I know you weren't directing any of this explicitly at me, Daniel, but I feel inspired to reply nevertheless. This is not going to be one of my customary rebuttals; simply a reply. I won't promise no disagreements, however. =)
You know, in all of this... heck, you know, I don't even want to bother arguing the issue. It's a useless thing. It's damned ad hominem, that's about all I see here, and it sickens me.
I can see why you would say that. Somebody like me uses words like “bigot” and “sexism,” and you use words like “ad hominem,” and very little real debate happens. It's even worse among the non-intellectuals or the pseudo-intellectuals who enter the fray (on any side) without a strong head to guide their arguments. I would say that it sickens me too.
Is it useless, though? My entire stay on General Discussion has been something of an informal experiment to answer that question, and I would have to say that, on the contrary, it can be very useful...if your goal is to help others broaden their minds. I had no idea what the long-term effects of my constant rebukes and lengthy expositions would be, but over time I have noticed several forum members evolve in their thinking, some to the point of completely upending their worldview. That's a gratifying thing, because it proved something which, years ago, I could only hypothesize: Despite all evidence to the contrary, people do listen to reason. I played a role in that, by showing people more coherent ideas than what they were accustomed to. Oh, I suspect you and I would disagree as to whether it was the merit of my ideas or the strength of my rhetoric that won the day, but from my point of view it isn't even close. You've always been capable of equaling me in endurance and eloquence, and your appeals to antiquity I cannot match, but I don't know of anyone on these forums who ended up evolving in your direction. I know that I repulsed plenty of people along the way—not least of which was our very own Ramsus, which, with apologies to him, amuses me to no end—but, all things considered, I think standing my ground was not so useless after all.
Dammit, it sickens me because I fear what science is to become, what people can say only to hold that science is with us, and those of the opposition, simply because they stand against us, are of the dark age. With what sweeping statements all opposition can be painted with the demon's brush, and all the high terrible rhetoric to which those who hold true to their inclination are subjected.
Your own rhetoric is no feeble force either, Daniel. Let me offer you my perspective from two vantage points:
First, much of the popular resistance to science is simply unfounded. It stems from our ingrained aversion to change, and from a popular culture which vilifies scientific progress as mad and destructive. I don't know about Canada, but America is an anti-intellectual nation. Then there is the whole religious aspect: To those whose progenitors once held that a god controls every aspect of every thing, scientific discovery over the generations has eroded considerably the power of the gods, to the point where many of the devout have declared science their enemy, unreasonably. In all of these contexts—the general aversion to change, the caricaturization of science, and the religious antipathy toward science—the “anti-science” faction is in the wrong. Why? Because change is not inherently a bad thing, because real science does not look like what we see in the movies, and because science does not care about religion and is not interested in making enemies of the religious. Science merely looks for explanations, and anyone who infers an ulterior motive out of that is being paranoid. It is perfectly fine to “demonize,” as you put it, the people who oppose science for no good reason, because they really are obstacles and hinderances.
Now, my other vantage point is this: I don't know any scientists who, by virtue of their passion for science, feel that scientific research ought to be absolutely unlimited. Undoubtedly there are a few, but that mindset simply does not have a place in the scientific tradition. Scientists, when they wear their scientist hats, are some of the most disinterested people among the human species. They're the only large group of people who explicitly affirm their willingness to be proven wrong and then actually follow through with an admission of wrongness when better information shows up. Even more amazingly, usually there is no egotism about it, and thus no humility. Being open to new ideas and new facts is just the way science works, and within the community there is nothing controversial about it. There is plenty of controversy about whether information can be considered “good” information, but there is universal agreement that facts will always prevail over preferences.
