Roe v Wade is on deck

[Loren Pechtel]

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

You still don't understand this is a covert attempt to support a claim of convenience abortions in the third trimester.

 

[laughing dog]

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

You still don't understand this is a covert attempt to support a claim of convenience abortions in the third trimester.

Your tinfoil is showing.

 

[TomC]

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

You still don't understand this is a covert attempt to support a claim of convenience abortions in the third trimester.

The methodology is so poor I can only assume it's a group pushing an agenda.
Tom

 

[Toni]

FFS: it’s a survey that compiled interviews with something you have no understanding of: human beings discussing difficult decisions and the reasoning behind those difficult decisions you know nothing about. And feelings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

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

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

Oh, ffs.

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

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

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

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

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

You're still missing what they're trying to hide from you.

They start out saying the fliers were distributed to those who had gotten a late term abortion. But then they go on to say that they were distributed elsewhere--with zero indication of how widely they were distributed. This is the missing number we are pointing out.

 

[laughing dog]

FFS: it’s a survey that compiled interviews with something you have no understanding of: human beings discussing difficult decisions and the reasoning behind those difficult decisions you know nothing about. And feelings.

The “criticisms” are based on misconceptions and illogic. For example, the criticism that these are not “representative “ samples is misplaced. Representative samples are necessary for statistically unbiased results but neither study is a statistical study, so “representativeness” is not relevant.

The claim that the participants may not have abortions is pure speculation that is rebutted in the 2nd study (#Bomb20’s) which explicitly states that participants were screened to verify the potential participant had an abortion. The author consistently uses the descriptor 3rd trimester abortions.

The criticism that these are studies purporting to show convenience abortions is delusional. The study #Bomb20 references which I gave quoted earlier concludes that the reasons for 3rd trimester abortions are the same as for 1st and 2nd trimester abortions.

The worry about lying participants is interesting. There’s no evidence of deceit presented. The suspicion has some merit, but I think it misses the point. Unless every participant in both study is lying, then some of the narratives are true. It boggles my mind it is not possible that some purely “convenience” (for lack of a better term) abortions were not performed by medical personnel. But neither study shows that is a significant numerical (not statistical) even using the restrictive misconceptions and illogic of the critics in this thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

Except we are pointing out that there's no reason to believe they actually found such cases.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

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

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

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

FFS again.

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

You're being blinded by your faith again.

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

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

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

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

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

You still don't understand. You keep focusing on what the study "found", we are saying that they appear to have deliberately left the door open for deception in the selection. You blindly reject what we suggest because that would mean a woman lied.

 

[Toni]

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

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

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

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

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

FFS again.

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

You're being blinded by your faith again.

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

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

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

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

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

You still don't understand. You keep focusing on what the study "found", we are saying that they appear to have deliberately left the door open for deception in the selection. You blindly reject what we suggest because that would mean a woman lied.

You clearly do not understand the premise of the study nor the methodology.

 

[Elixir]

You clearly do not understand the premise of the study nor the methodology.

What mystifies me is the “deliberately” inference. WTF?
Other than that, leaving the door open mean you can go through it in either direction. Assuming that more women lie is no more valid than assuming fewer women lie. IMO that whole line doesn’t rise to the level of even being an argument.

 

[Toni]

You clearly do not understand the premise of the study nor the methodology.

What mystifies me is the “deliberately” inference. WTF?
Other than that, leaving the door open mean you can go through it in either direction. Assuming that more women lie is no more valid than assuming fewer women lie. IMO that whole line doesn’t rise to the level of even being an argument.

The important part for me is the assumption that women lie. That’s the premise of the argument.

Some people are not able to comprehend that human experiences are not accurately reflected in survey questions with choices a-e or that such surveys are at least as prone to deceptive answers as any other methodology and in fact, more so as the range of choices of responses are already selected by the survey designer and are reflective more of the designers biases than the reality if the respondents.

 

[Elixir]

The important part for me is the assumption that women lie. That’s the premise of the argument.

People lie. Women talk more than men. Statistically, one would not expect a big gender based delta in the frequency of lies, but the sheer number of lies uttered by women should be greater than the men’s totals.
Anyhow, not only does Loren represent that women lie about rape (“involuntary sex”?), he also imputes motives to the study designer(s). That’s a fine debate tactic, but on close inspection, signifies nothing.
FWIW I wonder if men ever lie about their “conquests”.
I suspect that overall, women tell more lies about NOT having sex, and men tell more lies about HAVING sex. But that would kinda dilute Loren’s assertions, specious as they are.

 

[laughing dog]

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

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

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

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

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

FFS again.

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

You're being blinded by your faith again.

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

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

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

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

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

You still don't understand. You keep focusing on what the study "found", we are saying that they appear to have deliberately left the door open for deception in the selection. You blindly reject what we suggest because that would mean a woman lied.

You keep asserting up the “selection” process is an issue without providing links to the studies that support your contentions . There is no reason to accept your objections as having any basis in fact.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

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

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

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

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

FFS again.

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

You're being blinded by your faith again.

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

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

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

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

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

You still don't understand. You keep focusing on what the study "found", we are saying that they appear to have deliberately left the door open for deception in the selection. You blindly reject what we suggest because that would mean a woman lied.

