Will the real independents please stand up?

Aug 16, 2012

As November draws near, many Americans are thinking about which political candidates will be receiving their support. For die-hard Democrats and Republicans, the decision may be a no-brainer. As the country grows increasingly divided between liberals and conservatives, however, many voters have rejected traditional partisan identities, choosing to call themselves Independents.

But new research suggests that Independents may not be as independent as they think.

Psychological scientists Carlee Beth Hawkins and Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia decided to use a tool called the Implicit Association Test, or IAT, to explore the unconscious biases that churn deep inside the Independent mind.

In one study, a random sample of more than 1800 participated on the Project Implicit website, where they read a mock newspaper article comparing two competing welfare proposals. One plan was generous in its benefits, the other much more stringent. Some of the volunteers read an article that said the Democrats were supporting the generous plan; Republicans, the stringent plan. The others read the same article, but with the parties switched around.

To explicitly measure aspects of identity, ideology, and policy support, the researchers asked the volunteers to record their policy preferences and describe their and party identification. Those who selected Independent were asked if they leaned toward either of the two major parties.

Next the volunteers took a version of the IAT designed to measure partisan identities that the volunteers themselves might have been unaware of, and preferences for welfare policies that they may or may not have articulated even to themselves.

The results were intriguing—and politically significant. As Hawkins reported in May at the 24th Annual Convention of the Association for Psychological Science, the participants who identified as Independents varied greatly in their unconscious partisanship, and they made partisan political judgments in line with their implicit political identities. Those Independents who unconsciously identified with Democrats preferred the liberal welfare plan, while those who unconsciously identified with Republicans had a clear preference for the conservative welfare plan.

Furthermore, the Independents who were implicitly Republican preferred whatever plan was proposed by Republicans—regardless of the values underlying the plan—more than they favored any plan proposed by Democrats. The same was true for implicit Democrats.

Despite their claims of disinterested objectivity, the self-identified Independents appeared to be influenced both by ideology and by partisanship when it came to making policy judgments, suggesting that some Independents may be independent more in name than in practice.

Explore further: Less privileged kids shine at university, according to study

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

It's not what politicians say but what we hear

Apr 27, 2010

There is increasing evidence that individuals interpret the same election message in different ways, according to their personal political views, say experts in the British Medical Journal today.

Recommended for you

Why are UK teenagers skipping school?

Dec 18, 2014

Analysis of the results of a large-scale survey reveals the extent of truancy in English secondary schools and sheds light on the mental health of the country's teens.

Fewer lectures, more group work

Dec 18, 2014

Professor Cees van der Vleuten from Maastricht University is a Visiting Professor at Wits University who believes that learning should be student centred.

How to teach all students to think critically

Dec 18, 2014

All first year students at the University of Technology Sydney could soon be required to take a compulsory maths course in an attempt to give them some numerical thinking skills. ...

User comments : 45

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nappy
2.7 / 5 (11) Aug 16, 2012
The two major parties are more alike than different. They both spend money (other people's money) like it is going out of style. Both are marxist/keynsian. It is true that the actual behavior of a person is not important. Bush did TARP, dems hated it, repubs loved it. Obama pulls the same insane criminal behavior and the repubs hate it and the dems like it. Congruence of thought is VERY important.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 16, 2012
The choice is truly black and white.
Do you want to gang up on other people and steal their stuff or do NOT want to do that?

This is true independence:

"The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine." John Galt
irjsiq
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2012
For over seventy years the US has been dominated by the 2 parties, and We The People, meekly, 'do as they say'!
Congress approval rating is 10%, and Congress has morphed into an 'Aristocracy'(they follow different rules than We The People!).
Congress' primary efforts are directed toward re-election!
Nothing will change until We The People decide to change, and take charge of OUR Country!
Social Media provides one method of opening doors, now closed!
We continue to sleep and slumber as our Nation is spent into Oblivion, with nothing to show for the debt!
Keynes depended on a healthy under structure/economy, as the basis of spending out-of-economic 'Doldrums' . . . We have no economic under structure of value at our service!
rwinners
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2012
So... independents agree more with one party or the other on many issues. Has any study been done on how the align with the pugilists on any and all specific issues.
Frankly, I think that independents give up a significant amount of political power by being unaligned. I believe they should choose an affiliation with the party that is closest to their own views. At least then, they(we) have the ability to effect one of the two parties primary offerings.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2012
There is no independent party in the USA. The USA is the product of mind control on a massive scale. Lesbian CIA agent Gloria Steinem was proudly recruited by the Rockefellers to preach breakup of the family unit, killing two birds with one stone. First women entered the labor force and could be taxed with all of the proceeds lining bankster pockets as US taxes are insufficient to pay principal. Secondly the children effective become wards of the state for total immersion in how to be useful, unthinking consumer bots.

Americans are so brain damaged they see an obvious Mossad intelligence operation on their own land and blindly accept the cover story about a drone-flying goatherding cavedweller singlehandedly controlling more first strike firepower than the CCCP. Or more recently that a scopolamine-drugged Phd candidate who didn't even recall his own doings is a prelude for banning guns in the USA.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (13) Aug 16, 2012
I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative... I'm split 50/50 between the two parties. I'm in favor of fiscal responsibility rather than deficit spending and for reducing the size of the government and for maximizing individual freedoms. I am also pro gay rights, pro choice, and don't give a flying fuck about the "traditional family unit" or religion.

Tell me who to vote for, because I honestly have no idea. I hate what Obama is doing to our economy, and I am basically disgusted by the republican candidates social policies.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (18) Aug 16, 2012
disgusted by the republican candidates social policies.

Too bad you have to choose, or have others choose for you.

Don't care about religion or the family? That's your prerogative, so let's eliminate all laws that do anything to protect and promote families. Children can raise themselves, right? No? Then who will do it? The govt? Who will pay for it? YOU will. How will they be raised? What will be the values taught to the govt children? Probably pro govt values, big govt, limited liberties, NO fiscal responsibility.
Maybe you should care about traditional families and religion if you want limited govt, fiscal responsibility and individual liberty.
Must be tough to be 'independent'.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2012
Fiscal Conservatives vote Democrat, since the U.S. deficit has been created by 40 years of failed Libertarian/Conservative Economics.

America's rapid decline started under Reagan.

The U.K.'s rapid decline started under Thatcher.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2012
In RyggTard's view, "True independence" = Absolute subservience to Corporate Dictates.

Absolute Slavery to the corporation = Absolute freedom = Libertarian Ideology.

"Do you want to gang up on other people and steal their stuff or do NOT want to do that?" - RyggTard

"Work brings freedom" - Sign over many Nazi work camps.
"Work brings freedom" - The perpetual promise of Capitalists.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.9 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2012
"However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood." - Libertarian Party Platform

"Children can raise themselves, right?" - RyggTard

They do according to the tenants of your own sick Libertarian ideology....

If Children can at any time assume the rights and responsibilities of adulthood, doesn't that make child prostitution legal?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2012
Always vote for the lesser of two evils.

The Democrats are clearly the proper choice.

"Tell me who to vote for, because I honestly have no idea." - DeathClock

Remember...

"The deficit doesn't matter." - Dick Cheney.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2012
I've been warning Americans for 30 years that Republicans were spending their nation into the poor house.

Starve the beast of big government by bankrupting the nation, has been the Republican plan for America for the last 40 years.

"We continue to sleep and slumber as our Nation is spent into Oblivion, with nothing to show for the debt!" - Irisiq

"The deficit doesn't matter." - Dick Cheney
Sigh
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2012
Don't care about religion or the family? That's your prerogative, so let's eliminate all laws that do anything to protect and promote families. Children can raise themselves, right?

But abolishing those laws would increase individual choice. Why aren't you for that? Is government coercion fine if government forces people to do what you want? And how would government pay to enforce those laws you want? Do you approve of taxes for purposes other than the military and the protection of property rights?

Maybe you should care about traditional families and religion if you want limited govt, fiscal responsibility and individual liberty.

Please do explain what the link is, and provide data.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2012
Too bad you have to choose, or have others choose for you.


I can always choose to abstain...

Don't care about religion or the family? That's your prerogative, so let's eliminate all laws that do anything to protect and promote families.


I didn't say I didn't care about family or children, I said I don't care about the traditional family unit, meaning a married man and women. I know families with 2 dads, with 2 moms, with only one parent of either gender, and with no parents and the kids are raised by grandparents and they a are all FINE.

Children can raise themselves, right? No? Then who will do it? The govt? Who will pay for it? YOU will


This is stupid, I didn't say or imply this, you took what I wrote, changed it to mean what you wanted it to mean, and ran with it.

Maybe you should care about traditional families and religion if you want limited govt, fiscal responsibility and individual liberty.


non sequitur.
[/q
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2012
Please do explain what the link is, and provide data.


"They hold tight to their belief, born of staunch Lutheran teachings, that human life cannot thrive in deadbeat towns and profligate lands. They know that money is a scarce commodity that has to be systematically processed, recorded and safeguarded before being put out to new borrowers and petitioners. "
"In classic Lutheran teaching, the salvation of the believer by faith alone does not curtail the need for constant charitable good works, as ill-informed critics allege. Faith, rather, empowers the believer to act in the world by taking the worry out of his present and future religious life. "
http://www.nytime...tml?_r=1
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2012
So what?

I don't get your point, that some religious people are good? Some non-religious people are good too, religion has nothing at all to do with it, it is incidental. People can be "good" with religion or without, people can be "bad" with religion or without... I've seen all varieties a hundreds times over.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2012
they a are all FINE.

1. How do you know?
2. How do you know they would not have been BETTER in a nuclear family?
I know a guy who was just 'fine' being raised in an orphanage. Should society murder all parents and raise children as orphans?

It's the same argument 'liberals' make about taxes.
"French economist Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) explained it in his pamphlet "What is Seen and What is Not Seen," saying, "There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.""
http://www.creato...acy.html
Since we won't experiment with people, all people can do is observe, take data and try to glean results. Humans are very resilient and can overcome many obstacles if they choose to.
Should society encourage such obstacles or discourage obstacles?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2012
Death made an incorrect assumption that a limited, fiscally responsible govt is mutually exclusive from a govt that attacks his social 'values'.
A govt that has the power to do for you, to plunder, to redistribute wealth has the power to control your social lives as well. Just ask the Romanians. Their socialist state was declining and one reason their dictator thought was population. So he banned abortions and all birth control. The results were tragic.

A govt limited to protecting property rights must be fiscally responsible and won't have any authority to force you or anyone to live the way 'they' want. No one can force others to live the way want unless that 'way' infringes upon the property rights of others.
Social tolerance and limited govt are not mutually exclusive. Unless, Death, wants to use the govt to impose HIS 'values' upon everyone else? Then he is just another typical 'socialist'.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2012
they a are all FINE.
1. How do you know?


Well I'm one of them for starters... My mother moved away when I was 2 years old and I was raised by my father and my grandparents (since he worked 60 hour weeks). I am now a software engineer, I've been in a stable relationship for 10 years this October, and I have 2 beautiful sons, I consider myself more intelligent and more successful than the average person, and I can state with an 80% statistical confidence that I make more money than you do.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2012
"Mark Regnerus, a professor at the University of Texas, Austin, recently challenged this idea with an article in Social Science Research, in which he suggested that children of gay parents tend to have lower levels of economic success and more problems with mental health.

Some scholars have reasonably disagreed with Regnerus methodology, but interest groups and the guardians of sociologys orthodoxy have demanded his head. As a result, UT has launched an investigation into accusations of scientific misconduct.

Though the article was peer-reviewed and published by a respected academic journal, one columnist wrote that Regnerus study was designed so as to be guaranteed to make gay people look bad, through means plainly fraudulent and defamatory."

Reasonable people may disagree about Regnerus conclusions, Woods views of climate science or my opinions on black studies, but on these topics, there is no room for discussion in the Ivory Tower.
http://www.nypost...ion/oped
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2012
"Reasonable people may disagree about Regnerus conclusions, Woods views of climate science or my opinions on black studies, but on these topics, there is no room for discussion in the Ivory Tower.

And the enforcers of this orthodoxy are shameless. A study out next month in Perspectives on Psychological Science finds: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents are, the more willing they are to discriminate.

At least theyre honest.

Read more: http://www.nypost...3p53KgBt
"
Well I'm one of them for starters

A sample of one.Do you encourage all mothers to leave their children when they are 2?
Vendicar Dickarian
2.8 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2012
I'm sure there's some level of naivete involved with anyone claiming that there's much difference between these two parties. Some who have commented here clearly don't live in the U.S. and know as much about American politics as I, presumably, would know about.....Chinese labor laws. Exactly, only what I've read in the national news.

But the experience of an American, adult, voter and one registered as an independent clearly proves otherwise. Both parties are much more alike than different.

I heard a nice story somewhere (can't remember) in the national TV news this week: Picture the U.S. as being a bus full of people headed off a cliff. The Democrats might be driving 40 mph, the Republicans 80, but the bus is definitely going off that cliff.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2012
Do you encourage all mothers to leave their children when they are 2?


Strawman?

I would rather a child be raised by a loving gay couple than be shuffled around orphanages and foster homes their entire life.

The point is a married man and women is not the only acceptable and beneficial configuration of a family in order to raise well adjusted children.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2012

I would rather a child be raised by a loving gay couple than be shuffled around orphanages and foster homes their entire life.

But not be raised by their biological parents?

The point is a married man and women is not the only acceptable and beneficial configuration of a family in order to raise well adjusted children.


So your not willing to rank the most beneficial family configuration?
You don't want society to encourage the best for its children?

Stuff happens. Parents die or sometimes they are irresponsible and run away. Societal pressure encouraged by faith can support responsibility.
Following in the wake of the irresponsible baby boomers and secular 'progressives' who encourages responsibility in society? Certainly NOT the 'liberals'.
Awards were given to USDA employees in NC for attacking individual responsibility.
And you can't decide which is worse?
irjsiq
1 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2012
Tell me who to vote for, because I honestly have no idea. I hate what Obama is doing to our economy, and I am basically disgusted by the republican candidates social policies.


Suggest a candidate! Could you support Herman Cain?
I burned-out on the Reps when they ran Dole against Clinton!; And refuse to hold-my-nose and vote for the lesser of two poor choices~!
Suggest a Candidate that will attract more Independents, who now outnumber Dems and Reps!
It Is OUR Country! It Is Up to US to take It back!
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2012
Suggest a candidate!

Too late.
You have 4 years to consider one.
As the article suggests there are no independents.
Now maybe if 'independents' registered with some kind of party, it does not have to be democrat or republican, politicians would have some idea what you want since they scan voter registration data at least quarterly.
We see what happens when independents vote. They elected a socialist. Are 'independents' socialists?
irjsiq
1 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2012
Suggest a candidate!

Too late.
You have 4 years to consider one.]
Write-in votes! Write-in Your Candidate, take a picture of your Ballot,
compare your ballot after ballots have been counted!
Extract promises from Congressional Candidates to fore-go their 'Golden Parachute' existence, and live by the same rules, with the same 'benefits' as WE the Ruled!
Take a picture of your Ballot!
Write-in N.O.T.A.,= (None Of The Above)if no candidate meets your approval!
Our Country belongs to We The People! It is up to We The People to correct the sad course of Our Country!

Roy J Stewart,
Phoenix AZ
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2012
Roy, you sound like one of the losertarians.
Besides making you feel good, what good would your recommendations accomplish?
Who did you support in the primary process? How did you support them?
Is their such a thing as a perfect candidate?
For what its worth, I liked one of the ways the Greeks did it. Every two years a lottery is held and the 'winner' is the governor, a legislator a president, etc.
After two years of duty, they can never participate in the lottery again.
Sigh
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2012
Please do explain what the link is, and provide data.

"They hold tight to their belief, born of staunch Lutheran teachings

So it's not religion, like you said before, but specifically Lutheran protestantism. Are you saying that everyone should be a Lutheran protestant?

And what about your surprising endorsement of state coercion when it comes to enforcing what you think is right? Or have you changed your mind again?
Their socialist state was declining and one reason their dictator thought was population. So he banned abortions and all birth control. The results were tragic.

Just for the record, you favour leaving the decision to abort to individual choice?

A govt limited to protecting property rights must be fiscally responsible and won't have any authority to force you or anyone to live the way 'they' want.

So such a government can't force you to live in a traditional family structure or to raise your kids with Lutheran values?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2012
Just for the record, you favour leaving the decision to abort to individual choice?

And I support the choice of medical personal to refuse to kill babies and I support choice of people to post, publish and display images of murdered babies.

The point of the article, secular Germans have been influenced by Luther's values has have millions of others, helping them to be more successful.

Are you saying that everyone should be a Lutheran protestant?

It has benefited millions and I would encourage everyone, especially Christians, to read Luther's "Concerning Christian Liberty".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2012
"One of the first surprises I had, as a new counselor, was how often our clients were not considering abortion. Although we have recently noticed an increase in clients who are considering abortion, many of the women we see are willing to accept a child if one comes, and some are eager. (Their own mothers are much more likely to push, or even try to coerce, them into abortions.) "
"Over time I began to see more and more the frayed communal fabric in which these women and children are wrapped. I began to appreciate the connections they lackedto their own fathers, to their childrens fathers, to happily married couples who could serve as models, to churches where they were nurtured and shown Gods love. Now I see my job primarily as helping women find people in their own communities who can give them support, advice, and most of all the hope that married love is possible."
http://www.weekly...l?page=3

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2012
"In the latest poll, 58% of Americans describe themselves as "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative," while only 37% of Americans describe themselves as "very liberal" or "somewhat liberal." The "moderate" or "don't know" remain as in past polls very small, at 2% for both of those groups.

Read more: http://www.americ...40Jq82wi
"
Sigh
not rated yet Aug 19, 2012
Just for the record, you favour leaving the decision to abort to individual choice?

And I support the choice of medical personal to refuse to kill babies and I support choice of people to post, publish and display images of murdered babies.

You have surprised me again. You imply that abortion is murder, yet you are willing to leave the decision whether to commit that type of murder to the individual, with no legal sanction? Is there any reason why that attitude doesn't apply to other forms of murder?

The point of the article, secular Germans have been influenced by Luther's values has have millions of others, helping them to be more successful.

The article is also explicitly marked as an opinion piece. What's more, I think whether a belief is supported by empirical data should be more important to whether I adopt it than whether it is useful. Your argument is that people should believe this because it is useful, but an opinion piece can't show that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2012
an opinion piece can't show that.

What are the opinions based upon? Observations. Make your own observations and challenge the opinion. Have you read Luther? Do you read history and current events?

I can support a law stating abortion is murder. The challenge will be enforcing such a law. How do you enforce a law against suicide? All the best law could do is prosecute anyone who aids a abets a suicide or an abortion.
The woman still has a choice just as everyone has the choice to suicide.
How eager is a woman to kill her baby if she risks her life as well? Why should society make that an easy choice?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2012
"Angela Merkel, facing an election next year, cannot afford to ignore the evidence of the polls that a vast majority of her people say they have had enough of being expected to bail out their failing neighbours indefinitely. "
http://www.telegr...own.html

Some socialists seem to know when enough is enough.

sigh, do you think culture is significant? Compare cultures with a Lutheran or Calivinist background with a Roman Catholic culture. Which ones are more prosperous and free?

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2012
http://www.youtub...=related

http://www.youtub...=related

"For what its worth, I liked one of the ways the Greeks did it. Every two years a lottery is held and the 'winner' is the governor, a legislator a president, etc." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2012
I note that as the number of Conservative Americans has increased, America has rapidly declined in world stature, economic power, and world standing of almost every measure.

"In the latest poll, 58% of Americans describe themselves as "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative,"

It is not a coincidence.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2012
Yup. Austrian economics has certainly damaged Europe. Almost as much as it has damaged America.

"Angela Merkel, facing an election next year, cannot afford to ignore the evidence of the polls that a vast majority of her people say they have had enough of being expected to bail out their failing neighbours indefinitely. "
CapitalismPrevails
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
Truth is that you can't have it both ways. A middle ground is subjective and, to me atleast, being an independent is subjective and self righteous.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2012
Truth is that you can't have it both ways. A middle ground is subjective and, to me atleast, being an independent is subjective and self righteous.
Typical xtian dualist bivalent bullshiyte.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2012
It is your country. But like an Ape dying from an infection the body that is the American public don't have a clue as to what is killing their nation, nor do they have the ability to conceive of a viable solution.

"It Is OUR Country! It Is Up to US to take It back!" - Irisiq

Maybe you could try banging some rocks together, or singing some tribal chants.

Perhaps inoculating your nation with more of the same Conservative poison that has caused your downfall will do the trick... Hair of the dog style.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2012
Extremism in the defense of the Qur'an is no vice.

"A middle ground is subjective and, to me atleast, being an independent is subjective and self righteous." - CapitalismHasFailed

dtxx
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2012
I've proudly been registered as an independent since I was 18. I absolutely refuse to align myself with either of the main political parties. I find them both nauseating to the extreme. If I were forced to choose a label it would be libertarian, but I really don't care for some of the things connoted by that label either.

I hate it that my state now refers to us (since 2010 I believe) as "No Party Preference" but I guess that is accurate. Typically the democrats will allow me to vote in their primaries, and I always vote at every opportunity.

Anyways, I'm standing up as a real independent. I actually research candidates prior to going to the booth, and I've voted for candidates from both major parties depending on what I learn about them. I'm sure I have some unconscious partisanship, but I really don't consider party affiliation consciously. I try to pick the lesser of two evils in most cases.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2012
I've proudly been registered as an independent since I was 18. I absolutely refuse to align myself with either of the main political parties. I find them both nauseating to the extreme. If I were forced to choose a label it would be libertarian, but I really don't care for some of the things connoted by that label either.

(I'm not quoting you, I'm copying you, this might as well have come from own mouth)
Sigh
not rated yet Aug 21, 2012
an opinion piece can't show that.

What are the opinions based upon? Observations.

Out of three points, whether you want legal sanctions only against some actions that you consider murder, whether you should believe things because you want them to be true, and whether opinions count as evidence, you care most about the last?

Opinions are based on a lot of things besides observations. See http://www.cultur...ion.net/ and look at obama_sock's first comment here http://phys.org/n...on.html. It is an clear admission of wishful thinking.

All the best law could do is prosecute anyone who aids a abets a suicide or an abortion.

Could you state clearly whether you want a law banning abortion? Is the choice you advocated only the choice to risk legal sanction? Then there would be no such thing as government coercion, because no matter the cost, you could always choose not to cooperate. If you give in, that would be your free choice.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.