Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[nononono]

Originally posted by SEC_Chick
The sources I have read put the miscarriage rate of normal babies between 1/100 and 1/400 for amnio, depending on the study, but averaging out to about 1/200 or 250, and is slightly higher for CVS (CVS also measuraby increasing risk for club foot and other limb deformities). Given that at my age, the risk of Downs is only about 1/1000 or so, it does not make sense to have it. We very likely will do the non-invasive screens, to prepare for possible circumstances.

Right - your expected risk for Down Syndrome is 1/1000, but if you have the screens and they come back at 1/200, 1/90, whatever, that is when you make the choice. Well, actually, you often do a Level II ultrasound, and if the doc can't get comfortable, then you have the choice (along with genetic counselling). The thing about the screens is that there are a lot of false positives, so there's a big "oh my God" factor if it comes up positive. Lots of times the Level II can put your mind at its proper rest, but where it can't, there is the amnio as a choice. Also, you can find out your doctor's history re miscarriages post-amnio. You don't generally do an amnio unless the screens and/or Level II's indicate it's a potential choice, or unless you have some other medical condition that would indicate it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Nope. I retract.

If that worked, would we be having this argument about abortion?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
See, this is the analysis docs will give, nononono.

But if the negative value of a downs baby is 4x the negative value of a miscarriage, one should go with amnio. Yet docs are afraid to even suggest that calculus.

Not sure I know what you mean by quantifying the "negative value" of one vs. the other. But doctors do make recommendations based on things other than the basic numbers.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So if you had your way, your friends who had the partial-birth abortion would be in jail?

Nice.

This is non-sensical. I am not advocating a retroactive application and actually not advocating a federal application. I think the proper place for the decisions over what is legal and not to be made is in the legislature and specifically the state legislature. Despite what my thoughts are I don't know what the law would be in WA. Maybe it would be illegal. I suppose then they would have a choice to fly down to CA and get the procedure. Sort of like when I was 18 and CT raised the drinking age to 19 and I had to drive to NY to drink legally.

[sgtclub]

Interesting article by Max Boot. I had similar thoughts with the Unical bid. I hope someone has their eyes on this ball.

• "Unrestricted Warfare" recognizes that it is practically impossible to challenge the U.S. on its own terms. No one else can afford to build mega-expensive weapons systems like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will cost more than $200 billion to develop. "The way to extricate oneself from this predicament," the authors write, "is to develop a different approach."
  
  Their different approaches include financial warfare (subverting banking systems and stock markets), drug warfare (attacking the fabric of society by flooding it with illicit drugs), psychological and media warfare (manipulating perceptions to break down enemy will), international law warfare (blocking enemy actions using multinational organizations), resource warfare (seizing control of vital natural resources), even ecological warfare (creating man-made earthquakes or other natural disasters).

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...home-headlines

[nononono]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
This is why I would say, if you are thinking a lot about this the peace of mind is important to you, get the screen. But don't get the amnio. Chances are you get a negative, and whew. If you get a positive, then you hold out the hope that it's false.

Again, barring particular reasons, most don't get the amnio unless there is a reason based on the screens. The screens are intended to screen for problems, not determine whether there is, in fact, one. As SEC_Chick's quote showed, lots of false positives. I had one!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by nononono
Not sure I know what you mean by quantifying the "negative value" of one vs. the other. But doctors do make recommendations based on things other than the basic numbers.

I can say with reasonable certainty that not all doctors do, but experiences differ.

The point I was trying to make by the term "negative value" is that however awful a miscarriage might be, having a down's baby might be worse. If it's 4 times worse, then the expected values shift, so what the odds are shifts the calculus.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
that is not what the poll says. It says that the majority supports the right to choose in limited circumstances (and from what I read at the first set of numbers, more limited that exist today). Which is what I am advocating. Abortion on demand would fail in the legislatures and that poll evidences it.

Well, I'm fairly liberal, and I don't support an unrestricted right to an abortion, nor do any of my liberal friends. So, I guess the take-home from you is that AC believes liberals (read: all Democrats) support unfettered abortion on demand. Which we don't.

Don't worry - you still have a ways to go before you're as incoherent as AC.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ironweed
Thanks for posting that, since I would never read anything written by Coulter but still (inexplicably) have not placed you on ignore yet.

You're welcome. I generally have you on retroactive ban, but today I opted out on exclusionary tactics.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Interesting article by Max Boot. I had similar thoughts with the Unical bid. I hope someone has their eyes on this ball.

Congress, for one. But the idea that Unocal is resource warfare is laughable. Most of the unocal assets are in the south pacific, and they already sell much of their production into asian markets. If china buys it, then it will simply mean china will buy less from others. it doesn't really alter the market structure--unocal's simply too small.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by nononono
Again, barring particular reasons, most don't get the amnio unless there is a reason based on the screens. The screens are intended to screen for problems, not determine whether there is, in fact, one. As SEC_Chick's quote showed, lots of false positives. I had one!

I understand that, both in the specific sense of these procedures (which my wife had to do), and in the general sense of understanding the meaning of the word "screen." You really are condescending, aren't you?

My point to SEC_Chick was that, since they've decided that they would not terminate regardless of the results of an amnio, she should not have one. Even if the result of the screens would indicate for someone else that she should.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Well, I'm fairly liberal, and I don't support an unrestricted right to an abortion, nor do any of my liberal friends. So, I guess the take-home from you is that AC believes liberals (read: all Democrats) support unfettered abortion on demand. Which we don't.

Don't worry - you still have a ways to go before you're as incoherent as AC.

your spokespeople at NARAL and NOW do though, which is where the impression comes from. If you are so comfortable with the legislative equation then why create and administer the pro-Roe litmus test for judges? And it is demos doing that, unless Kennedy and Schumer and Biden and Hillary switched parties.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
If you can't see how disrespectful it is then you are beyond hope. Not just to her, not just to her family, but to anyone with a mental disability. It perpetuates a stereotype about mentally disabled people. Really funny, really compassionate, really humane. You are making retard jokes. Must feel really good. Congrats on that.

Schiavo was not retarded. She was in a persistent vegetative state.

She was also dragged through a spotlight she clearly avoided throughout her life, and her husband was dragged through the mud by kind, Christian people like you who care so much about the unborn and the virtually brain-dead. But not so much about functioning humans.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If that worked, would we be having this argument about abortion?

"That woman's a stone-faced liar. I pulled out way early."

- Ernie McCracken, Kingpin

[nononono]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I understand that, both in the specific sense of these procedures (which my wife had to do), and in the general sense of understanding the meaning of the word "screen." You really are condescending, aren't you?

My point to SEC_Chick was that, since they've decided that they would not terminate regardless of the results of an amnio, she should not have one. Even if the result of the screens would indicate for someone else that she should.

Yeah, that's a repeat of something I already brought up, but thanks.

Condescending is in the eye of the beholder, I would say.