punked Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Not directly your not. You are simply not donating an organ, somebody else can step up and donate one. As for the abortion from Renegades POV, you are in fact killing somebody directly, nobody can step up and take the baby's place. OK you are the only match for a person there is no other match in Canada and you don't give the Kidney then you are killing that person? What if there is two people but they both wont give the organ they are some how not killing that person becuase the other person could always give? Seems a bit like splitting hairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well, let's refine the example a little then. Let's say you are a perfect match as a bone marrow donor, and the only positive match for the person in need. Are you obligated to be the donor, or not? And if not, doesn't that make you at least criminally negligent and responsible for the death ofthe person with leukemia or some other blood disease? How would that person know they were a perfect match as a bone marrow donor? Are you advocating that we start body harvesting? Abortion and possible body harvesting are apples and oranges. Carrying a pregnancy to term a la Renegade's proposal does not impede on anyone's rights, mom has chance for an out before brain activity, and the baby once it gets brain activity has a shot at living. Possible body harvesting like you and punked are suggesting is in fact impeding on somebody's rights. Like I said, would you have a problem with Robert Latimer killing his daughter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Do you seriously believe that someone desperate enough to stick a pellet gun inside themselves and pull the trigger would be detered by the threat of mere jail? Anyone under 50 is too young to remember that abortion used to be illegal, but like drugs and prostitution, it still went on anyway. Growing up in Niagara Falls, my older brothers knew a girl who lived down the street, became a prostitute, accidentally got pregnant, and died from a botched abortion across the river. Abortion may have been far less frequent than today, but so was drinking during the era of Prohibition. In both cases, society at large agreed that the effects criminalization was worse than legalization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Are you advocating that we start body harvesting? No you are advocating it. By saying if there is a potential life to be saved we must do even over all control of our own body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I love the langauge of the ProLifers. First, the have the semantic high ground by calling themsleves Pro Life, since if you are not prolife you must be prodeath. In fact , the other side offers women the choice of continuing the preganancy to term or aborting. ProChoice does not mean you are pro abortion, it means you support the womans right to choose. The other semantics war is over the use of 'fetus' and 'baby'. Note that ProLifers rarely if ever use the term 'fetus', every fertizlized egg is a baby. To call it a 'fetus' has far less emotional punch, and since logic cannot carry the day, God and emotion must substitute. The real nutbars insist every sperm is sacred. Looks like lately, judging by some comments here, that they are changing tactics. They know that they've been utterly unable to concvince Candians that abortion is evil in all contexts. Now they are trying hard to get a law, any law at all, on the legislative agenda and hopefully the Crinminal Code. Why? Because there is not really any legislation on abortion in Canada. No law means no prosecutions, no concvictions, nothing to argue on Charter levels at the Supreme Court. It really is a problems for the Lifers. Any law, no matter how flaccid, would be a big big improvement, a launching pad and vehicle for countless suits and court challenges. Too bad for them it just ain't going to happen. The majority of Canucks are happy with the status quo. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Do you seriously believe that someone desperate enough to stick a pellet gun inside themselves and pull the trigger would be detered by the threat of mere jail? No probably not, but regardless she should be punished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) It may, providing that there are no reasons to justify late termination, such as birth defects and health risks to the mother. From what I understand, most cases of women seeking third trimester abortions occur when these sorts of situations arise, so how much should a woman be willing to risk her life to have a baby? The last American stats I heard on the radio yesterday, were that approximately ten times as many women die from complications of delivery than from having a legal abortion. Again, I don't have any issue with late-term termination due to complications which arise from the pregnancy and threaten the health of the mother. I do however have an issue with late-term termination with a normal healthy pregnancy. Edited January 6, 2009 by Renegade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 How would that person know they were a perfect match as a bone marrow donor?Are you advocating that we start body harvesting? Haven't you ever heard of bone marrow transplants, and the lists that are set up to try to find matching donors? It's a thought problem anyway! It's like the Trolley Car dilemmas; you just have to use the parameters that are set up, to arrive at your decision. It's an example to show that sometimes you may put too many burdens on someone