13 ms·

Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case

41 points by nobody9999 3y ago

whelp_24 3y ago
Arstechinca linked (https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/23.11.29-Sage-Scientific-Response.pdf https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/23.11...) the authors rebuttal but didn't elaborate beyond it. I did read it and i am inclined to believe it really is the press of being used in a Supreme Court case rather than the papers' methods. Can someone with more expertise tell me if the rebuttal is bogus?
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  I don't have the skill to actually address the details but seeing that rebuttal I get a definite feeling that the authors were engaging in p-hacking. Being used in a Supreme Court case of course would get extra scrutiny.
Georgelemental 3y ago
[flagged]
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  There's no child involved.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    I am pro abortion access but I think this is the wrong way to go about it. Because now you're arguing about whether or to what extent a child is involved, something there is not universal consensus on among experts in this domain. It remains a question of medical privacy and autonomy. Ethically it is related to how you cannot be compelled to donate a kidney to save someone's life, you cannot even be compelled to donate a toenail clipping if that would do it. Refusing may be morally wrong, it may even make you evil, but it is not a crime. Societally we have determined that this is an absolute line of autonomy, that crossing it opens the way to atrocity. Behind this door is forced medical experimentation, involuntary organ harvesting, eugenics. You may not be compelled to use your body for another's benefit against your will, even if it is a child.
    - ljsprague 3y ago
      One of those things is not like the other. Certainly your own growing child is a special case of "someone else" using your body.
      - giraffe_lady 3y ago
        Alike in this one important way: if your own child needs your kidney to live, it is not a crime to deny it to them. People will hate you for making this choice, I would myself condemn it. But you cannot be compelled by force of law.
        RecycledEle 3y ago
        Being forced to donate a kidney is different. We should always allow people to decide to be left alone and for nature to take its course. Allowing a child to grow naturally inside his or her mother's body is the natural course of events. Pregnancies terminate naturally at birth. Brutally murdering your own child and taking away many decades of life from that child to avoid a few months of inconvenience is an unfair trade. If the mother gained more than a year of life at the expense of one year of the child's life, I would be more sympathetic to the baby killers, but in the case of abortion-murder, the mother avoids a few months of discomfort by taking away maybe 8 decades of life from her own child. Disclaimer: Relatives have told me I survived an attempt to abortion-murder me. I want revenge.
        hn_acker 3y ago
        > Allowing a child to grow naturally inside his or her mother's body is the natural course of events. Pregnancies terminate naturally at birth. Kind of. The "natural" course of events you describe depends on the pregnant person to interact differently with society. A pregnant person eats more (and hence has to go out of their way to buy more food), pays more for healthcare products/services, and has to worry about maternity leave. (In the US, employers are mandated to provide only unpaid maternity leave [1].) Working and paying bills while pregnant or not means relying on an unnatural system called the economy within the larger maybe-natural system called society. In other words, carrying a pregnancy to term is not entirely a sequence of natural events. (Meanwhile, after birth the "natural course of events" analogy stops applying, because one plausible natural course of events for a born person is starving to death.) But enough digressing on my part. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave_in_the_United_S... > murdering your own child and taking away many decades of life from that child to avoid a few months of inconvenience is an unfair trade The inconvenience of pregnancy is not simply the pregnancy. Even if you ignore maternal mortality (and pregnancies from rape, incest, and bad luck in cases where the pregnant person had used contraceptives correctly), your estimate of many decades of life for the child translates to almost two decades of inconvenience for the caretakers of the child, assuming that the average person doesn't become mostly independent before turning 18. (When I say caretakers, I'm including cases where the born child is sent to foster care or an adopting family, as well as cases where the child gets at least one different caretaker before 18.) Additionally, the less capable the childbearer is of childcare, the more inconvenience the born child will have. I feel that bodily autonomy for a pregnant person is more than just the convenience or inconvenience for the bearer. I haven't formed a coherent argument about bodily autonomy yet. But especially in matters of bodily autonomy, I don't think everything immoral should be illegal.
Georgelemental 3y ago
See also https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/06/papers-used-by-judge-to-justify-abortion-pill-suspension-retracted/ https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/06/papers-used-by-judge-...

