Abortion Reform Poll

[CANADIEN]

God has no love for homosexual sex. God has no love for abortion which is the slaughter of babies.

God has no love for racism, bigotry or opinions like "the less Jews and Muslims, the better" either.

[Mr.Canada]

God has no love for racism, bigotry or opinions like "the less Jews and Muslims, the better" either.

I'm neither a racist or a bigot. If I am, prove it please. If you cannot, you're breaking the rules of MLW.

Let's try to stay on topic of Abortion Reform, which is what this topic is called. It's at the top of the page.

[charter.rights]

God has no love for homosexual sex. God has no love for abortion which is the slaughter of babies.

You think Jesus would partake in abortions do you?

Wrong.

John 8:15

15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

Romans 2:1

1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

We are taught therefore, that The Christ forgives all and without judgment condemns no one. What comes of the flesh and what lives and dies as the flesh has no matter to us for we are of the Spirit. Sin is dead to us that have accepted the way of Christ, since sin died with Him and our life arose with Him free of sin, such that we can no longer see sin because we no longer recognize the flesh.

[Renegade]

I do no such thing. I post my opinions just like everyone else does here. If my words are so powerful as to sway peoples opinion so easily perhaps their position wasn't as strong as they once thought.

Do you deny that you support legislation which would impose your standards on others?

[Smallc]

I'm neither a racist or a bigot.

So your statements about non white immigrants, muslims, jews, homosexuals, and people that have abortions don't count?

[Mr.Canada]

Do you deny that you support legislation which would impose your standards on others?

Nope I don't. It's called opinion. Everyone does the same thing. You're against wide open abortion too, so what?

[Mr.Canada]

So your statements about non white immigrants, muslims, jews, homosexuals, and people that have abortions don't count?

If what I had said about any of those topics were racist I'd be banned.

So what? We cannot even discuss those things anymore? Or else we're racists or bigots to even bring up issues...Wow.

[Smallc]

Nope I don't.

Ok, I'll take you at your word.

You're against wide open abortion too

Wait, I guess I can't, because this sentence seems to contradict the first. It implies that you are willing to push your beliefs on others through legislation.

[Mr.Canada]

Ok, I'll take you at your word.

Wait, I guess I can't, because this sentence seems to contradict the first. It implies that you are willing to push your beliefs on others through legislation.

Everyone pushes their beliefs on others. Public school teachers do it every day.

Is there some reason you're being such a jackass today smallc? If you don't like me just put me on ignore ok.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[CANADIEN]

I'm neither a racist or a bigot. If I am, prove it please. If you cannot, you're breaking the rules of MLW.

Shall we start with the homophobic postings, the postings stating than less Jews and Muslims means more opportunities to convert souls, or the postings about immigrants and how it is OK to want to have nothing to do with people who are different?

Let's try to stay on topic of Abortion Reform, which is what this topic is called. It's at the top of the page.

Does this means that you will no longer talk about things like "rampant" homosexuality, drug uses, addictions on this thread?

[charter.rights]

Everyone pushes their beliefs on others. Public school teachers do it every day.

Is there some reason you're being such a jackass today smallc? If you don't like me just put me on ignore ok.

Wrong. Pushing your opinion on someone is not the same thing as discussing it. Holding an opinion that judges others because of their ethnicity or race or religion IS racism, whether you wnat to believe it or not. If you hold these beliefs and in the face of proof otherwise that your myths are incorrect, then that not only makes you a racist but more likely a bigot.

[Smallc]

Public school teachers do it every day.

If by teachers pushing beliefs on others, you mean teaching, then yes.

Is there some reason you're being such a jackass today smallc?

I am being no such thing. I am taking you to task for your reversals of position, your inaccurate statements, and the posts you make that I disagree with. I wasn't aware that such things autmatically make one a "jackass."

[WIP]

Well nothing is absolute in that the government can override any individual right. Personally I think that is simply wrong for the state to forcibly extract my organs without my permission.

