[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And for the record, you have yet to argue on the merits of a 24-week cutoff being reasonable beyond "well, it's statistically good enough".

Instead, you are quibbling about statistical significance and whatnot, which frankly is irrelevant to how reasonable or unreasonable the cutoff is other than it is convenient for you to think that it is, and in that case I don't have to accept your conclusion simply because you say so.

[The New California Republic]

It's fine because that's the point whereby the fetus starts becoming reasonably viable. It is clear from the statistics. I really can't see your problem here except wanting to manufacture a problem. Sorry mate, I just can't see it. Give me a counterargument then that single figure viability is a reasonable point at which to change the cutoff date for abortions. I asked you before, and you didn't provide one. I'm asking you again.

Then that's not a matter of statistics, it's a matter of your own personal convenience.

How the fuck is it "personal convenience"? Are you seeing something completely different from what I am typing? I'm genuinely concerned.

Stop using statistics as your linchpin when you don't even know how to use them.

Ironic, as I'm not the one that thinks single figure probability is worth changing abortion policy over. And speaking of which, have you come up with that argument as to why it should?

[The New California Republic]

And for the record, you have yet to argue on the merits of a 24-week cutoff being reasonable beyond "well, it's statistically good enough".

Consciousness arising has been mentioned as well actually.

Instead, you are quibbling about statistical significance and whatnot, which frankly is irrelevant to how reasonable or unreasonable the cutoff is other than it is convenient for you to think that it is, and in that case I don't have to accept your conclusion simply because you say so.

Then tell us why single figure survival probability is good enough to change abortion cutoff dates.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Then that's not a matter of statistics, it's a matter of your own personal convenience.

How the fuck is it "personal convenience"? Are you seeing something completely different from what I am typing? I'm genuinely concerned.

Stop using statistics as your linchpin when you don't even know how to use them.

Ironic, as I'm not the one that thinks single figure probability is worth changing abortion policy over. And speaking of which, have you come up with that argument as to why it should?

It is on you to prove that 24 is a reasonable date, not on me to prove it isn't. All I have said is "least viable date" is more reasonable than an arbitrary number of weeks due to the fact it is an easier metric a doctor and a patient can follow now and in the future with medical advances. You're saying an arbitrary number of weeks is better, yet you have failed to come up with a single argument as to why that is so other than "it is convenient for me because I only care about the present".

[Jebslund]

Based on the fact that, if you think probabilities mean something, I have bad news for you. They don't mean as much as you want them to think they do.

They predict the chances of something happening, but they don't assure you that something is going to happen or not happen. And your quote further damns your argument, I hope you realize, since even taking your figure at face value, a woman less than 40 years old has greater chances of having a child born live at 22 weeks than it is to have a child with Down's syndrome. I oversimplified it to give you the benefit of the doubt, turns out you really like to make your argument even harder to justify.

First off, I'm not going to go rushing out in a heavy raincoat and galoshes if there's a 2% chance of rain tomorrow. Odds are I'd just look like an idiot. And considering this is Arizona in the summer, I'd probably smell like one, too.

Second, born live is not the same thing as aborted, so what you're really arguing for is to try to better save preemies, not to hold off on abortion because a fetus has odds of survival outside of the womb that even an idiot wouldn't bet money on.

Third, probability may not be certainty, and improbability may not be impossibility, but a 98% chance something will happen means you can safely bet it will, and a 2% chance means you can safely bet it won't. It doesn't mean you can't possibly be wrong, but the odds are most definitely not in favor of the 2% chance event happening. The fact that you're even trying to argue that line of reasoning, though, shows you've failed to understand my argument.

Until we develop the artificial womb, those odds aren't getting better. It's not a matter of technology. It's not a matter of care. It's not a matter of expense. It's that that 2% chance is entirely determined by what order the fetus developed things in, and 2% of them happen to have developed enough of those things to be able to, with aid, survive outside the womb. Barely. It's harsh, but there are limits to what technology can do that are not just a matter of improving technology. There are technologies that have improved as much as it is physically possible to.

[The New California Republic]

It is on you to prove that 24 is a reasonable date, not on me to prove it isn't.

And arguments have been given to that effect, namely consciousness arising at 24 weeks, and that the fetus can actually have a reasonable chance of survival.

