Then maybe it would be an idea to actually read the information provided and judge for yourself, rather than making unfounded implications.
Here’s an abstract from the British Journal of Psychiatry that lists the methodology, statistical methods, etc. for that particular metastudy. Notice that it is not from that Abortion Risks website. Oh, and I was mistaken…not sure where I got the 650K number from, but it was wrong. It’s actually 877K.
I don’t need the methodology, statistical methods, etc., although I thank you for a direct link.
All I need is the author’s name for that one: Priscilla K. Coleman, whose “research” has been widely and roundly criticised for being unduplicatable, among myriad other sins. Priscilla K. Coleman - Wikipedia
Hallelujah! A substantive response after only a week of haranguing!
Too bad you STILL haven’t read a word of the metastudy. Meanwhile, you treat as gospel a study with less than a thousand data points. That’s 20 people per state. Are you serious?
Yes. I’m serious. Although I’m not taking it as “gospel.” I’m taking it under advisement.
For a 95% confidence level and confidence interval of 5, I need only survey 384 women to give me good answers on what will apply to women of childbearing years (approx 7,800,000) in the United States of America.
A thousand data points is far more than necessary, if you know how to use Statistics. (Which, to be clear, I don’t. I know the very bare minimum about Statistics I needed to graduate from college. If I were ever to actually design a study, I’d need to work with a Statistician to do it.)
Where do you think condescension is going to get you in a great debates thread? If the goal is to win converts to your side of the argument, how well would you say you’ve been doing in this thread?
All you seem to be able to do is accuse me of not understanding things, but actually you seem to not understand how this forum works. Unless of course your goal is simply to piss people off, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt on that.
I lean more pro choice because I believe in a womans right to her own body. However abortion is a poor choice for birth control and their should be more of an emphasis on birth control or at least the morning after pill.
In real life before I had sex with any woman I always brought up birth control. I wish Hollywood would do that.
You have to love the religious right’s recipe for failure. Don’t have sex, don’t use birth control, don’t watch porn or masturbate, and by god, if you get pregnant, don’t have an abortion. It’s as if they’re going to stop teens from wanting sex.
ETA" Johnny Ace do you support gay adoption, or only adoption to straight, married couples? I find most anti-abortion people do not support gay adoption. some going so far as to label it “child abuse.”
The problem with “viability” is that it is constantly changing due to medical advancements. A baby born at 22 weeks gestation can now be saved, but will have major medical problems for life, such as blindness, deafness, mental retardation, etc.
I imagine that in the future babies will be saved even earlier than that, but the medical consequences of saving such a viable baby would be even more severe.
The trimesters of Roe vs. Wade are a decent compromise point. However, they have to be respected by all.
It’s dirty pool to force a woman to delay, delay, delay…and then say, “Whoa! The fetus is viable now!” If late abortions are to be deterred, early ones must be available.
Permit me a “Huh?”. That’s about as far out in left field as it’s possible to get.
First, I’m not pro-life. I’m about as pro-choice as it’s possible to be. I took an argument used by pro-lifers and turned it on its head to support choice.
And I couldn’t care less what the sexual orientation of adoptive parents is as long as they provide a nurturing environment for the kids they adopt. I have no fear that being raised by gay parents would somehow ‘turn the kids gay,’ or any other such fantasy purported by fearful control freaks I mean religious fundamentalists.
My apologies. I think supporting adoption and then not supporting adoption by gay couples (or even fundamentalist non-Christian parents) is the height of hypocrisy.
If it could actually be shown that gays make bad parents, the opponents might have a point. But the real stats show that gays are as good…or perhaps even better…than straights at parenting.
I dunno if it’s hypocrisy, but it’s certainly bigoted.
…Someone should perhaps not condemn a child who did not get asked or was given a choice to possibly a life of living hell, unless said person wants to personally take that child and provide it a wonderfully perfect life.
And i don’t see a line of people forming to do that.
There are more kids unwanted, than people lining up to get kids.
If Abortion is murder, exactly what is blowing up a clinic containing a Doctor and a bunch of women?
I can almost see the logic. It’s like those goofy morals/ethics challenges: would you switch the train from track A to track B if it would kill eight fewer people?
If anti-abortion terrorism worked (and, horribly, it does have a chilling effect) then some absolutist could decide it’s “worth it.”
(In Los Angeles, some decades ago, there was a spate of freeway shootings. But, doggone, for a while, people drove a lot more cautiously, and even more politely. It is not impossible that these shootings actually saved a few lives, by making people a bit more attentive drivers.)
Most of us, of course, go well beyond “the ends justify the means” in our moral calculus.
A justified war, just like any other war. It’s okay to kill when you’re trying to save lives. That’s how some of them feel anyway. I think most of us would be okay shooting someone about to axe murder a kindergarten. Fetus, small child same diff to them.