nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Pete29

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Look at these disgusting Tweets. These people should be ashamed of themselves.

https://twitter.com/FGforwomen/status/998171895756304384

https://twitter.com/FGforwomen/status/998187278961913862

sick

Is this a real account or people trolling? I find hard to believe someone would be this honest in expressing what they actually think on such a public platform.

Outlaw Pete

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I have no respect for anyone making a decision for others regarding a situation they will never find themselves in. Vote how you feel is right but don't pretend it is from a position of empathy or understanding.

But Abortion is making a decision for another, how can you not see that?

99.999999999% of those against abortion have no issue with abortion when a woman's life, or health, is in serious danger, and so it's ridiculous to suggest that those you disagree with have no empathy or understanding.

It's the Prochoice side that are showing time and again that they have no empathy for a 12 week fetus that has their life ended, heartbeat stopped. They refer to the baby in the womb as a mere clump of cells, or blob of biological matter, even though it is clearly alive and moving purposefully.

Constantly speaking about abortion as if it's just a woman doing something to her own body, ignoring the fact that the body of another human being will be affected. A living human being that will have it's life stopped by a woman just doing something to "her body".

Abortions should be medical procedures. Only ever resorted to in order to save a woman's life or in the cases of rape and ffa.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Look at these disgusting Tweets. These people should be ashamed of themselves.

https://twitter.com/FGforwomen/status/998171895756304384

https://twitter.com/FGforwomen/status/998187278961913862

Have you complained to Fine Gael about the content of the tweets and asked if they are really from a Fine Gael source??

Cabaal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Look at these disgusting Tweets. These people should be ashamed of themselves.

https://twitter.com/FGforwomen/status/998171895756304384

https://twitter.com/FGforwomen/status/998187278961913862

Account looks fake, certainly not any sort of official account...it doesn't even use the FG logo

Fine Gael for Women
@FGforwomen
We are an independent group of Fine Gael members united by doing whats best for women. Currently fighting for #Repealthe8th as part of #Together4Yes Campaign.

Galway, Ireland
Joined May 2018

If I setup a fake account claiming to be from iona and call for GPs that hand out pills to be murdered would you also condemn iona?

Hotblack Desiato

Clearly a fake account, nothing to see here apart from the desperation and hypocrisy of certain anti-choicers.

alaimacerc

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

99.999999999% of those against abortion

"No" maths strikes again.

Hitman3000

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Abortions should be medical procedures. Only ever resorted to in order to save a woman's life or in the cases of rape and ffa.

So basically as a NO voter you wish to impose your choice on others whereas a YES voter seeks to allow others to decide for themselves .

BMMachine

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

But Abortion is making a decision for another, how can you not see that?

99.999999999% of those against abortion have no issue with abortion when a woman's life, or health, is in serious danger, and so it's ridiculous to suggest that those you disagree with have no empathy or understanding.

It's the Prochoice side that are showing time and again that they have no empathy for a 12 week fetus that has their life ended, heartbeat stopped. They refer to the baby in the womb as a mere clump of cells, or blob of biological matter, even though it is clearly alive and moving purposefully.

Constantly speaking about abortion as if it's just a woman doing something to her own body, ignoring the fact that the body of another human being will be affected. A living human being that will have it's life stopped by a woman just doing something to "her body".

Abortions should be medical procedures. Only ever resorted to in order to save a woman's life or in the cases of rape and ffa.

Bringing up rape - check
Patronising women ("her body") - check
Over compensating ("99.999999999%") - check

its another edgy Outlaw Pete post.
Here I'll do a you.
99.999999999% of the reason you are voting no is because you hate feminism and 'SJW's' and get sickened when you see their lovey dovey posts on Twitter (which you seem to trawl through to find the worst examples to back up your edginess). You also like to pretend you know better than 99.999999999% of people and like telling them what to do, maybe because you are 'woke' are something.

How many referendum boards.ie threads are you on atm? Think it might be something to do with you and how you identify yourself digitally, or are you just debating the issues at hand (while going on twitter and finding terrible accounts and terrible examples to use to have a go at your perceived enemy, 'the SJW's', while having absolutely 0 awareness about yourself or what you are saying). You bring up empathy but I have never seen a person with such an alien understanding of that term as you. Maybe just stop being edgy on the internet for a while and try and learn about yourself. Do some yoga or something, I dunno, but stop telling people what to do because of how afraid you are.

Zubeneschamali

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

99.999999999% of those against abortion have no issue with abortion when a woman's life, or health, is in serious danger, and so it's ridiculous to suggest that those you disagree with have no empathy or understanding.

Great, then 99.9999 % will vote to repeal the 8th, since it doesn't care about a woman's health, only her life.

end of the road

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Look at these disgusting Tweets. These people should be ashamed of themselves.

https://twitter.com/FGforwomen/status/998171895756304384

https://twitter.com/FGforwomen/status/998187278961913862

i agree. this is the brainwashing we are up against. people thinking it's a human right to kill an unborn child, and that choice and convenience are more important then a right to life.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Clearly a fake account, nothing to see here apart from the desperation and hypocrisy of certain anti-choicers.

there is no such thing as anti-choicers. there is no desperation and hypocrisy from the pro-life campaign and those of us who support it, and even if there was desperation, that's okay. the right to life, and the lives of the most voiceless of all are at stake.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So basically as a NO voter you wish to impose your choice on others whereas a YES voter seeks to allow others to decide for themselves .

as a no voter, i'm happy to keep extending the stance that it is wrong to take the life of another to the unborn, yes. there is no difference here between this and the rest of the laws of the land, which impose choices on all of us, choices some may not agree with. i wouldn't let someone decide for themselves to kill a born child, i won't for their unborn child either in this country. so the no voters are consistent in their views.

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Great, then 99.9999 % will vote to repeal the 8th, since it doesn't care about a woman's health, only her life.

I think he means that 99.99999% would vote yes in referendum proposing health - where health involved something serious

alaimacerc

Pete29 wrote: »

sick

Is this a real account or people trolling? I find hard to believe someone would be this honest in expressing what they actually think on such a public platform.

Sounds very like a certain fake twitter account, posting almost exactly the same line and misattributing it to Tara O'Flynn. Which must be sailing pretty close to legally actionable, even by the lax standards of the sort of nonsense to No campaign have gotten away with to date.

Bearing false witness for Jesus, Mary, and the Holy Innocent blastocytes.

alaimacerc

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think he means that 99.99999% would vote yes in referendum proposing health - where health involved something serious

As little as 99.99999% now? Is that the top third of Rónán Mullen that's the hold-out for "No", or the bottom third? (The middle bit not even he dares contemplate.)

What exactly is "something serious"? The outline legislation has the wording "serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman", which No are gleefully attacking as "vague". Really can't win with you types.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

i wouldn't let someone decide for themselves to kill a born child, i won't for their unborn child either in this country. so the no voters are consistent in their views.

They really aren't. If Switzerland passed a law allowing for involuntary euthanasia without medical rationale of "born children" -- also known in law and common parlance as "children" -- it'd still be illegal under Irish law. On abortion? Hand-wringing and "services lawfully available in another state".

antiskeptic

alaimacerc wrote: »

What exactly is "something serious"? The outline legislation has the wording "serious harm to the health of the pregnant woman", which No are gleefully attacking as "vague". Really can't win with you types.

That would be for you to pitch at the electorate. They would vote on what they think vague or not.

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

there is no desperation and hypocrisy from the pro-life campaign and those of us who support it, and even if there was desperation, that's okay. the right to life, and the lives of the most voiceless of all are at stake.

Even if said desperation leads to the creation of false flag purportedly pro-repeal accounts saying things no true repealer would ever say.

I see the account in question has been suspended so that tells a tale...

alaimacerc

antiskeptic wrote: »

That would be for you to pitch at the electorate. They would vote on what they think vague or not.

Ah, so you have no interest whatsoever in doing anything at all for the "hard cases". You're just happy enough to use "this isn't just about the hard cases!" as a talking point to use against whatever actual proposal you wish to oppose.

PopePalpatine

alaimacerc wrote: »

Sounds very like a certain fake twitter account, posting almost exactly the same line and misattributing it to Tara O'Flynn. Which must be sailing pretty close to legally actionable, even by the lax standards of the sort of nonsense to No campaign have gotten away with to date.

Bearing false witness for Jesus, Mary, and the Holy Innocent blastocytes.

I'm sure mental reservation covers that.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Currently the abortion rate of Irish women is not near being on a par with that of women in other European countries (even when illegal abortions are taken into account) but that will absolutely change within a few years of abortion on demand being made legal here.

That is quite the assertion but I am going to guess if asked for ANY evidence of it you will not offer any. A guess based on the fact the last times I asked you for evidence for it, you did not offer any.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course the response to this would be that a developing human being at 12 weeks is not a baby, which is like saying a small growing carrot in the ground shouldn't be called a baby carrot until it's removed from the ground. A preposterous argument based on location and little else.

You misrepresenting the argument does not make it preposterous, it makes YOUR post preposterous. You analogy simply fails because in one case the use of the word is the correct word to use, in the other it is not. So no, it is not like carrots at all. Even a little bit.

The word "baby" has a specific meaning. You misusing the word, or not knowing the meaning, only renders your rhetoric preposterous, no one elses.

Further though the word "baby" is a red herring in the first place. It does not matter what erroneous labels you want to slap on to it just so you can ignore the posters who offer you another round of rebuttals. The pertinent fact is it is no meaningful way a PERSON at 10, 12 or 16 weeks. Neither by any arguments of philosophy, nor by you personally being impressed at what it's tongue does.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nobody has an issue with a 21 week old premature fetus in an incubator being referred to as a baby and so why when in the womb?

Generally people do not have an issue with it being called a "baby" in the womb either. Because generally you not knowing how to use language correctly is no one else's issue other than yours. The misuse of terms does nothing harmful. However when it comes to an intense and divisive political debate the misuse of words often moves from being mere ignorance to actually being a contrived propaganda move. They use the wrong term precisely BECAUSE it is the wrong one, and the emotional implications of the misused terms allows them to smuggle in errors, falsehoods and misleading narratives to distort the discourse.

All of this you know of course, having had it explained to you NUMEROUS times in the past. Ignoring all those posts is one thing. But feigning ignorance of something pretty much everyone knows you are WELL aware of is quite another.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's ridiculous and all just an obvious desire to dehumanize the fetus, because of course, if we dehumanize them enough, then mistreating them and bullying them can't be seen as inhumane, but it is, it very much is.

This lie has been rebutted many times in the past, including multiple times from you. The reality is no one is "dehumanizing" anything. Rather we are correcting your contrived and wilful attempts to "humanise" it before it's due. IF you call a spade a cake, and I tell you it is not a cake but a spade.... I have not taken away it's cake-good or decakeified it. I have merely pointed out that your attempt to call it a cake was false from the outset.

Similarly you calling it a baby in an attempt to smuggle in humanising characteristics before their due, and someone like me correcting your error.......... is not at all dehumanising anything.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'll still vote No, but alas I think it will sadly being in vain and the Yes side will be victorious. We at at a stage now in society where modern day feminist values

The red herrings are numerous with this one. Your issue with women or specifically feminists has nothing to do with this thread, this vote, or this discussion. You are merely attempting to derail the narrative by importing snide side shots at narratives that could not be further from the reality.

Many of us are voting the way we are solely because we have considered all the arguments (from people who have presented any, unlike yourself) and believe it to be the right thing to do. Assigning narratives like "feminism" to this is a smoke screen from you and nothing more. And quite a desperate one too.

But I guess it is easier for you to pretend that it is all narrative driven, and agenda driven, you can pretend that it has nothing at all to do with you and yours being able to construct a single logical or philosophical argument indicting the morality and ethics of terminating a 10 week old pregnancy. Quite literally all you have offered is "Look at the toes, look at the fingers, look at the tongue!!!!".

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I guess the prochoice really do see the moving, reacting, thumb sucking baby in the womb as just a mere clump of cells. Funny how a generation usually obsessed with science are so willing to abandon it when it suits them. And referring to a 12 week fetus is absolutely doing just that.

That is a weird one. How do you think using a 100% accurate scientific term is abandoning science? IT is like you actually decided to close out your post making no sense at all. And if so, you well achieved it.

Secondly though I have seen little evidence in the past that you are anything but a lay man to science in all the ways I am a lay man to law. You appear to know next to nothing about it. So as someone who actually does..... by all means regale me with the relevant science to abortion, and women's medical health, and show me which parts we have ignored. Or is a single word all you got? Because of all the science I know related to gestation and birth, NOTHING in it appears to support any narrative you have pushed in an abortion thread yet.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

But Abortion is making a decision for another, how can you not see that?

But there is no "another" there, how can you not see that?

You are projecting person hood, will, and more onto it without reason or basis and then acting like we are somehow blind to something you see and we do not. It is hard for other people to see what you are merely hallucinating.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

99.999999999% of those against abortion have no issue with abortion when a woman's life, or health, is in serious danger, and so it's ridiculous to suggest that those you disagree with have no empathy or understanding.

Indeed, it would seem the OPPOSITE issue is in play. You have too much empathy, and likely little understanding. You are empathising with something that does not warrant it.

A dictionary will assist you here. Empathy "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.". If you feel you are understanding and sharing the feelings of another, when that other simply does not have them in any way, shape or form.... then something is misfiring in your empathy centres. Or you have such an over abundance of it it is simply pouring out on to things willy nilly for no reason.

So no, while I would stick with the suspicion your understanding it not high, I would not be suggesting you have no empathy. Just too much of it, or misdirected versions of it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's the Prochoice side that are showing time and again that they have no empathy for a 12 week fetus that has their life ended, heartbeat stopped.

Why should we? Again, look to what the word empathy even MEANS. Just like the "baby" discussion I made above your position on this matter is once again seemingly ENTIRELY based on you taking a single word, and then completely and entirely and demonstrably failing to use it correctly.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They refer to the baby in the womb as a mere clump of cells, or blob of biological matter, even though it is clearly alive and moving purposefully.

Amoebas are alive and move around too. So what? Also much like the use of the word "baby" I fear you are once again trying to smuggle in more than is warranted with the misuse of the word "purposefully". How can it have "purpose" exactly? You and I can move with purpose. But that is a much different meaning of the word "purpose" than any that could be meaningful HERE.

end of the road

there is another human being. it not being a person quite yet doesn't change that fact, given personhood is only one part of being a live human being. so abortion is ending the life of another.

nozzferrahhtoo

It is not just "one part" it is the only part that in any way coherently, or meaningfully, distinguishes us from other life on this planet. Other life that we often kill quite readily and even happily at times.

I know it is inconvenient to you that the only attributes that distinguish life that we can kill, from like you do not want to kill, happen to be the ones the fetus lacks. But reality remains reality regardless of how much it inconveniences you.

Outlaw Pete

alaimacerc wrote: »

Sounds very like a certain fake twitter account, posting almost exactly the same line and misattributing it to Tara O'Flynn. Which must be sailing pretty close to legally actionable, even by the lax standards of the sort of nonsense to No campaign have gotten away with to date.

Just seeing the account has been suspended, so have deleted my post and whoever is responsible for setting it up, prolife or prochoice, is scum in my eyes, as this subject is far too serious for crap like that.

However, in saying that, not sure though why there is such distancing from the tweets (in some circles at least though) as those views have been expressed by many prochoicers. Indeed, I've engaged with some of them, or at least tried to.

Dutch Minster for health is even on record as saying:

One Savethe8th campaigner who actually has DS, Charlotte Fien, recently spoke in Dublin about why she is against repealing the 8th. She is regularly treated abysmally online and one young Dublin prochoicer even called her a retard last week. Charlotte has also spoken out against Down Syndrome Ireland's request that DS be kept out of the referendum debate. Good for her, as no matter what anyone believes, nobody's voice should be silenced because it doesn't suit the politically correct narrative.

https://www.facebook.com/100008218983164/videos/2077649639185649/

nozzferrahhtoo

I personally do not know what DS has to do with issues like abortion.

If you think there is something wrong with abortion, then it is already a given you will be against it for reasons like detection of DS in the fetus.

If you do not think there is something wrong with abortion, then one subset of reasons for seeking it is unlikely to be of any particular concern.

So whichever way I look at it, the relevance of it is not jumping out at me.

What also seems baffling to me is why a quote like that is an issue. If we wake up in a world tomorrow where no new births occur with DS, why is this actually a problem? Is there a particular reason we should WANT people to be born with that condition? Or is, like many other conditions, moving towards a world where no new cases of it occur actually the right thing to do?

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is not just "one part" it is the only part that in any way coherently, or meaningfully, distinguishes us from other life on this planet. Other life that we often kill quite readily and even happily at times.

I know it is inconvenient to you that the only attributes that distinguish life that we can kill, from like you do not want to kill, happen to be the ones the fetus lacks. But reality remains reality regardless of how much it inconveniences you.

the unborn has one atribute. humanity. it will have the other atributes very soon, therefore preventing it from being killed is justified.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I personally do not know what DS has to do with issues like abortion.

If you think there is something wrong with abortion, then it is already a given you will be against it for reasons like detection of DS in the fetus.

If you do not think there is something wrong with abortion, then one subset of reasons for seeking it is unlikely to be of any particular concern.

So whichever way I look at it, the relevance of it is not jumping out at me.

What also seems baffling to me is why a quote like that is an issue. If we wake up in a world tomorrow where no new births occur with DS, why is this actually a problem? Is there a particular reason we should WANT people to be born with that condition? Or is, like many other conditions, moving towards a world where no new cases of it occur actually the right thing to do?

it's relevant because unborn babies with the condition will be killed in higher numbers. that is why it is important to hi-light the condition in terms of the debate as unborn human beings with ds are at a hugely high risk of being killed in the womb. yes it stands to reason that being against abortion means you will be against the killing of unborn human beings with ds, whereas if you are for abortion, you probably shouldn't really be complaining about these killings. however it really isn't quite as simple as that i don't think.
in theory, there is nothing wrong with a particular condition no longer existing, it's the fact human beings will be killed to achieve this that is the issue.

nozzferrahhtoo

It is nice of you to come back from your spree of ignoring all my posts.

end of the road wrote: »

the unborn has one atribute. humanity. it will have the other atributes very soon, therefore preventing it from being killed is justified.

You throw out that word often without seemingly understanding it is a wide open net, with many meanings in many contexts. The only aspects of "Humanity" a 10 week old fetus has is DNA.

What you also appear not to understand is that the word itself begs the very question I ask of it, and have asked of you in the past only to have my posts ignored by you. And you ignore it here once again in the post you just hit "reply" on. Which is to question what exactly it is about "humanity" that deserves protection, deserves value, deserves our moral and ethical concern.

And as I said, there is a clear reason why you ignore it so consistently. It is because the results of such inquiry throw up a list of attributes the fetus wholly and entirely lacks.

end of the road wrote: »

it's relevant because unborn babies with the condition will be killed in higher numbers.

Again you appear not to have really read, or understood, what it is you hit the "reply" button on. You are already against people being able to merely choose to have an abortion. So DS barely has relevance there, regardless of the "numbers" you imagine will result in terminations. So moaning about one particular sub-group comes across as white noise and just a move to try to appeal to emotion.

Again, if you are against all choice based abortions then it is already a given you will be against choices based abortions on the grounds of DS.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is nice of you to come back from your spree of ignoring all my posts.

You throw out that word often without seemingly understanding it is a wide open net, with many meanings in many contexts. The only aspects of "Humanity" a 10 week old fetus has is DNA.

What you also appear not to understand is that the word itself begs the very question I ask of it, and have asked of you in the past only to have my posts ignored by you. And you ignore it here once again in the post you just hit "reply" on. Which is to question what exactly it is about "humanity" that deserves protection, deserves value, deserves our moral and ethical concern.

And as I said, there is a clear reason why you ignore it so consistently. It is because the results of such inquiry throw up a list of attributes the fetus wholly and entirely lacks.

lacking those attributes is not enough for me to not call the fetus a human given it will have those attributes soon. nobody will ever be able to truely answer the question of what humanity is and why it should receive protection and concern. but the reality is it does, and i believe that must continue to extend to the unborn, given they will quite soon, have all the attributes that will make them a person. it's enough for me and many others.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again you appear not to have really read, or understood, what it is you hit the "reply" button on. You are already against people being able to merely choose to have an abortion. So DS barely has relevance there, regardless of the "numbers" you imagine will result in terminations. So moaning about one particular sub-group comes across as white noise and just a move to try to appeal to emotion.

Again, if you are against all choice based abortions then it is already a given you will be against choices based abortions on the grounds of DS.

yes, but it's about sending the message to the other side that their wish to end a life simply based on ds in itself has no validity and they do not put forward any argument as to why we should facilitate their wish. it is also about changing minds of course,. 1 mind changed is a win. i have read, and understand everything i reply to, hence i reply.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

lacking those attributes is not enough for me to not call the fetus a human given it will have those attributes soon.

"for me" being the important words there because that is pretty much all it is. Subjective personal opinion that can not be translated into any argument or evidence, data or reason.

It is certainly not something we do in science. And it is rarely something we do in linguistics either. We generally, in both, call things by what they are, not by what they someday MIGHT be. A person goes around telling people "This seed is a tree" will quickly be seen as either insane or just plain idiotic by the people they are telling.

end of the road wrote: »

nobody will ever be able to truely answer the question of what humanity is and why it should receive protection and concern.

Why throw out absolutes that we do not use anywhere else in human discourse? Perhaps you are right (I doubt it, but lets go with it) that we can never fully define those things. Nothing I have written requires us to. All that my position requires is that we understand enough about it to know when the attributes of actual concern simply are not present.

end of the road wrote: »

but the reality is it does

YOUR reality maybe, but your one does not track with the actual one. Certainly not by assertion. Something does not deserve protection and concern just because you declare it should. If it deserves it, then it warrants something based on argument, evidence, data and reasoning to defend that position. I can, and have at great length, explained the basis of mine. You, alas, merely assert yours.

end of the road wrote: »

yes, but it's about sending the message to the other side that their wish to end a life simply based on ds in itself has no validity

But again, that message is a red herring and entirely superfluous to requirements. So I simply do not believe the narrative you are assigning to why it is used. Especially given the WEALTH of other conditions and narratives you could use to send the same message. I think we both know very well why DS is used and not the many many others that could be used.

But as I said, it is a superfluous red herring. It is already 100% clear you are against choice based abortion..... therefore "sending a message" that you are against one particular reason for seeking choice based abortion does not actually send any message at all. Nothing new. Nothing useful. Nothing distinct. Nothing informative. It is just a sub-set of the message you already send.

So no, I do not think you do demonstrate understanding of what you reply to. That is, on the rare occasion you actually reply rather than ignore.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"for me" being the important words there because that is pretty much all it is. Subjective personal opinion that can not be translated into any argument or evidence, data or reason.

It is certainly not something we do in science. And it is rarely something we do in linguistics either. We generally, in both, call things by what they are, not by what they someday MIGHT be. A person goes around telling people "This seed is a tree" will quickly be seen as either insane or just plain idiotic by the people they are telling.

because a seed isn't a tree, whereas a fetus is a human being. it's not a person yet, but it is still a human being.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"Why throw out absolutes that we do not use anywhere else in human discourse? Perhaps you are right (I doubt it, but lets go with it) that we can never fully define those things. Nothing I have written requires us to. All that my position requires is that we understand enough about it to know when the attributes of actual concern simply are not present.

the issue is the attributes of actual concern aren't enough to determine what you want them to determine.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"YOUR reality maybe, but your one does not track with the actual one. Certainly not by assertion. Something does not deserve protection and concern just because you declare it should. If it deserves it, then it warrants something based on argument, evidence, data and reasoning to defend that position. I can, and have at great length, explained the basis of mine. You, alas, merely assert yours.

your position isn't enough to state that a fetus should not have a right to life however. mine certainly is, because it's an extension of what gives us all a right to life.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"But again, that message is a red herring and entirely superfluous to requirements. So I simply do not believe the narrative you are assigning to why it is used. Especially given the WEALTH of other conditions and narratives you could use to send the same message. I think we both know very well why DS is used and not the many many others that could be used.

But as I said, it is a superfluous red herring. It is already 100% clear you are against choice based abortion..... therefore "sending a message" that you are against one particular reason for seeking choice based abortion does not actually send any message at all. Nothing new. Nothing useful. Nothing distinct. Nothing informative. It is just a sub-set of the message you already send.

So no, I do not think you do demonstrate understanding of what you reply to. That is, on the rare occasion you actually reply rather than ignore.

i don't agree, it's most certainly not a red herring nor is it in any way superfluous to requirements. all the other conditions and narratives are being used by the no campaign also. i firmly believe that using all possibilities, conditions and facts at the no campaign's disposal is sending a message to some. how many is unknown, but i guess we will find out when the result is revealed. lots new, lots useful, lots distinct, lots informative have been put out by the no campaign and i congratulate them on giving the facts, as uncomfortable as lots of them are.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

because a seed isn't a tree, whereas a fetus is a human being. it's not a person yet, but it is still a human being.

Now who is being unscientific. You are hiding behind words more than ever here and I suspect you do not even see it. A seed, a tree, a fetus, a toddler, a man, a woman, a caterpillar, a mouse, a butterfly, an egg.... it is all just words WE as humans throw at easy to distinguish markers in what is nothing more than a cycle of life.

The words mean something to US, but they do not actually mean anything. They are just conveniences to us. A seed is not a tree. A fetus is not a person. You are placing everything in your rhetoric on a distinction that actually only exists in your head. It does not exist in science. It does not exist in philosophy. It exists solely and entirely in your fantasy world.

end of the road wrote: »

the issue is the attributes of actual concern aren't enough to determine what you want them to determine.

Except not only is that simply false, and they very much can do so......... no one else, least of all you, is coming up with alternatives to it either. The thing I am trying to determine? There ARE no other attributes that make sense of it. Unless you want to go off inventing notions like the existence of a god, there is no source of, purpose of, or target for things like rights, morality and ethics OTHER than the attribute I focus in on. And you can not merely "Nu-uh" that issue under the carpet.

end of the road wrote: »

your position isn't enough to state that a fetus should not have a right to life however. mine certainly is, because it's an extension of what gives us all a right to life.

Except yours is not. Assertion never is. And that is all you are offering here. An assertion. YOu are not actually grounding it in any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning like I have been doing in my position.

end of the road wrote: »

i don't agree, it's most certainly not a red herring nor is it in any way superfluous to requirements.

Except yes it is, both, for the reasons I explained in my post and you have not actually rebutted here. Restating a rebutted position does not strengthen the position, you have to address the rebuttal to do that and you certainly have not done that here.

Again if X is a subet of Y, and you are against all of Y, then pointing out you are against X is a red herring, it is superfluous to requirements, it adds nothing, it brings nothing new, it is not informative of anything, and it brings us nowhere. You are doing nothing but stating a sub position that everyone would already know given your main position.