It was a direct quote - not my own words, perhaps I should have mentioned that to help people that aren't aware of it. It's worth reading the Wikipedia article concerning it, it is well researched and authored (which you will find by searching for the exact quote I mentioned).
I most certainly wasn't quoting it without comprehending it. From the Wikipedia article:
There can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause and effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained.
It's worth noting that until you've covered all contributing variables and factors to a problem domain you cannot with certainty draw causation from correlation; something that this article (and sensationalised headline) lacks. That is the point.
Yes, yes - and I drink Smirnoff double black. The point is it doesn't matter that you do - the vast majority of the Australian working class do not drink Fosters. For example, in Tasmania it's Boag's all the way.
It's not at all a strawman. To someone who does not share your view on when a fetus is human, refusing an abortion to a raped woman is the act of a monster.
Yes it is a strawman. It is merely attempting to invoke an emotional response on the basis of a preconceived premise. Suddenly you're not arguing about whether or not you're dealing with a human life, but diverting attention to the regretfulness of the situation. There is no denying that rape is horrible and that the situation is a very difficult one - but that is no reason to let emotion guide your decisions. Nor is it a reason to let an emotional situation change an argument's point. (when I am saying 'your' here, I'm not reffering directly to you, sjames)
As I stated before, I think the important point in these situations is the question of life - is this a human we're talking about, not the difficulty of the circumstances - that is the sideshow. Put it this way: in the case of rape the question is not "can I abort since I've been raped" but "can I abort if this is a human".
I can understand trusting God, but I have to wonder if perhaps God gives a woman a hospital and doctors who can provide an abortion when that is called for?
Again, the question is whether or not it is called for.
You can answer for yourself what God says to you, but you cannot know what he says to someone else.
The question for me has never been about what God says to me, but what God says to us. If I were to discover that my interpretation of what God says in the Bible is incorrect on the topic of abortion, then I must change what I think.
There are people who genuinely wonder what manner of depraved monster would insist that a raped mother carry a constant reminder of the worst day of her life for the next 9 months.
This is essentially a strawman argument. The child didn't choose to be the result of a rape either. Circumstance doesn't change whether or not the baby is a human or not.
They note that embryos regularly fail to implant and that early miscarriages are routinely mistaken for a late period.
Again, a strawman. What has miscarriage got to do with it?
...until there is a nervous system, it's not a person (no feelings, no thoughts, no will, no person).
My response to that would be, "there is no denying it will be". As you alluded to, the line has been drawn - one second they're not, one second they are. It's not a defendable stance, in my honest opinion. It is a person, it is a completely unique individual - just because it isn't a fully developed human doesn't mean it isn't a human.
If the choice is between mother and child dying or just the child, which do you choose? At what probability does your choice change? Does your answer change if the risk to the mother is psychological (suicide)? Why?
There is no denying these are hard questions, for sure. My opinions on this are directed by my belief in the bible and God. Having said that, I don't think the bible has much directly to say about these matters - therefore overarching principles are where a Christian tends to turn in these circumstances. For me, one of those overarching principles includes trusting that God has my, my wife's and my unborn child's best interests in mind.
One thing I would like to highlight is this though: it is never a choice between both mother and child dying or just child. Anyone who tells you otherwise is mistaken. The most you will get out of any doctor worth their salt is 'high probability' - anything more is conjecture at best. This is a very crucial point when faced with these questions. We cannot construct arguments and decisions off a false premise.
Lastly, I would be wary of not taking a stand on this because of a lack of certainty on the answers to your questions. I submit to you that you will never have a certain answer to many of the most hard of these questions. However, if you take the most basic of these questions through to conclusion - that of human life - I believe even those without a belief in God or any other religeous belifs can see clearly the result of these choices.
Yes, that is where the disagreement lies. I do not understand how people can think they can draw a line in the sand and say "At this second, you're a human - we can't kill you. The second previous you aren't a human and we could kill you.". Because when you do decide it's fine, you've drawn that line - it's unavoidable.
Equally, I can't understand how we can be so protective of children - who are essentially undeveloped adults and who are unable to protect themselves - and in the same breath, support abortion which is extinguishing the life of what is exactly the same as a small child - essentially undeveloped adults - and to top it off, they being even more unable to protect themselves. People love breaking it down to an easy to dismiss "bunch of cells" (which, ironically, we all are) - which is just so easy to dismiss because you're no longer talking about what is truly, essentially, and undeniably the beginning of what will become an adult human.
I firmly believe that generations to come will look back on this time in disgust of the human race, and how they so confused themselves that they thought it was fine to kill growing humans for reasons that are essentially selfish.
Anti-life however is a term that actively advocates killing rather than choice and I don't agree with it, it paints an incomplete picture to say the least.
That doesn't make sense. You say anti-life advocates killing, whereas you're really just talking about the 'choice' to kill? In the end, you're advocating for the same result, no?
Conversely, I find the idea that one human has the right to destroy another because they could be disadvantaged to be utterly repulsive. I get the strong feeling that this whole ordeal is going to be looked back on in the future as a horrific time when the world believed that ending the lives of unborn children was fine.
Actually, this one is true! Of course, I have no way of definitively proving that.
It does sound like it should be a common joke, doesn't it. We grew up in a very small country town in outback Australia. Total population of 25. I was one of eight kids. My cousins down the road were an eight kid family too. Together we made up most of the population of our town. =D
The internet wasn't a thing in this town - too remote. So no, 13 - 14 year olds in the middle of whoop-whoop belonging to a Christian family did not know the meaning. Our teacher did know the meaning - so did some of the more 'connected' high-schoolers. My brother did most certainly ask for a "mass debate" completely innocently. =P
I was there to observe said events because I was doing year 11 and 12 of high-school via distance-learning (learning with books and ringing teachers in cities for 'lessons' over the phone). Since our school consisted of two rooms, I could see and hear everything that was going on.
Anyway, hope you enjoyed hearing about my past. =P
I remember my little brother's class was discussing something topical one day, and after getting excited about the subject my little brother was begging the teacher if he and all his class mates could "have a mass debate over the issue"....in all seriousness. Such a cute, innocent kid (about 13/14 yro at the time). The teacher, after desperately trying to hold it in, exploded in laughter. Good times.
I was thinking that Ecuadorian diplomats with diplomatic immunity could surround Assange with guards and themselves and then walk to their private jet and fly out of the country.
Slashdot Mirror
I most certainly wasn't quoting it without comprehending it. From the Wikipedia article:
There can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause and effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained.
It's worth noting that until you've covered all contributing variables and factors to a problem domain you cannot with certainty draw causation from correlation; something that this article (and sensationalised headline) lacks. That is the point.
This whole article seems like it's clutching at straws to me. Correlation does not imply causation.
I find it disgusting that you've had that conversation with your mother!
.....because everyone knows that no one on /. has a girlfriend! *ba-dum tsch*
I'm here until Thursday. Be sure to try the parma with chips.
LibreOffice wasn't even a twinkle in a developer's eye in 1997, so I'm not sure what you're going on about.
I happen to use LibreOffice every day at work without issue.
Yes, yes - and I drink Smirnoff double black. The point is it doesn't matter that you do - the vast majority of the Australian working class do not drink Fosters. For example, in Tasmania it's Boag's all the way.
Well there you go. Western Australia doesn't really consider themselves part of the country anyway.
Like this: umop episdn
By that same logic, it is then in the USA's interests to keep him alive.
It's not at all a strawman. To someone who does not share your view on when a fetus is human, refusing an abortion to a raped woman is the act of a monster.
Yes it is a strawman. It is merely attempting to invoke an emotional response on the basis of a preconceived premise. Suddenly you're not arguing about whether or not you're dealing with a human life, but diverting attention to the regretfulness of the situation. There is no denying that rape is horrible and that the situation is a very difficult one - but that is no reason to let emotion guide your decisions. Nor is it a reason to let an emotional situation change an argument's point. (when I am saying 'your' here, I'm not reffering directly to you, sjames)
As I stated before, I think the important point in these situations is the question of life - is this a human we're talking about, not the difficulty of the circumstances - that is the sideshow. Put it this way: in the case of rape the question is not "can I abort since I've been raped" but "can I abort if this is a human".
I can understand trusting God, but I have to wonder if perhaps God gives a woman a hospital and doctors who can provide an abortion when that is called for?
Again, the question is whether or not it is called for.
You can answer for yourself what God says to you, but you cannot know what he says to someone else.
The question for me has never been about what God says to me, but what God says to us. If I were to discover that my interpretation of what God says in the Bible is incorrect on the topic of abortion, then I must change what I think.
There are people who genuinely wonder what manner of depraved monster would insist that a raped mother carry a constant reminder of the worst day of her life for the next 9 months.
This is essentially a strawman argument. The child didn't choose to be the result of a rape either. Circumstance doesn't change whether or not the baby is a human or not.
They note that embryos regularly fail to implant and that early miscarriages are routinely mistaken for a late period.
Again, a strawman. What has miscarriage got to do with it?
...until there is a nervous system, it's not a person (no feelings, no thoughts, no will, no person).
My response to that would be, "there is no denying it will be". As you alluded to, the line has been drawn - one second they're not, one second they are. It's not a defendable stance, in my honest opinion. It is a person, it is a completely unique individual - just because it isn't a fully developed human doesn't mean it isn't a human.
If the choice is between mother and child dying or just the child, which do you choose? At what probability does your choice change? Does your answer change if the risk to the mother is psychological (suicide)? Why?
There is no denying these are hard questions, for sure. My opinions on this are directed by my belief in the bible and God. Having said that, I don't think the bible has much directly to say about these matters - therefore overarching principles are where a Christian tends to turn in these circumstances. For me, one of those overarching principles includes trusting that God has my, my wife's and my unborn child's best interests in mind.
One thing I would like to highlight is this though: it is never a choice between both mother and child dying or just child. Anyone who tells you otherwise is mistaken. The most you will get out of any doctor worth their salt is 'high probability' - anything more is conjecture at best. This is a very crucial point when faced with these questions. We cannot construct arguments and decisions off a false premise.
Lastly, I would be wary of not taking a stand on this because of a lack of certainty on the answers to your questions. I submit to you that you will never have a certain answer to many of the most hard of these questions. However, if you take the most basic of these questions through to conclusion - that of human life - I believe even those without a belief in God or any other religeous belifs can see clearly the result of these choices.
Yes, that is where the disagreement lies. I do not understand how people can think they can draw a line in the sand and say "At this second, you're a human - we can't kill you. The second previous you aren't a human and we could kill you.". Because when you do decide it's fine, you've drawn that line - it's unavoidable.
Equally, I can't understand how we can be so protective of children - who are essentially undeveloped adults and who are unable to protect themselves - and in the same breath, support abortion which is extinguishing the life of what is exactly the same as a small child - essentially undeveloped adults - and to top it off, they being even more unable to protect themselves. People love breaking it down to an easy to dismiss "bunch of cells" (which, ironically, we all are) - which is just so easy to dismiss because you're no longer talking about what is truly, essentially, and undeniably the beginning of what will become an adult human.
I firmly believe that generations to come will look back on this time in disgust of the human race, and how they so confused themselves that they thought it was fine to kill growing humans for reasons that are essentially selfish.
Anti-life however is a term that actively advocates killing rather than choice and I don't agree with it, it paints an incomplete picture to say the least.
That doesn't make sense. You say anti-life advocates killing, whereas you're really just talking about the 'choice' to kill? In the end, you're advocating for the same result, no?
How about pro-choice-to-murder and anti-choice-to-murder then? Or pro-choice-to-kill-an-unborn-child and anti-choice-to-kill-an-unborn-child?
Conversely, I find the idea that one human has the right to destroy another because they could be disadvantaged to be utterly repulsive. I get the strong feeling that this whole ordeal is going to be looked back on in the future as a horrific time when the world believed that ending the lives of unborn children was fine.
So basically, until you run into a plank?
Exactly, the common denominator that is passed from generation to generation is language. But even then...
...even less unattractive...
I wholeheartedly agree!
Cool story, bro!
Actually, this one is true! Of course, I have no way of definitively proving that.
It does sound like it should be a common joke, doesn't it. We grew up in a very small country town in outback Australia. Total population of 25. I was one of eight kids. My cousins down the road were an eight kid family too. Together we made up most of the population of our town. =D
The internet wasn't a thing in this town - too remote. So no, 13 - 14 year olds in the middle of whoop-whoop belonging to a Christian family did not know the meaning. Our teacher did know the meaning - so did some of the more 'connected' high-schoolers. My brother did most certainly ask for a "mass debate" completely innocently. =P
I was there to observe said events because I was doing year 11 and 12 of high-school via distance-learning (learning with books and ringing teachers in cities for 'lessons' over the phone). Since our school consisted of two rooms, I could see and hear everything that was going on.
Anyway, hope you enjoyed hearing about my past. =P
I remember my little brother's class was discussing something topical one day, and after getting excited about the subject my little brother was begging the teacher if he and all his class mates could "have a mass debate over the issue"....in all seriousness. Such a cute, innocent kid (about 13/14 yro at the time). The teacher, after desperately trying to hold it in, exploded in laughter. Good times.
There is no arrest warrant. He is merely wanted for questioning *before* charges are even laid.
I was thinking that Ecuadorian diplomats with diplomatic immunity could surround Assange with guards and themselves and then walk to their private jet and fly out of the country.
Huh, nice catch there, Sparky.
Aren't AMD getting back into the ARM+GPU game themselves now?
4. ???
5. Profit!
Why does that stink? Are you implying that it seems 'too good to be true'?
I did. But I discarded it before properly processing its implication.... heh, whoosh indeed.