Instead of looking at organ donation through the lens of government vs. individual rights, look at it from the perspective of social responsibility. Whether or not it is a personal right to refuse to sign your organ donor card, should you have a responsibility to do it for the good of society? And if not, what reasons do you have for not being an organ donor besides saying "I don't want to?"

In a similar vein, the movement against vaccinations for children is growing in numbers thanks to the work of idiots like Jenny McCarthy, who blames her son's autism on vaccines. Up till now the medical community hasn't worried too much about a few cranks and religious fanatics who refuse to vaccinate their children, because as long as they are a minority, they are protected by the effects of Herd Immunity. But in areas where significant numbers are not getting vaccinated, the diseases they prevent, are on the increase. Should vaccinating your children be a private individual right, or a social responsibility?

BTW, how would you feel if this "greater good" argument was used to limit or ban abortion. Say the countries birth rate was very low and there were a large supply of willing adoptive parents, can the state ban abortions and force women to carry a pregnancy to term for the "greater good"?

It could, but in an overpopulated world, using up finite resources too fast, it's difficult to make an argument for increasing birth rates in the few countries with declining populations. The only countries where demographics presents a serious problem are ones like Japan, that refuse to allow immigration from overpopulated countries to help balance out the demographics.

States can choose between living with a shortage or living with the risk of abuse due to people selling organs. A far worse choice is for the state to forcibly extract organs from people. BTW, why wait till they die? The state can pull eveyone's spare kidney to feed the donation bank.

Because a living person has a clear interest in having two kidneys to ensure the opportunity of a long, healthy life.....a dead person does not, simple as that!

What ia "moral obligation" is is subjective. Some people feel that havesting organs out of a dead body is sacreligious. Who are you to impose your moral standard on each individual?

Okay, now why is taking an organ from a dead person a sacrilege, and is it any more valid than the fear of Jehovah's Witnesses of letting their children have blood transfusions or the Christian Science church refusing virtually all medical procedures in favour of prayer.

[Molly]

WIP... everything about your perspective makes the assumption that organ donation= public good.

A young woman- a health care professional- refuses to sign her donor card, and when pressed, explains that, while she would be willing to donate selected body bits, there is no means by which she could approve or disapprove of said donations on a case-by-case basis after her own death, so her only real option is 'not at all'.

She explains that while some transplants are a definite plus, others simply add additional years of illness to a non-contributing life, and that, in her opinion, isn't good for anyone, not even the patient. Her place in the world is to increase wellness, not extend illness.

I'm still mulling that one over, but I do see her point.

That means that you can't assume to know folks' motivations (or assume that they are frivolous), and also that if something is to be justified in the name of 'greater good', it must be first established that greater good would be served by it.

[Renegade]

Instead of looking at organ donation through the lens of government vs. individual rights, look at it from the perspective of social responsibility. Whether or not it is a personal right to refuse to sign your organ donor card, should you have a responsibility to do it for the good of society? And if not, what reasons do you have for not being an organ donor besides saying "I don't want to?"

I'm not disputing that it is a moral responsiblity. What I maintain is that the enforcement of moral responsiblity should be left to ones conscience not to government.

In a similar vein, the movement against vaccinations for children is growing in numbers thanks to the work of idiots like Jenny McCarthy, who blames her son's autism on vaccines. Up till now the medical community hasn't worried too much about a few cranks and religious fanatics who refuse to vaccinate their children, because as long as they are a minority, they are protected by the effects of Herd Immunity. But in areas where significant numbers are not getting vaccinated, the diseases they prevent, are on the increase. Should vaccinating your children be a private individual right, or a social responsibility?

It is a more complex question than I wish to address in this thread. It is complicated by the fact that the consequences of not vaccinating extend beyond the health of the person and cause determental effects on others. For example by passiong on disease to others and causing the public health system to incur additonal burdens.