Nor is all this virtue held in place by some tenuous honor system. Scientific research—especially that conducted without a profit motive—is held in check by stringent ethical guidelines and a menagerie of state and federal laws, covering everything from occupational safety and health, to the wellbeing of animal test subjects, to the informed consent of participants, to the manipulation of the human condition. These guidelines and laws are not immutable, and there is always debate as to what the limits should be— but usually only crackpots outside the scientific world are in favor of unrestricted research or anything approaching it. Truly, Daniel, there are people out there who invoke the name of science as others would invoke the name of a deity. This is true. However, that quasi-religious bunch and their passion is not to be confused with those of us who value the real purpose of science, and
our passion.
Science, there are crimes commited in your name. Shame on you who take science as your watchword and beat it into your sword to advance your own wars.
I agree with you here. I have probably even more disregard than you do for people who abuse the name of science. Notably, however, many of these people do so with a religious mindset: science is their religion.
Most people are either unwilling or unable to exercise their critical thinking skills on a regular basis in an effective way. For many people, “science” is little more than a faction in a war—a faction with which they align themselves, but a faction all the same. They follow the
banner of science, not the actual institution of science. They surely do not grasp the harm they are doing.
I will rebuke such people myself when the way is clear to do so, but often the situation is complicated by the ongoing assault of the religious conservatives. C'est la vie.
Where is compassion and respect for your opponents?
I could read this two ways. In my first interpretation, you would seem to be arguing that people should honor decorum above the truth, and that we should be more concerned about keeping our sleeves clean than we should about bringing the world's truths into the sight of all people. In my second interpretation, you would seem to be dismayed by the enmity and egotism which despoils most arguments into mudslinging festivals. I am going to assume my second interpretation is the correct one.
I think you have to acknowledge the realities of this medium and of your fellow humanity. Intellectual debate is not a popular sport but an elite discipline, and most people floating around online simply do not possess the chops or the desire to participate in an elite discipline. Now, you were generous enough to phrase your rebuke so that it might apply to everyone rather than just your opponents, even if the context of your message paints a more partisan picture, so I can build on that with this:
You must distinguish between: 1) those involved in debate; 2) the points they are debating; and 3) the debate itself. In a mature debate, one respects the debate itself, shows compassion (or at least courtesy) to those involved, and abandons all ruth when it comes to the actual points of debate.
In contrast, respect for one's fellow debaters has to be earned. I have two requirements for that: The person in question must respect the debate, and they mustn't hold any blatantly despicable views. The former in particular seems to transcend partisanship, whereas the latter does a great job of inspiring contempt. We don't have more than a handful of high quality debates at the Compendium, and I think it's because the majority of people here are too young or inexperienced or unaware to know any better.
Where is the glimmer of thought that perhaps the enemy may be right?
Indeed.
And there is my frustration, a supreme one at that: the sentiments in the name of science that this thread have echoed. And how these arguments are put forward with the most insulting and unrespectful tenors, sweeping and painting all those of opposing views with statements that are, at best, ignorant and bigoted. *sigh* I expect far too much of humanity. At least, I mistakenly expected some bit of coherence in argument and explanation for people's views, rather than just the typical rehashed and indoctrinated rhetoric.
Sometimes a bigot is just a bigot. Someone who thinks so little of women has earned that title. Daniel, not all sides in a debate are legitimate. Not all points of view deserve the validation of a debate. In our society, we've become too focused on the idea that everything must be “fair and balanced,” and that the only enlightened debate is the kind where everybody “agrees to disagree.” Well, that's not reality. Some points of view are too odious to ever be treated with such respect and kindness.
What do you suppose Thought would think of me if I went up to his wife, in his presence, and called her a fat, ugly whore to her face? What do you suppose he would do? Would he say “Let's debate this maturely?” No...of all the things he might say, I think that's not one of them.
(And Thought, if you're reading, I only concocted that example because your Mario-mustachioed wife is quite attractive and seems like an awesome person. Please don't kill me...)
Independent of the number of people who oppose abortion rights is the ugliness of opposing abortion rights. Independent of the generalness of talking about “women” as a group is the ugliness of the injustice visited upon the specific individuals who are affected by the controversy.
