<p>^^Honestly, it wouldn't bother me at all if the woman didn't intend on taking my right to choose away from me. But she does, and that is why this matters to me. </p>
<p>And honestly, it's not incredibly important to me. I know that pety e-discussions are going to go NOWHERE in stopping this woman from getting into the WH. The reason why I posted this here was to get a general idea from this group as to what they thought of my stance. Of course, once people started replying, I replied back. And thus...</p>
<p>I am only stating what she said. I never said anything about her offspring, because she said she is never going to have children. I respect her for that.</p>
<p>But she is a teenager. She may change her mind. </p>
<p>Things look different when you are pregnant. You may look at the risk factors of tests and take that risk in order to prevent something worse from happening.</p>
<p>Same with immunizations. There may be research out there that says some are dangerous. I would rather go with that risk and hope my child gets the proper immunity from some horrible diseases. Calculated risks for the greater good.</p>
[quote]
You are not going to have a baby, and have never been pregnant. You really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to prenatal care. I have had 2 aminos, 2 CVS, several ultrasounds, and many other tests when I was pregnant. My children turned out just fine.</p>
<p>The fact that you can't let this go shows that you are a sexist.
[/quote]
The fact that your children turned out fine does not invalidate the statistics, as much as you might try and say so. End of the
[quote]
You really have no idea what you are talking about
[/quote]
discussion.</p>
<p>So I'm supposed to surrender my political views to you just because you say so? Nah.</p>
<p>and for the record, I don't plan on ever having a baby, but that's not to say that I won't. I may well change my mind someday. I may even have an unplanned pregnancy, and my conscience might not allow me to have an abortion or give the baby up for adoption. I don't know. In any event, I honestly think that you took this waaaaayyyy out of hand and made it a totally personal attack in an attempt to defend Sarah Palin.</p>
<p>You have decided you don't want children, so don't. Get fixed. That way you never have to ever deal with birth control or your boyfriend's birth control. You never ever have to worry again about having children. You are then free from ever thinking about it ever again.</p>
<p>I have heard the statistic from my ob/gyn that one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Sometimes the mom doesn't even realize that she is pregnant, and just has a heavy cycle that month. Amnio seems like a whole lot smaller risk than just being pregnant, at all...</p>
<p>I knew of that study as of yesterday. Thus, notice my choice of words in my reply to you. That still is NOT the equiv of:</p>
<p>
[quote]
"There is no chance of miscarriage"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry. Still a risk. I'm not disputing the fact that it's minute; I'm disputing your suggestion that it isn't real and therefore, avoidable. And she only increased that risk (I ASSUME) by having the procedure at least two weeks earlier than recommended by physicians. </p>
<p>Say you were that fetus. You could find out if you had a chromosomal disorder in exchange for a 1/1600 chance that you would die. Would you find out or just wait and see?</p>
<p>--and again, I would NOT propose this question if she WEREN'T threatening to take away my right to choose.</p>
<p>That's still not a risk higher than doing any everyday activity. Do you expect the mother to stop eating because she can choke? Do you expect her to not walk up a flight of stairs because she can fall? Do you expect her to not have an amnio because she can miscarriage? Do you expect America to vote for Obama because McCain has a chance of dieing in office?</p>
<p>If you knew a single thing about math or statistics you'd understand what figures are significant in proving/disproving hypotheses. But clearly you've no knowledge of any sort of numbers. Maybe before you start making arguments you should read up on the law of large numbers, confidence intervals, and laws of probability. It'll help you get an understanding of the reason we have clinical practices, medicine, and experiments. Believe in chi-squared.</p>
<p>^Once again, she did NOT HAVE TO DO IT. THERE WAS NO RISK TO HER FETUS IF SHE DIDN'T DO IT. Amnios are NOT everyday activities. It was a matter of her judgement, again! Finding out what chromosomal disorders her fetus had was worth the risk to her! </p>
<p>Not eating, obviously that is an ENTIRELY different story than not having an Amnio. Sarah Palin's fetus WOULD have been harmed if she starved herself. Her fetus would NOT have potentially been harmed if she decided against the Amnio.</p>
<p>Yes but you see there is no net cost for the insignificant risk. There is only high potential net benefit. This is why the world today practices medicine. It is exactly like eating food.</p>
<p>The risk is insignificant and thus null and void. Zero, Zilch. The hypotheses is rejected in favor of the alternative. Simple introductory statistics and mathematics. I'm not going to sit here and teach you statistics because clearly I'm not qualified. But until you learn it, you should not make such bold childish statements.</p>
<p>^I'd like to think that Sarah used her own CONSCIENCE in making the decision, but that's just me. Perhaps I'm giving her too much benefit of the doubt in how she looks at her fetus' possible future--hypocritical decision made or not.</p>
<p>And nice try, but you did NOT prove that fetuses have never died as a result of Amnios, just as you couldn't prove that no pregnant woman has ever died as a result of choking during an attempt to feed herself and her fetus. But again, the important difference is that not having an amnio does NOT pose an eminent risk to the fetus where as starvation does. </p>
<p>And in the end, I ASSUME (yes, asssume, and if you can prove that I'm wrong than go for it :)) that she didn't look at this from your perspective. I ASSUME it DID go through her mind that there WAS a 1/200 or 1/1600 (whichever statistic she was presented with) chance that she would miscarry as a result from the procedure. And I ASSUME she used her own judgement (as well as her conscience--she took the chance) and not the statistical theory that you presented to make the final decision. </p>
<p>Anyway, I'm going to bed, so here's your chance to get the "last word" for the night.</p>