Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case
#2Arstechinca linked (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?
Re: Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case
#3[flagged]
Re: Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case
#4Re: Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case
#5[flagged]
There's no child involved.
Re: Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case
#6Arstechinca linked ( 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?
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.
Re: Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case
#7[flagged]
There's no child involved.
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.
Re: Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no child involved.
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 dona…
One of those things is not like the other. Certainly your own growing child is a special case of "someone else" using your body.
Re: Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 dona…
One of those things is not like the other. Certainly your own growing child is a special case of "someone else" using your body.
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.
Re: Anti-abortion group's studies retracted before Supreme Court mifepristone case
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 dona…
One of those things is not like the other. Certainly your own growing child is a special case of "someone else" using your body.
>One of those things is not like the other. Certainly your own growing child is a special case of "someone else" using your body.
That's as may be. However, unless it's your (in the individual, not the general, sense) body, it's none of your business or concern.