Also your analogy between drunk driving and vaccines causing autism is not really parallel...
Sigh. Have I really got to hold your hand?
There is more anecdotal evidence to prove vaccines don't cause autism, so wouldn't that push the debate into being over, if anecdotal evidence is the measuring bar?
There are lots of people who drink and drive who have never been in an accident. Does that push that debate to being over? Of course not.
"Wyatt Earp (1029)" made a bad argument. I was attacking the form of his argument. I was NOT drawing a parallel between drunk driving and autism.
That would be an interesting study, though it might be difficult to set up. It would need to include a study of children who came down with autism despite not receiving vaccinations. Otherwise, you'd not be able to come to any conclusions about any correlations that were found.
Before anybody else replies, my point was "These companies do make mistakes." A bad batch of H1N1 vaccine is a perfectly valid reason to believe the point I was making.
(2) I don't believe the vaccine in general is bad. I do believe the hospital got a bad batch.
(3) I don't have hard numbers, but I can tell you that my brother lives in Redding CA. I'm not sure which hospital he works for, or even if it's in Redding. If you really care, I'm sure you can find it.
(As a side note, the vaccine that first came out was a nasal variety that was supposed to be weakened, live flu. It was still supposed to be safe for those without a compromised immune system. The shot in the arm is a different beast altogether.)
There's way too much anecdotal evidence, even if there is no merit.
The plural of anecdote isn't data.
Get off your high horse for a moment. I didn't call it data, and I said that there may be no merit. Please refrain from strawmen arguments. I merely said that debate would continue because of it. Nothing more.
but when your movement is led...
It's not my movement. It's a movement that I watch with concern, but it's not one that I've sided with. I'm interested in the claims and facts from both sides.
Granted, but the decline in undiagnosed cases is only one theory. I want to believe that's all it is, but I don't. I do believe it is a significant contribution to the change, though.
To remain clear, I didn't say that it was the measure of truth, only a measure of continuing debate.
There are lots of people who drink and drive who have never been in an accident. Does that push that debate to being over? Of course not.
It's statistics. If a drug or vaccine is unsafe for a small population, it needs to be restricted or banned. At issue is a large group of parents of autistic children who blame the vaccines. It doesn't matter to them if vaccines usually don't cause autism. They each see their own child as evidence that vaccines can cause autism. They band together and support each other's beliefs. Rarity doesn't matter to them. (as it shouldn't, statistically.)
Additionally, autism is on the rise, and nobody quite knows why. Sometimes, anecdote is all that we have. (unfortunately)
Just because one side of the debate has used bad data and judgment doesn't mean there is no merit to the debate. The other side does too. The trick is finding the truth in the whirlwind of lies and deceit.
Anecdotally, my brother works for a hospital. Everyone who works in the Emergency room was offered the H1N1 vaccine as soon as it became available. Each of those who got the vaccine came down with swine flu. Most of those who were unvacinated didn't.
These companies do make mistakes. Like any large organization with money at stake, they want to believe they can handle these problems quietly without large payouts. Is there a link between vaccines and autism? I don't know. I don't believe for a moment that the debate is over. There's way too much anecdotal evidence, even if there is no merit.
At issue here is the ability of the Chinese government to run MiTH attacks on their citizens (and others) (who may have no computer security experience) and to arrest political dissidents. Nobody's saying you should wait to remove it. The question is, should it be removed for the safety of others?
The whole point of root certs is trust. We trust them to sign certificates which will be used, in turn, to keep our conversations private. Should CNNIC be trusted to keep conversations private? That is the question. Organizations like Mozilla put their own reputations on the line when choosing which root certs to include. Any abuse by CNNIC will be seen as a security flaw in Mozilla software. That is the issue. That is why Mozilla should care. (even if they disagree)
Did he say what type of crime was down? That could make a major difference. (I assume the number of illegal abortions dropped when abortions were legalized, but what else? Child neglect? Violent crime, incl spouse abuse? Drug crime? Petty theft? There's just not enough here to come to any conclusions.)
But really, a fetus is by all definitions, parasitic. Heck, it even releases a chemical that is IDENTICAL to another human host parasite.
