View Single Post
  #8   Link to this post, but load the entire thread.  
Old February 3rd, 2018 (7:56 PM).
KetsuekiR's Avatar
KetsuekiR KetsuekiR is offline
Ridiculously unsure
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Somewhere you couldn't possibly know.
Gender: Male
Nature: Timid
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Aliencommander1245 View Post
I don't really know why you put emphasis on the name of the Charlotte Lozier Institute since it's an anti-abortion organisation and not at all a peer reviewed science journal.
The name was in italics because it's a name of an institute, and that's how I denote them. It wasn't for emphasis. Then, your vire of it doesn't inherently discredit it's work. This is true for all cases. If you have evidencr that counters a finding, that's fine, and you do seem to so that's great.

Those aren't even all studies, and a lot of what's said on that page either isn't fully true, being misinterpreted, or something discredited. I'd rather just link this because it debunks most of that stuff better and quicker than i could, but a particularly noticeable example is if you read the source for the first dot point.

Despite claiming "babies delivered as young as 20 weeks post-fertilization (22 weeks gestation) can survive, and active intervention for treatment greatly improves their survival." the study doesn't actually state that- merely that the amount of active intervention care performed at different hospitals may account for (some) of the differences in survival rates between them. There is a fairly important distinction because the study itself mentions that it can't account for all the variation, and there's a lot of factors that they didn't have data on that could be important in figuring it out, as well as whether the variation in rates of active treatment resulted from differences in understanding of possible outcomes or from varying perspectives regarding the value of survival as compared with the high risk of impairment when treatment was done.

These things are a lot more complicated than just aggregating and cherrypicking sections of studies and putting them on your anti-abortion page
The study itself and your own comments seem to suggest that it's not definitive. Seeing as this is the case, shouldn't there be a ban at the soonest possible point?

For stuff that was actually peer reviewed, here's a review of the evidence that was published in 2005 by the Journal of the American Medical Association

A 2010 report from the UK's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that had similar findings

And a 2015 speech transcript published on the website of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists speaks about the topic
I digress; these are good finds, thank you! Given this, should there not be a ban on abortions at 27 weeks instead?

I find this kind of weird since you can just google the pain claim and you'll be bombared with articles talking about why it's a myth or founded on shaky science, but i guess it's nice you read things outside of your position on the issue?
I believe you've misunderstood my stand. On this thread, I'm not debating but rather inquiring as to how people feel on the topic. Apologies if I seemed aggressive.

On the other hand, I found several articles that supported the pain claim, one of which I linked.

I mean if your response to such a psychologically and physically horrifying situation as "My pregnancy is unviable but i legally can't end it so i have to keep this fetus inside of me until it dies" is to go into whataboutisms for situations superficially similar...
I don't see how it's a superficially similar situation. Maybe I will reprhase because I considered a fetus a person earlier. Just because a fetus has a high chance of death, should it be killed?
Signature by Marmoset
Reply With Quote