Abortion Discussion

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Of course it would, but I suspect I'll be more entertained by the pigeon hole my odd reluctance supposedly places me in.
Ah, so you can tell us what obplayer thinks the relevance is then?
That sounds like a plea for pigeon holing, but I suppose there's no harm in asking.
But if they don't feel unable to state their views honestly, we needn't worry? That's grand so.

That indeed may be the case. Which obviously also means it may not be the case, so it doesn't actually get us anywhere, but I suppose participating is important

I'm not sure if you realize how silly that all looks, as a proposed alternative to "yes I do" or "no I don't"!

Still, it's good that you have made it quite clear that you are a WUM who has no interest in genuine discussion. That will save some of us time in the future.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm not sure if you realize how silly that all looks, as a proposed alternative to "yes I do" or "no I don't"!Still, it's good that you have made it quite clear that you are a WUM who has no interest in genuine discussion. That will save some of us time in the future.

I can imagine, it probably seems almost as silly as a demand to play by your rules or you won't play :-)

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

I can imagine, it probably seems almost as silly as a demand to play by your rules or you won't play :-)

The health and lives of women are not a game.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

The health and lives of women are not a game.

Well, it's a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm sure it's good to be reminded that there are some things we can all agree on, eh?

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

Well, it's a bit of a non sequitur, but I'm sure it's good to be reminded that there are some things we can all agree on, eh?

So stop trying to treat them like one and just answer the question.

Do you believe that abortion in the first trimester should be available on demand?

Unless you are afraid to tell us your true beliefs?

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

So stop trying to treat them like one and just answer the question.

Can you explain in what way not answering your questions treats the health and lives of women as a game?

obplayer wrote: »

Unless you are afraid to tell us your true beliefs?

My bravery is being questioned, I must immediately leap to answer... Ah wait.... I see what you did there! You nearly caught me out....

obplayer

Absolam wrote: »

Can you explain in what way not answering your questions treats the health and lives of women as a game?

My bravery is being questioned, I must immediately leap to answer... Ah wait.... I see what you did there! You nearly caught me out....

You sad sad creature.

robindch

^^^ Any more of that kind of stuff and cards will be handed out.

swampgas

Having followed this thread for a very long time, and having attempted to debate abortion with Absolam in the past, I have come to the following conclusions. (Apologies in advance to Absolam if I am misrepresenting him here.)

(1) I'm 99% confident that Absolam is pretty much opposed to abortion in all cases. He is certainly opposed to a woman being allowed to choose an abortion when there is no immediate risk to her life. I'm not going to trawl through this thread to find posts of his to back this assertion, as it would be much easier for Absolam to simply disagree with this post and state his position if I am in fact incorrect. Which he won't do because ...

(2) Absolam has adopted a debating tactic in this thread (the "Iona" strategy), which is to avoid explicitly admitting being anti-abortion. This means (I imagine) that he thinks he cannot be "pinned down" and have his position challenged. So he will dance endlessly around any direct questions about his opposition to abortion while trying to undermine any pro-choice position with what appears to be endless sophistry.

This is a pity, as Absolam is intelligent and articulate, and has written posts in other contexts which I have appreciated and agreed with.

Unfortunately, for me, the only sensible response is to ignore his posts in this particular thread.

This post could be accused of being an attack on Absolam rather than on his arguments, (i.e. it could be said that I'm attacking the poster and not the post) but I would argue that I am not doing that. I am trying to say that the posts Absolam has written in this thread are difficult to deal with because of his refusal to engage properly in the debate.

volchitsa

swampgas wrote: »

Having followed this thread for a very long time, and having attempted to debate abortion with Absolam in the past, I have come to the following conclusions. (Apologies in advance to Absolam if I am misrepresenting him here.)

(1) I'm 99% confident that Absolam is pretty much opposed to abortion in all cases. He is certainly opposed to a woman being allowed to choose an abortion when there is no immediate risk to her life. I'm not going to trawl through this thread to find posts of his to back this assertion, as it would be much easier for Absolam to simply disagree with this post and state his position if I am in fact incorrect. Which he won't do because ...

