MontyBurns Posted July 10, 2008 Report Posted July 10, 2008 (edited) And you still have not addressed the following: Should human rights first apply at: a) the creation of a sperm cell in a man's testicles, conception, c) the embryonic stage, d) the fetal stage, e) the pre-natal stage, or d) birth. My personal belief is that it a persons life begins at conception. At point (a) the cells are only those of the male or female but at (b the cells have fused to become a new person. The point that human rights should apply is a bit grayer because of the fact that there are 2 humans involved (mother and fetus). I think some middle ground like about 6 months or so might be the time to apply human rights to the child. I think that would be a reasonable compromise. Edited July 10, 2008 by MontyBurns Quote "From my cold dead hands." Charlton Heston
Black Dog Posted July 10, 2008 Report Posted July 10, 2008 My personal belief is that it a persons life begins at conception. At point (a) the cells are only those of the male or female but at (b the cells have fused to become a new person. Thinking of the billions of fertilized proto-humans who find no purchase on the ovarian walls and who are flushed away (there are estimates that only 50 per cent of conceptions actually lead to pregnancies) and the mind boggles. God is an abortionist. The point that human rights should apply is a bit grayer because of the fact that there are 2 humans involved (mother and fetus). I think some middle ground like about 6 months or so might be the time to apply human rights to the child and remove them from the mother. Fixed. Quote
MontyBurns Posted July 11, 2008 Report Posted July 11, 2008 Thinking of the billions of fertilized proto-humans who find no purchase on the ovarian walls and who are flushed away (there are estimates that only 50 per cent of conceptions actually lead to pregnancies) and the mind boggles. God is an abortionist. God kills every human on the planet at some point or another. So not only is he an abortionist but also a murderer as well by your thinking. I'm not arguing from a religious stance. I just think we should err on the side of life as opposed to death. Who are we to decide who should live or not? Quote "From my cold dead hands." Charlton Heston
White Doors Posted July 11, 2008 Report Posted July 11, 2008 But why is it wrong?And what practical effect will that have? An overwhelming majority of abortions are performed before the time in which you think fetal rights should be recognized. Most late term procedures are performed for health reasons. So your legislation would have no practical impact, which raises the question of why you want to legislate the status quo Again, Canada's abortion rate is not out of whack with those of other states, including those with far greater restrictions. So it seems to me that what you are offering is a solution in search of a problem. Abortion should be regulated to ensure that is is safe and available. Beyond that, I think a individual's right to choose the time, manner and means of their reproduction is non-negotiable. It's be a shame to think that makes me an extremist in your world. If I cared, that is. ~yawn~ Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
AngusThermopyle Posted July 11, 2008 Report Posted July 11, 2008 The future belongs to those who can change and adapt to new and better principles of fairness and justice. That being the case we know of one group the future most definitely will not belong to then. There you go CR, I set you up for an easy and glib answer, don't disappoint me now. Just stay in character and all will be good and proper with the world. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
Riverwind Posted July 11, 2008 Report Posted July 11, 2008 God kills every human on the planet at some point or another. So not only is he an abortionist but also a murderer as well by your thinking. I'm not arguing from a religious stance. I just think we should err on the side of life as opposed to death. Who are we to decide who should live or not?By that logic there should be an outright ban on all military and police actions that might result in deaths of innocents. If you are willing to argue that those killings are justified in the name of some greater social good then you really can't complain about abortion. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Fortunata Posted July 11, 2008 Report Posted July 11, 2008 Funny that the left supports "rights" for just about everyone/everything (ex. seals, dogs, cats, blacks, gays, and so on) but doesn't support "rights" for human babies. Maybe you guys should start following your own doctrine. I guess you are afraid of the feminists wrath also? It's funny that so many from the right who don't seem too concerned at all about anyone's rights are concerned about a fetus' rights. What if that fetus was a Khadr. Still concerned? Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted July 11, 2008 Report Posted July 11, 2008 What if that fetus was a Khadr. Still concerned? Not even the tiniest bit, couldn't be less concerned if I tried. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
gc1765 Posted July 11, 2008 Report Posted July 11, 2008 I just think we should err on the side of life as opposed to death. Who are we to decide who should live or not? Exactly! Which is why I keep arguing that we should make masturbation illegal. How do we know that a sperm is not a human being? Better safe than sorry... Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
