Roe v Wade is on deck

[Bomb#20]

The problem for her is that the only way to get to the perception of it is to either do as we have been discussing and relying on unscientific trash 'studies' in a format that can push any line, or the conflation between "elective" and on-demand.

Jarhyn is not competent to judge what's unscientific.

There might be a third way some fool or idiot or liar-for-jesus comes to repeat such trash, but it will be adjacent to the last two because Bomb, at least has already admitted that statistically, these events don't actually happen except as a function of the rule of large numbers and has entirely failed to stop making the claim that something needs to be done about them. Will he stop making the claim though? Nope.

Nor, apparently, to read. In the unlikely event that Jarhyn ever fact-checks the above accusation the search will come up empty. Where the bejesus am I supposed to have claimed something needs to be done about them? Perhaps someday the Jarhyns of the world will stop beating their wives, but I wouldn't bet on it.

But I have to say, "Bomb, at least has already admitted that statistically, these events don't actually happen except as a function of the rule of large numbers" is a surprisingly artistic way to say "Bomb says they're rare."

 

[Toni]

Do persons murdered (aborted) pre-birth go to heaven?

Imagine them all getting together in heaven and forming a coalition - by sheer numbers it would wield huge influence in heaven itself. Gonna make the place intolerable!
I only hope that fetuses’ relative inability to speak or understand languages is sufficient to prevent The Unborn from becoming heaven’s controlling interest, imposing their will upon the rest of us as they would have if brought to term.

Limbo. If their parents are Catholic. Heaven if they are Baptist. The mothers go to hell.

 

[Jarhyn]

If we are in the situation of "nothing needs to be done with respect to preventing abortions", the fuck are you even here to do or say? Wave your arms around and play the circus clown?

But I have to say, "Bomb, at least has already admitted that statistically, these events don't actually happen except as a function of the rule of large numbers" is a surprisingly artistic way to say "Bomb says they're rare."

And it's good to hear you admit the other implications of the artistic turn of phrase.

Specifically, that the study cherry picks them.

Where the bejesus am I supposed to have claimed something needs to be done about them?

I'll take this as your surprising admission that nothing actually needs to be done about them, with respect to preventing "on-demand" abortions.

Good we cleared all that up.

 

[TomC]

Limbo. If their parents are Catholic. Heaven if they are Baptist. The mothers go to hell.

Even Catholics gave up on the limbo nonsense decades ago.
I was there.

Tom

 

[bilby]

Limbo. If their parents are Catholic. Heaven if they are Baptist. The mothers go to hell.

Even Catholics gave up on the limbo nonsense decades ago.

It was a low bar.

 

[TomC]

Limbo. If their parents are Catholic. Heaven if they are Baptist. The mothers go to hell.

Even Catholics gave up on the limbo nonsense decades ago.

It was a low bar.

Toni brought up limbo, not me.
Why ask me about it rather than her?
Tom

 

[thebeave]

Limbo. If their parents are Catholic. Heaven if they are Baptist. The mothers go to hell.

Even Catholics gave up on the limbo nonsense decades ago.

It was a low bar.

Toni brought up limbo, not me.
Why ask me about it rather than her?
Tom

Woooooooosh!!!!!

 

[bilby]

Limbo. If their parents are Catholic. Heaven if they are Baptist. The mothers go to hell.

Even Catholics gave up on the limbo nonsense decades ago.

It was a low bar.

Toni brought up limbo, not me.
Why ask me about it rather than her?
Tom

I didn't ask anything.

Apparently my comment went over your head. That's quite an achievement.

 

[Bomb#20]

If we are in the situation of "nothing needs to be done with respect to preventing abortions",

the <expletive deleted> are you even here to do or say? Wave your arms around and play the circus clown?

I'm here to correct disinformation, defend other members from strawman attacks and ad hominems, point out the errors in bad arguments, and, hopefully, learn something. Debate is a route to discovering truth when each side pits its best arguments against the other side's best arguments. That doesn't happen when one or the other side doggedly insists on presenting its worst. The easy thing to do is just conclude the side with the bad arguments is wrong; but "Emily is kicking all you guys' asses; therefore something needs to be done about late-term abortions." is an invalid inference too. So I'm giving you all the benefit of the doubt, and experimentally testing the hypothesis that when I've sufficiently rubbed your collective noses in how abysmal your arguments are you'll be motivated to think more carefully about why you favor abortion-on-demand and put in the effort and critical thought it will take for you to construct better arguments. That will give me a chance of seeing the best versus the best and finding out who's right.

I realize the possibility of someone being open-minded doesn't really fit inside your worldview, but that's a better reason to enlarge your worldview than to call people circus clowns for not prejudging the issue.

And it's good to hear you admit the other implications of the artistic turn of phrase.

Specifically, that the study cherry picks them.

Selecting informants based on whether they volunteer to open up about an intensely personal medical procedure most women have very good reason to be tight-lipped about is cherry-picking. Right. 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.

Where the bejesus am I supposed to have claimed something needs to be done about them?

I'll take this as your surprising admission that nothing actually needs to be done about them, with respect to preventing "on-demand" abortions.

Good we cleared all that up.

Thanks for letting us all know you're as competent at logic as you are at science.

B: I did not claim the guy who killed Jimmy Hoffa was Rh-positive.
J: I'll take this as your surprising admission that the guy who killed Jimmy Hoffa was Rh-negative.
​

 

[Bomb#20]

I don’t agree. The term ‘elective’ as used by some of the general public and some politicians is used exactly to garner support for non-emergency pregnancies.

See TomC’s post upthread about his duster’s abortion. He states that his sister, the father of the baby and the baby were all healthy and they chose abortion because they did t want to be responsible for a baby.

Note the use of the word baby. I am almost certain that at the time of the termination, the embryo or fetus( depending on how far along the pregnancy was) was quite small, probably at most 2 inches and just beginning to develop features that we would see as human. However, if we compared a fetus or embryo to an embryo if another mammal or even a fetus of a reptile, they appear very similar and to an untrained person, they appear nearly indistinguishable. But TomC refers to the baby. Which is understandable because he would have only met the fetus after it was born. That’s what is visualized when we think about a growing human embryo or fetus. However, about 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or natural abortion during the first trimester. Often without the woman even knowing that she was pregnant. This is most often due to fetal abnormalities incompatible with further development or sometimes, an illness in the woman. Of course pregnancies end in miscarriage at later stages of pregnancy development. When this happens too early fur viability, we call it a miscarriage. If it happens late enough for the fetus to potentially risky survive, we call it pre-term labor and say that the baby is premature.

Words like elective and baby are used familiarly but also by politicians to create emotional outrage and judgement against the woman or girl who decides she cannot continue the pregnancy for whatever reason.

My apologies to TomC for using his post as an example to show how often word choices made conjure up emotional reactions.

I'm not following. What did I say that you don't agree with, and what did you say that conflicts with what I said? You brought up Tom's use of "baby" as an example of the phenomenon you're talking about. It seems to me you wouldn't have needed that example if there were any example of someone in the thread using "elective" for the purpose Jimmy alleged.

The truth is that every day people choose to get pregnant, and to continue a pregnancy for reasons that I would not agree with, just as sometimes they choose to terminate a pregnancy for reasons I would disagree with. They also decide to enter or end relationships, take or leave jobs, buy or sell houses or cars for reasons I or you might disagree with. But it is their choice and not mine or yours.

We all have a right to our opinions and values but none of us have a right to force anyone else to use our opinions as a substitute for their own judgement.

That sort of argument always puzzles me. Would you feel the same way if the choice we were debating was a doctor and patient choosing capybara-punching as physical therapy?

Maybe I’m not following you but I believe that you missed the fact that Emily believes that third trimesters should never be performed except under extreme circumstances ( as is already the case) and never because some woman just walks into a clinic and says: I don’t want this baby, kill it ( paraphrasing, not her words).

Yeah, I got that. When you said "I don’t agree." you meant you don't agree with Emily? Did you take me to be claiming Emily was right? I was just pointing out that nobody in the thread was using "elective" for the purpose Jimmy complained about politicians using it for so there were no grounds for laying that at Emily's door. Doesn't make her right. If anybody wants to show she's wrong, go for it -- but refute her; don't refute some dumbass red-state governor.

Also I strongly disagree that the word ‘elective’ should not be used in describing non-emergency procedures. I understand that it can be a bit jarring to hear or read that word used if you are not familiar with its use in medical jargon.

Hey, it was Elixir who said it shouldn't be used, not me. People can use it any way they like -- it's a free country. What I criticized was people harping on the definition for the purpose of misrepresenting the other side's reasons for their views.

Here's the thing. The problem with RvW is it causes collateral damage. The problem with abortion-on-demand is it causes collateral damage. Both of those things are true. To have a reasonable discussion, each side needs to come to grips with the other side's explanation for why it's right, which means each side needs to come to grips with its own preferred policy's collateral damage. A sensible case for either option can only be a case of the form, "Your collateral damage is worse than our collateral damage because <fill in rest of argument>.". But a bunch of people in this thread have been prattling about the meaning of "Elective" as a way to make believe their own side causes no collateral damage so they'll be relieved of the burden of proving the other side's collateral damage is worse than theirs. So what I'm saying is, don't do that. Face your own collateral damage squarely.

 

[Jarhyn]

The fact is that if you're going to imply heavily that that your opinion is not that something needs to be done, communicated by asking wherever you said that in a snarky way, then your position is that you either you don't think something needs to be done (nothing needs to be done), or you are acting intentionally dishonestly so as to deceive people about your position.

This kind of "won't talk about my position" so as to play a falsely impartial "arbiter" of a debate you have a biased position on is exactly a dishonest tactic in and of itself, especially when the study is junk science.

Selecting informants based on whether they volunteer to open up about an intensely personal medical procedure most women have very good reason to be tight-lipped about is cherry-picking.

Yes, it is cherry picking when there are liars for Jesus who will say anything about the procedure to FoR ThE ChiLdReN.

Given how you admit how tight-lipped people will generally be about the procedure, it makes it likely that those whose lips will flap will flap, not because they had an abortion, but because liars tend to really enjoy talking their way to a spotlight or anything they perceive as one.

Concentrating "on-demand" claims together is cherry picking.

Of course, yet another dishonest debate tactic is mis-characterizing. Because as I pointed out, case study has very few valid applications.

Those applications are limited to understanding a phenomena, and requires intense scrutiny about those phenomena so as to expose them (that did not happen here), or it requires vetting to validate the claims, and is incapable of establishing statistical precedence.

This study did neither of those things.

As I have said, some conclusions may not be possible to ethically gather.

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.

Either way, you have already admitted such circumstances are rare.

Edit: it's also very interesting with respect to Hypocrisy and the CAS review that a very large number of much more vetted, statistically valid studies were run and rejected under much thinner rationale (a lack of double blinding) including a large variety of case study in *exactly in difficult collection environments*, and yet somehow, those rejections are valid and yet mine isn't.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm here to correct disinformation, defend other members from strawman attacks and ad hominems, point out the errors in bad arguments,

Feeding your superiority complex, I see. Does your white knighting make you feel all warm in the fee fees?

I realize the possibility of someone being open-minded doesn't really fit inside your worldview,

 

[Toni]

I don’t agree. The term ‘elective’ as used by some of the general public and some politicians is used exactly to garner support for non-emergency pregnancies.

See TomC’s post upthread about his duster’s abortion. He states that his sister, the father of the baby and the baby were all healthy and they chose abortion because they did t want to be responsible for a baby.

Note the use of the word baby. I am almost certain that at the time of the termination, the embryo or fetus( depending on how far along the pregnancy was) was quite small, probably at most 2 inches and just beginning to develop features that we would see as human. However, if we compared a fetus or embryo to an embryo if another mammal or even a fetus of a reptile, they appear very similar and to an untrained person, they appear nearly indistinguishable. But TomC refers to the baby. Which is understandable because he would have only met the fetus after it was born. That’s what is visualized when we think about a growing human embryo or fetus. However, about 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or natural abortion during the first trimester. Often without the woman even knowing that she was pregnant. This is most often due to fetal abnormalities incompatible with further development or sometimes, an illness in the woman. Of course pregnancies end in miscarriage at later stages of pregnancy development. When this happens too early fur viability, we call it a miscarriage. If it happens late enough for the fetus to potentially risky survive, we call it pre-term labor and say that the baby is premature.

Words like elective and baby are used familiarly but also by politicians to create emotional outrage and judgement against the woman or girl who decides she cannot continue the pregnancy for whatever reason.

My apologies to TomC for using his post as an example to show how often word choices made conjure up emotional reactions.

I'm not following. What did I say that you don't agree with, and what did you say that conflicts with what I said? You brought up Tom's use of "baby" as an example of the phenomenon you're talking about. It seems to me you wouldn't have needed that example if there were any example of someone in the thread using "elective" for the purpose Jimmy alleged.

The truth is that every day people choose to get pregnant, and to continue a pregnancy for reasons that I would not agree with, just as sometimes they choose to terminate a pregnancy for reasons I would disagree with. They also decide to enter or end relationships, take or leave jobs, buy or sell houses or cars for reasons I or you might disagree with. But it is their choice and not mine or yours.

We all have a right to our opinions and values but none of us have a right to force anyone else to use our opinions as a substitute for their own judgement.

That sort of argument always puzzles me. Would you feel the same way if the choice we were debating was a doctor and patient choosing capybara-punching as physical therapy?

Maybe I’m not following you but I believe that you missed the fact that Emily believes that third trimesters should never be performed except under extreme circumstances ( as is already the case) and never because some woman just walks into a clinic and says: I don’t want this baby, kill it ( paraphrasing, not her words).

Yeah, I got that. When you said "I don’t agree." you meant you don't agree with Emily? Did you take me to be claiming Emily was right? I was just pointing out that nobody in the thread was using "elective" for the purpose Jimmy complained about politicians using it for so there were no grounds for laying that at Emily's door. Doesn't make her right. If anybody wants to show she's wrong, go for it -- but refute her; don't refute some dumbass red-state governor.

Also I strongly disagree that the word ‘elective’ should not be used in describing non-emergency procedures. I understand that it can be a bit jarring to hear or read that word used if you are not familiar with its use in medical jargon.

Hey, it was Elixir who said it shouldn't be used, not me. People can use it any way they like -- it's a free country. What I criticized was people harping on the definition for the purpose of misrepresenting the other side's reasons for their views.

Here's the thing. The problem with RvW is it causes collateral damage. The problem with abortion-on-demand is it causes collateral damage. Both of those things are true. To have a reasonable discussion, each side needs to come to grips with the other side's explanation for why it's right, which means each side needs to come to grips with its own preferred policy's collateral damage. A sensible case for either option can only be a case of the form, "Your collateral damage is worse than our collateral damage because <fill in rest of argument>.". But a bunch of people in this thread have been prattling about the meaning of "Elective" as a way to make believe their own side causes no collateral damage so they'll be relieved of the burden of proving the other side's collateral damage is worse than theirs. So what I'm saying is, don't do that. Face your own collateral damage squarely.

To tell the truth, this morning I am not up to going back and dissecting who wrote what when. I'm pretty certain that I wrote it as a general response and in my mind, had more than one poster in mind. But I did not sleep well, have a headache and a day I do not look forward to and my apologies if you are offended or if you believe I mischaracterized anything you wrote. Not my intention.

But yes, upthread there was a bit of discussion about the use of the word elective, involving more than one poster. I do not believe (and have not and don't plan to check) that Emily used elective in discussions about abortion. Her main point is that there ought to be limits that are determined by legislation. I absolutely disagree, I think that medical ethics of medical providers, and of hospitals and clinics, coupled with ethics laid out by the appropriate medical governing boards are sufficient to prevent someone from entering a clinic or hospital 3 days before their due date and demand an abortion. They don't even induce or perform c-sections under those circumstances. They would, however, do a thorough medical (and possibly psych) exam to determine what was going on. Pre-eclampsia comes to mind and yep, that 100% would indicate that baby needed to be delivered NOW but the baby would not be intentionally killed. Some drugs might also cause this sort of odd behavior but I'm not qualified to speculate.

