What are your important issues? (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    wardorican

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 14, 2019
    Messages
    3,861
    Reaction score
    4,374
    Age
    43
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Offline
    Forget the current headlines. Forget the manufactured talking points. What are the big issues you care about? Or the small ones that don't get enough attention?

    I'm just going to rattle off a few. I may dig into these more later. In no special order...

    1. Infrastructure investment. The major categories being road transportation, flood protection / drainage, electrical grid resiliency, and better mass transit, especially rail. Our rail systems, outside of a few areas like Chicago, NYC, DC.. are just awful. They don't serve enough of the areas. They aren't tying the Suburbs, and towns nearby to the major city centers and major concentrations of Industry.
      1. A - I'd have much preferred no tax cut for the wealthy, and use that money towards Infrastructure. I don't mind some of the corporate tax cuts (not a fan of profitable companies finding ways to pay $0 in taxes.. that's unfair), but take a little back to go towards infrastructure and mass transit, which will boost productivity and lower congestion in major cities.
    2. Wage growth. Not just min wage, all wages. Not sure what the government policy could be to drive this, but it's a huge pet issue for me.
    3. Technology. Finding the balance between a company being large enough to have stability/security (think Apple, Microsoft, Samsung) to have things work well, but no so large as to stifle all competition and drive up prices. Also, who controls/owns our data. If my data is so valuable, why can't I be compensated for it?
    4. Education funding. It's ridiculous how much the States cut from Colleges and how little they controlled their growth since the 1990's. That's why tuition is out of control. So, it's not just the funding issue, but also the lack of forcing public Universities to cap operating budget increases. In college, tuition increases was probably one of the biggest things I tried to fight against when in Student Government. We usually failed, but I did get one win on that topic, when I realized the committee that year was being somewhat dishonest about the increases, and called them out in public about it.

    I care about a lot of other things, but I'm going to stop with these four.
     
    It doesn't matter what the actual facts are, the point is that there is a value judgment to be made in picking the one that is effectice for your purposes, or provides the most positive benefit, etc.

    Put it this way: How do you conclude from 200 different studies that say sex ed reduces teen pregnancy that sex ed provides a positive benefit for society?
    The "facts" don't say or speak at all to "positive benefits" there is nothing in a study that measures "positive benefit" no scientific study uses "positive benefit" as a primary or secondary endpoint. Why? Because the notion of a "positive benefit" is a value judgment.

    Are actually you saying SOME facts do not matter, or facts NEVER matter? It really sounds like you are advocating for cherry picking data that matches a pre-existing “want“ (regardless if wrong or right), in the context here of all “important issues“, and choosing to ignore conflicting data, regardless of how overwhelmingly strong or correct it may be.

    As a bench scientist, i am struggling to understand why anyone would want to go through life with that type of decision making.
     
    Last edited:
    Archie, I think you are painting with a really broad brush, in fact, according to what you just said facts don’t really exist, and it’s fruitless to try to determine what is factual because it is entirely relative to your observing bias. Am I understanding your point, or not so much?

    What science is all about is distinguishing what are facts by excluding or allowing for perceived bias. It can be done, and it can be demonstrated, that what Ayo said had been shown by studies is true or factual. It’s actually done by painstaking research and a lot of math to exclude biases from observation. Believe me, it’s way too much math for me, I’ve read some of these scientific papers.

    And no scientist worth their salt takes the results of one paper as proof of anything. Results have to be reproducible, and replicated, before they reach the point where they are taken as factual.
    I wasn't referring to science although there are plenty of examples in science of facts that later become fiction. In fact, there is a good argument that this is exactly the process of science.

    I was referring to our own little corner of the world, where people proclaim as "fact" many things that are obviously not fact (I don't mean that they are not true, only that they are really opinion).

    Without a shared common frame of reference, people can easily come to completely different beliefs regarding the "truth" of their observations.

    This board has some wildly divergent frames of reference.

