Abortion debate thread

PDN · 27-11-2012 04:16PM

Obliq wrote: »

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)

I am genuinely perplexed as to what it is you are looking for from me here.

You are citing a lot of quotes that were made by me in direct response to a question from Zombrex. He asked, in post 509:

Zombrex wrote:

Consider both the woman (person A) and the embryo (person are persons. Why does person B have more right to control body A than person A herself does?

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

Now, I simply answered that question on the precise basis that Zombrex had requested - namely by considering both the woman and the embryo as persons.

Unfortunately that seems to have upset you and led you to accuse me of having somehow misrepresented the entire 'pro-choice' camp.

How should I have handled this? Should I have refused to answer Zombrex's question?

Obliq · 27-11-2012 04:34PM

PDN wrote: »

Now, I simply answered that question on the precise basis that Zombrex had requested - namely by considering both the woman and the embryo as persons.

Unfortunately that seems to have upset you and led you to accuse me of having somehow misrepresented the entire 'pro-choice' camp.

How should I have handled this? Should I have refused to answer Zombrex's question?

Jaysus lad, I'm not that upset! I was offended (but not to the point of wanting to stop you voicing your opinions - you said that, not me) when I FELT you were trying to imply that pro-choice people see both the woman and the embryo as persons of equal stature and rights, by equating running over a big issue seller and killing an embryo.

We clearly do not see the embryo and the big issue seller as having equal rights. One cannot stand in the rain hoping nobody will run him over, and the other cannot lie in the womb without capacity to hope that nobody will kill him. Gotta go. More tomorrow - all the best, Ob.

Lingua Franca · 27-11-2012 04:38PM

PDN wrote: »

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?

Gladly, right here:

PDN wrote: »

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.

Not quite "arguing passionately" I agree, but you did deliberately misrepresent what I said as you have been doing with everyone else. I said "care not one jot" and indeed, I can't remember which post you addressed the problems of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy. 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?

If you made some points that weren't just playing semantics about other people's posts and finding subtle ways to call other posters names and cast aspersions I'd gladly address those. My "lies" are merely observations - perhaps you could simply contradict me instead of calling me a liar?

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.

Exactly! Which was why I was bothered by you tarring me with a broad brush for calling you out for tarring other people with a broad brush in the process of finger wagging for tarring... can you see how ridiculous that was?

"Everybody is generalising except me!" :smug:

PDN · 27-11-2012 05:01PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Gladly, right here:

Not quite "arguing passionately" I agree, but you did deliberately misrepresent what I said as you have been doing with everyone else. I said "care not one jot" and indeed, I can't remember which post you addressed the problems of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy. Could you help me by pointing to it?

So, let me get this straight. Unless someone waxes lyrical about the problems faced in pregnancy, then you believe they obviously don't care one jot about the issues facing young mothers-to-be?

You really would do better addressing the points people raise rather than making untrue assumptions about them. Because your assumption cause you to state untruths about others.

I stated that there is a big difference between a scenario where a mother's life is significantly at risk, and a scenario where having a baby might negatively impact on their career or education. I don't think that is a controversial distinction to make, and it grossly unfair to invent falsehoods about who I care for because I made that distinction.

Exactly! Which was why I was bothered by you tarring me with a broad brush for calling you out for tarring other people with a broad brush in the process of finger wagging for tarring... can you see how ridiculous that was?

"Everybody is generalising except me!" :smug:

Yes, I acknowledged that you weren't claiming that all pro-lifers were the same. I said that was a good thing.

I thought it was obvious that I was acknowledging my mistake. I'm sorry if that acknowledgement was not clear.

doctoremma · 27-11-2012 05:13PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

But how high a level can I possibly be expected to achieve? And more importantly, how high a level is necessary for me to execute my job as a developmental geneticist? The answer to the first is: it's up to me. The answer to the second is: not very high. If at any point, I felt that my lack of knowledge re:Hadoop was impacting my ability to do my job, then I would need to gain that knowledge in order to compete.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So you should be able to know what difference cloud computing makes compared to visualization but not have to know the in's and out's of either.

I know what "cloud computing" is (in layman's terms), I don't know what "visualisation" is (in computing terms). It's therefore fair to say that I don't know the ins and out of either. But you said above that is should know at a very high level?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It is just a pet hate of mine that so many Irish educators don't know these things

Take heart from the fact that I am a UK educator? (Actually, I'm not primarily an educator, lecturing is only part of my job).

Zombrex · 27-11-2012 05:47PM

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.

I didn't ask you anything about killing Jews.

I asked you if you support freedom of speech does that mean you are pro-blasphemy. Well "asked" is probably a bit strong, since we both already know the answer....

So why do you insist on this "pro-abortion" nonsense?

PDN wrote: »

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 only one of those which is in any way relevant is the breast feeding one, since all the others are acts you perform on someone else, not yourself (again what happened to an honest debate PDN?)

And when has anyone ever been forced to breast feed a baby?

PDN wrote: »

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.

I'm not playing semantics at all, if you think so you genuinely don't know the difference between killing someone and not helping them live, which I very much doubt you don't understand that difference.

PDN wrote: »

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.

The children did die because they couldn't sustain themselves. Again there is a huge difference between killing someone and not helping them live. You can argue that both are immoral, but it is more dishonesty to pretend they are the same.

For example, if someone is attacking me and a Quaker man can stop the assault but it requires violence, he chooses not to, under your logic he has killed me himself. In reality what he has done is let me die. Immoral? Probably. The same thing? Not at all.

You know this. Everyone knows this. It is why we all cheer for Batman at the end of Batman Begins when he says "I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you either"

So (again) why insist otherwise?

PDN wrote: »

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 was wondering how long it would take before you started to get snotty when faced with this. :rolleyes:

The reality is it is easy to come up with good arguments against the straw men of woman wanting to kill their children. That is why you, and lots of other Christians focus almost exclusively on this argument.

Christians (and a lot of other anti-abortions) find it very difficult though to honestly argue that bodily autonomy isn't a right, and that while it is distressing that the child dies as a result of an abortion (which is the removal of the child from the woman's body) the child does not have a right to use the woman's body to sustain itself in the first place, any more than anyone else has the right to use the woman's body to sustain themselves.

You can argue that the woman should give up her body to her child, that this is the right thing to do, but arguing that she should be forced to is a whole other kettle of fish. That argument requires that we all accept that one person has the right over another persons body.

When someone comes up with a sold reason why someone has the right over another persons body, let me know.

Zombrex · 27-11-2012 05:57PM

Obliq wrote: »

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.

Don't worry, it is pretty representative of the "pro-life" camp as well.

Try going looking for any funding for medical research to save the lives of the 8 out of 10 zygotes that are naturally terminated by the human body. Or even just find pro-lifers who are devastated by the worse natural disaster in human history, if we accept these as children dying.

You won't find much. No one, on either side, actually thinks of these clumps of cells as children. When a "child" dies this way the pro-lifers simply shrug and say it was a natural death.

Tim Robbins · 27-11-2012 06:19PM

doctoremma wrote: »

But how high a level can I possibly be expected to achieve? And more importantly, how high a level is necessary for me to execute my job as a developmental geneticist? The answer to the first is: it's up to me. The answer to the second is: not very high. If at any point, I felt that my lack of knowledge re:Hadoop was impacting my ability to do my job, then I would need to gain that knowledge in order to compete.

Well we disagree on education. I think education should be about getting people to think, create, nurture curiosity, discover, question, innovate and understanding what is happening in the world.

It may not be necessary for you to do your job but it was not necessary for Darwin to go the Beagle to do his job either. In my opinion an Educator should have a burning desire to learn so that they can pass that on to other people. If something major is happening that is shaping our world, they should know about it.

I fail to see how they can inspire if their attitude is only knowing what they need to know. It kinda of smacks of the only reason why they are doing what they are doing is because they are being paid for it.

There is no passion driving it.

I know what "cloud computing" is (in layman's terms), I don't know what "visualisation" is (in computing terms). It's therefore fair to say that I don't know the ins and out of either. But you said above that is should know at a very high level?

I had a typo there. I meant virtualisation. If you don't understand that than you don't understand the significance of the Cloud. Why is Cloud a game breaker? Well only what it offers that Virtualisation does not offer make it a game breaker.

Take heart from the fact that I am a UK educator? (Actually, I'm not primarily an educator, lecturing is only part of my job).

Well it's probably worse here.

PDN · 27-11-2012 06:27PM

Zombrex wrote: »

I didn't ask you anything about killing Jews.

And I didn't ask you anything about blasphemy. We both acknowledged that they were strawmen.

So why do you insist on this "pro-abortion" nonsense?

Because, in the absence of any better term, it serves as a shorthand way of saying 'pro-introducing legislation that will allow abortions'. Such a long and cumbersome term will make posts inordinately complicated.

If we were having a debate about capital punishment, then it would be perfectly sensible to refer to one group as 'pro-capital punishment.' This would not infer that they want as many people to be executed as possible, simply that they want the death penalty to be an option for judges.

I'm happy to consider alternative short-hand terms - but I don't see 'pro-choice' as an honest alternative.

The only one of those which is in any way relevant is the breast feeding one, since all the others are acts you perform on someone else, not yourself (again what happened to an honest debate PDN?)

My points are perfectly honest. They are things you do to yourself which have a detrimental impact on another person.

And when has anyone ever been forced to breast feed a baby?

I have no idea. It's hard to imagine a mother allowing her baby to die when she possesses the means to keep it alive.

You asked me for scenarios where someone would not have an absolute unfettered right to do what they want to their body. You didn't specify how often such scenarios should occur.

The children did die because they couldn't sustain themselves. Again there is a huge difference between killing someone and not helping them live. You can argue that both are immoral, but it is more dishonesty to pretend they are the same.

For example, if someone is attacking me and a Quaker man can stop the assault but it requires violence, he chooses not to, under your logic he has killed me himself. In reality what he has done is let me die. Immoral? Probably. The same thing? Not at all.

You know this. Everyone knows this. It is why we all cheer for Batman at the end of Batman Begins when he says "I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you either"

So (again) why insist otherwise?

So, leaving a child to die on a hillside in wintertime isn't murder - it's comparable to Batman saving Gotham City.

Thank you. That's going to reassure us all that the pro-abortion argument is oozing with compassion.

When someone comes up with a sold reason why someone has the right over another persons body, let me know.

When you have an argument that might actually help your case then let me know.

PDN · 27-11-2012 06:35PM

Obliq wrote: »

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.

Well I'm glad you clarified that, because before you added that bit ("who cannot survive independently outside the womb") it did seems as if you were opening the door to infanticide.

However, I do find your position deeply disturbing. And if it's pretty representative of the 'pro-choice' camp then I find that rather scary.

I had naively assumed that most 'pro-abortion legislation' people did so on the understanding that they did not see the unborn child as a person. While I disagree with that view, I can understand it.

But your position appears to be that you do see them as a person, but that their right to life is lesser than that of other people because of their weakness and dependency on others.

Am I understanding you right?

Lingua Franca · 27-11-2012 07:33PM

PDN wrote: »

So, let me get this straight. Unless someone waxes lyrical about the problems faced in pregnancy, then you believe they obviously don't care one jot about the issues facing young mothers-to-be?

No, the problems faced in crisis, unwanted pregnancies. If you could just point me, as requested, to where you expressed concern for those women or perhaps some suggestions on how to deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancy that doesn't involve 4000+ women travelling overseas and another 1800 ordering pills from the internet, I'd be most grateful, because otherwise I cannot comprehend your pro-unwanted pregnancy stance.

PDN · 27-11-2012 07:40PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No, the problems faced in crisis, unwanted pregnancies. If you could just point me, as requested, to where you expressed concern for those women or perhaps some suggestions on how to deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancy that doesn't involve 4000+ women travelling overseas and another 1800 ordering pills from the internet, I'd be most grateful, because otherwise I cannot comprehend your pro-unwanted pregnancy stance.

Again, you are making unwarranted assumptions, and if, on the basis of those unwarranted assumptions, you make untrue statements about me - then that is LYING.

I should not have to contradict anything. You should not make statements about other people based on zero evcidence.

If I were to accuse you of being a thief, then you should not have to prove your innocence. And you would be justified in accusing me of lying if I indeed made such a claim without evidence to support it.

The fact is that many of us care deeply about different issues and groups of people, and we don't need to post on those subjects to prove it to anyone.

You made a statement about me that I couldn't care a jot about the problems pregnant women face. That was a lie and I am asking you to withdraw it.

Tim Robbins · 27-11-2012 07:59PM

PDN wrote: »

If I were to accuse you of being a thief, then you should not have to prove your innocence. And you would be justified in accusing me of lying if I indeed made such a claim without evidence to support it.

Someday I am going to write a program that will go thru every single PDN post and count the number of analogies made.

doctoremma · 27-11-2012 09:33PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well we disagree on education. I think education should be about getting people to think, create, nurture curiosity, discover, question, innovate and understanding what is happening in the world....

I fail to see how they can inspire if their attitude is only knowing what they need to know. It kinda of smacks of the only reason why they are doing what they are doing is because they are being paid for it.

There is no passion driving it.

So because the only thing I know about the Cloud is that I can save things in it, can access stuff everywhere and my music floats in it, I am assumed to lack passion in my desire to teach people about molecular genetics, developmental biology and evolution?

Benny_Cake · 27-11-2012 09:45PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No, the problems faced in crisis, unwanted pregnancies. If you could just point me, as requested, to where you expressed concern for those women or perhaps some suggestions on how to deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancy that doesn't involve 4000+ women travelling overseas and another 1800 ordering pills from the internet, I'd be most grateful, because otherwise I cannot comprehend your pro-unwanted pregnancy stance.

Does taking a stance which is opposed to providing access to abortion in most situations imply that someone is "pro-unwanted pregnancy"? I would have thoughtthat even the most ardent supporter of providing access to abortion on demand would agree that abortion isn't the only answer to the problem of unwanted pregnancies - in fact, abortion implies the failure of other strategies. I'd venture to say that virtually everyone here cares about women in crisis pregnancy situations, and I'm sure most of us know or have women close to us who have gone through it. It's a bit of a cheap shot to imply that someone doesn't care about pregnant women simply because you don't agree with stance they take on a single and very complex issue.

Lingua Franca · 28-11-2012 01:25AM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It's a bit of a cheap shot to imply that someone doesn't care about pregnant women simply because you don't agree with stance they take on a single and very complex issue.

... Is this really the stand out cheap shot you see in these last few pages? What wrong with saying 'pro unwanted pregnancy" when 'pro abortion' is still being casually tossed around after several polite requests to cease?

I've read here many pro choice voices expressing concern for women with crisis pregnancies but none from the other side. You may have faith that everyone is in fact concerned about women in crisis but all I have here are people's own words (or in martinnew's case, someone else's words cut and pasted) with which to understand them.

Obliq · 28-11-2012 11:25AM

PDN wrote: »

Well I'm glad you clarified that, because before you added that bit ("who cannot survive independently outside the womb") it did seems as if you were opening the door to infanticide.

However, I do find your position deeply disturbing. And if it's pretty representative of the 'pro-choice' camp then I find that rather scary.

I had naively assumed that most 'pro-abortion legislation' people did so on the understanding that they did not see the unborn child as a person. While I disagree with that view, I can understand it.

But your position appears to be that you do see them as a person, but that their right to life is lesser than that of other people because of their weakness and dependency on others.

Am I understanding you right?

No, you are not understanding me right. You are being deliberately obtuse. You don't really require any further clarification and as everyone else here seems to know exactly what I mean, I see no reason to continue to feed the trollishness.

PDN · 28-11-2012 11:42AM

Obliq wrote: »

No, you are not understanding me right. You are being deliberately obtuse. You don't really require any further clarification and as everyone else here seems to know exactly what I mean, I see no reason to continue to feed the trollishness.

Wow! I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have done to have deserved that dose of vitriol. :eek:

I'm trying to clarify your position. If I'm picking you up wrong then it would seem better to show me where and why rather than backing out of the discussion while giving me the two fingers.

You have stated that you don't see human life as sacred.

You have described the foetus as being a person, but as deserving less right to life because it cannot survive by itself outside the womb.

I'm trying to understand why you think it should be legal to kill an unborn child inside the womb (where the mother's life is not in any imminent danger) yet not legal to kill a child after it emerges from the womb.

So far, the only rationale I can see from you is that the unborn child cannot survive outside the womb - and that would seem to be primarily an issue of weakness and dependency.

So, rather than making untrue and malicious accusations that I am being deliberately obtuse or trolling - why not state your position honestly, openly, and in plain English?

Tim Robbins · 28-11-2012 11:52AM

doctoremma wrote: »

So because the only thing I know about the Cloud is that I can save things in it, can access stuff everywhere and my music floats in it,

All those things were possible without the Cloud. What Cloud brings
is essentially two things:
1. The ability to scale very quickly
2. The ability to charge differently - by metered usage

I am assumed to lack passion in my desire to teach people about molecular genetics, developmental biology and evolution?

The best educators have very broad knowledge. Carl Sagan, Richard Feyman, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Simon Singh as well as being specialized in their own field.

The more knowledgeable you are the more engaging you are and the more likely you are able to understand where other people with other skills are coming from.

Additionally, the more academic scientists know about software engineering the more they will drive their own Universities on. When Richard Dawkins learnt to program, it inspired him to write programs to explain evolution and eventually to end up writing 'The Blind Watchmaker'.

Now, he didn't have to do that. It depends on your views of Education at the end of the day.

Fanny Cradock · 28-11-2012 12:08PM

Obliq wrote: »

No, you are not understanding me right. You are being deliberately obtuse. You don't really require any further clarification and as everyone else here seems to know exactly what I mean, I see no reason to continue to feed the trollishness.

I didn't see PDN's post as wilful misrepresentation of your position. He may have simply misunderstood you (hence he asked a question) and now would be the time to clarify what you mean rather than withdraw from the discussion. For what it is worth I'm also confused by the finer points of your position.

doctoremma · 28-11-2012 12:31PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The best educators have very broad knowledge. Carl Sagan, Richard Feyman, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Simon Singh as well as being specialized in their own field....The more knowledgeable you are the more engaging you are and the more likely you are able to understand where other people with other skills are coming from.

Sure, and not that I am in ANY WAY comparing my intellect to those you quote, but I can hold my own and sometimes excel (in regular settings, not professorial settings) on a variety of topics not directly-related to my subject or job. As, I'm sure, can you, and everyone else here.

But you seem to assert that my ability to inspire/teach (about which I am making no claims of greatness) is hindered by my lack of knowledge about one particular subject, that of computer programming (which I'm guessing is close to your specialist field?). Why am I not similarly hindered by my lack of knowledge in medieval history? Would it be reasonable for a medieval historian to chastise me for it?

Of course, the argument is that at least part of my research relies on computer programming at some level. However, we have a very nice bioinformatics department to simplify that process for me. Lazy? Maybe. But I don't feel like I have enough head space as it is (I'll leave it to you to make the obvious wisecrack here), let alone embarking on a dedicated programme to turn me into a female Alan Turing.

The people you quote are exceptional minds. Given the sheer number of people who educate in the western world, from primary to postgraduate level, the suggestion that we are failing if we aren't as bright as they are doesn't really insult me (not suggesting that was your intention). I'm no Richard Dawkins, I'm simpy not that clever. But I can make a class of 14 year olds gasp as I twirl DNA out of strawberry mush. That's alright for me.

I'm finding this conversation very interesting. Unfortunately, I fear we are living on borrowed time, as we are now very far from the subject of the thread. Is there another forum we could divert to?

Tea 1000 · 28-11-2012 01:08PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I had a typo there. I meant virtualisation. If you don't understand that than you don't understand the significance of the Cloud. Why is Cloud a game breaker? Well only what it offers that Virtualisation does not offer make it a game breaker.

But what happens in "the cloud" is virtualisation! What the public cloud offers is a cost effective way of getting processing power when you need it as opposed to setting up your own private cloud to do the same task. If a university is big enough then a private cloud is probably a better way to go.

Tim Robbins · 28-11-2012 01:24PM

Tea 1000 wrote: »

But what happens in "the cloud" is virtualisation!

What also happens is Computers are being used.

That's not the big deal. Virtualisation means that you can spin up virtual machines on the same machine.

What the public cloud offers is a cost effective way of getting processing power when you need it as opposed to setting up your own private cloud to do the same task. If a university is big enough then a private cloud is probably a better way to go.

There are other options besides a private cloud. You could just use shared hosting with no cloud characteristics. A university probably doesn't private cloud, shared private storage will suffice for most cases.

Tim Robbins · 28-11-2012 01:30PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Sure, and not that I am in ANY WAY comparing my intellect to those you quote, but I can hold my own and sometimes excel (in regular settings, not professorial settings) on a variety of topics not directly-related to my subject or job. As, I'm sure, can you, and everyone else here.

But you seem to assert that my ability to inspire/teach (about which I am making no claims of greatness) is hindered by my lack of knowledge about one particular subject, that of computer programming (which I'm guessing is close to your specialist field?). Why am I not similarly hindered by my lack of knowledge in medieval history? Would it be reasonable for a medieval historian to chastise me for it?

I don't want to be picking on you as the majority of academics, teachers, lecturers and educators have a similar if not worse attitude.

Technology, Software Engineering is much closer to Science than Medieval History. And the majority of Scientists have a extremely poor understanding of Technology, S/W engineering. This is quite sad.

The people I quote are great minds but it does not require a great mind to understand the principle of Software Engineering. Just a bit of desire and interest to want to learn a bit about the subject.

I'm finding this conversation very interesting. Unfortunately, I fear we are living on borrowed time, as we are now very far from the subject of the thread. Is there another forum we could divert to?

I think I have said everything I need to say.

Some people, I think think all an educator needs to know is their field. I don't agree with that for the reasons I outlined.

I met a Principle of a school once who didn't understand the scientific method or evolution. He could easily say well it is not on the syllabubs and I don't need to know that. But for similar reason I think that is such a shame.

Imagine there could be someone in his school with a similar intellect to Darwin and all it needs is someone to spark the fire. But instead the people will get this attitude "I don't need to know that". What a boring and banal way to view education.

Benny_Cake · 28-11-2012 02:31PM

Hate to break up the discussion guys but software engineering, virtualisation, and the cloud are just a bit off-topic for this forum!

Obliq · 28-11-2012 04:23PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I didn't see PDN's post as wilful misrepresentation of your position. He may have simply misunderstood you (hence he asked a question) and now would be the time to clarify what you mean rather than withdraw from the discussion. For what it is worth I'm also confused by the finer points of your position.

Grand so. I'll try and clarify my position, once again. For the record, I was out working for the last 3hrs - have no intention of withdrawing from the discussion, but am not in the business of point scoring, so I will answer you here with LOTS of previous posts from another thread. This should clarify things :rolleyes: and keep you all going for a while.

Other person's posts in italics, mine in bold. I wonder a) Is this length post allowed? b) Will my post be a full page?! c) No offence to anyone, but I've been here in the Christian forum for ages and clarifying the finer points of my position would just be rewriting older posts anyway. Feel free to ignore the whole thing, obviously. Ps. I don't actually have to justify my position - but the following should explain (AGAIN) where I'm coming from. Am not looking for an argument.

#58 "Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League" thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Get Real
I am not religious at all and think it's wrong to drag religion into the abortion debate. However I do not believe in pro choice.

I agree abortion should be (and is) legal in special circumstances, but why the need to make it generally legal.

You're pro choice, and have had an abortion, which I completely respect as it worked out for you. My point is general abortion is illegal in Ireland right? But you still managed to have one. People can if they truly want to go to England and get one. That takes time and planning, booking flights etc, and really thinking about it.

She was obviously in a financial position to do so. Many women are not. May I add I can't believe I'm reading into what you say, that if abortion was available here, women wouldn't have to think so hard about it? (Aside from the travel arrangements of course). The decision to have an abortion is the most appallingly difficult one I can imagine potentially having to make, and it would be particularly heartless of anyone to suggest that there are many women who treat it in anyway lightly.

Quote:
If it were made legal here, it becomes easier to get one. A mother may make a hasty decision or be under pressure from other people, and later regret it. I'm not saying that would be a common occurence. But if ONE life is taken and later regretted, is it worth it?

Yes, I would say so, because I see the life involved as only a potential person. At the stage of development most abortions are carried out, the fetus is nearly interchangeable with any other mammal fetus, in terms of development, like a rabbit's for example (more on them later). And it would alleviate the added trauma to women of having to afford travel, actually travel (often there and back in the same day), and then come home to a country where more trauma is piled on by the shaming of her by the likes of you - on top of what is an already traumatic situation.

