How ignorant are you about basic women's biology?

[Theophilis]

And now a politician is backpedalling after dumb statement hits fan and explodes in his face. More news at 11.

Look his statement was stupid, and this is coming from someone who believes that abortion is wrong. I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I'm saying that politicians say stupid things. The media says stupid things. People in genaral say stupid things.

I think he was saying that a system that allows abortions in the case of rapes could be exploited. As for his statement about women being raped not being able to get pregnant, the closes I have ever heard of anything like that is that in cases of particullarly violent rape the chances of pregnancy are slim due to the trauma of injuries sustained by the victom. His statement was just stupid. Then again in this marvalous age we live in you could find an "expert" to say just about anything you want. That and politicians aren't exactly known for their listening skills, as opposed to just hearing.

And as far as I know, any politician who says that abortion is wrong in all cases will always be lambasted because they don't allow abortions when the mother's life is in danger, or in the case of rape, or if the child is the anti-christ. You get no respect from your opponents either way. Compromise is what politics is all about.

[Moe]

There is no way to interpret that other than insane ignorance.

Yes there is. It's willful ignorance and misinformation. The myth that the female body can somehow block unwanted pregnancies that occur as a result of rape isn't new, and it periodically resurfaces in anti-abortion debates. Probably its most prominent proponent is Todd Wilken, an MD who really shouldn't have made it past med school:

This is a traumatic thing — she’s, shall we say, she’s uptight,” Dr. Willke said of a woman being raped, adding, “She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic.”

Of course, this is complete bullshit, as reproductive science experts and doctors alike will confirm. That however hasn't stopped many in the anti-abortion camp from citing him time and again, because the title of MD makes their arguments seem more legitimate. The New York Times has an article about the whole thing.

Again, this goes hand in hand with the other examples cited in this thread. We have somehow arrived at a point where everyone's opinion, no matter how ridiculous, is to be considered just as valid as everyone else's. There's no right or wrong to questions about biology, or history, or science. Everything has two sides, and there's always "evidence" for both sides. This of course is problematic, because people use this technique to bend reality to suit their warped world views. Evolution conflicts with your overly literal interpretation of the bible? Well then clearly evolution can't be right. What do well over a hundred years worth of scientific evidence compiled in the fields of biology, genetics, archaeology, physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy and so forth mean compared to the re-re-re-retranslated ramblings of bronze-age nomads?

And this permeates every aspect of the public debate. If your position differs from what we know to be true because we've tested and verified and applied this knowledge over and over again, it's not you who's wrong, it's "an issue that's still being investigated", and "there are arguments for both sides", and "the guys on your side are all hacks". And then it suddenly becomes acceptable to spew this garbage in a public forum.

[Mac_Bug]

what? you mean he wasnt suggesting people who get pregnant from rape wasnt actually raped?

given the amount of people who are wrongfully convicted of rape, i believe we should stop prosecuting it

[CommissarRezail]

given the amount of people who are wrongfully convicted of rape, i believe we should stop prosecuting it

Clarify please, it sounding like you saying we should let the rape dogs out and hound our women.

[Moe]

Clarification.

[Mac_Bug]

Since you can't reliably investigate rape claims and prosecute rapists, why bother?

[Theophilis]

Again, this goes hand in hand with the other examples cited in this thread. We have somehow arrived at a point where everyone's opinion, no matter how ridiculous, is to be considered just as valid as everyone else's. There's no right or wrong to questions about biology, or history, or science. Everything has two sides, and there's always "evidence" for both sides. This of course is problematic, because people use this technique to bend reality to suit their warped world views. Evolution conflicts with your overly literal interpretation of the bible? Well then clearly evolution can't be right. What do well over a hundred years worth of scientific evidence compiled in the fields of biology, genetics, archaeology, physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy and so forth mean compared to the re-re-re-retranslated ramblings of bronze-age nomads?

