Which leaves us with the definition of a separate life. The entity in question is, without doubt, a part of the woman. It has half her genetic make-up. It belongs to her, in a very real sense, which is only slightly different from all the other stuff inside her body. And it lacks the immense microbiome to which all separate persons play host, because it is relying on its own host to support its metabolic processes. It is unquestionably not a separate life.
Also, this “fetus” business is way overplayed. Over 90% of terminations occur before the entity in question call be described as a “fetus”. That seems like a rather non-trivial consideration.
Let’s see…take data from 650K respondents (no, that’s not a typo) and compare the incidence of depression and other psychological symptoms among them to the same among the general run of women.
I’m pretty sure you could’ve figured that one out all by yourself, but it’s answered in that second link that I provided. Again, that’s only one of the studies, there are a number of them listed other than the metastudy.
When people on my team say “slut” they are (usually) using the word in a sentence attributing that attitude to people on your team. People on your team will often consider that to be character assassination, and often with legitimate reason.
[/QUOTE]
OK, point taken. I apologize. I should have read for context.
OK, point taken. I apologize. I should have read for context.
[/QUOTE]
It’s cool. It’s an emotional subject for many. Picking a “team” on social issues makes me feel dirty and immoral on some fronts. I’m not a fan of identifying in that way.
I didn’t read the study, but if that’s what they did, the 650k number is meaningless; they’re repeatedly measuring the same correlations, but never figuring out what the causations might be.
Self-reporting is notoriously unreliable. “Have you had an abortion? Have you ever been depressed?” If they say no to both questions. let it go. If they say “Yes, but no,” hammer at them about everyone being sad in their life at some point. The reverse? Say that doesn’t matter. Yes to both questions? Well, your depression 20 years later was caused by the abortion, not by your grandson’s suicide, which was also caused by your abortion!"
Besides those factors that Annie-Xmas pointed out, there are also the more mundane ones even without leading questions. Does abortion lead to more mental depression, or do women who have lives with factors for depression (abusive relationships, economic struggles, dysfunctional childhood familes, etc. etc. etc.) tend to be the women who are more likely to have an abortion?
After a woman has an abortion, would the shaming that many parts of society places on abortion cause her to be more depressed?
It’s like surveying 650k people who have been to mental health counselors, finding that they have a higher incidence of depression than the general population, and then concluding that since you looked at 650k of them, that the therapy must cause depression. It’s absolute shit of a study.
Hopefully you have grasped the simple points that I made. If there is ANYTHING you still disagree with,do let me know. And I’ll explain why you are wrong.
Everyone understood exactly what you were saying, I’m asking you to explain what you hoped to accomplish with that crap. Evidently the answer is you have no idea what you’re doing other than you enjoy pissing people off. Congrats and good luck with that.
The particular study we appear to be going back and forth about is a metastudy over 22 different studies. Instead of talking about what you don’t know, why don’t you actually read the link instead of forcing me to spoonfeed it to you?
But hey, I can see where claiming a study with less than 1000 respondents as gospel might serve your purposes…on a tenuous methodological basis in the first place.
Possibly something pretty minor. Physically, it’s a medical procedure, and those are never totally safe. Emotionally, it varies widely with the individual. Some will always wonder what would have happened; they might keep a little mental tally of how old their child would be.
Others are just damn glad to be rid of a serious problem.
Notorious anti-gay bigot Paul Cameron once asked 60 men in prison for pedophilia if they identified as gay or bisexual. 51 of them said “Yes.” This proved to him that 85% of all homosexuals are child molesters.
I’m sure there have been more than 22 different studies about the effects of abortion, but it’s easy not to use the ones that don’t support your view. Just ;ole the 14 studies that show abortion increases the risk for breast cancer.
Sample size is not the only flaw that studies can have. Perhaps the *most *damning flaw a study can have is a biased reporter reporting the results, either as the researcher, or in writing a book, website, or post about it later.
Everyone didn’t understand what I was saying. You didn’t (it seems). Quote everything I said in the post and tell me what on earth you are objecting to.
As to what I was “accomplishing” - I was simply adding to the points another poster made.
I’ve long since noted that when threads get into the “I didn’t say X, I said Y,” “Show me where I said you said X,” “I didn’t say you said I said X” stage, they have attained senescence and are of very little further value.
There’s a story about world war 2, where the british were inspecting their bombers that made it back from their bombing runs. They were losing quite a number of bombers, and wanted to armor them, to improve their survivability.
Obviously, you can’t just armor the whole plane, so they diligently marked all the places the planes that made it back were hit by anti-aircraft fire, and used that information to armor the planes in those areas.
Can you see what they did wrong? If you can, then you should be able to see where you’re going wrong with your line of argument. If you can’t see what they did wrong, then that explains why you are continuing this line of argument.