Right. The argument being that even if a another indisputably-person (adult of sound mind) was hooked up to a woman’s body and would die without the use of her organs, she should have every legal right to disconnect that person. Her body, her choice.
Personally I agree with you, but I believe the common response to that would be the unborn child should have ultimate control over its body. That definition of life probably seems unreasonable to you and me but it comes down to a battle of definitions is what I’m saying
I don’t get the “even”.
I would assume you accept that there’s a difference between a person’s responsibilities to someone who they created and their responsibilities to someone that they did not. (Either that or you’re a big opponent of mandatory child support …) So it’s logically consistent to say that you could connect the other indisputably person but not the fetus. I don’t see the contrary argument (if you grant the fetus is a person).
It means that even if I were to concede a fetus as person instead of a potential person. Like conceding an acorn is an oak tree.
Sure. And I am absolutely in support of child support. But that doesn’t extend to a lack of bodily autonomy. A parent should not be legally required to give a kidney to their 14-year-old, either, IMO.
I think your syntax was garbled, then.
That’s fine. My only point was that you can’t establish this principle - as you attempted to do - by hypothesizing a situation where some other “indisputably-person” was hooked up to a woman’s body. Because the notion that the fetus shouldn’t be killed draws to some extent on the fact that she created it. So you could logically say the other “indisputably-person” could be disconnected, but not the fetus.
I don’t have a good feel for the differing liberal/conservative assumptions and positions here, but when you (maybe) and I think “crime”, we think of actions that are obviously wrong. But there are a lot of crimes on the books. Many of them not obvious. Although poking around mostly gets me information from…enthusiastic proponents of small government*. So YMMV. Although I don’t know this was what iiandyiiii was getting at.
*E.g. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/07/regulatory-crimes-and-the-mistake-of-law-defense
From that article:
This is a very striking result and should have headlined the thread! Please note that this is NOT an issue about family values, political or economic philosophy, nor any other matter which is a proper element in political debate. The question tests whether respondent believes in science. (Yes, some on the right might think they “believe in science” but be afraid and disgusted that greedy scientists are lying to them :smack: )
Especially remarkable is that “moderate and conservative” Democrats are far more likely to believe in science than “moderate and liberal” Republicans. This shows, I think, how unnaturally polarized American discourse has become.
This Pew Research result confirms what many other studies have shown: there is a profound difference in cognition between the two political modes in America: a cognitive style based on analysis and intellect, and a cognitive style based on emotions, especially fear and disgust.
It also answers the question posed in another thread Why does SDMB lean left? (“Intellectual board attracts intellectuals! Details at 11.”)
Do you still think this if the fetus was created against the will of the woman? Many Republicans do.
deleted by author
So innocent people have to get ill or die before your meat packing plant does the right thing?
No way King Hammurabi. How about you as the owner of the meat packing plant be forced to eat your own tainted meat or be killed if you poison someone? Don’t like that? Then let the inspectors make sure your business never gets to the point where the bad things can happen.
It is morally wrong to let human life be the “checks and balances” of the market place. It’s quite glib to say a restaurant that serves bad/poisoned food will eventually close down due to market forces. It neglects the fact that innocent people have to be sickened or killed for that to happen. Not on my watch. We need regulations and inspection.
I think you’re overstating your case here, just a tad. Is your argument that 7% of earth science PhD members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science don’t believe in science? Or do you concede it’s possible there’s still some debate, even amongst earth science PhDs about the primary cause of global warming?
I don’t think that follows.
If you are yourself an earth science PhD member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, then you have a scientific basis for disagreeing with the consensus scientific view on this matter, based on your own understanding of the scientific facts and principles. But if you’re a lay person, then deciding that 93% of the scientific experts got it wrong means you effectively don’t believe in “science”.
Not that that’s a terrible mindset if you don’t take it too far. My own thinking is that scientists have a tendency to be overconfident about whatever scientific consensus happens to be current at any time. This has been the case throughout history, and there’s no reason to think human nature has changed. So a little bit of skepticism is warranted.
But that’s not the same thing as deciding that the scientists are wrong, and actively advocating a contrary position. I wouldn’t be shocked if it eventually turned out that current scientific thinking on global warming is incorrect and/or oversimplified. But that’s not to say I think you can flat out dispute the current consensus either. Right now 93% of scientists agreeing on something is about as good as we can get.
Given the sources and nature of the crimes considered, it seems to me the ideas are pretty blatant plutocrat shilling to save the asses of corrupt corporate executives who tweedle their thumbs because bad drugs killed thousands while of course doing nothing about shoplifter getting a few decades in prison
This is my first post on this board, so I hope I’m doing this right.
I believe in people’s rights to believe as they choose.
having said that, I don’t think people always challenge themselves.
A lot of people grow up hearing certain things and never ask if what they are being told/taught is factual or makes sense.
Sometimes people rely heavily on confirmation bias. They believe certain things and look up articles/quotes that agree with their stance.
Just speaking for myself, I grew up hearing some things that just didn’t make sense to me.
I read a lot, if I’m unsure of something, I look for multiple sources with differing opinions and only then do I decide how I feel.
Also, a lot of people lack the ability to look at issues by viewing the big picture.
They don’t stop to think exactly what they are asking for before deciding on issues.
Something may seem like a good idea if it effects you in a positive way, but if you stop and think more broadly, it may not be such a good idea after all.
Freedom of speech comes right to mind.
I might abhor something someone says and even think they aren’t so smart for saying it, but I’m going to support their right to say it because freedom of speech is too important to limit it.
Those are just some thoughts for now.
Interesting thread. 
No. It shows that on an issue in which the science runs parallel to the liberal political goal, liberals are more likely to believe in science.
Really? So what’s your example of science which “liberals” reject while “conservatives” embrace?
And what, pray tell, is the “liberal political goal” being served by concern about global warming?
One other problem with liberalism and science is that since most scientists are liberals, science sometimes follows liberalism rather than the other way around. See:: homosexuality and transgenderism. Scientists decided these weren’t disorders about the time that political liberalism decided they weren’t disorders. That doesn’t mean the new conclusions are wrong, but the scientific method was certainly not the biggest factor in these changing beliefs.
Then there’s the issue of free trade and minimum wage, where liberals were on the wrong side for decades and now lookie here, new studies show they were right all along! But of course on immigration, even though immigration is just another form of trade, on immigration, a liberal policy is still better. It’s like magic! Whatever liberals believe gets confirmed by the scientific community after the fact.
I suspect that if liberals start to change their views on vaccines and GMOs, the science will magically change there too.
Then there’s the questions that just don’t get asked. A scientist was very interested in whether people without medical degrees could perform abortions. The results showed that they could, very safely:
https://psmag.com/four-ways-research-has-changed-the-abortion-debate-219c890d8cba#.ol7q5wi9q
That’s fantastic, but why not also explore whether non-degree holders can do other procedures, or prescribe medicine? This is a huge opportunity to reduce the cost of health care. But I guess since no liberals are interested, no scientists are interested.
this study shows that liberals and conservatives both have problems with science that doesn’t back up their point of view:
You’ll also notice that on the issues where liberals do not accept the science(Fracking and nuclear power), that the scientific community is hard at work attempting to confirm liberal fears of both. Conservatives just don’t get that kind of service.
Scientists are no more partisan than Science itself. They are not out to get you.