    Abortion is the example I shall continue with.

    First, there must be the agreement that human beings have a right to life that trumps all other rights or privileges. If that much cannot be agreed, discussion is pointless.

    Assuming the above is agreed, there must be a determination as to when that life begins. Scientifically, there is life prior to conception. The egg and sperm are alive but neither can become a human being without the other so all can agree that is not human life.

    Scientifically, it has been argued, persuasively, that human life begins with the zygote.


    The events immediately following sperm-egg fusion provide incontrovertible evidence that a new human cell, the zygote, is produced by this event. Yet, these observations do not address whether the life of a new human individual has commenced. Is the zygote merely a new kind of cell, or is it a new human being—a distinct, individual human organism?

    Is a human zygote a human organism? For developing humans, the behavior and structures associated with adult stages of life are not yet fully manifest (embryos neither look like nor act like mature human beings). However, developing human beings are composed of characteristic human parts and they exhibit a human pattern of developmental behavior. The key feature of a human pattern of development is its organization towards the production of a mature human body.

    Those are quotes from scientists (Catholic scientists, in case it isn't obvious) proposing as fact that human life begins with the zygote.

    Scientifically, the zygote is an individual human with the genetic makeup it will hold for the rest of its life.

    There is not much scientific disagreement on that particular point.

    Beyond this point there are many positions on when human life begins. Viability is a popular one as is ensoulment. There are various points chosen for the moment of ensoulment that vary from the quickening all the way up to registering as a Democrat.

    Viability, ensoulment and the many other variations on that theme are all based upon value judgments, not facts.

    If the abortion debate were to based upon the idea that individual human life is worth of the right to life as enshrined in the Constitution and the moment the individual human being comes into existence is scientifically accepted as the zygote we would not have much to argue about.

    However, people do argue that the zygote is not a human being because <insert value judgment here>. Each person views that value judgment as a "fact". I am sure someone will be searching for the white paper that says the zygote is not a human individual. I am sure it exists because even science is not immune to bias.

    Suddenly facts don't seem so incontrovertible.
     
    I find this thread pretty interesting actually. It's usually the liberals arguing in favor of moral relativism, and it seems to be a bit of the opposite here.
     
    Who is the arbiter of "malformed opinion"?

    I don't know. There is no singular "The" arbiter. So, it's relative. If Drew Brees and my wife are asked about the best way to beat zone coverage, my wife will have the "malformed" opinion, relatively. Brees will have the less malformed, more informed opinion. I imagine we can agree on that. Now, who is the arbiter in this case? I don't know. Sean Payton? Tony Romo? Me? You? I'd probably be okay with any of the above.

    Your statement that a particular interpretation of a set of facts is not valid is wholly based upon your particular moral code driving you to more readily accept a particular interpretation that fits your morality.

    We know, statistically, that the usage of drugs by teens are within 3-8% of each other by ethnicity for white, black, and Hispanic. Native American and Alaskan have the highest. Here's a study of of 70,000 participants, aged 12-17. You can take a look at the research and the methodology:

    Racial/ethnic variations in substance-related disorders among adolescents in the United States.

    There's also a comprehensive, if a bit dated, meta-study that covers a ton of studies on the 17-29 age group. So, because it's a meta-study, there will be a lot of different methodologies employed. There are around 40 studies that this article examines and pulls comparative data from:

    Race/Ethnicity and Gender Differences in Drug Use and Abuse Among College Students

    In the second study, it's actually white students and Hispanic students where the incidence begins to grow relative to black college students.

    You won't find 600% and 200% in any of them. A black kid isn't going to be 6 times more likely than a white kid to use drugs. Could there be a black kid, in particular circumstances, that makes him more likely? Sure. Just like there are black kids that I've worked with who would be six times less likely than white kids I've worked with, based on circumstances.

    But the point is that while a given data set might have more than one interpretation, each of those interpretations isn't going to have the same validity or credibility.

    This isn't due to my "moral code" - I'm not even certain what "moral code" you'd cite for this or, moreover, how you'd ascribe it to me.

    One could just as easily argue that the frequency of arrest is not directly related to the use of drugs but more upon the circumstances surrounding the use.

    But I explicitly said that frequency of arrest isn't strictly related to incidence of use - that was fundamental to my premise. Arrest rates are reflective of a host of things - I listed a few. I'm not sure how you took away that I said it was.

    Data, in its collection, will be biased by the collector and the interpretation of that data is further biased.

    And rigorous data collection introduces controls for these various reasons. Both qualitative and quantitative data methods as well as mixed methods approaches. I'm curious what you're basing this on. Data collection isn't infallible but nor is it always, by default whimsical and arbitrary. I chose the data above because it's been pretty well established. And, moreover, many, many, many studies - even by law enforcement itself - has illustrated the role that surveillance, practices, access to legal support, etc plays on incarceration rates relative to general population incidence.

    These are known, established variables that exist outside of idiosyncratic 'moral codes' because they are generally agreed upon - in their undeniability - by folks across all sorts of morality spectrums. It's also why I think the analog here to abortion isn't really an even one, so I'm not even going to try and compare the two.

    Because the point and perspective have utility in some areas, I don't think that means it possesses the same in all or most, despite the appealing, aphoristic pithiness of Nietzsche's assertion
     
    Last edited:
    As an aside, and because curriculum design has come up in this thread, there's a movement to re-design the high school Math curriculum in the US. Most disciplines are having this discussion - and it's not just about Common Core.

    But there's an informative Freakonomics podcast that is relevant here, particularly, because of the advocacy of teaching Data more explicitly in Math. Stanford was cited as one place to receive materials if you want to change your Math curriculum to integrate it.

    The reason for this: the spiraling increase for handling data.

    Data is not some pure arbitrary, biased sets of information. 90% of the 'data' we have today has been generated in the last couple of years. The job market is demanding data managers, analysts, crunchers, etc. It's a wide open market and there aren't enough people to fill the need in the upcoming years (which does make me a bit dismayed at how the data will be handled). But the underlying premise is that 'data' is being collected in and across all sorts of areas. Being able to make sense of data is integral. We've established methods to do this, and continue to do so.

    My background is primarily in qualitative methods, and I can say that there are methodologies and rigor that exist even in these less-quantitative fields. Most people assembling meaning and drawing conclusions are trained to do so and their work is double- and triple-checked. Again, not infallible. But also not just willy-nilly based on assumptions and morals and whatever else.

    And there are even more checks in quantitative fields - where a lot of the data cited comes from.

    It's also not going anywhere. In fact, it's only increasing. Exponentially in some areas.

    Being able to have people who know what to do with it, how to interpret it, how to synthesize it is crucial.

    I'd like to see schools get on board with this more - even before students move onto postsecondary work.

    And though it isn't math, there are similar analytical/critical assets in media literacy.

    I found that there were a lot of areas when I'd find myself practicing media literacy strategies in reading data and conclusions of others, as well as when divining my own.

    So, maybe media and data literacy are both critically needed - because there are definitely intersected skills.
     
    I find this thread pretty interesting actually. It's usually the liberals arguing in favor of moral relativism, and it seems to be a bit of the opposite here.

    indeed... I find myself, typically, drawn to Nietzsche's perspectivism in philosophically. And here I find myself arguing against it. Of course, I typically don't contextualize it like it is here. But still...
     
    I wasn't referring to science although there are plenty of examples in science of facts that later become fiction. In fact, there is a good argument that this is exactly the process of science.

    I was referring to our own little corner of the world, where people proclaim as "fact" many things that are obviously not fact (I don't mean that they are not true, only that they are really opinion).

    Without a shared common frame of reference, people can easily come to completely different beliefs regarding the "truth" of their observations.

    This board has some wildly divergent frames of reference.

