Bill C484 - Abortions

[Topaz]

Why not head this problem off before it starts? ALL Canadians should have access to FREE birth control and counselors for teens girls and boys and who ever needs this service.

[Oleg Bach]

Why not head this problem off before it starts? ALL Canadians should have access to FREE birth control and counselors for teens girls and boys and who ever needs this service.

Us vacarious adults should stop this sexual interferance that is birth control "for teens girls and boys - and who ever needs the service" - We should change our culture and encourage and support our so-called teens to breed and enter tradtional marriage earlier..instead of persecuting them for reproducing and making fatherhood a horror instead of a joy..THEN we would not have to ship in strangers from other nations to boost the population..you don't see immigrants aborting...but we do..a bit of race suicide going on I would say..besides..it's none of your buisness who is having sex and getting pregnant...In the old days we had extended families of grandmothers and fathers who would mentor young couples and give full familiar support..Now we treat the most blessed thing in the world - having children as a curse....we have lost what is natural and beautiful...but of course those that say "it takes a village to raise a child" are not willing to support that child..."no way am I going to support that baby maker with my tax dollars"

[Bryan]

Yeah I know, by their very nature they won't ever accept that somebody else may have full uncompromised right to their own body.

The pro-abortion crowd's entire message is an exercise in hypocrisy. You fundamentally must have the right to be alive before you can even discuss any other rights beyond that. Unless and until you acknowledge that unborn child's right to even be alive, you have no credibility in discussing what a woman's rights are.

[Kitchener]

The pro-abortion crowd's entire message is an exercise in hypocrisy. You fundamentally must have the right to be alive before you can even discuss any other rights beyond that. Unless and until you acknowledge that unborn child's right to even be alive, you have no credibility in discussing what a woman's rights are.

Interesting.

Could you try putting that in the form of an actual argument? I.e., premises, conclusion, valid form, and all that?

I think you'll be struck by the results of your attempt.

[Bryan]

Interesting.

Could you try putting that in the form of an actual argument? I.e., premises, conclusion, valid form, and all that?

I think you'll be struck by the results of your attempt.

I very clearly did. Without the right to be alive, any other rights are moot. Pro-Abortion people are arguing AGAINST that unborn child's right to be alive, yet continue to blather about what THEIR rights are. It's hypocrisy.

[Kitchener]

I very clearly did. Without the right to be alive, any other rights are moot.

That's not what you said; "moot" does not mean "impossible to discuss". But never mind; let's go with what you're saying now.

If your claim above were true, all that would follow from it is that if zygotes, morulae, blastulae, etc, do not have a right to life, then there's no point to discussing what other rights they could have (since they don't). It wouldn't follow that they actually have a right to life.

But not only would your claim here fail to support your conclusion even if the claim were true -- it's false in any case, at first blush. As a counterexample: many people who do not take animals to have a right to life nevertheless reasonably hold that animals have other rights or moral status. Hence, they hold, it's permissible to kill animals, but not okay to torture them. So not having a right to life does not entail having no rights whatever.

Pro-Abortion people are arguing AGAINST that unborn child's right to be alive, yet continue to blather about what THEIR rights are. It's hypocrisy.

No. Obviously not.

For one thing, it could only be hypocrisy if they thought that zygotes and the rest were relevantly similar to them, and yet refused to grant them the same rights -- in short, if they insisted on different treatment for things they recognized as the same. Treating different things differently is not hypocrisy.

Moreover, it's simply unclear that granting fetuses a right to life means that abortion is impermissible; that is, you have no shown that supporters of the availability of legal abortions must deny that fetuses have a right to life. As J.J. Thomson argued in a famous paper, there is no moral or legal obligation for you to donate the use of your body to sustain the life of someone else -- even if that person would die without your body, and even if they have a right to life.

In short, all you're doing is projecting your view of the issue, on which blastulae (inter alia) apparently count as "unborn children", onto those who disagree with you, mistakenly concluding that only a hypocrite could regard them as you do without granting them rights to life, and blindly deciding that only such hypocrisy could underlie a support for the legality of abortion. That's not an argument; it's mere laziness, unreflectiveness, and lack of intellectual seriousness. Not only is it premised on false and dubious claims, but the inferences from those claims fail to support your conclusion several times over.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Kitchener

[sharkman]

Why not head this problem off before it starts? ALL Canadians should have access to FREE birth control and counselors for teens girls and boys and who ever needs this service.

Think it through, Topaz. Nurses in high schools are not allowed to treat ANYTHING that a student may be suffering from, aside from giving the student an aspirin. They are not allowed to drink, or vote, or even have sex until 16. But if they've had sex, they should be given drugs for birth control? This does not address the problem.

Edited May 20, 2008 by sharkman

[myata]

As J.J. Thomson argued in a famous paper, there is no moral or legal obligation for you to donate the use of your body to sustain the life of someone else -- even if that person would die without your body, and even if they have a right to life.

The argument, on that side, is not logical. Or that of the reason. It's moral. And because morals are relative, they can be used to justify pretty much anything. Entire populations were erased from the face of this planet, in Holy Theory, and in practice, on the grounds that they exercised morally wrong beliefs and/or practices.