• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Roe v Wade is on deck

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.
But that's not what these purport to be. They are being presented as "proof" of on-demand third-trimester abortion.
What the fuck are you talking about?

What the fuck do you mean by ‘improper abortion?’

What authority, background, credentials do you hold to term that women late term abortions obtained for medical reasons relating to the viability of the fetus as ‘ improper?’
Follow the context!

The two studies purport to show third trimester abortions without a medical reason.
No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.
So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.
 
You can ever guarantee that any survey respondents are responding honestly.

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

Sure, it's possible that they lied. That's what women do, right? They lie about being raped, they lie about who the baby daddy is, they lie about how much their rent is, t hey lie about birth control and they respond to a request from a researcher who is seeking to learn more information from women about why they had late term abortions, because that's an experience that every woman wants to relive, embellish and expand upon, making it up as she goes because she happily murdered the baby that she carried for 4 or 5 or 6 months, and woke up one morning and said Nah, not feeling it.
It's not that we are assuming they lied about why they had an abortion. Rather, the sampling technique does not ensure they are actually talking to women who had an abortion. All it would take is a couple of liars deciding to contaminate the data, out of a completely unknown number who might have been aware of the research. We see plenty of stuff made up on social media to push positions, why should we think this is immune?
Oh, ffs.

That is true of any collection of data that involves human beings responding to a survey of any kind.
The difference here is the whole "liars for Jesus lining up while salivating at a chance to be the one that gets to do the lying today" part.

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

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

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

While it's difficult to say for certain that someone has been by to poison the well, it was a well-advertised undefended well location in the middle of a land well populated by known well-poisoners, and case-study is a "well" format quite susceptible to poison.
Why on earth do you think your fever dreams have any bearing on reality?
 
You can ever guarantee that any survey respondents are responding honestly.

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

Sure, it's possible that they lied. That's what women do, right? They lie about being raped, they lie about who the baby daddy is, they lie about how much their rent is, t hey lie about birth control and they respond to a request from a researcher who is seeking to learn more information from women about why they had late term abortions, because that's an experience that every woman wants to relive, embellish and expand upon, making it up as she goes because she happily murdered the baby that she carried for 4 or 5 or 6 months, and woke up one morning and said Nah, not feeling it.
It's not that we are assuming they lied about why they had an abortion. Rather, the sampling technique does not ensure they are actually talking to women who had an abortion. All it would take is a couple of liars deciding to contaminate the data, out of a completely unknown number who might have been aware of the research. We see plenty of stuff made up on social media to push positions, why should we think this is immune?
Oh, ffs.

That is true of any collection of data that involves human beings responding to a survey of any kind.
The difference here is the whole "liars for Jesus lining up while salivating at a chance to be the one that gets to do the lying today" part.

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

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

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

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

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

History has never been my long suit but pick a science, any science or any art for that matter. It is men who have lied and stolen and cheated and taken women’s accomplishments ts as their own, what they did not bury as deep as they could or sully with accusations.

You cannot allow us to have control over any aspect of our lives, not even our own bodies. You think that somehow we must justify ourselves to you even when it might kill us.

Learn something about how other disciplines work, ffs.

And ask yourself why you are all so happy to believe the histories that men tell and see it as sacred truth.

And why you insist women justify their own right to continue to breathe.
I'm not saying women are liars. I am saying Christians are liars.

Big difference, there.

I feel like I'm being gaslit for the sake of convincing me that people don't lie about abortions.

I have directly observed someone lying about abortion in published print.

Christian culture is rife with abortion horror-stories and urban legends about on-demand third trimester abortions.

There are well-poisoners about, and they don't even think what they pour into the wells IS poison. They think it's medicine. It has nothing to do with "women" and everything to do with "Christians" and "liars for Jesus".
Absolutely unsure how any of that pertains to an article presenting the narratives of women who have had late term abortions. They regret the necessity, not the abortion.
I have specifically impugned a specific subset of the stories told in that not-research namely every one of them bending towards the Christian narrative of "irresponsible women" seeking "late-term on-demand" abortions.

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

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

I have held up a light that casts reasonable doubt on a specific subset of the narratives that can be pulled from that study, and I'm damn sure that Loren has been doing exactly the same, namely those narratives.
No… you are imagining things that aren’t present in the research that you did not read. Your imagination is not reality.
 

