Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

[Anastasis 23474]

29 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Anastasis has posted on this topic going back to hornfans. I don’t think he argues in bad faith and I don’t think he wants to control women’s bodies. I think he believes terminating a pregnancy at any stage ends a human being’s life.

I would accept this characterization of my position wrt to the science with one modification, as struck.  The human life cycle spans the time between fertilization and the ceasing of biological processes at end of life. 

33 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Defining what makes a human being is not an easy task,

Because like "personhood" that is a philosophical term and not a scientific one.   You may arrive at a conclusion as to what point a human life takes on the moral status of a human "being", or conversely at what point that status is revoked, using developmental milestones, legal status, instrumental characteristics, or other extrinsic factors.  Others may take a position that human life has intrinsic moral status. But that is the realm of philosophical debate, not science. I do think that it is worth considering the fact that that philosophical debate, and particularly instrumental approaches to assigning moral status, has historically been a tool used to justify depriving certain human lives of their innate human rights.     

[Sawbonz 27565]

That’s a lot of words to say a human zygote is not a human being

[Willfully Horn 8019]

I’ll give you that he’s a staunch believer. He is too insecure not to be.

He must protect his house of cards at all costs. So, the definition of life is wrong, and science ‘s definition is right.. Except when science’s definition is wrong, then certain words can be omitted.

Of course his logic is flawed., it relies on malleable fact (words.)

I have reason to think his beliefs stem from religious fundamentalism, as opposition to abortion is a significant indicator of being such. 

Perhaps there’s a discussion to be found where @Anastasis makes clear his morality has no religious basis. I haven’t read it.

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

Just in time. Nothing in that suggests my gut is wrong in thinking he’s an old school Catholic.
 

Religious fundamentalists, of all stripes, share the subjugation of women as a precept. To be fair, that precept is couched in cotton balls and flowers, but that’s the net result.

 

 

[Anastasis 23474]

19 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

That’s a lot of words to say a human zygote is not a human being

And that is certainly few for you to concede the point that a human zygote is a human life.  

[jimmyjazz 45963]

6 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I have reason to think his beliefs stem from religious fundamentalism,

Ding ding ding

[Anastasis 23474]

If there is something in the philosophical context of this discussion that I view as fundamental, it is that human life has intrinsic value. You don't have to agree.  Many people throughout history have not. But we should at least be able to agree on the fundamental biological facts of the human life cycle.  

[Sawbonz 27565]

30 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

And that is certainly few for you to concede the point that a human zygote is a human life.  

I never said a human zygote wasn’t alive. I said it wasn’t a human being. Nothing you have posted refutes that

[Sawbonz 27565]

Bill Barr has an almost perfect take on abortion in his Red Rocks special

[Disco Strangler 1878]

I blocked that guy during his incessant FISA warrant ramblings.  Don’t regret seeing “you have chosen to ignore content by Anastasia” four times already on this page.  Happiness is that guy in the rear view    

[scottsins 1966]

That’s a lot of words to say a human zygote is not a human being

Yep. Staunch pro-lifers, if not relying on religious or moral grounds, seem to never get that:

“Human life” /= “A human”

[jimmyjazz 45963]

51 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If there is something in the philosophical context of this discussion that I view as fundamental, it is that human life has intrinsic value. You don't have to agree.  Many people throughout history have not. But we should at least be able to agree on the fundamental biological facts of the human life cycle.  

The thing you continue to ignore is that many people, and a shit ton of scientists, don't agree that a zygote is human life.  

You don't get to define it for everyone else, no matter how arrogant or one-dimensional your thought processes are.

[Goofyboy 3293]

If there is something in the philosophical context of this discussion that I view as fundamental, it is that human life has intrinsic value. You don't have to agree.  Many people throughout history have not. But we should at least be able to agree on the fundamental biological facts of the human life cycle.  

But you don’t REALLY believe that. It’s a bullshit feel good position. If you really believe it, are you ok with forced organ donation? It’s to save lives. Are you anti-war? Anti-death penalty?

[Sawbonz 27565]

Wrong thread

Edited November 6, 2022 by Sawbonz

[Willfully Horn 8019]

2 hours ago, Goofyboy said:

But you don’t REALLY believe that. It’s a bullshit feel good position. If you really believe it, are you ok with forced organ donation? It’s to save lives. Are you anti-war? Anti-death penalty?

