For perspective, note that the studies you're referring to are studying a rare occurrence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion refers to CDC statistics that 1% of abortions may be at 21+ weeks, but even that is with the caveat that what they're really looking at is medical procedures, and thus that "According to the CDC, due to data collection difficulties the data must be viewed as tentative and some fetal deaths reported beyond 20 weeks may be natural deaths erroneously classified as abortions if the removal of the dead fetus is accomplished by the same procedure as an induced abortion." Additionally, 56% of women declined to participate in the study, and there will surely be some correlation between that choice and the cause for the termination.
Of course that doesn't invalidate the findings; but it is a a fairly small number of events they're talking about here, that's all.
>Additionally, 56% of women declined to participate in the study, and there will surely be some correlation between that choice and the cause for the termination.
I think you're misunderstanding how the sentence I quoted relates to the study. The study I linked to actually only studied women who had abortions unrelated to fetal anomalies or life endangerment. So none of the 56% who declined to participate in the study nor any of the 44% who accepted to participate in it had abortions related to fetal anomalies or life endangerment.
The quote I quoted was basically an offhand remark that the paper made to justify its relevance, not backed up by evidence in the paper, but instead backed up by a citation to a different paper that I found hard to understand in a quick skim.
Not to mention the reply left out my original "possibly also a major change in financial status, relationship, etc", since my entire point was that late term abortions, while for a variety of reasons, are not simply people taking the most expensive, most traumatic, most controversial option as a form of contraceptive. It's for a variety of nuanced, complex reasons that aren't "for convenience", as the convenient path is always to abort or prevent the pregnancy earlier. Which is why pro-choice advocates say it should be between the woman and her doctor, -not- government; the fact the situation is arising at all means it is exceptional.
I did see that, but since it was in parentheses I interpreted it as you saying that was lower likelihood.
The general way I interpret the meaning of parentheses is that it's a part of the sentence that provides extra information, but the sentence would still be correct if it was removed.
Of course that doesn't invalidate the findings; but it is a a fairly small number of events they're talking about here, that's all.