Go republicans! Let's restrict womens bodies again!

[jinjuku]

You're literally trying to compare 125,000 partial birth abortions out of 63 million abortions over 44 years to 1 million+ covid deaths out of 81+ million cases over 2 years?

The context for using partial birth abortions as an argument against all abortions is that they are 0.2% of all abortions.

My point: What is the use of trying to minimize that number by comparing it to a larger number? The number is the number regardless.

Instead challenge that # by asking what the medical necessities were in that #. I asked and it totally left the presenter of that # flat footed. Kind of the point behind a debate.

 

[highfigh]

No, they definitely were pushing that in the 80's and 90's too. I lived through it, we were taught absolutely nothing about safe sex or birth control in school.

But isn't that for the parents to teach (preferably, as uncomfortably as possible )?

 

[NINaudio]

My point: What is the use of trying to minimize that number by comparing it to a larger number? The number is the number regardless.

Instead challenge that # by asking what the medical necessities were in that #. I asked and it totally left the presenter of that # flat footed. Kind of the point behind a debate.

You're the one who brought up comparing it to Covid, not me. Percentages are more meaningful than raw numbers in most cases.

As for how many of these late term abortions are considered medically necessary, I haven't been able to find any hard statistics on that. Admittedly, I didn't spend a lot of time looking as I think it isn't worth looking into when it's such a small subset of the argument. Regardless "partial birth abortions" is a somewhat misleading term as they are not something occurring during labor at 40+ weeks, but occur around the 21st week in a vast majority of cases:

"The CDC does not elaborate on the breakdown by gestational age for abortions occurring past 21 weeks, but it is likely that the vast majority occur soon after 21 weeks rather than in the later in the pregnancy. While very limited data exists on this issue, a study from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year). This may overestimate current day numbers, given the abortion rate is currently at a historic low, and restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy have increased. " (quote from the second article linked below)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

 

[Pogre]

But isn't that for the parents to teach (preferably, as uncomfortably as possible )?

It sure is. Unfortunately there is a certain group that wants to take that right away from the parents…

*Edit: I should have said that a certain group wants to take that decision out of the parent's hands.

 

[GO-NAD!]

You're the one who brought up comparing it to Covid, not me. Percentages are more meaningful than raw numbers in most cases.

As for how many of these late term abortions are considered medically necessary, I haven't been able to find any hard statistics on that. Admittedly, I didn't spend a lot of time looking as I think it isn't worth looking into when it's such a small subset of the argument. Regardless "partial birth abortions" is a somewhat misleading term as they are not something occurring during labor at 40+ weeks, but occur around the 21st week in a vast majority of cases:

"The CDC does not elaborate on the breakdown by gestational age for abortions occurring past 21 weeks, but it is likely that the vast majority occur soon after 21 weeks rather than in the later in the pregnancy. While very limited data exists on this issue, a study from 1992 estimated 0.02% of all abortions occurred after 26 weeks gestation (320 to 600 cases per year). This may overestimate current day numbers, given the abortion rate is currently at a historic low, and restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy have increased. " (quote from the second article linked below)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

Yes, the term is misleading.

'Partial-Birth Abortion': Separating Fact From Spin : NPR

..."partial-birth" is not a medical term. It's a political one ...

 

[jinjuku]

You're the one who brought up comparing it to Covid, not me. Percentages are more meaningful than raw numbers in most cases.

I think you are still missing the point. The 125K # is meaningless without proper medical context. I know personally of one late term, partial extraction, abortion and it was 100% medically necessary.

I would be willing to bet if the data was collected that clear majority would be.

 

[Pogre]

I think you are still missing the point. The 125K # is meaningless without proper medical context. I know personally of one late term, partial abstraction, abortion and it was 100% medically necessary.

I think you both have a point. I am curious about how many of that .2% was medically necessary. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess it's almost every one of them. It's a good and fair point to argue.

I also agree with NIN about statistics being more meaningful than the raw number in most cases.

 

[NINaudio]

I think you are still missing the point. The 125K # is meaningless without proper medical context. I know personally of one late term, partial extraction, abortion and it was 100% medically necessary.

I would be willing to bet if the data was collected that clear majority would be.

Your stance just further proves my point then, that late term abortions should have no bearing as a reason to argue against abortion as another member was implying they should.

 

[jinjuku]

Your stance just further proves my point then, that late term abortions should have no bearing as a reason to argue against abortion as another member was implying they should.

Correct. But my approach is not to argue that 125K against 63 million makes it moot due to the simple fact of a ratio.

If you have $10,000,000 and Jeff Bezos has $100,000,000,000 are you poor by the comparison ratio?

 

[Pogre]

Your stance just further proves my point then, that late term abortions should have no bearing as a reason to argue against abortion as another member was implying they should.

