Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jarhyn]

Perhaps you'd favor the bias-free scientific approach of subpoenaing all the medical records of all the abortion providers in America and compelling all their clients to submit to cross-examination about their motives so we could all finally lay our hands on some dependable statistics.

No, I would favor the bias-free scientific approach of getting the respondents, or presenting the response rates.

They distributed fliers to multiple locations. The response rate therefore is going to be a reasonable approximation of zero.

... So even more opportunities for Liars for Jesus to corrupt the response pool as regards "on-demand" claims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's the thing. The problem with RvW is it causes collateral damage.

Isn't that something. When I think of RvW, I think about a woman in a doctor's office, ie the only two people in the room, not "collateral damage".

Face your own collateral damage squarely.

I don't consider a woman speaking with her doctor about her seeing to her health care as "collateral damage".

Sorry, I thought the collateral damage I was talking about was clear from context, but apparently not. This isn't a debate about normal early-term abortion between the embryos-are-people crowd and the sane. It's a debate between those who think RvW got it about right and those who favor abortion on demand even in the third trimester. The collateral damage from RvW I'm talking about is the damage people have repeatedly brought up upthread: the expectation that authorizing states to prohibit third-trimester abortions that aren't medically indicated will inevitably lead to some red states abusing that authority to make it difficult or impossible for some of the women in those states to obtain medically indicated abortions.

But this isn't collateral damage from abortion, but collateral damage from anti-abortion measures.

Want to minimize damage? Shoot any politician who tries to stick his nose into any sort of professional domain.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For the 500th time:

Repeating a flawed argument doesn't make it not flawed.

That means complete access to abortion during the first two trimesters with no question or hoops or barriers, solely at the discretion of the woman. For pregnancy in the third trimester, abortion is limited to medical necessity, when the life of the mother is endangered or when the fetus has an identified severe disorder. That means abortion would be prohibited in the third trimester if both the mother and baby are healthy.

1) The space of "healthy" plus "life of the mother is endangered" doesn't cover the entire space. While it couldn't happen in the third trimester consider the case of an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube. Early chemical abortion vs later surgical removal. The latter will cost her half of her fertility but doesn't really pose much risk. Or, what happened to my niece-in-law: risk blindness or use a pregnancy class X drug. AFIAK there was no serious threat to her life, just to her vision.

2) I would be very opposed to a law that specified "severe", this is too subjective and would be used to prohibit fetal defect abortions.

3) We have seen that "life endangered" is also seriously problematic. It's being interpreted as whether she is going to die right now, not whether it's necessary to act now to save her life in the future. And it's being interpreted as life will be lost, not life at risk.

On the other hand, there are some posters here who quite openly have said a woman should be allowed to abort a completely healthy baby two days before delivery, when there is no risk to the mother, at her sole discretion.

I bring up healthy mothers and babies because that is what OTHER PEOPLE support.

If it never happens, and no doctor would ever do it… then there should be no o section to a law that prohibits people from doing something that nobody is doing, right?

The problem is that you are assuming a perfect system, we recognize it is an inherently flawed system.

There will be failures. It's that we believe there will be fewer failures if the decision is left up to the doctors than if it's left up to the politicians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

LD has stated that he supports a women deciding to abort three days prior to delivery for any reason. I respect that he has that opinion, but I very strongly disagree with it. At that point, I can't see an rational way in which it's not murder. There's a very broad range of gestation where it's gray, and I'm very happy to discuss where the optimal place to draw that line might be. I can be somewhat flexible on what specific stage of gestation should be chosen as the limit, and I'd prefer to err on the somewhat later end. But I'm not willing to pretend it's okay to kill a baby two weeks before delivery without a very solid medical reason to do so.

"Don't kill babies" seems like something that shouldn't have to be said.

What you don't understand is that this isn't actually the issue. I would be very surprised if he actually thought an abortion three days before birth was acceptable. Rather, we are looking at the failure modes. Leaving it up to the doctors--we have that "research" you cited, but it doesn't feel like proper scientific research. We have no credible reports of third trimester abortions other than due to defects. On the flip side we have already seen multiple women die because they could read between the lines and understood that was the intended outcome--they would be punished for doing the medically correct thing.

