Roe v Wade is on deck

[Loren Pechtel]

The hoopla is relevant if the studies are a Trojan horse--an attempt to slip in data showing third trimester abortions without medical reason.

28 women who had verified 3rd trimester abortions gave their reasons. That’s called reality unless you have evidence the respondents are either liars or delusional.

And here lies your problem: this in no way verified they actually had third trimester abortions. It's written to make you think they're verified but they are not.

The author of the study claimed to have verified that the respondents had a 3rd trimester abortion before they were interviewed. On what basis are you claiming the author lied?

How are the able to verify?!?!

They glossed over the sampling problem. Why should I trust that they verified something that should be very hard to verify.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some abortions are medically necessary and some aren’t. That’s just a fact of reality that isn’t anyone’s fault, not even the Romans’. It will remain true whether we pay attention to it or not.

That's playing pretty fast and loose with the notion of a "fact". There is and always will be subjective judgement involved with determining what is or isn't medically necessary, even in a room full of physicians. If all medical experts firmly agreed on when abortions were necessary, this whole social debate would be simpler. The legal question would be much simpler.

Your roomful of physicians do not have perfect information. Previously, standard medical practice was to suggest abortion if there was undue risk to the situation. But the punishment crowd isn't doing that, they are demanding that abortions not happen unless it's sure she's going to die otherwise. And given the uncertainty around the situation the reality is many doctors are simply not doing it no matter what. Which is exactly what the Republicans are after. Texas has still refused to provide guidelines on when it's necessary--the doctors understand that means the state does not consider it necessary in any situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And in the second place, you realize you’re advocating a lunatic fringe position, don’t you? The existence of unnecessary late-term abortions isn’t controversial!. Everyone but a few extremists believe they happen. Here’s public opinion as distilled by a neural network trained on what everyone and their brother are saying. I asked Google “do any experts claim third trimester medically unnecessary abortions never happen” and it said

”No medical experts claim third-trimester abortions never happen for elective or non-medical reasons, but medical bodies and researchers agree that third-trimester abortions are exceptionally rare (less than 1% of all abortions) and are almost universally performed due to severe fetal anomalies or medical necessity.”​

So your theory is that a bunch of prolifers chose to undermine their own political agenda by adding to the case for making access to early term abortions easier, purely in order to convince the public of something the public already believe and to settle a dispute that’s only going on inside pro-choice circles. Do you really not understand how ridiculous that sounds? Why would any prolifer even be aware of your fringe opinion, let alone care enough about it to lie-for-Jesus in order to discredit it at the cost of building up the case for better sex education and easier early abortions?

You trust the AI?? In an area rife with deception?? What are you smoking?!

There has been major deception in the punishment community pretending the fetal defect abortions ("elective" in medical parlance) are "elective" in common usage, as by choice. Some of us have been trying to make this clear in this thread. Why in the world do you think the AI could possibly see truth behind the deception?!

 

[laughing dog]

The hoopla is relevant if the studies are a Trojan horse--an attempt to slip in data showing third trimester abortions without medical reason.

28 women who had verified 3rd trimester abortions gave their reasons. That’s called reality unless you have evidence the respondents are either liars or delusional.

And here lies your problem: this in no way verified they actually had third trimester abortions. It's written to make you think they're verified but they are not.

The author of the study claimed to have verified that the respondents had a 3rd trimester abortion before they were interviewed. On what basis are you claiming the author lied?

How are the able to verify?!?!

. They could ask the person to sign a waiver so they could look at their medical records or ask them to show them medical records.

They glossed over the sampling problem. Why should I trust that they verified something that should be very hard to verify.

They didn't have a sampling problem because they weren't making a statistical study.

Why should a reader trust your wild accusations based on a easy to spot misunderstandings?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

wrong to think it doesn’t make sense to have moral issues with third trimester abortions but not first and second?

Not to butt in, butt iirc, you need to take that up with Emily. The very core of Emily’s arguments for intervening in 3rd trimester abortion, is/was her assertion that “at some point” prior to birth, the fetus becomes a baby and at that point, the rights and benefits of being a baby should accrue to the fetus.
Much argument ensued about blues, reds and purples, but that mythical point of babyhood was never given objective definition.
According to Ems, the “fact” that no concise definition or diagnostic procedure can pinpoint “the point”, would oblige us to go through an elaborate process of soliciting and obtaining expert opinions other than that of the woman’s primary doctor, to make sure they concur that the 3rd T fetus to be aborted is not yet a baby.
I’m pretty sure Ems would say that’s not her position, but that IS what she said it WAS and I’ve not heard if she has modified it.