WIP Posted July 13, 2008 Report Posted July 13, 2008 Exactly! Which is why I keep arguing that we should make masturbation illegal. How do we know that a sperm is not a human being? Better safe than sorry... Even if the law doesn't get you, you're going to burn for masturbating, since God kills those who use the rhythm method of birth control: The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10). The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19). Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned. http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp So, make sure you only let those semen out to procreate! If you masturbate or leave them trapped inside a rubber, the angel of death might come down and smite you! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted July 13, 2008 Report Posted July 13, 2008 Who on this thread advocated for an outright ban on abortion?I was saying the pendulum swung too far the other way after strinking down our old abortion laws. Currently we have none. No other western country in the world has none. You don't have to be a 'right wing religious wacko' to believe that this is wrong. The problem with the abortion debate is that one side always cites the other's fanatics. The moment of conception no abortion types and the birth canal types where you can have an abortion right up to that time. Neither view is correct but we are stuck with one extreme. We need legislation that reflects Canadians attitudes that lie somewhere in the middle. Legal fetal protection at a defined stage of development barring health issues. Pro-choice until the passage of time that the fetus has rights too. Back to the OP, Morgantaler is a fanatic at one end of this spectrum. I would not expect a representative from either polarizing spectrum to receive the order of Canada. Your non-sensical arguments not-withstanding, there is room to negotiate on this issue without changing the basic facts of freedom and morality. Enough of the alarmist BS about Canada being an abortion free-for-all! If you're only worried about late-term abortion, then you have no issue with Morgentaler or his clinics, since they do not perform them: Our clinics perform abortion procedures from approximately 7 weeks up to approximately 19 weeks gestation, http://www.morgentaler.ca/ourServices.asp And for that matter, most Canadian women have to go to U.S. hospitals to have a third trimester abortion: Third-trimester abortions are not generally available. For instance, in Quebec, there is currently no doctor who will perform a third-term abortion unless the health of the woman is in great peril or there is a genetic disorder. Currently the province sends women who seek to have third-term abortions performed to the United States. Quebec is currently actively looking to hire a doctor to do third-term abortions, but has not been successful as of October 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted July 13, 2008 Report Posted July 13, 2008 And before I'm done with this topic: Three in five support Morgentaler honour Poll results fly in face of vehement protests Jul 09, 2008 04:30 AM Richard Brennan Ottawa Bureau OTTAWA–Three out of five Canadians support the controversial appointment of pro-choice crusader Dr. Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada, according to a survey done as some groups were calling it a disgrace to the country. http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/456924 Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 13, 2008 Report Posted July 13, 2008 ...And for that matter, most Canadian women have to go to U.S. hospitals to have a third trimester abortion: Yep...the Americans have better access to such abortion services. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted July 13, 2008 Author Report Posted July 13, 2008 Yep...the Americans have better access to such abortion services. Why is it if the slightest inference to abortion is made that everyone gets off into the area of pro or con? That's not why I started the thread. The original idea was to deduct and translate the Morgantaler quote "Unwanted children become concentration camp guards"...so does anyone take this statement by Morgantaler as an attack on what he may consider "Arians" or anglo germanic supremists? - To me it is plain that his policy and propogation and normalization of abortion was fueled by hyper vigilant Jewish fear that the Nazis may be reborn and recommit the genocide...the guy is nuts..that's like aborting all blacks to avoid slavery...apparently the anglo mind has been enslaved in the idea that this abortionist is of great human benevolence - fools! Quote
eyeball Posted July 13, 2008 Report Posted July 13, 2008 ...so does anyone take this statement by Morgantaler as an attack on what he may consider "Arians" or anglo germanic supremists? - To me it is plain that his policy and propogation and normalization of abortion was fueled by hyper vigilant Jewish fear that the Nazis may be reborn and recommit the genocide...the guy is nuts..that's like aborting all blacks to avoid slavery...apparently the anglo mind has been enslaved in the idea that this abortionist is of great human benevolence - fools! That really sounds nuts alright. Speaking of blacks, has Morgentaler refused to abort any that you know of? That would clinch it don't you think? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
White Doors Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 Exactly! Which is why I keep arguing that we should make masturbation illegal. How do we know that a sperm is not a human being? Better safe than sorry... science gives us the answer to this simplistic bout of thinking. Life begins at conception. scientific fact. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
g_bambino Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 science gives us the answer to this simplistic bout of thinking. Life begins at conception. scientific fact. Scientific fact? Any sources for that statement? Some to the contrary: Traditionally, doctors have measured pregnancy from a number of convenient points, including the day of last menstruation, ovulation, fertilization, implantation and chemical detection. This has led to some confusion about the precise length of human pregnancy, as each measuring point yields a different figure.At its 2004 Annual Meeting, The American Medical Association considered a controversial resolution in favor of making "Plan B" emergency contraception available over-the-counter, and one of the claims in the resolution was that hormonal contraception that may affect implantation "cannot terminate an established pregnancy."[2] The resolution passed by a majority vote, despite the opposition of the American Academy of Family Physicians.[3] Similarly, the British Medical Association has defined an "established pregnancy" as beginning at implantation.[4] The legal definition in the United Kingdom is not clear.[5] Other definitions exist. The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines "pregnancy" as "from conception until birth."[6] There has been some debate on the matter of definition in medical journals.[7] Finally the standard historical method of counting the duration of pregnancy begins from the last menstruation and this remains common with doctors, hospitals, and medical companies.[8] This system is convenient because it is easy to determine when the last menstrual period was, while both fertilization and implantation occur out of sight. An interesting consequence is that the dating of pregnancy measured this way begins two weeks before ovulation. Wikipedia: Beginning of pregnancy controversy Quote