    Abortion is the example I shall continue with.

    First, there must be the agreement that human beings have a right to life that trumps all other rights or privileges. If that much cannot be agreed, discussion is pointless.

    Assuming the above is agreed, there must be a determination as to when that life begins. Scientifically, there is life prior to conception. The egg and sperm are alive but neither can become a human being without the other so all can agree that is not human life.

    Scientifically, it has been argued, persuasively, that human life begins with the zygote.






    Those are quotes from scientists (Catholic scientists, in case it isn't obvious) proposing as fact that human life begins with the zygote.

    Scientifically, the zygote is an individual human with the genetic makeup it will hold for the rest of its life.

    There is not much scientific disagreement on that particular point.

    Beyond this point there are many positions on when human life begins. Viability is a popular one as is ensoulment. There are various points chosen for the moment of ensoulment that vary from the quickening all the way up to registering as a Democrat.

    Viability, ensoulment and the many other variations on that theme are all based upon value judgments, not facts.

    If the abortion debate were to based upon the idea that individual human life is worth of the right to life as enshrined in the Constitution and the moment the individual human being comes into existence is scientifically accepted as the zygote we would not have much to argue about.

    However, people do argue that the zygote is not a human being because <insert value judgment here>. Each person views that value judgment as a "fact". I am sure someone will be searching for the white paper that says the zygote is not a human individual. I am sure it exists because even science is not immune to bias.

    Suddenly facts don't seem so incontrovertible.

    Thanks for that reply. I’m sure you noticed that your favored contention, that a group of cells wholly dependent on its host for further development is as much a human being as the woman carrying it, was given scientific fact status, while the assertion that the group of cells is not a human being with rights that trump the woman carrying it is presented as a “value judgement”.

    I don’t like to speak about abortion generally, as I consider it a very private decision which is most often made in the middle of some sort of tragedy. But in general, I consider the zygote to be a potential human being. It needs to have a lot of things go exactly right to become a complete human being.

    I recognize that society has an interest in the potential life of a fetus, but ultimately the woman needs to have the say over her own body, at least until such time as the fetus could survive outside the womb. Roe has actually done a pretty good job of threading that needle for quite a long time, balancing the rights of the person who actually exists and the rights of the potential human which doesn’t quite exist as an entire person yet.
     
    As an aside, and because curriculum design has come up in this thread, there's a movement to re-design the high school Math curriculum in the US. Most disciplines are having this discussion - and it's not just about Common Core.

    But there's an informative Freakonomics podcast that is relevant here, particularly, because of the advocacy of teaching Data more explicitly in Math. Stanford was cited as one place to receive materials if you want to change your Math curriculum to integrate it.

    The reason for this: the spiraling increase for handling data.

    Data is not some pure arbitrary, biased sets of information. 90% of the 'data' we have today has been generated in the last couple of years. The job market is demanding data managers, analysts, crunchers, etc. It's a wide open market and there aren't enough people to fill the need in the upcoming years (which does make me a bit dismayed at how the data will be handled). But the underlying premise is that 'data' is being collected in and across all sorts of areas. Being able to make sense of data is integral. We've established methods to do this, and continue to do so.

    My background is primarily in qualitative methods, and I can say that there are methodologies and rigor that exist even in these less-quantitative fields. Most people assembling meaning and drawing conclusions are trained to do so and their work is double- and triple-checked. Again, not infallible. But also not just willy-nilly based on assumptions and morals and whatever else.

    And there are even more checks in quantitative fields - where a lot of the data cited comes from.

    It's also not going anywhere. In fact, it's only increasing. Exponentially in some areas.

    Being able to have people who know what to do with it, how to interpret it, how to synthesize it is crucial.

    I'd like to see schools get on board with this more - even before students move onto postsecondary work.

    And though it isn't math, there are similar analytical/critical assets in media literacy.

    I found that there were a lot of areas when I'd find myself practicing media literacy strategies in reading data and conclusions of others, as well as when divining my own.