Christian culture is rife with abortion horror-stories and urban legends about on-demand third trimester abortions.

There are well-poisoners about, and they don't even think what they pour into the wells IS poison. They think it's medicine. It has nothing to do with "women" and everything to do with "Christians" and "liars for Jesus".
Since we're talking about poisoning the well, can we please 86 the phrase "abortion on-demand"?

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

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

And once again, I'm going to point out that an abortion does not automatically mean the death and destruction of a fetus. Terminating a pregnancy is not the same thing as terminating a fetus.
I'm not the one who even believes that is a thing any more than "welfare queens". I would love to never hear another repetition on that theme, to never see another claim that doesn't present it. I would love to never see another person claim that abortion is irresponsible or that only irresponsible persons have them or for irresponsible reasons, as if anyone should be expected to gestate a human life to completion and independence for having accidentally triggered the process.

I would love to never see that again.

But until I do, it calls out for response.
FFS you are the only person in this thread using such language. Go argue with yourself.
 
If we persuade English speakers that “abortion” means no laws limiting access to third trimester abortions we will instantly create an 80% consensus against abortion rights.
Means, implies, or includes no laws limiting 3T abortions?
What is the 80% figure is based on?
What is going to be the 80%’s preferred legal boundary? No abortion whatsoever unless it’s themselves, a loved one or a friend who needs/wants an abortion? You know, like if you’re a politician in Texas?
80% want reasonable limitations on 3rd trimester abortions.
 
Why not just say abortion?
Because that would be an epic rhetorical own goal. If we persuade English speakers that “abortion” means no laws limiting access to third trimester abortions we will instantly create an 80% consensus against abortion rights.
But it doesn't mean that at all. Why would we want to convince everyone of something that is not and never will be true?

Assuming that women are crazy creatures with a self destructive/murderous streak who willy nilly decide to just abort a perfectly normal pregnancy 3 days before the due date----doctors and nurses and midwifes are not going to do that as discussed upthread. It's like saying that if I eat pop rocks while drinking cococola my head will explode.
“Oh doctors would never do that” isn’t as convincing as you might wish it to be. There’s a whole host of things doctors do that a reasonable person would think they shouldn’t do.
 
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.
You OBVIOUSLY didn’t actually read the fucking research, and have instead sunstituted what you imagine must be going on.
 
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.
Because all the women who responded are liars? Or because a study looking into the reasons for late abortions and the barriers involved in getting a timely information and access is pro-life? What’s your reason for such biased doubt?
 
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.
As opposed to you just assuming that the women lied for no good reason at all. You don’t like what was found, therefore you assume lies. 🙄
 
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.
Can you provide a single excerpt from the research that you think is indicative of the respondent lying? Or even being Christian at all?

Or are you once more assuming that your imagination creates reality?
 
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
You should probably read it instead of imagining what you think it might say if your imagination were reality.
 
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
1) Cass not CAS. The name of the doctor overseeing the investigation is Dr. Hillary Cass

2) They used well-established methods of evaluating the quality of research, standards that existed well before this undertaking. Dr. Cass lowered the bar to include medium and medium-low quality research so that more were included than would normally have been accepted. Only low-quality research was rejected. Which you would know if you bothered to read it yourself instead of getting all your information from highly biased activists who conform to your pre-existing beliefs. Dr. Cass accepted research of a quality that you yourself in this thread have rejected as not acceptable.

You, sir, are a raging hypocrite.
Lying for Jesus is quite common. I posted one example here.
What the hell does that have to do with the Cass report?
It has to do with the quality of the people being interviewed.