And this permeates every aspect of the public debate. If your position differs from what we know to be true because we've tested and verified and applied this knowledge over and over again, it's not you who's wrong, it's "an issue that's still being investigated", and "there are arguments for both sides", and "the guys on your side are all hacks". And then it suddenly becomes acceptable to spew this garbage in a public forum.

Well that's one of the shortfallings of freedom. You have the freedom to be wrong. For the most part people just don't think for themselves. They just go with the first thing they heard, or what the most charasmatic person is saying, and now they have a side and they'll be damned if they are going to listen to what the opposition has to say. Then there is the whole argument that the truth is subjective. Then you throw in personal biases of researchers and the agendas of those funding them. Then you have people claiming theories as facts: The theory of evolution, the big bang theory, etc... No one is presented with just the facts these days.

[Theophilis]

I would say it's safe to say that the number of rapes that go unreported or the investigation ends in a dead end are vastly greater then the number of false accusations of rape, let alone the number of cases that actually lead to a false conviction.

[Ewokz]

the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, etc... No one is presented with just the facts these days.

Mostly because theories are all we really have, some such as gravity are pretty much as solid as "facts" but they are still labelled as theories. The word theory means nothing until you learn about the specific subject, however most people seem to believe it means that because its not 100% true there is a substantial possibility alternatives are also correct. Evolution vs The Bible is probably the best example of small probability of being incorrect somehow validating ideas with little or no scientific backing.

[Starblade]

Mostly because theories are all we really have, some such as gravity are pretty much as solid as "facts" but they are still labelled as theories.

I can't tell if you think this or not from your post (I think you do, to be fair), but just in case: A scientific theory is a hypothesis backed by observation and experimentation. The use of the word "theory" in "theory of gravity" or "theory of evolution" isn't the same as in its more common usage. Putting science as on par with religion is an insult to both.

Definitions from scientific organizations

The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[7]

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[2]

Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.

[Mac_Bug]

I would say it's safe to say that the number of rapes that go unreported or the investigation ends in a dead end are vastly greater then the number of false accusations of rape, let alone the number of cases that actually lead to a false conviction.

Well, if the remote possibility of someone lying to get an abortion exists justifies a complete ban on abortion, then the possibility of being falsely accused and have your life ruined justifies a complete ban on prosecuting rape.

[Ewokz]

someone lying to get an abortion exists justifies a complete ban on abortion

Not sure where your getting this, his justification for not allowing abortions at all was that it was killing innocent life. He then went on to explain that a system where abortion as a result of rape was the only exception, would be bad for two reasons, people by-passing the system and lying to obtain an abortion, and that the punishment for the crime would in part be placed upon the unborn childs head.

[Theophilis]

True everything is a theory, but that's because our scientific understanding of the world is so limited. We really don't know how much we don't know other than "a lot." For me science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. Science covers the physical world while religion covers the spiritual world. I think religion carries the stigma of the whole "opium of the masses" thing going for it, when I think it's pretty obvious that most people just don't want to thinkfor themselve regardless if it's a religious, political, scientific, or whatever topic, of course considering how much research and learning would have to go into just about anything to have an informed opinion on anything. Until then your just taking someones word for it and at that point what's it matter if you believe the big bang theory, creationism, hinduism, or family guy. Then again how is understanding the theory of evolution going to help put food on my table?

[Ewokz]

Even in a perfect world where we completely understand our universe, they would still be considered "theories", as Starblade put, what we generally consider theory to mean is not the same in scientific terms.

[Theophilis]

Well, if the remote possibility of someone lying to get an abortion exists justifies a complete ban on abortion, then the possibility of being falsely accused and have your life ruined justifies a complete ban on prosecuting rape.

what's this have to do with what I said?

[Theophilis]

Even in a perfect world where we completely understand our universe, they would still be considered "theories", as Starblade put, what we generally consider theory to mean is not the same in scientific terms.

