[RD] Abortion, once again

[Samson]

i will not accept a rejection of a need to show causation in lieu of evidence for causation

What sort of evidence do you accept for causality?

 

[Gorbles]

i will not accept

There's nothing wrong with this, nobody can make you accept anything.

and nobody else who remains coherent can do so either

And this is where you go off the rails, asserting that people who disagree are inherently incoherent.

 

[Birdjaguar]

i will not accept a rejection of a need to show causation in lieu of evidence for causation, and nobody else who remains coherent can do so either. at least, not if their position is to claim a causal relationship between abortion policy and some negative outcome disparity for a particular race.

Moderator Action: You are not the judge; you are not a lawyer; none one else is judge or an attorney. There are opinions and historical examples related to this topic. Your opinions about what is acceptable is just your opinion; and not any sort of rule. If you were as brilliant in these matters as you seem to think you are, you should be out making policy somewhere and not posting on gaming forum. But given that you are here and posting, try being less arrogant. Thanks.

 

[Lexicus]

like "critical theory", lol.

I mean tbh you aren't ready for critical theory anyway, you need remedial history education first

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What sort of evidence do you accept for causality?

that one event necessarily leads to/implies another in sequence for the thing allegedly causing the other thing. when you inhale, there are things we can conclude necessarily will happen as a result of you doing so. one of those things is taking in air or at least something (if you're on earth). one of those things is not killing ten million people in japan. we can probably discern between these two, despite that more than ten million people in japan will die at some point following your next breath.

~

i don't see where i said anything that claims what i type is more than opinion. when something is objectively the case in my belief, i will say so because it's a strong argumentative assertion, gives debate opponent something to falsify, and strengthens my position if they can't falsify it.

that said, some things require other things to be coherent. it does not make sense, even as a proposition, to claim one event causes another while refusing to provide anything that connects those two events. without that connection, the concept falls apart. anything could be claimed to cause something else.

for example: "the moon is innately racist, because we observe disparate financial impact of tidal forces between races".

one might reasonably request evidence for that. i don't think that evidence exists. now let's try this one:

"abortion policy is innately racist, because we observe disparate abortion rates between races".

one might reasonably request evidence for that.

one of the bolded propositions was made in this thread, the other was not. right now, we have the same amount of evidence to support both, and many other assertions. now, how might we differentiate which ones are true? there must be some process...some method whereby we might just maybe be able to distinguish them. what might that process be lol?

conditional: if we hold/assume that evidence to support a direct causal relation is not required, there is no basis whereby a coherent person can reject one of those lines, but accept the other. if evidence isn't required, they are equally valid. if you don't show causation (edit or at least mechanistic explanation per below), the statement is as meaningful as the statement about the moon.

although maybe critical theory would imply the moon is innately racist too? i don't think so, but i wouldn't rule it out.

 

[Samson]

that one event necessarily leads to/implies another in sequence for the thing allegedly causing the other thing. when you inhale, there are things we can conclude necessarily will happen as a result of you doing so. one of those things is taking in air. one of those things is not killing ten million people in japan. we can probably discern between these two, despite that more than ten million people in japan will die at some point following your next breath.

That is a mechanistic explanation, not evidence. To have evidence that proves causality you generally need randomised interventions, so is next to impossible to get for the big things in life.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That is a mechanistic explanation, not evidence. To have evidence that proves causality you generally need randomised interventions, so is next to impossible to get for the big things in life.

then i will accept (in opinion sense of course lol) a mechanistic explanation, for the purposes of the abortion vs racism discussion. if we really cared we could then test the explanation or look for times it's already been tested. but it would be good enough for forum purposes to start here.

 

[stinkubus]

Proud to report that there was a small abortion rights demonstration outside of our local courthouse today. One of the demonstrators was holding a sign "Honk if you support the right to choose" and they had several drivers do so in the brief moment it took me to pass them by.

If live in a very red congressional district.

 

[Angst]

that one event necessarily leads to/implies another in sequence for the thing allegedly causing the other thing. when you inhale, there are things we can conclude necessarily will happen as a result of you doing so. one of those things is taking in air or at least something (if you're on earth). one of those things is not killing ten million people in japan. we can probably discern between these two, despite that more than ten million people in japan will die at some point following your next breath.

