Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

let's give the competitive "elective" definition a rest, hmm?

I’d favor abolishing it altogether. Its only common use outside of its legitimate medical meaning, is to portray women who have abortions as baby killers.

Abolishing words does not work the way intended.

I just prefer that people learn something about what a term means before getting upset about its use.
In general, I just think people need to learn more.

In some respects, I would kind of like to see some kind of consequence for a politician repeating a conflation/equivocation like this.

Like, a politician says "it's elective, it's on-demand" and the medical professional says "well actually...", and then the politician gets punched in the face the next time they repeat it.

Oh, yeah, me too. Preferably losing the election so badly that they never show their face in public again.

 

[Jarhyn]

let's give the competitive "elective" definition a rest, hmm?

I’d favor abolishing it altogether. Its only common use outside of its legitimate medical meaning, is to portray women who have abortions as baby killers.

Abolishing words does not work the way intended.

I just prefer that people learn something about what a term means before getting upset about its use.
In general, I just think people need to learn more.

In some respects, I would kind of like to see some kind of consequence for a politician repeating a conflation/equivocation like this.

Like, a politician says "it's elective, it's on-demand" and the medical professional says "well actually...", and then the politician gets punched in the face the next time they repeat it.

Oh, yeah, me too. Preferably losing the election so badly that they never show their face in public again.

Well, that's the thing: having to line up during primetime hours to get punched in the face whole a comedic clip of both the original statement and the rebuttal + warning of consequences for repetitive lying would almost guarantee that they lose the election.

Nobody in the GOP wants to vote for a little bitch who gets punched on. That shit is straight up kryptonite for Men.

 

[Toni]

let's give the competitive "elective" definition a rest, hmm?

I’d favor abolishing it altogether. Its only common use outside of its legitimate medical meaning, is to portray women who have abortions as baby killers.

Abolishing words does not work the way intended.

I just prefer that people learn something about what a term means before getting upset about its use.
In general, I just think people need to learn more.

In some respects, I would kind of like to see some kind of consequence for a politician repeating a conflation/equivocation like this.

Like, a politician says "it's elective, it's on-demand" and the medical professional says "well actually...", and then the politician gets punched in the face the next time they repeat it.

Oh, yeah, me too. Preferably losing the election so badly that they never show their face in public again.

Well, that's the thing: having to line up during primetime hours to get punched in the face whole a comedic clip of both the original statement and the rebuttal + warning of consequences for repetitive lying would almost guarantee that they lose the election.

Nobody in the GOP wants to vote for a little bitch who gets punched on. That shit is straight up kryptonite for Men.

I’m a pacifist. Mostly. Aspirationally. I do try.

 

[Elixir]

let's give the competitive "elective" definition a rest, hmm?

I’d favor abolishing it altogether. Its only common use outside of its legitimate medical meaning, is to portray women who have abortions as baby killers.

Abolishing words does not work the way intended.

I just prefer that people learn something about what a term means before getting upset about its use.
In general, I just think people need to learn more.

Learn more?
That’s a condescending lib’rul denigration and character assault upon conservative American authoritarians!
Being true is no excuse.

 

[Jarhyn]

Loren and some others have been systematically misrepresenting Emily and some others as believing medically unnecessary late-term abortions happen as a result of hearing about elective late-term abortions and misunderstanding the word "elective", thinking it means "medically unnecessary". That is fractally wrong. You can't prove something doesn't happen by making up a stupid reason to think it happens and imputing that reason to your opponent. Even if Emily really believed in them for that stupid a reason it would not be evidence against them; moreover, she does not. Emily and some others believe medically unnecessary late-term abortions happen because they happen.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190

The author interviewed 28 women who had obtained late-term abortions and she reported their reasons. Developmental defects were the most common reason, certainly, but not the only reason. Some of the women hadn't aborted earlier because of difficulty raising the money for it or because of other obstacles our society put in their paths; and, perhaps surprisingly, some of the women hadn't aborted earlier because they didn't know they were pregnant.

So let's give the competitive "elective" definition a rest, hmm?