Perhaps, but my main point is that most people act like sheep not wanting to think for themselves with most issues that don't immediately affect them myself included.

[Moe]

Then again how is understanding the theory of evolution going to help put food on my table?

If we didn't understand how evolution works, we probably would have had a little more trouble with genetics and selective breeding and all that junk. Or with combating pesticide-resistant pests, and bugs that adapted and became resistant and threatened our food supply. Or with microbes adapting and becoming resistant to various drugs.

True everything is a theory, but that's because our scientific understanding of the world is so limited.

No, it's because that is how science works. All we do is come up with models anyways, but that's got nothing to do with our limited understanding (which by the way isn't as limited anymore). It's just how it is.

[Mac_Bug]

Not sure where your getting this, his justification for not allowing abortions at all was that it was killing innocent life. He then went on to explain that a system where abortion as a result of rape was the only exception, would be bad for two reasons, people by-passing the system and lying to obtain an abortion, and that the punishment for the crime would in part be placed upon the unborn childs head.

Yes, the possibility of 'people by-passing the system and lying to obtain an abortion' justifies a complete ban on abortion, as opposed to allowing exceptions for rape. For someone who reads a lot into what the guy says you don't seem to get what I say. Being falsely accused of rape also put innocent people in jail, decades at a time, and ruins their lives, so we shouldn't do that either. Furthermore sending the father into prison would break up the family and make the child grow up without a father, given evidence that heterosexual families (of course there aren't any other types) are best for children to grow up with, I would say instead that women who become pregnant due to rape should marry their rapist.

Wait this sounds like Afghanistan.

what's this have to do with what I said?

I don't know, why did you mention anything at all about unreported rapes vs falsely accused?

[LoCo]

Langy: I... I never said anything about women being able to put themselves in a position of being raped. There is nothing in my post and nothing in the bit you quoted that matches up with what you are going on about there.

I said something about proof. If you are talking about legal requirements like having a law that states that a woman can only get an abortion if her pregnancy was the result of a rape, then it would be completely and utterly idiotic to not require proof that the woman was, indeed, raped. I disagree with such a law, but for a law like that to have any chance of working it would need that. Also, doctors are required to call the police if they have a gunshot victim because there might have been a crime committed. Why should it be any different if they have a rape victim? Further, if there was a law, such as we are talking about, then the doctors, to cover themselves, would need to see a police report of the rape charges before they could do anything.

Thus, the woman in question would have to file a police report about the rape for her to get her abortion. The police would then have to investigate. If such a law was in place, these things would have to be done. Further, if the police found no evidence, then the woman would either not be able to have her abortion or - if she already had it - she would be charged with all the stuff they could charge her for for making a false report, hindering an investigation, and - since we are assuming there is a law against abortions - getting an illegal abortion. Anything less is just plain stupid.

Unless you are attempting to argue that should such a law be in place: no proof needs to be offered, no police report needs to be placed and no repercussions should be in place for people not following the law. I don't think that is your position, so I have to ask... what are you arguing with me about?

[Langy]

You're making a huge mess of assumptions, LoCo; you shouldn't argue from a position of 'this is how it will definitely be' without clarifying what those assumptions are. You've basically been arguing 'there will be a report!' because you assume that there will be a report required; that's essentially a tautology, which isn't a useful thing to argue about.

And yes, my position is that if a law says that abortion is allowed only in cases of rape, then that law will not require proof of rape. I'm almost certain it will be something more along the lines of 'the woman claims she was raped' or 'the doctor believes the woman's claim of being raped'. I find it highly unlikely that the law will require proof of rape, especially since that proof will only come months to years after the baby is born (since it takes that long to convict anyone of a felony like rape).

Also: I was responding to your claim that rape victims have nothing to be ashamed of. In their minds, they could very well feel shame for perfectly reasonable reasons. That's not something that mere education can change.