~

i don't see where i said anything that claims what i type is more than opinion. when something is objectively the case in my belief, i will say so because it's a strong argumentative assertion, gives debate opponent something to falsify, and strengthens my position if they can't falsify it.

that said, some things require other things to be coherent. it does not make sense, even as a proposition, to claim one event causes another while refusing to provide anything that connects those two events. without that connection, the concept falls apart. anything could be claimed to cause something else.

for example: "the moon is innately racist, because we observe disparate financial impact of tidal forces between races".

one might reasonably request evidence for that. i don't think that evidence exists. now let's try this one:

"abortion policy is innately racist, because we observe disparate abortion rates between races".

one might reasonably request evidence for that.

one of the bolded propositions was made in this thread, the other was not. right now, we have the same amount of evidence to support both, and many other assertions. now, how might we differentiate which ones are true? there must be some process...some method whereby we might just maybe be able to distinguish them. what might that process be lol?

conditional: if we hold/assume that evidence to support a direct causal relation is not required, there is no basis whereby a coherent person can reject one of those lines, but accept the other. if evidence isn't required, they are equally valid. if you don't show causation (edit or at least mechanistic explanation per below), the statement is as meaningful as the statement about the moon.

although maybe critical theory would imply the moon is innately racist too? i don't think so, but i wouldn't rule it out.

ok i haven't been following this thread, so i'm not sure exactly what this is getting at, but policy is done by living things with agency. they're not moons or any kind of naturalistic force, and i'm confused as to why they're equated to such a thing

 

[TheMeInTeam]

ok i haven't been following this thread, so i'm not sure exactly what this is getting at, but policy is done by living things with agency. they're not moons or any kind of naturalistic force, and i'm confused as to why they're equated to such a thing

to clear up confusion:

the reason i made that comparison is to point out that "observed disparities" do not and can't *by themselves* imply "innate racism", because even inanimate objects result in observed disparities. thus, you need something else (testable at least in principle mechanistic explanation) to explain/make the assertion.

i do not contest that racist policies can exist. i merely requested an explanation for how people are getting there wrt the linked paper on abortion, while rejecting the most commonly repeated explanation because that explanation doesn't make sense. a sensible explanation will not function with logical equivalence to the moon example.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's still a misunderstanding of the term

 

[Angst]

to clear up confusion:

the reason i made that comparison is to point out that "observed disparities" do not and can't *by themselves* imply "innate racism", because even inanimate objects result in observed disparities. thus, you need something else (testable at least in principle mechanistic explanation) to explain/make the assertion.

i do not contest that racist policies can exist. i merely requested an explanation for how people are getting there wrt the linked paper on abortion, while rejecting the most commonly repeated explanation because that explanation doesn't make sense. a sensible explanation will not function with logical equivalence to the moon example.

alright i think i understand what you were trying to distinguish between. still uh. the logical equivalency fully depends on agency here; water isn't racist, but segregating so a minority has less access to it is.

regardless, i understand that you're trying to argue a point against someone, but here's my own perspective. whether something is innately racist or not isn't actually as important as whether it's executed with racism or having racist outcomes. the other poster may disagree here. like i don't really care if someone doesn't have racist intentions, if they push for a policy that massively disparages a minority. then they can create some logical construction as to why they aren't racist by, uh, talking about the moon i guess. specifically when pointed out that a policy has racist outcomes, it's often here colors are shown, in regards to whether they actually are racist or not, or whether they care about racism or not. then they can high five themselves to hell and back about something not technically being racist, but lack of action when pushing a policy with racist outcomes... ain't a good luck, imo, and more relevantly, ain't a good policy.

 

[Lexicus]

because even inanimate objects result in observed disparities.

What....what does this mean

 

[Farm Boy]

Whole tangent is sort of unnecessarily dense, isn't it? Of course disparate results for living creatures can be reduced by killing. It's the ultimate equalizer of all persons.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Oklahoma passes bill banning most abortions after conception

Oklahoma legislators have passed a law banning abortion after conception, which critics say is the most restrictive such measure in the US.