Also

As researchers and pediatric clinicians with experience in the field of transgender healthcare, we read the Review with great interest. The degree of financial investment and time spent is impressive. Its ability to publish seven systematic reviews, conduct years’ worth of focus groups and deeply investigate care practices in the UK is admirable. We hoped it would improve the public’s awareness of the health needs of transgender youth and galvanize improvements in delivery of this care. Indeed, statements of the Review favorably describe the individualized, age-appropriate, and careful approach recommended by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society.3 Unfortunately, the Review repeatedly misuses data and violates its own evidentiary standards by resting many conclusions on speculation. Many of its statements and the conduct of the York SRs reveal profound misunderstandings of the evidence base and the clinical issues at hand. The Review also subverts widely accepted processes for development of clinical recommendations and repeats spurious, debunked claims about transgender identity and gender dysphoria. These errors conflict with well-established norms of clinical research and evidence-based healthcare. Further, these errors raise serious concern about the scientific integrity of critical elements of the report’s process and recommendations.
(Emphasis in source)

Well that’s an interesting bit of bullshit. Cass didn’t do any reviews or focus groups. She and her team reviewed studies that had already been published, most by pro-trans groups.
Apparently you didn't look at how the study was conducted. The Yale University team did.
Focus groups for what questions should be considered, and what research papers should be considered, and how that research should be evaluated, as well as what the impact and ramifications of the review may be.
The Review heard from the diverse range of voices that were relevant to its work and conducted a wide-ranging stakeholder engagement programme, alongside its research programme, to ensure that the full spectrum of relevant evidence, research and opinion was taken into account.

The engagement programme included weekly listening sessions, a series of focus groups, roundtable meetings and thematic workshops.

The Review considered all questions, submissions and comments sent to the Review inbox, however, it should be recognised that the Review was not a formal consultation and did not commit to respond to each individual comment submitted.

I find it intriguing how so many people have such strong opinions about the Cass review… when it’s glaringly obvious that they didn’t read the report.
You just proved that you didn't read the report too.
Try again.
 
But that's not what these purport to be. They are being presented as "proof" of on-demand third-trimester abortion.
No, they were presented as evidence that late abortions without a medical necessity do, in actual fact, occur. In contradiction to those who continue to insist they never happen.
Except that it doesn't, because liars for Jesus exist so as to claim such abortions.

Further, the claim is not that they never happen, but they happen exceedingly so exceedingly rarely that any burden to detect and prevent them and cast judgement and motherhood on those pesky slatterns is going to get a lot of women (and some men) killed.

But then, you are the veritable queen of "cures" worse than the "disease".

It's curious how that always seems to be an issue with you.
Will you stop denigrating women, please?

To your “point”, your reasoning suggests that if a horrific and harmful thing happens rarely, then we shouldn’t bother to safeguard against it. Which is some disastrous reasoning, completely lacking in ethics or care.
 
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.
In the event that a healthy woman 30 weeks pregnant decides to terminate her heathy fetus, I absolutely consider her a baby killer.

On the other hand, if there’s a medical risk to her, or if the developing baby is materially unhealthy, I consider that a tragedy.
Terminate her healthy fetus, or terminate her pregnancy?

Those are two very different things.

Terminating a fetus means the fetus dies. Terminating a pregnancy means the fetus is delivered at whatever stage of development it's at, pre-term or full term.

Suppose a 30 weeks pregnant woman is showing signs of sleep deprivation caused by pregnancy related insomnia and she wants a doctor to induce labor. Suppose initial treatment doesn't help and the insomnia persists. If a doctor agrees that premature delivery is safer for her and her fetus than waiting around a few more weeks and seeing what happens, are you going to call it an attempted murder if they go with the early delivery plan?
I wrote terminate her fetus, and that’s exactly what I meant. Your leap to an early delivery is an intentional red herring.
No, it's not a red herring.

It's an intentional clarification so those two things don't get conflated.

There are those who hear "abortion" and think "kill a baby". I
That’s literally what an abortion is. The only potential argument is with respect to when in a pregnancy it counts as a ‘baby’. Three weeks in, probably not a baby. Three weeks before due date, probably a baby.
t's mindless emotional knee-jerk assuming the worst about women who aren't virgins and for some reason don't carry a fetus to term. A lot of folks indulge in it regularly, especially conservatives.

If you mean terminate a fetus, then please provide examples where a fetus was terminated for what you think are good reasons and an example where one was terminated for what you think are bad reasons. And be specific, especially about the ones for bad reasons. Where and when did it happen, were there any alternative treatments considered or available, etc.
Have you not read this thread? I’m tired of playing word games and gotchas. It’s a dumb waste of everyone’s time.

Any abortion in the first 2 trimesters is fine by me for any reason at all, I don’t care. In the 3rd trimester, there should be some reasonable medical necessity. This isn’t a difficult or novel concept.
 
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.
In the event that a healthy woman 30 weeks pregnant decides to terminate her heathy fetus, I absolutely consider her a baby killer.

On the other hand, if there’s a medical risk to her, or if the developing baby is materially unhealthy, I consider that a tragedy.
Terminate her healthy fetus, or terminate her pregnancy?

Those are two very different things.

Terminating a fetus means the fetus dies. Terminating a pregnancy means the fetus is delivered at whatever stage of development it's at, pre-term or full term.

Suppose a 30 weeks pregnant woman is showing signs of sleep deprivation caused by pregnancy related insomnia and she wants a doctor to induce labor. Suppose initial treatment doesn't help and the insomnia persists. If a doctor agrees that premature delivery is safer for her and her fetus than waiting around a few more weeks and seeing what happens, are you going to call it an attempted murder if they go with the early delivery plan?
I wrote terminate her fetus, and that’s exactly what I meant. Your leap to an early delivery is an intentional red herring.
No, it's not.

It's an intentional clarification so those two things don't get conflated.

There are those who hear "abortion" and think "kill a baby". It's mindless emotional knee-jerk assuming the worst about women who aren't virgins and for some reason don't carry a fetus to term. A lot of folks indulge in it regularly, especially conservatives.

If you mean terminate a fetus, then please provide examples where a fetus was terminated for what you think are good reasons and an example where one was terminated for what you think are bad reasons. Then we can talk about the various reasons for terminating a fetus.
And this is what I just don't get... There have been plenty of opportunities for days and days and days for her to point out the "slatterns" of the bunch and judge them if she really thinks these studies contain any sort of evidence, well-poisoners or not, for abortions that need to be policed as her proposed policies of prying politicians would see happen.

I have yet to see any actual evidence presented that supports the claim that there's something going on possibly needing policing, and I'm not sure even being a psychopathic slattern is justification for policing. In fact I'm pretty sure it's not, though as Toni keeps pointing out, doctors generally won't perform those procedures.

*If it isn't apparent, I don't think that anyone should be called or considered a slattern or "slut". I just get the feeling that anyone trying to enforce consequences in the form of forcing them to gestate a human child is making those consequences just as bad for the human child and anyone doing so is devoid of empathy.

Seriously, what do you care even IF there were a store called Abortions-R-Us with a Super-Scooper plan where the tenth abortion is on the house, other than it seems a lot of trouble to go through when condoms and IUDs and tubal ligations are a thing, except where doctors gatekeep such procedures, and condoms aren't thought to be as fun
How the fuck hard is it for you to refrain from making shit up?
 
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.
In the event that a healthy woman 30 weeks pregnant decides to terminate her heathy fetus, I absolutely consider her a baby killer.

On the other hand, if there’s a medical risk to her, or if the developing baby is materially unhealthy, I consider that a tragedy.
Terminate her healthy fetus, or terminate her pregnancy?

Those are two very different things.

Terminating a fetus means the fetus dies. Terminating a pregnancy means the fetus is delivered at whatever stage of development it's at, pre-term or full term.

Suppose a 30 weeks pregnant woman is showing signs of sleep deprivation caused by pregnancy related insomnia and she wants a doctor to induce labor. Suppose initial treatment doesn't help and the insomnia persists. If a doctor agrees that premature delivery is safer for her and her fetus than waiting around a few more weeks and seeing what happens, are you going to call it an attempted murder if they go with the early delivery plan?
I wrote terminate her fetus, and that’s exactly what I meant. Your leap to an early delivery is an intentional red herring.
No, it's not a red herring.

It's an intentional clarification so those two things don't get conflated.

There are those who hear "abortion" and think "kill a baby". I
That’s literally what an abortion is.

No it is not.

A spontaneous abortion at 2 weeks of gestation is not "kill a baby" unless you are making the argument that God is the Greatest, Most Prolific Baby Killer of All Time.


The only potential argument is with respect to when in a pregnancy it counts as a ‘baby’. Three weeks in, probably not a baby. Three weeks before due date, probably a baby.

If you want anyone to believe that a doctor performed an abortion on a woman 3 days before her due date, you'll have to provide a link to that story so we can all see the details and understand the context.

