How does the abortion and global warming issues affect opinions for the "March for Science?"

[fnr]

I’m wondering how you guys view abortion, global warming, and whether either of those issues make you to oppose or support the March of Science. Here’s a poll.

Here’s the website for the March for Science: marchforscience.com/

 

[JonNC]

I’m wondering how you guys view abortion, global warming, and whether either of those issues make you to oppose or support the March of Science. Here’s a poll.

Here’s the website for the March for Science: marchforscience.com/

google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/21/physicists-take-on-march-for-science.amp.html

 

[Exiled_Child]

I’m wondering how you guys view abortion, global warming, and whether either of those issues make you to oppose or support the March of Science. Here’s a poll.

Here’s the website for the March for Science: marchforscience.com/

I didn’t cast a vote, but if there were the option I would have voted Abortion should be illegal. Global warming will be the final problem. I have no opinion on the March of Science, whatever it is, but I wouldn’t be caught dead taking part in it.

And I used the phrase will be the final problem because I’ve intently studied permafrost for decades. And I won’t even bother saying more on the subject, because it’s 100% guaranteed that people both oblivious and uninformed will politicize what isn’t political.

I just thank God Almighty that I hate politics beyond words, and hold it in the lowest possible regard, with utterly bottomless contempt.

 

[edwest2]

I would never take part in anything related to “science” which has a clear political agenda. People need to be informed but not get propaganda in the process. That’s the reality.

Kids should be taught science and about the scientific method to make the world a better place. That’s why I like science. But this? No way.

Abortion means killing a human being. That’s the scientific truth.

Ed

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Does the march for science have a stance on abortion? I thought it was more about the climate. I support it unless it is pro-choice.

 

[Fiasco]

I didn’t cast a vote, but if there were the option I would have voted Abortion should be illegal. Global warming will be the final problem. I have no opinion on the March of Science, whatever it is, but I wouldn’t be caught dead taking part in it.

We might have to wait until Doomsday for the only significant global warming.
Ditto for an end to abortion.

I just thank God Almighty that I hate politics beyond words, and hold it in the lowest possible regard, with utterly bottomless contempt.

i’m not far behind you.
Will Dante’s vision of hell have to be modified, or will the existing bottom level which is for traitors be a good fit for a lot of politicians?

 

[Seamus_L]

Abortion should be illegal. Global warming is not a major problem. I don’t support the march.

 

[fnr]

Based on the first 20 responses, there are some interesting observations.

Among all responses,
-13 said that abortion should be illegal; 7 of them said global warming (GW) is a big problem.
-14 said that global warming is a big problem, 7 of which said that abortion should be illegal.
-12 supported the March for Science.
-0 who responded that abortion should be illegal did not support the March for Science.

Respondents who said that global warming is a big problem were 18 times more likely to support the March for Science than those who said that global warming is not a big problem.

Among people responding that abortion should be illegal, respondents who said that GW is a big problem were 6.7 times more likely to support the March than those who did not say it.

The survey was very limited, but a few things can be determined among the respondents:
(1) All respondents supporting legal abortion supported the March for Science and reported that GW is a big problem.
(2) Belief that global warming is a big problem made respondents 18 times more likely to support the March on Science.
(3) Among respondents saying that abortion should be illegal, believing that global warming is a big problem made people 6.7 times likely to support the March for Science.

From this small sample, the following hypotheses can be drawn for farther testing.
(4) Belief in legal abortion is sufficient to cause a person to support the March for Science.
(5) Belief that global warming is a big problem makes a person much more likely to support abortion.
(6) Belief that abortion should be illegal significantly weakens support for the March on Science among people who believe that global warming is a big problem.

I refrained from conducting more sophisticated analysis, such as multivariate logistic regression, because of the lack of people who supported legal abortion and reported that global warming is not a big problem.

Some additional possibilities might be:
(7) Many pro-lifers viewed the March on Science as promoting abortion.
(8) Abortion advocates viewed the March on Science as a way to promote their agenda.
(9) Abortion advocates view global warming as supporting their agenda.
(10) Believing that abortion should be illegal dampens the importance that people assign to global warming.

What do you guys think?