The Republican-led bill would prohibit all abortions, except to save the life of a pregnant woman or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61517135

Okay, I had to read the article to make sense of this headline, since the first thing that occurred to me was "TIL that it's possible to abort a fetus before it even exists."

 

[Sommerswerd]

to clear up confusion:

the reason i made that comparison is to point out that "observed disparities" do not and can't *by themselves* imply "innate racism", because even inanimate objects result in observed disparities. thus, you need something else (testable at least in principle mechanistic explanation) to explain/make the assertion.

i do not contest that racist policies can exist. i merely requested an explanation for how people are getting there wrt the linked paper on abortion, while rejecting the most commonly repeated explanation because that explanation doesn't make sense. a sensible explanation will not function with logical equivalence to the moon example.

For example... supposing the abolition of slavery would (and did) disproportionately free black people, as opposed to white people. To call that particular policy "racist", arguing "because it didn't benefit as many white folks" would be... let's say... a suboptimal description. What makes that clearer, might be the degree of separation between the policy terms and the people affected.

Hopefully, we can agree that abortion costs... time, resources, money, and more abstract costs, particularly psychological and potentially spiritual. The point is, abortion carries a cost. I'd hope we can also agree that people with less means and resources are less able to bear costs in general, so less able to bear the cost of abortion. Given that, we should agree that those same folks of lesser means are under more pressure not to opt for an abortion, all other circumstances being equal. Another point is that I'd hope we can agree, that since people with less means and resources are less able to bear costs in general, they are less able to bear the cost of bearing a child, and the lifetime of responsibility that entails.

So hopefully, we can agree that a policy that makes abortion more difficult, ie., cost more, will disproportionately affect people with less means. As an aside, I'd think it is a safe assumption that our lawmakers are aware of this. I'd also expect, that it is uncontroversial, to state that black people are, disproportionately of lesser means than white people. So a policy that makes abortion cost more, in terms of time, resources, money, etc., will disproportionately affect black people, and our legislators are aware of that. So if they act to make abortion more difficult, they act to make it more difficult for black people. This is what exposes the policy to claims that it is racist policy.

Whole tangent is sort of unnecessarily dense, isn't it? Of course disparate results for living creatures can be reduced by killing. It's the ultimate equalizer of all persons.

Killing the poor as a policy, results in disparate outcomes for black people I'd say.

 

[Samson]

For example... supposing the abolition of slavery would (and did) disproportionately free black people, as opposed to white people. To call that particular policy "racist", arguing "because it didn't benefit as many white folks" would be... let's say... a suboptimal description. What makes that clearer, might be the degree of separation between the policy terms and the people affected.

Hopefully, we can agree that abortion costs... time, resources, money, and more abstract costs, particularly psychological and potentially spiritual. The point is, abortion carries a cost. I'd hope we can also agree that people with less means and resources are less able to bear costs in general, so less able to bear the cost of abortion. Given that, we should agree that those same folks of lesser means are under more pressure not to opt for an abortion, all other circumstances being equal. Another point is that I'd hope we can agree, that since people with less means and resources are less able to bear costs in general, they are less able to bear the cost of bearing a child, and the lifetime of responsibility that entails.

So hopefully, we can agree that a policy that makes abortion more difficult, ie., cost more, will disproportionately affect people with less means. As an aside, I'd think it is a safe assumption that our lawmakers are aware of this. I'd also expect, that it is uncontroversial, to state that black people are, disproportionately of lesser means than white people. So a policy that makes abortion cost more, in terms of time, resources, money, etc., will disproportionately affect black people, and our legislators are aware of that. So if they act to make abortion more difficult, they act to make it more difficult for black people. This is what exposes the policy to claims that it is racist policy. Killing the poor as a policy, results in disparate outcomes for black people I'd say.

What a great mechanistic explanation.

 

[Senethro]

If a society requires entering buildings to participate in it, and some buildings have stairs, and some citizens are in wheelchairs, then in some senses it just isn't useful to ask how the stairs got there, or if they were placed with malicious intent.

Better to build a ramp than to claim that the stairs are somehow neutral or natural because they are noones "fault".

 

[Sommerswerd]

What a great mechanistic explanation.

You should hear me when I'm sober

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, it does. But once they're dead, survivorship bias has fixed one inequality.