Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
The battle for science in America
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


dr_feelgood


Oct 19, 2012, 6:40 PM
Post #26 of 37 (560 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25629

Re: [pinktricam] The battle for science in America [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

pinktricam wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
pinktricam wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
"The battle for science in America"

Can we just admit that we lost this battle?

http://news.yahoo.com/...30900--election.html

In reply to:
Republican Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois said after his Thursday debate against Democratic rival Tammy Duckworth that abortions are never rarely necessary to save a pregnant woman's life, because modern technology has eliminated [many of] the risks of childbearing.

Fixt.

http://www.politico.com/...012/82640.html?hp=r5

In reply to:
But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement Friday that even today’s medical advances can’t prevent the need for abortions to save the mother's life in every case.

“Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health,” the college said. “Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event, particularly for many women with chronic medical conditions. Despite all of our medical advances, more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy- and childbirth-related reasons right here in the US. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives.”

Dr. Sara Imershein, an obstetrician and gynecologist in private practice in Washington, D.C., told POLITICO there are “numerous situations where life of the mother would be a reason to terminate the pregnancy.” She cited cancer, multiple pregnancies, hemorrhaging or situations in which the mother’s health is at risk, such as patients with sickle cell anemia or chickenpox.

“Unfortunately, there are many cases where technology cannot do what a legislator would like it to do,” she said.

That "600" statistic is 0.03% of the 2,000,000 or so pregnancies that occur every year in the US. Based on those numbers, my "fixt" post still stands.
Pinkie would much rather see 600 mothers and children both die than allow a woman the right to govern her own body.


pinktricam


Oct 19, 2012, 6:50 PM
Post #27 of 37 (557 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Re: [dr_feelgood] The battle for science in America [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Lying sack of shit.


veganclimber


Oct 19, 2012, 7:30 PM
Post #28 of 37 (553 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775

Re: [pinktricam] The battle for science in America [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

pinktricam wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
pinktricam wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
"The battle for science in America"

Can we just admit that we lost this battle?

http://news.yahoo.com/...30900--election.html

In reply to:
Republican Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois said after his Thursday debate against Democratic rival Tammy Duckworth that abortions are never rarely necessary to save a pregnant woman's life, because modern technology has eliminated [many of] the risks of childbearing.

Fixt.

http://www.politico.com/...012/82640.html?hp=r5

In reply to:
But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement Friday that even today’s medical advances can’t prevent the need for abortions to save the mother's life in every case.

“Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health,” the college said. “Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event, particularly for many women with chronic medical conditions. Despite all of our medical advances, more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy- and childbirth-related reasons right here in the US. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives.”

Dr. Sara Imershein, an obstetrician and gynecologist in private practice in Washington, D.C., told POLITICO there are “numerous situations where life of the mother would be a reason to terminate the pregnancy.” She cited cancer, multiple pregnancies, hemorrhaging or situations in which the mother’s health is at risk, such as patients with sickle cell anemia or chickenpox.

“Unfortunately, there are many cases where technology cannot do what a legislator would like it to do,” she said.

That "600" statistic is 0.03% of the 2,000,000 or so pregnancies that occur every year in the US. Based on those numbers, my "fixt" post still stands.

Read it again. That's 600 with the option of abortion. The number would be higher if abortion was not an option.

And your comparison is completely meaningless anyways. Nobody was suggesting that abortions are mainly done to protect the life of the mother. It is a small percentage. But 600+ deaths a year is certainly not a rare event, no matter how you look at it.


lena_chita
Moderator

Oct 21, 2012, 7:05 PM
Post #29 of 37 (526 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5472

Re: [veganclimber] The battle for science in America [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

veganclimber wrote:
pinktricam wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
pinktricam wrote:
veganclimber wrote:
"The battle for science in America"

Can we just admit that we lost this battle?

http://news.yahoo.com/...30900--election.html

In reply to:
Republican Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois said after his Thursday debate against Democratic rival Tammy Duckworth that abortions are never rarely necessary to save a pregnant woman's life, because modern technology has eliminated [many of] the risks of childbearing.

Fixt.

http://www.politico.com/...012/82640.html?hp=r5

In reply to:
But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement Friday that even today’s medical advances can’t prevent the need for abortions to save the mother's life in every case.

“Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health,” the college said. “Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event, particularly for many women with chronic medical conditions. Despite all of our medical advances, more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy- and childbirth-related reasons right here in the US. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives.”

