NationStates Jolt Archive

I've made this poll to see what the correlations are.

The first one is for your stance on abortion, and the second one is for your stance on the death penalty.

If you believe that abortion should be legal before the fetus acquires brain activity, then you're pro-choice. If you believe that ALL abortion should be illegal, then you're pro-life. If it's something else, then approximate to one of them.

If you believe that barring EXTREME circumstances (i.e. kill the president), persons should be imprisoned for life rather than sentenced to death, or rehabilitated, you are pro-life (imprisonment). If you believe that persons should be sentenced to death for crimes that you think deserve it (i.e. cold-blooded murder of two other persons), you are pro-death (penalty). Due to the ambiguity in this, if you are unsure, ask around.

Where is the poll?

Where is the poll?

*strangles Thriceaddict*

Unlike other people that take 2 to 3 pages of discussion to set their polls up, I always do mine with the utmost haste. Yet you still complain!

Instead of 'pro-life' why didn't you just say 'anti-death penalty'?

Instead of 'pro-life' why didn't you just say 'anti-death penalty'?

"Pro-life" takes up 8 characters, while "anti-death penalty" takes up 18 characters. Additionally, all the other options are closer to 8 characters than they are to 18 characters, so it also adds to consistency.

Pro-life and pro-choice. I think that parents who want abortions should not be parents and I think that the death penalty is not cost-effective. Using these people as slave labor might be more effective.

I'm for abortion, I'm for death penalty, it's just how I feel.

They really can't compare very well...unless you're trying to exploit the fact the some people that oppose the death penalty approve of 'killing babies'.

now, I am pro-abortion and anti-death penalty, but like I was saying, they are totally different issues.

first, I'm pro-abortion because 1. a fetus is not a baby, its not alive untill it takes a breath, and 2. I believe in second chances for the teenager that made one mistake during her young life.

now on the death penalty I definitly oppose because I believe that there is good in everyone, and that if we keep them alive with life in prison you aren't taking away the chance that they could change and be saved. two wrongs don't make a right.

Iam pro-choice and pro-death. I want women to be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies, and I think that if someone has taken another persons life in cold blood we should take theirs. I wish I could say that I dont think we have the right to take away someones life, but that person obviously thought they did so we should have no reservations.

However I dont see how you can be pro-life and pro-death? I mean you people preach "Only god can choose when someone dies!" yet you have no problem killing someone else. Besides, if you are really pro-life, adopt those babies who are abandoned.

Fuck 'em all, kill the whole world. Church of Euthanasia, baby. Cannabalism, suicide, abortion and sodomy.

Well, not really that second part. But yeah, kill the whole world.

Pro-choice, anti-death:

1) It's not my body, and until the baby can survive outside the womb, the only way to get it out of a mother that doesn't want it is by abortion.

2) Finding out ten years later that Billy Joe didn't kill Jim Bob. After killing Billy Joe for his 'murder' of Jim Bob, the best you can say is 'Oops!' At that point, it's the state that has commited murder by killing an innocent. What are you going to do, jail the executioner, judge and prosecutor? I think not.

Having an emotive phrase like pro-death will likely skew your results.

They really can't compare very well...unless you're trying to exploit the fact the some people that oppose the death penalty approve of 'killing babies'.

It's your opinion that you can't compare it well, but who knows, we might get something (so far, you're proving to be right lol).

And in my defense, I could also be trying to exploit the fact that some people that oppose giving women the choice to have an abortion are also blood-thirsty people who want to see guilty people die for their crimes. Ah, didn't think of that did you *clicks tongue*? :p

Pro-choice - the unborn child is not human. If the mother wants rid of a bunch of cells, it's her decision, not the state's.

"Pro-life". People who are executed are just that - human. Killing, in any form, by anyone or anything (including the state), is wrong.

Having an emotive phrase like pro-death will likely skew your results.

I assure you that was not my intention. If you read my post (which I don't assert that you didn't), you'll see that I put "pro-death (penalty)". I just don't include that for conciseness reasons.

I assure you that was not my intention. If you read my post (which I don't assert that you didn't), you'll see that I put "pro-death (penalty)". I just don't include that for conciseness reasons.

I saw that, I am just saying watch out for "I am for capital-punishment, but I am not pro-death."

Controversial wording in a poll option will always scatter the results a bit.

EDIT: But I would wager that you weren't expecting scientific results in the first place.

Keeping criminals in jail just costs more for the country for what's likely to be a useless sentence (in reference to its ability to reprimand people and get them to stop breaking the law), so kill them and the jails aren't so full anymore.

If someone wants an abortion I'm all for that as well.

Too many god damned people in the world for us to be picky.

I saw that, I am just saying watch out for "I am for capital-punishment, but I am not pro-death."

Ah! Then I challenge the anti-abortionists stance as "pro-life".