If a woman had a spontaneous abortion 3 days before her due date, I can believe it (premature birth happens all the time) but if she was charged with a crime for endangering a baby, link to that too. She might have been reckless or she might not. Maybe the DA is being a vindictive dick and going all Old Testament on an unfortunate, traumatized victim or maybe laws were broken.

But if this is just you saying you would be opposed to a doctor performing an abortion 3 days before the due date without a damn good reason, then everyone who has posted in this thread agrees with you.

Some folks might disagree on what constitutes a damn good reason but the idea that there needs to be one is not controversial.
t's mindless emotional knee-jerk assuming the worst about women who aren't virgins and for some reason don't carry a fetus to term. A lot of folks indulge in it regularly, especially conservatives.

If you mean terminate a fetus, then please provide examples where a fetus was terminated for what you think are good reasons and an example where one was terminated for what you think are bad reasons. And be specific, especially about the ones for bad reasons. Where and when did it happen, were there any alternative treatments considered or available, etc.
Have you not read this thread? I’m tired of playing word games and gotchas. It’s a dumb waste of everyone’s time.

Any abortion in the first 2 trimesters is fine by me for any reason at all, I don’t care. In the 3rd trimester, there should be some reasonable medical necessity. This isn’t a difficult or novel concept.

You're right. It isn't a novel concept. People here have been saying that over and over again.

Where I think the argument is rooted is in who gets to decide what's reasonable, what's necessary, and whether this is a matter for a pregnant woman and her doctor to decide.

Your arguments indicate you think the woman and her doctor shouldn't have the final say, that there should be laws they cannot transgress. Others obviously think they should, that the laws should never disallow medical procedures that a pregnant woman and her doctors think is needed. I think the politicians and preachers who want to criminalize abortions should become better educated about women's health because some of those folks are so ignorant they don't have a clue just how clueless they are. If they weren't so ignorant they wouldn't write terrible laws just like the one that prevented doctors in Ireland from providing the medical care Savita Halappanavar needed.

Here is an example of a pregnant woman making a decision about abortion: Gianna Beretta Molla

In 1961, during the second month of her fourth and final pregnancy, Molla developed a fibroma on her uterus. The doctors gave her three choices following an examination: an abortion, a complete hysterectomy, or the removal of the fibroma alone.

Molla opted for the removal of the fibroma since she wanted to preserve her child's life. She told the doctors that her child's life was more important than her own. On the morning of Holy Saturday, 21 April 1962, Molla was sent to the hospital where her fourth child, Gianna Emanuela, was delivered via a Caesarean section. But Molla continued to have severe pain and died of septic peritonitis one week after giving birth, on the morning of Easter Saturday, 28 April

I don't know what I would have chosen if I had developed a fibroma during pregnancy in the 1960s. I don't know what it would have been like to have three young children and be endangered by a tumor growing next to my fetus. I might have chosen to have an abortion so I could be there for my husband and children. I might have said "meh, I have kids already and pregnancy is dangerous" and had a hysterectomy, too. Or I might have decided to have just the fibroma removed and hoped for the best.

The thing is, it would have been my choice. I refuse to let someone else decide what potentially fatal conditions I must endure just because they get a warm fuzzy feeling when they think about babies and heartbeats.
 
Last edited:
She might have been reckless or she might not
"Recklessness" needs an actual victim.

There is none here.

She's just shitting out propaganda on the floor and hoping nobody notices.

It's only "reckless" when the ability to mitigate the issues is lacking, and the recklessness here accords to those who pull those means away: Emily is more reckless than the "slattern" she considers reckless for getting pregnant.

But if this is just you saying you would be opposed to a doctor performing an abortion 3 days before the due date without a damn good reason, then everyone who has posted in this thread agrees with you
I don't: I recognize that nobody is going to do that procedure, perhaps because few people recognize the utility of automatic selection pressures against any proliferation of psychopathy.

No amount of "think of the children" or "slatterns need consequences" will convince me otherwise.

Someone would need to present a VERY good reason why THAT child is the child that should be invested in with the ridiculously high amount of resources children need.

We have spent all this time arguing, and we have yet to see actual arguments that extend beyond demands people be "normal".

And no Emily you didn't need to say the word "slattern" or "slut" to have successfully called someone that. All you have to do is charge a statement up with words like "irresponsible", and point that irresponsibility at a sex act: in doing so you imply that such people are "loose".