in the interests of saving lives. Abortion and possible body harvesting are apples and oranges. Carrying a pregnancy to term a la Renegade's proposal does not impede on anyone's rights, mom has chance for an out before brain activity, and the baby once it gets brain activity has a shot at living. Possible body harvesting like you and punked are suggesting is in fact impeding on somebody's rights. Like I said, would you have a problem with Robert Latimer killing his daughter? I didn't pay enough close attention to the Latimer case to answer that question. It all revolves around whether he was performing an act of mercy like he claimed, or just trying to free himself of the burden of caring for his disabled daughter. I'll look up more information about the case before I comment directly about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 No you are advocating it. By saying if there is a potential life to be saved we must do even over all control of our own body. Let me be clear I am in 100% agreement with Renegade on this issue. By having an abortion you are directly killing somebody, simple. By not donating an organ, there is a chance that the person could find another one and survive. In Renegade's example, the choice is limited up until brain activity. Above that then the unborn child's rights come into play. With this, both sets of rights are being addressed. As far as forced organ donations, only one side's rights are being consulted. If you can't see that both issues are different, then you are a lost cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well, let's refine the example a little then. Let's say you are a perfect match as a bone marrow donor, and the only positive match for the person in need. Are you obligated to be the donor, or not? And if not, doesn't that make you at least criminally negligent and responsible for the death ofthe person with leukemia or some other blood disease? You should have no legal obligation to be the donor even if you are the only donor who can save the person's life. When the government can step in is if you consent to be a donor and then at some point have a change of heart. The government can set down the terms of what implies consent, and when is that consent revokable and at what point does it become irrevokable. (Can you refuse consent as or after they are implanting it in the recepient?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 You should have no legal obligation to be the donor even if you are the only donor who can save the person's life. When the government can step in is if you consent to be a donor and then at some point have a change of heart. The government can set down the terms of what implies consent, and when is that consent revokable and at what point does it become irrevokable. (Can you refuse consent as or after they are implanting it in the recepient?) So only if you say you wont have an abortion should the government legislate you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 So only if you say you wont have an abortion should the government legislate you? The legislation applies to everyone once they are pregnant. IMV you don't need to declare that you won't have an abortion. You have a period to decide, after which consent is implied by inaction (ie your failure to get an abortion within that period) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 So only if you say you wont have an abortion should the government legislate you? punked. The two things you mention aren't even related. An abortion directly kills a life, this cannot be argued. An organ donor doesn't. If someone chooses not to sign the back of t heir license this don't kill everyone who needed a transplant. If that were the case then all Jews are guilty under your rationale as Jews believe they must cross over whole and don't donate organs if they're strict Jews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Just becuase your logic makes a religious guilty does not make it wrong. I am likening your rational for being pro life with organ donation. Once someones body can be used to save a life with out dangering their own they must under law be required to use it in that way. I think that is stuipd and everyone has the right to their own body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 punked. The two things you mention aren't even related. An abortion directly kills a life, this cannot be argued. An organ donor doesn't. If someone chooses not to sign the back of t heir license this don't kill everyone who needed a transplant. If that were the case then all Jews are guilty under your rationale as Jews believe they must cross over whole and don't donate organs if they're strict Jews. Response to me. Just becuase your logic makes a religious guilty does not make it wrong. I am likening your rational for being pro life with organ donation. Once someones body can be used to save a life with out dangering their own they must under law be required to use it in that way. I think that is stuipd and everyone has the right to their own body. punked. Please put down the bong before you respond to my bullet proof wit and common sense. Your reply makes no sense at all. Seriously your reply doesn't sound right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Just becuase your logic makes a religious guilty does not make it wrong. I am likening your rational for being pro life with organ donation. Once someones body can be used to save a life with out dangering their own they must under law be required to use it in that way. I think that is stuipd and everyone has