"I am for women having the choice of abortion, but I am not anti-life"

Only LIVING cells grow and divide. Thus a zygote/embryo/fetus is alive. Also, differentiation occurs in hours not weeks or months. By the time a woman can tell she is pregnant the embryo already has a heart and a brain.
The most fundamental Biology will tell you that.

I am anti-abortion because I believe that people should be responsible for the consequences of their choices. You don't want a baby, don't have sex. Conception is not the baby's mistake. When one considers oneself mature enough for sex, one has concurrently to assume responsibility for knowing the potential outcomes and for being personally responsible for them when they occur. THAT is what it means to be an adult.

I am, however, pro-choice. I think that the woman should be granted the privilage to decide for herself. I just wish that when faced with a pregnancy the woman would reject selfishness and be responsible and upright in her conduct. Pregnancy does not ruin a life--unless it is that of the "inconvenient" fetus. Aren't you glad your mother made the choice to allow you to live.

Adults who murder have had their chance at life. Their mothers chose to give them life. So when they kill someone intentionally they know what the consequences are. One of those is to be culled, via execution, from the population. I feel no sympathy for murderers. They are socially defective.

Kind of ironic don't you think? One person who hasn't even been given its chance at life isn't even considered to have any right to live; the other knowingly takes life, perhaps brutalizes vulnerable persons for entertainment and has rights up the arse. Perverse value system if you ask me.

Statements like, "a fetus isn't even alive". or "a fetus is just a wad of cells". is a blatant display of ignorance. Don't be guilty of displaying such ignorance. Find out the facts. Like I said, it's no more complicated that high school freshman biology.

Pro-choice - the unborn child is not human.


ROFLMAO
Just what animal species do you think HUMAN females carry in their wombs?
Or do you seriously think the "unborn child" is some type of plant?
You really need a better education, you've been cheated.

ROFLMAO
Just what animal species do you think HUMAN females carry in their wombs?
Or do you seriously think the "unborn child" is some type of plant?
You really need a better education, you've been cheated.
And yet you with all your apparent education either mistook or misrepresented his argument.

That the group of cells has not achieved “personhood”.

He/she may need to work on word choice, but you may want to work on your general understanding/debating skills.

Pro-life and pro-choice. I think that parents who want abortions should not be parents .

You have that in common with them

ROFLMAO
Just what animal species do you think HUMAN females carry in their wombs?
Or do you seriously think the "unborn child" is some type of plant?
You really need a better education, you've been cheated.

The clump of cells contain human DNA, granted, but the opening post specified a fetus without any brain activity. Before it has a brain, before it's conscious, it is not human.

EDIT: But I would wager that you weren't expecting scientific results in the first place.

Polls arent scientific in the first place. They determine popularity rather than truth. They are interesting though.

I am anti-abortion because I believe that people should be responsible for the consequences of their choices. You don't want a baby, don't have sex. Conception is not the baby's mistake. When one considers oneself mature enough for sex, one has concurrently to assume responsibility for knowing the potential outcomes and for being personally responsible for them when they occur. THAT is what it means to be an adult.

I am, however, pro-choice. I think that the woman should be granted the privilage to decide for herself. I just wish that when faced with a pregnancy the woman would reject selfishness and be responsible and upright in her conduct. Pregnancy does not ruin a life--unless it is that of the "inconvenient" fetus. Aren't you glad your mother made the choice to allow you to live.


Here, let me give you a mantra to repeat over and over again until it sinks in:

Life is not fair

People pay for the mistakes of others all the time. Sometimes they know whose mistakes they are paying for, sometimes not. In no situation will shouting at the top of your lungs "It's not my fault!" make any problem go away or allow you to avoid the consequences of the problem. Fetuses do not have a say in whether or not they are aborted and trying to speculate on what they would or wouldn't want is a waste of time since there is no way to know for certain.

If you believe that barring EXTREME circumstances (i.e. kill the president).
The Secret Service takes a rather dim view of this sort of comment. :(

Polls arent scientific in the first place. They determine popularity rather than truth. They are interesting though.

They are most defiantly scientific, but like any other method for data collection you have to be scientific in its application. You don’t use a telescope to tell you about the weather outside any more then you use a mercury thermometer to observe distant stars (just an example I know you can sometimes measure radiation energy)

You pick the right tool for the job

If you are trying to scientifically show the effect of a drug on a test population what do you use? A poll or survey of sorts!

Claiming they are not scientific is just silly

The clump of cells contain human DNA, granted, but the opening post specified a fetus without any brain activity. Before it has a brain, before it's conscious, it is not human.

Sure it is. It isnt a viable human yet but it isnt non human.

