Abortion debate thread

PDN · 27-11-2012 01:57PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This all sounds very noble. But the difference is that there is an existentialist question of when life begins that no-one Christian, Atheist can give an objective answer.

In that case, then it is better to take a safety-first policy.

If we are taking actions in life, and it appears that there might be a risk to someone else's life in the process, then most reasonable people would conclude that we should take care to be fairly certain that our actions won't kill someone else.

It is not enough to say, "Ah, I didn't objectively know 100% for sure that my actions would kill someone." Such an attitude is reckless in the extreme.

The majority of people calling themselves pro-life don't care about these babies as soon as they are born. They are pro - birth, rather than pro-life.

Again, that is an outright lie.

The majority of people who are pro-life care very much about children. If legislation was proposed that children could be executed legally, then you and I both know that pro-life people would protest much more vociferously than they currently do about abortion. For you to suggest otherwise is deeply dishonest.

Your untrue and baseless accusation is also deeply insulting to the many Christians (and others) who are pro-life and who either work in the area of child welfare, or support charities in that field.

Obliq · 27-11-2012 02:03PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Is it simply that person B needs it to live? Does that over ride the right for person A to control her own body?

Well, I would say that it IS that simple for some people. A (human) life, is a life, is a life. But relative powerlessness and the religious/philosophical value on that life is a grey area, morality-wise for others.

doctoremma · 27-11-2012 02:24PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think the moment of conception something important and significant happens - in a biological sense....People are entitled and should differ on the matter.

Understood completely. And while I agree, something fabulous happens at conception, I think there are other points in "life" that more fabulous things happen. But that's my opinion.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I find your style a little bit patronizing. That's just a personal opinion.

A second round of apologies. I spend a fair bit of time teaching this subject to lazy and uninterested undergrads. I may lapse into "talking-to-a-child teacher" mode on occasion. I shall try to refrain.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I read a good few books on the subject about five, six years ago...

I was aiming to see if you believe everything will eventually be mapped to genetics?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There are techniques available such as map / reduce which help analyse data...So the techniques google are using to try to predict what web pages to show can be used by Scientists. The challenge is that Scientists need to become far more skilled at Software so that the technology can be best used.

I get what you're saying but all the data and analysis tools in the world cannot tell you what an unknown gene does.

An example from my current work: I have sequenced the genome of a patient with a particular eye disorder. We had a fair guess at what genes might have gone wrong and sequenced those (by standard methods) first, to no avail. So now we need to hunt for something new. His DNA, like everyone's, is littered with mutations. My ongoing list has 143 entries for genes that might plausibly underly his disorder, whittled down from nearly a thousand true-positive mutation events by excluding those mutations in genes for which I cannot make a data link with eye development. So, I am left with genes that are expressed in eyes, genes that make proteins that look like other proteins involved in eye development, genes for which there are animal models with eye problems, and so on.

I can't see any method of ascertaining which mutation this patient carries that causes his eye disorder without a whole load of experimentation. If the reference data is not there, we are stuck. And the reference data can only be generated by experiments.

Obliq · 27-11-2012 02:25PM

PDN wrote: »

'Pro-abortion' IMHO is more honest. 'Pro-choice' makes it sound like we are talking about the choice of wther to watch Sky News or the BBC.

If people are in favor of permitting abortion pretty much on demand. then it seems fair to describe them as 'pro-abortion' because they want a society where more abortions are permitted.

Not quite true enough IMHO. A society where abortions are permitted, yes, but where unwanted pregnancies are actively discouraged through FAR better sex education, contraception access and education in general to afford people better opportunities (and therefore ambition) to have children only when they can afford them. That is why it is unfair to say "Pro-abortion", as no-one I have ever spoken with is in favour of "more abortion" rather than bringing down the abortion rate by encouraging better education and choice.

There are certain rights that are more fundamental than others. Any coherent code of ethics recognise that at times there is a conflict of rights. Any fair or just code of ethics recognises that when that happens the needs of both parties should be taken into account and a fair balance achieved.

Major rights, such as those to life or liberty, should take precedence over lesser rights, such as rights to privacy or the right to freedom of expression. This is why, for example, you don't have the freedom of speech to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.

If a significant risk exists to one person's life - then that may override someone else's right to life. Which is why, if you genuinely think someone is about to hijack your car at gunpoint, then you may be justified in driving over them.

However, it is much harder to justify driving over Romanian gypsy selling copies of The Big Issue because he is slowing the traffic and interfering with your right to freely proceed from your home to your workplace.

In the same way, every pro-life advocate I personally know supports medical treatment to save the life of a mother - even where such treatment will kill her unborn baby.

But it is a different kettle of fish when, for example, you want to kill the unborn baby because the mother wants to exercise her right to continue her career or education without the interruption a baby will bring.

So, if we afford both mother and baby the status of personhood - then sensible legislation will permit abortion to save a mother's life, but not otherwise (except for extreme and rare situations - there is room to debate instances of rape, or very severe malformation of the child).