[Arbit]

And yes, my position is that if a law says that abortion is allowed only in cases of rape, then that law will not require proof of rape. I'm almost certain it will be something more along the lines of 'the woman claims she was raped' or 'the doctor believes the woman's claim of being raped'. I find it highly unlikely that the law will require proof of rape, especially since that proof will only come months to years after the baby is born (since it takes that long to convict anyone of a felony like rape).

That's exactly the sort of procedural "loophole" that extreme right-to-lifers will exploit to make abortion effectively illegal in all cases. Some states already put all sorts of preconditions on abortions (mandatory sonograms, multiple visits, etc) to make them difficult, if not impossible, to carry out.

And if you believe the only acceptable circumstance to have an abortion is in cases of rape, it makes sense that you would want to be sure the fetus was a product of rape, otherwise you're aborting an "innocent" fetus... or something. It seems to me that you're killing an innocent baby either way (according to their logic, not mine), but I think most right to lifers hold to the rape exception just so they don't have to tell rape victims to suck it up and carry out their pregnancy.

[Theophilis]

If we didn't understand how evolution works, we probably would have had a little more trouble with genetics and selective breeding and all that junk. Or with combating pesticide-resistant pests, and bugs that adapted and became resistant and threatened our food supply. Or with microbes adapting and becoming resistant to various drugs.

I understand completely, however my point wasn't on a civilisation or society level, but a personal level. No one pays me money to know about evolution. It was an example indicating that while many individuals might benefit from certain knowledge on a societal level, on a personal level their survival might have other concerns that take priority. This lack of knowledge then leads to them letting someone else inform them of what they are supposed to believe.

No, it's because that is how science works. All we do is come up with models anyways, but that's got nothing to do with our limited understanding (which by the way isn't as limited anymore). It's just how it is.

Because we have limited understanding. If we knew 100% of everything there is to know about atomic movement beyond any shadow of a doubt with no uncertainty, would it still be the theory of atomic movement or would it be called the law of atomic movement. This is if humankind becomes omniscient concerning atomic movement. It's just how it is because we have doubt and uncertainty and to not call something a theory implies that you know everything there is to know about said theory. On our understanding not being as limited as it used to be, I would surely hope so. So tell me, of all the possible things there are to know ever, what would you say is our total increase? If we were filling up a compendium of all knowledge, not just human knowledge, but all knowledge, have we increased 1%, 5%, or maybe even 50%? Are we up to 50% of omniscience? Honestly knowing what word humanity would use if it was omniscient is really of no consequence to any one. You say that the term theory would still apply, I'll take your word for it. I apologize for pointless tangent.

I don't know, why did you mention anything at all about unreported rapes vs falsely accused?

Any discussion that involves rape and false accusations tends to focus on the false accusations and how evil the women who would do such things are. I was just trying to maintain a proper perspective.

[Stripe7]

Science unlike religion will never says it knows anything, all knowledge in science are theories, what science gives us are models that are the closest approximation to what we can observe. What it has given us are cell phones, dvd's, atomic weapons etc.. The greatest theories in science have the best approximations to observed phenomena, never ever will it be said that it is anything other than a theory. There is no possibility in science of becoming omniscient.

[Langy]

They'd still call it a 'theory' even if they knew it for certain, yes. That's basically just what the word means in scientific terms; there is no such thing as a scientific 'law'. All scientific laws are, in actuality, theories.

[Starblade]

If we knew 100% of everything there is to know about atomic movement beyond any shadow of a doubt with no uncertainty, would it still be the theory of atomic movement or would it be called the law of atomic movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.[3]

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

That's not quite what a scientific law is, but I hope that link answers your question. Again, scientific theories, models, and laws have different meanings than their common usages.

This is if humankind becomes omniscient concerning atomic movement.

To be omniscient is to have infinite knowledge. You cannot have "omniscience" in any one field alone. That would be like saying that I am onnipotent but only in my ability to post on the internet. Asking how close we are to having infinite knowledge, besides being impossible to answer, also has nothing to do with what he said. Moe is correct; we are not as limited in our understanding of the universe as we once were; we've learned a thing or two over the last couple dozen thousand years.