Consider the law about self defense.

You may use deadly force in self defense when a reasonable man would consider a deadly threat to exist. Certainty of harm is not required--you can shoot the armed robber because you're not sure if he will be satisfied with the take from the robbery and might inflict harm in an attempt to get more.

Applied to pregnancy: at some point it becomes a person. We have no perfect definition of "person", nor do we have a perfect ability to measure whether something meets this definition anyway. But this does not matter if the pregnancy poses a threat to the woman--why should she not have the same right to defend herself against her fetus as she would anyone else? Note that inviting it in doesn't change matters--a lawful guest isn't a threat but if they attempt to inflict harm they become a threat.

There is no requirement of a second opinion against an imminent threat.

 

[Toni]

Loren’s issue, which he proves over and over and over again is that he does not trust or respect women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How are the able to verify?!?!

. They could ask the person to sign a waiver so they could look at their medical records or ask them to show them medical records.

The records would contain the information the survey was seeking. If they had the records they wouldn't need the interviews.

They glossed over the sampling problem. Why should I trust that they verified something that should be very hard to verify.

They didn't have a sampling problem because they weren't making a statistical study.

Why should a reader trust your wild accusations based on a easy to spot misunderstandings?

You still are not understanding the sampling problem I am talking about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren’s issue, which he proves over and over and over again is that he does not trust or respect women.

You think no woman would ever lie???

I am not saying most women lie. I'm saying that if you cast a wide enough net it is entirely possible a couple of liars will jump in it.

 

[Toni]

Loren’s issue, which he proves over and over and over again is that he does not trust or respect women.

You think no woman would ever lie???

I am not saying most women lie. I'm saying that if you cast a wide enough net it is entirely possible a couple of liars will jump in it.

I don’t understand your presumption that women would responded to a survey asking about why the had a late term abortion dishonestly. I would be surprised if they said something like; I just woke up one day and decided I just wasn’t feeling it so I thought I’d just abort it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Loren’s issue, which he proves over and over and over again is that he does not trust or respect women.

You think no woman would ever lie???

I am not saying most women lie. I'm saying that if you cast a wide enough net it is entirely possible a couple of liars will jump in it.

But if you concern is just a couple in a survey with around 30 people... not certain the issue.

I can't believe this distraction has been running for so long.

Do women have the right to themselves? Yes.

What always gets me is how Emily Lake can 'agree' on a main principle, but somehow it always derails into the weeds.

 

[Toni]

Loren’s issue, which he proves over and over and over again is that he does not trust or respect women.

You think no woman would ever lie???

I am not saying most women lie. I'm saying that if you cast a wide enough net it is entirely possible a couple of liars will jump in it.

But if you concern is just a couple in a survey with around 30 people... not certain the issue.

I can't believe this distraction has been running for so long.

Do women have the right to themselves? Yes.

What always gets me is how Emily Lake can 'agree' on a main principle, but somehow it always derails into the weeds.

I don’t think Emily is solely responsible for the derail.

I really do get why people oppose third trimester abortions except for very extreme circumstances. Me, too. Preemies can be saved at earlier gestational ages now compared with when RvW was first agreed. Most have very serious lifelong disabilities which are costly in terms of money Abd also emotionally and physically fit the child and their family and society at large.


Some people believe that every exception to no third trimester abortions can be clearly laid out into legislation written by mostly (old) men who have very little understanding of female anatomy ( or their own, probably), pregnancy, childbirth or fetal development.

I don’t believe that. I believe that decisions to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester are best left to those in a position to make that medical judgement: the woman and her doctor.

 

[laughing dog]

How are the able to verify?!?!

. They could ask the person to sign a waiver so they could look at their medical records or ask them to show them medical records.

The records would contain the information the survey was seeking. If they had the records they wouldn't need the interviews.

Really? I know my medical records do not have in depth interviews about my motivations or why I made decisions.

They glossed over the sampling problem. Why should I trust that they verified something that should be very hard to verify.

They didn't have a sampling problem because they weren't making a statistical study.

Why should a reader trust your wild accusations based on a easy to spot misunderstandings?

You still are not understanding the sampling problem I am talking about.

I understand that there were no sampling problems because this was not a statistical study.

 

[laughing dog]

Loren’s issue, which he proves over and over and over again is that he does not trust or respect women.

