Lapwing,The Guardian support abortion in order to achieve the goal of having fewer children. This does not have to be mentioned in every article they write, rather it is a given. The Guardian also uses language to reflect their support of abortion:Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses to describe abortion bans https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/07/abortion-the-guardian-style-guide
Vaccine fears, for example, have persisted despite decades of research showing them to be unfounded. Some twenty-five years ago, a statistical analysis suggested a possible association between autism and thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines to prevent bacterial contamination. The analysis turned out to be flawed, but fears took hold. Scientists then carried out hundreds of studies, and found no link. Still, fears persisted. Countries removed the preservative but experienced no reduction in autism—yet fears grew. A British study claimed a connection between the onset of autism in eight children and the timing of their vaccinations for measles, mumps, and rubella. That paper was retracted due to findings of fraud: the lead author had falsified and misrepresented the data on the children. Repeated efforts to confirm the findings were unsuccessful. Nonetheless, vaccine rates plunged, leading to outbreaks of measles and mumps that, last year, sickened tens of thousands of children across the U.S., Canada, and Europe, and resulted in deaths.People are prone to resist scientific claims when they clash with intuitive beliefs. They don’t see measles or mumps around anymore. They do see children with autism. And they see a mom who says, “My child was perfectly fine until he got a vaccine and became autistic.”Now, you can tell them that correlation is not causation. You can say that children get a vaccine every two to three months for the first couple years of their life, so the onset of any illness is bound to follow vaccination for many kids. You can say that the science shows no connection. But once an idea has got embedded and become widespread, it becomes very difficult to dig it out of people’s brains—especially when they do not trust scientific authorities. And we are experiencing a significant decline in trust in scientific authorities....Science’s defenders have identified five hallmark moves of pseudoscientists. They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views. They produce fake experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record. They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field. They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies. And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another. ...The evidence is that rebutting bad science doesn’t work; in fact, it commonly backfires. Describing facts that contradict an unscientific belief actually spreads familiarity with the belief and strengthens the conviction of believers. That’s just the way the brain operates; misinformation sticks, in part because it gets incorporated into a person’s mental model of how the world works. Stripping out the misinformation therefore fails, because it threatens to leave a painful gap in that mental model—or no model at all....Rebutting bad science may not be effective, but asserting the true facts of good science is. And including the narrative that explains them is even better. You don’t focus on what’s wrong with the vaccine myths, for instance. Instead, you point out: giving children vaccines has proved far safer than not. How do we know? Because of a massive body of evidence, including the fact that we’ve tried the alternate experiment before. Between 1989 and 1991, vaccination among poor urban children in the U.S. dropped. And the result was fifty-five thousand cases of measles and a hundred and twenty-three deaths.
Quote from: Trinity on August 10, 2019, 10:30:26 amLapwing,The Guardian support abortion in order to achieve the goal of having fewer children. This does not have to be mentioned in every article they write, rather it is a given. The Guardian also uses language to reflect their support of abortion:Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses to describe abortion bans https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/07/abortion-the-guardian-style-guideGiven that you had linked two Guardian articles in a post only two posts before your "as The Guardian seems to prefer" comment, you were referring to those two articles which were about family planning not abortion.As previously stated, your method is troll-lose argument-divert- troll again, ad infinitum
Abortion is not considered a component of family planning, although access to contraception and family planning reduces the need for abortion.
TheCross,Don't bother providing your source on information will you? And what has this got to do with the MMR vaccine and consequent increase in measles cases? It was crazy to accept the false research on MMR at face value and many people are now paying for it including many unnecessary deaths.
Another important point, Trinity.The original Guardian article you linked summarized a report from Lund University which did not specify "killing babies" or abortion. You invented the idea that that emotive term was involved. That's deception i.e. lying. There was nothing about western babies being "evil" either. More lying by you.Quote from: Wikipedia Abortion is not considered a component of family planning, although access to contraception and family planning reduces the need for abortion. There is good evidence here that you are a liar on this forum, Trinity.
The 2018 edition of the Handbook includes new WHO recommendations that expand contraceptive choices. For example, WHO now recommends that breastfeeding women can start progestogen-only pills or contraceptive implants any time after childbirth. More contraceptive options are now included: ulipristal acetate for emergency contraception; sub-cutaneous injection of DMPA; and the progesterone-releasing vaginal ring. Also, guidance on starting ongoing contraception following emergency contraception is provided. An important message throughout is WHO’s recommendation that adolescent girls and young women are medically eligible to use any contraceptive method. In addition, the Handbook highlights opportunities for task sharing among providers to make contraceptive methods more available. This edition also includes the latest WHO guidance on hormonal contraception and HIV and advice for counselling clients at risk of HIV infection on their contraceptive choices.
I have had just about enough of your accusation of me being a liar.