betsy

Sometime last week, three polls conducted by three popular pollsters showed that same result from The Star. Then, about a couple or three days ago, Ekos issued a poll that showed the Cons were down to 32%. Pundits cautioned they'd want to see other polls. Speculation was that the people got scared of a Cons majority. I'm thankful that isn't the case. That link you gave just made my day.

Okay WIP, I'm curious how you'd see this from my point: What is wrong about carrying the baby to full term, giving birth, then giving him up for adoption, if the mother still doesn't want him? He didn't have to die. A childless couple will be happy to become his parents. His biological mother can go on living her life as if he never existed at all. That means we roll back to making abortion illegal unless it's a health risk to the mother - so I guess that was in 1969 (? can't remember the date).

Well, I'm basing it on Cybercoma's reply....which I assume reflect how he thinks/feel/reason. I'm using logic.

So you're on to climate change now.

I have not read the book....so I wouldn't know. Anyway, my point is not about being "overrun by darkies." Again you bring an irrelevant argument to the topic. My point is neither right or left I would think....since you yourself had said that there are pro-life atheists/lefties, and I know that there are also pro-choice rightwing. I am talking about us. Our society here. Canada. We have an age-ing population. That's reality. We need young people. We don't have enough. We import! And since you've brought the problem of the third world. It is their government, not the population, that's causing their problem. It is the "management." If these societies are similar to how we run ours, I am pretty sure they would've been right along with us, prosperous...or self-sufficient, at least. But then that's another topic.

WIP, I try to give an argument from a philosophical point of view. We all know my personal belief as a Christian....and I try not to drag religion into this. Again I repeat my musing in reply to Bloodyminded somewhere in this thread: If I as a religious person can discuss without using religoon/God/belief/faith as an argument....why can't an atheist do the same? Clearly at some point in time, it was illegal to abort in Canada. Clearly, the fetus was protected. Then abortion got decriminalized, but only to the extent for reasons of health risk to the mother. Clearly, the fetus still enjoyed his right to be protected. But now, his status had changed. He can be killed while he is still in his mothers womb. From having his right.... to none at all. That's a big change, don't you think? You see, as long as he is considered a human, he has the right to be protected. This became a dilemma for the Feminist Movement. Therefore, it is imperative to make him non-human so he can be stripped of his right to be protected. That is my point. And I pointed out the eerie similarity how the Nazis viewed the Jew as non-human, and how the fetus is now deemed non-human.....so atrocities (from tortures to maiming to killings and indignities) can be justified, and be acceptable to society. You asked why Nathanson is very much relevant. Well, if you can't see his relevance at all in this discussion, his relevance to the Feminist Movement (alongside Lader), yet you place this quasi-"thought experiment" of Thompson as high up there....what can I say? I clicked to open your response and the first thing I see is a rant about my belief. Whoa, I also caught a glimpse of global warming somewhere, etc.., so I stopped reading. I clicked to open your response and scrolled fast down and your last paragraph is another rant about my belief. All I see is just rant.

With the acknowledgement above, this brings us back again to my previous assertion that: How can it be consistent when you pick and choose which torture/killings are deemed wrong? You see the wrong in Hitler’s atrocious evil and yet you champion the torture/killings of the fetuses. Furthermore, this proclamation from the same poster only illustrates the relativism of an atheistic stance. It underlines the driving force that supports the murder of the fetus: EXPEDIENCY for the “I.” The “me.” “The mine.” The Feminists’ slogan says it all: “My body, my choice.” The dissected quote below came from post #135. I highlighted the interesting declamation illustrating that “value to life” pertains solely to self. When you believe you just happened to exist by accident I suppose this must be how one would feel. Hedonism - the ethical doctrine that pleasure, variously conceived of in terms of happiness of the individual or of society, is the principal good and the proper aim of action. So the aim is to have a hedonistic society. Altruism - the unselfish concern for the welfare of others; Selflessness. The general welfare of society is the proper goal of an individual’s action. How many millions of fetuses died all these years? At present time we grapple with the reality of an age-ing population....and we import young people to fill that void. How can it be good for the general welfare of society when we kill our future? The last highlighted sentence sums it all up why it is preferable to kill the fetus instead of carrying him to full term, giving birth and offering him for adoption. It is the justification for extinguishing the life of the fetus.

Good. That you acknowledge the fetus is human, therefore abortion is murder. The parallel between the atrocious mass murders of Hitler's 3rd Reich and the Feminists' abortion is undeniable. What made this present day atrocity much more evil is the fact that society (by changing the status of a fetus from human to non-human), gave mothers the full right to have the babies in their wombs butchered.....just so they need not be inconvenienced for 9 months!

