tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post116952153621930553..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The psychology of bias: why Republicans win more arguments than they shouldUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82041212859149699362007-02-09T15:48:00.000-05:002007-02-09T15:48:00.000-05:00(1) A question that naturally arises is: why have ...(1) A question that naturally arises is: why have the biases discussed here survived evolutionary selection? Could it be that in the real world of human interaction, where self-interested parties struggle for scarce resources -- as opposed to contrived laboratory experiments, or the struggle against nature represented by the gaming table -- a preference for force, a bias towards mistrust of actual or potential enemies, and greater-than-objectively-justified self-confidence, were positive survival factors?<BR/><BR/>(2) There are many human foibles, and one of them is the tendency to ascribe our rivals' successes to their exploitation of the others. "We play fair, they cheat." "Our opponents appeal to the basest instincts in human nature." <BR/><BR/>(3) It could be argued that another human bias, competing with some of the others, is the belief that "the other guy" is pretty much like us, subject to the same hopes and fears, and operating with roughly the same calculus of costs and benefits of projected actions. <BR/><BR/>This bias is often true. But not always. This assumption proved fatally wrong for the statesmen dealing with Hitler. The belief that the Iraqi masses would seize the opportunity offered by us to build a liberal democracy in their country is another example.<BR/><BR/>Many well-meaning programs to help the poor founder because the nice middle-class people who put them together assume that their intended beneficiaries are just nice middle-class people who don't have enough money. Thus aid agencies pour millions into Africa, only to watch it revert to the state of nature.<BR/><BR/>The kind and tolerant Dutch and Scandanavians who opened their countries to mass migration by Muslims are learning the hard way that we are not all basically alike, except in the most fundamental biological way.<BR/><BR/>(4) Yet another bias is the selective retention in memory, and use of, evidence from experience. Racists will tend to recall with clarity encounters with badly-behaved members of other races. Anti-racists will show the same bias in their recollection of intelligent, kind and generous -- should I say "articulate" members of the same race. <BR/><BR/>So there are plenty of biasses to be exploited by both Left and Right.Doug1943https://www.blogger.com/profile/03833632801624062004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170439168230044042007-02-02T12:59:00.000-05:002007-02-02T12:59:00.000-05:00I know and appreciate what you think, Jim, but at ...I know and appreciate what you think, Jim, but at this point I am appealing to "the humanists". ;)<BR/><BR/>If one happened to be a humanist, "human potential" would certainly be an important part of the argument for existence. Personalizing what matters to the individual, should include with it what will not degrade the ethics and practices of the collective world society at large. <BR/><BR/>yet...<BR/><BR/>"Among the major assumptions underlying humanism are the following: (a) human nature is inherently good;"<BR/><BR/>Is it? What kind of a religion is this! Even the humanist knows that this is not true.<BR/><BR/>"(b) individuals are free and autonomous, thus they are capable of making major personal choices;"<BR/><BR/>That may (or may not) lead to the better good of the world and societies at large. It is a principle chosen at random, and produces random (not positive) results.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"(c) human potential for growth and development is virtually unlimited;"<BR/><BR/>That could be true if human growth and potential meant not limiting the "development" of other less fortunate or challenged beings.<BR/><BR/>I would decry what all is not being said or understood within this assumption.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"(d) self-concept plays an important role in growth and development;"<BR/><BR/>Self concept must include the health and welfare of society at large, otherwise it will lead to both small and large scale disasters on both interpersonal and universal levels. <BR/><BR/>"(e) individuals have an urge toward self- actualization;"<BR/><BR/>A rather worthless and lonely endeavor if one does not opt to take others one cares for with us and seek to enhance their lives along with ours. <BR/><BR/>"(f) reality is defined by each person; and"<BR/><BR/>The best possible way to begin a world war. No potential for unity.<BR/><BR/>"(g) individuals have responsibility to both themselves and to others (Elias & Merriam, 1980)."