As evidenced by the hordes of women afraid to get needed medical care in the third trimester when RvW was in place? I’m sure you can show credible evidence that lots of women could read between the lines of RvW, right?

RvW didn't come with the gotcha that's taking over in the red states.

Last I knew Texas still refused to provide any medical guidelines, thus leaving the doctors in the position of shooing the women out to die.

 

[Toni]

You ASSUMING that survey respondents are lying

No, I'm assuming that we cannot guarantee they are telling the truth. A lack of trust is different from a trust of lack.

Did you even bother...

I can infer from the structure of the study, the known issues with that format, and the well-understood consequences of how certain conclusions cannot be reached or supported from such positions.

From there, I reject specifically any such conclusions.

Because these include most conclusions, and because these are the conclusions you are attempting to reach, the study in this context is "unscientific trash".

Spoiler: Off-topic and why is it being brought back in when it was already split to its own thread just a day or two ago?

And as has been discussed, sex in mammals is a bunch of different traits, some of which are nonbinary, and which seem to like to hide together in trenchcoats.

In data science terms, that's more like a data structure composed of enumerations, integers, and floating point values. It's about as far from binary as can be

You can never guarantee that any respondents to any survey are ‘telling the truth.’

Narratives of real life events and experiences do not reduce down to a series of carefully crafted questions with pre-determined ‘responses’ a-e. Such surveys utilizing these canned responses are every bit as subject to inaccurate or deceptive responses as any other.

 

[Toni]

For the 500th time:

Repeating a flawed argument doesn't make it not flawed.

That means complete access to abortion during the first two trimesters with no question or hoops or barriers, solely at the discretion of the woman. For pregnancy in the third trimester, abortion is limited to medical necessity, when the life of the mother is endangered or when the fetus has an identified severe disorder. That means abortion would be prohibited in the third trimester if both the mother and baby are healthy.

1) The space of "healthy" plus "life of the mother is endangered" doesn't cover the entire space. While it couldn't happen in the third trimester consider the case of an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube. Early chemical abortion vs later surgical removal. The latter will cost her half of her fertility but doesn't really pose much risk. Or, what happened to my niece-in-law: risk blindness or use a pregnancy class X drug. AFIAK there was no serious threat to her life, just to her vision.

2) I would be very opposed to a law that specified "severe", this is too subjective and would be used to prohibit fetal defect abortions.

3) We have seen that "life endangered" is also seriously problematic. It's being interpreted as whether she is going to die right now, not whether it's necessary to act now to save her life in the future. And it's being interpreted as life will be lost, not life at risk.

On the other hand, there are some posters here who quite openly have said a woman should be allowed to abort a completely healthy baby two days before delivery, when there is no risk to the mother, at her sole discretion.

I bring up healthy mothers and babies because that is what OTHER PEOPLE support.

If it never happens, and no doctor would ever do it… then there should be no o section to a law that prohibits people from doing something that nobody is doing, right?

The problem is that you are assuming a perfect system, we recognize it is an inherently flawed system.

There will be failures. It's that we believe there will be fewer failures if the decision is left up to the doctors than if it's left up to the politicians.

The decision should be left to the medical professional and the mother.

 

[Elixir]

The decision should be left to the medical professional and the mother.

It seems blatantly obvious to me that the whole “question” goes away when we recognize that as the primary rule. It’s NOBODY ELSE’S BUSINESS.
Yes, I am saying fetuses have no say, and don’t need or deserve to be spoken for by parties other than parents and their chosen medical professionals.

 

[Jarhyn]

The decision should be left to the medical professional and the mother.

It seems blatantly obvious to me that the whole “question” goes away when we recognize that as the primary rule. It’s NOBODY ELSE’S BUSINESS.
Yes, I am saying fetuses have no say, and don’t need or deserve to be spoken for by parties other than parents and their chosen medical professionals.

But then, how will those slatterns learn their lesson?

/s

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can ever guarantee that any survey respondents are responding honestly.

