberal Party releasing a spread sheet of sex acts with sin/not sin against them.

Anyway, I'm off to mail my MP to find out his views on Felching, my vote depends on it!

I'm not sure why Corbyn and Farron threads survive and May threads are deleted/closed. Not that I'd dream of questioning or even discussing the moderation of this forum. 😉

NO apology needed Molgrips - I was out of order and I accepted that.

lol@outofbreath

ninfan - its not failure to respond to an accusation - its a straight refusal to answer a question

Quick, fetch the ducking stool

Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that the LibDems are the most ridiculously democratic party where policy is made by the members, so whatever his views he will be bound by that

A good point, back in the good old days half the party policy was opposed to party policy

its a straight refusal to answer a question

Entirely reasonable also. Some questions should not be asked and certainly not answered. I could ask you a few that you wouldn't and shouldn't answer. But I won't, cos I'm also decent.

More good in her toenail than in a thousand Dawkins.

😆

Because of course the people most in need of counselling, and most prone to PTSD, are usually able to judge for themselves how traumatised they will be, and whether they might need emotional help and support afterwards.

Tell me Ninfan, how do you square your small state Toryism with this kind of state nannying?

Would you like to get forced counselling the next time you have an accident in your car, even if it's a small bump. After all, you might be anxiety prone and thus unable to know whether you need help or not.

I suspect you don't care for womens mental health - and only care about small state Toryism if it doesn't interfere with your deeply held misogynistic/religious views.

Sorry then - I did try and find the original post.

You certainly wouldn't have found the apology because there ain't one - [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/pentecostwell-i-never/page/5 ]here is the thread[/url]

And the fact I picked up a post from a few years ago using the wonders of google which took ten minutes might have a little to do with the fact you have been banned for years.

Anyway the thread reminds me how much of a miss Ernie is, there are loads of cracking posts by him but this one is particularly good:

There's a lot of truth in what you say Kenny Senior, but there is nothing particularly new concerning TJ's hypocrisy and deeply insulting attitude towards people who have religious convictions. In that respect he isn't much different to Woppit's obsessive intolerance, other than Woppit is probably more honest and less insulting than TJ.

Last year I posted this :

"You judgemental arrogant ****.

I have worked with and known people with a whole range of religious beliefs ..... Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, more obscure Christian denominations, etc. I have found talking to them about their religion absolutely fascinating.

I wouldn't dream of taking the piss out of them.

And you have to be some sort of idiot if you think you have the right to do so."

In response to this comment by TJ :

"I find ALL religious views contemptible, ridiculous and offensive. If you express them you will find the piss taken from you."

Yes he is prepared to mock ridicule and insult, people who 'express religious views', but he is deeply intolerant of those who mock ridicule and insult him.

[quote=Edukator ]I'm not sure why Corbyn and Farron threads survive and May threads are deleted/closed. Not that I'd dream of questioning or even discussing the moderation of this forum.

at one point this was a May thread

outofbreath - Member

According to Stephen Fry most gay couples don't do anal

I'd assume that about 50% of gay couples don't have any penises so that seems reasonable

I certainly remember apologising - perhaps it was only off forum to someone who felt insulted by it. Esslegruntfuttock IIRC

Anyway - I have forgotten the lesson from my banning today which is - don't get involved in long arguements on here

To be fair TJ, I find offended religious folk quite hilarious - considering their proneness to casual racism, gay bashing and misogyny. Some of the relgious posters on here have frequently displayed those very things....

"according to Stephen Fry most gay couples dont do anal*"

*yep marriage will do that

Tell me Ninfan, how do you square your small state Toryism with this kind of state nannying?

Something like 97% of women having an abortion in the UK are doing so at the cost of the state - if that isn't the state/government meddling in things, then what is?

I'd assume that about 50% of gay couples don't have any penises so that seems reasonable

Firstly, I'm pretty certain SF was talking about male gay people, and secondly according to a Bi ex, lack of penis makes no difference to levels of anal sex people partake in.

Anyway, I'm taking SHMBO to bed. This detailed inquiry into what kinds of sex are sins in the Liberal Party has worked me up into a frenzy. It's roleplay night she's being Len McCluskey and I'm John McDonnell.

I certainly remember apologising - perhaps it was only off forum to someone who felt insulted by it. Esslegruntfuttock IIRC

So do we have a new version of the Edinburgh defence to go with the new version of you - how spiffing.

Something like 97% of women having an abortion in the UK are doing so at the cost of the state - if that isn't the state/government meddling in things, then what is?

You mean women have the choice to involve the state? Do you not see the difference between that and forced intervention by the state - or are things that black and white to you?