In fact, going through those lengths to imply but not outright say "slattern" is more a sign of dishonesty and guilt over the idea than of those who just say their mind on the subject.
 
Last edited:
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
1) Cass not CAS. The name of the doctor overseeing the investigation is Dr. Hillary Cass

2) They used well-established methods of evaluating the quality of research, standards that existed well before this undertaking. Dr. Cass lowered the bar to include medium and medium-low quality research so that more were included than would normally have been accepted. Only low-quality research was rejected. Which you would know if you bothered to read it yourself instead of getting all your information from highly biased activists who conform to your pre-existing beliefs. Dr. Cass accepted research of a quality that you yourself in this thread have rejected as not acceptable.

You, sir, are a raging hypocrite.
Lying for Jesus is quite common. I posted one example here.
What the hell does that have to do with the Cass report?
It has to do with the quality of the people being interviewed.

Also

As researchers and pediatric clinicians with experience in the field of transgender healthcare, we read the Review with great interest. The degree of financial investment and time spent is impressive. Its ability to publish seven systematic reviews, conduct years’ worth of focus groups and deeply investigate care practices in the UK is admirable. We hoped it would improve the public’s awareness of the health needs of transgender youth and galvanize improvements in delivery of this care. Indeed, statements of the Review favorably describe the individualized, age-appropriate, and careful approach recommended by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society.3 Unfortunately, the Review repeatedly misuses data and violates its own evidentiary standards by resting many conclusions on speculation. Many of its statements and the conduct of the York SRs reveal profound misunderstandings of the evidence base and the clinical issues at hand. The Review also subverts widely accepted processes for development of clinical recommendations and repeats spurious, debunked claims about transgender identity and gender dysphoria. These errors conflict with well-established norms of clinical research and evidence-based healthcare. Further, these errors raise serious concern about the scientific integrity of critical elements of the report’s process and recommendations.
(Emphasis in source)

Well that’s an interesting bit of bullshit. Cass didn’t do any reviews or focus groups. She and her team reviewed studies that had already been published, most by pro-trans groups.
Apparently you didn't look at how the study was conducted. The Yale University team did.
Focus groups for what questions should be considered, and what research papers should be considered, and how that research should be evaluated, as well as what the impact and ramifications of the review may be.
Interesting backtracking. You said "Cass didn’t do any reviews or focus groups."

The Review heard from the diverse range of voices that were relevant to its work and conducted a wide-ranging stakeholder engagement programme, alongside its research programme, to ensure that the full spectrum of relevant evidence, research and opinion was taken into account.

The engagement programme included weekly listening sessions, a series of focus groups, roundtable meetings and thematic workshops.

The Review considered all questions, submissions and comments sent to the Review inbox, however, it should be recognised that the Review was not a formal consultation and did not commit to respond to each individual comment submitted.

I find it intriguing how so many people have such strong opinions about the Cass review… when it’s glaringly obvious that they didn’t read the report.
You just proved that you didn't read the report too.
Try again.
Sure, Jan.
 
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.
But that's not what these purport to be. They are being presented as "proof" of on-demand third-trimester abortion.
What the fuck are you talking about?

What the fuck do you mean by ‘improper abortion?’

What authority, background, credentials do you hold to term that women late term abortions obtained for medical reasons relating to the viability of the fetus as ‘ improper?’
Follow the context!

The two studies purport to show third trimester abortions without a medical reason.
No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.
So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.
True. But the paper found that the reasons for the 3rd trimester abortions were the same as those in the 1st or 2nd trimester. Which brings up the issue of why timing should matter. If reason _____ (you choose) is justifiable in the 1st and 2nd semesters, why not in the 3rd?
 
No, they explicitly do not, as I pointed out with quotes from one of the studies in post 5,416.
So,e of the respondents did not have a medical necessity, but had other barriers that prevented them from getting an abortion earlier. But they were few.
True. But the paper found that the reasons for the 3rd trimester abortions were the same as those in the 1st or 2nd trimester. Which brings up the issue of why timing should matter. If reason _____ (you choose) is justifiable in the 1st and 2nd semesters, why not in the 3rd?
I would assume the word viability is the answer.
 
Back
Top Bottom