All I have said is "least viable date" is more reasonable than an arbitrary number of weeks due to the fact it is an easier metric a doctor and a patient can follow now and in the future with medical advances.

And people here have said that they would be fine with the number of weeks being changed should technology advance in that area.

You're saying an arbitrary number of weeks is better, yet you have failed to come up with a single argument as to why that is so other than "it is convenient for me because I only care about the present".

First, it isn't arbitrary at all, it is based on things like consciousness arising and a reasonable chance of viability. Second, if you are resorting to misconstruing my argument either consciously or unconsciously then I really can't help you...

[Luminesa]

And doctors will tell you it's simply not worth it at that point. For reasons I have explained many times now.


It's not a matter of "taking better care". Even if spotting those 2 in 100 were feasible, the other 98 would still be beyond saving. 22 weeks is not a reasonable cutoff, especially since, even if we assume that 2% can be found and saved, doing so is not mutually exclusive with having a later cutoff for abortion, at 24 weeks, where sapience becomes an issue and where viability is at least reasonably common, and not a fool's bet. I am not arguing that none will survive ever. I am arguing that survival odds cannot be improved.

Now, let's talk about Down Syndrome again. First off, here's something I read in a book about statistics a while ago:



No matter how big the starting number is, 1% is still statistically insignificant. Consider the following hypothetical:

If I said I spent one million dollars on hiring employees last year, you'd probably think they were being well-paid and I'm hurting for money, right? Well, I hired 100 employees. And I make 100 million dollars a year. That works out to each employee only being paid $10,000 over the year. For perspective, the poverty line is $12,490 in one year. And that million I spent? It's one percent of my income. With 99 million dollars, I'm still sitting pretty, and not even worse for wear, really. That million was pocket change. It was disposable. I wouldn't even miss it.

1% is statistically insignificant.

1% is statistically insignificant only when you want to make it statistically insignificant.

It's fine because that's the point whereby the fetus starts becoming reasonably viable. It is clear from the statistics. I really can't see your problem here except wanting to manufacture a problem. Sorry mate, I just can't see it. Give me a counterargument then that single figure viability is a reasonable point at which to change the cutoff date for abortions. I asked you before, and you didn't provide one. I'm asking you again.


Not a good analogy at all, on the basis that one concerns people, and the other doesn't.

Then that's not a matter of statistics, it's a matter of your own personal convenience. Stop using statistics as your linchpin when you don't even know how to use them.

Pretty much, if I say, "1% of babies at 22 weeks will survive," that means nothing to the random dude on the internet who doesn't really care, but to a genetics researcher that might mean a lot. Likewise, if we increase the number, it still might not matter to some people. Let's say someone says, "There's a 40% chance you fail the ACT," that might mean nothing to one person, but to someone else it might mean everything. We use the statistics we want, some more accurate than others, and accuracy is a fair argument. But to try and argue which stats are significant is a fool's game. Nobody will ever agree on what stats are significant, and frankly, it doesn't matter. What matters are that these stats are accurate, and that the data is being used in a way that is ethical and beneficial to the targeted party.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Based on the fact that, if you think probabilities mean something, I have bad news for you. They don't mean as much as you want them to think they do.

They predict the chances of something happening, but they don't assure you that something is going to happen or not happen. And your quote further damns your argument, I hope you realize, since even taking your figure at face value, a woman less than 40 years old has greater chances of having a child born live at 22 weeks than it is to have a child with Down's syndrome. I oversimplified it to give you the benefit of the doubt, turns out you really like to make your argument even harder to justify.

First off, I'm not going to go rushing out in a heavy raincoat and galoshes if there's a 2% chance of rain tomorrow. Odds are I'd just look like an idiot. And considering this is Arizona in the summer, I'd probably smell like one, too.

Second, born live is not the same thing as aborted, so what you're really arguing for is to try to better save preemies, not to hold off on abortion because a fetus has odds of survival outside of the womb that even an idiot wouldn't bet money on.

Third, probability may not be certainty, and improbability may not be impossibility, but a 98% chance something will happen means you can safely bet it will, and a 2% chance means you can safely bet it won't. It doesn't mean you can't possibly be wrong, but the odds are most definitely not in favor of the 2% chance event happening. The fact that you're even trying to argue that line of reasoning, though, shows you've failed to understand my argument.