Old people cost the state a lot as well....

at least women pay more in NI than old people do. 😆

But great dodge of the question Ninfan - we're seeing your true colours - you're resentful of state resources being used on women.

BTW, how do you think the UK would cope with a massively exploding population if contraceptives and abortions weren't provided by the state - eh? Would you like to see the UK like the Philippines because of some utterly obnoxious and backwards religious views?

Team of Trotskys?
Partnership of Poo Pants?
Coalition of Chaos?
Coalition of Chaos!

High 5s round the table at Tory HQ.

Coalition of Chaos?
Coalition of Chaos!

High 5s round the table at Tory HQ.

I would gone for "Mongolian Clusterf%ck" myself.

But great dodge of the question Ninfan - we're seeing your true colours - you're resentful of state resources being used on women.

Hang on, make your mind up, a minute ago I was advocating more state resources being allocated to women, now I'm against it?

BTW, how do you think the UK would cope with a massively exploding population if contraceptives and abortions weren't provided by the state - eh?

Sounds good, less need for immigration innit 😉 however nobody is suggesting that, are they, so I'm calling straw man.

Hang on, make your mind up, a minute ago I was advocating more state resources being allocated to women, now I'm against it?

Except in this case, you're advocating the removal of choice from women.

Again, perhaps you should be forced to enter counselling if you're in a minor accident or entertain even the most mildy misogynistic view - I'm sure you would support that wouldn't you ninfan?

Answer whether you would.

Sounds good, less need for immigration innit however nobody is suggesting that, are they, so I'm calling straw man.

So women are the cause of immigration woes in your universe then Ninfan? Nice. It's all teh lefts and wimminz fault isn't it?

What would solve that actually, is moving to an economy that doesn't rely on unskilled labour for economic growth.

OMG - Tom and Ninfan in an arguement - this is not going to end well!

All these poor, emotional, undecided women obviously need help in the form of counselling....

The majority of women did not feel counselling was necessary because they were already certain of their decision.

most women do not seem to want or need pre-termination counselling therefore policies aimed at mandatory counselling, would be contrary to women's wishes. Counselling should be targeted at women with risk factors for psychological complications post-termination.

http://jfprhc.bmj.com/content/41/3/181

LOL

Except in this case, you're advocating the removal of choice from women.

I'm not advocating anything, your argument was that Tim Farron was advocating it, remember? IM just defending his right to advocate it if he wants to. Some might say you're advocating the removal of life from healthy babies for no good reason, and question your morals, which they gave just as much a right to do as you to question theirs. Personally I'm not opposed in any way to abortion, but I think it's right and proper that the taking of (arguably potential) life is heavily regulated

Again, perhaps you should be forced to enter counselling if you're in a minor accident or entertain even the most mildy misogynistic view - I'm sure you would support that wouldn't you ninfan?

AGain, you appear to be arguing that I'm advocating something, when the issue was that Tim Farron voted for it, it seems you're unable to differentiate between someone having an opinion or belief, and someone else believing they are entitled to that belief just as much as you are entitled to yours, regardless of my own feelings on the issue - this confusion possibly explains your own inability to accept other people's opinions as being just as valid as yours. Regardless, I'm sure there would be plentiful data on the efficacy of certain interventions in reducing the future likelihood and impact of Trauma, and cost benefit analysis of such - not an area I have any knowledge of, but certainly the type of thing that I can see an MP voting on an issue after taking advice on, and without knowing what data is available for the wide variety of traumatic episodes that people undertake, impossible for me to castigate him on... and I'm betting you don't know either.

Edit:

would be contrary to women's wishes

Ah, no analysis of efficacy or the incidence of trauma inside and outside counselling groups versus control, just not what they want, not much data there really is there?

Would that be a bad thing? I know a couple of ladies who have discussed having an abortion and both found the whole thing a pretty traumatic experience.

You were indirectlys advocating it.

Regardless, I'm sure there would be plentiful data on the efficacy of certain interventions in reducing the future likelihood and impact of Trauma, and cost benefit analysis of such - not an area I have any knowledge of, but certainly the type of thing that I can see an MP voting on an issue after taking advice on, and without knowing what data is available for the wide variety of traumatic episodes that people undertake, impossible for me to castigate him on... and I'm betting you don't know either.

I just posted the data.

Personally I'm not opposed in any way to abortion, but I think it's right and proper that the taking of [b](arguably potential)[/b] life is heavily regulated

Better get the government in on masturbating then.

As above, that contains no data on efficacy - just on satisfaction

indirectlys advocating it.

Ah, [i]indirectly[/i]... right... keep digging.

As above, that contains no data on efficacy - just on satisfaction

Most psychological trials are self reporting - efficacy would only exist for an actual trial of an intervention - and efficiacy of an intervention doesn't prove need of it's compulsory use.