(2) Absolam has adopted a debating tactic in this thread (the "Iona" strategy), which is to avoid explicitly admitting being anti-abortion. This means (I imagine) that he thinks he cannot be "pinned down" and have his position challenged. So he will dance endlessly around any direct questions about his opposition to abortion while trying to undermine any pro-choice position with what appears to be endless sophistry.

This is a pity, as Absolam is intelligent and articulate, and has written posts in other contexts which I have appreciated and agreed with.

Unfortunately, for me, the only sensible response is to ignore his posts in this particular thread.

This post could be accused of being an attack on Absolam rather than on his arguments, (i.e. it could be said that I'm attacking the poster and not the post) but I would argue that I am not doing that. I am trying to say that the posts Absolam has written in this thread are difficult to deal with because of his refusal to engage properly in the debate.

Yes, that is pretty much the conclusion I have come to myself.

Absolam is of course entitled not to detail his own views here, though it seems passing strange that someone would participate so much on a subject about which they have no opinion!

By the same token, everyone else is also entitled to draw whatever conclusions seem logical from what he has posted. And from what he refuses to post. If those conclusions are wrong, he can refute them. If he doesn't, they are valid working assumptions.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

This post could be accused of being an attack on Absolam rather than on his arguments, (i.e. it could be said that I'm attacking the poster and not the post) but I would argue that I am not doing that. I am trying to say that the posts Absolam has written in this thread are difficult to deal with because of his refusal to engage properly in the debate.

I think it would be a fair accusation to be honest; you haven't actually addressed any of the posts I've written on the thread, but you have addressed what you believe to be my position (whilst explicitly stating that you're not basing that on my posts), as well as what (as you say) you imagine to be my tactics.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

I think it would be a fair accusation to be honest; you haven't actually addressed any of the posts I've written on the thread, but you have addressed what you believe to be my position (whilst explicitly stating that you're not basing that on my posts), as well as what (as you say) you imagine to be my tactics.

Thing is, though, there's nothing in your posts. Long lines of waffle and refusal to engage with the actual subject. And since you won't say either what your stance is on the subject, you can't really complain if others draw their own conclusions from that.

If you disagree with them, you are free to state your views. Bet you won't though.

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

I think it would be a fair accusation to be honest; you haven't actually addressed any of the posts I've written on the thread, but you have addressed what you believe to be my position (whilst explicitly stating that you're not basing that on my posts), as well as what (as you say) you imagine to be my tactics.

To be fair, I can only address what I believe your position to be, because you seem so reluctant to state your position yourself.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

To be fair, I can only address what I believe your position to be, because you seem so reluctant to state your position yourself.

And that would be attacking the poster, rather than the post. You don't have to address what you believe my position to be, you just seem to want to for some reason.

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

And that would be attacking the poster, rather than the post. You don't have to address what you believe my position to be, you just seem to want to for some reason.

I can't see how we can have a meaningful debate unless we honestly present a position that we then attempt to defend. I have no problem with someone presenting an anti-abortion position if they are prepared to debate it. In fact I would welcome an opportunity to debate this issue with you more fully.

However you must be able to see that you are frustrating quite a few people with your debating style, rather than your actual arguments.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

I can't see how we can have a meaningful debate unless we honestly present a position that we then attempt to defend.

So do you think the discussion of abortion must be a debate over positions to be held and defended? There's no scope for anything else?

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

So do you think the discussion of abortion must be a debate over positions to be held and defended? There's no scope for anything else?

No, not completely. But the debate about abortion is not a purely academic exercise. It is a very real issue with serious ethical, political, legal, medical and human rights dimensions. The crux of the abortion debate for many people in Ireland is about the denial of abortion to women who want it.

Most of the arguments about abortion revolve around how the state should treat women's access to abortion. Most people have a position, although that position may be vague (i.e. they don't really know), or clear (they may have a very definite opinion on what the legal position should be).

If you wish to discuss abortion in the abstract, as an intellectual exercise, you can do that, but given the serious nature of the debate many may find such an approach rather insensitive.