I was expecting this to be the same research that Emily previously linked that I said didn't feel like proper research. Nope, this isn't that study--or is it? Methodology sounds just like the other one (really, now, your best way of finding information is interviewing people you don't even have evidence actually had an abortion? They start out with distributing fliers to women who got an abortion, but also then distributed them by many other channels), this one is devoid of any sort of table and feels even fishier than the previous one.

Also, digging to see what I could learn I find the organization that provided the grant was funded by Buffet. But the year this was published is the last year that group operated. Buffet isn't funding them anymore.

Why do I find this whole saga extremely suspect?

Because it's extremely suspicious.

Most right-wing "research" ends up being shaped like this, designed to reach conclusions rather than being designed to reach the truth.

I didn't find it to be suspicious at all. The narratives of the women interviewed are consistent with the experiences of women I have known. A pregnancy discovered past the 3 month is not at all uncommon. It is less common but not that unusual for someone to discover a pregnancy late in the second trimester or early in the third trimester. I knew someone who took her friend to the ER, both believing she had appendicitis but nope, she had a healthy, full term baby boy, without ever having suspected she was pregnant. While this seems unbelievable, apparently it's not as uncommon as one would think: there was actually a television show about women giving birth when they had not known they wer pregnant. BTW, this can be extremely dangerous, life threatening to the woman/girl and the baby.

Sometimes, abnormalities in the fetus are not discovered until late. Sometimes serious, even life threatening medical issues are not observed prior to or until late in the pregnancy. Sometimes, a maternal medical complication develops during the pregnancy and continuing the pregnancy exacerbates the medical complication, making continuing the pregnancy very dangerous.

I understand that most men want to believe that all women are thrilled to learn that they are pregnant and that only bad women are not happy about a pregnancy. But people become pregnant in very difficult circumstances, including homelessness, periods of extreme economic hardship, of personal hardship, and for many reasons. Women discover they are pregnant after t hey were raped, or after a relationship ended or after their partner dies. Women discover they are pregnant soon after they get a job they desperately need and one that is not necessarily compatible with pregnancy.

I've known women in each of these circumstances. I've been the woman in a couple of those circumstances. In my case, I was fortunate that I was able to garner enough resources to be able to successfully carry a pregnancy that had been unplanned and frankly was under less than great economic conditions. I knew at the time then and I know even more now how fortunate I was. And how many women are not nearly as fortunate as I was and am.

It's really......something else to read comments of men who have never experienced pregnancy and who have never had a partner who was pregnant or thought she was pregnant.

The problem is that there's no actual measurements in the study, and no way to validate any of it.

The "study" is just straight up unscientific trash.

I've heard a lot of stories in my life, true and false and everything in between.

I've met a LOT of "Liars for Jesus", too, and women who would as much lie about these sorts of things, ESPECIALLY if they thought it would "save the children".

I'm going to file this right in the circular file where it belongs, not because I believe that late term abortions don't happen at all (they do, very rarely) or that every story there is a lie, but because I think that some scattered unconfirmed anecdotes fail to establish even veracity let alone precedence. That it is unscientific trash.

 

[Toni]

Loren and some others have been systematically misrepresenting Emily and some others as believing medically unnecessary late-term abortions happen as a result of hearing about elective late-term abortions and misunderstanding the word "elective", thinking it means "medically unnecessary". That is fractally wrong. You can't prove something doesn't happen by making up a stupid reason to think it happens and imputing that reason to your opponent. Even if Emily really believed in them for that stupid a reason it would not be evidence against them; moreover, she does not. Emily and some others believe medically unnecessary late-term abortions happen because they happen.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190

The author interviewed 28 women who had obtained late-term abortions and she reported their reasons. Developmental defects were the most common reason, certainly, but not the only reason. Some of the women hadn't aborted earlier because of difficulty raising the money for it or because of other obstacles our society put in their paths; and, perhaps surprisingly, some of the women hadn't aborted earlier because they didn't know they were pregnant.

So let's give the competitive "elective" definition a rest, hmm?