It could, but in an overpopulated world, using up finite resources too fast, it's difficult to make an argument for increasing birth rates in the few countries with declining populations. The only countries where demographics presents a serious problem are ones like Japan, that refuse to allow immigration from overpopulated countries to help balance out the demographics.

Except societies don't take a world view. Many societies take a local view. For example Quebec is implementing social policies to increase its birth rate. In your rationale Quebec woudl be justified in implementing policies such as restricting abortion to increase birth rates in the name of "social good".

Because a living person has a clear interest in having two kidneys to ensure the opportunity of a long, healthy life.....a dead person does not, simple as that!

Yes but society somehow determined that the need for donation of the second kidney was greater that an individuals need for a second kidney, by your rationale the state can take that kidney. Our society doesn't even make blood donation mandatory so clearly your rationale of social good overriding individual rights is not prevelant in society and only occurs in truly exceptional circumstances.

Okay, now why is taking an organ from a dead person a sacrilege, and is it any more valid than the fear of Jehovah's Witnesses of letting their children have blood transfusions or the Christian Science church refusing virtually all medical procedures in favour of prayer.

Because religion is irrational and individuals religious rights are guaranteeed even if it is irrational.

[Renegade]

Nope I don't. It's called opinion. Everyone does the same thing. You're against wide open abortion too, so what?

So then I was bang on when I said "you seek to impose those values on eveyone else."!!.

Yes I am against wide open adoption but for vastly different reasons than you. My reasons for allowing restricted abortion is to maximize indiviual freedoms (both the mother and the unborn child). Yours is to impose your value set on the public.

My personal value set is that an abortion decision should be made immediatly upon finding out about the pregnancy, however I don't think I have any right to impose that criteria on others, thus I would support legislation that allowed a much longer decision period.

It is clear that if you had your way you would ban abortions completely (exept for a few exceptional circumstances). The only reason you are willing to "settle" is because you know that the public will never support radical position.

[Mr.Canada]

So then I was bang on when I said "you seek to impose those values on eveyone else."!!.

Yes I am against wide open adoption but for vastly different reasons than you. My reasons for allowing restricted abortion is to maximize indiviual freedoms (both the mother and the unborn child). Yours is to impose your value set on the public.

My personal value set is that an abortion decision should be made immediatly upon finding out about the pregnancy, however I don't think I have any right to impose that criteria on others, thus I would support legislation that allowed a much longer decision period.

It is clear that if you had your way you would ban abortions completely (exept for a few exceptional circumstances). The only reason you are willing to "settle" is because you know that the public will never support radical position.

I won't argue with a fellow Tory, we have a much more dangerous common enemy, the secular socialist.

I also support a longer decision period as you do. I've softened my stance by reading many posts here. Yes at first it was true, if could vote again I'd support a longer period as well.

Don't be upset because I'm a Christian.

[daniel]

I won't argue with a fellow Tory, we have a much more dangerous common enemy, the secular socialist....

Don't be upset because I'm a Christian.

Not if your fellow Tory was a Catholic and you're not.

[Mr.Canada]

Not if your fellow Tory was a Catholic and you're not.

I'm Catholic daniel.

[daniel]

I'm Catholic daniel.

And what if your fellow Tory was a Protestant?

[Mr.Canada]

And what if your fellow Tory was a Protestant?

That's fine. It's not an issue for me. Ideology is of primary importance. Religion is more of a personal choice than anything else. I'm not completely unreasonable daniel.

[WIP]

I'm not disputing that it is a moral responsiblity. What I maintain is that the enforcement of moral responsiblity should be left to ones conscience not to government.

And I don't know if it's possible to enforce a mandatory policy on organ donation -- but in a hypothetical situation, if a shortage of donors was acute enough, there would be grounds to decide that the welfare of society was more important than the individual right to refuse.

It is a more complex question than I wish to address in this thread. It is complicated by the fact that the consequences of not vaccinating extend beyond the health of the person and cause determental effects on others. For example by passiong on disease to others and causing the public health system to incur additonal burdens.