What??? Therefore you don't have an answer to the real issue of this discussion? This is the issue: A woman was able to abort her child - rape or not - within the first 3 months. After that, it was considered illegal. Therefore, a fetus was at that time considered human...and had rights! Aborting the baby after 3 months was illegal. It was to protect the baby! That was his right! So I ask you... How come the fetus is now not considered human at all until it's born and completely out of his mother's body? <singsong> Somebody's avoiding the obvious.....<singsong> It's okay, you don't have to answer. I just don't buy those pickaninny justifications and rhetorics about dah body and dah choice. It's just simply feminist issue (not even the idea of a woman apparently; ended up relying on a male to come up with that idea....really). Sadly, that's what this is all about....and babies are dying for this!

Feminists and supporters make so much hullabaloo on "It's my body! It's my choice!" But ironically.... So a man is the "brains" behind this diabolical scheme! It's a man who manipulated, schemed, persuaded, convinced Ms Friedan. Feminists cannot even rightly claim, "It's my thought!" "My idea!" What a farce!

Okay, enough of Ms Thompson. I want to know your take on Mr Nathanson. He is, after all, much much relevant to the issue at hand, since he was one of the founding members of this "holocaust" in modern times. He used the term "holocaust," btw.

Boy, if you were raped....would you wait 3 months to get rid of that life? It's normal procedure for a raped woman to get to the doctor for evidence of rape....AND to be "cleaned" out! Pronto! Not 3 months after! Little miss violin player must be doing her dusting once every 3 months or so! Talk about ridiculous analogy. Come up with your own! The parallel between Hitler's 3rd Reich and Feminist's Abortion fits so well....because there is indeed a parallel. Not a made-up one!

So you posted Judith Jarvis Thompson's "thought experiment." Whether you "explained" it or whatever....at the end of the day, you still used her and her "thought experiment" in this forum! Why? Because it supports your argument. So why is it okay for you to bring in dubious "thought experiment creations" by dubious apparently pro-choice activists....and you have beef that I bring up some HISTORICAL FACTS to support my argument? And who are you to say what my thoughts are or are not? You sound kinda like a child crying "Foul!" "Foul!" because he cannot give a head-on rebutt to the real issue!

My personal belief is not the issue. This is the issue: A woman was able to abort her child - rape or not - within the first 3 months. After that, it was considered illegal. Therefore, a fetus was considered human...and had rights! So I ask you... Why is it now that the fetus is not considered human at all?

Let me guess: So the woman can say: "It's my body, I can do whatever I want with it! My body, my choice!"

A woman was able to abort her child - rape or not - within the first 3 months. After that, it was considered illegal. Therefore, a fetus was considered human...and had rights! Why is it now that the fetus is not considered human at all?

Well I'm not influenced by Sarah Palin. My belief is my own...and that it is pro-life. Never heard or seen Limbaugh's show. The first and only time I came across the word "Feminazi" is on this forum sometime ago. It just happened to occur to me...."what an appropriate name!" But it did state a fact. They opposed abortion. We know it was illegal then. In fact, that bit of information only shows my assertion how the fetus was protected by our society...and that the status of the fetus had diminished over the years....and now it had been proclaimed that he is considered no longer human! So, what's your take on Bernard Nathanson? He's among the few top leaders who turned from pro-choice to pro-life! He actually became an activist for pro-life....going to the extent of writing books and documentaries. It's like an atonement, for what he called the "barbaric age" he helped ushered in to this society.

You're the one who keeps on quoting this Susan Jarvis Thomson....the violin-player...taken from "dubious agenda-driven sources." You're the one using a lot of talking points! If you're going to use an analogy....why don't you make up your own? Talk about talking points, bringing in Sarah Palin is like the Liberals bringing in George Bush to strike down Harper.

I bet because it's the woman's right to do what she wants with her body. NOT IF she has another human being inside that body! That human being has the right to be protected from harm! So we're back to the only solution for this feminist dilemma - like Hitler's FINAL SOLUTION: have the fetus declared as a non-human!

The point: Abortion is a feminist issue. It became imperative to declare the fetus as non-human otherwise the fetus will have the right to be protected. That is all there is to it. The rest are just "fluffs" fed to a guilt-wracked society. It's also convenient to use religion as the "villain" to ensure the galvanized support of those who are anti-religion, secularists, etc. Why can't a fetus be carried to full term, born, and offered for adoption? We're just talking 9 months here. What is wrong with that?

I'm telling you we're not on the same page. This is not about what you...or I...or what the mother believes. This is about the Feminazi's Abortion agenda - very much paralleled to Hitler's 3rd Reich - and the apathy (and blind support by a society so wracked with guilt over the mistreatment of women) - is reminiscent of the world's reluctance to believe that something so evil - the tortures and systematic annihiliation of the Jews - was actually happening. Ironically, a lot of people who staunchly support the killings of babies are the ones so quick to point to the evil of Hitler, whenever religion/God is even mentioned. Well, deal with this present day evil right on your doorstep! You may choose to insist arguing this from your standpoint...but I'll choose to ignore it, unless you get right back on track!

From what I heard on Michael Coren tonight, the hospital officials wouldn't release the baby thus preventing the parents from taking their child to Detroit.

© American Life League BBS 1-703-659-7111 This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia published by American Life League. http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC062.HTM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/Feminism.htm