I was expecting this to be the same research that Emily previously linked that I said didn't feel like proper research. Nope, this isn't that study--or is it? Methodology sounds just like the other one (really, now, your best way of finding information is interviewing people you don't even have evidence actually had an abortion? They start out with distributing fliers to women who got an abortion, but also then distributed them by many other channels), this one is devoid of any sort of table and feels even fishier than the previous one.

Also, digging to see what I could learn I find the organization that provided the grant was funded by Buffet. But the year this was published is the last year that group operated. Buffet isn't funding them anymore.

Why do I find this whole saga extremely suspect?

Because it's extremely suspicious.

Most right-wing "research" ends up being shaped like this, designed to reach conclusions rather than being designed to reach the truth.

I didn't find it to be suspicious at all. The narratives of the women interviewed are consistent with the experiences of women I have known. A pregnancy discovered past the 3 month is not at all uncommon. It is less common but not that unusual for someone to discover a pregnancy late in the second trimester or early in the third trimester. I knew someone who took her friend to the ER, both believing she had appendicitis but nope, she had a healthy, full term baby boy, without ever having suspected she was pregnant. While this seems unbelievable, apparently it's not as uncommon as one would think: there was actually a television show about women giving birth when they had not known they wer pregnant. BTW, this can be extremely dangerous, life threatening to the woman/girl and the baby.

Sometimes, abnormalities in the fetus are not discovered until late. Sometimes serious, even life threatening medical issues are not observed prior to or until late in the pregnancy. Sometimes, a maternal medical complication develops during the pregnancy and continuing the pregnancy exacerbates the medical complication, making continuing the pregnancy very dangerous.

I understand that most men want to believe that all women are thrilled to learn that they are pregnant and that only bad women are not happy about a pregnancy. But people become pregnant in very difficult circumstances, including homelessness, periods of extreme economic hardship, of personal hardship, and for many reasons. Women discover they are pregnant after t hey were raped, or after a relationship ended or after their partner dies. Women discover they are pregnant soon after they get a job they desperately need and one that is not necessarily compatible with pregnancy.

I've known women in each of these circumstances. I've been the woman in a couple of those circumstances. In my case, I was fortunate that I was able to garner enough resources to be able to successfully carry a pregnancy that had been unplanned and frankly was under less than great economic conditions. I knew at the time then and I know even more now how fortunate I was. And how many women are not nearly as fortunate as I was and am.

It's really......something else to read comments of men who have never experienced pregnancy and who have never had a partner who was pregnant or thought she was pregnant.

The problem is that there's no actual measurements in the study, and no way to validate any of it.

The "study" is just straight up unscientific trash.

I've heard a lot of stories in my life, true and false and everything in between.

I've met a LOT of "Liars for Jesus", too, and women who would as much lie about these sorts of things, ESPECIALLY if they thought it would "save the children".

I'm going to file this right in the circular file where it belongs, not because I believe that late term abortions don't happen at all (they do, very rarely) or that every story there is a lie, but because I think that some scattered unconfirmed anecdotes fail to establish even veracity let alone precedence. That it is unscientific trash.

The study relies on personal narratives. It is not a study in physics or chemistry or statistics.

There is no control.

There are interviews with women who. Describe their experiences.

We read about people describing their experiences all the time and don’t call it trash.


The study does not pretend to be anything other than what it was: narratives by individuals who all had a similar life event.

I suppose that these narratives could be confirmed if the women offered their medical records up. Do you suppose the homeless woman had access ito her medical records? Do you suppose the woman whose doctors kept lying to her about the severity of the abnormalities of her fetus has access to accurate medical records?

Do you imagine that physicians only include data in medical records. I assure you this is not the case. At one point in time, my husband and I became extremely dissatisfied with the medical care he was receiving. I asked to read a biopsy report and noted information the physician had not shared Abd indeed had glossed over. We asked for medical records to take with us. In the record—the official medical record, mind you, the physician expressed extreme displeasure that I asked to read the biopsy report and asked questions. Note: I have a background in human biology, cell Abd molecular biology and a bit in the biology of cancer. My husband has no background in any of this. He gave his permission for me to read the reports. We later laughed at the physician’s outrage that I dared to question him—and found a doctor competent to treat my husband who is still alive and who would not be if he had remained under the tender mercies and limited knowledge of the outraged physician.

Historians and biographers Abd a number of social sciences rely on narratives by people.

 

[Jarhyn]

Loren and some others have been systematically misrepresenting Emily and some others as believing medically unnecessary late-term abortions happen as a result of hearing about elective late-term abortions and misunderstanding the word "elective", thinking it means "medically unnecessary". That is fractally wrong. You can't prove something doesn't happen by making up a stupid reason to think it happens and imputing that reason to your opponent. Even if Emily really believed in them for that stupid a reason it would not be evidence against them; moreover, she does not. Emily and some others believe medically unnecessary late-term abortions happen because they happen.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190

The author interviewed 28 women who had obtained late-term abortions and she reported their reasons. Developmental defects were the most common reason, certainly, but not the only reason. Some of the women hadn't aborted earlier because of difficulty raising the money for it or because of other obstacles our society put in their paths; and, perhaps surprisingly, some of the women hadn't aborted earlier because they didn't know they were pregnant.

So let's give the competitive "elective" definition a rest, hmm?

I was expecting this to be the same research that Emily previously linked that I said didn't feel like proper research. Nope, this isn't that study--or is it? Methodology sounds just like the other one (really, now, your best way of finding information is interviewing people you don't even have evidence actually had an abortion? They start out with distributing fliers to women who got an abortion, but also then distributed them by many other channels), this one is devoid of any sort of table and feels even fishier than the previous one.

Also, digging to see what I could learn I find the organization that provided the grant was funded by Buffet. But the year this was published is the last year that group operated. Buffet isn't funding them anymore.

Why do I find this whole saga extremely suspect?

Because it's extremely suspicious.

Most right-wing "research" ends up being shaped like this, designed to reach conclusions rather than being designed to reach the truth.

I didn't find it to be suspicious at all. The narratives of the women interviewed are consistent with the experiences of women I have known. A pregnancy discovered past the 3 month is not at all uncommon. It is less common but not that unusual for someone to discover a pregnancy late in the second trimester or early in the third trimester. I knew someone who took her friend to the ER, both believing she had appendicitis but nope, she had a healthy, full term baby boy, without ever having suspected she was pregnant. While this seems unbelievable, apparently it's not as uncommon as one would think: there was actually a television show about women giving birth when they had not known they wer pregnant. BTW, this can be extremely dangerous, life threatening to the woman/girl and the baby.

Sometimes, abnormalities in the fetus are not discovered until late. Sometimes serious, even life threatening medical issues are not observed prior to or until late in the pregnancy. Sometimes, a maternal medical complication develops during the pregnancy and continuing the pregnancy exacerbates the medical complication, making continuing the pregnancy very dangerous.

I understand that most men want to believe that all women are thrilled to learn that they are pregnant and that only bad women are not happy about a pregnancy. But people become pregnant in very difficult circumstances, including homelessness, periods of extreme economic hardship, of personal hardship, and for many reasons. Women discover they are pregnant after t hey were raped, or after a relationship ended or after their partner dies. Women discover they are pregnant soon after they get a job they desperately need and one that is not necessarily compatible with pregnancy.

I've known women in each of these circumstances. I've been the woman in a couple of those circumstances. In my case, I was fortunate that I was able to garner enough resources to be able to successfully carry a pregnancy that had been unplanned and frankly was under less than great economic conditions. I knew at the time then and I know even more now how fortunate I was. And how many women are not nearly as fortunate as I was and am.

It's really......something else to read comments of men who have never experienced pregnancy and who have never had a partner who was pregnant or thought she was pregnant.

The problem is that there's no actual measurements in the study, and no way to validate any of it.

The "study" is just straight up unscientific trash.

I've heard a lot of stories in my life, true and false and everything in between.

I've met a LOT of "Liars for Jesus", too, and women who would as much lie about these sorts of things, ESPECIALLY if they thought it would "save the children".

I'm going to file this right in the circular file where it belongs, not because I believe that late term abortions don't happen at all (they do, very rarely) or that every story there is a lie, but because I think that some scattered unconfirmed anecdotes fail to establish even veracity let alone precedence. That it is unscientific trash.

The study relies on personal narratives. It is not a study in physics or chemistry or statistics.

There is no control.

There are interviews with women who. Describe their experiences.

We read about people describing their experiences all the time and don’t call it trash.


The study does not pretend to be anything other than what it was: narratives by individuals who all had a similar life event.

I suppose that these narratives could be confirmed if the women offered their medical records up. Do you suppose the homeless woman had access ito her medical records? Do you suppose the woman whose doctors kept lying to her about the severity of the abnormalities of her fetus has access to accurate medical records?

Do you imagine that physicians only include data in medical records. I assure you this is not the case. At one point in time, my husband and I became extremely dissatisfied with the medical care he was receiving. I asked to read a biopsy report and noted information the physician had not shared Abd indeed had glossed over. We asked for medical records to take with us. In the record—the official medical record, mind you, the physician expressed extreme displeasure that I asked to read the biopsy report and asked questions. Note: I have a background in human biology, cell Abd molecular biology and a bit in the biology of cancer. My husband has no background in any of this. He gave his permission for me to read the reports. We later laughed at the physician’s outrage that I dared to question him—and found a doctor competent to treat my husband who is still alive and who would not be if he had remained under the tender mercies and limited knowledge of the outraged physician.

Historians and biographers Abd a number of social sciences rely on narratives by people.

I imagine that for any kind of use such as to argue any sort of prevalence of an activity, numbers and statistics are required.

This is because, and j shouldn't need to say this but I guess I do, the rule of large numbers combined with Liars for Jesus mean that you can find and cherry pick to create an example of an identical "study" that says literally anything.

This is why it is unscientific trash.

Defending unscientific trash is unflattering for the person who does it.

We have a long history of both Emily and Bomb putting forward unscientific trash.

 

[Bomb#20]

The term "elective" is very much used to provide the illusion that these procedures to save the life of the woman are merely a choice. You might want to give it a rest, but it is used negatively like that.

Quote someone on this board using it that way. If some stupid Republican politician uses it that way, so what? Throwing that in the face of anyone here is just more strawmanning.

Quote someone on this board using it that way.

<Deleted by moderator> we literally have Emily IN THIS THREAD talking about easy availability of "abortion-on-demand",

"Abortion-on-demand" is not a use of the term "elective" at all, let alone one providing the illusion JH alleged -- and Emily has consistently supported abortions to save the life of the woman. Jarhyn is slandering Emily, which according to Jarhyn is an act of violence against her.

which is a concept that only really comes up adjacent to the misinterpretation of "elective";

What an asinine thing to claim. People don't need to use or even hear "elective" to debate the proper limits if any of abortion.

"on-demand" third trimester abortions don't happen because doctors refuse to do them.

That's an article of faith with no evidence offered for it.

And no I won't quote it, you can damn well just use the search term to see the <expletive deleted> conversation yourself, just like I won't quote Google results to fools.

Nobody asked Jarhyn to quote it. I asked Jimmy to quote it. Jimmy is open to being reasoned with.

(But hey, humoring Jarhyn, I fact-checked with Advanced Search and found every recent use of "elective" by Emily. As far as I can see, the only times she ever misused it were when she was conforming to other posters' usage*. I suppose she has better things to do than correcting everyone else's speech.

(* Ironically, in one case it was Loren himself!))

And I'll point out, preemptively, that any pretending that this isn't what is being referenced with "on-demand" abortion claims is a lying liar.

Literally the only "evidence" to hold up for "on-demand" third trimester abortions is the "misinterpreting 'elective'" propaganda, and so your dishonesty ends up on display.

Huh. I have to wonder what Jarhyn said about me that got deleted, that was even more a TOU violation than calling another member a liar. Guess we'll never know. Whatever. Jarhyn evidently knows perfectly well that the evidence I posted for "on-demand" third trimester abortions was personal testimonies from women who said they'd had them. That is not "misinterpreting 'elective'" propaganda.

