Roe v Wade is on deck

[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.

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".

Absolutely unsure how any of that pertains to an article presenting the narratives of women who have had late term abortions. They regret the necessity, not the abortion.

 

[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".

Absolutely unsure how any of that pertains to an article presenting the narratives of women who have had late term abortions. They regret the necessity, not the abortion.

I have specifically impugned a specific subset of the stories told in that not-research namely every one of them bending towards the Christian narrative of "irresponsible women" seeking "late-term on-demand" abortions.

The problem is that because of that segment the whole thing is like wading through the Bible looking for something true: a lot of it might still be useful or contain truth, but the lies also buried within it makes it untrustworthy on the whole.

Overwhelmingly to a point of vanishing, these are wanted pregnancies. This is what all the statistical studies have shown.

I have held up a light that casts reasonable doubt on a specific subset of the narratives that can be pulled from that study, and I'm damn sure that Loren has been doing exactly the same, namely those narratives.

 

[Arctish]

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".

Since we're talking about poisoning the well, can we please 86 the phrase "abortion on-demand"?

It's a sideswipe at the character of a person seeking an abortion, that they are "demanding" something shocking. And it makes it sound like a pregnant woman can force a doctor to perform an abortion regardless of any other considerations.

The reality is that someone can request an abortion and a doctor might agree to provide one following a medical exam. But if the exam results indicate the abortion would be too risky or if it would otherwise violate medical ethics as established by the State Medical Board then the abortion won't happen.

And once again, I'm going to point out that an abortion does not automatically mean the death and destruction of a fetus. Terminating a pregnancy is not the same thing as terminating a fetus.

 

[Jarhyn]

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".

Since we're talking about poisoning the well, can we please 86 the phrase "abortion on-demand"?

It's a sideswipe at the character of a person seeking an abortion, that they are "demanding" something shocking. And it makes it sound like a pregnant woman can force a doctor to perform an abortion regardless of any other considerations.

The reality is that someone can request an abortion and a doctor might agree to provide one following a medical exam. But if the exam results indicate the abortion would be too risky or if it would otherwise violate medical ethics as established by the State Medical Board then the abortion won't happen.

And once again, I'm going to point out that an abortion does not automatically mean the death and destruction of a fetus. Terminating a pregnancy is not the same thing as terminating a fetus.

I'm not the one who even believes that is a thing any more than "welfare queens". I would love to never hear another repetition on that theme, to never see another claim that doesn't present it. I would love to never see another person claim that abortion is irresponsible or that only irresponsible persons have them or for irresponsible reasons, as if anyone should be expected to gestate a human life to completion and independence for having accidentally triggered the process.

I would love to never see that again.

But until I do, it calls out for response.

 

[Arctish]

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".

Since we're talking about poisoning the well, can we please 86 the phrase "abortion on-demand"?

It's a sideswipe at the character of a person seeking an abortion, that they are "demanding" something shocking. And it makes it sound like a pregnant woman can force a doctor to perform an abortion regardless of any other considerations.

The reality is that someone can request an abortion and a doctor might agree to provide one following a medical exam. But if the exam results indicate the abortion would be too risky or if it would otherwise violate medical ethics as established by the State Medical Board then the abortion won't happen.

And once again, I'm going to point out that an abortion does not automatically mean the death and destruction of a fetus. Terminating a pregnancy is not the same thing as terminating a fetus.

I'm not the one who even believes that is a thing any more than "welfare queens". I would love to never hear another repetition on that theme, to never see another claim that doesn't present it. I would love to never see another person claim that abortion is irresponsible or that only irresponsible persons have them or for irresponsible reasons, as if anyone should be expected to gestate a human life to completion and independence for having accidentally triggered the process.

I would love to never see that again.

But until I do, it calls out for response.

Sorry if it sounded like I was singling you out for use of that phrase, Jarhyn. I wasn't. I was just using your post as an opportunity to voice my opinion.

The phrase bothers me the same way that the phrase "school choice" does when what people really mean is "publicly subsidized private school tuition". If it really was the parents' choice where their kids go to school, every kid in Washington D.C. would go to the Sidwell Friends School.

 

[Jarhyn]

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".

Since we're talking about poisoning the well, can we please 86 the phrase "abortion on-demand"?

It's a sideswipe at the character of a person seeking an abortion, that they are "demanding" something shocking. And it makes it sound like a pregnant woman can force a doctor to perform an abortion regardless of any other considerations.

The reality is that someone can request an abortion and a doctor might agree to provide one following a medical exam. But if the exam results indicate the abortion would be too risky or if it would otherwise violate medical ethics as established by the State Medical Board then the abortion won't happen.

And once again, I'm going to point out that an abortion does not automatically mean the death and destruction of a fetus. Terminating a pregnancy is not the same thing as terminating a fetus.