But, if you want to push for an abortion on demand scenario - then it is difficult to see how that can be justified so long as you see the unborn child as a person, and consequently as deserving of human rights.

My own opinion is that the vast majority of Irish people do view the unborn child as a person - heck, just ask most Mothers whether they believe that the little guy they felt kicking during pregnancy was a person or not. Therefore I would be amazed if there were any appetite for abortion on demand in this country.

What I do fear is bad legislation that is a knee-jerk reaction to the very understandable sympathy we feel when a young mother dies.

Again, these are your personal beliefs, and I am quite insulted that you would seek to equate the killing of a tiny, unknowing person and the killing of a fully grown person who knows that their life is meaningful to others, with the pro-choice view.

I am also deeply suspicious of those who want abortion on demand, and will try to exploit rare and unusual scenarios to achieve that end. For example, Clare Daly speaking out of both sides of her mouth at once when proposing a bill that supposedly dealt only with very rare medical cases - but then proclaiming that she was doing so on behalf of "the thousands of women" who travel from Ireland to the UK for abortions.

I think that there is a real danger that we get legislation that, on the face of it, only legislates for extreme situations, but then permits virtual abortion on demand where everyone knows with a nod and a wink that "All you have to do is say you're suicidal, then they have to give you an abortion."

I quite agree with your second paragraph here, but of course think that there should be better access to abortion for Irish women within our own country. For someone who advocated fairness in this debate, I am calling you out on you saying that about Claire Daly. AFAIK, this bill is only the start of what she, and "the thousands of women" travelling for abortions, and the likes of me, would like to see. I too, am up here arguing on behalf of all these women. I'm certainly not doing it for the good of my health.

We had just agreed that we would be respectful PDN. What happened in the meantime?

Fanny Cradock · 27-11-2012 02:31PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The majority of people calling themselves pro-life don't care about these babies as soon as they are born. They are pro - birth, rather than pro-life.

And you would know how? Have you asked the majority of pro-lifers?

I gather that it's just easier to assume nasty things from the safety of your keyboard rather than meet with the people you slander and put your opinions to the test.

Lamentable words, Tim. It looks very much like you are attempting to poison any chance of both sides having a reasoned debate.

Tim Robbins · 27-11-2012 02:33PM

PDN wrote: »

In that case, then it is better to take a safety-first policy.

If we are taking actions in life, and it appears that there might be a risk to someone else's life in the process, then most reasonable people would conclude that we should take care to be fairly certain that our actions won't kill someone else.

It is not enough to say, "Ah, I didn't objectively know 100% for sure that my actions would kill someone." Such an attitude is reckless in the extreme.

It's not as simple as that.

The majority of people who are pro-life care very much about children. If legislation was proposed that children could be executed legally, then you and I both know that pro-life people would protest much more vociferously than they currently do about abortion. For you to suggest otherwise is deeply dishonest.

They will take to the streets over the abortion issue and some of them will say very hurtful things to those they disagree with. In comparison to child welfare they couldn't give two hoots.

PDN · 27-11-2012 02:36PM

Obliq wrote: »

We had just agreed that we would be respectful PDN. What happened in the meantime?

I'm not quite sure. I feel I have been respectful to you, and I don't think I've misrepresented anyone's position, but you still seem to be offended?

Btw - are you actually arguing that it is wrong of me to equate the killing of a tiny, unknowing person and the killing of a fully grown person?

I find that quite horrifying, and I hope you just worded it wrongly.

Tim Robbins · 27-11-2012 02:36PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And you would know how? Have you asked the majority of pro-lifers?

Because I follow a lot of politics, charities and social issues in Ireland.

If you look at what has happened in this country, you had a large Christian organization which took kids and abused them and at the same time went out of its way to prevent women the option of having abortion. This didn't just happen in the Roman Catholicism but also happened in some of the reformed Churches.

The most important thing to the extreme religious is their faith and that nothing threatens it.

Fanny Cradock · 27-11-2012 02:41PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Because I follow a lot of politics, charities and social issues in Ireland.

If you look at what has happened in this country, you had a large Christian organization which took kids and abused them and at the same time went out of its way to prevent women the option of having abortion. This didn't just happen in the Roman Catholicism but also happened in some of the reformed Churches.

The most important thing to the extreme religious is their faith and that nothing threatens it.

Red herrings aside, please demonstrate the validity of your claim that "the majority of people calling themselves pro-life don't care about these babies as soon as they are born". And let's not confuse facts with your opinions.

Zombrex · 27-11-2012 02:43PM

PDN wrote: »

'Pro-abortion' IMHO is more honest. 'Pro-choice' makes it sound like we are talking about the choice of wther to watch Sky News or the BBC.

If you support the right of someone to exercise free speech to blaspheme God does that mean you are pro-blasphemy? Or just pro-free speech?

The person doing the blasphemy might be pro-free speech and pro-blasphemy, but all you have to be is pro-free speech to allow him to do it, even if you don't agree with what he is saying.

If someone called you pro-blasphemy you would no doubt correct them by saying that this was a straw man argument and the person is ignoring the wider argument, whether free speech is a right or not.

Same principle applies.

PDN wrote: »

There are certain rights that are more fundamental than others. Any coherent code of ethics recognise that at times there is a conflict of rights. Any fair or just code of ethics recognises that when that happens the needs of both parties should be taken into account and a fair balance achieved.

Major rights, such as those to life or liberty, should take precedence over lesser rights, such as rights to privacy or the right to freedom of expression. This is why, for example, you don't have the freedom of speech to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.

Well yes, that is the point. The woman's right to liberty is concerned paramount. She can do with her body as she pleases. The other person does not override that right.

The alternative is putting forward an argument saying that actually no, a person can override another person's right to do with their own body as they please. How is that argument derived. Why can I not do with your body as I please?

PDN wrote: »

If a significant risk exists to one person's life - then that may override someone else's right to life. Which is why, if you genuinely think someone is about to hijack your car at gunpoint, then you may be justified in driving over them.

However, it is much harder to justify driving over Romanian gypsy selling copies of The Big Issue because he is slowing the traffic and interfering with your right to freely proceed from your home to your workplace.

In the same way, every pro-life advocate I personally know supports medical treatment to save the life of a mother - even where such treatment will kill her unborn baby.

But it is a different kettle of fish when, for example, you want to kill the unborn baby because the mother wants to exercise her right to continue her career or education without the interruption a baby will bring.

The argument is not "kill the child" (I thought you wanted an honest debate).

The argument is remove the child from inside your body. The child dies because the life cannot sustain itself otherwise. If the child doesn't then it isn't an abortion it is a birth.

AFAIK there are doctors who will actually kill the fetus if they believe it has no chance of survive outside of the body, but that discussion is a debate about euthanasia, not abortion.

PDN wrote: »

So, if we afford both mother and baby the status of personhood - then sensible legislation will permit abortion to save a mother's life, but not otherwise (except for extreme and rare situations - there is room to debate instances of rape, or very severe malformation of the child).

"Sensible legislation" generally considered bodily autonomy to be a fundamental right of an individual.

PDN wrote: »

My own opinion is that the vast majority of Irish people do view the unborn child as a person

That isn't the question. The question is do they view the unborn as a person who has more right to the woman's body than the woman does, and if so where is this right derived from?

The foetus says (hypothetically) I want to be in your body.
The mother says I want you out of my body.

What is the argument that the foetus (a person) overrides the wishes of the woman (a person) with regard to what happens to her own body.

PDN wrote: »

I am also deeply suspicious of those who want abortion on demand

I'm deeply suspicious of someone how keeps saying "abortion on demand", as if that is some how a bad thing (free speech "on demand", property rights "on demand", freedom of religion "on demand") while also talking about an honest debate.

Why a person wants the abortion is irrelevant to whether the person has the fundamental right to carry out a procedure on their own body, just as why a person wants to exercise their right to free speech is irrelevant to whether they have that right in the first place.

Tim Robbins · 27-11-2012 02:48PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Understood completely. And while I agree, something fabulous happens at conception, I think there are other points in "life" that more fabulous things happen. But that's my opinion.

I agree with that to. But it is hard to pin point them to singularities in space / time. Everything else seems gradual.

A second round of apologies. I spend a fair bit of time teaching this subject to lazy and uninterested undergrads. I may lapse into "talking-to-a-child teacher" mode on occasion. I shall try to refrain.

Yes you do. You certainly know a lot but your tone is a bit smug and patronizing. I don't like that educational style, it really gets my back up.

I was aiming to see if you believe everything will eventually be mapped to genetics?

I am not an expert on the matter, but from various books I read on the matter a few years ago, I was pretty convinced about 80% was determined by genes. But I don't think there is broad agreement on this.

I get what you're saying but all the data and analysis tools in the world cannot tell you what an unknown gene does.

An example from my current work: I have sequenced the genome of a patient with a particular eye disorder. We had a fair guess at what genes might have gone wrong and sequenced those (by standard methods) first, to no avail. So now we need to hunt for something new. His DNA, like everyone's, is littered with mutations. My ongoing list has 143 entries for genes that might plausibly underly his disorder, whittled down from nearly a thousand true-positive mutation events by excluding those mutations in genes for which I cannot make a data link with eye development. So, I am left with genes that are expressed in eyes, genes that make proteins that look like other proteins involved in eye development, genes for which there are animal models with eye problems, and so on.

I can't see any method of ascertaining which mutation this patient carries that causes his eye disorder without a whole load of experimentation. If the reference data is not there, we are stuck. And the reference data can only be generated by experiments.

Obviously data has to come from somewhere. You must think I am really stupid if I didn't know that. You seem to be missing my point entirely.

This is why I find your style a bit patronizing. You kinda of speak as if they other person knows nothing and then waste time explaining things they know. You are not even thinking about what you could say that might of relevance to the person you are talking to. It is like an auto - pilot.

It would be like me speaking to you as if you didn't even know what a computer is. Instead, I assume you should know that and I don't waste your time explaining it so instead, I go straight to map / reduce / hadoop.

The standard of your under graduates must be very low if this is how you speak to them. I feel like you are talking to 12 year olds.

Tim Robbins · 27-11-2012 02:50PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Red herrings aside, please demonstrate the validity of your claim that "the majority of people calling themselves pro-life don't care about these babies as soon as they are born". And let's not confuse facts with your opinions.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Also, I would extend my opinion. These extreme pro - lifers don't even care about other adults. What matters usually is their faith and then they disguise all this is psycho babble, pseudo science and sophistry. I am referring especially to you Iona Institute.

PDN · 27-11-2012 02:52PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's not as simple as that.

Great counter-argument.

They will take to the streets over the abortion issue and some of them will say very hurtful things to those they disagree with. In comparison to child welfare they couldn't give two hoots.

Hogwash.

They take to the streets because there is the possibility of legislation that will permit the killing of the unborn.

Since there is no legislation proposed, or envisaged in any shape or form, to permit the kiilling of children after they emerge from the womb, they do not take to the streets to protest in a similar fashion about children already born.

You are in a hole. Stop digging.

If you look at what has happened in this country, you had a large Christian organization which took kids and abused them and at the same time went out of its way to prevent women the option of having abortion. This didn't just happen in the Roman Catholicism but also happened in some of the reformed Churches.

What happenede in such institutions was horrifying. However, only a fool would fail to note that the very reason for the existence of most of those institutions was because religious people actually had a desire to help children.

I am not a Roman Catholic, but I recognise that many schools, orphanages and hospitals were set up precisely because enough people in the Church cared about helping children and others. And, while nothing should excuse the actions of rapists or their protectors, the fact remains that the vast majority of RC people who worked in such institutions cared for the welfare of children and served them, often at great personal sacrifice.

The most important thing to the extreme religious is their faith and that nothing threatens it.

Your penchant for sweeping and untrue generalisations causes your assertions to become more outlandish and cartoonish.

Some of the most extreme religious people that I have ever met have been among the volunteer workers of the Salvation Army. Other extreme religious people include Martin Luther King. Do you really think you advance your cause by painting them with such a wide brush?

Obliq · 27-11-2012 02:54PM

PDN wrote: »

I'm not quite sure. I feel I have been respectful to you, and I don't think I've misrepresented anyone's position, but you still seem to be offended?

Btw - are you actually arguing that it is wrong of me to equate the killing of a tiny, unknowing person and the killing of a fully grown person?

I find that quite horrifying, and I hope you just worded it wrongly.

I think you read it wrongly actually! Sorry if you're horrified - I did not mean to do that.

I am not at all saying it's wrong for you to do that, I am saying it's wrong to imply that pro-choice people equate the two deaths as at all the same kettle of fish. That's how I feel you misrepresented my position tbh. You see, and I think you mentioned it earlier (or was it Mr.P?), we can easily add miles onto the polarisation of both sides. We should not be making assumptions about each other's beliefs.

MrPudding · 27-11-2012 02:55PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’ve bolded the bit that I think represents a weakness in your position, Mr P. Not that I think what you say is necessarily wrong, but your assertion that, in the event of a conflict, the rights of the born should prevail is unsupported by any argument or proof beyond the assertion that “many other people” agree with you. For those who don't like it, it's simply not true that "the rights of the born should trump the rights of the unborn".

Doesn’t this leave you exposed to exactly the same criticism that Obliq made against Fanny Craddock in post #489? Namely, that you are seeking to have your preference on this matter imposed on others?
The fact is that both sides in the pro-life/pro-choice debate actually have a lot of common ground; they both argue their position out of a shared understanding that human rights make a strong moral claim on us, and that we can measure laws against the claims of human rights, and criticise them if they fail to uphold or respect human rights. They just disagree about how the conflict between the rights of the born and the right of the unborn should be negotiated or resolved.

It seems to me that the pro-choice position arises from looking at the subject whose rights are in issue; they consider that a born subject has a stronger claim to rights than an unborn subject. Whereas the pro-life positions assumes that all subjects have the same claim to rights, but they see infringement of the right to life (resulting in the death or destruction of the subject) as a weightier matter than infringement of the right to bodily integrity (which can have very profound consequences, but rarely results in death or destruction).

Neither of these opposing positions can lay claim to any objective, empirical validity or demonstrable truth; they arise from differing philosophical understandings about what human rights are and why we have them. To the extent that we seek to have our understandings of human rights reflected in law, aren’t we all guilty of seeling to impose our subjective preferences on others?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because it commanded majority support the last time we voted on this, is the short answer.

The slightly longer answer is that I don't immediately see how you can have a law that doesn't reflect some unproven and unprovable ethical belief on this question. Even if you have no law at all, and an abortion free-for-all, that would still be a reflection of a particular ethical position.

It seems to me that the discourse we need to have is not, which of these perspectives should be reflected in law? It's, in a pluralist society with diverging views on this matter, can we find an approach to legislation which respects the diversity of views and doesn't involve the currently popular view steamrollering the others?

In this particular subject I am not certain it is possible to have such discourse. I think that in most cases the views are so entrenched and so far apart that compromise or agreement will be, in all likelihood, impossible. All your points above are valid, including the weakness in my argument, but I really can’t see a way forward on this. Someone’s view will be forced on someone else whatever happens.

MrP

Lingua Franca · 27-11-2012 03:03PM

PDN wrote: »

'Pro-abortion' IMHO is more honest.

There is absolutely nothing at all H about your O. For example:

My own opinion is that the vast majority of Irish people do view the unborn child as a person - heck, just ask most Mothers whether they believe that the little guy they felt kicking during pregnancy was a person or not. Therefore I would be amazed if there were any appetite for abortion on demand in this country.

You have an opinion about what the vast majority of other people think. Well, my own opinion is that the vast majority of Irish people are in favour of abortion on demand. See how that works? How arrogant and ill informed does that sound?

By the by, I am a mother and I didn't feel like my pregnancies were persons until they were born and I met them. How many mothers have you asked about this? Some? Most? All? Try seperating your opinion from fact.

If people are in favor of permitting abortion pretty much on demand. then it seems fair to describe them as 'pro-abortion' because they want a society where more abortions are permitted.

No, it's not fair. Very few people who are pro choice are comfortable with the term pro abortion for reasons you well know so I'm not going to bother repeating. You know this very well which is why you persist in poking with it. Would you be ok with being called anti-women all the time? I'm what people like you call "pro abortion" and yet I have never had an abortion and in fact have several children and am considering another. If I was "pro abortion" you'd think I'd have had one by now. Pro abortion does not describe me, pro choice does. You may persist with your slurs if you so choose but please be aware that others are observing you as willingly and knowingly casting slurs about which makes your moral high ground a tad shaky.

In the same way, every pro-life advocate I personally know supports medical treatment to save the life of a mother - even where such treatment will kill her unborn baby.

That's nice for you. Every "pro life" advocate I know doesn't, because their friend's mum had cancer during pregnancy and was offed an abortion but she refused and went to the novena and lo and behold baby was born and mum was fine -or- a 'real' mother/woman would sacrifice her life for her child. Have a wee look at the abortion threads in other parts of this forum, or go take a look at the comments on the Youth Defence facebook page ("babies before mothers!" said the first comment after the Savita story broke). There are plenty of "pro life" advocates who think that way and aren't shy about saying it.

Fanny Cradock · 27-11-2012 03:06PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Also, I would extend my opinion. These extreme pro - lifers don't even care about other adults. What matters usually is their faith and then they disguise all this is psycho babble, pseudo science and sophistry. I am referring especially to you Iona Institute.

Repeating the claim doesn't make it so. And adding ever more outrageous accusations about "extreme" pro-lifers not even caring about other adults does nothing to demonstrate that you haven't been spouting nonsense all along.

Again, please provide some verifiable evidence for the following claims you have made.

First, how do you know that the majority of pro-lifers don't care about the born?

Second, after you have qualified what an "extreme" pro-lifer is, you can then tell us how you know that they don't care about adults.

Tim Robbins · 27-11-2012 03:07PM

PDN wrote: »

They take to the streets because there is the possibility of legislation that will permit the killing of the unborn.

You see here you show your limited view of this problem. You think an abortion is killing.

It is only killing in an objective sense if is objective that life has begun.

But no, in your head your subjectivity is objectivity.

This is the problem with debating with you people. You fail to see when there is disagreement even amongst experts on a complex issue and then simplify to you simple way of looking at things. And if anyone says you are simplifying - oh you just say "great counter argument" or some other nonsense.

What happenede in such institutions was horrifying. However, only a fool would fail to note that the very reason for the existence of most of those institutions was because religious people actually had a desire to help children.

You mean control them so they could maintain power.

I am not a Roman Catholic, but I recognise that many schools, orphanages and hospitals were set up precisely because enough people in the Church cared about helping children and others. And, while nothing should excuse the actions of rapists or their protectors, the fact remains that the vast majority of RC people who worked in such institutions cared for the welfare of children and served them, often at great personal sacrifice.

The vast majority who knew about it covered it up.

Your penchant for sweeping and untrue generalisations causes your assertions to become more outlandish and cartoonish.

Great argument there.

Some of the most extreme religious people that I have ever met have been among the volunteer workers of the Salvation Army. Other extreme religious people include Martin Luther King. Do you really think you advance your cause by painting them with such a wide brush?

Peter McVerry is very religious and very genuine about his charitable actions. However, the vast majority of pro - lifers do not give two hoots.

PDN · 27-11-2012 03:14PM

Zombrex wrote: »

If you support the right of someone to exercise free speech to blaspheme God does that mean you are pro-blasphemy? Or just pro-free speech?

The person doing the blasphemy might be pro-free speech and pro-blasphemy, but all you have to be is pro-free speech to allow him to do it, even if you don't agree with what he is saying.

If someone called you pro-blasphemy you would no doubt correct them by saying that this was a straw man argument and the person is ignoring the wider argument, whether free speech is a right or not.

Same principle applies.

I think we can sling such strawmen all day.

For example, I am definitely not 'pro-choice' when it comes to choosing whether to kill Jews or not.

Well yes, that is the point. The woman's right to liberty is concerned paramount. She can do with her body as she pleases. The other person does not override that right.

The alternative is putting forward an argument saying that actually no, a person can override another person's right to do with their own body as they please. How is that argument derived. Why can I not do with your body as I please?

No, I don't think an absolute unfettered right exists for you to do what you please with your body, irrespective of the rights of others to life.

If you are driving a car, then you do not have the right to do what you please with your body. You do not have the right to ingest huge quantities of alcohol.

A mother, caring for a young baby in an isolated situation where other infant food is unavailable, does not have the absolute and unfettered right to refuse to breastfeed her child, thus ensuring it dies of starvation.

A conjoined twin does not have the absolute and unfettered right to commit self-mutilation in a way that will knowingly cause the death of his twin.

The argument is not "kill the child" (I thought you wanted an honest debate).

The argument is remove the child from inside your body. The child dies because the life cannot sustain itself otherwise. If the child doesn't then it isn't an abortion it is a birth.

Now you are simply playing at semantics. It does you no credit, and it certainly won't help persuade others to your point of view.

You might as well argue that the Spartans didn't actually kill sickly children by leaving then on exposed hillsides in winter. All they did was remove them from the warmth of their homes and clothing, the children actually died because they couldn't sustain themselves otherwise.

You know what? You might feel you're being smart and getting one over on a Christian by making such an asinine point. You're not. You're simply obscuring and preventing a debate that really needs to take place. I hope you're proud of yourself.

I'm deeply suspicious of someone how keeps saying "abortion on demand", as if that is some how a bad thing (free speech "on demand", property rights "on demand", freedom of religion "on demand") while also talking about an honest debate.

By all means please point to anywhere where I've said that the phrase 'on demand' is inherently negative.

doctoremma · 27-11-2012 03:15PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Obviously data has to come from somewhere. You must think I am really stupid if I didn't know that. You seem to be missing my point entirely.

Your post appeared (to my untrained-in-computing eyes) to be suggesting that if we could simply find a way to analyse data more efficiently, more algorithms/servers/programmes/I don't know, then we could suddenly solve the mysteries of the human genome. For me, the limiting factor is not the efficiency of data analysis, it's the availibility of reference data. Your post didn't indicate that you had assimilated that point. Hence, my example of this limiting factor in action.

If you feel you have addressed this point and that it is indeed me who is "not getting it", perhaps you might consider using more dumbed-down language as I genuinely have no idea what Hadoop etc is.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

...ranty insults...

Brilliant.

Obliq · 27-11-2012 03:16PM

MrPudding wrote: »

In this particular subject I am not certain it is possible to have such discourse. I think that in most cases the views are so entrenched and so far apart that compromise or agreement will be, in all likelihood, impossible. All your points above are valid, including the weakness in my argument, but I really can’t see a way forward on this. Someone’s view will be forced on someone else whatever happens.

MrP

You are right, clearly. There was nearly an agreement to disagree here earlier and it's all gone to pot, dammit!

Obliq · 27-11-2012 03:21PM

PDN wrote: »

I think we can sling such strawmen all day.

For example, I am definitely not 'pro-choice' when it comes to choosing whether to kill Jews or not.

There you go again PDN. Why did you bother to say earlier (and I believed you) "Like Obliq I am all for a discourse taking place - and I think such a discourse should be conducted with honesty. That means we should not misrepresent the views and motives of those who are on the opposite side of debate."

Here, you are once again clearly misrepresenting the pro-choice view which does not equate the right-to-life of the unborn(not a full-grown person) with the right-to-life of the mother. You might equate them, we do not. You are misrepresenting us awfully there.

Tim Robbins · 27-11-2012 03:28PM

doctoremma wrote: »

If you feel you have addressed this point and that it is indeed me who is "not getting it", perhaps you might consider using more dumbed-down language as I genuinely have no idea what Hadoop etc is.

I agree with you getting the data is horse and analyzing it is the cart.
I think we would both agree that is obvious.

I had written something about your question about Hadoop but have edited it out. I have a few issues they way a lot of Irish Scientists are not keeping up to date with what is going with technology and our overall lack of appreciation of science and technology. My opinion is if you are an educator you should know these things - not in detail but just at a very high level. So you should be able to know what difference cloud computing makes compared to virtualization but not have to know the in's and out's of either. It is just a pet hate of mine that so many Irish educators don't know these things - when they are having so much impact on the world will leave and every other academic field. I ask myself what the f is going on?

I just don't have a lot of patience. Sorry.

PDN · 27-11-2012 03:37PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing at all H about your O. For example:

It's always easier to launch ad hominem attacks rather than address substantive issues.

I am expressing an opinion on an internet discussion board. My opinion may not be your opinion, but launching into such subjective speculation about my humility or lack of it is not an indication of a strong position.

You have an opinion about what the vast majority of other people think. Well, my own opinion is that the vast majority of Irish people are in favour of abortion on demand. See how that works? How arrogant and ill informed does that sound?

I don't think it sounds arrogant at all. Perhaps that because I don't feel threatened because someone holds a different opinion to my own.

I think you are wrong, just as you have a right to think I'm wrong. In fact, I would be more than happy for your opinion to tested. It would be great to have a refendum that simply asked the Irish people, once and for all, whether they wanted abortion on demand to be introduced or not.

By the by, I am a mother and I didn't feel like my pregnancies were persons until they were born and I met them. How many mothers have you asked about this? Some? Most? All? Try seperating your opinion from fact.

Sorry, did I say every single mother without exception felt that way? I wasn't aware that I said any such thing.

Yesterday I asked this very question while addressing a church congregation. I asked how many mothers were present - about 150 women raised their hands. As soon as I asked them if, during their pregnancy, they had felt that the baby in their womb was an actual person, the vast majority began smiling and nodding. I actually said, "Look, if I'm wrong here please do talk to me afterwards and tell me" - but no-one did.

Now, in fairness it should be recognised that mothers who attend a church service may not be representative of the country as a whole. But my interactions with many people in different situations leads me to believe that my opinion is correct on this issue, and that the majority of Irish people do view an unborn child as a person.

Of course you are free to disagree with me - and if you can state that disagreement without using the word 'arrogant' then it might even come across as more convincing.

No, it's not fair. Very few people who are pro choice are comfortable with the term pro abortion for reasons you well know so I'm not going to bother repeating. You know this very well which is why you persist in poking with it. Would you be ok with being called anti-women all the time?

If you ever see or hear me suggesting that we should be allowed to choose whether or not we kill women, then please do call me "anti-women" as much as you like. It would be very wrong of anyone, in that case, to allow me to portray myself as simply being 'pro-choice'.

That's nice for you. Every "pro life" advocate I know doesn't, because their friend's mum had cancer during pregnancy and was offed an abortion but she refused and went to the novena and lo and behold baby was born and mum was fine -or- a 'real' mother/woman would sacrifice her life for her child. Have a wee look at the abortion threads in other parts of this forum, or go take a look at the comments on the Youth Defence facebook page ("babies before mothers!" said the first comment after the Savita story broke). There are plenty of "pro life" advocates who think that way and aren't shy about saying it.

Then maybe you should argue that with them. That would be better than tarring all pro-lifers with the same brush stroke.

PDN · 27-11-2012 03:45PM

Obliq wrote: »

There you go again PDN. Why did you bother to say earlier (and I believed you) "Like Obliq I am all for a discourse taking place - and I think such a discourse should be conducted with honesty. That means we should not misrepresent the views and motives of those who are on the opposite side of debate."

Here, you are once again clearly misrepresenting the pro-choice view which does not equate the right-to-life of the unborn(not a full-grown person) with the right-to-life of the mother. You might equate them, we do not. You are misrepresenting us awfully there.

Sorry, could you please point to where I misrepresented 'the pro-choice view' as equating the right to life of the unborn with the right to life of the mother? I don't believe I did that at all.

PDN · 27-11-2012 03:49PM

Obliq wrote: »

I think you read it wrongly actually! Sorry if you're horrified - I did not mean to do that.

I am not at all saying it's wrong for you to do that, I am saying it's wrong to imply that pro-choice people equate the two deaths as at all the same kettle of fish. That's how I feel you misrepresented my position tbh. You see, and I think you mentioned it earlier (or was it Mr.P?), we can easily add miles onto the polarisation of both sides. We should not be making assumptions about each other's beliefs.

Ok, so just to clarify. You don't equate the killing of a tiny, unknowing person and the killing of a fully grown person?

Is that correct?

And do you feel that view is representative of the 'pro-choice' camp in general?

Lingua Franca · 27-11-2012 03:59PM

PDN wrote: »

Yesterday I asked this very question while addressing a church congregation. I asked how many mothers were present - about 150 women raised their hands. As soon as I asked them if, during their pregnancy, they had felt that the baby in their womb was an actual person, the vast majority began smiling and nodding. I actually said, "Look, if I'm wrong here please do talk to me afterwards and tell me" - but no-one did.

