Sociopath Community

Abortion only has good results no matter the reasoning of it. Funny how right wingers wanted to call others "bleeding hearts," but instantly show their sentimental (and degenerate) fascism as soon as abortion is brought up.

Jada said: 

I decided to start a new topic dedicated to abortion. I think nobody here agrees on the policies, so its hopeless to try. Instead, I was hoping to see if we could agree on factual information, so I prepared some questions that would help me personally become educated on the topic:

1) Which sources have the least bias for the numbers? Which numbers are the least biased and which ones are the most?

Let's start here, I guess.  I feel it does run the highest risk of tangent or derailing, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_(statistics)

Before getting to specific sources, maybe we should talk about what the criteria of bias would be in this situation.  We could drill down into any census taking organization to find political affiliation and call foul, but what are the lines you think we should draw in order to filter bias?

Dragoonback said: 

Abortion only has good results no matter the reasoning of it. Funny how right wingers wanted to call others "bleeding hearts," but instantly show their sentimental (and degenerate) fascism as soon as abortion is brought up.

 Are you saying that fostering and promoting human life is degenerate and "sentimental"?

Buttered Toast said: 

Dragoonback said: 

Abortion only has good results no matter the reasoning of it. Funny how right wingers wanted to call others "bleeding hearts," but instantly show their sentimental (and degenerate) fascism as soon as abortion is brought up.

 Are you saying that fostering and promoting human life is degenerate and "sentimental"?

 Yes but without the quotes. Fostering does not mean promoting. You can foster poverty and pollution that is not conductive to life.

Is this to imply you are "Pro-Choice" as opposed to "antinatalist"?

Which parts do you find "degenerate", which parts "sentimental", and which parts "fascist" in the "Pro-Life" or "natalist" camp?

Of course, none of these categories are necessarily exclusive as to not have values cherry-picked from a variety of them.  Where do you draw your particular lines and why?

...I suspect you're going to talk more about overpopulation, the need to return to primitive roots, etc.  In that case, it isn't so much about abortion than it is about reproductive irresponsibility.

Buttered Toast said: 

Dragoonback said: 

Abortion only has good results no matter the reasoning of it. Funny how right wingers wanted to call others "bleeding hearts," but instantly show their sentimental (and degenerate) fascism as soon as abortion is brought up.

 Are you saying that fostering and promoting human life is degenerate and "sentimental"?

We can use this source as an example to analyze: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/

Their description of themselves and their method of work: https://www.pewresearch.org/about/ | https://www.pewresearch.org/our-methods/

...Another question, which I can see leading from here:  Is it better to take each nation's census/data individually, or is there a global source which aggregates and disseminates them with less bias?

ADDENDUM: Frankly, my first reaction to having "pew" in their name elicits a "uh oh, religious?" response.

Buttered Toast said: 

Is this to imply you are "Pro-Choice" as opposed to "antinatalist"?

Which parts do you find "degenerate", which parts "sentimental", and which parts "fascist" in the "Pro-Life" or "natalist" camp?

Of course, none of these categories are necessarily exclusive as to not have values cherry-picked from a variety of them.  Where do you draw your particular lines and why?

...I suspect you're going to talk more about overpopulation, the need to return to primitive roots, etc.  In that case, it isn't so much about abortion than it is about reproductive irresponsibility.

 Yeah I am talking about having children so they can be unhealthy and partake in the destruction of the environments. Children should be able to eat wild animals that were hunted with natural tools. Or if theyre rich they could eat stuff like sushi or metz and eat high quality raw meat in society along with having other freedoms of being wealthy. No point in having then act like slaves unless you are just some sick fascist that hates what nature actually is.

Also, i think it's important to have children in the less comfortable parts of the equator, such as far north or south to keep them away from potential violence and exploitation.

Buttered Toast said: 

Jada said: 

I decided to start a new topic dedicated to abortion. I think nobody here agrees on the policies, so its hopeless to try. Instead, I was hoping to see if we could agree on factual information, so I prepared some questions that would help me personally become educated on the topic:

1) Which sources have the least bias for the numbers? Which numbers are the least biased and which ones are the most?

Let's start here, I guess.  I feel it does run the highest risk of tangent or derailing, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_(statistics)

Before getting to specific sources, maybe we should talk about what the criteria of bias would be in this situation.  We could drill down into any census taking organization to find political affiliation and call foul, but what are the lines you think we should draw in order to filter bias?

I think we can trust numbers, but not the way they are presented. Statistics on abortiom deaths for example should seem difficult to get wrong. Unless the US is hiding abortion deaths, they're probably recorded. I imagine these are not biased. So I'd trust numbers that are based on governmental logging. I could imagine the numbers that organisations presented and the ways in which they would do it to vary though. The numbers themselves should be reliable. So for example the numbers for medical complications from legal abortions in the US and from illegal abortions in Muslim countries or the global average are probably all accurately reported, but an organization could choose to quote one number instead of another without making it clear which number is being referenced.

Im curious if pew research center is considered a moderately neutral source. It seems like whoever has the facts that support right wing agenda are labeled right wing and vice versa, so maybe not? If not, which organization has better data?

According to pew research:

 "0.45 deaths to women per 100,000 legal induced abortions."

That is 0.000045 percent. Is this number trustworthy? If so, it seems to me that abortions are incredibly safe. This is way, way smaller than the 1 in 1000 that Spatial quoted, so I'm curious where you got that number @spatial and if it's a better source than pew research.

For the other question, on how many have medical complications:

"About 2% of all abortions in the U.S. involve some type of complication for the woman, according to an article in StatPearls, an online health care resource. “Most complications are considered minor such as pain, bleeding, infection and post-anesthesia complications,” according to the article."

So really the medical complications especially for early term abortions appear to be pretty negligible. You don't need a surgery. Again, this is a way lower number than 45%.

On the other hand, C sections make up around 30% of all childbirths. If they dont need c section, its very likely they need to get their vagina sliced. So comparing abortion to birth in terms of medical complications appears to be a moot argument, if you trust these sources. Almost all forced abortions will become forced surgeries if you trust these numbers.

Of course, one could argue they're not forced because sex means you're signing a waiver. But you could say the same thing about forced kidney transplants from parents to dying children. If we're discussing the numbers, it's beside the point anyway.

Opinion surveys by politically motivated organizations are practically useless.

Jada said: 

Im curious if pew research center is considered a moderately neutral source. It seems like whoever has the facts that support right wing agenda are labeled right wing and vice versa, so maybe not? If not, which organization has better data?

I guess to continue with the point on sources, looking into Pew Research Center:

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/pew-research

(And about this source's work and viewpoint: https://www.allsides.com/about )

To close on this point, I think it's a matter of how far one might be willing to regress in sources about sources about sources...etc.  At some point, you draw your line on whom you're willing to trust, and how far you are willing to drill down into a particular source -- avoiding a referential circle-jerk, etc.  These are just sources searched online, so one has to be willing to take them on their word and their own cited sources, which at least they allow you to follow up on.  Essentially, while one may find sources that may offer direct statistical results, one is going to be faced with their own decision based on an opinion (their own).  It's best to trust from actual institutions, such as clinics and hospitals, of course, but one would need to gather all the statistics themselves, in order to extract these numbers directly.