<BR/><BR/>After all the aforementioned humanist principles have been both implemented and presumably believed, what responsibility could a humanist think he has towards others? <BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170436124724816602007-02-02T12:08:00.000-05:002007-02-02T12:08:00.000-05:00It's funny you put it that way Cal, I dont think t...It's funny you put it that way Cal, I dont think the fact that these babies will amount to something is really a legitimate arguement for or against abortion. Its murder, just that simple. But when my wife was pregnant with my now 15 year old daughter, I asked her to get an abortion. I was 19, she was 17. We did not have a pot to piss in. I was unemployed. Luckly my wife was a devout Catholic and knew better. At that time I did nothing but party. Once I had a kid, I was forced to keep finding better jobs, in order to provide for them. They lived with her mother until my daughter was 14 months old. My yearning to live with my daughter was my motivator. I went through 5 different jobs having no degree. Each job was better than the next, and I got better at what I did. Now I work for Gillette as a Group Leader making $80,000 to 100,000. And I literally owe all of it to having a baby when I wan't ready. Most abortions are had for the exact same reason I wanted one.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170432728121955232007-02-02T11:12:00.000-05:002007-02-02T11:12:00.000-05:00Am all for informed choice as are you, Jim. There...Am all for informed choice as are you, Jim. There is this problem of 'the will' however. In Nazi Germany way too many people who participated in the holocaust were both well educated and well informed.<BR/><BR/>I've been reading lately of some of the medical advances that have come forth out of Israel. If Hitler had been successful, we would be without a great many wonderful advances in science and medicine. Does anyone take into consideration what it is we may have killed off in terms of cures (and even peacemakers) because of this practice? I do. <BR/><BR/>I know. I know. The ratio of troubled people must rise too, but what can you do? The fact is, we just don't know the future. <BR/><BR/>(salt rooms as a (cure?) for asthma)<BR/>http://www.israelnationalnews.com/<BR/>news.php3?id=118586 <BR/><BR/>(development, discovered by scientists at the Weizmann Institute, may facilitate the revival of dead brain cells caused by head trauma, stroke or disease.)<BR/><BR/>http://www.israelnationalnews.com/<BR/>news.php3?id=119830<BR/><BR/>Interesting stuff.<BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170351970020077402007-02-01T12:46:00.000-05:002007-02-01T12:46:00.000-05:00Cal, This is so true. One of the two situations I...Cal,<BR/> This is so true. One of the two situations I was speaking of is my best friends wife (was his girl friend at the time). One year later (after abortion) they had a boy, and now have 4 children. What changed in that one year I am not sure, but now they live with regret. <BR/> <BR/>One thing I always make sure I do in these cases, is make sure I do not judge. As a fellow Christian you know it is not our place. Christians standing outside abortion clinics screaming "murderer", only make things worse and seperate the two sides further. I remember when I was pro-choice, these right wing activists made my blood boil. It wasn't until I held a 21 week baby, that I understood abortion was wrong. The word "Pro-choice" is very powerfull, especially if your a liberal thinker, which I tend to be many times. It implys freedom, which is what the good ol U.S. is all about, right. I can understand why people are pro-choice, since I was pro-choice for most of my life. So I certainly can not claim moral superiority. I really don't think most people really understand what it is their killing. Even if we want Pro-choice, we should at least allow woman having abortions to make informed choices. If they are 16 weeks pregnant they should understand exactly what a 16 week fetus is. How far its developed. What it looks like. How can anyone be against informed choice?Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170283232445758552007-01-31T17:40:00.000-05:002007-01-31T17:40:00.000-05:00Jim, we are missing two family members because of ...Jim, <BR/><BR/>we are missing two family members because of terminated pregnancies. <BR/><BR/>I know that my sister-in-law does regret this choice. But I think that she is now an awesome mother and a wonderful human being. I do not know about my hub's grandmother, she has lost her mind. Alzheimer’s, you know. But ages ago, (60 yrs ago) to be real honest, there was an affair that took place. So I guess that some people thought that was the thing to do back then.