How convenient. I wish I'd taken a straw poll and pleaded with people to come forward if they could challenge my views, before coming to argue on the internet

If you ever see or hear me suggesting that we should be allowed to choose whether or not we kill women, then please do call me "anti-women" as much as you like. It would be very wrong of anyone, in that case, to allow me to portray myself as simply being 'pro-choice'.

Only killing women is anti-woman? Huh, so misogyny is a myth after all. We could always go with "pro unwanted pregnamcy" since that's a lot more accurate, is it not? After all, you care not one jot for their careers and studies, ambitions and family plans once an unwanted pregnancy comes into the equation.

Then maybe you should argue that with them. That would be better than tarring all pro-lifers with the same brush stroke.

I didn't and it's unfair of you to suggest that I did. You did spoke of your experience and I spoke of mine which happens to be different to yours. That's discourse, and it's how discussion works. Not everyone who disagrees with you is making sweeping generalisations, no matter how many times you toss that phrase out.

Of course you are free to disagree with me - and if you can state that disagreement without using the word 'arrogant' then it might even come across as more convincing.

I'm not trying to convince you of my arguments, by the way, you have made it plain that you are above participating in back and forth discussion and discourse and prefer playing semantics, showing an amusing lack of self awareness.

I really would love to participate in a discussion here but the last two pages have been full of semantics instead of 'agree to disagree' and you are far from above it yourself.

PDN · 27-11-2012 04:06PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

How convenient. I wish I'd taken a straw poll and pleaded with people to come forward if they could challenge my views, before coming to argue on the internet

Yes, that would have been helpful. Unfortunately a lot of people prefer to just throw assertions around without actually doing any thinking or research.

That's the internet for you!

Only killing women is anti-woman? Huh, so misogyny is a myth after all. We could always go with "pro unwanted pregnamcy" since that's a lot more accurate, is it not? After all, you care not one jot for their careers and studies, ambitions and family plans once an unwanted pregnancy comes into the equation.

That's right. I've argued passionately against women with young children having an education, a career, ambitions, or a family life. The only problem is I can't remember which post I actually did that in. Could you help me by pointing to it?

Or, of course, you could actually address my points instead of throwing out lies about what I do or don't care for?

I didn't and it's unfair of you to suggest that I did. You did spoke of your experience and I spoke of mine which happens to be different to yours. That's discourse, and it's how discussion works. Not everyone who disagrees with you is making sweeping generalisations, no matter how many times you toss that phrase out.

Fair enough. So pro-lifers include many different kinds of people, including those who are passionate about preserving the lives of mothers and who want to see that reflected in legislation. Thanks for noting that - and it's nice when we can agree.

Obliq · 27-11-2012 04:07PM

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, could you please point to where I misrepresented 'the pro-choice view' as equating the right to life of the unborn with the right to life of the mother? I don't believe I did that at all.

Ok. If you say so. However, your choice of language around "pro-choice" leaves about as much to be desired as the obvious straw-man of the "pro-life" label, with it's implication that anyone other than a pro-lifer is pro-death.

See below for a selection of your comments that cause me confusion as to how you are representing the "pro-choice" view.

"For example, I am definitely not 'pro-choice' when it comes to choosing whether to kill Jews or not." Use of pro-choice here is leading.

"Major rights, such as those to life or liberty, should take precedence over lesser rights, such as rights to privacy or the right to freedom of expression. This is why, for example, you don't have the freedom of speech to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.

If a significant risk exists to one person's life - then that may override someone else's right to life. Which is why, if you genuinely think someone is about to hijack your car at gunpoint, then you may be justified in driving over them.

However, it is much harder to justify driving over Romanian gypsy selling copies of The Big Issue because he is slowing the traffic and interfering with your right to freely proceed from your home to your workplace.

In the same way, every pro-life advocate I personally know supports medical treatment to save the life of a mother - even where such treatment will kill her unborn baby. " All well and good, until......

"But it is a different kettle of fish when, for example, you want to kill the unborn baby because the mother wants to exercise her right to continue her career or education without the interruption a baby will bring."

...you equate women who have abortions by the same regard (as in your previous comments) as running over unfortunate Romanians. That's how I took it up anyway. BECAUSE I don't equate the life of the unborn with that of the born.

Call me touchy if you want to. It is a touchy subject. I'm trying not to take everything up wrongly, but your language of our earlier postings was much more clear and even handed. I'm finding this a little Jekyl and Hyde for a reasonable discussion (even though I know it wasn't you who first started mud slinging after our near agreement to disagree)

Obliq · 27-11-2012 04:13PM

PDN wrote: »

Ok, so just to clarify. You don't equate the killing of a tiny, unknowing person who cannot survive independently outside the womb and the killing of a fully grown person?

Is that correct?

And do you feel that view is representative of the 'pro-choice' camp in general?

Just clarified it a bit further. Yes, that's correct, I don't equate the killing of the two. I think it's pretty representative of the "pro-choice" camp, yes. That doesn't mean it is.

Abortion debate thread

Comments