The Secret Service takes a rather dim view of this sort of comment. :(
Yeah well if they get their panties in a twist over what was obviously an off hand example of an extreme act rather then a wish to commit such, they can go stick their collective heads up their collective asses

They are most defiantly scientific, but like any other method for data collection you have to be scientific in its application. You don’t use a telescope to tell you about the weather outside any more then you use a mercury thermometer to observe distant stars (just an example I know you can sometimes measure radiation energy)

You pick the right tool for the job

If you are trying to scientifically show the effect of a drug on a test population what do you use? A poll or survey of sorts!

Claiming they are not scientific is just silly


. A survey to determine effects of a drug on a test population may indeed be expedient, but it certainly shouldnt replace lab results. Polls and surveys are most useful in political and economic arenas where popular opinion is everything. In matters of science they should be avoided when any accurate means is available.

If you think polls are accurate and a good means of determining the truth read any ten eyewitness accounts from a given crime scene. say when the London tubes were bombed. Even when all ten people believe they are telling the truth the stories vary wildly. Yet ten video cameras recorded evidence of this incident all square nicely.

Saying polls are scientific and determine truth is silly

And yet you with all your apparent education either mistook or misrepresented his argument.

That the group of cells has not achieved “personhood”.

He/she may need to work on word choice, but you may want to work on your general understanding/debating skills.

He said "the unborn child is not human".

Not human. Not achieved personhood.
Sorry they don't equate. And if that IS what was implyed by "not human" it is too esoteric to be equated.

No misrepresentation here.

Thank youfor the "apparent education" remark though. At least ther is some indication that those Student Loan payments aren't in vain.

He said "the unborn child is not human".

Not human. Not achieved personhood.
Sorry they don't equate. And if that IS what was implyed by "not human" it is too esoteric to be equated.

No misrepresentation here.
I don’t know it was pretty apparent to a simpleton like me that was what he was getting at.

Guess it went over your head

That or you like strawmen

. A survey to determine effects of a drug on a test population may indeed be expedient, but it certainly shouldnt replace lab results. Polls and surveys are most useful in political and economic arenas where popular opinion is everything. In matters of science they should be avoided when any accurate means is available.

If you think polls are accurate and a good means of determining the truth read any ten eyewitness accounts from a given crime scene. say when the London tubes were bombed. Even when all ten people believe they are telling the truth the stories vary wildly. Yet ten video cameras recorded evidence of this incident all square nicely.

Saying polls are scientific and determine truth is silly
I never said they determine truth (unless the "truth" you are trying to determine is public opinion)

But how is it not scientific? where does it violate the rules of science?

The clump of cells contain human DNA, granted, but the opening post specified a fetus without any brain activity. Before it has a brain, before it's conscious, it is not human.

Well, that gives a window of, at most, a couple of weeks.
I am curious to know though. Just exactly at what point, according to verifiable, known and factual science, does the fetus become "conscious"? Because even the unconscious have brain acitivy.

I never said they determine truth (unless the "truth" you are trying to determine is public opinion)

But how is it not scientific? where does it violate the rules of science?

Are the results repeatable in double blind tests by different labs at different times?

Yeah well if they get their panties in a twist over what was obviously an off hand example of an extreme act rather then a wish to commit such, they can go stick their collective heads up their collective asses
( shrug ) Suit yourself. I was just trying to inform you.

I don’t know it was pretty apparent to a simpleton like me that was what he was getting at.

Guess it went over your head

That or you like strawmen

Spare me the rhetoric.
Is there no new vocabulary to be used. Your "strw man" is a figment.
Insulting me does not alter fact. I choose not to make assumptions about what someone might mean. I interpret meaning from the actual words used. Are the two of you joined at the head?

Spare me the rhetoric.
Is there no new vocabulary to be used. Your "strw man" is a figment.
Insulting me does not alter fact. I choose not to make assumptions about what someone might mean. I interpret meaning from the actual words used. Are the two of you joined at the head?
Naw but it does not require us to be to understand another’s position

Are the results repeatable in double blind tests by different labs at different times?

They most certainly can repeat surveys.

Surveys are tools for data collection, just like any experiment.

Naw but it does not require us to be to understand another’s position

Can you rephrase this in English please?

Are the results repeatable in double blind tests by different labs at different times?


Keeping your Confidence Levels and Confidence Intervals the same yes you should come up with the same answer within the excepted error rate.

Same as if you were making a measurement in two different labs you should come up with the same length within the accepted margin of error

Just like with physical measurement if you come up with two different values outside of the expected error rate there was a flaw in your method (weather it be incomplete predictors or sampling error)

They most certainly can repeat surveys.

Surveys are tools for data collection, just like any experiment.

Of course they can repeat surveys. Are the RESULTS repeatable. That is the crux of my argument.

Pro-choice, each person answers for this decision it should be their choice, it is their body and their soul they answer for.

Pro-death....hmmm not great on the wording but the punishment should fit the crime. (Of course cleaning up the absurdity of the appeals system would make justice swift as it should be.)

Of course they can repeat surveys. Are the RESULTS repeatable. That is the crux of my argument.

It doesn't matter if the results are repeatable, it only matters that the process for procuring results are repeatable.

It doesn't matter if the results are repeatable, it only matters that the process for procuring results are repeatable.
And it absolutely is.

As long as you carry them out in a scientific way

http://www.ncpp.org/qajsa.htm

Some simlistic explination of the difference between a scientific and non scientific poll

And it absolutely is.

As long as you carry them out in a scientific way

http://www.ncpp.org/qajsa.htm

Some simlistic explination of the difference between a scientific and non scientific poll

It doesn't matter if the results are repeatable, it only matters that the process for procuring results are repeatable.

When results cannot be repeated it shows a flaw in the experinment and another means needs to be tried to prove or disprove a theory.

The term "scientific poll" is used to lend credence to the poll and not science.
It is much like the term "a consensus of scientists say..." used to lend credence to an unproven theory. If it is a consensus it isnt proven. It just means a poll has been taken and it is popular. You'll never read anywhere that "a scientific poll was taken and a consensus of scientists believe that Earths gravity accellerates matter at 32 feet per second per second". That is because it has been measured at so many places so many times with the same results that it is now accepted as a fact and not a theory. The scientific method is used to determine what is true, and not what people believe is true. At their very best polls can only determine popularity and belief of those who answer them at that time. Where has it ever been shown that peoples beliefs and opinions have any value whatsoever as a definitive test of what is true and what is not true?

Pro-life in both instances. Of course, that's just my personal stance. My official stance would be Pro-choice, pro-life.

When results cannot be repeated it shows a flaw in the experinment and another means needs to be tried to prove or disprove a theory.

The term "scientific poll" is used to lend credence to the poll and not science.
It is much like the term "a consensus of scientists say..." used to lend credence to an unproven theory. If it is a consensus it isnt proven. It just means a poll has been taken and it is popular. You'll never read anywhere that "a scientific poll was taken and a consensus of scientists believe that Earths gravity accellerates matter at 32 feet per second per second". That is because it has been measured at so many places so many times with the same results that it is now accepted as a fact and not a theory. The scientific method is used to determine what is true, and not what people believe is true. At their very best polls can only determine popularity and belief of those who answer them at that time. Where has it ever been shown that peoples beliefs and opinions have any value whatsoever as a definitive test of what is true and what is not true?


Science is not limited to length and speed mesurements

Sometimes we want to scientificaly mesure human responses

How do we do that?

WITH A POLL

You are calling it unscientific while trying to use it to prove things its not intended to.

A population poll is a scientific method (if done right) to gauge human reactions ... nothing more and nothing less. Just because peoples reactions can not be used to gauge the speed of acceleration due to gravity is not relevent

Science is not limited to length and speed mesurements

Sometimes we want to scientificaly mesure human responses

How do we do that?

WITH A POLL

You are calling it unscientific while trying to use it to prove things its not intended to.

A population poll is a scientific method (if done right) to gauge human reactions ... nothing more and nothing less. Just because peoples reactions can not be used to gauge the speed of acceleration due to gravity is not relevent


You are almost certainly talking about the soft social sciebces in which theories abound and change in flux and almost never are proven. These are useful of course, vital in some instances, but they certainly do not follow scientific method and are only covered by the term "science" as an expedience.

You are almost certainly talking about the soft social sciebces in which theories abound and change in flux and almost never are proven. These are useful of course, vital in some instances, but they certainly do not follow scientific method and are only covered by the term "science" as an expedience.
How so? There is nothing “Soft” about survey statistics nor the methodology used to derive data from it (weather it be deseasonalizing data or doing lagged autocorrolation or any of the other methods for figuring out the fit of data)

The process of collection, manipulation and prediction is all based hard in math

The only “Soft” part is when you try to use the data in an incorrect manor.

Me thinks you may just have not studied statistics before

woman wants abortion but can't get one. has kid and neglects it. kid grows up to be a "troubled person". does something bad...i mean really bad, gets the death penalty.

my point being that the individual is going to die anyway might as well save him the years of abuse and crappy childhood.

Not that ALL un-aborted kids grow up to be like that

How so? There is nothing “Soft” about survey statistics nor the methodology used to derive data from it (weather it be deseasonalizing data or doing lagged autocorrolation or any of the other methods for figuring out the fit of data)

The process of collection, manipulation and prediction is all based hard in math

The only “Soft” part is when you try to use the data in an incorrect manor.

Me thinks you may just have not studied statistics before


I think weve hijacked this thread more than enough. I'll discuss sociologists anthropologists statisticians and real scientists and their relationships to nobel peace prizes if need be all day long if you'd like to start another thread.

Meanwhile back on track,

Im pro-choice and pro-death.