The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

LeinsterDub

zeebre12 wrote: »

So a woman then that has a few children at home decides one day she doesn't want them anymore because they cost too much and decides to kill them. That's her best option for them at the time in their circumstances. Same logic.

Breaking an egg isn't the same as killing a chicken

zeebre12

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Breaking an egg isn't the same as killing a chicken

So you don't believe that a foetus is a life at 8 months? Only a child when it's outside the womb cam it be regarded as life?

LeinsterDub

zeebre12 wrote: »

So you don't believe that a foetus is a life at 8 months? Only a child when it's outside the womb cam it be regarded as life?

It doesn't matter what I believe, the government have proposed 12 weeks in legislation. But for the record if the foetus isn't viable outside the womb I don't believe it's alive.

DarkScar

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It doesn't matter what I believe, the government have proposed 12 weeks in legislation. But for the record if the foetus isn't viable outside the womb I don't believe it's alive.

I a person on life support alive?

DarkScar

blanch152 wrote: »

A vote for NO is the end of discussion, as the Constitution will remain unchanged, probably for a generation.

They've already hinted that if it's No then very soon pretty much the same proposed legislation will be offered as an amendment referendum.
Which I would be 100% behind.

Hitman3000

DarkScar wrote:

They've already hinted that if it's No then very soon pretty much the same proposed legislation will be offered as an amendment referendum. Which I would be 100% behind.

A hint? Can you back this up. It's only the No campaign that have been pushing this strategy that I'm aware of.

MayoSalmon

That is some logic right there...as a undecided this kind of logic really pushes me to the no camp. The mind boggles at the hoops the yes folks jump through to dehumanize human life. Like it's one thing to talk about zygotes and all that lark but to consider a let's say 18 week baby as not life is just bizarre.

Overheal

AnneFrank wrote: »

I'm so sick of canvassers shoving leaflets in my face, i'm voting no as i do not believe injecting a foetus to paralize it, and then an injection to it's heart to kill it, is healthcare.
Can't wait till tomorrow is over, one way or the other.

That’s not how abortions happen at 12 weeks, and already how abortions would happen today in Ireland when the mothers life is at risk so I don’t know what you’re voting against

DarkScar

Hitman3000 wrote: »

A hint? Can you back this up. It's only the No campaign that have been pushing this strategy that I'm aware of.

Sure: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/repeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

I a person on life support alive?

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

volchitsa

DarkScar wrote: »

Sure: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/repeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112

Behind a paywall for me, but going by the title it's just a claim about prochoice campaigners not giving up on the case of a NO, not a commitment from the government to do anything about it.

fergus1001

zeebre12 wrote:

So you don't believe that a foetus is a life at 8 months? Only a child when it's outside the womb cam it be regarded as life?

It is life and would be delivered, you have a bit of reading to do don't you

Overheal

zeebre12 wrote: »

So you don't believe that a foetus is a life at 8 months? Only a child when it's outside the womb cam it be regarded as life?

The fetus is viable and can be delivered premature at 24 weeks and beyond. 8 months is certainly within this frame.

Whiplash85

Please Vote no and give the unborn a voice tomorrow so they can have a voice in the future.

DarkScar

MayoSalmon wrote: »

That is some logic right there...as a undecided this kind of logic really pushes me to the no camp. The mind boggles at the hoops the yes folks jump through to dehumanize human life. Like it's one thing to talk about zygotes and all that lark but to consider a let's say 18 week baby as not life is just bizarre.

There was a woman on TV3 last night who nearly had a seizure trying to force out any word at all to describe what is actually gestating inside a woman. She called it a "pregnancy" every single time until the word simply sounded ridiculous and she switched to "foetus".

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

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

Ah, so they are the same "alive" and then you add in two qualifiers out of the blue. What's special about breathing? If they're on a ventilator or ECMO they're not breathing themselves, are they?
Sovereign? Any definition of that you got that isn't circular logic?
Where did those goalposts go again?

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Ah, so they are the same "alive" and then you add in two qualifiers out of the blue. What's special about breathing? If they're on a ventilator or ECMO they're not breathing themselves, are they?
Sovereign? Any definition of that you got that isn't circular logic?
Where did those goalposts go again?

Same goalpost. Same logic. Sorry you’re not onboard.

By no natural nor man-made means does a fetus breathe.

LeinsterDub

DarkScar wrote: »

Ah, so they are the same "alive" and then you add in two qualifies out of the blue. What's special about breathing? If they're on a ventilator or ECMO they're not breathing themselves, are they?
Sovereign? Any definition of that you got that isn't circular logic?
Where did those goalposts go again?

Viable: has all the necessary organs required for life developed

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/when-does-a-baby-s-brain-start-to-function-and-other-scientific-answers-on-abortion-1.3506968?mode=amp

The very beginnings of our higher brain structures only start to appear between weeks 12 and 16 Crucially, the co-ordinated brain activity required for consciousness does not occur until 24-25 weeks of pregnancy

While most organs are indeed present as very basic structures by week 12 of pregnancy, they are in fact missing many crucial components and some, such as the eyes, liver and pancreas are only beginning to develop

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

Same goalpost. Same logic. Sorry you’re not onboard.

By no natural nor man-made means does a fetus breathe.

A child on ECMO doesn't breath either, even on a ventilator they wouldn't be breathing on their own. Sounds like you would allow it to be "aborted" then at any age.
Your logic. Sorry you didn't think it through.

DarkScar

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Viable: has all the necessary organs required for life developed

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/when-does-a-baby-s-brain-start-to-function-and-other-scientific-answers-on-abortion-1.3506968?mode=amp

So what? I agree totally that a foetus becomes a human being at some stage during pregnancy, probably around the UK abortion limit.
Try to get Overheal for example to give a straight answer on that.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

A child on ECMO doesn't breath either, even on a ventilator they wouldn't be breathing on their own. Sounds like you would allow it to be "aborted" then at any age.
Your logic. Sorry you didn't think it through.

A child is not a fetus. Quite the roving goalpost there

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

So what? I agree totally that a foetus becomes a human being at some stage during pregnancy, probably around the UK abortion limit.
Try to get Overheal for example to give a straight answer on that.

I would agree.

#YouAreMostWelcome

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

By no natural nor man-made means does a fetus breathe.

So if a teenager needs CPR can the we abort it? It's not breathing and your "logic" says that means it isn't a human being.
Oh dear.

LeinsterDub

DarkScar wrote: »

So what? I agree totally that a foetus becomes a human being at some stage during pregnancy, probably around the UK abortion limit.
Try to get Overheal for example to give a straight answer on that.

So if you're of the opinion it's not a human then what's your issue?

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

A child is not a fetus. Quite the roving goalpost there

Your differentiator was that one was breathing and the other wasn't. Now apparently the difference between the two is that one is a foetus and the other is a child.
So the only thing you really have to offer to differentiate between a foetus and a child is that, er, one is a foetus and the other is a child.
Wouldn't take up obstetrics there if I were you.

DarkScar

LeinsterDub wrote: »

So if you're of the opinion it's not a human then what's your issue?

My issue? Somebody's telling me if you stop breathing you can be aborted. You think we should give that kind of blather a round of applause because we both think a 12 week old foetus isn't a human being? Any old crap is OK so long as we agree on one single thing?

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

So if a teenager needs CPR can the we abort it? It's not breathing and your "logic" says that means it isn't a human being.
Oh dear.

Are you actually this obtuse?

LeinsterDub

DarkScar wrote: »

My issue? Somebody's telling me if you stop breathing you can be aborted. You think we should give that kind of blather a round of applause because we both think a 12 week old foetus isn't a human being? Any old crap is OK so long as we agree on one single thing?

No stop answering the questions you want to answer and answer the question asked. If you are of the opinion that the foetus isn't human before 12 weeks what's your issue with abortion?

backspin.

I think i am just not going to vote. I can't make up my mind.

gctest50

Seems to have become a thread for the Megathread refugees

PhoenixParker

DarkScar wrote: »

So if a teenager needs CPR can the we abort it? It's not breathing and your "logic" says that means it isn't a human being.
Oh dear.

If a teenager isn’t breathing there is no obligation on you to perform CPR. You might get shame and judgement for it but you wouldn’t be prosecuted.

If someone isn’t breathing, they’re often classed as dead so in many cases your example teenager would not be a living human being.

DarkScar

LeinsterDub wrote: »

No stop answering the questions you want to answer and answer the question asked. If you are of the opinion that the foetus isn't human before 12 weeks what's your issue with abortion?

If I said 2+2 is a fish so therefore the foetus doesn't become human until 20 weeks you wouldn't bat an eyelid? You're completely freely admitting you don't care one bit about logic so long as the you agree with the conclusion.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

If I said 2+2 is a fish so therefore the foetus doesn't become human until 20 weeks you wouldn't bat an eyelid? You're completely freely admitting you don't care one bit about logic so long as the you agree with the conclusion.

I have no idea what you just said but would you like fries with that?

DarkScar

PhoenixParker wrote: »

If a teenager isn’t breathing there is no obligation on you to perform CPR. You might get shame and judgement for it but you wouldn’t be prosecuted.

Where did those goalposts go again...
So it a person who isn't breathing a human or not? That was one of the criteria proposed for what is a human being.
Plenty of other animals breathe too so I guess they are all humans?

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

I have no idea what you just said but would you like fries with that?

Seeing as you think somebody who isn't breathing isn't a human I'm not that shocked you didn't understand a fairly beginner level English sentence to be perfectly honest.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

I have no idea what you just said but would you like fries with that?

If you have no idea what I said how would you know it was a food order?
What a ****e joke.

LeinsterDub

DarkScar wrote: »

If I said 2+2 is a fish so therefore the foetus doesn't become human until 20 weeks you wouldn't bat an eyelid? You're completely freely admitting you don't care one bit about logic so long as the you agree with the conclusion.

I'm asking you to outline your position, not conflate about me or others and then defend it. I've outlined mine already.

If you can't or are unwilling to do so we can't have a reasoned discussion can we?

DarkScar

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm asking you to outline your position, not conflate about me or others and then defend it. I've outlined mine already.

If you can't or are unwilling to do so we can't have a reasoned discussion can we?

Outline my position? Why? We're already in the middle of a discussion and you're looking for a position paper?
You know soapboxing is actually banned here?

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Seeing as you think somebody who isn't breathing isn't a human I'm not that shocked you didn't understand a fairly beginner level English sentence to be perfectly honest.

I’m shocked you’re failing the Turing Test myself.

I was reasonably clear: by no means, man-made or otherwise, does a fetus breathe. It’s also in the womb, as a second point, to your likely next obtuse retort about the ICU. Before it exits the womb it is by no stretch a sovereign person either, which is the larger point.

A human, who stops breathing on their own and requires the use of a man made device, may still be alive and their personhood is not in question: they were born long before the fact.

LeinsterDub

DarkScar wrote: »

Outline my position? Why? We're already in the middle of a discussion and you're looking for a position paper?
You know soapboxing is actually banned here?

I'm asking you to commit to a position . Clearly this is beyond you.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

If you have no idea what I said how would you know it was a food order?.

Was just hoping it was, with the call out of fish and the generously portioned word salad.

ArthurDayne

DarkScar wrote: »

Outline my position? Why? We're already in the middle of a discussion and you're looking for a position paper?
You know soapboxing is actually banned here?

I'm immensely confused by your position here. You have said that you 'agree totally that a foetus becomes a human at some stage during pregnancy, probably around the UK abortion limit'. This seems somewhat at odds with the views have you been espousing . . . unless I have really seriously misunderstood you.

DarkScar

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I'm immensely confused by your position here. You have said that you 'agree totally that a foetus becomes a human at some stage during pregnancy, probably around the UK abortion limit'. This seems somewhat at odds with the views have you been espousing . . . unless I have really seriously misunderstood you.

Amazing that you can quote one thing I say and then claim it contradicts... well, who knows what as you seem to be incapable of supporting your argument.
Want to try again?

DarkScar

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm asking you to commit to a position . Clearly this is beyond you.

I'm asking you to at least attempt to follow the discussion, without invoking some lame "define your position" debating tactic when you find yourself without the first clue what's going on.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

I’m shocked you’re failing the Turing Test myself.

I was reasonably clear: by no means, man-made or otherwise, does a fetus breathe. It’s also in the womb, as a second point, to your likely next obtuse retort about the ICU. Before it exits the womb it is by no stretch a sovereign person either, which is the larger point.

A human, who stops breathing on their own and requires the use of a man made device, may still be alive and their personhood is not in question: they were born long before the fact.

So it is a foetus because it doesn't breathe. But other things that do breathe aren't humans or foetuses and other things that don't breathe can be pretty much anything includes humans and foetuses. This is one of your criteria? It is completely useless.
A foetus is inside a womb... yay. Can a human being be inside a womb? That's sort of the question? Or is the location of something now it's only definition? If you put a foetus in a jar is it still a foetus... only now it's not in a womb? Hmm, another useless definition, there's a shock.
Sovereign... hmm, no definition of this provided. Is a man on life support sovereign? Is a 40 year old starving Ethiopian who needs food aid? Another utterly worthless definition from you.
Got anything that makes sense?

LeinsterDub

DarkScar wrote: »

I'm asking you to at least attempt to follow the discussion, without invoking some lame "define your position" debating tactic when you find yourself without the first clue what's going on.

No your not your deflecting. Your posts don't make any sense they are half sarcastic, half confusion and half nonsense. And yes 3 halves makes more sense than some of the nonsense you've posted tonight.

Several others have asked you to clarify so don't make it out that it's my issue.

ArthurDayne

DarkScar wrote: »

Amazing that you can quote one thing I say and then claim it contradicts... well, who knows what as you seem to be incapable of supporting your argument.
Want to try again?

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.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Amazing that you can quote one thing I say and then claim it contradicts...

Is the reason you to trailed off here because you realized you mocked your own style of argument?

bleary

backspin. wrote: »

I think i am just not going to vote. I can't make up my mind.

Keep it simple ,
Do you think the unborn has a completely equal right to life at any stage as the woman carrying them disregarding everything else. And this has to be maintained in the constitution rather than through legislation.
Yes = vote no
No= vote yes

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

So it is a foetus because it doesn't breathe.

I never once said this anywhere? You’re building a straw man.

But other things that do breathe aren't humans or foetuses and other things that don't breathe can be pretty much anything includes humans and foetuses. This is one of your criteria?

again, reflects nothing I said. More straw men.

A foetus is inside a womb... yay. Can a human being be inside a womb?

sure, especially In the third trimester, when it has achieved viability.

If you put a foetus in a jar is it still a foetus... only now it's not in a womb? Hmm, another useless definition, there's a shock.

I never defined a fetus in a jar, you did. If you want to declare that definition useless it begs why you brought it up?

Sovereign... hmm, no definition of this provided. Is a man on life support sovereign? Is a 40 year old starving Ethiopian who needs food?

yes and yes. They are individuals with self-ownership. If you’re unfamiliar with the concept there is plenty of material out on the web to educate you on it. Somewhat similarly, a sovereign nation doesn’t forfeit its sovereignty when it accepts foreign aid. So, I see no reason to sound so exasperated or exclaim the concept is illogical.