Quote:
There were 120 legal abortions carried out in Ireland last year (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...323574371.html)

Also 150 minors travelled to England and Wales for abortions in 2011, and thats not counting the many more over the age of 18. Lets just say abortion was legalised and 400 abortions occured each year, if 10% of those were hastily made decisions, or the woman was pressurised thats 40 babies needlessly aborted.

My point is if you want an abortion you can get one, I understand its also about the right to choose. And that might work for 90% of cases, but if there is any chance at all that 40 abortions a year were needlessly made, is it worth it? I respect those that want to have an abortion but would people not, for the potential sake of 40 babies' (possible pressure, decision that turned out to be mistake in hindsight, young girl not consulting parents,....etc) future lives just leave the law as it is and have one if that suits your personal circumstances (which I have no problem with)

We have an average number of women in Ireland who have had abortions compared with women in European countries who have access to it in their own countries. The difference is, we SHAME our women by shipping out the problem and pretending it doesn't happen and we cause them more trauma than in other countries.

You say you respect those that "want" to have an abortion, yet even in that sentence there is no sign that you have ever put yourself in their shoes by thinking about it. You have not recognised that no woman WANTS an abortion. Women find themselves in situations where they simply can't continue with a pregnancy for whatever reason. Perhaps it is out of respect for themselves ie. that they won't be forced to carry the child of a rapist, thereby prolonging the rape (control over a woman's body) for 9 months. Perhaps it is because they can't cope financially with the children they already have, and a contraceptive accident has taken place. Perhaps the baby won't survive more than a day after being born, and the horror of that needs to be dealt with as soon as possible and not prolong it. Some women can and do cope under these circumstances and do not have abortions. Others become dangerously depressed and can't cope with having the baby.

I would like to add, just to throw this in for good measure, that rabbits can reabsorb their babies, right up to the last day of gestation. I find it so interesting that, if one is religious, presumably all animals are God's creatures, including humans. If you were to believe this, then by that measure, God made one that can (if scared, not ready or secure in a nest) actually "eat" their own embryos. They also sometimes eat them after they're born, but that's another story. What makes a human life more special than a rabbit's, when an undeveloped embryo in the womb? As an athiest, I don't believe a human is more sacredthan a rabbit - just that we are more intelligent and capable (when born) of greater things."

#63 "Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League" thread

I don't believe humans have any more right to life than those of the animals around us - than the ones we eat, for example. I believe that I am LUCKY to be here, to be alive (as are the pets we own LUCKY in most instances, to be well looked after and not dead from starvation or death on the perpetual food-chain that is this world).

I believe that my mother was in a suitable position in her life to bring mine into the world, and for that I am grateful. I believe that my dog (who is a rescue dog) is enjoying her life with me and my family, but that if, instead, she hadn't been adopted, she would be dead and know no better.

I believe life is what you can make of it (according to your circumstances), when you are LUCKY enough to have it. And that life is put on a very high pedestal in countries that are LUCKY enough to have a climate/government/proximity to wealth compared to life in countries that don't. It sickens me, for example, that my life is more important than the life of a starving child in a poverty stricken country, because of the inequality in circumstances.

I understand that most religious people are sickened by the notion of taking a life (though small and unformed) through abortion, but I think differently to them. I do not make a spiritual difference between animals/humans/humans born into poverty - I think it is all a matter of LUCK. Dumb luck. And to the ones that make it into adult hood and then to die (in a timely, middle class and Western way), fair play to you, you made it to the ideal, where millions didn't. Bad luck for them.

I am also as kind and caring as most, and a good mother and girlfriend. I treat animals well and kill them sometimes for food. I work hard, I empathise with people who have tough happenings in their lives. But I DO NOT see this as a god given life. Just chance and happy circumstances.

#68 "Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League" thread

Well that's interesting, because I really do believe that we " highly organised, complex, functional, specified creatures are the result of 'chance and happy circumstances'." Like Bees. Or Whales. Or Orangutans. Or Slugs. Or Orchids.
The result of an AMAZING series of chances, and happy discoveries, circumstances of birth/death/area/proximity/class/family/education/belief ......you name it, human achievement is the product of it. I believe it was chance or luck that enabled humans to become the highest achieving life form on the planet (for now that is - we may not last a billion years, and then squids (or something) may take millions of years to evolve into something so FANTASTIC and MARVELOUS that it looks like (to them) that they were designed by a higher power.)

#328 "Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League" thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by ehcocmeo
You mention rape. Pregnancy from Rape in Ireland is less that 0.001%. In the UK the 160K abortions are not because of Rape or abusive relationships, But are because its and inconvenience for the women or because the child is disabled for old women.

Yes, I'm sure from your tone that you consider very desperate, distressed, horrified, terrified, alone, dreadfully poor, drug addicted, emotionally and physically abused, young teenage and mentally or physically unwell women who choose abortion as their best option as just presenting with "an inconvenience". How Christian and compassionate you are.

Quote:
A women pregnant in a abusive relationship is not going to have a better life because she kills her child. Two wrongs don't make a right. I grew up in a house where my father was an abusive alcoholic, But my Mum said the only thing in her life she never regretted were her kids.

So you can speak for every abused woman who aborted a baby? Unlikely, I would say. And I would say HIGHLY unlikely that the vast majority of the approx 150,000 Irish women who have had abortions in the last ten years regret their decisions, but because I don't know for sure, I won't claim it as fact. Ask you a question though - how do you KNOW a woman in an abusive relationship who aborts her baby is not going to have a better life?

Quote:
You can all it what you like, Termination, Abortion. But most women see it for what it is, its killing your child, pure and simple. The Circumstances of our life are no reason to kill our children.

Yes, I'll call it killing, terminating, aborting - whatever I like, and I DO see it as pure and simple ending an unborn life. I'm just not as sentimental about that as you are, and I am MUCH more compassionate about "the circumstances" of many women's lives than you are. That much is clear, based on your (frankly, disgustingly whitewashed) assessment of women's decision to abort a pregnancy as due to it being an "inconvenience".

Fanny Cradock · 28-11-2012 05:47PM

Obliq wrote: »

Grand so. I'll try and clarify my position, once again. For the record, I was out working for the last 3hrs - have no intention of withdrawing from the discussion, but am not in the business of point scoring, so I will answer you here with LOTS of previous posts from another thread. This should clarify things :rolleyes: and keep you all going for a while.

Thanks for that. I'll read it properly when I get the chance. Still, despite this I'm not quite sure why you are putting a rolleyes into your post. I asked for clarification because I'm not entirely sure of your position, and I'm not entirely sure of your position because I haven't read every single post in this thread.

georgieporgy · 28-11-2012 06:00PM

Why would having an abortion be such a traumatic thing for a (potential) mother if all she was doing was getting rid of something like a potential rabbit from her body?

Obliq · 28-11-2012 06:03PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Thanks for that. I'll read it properly when I get the chance. Still, despite this I'm not quite sure why you are putting a rolleyes into your post. I asked for clarification because I'm not entirely sure of your position, and I'm not entirely sure of your position because I haven't read every single post in this thread.

You're welcome. The rolleyes was really to indicate that I don't believe it will clarify my stance at all, with PDN in any case! I have genuinely tried to discuss the morality of my stance with Christians here, and I think I have shocked a few (not least PDN, who was horrified that I don't consider life to be sacred - if one is not religious, then one cannot consider it sacred actually). These are comments pasted from another thread, and the run of it may be difficult to follow, but I appreciate that you might make the effort. Feel free to question me on my beliefs.

As far as my position on abortion is concerned, I hope you will be able to see that I consider a woman's decisions on abortion to be shame-free, and based entirely on her needs at that time.

Obliq · 28-11-2012 06:19PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

Why would having an abortion be such a traumatic thing for a (potential) mother if all she was doing was getting rid of something like a potential rabbit from her body?

Good question. I personally think that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the worst of the trauma a woman with an unwanted pregnancy might experience is in the circumstances of needing the abortion, not the abortion itself.

That is distinct from a woman with an unviable pregnancy, where the decision to abort (when the baby was wanted) must be much more traumatic, and in my opinion, a particularly ethical stance where the baby may suffer much more through birth and/or the following days of life than a pain-free death through abortion. (I have listed any number of reasons where a woman might be in immense distress over an unwanted pregnancy, but I omitted previously to mention abortions that are needed by women carrying unviable fetuses/babies. I make the distinction here between fetuses and babies, as some fetuses die in the womb whereas, in cases of fatal abnormalities, the born baby in this case might live for a few dreadful days, etc.)

Abortion debate thread

Comments