4 ms·

One major point not addressed in the article is that the Dutch media aren't afraid to call out politicians on their lies. When a politician is caught in a gross

by jd 14y ago

One major point not addressed in the article is that the Dutch media aren't afraid to call out politicians on their lies. When a politician is caught in a gross lie the media turn up the heat until the politician publicly apologizes (or at the least ceases to spread misinformation). Politicians are forced to answer tough questions whenever they appear on TV and in addition they get cross-examined during debates. So the blatant dishonesty displayed in the US election won't work here. So it's a strong cultural thing. There are no mainstream politicians here who hold scientifically untenable positions about evolution, global warming, vaccinations/autism, abortion, and so on. They'd get ridiculed, and rightly so. This does not mean that rationality prevails in the Netherlands, unfortunately. Austerity measures are seen as the obviously responsible thing to do, even though economists don't agree. As a result we're looking at an economic recovery significantly worse than the one in the US. The GDP growth is projected at a meager 1.5% per year until 2017.

benpbenp 14y ago
Not meaning to open a "classic flamewar topic", but when you say, scientifically untenable positions about evolution, global warming, vaccinations/autism, abortion What is the scientifically untenable position about abortion? As far as I know there is no scientific controversy concerning abortion in general, but rather it is wholly a moral question.
- Luc 14y ago
  > What is the scientifically untenable position about abortion? The argument that can be summed up as 'life starts at conception'.
  - nsxwolf 14y ago
    Science agrees with that assertion. The argument is over the more vague concept of "personhood".
  - takluyver 14y ago
    Speaking as a biologist, sperm and eggs are alive even before they fuse. There's no scientifically meaningful way to specify when 'life starts'. So the question of when a developing foetus should be given the rights of a person is primarily philosophical.
    - Luc 14y ago
      I tried to avoid nitpicking by specifying that it's just a summary of the argument, but I failed. I should have used the term 'personhood' instead.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
- rauljara 14y ago
  Well there was that whole Todd Akin saying that women's bodies have a way to shut down conception in the event of a "legitimate" rape thing. That's a case that was so extreme that Akin got punished in the polls for it. But it was actually not a rare point of view among a certain kind of evangelical Christian before Akin made the mistake of saying it on the radio. I suspect more people realize it is simply not true now, but it was accepted as fact by more than just Akin.
- DanBC 14y ago
  I also don't want to discuss the traditional flame-war aspects of this! Apologies if I have. I'm happy to edit this post to avoid that intensely but shallowly interesting stuff. In the UK there are moves to reduce the time limits for abortion. At the moment it is possible for a woman to have an abortion at under 24 weeks. The science comes in because politicians say that it's possible for infants to survive if they're born under 24 weeks, and that's one reason to reduce the limits. The problems are: - we do not have abortion on demand in the UK. There can be delays in getting the tests and etc. This is one reason why abortions are sometimes carried out over 12 weeks. Changing the law to allow abortion on demand under 12 weeks may increase the numbers of those abortions, but also decrease the numbers of abortions carried out over 12 weeks. - very few abortions are carried out at over 20 weeks. It's likely to be distressing for the woman and her partner. It's almost certainly because the child has a condition incompatible with life. This isn't just a child who will live a short and miserable life of a few years; it is a child who will live at most a few days. Reducing the time limits will increase the number of women forced to carry this child to term, and to give birth to it, and to watch it die after a few hours or days. - Survivability of infants born under 24 weeks is not great. Doctors spend a lot of time (and money) making big interventions to keep these children alive. Many doctors and nurses do not feel that these interventions are humane. You're right that most of the decisions to be made about abortion are purely moral, but some people are making scientificky claims for their position. Those people need to be using correct information.
  - gadders 14y ago
    We pretty much do have abortion on demand in the UK, and the screening with doctors etc is pretty much a formality. You could lower the limit based on survivability but still allow provisos for severely diabled children. I believe you can exceed the 24 week limit now in such cases. I'd be in favour of a panel of doctors and scientists that get to review the limit every two years, based on advantages or otherwise in infant survivability.
- alan_cx 14y ago
  Isn't there some Senator, who was trying to suggest that raped women could not get pregnant as the female body rejected rapist's sperm, and there for abortion for rape victims was not necessary? I'm sure that, if I have the assertion correct, is not scientifically correct. That would there for be a scientifically untenable position.
- MartinCron 14y ago
  There's a lesson in persuasion here: Including a weak argument (scientifically untenable position about abortion) just serves to make your otherwise strong arguments (evolution, global warming, vaccinations) weaker by its inclusion.