I'm not the one who even believes that is a thing any more than "welfare queens". I would love to never hear another repetition on that theme, to never see another claim that doesn't present it. I would love to never see another person claim that abortion is irresponsible or that only irresponsible persons have them or for irresponsible reasons, as if anyone should be expected to gestate a human life to completion and independence for having accidentally triggered the process.

I would love to never see that again.

But until I do, it calls out for response.

Sorry if it sounded like I was singling you out for use of that phrase, Jarhyn. I wasn't. I was just using your post as an opportunity to voice my opinion.

The phrase bothers me the same way that the phrase "school choice" does when what people really mean is "publicly subsidized private school tuition". If it really was the parents' choice where their kids go to school, every kid in Washington D.C. would go to the Sidwell Friends School.

That's fair. And I see it kind of the same way. It's why I usually qualify it with " " or some indicator that it's associated with liar-for-jesus.

It's a phrase that I think rightfully should erode everyone's trust in those who use it whenever it is uttered*.

*Except when uttered spitefully of those who think it describes reality.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

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.

Yeah, that wasn't remotely apparent in my reading of your post. Nor re-reading of it. And nor should I, as that isn't collateral damage from Roe v Wade.

Whenever you talk about causality there’s an implicit or explicit compared-to-what involved. When you say that isn’t collateral damage from RvW you’re comparing RvW to the state of American law before RvW, either before 1973, or comparing current post-Dobbs law with a hypothetical future with RvW enacted as federal law by some future congress. Those aren’t what I’m comparing it to. When I say that is collateral damage from RvW I mean compared to the no-laws-against-any-abortions-ever policy being advocated by several posters here. Compared to that, RvW is an anti-abortion policy — RvW authorizes states to criminalize non-medically-indicated third-trimester abortions, and that authorization will cause the collateral damage I described above, compared with so-called “abortion-on-demand”, which would give the red states no authority to abuse in the first place.

(And yeah, trying to post from a cellphone blows.)

 

[Bomb#20]

Since we're talking about poisoning the well, can we please 86 the phrase "abortion on-demand"?

It's a sideswipe at the character of a person seeking an abortion, that they are "demanding" something shocking. And it makes it sound like a pregnant woman can force a doctor to perform an abortion regardless of any other considerations.

The reality is that someone can request an abortion and a doctor might agree to provide one following a medical exam. But if the exam results indicate the abortion would be too risky or if it would otherwise violate medical ethics as established by the State Medical Board then the abortion won't happen.

And once again, I'm going to point out that an abortion does not automatically mean the death and destruction of a fetus. Terminating a pregnancy is not the same thing as terminating a fetus.

“Abortion on demand” was the prevailing terminology used by radical feminists in the 1970s to describe the policy they wanted. It’s not a sideswipe; it’s just people trying to specify which policy they’re talking about by using what they perceive to be the customary name for it. Who should people get the name from if not from the advocates of the policy? So the worst that can fairly be said against the phrase is that it might be of date.

So if you want to 86 it, what name would you prefer for people to use? And whatever you choose, if you succeed in making it become customary, ten years after that the anti-abortion folks will use it disparagingly and ten years after that the left will be claiming the right made it up as a sideswipe.

 

[Toni]

Why not just say abortion?

I understand the origins of the term abortion on demand and we have all seen the bastardization of the term, and the reasons why. It was hijacked and turned against abortion rights. Women, of course, had no business making demands. Especially when they are pregnant. Or become mothers.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why not just say abortion?

Because that would be an epic rhetorical own goal. If we persuade English speakers that “abortion” means no laws limiting access to third trimester abortions we will instantly create an 80% consensus against abortion rights.

 

[Elixir]

If we persuade English speakers that “abortion” means no laws limiting access to third trimester abortions we will instantly create an 80% consensus against abortion rights.

Means, implies, or includes no laws limiting 3T abortions?
What is the 80% figure is based on?
What is going to be the 80%’s preferred legal boundary? No abortion whatsoever unless it’s themselves, a loved one or a friend who needs/wants an abortion? You know, like if you’re a politician in Texas?

 

[Toni]

Why not just say abortion?

Because that would be an epic rhetorical own goal. If we persuade English speakers that “abortion” means no laws limiting access to third trimester abortions we will instantly create an 80% consensus against abortion rights.

But it doesn't mean that at all. Why would we want to convince everyone of something that is not and never will be true?

Assuming that women are crazy creatures with a self destructive/murderous streak who willy nilly decide to just abort a perfectly normal pregnancy 3 days before the due date----doctors and nurses and midwifes are not going to do that as discussed upthread. It's like saying that if I eat pop rocks while drinking cococola my head will explode.

