I could have sworn you posted in the companion GQ thread just recently, where “late term abortion” stats were posted more than once…without a single objection from you.
Let me read the thread, what statistic specifically do you want me to object to?
My argument though here is not that statistics are irrelevant in all cases, but in this particular case they are irrelevant. If we posit that an action is unjust, then it’s not unreasonable to legislate against it if even one innocent person is exposed to the injustice. In the silly string example, if we felt that it was reasonably possible for some innocent life to be snuffed out by a mad carnival operator forcing his employees to high wire act on silly string, then it’s reasonable to legislate against such things. The statistic of .00001% is irrelevant. An anecdote is all that is required, because that one person deserves protection from a silly string using madman. So in the case of these late term abortions, it might be reasonable to ask for an anecdote of this happening, but not a statistic since I would contend that if we accept that a ‘40 week abortion for trivial reasons’ is unjust then even one time is enough to warrant legislation against it. I do think that you would be right in asking for this anecdote, but if one is provided, then the legislation to prevent it is reasonable unless you are arguing that such an action is not unjust.
Laws based on anecdote alone?
I’m against it.
I don’t accept that posit, so I guess that’s why we’re talking past each other. If a doctor and mother agree to terminate a pregnancy a month before or a week before or during labor, my assumption is going to be that there are really dire circumstances that would make the outcome not “unjust”. And, obviously, the NY Legislature agrees that it’s not unjust or they would have specifically banned it like gay conversion therapy.
I guess we should disengage, since this seems like a real sticking point.
Probably not. You’re against it in this case, but often laws based on anecdotes are very good and effective laws. For instance, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire led to necessary and effective fire safety laws. Statistically, factory fires were not a major issue. Factory owners didn’t particularly want their factories burning down, so deaths from factory fires were not something you should spend a lot of time worrying about. At the same time, the anecdote of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory alerted people to real safety concerns and spurred legislation that made workplace environments safer and I personally think that such laws were certainly justified despite their basis being in anecdote.
From the Wiki on that fire:
Those laws were not based on any anecdote, but on the statistics and facts gathered after the fire.