the right to their own body. It is an interesting parallel. Today no one can take your organ (regardless of if you are dead or alive) unless you explicitly consent. That is being considered for change. The change being considered is to make organ donation consent the default, and only prohibit it if the wishes not to donate were explicit. Organ Donation Policy If you accept that implied consent or implied agreement is legally valid then you should be able to accept that such consent would also apply to a woman hosting a pregnancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 You and Mr C have a bit of a problem.... By having an abortion you are directly killing somebody, simple. You should add " in my view" since no court in the land agrees with either of you. Killing/murder are all in the criminal code, but not the abortion of a fetus. Mr CanadaAn abortion directly kills a life, this cannot be argued. I realize you put "this cannot be argued" when in fact most realize you are very wrong. Kind of a habit huh? What happens in a miscarriage? I wonder who "killed " it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 LOL. My family is conservative and responsible. We don't go around having sex like animals with whomever is not taken by the end of the night and still sober enough to walk. Keep dreaming. You were the one that talked about all the "Fun" you had in your younger days. I envisioned your comments as one of a Satyr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 You and Mr C have a bit of a problem....You should add " in my view" since no court in the land agrees with either of you. Killing/murder are all in the criminal code, but not the abortion of a fetus. I realize you put "this cannot be argued" when in fact most realize you are very wrong. Kind of a habit huh? What happens in a miscarriage? I wonder who "killed " it ? I thought I did put it that way earlier on... link to my prev. post #213 I should have put in theory in bold and before my other examples later on, I thought that was implied. I am on Renegade's side of things where both party's rights have to be addressed. Mr. Canada is another story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 You and Mr C have a bit of a problem....You should add " in my view" since no court in the land agrees with either of you. Killing/murder are all in the criminal code, but not the abortion of a fetus. I realize you put "this cannot be argued" when in fact most realize you are very wrong. Kind of a habit huh? What happens in a miscarriage? I wonder who "killed " it ? So unless a court says so it isn't true? Well gay marriage wasn't allowed until it went to court, so before it was enacted into law you were against it? Miscarriage is an abnormality, a freak occurrence if you will, not a willful act for the most part. Abortion has only been before the courts once. Why are you so afraid of any discussion? No civil rights struggle has ever been easy, it is fraught with many obstacles including the intolerance of others. We must push for and get civil rights for unborn babies who are being slaughtered in the name of progress. This simply won't do in Canada. It's funny how people are quick to point to Sweden for PPR but won't for abortion regulation isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Response to me.punked. Please put down the bong before you respond to my bullet proof wit and common sense. Your reply makes no sense at all. Seriously your reply doesn't sound right. So you agree if anyones body can be used to save a life with out endangering their own it should be done and this should be law in Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 It's funny how people are quick to point to Sweden for PPR but won't for abortion regulation isn't it? Isn't it funny how SOME people are quick to point to Sweden for abortion but wont for public programs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I think you've just discovered the solution to any future budgetary problems. Just put male tax dollars together with female tax dollars and we begat future generations of tax dollars. I like that. Do you think it would work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 WIP- anyone under 50 is too young to remember that contraception was illegal , too, until only shortly before that. So, all you whippersnappers, if you ever wondered why a condom is sometimes called a prophylactic, it's because it wasn't supposed to be used to prevent pregnancy. Just disease. It makes me laugh to hear this generation argue against abortion by advising use of contraception, because they were not so long ago considered to be equally immoral, and for the same reasons. Life is _Gods_ decision, and if you dare have sex, you've consented to pregnancy! Consequently, I have a hard time with the concept of 'implied' consent, when the one who supposedly granted it by implication is standing by, screaming "NONONONONO!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I still feel the same way and would disown any of my family that had one. Ha ha ha. YOu will never know if your daughter has one. It's verrry easy, Mom can just say she has a "feminine" problem. You are obviously oblivious to what happens to a woman's body on a monthly basis. My stepfather never knew that his daughter (not me, his bio daughter) had an abortion in 1975. Mom just took her in for a "girl" thing. Of course your wife would rather have her daughter "ostrasized" and "disowned" than hide something from you right? Wool --> meet Mr. Canada's eyes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.