Of course, while you admit to there being substantive arguments against your position, let's just wait to see how long you forget that your position

My position?!? I've been critiquing posters' arguments on their logical and factual merits or lack thereof, not presenting my own position.

has been substantively rebutted.

Rebutted != refuted. There are substantive arguments on both sides of the unrestricted-abortion vs. Roe-v-Wade debate. It would be lovely to see a discussion that was all substantive arguments and wasn't stuffed full of straw.

 

[Bomb#20]

Sodas didn't "go" from Diet to Zero. A new product was offered, deliberately engineered to taste more like a sugary soda than a traditional diet soda did, to get people to drink it who didn't like how diet sodas taste. It has a different name so people will be able to buy the one they want.

As for gay marriage, in the first place, the two polls were by two different organizations with different sampling methods, so it's not clear the difference in question wording is even what made the difference. And in the second place, you're taking for granted that the two questions actually mean the same thing. They don't. "allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally" isn't at all equivalent to "it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married". They have completely different implications for what should happen to any people who try it. If they can't marry legally it implies when they've done it they still don't have a legal marriage. But if it's illegal for them to marry it implies when they've done it they can be fined or jailed. So of course any respondents who don't want the state to recognize gay marriages but don't want gays punished for it are going to give different answers.
...
I.e., you intend to go right on strawmanning your opponents. Where the bejesus did any RvW supporter claim the medically unnecessary late-term abortions he or she opposes are random last second and for no reason in general? Of course the women obtaining those abortions have put a lot of thought into it and have serious substantive reasons for getting them. Thinking somebody's reason isn't good enough is not the same as thinking she has no reason.
...
Thank you. That is a substantive argument. Do that, instead of peddling misleading distractions about "elective".

The term "elective" is very much used to provide the illusion that these procedures to save the life of the woman are merely a choice. You might want to give it a rest, but it is used negatively like that.

Quote someone on this board using it that way. If some stupid Republican politician uses it that way, so what? Throwing that in the face of anyone here is just more strawmanning.

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?

 

[Jarhyn]

I fact-checked with Advanced Search and found every recent use of "elective" by Emily

The problem here (and I DO blame this on direct dishonesty) is that Emily doesn't use the word elective, she uses the words "on-demand".

On-demand is the next stage of the conflation, that happens after the "elective" has already been made to jump the track. She implies the false connection while cleverly not saying the word that the misconceptopm arose around.

Of course, it's still taking the false data or supporting it with notions built around the false interpretation but it cleverly avoids a direct association with the original liars.

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.

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.

 

[ZiprHead]

I imagine that for any kind of use such as to argue any sort of prevalence of an activity, numbers and statistics are required.

This is because, and j shouldn't need to say this but I guess I do, the rule of large numbers combined with Liars for Jesus mean that you can find and cherry pick to create an example of an identical "study" that says literally anything.

This is why it is unscientific trash.

Defending unscientific trash is unflattering for the person who does it.

We have a long history of both Emily and Bomb putting forward unscientific trash.

It's how supplements and alt med are peddled.

 

[Toni]

Sodas didn't "go" from Diet to Zero. A new product was offered, deliberately engineered to taste more like a sugary soda than a traditional diet soda did, to get people to drink it who didn't like how diet sodas taste. It has a different name so people will be able to buy the one they want.

As for gay marriage, in the first place, the two polls were by two different organizations with different sampling methods, so it's not clear the difference in question wording is even what made the difference. And in the second place, you're taking for granted that the two questions actually mean the same thing. They don't. "allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally" isn't at all equivalent to "it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married". They have completely different implications for what should happen to any people who try it. If they can't marry legally it implies when they've done it they still don't have a legal marriage. But if it's illegal for them to marry it implies when they've done it they can be fined or jailed. So of course any respondents who don't want the state to recognize gay marriages but don't want gays punished for it are going to give different answers.
...
I.e., you intend to go right on strawmanning your opponents. Where the bejesus did any RvW supporter claim the medically unnecessary late-term abortions he or she opposes are random last second and for no reason in general? Of course the women obtaining those abortions have put a lot of thought into it and have serious substantive reasons for getting them. Thinking somebody's reason isn't good enough is not the same as thinking she has no reason.
...
Thank you. That is a substantive argument. Do that, instead of peddling misleading distractions about "elective".