White Doors Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 (edited) Scientific fact? Any sources for that statement? Some to the contrary:Wikipedia: Beginning of pregnancy controversy uhhh... they are talking about when 'pregnancy' begins, not biological life. There is absolutely no credible scientist that disputes that life begins at conception. It is scientific fact. Am I saying that abortion should be outlawed? of course not. Am I saying that life begins at conception? without a doubt. No you go an argue against me and make an arse of yourself if you would like. life (lif) the aggregate of vital phenomena; the quality or principle by which living things are distinguished from inorganic matter, as manifested by such phenomena as metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptation, etc. hmmm... do human sperm reproduc by themselves? Do human eggs? Do they adapt? When do they start doing this? Oh, that's right - when the sperm implants the egg.. that's right. wow. you can be willingly oblivious if you must, but the only reason the topic is controversial is that some pro-choice people want to believe that abortion are consequence free when they are not. Edited July 14, 2008 by White Doors Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
g_bambino Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 uhhh... they are talking about when 'pregnancy' begins, not biological life. There is absolutely no credible scientist that disputes that life begins at conception. It is scientific fact.Am I saying that abortion should be outlawed? of course not. Am I saying that life begins at conception? without a doubt. No you go an argue against me and make an arse of yourself if you would like. hmmm... do human sperm reproduc by themselves? Do human eggs? Do they adapt? When do they start doing this? Oh, that's right - when the sperm implants the egg.. that's right. wow. you can be willingly oblivious if you must, but the only reason the topic is controversial is that some pro-choice people want to believe that abortion are consequence free when they are not. If you have an irrefutable argument that the beginning of pregnany and conception are not the same things, then you may want to take it to Wikipedia, where a search of "conception" leads immediately to a disambiguation page with "Beginning of pregnancy controversy" as the first listed article. For the sake of this discussion, though, let's remove the term "pregnancy" from the equation - just for a moment. In its absence, perhaps you could explain what exactly conception is, then; and, please, no more "what-pro-choice-people-want" red herrings. Quote
MontyBurns Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 It's funny that so many from the right who don't seem too concerned at all about anyone's rights are concerned about a fetus' rights. What if that fetus was a Khadr. Still concerned? Khadr is a terrorist. I can reverse this and say that the left concerns itself with terrorists but doesn't care about infant Canadians rights. Who's friggin side are you on anyway? :angry: Quote "From my cold dead hands." Charlton Heston
MontyBurns Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 Exactly! Which is why I keep arguing that we should make masturbation illegal. How do we know that a sperm is not a human being? Better safe than sorry... Great thinking Quote "From my cold dead hands." Charlton Heston
White Doors Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 If you have an irrefutable argument that the beginning of pregnany and conception are not the same things, then you may want to take it to Wikipedia, where a search of "conception" leads immediately to a disambiguation page with "Beginning of pregnancy controversy" as the first listed article. For the sake of this discussion, though, let's remove the term "pregnancy" from the equation - just for a moment. In its absence, perhaps you could explain what exactly conception is, then; and, please, no more "what-pro-choice-people-want" red herrings. surrender noted. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
g_bambino Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 surrender noted. In the absence of making an effort to support your claims, thank you for at least making an effort to note your surrender; much more polite than dead silence. Quote
Black Dog Posted July 14, 2008 Report Posted July 14, 2008 Monty Who are we to decide who should live or not? Who is "we?" Oleg Blach: The original idea was to deduct and translate the Morgantaler quote "Unwanted children become concentration camp guards"...so does anyone take this statement by Morgantaler as an attack on what he may consider "Arians" or anglo germanic supremists? - To me it is plain that his policy and propogation and normalization of abortion was fueled by hyper vigilant Jewish fear that the Nazis may be reborn and recommit the genocide...the guy is nuts..that's like aborting all blacks to avoid slavery...apparently the anglo mind has been enslaved in the idea that this abortionist is of great human benevolence - fools! What statement by Morgentaler? You haven't produced it. I suspect you are making things up. Quote
gc1765 Posted July 15, 2008 Report Posted July 15, 2008 science gives us the answer to this simplistic bout of thinking. Life begins at conception. scientific fact. I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with an exact definition of "life" and "human", let alone decide exactly when a human life begins. What makes you so absolutely certain that life begins at conception and not a second before or a second after? Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.