SD wants to endrun Roe v Wade by legalizing murder of docs

[Sdaeriji]

Holy Christ, go read something about statistics.

So you honestly think that a very small number of people can determine how a very large number of people think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

Seriously, educate yourself so you don't keep making yourself look like such a fool.

[The Parkus Empire]

loook at the wording, comment on how we're wrong.

I did, and it's amazing how twisted its interpretation has become. The attempt of the bill is to say that if one provides an abortion, he is murdering a life. That debate is a separate one entirely. But the notion that if this law is passed and signed, if an abortion doctor is murdered, the idea that he or she, the killer, would somehow not be charged with murder is ridiculous. No court will look at this law and interpret it that way.

We all know courts that use common sense, not the letter of the law, to decide cases.

[Wiztopia]

So you honestly think that a very small number of people can determine how a very large number of people think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

Seriously, educate yourself so you don't keep making yourself look like such a fool.

Ok. I'll make sure to determine that 300 million people are pro-life because 600 people are.

[Caninope]

Holy Christ, go read something about statistics.

So you honestly think that a very small number of people can determine how a very large number of people think?

Considering that on about 1000 people polled (weekly), Gallup was able to predict the 2008 election result accurately, yes. Considering that the 538 was able to call the 2010 Midterms almost perfectly using polls of this size, yes.

[Sdaeriji]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

Seriously, educate yourself so you don't keep making yourself look like such a fool.

Ok. I'll make sure to determine that 300 million people are pro-life because 600 people are.

You didn't actually read the wiki page, obviously.

[DaWoad]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

Seriously, educate yourself so you don't keep making yourself look like such a fool.

Ok. I'll make sure to determine that 300 million people are pro-life because 600 people are.

that would be what is known as sampling error. if you took a random sample, and found that 600 of 600 people in (target of random sample) were pro-life then you'd have a strong argument for the case that x number of people in sample area y are pro life.

[Nulono]

Bottle, "anti-sex brigade" really? There are more efficient ways to attack sex than that. RU-486 was opposed because it KILLS.

*sigh*

I've made clear which "side" of this discussion I'm on and you are making us look bad.

Assuming the sample was randomly selected, representative, etc. (as professional polls like Gallup generally are), the sample size can be predictive of the population as whole within certain statistical limits. If you have some reason to believe there is an actual flaw in this survey that makes it statistically invalid, point it out. Otherwise, your just waiving your hands and looking silly.

1000 people out of 300 million CANNOT be used to claim that the majority believe something. That is less than 1% of the population.

[The Tribes Of Longton]

Bottle, "anti-sex brigade" really? There are more efficient ways to attack sex than that. RU-486 was opposed because it KILLS.

I invite you to read this link regarding the FDA's investigation into claims that mifepristone kills. The result of the investigation revealed 12 potential deaths associated with mifepristone, 9 of those in the US. Of those 9, one was because mifepristone was given to someone with an ectopic pregnancy (an absolute contraindication), one was attributed to a ruptured uterine fibroid present prior to a botched surgical termination and two were neither related to the termination or the mifepristone. Of the remaining 5 cases, all were the result of toxic shock syndrome related to two rare Clostridium species and the only association with mifepristone was that it had been administered prior to infection in unapproved administrations.

If you wish to give an opinion then go ahead, though you should probably include the words "I think" before your statement. Facts require sources.

[Nulono]

Actually, I wasn't referring to the dozen or so deaths of women. Though I'd like to know why you just dismiss the deaths of foreign women.

I was saying that it kills insofar as any abortion kills. First live prenate, then abortion, then dead prenate.

[Wiztopia]

Actually, I wasn't referring to the dozen or so deaths of women. Though I'd like to know why you just dismiss the deaths of foreign women.

I was saying that it kills insofar as any abortion kills. First live prenate, then abortion, then dead prenate.

At least you didn't claim fetuses are babies.

[Nulono]

Actually, I wasn't referring to the dozen or so deaths of women. Though I'd like to know why you just dismiss the deaths of foreign women.

I was saying that it kills insofar as any abortion kills. First live prenate, then abortion, then dead prenate.

At least you didn't claim fetuses are babies.

I figured we could avoid that debate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby
ba·by   
[bey-bee] Show IPA
noun, plural -bies, adjective, verb, -bied, -by·ing.
–noun

5.
a human fetus.

[Wiztopia]

At least you didn't claim fetuses are babies.

I figured we could avoid that debate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby
ba·by   
[bey-bee] Show IPA
noun, plural -bies, adjective, verb, -bied, -by·ing.
–noun

5.
a human fetus.

The dictionary is wrong.

[The Tribes Of Longton]

Actually, I wasn't referring to the dozen or so deaths of women. Though I'd like to know why you just dismiss the deaths of foreign women.

I was saying that it kills insofar as any abortion kills. First live prenate, then abortion, then dead prenate.

Well, I'll take the second point first, for obfuscation's sake. I see you are "pro-life", a misnomer if ever there was one. I am obviously "pro-choice", again a misleading term. I would imagine our definition probably differs regarding when an embryo or foetus becomes an independent human, a definition over which I'm sure we could argue until our fingers blister. I'm not going to do that; you claim mifepristone kills people, I refute this. Most likely there is nothing you or I can type that will change this; this probably goes against the reason for NS general but fuck it, we all know the outcome so why play the game.

As for the original point, I haven't dismissed those deaths. I have dismissed that mifepristone caused those deaths, as has the FDA. If you read the link it's right there, in black and white. Also, as a small note for you, every drug in existence is associated with some unintended comorbidity or mortality; aspirin can cause death by a perforated peptic ulcer, for example. The key is that such deaths are incredibly rare and, once their association is discovered, usually preventable.