[Malachi]

First, thanks Langy for continuing my point during my absence. I wouldn't have put that better.

Second, one thing occured to my sick imagination while pondering the subject:

What if it was a man who was raped by a woman (which is possible, contrary to popular belief)? And then the female rapist got pregnant? Could the victim demand the pregnancy to be aborted, provided the rapist was found? If not, why would he be forced to accept the fact that he's going to have a child concieved through rape?

This leads to another question: Why do women have the exclusive right to decide for or against abortion (or am I wrong here?) The father is as much a parent as the mother after all.

Mind you, I don't actually think that this is wrong (I believe a woman should have full control over her pregnancy until birth, no matter the circumstances), but I don't see how it stands as fair as far as gender equality is concerned.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

What if it was a man who was raped by a woman (which is possible, contrary to popular belief)? And then the female rapist got pregnant? Could the victim demand the pregnancy to be aborted, provided the rapist was found? If not, why would he be forced to accept the fact that he's going to have a child concieved through rape?

This leads to another question: Why do women have the exclusive right to decide for or against abortion (or am I wrong here?) The father is as much a parent as the mother after all.

First question: because it's something happening to the woman's body, and the child is something she has to deal with. Women keeping someone's child and not letting them have access to it is dickish but it's different levels of dickish.

Second question: That one's complex. On the one hand the father logically must have some rights but on the other hand the pregnancy or the abortion affect the woman's body, not the mans.

It's something that doesn't have a good answer, really.

[Stripe7]

Until a man can carry the child to term or the child can be put into an artificial womb I believe that a woman should have the final choice.

[Theophilis]

Thank you everyone for correcting me on my scientific terminology. Obviously I have gotten a bit rusty on it. I do however know what omniscient means I just didn't want to type out If we knew 100% of everything there is to know about atomic movement beyond any shadow of a doubt with no uncertainty again. That's a fun thing about language, you can use words out of context to imply other things. It really is pointless though to try and think what an omniscient human societies science would call its models other then theories, but then again would an omniscient human society have science. I was merely trying to point out that the term used is scientific theory because we don't know everything. 99% certain means 1% uncertain. I understand that scientific theory is as close to scientific fact as we can get, but why is that?

[Langy]

The word 'Theory' isn't really used because we're 'uncertain'. We aren't. Some things, like the laws of thermodynamics, we're well over 99% certain; we're so certain of them that it's pretty much impossible to tell the difference between 100% certain and whatever certainty we have. We're about as certain of the laws of thermodynamics as I am of the fact that I'm typing on a keyboard right now. Trying to claim that we use the term 'theory' because we aren't '100% certain' about these things is extremely disingenuous and is essentially the argument some people use to ridicule science and claim that science is wrong.

It's called a 'theory' because that's just what the terminology is. If the terminology was 'barbuckle', then we'd use the word 'barbuckle'; it doesn't matter what it means in any other context.

[GeoffS]

And as far as I know, any politician who says that abortion is wrong in all cases will always be lambasted because they don't allow abortions when the mother's life is in danger, or in the case of rape, or if the child is the anti-christ. You get no respect from your opponents either way. Compromise is what politics is all about.

And if you believe the only acceptable circumstance to have an abortion is in cases of rape, it makes sense that you would want to be sure the fetus was a product of rape, otherwise you're aborting an "innocent" fetus... or something.

These are things that should throw up some very large warning flags to any politician, there are some things that just can't be legislated for because the individual circumstances vary so much from case to case. Since that makes it practically impossible to draft fair and equitable legislation to cover all eventualities, it is better to leave those decisions up to those directly concerned. As long as they are properly informed and given non-judgmental support, they are the ones best placed to make the decisions.

