Mr.Canada Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 But how can you possible accept the "killing" of these people in only certain cases? Middle ground for killing? As I say I cannot let my faith based views blind me from what is best for Canada and Canadians. I am personally against any and all abortion as is my family but we need to be patient and tolerant and compassionate to women who are raped or who may die due to giving birth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 MP's of all stripes are against abortion on demand. Not just Tories. Once we get enough Pro Lifers in the Senate the bill will be brought forward as a private members bill for a free vote. I'm afraid your flexibility on the issue makes you a murderer since you support murderers (according to your own rules). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I'm not against having an abortion policy I'm against having no abortion policy as we do now. I want to see it restricted to cases of rape, incest or the direct danger of the mother. So you are in favour of limited murder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 So you are in favour of limited murder? No, I'm against all murder/abortion but am willing to compromise and just agree to take away the abortion on demand and restrict it to extreme cases. It's very Liberal of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 but am willing to compromise So you're willing to compromise when it comes to murder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I'm not against having an abortion policy I'm against having no abortion policy as we do now. It only makes sense to have a policy if we can find one which has broad consensus of agreement. Past experience has been that it is been very difficult to get consensus. In this case it may be that a bad policy is worse than no policy as it may restrict the indiviudal's rights. I want to see it restricted to cases of rape, incest or the direct danger of the mother. Now we are making progress. You seem to agree that there are cases where the fetus "right to life" doesn't supercede other conditions. You have already agreed that one individual right to life doesn't supercede another individual's right to determine the use of their own body. The only area we are divergent on is that you maintain that by a woman's choice to have sex, she gives irrevocable consent to pregnancy. Perhaps you can explain why such consent is irrevokable when it is likely not an intended consequence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordiecanuk Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Since this is an all-party initiative, can anyone speculate who would be the MPs from the Liberals or NDP? While I'm sure there's some token NDP and Liberal represenation, I'm equally certain the overwhelming majority of this committee is Conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 No, I'm against all murder/abortion but am willing to compromise and just agree to take away the abortion on demand and restrict it to extreme cases. It's very Liberal of me. Mr. Canada when you say you are "willing to compromise" do you mean that you are "willing to compromise" your beliefs or your compromise is restricted to what you would let others do? If we assume it is the latter, why should your faith dictate what other can or cannot do? You should be free to follow restrictions based upon your own conscience as others are restricted to theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) No, I'm against all murder/abortion but am willing to compromise and just agree to take away the abortion on demand and restrict it to extreme cases. It's very Liberal of me. So then you are a murderer. Edited January 2, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Who defines 'direct danger', and who adjudicates it? (Even an easy, short, problem-free delivery is a substantial personal assault.... but the hazard extends as far as maternal death....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Who defines 'direct danger', and who adjudicates it? (Even an easy, short, problem-free delivery is a substantial personal assault.... but the hazard extends as far as maternal death....) I do, I decide. They will call me and ask me to see if I will allow it to go through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I should have expected a thoughtless reply. The question of 'who' has crippled many an anti-abortion scheme. The difficulty of convening decision-makers slows the process, and no one credible wants the job.... And you, sir, would be an unacceptable adjudicator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I do, I decide. They will call me and ask me to see if I will allow it to go through. Then you presumably have no objection if I'm the one who decides on your punishiment if you speed. It can vary from a fine to capital punshiment depening upon my moral guidelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I should have expected a thoughtless reply.The question of 'who' has crippled many an anti-abortion scheme. The difficulty of convening decision-makers slows the process, and no one credible wants the job.... And you, sir, would be an unacceptable adjudicator. A doctor would decide obviously if a would be mother was in danger of death, rape or incest. It would be allowed only under these circumstances but not mandatory. With the final decision coming from the mother and hopefully father as this new proposed legislation would come with education at the doctors office as well as in school to young people. Teaching a return to traditional family values