[Nulono]

Actually, I wasn't referring to the dozen or so deaths of women. Though I'd like to know why you just dismiss the deaths of foreign women.

I was saying that it kills insofar as any abortion kills. First live prenate, then abortion, then dead prenate.

Well, I'll take the second point first, for obfuscation's sake. I see you are "pro-life", a misnomer if ever there was one. I am obviously "pro-choice", again a misleading term. I would imagine our definition probably differs regarding when an embryo or foetus becomes an independent human, a definition over which I'm sure we could argue until our fingers blister. I'm not going to do that; you claim mifepristone kills people, I refute this. Most likely there is nothing you or I can type that will change this; this probably goes against the reason for NS general but fuck it, we all know the outcome so why play the game.

As for the original point, I haven't dismissed those deaths. I have dismissed that mifepristone caused those deaths, as has the FDA. If you read the link it's right there, in black and white. Also, as a small note for you, every drug in existence is associated with some unintended comorbidity or mortality; aspirin can cause death by a perforated peptic ulcer, for example. The key is that such deaths are incredibly rare and, once their association is discovered, usually preventable.

You have not refuted that RU-486* kills people. You have refuted that it kills women.

You said that there were 12 deaths, 9 in the US, and then proceeded to ignore the 3 that were outside the US.

*I say that instead of mifepristone because I find it less awkward and easier to remember/pronounce, not for any agenda.

[The Tribes Of Longton]

You have not refuted that RU-486* kills people. You have refuted that it kills women.

You said that there were 12 deaths, 9 in the US, and then proceeded to ignore the 3 that were outside the US.

*I say that instead of mifepristone because I find it less awkward and easier to remember/pronounce, not for any agenda.

...and if you read the first half of my post you'll see why I don't refute that mifepristone kills people; I don't consider an embryo an autonomous person. As for the three cases outside of the US, I can only apologise. NSG is a fairly US-centric forum and I find that in trying to apply arguments it's most effective to push the US angle. However, I'll read the article for you if you like. Regarding the three non-US women:
1. A Canadian woman, who died as a result of a rare Clostridium infection under similar circumstances to the US women
2. A Swedish woman, who died from severe bleeding after an abortion
3. A British woman, who died from a perforated gastric ulcer after a medical abortion. Gastric ulcers are a chronic condition and so couldn't have been a direct result of the abortion

None of these have been considered as a result of the mifepristone.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Actually, I wasn't referring to the dozen or so deaths of women. Though I'd like to know why you just dismiss the deaths of foreign women.

I was saying that it kills insofar as any abortion kills. First live prenate, then abortion, then dead prenate.

RU-486 "kills" in the same sense that our eating lunch "kills."

And, as usual, you are wandering farther and farther and farther away from the topic of this thread. You can't even see the topic from your post.

[Dyakovo]

Well, I'll take the second point first, for obfuscation's sake. I see you are "pro-life", a misnomer if ever there was one. I am obviously "pro-choice", again a misleading term. I would imagine our definition probably differs regarding when an embryo or foetus becomes an independent human, a definition over which I'm sure we could argue until our fingers blister. I'm not going to do that; you claim mifepristone kills people, I refute this. Most likely there is nothing you or I can type that will change this; this probably goes against the reason for NS general but fuck it, we all know the outcome so why play the game.

As for the original point, I haven't dismissed those deaths. I have dismissed that mifepristone caused those deaths, as has the FDA. If you read the link it's right there, in black and white. Also, as a small note for you, every drug in existence is associated with some unintended comorbidity or mortality; aspirin can cause death by a perforated peptic ulcer, for example. The key is that such deaths are incredibly rare and, once their association is discovered, usually preventable.

You have not refuted that RU-486* kills people. You have refuted that it kills women.

If it doesn't kill women then it doesn't kill people, because men aren't going to be taking it.

[Nulono]

You don't need to be "autonomous" to have rights.

You have not refuted that RU-486* kills people. You have refuted that it kills women.

If it doesn't kill women then it doesn't kill people, because men aren't going to be taking it.

False dichotomy.

[Caninope]

I figured we could avoid that debate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/baby
ba·by   
[bey-bee] Show IPA
noun, plural -bies, adjective, verb, -bied, -by·ing.
–noun

5.
a human fetus.

The dictionary is wrong.

And apparently so is Gallup.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

You don't need to be "autonomous" to have rights.

If it doesn't kill women then it doesn't kill people, because men aren't going to be taking it.

False dichotomy.

Fetii aren't people. It doesn't kill people.

[Nulono]

Not all people can be classified as "men" or "women".

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Not all people can be classified as "men" or "women".

Indeed. Some are hermaphrodites, some are genderqueers, some are pre-op transexuals and some simply choose to not identify.

[Ashmoria]

Not all people can be classified as "men" or "women".

Indeed. Some are hermaphrodites, some are genderqueers, some are pre-op transexuals and some simply choose to not identify.

some are children

but they still wont be taking ru486

[Nulono]

Indeed. Some are hermaphrodites, some are genderqueers, some are pre-op transexuals and some simply choose to not identify.

some are children

but they still wont be taking ru486

When did I say it killed the person who took it?

Fetii aren't people.

Because if there are three things we've learned here, they're that repetition makes it true, that it is made true through repetition, and that if you repeat it often enough it becomes true.

[Ashmoria]

some are children

but they still wont be taking ru486

When did I say it killed the person who took it?

Fetii aren't people.

Because if there are three things we've learned here, they're that repetition makes claims true, that claims are made true through repetition, and that if you repeat a claim often enough it becomes true.

embryos arent people.

not even to you.