And, yes, I'm well aware that it's not going to happen like that in the US any time soon, given that in world political terms US elections are a choice between the extreme right-wing (Republicans) and the not-quite-so-extreme right wing (Democrats).

[ShyGuy]

What if it was a man who was raped by a woman (which is possible, contrary to popular belief)? And then the female rapist got pregnant? Could the victim demand the pregnancy to be aborted, provided the rapist was found? If not, why would he be forced to accept the fact that he's going to have a child concieved through rape?

First question: because it's something happening to the woman's body, and the child is something she has to deal with. Women keeping someone's child and not letting them have access to it is dickish but it's different levels of dickish.

This is getting somewhat off the topic at hand, but since I thought of it, I would point out that the potentially more damaging scenario would occur when a woman rapes a man, and then demands support for a child thus conceived. That being said, the point of a rape isn't pregnancy, and this particular scenario almost certainly doesn't occur with the kind of frequency that would possibly be relevant to a discussion about the rights of a rape victim. Entertaining the idea as a legitimate concern that should be addressed seems too much like all the recent political actions in these United States regarding voter fraud -- any attempts to legislate a fix for a non-existent problem is bound to create an even bigger problem in addition to upsetting a whole mess of people (I know this question was supposed to be more philosophical than specifically about legislation, but given that this whole discussion started off with comments by a congressman, it seemed relevant; especially to recent postings)

[Theophilis]

Are we as certain of all scientific theories as we are of thermodynamics? Where is the deliniation of certainty? At what percentage of certainty does something become a scientific theory that is beyond refute and thus 100% fact of what is exactly happening? Why was the word theory used in the first place? Why isn't the word barbuckle used? It is the way it is and that's just the way it is doesn't work for science. My theory on why the word theory is used in the term scientific theory is that no scientist can be completely certain that what they are describing is completely accurate and thus they will never claim to have the definitive and final word on the subject. The word theory wasn't chosen arbitrarily. Yes it may be analogous with fact now, but it isn't 100% certain.

Anyone who uses the fact that science can't be 100% certain as a claim to discredit science is about as stupid as someone who would claim that women who are raped can't conceive as a valid argument against abortion.

[Langy]

We are as certain of a large number of scientific theories as we are thermodynamics - it's one of the things that separates 'theory' from 'hypothesis'. Yes, some theories we aren't 100% certain of - but that doesn't mean we aren't 100% certain of some theories. We are 100% certain that the Earth revolves around the sun, for example.

The use of the word 'theory' does not in any way imply that we aren't certain.

[Pyro Paul]

wow, lot of discussion on the word 'theory'.

Dumb person version.

A theory is any statement that is supported by a degree of provable fact.

effectively stating something as a theory is saying thus.
As far as we know right now, (Insert Theory Here) is fact.

it isn't that we are not 100% certain, but rather, if new information arises to disprove our current theories it allows change to occur.

[Langy]

That's just the basic version; in scientific parlance, it doesn't matter whether new information can possibly disprove it or not. It's still just a 'theory'.

There is no new information that can possibly disprove the theory that humans are made of cells, that the Earth revolves around the sun, or that I utilize a computer to access the internet. Doesn't mean they're still not just 'theories', though.

[Belgarion]

Women are made of sugar and spice and all things nice. From a Scottish perspective

[FriendlyFire]

Perhaps a more important and particular element of a scientific theory is that it should make falsifiable predictions.

[Mac_Bug]

verifiable?

[Codex]

Both, really. Karl Popper said that science is about falsification, which is true, to an extent. It's also about predictive power, so it is both about verifiability and falsifiability. One without the other doesn't work.

[Moe]

I understand that scientific theory is as close to scientific fact as we can get, but why is that?

That's where you start moving into the realm of philosophy. What we do in science is come up with models. Models are considered good if they (1) explain observations, (2) successfully predict the outcome if the inputs are known and (3) they are "elegant", which generally means that they are simple enough that we can solve the underlying equations either analytically or at least numerically. A good example is the whole particle / wave dualism with light and matter. If you try to model light as either one or the other, you run into problems at some point, because (1) and (2) break down. Only by modeling light as being both particle and wave, or more accurately by using both a particle model and a wave model, we can successfully explain and predict both the double slit experiment and say compton scattering.

...at least that's what it's like in physics.

Which is why these statements (Akin's, not yours) are so problematic. Religion says "this is how it is. Anything that doesn't seem to fit must therefore be wrong." That's fine for basing your personal philosophy on if you're into that sort of thing, but it becomes a massive issue when you try to legislate based on it, because reality doesn't care about what you believe. If you have a nasty infection and believe that praying alone will cure you, odds are you'll die because the bacteria don't care about your prayers. They will however care about antibiotics.

It also means that you don't ever have to be wrong. If a guy came down from the heavens tomorrow who looked exactly like Jesus, who then performed a bunch of miracles and brought back Joseph and Maria from the dead, only to announce that he was in fact gay and thinks that abortion is cool, a significant chunk of Christians will call that guy a fraud, regardless of what else he does, because he doesn't fit with their interpretation (which can't be wrong!) of the bible. I suppose there's comfort in believing in an absolute truth, but if that takes over all aspects of your life, including the ones that impact the rest of society, then you and society have a problem.

[roflmao]

Good job Akins, thanks for discrediting the pro life movement. What a train wreck .

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Until a man can carry the child to term or the child can be put into an artificial womb I believe that a woman should have the final choice.

I agree that's the best solution. But it's still a bad solution. Being able to have their child aborted (or not aborted as the case may be) without their input sucks for men, and if you're giving one of two people more than 50% of the deciding power, you're effectively giving them all of it.

[Starblade]

In general, I feel that men should have input on the matter but the final say should always be with the woman. It will never be 50/50 because only one sex has the capability to give birth.

[Paladin]

Actually if we're going to drift into philosophy, it seems to me that special relativity and the lack of an objective frame mean that no observation can ever be totally objective...

[n0z3k1ll3r]

In general, I feel that men should have input on the matter but the final say should always be with the woman. It will never be 50/50 because only one sex has the capability to give birth.

Thing is even if it's only 51/49, if the woman decides one way then 51% of the decision has been made that way. Which means that way goes. In practice there isn't a middle ground between 50/50 and 100/0. Yes the man can talk with her and try to have his opinions noted but at the end of the day what she says goes.

Not saying that's not the best solution just that it's imperfect.

[Sparki]

Technologically advanced nation on Earth does not essentially mean the people. Heh.

And what Moe said in the first page.


In that case, I could care less if the US even had a warp drive.








Though I'd be envious, but that's about it.

[Mac_Bug]

So my question for the pro life movement is as follows

1. What happens to the mother's short term / long term psychological well-being?
2. What happens if the mother doesn't have enough money to not work for the next year?
3. What happens if the mother is actually a crack addict or lives an unhealthy lifestyle?
4. What happens if the mother doesn't have healthcare?

[Langy]

I imagine the answers would be something like:

1. Who cares?
2. Then she works until she pops. Then she goes back to work two weeks later.
3. Too bad for both mother and child.
4. She gets to pay through medical debt/bankruptcy.

[Starblade]

Thing is even if it's only 51/49, if the woman decides one way then 51% of the decision has been made that way.

Yes, but we are not machines. Other people's input matters to us. The final decision is up to the woman but that doesn't mean she can't take other people's viewpoints into consideration. It's like you said; it's not a perfect solution, in a perfect world abortion wouldn't need to exist, but we'll have to settle for it.

What happens if the mother doesn't have healthcare?

Someone post the video from the Republican primaries where Ron Paul (I'm pretty sure it was Ron Paul), getting frustrated, asked if someone doesn't have healthcare if they should just die and the crowd started shrieking "yes" and cheering about it.