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Correlation does not imply causation. This is fundamentally a right vs. left issue in America. Trump supporters are more likely to be pro life, sceptical of science and climate change.

Ultimately the march itself is about protesting Trump’s distrust of evidence based science. I have yet to see ‘less restrictions on abortion’ as a goal of the march for science. I don’t believe abortion has anything to do with the issue. You could just as easily have replaced it with support for the death penalty and it would probably have come out that people who support the death penalty don’t support the march for science, because it’s tied to politics.

 

[DarkNight]

Based on the first 20 responses, there are some interesting observations…

What do you guys think?

Unfortunately, your analysis is useless.

• A sample of 20 people is not a representative sample.
• Add to that the fact that the only participants were members of CAF.
• The questionnaire is poorly worded as some have pointed out
• None of the conclusions you draw can be applied to the world at large.

I worked for a market research firm for decades so I am positive of these boring details.

 

[fnr]

Unfortunately, your analysis is useless.

• A sample of 20 people is not a representative sample.
• Add to that the fact that the only participants were members of CAF.
• The questionnaire is poorly worded as some have pointed out
• None of the conclusions you draw can be applied to the world at large.

I worked for a market research firm for decades so I am positive of these boring details.

Of course it’s a very limited analysis. I agree with all your bullet points. That said, all I was doing was a casual little non-representative survey, based on a convenience sample. I didn’t draw firm conclusions, as I noted, but “hypotheses for further testing.” The odds ratios I calculated were based on the numbers, and I disclosed the limitations. Sadly, there are a lot of organizations that would take these data and run with them.

I was really just trying to get some conversation going, and I hope I’ve done that.

 

[DarkNight]

Of course it’s a very limited analysis … Sadly, there are a lot of organizations that would take these data and run with them.

Reputable organizations do not “take this data and run with them”.

Many polls have been linked to on CAF and many posters call them disreputable and disparage the whole industry. Their conclusions are just not true. You do have to read the poll itself - what was the wording of the questions, how was the sample taken etc. Reputable organizations willingly share these details.

Research organizations take their work seriously. I am tired of the self acclaimed experts who denounce market research when it doesn’t fit with their particular agenda.

 

[lynnvinc]

This is sort of a tough one bec I have always been for “going back” to the good ole 60s when abortion was illegal. But it wasn’t entirely illegal. A woman could come before a board and claim she needed an abortion for some dire reason, and the board could decide to let her have an abortion. At least I think that was how it was.

I’m not sure if the woman was put in prison for having an illegal (non-approved) abortion, but I do know of several women who did have illegal abortions, one of them nearly bleeding to death (a friend of my roommate).

In other words there are problems in making abortion illegal and problems in keeping it legal – which I think had increased the rate of abortions, tho I’m not sure, since no one knows how many were getting illegal abortions back then. I know some were going to Mexico or other countries to have their abortion, as well as getting medical students and others to perform them locally.

So, yes, I am for making abortions illegal, simply because we need to give the message that it is killing a human being…even if the laws don’t help a whole lot.

As for global warming, that is another way we are killing people. However, it is a much more difficult problem to tackle, but we as a nation, the world, and we as individuals and families should be doing ALL we can to mitigate it. It is a sin that we are NOT.

 

[fnr]

Reputable organizations do not “take this data and run with them”.

Many polls have been linked to on CAF and many posters call them disreputable and disparage the whole industry. Their conclusions are just not true. You do have to read the poll itself - what was the wording of the questions, how was the sample taken etc. Reputable organizations willingly share these details.

Research organizations take their work seriously. I am tired of the self acclaimed experts who denounce market research when it doesn’t fit with their particular agenda.

I’m not impugning research organizations. My goal isn’t to suggest that professional market research firms or survey firms do anything wrong at all. They would not get hired if they did.

 

[Ender]

This is fundamentally a right vs. left issue in America. Trump supporters are more likely to be pro life, sceptical of science and climate change.

It is certainly true that this is another right vs. left political issue, and while it is also true that Trump supporters are more likely to be pro life and skeptical of climate change, this hardly translates into being skeptical of science. Disbelieving that the science in fact supports the allegations supporting MMGW is not to disbelieve in science.