Ah, no analysis of efficacy or the incidence of trauma inside and outside counselling groups versus control, just not what they want, not much data there really is there?

Again, those same women who report not needing counselling would also be unlikely to self report trauma. There's no hard scientific way of judging whether someone has suffered trauma - unless they're having PTSD style flashbacks in front of your eyes.

Dumbass

[img] [/img]

Or, just resort to insults when your argument isn't going too well.

Most psychological trials are self reporting.

And Cochrane reviews tend to place greater weight on studies with more than eighteen respondents, Dumbass 😆

Edit to your edit:

those same women who report not needing counselling would also be unlikely to self report trauma

Which, of course, demonstrates the ineffectiveness of relying on them opting in to counselling services then, doesn't it?

And Cochrane reviews tend to place greater weight on studies with more than eighteen respondents, Dumbass

There were 200 respondants.

You're displaying quite a lack of understanding in how trauma is diagnosed in the first place.

So actually, I stand by my "dumbass" statement.

And you wouldn't know what the **** Cochrane actually is, if it smacked you upside the head Ninfan.

keep digging 😆

Ninfan, you really are showing your ignorance.

Which, of course, demonstrates the ineffectiveness of relying on them opting in to counselling services then, doesn't it?

Not really, because if someone reports that they feel okay - they probably are - psycholigical intervention should be patient based - overthinking and prodding any possible issues is more likely to harm a patient than help them. Psychologists have a duty to do no harm as well.

women who report not needing counselling would also be unlikely to self report trauma

if someone reports that they feel okay - they probably are

😆

So, if they say they don't need counselling, then they're probably ok, and even if they aren't, then we won't know about it, because by your own admission, they are unlikely to self report trauma.

Because they aren't traumatised in the first place you utter buffoon....if someone doesn't think they are traumatised, it's not helpful to tell them they are. Therapy, like drugs can be thought of carrying with it - adverse events/side effects.

you utter buffoon

[img] [/img]

Or, just resort to insults when your argument isn't going too well.

But you just admitted that even if they are, then they are unlikely to self report it.

Talk about setting yourself up for false negatives.

Do you want to keep digging further?

No I admitted they would be unlikely to self report trauama, because they don't believe they have it and likely aren't actually traumatised and that psychologists rely on self reporting. Even if they were traumatised, a shrink has very few ways of being able to tell without the patient admitting it.

And, for a good introductory read on why you don't force therapy on people who say they don't need it - outside of very extreme circumstances - read

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-21/edition-1/when-therapy-causes-harm

But you just admitted that even if they are, then they are unlikely to self report it.

Talk about setting yourself up for false negatives.

Ninfan, stop parroting sciencey sounding words to try to hide the fact that you're a Turmp supporter.

[quote=tjagain ]OMG - Tom and Ninfan in an arguement - this is not going to end well!

can you resist?...

No I admitted they would be unlikely to self report trauama, because they don't believe they have it and likely aren't actually traumatised.

Of course they're not traumatised - the survey was performed at the clinic at the time of abortion.

If you wanted to look at the effects of trauma and different interventions from a clinical basis then the [i]sensible[/i] thing to do would be to follow them up several months, perhaps even years after that abortion, and see how they felt about it.

Your 'study' is about as clinically valid as my left toe - it's little more than an opinion survey

You people bickering aren't helping on the big issues here:

if he said it was a sin to w**k vigorously in a cupboard with an orange in mouth my while wearing my sisters bra and watching videos of Jedward, that might put me off him. Has he made an media comment on that

Oh, I see you ascribe to PASS Ninfan.

The term "post-abortion syndrome" ("PAS") has been used by anti-abortion advocates to describe a broad range of adverse emotional reactions which they attribute to abortion.[1][17][49] For example, David C. Reardon is a prominent proponent of this purported "syndrome", and has cited it to support his anti-abortion views.[50] "Post-abortion syndrome" has not found widespread acceptance outside the anti-abortion community; the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize PAS as an actual diagnosis or condition, and it is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR or in the ICD-10 list of psychiatric conditions. Some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the focus on "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by anti-abortion advocates for political purposes, and that PAS does not really exist.[14][18][51][52][50]

I would argue that if some women do feel that they have been traumatised after an abortion, the answer is not to force pre-abortion counselling on them - but inform them of the risk of trauma and leave pre-abortion and post-abortion counselling open to them.

I'd say that it is highly likely that forcing counselling on people who cause trauma in of itself as well.

BTW: Do you think that it's acceptable for the state to issue medical interventions against the religious wishes of adults? Eg blood transfusions?

Might be time for you 2 to get your own thread there...