I think you have that backwards. There exists a parasite that releases a chemical identical to a fetus (or more likely, the placenta). Superficially, it sounds like the Endocrine System functioning properly.
Personally, I believe the best fix is better education and people who learn to control themselves better.
Same here. Unfortunately, there will always be people who don't (even if lectured-- um, "educated"). Hence, this issue will still be a legal debate for a long time.
You bring up a good point that abortion isn't the only issue at play here (it's the one that's most widely discussed). (By the way, you missed teratogens such as alcohol and tobacco.) I guess the biggest difference is that the later is negligent, and the former is willful. I'm not sure just where to stand legally on the larger issue. That is a real conundrum.
Even a marginally informed public would look at your Concerned Citizens org. and ask who are they. They would form their opinion only on facts that they knew to be true, were reasonable and coherent not some scandal or decision of the moment.
People are busy living their lives. There aren't enough hours in a day to chase every lie to its source. Instead, people rely on media and citizen advocacy groups to boil the arguments down to a few claims each, and decide from those.
I'm not saying that's right. I am saying there are few alternatives. It's simply untenable to ask every citizen to spend 60 hours a week sorting through lies to find facts. If we're to have an informed public, we need organizations that do this for us. Just what do you propose?
(consequently, I blame corruption in the media for many of our current political problems. This isn't a new phenomenon, unfortunately.)
They don’t even have to reveal their tape footage from the car showing whether or not I actually did.
In which jurisdiction? (citation please.) I was under the impression that they had to if they had a dash cam. There's nothing to require them to tape everything, but if you take it to court (and don't just pay the ticket) you can demand to see any evidence against you (part of discovery).
I have a "hybrid" electric bike. It has an electric motor in the hub, and regular pedals for the human powerplant. The motor works best as an assist, particularly nice on steep hills. I mainly use the electric motor to get up to speed, then can pedal to maintain...
Yours is not the hybrid, yours is the electric bike, no pedals and it is and electric scooter, not a bicycle.
Just why do I get the impression that you didn't read what he wrote?
I feel that our conversation has only been superficial. As such I understand why it may seem "shallow". You may also want to consider that I, in turn, see your position as naive. (fair is fair)
Even if it is done just for fun, I don't see that that is a commitment to bear or raise a child.
Your biology disagrees. It is almost as if you wish there were a second condition to getting pregnant, and abortion is getting shoe-horned to serve your fantasy. It's as if you're saying that you only really get pregnant if you have sex and choose not to abort.
Ultimately our bodies are our own and we should have the right to make these decisions for ourselves
It's ironic that I feel this way too. The problem is, I feel this way about the unborn as well as the adult. Quite unlike child abuse or neglect, though, the state cannot defend human rights by stepping in and separating an abusive parent from child* until after birth. That is the crux of the whole dilemma.
(*always a tragedy, but sometimes a necessity.)
Rights lead to choices. Choices lead to consequences. Consequences give us the chance to be responsible or irresponsible.
Of the things that we do have rights to, we can't always pick the consequences. I can say that I have a right to skydive without a parachute. The consequence for that is well known and fixed. Yes, I can come up with all kinds of bad examples, but it get's the point across. Every action has one or more consequences. You choose those based on your actions, not your wishes. That's life.
...as long as exceptions are made for the health of the mother...
Here, at least, is a point we can agree on. There should be accountability for these decisions, but medical need should not be withheld, even if that means choosing the life of the mother over the life of the child. I believe that in such situations it is reasonable and healthy to mourn such a loss.
I think the whole "life begins at conception" line of thinking to be ridiculously oversimplified.
Ok, if it's oversimplified, then why don't you elaborate. When do you believe life starts (and human rights) and why? Defend your position. Give me an argument that I can respect, even if I disagree with it.
There are many different aspects to this topic. Religious (which I am setting aside for the time being), ethical, biological, psychological, social, legal, historic, philosophical -- the list just goes on and on...
The only thing I've heard from you so far is that you think (meaning feel or wish) that society should be one way. You're frustrated that there are people that feel differently, but you haven't promoted a rational with which you can express yourself. I'm just waiting to see what you're underlying beliefs are. What brought you to your conclusions?