You think no woman would ever lie???

I am not saying most women lie. I'm saying that if you cast a wide enough net it is entirely possible a couple of liars will jump in it.

You are casting doubt on a study because of the perception of the possibility of misinformation on the part of some participants without a shred of evidence tied to the study. That is one teeny tiny step above "people are saying" as a proof. And just as convincing as evidence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Loren’s issue, which he proves over and over and over again is that he does not trust or respect women.

You think no woman would ever lie???

I am not saying most women lie. I'm saying that if you cast a wide enough net it is entirely possible a couple of liars will jump in it.

You are casting doubt on a study because of the perception of the possibility of misinformation on the part of some participants without a shred of evidence tied to the study. That is one teeny tiny step above "people are saying" as a proof. And just as convincing as evidence.

Okay, can we please stop this? The study is a bit of a red herring to begin with. Women should be afford the same rights as men in getting health care services without the law getting involved. Women should have all their options presented and fully understood by a medical professional, not some person with a political agenda. Let's stop the derail.

 

[TomC]

You are casting doubt on a study because of the perception of the possibility of misinformation on the part of some participants without a shred of evidence tied to the study. That is one teeny tiny step above "people are saying" as a proof. And just as convincing as evidence.

Not really.
We are casting doubt on the validity of the study as a representation of the broad reality.
Of the 1000 late term abortions up to the survey, 972 people were ignored or disinterested or both. The survey only involves the tiny few willing and able to participate. That's nothing like a representative sample.


It's a big problem for most such research, it's much worse when it's a deeply personal experience and a hot button issue.
Tom

 

[Toni]

You are casting doubt on a study because of the perception of the possibility of misinformation on the part of some participants without a shred of evidence tied to the study. That is one teeny tiny step above "people are saying" as a proof. And just as convincing as evidence.

Not really.
We are casting doubt on the validity of the study as a representation of the broad reality.
Of the 1000 late term abortions up to the survey, 972 people were ignored or disinterested or both. The survey only involves the tiny few willing and able to participate. That's nothing like a representative sample.


It's a big problem for most such research, it's much worse when it's a deeply personal experience and a hot button issue.
Tom

The deeply personal and hot button issues are reasons for the small sample size.

 

[TomC]

The deeply personal and hot button issues are reasons for the small sample size.

I didn't say differently. I was commenting on whether the results were particularly meaningful in any big ways or not.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

l
You are casting doubt on a study because of the perception of the possibility of misinformation on the part of some participants without a shred of evidence tied to the study. That is one teeny tiny step above "people are saying" as a proof. And just as convincing as evidence.

Not really.
We are casting doubt on the validity of the study as a representation of the broad reality.
Of the 1000 late term abortions up to the survey, 972 people were ignored or disinterested or both. The survey only involves the tiny few willing and able to participate. That's nothing like a representative sample.

All studies based on interviews require willing participants. A representative sample is necessary for statistical study. This is not a statistical sample.

No critic has provided a jot of actual evidence that this study is biased. In fact every critic has based their objections on misunderstanding or misrepresentation. For example, the study I referenced (Is third-trimester abortion exceptional? Two pathways to abortion after 24 weeks in the US) did not report ignoring 972 people (or anyone).

If someone thinks 28 participants is too a small to inspire confidence, that is a personal judgment. But expecting unsubstantiated claims of lying, or participants were ignored or that the sample is not "representative" to be convincing or evidence of rational thought is extremely optimistic.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why are you (and others) demanding a degree of perfect specificity for this that is not present in any other regulations?

That's nearly the opposite of what I have posted.
The medical establishments can make rules and regulations for themselves. What I want is for the government to shut up, sit down, and get out of the way!
Tom

The medical establishment thought that lobotomies were great, and now thinks that amputating the heathy breasts off of anxious young lesbians is a good idea.

I don't believe for one second that current medical establishments believe or support that crap for one second.
Tom

Sure, sure. They totally didn’t give a full bilateral mastectomy to my bipolar, anxiety-disordered, attracted-to-females niece. All either no mental health evaluation.

FFS I had more serious discussion about my mental state and informed consent getting a hysterectomy at 51 for fibroids that were trying to kill me than she got.

Your belief is not required.

 

[TomC]

They totally didn’t give a full bilateral mastectomy to my bipolar, anxiety-disordered, attracted-to-females niece. All either no mental health evaluation.

I dunno. But "they" don't sound like the entire medical establishment. Maybe so, I quite oppose that myself.
Tom