<BR/><BR/>I get the sense that people will do (or allow for) this whether they think it is right or not. As long as it “saves the day” just about any extreme action can be reconciled for the sake of the presumed effects on their long term happiness. But the truth is that none of us can really see the future. We only think (and guess) that we actually know our own mind on these matters. <BR/><BR/>But do we? <BR/><BR/>Some people eventually become terribly unhappy with children that they planned for, and others are absolutely delighted with children that they had no intention of having.<BR/><BR/><BR/>In the end we see that all relationships really wind up being a matter of what we choose to make of them anyway. So it is really anyone's guess what you might have thought of (or what would have became of) a child that was intentionally allowed to slip away into eternity.<BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170123899463845422007-01-29T21:24:00.000-05:002007-01-29T21:24:00.000-05:00Anonymous,i also know 4 women who have had abortio...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/><I>i also know 4 women who have had abortions, and they all agree that although it was a horrible thing to have to do, it was absolutely necessary in their current circumstances. <BR/>if they could go back, they would make the same choice. </I><BR/><BR/> Wow,you know 4 woman who had abortions too, what a coincidence, we know the exact same amount of people who had abortions. <BR/><BR/>I was actaully being very honest about the two womens feelings I described and not making up imaginary possible senarios on 4 woman, as you are.<BR/><BR/> You said in your post of four imaginary woman, that "although it was a horrible thing to have to do"<BR/><BR/> Why did they say it was a horrible thing to have to do? Because it was painful? They missed a day of work? They don't like hospitals? Which is it? My guess is, it may be the fact they had to kill their baby? If they didn't do anything immoral, why was it so horrible?Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170100625094732582007-01-29T14:57:00.000-05:002007-01-29T14:57:00.000-05:00To anon:I don't doubt that such women do exist. ...To anon:<BR/><BR/>I don't doubt that such women do exist. I think it is totally possible to harden one's heart long enough that such a thing appears even to be sensible to do. <BR/><BR/>There is, however, the matter of how concentration camp doctors came to the point of hardening (in series of adjustments) their hearts to do unspeakable and cruel things to innocent children. It takes quite a sophisticated string of rationalizations, and self deceptions to get there. And in this case, this type of sophistication does not improve the person or create any meaningful sort of "progress" for humanity. <BR/>cal<BR/><BR/>"they regret it with 'every ounce of their life'?<BR/>that doesn't even make sense. i also know 4 women who have had abortions, and they all agree that although it was a horrible thing to have to do, it was absolutely necessary in their current circumstances.<BR/>if they could go back, they would make the same choice."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170100071725290932007-01-29T14:47:00.000-05:002007-01-29T14:47:00.000-05:00And then there are the people want to have childre...And then there are the people want to have children from their dead children. Technology opens a whole list of issues that we have never had to face before. <BR/><BR/>Headline description:<BR/>Parents of slain soldier can use his sperm<BR/><BR/>"Four years after their son was killed in battle, family receives authorization from court to use his sperm to bring grandchild to world with woman who isn't his partner. More than 40 women express consent to carry his child."<BR/><BR/>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/<BR/>0,7340,L-3352706,00.html<BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170046577877532402007-01-28T23:56:00.000-05:002007-01-28T23:56:00.000-05:00jim,they regret it with 'every ounce of their life...jim,<BR/><BR/>they regret it with 'every ounce of their life'?<BR/>that doesn't even make sense.<BR/><BR/>i also know 4 women who have had abortions, and they all agree that although it was a horrible thing to have to do, it was absolutely necessary in their current circumstances. <BR/>if they could go back, they would make the same choice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170025274631964962007-01-28T18:01:00.000-05:002007-01-28T18:01:00.000-05:00THE CAMPShttp://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/holocamp.htm...THE CAMPS<BR/><BR/>http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/holocamp.html<BR/><BR/>"The T-4 camouflage organization created for the medical killing of mental and physical defectives defines by the Nazi government as undesirable was also known as the Reich Work Group of Sanitoriums and Nursing Homes [Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft Heil und Pflegeanstalten]. It operated from the Berlin Chancellery, at Tiergartenstrasse 4, hence the "T4"code name. The program was rationalized as the elimination of "life unworthy of life."