The term "elective" is very much used to provide the illusion that these procedures to save the life of the woman are merely a choice. You might want to give it a rest, but it is used negatively like that.

Quote someone on this board using it that way. If some stupid Republican politician uses it that way, so what? Throwing that in the face of anyone here is just more strawmanning.

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). The fact is that third trimesters should never abortions are very rare. There is no need for legislatures to enact laws and regulations restricting them to circumstances they believe to be ‘fair.’ Medical practitioners already are governed by codes of ethics and further by best practices established by medical associations and hospital boards.

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.

It’s also jarring to realize that in medical jargon, a miscarriage is a natural abortion.

Lots of terms used in different professions or have different meanings in common parlance.

Anyway, if I’ve missed you point, I apologize.

 

[Jarhyn]

I imagine that for any kind of use such as to argue any sort of prevalence of an activity, numbers and statistics are required.

This is because, and j shouldn't need to say this but I guess I do, the rule of large numbers combined with Liars for Jesus mean that you can find and cherry pick to create an example of an identical "study" that says literally anything.

This is why it is unscientific trash.

Defending unscientific trash is unflattering for the person who does it.

We have a long history of both Emily and Bomb putting forward unscientific trash.

It's how supplements and alt med are peddled.

Like, I don't even see how this is controversial as a fact, and how it is even controversial about the people who peddle falsehoods this way.

The use of case study is only really valid for studying a particular process in detail, and this unscientific trash does not apply case study that way.

Case study requires extensive vetting and intense documentation for any kind of validity and exposure of process.

If it does not expose a process to examine causes, coincidences, and structural operation, it is not valid case study.

If it does not include vetting to validate that the property being studied is present to be studied, it's also not a useful or particularly valid case study, here because plenty of people like to lie for attention.

I have a particular aversion and sensitivity to folks who lie for attention, and encounter them at a rough estimate of 1 for every 20-30 folks I encounter. They spoil documentation attempts.

But, I suppose that's not a problem for people trying to push a line?

 

[Toni]

I fact-checked with Advanced Search and found every recent use of "elective" by Emily

The problem here (and I DO blame this on direct dishonesty) is that Emily doesn't use the word elective, she uses the words "on-demand".

On-demand is the next stage of the conflation, that happens after the "elective" has already been made to jump the track. She implies the false connection while cleverly not saying the word that the misconceptopm arose around.

Of course, it's still taking the false data or supporting it with notions built around the false interpretation but it cleverly avoids a direct association with the original liars.

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.

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.

Neither Bomb nor Emily wrote the article lined above. The article,
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
Volume 54, Issue 2 pp. 38-45 was then published in Wiley, an online library

You may disagree with the vigor of the article linked but I believe the discipline lays outside of your area of expertise.

Frankly we have long relied upon the words of men to describe battles, wars, history, in fact.

The paper linked is providing a summary of testimony given by women who have shared their reasons for obtaining a late term abortion. It is limited in scope as very few late term abortions occur and even fewer women could be located and were willing to discuss what frankly were traumatic and deeply personal .

In many ways this is the same sort of narrative as is collected from the victims of sexual assault: deeply personal, horrific and traumatic.

 

[Jarhyn]

I fact-checked with Advanced Search and found every recent use of "elective" by Emily

The problem here (and I DO blame this on direct dishonesty) is that Emily doesn't use the word elective, she uses the words "on-demand".

On-demand is the next stage of the conflation, that happens after the "elective" has already been made to jump the track. She implies the false connection while cleverly not saying the word that the misconceptopm arose around.

Of course, it's still taking the false data or supporting it with notions built around the false interpretation but it cleverly avoids a direct association with the original liars.

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.

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.

Neither Bomb nor Emily wrote the article lined above. The article,
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
Volume 54, Issue 2 pp. 38-45 was then published in Wiley, an online library

It didn't need to be written by them to be used by them nor to be unscientific trash.