The study in question was not made up of data compiled from surveys. It was done drawing from interviews with women who agreed to discuss an impossibly difficult situation that they faced.

Sure, it's possible that they lied. That's what women do, right? They lie about being raped, they lie about who the baby daddy is, they lie about how much their rent is, t hey lie about birth control and they respond to a request from a researcher who is seeking to learn more information from women about why they had late term abortions, because that's an experience that every woman wants to relive, embellish and expand upon, making it up as she goes because she happily murdered the baby that she carried for 4 or 5 or 6 months, and woke up one morning and said Nah, not feeling it.

It's not that we are assuming they lied about why they had an abortion. Rather, the sampling technique does not ensure they are actually talking to women who had an abortion. All it would take is a couple of liars deciding to contaminate the data, out of a completely unknown number who might have been aware of the research. We see plenty of stuff made up on social media to push positions, why should we think this is immune?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can do studies that quantify function and ability and loss or gain of these after an illness or accident or medical treatment. You cannot do the same so easily with how it makes you feel. Or why you made the choices you made.

But that's not what these purport to be. They are being presented as "proof" of on-demand third-trimester abortion.

What the fuck are you talking about?

What the fuck do you mean by ‘improper abortion?’

What authority, background, credentials do you hold to term that women late term abortions obtained for medical reasons relating to the viability of the fetus as ‘ improper?’

Follow the context!

The two studies purport to show third trimester abortions without a medical reason.

 

[Toni]

The decision should be left to the medical professional and the mother.

It seems blatantly obvious to me that the whole “question” goes away when we recognize that as the primary rule. It’s NOBODY ELSE’S BUSINESS.
Yes, I am saying fetuses have no say, and don’t need or deserve to be spoken for by parties other than parents and their chosen medical professionals.

But then, how will those slatterns learn their lesson?

/s

That’s the real point. Women making their own decisions a bother sex and reproductive lives. Cannot be allowed.

 

[Toni]

You can ever guarantee that any survey respondents are responding honestly.

The study in question was not made up of data compiled from surveys. It was done drawing from interviews with women who agreed to discuss an impossibly difficult situation that they faced.

Sure, it's possible that they lied. That's what women do, right? They lie about being raped, they lie about who the baby daddy is, they lie about how much their rent is, t hey lie about birth control and they respond to a request from a researcher who is seeking to learn more information from women about why they had late term abortions, because that's an experience that every woman wants to relive, embellish and expand upon, making it up as she goes because she happily murdered the baby that she carried for 4 or 5 or 6 months, and woke up one morning and said Nah, not feeling it.

It's not that we are assuming they lied about why they had an abortion. Rather, the sampling technique does not ensure they are actually talking to women who had an abortion. All it would take is a couple of liars deciding to contaminate the data, out of a completely unknown number who might have been aware of the research. We see plenty of stuff made up on social media to push positions, why should we think this is immune?

Oh, ffs.

That is true of any collection of data that involves human beings responding to a survey of any kind.

 

[Toni]

You can do studies that quantify function and ability and loss or gain of these after an illness or accident or medical treatment. You cannot do the same so easily with how it makes you feel. Or why you made the choices you made.

But that's not what these purport to be. They are being presented as "proof" of on-demand third-trimester abortion.

What the fuck are you talking about?

What the fuck do you mean by ‘improper abortion?’

What authority, background, credentials do you hold to term that women late term abortions obtained for medical reasons relating to the viability of the fetus as ‘ improper?’

Follow the context!

The two studies purport to show third trimester abortions without a medical reason.

No. The two studies published results of people who chose to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester. At least some of the respondents had specific serious medical concerns. You just don’t think they meet whatever arbitrary and totally imaginary circumstance that you would personally approve of.

 

[laughing dog]

You can do studies that quantify function and ability and loss or gain of these after an illness or accident or medical treatment. You cannot do the same so easily with how it makes you feel. Or why you made the choices you made.

But that's not what these purport to be. They are being presented as "proof" of on-demand third-trimester abortion.

What the fuck are you talking about?

What the fuck do you mean by ‘improper abortion?’