I do use the word “bigot” a lot, but never idly or indiscriminately. There simply are that many bigots in the world. Is it “an insulting and unrespectful tenor” for me to bring that word into a debate? No. It is an insulting and unrespectful tenor for anyone to be opposed to abortion in the first place.
It is laughable in an utterly depressing way to see those who think themselves free from bias be as biased as those they accuse of it, and only use appeals to some faint, distant, and mostly unproveable, ideal, as vindication for their faith. How can you do this? As rational, thinking individuals, how can you do this? How can you honestly think yourselves so enlightened? Isn't the nature of knowledge that it shows one all the clearer one's uncertainty? Is this not the old Socratean maxim?
I can't help but think you're thinking of me. If I am mistaken, then forgive me for being egotistical. I think your rhetoric here is unsupportable. I would defy you to substantiate these allegations which you cloak as observations. I
would, but, knowing that we know that you know that I know that you won't be convinced by any subsequent rebuttal I might make, this time I do
not defy you to substantiate your case. I will simply dismiss it here, and I don't think you will object, because we have covered all of this ground before.
Endless appeals to statistics and 'facts' and all that rot, but in the end, nothing really proven other than that he really, really believes his idea.
Surely you are aware that a statement such as that is counterproductive. I can only conclude that you don't care. Forever curious is your premise that faith trumps facts, and that facts are not the base units of truth. “All that rot,” eh? I would love to visit the inside of your mind sometime.
More generally, I have learned that religious people have a very hard time understanding the world from a faith-free point of view. Using a word like “belief” and applying it to someone like me is rather pointless...and nearly meaningless. I try to avoid beliefs entirely, because they make for weak ground to stand on. There is a wide world of subjects where my knowledge is insufficient to warrant an opinion, and on these subjects you will not see me press a case. Meanwhile, in those few areas where my knowledge is sufficient enough and my passion high enough that an opinion ensues, I will stand my ground firmly. Then along come the believers, who fail to see all the opinions I do not have and see only my adamancy on the opinions I do have. Then they insist my conduct is hypocritical and claim I too am merely issuing a belief, no different from anyone. How inane.
Over the years you have set up a very difficult set of criteria for people to prove to you that you are mistaken on any given subject. You reject “statistics and fact,” you dismiss contrary passion as self-defeating, you conflate reason with belief, and you resort to claims of “ad hominem” thereby completely ignoring the actual substance of the charges raised against you. You have built one of the most powerful shells I have ever witnessed, and it would have to be powerful to accommodate your intellectual fiber, but, as a consequence of its robustness, it stands out glaringly...to everyone on the outside. This, more than anything, is why you and I can have so few mature debates between us. We both know what we are about, and I am unwilling to be moved by inferior arguments, and you are unwilling to be moved by superior ones. Impasse. I have not debated with you on all those many occasions where you had a meritorious point, or have you forgotten?
If I'm to be convinced, it'd be through logic and through reason, not through this pseudo-scientific approach. But philosophy! I believe in evolution; I did not always do so. I was convinced. I can be changed. But this? This just shows to me, well, the inherent weakness of your argument.
I get what you're saying. My previous posts did not contain any bibliographies, and they made no justification for the premises I hold. I said that sexism is a bad thing, but I didn't explain why. I said that murdering Dr. Tiller was an act of domestic terrorism, but I didn't define what terrorism is. I left no room for a reasonable anti-choice point of view, without giving any of the currently anti-choice people an out other than through bigotry or ignorance.
Yeah, I see what you're saying, and I'll address it shortly. But first...first...I'm not just anybody. I'm one of the few people who can actually see through your complaint to the motive behind it. This is a particularly masterful piece of rhetoric on your part, because on the surface it is completely valid. For you to be wrong about me would require that I possess superior firepower that I haven't unleashed, raising the question of
why I wouldn't resort to such means if they really could persuade you as you say.