<BR/><BR/>This program paved the way for the Holocaust in several important ways. First, it had the effect of legitimizing government-sponsored killing. In keeping with the Nazi emphasis on racial purity, eugenics and national health, euthanasia was presented as a necessary program for eliminating those who carried defective genetic materials which might endanger the quality of the "Aryan" stock.<BR/><BR/>Second, it was the beginning stage in the corruption of the German medical profession. Robert J. Lifton [Nazi Doctors] asks the question: How did a profession committed to healing, the protection of human life and the relief of human suffering become part of the Nazi killing machine? The apparent answer to this question is that it was a gradual process, a "slippery slope" which began with the Euthanasia Programme of "mercy killing" and resulted in the full scale involvement of some members of the medical profession in the mass extermination of Jews and others in the Nazi death camps.<BR/><BR/>Third, the T-4 program was crucial in developing the technology which would later be applied to mass murder. Euthanasia centers, such as the ones at Hadamar and Brandenburg were equipped with gas chambers (using carbon monoxide) and crematoria.<BR/><BR/>For additional information on the T-4 program and for statistical details regarding the number of victims of this program see The Euthanasia Programme ." http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/euthan.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170024805013820792007-01-28T17:53:00.000-05:002007-01-28T17:53:00.000-05:00suf "The main reason for this is for the childs o...suf "The main reason for this is for the childs own protection among other reasons, but formost it is the fact that if we gave children the same rights as adults, they would either end up hurt or dead."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now and instead, adults just want "protection" from their own questionable behaviour. What sort of a "human" then does that make them... having even less sentience than children of any age, unborn children, an amoeba...<BR/><BR/>It bothers me far more that many of the advocates of this practice do not even ask where this will take us. The eugenics we subscribe to for now, relies on the individual to suggest whether she or he is fit enough to raise a child. This is an old trick by eugenicists to make those in a so-called "free society" think that it was their idea first. Sooner or later, I am certain that it will not be up to the individual any longer. <BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170016873437929382007-01-28T15:41:00.000-05:002007-01-28T15:41:00.000-05:00But when I hear someone say "Oh, I'll just get an ...<I>But when I hear someone say "Oh, I'll just get an abortion" I do admit I cringe a little.</I><BR/><BR/>I only know of 4 women personally who had abortions. Of the 4, I am only close enough to two of them to discuss it openly. both of them regret it with every ounce of their life.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170015173138815882007-01-28T15:12:00.000-05:002007-01-28T15:12:00.000-05:00Jim,"Using sentience as a rule opens a whole host ...Jim,<BR/><BR/>"Using sentience as a rule opens a whole host of issues. Perhaps we should not give the right to life to the mentally challenged?"<BR/><BR/>Probably this could be solved by tri-angulation. Sentience of pre-born would be the criterion?<BR/><BR/>"I may be wrong Suffenus, but it sounds like you may be open to some differnt thought than what our current law allows?"<BR/><BR/>I am not sure what the current law is (in the US), being Canadian. Here the norm is abortions are performed at hospitals, and there is an abortion committee. But free abortion clinics also exist, and there have been legal fights in 9 of 10 provinces. These fights usually revolve around getting Medicare funding for the abortion. I'm not sure, but I think the various governments always fail in eliminating the clinics, but the clinics always fail in getting the funding. There are a lot of abortions regardless (sounds like a lot when numbers are quoted).<BR/><BR/>I think there is a point where there is not much point in fighting abortion on demand, e.g., a real or hypothetical morning after pill. Also, I don't really think that defining life from conception (for legal purposes) is very useful, at least it is only one factor. Remember the Burning Building thought experiment that somebody used the last time this was discussed? It seems that people do regard sentience as a relevant criterion regardless of their formal definition of life.