41 points by nobody9999 3y ago

Arstechinca linked (https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/23.11.29-Sage-Scientific-Response.pdf https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/23.11...) the authors rebuttal but didn't elaborate beyond it. I did read it and i am inclined to believe it really is the press of being used in a Supreme Court case rather than the papers' methods. Can someone with more expertise tell me if the rebuttal is bogus?

LorenPechtel 3y ago
I don't have the skill to actually address the details but seeing that rebuttal I get a definite feeling that the authors were engaging in p-hacking. Being used in a Supreme Court case of course would get extra scrutiny.

Georgelemental 3y ago

[flagged]

LorenPechtel 3y ago
There's no child involved.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  I am pro abortion access but I think this is the wrong way to go about it. Because now you're arguing about whether or to what extent a child is involved, something there is not universal consensus on among experts in this domain. It remains a question of medical privacy and autonomy. Ethically it is related to how you cannot be compelled to donate a kidney to save someone's life, you cannot even be compelled to donate a toenail clipping if that would do it. Refusing may be morally wrong, it may even make you evil, but it is not a crime. Societally we have determined that this is an absolute line of autonomy, that crossing it opens the way to atrocity. Behind this door is forced medical experimentation, involuntary organ harvesting, eugenics. You may not be compelled to use your body for another's benefit against your will, even if it is a child.
  - ljsprague 3y ago
    One of those things is not like the other. Certainly your own growing child is a special case of "someone else" using your body.
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      Alike in this one important way: if your own child needs your kidney to live, it is not a crime to deny it to them. People will hate you for making this choice, I would myself condemn it. But you cannot be compelled by force of law.
      - RecycledEle 3y ago
        Being forced to donate a kidney is different. We should always allow people to decide to be left alone and for nature to take its course. Allowing a child to grow naturally inside his or her mother's body is the natural course of events. Pregnancies terminate naturally at birth. Brutally murdering your own child and taking away many decades of life from that child to avoid a few months of inconvenience is an unfair trade. If the mother gained more than a year of life at the expense of one year of the child's life, I would be more sympathetic to the baby killers, but in the case of abortion-murder, the mother avoids a few months of discomfort by taking away maybe 8 decades of life from her own child. Disclaimer: Relatives have told me I survived an attempt to abortion-murder me. I want revenge.
        hn_acker 3y ago
        > Allowing a child to grow naturally inside his or her mother's body is the natural course of events. Pregnancies terminate naturally at birth. Kind of. The "natural" course of events you describe depends on the pregnant person to interact differently with society. A pregnant person eats more (and hence has to go out of their way to buy more food), pays more for healthcare products/services, and has to worry about maternity leave. (In the US, employers are mandated to provide only unpaid maternity leave [1].) Working and paying bills while pregnant or not means relying on an unnatural system called the economy within the larger maybe-natural system called society. In other words, carrying a pregnancy to term is not entirely a sequence of natural events. (Meanwhile, after birth the "natural course of events" analogy stops applying, because one plausible natural course of events for a born person is starving to death.) But enough digressing on my part. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave_in_the_United_S... > murdering your own child and taking away many decades of life from that child to avoid a few months of inconvenience is an unfair trade The inconvenience of pregnancy is not simply the pregnancy. Even if you ignore maternal mortality (and pregnancies from rape, incest, and bad luck in cases where the pregnant person had used contraceptives correctly), your estimate of many decades of life for the child translates to almost two decades of inconvenience for the caretakers of the child, assuming that the average person doesn't become mostly independent before turning 18. (When I say caretakers, I'm including cases where the born child is sent to foster care or an adopting family, as well as cases where the child gets at least one different caretaker before 18.) Additionally, the less capable the childbearer is of childcare, the more inconvenience the born child will have. I feel that bodily autonomy for a pregnant person is more than just the convenience or inconvenience for the bearer. I haven't formed a coherent argument about bodily autonomy yet. But especially in matters of bodily autonomy, I don't think everything immoral should be illegal.

Georgelemental 3y ago

See also https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/06/papers-used-by-judge-to-justify-abortion-pill-suspension-retracted/ https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/06/papers-used-by-judge-...