Here's why: It doesn't work. I used to spend five or even ten times as long on my arguments, by referencing everything that I said...only to have some obstinate snot come along, shrug their shoulders, and say “Meh.” You can see the vestiges of my practice by looking at some of my older arguments on the Compendium, although by 2003 I was already well along in learning this crucial lesson:
Facts don't win over those who have already made up their minds. They just don't work. In hindsight, it's no surprise: The facts do not require me to give them a voice: They are everywhere. Those who deny them must be quite good at it.
I think you are one of those whose mind is already made up, Daniel. Your views can be changed, but not from people like me who you perceive as antagonistic. Years ago I unwittingly burned the bridge of any influence I might have on you. I'm glad you “believe” in evolution, even though that's still wrong, since the concept does not accommodate belief in order to be properly accepted. And I'm glad that, in general, you have matured and opened your mind in some instances, to some people, on your terms. It'll be healthy for you in the long run, and may even lead to the day when you can take advice from people like me without performing these tortured acrobatic feats to elude my arguments—having learned the hard way that you cannot confront them frontally.
Let me talk about my frontal assault power, just for a moment. Like any good superweapon, I wish I could use it exclusively, yet in practice I rarely use it at all—especially on Internet message forums. Why? Because it takes extraordinary time and energy to make a powerful case, and yet it gets me no farther ahead in a place like this than simply stating the bottom line. People aren't like that: They don't respond to quality as I wish they would. In practice, no hostile audience is going to be convinced by my full case but
not by summary declaration of the bottom lines on an issue. Likewise, those whose minds are open enough to acknowledge the merit of my summary declarations do not need the massive onslaught of a fully-support argument just to perceive that merit. You might say that I'm like Spekkio: I give you back what you're capable of dealing with, and I don't waste more of my limited time and enthusiasm than that.
But if you want to see what it's like, and put your supposed open-mindedness to the test, I would do it. I would present to you my full case on the subject of abortion—such that anyone with an impartial judgment would be able to see irrefutably that only bigotry or ignorance can justify an anti-choice stance. It would take days or even weeks for me to make the time to finish it, but if you're prepared to come out in favor of unconditional access to abortion care—if you truly are prepared to grow intellectually—then, for you, I will rouse myself to the occasion. Understand, however, that, if you ask for this, you will get nothing less than my best, and, if you are not ready to acknowledge your ignorance or your bigotry as the case may be, you will be revealed as a hypocrite to all those who are assembled here. So, I would be the one doing all the work, but you would stand more to lose. It's your choice, Daniel Krispin.
On the other hand, if you aren't ready for that, then at least show me the courtesy of making specific objections where you see them rather than rhetorically admonishing me—especially now that I have offered you the honor of experiencing one of my full arguments. On a more casual level, I've rarely shied away from defending my statements when challenged. Go for it! Here, your next post gives you an opportunity to do just that:
However, on another note, since, as you have said, it certainly is the responsability of both parties involved, why is the modern response then to absolve both of the responsibility (ie. have an abortion), rather than enforcing responsibility upon both? Personally I would much prefer the second option. Absolving people of responsibility is not a good way of running a society - if you will, there's my social commentary.
By enforcing responsibility on the parents—where “responsibility” is assumed to mean that the mother is not allowed to have an abortion and instead both mother and father must raise together the kid they conceived together—we would be using the children as pawns in their parents' penalization, and we would betting the parents up to resent their own kids. That's a terrible idea, both from the child's viewpoint and from the society's.
What part of my analysis do you disagree with?
To admit abortion, save for the most extreme circumstances, might be a disrespect of the woman. Yes, you heard that right. It may be a disrespect. I believe it is Kant - though I only know this via my brother's ramblings - that speaks to the effect that criminials are punished because we respect them as humans. We act in accordance with the law to honour their choices. They have broken the law knowingly, hence to respect that decision, their human faculty of choice, we punish them as the law dictates. To remove that dehumanizes them. Likewise, becoming preganant is almost always done knowingly - that is, the knowledge that there is that risk. Barring more extreme cases (and it's better to argue the rules, rather than the exceptions), this is how it is. To remove the consequence of those actions is to disrespect the choice that was made, and in effect dehumanizes the person by removing the consequences to her decesion to have such sex. Such is one philosophical proposal which delves into the nature of choice itself.