(If you care to share. If you don't, that's fine too.)
I can see why you might think that. "Always" is too strong. "Almost always" is closer to reality.
In turn, your phrasing makes it sound like abortion is a valid option in the general case, and any deficiency in the parents is a valid excuse to destroy the fetal tissue.
The only supportable "pro-choice" position I see is to defend a woman's right to choose when to have sex. If she does, she has made her choice. Sex organs are not fun organs, they're reproductive organs. You use them when you want to reproduce. I understand the strong pull, but if you don't resist it, you're responsible for the outcome. It really is that simple in the general case.
I've heard people argue that fetal tissue is not alive, or is part of the mother. That's an outright lie to defend an indefensible position. The real question is: when do human rights begin? At birth, or before? From a religious standpoint it's obvious. From an ethical one, some people think this line is still fuzzy.
What he didn't state were the instructions for those tests. The instructions specifically state to read every question before answering any of them. It's not a test, but a lesson in reading and following the instructions. As such, I think it has great value.
Besides, hES don't come from aborted fetuses, but from in vitro fertilized embryos that never get implanted. (similar moral/ethical issues but very different legal debates)
You ignore the most frequent cause of abortion: panic. (combined with the inability to take responsibility)
In many cases, aborted fetuses wouldn't survive to term anyway...
Very few of the abortions performed are specifically because the child will not make it. However, abortions related to the chance of abnormality (such as autism) will climb as it becomes increasingly feasible.
or are a threat to the mother's health...
Rare, but real. (I've heard people claim that this never happens, but that's not true. It's just unusual.)
It's cost us years, possibly as much as a decade, of research time because of religious considerations.
It's not just moral (religious) reasons, but also ethical ones.
Slashdot Mirror
You cannot compare it to drink driving
I didn't. Explaination here.
Also your analogy between drunk driving and vaccines causing autism is not really parallel...
Sigh. Have I really got to hold your hand?
There is more anecdotal evidence to prove vaccines don't cause autism, so wouldn't that push the debate into being over, if anecdotal evidence is the measuring bar?
There are lots of people who drink and drive who have never been in an accident. Does that push that debate to being over? Of course not.
"Wyatt Earp (1029)" made a bad argument. I was attacking the form of his argument. I was NOT drawing a parallel between drunk driving and autism.
That would be an interesting study, though it might be difficult to set up. It would need to include a study of children who came down with autism despite not receiving vaccinations. Otherwise, you'd not be able to come to any conclusions about any correlations that were found.
As always, one small typo gets blown way out of proportion. Oh well. Have fun with it.
Before anybody else replies, my point was "These companies do make mistakes." A bad batch of H1N1 vaccine is a perfectly valid reason to believe the point I was making.
(1) I admitted anecdote.
(2) I don't believe the vaccine in general is bad. I do believe the hospital got a bad batch.
(3) I don't have hard numbers, but I can tell you that my brother lives in Redding CA. I'm not sure which hospital he works for, or even if it's in Redding. If you really care, I'm sure you can find it.
(As a side note, the vaccine that first came out was a nasal variety that was supposed to be weakened, live flu. It was still supposed to be safe for those without a compromised immune system. The shot in the arm is a different beast altogether.)
There's way too much anecdotal evidence, even if there is no merit.
The plural of anecdote isn't data.
Get off your high horse for a moment. I didn't call it data, and I said that there may be no merit. Please refrain from strawmen arguments. I merely said that debate would continue because of it. Nothing more.
but when your movement is led...
It's not my movement. It's a movement that I watch with concern, but it's not one that I've sided with. I'm interested in the claims and facts from both sides.
Also, not to engage in Ad-Hominems, but...
Followed by an ad hominem. Cute.
Granted, but the decline in undiagnosed cases is only one theory. I want to believe that's all it is, but I don't. I do believe it is a significant contribution to the change, though.
Check here.
There are many cases like this. I don't make any claims, but this study isn't the only reason for the debate.
Apparently not ;)
To remain clear, I didn't say that it was the measure of truth, only a measure of continuing debate.
There are lots of people who drink and drive who have never been in an accident. Does that push that debate to being over? Of course not.