Until we develop the artificial womb, those odds aren't getting better. It's not a matter of technology. It's not a matter of care. It's not a matter of expense. It's that that 2% chance is entirely determined by what order the fetus developed things in, and 2% of them happen to have developed enough of those things to be able to, with aid, survive outside the womb. Barely. It's harsh, but there are limits to what technology can do that are not just a matter of improving technology. There are technologies that have improved as much as it is physically possible to.

Yes, but abortion should not be the first step on the table. "Cutoff", legally, doesn't make sense. Arbitrary dates are only arbitrary and decent enough for creating policy, but I'd argue to put on the law that, if the fetus has a non-zero chance of survival in the womb, the woman and the doctor should first figure out whether or not the child can survive outside the womb before a woman goes through with an abortion, every abortion after the least non-zero viability date having to be confirmed by a doctor.

It's a hoop, but it is the only reasonable hoop I see if you want to make it about "cutoff" dates and whatnot.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

First, it isn't arbitrary at all, it is based on things like consciousness arising and a reasonable chance of viability. Second, if you are resorting to misconstruing my argument either consciously or unconsciously then I really can't help you...

Statistics and medicine don't change your argument any more or any less. It's just you trying to justify your arbitrary number which you find convenient to quote, yet have no backing as to why it is reasonable, not as to why it is a "good enough" compromise.

It being good enough makes it reasonable for you, but unreasonable for others.

[Luminesa]

It is on you to prove that 24 is a reasonable date, not on me to prove it isn't.

And arguments have been given to that effect, namely consciousness arising at 24 weeks, and that the fetus can actually have a reasonable chance of survival.

All I have said is "least viable date" is more reasonable than an arbitrary number of weeks due to the fact it is an easier metric a doctor and a patient can follow now and in the future with medical advances.

And people here have said that they would be fine with the number of weeks being changed should technology advance in that area.

You're saying an arbitrary number of weeks is better, yet you have failed to come up with a single argument as to why that is so other than "it is convenient for me because I only care about the present".

First, it isn't arbitrary at all, it is based on things like consciousness arising and a reasonable chance of viability. Second, if you are resorting to misconstruing my argument either consciously or unconsciously then I really can't help you...

It's arbitrary because it's subject to change depending on various circumstances. Scientists currently say a baby is most likely to survive independently outside the womb after 24 weeks. 100 years ago, child mortality was much higher, and survival that early was not likely. Now we can stretch it and say that even a child at 21 weeks can survive. Don't act like Soldati can't read when you know quite well he can, and don't act disingenuous and say that you only care about the present. You know that's not how technology works-it is constantly evolving, it is not static.

[The New California Republic]

Now we can stretch it and say that even a child at 21 weeks can survive.

Source? And what percentage?

You know that's not how technology works-it is constantly evolving, it is not static.

I have said repeatedly that I'd welcome the date being pushed back if the reasonable level of fetal viability is pushed back to earlier weeks.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

First off, I'm not going to go rushing out in a heavy raincoat and galoshes if there's a 2% chance of rain tomorrow. Odds are I'd just look like an idiot. And considering this is Arizona in the summer, I'd probably smell like one, too.

Second, born live is not the same thing as aborted, so what you're really arguing for is to try to better save preemies, not to hold off on abortion because a fetus has odds of survival outside of the womb that even an idiot wouldn't bet money on.

Third, probability may not be certainty, and improbability may not be impossibility, but a 98% chance something will happen means you can safely bet it will, and a 2% chance means you can safely bet it won't. It doesn't mean you can't possibly be wrong, but the odds are most definitely not in favor of the 2% chance event happening. The fact that you're even trying to argue that line of reasoning, though, shows you've failed to understand my argument.

Until we develop the artificial womb, those odds aren't getting better. It's not a matter of technology. It's not a matter of care. It's not a matter of expense. It's that that 2% chance is entirely determined by what order the fetus developed things in, and 2% of them happen to have developed enough of those things to be able to, with aid, survive outside the womb. Barely. It's harsh, but there are limits to what technology can do that are not just a matter of improving technology. There are technologies that have improved as much as it is physically possible to.

Yes, but abortion should not be the first step on the table. "Cutoff", legally, doesn't make sense. Arbitrary dates are only arbitrary and decent enough for creating policy, but I'd argue to put on the law that, if the fetus has a non-zero chance of survival in the womb, the woman and the doctor should first figure out whether or not the child can survive outside the womb before a woman goes through with an abortion, every abortion after the least non-zero viability date having to be confirmed by a doctor.