What authority, background, credentials do you hold to term that women late term abortions obtained for medical reasons relating to the viability of the fetus as ‘ improper?’

Follow the context!

The two studies purport to show third trimester abortions without a medical reason.

No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.

 

[Elixir]

Goddam! People are starved, murdered, tortured and otherwise unalived by the thousands every day. I mean ACTUAL PEOPLE with hopes, dreams, friends, families and memories.
Let’s put a stop to THAT before even considering “fetal rights”, especially as a mechanism for controlling women’s bodily sovereignty.

 

[Elixir]

It's not that we are assuming they lied about why they had an abortion. Rather, the sampling technique does not ensure they are actually talking to women who had an abortion. All it would take is a couple of liars deciding to contaminate the data, out of a completely unknown number who might have been aware of the research. We see plenty of stuff made up on social media to push positions, why should we think this is immune?

Oh FFS, it’s none of your or the pollsters’ business. Or anyone else’s unless they’re one of the parents. How many fetuses do you want to be able to claim you “saved” before you’ll give it a rest?

 

[Toni]

It's not that we are assuming they lied about why they had an abortion. Rather, the sampling technique does not ensure they are actually talking to women who had an abortion. All it would take is a couple of liars deciding to contaminate the data, out of a completely unknown number who might have been aware of the research. We see plenty of stuff made up on social media to push positions, why should we think this is immune?

Oh FFS, it’s none of your or the pollsters’ business. Or anyone else’s unless they’re one of the parents. How many fetuses do you want to be able to claim you “saved” before you’ll give it a rest?

Loren claims to support abortion rights but he sure never misses a chance to suggest women are liars.

 

[Jarhyn]

You can ever guarantee that any survey respondents are responding honestly.

The study in question was not made up of data compiled from surveys. It was done drawing from interviews with women who agreed to discuss an impossibly difficult situation that they faced.

Sure, it's possible that they lied. That's what women do, right? They lie about being raped, they lie about who the baby daddy is, they lie about how much their rent is, t hey lie about birth control and they respond to a request from a researcher who is seeking to learn more information from women about why they had late term abortions, because that's an experience that every woman wants to relive, embellish and expand upon, making it up as she goes because she happily murdered the baby that she carried for 4 or 5 or 6 months, and woke up one morning and said Nah, not feeling it.

It's not that we are assuming they lied about why they had an abortion. Rather, the sampling technique does not ensure they are actually talking to women who had an abortion. All it would take is a couple of liars deciding to contaminate the data, out of a completely unknown number who might have been aware of the research. We see plenty of stuff made up on social media to push positions, why should we think this is immune?

Oh, ffs.

That is true of any collection of data that involves human beings responding to a survey of any kind.

The difference here is the whole "liars for Jesus lining up while salivating at a chance to be the one that gets to do the lying today" part.

There are motivated liars with an affinity to telling this particular lie.

That doesn't normally happen in profusion around most topics being studied, and so isn't normally a confounding problem.

The issue here is that for this target of study, it's a huge issue.

While it's difficult to say for certain that someone has been by to poison the well, it was a well-advertised undefended well location in the middle of a land well populated by known well-poisoners, and case-study is a "well" format quite susceptible to poison.

 

[Toni]

You can ever guarantee that any survey respondents are responding honestly.

The study in question was not made up of data compiled from surveys. It was done drawing from interviews with women who agreed to discuss an impossibly difficult situation that they faced.

Sure, it's possible that they lied. That's what women do, right? They lie about being raped, they lie about who the baby daddy is, they lie about how much their rent is, t hey lie about birth control and they respond to a request from a researcher who is seeking to learn more information from women about why they had late term abortions, because that's an experience that every woman wants to relive, embellish and expand upon, making it up as she goes because she happily murdered the baby that she carried for 4 or 5 or 6 months, and woke up one morning and said Nah, not feeling it.

It's not that we are assuming they lied about why they had an abortion. Rather, the sampling technique does not ensure they are actually talking to women who had an abortion. All it would take is a couple of liars deciding to contaminate the data, out of a completely unknown number who might have been aware of the research. We see plenty of stuff made up on social media to push positions, why should we think this is immune?

