Well hey again.
Bailey responded to my earlier post (after, admittedly, I Tweeted* at her to get her attention - it turns out that my original shorter comment was caught in a spam filter of some sorts, which I ought to have suspected; on the other hand, we're not exactly talking about a densely-populated comment section between either of us, so it seems a little silly to want protection from comment section spam artists, but better safe than sorry, I suppose) in the comment section of her blog, and I felt that her reply deserved its own reply.
I’m glad you spent so much time analyzing my asymptote analogy (which was intended to depict how the development of human life is very intricate and evolving rather than characterized by distinct points–the “holes” are irrelevant to that point) calling me stupid, and negating the conservative movement as some crazy group of bible thumpers. Really effective.
Oh, Bailey.
I never called you stupid. You're not. Hence my disappointment with the way you advanced your argument - I expected better from you know in the ~11 years I've known you. When I first clicked through to that article, I thought, "You know, I'm sure we won't see eye-to-eye on some things but the fact that she's taking this kind of approach to the whole debate is interesting." Sadly, given the type, frequency and volume of the posts that caused me to unfollow you on Twitter and de-friend you on Facebook last fall, I should have known better - but there we are.
I can’t wait to read the biology articles you gave me that argue about the beginning of human life. Oh wait, you didn’t…you just said “How daaare she claim something as scientific fact!! There are biologists out there that would argue and stuff!” Ooooooh. Got me there!
To start out with, here's a study published this year by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology as to when OB-GYNs consider pregnancy to have begun. Notably, yes, 57% OB-GYNs who responded share your views - that pregnancy begins at conception, while 28% responded in agreement with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) definition of pregnancy as "beginning with implantation of the embryo in the uterine wall." (16% were undecided.)
"Now Matthew," you might say, "that study indicates that the majority of OB-GYNs believe that pregnancy starts at the moment of conception! So stop writing posts that are easily debunked. Also please stop speaking as me in your blog. Starting... now."
Fair enough, but you'll want to read more of the study than what I'm posting here, broseph. Also, some basic math - 57% isn't a consensus. (Additionally, another study from 1998, cited by the authors of this study, concluded that the disagreement sat at the 50% conception and 48% implantation marks, respectively.) Yes, it's a majority (YAY DEMOCRACY), but SCIENCE isn't about getting the votes - it's about theory, and refining that theory through observation and testing. Inasmuch as ACOG is an authority in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, I think it's reasonable to consider that their definition carries water, but if nothing else, that seems to indicate to me that there is CONSIDERABLE DISAGREEMENT in the obstetrics field about when exactly pregnancy begins - in fact, not surprisingly, the 2012 study finds a significant association between religiosity/religious affiliation and belief about the start point of pregnancy. (Feel free to check the references provided in both studies; I've helpfully provided you with the PDFs so we can be clear about this. As far as goes the "biology articles...that argue about the beginning of human life" request, you'll find those referenced in the cited articles. I am not going to do ALL your homework for you.)
That said, whither thy own citations? To call me out for pointing out that you begin your argument with a well-known logical fallacy, rather than responding to the actual argument, does you no favors in that regard.
Of course, then you retort with this:
I’ve known you a long time, and I’d never say this to you had you not been a complete JERK in your comment, and worse in your blog post–but I have NEVER in my life met someone who gets off so much on toeing the “moderate” line and using words like “de rigueur” than yourself. Doesn’t get more “self-congratulatory” than that. Sitting on a fence doesn’t make you wiser or more reasonable–it just gives you a sore ass.
First of all, I think my browser history would be completely at odds with what you claim I "get off so much on."
/opens "Incognito Window"
//searches for "elitist French-y catch-phrase quintuple entendre orgy"
///FAPFAPFAP
(Har har. This is a joke, you see. About porn. And that you made a remark concerning what gets me off.)
I don't "toe the 'moderate' line" - I simply recognize that nothing worthy of debate is ever so simple that it can be broken down into the black and white areas for which we seem to be so insistent upon creating boundaries. And holy shit, you're going to take me to task for using the phrase "de rigeur?" God forbid that I choose to use words well-suited while writing; with that kind of remark, you'd think I was a literary "1%" pissing upon the "99%" with words that I DIDN'T DESERVE TO MAKE USE OF YOU VERBOSE PIG WE IZ OCCYOUPY LITTERACY GET A BRAIN MORAN
Yo, the thing is, Bailey, have you even SAT on this fence? The view's great up here, it's padded, I have friends on both sides who tell me I'm pretty, etc. Mein Hintern feels pretty good, actually.
