Sociopath Community

Jada said: 

10) What is the percentage of women who experience lifelong changes to their body post birth?

This provided some insight, and being a government source, hopefully it has some level of trustworthiness.  They even discuss possible biases and their effects.  Primarily, there is a dearth of information regarding this, unfortunately.

Some features of research showing lifelong changes of abortion:  Less infertility worry for subsequent births (although, this was based on a study from Finland 2016).  Risks of ectopic pregnancies looked inconclusive for a number of reasons.  Stillbirth (actually referred to as "spontaneous abortion") risks and frequency were also left inconclusive.  Women who had undergone both early and late abortions had a lower risk of hypertension in pregnancy compared with women in their first pregnancy.  ... etc.  Strangely, a lot seems a reduced risk, statistically inconsequentially different, or else inconclusive.  A lot has to do with the fact that abortion practices and procedures have changed a lot during the time after any research studies had anything published.  (One might assume that they have improved over time, both the procedures and the means for which to evaluate results.)

This was interesting:

Results from the Turnaway study suggest that there are few psychiatric consequences of abortion, including risk of depression, anxiety, or PTSD. At 2 years, women who had received an abortion had similar or lower levels of depression and anxiety than women denied an abortion.

I would say most medical journals will have an inbuilt left leaning bias just because most people graduating from Universities tend to be left leaning.

However, a review will be widely criticized if it doesn't cite everything there is, so I'm guessing it's still partially self-correcting. If you dont want to lose your reputation, then it's best to cite everything there is. If it's not a government resource and not a proper medical journal, then I would dismiss it. There's still bias in research circles. I've seen a lot of cases where referees have conflicts of interest and bring their own viewpoints where they shouldn't. But as a whole, the scientific view is so strongly tied with hard evidence that over time we always converge to the right answer if the evidence points to it.

I would put these studies at the level of anecdotal. I don't see why it would be so tricky to do the studies they want to do though. If you have two groups, one undergone abortion, and the other one not, then you could just check which group experiences more long term health problems. I get that the two groups may come from entirely different backgrounds but at least you can get some correlational studies done. It wouldn't take me more than 10 minutes to think of ways to control for different variables like socioeconomic background. You could also focus on direct consequences like, during a childbirth/abortion there was a complication that resulted in a long term health problem. It's not difficult to find something robust.

This notion that correlation does not imply causation is overstated IMHO. There is no way to ever establish a certain causation, so the best you can ever do is try to isolate the different variables. I can't believe doctors around the world are so incompetent they can't work that out. I think the real problem is when you have conflicting evidence, because then probably those different variables are not being properly controlled for in one or both of the studies.

I totally would believe that abortion makes people depressed. Rightly so. I think that should be a feature and not a bug, because you better regret killing a baby. This is good.

However, it seems then that looking at long term health consequences reveal... nothing significant? In that case, nothing to see there. The argument for abortion is anecdotally being favored by these studies, so I guess we should instead look at the direct link between abortions and complications vs childbirth and complications. So we are back to the 30% c section statistic, which is more robust.

Jada said: 

I would say most medical journals will have an inbuilt left leaning bias just because most people graduating from Universities tend to be left leaning.

If you're going with "educated individuals tend to be left wing" as a reason to attempt to invalidate it, then I'd argue the possibility of reverse-bias similar to that of the left's classic reverse racism. In an environment of mostly one thing, it's the Underdogs that tend to show a greater extremes (either giving up or trying twice as hard). 

It could be the very bias they have that's having them try to fight vs said bias and report as if unlike it, making it more right leaning through a leftist filter. It's sort of like how The Dunning Kruger Effect can have one doubt their own intelligence, one's political leanings being seen as too obvious could have them double-back. 

This is also before factoring in any counter-cultural responses, like how cringe leftist views can appear to younger people to the point of adopting adjacent stances (Green Party, Libertarian) if not outright rebellion all the way to the right. I've seen more than my share of Right Wingers come out of Left Wing environments via feeling ganged up on. 

Either way, bias is fairly unavoidable. It makes more sense to try to pick out where it is specifically than simply claim it exists at all, which tends to make more sense via the individual than it's environment. 

Interesting hypothesis.

What if it's a subconscious bias?

Jade said:

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.

I don't remember where I got the number.

The World Health Organization suggests a woman dies every 8 minutes from an unsafe abortion. Which is 65,700 estimated deaths per year. While my personal estimate was 60,000 it was probably based on similar data under what they call, unsafe circumstances.

. 

Pew is simply reporting from the CDC and some Guttmacher institution. The page also reads....

