Ohio bill restricting abortions to before a heartbeat is heard

[Dakine10 5,452]

Actually the MDL much like the MDR is a very small demographic know only to chest. As for stereotyping a broad demographic. I was asking those from the left, that generally support more unrestricted abortion to weigh in.

It seems to have gotten off track from the original premise, which is what is too early. I think moving it away (earlier) from the current standard (~24 weeks) is a decision made without any medical or scientific basis. It becomes more about people imposing their own morals and ethics on others. Accepting that as OK, I think, is dangerous road to travel down.

[bcking 3,157]

So you are more in favor off setting a quota for late term viable fetus abortions, as the argument you seem to be having, is the only morality in the situation is numbers. If 500 a month nationwide is wrong so is 1.

Again totally ok for health reasons

I didn't say anything of the sort. I find it offensive when you try to put words in other people's mouths. You are trying to misdirect from an actual discussion on an issue. Please don't.

My point is that when the number of times something happens is very small, it isn't always the best solution to just create blanket bans that will effect MANY more people in other categories.

If the number of late term abortions performed for non-medical reasons is small, it would be more effective to focus on the specific reasons why those events happen, and try to fix them. That study clearly showed that the reasons that those were ended up with late term abortions were mostly financial issues (cost of procedure, distance to travel etc...). Instead of just blanket banning it all, why not focus on alleviating those barriers? Distance to travel has only gotten worse by attempts to ban/limit clinics that perform abortions.

And again, just a reminder, that article did NOTHING to suggest that the number who get late term abortions for non-medical reasons is large. It wasn't even designed to compare non-medical reasons to medical reasons. They specifically sought out women with non-medical reasons, based on their recruitment methods. It was the wrong kind of study to really compare medical late term abortions (lethal fetal conditions etc...) and non-medical reasons. Not saying that study isn't out there, I just haven't seen it.

Also, the article uses the "20 week" cut off, which actually isn't really what most of us have been talking about here. If you are talking about "viability" as a cut off, it would be more like 22 or 23 weeks. The AVERAGE was 22 weeks, so I imagine if you just looked at 22+ it would be different and potentially more suitable to our discussion.

[bcking 3,157]

I really couldn't care less about their reasons for posting it. Their reasons and mine don't have to match for me to find it to be useful in the context of our discussion. Yes, it admittedly over represented them, and it even said so. I don't believe they even tried to hide it, at least from my perspective. It has its limitations, but over representing is not the same as making something up. To over represent something it has to exist, and that was the main reason I posted it, because if even 1 or two people in the study(and it was definitely more than that) were under that category, then at least it shows it exists. Whether it over represents or not, whether they shoot themselves in the foot by supporting their opponents more than themselves is not my business anymore. I think at the end of the day we're in agreement that 1. Late term abortions for the wrong reasons do exist and that 2. They should not happen. Now, how to go about preventing them, which laws and what kind of help/aid is the appropriate manner to address the issue is for a whole nother disucssion a whole nother day.

Agreed to leave it at that. The article does provide, in my mind, some good ideas about how to help/aid that issue (and it doesn't involve banning abortions, or closing more clinics).

I can guarantee that as the number of clinics that perform abortions close down, the number of late term abortions will go up. It would be an interesting study to compare states with easier access to states with harder access and look at the reasons and average gestational ages.

In general all of this would be easier if we had better access to a deidentified database.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I didn't say anything of the sort. I find it offensive when you try to put words in other people's mouths. You are trying to misdirect from an actual discussion on an issue. Please don't.

My point is that when the number of times something happens is very small, it isn't always the best solution to just create blanket bans that will effect MANY more people in other categories.

If the number of late term abortions performed for non-medical reasons is small, it would be more effective to focus on the specific reasons why those events happen, and try to fix them. That study clearly showed that the reasons that those were ended up with late term abortions were mostly financial issues (cost of procedure, distance to travel etc...). Instead of just blanket banning it all, why not focus on alleviating those barriers? Distance to travel has only gotten worse by attempts to ban/limit clinics that perform abortions.

And again, just a reminder, that article did NOTHING to suggest that the number who get late term abortions for non-medical reasons is large. It wasn't even designed to compare non-medical reasons to medical reasons. They specifically sought out women with non-medical reasons, based on their recruitment methods. It was the wrong kind of study to really compare medical late term abortions (lethal fetal conditions etc...) and non-medical reasons. Not saying that study isn't out there, I just haven't seen it.

Also, the article uses the "20 week" cut off, which actually isn't really what most of us have been talking about here. If you are talking about "viability" as a cut off, it would be more like 22 or 23 weeks. The AVERAGE was 22 weeks, so I imagine if you just looked at 22+ it would be different and potentially more suitable to our discussion.

It doesn't take much to offend you does it , All you have talked about is numbers so natch....

Here is a peace offering

[bcking 3,157]

It doesn't take much to offend you does it , All you have talked about is numbers so natch....

Here is a peace offering

Maybe offend just isn't the right word. I guess I"m just asking you to please not post if you have absolutely nothing of substance to provide. You don't look any smarter by just butting in. I have had a few decent discussions with you, so don't ruin those by making yourself look like an idiot. (I'm not calling you one, just saying you make yourself look like one...)

Edited December 9, 2016 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Maybe offend just isn't the right word. I guess I"m just asking you to please not post if you have absolutely nothing of substance to provide. You don't look any smarter by just butting in. I have had a few decent discussions with you, so don't ruin those by making yourself look like an idiot. (I'm not calling you one, just saying you make yourself look like one...)

