Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Criptfeind]

I agree it should be legal to abort until the 50th Trimester. Totally.

[Angle]

It certainly can be argued, because people have argued it. You may not agree with the argument, or anything they say, but it's there. :V

By that definition, ANYTHING can be argued. and why does it matter if it can be argued? It only matters if it can be argued successfully.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

seems to be far more important than the actual human that would be forced to host said baby at risk of her own life and future (specifically: against her own will, mind, and regardless of the method), and there's certainly much less cared about that baby as soon as its out of the womb.

But babbys r so QUTE! WHO DOESN'T LURVE BABBIES?!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"We should gettim fixed so he stays this way."

In seriousness, I think it's a romantic fixation on innocence that inspires such a strong reaction (which has a half-life of ~7 years)..



I'm with defining the start of 'life' on that of 'death'- on brain function.
And not just scattered bolts of chaos like in brain-dead patients but alpha waves, delta waves, sleep spindles.
And that doesn't start happening till weeks 20-24, which is about where our current abortion laws draw the line.
It's also about the time the fetus starts to become viable.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[palsch]

Glyph's link cites actual data. Which is gathered from ALL non-barrier contraceptives as far as I can tell from his link. Therefore, while it may apply to those 4 specific types in the case, it also might not. Summary data tells us nothing definitive at all about the 4 that matter. We would require specific data from those 4 specifically to conclude it applies to this case.

...

Also I have serious doubts about the logic of how it makes sense for emergency contraceptives the day after sex to work by preventing ovulation when the majority (or maybe not, but still a huge chunk) of the time a pregnancy would have otherwise occurred, the woman would have ALREADY ovulated by that time. It seems more likely, from its efficacy rates, that it does both.

Could be wrong, but still need hard data to establish it if I am.

Two studies on this.

The studies were fairly small but had relatively strong effects for their sample size. They studied women to work out where in their ovulation cycle they were at the time they took the pills.

The second study had the larger sample size so I'll use their numbers. They found that 87 of their 122 women were in the days -5 to -1 of their cycle (eg, before ovulation) with a statistical expectation of 13 pregnancies. No pregnancies resulted. Of the 35 women on day 0+ there were 7 pregnancies expected and 6 observed. The other study had similar if smaller numbers. If there is any contraceptive effect based on blocking implantation then it is extremely small compared to the effectiveness at blocking ovulation.

For IUDs there is a higher chance that they may block implantation, but their mechanism is rather different (they block fertilisation rather than ovulation) and so it's harder to make a clean study like this.

[GavJ]

1: Killing the fewest people is good (and assumed: we should do good)

This is specifically not the argument taken by anti-choice/abortion as they often tend to support things that cause more lives to be taken...

Pro-lifers being hypocritical or bad at arguing does not in and of itself make any specific pro-choice arguments any more valid than they otherwise would be.
"You are wrong" =/= "I am right" necessarily.



However, this is good stuff:

Glyph's link cites actual data. Which is gathered from ALL non-barrier contraceptives as far as I can tell from his link. Therefore, while it may apply to those 4 specific types in the case, it also might not. Summary data tells us nothing definitive at all about the 4 that matter. We would require specific data from those 4 specifically to conclude it applies to this case.

...

Also I have serious doubts about the logic of how it makes sense for emergency contraceptives the day after sex to work by preventing ovulation when the majority (or maybe not, but still a huge chunk) of the time a pregnancy would have otherwise occurred, the woman would have ALREADY ovulated by that time. It seems more likely, from its efficacy rates, that it does both.

Could be wrong, but still need hard data to establish it if I am.

Two studies on this.

The studies were fairly small but had relatively strong effects for their sample size. They studied women to work out where in their ovulation cycle they were at the time they took the pills.

The second study had the larger sample size so I'll use their numbers. They found that 87 of their 122 women were in the days -5 to -1 of their cycle (eg, before ovulation) with a statistical expectation of 13 pregnancies. No pregnancies resulted. Of the 35 women on day 0+ there were 7 pregnancies expected and 6 observed. The other study had similar if smaller numbers. If there is any contraceptive effect based on blocking implantation then it is extremely small compared to the effectiveness at blocking ovulation.

For IUDs there is a higher chance that they may block implantation, but their mechanism is rather different (they block fertilisation rather than ovulation) and so it's harder to make a clean study like this.

Fair enough, good sir. I stand corrected.

It is a shame that IUDs still make sense, though, since those alone could still have motivated the whole SCOTUS case / we can't say because of this that Hobby Lobby was COMPLETELY wrong on yet another entirely separate layer of reasoning.

But being 75% wrong on a whole separate layer of reasoning (3 of the 4 contraceptives involved) is still pretty bad.

