Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA05045 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 13 May 2000 19:04:22 +0100 Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 11:01:16 -0700 From: Bill Spight <bspight@pacbell.net> Subject: Abortion views and face time To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Message-id: <391D986C.3E571A1F@pacbell.net> Organization: Saybrook Graduate School X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-PBI-NC404 (Win95; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: ja,en References: <391C3804.B4418043@mediaone.net> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Dear Chuck,
> But here's the problem: when I get up to the present and talk about
> current moral dilemmas, they insist that current morality exists by
> itself and motivates behavior. For example they insist that Catholic
> religion qua religion motivates the abortion issue or Northern Ireland.
> BTW, I have some pretty solid evidence that the abortion wars are being
> moved by 1 major factor, the amount of face time each side wants to
> invest in children.
"Wants to"? How do you figure that?
> Face time is expressed by two factors a) family
> size, and/or b)face time (assuming in a that greater family sizes lead
> to more face time).
Face time is expressed by face time. Yes, but . . . .
It certainly seems likely that face time is in part a function of
family size. It also seems unlikely that it would be
proportional. It is questionable whether the desire for face time
is an increasing function of family size. In fact, a large family
might lead to a desire for solitude. ;-)
> Put face time on a contiuum, and the more face time
> is associated with more agreement with anti-abortion sentiment. Choice
> of one side or another in the contiuum results in a very different set
> of economic options, and it is the resulting economic interests that
> clash. (overtime, apartment rental, reciprocal arrangements on baby
> sitting, time devoted to work and career, economic means which in turn
> decides neighborhoods one can live in AND education for the kids, taxes,
> etc. etc. - it's very pervasive).
To be sure, there are economic penalties in modern urban society
for large families, in general. What does this have to do with
face time? Also, why say "it is"? Are you claiming that economics
is the one clashing factor?
> The anti-abortion side has the
> quixotic hope that they can force family size up AND people's positive
> feelings towards their children. (If you want to disagree on this list,
> please try to express it in a different posting than the main subject I
> am presenting.)
>
I do not disagree, but I wonder where you get the evidence for
your claim about the quixotic hopes of the anti-abortionists.
> The class agrees that indeed, face time is a crucial point where
> interests clash but they refuse to connect it with the abortion issue.
> They insist it is a purely moral issue.
>
In what you say so far, you seem to claim a statistical
correlation between family size (as an indicator of face time)
and views on abortion in Northern Ireland. Perhaps you have other
indicators of face time. You also seem to claim that this
correlation reveals a causal relationship, and that the supposed
causal relationship provided by religious morality does not apply
or is insufficient.
However, there is an obvious relation between family size (and
concommitant face time) and religion in Northern Ireland. A
parsimonious explanation is that religion explains both family
size (and face time) and attitudes towards abortion. If that is
the position of the students, they are being good scientists and
adhering to Occam's Razor.
To disentangle this question, you need more than the bald
correlation between your index of face time and abortion views.
You need to control for religion. Among Protestants, is larger
family size (or other face time index) correlated with abortion
views? Among Catholics, does the correlation hold? If so, then
you have a case.
As for the economic question, you need to take economic class
into account. Shouldn't there be a smaller effect as the family
is more able to afford the costs of larger families? And
shouldn't poorer families be more favorably inclined towards
abortion?
Best regards,
Bill
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 13 2000 - 19:04:43 BST