Dr. Sara Imershein, an obstetrician and gynecologist in private practice in Washington, D.C., told POLITICO there are “numerous situations where life of the mother would be a reason to terminate the pregnancy.” She cited cancer, multiple pregnancies, hemorrhaging or situations in which the mother’s health is at risk, such as patients with sickle cell anemia or chickenpox.

“Unfortunately, there are many cases where technology cannot do what a legislator would like it to do,” she said.

That "600" statistic is 0.03% of the 2,000,000 or so pregnancies that occur every year in the US. Based on those numbers, my "fixt" post still stands.

Read it again. That's 600 with the option of abortion. The number would be higher if abortion was not an option.

And your comparison is completely meaningless anyways. Nobody was suggesting that abortions are mainly done to protect the life of the mother. It is a small percentage. But 600+ deaths a year is certainly not a rare event, no matter how you look at it.

You are missing the nutjob point completely.

If a woman dies in childbirth--why, that's god's will, of course! She probably did something bad to deserve it, and if not, well, the ways of god are unknowable, so who are we to question them.

But if a woman chooses not to have a baby--well, that is DEFINITELY not God's will, and every righteous religious nutcake knows that for SURE.


dan2see


Oct 21, 2012, 10:10 PM
Post #30 of 37 (515 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [lena_chita] The battle for science in America [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:
...
You are missing the nutjob point completely.

If a woman dies in childbirth--why, that's god's will, of course! She probably did something bad to deserve it, and if not, well, the ways of god are unknowable, so who are we to question them.

But if a woman chooses not to have a baby--well, that is DEFINITELY not God's will, and every righteous religious nutcake knows that for SURE.

I think that a core tenet in American culture is "judgement".
That is, I can judge you, and if I find you guilty, I can punish you. I expect it was imported by the Pilgrims when they escaped the British version of suppression and discrimination. But like most pilgrims, they kept the old traditions strong, even when the mother country continued to progress.

But culture is what people do. The worst feature of this judging business is that I can pick my own standard of "best" ethics.

I guess the weakness that cultural ethics displays, comes from our willingness to use logic, and apply it to rules of behaviour. So games with rules become powerful guides to live by, and we forget why we need those rules, and we forget who benefits.

This shows up a lot, in rc.com. We see a lot of arguing here about who is right or wrong, but not so much questioning about why people behave the way they do.

And that goes right back to the OP topic. You see a lot of Americans argue about who is right or wrong. But not so much about how things work, and why.

So when-ever you see this "Battle for Science" you should remind yourself that it never was a battle for science. Instead, it's a battle about who is right. Or wrong.

(Edit because I always hit the "Post" button before I fix my spelling misteaks.)


(This post was edited by dan2see on Oct 21, 2012, 10:12 PM)


hugepedro


Oct 22, 2012, 12:53 AM
Post #31 of 37 (504 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875

Re: [lena_chita] The battle for science in America [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:

You are missing the nutjob point completely.

If a woman dies in childbirth--why, that's god's will, of course! She probably did something bad to deserve it, and if not, well, the ways of god are unknowable, so who are we to question them.

But if a woman chooses not to have a baby--well, that is DEFINITELY not God's will, and every righteous religious nutcake knows that for SURE.

This proves that you are a witch. God want's you to die, but you are apparently more powerful than God and able to avoid his prescribed fate for you simply by choice? BURN, WITCH!


Partner cracklover


Oct 22, 2012, 8:18 AM
Post #32 of 37 (491 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [dan2see] The battle for science in America [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I'm sorry, Dan, but I don't really get what you're trying to say. Something about judgement and logic. Could you try again? I'm pretty sure you have an interesting point in there somewhere.

As for this:

dan2see wrote:
So when-ever you see this "Battle for Science" you should remind yourself that it never was a battle for science. Instead, it's a battle about who is right. Or wrong.

No, not in this case. That is my phrase, and I'll tell you what it's about. It's about having qualified people doing a job. It's about having people who have respect for the job, and a capacity for competence, in positions that have real impact both for the country, and for people I know and care about in the science community.

Look, if you worked for a company, and the board of that company decided to hire as CEO an incompetent who knew nothing about the industry or about management in general, but had agreed to help them raid the assets of the company, would you not be incensed? Well this is way worse than that as it's not just a company, it's our nation.