You are comparing women who seek an abortion to criminals? We need to talk about your perspective here, Daniel.
At first, you are saying that people should accept the consequences of their actions. That's something I can agree with. But then you go on to imply that, if someone gets pregnant, the only acceptable consequence is for her to give birth to, and presumably raise, the child. If she doesn't do that, it is “demeaning” to her. In so doing, you insinuate that conceiving a child is a bad thing, and that the woman must be punished for her inappropriate action by being forced to have the kid. In this way, you make two completely hidden claims: First, you presume that any sexual act which results in the conception of an unwanted child is a bad thing. Second, you presume that only giving birth (and presumably raising the child) is an acceptable consequence of getting pregnant.
You need to justify those two claims.
Consider what it would be like if you hadn't brought that baggage into the discussion. Suppose I cut off my fingertip in a kitchen mishap. I was going too fast and was simply being careless. No excuses. Well...the hospital can fix that. They can sew my fingertip back on and, in a few weeks, all will be right with the world once more. This would be uncontroversial.
Yet it is a direct analogy to abortion: Hey, I was being with that knife. Shouldn't I suffer my fate, rather than trying to cheat using the power of modern medicine to get my fingertip back? Wouldn't a band-aid and a stiff upper lip do my character a lot more good?
That's what you're saying, Daniel: You're saying that conception is a bad thing that many people would get out of if they could, but that instead they should have the kid because it's better for their character. Can you justify that?
Nor, for that matter, is the validity of the statement that a woman should do as she wishes with her own body. Firstly assuming that one does have absolute supremacy over their own body (something that is taken true apriori, but is never actually proven to be the case... in the natural world this is certainly not the case, seeing as members of a species will sacrifice others for their own survival, in which the sanctity of the individual certainly does not exist),
The right to self-determination is only occasionally enshrined in the law, and it is certainly not inherent to the universe itself, as you point out. What it is inherent to is the human condition. We
desire to control our own bodies in a way that bees do not. This desire is not only instinctual, but cognitive too. You like philosophy; you should be able to appreciate the subtlety of this point: Much of our justification both as a species and as individuals comes from our ability to effect changes in our environment. If we do
not have the right to control our own bodies, then much of our purpose in life evaporates. Another question also rises: If
we do not have the right to control our own bodies, who does? And yet another question: If the right to self-determination is not absolute, how could you possibly begin to qualify it?
Those are not rhetorical questions, for indeed there are some obvious exceptions: Children are not granted full self-determination—only partial self-determination—because they are not yet capable of understanding their actions. The gap of time between when a child begins to achieve this ability yet is still declared a minor by the law is one of the greatest moments of tension and rebelliousness in a person's life. Another example is the criminally insane; they might be medicated against their will—or they may not possess a rational will at all, in which case anything done to their bodies would be without their consent.
These are valid exceptions whose validity is obvious. Depriving a woman of her reproductive rights for her own good or for the good of society does not seem obvious to me at all. Can you possibly make such a case? I can make a case to the contrary: Depriving a woman of her productive rights means that any time she has sex she will potentially trigger a course of events in which she is required to give birth to a child. She is therefore motivated to use contraceptives or to refrain from sex altogether. This amounts to a constraint on her sexuality. Is that a good thing that should be enshrined in the law and applicable in the vast majority of cases? Should a fertile woman refrain from sex through her entire reproductive lifetime except when she is willing to have a child?
Well, there are two answers: yes and no. Let's cover both. “No” can be justified on the simple grounds that sex is one of the most pleasurable activities in life while sexuality is one of the fundamental human forms of expression. It would make a lot of sense for women to be allowed to have sex however they please, and if medical technology permits them to do so without having unwanted children, so much the better: Take contraceptives where possible, because it's easier than abortion, and resort to abortion when necessary.