<BR/><BR/>But when I hear someone say "Oh, I'll just get an abortion" I do admit I cringe a little.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170013660647951032007-01-28T14:47:00.000-05:002007-01-28T14:47:00.000-05:00Suffenus, You bring up many valid points. My wish...Suffenus,<BR/> You bring up many valid points. My wish is not to prevent abortion when the mothers life is at stake. In most instances when the mothers life is at stake and aborting will save her, the baby's life is in just as much danger, so preventing abortion in these cases would not be to anyones benifit. But when making law, we need to identify what is the majority of the situation. The fact is the majority of abortions are not performed to save anyones life, they are performed to allow the convienence of the mothers life to continue, and not be inhibited by having a baby and either raising it or putting it up for adoption. We can make valid law that would allow for both illegal and legal abortion. It may not be simple, but could be done. One way would be to include the expert opinion of doctors as to the danger of keeping the baby. <BR/> Saying this can't be done is kind of the slippery slope fallacy at work. We must allow abortion and give woman total freedom because if we don't then next they will have to die to try and save their babies.<BR/> Using sentience as a rule opens a whole host of issues. Perhaps we should not give the right to life to the mentally challenged? We have no idea when sentience begins. I have personally held a 21 week fetus that twitched at my touch (although on this very sight I was told I should believe scientific data over my own personal experience). So I did just that and tried to get information on sentience for fetuses. I found a pretty big range on when scientist believe sentience begins, from 18 weeks to 24 weeks. That whole range can be legally aborted. To me its a null point because I do not believe sentience has anything to do with someones right to life. If I did I would have to believe someone with less sentience than I deserves less rights.<BR/> I may be wrong Suffenus, but it sounds like you may be open to some differnt thought than what our current law allows?Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170009636647656312007-01-28T13:40:00.000-05:002007-01-28T13:40:00.000-05:00Clarification (another one)""Should a mother be fo...Clarification (another one)"<BR/>"Should a mother be forced to undergo a C-section to preserve the life of an 8-month old fetus, when her own life is also in jeopardy?"<BR/><BR/>Let me rephrase. If the fetus right to life were absolute, then a woman should be <I>forced</I> to have a C-section ,. if it was necessary to preserve the life of the fetus. I know most women would go for it, but the point is it is a decision she makes with the help of her doctor, it is not imposed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170008888042539672007-01-28T13:28:00.000-05:002007-01-28T13:28:00.000-05:00JimProtection of children is not the only reason f...Jim<BR/><BR/>Protection of children is not the only reason for depriving them of rights. Protection of ourselves also plays a part. Think of a child with a gun, a child with a car. (These things do happen!) It is not lack of sentience, by the way, but lack of decision-making power and responsibility that is behind the deprivation of rights. (I know. that's nitpicking).<BR/><BR/>Birth <I>is</I> a meaningful difference, in that it frees the baby of the mother, and the mother of the baby. The mother's health is no longer in the equation.<BR/><BR/>As for the 8-month old fetus, I guess that's the whole point of distinguishing between embryo and fetus on the grounds of sentience, as I believe the law already does. One could need a very superior justification, akin to self-defense, to justify late-term abortion, but the case is weaker for the embryo. Still, I don't know that I could totally rule out late-term abortion in certain circumstances. Should a mother be <I>forced</I> to undergo a C-section to preserve the life of an 8-month old fetus, when her own life is also in jeopardy?<BR/><BR/>I know there are many aspects to this debate. It may be that the prevailing attitude to abortion is far too casual (Cal's example of the women who have had multiple abortions). But I think it is also likely that it is beyond the capacity of the law to deal with all cases. Hence a rule of thumb. And the type of things that Sork mentioned might also be relevant.<BR/><BR/>My bottom line is that I would hate to see women dying or going insane because of an absolute prohibition on abortion, supported my a misapplications of definitions of murder and life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1170006358564109502007-01-28T12:45:00.000-05:002007-01-28T12:45:00.000-05:00Suffenus, You bring an interesting addition into...Suffenus,<BR/> You bring an interesting addition into the mix. The fact that children do not have the same rights as an adult. Think about that for a moment. Why is that? Why do we not give the child the same rights as an adult? The main reason for this is for the childs own protection among other reasons, but formost it is the fact that if we gave children the same rights as adults, they would either end up hurt or dead. So we must remove some of childrens rights in order to protect their right to live. We do this because their sentience is not as great as ours. So when their sentience is even less (such as a fetus) we just don't care about them anymore?<BR/> You started your post by saying that distinctions between fetus, child and embryo could be meaningful, so why do you not have to come up with one meaningful difference to allow killing one? Birth is not a meaningful difference in that it happens at an arbitrary time, more related to the mother than the developement of the baby.<BR/> Do you think it is wrong to abort an 8 month old fetus, if so why?Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1169999148735494982007-01-28T10:45:00.000-05:002007-01-28T10:45:00.000-05:00Clarification:"WOMAN CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MUR...Clarification:<BR/>"WOMAN CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER; JUDGE GRANTS ABSOLUTE DISCHARGE. This is exactly what happens when there is a trivial theft from a five-and-dime."<BR/><BR/>I was imagining a case where the woman was convicted for using the morning after pill.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1169998464181105122007-01-28T10:34:00.000-05:002007-01-28T10:34:00.000-05:00Distinctions between embryo, foetus, etc. could be...Distinctions between embryo, foetus, etc. could be meaningful, in the same sense that distinctions between child and adult could be meaningful. Sometimes it is necessary to try to divide up a continuum in order to have any laws at all. But the divisions are somewhat arbitrary.<BR/><BR/>A child does not have the same rights as an adult. And adults have a degree of control over children that is necessary, though sometimes regrettable, as in some instances of the indoctrination of children, meting out of punishment, or refusal of medical treatment. The state steps in, but only in extreme cases.<BR/><BR/>But there is a good reason for depriving children of some of their rights. They are as yet unable to make decisions. So it’s a necessary evil, or perhaps a good thing, depending on your point of view. <BR/><BR/>Likewise it could be that a foetus might have a different set or scale of rights from a child, if there is a good reason for it. A foetus is inside the body of another human being, a fact which I believe has been neglected so far in these discussions. Obviously the foetus could, in some cases, be a threat to the mother’s well-being.<BR/><BR/>Going further, an embryo might have different rights from a foetus, based on the degree of sentience.<BR/><BR/>The degree of control that the mother has over the foetus may be regrettable in many cases, but, as in the examples above (refusal of medical treatment, etc.), the law can only do so much to disentangle all the ins and outs of the situation.<BR/><BR/>Biological life may begin at conception, but civil life begins at birth. I was born on oct. x, 194x. That’s when my life began, in that second sense. To insist that the concept of murder be applied from conception on, could result in absurdities. Consider this newspaper headline: WOMAN CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER; JUDGE GRANTS ABSOLUTE DISCHARGE. This is exactly what happens when there is a trivial theft from a five-and-dime.<BR/><BR/>None of this means there should be no laws whatsoever concerning abortion, but they should be the sort of laws that impose responsibilities on the people involved, not absolute interdictions.<BR/><BR/>Finally, re-reading this comment, I realize I may be opening a Pandora’s box of misunderstandings. Hopefully not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1169997809981503822007-01-28T10:23:00.000-05:002007-01-28T10:23:00.000-05:00Chris, I am not asking you to concede anything. I...Chris,<BR/> I am not asking you to concede anything. In all actuality I wish it were liberals that were pro-life and concervatives that were pro-choice. Since this way I would not be trying to convince poeple that are on the other side of the so called culture war that abortion is wrong. <BR/> You should however admit you were wrong in the continuum fallicy, but I think you realize that. As well as you are wrong with the slippery slope fallacy. I am not saying if one thing is allowed then next thing will happen, which is what the slippery slope fallacy implys. I am saying you are wrong to begin with becasue you enter the flase continuum fallicy, then I gave more extreem examples to make my point. I believe the slippery slope fallacy is used more in the homosexual debate, where one says if we allow it then people will marry animals and such. I am saying abortion is just wrong now and only changed the time (in weeks) to show that you are entering the false continuum fallacy with your arguement. <BR/> I realize what it would take to get a liberal to change their mind about abortion. I know I don't have that stuff. I just wish abortion was not a liberal/conservative subject. I think you see that your logic breaks down on the subject, but I know because we are perhaps on opposite sides of the political fence, it doesn't matter.