I personally felt your analysis was nit-picky,
I'm actually pretty terrible at math, but if there's one thing I detest, it's bad arguments and bad analogies. (That's actually two things. Again, I'm terrible at math.) And you know what I did? I picked at your argument's structure. I'm not saying that your main point is WRONG, or somehow INVALID, but good lord, the way you went about it was in no way cogent (OH DAMMIT THERE I GO AGAIN WITH MY HIGH-FALUTIN' VERBIAGE [ARGHHHHH ANOTHER $0.62** WORD NOOOOOO]) and that's what bugged me. I felt like you were doing your cause (one, as it happens, that I have some sympathies towards) no favors with your approach.
avoided my actual points
Okay, so here's what I'm interpreting as your "actual points," as reduced to a logical argument:
Premise 1: "Any legitimate biology book and doctor will tell you that human life begins at conception."
Premise 2: "It is morally wrong to kill innocent human life."
Premise 3: "See how the curved line goes seems to slope down, but never quite touches the X-axis? Theoretically, this line will continue to slope downward infinitely, NEVER touching the X-axis. Now in my head, I think of the X-axis as the point of conception of human life." My paraphrase: "If this line is the course of human development and life, the X-axis is the point of conception, except that I just said that 'this line will continue to slope downward infinitely, NEVER touching the X-axis.'"
Conclusion: "Now, doesn’t this make us sound just a little naive when we use terms like “blob of cells”?"
Premise 1: I actually just debunked this above. False.
Premise 2: True. (C'mon. I'm callous, but I'm not a total monster.)
Premise 3: The premise is self-contradictory: if "the X-axis is the point of conception of human life," but "this line will continue to slope downward infinitely, NEVER touching the X-axis," only one can be true, but not both. [editor's*** note: (P v Q) & ~(P & Q) is the logical operation there, and it's known as a exclusive disjunction.] False.
Conclusion: I don't know. Can someone parse that one for me? Because it sure doesn't seem that the premises lead to the conclusion, so it seems like a pretty bad argument to me. Which is what I was addressing. Which seems to be the opposite of avoiding your actual points.
very assuming of parts of my life you know nothing about,
WHERE?! [CITATION NEEDED]
and had no indication that you *actually* think for yourself.
Hmmm. I guess except for the fact that I wrote the whole thing. Wait a minute... is this a Turing Test? DID I JUST GET ACCUSED OF BEING A COMPUTER PROGRAM? On behalf Excel installations everywhere that are much better at math than I am, I'm offended. (I think. I mean, I think I'm offended. I think, therefore, I-RUNTIMEERROR)
You’ve always been the “Conform to non-conformity” type, but you’d think that eventually you’d have learned that that doesn’t make you a non-conformist. It just makes you look and sound bitter.
I- what- just- whatevenis-
"Why do people get off on using words like "Faux-servative" anyway? Makes you look like an asshat."
Oh, I dunno, because when I think "conservative," I tend to think of "minimal governmental interference," not "let's regulate the shit out of things as it suits our particular moral position." But that might just be me. Maybe that's where my less-than-clever phrase came from. Let me ask YOU: why do you get off on the phrase "get off?" That's like TWO TIMES in this retort! And what's wrong with this hat? It looks comfortable!
My explanation of "moderates": They evolve from bulls, whose butt cracks come from sitting on fences too long & that's how bull shit is made
Hold on. You're training to be a nurse, right? You do understand the whole buttcrack thing, right? I mean... it's... it's just that... that explanation, to my decidedly-untrained biomedical mind, seems a bit dubious.
@SynyT I know. I think he gets off on writing like that--he thinks his logic goes above people's heads or something.
WOULD YOU QUIT SPECULATING ON HOW EXACTLY I GET OFF IT IS GETTING A TAD CREEPY UP IN THIS OL' BUH-LAWG
What? That I like irreverently funny coverage of sports and sports media? So sue me.
Also, with that last tweet, I think we just broke the ad-hominem counter:
I guess at the end of the day, none of this really matters. Bailey, I think your views, as they are now, are pretty disappointing and don't align with mine at all, but there's nothing I can do about that. I'm sorry if you think I crossed the line in my responses (which is odd, because I can't find a single spot where I impugned YOU personally in my initial post, but, you know, feelings and all that, I guess), or if I didn't do exactly what you said was okay, (i.e., "That being said, if you take serious issue with any of my points on here, please direct them to the comments section on this post,") - lesson learned, I guess.
(Not really.)
Bailey, I think you're smart, funny, passionate, that you have a beautiful voice, that you will probably be an fantastic nurse and aside from our differences, that you have generally been a pretty cool person. I mean you no ill will personally. Take that as you will.
*God dammit. This is the future we live in, folks. "Tweeted" is a legitimate word that has meaning, rather than just being a fun little onomatopoeia ostensibly bird-related in some fashion. Ugh.
**Adjusted for inflation
***The author is the editor, because this is an EXTREMELY low-budget two-bit operation, see?
No comments:
Post a Comment