and strong moral and ethical teaching at home from parents. Instead of parents letting TV and Xbox raise their kids they could take more of a passing interest in the development of their kids. I limit the TV and Xbox in my house to my kids and no one has a tantrum or anything but we've always been consistent from the beginning. I'm trying to raise an adult here it isn't supposed to be easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 .... you can't be saying that it should be decided by a woman and her doctor (just the way it is now)... Panels of doctors (attending +2) is the law that was struck down to leave us where we are now. The only real difference was the indignity, abnd the time consumed organizing the rubber stamp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 .... you can't be saying that it should be decided by a woman and her doctor (just the way it is now)...Panels of doctors (attending +2) is the law that was struck down to leave us where we are now. The only real difference was the indignity, abnd the time consumed organizing the rubber stamp. I am for abolishing abortion as it is now, abortion on demand gone. Abortion only for cases of rape, incest or possible Mother death. Understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I am for abolishing abortion as it is now, abortion on demand gone. Abortion only for cases of rape, incest or possible Mother death. Understand? Mr Canada. Your position is logically inconsistent with your previous statemetns and position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Mr Canada. Your position is logically inconsistent with your previous statemetns and position. I've maintained the same position throughout my postings here at MLW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) I've maintained the same position throughout my postings here at MLW. Yes, it is true, you position has always been logically inconsistent thoughout your postings at MLW. Perhaps you can convince us otherwise by addressing the questions I asked: The only area we are divergent on is that you maintain that by a woman's choice to have sex, she gives irrevocable consent to pregnancy. Perhaps you can explain why such consent is irrevokable when it is likely not an intended consequence? why should your faith dictate what other can or cannot do? You should be free to follow restrictions based upon your own conscience as others are restricted to theirs. Edited January 2, 2009 by Renegade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) Yes, you have been consistent in your logical inconsistency. Perhaps you can convince us otherwise by addressing the questions I asked: If they want to have abortions and freedom then pay for them yourselves and stop asking me to fund them. If it's really about choice then I should get a choice of whether or not I want to fund them right? Truth is the people who want abortions cannot afford to pay for them for the most part. Poor, white socialists get the majority of abortions. Edited January 2, 2009 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 possible mother death.... Risk of death is inherent to pregnancy/childbirth. Maternal mortality rate in Canada is about 6/100,000 , even with relatively free access to abortion. Consequently, I must ask how much risk? How likely must we be to die before we are allowed to intervene in our own defense? The morbidity rate is about 1/250. Would you allow us to protect ourselves from injury short of death-- things like permanent fecal incontinence, heart and kidney damage, stroke-- and so on? Or is that just the price we are expected to pay for daring to have sex? Do serious genetic or in-utero damage to the fetus come into play at all? If, for instance a woman is gestating an infant that will live to term, but die immediately upon birth, must she continue the gestation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Oh frick! You were posing as being moral, but you were just cheap!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Oh frick! You were posing as being moral, but you were just cheap!!!! Just making alternate arguments to see what reaction I get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I am for abolishing abortion as it is now, abortion on demand gone. Abortion only for cases of rape, incest or possible Mother death. Understand? I come bringing great news for you. Assuming you are a pregnant woman, you may exercise each and every one of those choices and parameters right now, today! However, you do not have and never will have the right to impose your will on another adult. Nor will I. The universe is unfolding as it should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 If they want to have abortions and freedom then pay for them yourselves and stop asking me to fund them. If it's really about choice then I should get a choice of whether or not I want to fund them right?Truth is the people who want abortions cannot afford to pay for them for the most part. Poor, white socialists get the majority of abortions. I am a poor white socialist -- okey dokey What is less expensive? A 15 minute procedure at the clinic or Raising a child to adulthood. (trick question, you better put on your thinking cap!) Bulltweet, Mr. Canada. You're not against abortion because it may come out of your taxes. You are against it because only "skanks" and "loose women" have sex without a husband. And those filthy dirty whores deserve to suffer as much as possible -- "those nasty sexual sinning whores -- make 'em pay!" says Mr. Canada. pfft. I don't like you anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.