You keep asserting up the “selection” process is an issue without providing links to the studies that support your contentions . There is no reason to accept your objections as having any basis in fact.

I mean, the study itself said as much, I not describing the other channels which they gathered information by.

The issue is that these are the sort of objections which don't need to be proven positively for the question to be raised. A standard for research has already failed to be met.

It's not some wimpy double-blind objection either, but a substantive "small pool" with no defense against well-poison on a subject where well-poisoners are rife.

How hard is it to understand Christians lie?

I have provided the phenomena of the lying Christians. I have provided the phenomena of the exploitable study on which lying would be impactful.

I shouldn't have to prove the ground is dirty or that the dirt on the ground has gotten on something to know that something dropped on the ground is sufficiently "dirty".

This study got dropped on the ground.

Studies like this that get so "dropped on the ground" are both problematic in their own right owing to the ability of interested parties to cause bias, as well as for being tightly associated with researchers for which this is a goal rather than a problem.

This has nothing to do with trusting women and everything with having doubt in a population in which roughly a THIRD of people not vetted for having actually had an abortion vehemently oppose abortion. It has everything to do with not trusting Christians.

 

[Toni]

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

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

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

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

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

FFS again.

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

You're being blinded by your faith again.

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

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

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

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

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

You still don't understand. You keep focusing on what the study "found", we are saying that they appear to have deliberately left the door open for deception in the selection. You blindly reject what we suggest because that would mean a woman lied.

You keep asserting up the “selection” process is an issue without providing links to the studies that support your contentions . There is no reason to accept your objections as having any basis in fact.

I mean, the study itself said as much, I not describing the other channels which they gathered information by.

The issue is that these are the sort of objections which don't need to be proven positively for the question to be raised. A standard for research has already failed to be met.

It's not some wimpy double-blind objection either, but a substantive "small pool" with no defense against well-poison on a subject where well-poisoners are rife.

How hard is it to understand Christians lie?

I have provided the phenomena of the lying Christians. I have provided the phenomena of the exploitable study on which lying would be impactful.

I shouldn't have to prove the ground is dirty or that the dirt on the ground has gotten on something to know that something dropped on the ground is sufficiently "dirty".

This study got dropped on the ground.

Studies like this that get so "dropped on the ground" are both problematic in their own right owing to the ability of interested parties to cause bias, as well as for being tightly associated with researchers for which this is a goal rather than a problem.

This has nothing to do with trusting women and everything with having doubt in a population in which roughly a THIRD of people not vetted for having actually had an abortion vehemently oppose abortion. It has everything to do with not trusting Christians.

So, give me an example of a 'christian lie' in the study.

The narratives seemed to be pretty much what I expected: women terminating pregnancies under difficult circumstances. Did you expect different?

 

[TomC]

This "research" reminds me of study done back in the '90s. A radio show host, of a seriously feminist program, asked her audience to send her a card or letter saying whether they were happy in their marriage or not.
According to her research, 78% of American women were unhappy in their marriage. Which she proceeded to talk about extensively on her program.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

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

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

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

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

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

FFS again.

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

You're being blinded by your faith again.

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

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

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

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

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

You still don't understand. You keep focusing on what the study "found", we are saying that they appear to have deliberately left the door open for deception in the selection. You blindly reject what we suggest because that would mean a woman lied.

You keep asserting up the “selection” process is an issue without providing links to the studies that support your contentions . There is no reason to accept your objections as having any basis in fact.

I mean, the study itself said as much, I not describing the other channels which they gathered information by.

The issue is that these are the sort of objections which don't need to be proven positively for the question to be raised. A standard for research has already failed to be met.

It's not some wimpy double-blind objection either, but a substantive "small pool" with no defense against well-poison on a subject where well-poisoners are rife.

How hard is it to understand Christians lie?

I have provided the phenomena of the lying Christians. I have provided the phenomena of the exploitable study on which lying would be impactful.

I shouldn't have to prove the ground is dirty or that the dirt on the ground has gotten on something to know that something dropped on the ground is sufficiently "dirty".

This study got dropped on the ground.

Studies like this that get so "dropped on the ground" are both problematic in their own right owing to the ability of interested parties to cause bias, as well as for being tightly associated with researchers for which this is a goal rather than a problem.

This has nothing to do with trusting women and everything with having doubt in a population in which roughly a THIRD of people not vetted for having actually had an abortion vehemently oppose abortion. It has everything to do with not trusting Christians.

Anyone can have their doubts about veracity. One study being dismissed screened for actual
abortions in the 3rd trimester and ended up with 28 participants. IMO, dismissing the results of that qualitative study on suspicions of participant lies appears ideologically driven.

 

[TomC]

Anyone can have their doubts about veracity.

Especially when it's based on 28 self selected respondents concerning a hot political topic.
I certainly do.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone can have their doubts about veracity.

Especially when it's based on 28 self selected respondents concerning a hot political topic.
I certainly do.
Tom

My guess is you haven’t ready the paper because if you had, you wouldn’t make such an error.

 

[TomC]

Anyone can have their doubts about veracity.

Especially when it's based on 28 self selected respondents concerning a hot political topic.
I certainly do.
Tom

My guess is you haven’t ready the paper because if you had, you wouldn’t make such an error.

You are correct, I have completely ignored such a poorly done bit of "research".
Tom