It's a hoop, but it is the only reasonable hoop I see if you want to make it about "cutoff" dates and whatnot.

The problem seems to be that we want to enact cutoff dates and whatnot instead of just straight asking the woman what she wants to do. Carry to term or abort. It’s really that simple. “Betty, you’re pregnant. What do you want to do? Carry to term or terminate? Here’s the facts about your personal case. Decide what to do.” Not to mention that termination of pregnancy after a certain point is really only done for serious medical reasons.

[The New California Republic]

I'd argue to put on the law that, if the fetus has a non-zero chance of survival in the womb, the woman and the doctor should first figure out whether or not the child can survive outside the womb before a woman goes through with an abortion, every abortion after the least non-zero viability date having to be confirmed by a doctor.

And how would that be figured out?

Statistics and medicine don't change your argument any more or any less. It's just you trying to justify your arbitrary number which you find convenient to quote, yet have no backing as to why it is reasonable, not as to why it is a "good enough" compromise.

I arrived at that number after thinking about the various factors actually, not before. And I have repeatedly given you reasons. And I have said that it could be altered if there were some development of technology that pushed the bounds of reasonable viability earlier.

[Luminesa]

Now we can stretch it and say that even a child at 21 weeks can survive.

Source? And what percentage?

You know that's not how technology works-it is constantly evolving, it is not static.

I have said repeatedly that I'd welcome the date being pushed back if the reasonable level of fetal viability is pushed back to earlier weeks.

Other people have mentioned it, I think Jeb mentioned a percentage or something.

[The New California Republic]

Other people have mentioned it, I think Jeb mentioned a percentage or something.

I can't find a mention of 21 weeks.

[Luna Amore]

I'm confused why viability odds matter if consciousness is the real standard. If the argument is "it doesn't have consciousness therefore it isn't a full-fledged human deserving of protection yet" then week count viability is irrelevant. If we somehow got viability at 22 weeks up to 51%, it doesn't alter the consciousness of the fetus which appears to be the actual line in the sand for some people.

[The New California Republic]

I'm confused why viability odds matter if consciousness is the real standard. If the argument is "it doesn't have consciousness therefore it isn't a full-fledged human deserving of protection yet" then week count viability is irrelevant. If we somehow got viability at 22 weeks up to 51%, it doesn't alter the consciousness of the fetus which appears to be the actual line in the sand for some people.

The argument here is based on the premise that the fetus is going or is able to be taken to an artificial womb or something, as that has been mentioned several times in the past few pages or so, and has formed a backdrop to the entire discussion.

[Jebslund]

Yes, but abortion should not be the first step on the table. "Cutoff", legally, doesn't make sense. Arbitrary dates are only arbitrary and decent enough for creating policy, but I'd argue to put on the law that, if the fetus has a non-zero chance of survival in the womb, the woman and the doctor should first figure out whether or not the child can survive outside the womb before a woman goes through with an abortion, every abortion after the least non-zero viability date having to be confirmed by a doctor.

It's a hoop, but it is the only reasonable hoop I see if you want to make it about "cutoff" dates and whatnot.

The fact that abortions are permitted does not make them the first step. It usually isn't, in fact.

"Cutoff" does make sense. What that means is that, past that point, nobody is allowed to get an abortion unless it is medically necessary. Prior to that point, abortions may not necessarily will) be performed for any reason (hence the term elective).

I will also remind you that "can" is not "will". A 2% chance does not magically mean it will survive, and it's not always as simple as "This one will, this one won't". The way you are throwing around words (The term you're searching for is "earliest viable date". Least viable date implies the date at which the fetus is least viable, which means the date at which it has a 0% chance.). Getting a doctor to confirm an abortion, likewise, means getting the doctor to confirm that it happened. Recommended ma be the word you're looking for, and, even then, that doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It's not like doctors just perform procedures just because the patient says to. They do go over the risks of the procedure, downtime, etc, before doing it, and they do discuss alternatives with the patient. It's not like these things are just done for shits and giggles.