From time to time, all of us or at least some of us accidentally quote the wrong post when we are replying to a post or an idea. It's happened to me, on both sides of the equation and I know it's happened to others. I have zero interest in dissecting a who said what when and why analysis. Not today. Probably not tomorrow.

Apologies all around for any miscommunication or hurt feelings or outrage. Not my intent.

FWIW, if my intent is to be a snot, it's usually pretty damn obvious.

 

[TomC]

I'm here to correct disinformation, defend other members from strawman attacks and ad hominems, point out the errors in bad arguments,

Feeding your superiority complex, I see. Does your white knighting make you feel all warm in the fee fees?

I realize the possibility of someone being open-minded doesn't really fit inside your worldview,

I've been reading the thread and I quite agree with Bomb.
It's a hot button issue. Lots of terrible argument and ad hominem.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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". I believe that is a fundamental right of all people. Other people believe the right to life once an egg is fertilized is fundamental. These two positions can not be reconciled. In the end, neither position is right. The question becomes whose interests are paramount, the woman in the doctor's office or what is gestating within her?

 

[Toni]

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". I believe that is a fundamental right of all people. Other people believe the right to life once an egg is fertilized is fundamental. These two positions can not be reconciled. In the end, neither position is right. The question becomes whose interests are paramount, the woman in the doctor's office or what is gestating within her?

Not to mention that medically speaking, a pregnancy died not occur until a fertilized egg implants, preferably in the uterus ( otherwise, it’s non-viable and potentially to ally fatal for the woman).

I agree that a woman and her medical provider are the best persons to reach a decision about terminating a pregnancy. Everyone else can STFU.

 

[Jarhyn]

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". I believe that is a fundamental right of all people. Other people believe the right to life once an egg is fertilized is fundamental. These two positions can not be reconciled. In the end, neither position is right. The question becomes whose interests are paramount, the woman in the doctor's office or what is gestating within her?

I get this image of the " 'I consent!'; 'I consent!'; isn't there someone you're forgetting? (Cut to image of a third party, usually Jesus or whatever)" poster.

I too am curious who the collateral damage is being attributed to. I wonder in some cases whether the belief in such isn't trying to hide the sperm donor's whinges over the fate of one of the literal billions of sperm they have shot out that managed to live just a smidge longer.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

 

[TomC]

Not to mention that medically speaking, a pregnancy died not occur until a fertilized egg implants, preferably in the uterus ( otherwise, it’s non-viable and potentially to ally fatal for the woman).

Medically speaking, my mom's heartbreaking abortion was elective.

I agree that a woman and her medical provider are the best persons to reach a decision about terminating a pregnancy. Everyone else can STFU.

There's lots of abortions I consider to be the results of irresponsible, even abusive, behavior. Nevertheless, I also vehemently oppose the dumbasses in state legislature telling everyone what to do. The subject is murky, complex, and rife with disaster.

Those people should just get their noses out of women's nether parts.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Not to mention that medically speaking, a pregnancy died not occur until a fertilized egg implants, preferably in the uterus ( otherwise, it’s non-viable and potentially to ally fatal for the woman).

Medically speaking, my mom's heartbreaking abortion was elective.

I agree that a woman and her medical provider are the best persons to reach a decision about terminating a pregnancy. Everyone else can STFU.

There's lots of abortions I consider to be the results of irresponsible, even abusive, behavior. Nevertheless, I also vehemently oppose the dumbasses in state legislature telling everyone what to do. The subject is murky, complex, and rife with disaster.

Those people should just get their noses out of women's nether parts.
Tom

Yeah. People make decisions that I think are poorly thought out, potentially dangerous and irresponsible all the time. But most of those decisions are theirs to make.

I 100% understand that people think of a developing embryo as a baby. Parents who very much want the pregnancy do it all the time. Me, too. But honestly, I never told anyone outside of my husband and medical practitioners about any pregnancy before it was at least 3 months along because there is a very high rate of miscarriage during the first trimester. Usually because of fetal abnormalities that are severe enough that the embryo cannot continue to develop. Occasionally because of an unknown infection carried by the mother or some other health issue. It's heartbreaking to lose a pregnancy you wanted. It's nightmarish to consider being forced to carry a pregnancy you do not wish to carry.