[SalmonGod]

What we really need is an ongoing attempt to educate people on how to effectively argue over the internet. And perhaps a standardized format for boiling arguments down to the essentials, so that they can be easily grasped.

I've had a similar idea for a very long time -- a debate wiki, which collects all the points and counter-points of common subjects of debate summarized in an easily browse-able format, perhaps also with links to supporting data for either side if they have it.  I hadn't thought about that in a long time... but it's kind of ridiculous to me how much I see so many debates go through the exact same routine over and over again.  I see people making points every day that with the kind of bravado the suggests they think they're stating an original thought which can't possibly be defeated, but which I've seen successfully challenged a million times.  I want a link I can throw at those people and be like "Here's the script.  I see you've made it this far on your own.  Finish up the rest and then get back to me."  Maybe something like that could get ingrained in our culture the way Wikipedia has as a reference, and help society mature at a bit faster pace.

----

As for the bit about the nature of pro-lifer's arguments and stance -- it's quite clearly rooted in deep emotional convictions.  But I think there are a couple explanations that haven't been suggested yet as to how they don't recognize the same contradictions in their arguments as we do.

First, when they're saying abortion = murder, they're saying that it's a deliberate act of violence.  Pro-life is just a positive-sounding label they use.  When you point out that it's a contradiction for them not to support other people's lives by working to prevent poverty, war, etc, they don't see that as in the same realm of moral consideration.  To them, those are just unfortunate ways in which the world is a fucked up place where you have to be hard-working and tough to make it, and not everyone is.

Which leads to the second point, where I think the conservative pro-lifer type is much more likely to see life as competitive in nature.  One of the most common refrains I hear on the subject is the idea that the unborn child never even had a chance at life.  Even if you point out that an unwanted child born to an uneducated, impoverished single mother is almost certainly doomed to a fucking miserable life, it's still worth it to generate all that misery just for the sake of that .001% chance of beating the odds.  It's even worth sacrificing the mother's well-being, because she's had her chance and fucked it up by getting pregnant.  When that child doesn't beat the odds and ends up a miserable drag on society, it was their fault for not fighting hard enough to be that winner... but at least they had the chance.

That's my take on that side of the issue, anyway.  Having written it out, I think potential really is what they're on about.  It really is more important to them then already established lives, because now that they're a part of the world, they're expected to work and compete for their stake in it like everyone else.  And they'll not feel bad about making it as difficult as possible.

[Vector]

Argument Wiki

You mean, basically, the modern version of The Republic?

[palsch]

But being 75% wrong on a whole separate layer of reasoning (3 of the 4 contraceptives involved) is still pretty bad.

2/4 actually. There are two types of IUD (copper and hormonal) and two types of pill (Plan B and Ella).

Even for the IUD, I'd expect that they prevent fertilisation far, far more than they prevent implantation. A while ago I linked this paper in part comparing IUDs and other methods to the rhythm method that the Catholic church and other groups have endorsed in the past. Basically the rhythm method involves avoiding sex during peak fertility, but that often means having sex when fertilisation can happen but implantation is less likely, resulting in the exact scenario people are afraid of with IUDs. Because there is no barrier to fertilisation (which there is for IUDs) you actually expect more "embryonic deaths" on the rhythm method than other forms of birth control.

What is the expectation of embryonic death for rhythm method users? Our first assumption was that only half of the embryos are viable. I take it that this value holds for populations using no contraception and not distinguishing between HF [heightened fertility] and non-HF periods (or using contraceptive techniques that do not distinguish between HF and non-HF periods). What is not known is what proportion of embryos are conceived during the HF period as opposed to outside the HF period. Since it is reasonable to assume that only a minority of embryos are conceived outside the HF period, let us make a broad estimate that between 1/10 and 1/3 are so conceived. Then, by our third assumption—that is, that the chance of the viability is twice as high for an embryo conceived during the HF period as for an embryo conceived outside of the HF period, we can calculate that the chance of viability outside the HF period ranges roughly from one in four to one in three. So, on average, for every pregnancy that results from a conception outside the HF period, there are two to three embryonic deaths. And hence, by our second assumption—that is, that rhythm users may expect one pregnancy in ten woman years, it follows that we can expect two to three embryonic deaths in ten woman years. If all of Alcorn’s 780 million pill users were to switch to the rhythm method, then these converts would be causing, in his own words, the deaths not of tens of thousands, but of millions of unborn children.

Then there are the arguments about their hypocrisy and how this only became a moral problem when it became a political football, but the decision's logic makes all this irrelevant. We can't question what people find against their religion, only accept it at face value and assume it's a burden.


And Salmon, ever spent time on Talk Origins? It basically did what you are suggesting for the evolution debate. Problem is it is seen as so obviously biased no creationist is ever going to take anything it says as valid. Still a useful field guide for newcomers to the debate.


EDIT: Urg. Just urg.

   The Supreme Court has granted an injunction to Wheaton College, which argued that even having to fill out a form to exempt itself from the contracpetive coverage requirement violates its RFRA rights.

Mostly linked for the excellent quotes from Sotomayor. Also LGM tends to be one of those few blogs with a genuinely witty and reasonably intelligent comment section. One of them has highlighted another good quote from Sotomayjor's dissent;

“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so to- day. After expressly relying on the availability of the religious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contra- ceptive coverage requirement violates RFRA as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might, see ante, at 29–30 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting), retreats from that position.”

[SalmonGod]

And Salmon, ever spent time on Talk Origins? It basically did what you are suggesting for the evolution debate. Problem is it is seen as so obviously biased no creationist is ever going to take anything it says as valid. Still a useful field guide for newcomers to the debate.

I was just introduced to that a few days ago, actually

And yeah... sort of.  I think every major, hotly debated issue has something like this.  I've seen several.  Plus hundreds of topic articles on blogs/news sites that do similar.  The problem is this content is all scattered, and almost always presented in a biased manner and/or hosted on/otherwise associated with a biased source.  So the only people who find these things are people who are very interested in the subject, or just spend a lot of time reading and debating on the internet (like me).

A giant wiki that collects arguments on lots of different subjects and presents everything in a concise, dry, heavily itemized tone would have a completely different cultural effect, I think.

[palsch]

I get the impression that any site that tried to do that would fall into the same trap as wikipedia, where whoever best argues the second-order debate of what is a valid source and who is least biased in editing the pages gets to define reality to their readers. I've seen some of the back-channel arguments around climate related wiki pages and it's a nasty world back there.

Maybe you could find impartial juries to curate each particular debate, but that strikes me as particularly hard for many subjects and still relies on how good people are at playing the game.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, I've looked at that stuff a bit, too.  It would be very difficult.  Not unworthy of attempt, though, I think.

Idea... Angle, I haven't looked into your Agora thing too deeply yet, so I'm not sure, but this might be relevant to you.

Pages are broken out into a sort of grid format.  A column is made for every stance on the topic that is differentiated enough to be seen as a major individual stance.  Every column is self-moderated and written by a hand-picked team of recognized supporters of that stance, with options for general users to make suggestions to these writers.

The main page for a major topic (i.e. Abortion) is an index of links to original points (i.e. Abortion is murder), each listed under the stance the point is commonly used to support (i.e. Pro-Life).  Follow the link to the page for that point, and the stance which asserts this point will have the column on the left, listing any supporting data or explanation they choose to employ so long as it's not purely as response to a common criticism.  Counter-points and refutations will align against those on the columns owned by other stances to the right, with further dialogue between indenting beneath.

[Descan]

The other problem is that the majority of those who would edit it would probably be inherently biased, or else they wouldn't care about it.

[SalmonGod]

The other problem is that the majority of those who would edit it would probably be inherently biased, or else they wouldn't care about it.

That's why the above approach has a limited number of editors, and each only edits the section that promotes their own view.

[Descan]

The other problem is the age-old issue. "There are fifteen different standards." "What, fifteen?! We should make a standard that fits ALL those issues, and clear up that mess!" "There are sixteen different standards."

[GavJ]

As for the bit about the nature of pro-lifer's arguments and stance -- it's quite clearly rooted in deep emotional convictions.  But I think there are a couple explanations that haven't been suggested yet as to how they don't recognize the same contradictions in their arguments as we do.

[snip]

Maybe.  ...Or an infallible book said so. And the verbal explanation in situations where a verse number won't suffice is just whatever pops into mind first to justify it that's hard to immediately contradict. With "didn't get a chance" fitting the bill quite nicely.

A giant wiki that collects arguments on lots of different subjects and presents everything in a concise, dry, heavily itemized tone would have a completely different cultural effect, I think.

I'm a bit confused about the goal of this project in the first place. Set aside the need for difficult to find unbiased judges, etc. for a moment. How do you actually envision it looking and what purpose does it serve?

Specifically, do you want to itemize all the arguments and then refute them? That sounds almost utterly impossible to do in an unbiased fashion or in many cases even to do in ANY fashion. As mentioned in the above part of this post, often it's stuff like "the Bible said so" or whatever, and there is no clear logical response to that either way, positive or negative.

Or do you intend to merely list arguments without comment? If so, I'm not sure how that would help anybody. ALl it would do is remind people of what arguments to make then they make them and probably go around in already well-hashed circles even more so than they do now.

I just really don't see a clear goal here or vision, which needs to be CRYSTAL clear if you're actually gonna talk about steps required to make it happen.