The Dilemma of the Undecideds in the abortion referendum

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.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

Then, what does it mean?

Holy cow. You don't actually know what "abortion on demand" means...
You go in, you ask for an abortion when there's no foetal abnormalities, no risk to health of mother through pregnancy, that kind of thing, and you get an abortion.
You could look it up too if you want more about it?

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

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

Lame deflection.
You did ask for them to state their position before they're are permitted to refute your argument though. Why don't you answer that instead of having a crisis about me using one mildly sarcastic phrase?

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Holy cow. You don't actually know what "abortion on demand" means...
You go in, you ask for an abortion when there's no foetal abnormalities, no risk to health of mother through pregnancy, that kind of thing, and you get an abortion.
You could look it up too if you want more about it?

That seems to be abortion on request, not on demand. By your own definition you ask for it, you don’t demand it. Then you hop and skip to getting an abortion somehow, forgetting all the steps in between like the right of a doctor to refuse the procedure and to ask questions.

If that’s your definition of abortion on demand (ask for abortion, ????, profit!) then the phrase certainly does seem misleading and farcical.

DarkScar

Overheal
So, you will say what it doesn’t mean, but not what it does mean?

The bit about going in to the doctor and asking for an abortion isn't saying what it is? The bit about getting an abortion isn't saying what it is?
Really?
Are you not embarrassed even attempting this level of stalling nonsense?

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Lame deflection.
You did ask for them to state their position before they're are permitted to refute your argument though. Why don't you answer that instead of having a crisis about me using one mildly sarcastic phrase?

I didn’t say anyone needed my permission to try and refute my arguments, just that in the interest of a more worthwhile and constructive discussion we might hear what the alternate viewpoint is, not just why one viewpoint is wrong in your opinion.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

That seems to be abortion on request, not on demand. By your own definition you ask for it, you don’t demand it. Then you hop and skip to getting an abortion somehow, forgetting all the steps in between like the right of a doctor to refuse the procedure and to ask questions.

If that’s your definition of abortion on demand (ask for abortion, ????, profit!) then the phrase certainly does seem misleading and farcical.

Oh look, he replaced some of my stuff with ???? and "profit" and now he'll pretend that's what I said. How cute.
You want to call what is worldwide referred to as "on demand" as "on request" then that's up to you. Write your own dictionary, nobody's stopping you.

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

The bit about going in to the doctor and asking for an abortion isn't saying what it is? The bit about getting an abortion isn't saying what it is?
Really?
Are you not embarrassed even attempting this level of stalling nonsense?

Misread that post, hence I deleted that response and updated my reply above.

And as I said, asking for an abortion is a request not a demand, and “getting an abortion” seems to skip a lot of steps in the process, in reality.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

I didn’t say anyone needed my permission to try and refute my arguments, just that in the interest of a more worthwhile and constructive discussion we might here what the alternate viewpoint is, not just why one viewpoint is wrong in your opinion.

We might. But why are you so insistent on it? Your argument is blown out of the water. Now you're just flailing for purchase as you think you can generate some line of attack. But goddam got no material to work with.
Awful isn't it?

Overheal

DarkScar wrote: »

Oh look, he replaced some of my stuff with ???? and "profit" and now he'll pretend that's what I said. How cute.
You want to call what is worldwide referred to as "on demand" as "on request" then that's up to you. Write your own dictionary, nobody's stopping you.

Well, you haven’t filled in what’s in the “????” Just that she can request an abortion - and then she gets an abortion. Do you think it will be this straightforward? You didn’t even bother to mention the 72 hour waiting period, or the doctors right of refusal.

DarkScar

Overheal wrote: »

Misread that post, hence I deleted that response and updated my reply above.

And as I said, asking for an abortion is a request not a demand, and “getting an abortion” seems to skip a lot of steps in the process, in reality.

So when you asked what "abortion on demand" is you wanted a 200 page technical reference? How convenient it allows you to pretend the explanation I gave you wan't accurate. Anybody might think it was but you had to make up some nonsense to make it look like it wasn't.
On yer bike. You're flailing and it ain't pretty.