“Yes” can also be justified on simple grounds, but, not surprisingly, only religious people make that particular case, because they invariably resort to talking about the sacredness of sexual intercourse, or the soul of a zygote, or other such nonsense that is total gibberish outside of a religious context.
It is
impossible to advocating the universal restriction of women's sexuality that would come with a ban on abortion without resorting to value judgments on sex and conception that are factually insupportable and rely totally on theological validation.
What part of my argument do you disagree with, Daniel?
there is the problem of if the child is part of the woman, and if so, at what point does individual identity begin? (This is even putting aside the issue of what is 'life', and if life has sanctity... if it does not, there is nothing ethical wrong with killing... and if there is, what constitutes life?) Indeed, it is made all the more difficult by the fact that we have already assumed individual sanctity in the case of the woman... does this not extend then to an unborn child? And if it does not, then at what point does the growing creature become an individual human? At birth? What makes that the proper line, or are we arbitarially assigning it?
I'm glad you raised this point. “Identity” in the sense you mean it exists in the mind, and can be perceived by others—although sometimes the perception is incorrect. (See: Terri Schiavo.) This identity begins gradually, taking form as a child's sentient will slowly coalesces into a coherent mental space from which the child perceives itself and its surroundings. All of this happens after birth over a long period of time—weeks, months, even in the first couple of
years of life. When a baby is actually born, it is purely an instinctive animal with no identity of its own. It has basic abilities provided for biologically, such as the ability to breathe and to suckle and to pee, but there is no “grant intellect” behind these functions. We anthropomorphize babies...we attribute meaning to their actions that isn't there, in the same way we anthropomorphize pets and even inanimate objects. But it's all in our own minds at that point. A newborn baby, let alone an unborn baby, possesses no identity.
Nor am I merely saying that. You can look up for yourself the stages of cognitive development in infants. The bottom line is that, when a woman gets an abortion, there is no “person” there being murdered...only a body being destroyed.
Therefore even if abortions are to be done, they should be in some part the decision of the father... right? Because though the woman has to undergo nine months of labour, what makes the time and work spent more valuable than the investment the man has put into it?
The nine months of gestation and the many hours of labor make the woman's contribution more valuable than the man's, that's what. Can you really dismiss this so crassly? A man spends two minutes of ecstasy making a kid; a woman spends nearly a year of her life lugging it around inside her own body—at a risk to her health, her social status, her career, and her financial independence.
She's the one running the baby oven: It's her choice by default what to do with the knobs and switches. It's not about the baby, Daniel. It's about the woman. If the man wants a child so badly, he will have to find a woman who is willing to have one with him. Is that so terrible a thing to ask of him? And would you really believe that a man should be able to force a woman to carry a child to term simply because she agreed to have sex with him? Tell me how that would not be a blatant subjugation of a woman's rights.
Disgusting. There's a word for “rape,” but there is not yet a word for forced birth. Maybe we need one.
What I mean by this is that Zelbess, for example, speaks that 'unless the traditional public view toward sex changes...', implying a very puritan and old-fashioned viewing of sex. However, when I look at the typical public view, I see it rather free and liberal. Now unless there is a difference between Canada and the US in this...
Bingo. In much of the United States, abortion care is effectively illegal or unobtainable due to the efforts of state and local activists and government. Whereas in a city like Seattle someone can get an abortion without being harassed by the Jesus police, there are some places where one would have to drive hundreds of miles, on their own dime, to get to a healthcare clinic providing abortion services. They would then have to make their way through the crowds of religious bigots shouting terrible things at them. They would have to undergo the procedure absolutely alone, except for the medical staff, and then, having gotten the abortion, go back to face the wrath of a hostile family who despises what she has done with herself. Those hurdles are insurmountable for millions of women annually, and, as a result, millions of children are brought into the world who have no place being here. It's a despicable crime.
Don't tell me that answers are horridly difficult to come by. They're really quite easy.