It is case study, unvetted, and does not examine the actual cases in detail for understanding phenomena. It is not even usable for claiming bald presence in a world of a Rule of Large Numbers and Liars for Jesus.

It's unscientific trash and they're referencing it.

 

[Toni]

I fact-checked with Advanced Search and found every recent use of "elective" by Emily

The problem here (and I DO blame this on direct dishonesty) is that Emily doesn't use the word elective, she uses the words "on-demand".

On-demand is the next stage of the conflation, that happens after the "elective" has already been made to jump the track. She implies the false connection while cleverly not saying the word that the misconceptopm arose around.

Of course, it's still taking the false data or supporting it with notions built around the false interpretation but it cleverly avoids a direct association with the original liars.

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.

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.

Neither Bomb nor Emily wrote the article lined above. The article,
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
Volume 54, Issue 2 pp. 38-45 was then published in Wiley, an online library

It didn't need to be written by them to be used by them nor to be unscientific trash.

Well include me because in my recollection, Emily did not use that article and in fact, it counters her push for tight regulation of third trimester abortions.

You don’t like the publication? Do t subscribe.

You don’t like the methodology, then YOU propose a methodology for collecting data from women who have undergone traumatic third trimester abortions.

The miscarriage (aka natural abortion) of a pregnancy that was wanted is traumatic—it was for me and mine was very early. For my sister and for friends who lost pregnancies much later in the pregnancy but before viability—I saw what it did to them. Thinking about it now, I can still feel what I felt when offering what support and comfort I could in such tragic circumstances. Sadly enough, I know more than one family who lost a child sometime between birth and adulthood. These are not losses that you recover from. If you are lucky, your life continues and you find or make some happiness again. You live fully again, have a future again. But the loss: that you carry with you. Always.

That is not easily reducible to a genetic firm which can be used to collect data for analysis.

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.

 

[Bomb#20]

I fact-checked with Advanced Search and found every recent use of "elective" by Emily

The problem here (and I DO blame this on direct dishonesty) is that Emily doesn't use the word elective, she uses the words "on-demand".

On-demand is the next stage of the conflation, that happens after the "elective" has already been made to jump the track. She implies the false connection while cleverly not saying the word that the misconceptopm arose around.

Of course, it's still taking the false data or supporting it with notions built around the false interpretation but it cleverly avoids a direct association with the original liars.

"There’s more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,” said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; “this paper has just been picked up.”

“What’s in it?” said the Queen.

“I haven’t opened it yet,” said the White Rabbit, “but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to—to somebody.”

“It must have been that,” said the King, “unless it was written to nobody, which isn’t usual, you know.”

“Who is it directed to?” said one of the jurymen.

“It isn’t directed at all,” said the White Rabbit; “in fact, there’s nothing written on the outside.” He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added “It isn’t a letter, after all: it’s a set of verses.”

“Are they in the prisoner’s handwriting?” asked another of the jurymen.

“No, they’re not,” said the White Rabbit, “and that’s the queerest thing about it.” (The jury all looked puzzled.)

“He must have imitated somebody else’s hand,” said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

“Please your Majesty,” said the Knave, “I didn’t write it, and they can’t prove I did: there’s no name signed at the end.”

“If you didn’t sign it,” said the King, “that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you’d have signed your name like an honest man.”

There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.

“That proves his guilt,” said the Queen.

 

[Jarhyn]

I fact-checked with Advanced Search and found every recent use of "elective" by Emily

The problem here (and I DO blame this on direct dishonesty) is that Emily doesn't use the word elective, she uses the words "on-demand".

On-demand is the next stage of the conflation, that happens after the "elective" has already been made to jump the track. She implies the false connection while cleverly not saying the word that the misconceptopm arose around.

Of course, it's still taking the false data or supporting it with notions built around the false interpretation but it cleverly avoids a direct association with the original liars.

<Well, I Never!>

Got it. Clutch those pearls harder.

 

[Elixir]

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.

 

[TomC]

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

I have enjoyed pissing off Christians by pointing out that if innocent children go straight to heaven then abortion is the ideal parenting method.
For more information google Andrea Yates.
Tom