I think you guys are pretty much in agreement. I think Jin is just saying, in his opinion (correct me if I'm wrong Jin), that arguing from medical necessity is more effective than arguing statistics vs raw numbers.

 

[NINaudio]

Correct. But my approach is not to argue that 125K against 63 million makes it moot due to the simple fact of a ratio.

If you have $10,000,000 and Jeff Bezos has $100,000,000,000 are you poor by the comparison ratio?

I'm sorry, I can't connect a net worth analogy to the debate of whether or not abortions should be legal because someone thinks that late term abortions are happening as a woman is giving birth. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I am arguing that the following statement:

What about 'partial-birth' abortions, where they preform what amounts to a breach birth and snip the spinal cord while the head is still in the birth canal? That's more than 80% of the body outside of the would-be mother.

has no legitimate bearing (for multiple reasons) as a reason that Roe v Wade should be overturned. I think we agree on that sentiment, no?

 

[GO-NAD!]

I think you both have a point. I am curious about how many of that .2% was medically necessary. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess it's almost every one of them. It's a good and fair point to argue.

I also agree with NIN about statistics being more meaningful than the raw number in most cases.

Agreed. I mean, how many women do you think would wait 6+ months, then decide, "Nah, I don't think I want to have this baby anymore", just because they don't feel like it.

 

[jinjuku]

I'm sorry, I can't connect a net worth analogy to the debate of whether or not abortions should be legal because someone thinks that late term abortions are happening as a woman is giving birth. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I am arguing that the following statement:



has no legitimate bearing (for multiple reasons) as a reason that Roe v Wade should be overturned. I think we agree on that sentiment, no?

Pogre and GO-NAD get it. I've done my best to explain the nuance I like to bring to taking position and why, IMO, my approach is more 'debate effective'.

 

[jinjuku]

I'm sorry, I can't connect a net worth analogy to the debate of whether or not abortions should be legal because someone thinks that late term abortions are happening as a woman is giving birth. The two have nothing to do with each other.

You CANNOT argue that $10,000,000 is being poor by comparing it to someone with $100,000,000,000.

That's the correlation that I'm drawing and trying to reframe it in other terms to get the point across.

If you can't debate a point a certain way then you, being on one side of the debate, have lost a tool.

Reframing this not as a ratio but most likely a necessary medical procedure is going to take the wind out of the oppositions sails.

 

[jinjuku]

Agreed. I mean, how many women do you think would wait 6+ months, then decide, "Nah, I don't think I want to have this baby anymore", just because they don't feel like it.

Thank you. You make the point that the right leaning will bring this up and the gullible will just swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Pogre]

You CANNOT argue that $10,000,000 is being poor by comparing it to someone with $100,000,000,000.

Well... just to play devils advocate...

What if everyone has $100,000,000,000, you're the only one with $10,000,000 and gas costs $1,000,000 a gallon..?

 

[NINaudio]

Reframing this not as a ratio but most likely a necessary medical procedure is going to take the wind out of the oppositions sails.

That's another part of the problem, the anti-abortion people don't care about it being medically necessary. There is literally no reason you can give them that makes them stop and think "Hmm, maybe banning abortions is a bad thing."

 

[panteragstk]

And they've tried to do it in the past. Remember "Abstinence only" sex education? All that did was result in more teen pregnancies.

And teen STDs. The town I went to college in was like that. We were literally told "don't f$%k the locals" because of how bad it was at the time.

 

[Mikado463]

And teen STDs. The town I went to college in was like that. We were literally told "don't f$%k the locals" because of how bad it was at the time.

I believe now all those old enough go to 'The Villages' to live out their years .........

 

[Danzilla31]

Been just sitting back listening. Aside from the uncomfortable issue of telling women what to do with there bodies. Which just makes me feel weird. I'm not a woman I have no clue what they go through on a decision like this. I mean would I be happy if they got to tell me what I should be doing with my pecker?

But there arises another issue to go alongside this which is just as concerning.

If they go ahead with this it's going to force people who don't want to live in areas where they can't have one to move. Further creating that line of red vs blue conservative vs liberal us vs them that just tribal thinking that's getting us nowhere

I get what the supreme court are thinking. This issue should be decided at the state level. Not big government. But that is missing a lot of nuance. This is one issue I actually think should be maintained at the federal level.

For example

What if you lived in a state where 55% were for and 45% against. Well what about that 45% they have to go along with the other sides position about a decision about there bodies because they got out voted? Also even worse you live in a state that just happens to be conservative or democratic and they pass legislature on this based on party lines and not the constituents wishes.

I just think Roe vs Wade was the right precedent. Each person has the right to choose. The consequences you carry are on you. But it's your right to choose to carry them.

I can't think of a single person I've spoken to conservative or not that thinks this is a good idea. It just seems like large elements of our elected representatives both on the left and the right for several different reasons for each party are just bound and determined to try to keep the average everyday American at each other's throats.