Ultimately the march itself is about protesting Trump’s distrust of evidence based science.

No, it is simply another way to claim more for science in the area of global warming than the science itself can support. The distrust is not of science but of those who misuse it for political objectives.

I have yet to see ‘less restrictions on abortion’ as a goal of the march for science. I don’t believe abortion has anything to do with the issue.

You’re not likely to see much of a connection between science and abortion in this movement because, unlike with climate change, the science of embryology is unambiguous. That is, science is not a friend to the abortion lobby so the best approach for them is to simply ignore it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

As for global warming, that is another way we are killing people. However, it is a much more difficult problem to tackle, but we as a nation, the world, and we as individuals and families should be doing ALL we can to mitigate it. It is a sin that we are NOT.

Let’s be very clear about this: doing things you believe are sinful makes them sinful for you whether or not the acts really are sins; your believing they are wrong makes them wrong…for you. It is therefore a sin for you not to try to mitigate global warming because you believe it is a real problem that requires your involvement.

Your belief that it is a real problem does not, however, make it real. More to the point, your belief that you have a moral obligation to combat it does not mean everyone else has that obligation. It is false to claim that “It is a sin that we are not [mitigating global warming].” It is conceivable that it is a mistake, but it is more likely that the mistake is in believing global warming is being driven by man made emissions of CO2. In either case, no sin is involved.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

Let’s be very clear about this: doing things you believe are sinful makes them sinful for you whether or not the acts really are sins; your believing they are wrong makes them wrong…for you. It is therefore a sin for you not to try to mitigate global warming because you believe it is a real problem that requires your involvement.

Your belief that it is a real problem does not, however, make it real. More to the point, your belief that you have a moral obligation to combat it does not mean everyone else has that obligation. It is false to claim that “It is a sin that we are not [mitigating global warming].” It is conceivable that it is a mistake, but it is more likely that the mistake is in believing global warming is being driven by man made emissions of CO2. In either case, no sin is involved.

Ender

I agree. That is, AGW is real, but if you sincerely think it is not real and you sincerely think are past 3 popes were wrong in saying we must mitigate it (because it was only their prudential judgment, which you considered to be wrong) – then you are not culpable of a sin. Peace!

 

[Ender]

I agree. That is, AGW is real, but if you sincerely think it is not real and you sincerely think are past 3 popes were wrong in saying we must mitigate it (because it was only their prudential judgment, which you considered to be wrong) – then you are not culpable of a sin.

True, and since AGW is not real, but you sincerely think it is, there is (probably) no sin involved in pursuing policies that keep the undeveloped world in crushing poverty.

Ender

 

[Sarcelle]

I agree. That is, AGW is real, but if you sincerely think it is not real and you sincerely think are past 3 popes were wrong in saying we must mitigate it (because it was only their prudential judgment, which you considered to be wrong) – then you are not culpable of a sin. Peace!

I have no problems with changing our behaviors in order to safeguard and preserve our environment. I personally think mitigating greed will go a long way with preserving our forests and keeping our rivers and ocean clean. Everyone should be concerned about respecting God’s creation because we are merely its steward and not its master.

What I have a problem with are the proponents of AGW. A sizeable portion of them think humans are the problem and getting rid of as many humans as possible is the only remedy to AGW.

 

[Lea101]

Possibly an unpopular opinion here but I feel like stuff like this wouldn’t be so divided if we make an effort for our voices to be heard.

Maybe not for those who don’t believe in climate change. It would be pretty ironic for them to be involved in stuff like this given the circumstances.

But for abortion, for example. Or other issues (eg racism). Right tend to avoid stuff like this because the left is obsessed about it and it seems like they are the only ones who “care” (in quotes bc that is obviously debatable). And then the right wing look racist blah blah.

Similarly, if the right is not involved with stuff like this, they look like they don’t believe in science.

I’m so exhausted that I don’t know if I’m making sense, but it seems like we are so divided on issues to the point where we don’t care about the issues we all agree on.

Anyway, I’m not against the march unless it’s pro choice/pro anything sinful. I do feel like science field is going downhill due to “political correctness” though.