It's statistics. If a drug or vaccine is unsafe for a small population, it needs to be restricted or banned. At issue is a large group of parents of autistic children who blame the vaccines. It doesn't matter to them if vaccines usually don't cause autism. They each see their own child as evidence that vaccines can cause autism. They band together and support each other's beliefs. Rarity doesn't matter to them. (as it shouldn't, statistically.)
Additionally, autism is on the rise, and nobody quite knows why. Sometimes, anecdote is all that we have. (unfortunately)
Are you referring to what I wrote, to what ak_hepcat wrote, to what JamJam wrote, or to the original article?
Just because one side of the debate has used bad data and judgment doesn't mean there is no merit to the debate. The other side does too. The trick is finding the truth in the whirlwind of lies and deceit.
Anecdotally, my brother works for a hospital. Everyone who works in the Emergency room was offered the H1N1 vaccine as soon as it became available. Each of those who got the vaccine came down with swine flu. Most of those who were unvacinated didn't.
These companies do make mistakes. Like any large organization with money at stake, they want to believe they can handle these problems quietly without large payouts. Is there a link between vaccines and autism? I don't know. I don't believe for a moment that the debate is over. There's way too much anecdotal evidence, even if there is no merit.
At issue here is the ability of the Chinese government to run MiTH attacks on their citizens (and others) (who may have no computer security experience) and to arrest political dissidents. Nobody's saying you should wait to remove it. The question is, should it be removed for the safety of others?
The whole point of root certs is trust. We trust them to sign certificates which will be used, in turn, to keep our conversations private. Should CNNIC be trusted to keep conversations private? That is the question. Organizations like Mozilla put their own reputations on the line when choosing which root certs to include. Any abuse by CNNIC will be seen as a security flaw in Mozilla software. That is the issue. That is why Mozilla should care. (even if they disagree)
Interesting. Anecdotal, but interesting.
Did he say what type of crime was down? That could make a major difference. (I assume the number of illegal abortions dropped when abortions were legalized, but what else? Child neglect? Violent crime, incl spouse abuse? Drug crime? Petty theft? There's just not enough here to come to any conclusions.)
But really, a fetus is by all definitions, parasitic. Heck, it even releases a chemical that is IDENTICAL to another human host parasite.
I think you have that backwards. There exists a parasite that releases a chemical identical to a fetus (or more likely, the placenta). Superficially, it sounds like the Endocrine System functioning properly.
Personally, I believe the best fix is better education and people who learn to control themselves better.
Same here. Unfortunately, there will always be people who don't (even if lectured-- um, "educated"). Hence, this issue will still be a legal debate for a long time.
You bring up a good point that abortion isn't the only issue at play here (it's the one that's most widely discussed). (By the way, you missed teratogens such as alcohol and tobacco.) I guess the biggest difference is that the later is negligent, and the former is willful. I'm not sure just where to stand legally on the larger issue. That is a real conundrum.
Even a marginally informed public would look at your Concerned Citizens org. and ask who are they. They would form their opinion only on facts that they knew to be true, were reasonable and coherent not some scandal or decision of the moment.
People are busy living their lives. There aren't enough hours in a day to chase every lie to its source. Instead, people rely on media and citizen advocacy groups to boil the arguments down to a few claims each, and decide from those.
I'm not saying that's right. I am saying there are few alternatives. It's simply untenable to ask every citizen to spend 60 hours a week sorting through lies to find facts. If we're to have an informed public, we need organizations that do this for us. Just what do you propose?
(consequently, I blame corruption in the media for many of our current political problems. This isn't a new phenomenon, unfortunately.)
They don’t even have to reveal their tape footage from the car showing whether or not I actually did.
In which jurisdiction? (citation please.) I was under the impression that they had to if they had a dash cam. There's nothing to require them to tape everything, but if you take it to court (and don't just pay the ticket) you can demand to see any evidence against you (part of discovery).
I have a "hybrid" electric bike. It has an electric motor in the hub, and regular pedals for the human powerplant. The motor works best as an assist, particularly nice on steep hills. I mainly use the electric motor to get up to speed, then can pedal to maintain...
Yours is not the hybrid, yours is the electric bike, no pedals and it is and electric scooter, not a bicycle.