My concern with having someone with a powerful anti-science bias on the House science committee is not about judging whether a fact is right or wrong. It's about having a fox guard the chickens.

Look, do you remember how Reagan nominated James Watt and Anne M. Gorsuch as Secretary of Interior and administrator of the EPA? This was the same strategy - put people in a role where instead of acting as steward for an important government activity, they will instead work to gut that activity.

It's shameless, despicable, and misguided. It's a disservice to the role, to the people and programs they oversee, and to the American public at large.

GO


(This post was edited by cracklover on Oct 22, 2012, 8:22 AM)


dan2see


Oct 22, 2012, 8:33 AM
Post #33 of 37 (486 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [cracklover] The battle for science in America [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
I'm sorry, Dan, but I don't really get what you're trying to say. Something about judgement and logic. Could you try again? I'm pretty sure you have an interesting point in there somewhere...

Of course you're right. The problem is that we come at this issue from different backgrounds, so we don't focus on the same points the same way.


cracklover wrote:
My concern with having someone with a powerful anti-science bias on the House science committee is not about judging whether a fact is right or wrong. It's about having a fox guard the chickens.
...

No, it's not about the facts that are right or wrong. That would be science.

It's about the person who is right or wrong. That would be politics.


dan2see


Oct 22, 2012, 8:52 AM
Post #34 of 37 (483 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 28, 2006
Posts: 1497

Re: [dan2see] The battle for science in America [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

There's a glaring example of the "War on Science" in a Scientific American article: Fake Addendum by Contrarian Group Tries to Undo U.S. Government Climate Report

John Abraham wrote:
"It's not an addendum. It's a counterfeit," said John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of Saint Thomas in Minnesota who studies clean power sources. "It's a continued effort to kick the can down the road: A steady drip, drip, drip of fake reports by false scientists to create a false sense of debate."

Where I'm coming from is that facts are facts. Some examples of climate change in Alberta are:
- pine beetles are no longer controlled by cold winters, and are now the scourge of the forest
- many species of plants and animals are "moving uphill" in the mountains, because their preferred temperature range is moving to higher elevations
- the oldy moldy pictures showing how the glaciers have been receding during the 20th century
- bird migration patterns are changing.

Those examples are facts.

The politics comes in, when our industry and government promote the mass mining and sale of oil and tar-sands. They tell us how jobs are more important than honey-bees, and economy is more important than rivers.


(This post was edited by dan2see on Oct 22, 2012, 8:53 AM)


Partner cracklover


Oct 22, 2012, 9:46 AM
Post #35 of 37 (476 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9935

Re: [dan2see] The battle for science in America [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

dan2see wrote:
The politics comes in, when our industry and government promote the mass mining and sale of oil and tar-sands. They tell us how jobs are more important than honey-bees, and economy is more important than rivers.

I think you're still missing my point. Taking your example of industrial use of natural lands: A good argument can be made on *both* sides for where to set policy at the right balance point between conservation and land use. But the right people to make those judgement calls, and to find the best solutions, are those with experience and respect for the process.

And while I understand that it's a political matter, I see it as disingenuous to, rather than having a public debate over the merits of your position (for, say, more drilling) to instead fill the regulatory leadership positions with incompetents who will surreptitiously gut the policies and undercut the people they're supposed to be working for.

GO


sharensmith


Oct 24, 2012, 10:12 PM
Post #36 of 37 (432 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 24, 2012
Posts: 4

Re: [cracklover] The battle for science in America [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

It would still a battle in any place. The good thing in science is we discover and develop a lot of things for the benefit of everybody.


saint_john


Oct 26, 2012, 11:33 AM
Post #37 of 37 (397 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494

Re: [cracklover] The battle for science in America [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

cracklover wrote:
Did you know that Akin (the guy who claimed that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape" because their bodies have "ways to try to shut that whole thing down") is a member of the House Science Committee? Well, I just learned that Paul Broun (R-Georgia), who is a high ranking member of that same committee, just outed himself as an even bigger moron and anti-science radical.

Last week he said that evolution and the big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of Hell."

"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

There are multiple foxes in the henhouse.

Scary days.

GO

The tides are turning. But with half of Americans still denying climate change, it may be too late.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$11.66 (10% off)
$53.96 (10% off)
$8.96 (10% off)
$17.95 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook