🇳🇱
I agree with you, 1 is too many.
But check the actual study, these arent real numbers as the study itself states. This is just the rape count multiplied by expected fertility rate. Teh real numbers wouldnt be anywhere near this because 1) 10% of those numbers occur in states where they could legally get abortions 2) the other 90% could and probably did go out of state for abortions so the real number is likely a very small portion of the number stated.
@lizstl13@mastodon.sdf.org
You misunderstood (or i wasnt clear in how I conveyed what was in the study).. the 90% figure is from the study itself and represents the portion of the numbers stated (64K) that were in states where they couldnt get abortions. 10% of the 64K number were already known to be in states where getting an abortion for them would have been legal.
So we already know that at a minimum 90%, but in reality some portion of them can go out of state. I have no idea what that is, but whatever it is we know these numbers are just made up esitmates and the real number is quite a bit smaller than this, at least 10% smaller for sure, but in reality probably much much smaller.
The main point is, this number does not remotely represent the real number. It was a low-effort estimate made, as the study itself states.
@cturnbow @lizstl13@mastodon.sdf.org
@freemo @cturnbow @lizstl13
I have read yoru explanation & no, I did not misunderstand.
Yes, at a minimum 90% of them can go out of state because interstate travel is lawful in the US. That fact loses some meaning when one's state can & does aggressively pursue information that would allow it to prosecute abortion-seekers for murder.
*My* main point is you're doing a lot of work to cast doubt on that number, by making some suspiciously libertarian-sounding arguments about freedome of choice.
> Yes, at a minimum 90% of them can go out of state because interstate travel is lawful in the US. That fact loses some meaning when one's state can & does aggressively pursue information that would allow it to prosecute abortion-seekers for murder.
Agree, we know for a fact the number is at a **minimum** 10% to high and at most quite a bit more off.
> *My* main point is you're doing a lot of work to cast doubt on that number, by making some suspiciously libertarian-sounding arguments about freedome of choice.
The what now... it is an objective fact that some portion of that **estimate** will go out of state. How is an objectively true fact a "libertarian sounding argument". What would be a libertarian sounding argument would be if i said "This isnt a civil rights injustice because people can just go out of state, problem solved". Thats not what I said though. I said the numbers were wrong, I stated why its wrong, I was objectively correct. Thats not a "libertarian sounding argument" that is what we call "Data Science sounding argument". Its the argument anyone objectively assessing the accuracy of the numbers would make, regardless of your political standing.
@cturnbow @lizstl13@mastodon.sdf.org
Thats not what happened.
How is me agreeing with you about people getting hurt in large numbers, while stating the specific number is wildly off a "libertarian sounding argument"?
Us agreeing that the actual numbers are still large and unacceptable is **not** at odds with pointing out a fictional and largely inflated number is fictional and largely inflated.
Science means telling the truth and being accurate is your first priority, and you can do so while still admitting the underlying point. This is not at odds, and certainly not a "libertarian thing"
@cturnbow @lizstl13@mastodon.sdf.org
@freemo @FeralRobots @lizstl13
What I heard was:
64k suffered because of rape
you: oh it's not as bad as it sounds
does it surprise you to get some pushback on that
Lol yea i guess your right, who cares if our numbers are correct, all that matters is if it makes us loom like we are right. My mistake.
@FeralRobots @lizstl13@mastodon.sdf.org
@freemo @cturnbow @lizstl13
You're illustrating the underlying problem people here seem to have with your initial post: If we are to believe your follow-on posts, the initial one (& several following ones) aren't clearly expressing your views. Because several of us are not reading them the way that you say we should.
When one decides that a large segment of your audience is misunderstanding one's intention, there's a good chance one's communicating it poorly.
And yet when i quote tooted the responses everyone who responded to that both understood my original message fine and generally agreed with me.
Its almost like it has more to do with inherent biases in the two different audiences than lack of clarity in what I stated.
I stated the numbers were incorrect, nothing more nothing less. If you cant understand that rather simple and straight forward message, and instead hear fantasies of things I never even suggested, thatson you.
@cturnbow @lizstl13@mastodon.sdf.org
Ok. Thanks for the toxicity. Bang up job defending the cause you got going there.
@cturnbow @lizstl13@mastodon.sdf.org
@freemo @cturnbow @lizstl13
Did they indeed? Well then consider me TOLD!