    So, maybe media and data literacy are both critically needed - because there are definitely intersected skills.
    Maybe I should change careers. I finally got kinda decent at pivot tables.
     
    I wasn't referring to science although there are plenty of examples in science of facts that later become fiction. In fact, there is a good argument that this is exactly the process of science.

    I was referring to our own little corner of the world, where people proclaim as "fact" many things that are obviously not fact (I don't mean that they are not true, only that they are really opinion).

    Without a shared common frame of reference, people can easily come to completely different beliefs regarding the "truth" of their observations.

    This board has some wildly divergent frames of reference.

    Abortion is the example I shall continue with.

    First, there must be the agreement that human beings have a right to life that trumps all other rights or privileges. If that much cannot be agreed, discussion is pointless.

    Assuming the above is agreed, there must be a determination as to when that life begins. Scientifically, there is life prior to conception. The egg and sperm are alive but neither can become a human being without the other so all can agree that is not human life.

    Scientifically, it has been argued, persuasively, that human life begins with the zygote.






    Those are quotes from scientists (Catholic scientists, in case it isn't obvious) proposing as fact that human life begins with the zygote.

    Scientifically, the zygote is an individual human with the genetic makeup it will hold for the rest of its life.

    There is not much scientific disagreement on that particular point.

    Beyond this point there are many positions on when human life begins. Viability is a popular one as is ensoulment. There are various points chosen for the moment of ensoulment that vary from the quickening all the way up to registering as a Democrat.

    Viability, ensoulment and the many other variations on that theme are all based upon value judgments, not facts.

    If the abortion debate were to based upon the idea that individual human life is worth of the right to life as enshrined in the Constitution and the moment the individual human being comes into existence is scientifically accepted as the zygote we would not have much to argue about.

    However, people do argue that the zygote is not a human being because <insert value judgment here>. Each person views that value judgment as a "fact". I am sure someone will be searching for the white paper that says the zygote is not a human individual. I am sure it exists because even science is not immune to bias.

    Suddenly facts don't seem so incontrovertible.

    Nice try, but no.
    First of all, there is no such thing as "ensoulment" in the scientific world. So don't even bring that up.

    Second, a zygote is not "scientifically" an individual human just like an egg is not a chicken. An egg has all of the genetic make up it'll hold for the rest of its life too, until someone cracks it to make an omelet, an egg omelet, not a chicken omelet.

    Scientifically, a zygote is a zygote. Now you can insert your value judgement here.
     
    Thanks for that reply. I’m sure you noticed that your favored contention, that a group of cells wholly dependent on its host for further development is as much a human being as the woman carrying it, was given scientific fact status, while the assertion that the group of cells is not a human being with rights that trump the woman carrying it is presented as a “value judgement”.

    I don’t like to speak about abortion generally, as I consider it a very private decision which is most often made in the middle of some sort of tragedy. But in general, I consider the zygote to be a potential human being. It needs to have a lot of things go exactly right to become a complete human being.

    I recognize that society has an interest in the potential life of a fetus, but ultimately the woman needs to have the say over her own body, at least until such time as the fetus could survive outside the womb. Roe has actually done a pretty good job of threading that needle for quite a long time, balancing the rights of the person who actually exists and the rights of the potential human which doesn’t quite exist as an entire person yet.
    You are missing the point here.

    Facts are proclaimed here (this board) when they are only the opinion of the observer.

    I did not contend "that a group of cells wholly dependent on its host for further development is as much a human being as the woman carrying it"

    A scientist, using what she believes is a scientific definition, has determined that the zygote is the definitive moment when a human individual is formed.

    1573738324973.png


    An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.”22 This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism.

    A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of characteristic human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

    As I said, she makes a persuasive argument based upon science, yet the first reaction of someone not disposed to think of a zygote as worthy of the right to life, is that this is an opinion, not fact.

    That is illustrative of my point.