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1169990071184261142007-01-28T08:14:00.000-05:002007-01-28T08:14:00.000-05:00Jim: "And when science pushes the limits even fart...Jim: "And when science pushes the limits even farther and 19 week babys are surviving. Will you say we can kill them at will until they reach 24 weeks or 28 weeks or will you still use birth as a factor?"<BR/><BR/>Complete slippery slope fallacy. People aren't stupid and will obviously have to adjust their positions as new technology requires. Even if science allows us to grow babies completely out of utero, reasonable may still conclude that fetuses of certain age (whether it be 19, 24, etc.) aren't alive or are not entitled to human rights as one person suggested.<BR/><BR/>Cal, I don't understand what you wrote.<BR/><BR/>In any case, maybe I should stop responding as abortion actually ranks pretty low on my list of political priorities. Relating to Massimo's original point, the wars that kill adults and waste scarce resources are vastly more pressing. So if I don't respond, it's not that concede anything, it's that I have moved on.Chris Muirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00008164143878605805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1169989671631711612007-01-28T08:07:00.000-05:002007-01-28T08:07:00.000-05:00And even if they did have the form of miniature ba...<I>And even if they did have the form of miniature babies, an embryo is not the same thing as a thinking, fully formed human being with the same rights as other human beings. I think that the False Continuum fallacy is apt here.</I><BR/><BR/>adrienne,<BR/> I thought I explained why the False Continuum fallacy applys to your logic and not mine, but apperntly I was not clear enough. I am saying as long as one believes ending any form of life from conception to 101 years old is murder, then it does not apply. It does however apply to your logic since you are saying at some point killing a baby is wrong, but have no clear definable point when that is. You use words like fetus and embryo and baby, but it is a seemless transition, so the False Continuum fallacy applys to your logic, not mine..<BR/><BR/><I>Also, nobody has presented this idea: when life begins is not the same thing as when human rights begin.</I><BR/><BR/>Why not? What are you saying human rights begin some time after one becomes human? Or a fetus is not human because? Don't you really have the burden of explaining when and why human rights begin. Since I am saying human rights begin at conception. the definition of conception is the moment life starts. Your definition is just anyones personal choice, just so long as its not after birth.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1169921844674254292007-01-27T13:17:00.000-05:002007-01-27T13:17:00.000-05:00chris: "The pro-choice policy, though you mock it,...chris: "The pro-choice policy, though you mock it, is the only policy that allows reasonable people to disagree within given limits (we all agree that "abortion" after birth would be murder)."<BR/><BR/>And why? Why should "we" agree that such a thing is (or is not) murder? And, no. Reasonable people do not all agree that since technology has now made something feasible, that was not possible before, that will be what becomes right and reasonable?<BR/><BR/>Here is another thing that technology has made feasible. One can now see with complete clarity every facial expression and detail of an unborn child inside of it's mothers body. Are you man enough to not only observe a child inside it's mother by ultrasound, but also man enough to watch a child either be dissected or burned alive during a termination of a pregnancy by ultrasound? <BR/><BR/>I mean, after all, we are all reasonable people, aren't we.<BR/><BR/>calAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1169916955109371192007-01-27T11:55:00.000-05:002007-01-27T11:55:00.000-05:00I meant to say you make an egregious logical falla...I meant to say you make an egregious logical fallacy yourself: the False Continuum fallacy, not IJim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.com