by jd 14y ago

benpbenp 14y ago

Not meaning to open a "classic flamewar topic", but when you say, scientifically untenable positions about evolution, global warming, vaccinations/autism, abortion What is the scientifically untenable position about abortion? As far as I know there is no scientific controversy concerning abortion in general, but rather it is wholly a moral question.

Luc 14y ago
> What is the scientifically untenable position about abortion? The argument that can be summed up as 'life starts at conception'.
- nsxwolf 14y ago
  Science agrees with that assertion. The argument is over the more vague concept of "personhood".
- takluyver 14y ago
  Speaking as a biologist, sperm and eggs are alive even before they fuse. There's no scientifically meaningful way to specify when 'life starts'. So the question of when a developing foetus should be given the rights of a person is primarily philosophical.
  - Luc 14y ago
    I tried to avoid nitpicking by specifying that it's just a summary of the argument, but I failed. I should have used the term 'personhood' instead.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
rauljara 14y ago
Well there was that whole Todd Akin saying that women's bodies have a way to shut down conception in the event of a "legitimate" rape thing. That's a case that was so extreme that Akin got punished in the polls for it. But it was actually not a rare point of view among a certain kind of evangelical Christian before Akin made the mistake of saying it on the radio. I suspect more people realize it is simply not true now, but it was accepted as fact by more than just Akin.
DanBC 14y ago
I also don't want to discuss the traditional flame-war aspects of this! Apologies if I have. I'm happy to edit this post to avoid that intensely but shallowly interesting stuff. In the UK there are moves to reduce the time limits for abortion. At the moment it is possible for a woman to have an abortion at under 24 weeks. The science comes in because politicians say that it's possible for infants to survive if they're born under 24 weeks, and that's one reason to reduce the limits. The problems are: - we do not have abortion on demand in the UK. There can be delays in getting the tests and etc. This is one reason why abortions are sometimes carried out over 12 weeks. Changing the law to allow abortion on demand under 12 weeks may increase the numbers of those abortions, but also decrease the numbers of abortions carried out over 12 weeks. - very few abortions are carried out at over 20 weeks. It's likely to be distressing for the woman and her partner. It's almost certainly because the child has a condition incompatible with life. This isn't just a child who will live a short and miserable life of a few years; it is a child who will live at most a few days. Reducing the time limits will increase the number of women forced to carry this child to term, and to give birth to it, and to watch it die after a few hours or days. - Survivability of infants born under 24 weeks is not great. Doctors spend a lot of time (and money) making big interventions to keep these children alive. Many doctors and nurses do not feel that these interventions are humane. You're right that most of the decisions to be made about abortion are purely moral, but some people are making scientificky claims for their position. Those people need to be using correct information.
- gadders 14y ago
  We pretty much do have abortion on demand in the UK, and the screening with doctors etc is pretty much a formality. You could lower the limit based on survivability but still allow provisos for severely diabled children. I believe you can exceed the 24 week limit now in such cases. I'd be in favour of a panel of doctors and scientists that get to review the limit every two years, based on advantages or otherwise in infant survivability.
alan_cx 14y ago
Isn't there some Senator, who was trying to suggest that raped women could not get pregnant as the female body rejected rapist's sperm, and there for abortion for rape victims was not necessary? I'm sure that, if I have the assertion correct, is not scientifically correct. That would there for be a scientifically untenable position.
MartinCron 14y ago
There's a lesson in persuasion here: Including a weak argument (scientifically untenable position about abortion) just serves to make your otherwise strong arguments (evolution, global warming, vaccinations) weaker by its inclusion.