@Anastasis has ridiculed the death penalty as barbaric. I’d bet he is anti-war, too. But, he (assuming I understood his motivations) is certainly faced with real life conflicts between his political affiliation and his reverence  of life, which go beyond Republican war hawks, national security and soft-on-crime demagoguery. 

It must be difficult to argue that sanctity of life demands a rape victim carry the rapist’s child, for example, yet voting for a political party that enacts such laws has to cause dissonance.

Based on when and what he contributes, I think it fair to say his single issue vote is willing to abandon this Republic’s freedom of religion and Rule of Law. Continued support for Republicans, today, begs a rebuttal as to the contrary. 
 

I find it strange that religions are not allowed the right  to change, or be wrong. To have a new perspective. Certainly, the Abrahamic God is described as changing His relationship with Man. We put almost total faith in science, with its built in unless-facts-prove-otherwise clause. Is any religion free of man’s failings?

Edited November 6, 2022 by Willfully Horn

[Anastasis 23474]

5 hours ago, scottsins said:

Yep. Staunch pro-lifers, if not relying on religious or moral grounds, seem to never get that:

“Human life” /= “A human”

It's your world. Be amended 5/5ths. 

 

5 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

a shit ton of scientists, don't agree that a zygote is human life.  

Would be fun to get some of them to post here. 

[Anastasis 23474]

3 hours ago, Goofyboy said:

Are you anti-war? Anti-death penalty?

Uh, yes. And yes. 

[Anastasis 23474]

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

yet voting for a political party that enacts such laws has to cause dissonance.

[Captainant 27679]

Stop being so hard on annie! He puts a premium on life! And a copay. And a deductible. 

[jimmyjazz 45963]

10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Would be fun to get some of them to post here. 

I couldn't care less if they post on here.

It takes little effort to find evidence that a substantial fraction of scientists do not agree with the assertion that human life begins at fertilization.  According to this amicus brief filed with SCOTUS regarding Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, some 32% of biologists surveyed (895 out of 2,794) felt the following were better criteria for defining that moment in time:

 

-- birth or first breath (343/2,794)

-- fetal viability (284/2,794)

-- first heartbeat, brainwave, or moment of pain capability (268/2,794)

 

Of course, this means a majority of those surveyed (1,898/2,794) felt that human life begins at fertilization.  Of this there is no argument.  

Now, one might argue that the biologists who were surveyed don't represent all biologists, or that biologists don't represent all scientists, or that those 895 respondents who don't agree that human life begins at fertilization must have allowed their viewpoint to be influenced by philosophical or ethical considerations, but taken at face value, I think it's a pretty telling result.  You probably disagree.

You probably also added up the results and discovered that they don't equal 2,794 biologists, as did I.  My answer to this is "lawyers".

 

Survey says?

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by jimmyjazz

[jimmyjazz 45963]

16 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Bill Barr has an almost perfect take on abortion in his Red Rocks special

Personally, I think Bill Burr is a lot funnier than Bill Barr.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by jimmyjazz
speling

[hpslugga 4062]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Stop being so hard on annie! He puts a premium on life! And a copay. And a deductible. 

Can’t put a price on life except when you can put a price on life.

[Anastasis 23474]

41 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I couldn't care less if they post on here.

It takes little effort to find evidence that a substantial fraction of scientists do not agree with the assertion that human life begins at fertilization.  According to this amicus brief filed with SCOTUS regarding Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, some 32% of biologists surveyed (895 out of 2,794) felt the following were better criteria for defining that moment in time:

 

-- birth or first breath (343/2,794)

-- fetal viability (284/2,794)

-- first heartbeat, brainwave, or moment of pain capability (268/2,794)

 

Of course, this means a majority of those surveyed (1,898/2,794) felt that human life begins at fertilization.  Of this there is no argument.  

Now, one might argue that the biologists who were surveyed don't represent all biologists, or that biologists don't represent all scientists, or that those 895 respondents who don't agree that human life begins at fertilization must have allowed their viewpoint to be influenced by philosophical or ethical considerations, but taken at face value, I think it's a pretty telling result.  You probably disagree.

You probably also added up the results and discovered that they don't equal 2,794 biologists, as did I.  My answer to this is "lawyers".

 

Survey says?

 

Have not seen this before. Thanks for sharing and I will read the full thing later.  Gonna run the boy to get some biscuits and gravy on the way to his soccer game. Just on a quick skim, I see that you are unpacking the open-ended question from their survey (Q6).  They survey included 5577 biologists from academic institutions. There are five other relevant questions, many of which mirror extremely similar language that I have used in our discussion here. The agreement was 91%, 88%, 77%, 75%, and 69% to the structured items Q1-5, respectively. Q6 numbers probably get screwy as result of having to code free text responses into quantitative results and it appears only half of the respondents answered Q6. Here are the other items.  

 

[jimmyjazz 45963]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Just on a quick skim, I see that you are unpacking the open-ended question from their survey (Q6).

Correct, as that was one question they focused on in the text that seemed to get to the heart of each respondent's opinion on the matter.  I didn't read the whole thing (and won't!).

[Anastasis 23474]

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

 I didn't read the whole thing (and won't!).

I assumed that you read the thing before you posted it. My bad. The entire argument of that filing is that the consensus scientific position is that human life begins at fertilization.  It is a curious filing to link here to support your position.

If you won't read that one, maybe this publication of the survey findings would be better?

To be honest, I am not sure that I necessarily agree with the analytics, but their conclusion fwiw. 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3973608

Abstract

Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human’s life begins at fertilization (“the fertilization view”). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization view seems to be uncontested by the editors, reviewers, and authors who contribute to scientific journals. However, Americans are split on whether the fertilization view is a “philosophical or religious belief” (45%) or a “biological and scientific fact” (46%), and only 38% of Americans view fertilization as the starting point of a human’s life. In the two studies that explored experts’ views on the matter, the fertilization view was the most popular perspective held by public health and IVF professionals.

Since a recent study suggested that 80% of Americans view biologists as the group most qualified to determine when a human’s life begins, experts in biology were surveyed to provide a new perspective to the literature on experts’ views on this matter. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human’s life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

The founding principles of the field Science Communication suggest that scientists have an ethical and professional obligation to inform Americans, as well as people around the world, about scientific developments so members of the public can be empowered to make life decisions that are consistent with the best information available. Given that perspective—and a recent study’s finding that a majority of Americans believe they deserve to know when a human’s life begins in order to make informed reproductive decisions—science communicators should work to increase the level of science awareness on the fertilization view, as it stands alone as the leading biological perspective on when a human’s life begins.

 

[jimmyjazz 45963]

40 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I assumed that you read the thing before you posted it. My bad. The entire argument of that filing is that the consensus scientific position is that human life begins at fertilization.  It is a curious filing to link here to support your position.

How fucking dense are you?  I didn't link the brief to support my position that life begins at some point after fertilization.  I linked it to show that there is a significant fraction of the scientific community that feels that way, something that you dispute.

The brief literally points out the fact that 32% of surveyed biologists disagree with the idea that human life begins at fertilization.  If you are going to argue otherwise, then we are completely done here.  I mean, for fuck's sake, how weak are your family and coworkers that you think you can routinely gaslight other smarter people to this degree?

I should have known better.  You're a complete waste of time, I knew it, yet I thought you might see the data for what they are.  My bad.  The next time you debate in good faith will be the first.

Edited November 7, 2022 by jimmyjazz

[Anastasis 23474]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The filing literally points out the fact that 32% of surveyed biologists disagree with that position.  If you are going to argue otherwise, then we are completely done here.  I mean, for fuck's sake, how weak are your family and coworkers that you think you can routinely gaslight other smarter people to this degree?

I should have known better.  You're a complete waste of time, I knew it, yet I thought you might see the data for what they are.  My bad.  The next time you debate in good faith will be the first.

 

You seem very upset at me for reading the filling you linked and pulling the actual peer-reviewed abstract of the survey results that you cherry-picked. 

[jimmyjazz 45963]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You seem very upset at me for reading the filling you linked and pulling the actual peer-reviewed abstract of the survey results that you cherry-picked. 

Do you dispute the statistics quoted in the amicus brief?

[Anastasis 23474]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Do you dispute the statistics quoted in the amicus brief?

You mean like this one?

Recent surveys have shown that biologists are viewed as objective experts in the study of life and as the experts most qualified to determine when a human’s life begins (See infra at Argument I). The fertilization view on when a human’s life begins has been shown to be the leading biological view, and it can only be supplanted by an alternative view if there are paradigmatic shifts to axiomatic concepts within biology (See infra at Argument II). This is made clear by a review of: (1) the biological and life sciences literature, as peer-reviewed articles represent the fertilization view as a fact of biology that requires no explanation or citation (See infra at Argument III.B), (2) legislative testimony from scientists that suggests there is no alternative view in the scientific literature (See infra at Argument III.C), (3) an international survey of academic biologists’ views on when a human’s life begins that reported 96% of 5,577 participants affirmed the fertilization view (See infra at Argument III.D)

 

Come on Jimmy.  You posted something that you didn't even read.  You scanned it and cherry picked one item off a survey, found something to use as a toe hold and expected that I wouldn't actually read the full thing and search out the peer-reviewed publication? Blow off whatever steam you need to and huff and puff about "good faith debate", but you know what happened here. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Anastasis
*as,

[jimmyjazz 45963]

21 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Come on Jimmy.  You posted something that you didn't even read.  You scanned it and cherry picked one item off a survey, found something to use as a toe hold and expected that I wouldn't actually read the full thing and search out the peer-reviewed publication?

Do you dispute the assertions quoted in the amicus brief as I posted them?  I have made my position clear -- "science" is not universally in agreement on the subject.  That is my only point.  I didn't cherry pick, I simply referenced their data regarding the survey they used to make their point, which is literally in support of your general thesis.

You're really going to dispute this?  You're that arrogant to assume I can't read what they wrote?  Did I lie?  Address the data I posted.  Shoot holes in them.  Or don't (because you can't).

Edited November 7, 2022 by jimmyjazz

[tx 3 putt 76980]

[TexEx15 17538]

Also just to chime in on some of the back and forth above, you can’t in good faith be pro life and against universal health care in lieu of the for profit model in the US.

[Anastasis 23474]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Address the data I posted.  Shoot holes in them.  Or don't (because you can't).

It would be more productive for everyone if you instead thought critically about it before you posted it.

You picked out one item, a free text essay prompt that was responded to by only one-half of the respondents.  For some reason you ignored all the structured survey items. I don't necessarily agree with the approach used to run their primary analysis (yielding the 96% data point), but I certainly would not gravitate to item 6 without examination of the results of the other 5 items in context. At a minimum, they should do a non-responder analysis on item 6 specifically to determine if the characteristics of respondents to that one particular item differ from the overall pool of survey respondents. My hunch is that the respondents to that particular item are self-selecting (the relative response rates for each of items Q1-5 are a signal, imo). The agreement rates to item 1-5 (which are essentially different formulations of the "fertilization view") suggest that agreement is high across all formulations (ranging 91-69%), but that there is a decrease in agreement as you make more explicit the framing relative to human life, and inject non-scientifically precise language into the question (item 5 in particular). 

Now I would love to hear your thoughts on the results and methods...

[jimmyjazz 45963]

So your take, which I literally alluded to -- perhaps the survey respondents didn't represent all biologists -- is groundbreaking?

I linked the brief for the sole reason that it might provide some color to the conecpt that not all scientists believe "life" begins at fertilization.  You are trying to make it seem as if I was making a bigger point than that.  I was clear that it wasn't necessarily comprehensive, but rather a snapshot of a small group of surveyed biologists.

Your ego is so overly inflated that you can't simply accept the simple results of an essay question, THE OVERALL RESULTS OF WHICH GENERALLY SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

I mean, what the fuck, dude?  How broken are you?  Don't answer that, you'll get it wrong.

[Anastasis 23474]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

THE OVERALL RESULTS OF WHICH GENERALLY SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

I did have a follow-on post that questioned exactly what you were trying to accomplish here in light of the obvious, but didn't hit submit.

 

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So your take, which I literally alluded to -- perhaps the survey respondents didn't represent all biologists -- is groundbreaking?

That is not what I said Jimmy.  Read it again. 

[jimmyjazz 45963]

Against my better judgment, how about this: 

Q1 and Q2 don't address the question of when life begins, merely the biology of fertilization, and indeed they only limit the response to "mammals" (without human specificity), regardless.

Q3 asserts that a mammal's life begins at fertilization.  The response was 77% affirmative, meaning 23% non-affirmative.

Q4 asserts fertilization marks the beginning of human life.  The response was 75% affirmative, meaning 25% non-affirmative.

Q5 asserts that a zygote with a human genome is a human being.  The response was 69% affirmative, meaning 31% non-affirmative.

 

I don't think I misreprented anything.  Best case, your position is 77% in agreement, worst case 68%, which is the result of the specifc essay question I referenced.

Your serve.

[Anastasis 23474]

7 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Your serve.

You are trying to shave me of 14 percentage points when I have already conceded 5 percentage points (down from 96% in their primary analysis). I prefer 91% over 77% (did we ever stipulate what the threshold for consensus was?). 

Question 1: The end product of mammalian fertilization is a fertilized egg (‘zygote’), a new mammalian organism in the first stage of its species’ life cycle with its species’ genome.

You: "This says nothing about when life begins"

I don't agree with that interpretation. Q1 and 3 are probably the most semantically equivalent of the set. 

Q5 does not use the term "human being" but it does muddy the water for people that consider the terms "a human" and "a human being" as equivalent. 

So if you are gonna shave 14pts off the top end by rejecting items 1 and 2 in terms of a biological science based view of when the mammalian life cycle begins, I propose that we also drop Q5 since it lends itself towards interpretation as a philosophical statement and not a science based one. 

If you'll accept that, then we have narrowed the range of agreement down to 75-77%.  Feels if we can get 3 out of 4 people to agree on this it can be called consensus. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Anastasis

[HenryJames 66081]

3 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

1,2

3,4

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

11 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

Also just to chime in on some of the back and forth above, you can’t in good faith be pro life and against universal health care in lieu of the for profit model in the US.

What percentage of people who claim to be pro-life are also pro-death penalty?

99%?  99.9%?

[jimmyjazz 45963]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

If you'll accept that, then we have narrowed the range of agreement down to 75-77%.  Feels if we can get 3 out of 4 people to agree on this it can be called consensus. 

Again, my point is that yours is not a unanimous view in the scientific community.  Not even close. 

[El Tri 412]

On 11/3/2022 at 6:09 PM, Anastasis said:

 

This time a suspended tiktok inside a tweet.  Nice.

 

If you cannot afford your offspring you should certainly kill them before they are born. 

 

For economic reasons. 

 

This is how a modern and highly functional society thinks. 

no, you're right. A modern and highly functional society would have 10 year old babies having babies.

go fuck yourself Ana

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

 

[tx 3 putt 76980]

[tx 3 putt 76980]

 

[mchookem 16336]

5 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

4 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

🤔

[mchookem 16336]

On 11/2/2022 at 10:59 AM, Cement said:

It will never not be funny that you out of touch lunatics ( @PenelopeWitherspoon, @Bama Chick, @trauma babe) really thought this was going to be a ROEvember.

Maybe the American people are even more disgusted at the thought of infanticide 38 week abortions as they are with outlawing abortions entirely.

 

well lunatic ladies, i hope you learned your lesson tonight!

 

[jimmyjazz 45963]

There are some interesting statistics on abortion in this Pew Research article:

Abortion statistics

 

Some that stood out to me, which tend to conflict with the notion that Hispanic and Catholic demographics tend towards hard line anti-abortion voters:

Abortion viewpoints by race (% legal in all/most cases)

Asian (74%)

Black (68%)

Hispanic (60%)

White (59%)

 

Abortion viewpoints by religion (% legal in all/most cases)

Unaffiliated* (84%)

Black Protestant (66%)

White Protestant -- not evangelical (60%)

Catholic (56%)

White Evangelical Protestant (24%)

* I don't know if "unaffiliated" included Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc. respondees.  It's poorly broken down.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by jimmyjazz

[Bama Chick 28596]

It will never not be funny that you out of touch lunatics ( [mention=550]PenelopeWitherspoon[/mention], [mention=332]Bama Chick[/mention], [mention=831]trauma babe[/mention]) really thought this was going to be a ROEvember.
Maybe the American people are even more disgusted at the thought of infanticide 38 week abortions as they are with outlawing abortions entirely.
 

Hey motherfucker come eat some shit.

Where ya at @Cement ?

Come out to play @Cement !

What a ROEvember to remember @Cement !

Everyone with a uterus hates @Cement !

[VRHorn 718]

That loser @Cement won't be back for 2 years.

[hpslugga 4062]

13 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

And that was what I and many others were saying the instant the sneak preview of Dobbs came out: this was the R's "dog caught the car" moment. Yeah they caught the car, and they didn't know the first fucking thing to do with it. But of course, mental defectives like Cement and others will never understand that, which is why they post such pig-ignorant nonsense like the oft-quoted passage above. 

[tx 3 putt 76980]

100% correct. Over turning roe royally screwed the R’s