It may not be an exact match, but the anti-vaccine movement is trying to use personal rights and freedom of religion, to fight having to vaccinate their children. Then the challenge is whether these personal rights take precedence over the welfare of society.

Except societies don't take a world view. Many societies take a local view. For example Quebec is implementing social policies to increase its birth rate. In your rationale Quebec woudl be justified in implementing policies such as restricting abortion to increase birth rates in the name of "social good".

But they should be taking a world view, since all of these countries with their national identities and petty squables, all have to share the same air, water and resources of one earth. If the human race is going to survive the next century or two, we'll have to find a way to establish some kind of global responsibility. Overpopulation will present a real threat to developed nations when population starts to outstrip food supply. Based on the sharp increase in prices in the Third World, we may be getting close to that point now.

Yes but society somehow determined that the need for donation of the second kidney was greater that an individuals need for a second kidney, by your rationale the state can take that kidney.

That doesn't work any more than you can kill someone to harvest their organs for the benefit of five or six other people. Working for the common good does not include killing people or compromising their quality of life for others. If Jenny McCarthy and the other vaccine opponents who claim vaccinations cause autism had good solid evidence behind them, the vaccination programs would have to be temporarily suspended, or at least the opponents would be allowed to opt out since benefits for the group would not be a good enough reason to put the children's health in danger. In the same way, taking away a kidney from a living donor is going to compromise his quality of life; the same can't be said if the person is already dead.

Because religion is irrational and individuals religious rights are guaranteeed even if it is irrational.

Those religious rights are not absolute, especially where they endanger children's lives. There have been many cases over the years where the courts have stepped in to force blood transfusions for children of Jehovah's Witnesses. And there have been other people in crackpot religions who have been charged with criminal negligence for refusing medical care for their children on the grounds of religious doctrinal reasons.

[Renegade]

And I don't know if it's possible to enforce a mandatory policy on organ donation -- but in a hypothetical situation, if a shortage of donors was acute enough, there would be grounds to decide that the welfare of society was more important than the individual right to refuse.

It may not be an exact match, but the anti-vaccine movement is trying to use personal rights and freedom of religion, to fight having to vaccinate their children. Then the challenge is whether these personal rights take precedence over the welfare of society.

I'm sure that is your opinion that it is more important, it is not mine. I believe the most fundamental principle of agreement of our society is freedom. In order to to be free indiviudal rights must be respected even at the cost of the "welfare of society".

Can you describe, under what conditions, in your opinion, "welfare of society" gets to trump individual rights, and who gets to deciide what the "welfare of society" is?

But they should be taking a world view, since all of these countries with their national identities and petty squables, all have to share the same air, water and resources of one earth. If the human race is going to survive the next century or two, we'll have to find a way to establish some kind of global responsibility. Overpopulation will present a real threat to developed nations when population starts to outstrip food supply. Based on the sharp increase in prices in the Third World, we may be getting close to that point now.

Many of our issues would have different policies if we defined "society" from the viewpoint of the world. For example, people on welfare would be considered "rich" in comparison to living standards in some regions. Why bother to fund them instead of the people starving.

Whether you choose to belive it or not, most govenments define societal policies based upon a local view on what their societies interests are. If we allowed a state leeway to trump individual rights using the execuse of societal best interest, then it would be easy to justify in some cases the elimination of access to abortion.

That doesn't work any more than you can kill someone to harvest their organs for the benefit of five or six other people. Working for the common good does not include killing people or compromising their quality of life for others.

How exactly do you determine what individual rights can or cannot be trumped by the "common good". You say that "Working for the common good does not include killing people or compromising their quality of life for others". Why not? Is this simply your opinion or is it based on some principle which is not obvious to me on how you determine which individual rights can be infringed and which cannot?

Those religious rights are not absolute, especially where they endanger children's lives. There have been many cases over the years where the courts have stepped in to force blood transfusions for children of Jehovah's Witnesses. And there have been other people in crackpot religions who have been charged with criminal negligence for refusing medical care for their children on the grounds of religious doctrinal reasons.