 

[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?

Oh, ffs.

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

You're missing my point. Sure, sometimes people lie. The problem here is that when you have a self-selected sample from a large population you can basically assume the sample is not representative. This "research" starts out acceptably--distributing it to patients at the abortion clinic. But then it's distributed elsewhere, no hint of the number of people reached. You can't hope to draw meaningful statistics from such a sample.

Thus, from the starting line this can be no more than a list of some reasons. And it's a sufficiently hot-button issue that some liars are to be expected.

This inherent flaw is not mentioned. That is not proper.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Worse, they phrased it such that some of the people on here are missing that the well was actually well advertised. Totally unethical.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Worse, they phrased it such that some of the people on here are missing that the well was actually well advertised. Totally unethical.

Like, I just don't get it. If you put out meat, you get flies.

This was some red meat left to stink in the afternoon sun.

Edit: it feels like the abortion clinic distribution part was there specifically to "salt" the false data with real data.

 

[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.

You're missing my point. Sure, sometimes people lie. The problem here is that when you have a self-selected sample from a large population you can basically assume the sample is not representative. This "research" starts out acceptably--distributing it to patients at the abortion clinic. But then it's distributed elsewhere, no hint of the number of people reached. You can't hope to draw meaningful statistics from such a sample.

Thus, from the starting line this can be no more than a list of some reasons. And it's a sufficiently hot-button issue that some liars are to be expected.

This inherent flaw is not mentioned. That is not proper.

You're missing the point: The sample size is extremely small. There are very few late term abortions performed in the US. Of those for whom there was contact info, only a few responded. The sample size is acknowledged in the paper.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why not just say abortion?

Because that would be an epic rhetorical own goal. If we persuade English speakers that “abortion” means no laws limiting access to third trimester abortions we will instantly create an 80% consensus against abortion rights.

But it doesn't mean that at all. Why would we want to convince everyone of something that is not and never will be true?

Why are you asking me?!? It was your proposal!!!

Did you perhaps not understand the question you were answering? “No laws limiting access to third trimester abortions” is what “abortion on demand” is currently being used to mean. Arctish wants us to stop using that phrase so I asked her what phrase she wants us to use for that concept instead. Do you have any suggestion?

Assuming that women are crazy creatures with a self destructive/murderous streak who willy nilly decide to just abort a perfectly normal pregnancy 3 days before the due date----doctors and nurses and midwifes are not going to do that as discussed upthread. It's like saying that if I eat pop rocks while drinking cococola my head will explode.

So? Three days before the due date isn’t the sum total of the third trimester and crazy willy nilly isn’t the sum total of non-medical reasons. As belabored upthread, some women abort at seven months because they didn’t know they were pregnant until then.

 

[Toni]

Why not just say abortion?

Because that would be an epic rhetorical own goal. If we persuade English speakers that “abortion” means no laws limiting access to third trimester abortions we will instantly create an 80% consensus against abortion rights.

But it doesn't mean that at all. Why would we want to convince everyone of something that is not and never will be true?

Why are you asking me?!? It was your proposal!!!

Did you perhaps not understand the question you were answering? “No laws limiting access to third trimester abortions” is what “abortion on demand” is currently being used to mean. Arctish wants us to stop using that phrase so I asked her what phrase she wants us to use for that concept instead. Do you have any suggestion?

Assuming that women are crazy creatures with a self destructive/murderous streak who willy nilly decide to just abort a perfectly normal pregnancy 3 days before the due date----doctors and nurses and midwifes are not going to do that as discussed upthread. It's like saying that if I eat pop rocks while drinking cococola my head will explode.

So? Three days before the due date isn’t the sum total of the third trimester and crazy willy nilly isn’t the sum total of non-medical reasons. As belabored upthread, some women abort at seven months because they didn’t know they were pregnant until then.

My suggestion was just the word abortion.

You don’t agree. Fine. I don’t agree with your reasoning.

The rest is just talking past each other.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You're being blinded by your faith again.

We aren't saying women are liars. 99.9% of women could be completely honest and it wouldn't change what we are saying.

And what discipline do you think is involved here? This is a major and disguised failure of sampling technique. Statistics, not anything in the social sciences.

 

[Toni]

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.

You're being blinded by your faith again.

We aren't saying women are liars. 99.9% of women could be completely honest and it wouldn't change what we are saying.

And what discipline do you think is involved here? This is a major and disguised failure of sampling technique. Statistics, not anything in the social sciences.

No you are making a major and deliberate error of misunderstanding the study, full stop. From the design to the methods and especially the discipline.

And you are once again resorting to implying that I am not using reasoning or understanding but am relying on religion. Stop it. It should be a TOU.

Your faith in yourself —your reasoning, your comprehension, is highly misplaced.