Just why do I get the impression that you didn't read what he wrote?
I feel that our conversation has only been superficial. As such I understand why it may seem "shallow". You may also want to consider that I, in turn, see your position as naive. (fair is fair)
Even if it is done just for fun, I don't see that that is a commitment to bear or raise a child.
Your biology disagrees. It is almost as if you wish there were a second condition to getting pregnant, and abortion is getting shoe-horned to serve your fantasy. It's as if you're saying that you only really get pregnant if you have sex and choose not to abort.
Ultimately our bodies are our own and we should have the right to make these decisions for ourselves
It's ironic that I feel this way too. The problem is, I feel this way about the unborn as well as the adult. Quite unlike child abuse or neglect, though, the state cannot defend human rights by stepping in and separating an abusive parent from child* until after birth. That is the crux of the whole dilemma.
(*always a tragedy, but sometimes a necessity.)
Rights lead to choices. Choices lead to consequences. Consequences give us the chance to be responsible or irresponsible.
Of the things that we do have rights to, we can't always pick the consequences. I can say that I have a right to skydive without a parachute. The consequence for that is well known and fixed. Yes, I can come up with all kinds of bad examples, but it get's the point across. Every action has one or more consequences. You choose those based on your actions, not your wishes. That's life.
...as long as exceptions are made for the health of the mother...
Here, at least, is a point we can agree on. There should be accountability for these decisions, but medical need should not be withheld, even if that means choosing the life of the mother over the life of the child. I believe that in such situations it is reasonable and healthy to mourn such a loss.
I think the whole "life begins at conception" line of thinking to be ridiculously oversimplified.
Ok, if it's oversimplified, then why don't you elaborate. When do you believe life starts (and human rights) and why? Defend your position. Give me an argument that I can respect, even if I disagree with it.
There are many different aspects to this topic. Religious (which I am setting aside for the time being), ethical, biological, psychological, social, legal, historic, philosophical -- the list just goes on and on...
The only thing I've heard from you so far is that you think (meaning feel or wish) that society should be one way. You're frustrated that there are people that feel differently, but you haven't promoted a rational with which you can express yourself. I'm just waiting to see what you're underlying beliefs are. What brought you to your conclusions?
(If you care to share. If you don't, that's fine too.)
I can see why you might think that. "Always" is too strong. "Almost always" is closer to reality.
In turn, your phrasing makes it sound like abortion is a valid option in the general case, and any deficiency in the parents is a valid excuse to destroy the fetal tissue.
The only supportable "pro-choice" position I see is to defend a woman's right to choose when to have sex. If she does, she has made her choice. Sex organs are not fun organs, they're reproductive organs. You use them when you want to reproduce. I understand the strong pull, but if you don't resist it, you're responsible for the outcome. It really is that simple in the general case.
I've heard people argue that fetal tissue is not alive, or is part of the mother. That's an outright lie to defend an indefensible position. The real question is: when do human rights begin? At birth, or before? From a religious standpoint it's obvious. From an ethical one, some people think this line is still fuzzy.
the desire to not have a child because they're not ready or are unable to properly support one, or any of a bunch of other reasons
==> "the inability to take responsibility"
You're argument isn't inaccurate in any way, just disingenuous.
The reason they did that was precisely because it was cliche. (and thus, seemed mundane)
What he didn't state were the instructions for those tests. The instructions specifically state to read every question before answering any of them. It's not a test, but a lesson in reading and following the instructions. As such, I think it has great value.
Besides, hES don't come from aborted fetuses, but from in vitro fertilized embryos that never get implanted. (similar moral/ethical issues but very different legal debates)
You ignore the most frequent cause of abortion: panic. (combined with the inability to take responsibility)
In many cases, aborted fetuses wouldn't survive to term anyway...
Very few of the abortions performed are specifically because the child will not make it. However, abortions related to the chance of abnormality (such as autism) will climb as it becomes increasingly feasible.
or are a threat to the mother's health...
Rare, but real. (I've heard people claim that this never happens, but that's not true. It's just unusual.)
It's cost us years, possibly as much as a decade, of research time because of religious considerations.
It's not just moral (religious) reasons, but also ethical ones.