    What is presented as fact on this board is not fact. It is the interpretation of the observer based upon their preconceptions, their definitions if you will.
     
    You are missing the point here.

    Facts are proclaimed here (this board) when they are only the opinion of the observer.

    I did not contend "that a group of cells wholly dependent on its host for further development is as much a human being as the woman carrying it"

    A scientist, using what she believes is a scientific definition, has determined that the zygote is the definitive moment when a human individual is formed.

    1573738324973.png






    As I said, she makes a persuasive argument based upon science, yet the first reaction of someone not disposed to think of a zygote as worthy of the right to life, is that this is an opinion, not fact.

    That is illustrative of my point.

    What is presented as fact on this board is not fact. It is the interpretation of the observer based upon their preconceptions, their definitions if you will.

    You say that opinions are proclaimed to be facts, yet you share the opinion presented in this paper as though it were fact.

    You provide these quotes from the paper:

    An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.”22 This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism.

    I would argue that the fetus is not an individual. It is, for the vast majority of development, wholly dependent on the mother.

    A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of characteristic human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

    This quote doesn't actually explain anything related to pregnancy or a developing fetus. It simply states that human beings are organisms.

    For example, one of the characteristics (activities) of life is homeostasis. The lungs, which play a vital role in this, don't reach a state of functionality until late in gestation.

    Another characteristic is excretion, which doesn't begin until gestational week 8 or so, long past the end of the zygote phase.
     
    You say that opinions are proclaimed to be facts, yet you share the opinion presented in this paper as though it were fact.

    You provide these quotes from the paper:



    I would argue that the fetus is not an individual. It is, for the vast majority of development, wholly dependent on the mother.



    This quote doesn't actually explain anything related to pregnancy or a developing fetus. It simply states that human beings are organisms.

    For example, one of the characteristics (activities) of life is homeostasis. The lungs, which play a vital role in this, don't reach a state of functionality until late in gestation.

    Another characteristic is excretion, which doesn't begin until gestational week 8 or so, long past the end of the zygote phase.
    I would suggest reading the paper.

    It isn't me presenting this as a fact.

    The author of the paper, a scientist, states this:

    The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.

    A scientist, trained in this field, states human life exists, as far as science is concerned, at the moment the zygote is formed.

    An objective fact.

    Because you do not like that conclusion, you label it as opinion.

    Which is my point.

    For any issue, the "facts" of one side are not the "facts" of the other.
     
    I find this thread pretty interesting actually. It's usually the liberals arguing in favor of moral relativism, and it seems to be a bit of the opposite here.
    Just to be clear- I don't think my point necessarily implies relativism.

    I am just saying that any argument for or against something goes beyond the idea that it is "just the facts" deciding something.
    You can have moral absolutists - say a utilitarian and an individual-rights-moralist who will disagree on what is "practical" or good.
     
    It also helps to know the agenda of the person you are reading and quoting as presenting facts:

    “The Charlotte Lozier Institute is the 501(c)(3) research and education institute of the Susan B. Anthony List, an organization dedicated to electing candidates and pursuing policies that will reduce and ultimately end abortion. Founded in 1992, SBA List seeks to restore an authentic feminism that celebrates the equality and dignity of women in all walks of life, without diminishing the sanctity of the human lives they conceive and bear in the vocation of motherhood. SBA List’s work has centered on advocacy for life and political action to draw more women into public life. The SBA List launched CLI in 2011 to complement its core mission with research and education that promote effective arguments and ideas for pro-life policies. The advancement of CLI’s mission benefits greatly from SBA List’s strong connections with policy makers, the media, and other pro-life organizations.”

    quoted from their website.

    My contention is that although she may be a scientist, I haven’t looked her up, but she isn’t truly practicing science here so much as she is advocating for her personal opinion. As cuddle showed, there are many ways to look at the same issue. A true scientist remains open to anything that the evidence supports. I don’t think the author of that paper is truly living up to the ideals of science. She is a neurobiologist, moreover, which means that embryology isn’t exactly her field.

    I expressed that clumsily. I have read the paper, which is really an essay with a few footnotes. It’s not meant to be a scientific presentation of facts, it’s essentially a scientific style opinion piece. I am quite a few years removed from my college classes, but I think her assertion that the embryo itself directs its entire development is off. I seem to remember learning that the embryo is affected in concrete ways by its host at various times during development. Which is probably why we haven’t been able to come up with artificial wombs yet. The development of a single cell into a baby is incredibly complex, requiring almost a dance of coordination of hormones and enzymes between host and embryo.

    I am intrigued though by your saying that you do not advocate that the zygote has rights equal to the host. Can you expound on that? Her essay seems to be laying the groundwork for that assertion and we have seen evidence in the laws recently passed and attempted by various states that the rights of the zygote are meant to trump the rights of the woman.
     
    Last edited:
    It is true that there are scientifically verified facts, science based opinions, and even just opinions held by scientists, and understanding the difference is important.

    But I also think that it doesn't go far enough to try and establish abortion policy only, or primarily, on the basis of life. Even if we accept life beginning at the earliest possible stage, two lives are then still involved, and there are circumstances when it becomes necessary to choose between them. Based on that, it can be viewed as legally, even morally, necessary to designate a hierarchy of priority between the pregnant woman or girl, and the unborn. Should a woman have to carry a pregnancy full term if doing so places her life in peril? Should a thirteen year old child have to endure nine months of pregnancy, and deliver the baby of her rapist? Do we erode away at privacy and interject into the decision-making between patient and doctor, to determine just cause? If we are making conditional exceptions to abortion, aren't we then designating the greater importance of mother over unborn? This wording might be unintentionally crass, but I certainly believe the rights of the life with established personhood, in all the ways we acknowledge that, should supersede those of the unborn.

    Fighting over the beginnings of life isn't, from my perspective, the point upon which this issue is best decided.
     
    Are actually you saying SOME facts do not matter, or facts NEVER matter? It really sounds like you are advocating for cherry picking data that matches a pre-existing “want“ (regardless if wrong or right), in the context here of all “important issues“, and choosing to ignore conflicting data, regardless of how overwhelmingly strong or correct it may be.

    As a bench scientist, i am struggling to understand why anyone would want to go through life with that type of decision making.
    I actually took what Jim E was saying totally differently. It is an interesting point.

    Good and bad (effective or not effective), depends on your objective.

    To use his sex ed lowering teen pregnancy. The fact is (or can be drawn) that sex ed lowers teen pregnancy rates.

    Is that a good thing? Well, if the aim of the education was to lower teen pregnancy rates, or there is sufficient reasons/costs to want to deter it, then lowering the rate is good.

    If education/work wasnt as big of a factor, or we were having a population crisis and needed people to have more babies, maybe lowering the teen pregnancy rate would be bad.

    So, the same cause and effect can be interpreted as either good or bad, depending on the outcome desired.

    I believe that was his point. But I admit, I didnt fully read the thread after it went off the rails by the second page (or bottom of the first). So I may be missing additional context. But, the overall conversation has gotten pretty philosophical lately.
    Interesting.
     
    I would suggest reading the paper.

    It isn't me presenting this as a fact.

    The author of the paper, a scientist, states this:



    A scientist, trained in this field, states human life exists, as far as science is concerned, at the moment the zygote is formed.

    An objective fact.

    Because you do not like that conclusion, you label it as opinion.

    Which is my point.

    For any issue, the "facts" of one side are not the "facts" of the other.

    As MT pointed out, this doctor is publishing in support of an organization's viewpoint. That alone does not discount her claims, but it does show enough potential for bias that it warrants a closer look. That's when you begin to see things like the author asserting that something exists without providing a shred of evidence (the Lozier article) or glossing over basic logical gaps (in the Westchester piece you quoted).
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom