betsy

What right? Sovereignty of her body? There is no such right. With pregnancy it is not that simple since it involves terminating another life. That's why we need to re-open the debate. To determine once and for all when the fetus is deemed human - deserving of same human rights. Oh yes it is the issue! Show me the stats on pregnancy-by-rape! Unreported rapes does not mean they did not go seek medical help. Like I said, with all the kinds of diseases that could mean you're dead, chances are most raped victims sought medical help whether they reported the crimes or not! I said dim-witted WOMAN. The scenario you mentioned is most likely to happen in other countries. We're talking CANADA! The MP who wants to re-open the debate is Canadian. What pregnant nine year old would likely seek abortion in Canada without spilling the beans how she got pregnant? Chances are the truth comes out after the fact - when she'd already given birth, or if she loses the baby. Cases of incest are more likely to be hidden. It's still a big problem. You think there wouldn't be any questions asked by health authorities if a nine year old comes to the clinic pregnant, who the dad is? You think her molesting dad wouldn't ensure not to get her pregnant since that will surely land him in hot water? Baloney! Doesn't make sense! What's the worst stigma? Getting medical attention after the rape (whether date rape or not)....or having an outright abortion later on? You're saying getting an abortion is more common - and is the most preferred method - than taking the preventive precaution? See what abortion had become? How so frivolously abused it is? No wonder we have growing numbers of repeat-abortions! Your statement actually supports the pro-lifers by saying abortion is nothing more than just another contraceptive! From your own words! Hah! So what's the problem then? It doesn't matter what I endorse or not. The morning-after pill (just like abortion) is available, isn't it? The law already gave you sex education to let you understand that having unsafe sex can give you unwanted pregnancy, among other things, the law also gave you condoms, iud, the pill......and on top of that, gave you the morning-after pill just in case uncontrollable libido triumphs over common sense! And inspite all that....the woman still wouldn't do her responsibility to preserve her own body! And you scream about her so-called rights? True it is traumatic and emotional, no denying that. Whether they like it or not, they'll have to make the most important decision after getting raped. She has to exercise her freedom to choose. Here are the choices now: Seek medical attention or not. Wouldn't it be more devastating a year or so down the road when one finds out she's got HIV. What stat? Where's the stat? You're claiming unreported cases as your stat??? Although the numbers in Canada wouldn't be high enough to be significant, don't go assuming that all raped victims who got pregnant wanted to terminate the child. It's not a matter of being honest - for I'm sure you truly believe what you say. It's more a matter of sensible discussion, not based on personal assumptions. And speaking of honesty - Bernard Nathanson revealed how he and fellow co-founders of abortion have fudged the numbers. Then there's that so-called "right" pro-choicers claim, that actually is non-existent. And then, there's the founder of Planned Parenthood who spouted the same Nazi mantra. Pray tell, on what foundation does your cause stands? Dis-honesty and Bigotry. You were just plain lucky having had a powerful lobby group.

You're being obtuse, rehashing and just going about in circles which is leading to nowhere. Or you simply didn't understand what I was saying above. Also you have not answered my question either. Why do you support abortion. What's your story. Get back to me when you've got something worth replying to.

So, what was that about the Planned Parenthood article again? On what basis did they come up with their refutation? Hitler's diary? Experimental notes from Mengele?

Let me be clear, once and for all. We got focused on fetal pain there, that's why that article was given. It was an indirect reply to your Planned Parenthood article. We got side-tracked from the real issue which is: When the fetus is deemed human. So the answer to your question above is a big resounding, NO! I've explained this before a couple of times, but for your benefit I'll repeat it. I am fighting for the rights - the human rights - of the baby whom I believe is human. But pro-choicers are fighting that. I also believe that murder - the deliberate killing of a human - is a sin. But that belief is based on faith.....which non-believers would scoff at. The law will not listen to anything based on faith. It wants actual fact. So we have to re-open this debate! With science involved. We don't know if it will ever happen....or when. That's why I said, let's set religion aside. This is about human rights. My religious faith shouldn't matter to you guys, but it's always being brought in by some which only lend credence - and everytime my religious faith is being insistedly brought in actually only serves to underline that credence - to my assertion that for some, the reason for radically supporting abortion is due to being anti-religion. The militant secularists had even made it their agenda in their manifesto to stop the influence of religion at any cost. Abortion is one of the major battleground. They are not fighting for the rights of anyone. In their warped minds, they are fighting religion. Strange that in that small segment, the writer contradicts himself. And there's a blatant delusional statement in it which is out of topic (but of course we know who exactly is a militant secularist - rebranding it won't do. Just tick-off the checklist on the topic "What Is A New Atheist) About that delusional statement, just feel free to read further below and see if you can spot it. Now, back to what I was saying about that fetal pain article.... But in the meantime, it is a step forward....a big step forward if society can at least - at least try to - be humane enough in stopping the infliction of pain to the babies they are killing. Waldo, why exactly are you supporting abortion? For the record, explain your position.

Considering that at some point the fetus does experience pain.....wouldn't you guys want to err on the side of caution? To feel compassion and be humane about this?

Fetal Pain. Excerpt from a long article. The First Ache By ANNIE MURPHY PAUL Published: February 10, 2008 THE QUESTION of fetal pain is not irrelevant when applied to abortion. On April 4, 2004, Sunny Anand took the stand in a courtroom in Lincoln, Neb., to testify as an expert witness in the case of Carhart v. Ashcroft. This was one of three federal trials held to determine the constitutionality of the ban on a procedure called intact dilation and extraction by doctors and partial-birth abortion by anti-abortion groups. Anand was asked whether a fetus would feel pain during such a procedure. If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus, he said. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain. After listening to Anands testimony and that of doctors opposing the law, Judge Richard G. Kopf declared in his opinion that it was impossible for him to decide whether a fetus suffers pain as humans suffer pain. He ruled the law unconstitutional on other grounds. But the ban was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and Anands statements, which he repeated at the two other trials, helped clear the way for legislation aimed specifically at fetal pain. The following month, Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, presented to the Senate the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions at 20 weeks or later that their fetuses can feel pain and to offer anesthesia administered directly to the pain-capable unborn child. The bill did not pass, but Brownback continues to introduce it each year. Anands testimony also inspired efforts at the state level. Over the past two years, similar bills have been introduced in 25 states, and in 5 Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota and Oklahoma they have become law. In addition, state-issued abortion-counseling materials in Alaska, South Dakota and Texas now make mention of fetal pain. In the push to pass fetal-pain legislation, Anands name has been invoked at every turn; he has become a favorite expert of the anti-abortion movement precisely because of his credentials. This Oxford- and Harvard-trained neonatal pediatrician had some jarring testimony about the subject of fetal pain, announced the Republican congressman Mike Pence to the House of Representatives in 2004, and it is truly made more astonishing when one considers the fact that Dr. Anand is not a stereotypical Bible-thumping pro-lifer. Anand maintains that doctors performing abortions at 20 weeks or later should take steps to prevent or relieve fetal pain. But it is clear that many of the anti-abortion activists who quote him have something more sweeping in mind: changing perceptions of the fetus. In several states, for example, information about fetal pain is provided to all women seeking abortions, including those whose fetuses are so immature that there is no evidence of the existence of even a stress response. By personifying the fetus, theyre trying to steer the womans decision away from abortion, says Elizabeth Nash, a public-policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-rights group. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

I'mnot. But you're implying I have a say or that I can influence the pro-lifers. You're lumping us all together and saying in effect: "Aha! I knew it! You're trying to get your foot in the door and then all of you will want more!" Oh let's not get down the road of who makes false, unsubstantiated claims and vulgarizing science! Scroll back and read.

Read again. There is something else befire I said "unless you can't defend it." Don't take my statement out of context! Here is the exchange why I said what I did. That science or tech of ultrasound. Since it's been around for quite a while!

Well I didn't say they don't like the tech of ultrasound. I hope you're not putting words in my mouth. Like I said, I don't know what science(s) will be called upon to shed some light in a debate. There's more technology now, in areas less publicized I guess. But for the pro-lifers to throw the gauntlet of wanting a debate - with the help of science - I guess they must know something we don't. Mind you, the debate is supposed to be to determine when the fetus is deemed a human. They didn't say anything about pain. However, the debate for gestational period for pain is being fought in US courts - the battle for that rages on.

1883-1966. I wouldn't be surprised if she was inspired by Hitler. Hitler was quite charismatic. Hitler had supporters in America. I wouldn't know how widespread bigotry was in the US in those days, but no matter how widespread they were does not mean they were right. If we don't consider bigotry as acceptable right now, why would you think it should've been acceptable then? Even if that kind of mentality was widespread? Only a relativist can do that shifting with great ease. So no issue about context there. In fact, it is very much within context - the possiility of influence by Hitler's ideology, or she probably just happened to share the same vision....but still similar to Hitler's given her quotes: Margaret Sanger (1883-1966) On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people On sterilization & racial purification: Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech. The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2) On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12 http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm Jews were de-humanized. Blacks were de-humanized. Human babies are de-humanized. Same pattern. Makes the atrocity easier to accept and support if you believe it's being done to a non-human. Given the Hitler-like vision of the founder of one of the biggest pro-abortion organization....it is also within context to allude to the killings of these infants as a "holocaust.".

Maybe I didn't miss it. Maybe I just didn't find it to be crucial - although it may be part of it too. Maybe it's because like I said, the ultrasound was quite sometime ago. It couldn't be just the science the pro-lifers are wanting to involve in the re-opening of the debate.

Well, Margaret Sanger gave her views publicly. So they're open for public scrutiny. That her views seemed somehow similar to Hitler's ideology.....well, isn't that a shame. Lessons to be learned from this. Anything you say can come back to haunt you....even long after you're dead.

I wasn't sure if it was a planned parenthood that was in a funding controversy sometime ago. Anyway, you gave Planned Parenthood as an answer to the co-founder of abortion who turned pro-life activist. What do you expect Planned Parenthood will say? Agree with Pro-lifers??? However, that co-founder of abortion (Bernard Nathanson)....that's quite something from being co-founder of abortion to jumping ship and becoming not just a supporter of pro-life, but an activist for pro-life!

Are you gonna give it or not? It's your rebuttal at stake...not mine. You stated a claim...I want to read it. Unless you're hiding something from me.....

The link?

Then refute! What's stopping you from refuting? Why would you let my so-called, "authoritative posture" as you called it, somehow, by the sound of it, intimidate you? That's not my problem, is it? That's what a discussion or a debate is all about! Argue. Rebutt. Defend. Refute. Well it does sounds similar. Go the the thread NATURE OF EVIL by Jonsa. Now we descend to adhominem. And I gave you my answer to that. I take it you didn't like it.

Quit hyperventilating and rewind back a bit. Can you explain how my history here on this forum has anything to do with the real issue of re-opening the debate?

What's wrong with cut-and-paste? Unless you can't defend it. Was it Planned Parenthood? Perhaps that's why Harper Government refused to fund it? Wasn't there a story like that in the news? I'm not sure....

Well, the source is very, very ,very questionable, don't you think so? When the founder starts spouting of something like superior race.....boy, Hitler's Nazi all-over again! To boot, Mengele resurrected! Okay fair nuf. give the link on your source and I'll read it.

Perhaps the reason my posts suggest an authoritative foundation behind them is simply the fact that most of my claims have an authoritative back-up? I was not simply spouting off uninformed opinion....not plucking them from trees or out of thin air either. And going back to your comment here.... Just what do you think a debate is? If I know that science will support us, and how it will support us....don't you think I wouldn't have smugly posted it here on the board in details and gloated about it? At least give me credit for being open-minded enough to want to go to the process of having a debate about it. Stepping out of the box to know....isn't that pro-active? Open-minded? Reasoned? Gee, the way you guys are clinging so tightly to your walls one would think it's you who are so-called religious. just so strange.... What exactly are you so afraid of?

Is that the best you can do? Some quotes from the founder: So Nazi-like, isn't it?

Well, go back and read again. Carefully. And understand what's being said. And don't skip postings. You gotta read all the exchanges between me and American Woman when she dared raise the pregnancy-by-rape card! Hah!

Who?

I don't know what current science will be called upon to help in this matter. But that's the understanding I got from the news clips I've watched about the desire to re-open the debate. They want to involve science. The invention of ultrasound - which was quite a while ago - had actually got one of the founding fathers of abortion to reject abortion and become an activist for pro-life. He went further to produce a documentary called The Silent Scream. Ultrasound showed the fetus feeling pain, and trying to evade the instrument that was tearing it up into pieces.

First I'd like the re-opening of the debate - this time with the help of science - to determine when life as a human begins. And as I've said before, what I believe as a Christian shouldn't concern non-believers. I don't think the courts will listen based on faith alone either. Partisanships shouldn't matter either. After all aren't Conservatives and Liberals/NDP aghast at animal cruelty? We all should uphold human rights. All humans deserving the same rights. That's what we all should ensure.