"How the CDC gets its data: It compiles figures that are voluntarily reported by states’ central health agencies, including separate figures for New York City and the District of Columbia. Its latest totals do not include figures from California, Maryland, New Hampshire or New Jersey, which did not report data to the CDC. (Read the methodology from the latest CDC report.)
How Guttmacher gets its data: It compiles its figures after contacting every known abortion provider – clinics, hospitals and physicians’ offices – in the country. It uses questionnaires and health department data, then provides estimates for abortion providers that don’t respond. Guttmacher’s figures are higher than the CDC’s in part because they include data (and in some instances, estimates) from all 50 states. 

While the Guttmacher Institute supports abortion rights, its empirical data on abortions in the U.S. has been widely cited by groups and publications across the political spectrum, including by a number of those that disagree with its positions.

These estimates from Guttmacher and the CDC are results of multiyear efforts to collect data on abortion across the U.S. Last year, Guttmacher also began publishing less precise estimates every few months, based on a much smaller sample of providers.

The figures reported by these organizations include only legal induced abortions conducted by clinics, hospitals or physicians’ offices, or those that make use of abortion pills dispensed from certified facilities such as clinics or physicians’ offices. They do not account for the use of abortion pills that were obtained outside of clinical settings."

.

I don't trust the CDC, nor do I trust NIST or WHO or the WTO and a list of other government agencies who are known to openly lie to the masses to suit guidelines or actions that are profitable special interest groups. 

In reality science is at odds with itself. Data vs. Data. The difference with the science made popular by government is it's claims always fall in line with the special interest. The science shared by Pew, like many other outlets, claim that only certified abortions are safe. The main reason being there is a fuck load of untaxed money flowing through the illegal undocumented and probably more cost effective abortions.

The opposition of course are pro life and they too have their fields of study which tend to argue or debunk claims made by branches of government oversight. Which brings us to places like the Lozier institute, which would be the polar opposite of the more broadcasted Guttmacher Institute. 

https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-check-abortion-is-14-times-safer-than-childbirth/

.

.

.

Personally. I don't need any of that shet to make up my thoughts on abortion. It isn't something to celebrate or embrace.

Unsafe abortions will happen regardless if it's legal or not, simply because they are more cost effective. Also I don't think any abortion is safe. They say getting a sex change is safe, and even suggest it, but then when we see people who actually had one, they are fucked up for life getting patch work done every now and then and they live in endless regret and go mental while taking endless pills for life.  

Also, it shouldn't be up to the citizen to pay for a socialized healthcare system that focuses on abortion, especially in the states where they don't have socialized healthcare to begin with. 

Maybe that's interesting in its own right. Do you think the CDC got things wrong in the past or do you think it intentionally lied? How frequently do you reckon they lie?

I remember there were controversies during covid, but I tend to categorize these into two categories: data fabrication (which is worse) and lies regarding the confidence of the data and the likely interpretation. Data fabrication is easy to spot and prosecute, so I would not expect them to fabricate data. I wiuld expect them to selectively choose the data. Thus, I would likely trust the figures from the CDC, but not their robustness, not without understanding how they got the figures. I would not trust their interpretation of the numbers either, without some sort of scientific consensus.

I guess the question is if I'd have been led astray in prior cases where CDC lied following that mantra? I think not, given that most of the lies have been associated with CDC's interpretation of the data as opposed to fabrication of the actual numbers?

Do you have a source with a different number for fatalities from legal abortions?

In reality science is at odds with itself. Data vs. Data. The difference with the science made popular by government is it's claims always fall in line with the special interest. The science shared by Pew, like many other outlets, claim that only certified abortions are safe. The main reason being there is a fuck load of untaxed money flowing through the illegal undocumented and probably more cost effective abortions.

What do you mean by data vs data? 🤔

I don't have enough context to address that. Do you mean that there are two figures for abortion deaths and it's not possible even in principle to find out which number is correct?

Jada said: 

In reality science is at odds with itself. Data vs. Data. The difference with the science made popular by government is it's claims always fall in line with the special interest. The science shared by Pew, like many other outlets, claim that only certified abortions are safe. The main reason being there is a fuck load of untaxed money flowing through the illegal undocumented and probably more cost effective abortions.

What do you mean by data vs data? 🤔

I don't have enough context to address that. Do you mean that there are two figures for abortion deaths and it's not possible even in principle to find out which number is correct?

 I posted 2 different scientific findings that opposse one another. 

Excuse the delay, I fell asleep last time and forgot about this.

For me it doesn't matter who the findings are in favor of.

Sure. Usually I would presume that having two numbers for one thing means that one or both of the numbers are wrong.

I'm quite surprised that there are two vastly different numbers for the deaths by legal abortion in the USA, with one being around 40% and another something like one in a million. I find it difficult to believe that we couldn't find out which one of these numbers is correct. I haven't been able to find that 40% number either. It would be really interesting to understand where the difference comes from, but without a source for the 40% thing I don't think we'll make any headway.

Is it possible that the 40% was for something else, maybe, like number of deaths from illegal abortions in third world countries without medical equipment perhaps? If the two numbers are supposed to represent two different things, it may explain the discrepancy.