Where people have been prevented from denying blood transfusions or organ transplants for their children is not valid to cite. The reason is because it is not clear what the religious beliefs of the child are. Minor children are deemed too young to determine their own religious beliefs and courts are unwilling to conclude that parents religious beliefs are necessarily the same as the childs.

If a competent adult's religious beliefs were overrided by forcing a blood tranfusion or organ donation upon them then maybe that woudl be a more valid example.

[Renegade]

I won't argue with a fellow Tory, we have a much more dangerous common enemy, the secular socialist.

I look at it on an issue by issue basis. I don't consider a "secular socialist" a dangerous enemy. I support a position which is reasonable and in line with the principles of a free society regardless if it is put forth by a Tory or a "secular socialist".

I also support a longer decision period as you do. I've softened my stance by reading many posts here. Yes at first it was true, if could vote again I'd support a longer period as well.

At least even a hard-line activist such as you is open to change by reading reasoned opinions.

Don't be upset because I'm a Christian.

I'm not. I respect that your religion gives you moral guidelines. Just don't impose those guidelines on others.

[WIP]

I'm sure that is your opinion that it is more important, it is not mine. I believe the most fundamental principle of agreement of our society is freedom. In order to to be free indiviudal rights must be respected even at the cost of the "welfare of society".

It is not an arbitrary decision, nor is it something that can be decided overnight. That's why these cases involving refusing medical treatment such as the J.W.'s blood issue are still being fought in the courts. If it is Christian Scientists refusing all medical treatment for their children, their personal religious freedoms do not carry much weight, and in most court cases, the J.W.'s have lost and court ordered blood transfusions have been given to their children. The real issue now is when it is too late to save a child, should the parents be charged with criminal negligence in the event of the child's death? Most people agree that they should, just as most people agree that vaccination programs should be mandatory.

A democratic society is reluctant to override individual rights, but over time, there are issues established where people can be forced to do things that violate their personal or religious beliefs if its in the interest of society as a whole.

Many of our issues would have different policies if we defined "society" from the viewpoint of the world. For example, people on welfare would be considered "rich" in comparison to living standards in some regions. Why bother to fund them instead of the people starving.

And that's why it's hard to establish a concept of global citizenship, even though all the nations of the world are living in the biosphere of one planet. It's not politically feasible for any nation to extend the same aid worldwide that they do the underclass in their own society, but if huge numbers of poor people in overcrowded third world nations start trying to move en mass because of famine or some other future disaster, they will have an impact one way or another on the wealthier nations -- so it may be better to try to do something now to solve the poverty and overpopulation problems that exist now in these countries.

How exactly do you determine what individual rights can or cannot be trumped by the "common good". You say that "Working for the common good does not include killing people or compromising their quality of life for others". Why not? Is this simply your opinion or is it based on some principle which is not obvious to me on how you determine which individual rights can be infringed and which cannot?

It is based on what the consequences of these actions will be. We don't live in a society that sanctions murder in the interest of others (put that one up for a vote), but since this little side debate revolves around taking organs from people who are already dead, they have no personal interests and the only thing standing in the way of using their organs for the benefit of others is the superstitious beliefs of surviving family members.

Where people have been prevented from denying blood transfusions or organ transplants for their children is not valid to cite. The reason is because it is not clear what the religious beliefs of the child are. Minor children are deemed too young to determine their own religious beliefs and courts are unwilling to conclude that parents religious beliefs are necessarily the same as the childs.

If a competent adult's religious beliefs were overrided by forcing a blood tranfusion or organ donation upon them then maybe that woudl be a more valid example.

No, the child's religious beliefs play no part in the courts' decisions, and when dealing with children under 16, it is likely that their religious beliefs will be the same as the parents -- the issue is what is in the best interests of the child, and whether the parents are serving those interests or unneccessarily putting the child in danger.