Oh, ffs.

That is true of any collection of data that involves human beings responding to a survey of any kind.

The difference here is the whole "liars for Jesus lining up while salivating at a chance to be the one that gets to do the lying today" part.

There are motivated liars with an affinity to telling this particular lie.

That doesn't normally happen in profusion around most topics being studied, and so isn't normally a confounding problem.

The issue here is that for this target of study, it's a huge issue.

While it's difficult to say for certain that someone has been by to poison the well, it was a well-advertised undefended well location in the middle of a land well populated by known well-poisoners, and case-study is a "well" format quite susceptible to poison.

FFS again.

I’m so utterly done with hearing that women are liars or likely to be liars by those who cannot be bothered to learn anything about any discipline other than their own which they consider to be utterly honest and rational without any hint of deceit.

History has never been my long suit but pick a science, any science or any art for that matter. It is men who have lied and stolen and cheated and taken women’s accomplishments ts as their own, what they did not bury as deep as they could or sully with accusations.

You cannot allow us to have control over any aspect of our lives, not even our own bodies. You think that somehow we must justify ourselves to you even when it might kill us.

Learn something about how other disciplines work, ffs.

And ask yourself why you are all so happy to believe the histories that men tell and see it as sacred truth.

And why you insist women justify their own right to continue to breathe.

 

[Jarhyn]

You can ever guarantee that any survey respondents are responding honestly.

The study in question was not made up of data compiled from surveys. It was done drawing from interviews with women who agreed to discuss an impossibly difficult situation that they faced.

Sure, it's possible that they lied. That's what women do, right? They lie about being raped, they lie about who the baby daddy is, they lie about how much their rent is, t hey lie about birth control and they respond to a request from a researcher who is seeking to learn more information from women about why they had late term abortions, because that's an experience that every woman wants to relive, embellish and expand upon, making it up as she goes because she happily murdered the baby that she carried for 4 or 5 or 6 months, and woke up one morning and said Nah, not feeling it.

It's not that we are assuming they lied about why they had an abortion. Rather, the sampling technique does not ensure they are actually talking to women who had an abortion. All it would take is a couple of liars deciding to contaminate the data, out of a completely unknown number who might have been aware of the research. We see plenty of stuff made up on social media to push positions, why should we think this is immune?

Oh, ffs.

That is true of any collection of data that involves human beings responding to a survey of any kind.

The difference here is the whole "liars for Jesus lining up while salivating at a chance to be the one that gets to do the lying today" part.

There are motivated liars with an affinity to telling this particular lie.

That doesn't normally happen in profusion around most topics being studied, and so isn't normally a confounding problem.

The issue here is that for this target of study, it's a huge issue.

While it's difficult to say for certain that someone has been by to poison the well, it was a well-advertised undefended well location in the middle of a land well populated by known well-poisoners, and case-study is a "well" format quite susceptible to poison.

FFS again.

I’m so utterly done with hearing that women are liars or likely to be liars by those who cannot be bothered to learn anything about any discipline other than their own which they consider to be utterly honest and rational without any hint of deceit.

History has never been my long suit but pick a science, any science or any art for that matter. It is men who have lied and stolen and cheated and taken women’s accomplishments ts as their own, what they did not bury as deep as they could or sully with accusations.

You cannot allow us to have control over any aspect of our lives, not even our own bodies. You think that somehow we must justify ourselves to you even when it might kill us.

Learn something about how other disciplines work, ffs.

And ask yourself why you are all so happy to believe the histories that men tell and see it as sacred truth.

And why you insist women justify their own right to continue to breathe.

I'm not saying women are liars. I am saying Christians are liars.

Big difference, there.

I feel like I'm being gaslit for the sake of convincing me that people don't lie about abortions.

I have directly observed someone lying about abortion in published print.

Christian culture is rife with abortion horror-stories and urban legends about on-demand third trimester abortions.

There are well-poisoners about, and they don't even think what they pour into the wells IS poison. They think it's medicine. It has nothing to do with "women" and everything to do with "Christians" and "liars for Jesus".