oregon allows 15 yr olds to get sex changes without consent

[Big RR]

wes--I would think a responsible physician would first order counseling before embarking on any such regimen to be certain the treatment would be in the patient's best interests. I doubt this is something which would be undertaken lightly.

Roy

[wesw]

let me ask you something, roy. were you fully cooked enough at 15-17 to make such a life changing choice?

[Crackpot]

I was pretty sure what sex I was...

[wesw]

these kids aren t.

[Guinevere]

these kids aren t

Your huge blinders notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure you don't speak for all of these kids. You can't possibly know what they are going through. That's why there are doctors involved.

[Crackpot]

these kids aren t.

If they're prepared to put thier tender bits through the grinder they are.

[Big RR]

Well wes, I cannot say given that I did not have any gender confusion at that age (or any age for that matter), but I was capable at that age of making some pretty life altering decisions including choosing to go into ROTC to avoid the draft (my number was low), operating a motor vehicle, and making many other choices. the problem is that if the decision is not made at that young an age, it is considerably more difficult to deal with afterwards. I would think if I had a disease at that time I could have made the choice to treat it, and gender confusion is a disease or disorder that needs to be treated like any other.

I deal routinely with adolescents, and many have a surprising capacity to consider the alternatives and make decisions, especially when they cannot rely on their parents to act in their interests for any number of reasons. I have represented minors who have become emancipated from abusive parents t similar ages (more 16 and 17) who have done quite well. Again, this is not a decision made in a vacuum but with the consultation and support of physicians and counselors.

As for life altering decisions, I've known women even younger than 15 who made choices to have abortions (and in one case to have the child and surrender it for adoption, and they were quite capable of making such decisions when they couldn't rely on their parents.

Adolescents have a surprising capacity to rise to the occasion when necessary.

CP--exactly.

[wesw]

I wonder if having those abortions caused any life long problems for the girls, or for the boys who fathered them

[Scooter]

I wonder if having babies at younger than 15 carried any life long problems for the girls, or for the boys who fathered them.

[rubato]

I wonder if having those abortions caused any life long problems for the girls, or for the boys who fathered them

95% of the girls say no.

http://time.com/3956781/women-abortion- ... ve-health/

The conclusion comes after a three-year research period involving nearly 670 women of all social backgrounds

Ninety-five percent of women who have had abortions do not regret the decision to terminate their pregnancies, according to a study published last week in the multidisciplinary academic journal PLOS ONE.

The study was carried out by researchers from the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at UC San Francisco’s School of Medicine, and from the university’s division of biostatistics.

Its conclusions come after a three-year research period in which nearly 670 women were regularly surveyed on the subject of their abortions. The sample group was diverse with regard to standard social metrics (race, education, and employment) and on the matter of what the study calls pregnancy and abortion circumstances. Financial considerations were given as the reasons for an abortion by 40 percent of women; 36 percent had decided it was “not the right time;” 26 percent of women found the decision very or somewhat easy; 53 percent found it very or somewhat difficult.

yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

maybe rube, but I still want to puke every time I think about Tasha and about how it s my fault that she is dead.

and that was 22 yrs ago, and she was a dog. I think about her often and am still riddled with guilt. I haven t really hunted since because I think about her .

[Joe Guy]

It's difficult to believe that 95% would have no regrets. They might still think the decision to abort at the time was the best one but they would have regretted having gotten pregnant.

[Scooter]

It says specifically, "do not regret the decision to terminate their pregnancies." Whether they regret the need to terminate their pregnancy (because they got pregnant in the first place) would be a different question.

[Joe Guy]

You're correct, but 95% is hard to believe. Especially since 53% said it was a difficult decision.

[wesw]

plos one is not very impressive....


PLOS ONE (originally PLoS ONE) is a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) since 2006. The journal covers primary research from any discipline within science and medicine. Operating under a pay-to-publish model, PLOS ONE publishes approximately 70% of submitted manuscripts. All submissions go through a pre-publication review by a member of the board of academic editors, who can elect to seek an opinion from an external reviewer. According to the journal, papers are not to be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field. Although submissions declined from 2013 to 2014, PLOS ONE remains the world’s largest journal by number of papers published and has a 2014 journal impact factor of 3.234.



Contents [hide]
1 History 1.1 Development
1.2 Output
1.3 Management

2 Publication concept
3 Business model 3.1 Influence

4 Community recognition and citation information
5 Abstracting and indexing
6 References
7 External links


History[edit]

Development[edit]

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation awarded PLOS a $9 million grant in December 2002 and $1 million grant in May 2006 for its financial sustainability and launch of new free-access biomedical journals.[1][2] Later, PLOS ONE was launched in December 2006 as a beta version named PLoS ONE. It launched with Commenting and Note making functionality, and added the ability to rate articles in July 2007. In September 2007 the ability to leave "trackbacks" on articles was added.[3] In August 2008 it moved from a weekly publication schedule to a daily one, publishing articles as soon as they became ready.[4] In October 2008 PLoS ONE came out of "beta". Also in September 2009, as part of its Article-Level Metrics program, PLoS ONE made the full online usage data—e.g., HTML page views, PDF, XML downloads—for every published article publicly available. In mid-2012, as part of a rebranding of PLoS as PLOS, the journal changed its name to PLOS ONE.[5]

Output[edit]

In 2006, the journal published 138 articles; in 2007, it published just over 1,200 articles; and in 2008, it published almost 2,800 articles, making it the largest open access journal in the world.[citation needed] In 2009, 4,406 articles were published, making PLOS ONE the third largest scientific journal in the world (by volume) and in 2010, 6,749 articles were published, making the journal the largest in the world (by volume).[6] In 2011, the journal published 13,798 articles,[7] meaning that approximately 1 in 60 of all articles indexed by PubMed as being published in 2011 were published by PLOS ONE,[8] In 2012, PLOS ONE published 23,468 papers.[9] In 2013, PLOS ONE published 31,500 papers.[10] 2014 saw the first year-over-year decline in published articles, to 30,040.

Management[edit]

The founding managing editor was Chris Surridge.[11] He was succeeded by Peter Binfield in March 2008, who was publisher until May 2012. The current executive editor is Damian Pattinson.[12]

Publication concept[edit]

PLOS ONE is built on several conceptually different ideas compared to traditional peer-reviewed scientific publishing in that it does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection. The idea is that, instead, PLOS ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment.[13]

“ Each submission will be assessed by a member of the PLOS ONE Editorial Board before publication. This pre-publication peer review will concentrate on technical rather than subjective concerns and may involve discussion with other members of the Editorial Board and/or the solicitation of formal reports from independent referees. If published, papers will be made available for community-based open peer review involving online annotation, discussion, and rating.[14] ”

According to Nature, the journal's aim is to "challenge academia's obsession with journal status and impact factors".[15] Being an online-only publication allows PLOS ONE to publish more papers than a print journal. In an effort to facilitate publication of research on topics outside, or between, traditional science categories, it does not restrict itself to a specific scientific area.[13]

Papers published in PLOS ONE can be of any length, contain full color throughout, and contain supplementary materials such as multimedia files. Reuse of articles is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License, version 2.5. In the first four years following launch, it made use of over 40,000 external peer reviewers.[16] The journal uses an international board of academic editors with over 6,000 academics handling submissions and publishes approximately 70 % of all submissions, after review by, on average, 2.9 experts.[17] Registered readers can leave comments on articles on the website.[15]

Business model[edit]





A welcome message from PLoS to Nature Publishing Group on the launch of Scientific Reports,[18] inspired by a similar message sent in 1981 by Apple to IBM upon the latter's entry into the personal computer market with its IBM Personal Computer.[19]
As with all journals of the Public Library of Science, PLOS ONE is financed by charging authors a publication fee. The "author-pays" model allows PLOS journals to provide all articles to everybody for free (i.e., open access) immediately after publication. As of July 2010, PLOS ONE charged authors US$1,350[20] to publish an article. Depending on circumstances, it may waive or reduce the fee for authors who do not have sufficient funds.[21] This model has drawn criticism, however. In 2011 Richard Poynder posited that journals such as PLoS ONE that charge authors for publication rather than charging users for access may produce a conflict of interest that reduces peer review standards (accept more articles, earn more revenue).[22] Stevan Harnad instead argues for a "no fault" peer-review model, in which authors are charged for each round of peer review, regardless of the outcome, rather than for publication.[23] PLoS had been operating at a loss until 2009 but covered its operational costs for the first time in 2010,[24] largely due to the growth of PLOS ONE.

Influence[edit]

Main article: Mega journal

The "PLOS ONE model" has inspired a series of other journals,[25][26][27] having broad scope and low selectivity, now called megajournals, and a pay-to-publish model, usually published under Creative Commons licenses.

Community recognition and citation information[edit]

In September 2009, PLOS ONE received the Publishing Innovation Award of the Association for Learned and Professional Society Publishers.[28] The award is given in recognition of a "truly innovative approach to any aspect of publication as adjudged from originality and innovative qualities, together with utility, benefit to the community and long-term prospects". In January 2010, it was announced that PLOS ONE citations were to be analyzed by Journal Citation Reports,[29] and PLOS the journal received an impact factor of 4.411 in 2010. The impact factor has declined steadily each year since then, to 3.234 in 2014.[30] In 2015, PLOS ONE ranked 25 on Google Scholar for all journals in terms of citations.[31]

Abstracting and indexing[edit]

The articles are indexed in:[14]

AGRICOLA
BIOSIS Previews
Chemical Abstracts Service
EMBASE
Food Science and Technology Abstracts
GeoRef
MEDLINE/PubMed
Science Citation Index Expanded
Scopus
The Zoological Record

References[edit]

1.Jump up ^ "Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation". Retrieved December 17, 2002.
2.Jump up ^ "Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation". Retrieved May 2006.
3.Jump up ^ Zivkovic, Bora. "Trackbacks are here!".
4.Jump up ^ PLOS ONE Milestones, a timeline on Dipity
5.Jump up ^ David Knutson (July 23, 2012). "New PLOS look". PLOS BLOG. Public Library of Science. Archived from the original on 6 August 2012. Retrieved 6 August 2012.
6.Jump up ^ Morrison, Heather (5 January 2011). "plos one now worlds largest journal". Poetic Economics Blog. Retrieved 16 January 2011.
7.Jump up ^ Taylor, Mike. "It’s Not Academic: How Publishers Are Squelching Science Communication." Discover Magazine. February 21, 2012. Retrieved on March 3, 2012.
8.Jump up ^ Konkeil, Stacey (20 December 2011). "PLOS ONE: Five Years, Many

[Scooter]

Mmm hmm. And remind us how many scientific journals you subscribe to every month....

Primary research only, peer review and then open community review. That's more scrutiny than most "name" scientific journals give to the articles they publish.

If you are unable to criticize the methodology and/or point to research drawing conflicting conclusions, then you've got nothing meaningful to say.

[Gob]

Every woman I've known who has had an abortion has regretted having to make the decision, but not regretted making the decision, (all 5 who have.)

The one woman who had the baby and put it up for adoption has always regretted that decision.

[wesw]

its open access pay to publish and accept 70% of what ever crap they receive. reviewed by 2.7 "experts" per study...since 2006

I didn t bother to check the credentials of the management or the foundation that set it up. I had seen enough to dismiss it as crap already

so shut your piehole cooter.

eta it was established as an alternative to "traditional journals" crap in other words. its all in the Wikipedia entry, genius

[Scooter]

I got a completely unexpected answer to my question, I have absolutely no basis to impeach the evidence presented, so I'll stick my fingers in my ears and sing la-la-la.

FTFY

[wesw]

awwww. is her having another hissy fit?