The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

DarkScar

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Pal, I'm just trying to figure out what you're actually standing for here. I had it in my mind that you were a No voter, then I read that comment you made about a foetus becoming a human around the time of the UK abortion limit. It just confuses me a little but feel free to clarify your stance or link me to a previous comment you've written which clarifies it.

Like I said, perhaps I have misunderstood.

It's pretty easy but the idea that I can have an opinion on something and blow twaddle like "if you're not breathing you're not a human" out of the water because it is utter nonsense seems to have a lot of people confused.
Are other people so dishonest that they will just agree with any old garbage argument so long as it fits their "side" of the debate? I was hoping otherwise.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

It's pretty easy but the idea that I can have an opinion on something and blow twaddle like "if you're not breathing you're not a human" out of the water because it is utter nonsense seems to have a lot of people confused.
Are other people so dishonest that they will just agree with any old garbage argument so long as it fits their "side" of the debate? I was hoping otherwise.

who said you aren’t human if you aren’t breathing?

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

I never defined a fetus in a jar, you did.

This is symptomatic of your lack of logic here. You attempted to define a foetus based on a location. The womb. The fact that you now claim even saying a foetus could be found somewhere else, in a jar, isn't permitted, just shows how flimsy your definitions are.

LeinsterDub

DarkScar wrote: »

It's pretty easy but the idea that I can have an opinion on something and blow twaddle like "if you're not breathing you're not a human" out of the water because it is utter nonsense seems to have a lot of people confused.
Are other people so dishonest that they will just agree with any old garbage argument so long as it fits their "side" of the debate? I was hoping otherwise.

Your 100% right who ever made that argument should be ashamed, pure reductionism. Of course it's more complicated than breathing or not.

Now that we are all agreed. Care to define your comments of when a fetus human and when it's not?

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

who said you aren’t human if you aren’t breathing?

You did:

Overheal wrote: »

They are already alive, living, breathing, and sovereign. Next red herring please.

Apparently you have to be breathing to be a human. It was part of your definition.
Sorry about being able to quote you on it and all.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

This is symptomatic of your lack of logic here. You attempted to define a foetus based on a location. The womb. The fact that you now claim even saying a foetus could be found somewhere else, in a jar, isn't permitted, just shows how flimsy your definitions are.

But like I said, I don’t have any definition for a fetus in a jar. I have no idea why you brought it up, as fetuses in jars of you want to call them that are not being legislated here.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

You did:

Apparently you have to be breathing to be a human. It was part of your definition.
Sorry about being able to quote you on it and all.

I said alive, not human?

That was in response to your question, “[Is] a person on life support alive?”

Nowhere did either of us mention ‘human’ or ‘humanity.’

DarkScar

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Your 100% right who ever made that argument should be ashamed, pure reductionism. Of course it's more complicated than breathing or not.

Now that we are all agreed. Care to define your comments of when a fetus human and when it's not?

Have you done so?
IMO it's when human brain function kicks in, which seems to be 20-24 weeks. Which is why I would also support euthanasia for PVS (no brain function) and would prefer if people wouldn't claim non-PVS people on life support aren't human as they most certainly still do have brain function, even if (oh no) they are currently not breathing.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Have you done so?
IMO it's when human brain function kicks in, which seems to be 20-24 weeks. Which is why I would also support euthanasia for PVS (no brain function) and would prefer if people wouldn't claim non-PVS people on life support aren't human as they most certainly still do have brain function, even if (oh no) they are currently not breathing.

so you’re voting yes.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

But like I said, I don’t have any definition for a fetus in a jar. I have no idea why you brought it up, as fetuses in jars of you want to call them that are not being legislated here.

A foetus in a jar? Oh, I don't know, it's like a foetus in a womb... only it's in a jar? Hence the location tells you nothing about whether it's human or a foetus? Which was the question if you even care about that any more?

LeinsterDub

DarkScar wrote: »

Have you done so?
IMO it's when human brain function kicks in, which seems to be 20-24 weeks. Which is why I would also support euthanasia for PVS (no brain function) and would prefer if people wouldn't claim non-PVS people on life support aren't human as they most certainly still do have brain function, even if (oh no) they are currently not breathing.

Yes, many posts ago some time after 12 weeks and before 20.

Returning to my post about 8 posts ago. If you believe it's not human then what is your issue with abortion?

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

A foetus in a jar? Oh, I don't know, it's like a foetus in a womb... only it's in a jar? Hence the location tells you nothing about whether it's human or a foetus? Which was the question if you even care about that any more?

You’re the one who brought up fetuses in jars. So define it however you like. I just don’t care - fetuses in jars aren’t being debated here. Fetuses in jars won’t gestate into living, sovereign beings. Fetsuses in jars are certainly by nobody’s definitions alive either.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

You’re the one who brought up fetuses in jars. So define it however you like. I just don’t care - fetuses in jars aren’t being debated here. Fetuses in jars won’t gestate into living, sovereign beings. Fetsuses in jars are certainly by nobody’s definitions alive either.

This is just deliberate nonsense at this stage. If you're going to define something based on its location then claim it being found in a different location means it is a completely different thing, then all you're at is verbal sleight of hand.
It's not an elephant, elephants live on the Savannah not in the zoo. So it's a zoo elephant, not an elephant at all.
Is that trick really your point?

DarkScar

LeinsterDub wrote: »

what is your issue with abortion?

Why don't you tell me your issue first? You're all badgering but not too keen to offer up anything yourself, aren't you?

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

I said alive, not human?

That was in response to your question, “[Is] a person on life support alive?”

Nowhere did either of us mention ‘human’ or ‘humanity.’

Holy cow, that's even worse. My apologies. Apparently it's not even alive, nevermind a human being, until it's viable outside the womb...
You're glad you clarified that I'm sure...

LeinsterDub

I'm up early in the morning to vote so I'm going to leave one last question for the night.

DarkScar are there any other non human things you expect women to give up their rights and health care for or is it just fetuses?

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

This is just deliberate nonsense at this stage. If you're going to define something based on its location then claim it being found in a different location means it is a completely different thing, then all you're at is verbal sleight of hand.
It's not an elephant, elephants live on the Savannah not in the zoo. So it's a zoo elephant, not an elephant at all.
Is that trick really your point?

Well since you are insistent:

An elephant in the zoo is an elephant
An elephant on the Savannah is an elephant
An elephant in the jar is a dead elephant

If a fetus gets delivered outside the womb and attains its birth status (past the point of viability, when it can breathe with or without assistance, etc) then it is not a fetus, it is a child. It is born.

If the fetus dies in the womb, and is transferred to a jar, it’s a fetus in a jar. If a baby dies after a premature delivery and is transferred to a jar it’s a dead baby in a jar.

(I very much presume by jar you mean a jar for preservation of organics in a suspension such as alcohol or oil)

LeinsterDub

DarkScar wrote: »

Why don't you tell me your issue first? You're all badgering but not too keen to offer up anything yourself, aren't you?

I'm voting YES. I don't have an issue with the abortion legislation proposed. My position is as plain as day. It's a women's choice, a fetus becomes human some where after 16 weeks, I fully support the proposed legislation.


Your voting no but can't explain why.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Why don't you tell me your issue first? You're all badgering but not too keen to offer up anything yourself, aren't you?

Pretty weak dodge that

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Holy cow, that's even worse. My apologies. Apparently it's not even alive, nevermind a human being, until it's viable outside the womb...
You're glad you clarified that I'm sure...

Correct: a fetus is not a living being.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

Well since you are insistent:

An elephant in the zoo is an elephant
An elephant on the Savannah is an elephant
An elephant in the jar is a dead elephant

If a fetus gets delivered outside the womb and attains its birth status (past the point of viability, when it can breathe with or without assistance, etc) then it is not a fetus, it is a child. It is born.

If the fetus dies in the womb, and is transferred to a jar, it’s a fetus in a jar. If a baby dies after a premature delivery and is transferred to a jar it’s a dead baby in a jar.

(I very much presume by jar you mean a jar for preservation of organics in a suspension such as alcohol or oil)

Ah I see, so now something is "alive" if it is alive and "dead" if it is dead. That's great. All sorted onow.
Schrodinger cat logic. You find out what it was when you do something to it. It's ducking stool level rubbish really.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

Correct: a fetus is not a living being.

Wait, what you just said was "alive" just a second ago. Let's see can I pick up the goalposts on the GPS... "living being" is the new qualifier parachuted into the discussion is it? Maybe you'd want to use some stealth technology next time you attempt that?

gctest50

DarkScar wrote: »

Have you done so?
IMO it's when human brain function kicks in, which seems to be 20-24 weeks. Which is why I would also support euthanasia for PVS (no brain function) and would prefer if people wouldn't claim non-PVS people on life support aren't human as they most certainly still do have brain function, even if (oh no) they are currently not breathing.

DarkScar wrote: »

...


it's when human brain function kicks in, which seems to be 20-24 weeks.

.

So you'd have no problem with a 13 week termination then ?

DarkScar

gctest50 wrote: »

So you'd have no problem with a 13 week termination then ?

None at all.
Does this mean that contesting people who say it isn't alive is forbidden though? It clearly is alive whatever you actually want to call it, but apparently some people here are fighting tooth and nail to insist it isn't.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

...Are you okay?

Since I'm wiping the floor with you here, if I'm not OK you should be really really worried about yourself.

fritzelly

I'm looking forward to the moment on Saturday where, when these threads come to a natural conclusion, we realise a lot of the undecideds realised their No views should not affect the rest of the country's population and vote yes and the Yes vote wins by a massive majority
Unfortunately we will then start having the threads about how the No side spearheaded by Mullen and Stein (because you could not have better representatives of the No side) are trying to stop all legislation about how a woman's body should be regarded as more than a vessel for a possible human life

And I seriously think a lot of the undecideds on the day will be seeing all these Yes badges on people and think am I really right to treat women like second class citizens. I think that happened the same way on the gay marriage bill. It only takes something small as seeing why are all these people saying Yes give us this fundamental human right to deal with our life and bodies as we see fit and not be blindsided by what is a very much catholic led opposition to a repeal of the 8th

So wear your Yes/Tá badges on the day and show your support for the women of the country - I know I will and I will be proud to wear it and be courteous to those on the no side

ArthurDayne

DarkScar wrote: »

None at all.
Does this mean that saying it isn't alive is forbidden though? It clearly is alive whatever you actually want to call it, but apparently some people here are fighting tooth and nail to insist it isn't.

So . . . . are you voting to repeal?

DarkScar

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm voting YES. I don't have an issue with the abortion legislation proposed. My position is as plain as day. It's a women's choice, a fetus becomes human some where after 16 weeks, I fully support the proposed legislation.


Your voting no but can't explain why.

I'm voting for abortion up to 20 weeks (or whatever up to that is offered). I'm just not sure I'm voting for it now in this repeal referendum or in the next one where it'll likely be an amendment to the constitution with similar wording to the draft legislation.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Wait, what you just said was "alive" just a second ago. Let's see can I pick up the goalposts on the GPS... "living being" is the new qualifier parachuted into the discussion is it? Maybe you'd want to use some stealth technology next time you attempt that?

Don’t know why you’re having the breakdown, but I’m just trying to help you out here based on the context of your argument.

You seem to think that the fetus is ‘alive’ in the womb because the fetal tissue is alive. But that doesn’t mean the fetus is a living being, to me anyway. Similarly a human body is still ‘alive’ after death for quite a number of days and in some instances weeks, it’s quite a gruesome process really by which different bodily functions cease and different bacteria that make us up start to decompose the corpse. Quite inversely, a number of cells and tissue groups are working in the womb to gestate a complete organism we recognize as human, over the course of 37 weeks. These cells and tissues are ‘alive’ but the being they are creating and are apart of is incomplete and frankly, to my view and that of others, is not the same as calling that fetus “alive,” aka. A living being. When it has exited or been removed from the womb and is operating on life support (almost always its own, heart lungs etc but could be an external man made device sure) we all agree this fetus is considered born, it is a baby.

Does this answer your questions?

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Since I'm wiping the floor with you here, if I'm not OK you should be really really worried about yourself.

If you say so?

fritzelly

DarkScar wrote: »

I'm voting for abortion up to 20 weeks (or whatever up to that is offered). I'm just not sure I'm voting for it now

Why?

ArthurDayne

DarkScar wrote: »

I'm voting for abortion up to 20 weeks (or whatever up to that is offered). I'm just not sure I'm voting for it now in this repeal referendum or in the next one where it'll likely be an amendment to the constitution with similar wording to the draft legislation.

It won't be though. The Constitution is a much more plainly written document than any statute. Any amendment to the Constitution would simply fail to encapsulate the nuance and scope required for law of this nature -- such nuance and complexity can only be effectively dealt with by legislation.

A 'No' vote will only ensure that such legislation cannot be passed, and it will be many years before any further attempt to amend the Constitution can be made.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

Don’t know why you’re having the breakdown, but I’m just trying to help you out here based on the context of your argument.

You seem to think that the fetus is ‘alive’ in the womb because the fetal tissue is alive. But that doesn’t mean the fetus is a living being

You just said it yourself a few posts ago: the word was "ALIVE". Not "LIVING BEING".
You know 100% damn well you've switched from one to the other and are just bulling your want on with a strawman hoping against hope nobody will notice or pull you up on it.
Hard luck.

DarkScar

fritzelly wrote: »

Why?

Because I'd prefer the limit to be in the constitution, not decided by legislation. Defining what is a human, and hence who/what is in receipt of the benefits and protection of the constitution is surely something that shouldn't be left to legislation?
Could we legislate that black people aren't covered by the constitution? No. Then we shouldn't be able to legislate that once a foetus becomes a baby it isn't covered by the constitution just the same.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

You just said it yourself a few posts ago: the word was "ALIVE". Not "LIVING BEING".
You know 100% damn well you've switched from one to the other and are just bulling your want on with a strawman hoping against hope nobody will notice or pull you up on it.
Hard luck.

If you can’t discern what I mean between ‘alive’ and ‘living being,’ or what my viewpoint is, then I’m not sure I can help you any further as I am quite clear on what my position is. Nor can I imagine what you hope to accomplish by ‘wiping the floor with me’

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

If you say so?

Give up. All you've got now is sad one liners. You know in your heart of hearts you tried to switch from "ALIVE" to "LIVING BEING" when your original argument was obliterated and it plain old didn't work.
Live with it.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

If you can’t discern what I mean between ‘alive’ and ‘living being,’ or what my viewpoint is, then I’m not sure I can help you any further as I am quite clear on what my position is. Nor can I imagine what you hope to accomplish by ‘wiping the floor with me’

This from a guy who thinks a foetus isn't a foetus if you move it from one place to another, now stamping feet insisting "alive" and "living being" are one and the same.
Kinda funny, kinda tragic, at the same time.

DarkScar

ArthurDayne wrote: »

A 'No' vote will only ensure that such legislation cannot be passed, and it will be many years before any further attempt to amend the Constitution can be made.

I know this, which is why I was looking to see whether there was another referendum planned if this one fails. As many have said, removing on demand and this isn't even a debate. If it's close but No I'm sure we'll be back here soon enough.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Give up. All you've got now is sad one liners. You know in your heart of hearts you tried to switch from "ALIVE" to "LIVING BEING" when your original argument was obliterated and it plain old didn't work.
Live with it.

What original argument was that, and how was it beaten? My viewpoint is quite plain: a fetus is not alive. If you want to expand on this language further (split hairs, engage in pedantry, etc) I mean by this that a fetus is not a living thing. I go as far as to acknowledge the fetal organism is made up of living cells and tissues working to grow and gestate the fetus, but insofar as we are referring to the fetus as a person, I do not hold that it is alive for that purpose.

I can surmise from your myriad of posts that you disagree, but you actually haven’t stated what your belief or definition is, just taken umbrage with my definition with arguments about jars and elephants.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

This from a guy who thinks a foetus isn't a foetus if you move it from one place to another, now stamping feet insisting "alive" and "living being" are one and the same.
Kinda funny, kinda tragic, at the same time.

You have not yet defined how you accept the terms “alive” and “living being” as they pertain to the fetus. Perhaps this discussion would be better served if you do. Care to? Is the fetus alive? Is the fetus a living being?

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

I can surmise from your myriad of posts that you disagree, but you actually haven’t stated what your belief or definition is, just taken umbrage with my definition with arguments about jars and elephants.

It's a fairly tedious ploy when somebody's been soundly beaten in an argument to take a few words completely out of context and chuck them out there as if they didn't make complete sense when they were originally used.
I could do the same with your posts, but, you know what, I'm not that petty.
Anyway, where in the charter, or indeed in any realm of common sense, is it decreed that I must first state my position on something in order to be permitted (by who? you?) to refute some part of the ongoing argument?
Is that how you operate? Don't care about any logic or facts so long as they fit your preconception?

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

I know this, which is why I was looking to see whether there was another referendum planned if this one fails. As many have said, removing on demand and this isn't even a debate. If it's close but No I'm sure we'll be back here soon enough.

There is no such thing as abortion on demand. Demand would imply: “I want it out, get it out,” with doctors forced to comply. But doctors would never be forced to comply with such a demand. Doctors can ask any relevant questions they want of a woman before they agree to perform the procedure, if they agree to at all. The only thing they are required to do is refer the patient elsewhere if they refuse to perform the procedure.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

It's a fairly tedious ploy when somebody's been soundly beaten in an argument to take a few words completely out of context and chuck them out there as if they didn't make complete sense when they were originally used.
I could do the same with your posts, but, you know what, I'm not that petty.

........ you’re kidding right

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

You have not yet defined how you accept the terms “alive” and “living being” as they pertain to the fetus. Perhaps this discussion would be better served if you do. Care to? Is the fetus alive? Is the fetus a living being?

Now I have to define your terms? What about the next one you lump into the conversation and pretend was what you were saying all along? Will I have to define that for you too?

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Now I have to define your terms? What about the next one you lump into the conversation and pretend was what you were saying all along? Will I have to define that for you too?

As you said you don’t have to respond to anything or answer anything. I’m just saying however that since you take such offense to my viewpoint that it might behoove you to offer your own viewpoint rather than attack mine in perpetuity.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

There is no such thing as abortion on demand. Demand would imply: “I want it out, get it out,” with doctors forced to comply. But doctors would never be forced to comply with such a demand. Doctors can ask any relevant questions they want of a woman before they agree to perform the procedure, if they agree to at all. The only thing they are required to do is refer the patient elsewhere if they refuse to perform the procedure.

Oh FFS that's not what abortion on demand means, being able to demand a specific doctor to perform the abortion. That has precisely nothing to do with it.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Oh FFS that's not what abortion on demand means, being able to demand a specific doctor to perform the abortion. That has precisely nothing to do with it.

Then, what does it mean?

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

As you said you don’t have to respond to anything or answer anything. I’m just saying however that since you take such offense to my viewpoint that it might behoove you to offer your own viewpoint rather than attack mine in perpetuity.

And like I said, if you think somebody needs to give you their life story to be permitted to refute your arguments, then I'm afraid you're in for disappointment.

fritzelly

DarkScar wrote: »

Because I'd prefer the limit to be in the constitution, not decided by legislation. Defining what is a human, and hence who/what is in receipt of the benefits and protection of the constitution is surely something that shouldn't be left to legislation?
Could we legislate that black people aren't covered by the constitution? No. Then we shouldn't be able to legislate that once a foetus becomes a baby it isn't covered by the constitution just the same.

But voting yes does not make abortion legal, it's still protected by law which will then have to go thru many hurdles before any kind of legislation allows abortions outside of the current legislation.
It doesn't need to be in the constitution to protect the life of the unborn beyond what would be considered an actual human being in the womb

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

And like I said, if you think somebody needs to give you their life story to be permitted to refute your arguments, then I'm afraid you're in for disappointment.

That’s fine, because nowhere did I ask for someone’s life story.