You vision seems to be rather unreasonable, then, as it's either something already done or something that doesn't really work the way you're suggesting.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm confused why viability odds matter if consciousness is the real standard. If the argument is "it doesn't have consciousness therefore it isn't a full-fledged human deserving of protection yet" then week count viability is irrelevant. If we somehow got viability at 22 weeks up to 51%, it doesn't alter the consciousness of the fetus which appears to be the actual line in the sand for some people.

The argument here is based on the premise that the fetus is going or is able to be taken to an artificial womb or something, as that has been mentioned several times in the past few pages or so, and has formed a backdrop to the entire discussion.

But aren’t you then engaging in a hypothetical scenario here? Artificial wombs are in the works but are not yet a thing, AFAIK.

[Luna Amore]

I'm confused why viability odds matter if consciousness is the real standard. If the argument is "it doesn't have consciousness therefore it isn't a full-fledged human deserving of protection yet" then week count viability is irrelevant. If we somehow got viability at 22 weeks up to 51%, it doesn't alter the consciousness of the fetus which appears to be the actual line in the sand for some people.

The argument here is based on the premise that the fetus is going or is able to be taken to an artificial womb or something, as that has been mentioned several times in the past few pages or so, and has formed a backdrop to the entire discussion.

But why does that matter if it isn't conscious yet? If it isn't a human yet (24 weeks consciousness), why do you care if it can or can't survive outside of the womb or in an artificial womb?

[Jebslund]

I'm confused why viability odds matter if consciousness is the real standard. If the argument is "it doesn't have consciousness therefore it isn't a full-fledged human deserving of protection yet" then week count viability is irrelevant. If we somehow got viability at 22 weeks up to 51%, it doesn't alter the consciousness of the fetus which appears to be the actual line in the sand for some people.

It's another facet of the debate.

You're right in that it's irrelevant, but it's still something being argued and therefore something to be countered/debated.

[Jebslund]

Source? And what percentage?


I have said repeatedly that I'd welcome the date being pushed back if the reasonable level of fetal viability is pushed back to earlier weeks.

Other people have mentioned it, I think Jeb mentioned a percentage or something.

NCR. Who people keep confusing me for.

Yes, but abortion should not be the first step on the table. "Cutoff", legally, doesn't make sense. Arbitrary dates are only arbitrary and decent enough for creating policy, but I'd argue to put on the law that, if the fetus has a non-zero chance of survival in the womb, the woman and the doctor should first figure out whether or not the child can survive outside the womb before a woman goes through with an abortion, every abortion after the least non-zero viability date having to be confirmed by a doctor.

It's a hoop, but it is the only reasonable hoop I see if you want to make it about "cutoff" dates and whatnot.

The problem seems to be that we want to enact cutoff dates and whatnot instead of just straight asking the woman what she wants to do. Carry to term or abort. It’s really that simple. “Betty, you’re pregnant. What do you want to do? Carry to term or terminate? Here’s the facts about your personal case. Decide what to do.” Not to mention that termination of pregnancy after a certain point is really only done for serious medical reasons.

After the 24-week-point, the fetus is (in most cases) sapient. Therefore, it *should* only be done for medical reasons. Before that point, asking the woman what she wants to do is, indeed, the best route.

By 24 weeks, though, the vast majority of pregnant women have already made their decisions. We're talking 5 and a half months in. Hence the fact that, as you, myself, and several others have pointed out, elective abortions are incredibly rare after that point.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

Abortion is MURDER!

[The New California Republic]

But aren’t you then engaging in a hypothetical scenario here? Artificial wombs are in the works but are not yet a thing, AFAIK.

Indeed. It was Gallo that mentioned it, but it was being alluded to before that.

But why does that matter if it isn't conscious yet? If it isn't a human yet (24 weeks consciousness), why do you care if it can or can't survive outside of the womb or in an artificial womb?

If it can survive outside the womb in an artificial womb then it doesn't in theory need to be aborted, as there is an alternative to it, i.e. removal of the fetus before term but keeping it alive by being "transferred" or "artificially surrogated" or whatever term would be used in the event of such things existing.

[The New California Republic]

Other people have mentioned it, I think Jeb mentioned a percentage or something.

NCR. Who people keep confusing me for.

I'm not sure that it was even me, because I didn't give stats for 21 weeks.

As an aside though, maybe its the red stripe in both of our flags? People might be glancing at it and assuming that we are each other.

EDIT: We are both "civil rights lovefests" too, so perhaps that is adding to the confusion. One of us needs to change our flag or classification.