Well there you go Chest members. Everyone is banned from posting unless you have something of Bcking approves substance to say. 80% of you mongrels are in trouble. All of my friends in the MDL and The MDR are in trouble. 2 things

1. Its a public forum. Butting in is expected

2. I got a picture of Ric Flair on my profile. Its impossible not appear smart after that

[bcking 3,157]

Well there you go Chest members. Everyone is banned from posting unless you have something of Bcking approves substance to say. 80% of you mongrels are in trouble. All of my friends in the MDL and The MDR are in trouble. 2 things

1. Its a public forum. Butting in is expected

2. I got a picture of Ric Flair on my profile. Its impossible not appear smart after that

I never said you aren't allowed to butt in. You are perfectly allowed to. As you said, it's a public forum. Anyone can post anything.

I'm just saying that what you post hurts any image I have of you. You may not care, but I'm just letting you know. If you ever do have a decent point in a discussion, these sorts of moments just hurt my ability to take you seriously. Again, if you don't care. Continue to do what you're doing and I'll just feel bad for you. Again, you don't have to care. Just letting you know.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I never said you aren't allowed to butt in. You are perfectly allowed to. As you said, it's a public forum. Anyone can post anything.

I'm just saying that what you post hurts any image I have of you. You may not care, but I'm just letting you know. If you ever do have a decent point in a discussion, these sorts of moments just hurt my ability to take you seriously. Again, if you don't care. Continue to do what you're doing and I'll just feel bad for you. Again, you don't have to care. Just letting you know.

If I cared about my Image I would be on the elliptical instead of sitting here eating a State Fair corn dog and and playing pin the tail on the donkey in a never ending circle with all you deplorables

If you find it hard to take me seriously then I have accomplished my purpose.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Nature Boy Flair

[bcking 3,157]

If I cared about my Image I would be on the elliptical instead of sitting here eating a State Fair corn dog and and playing pin the tail on the donkey in a never ending circle with all you deplorables

If you find it hard to take me seriously then I have accomplished my purpose.

Great purpose you have there. Again, you're not helping. But as you said I guess that's your "purpose". Sure, we'll go with that. Heading to bed now.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Great purpose you have there. Again, you're not helping. But as you said I guess that's your "purpose". Sure, we'll go with that. Heading to bed now.

Sleep tight Doc

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

It seems to have gotten off track from the original premise, which is what is too early. I think moving it away (earlier) from the current standard (~24 weeks) is a decision made without any medical or scientific basis. It becomes more about people imposing their own morals and ethics on others. Accepting that as OK, I think, is dangerous road to travel down.

OK so in your perfect world what is the answer. This is a hard topic, that honestly I would probably be left of the center line.

I think most except the extreme on both sides , are hesitant to give a definitive answer , because I think most have mixed feelings that run in opposite directions

[Dakine10 5,452]

OK so in your perfect world what is the answer. This is a hard topic, that honestly I would probably be left of the center line.

I think most except the extreme on both sides , are hesitant to give a definitive answer , because I think most have mixed feelings that run in opposite directions

In my perfect world no one would ever be in a situation where abortion was a possible outcome. In an imperfect world, it's an area where I would rather let medical consensus overrule emotional reaction. I'm not hesitant to give a definitive answer, I just don't think my, your or anyone elses answer means much more than opinion.

In general terms, If someone makes a decision to have an elective abortion, it has to be done before before viability IMO. There has to be exceptions for late termination for medical or other reasons. Viability being defined as 24 weeks is somewhat artificial, but is acceptable to me. Arbitrarily lowering the limit such as the Ohio bill is medically speaking, nonsense. It should be recognized as such.

Again though that's just my opinion, and the law obviously shouldn't be based around opinion.

[TBoneTX 45,288]

Ya I agree that technically speaking I'm sure they exist as well. The study cut off was 20 weeks, and the median was 22...I wish they would have given a greater break down as I would honestly like to know how many were say >24 or even >23. Or at least tell us both the median and mean. I am actually quite surprised the paper didn't even list a range (They varied from 20 to x weeks) even without how many were above a certain cut off. That would have been useful information in interpreting the study.

Again my problem with recruitment bias comes up. Not that I'm saying that it proves none exist, but I believe the study "over-represented" those that exist by recruiting specifically for them. Yes even 1,000 patients in a country of 350 million is too high. However if you follow the article to its conclusions the best way to reduce that number would be to make it EASIER for women to obtain the abortion, not harder. The irony of the think tank is their study, when actually read critically, supports their opponents more than it supports themselves.

If you're not already a reviewer of submitted journal manuscripts, you oughta be.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

In my perfect world no one would ever be in a situation where abortion was a possible outcome. In an imperfect world, it's an area where I would rather let medical consensus overrule emotional reaction. I'm not hesitant to give a definitive answer, I just don't think my, your or anyone elses answer means much more than opinion.

In general terms, If someone makes a decision to have an elective abortion, it has to be done before before viability IMO. There has to be exceptions for late termination for medical or other reasons. Viability being defined as 24 weeks is somewhat artificial, but is acceptable to me. Arbitrarily lowering the limit such as the Ohio bill is medically speaking, nonsense. It should be recognized as such.

Again though that's just my opinion, and the law obviously shouldn't be based around opinion.

Close enough to day we agree

[OriZ 3,157]

Close enough to day we agree

It's funny how we all go around and around and at the end of the day we pretty much agree on this.