On the other hand, if you simply can't admit that you are against abortion, but keep arguing in a way that suggests you are, then you can expect other posters to keep asking you to clarify your position so they can try to understand exactly what point you're trying to make.

obplayer

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Any more of that kind of stuff and cards will be handed out.

Mea Culpa, but I had already decided that further debate with Absolam was pointless so there will be no more of that kind of stuff.

P.S. I apologise to Robin and his fellow mods for making their life more difficult.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

No, not completely. But the debate about abortion is not a purely academic exercise. It is a very real issue with serious ethical, political, legal, medical and human rights dimensions. The crux of the abortion debate for many people in Ireland is about the denial of abortion to women who want it.

Whilst I wouldn't want to be so overbearingly self righteous as to demand a yes or no answer, your no (even not completely) is pretty much good enough answer for me; the discussion can proceed without my (completely?) declaring and defending a position. I don't think not defining or defending a position in any ways gives the impression that the issues under discussion are not real ones; if anything not engaging in polarised debate of peoples relative positions should help to keep the focus on the discussion of the ethical, political, legal, medical and human rights aspects of abortion.

swampgas wrote: »

Most of the arguments about abortion revolve around how the state should treat women's access to abortion. Most people have a position, although that position may be vague (i.e. they don't really know), or clear (they may have a very definite opinion on what the legal position should be).

That's true, however advocating ones own position, or attacking someone elses' position, doesn't necessarily add anything to a discussion of how the state should treat women's access to abortion, unless that opinion is substantiated. In which case, it's the substantiation, not the opinion, that matters. If posts on this thread are anything to go by, addressing other posters positions rather than their rationales can actually divert the discussion. Spending time trying to bully someone into advocating a position has certainly diverted the discussion on this occasion.

swampgas wrote: »

If you wish to discuss abortion in the abstract, as an intellectual exercise, you can do that, but given the serious nature of the debate many may find such an approach rather insensitive.

Whilst I'm sure there is a useful purpose in discussing abortion in the abstract, it's pretty apparent from the discussion on the thread that it is quite possible to discuss the specifics as well, without being drawn into declaring and defending a position.

swampgas wrote: »

On the other hand, if you simply can't admit that you are against abortion, but keep arguing in a way that suggests you are, then you can expect other posters to keep asking you to clarify your position so they can try to understand exactly what point you're trying to make.

I'm always happy to clarify a point I'm making, but hopefully I'll continue to manage to do so without being baited into making a different one. So when you characterise my not doing what you want as simply being unable to admit to being agaiinst abortion, it's pretty obvious you're not attempting to clarify any point that I'm making, you're simply attempting to bait me into complying with what you want. Since it actually isn't going to help you understand exactly what point I'm trying to make, there's not really any point in rising to it. Other than to point out the playground tactic.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

And that would be attacking the poster, rather than the post.

No, it wouldn't. It would be attempting to come to the point. It's not ad hom to say "You appear to be implicitly appealing to some sense of [X], here. If it's not the case that're you're arguing [X], can you please clarify which [Y] you're actually arguing, and how it essentially differs from [X]?"

You don't have to address what you believe my position to be, you just seem to want to for some reason.

Are you familiar with the Graham's Hierarchy of Argument/Disagreement Pyramid? You're very (I would even say "considerably overly") quick to attempt to call DH0/1 on posters you disagree with, but how close do you yourself estimate you ever get to DH6? (Certainly if everything at or below DH3 were flooded by a maladjustment of the Inniscarra dam's valves...) Consider personhood, for example. You wish to critique others' stated positions on this, which is, in itself, fair enough. But we don't get very far into your own views before we get into the usual prove-where-I-ever-said-precisely-that stuff. This is neither fruitful, nor a level playing field.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

My opinion is that Ms Sherlock does not consider abortion to be an option for pregnant women.

Well, that's certainly clear enough! I have no idea what the basis for such an opinion would be, though. It's been a while since the fatal foetal abnormality contribution she mad, so I may misrecall her precise turn of phrase, but wasn't it to the effect of "we need to give them better options than abortion"?

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

You'r right to suggest that the priest would not have given it the last rites; they don't give any sacraments to unbaptised people. Once the chaplain found the child to be alive, he might have baptised it, rather than giving it the last rites.

As it's entirely clear what you mean here this may be pedantry above and beyond... but as baptism is a sacrament (even by the increasingly more restrictive Anglican, Lutheran and Calvinist definitions) and can only be given to the unbaptised...

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

As it's entirely clear what you mean here this may be pedantry above and beyond... but as baptism is a sacrament (even by the increasingly more restrictive Anglican, Lutheran and Calvinist definitions) and can only be given to the unbaptised...

Yes. When I posted that comment I was responding to a suggestion from Aloysius that the priest may have come to give the child the last rites, and to a query from Brian as to whether an unbaptised child would be given the last rites.

The priest came to pray for the child, whom he expected to be dead. When he observed it to be alive he might have baptised it, but no reports suggest that he did. His only reported action was to call for medical attention for the child.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, it wouldn't. It would be attempting to come to the point. It's not ad hom to say "You appear to be implicitly appealing to some sense of [X], here. If it's not the case that're you're arguing [X], can you please clarify which [Y] you're actually arguing, and how it essentially differs from [X]?".

I don't think I really need to defend what someone thinks I appear to implicitly be appealing to some sense of, to be honest, since they're not addressing my post. If I'm actually arguing something, I will argue it, if I'm not, I won't. Attempting to come to the point of something I'm not posting really isn't addressing the post.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Are you familiar with the Graham's Hierarchy of Argument/Disagreement Pyramid? You're very (I would even say "considerably overly") quick to attempt to call DH0/1 on posters you disagree with, but how close do you yourself estimate you ever get to DH6?

Hmm. You're saying I oughtn't to point out name calling or ad hominem attacks by posters, if my own points don't refute those posters central arguments? I'm not sure how you think that follows... or how you're addressing an actual post I've made?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Consider personhood, for example. You wish to critique others' stated positions on this, which is, in itself, fair enough.

Whether or not I wish to critique others' stated positions on personhood is probably a determination best left to me, rather than telling me that's what I wish. However, I don't see how my stating a position on what is or isn't personhood will in any way make a difference to my engagement with someone elses' stated position on the subject. It's only neccasary if I want to engage in a critique of my stated position on personhood.

alaimacerc wrote: »

But we don't get very far into your own views before we get into the usual prove-where-I-ever-said-precisely-that stuff. This is neither fruitful, nor a level playing field.

If you're getting into prove-where-I-ever-said-precisely-that stuff, then you're not getting into my views at all, you're getting into what you say my views are stuff. Which is, as you say, not fruitful.

None of which obviously has anything at all to do with abortion discussion.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. When I posted that comment I was responding to a suggestion from Aloysius that the priest may have come to give the child the last rites, and to a query from Brian as to whether an unbaptised child would be given the last rites.

The priest came to pray for the child, whom he expected to be dead. When he observed it to be alive he might have baptised it, but no reports suggest that he did. His only reported action was to call for medical attention for the child.

No, I got that; as I said, you were very clear, given the context. I'm just quibbling that "any sacrament" necessarily means "any sacrament other than baptism". (Which for the Proddiest Prods of course just leaves one...)

I assume (just to speculate some more) that it's not impossible to baptise and give anointing of the sick "on the bounce". (Weren't there historical instances of someone getting about three ordinations in rapid succession, where a speedy promotion through the hierarchy was deemed expedient?)

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, that's certainly clear enough! I have no idea what the basis for such an opinion would be, though. It's been a while since the fatal foetal abnormality contribution she mad, so I may misrecall her precise turn of phrase, but wasn't it to the effect of "we need to give them better options than abortion"?

Well, the basis of my opinion is my observation of her general demeanour with regard to abortion, which seems to be based on a Christian perspective which finds abortion to be sinful and not worthy of consideration. If she did say what you think she may have said, I'd happily revise my opinion to 'I think she thinks abortion is an option that isn't good enough to be presented.'

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think I really need to defend what someone thinks I appear to implicitly be appealing to some sense of, to be honest.

Have to defend? No. Clearly there's also the option of saying "No, that's not what I'm saying, and here's in particular where and why." As opposed to the usual stuff of that's-for-me-to-know-and-you-to-wonder, over many, many pages.

If I'm actually arguing something, I will argue it, if I'm not, I won't.

If only. I think we're by this point established that I'm not the only person who feels you have an established track record of arguing all around a point at considerable length, and then calling "deniability!" when you're asked to come right to it. Wherefore it's not possible, etc. If you're "not actually arguing something", perhaps you might consider whether your many potshots "accidentally adjacent" to such are as well-advised as you might initially suppose.

Hmm. You're saying I oughtn't to point out name calling or ad hominem attacks by posters, if my own points don't refute those posters central arguments?

No, you're conflating (and meandering a considerable distance away from each of) two different points. You should be "pointing out" ad hom less, because often, as in the case quoted, it's cited entirely speciously. You should be be making "better" (if you accept the general thesis of the aforementioned hierarchy) arguments more often because... well, don't we all have room to improve? (Some, perhaps, more than others.)

Whether or not I wish to critique others' stated positions on personhood is probably a determination best left to me, rather than telling me that's what I wish.

By inspection, it's something you do. If you're doing it against your will, perhaps you could arrange some sort of secret signal to indicate this unjust captivity you're being kept in. This inference that you're doing it because you wish to do it, otherwise, doesn't seem unreasonable. This is pretty much a case in point: throwing a pointless rhetorical caltrop to the effect of that you don't particularly care for something someone's said, but you have no actual material objection of any substance to any of the content thereof. (I think Jon Stewart speak a while ago of Don Rumsfeld's "achievement" of having "put a lot of words in between" two concepts that he clearly wasn't wanting to admit to any strong relationship between, without having any actual argument to their lack of association.)

However, I don't see how my stating a position on what is or isn't personhood will in any way make a difference to my engagement with someone elses' stated position on the subject.

Other than "everything". If you're going to a) object to other people's characterisations of embryonic and foetal personhood (or lack thereof), and b) constantly make allusions that appear, through any naturalistic interpretation of language, to be tantamount to claims about it, to then retreat when challenged into a series of entrenched lines of non-statement is very poor form indeed, frankly. (And to stand instead of this particular sub-topic, one could equally pick from a considerable array.)

None of which obviously has anything at all to do with abortion discussion.

It's got nothing to do with abortion. It has a great deal -- especially as measured by the post-inch -- with abortion discussion, as it's practised in this parish.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Well, the basis of my opinion is my observation of her general demeanour with regard to abortion, which seems to be based on a Christian perspective which finds abortion to be sinful and not worthy of consideration.

I think we can take "Catholic perspective" and "finds abortion super-sinful" as read. But "sin is not an option" would seem to propose theological as well as just plain logical problems.

If she did say what you think she may have said, I'd happily revise my opinion to 'I think she thinks abortion is an option that isn't good enough to be presented.'

Your happiness is to be celebrated, I'm sure, but that seems like quite the difference. All the options vs all the options a given person considers "good enough".

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Have to defend? No. Clearly there's also the option of saying "No, that's not what I'm saying, and here's in particular where and why." As opposed to the usual stuff of that's-for-me-to-know-and-you-to-wonder, over many, many pages.

There's also the option of not ascribing opinions to others and then trying to persuade them to defend them.. which has the added advantage of keeping the thread more on topic too.

alaimacerc wrote: »

If only. I think we're by this point established that I'm not the only person who feels you have an established track record of arguing all around a point at considerable length, and then calling "deniability!" when you're asked to come right to it. Wherefore it's not possible, etc. If you're "not actually arguing something", perhaps you might consider whether your many potshots "accidentally adjacent" to such are as well-advised as you might initially suppose.

Again, if there's a post I've made you feel like discussing, work away. If there's a nebulous sense of loss you're experiencing as a result of arguing against ghosts you've conjured for yourself... I'm afraid I can't help.

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, you're conflating (and meandering a considerable distance away from each of) two different points.

I didn't really need to conflate them; you placed them together.

alaimacerc wrote: »

You're very (I would even say "considerably overly") quick to attempt to call DH0/1 on posters you disagree with, but how close do you yourself estimate you ever get to DH6?

If you'd intended for them to be dealt with separately, perhaps you should have separated them? And I don't think I meandered too far from
DH0. Name-calling
DH1. Ad Hominem
DH6. Refuting the Central Point
when I said, 'I oughtn't to point out name calling or ad hominem attacks by posters, if my own points don't refute those posters central arguments?'

alaimacerc wrote: »

You should be "pointing out" ad hom less, because often, as in the case quoted, it's cited entirely speciously. You should be be making "better" (if you accept the general thesis of the aforementioned hierarchy) arguments more often because... well, don't we all have room to improve? (Some, perhaps, more than others.)

I'm sure you think your advice on how I should post is invaluable, but I think if I feel like getting advice on the subject, I'll start a thread about it.

alaimacerc wrote: »

By inspection, it's something you do.

You have a means of inspecting my wishes? That's impressive!

alaimacerc wrote: »

If you're doing it against your will, perhaps you could arrange some sort of secret signal to indicate this unjust captivity you're being kept in. This inference that you're doing it because you wish to do it, otherwise, doesn't seem unreasonable.

Rather than inferring what I wish, perhaps you should address what I say? That way I won't need to bother convincing you that your inference that I'm doing something against my will is unfounded.

alaimacerc wrote: »

This is pretty much a case in point: throwing a pointless rhetorical caltrop to the effect of that you don't particularly care for something someone's said, but you have no actual material objection of any substance to any of the content thereof.

Well, in fairness I have to say I have a material objection to your inferring my wishes in order to develop an argument based on your inference, when you could (if you felt there was an argument to be made) argue with what I posted.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Other than "everything".

Ah well, 'everything' might require a little more detail. Particularly when I can't see where it amounts to 'anything'.

alaimacerc wrote: »

If you're going to a) object to other people's characterisations of embryonic and foetal personhood (or lack thereof), and b) constantly make allusions that appear, through any naturalistic interpretation of language, to be tantamount to claims about it, to then retreat when challenged into a series of entrenched lines of non-statement is very poor form indeed, frankly. (And to stand instead of this particular sub-topic, one could equally pick from a considerable array.)

Perhaps you might pick one or two then? Sort of, quote the post where I object to the characterisation of embryonic or foetal personhood and make your case to refute the objection, kind of thing. It would be like a discussion.
Then you could choose a post where I made an allusion that in fact was a claim about it (rather than one that you've inferred a claim from) and we could discuss that. The idea being that we discuss the posts, I suppose. Rather than the poster

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's got nothing to do with abortion. It has a great deal -- especially as measured by the post-inch -- with abortion discussion, as it's practised in this parish.

Well, you've certainly added a few more inches to how you think others should discuss abortion, if none to the abortion discussion.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think we can take "Catholic perspective" and "finds abortion super-sinful" as read. But "sin is not an option" would seem to propose theological as well as just plain logical problems.

Well, I doubt either Cora or myself are intending to propose any theological or logical problems.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Your happiness is to be celebrated, I'm sure, but that seems like quite the difference. All the options vs all the options a given person considers "good enough".

Does it seeming like quite the difference make any difference?

Lingua Franca

Precious Life chief Bernadette Smyth was warned she could face a jail sentence for her campaign against Dawn Purvis.

In a scathing attack on how the allegations were contested, Deputy District Judge Chris Holmes said: "This case was run, no-holds barred, in a vicious and malicious fashion."

He held that an investigating police officer was deliberately slandered, while Ms Purvis - a former Progressive Unionist Party MLA - herself came under unwarranted attack.

With sentencing put back until next month, Mrs Smyth was told her potential punishment could be community service or prison.

Family and supporters gathered alongside the defendant in the public gallery at Belfast Magistrates' Court gasped as the options were set out.

Mrs Smyth was also advised she will be ordered to pay compensation and restrained from the area around the clinic.


http://www.u.tv/News/Anti-abortion-campaigner-facing-jail/67da7bae-f215-4567-a7fb-277802edf3ff