Morgentaler attacks both Libs & Cons

[Alliance Fanatic]

As for the comment "why should I have to pay?", the answer is because it's considered a public good.

How is abortion done for the "public good". I like how you want to outlaw anybody that says that the holocaust did'nt happen, yet when the same thing is happening in Canada you seem to believe its for the "public good". Unwanted babies are considered sub human, and allowed to kill, jews were considered sub human. Whats your point its fairly hypocritical of you.

You know on personal experience from a few baptists, you seem to be stereotyping a whole group based on a few, its the same as saying I met a jew that was a jerk, so all jews are jerks. Same logic.

Please tell me the story of your encounter with the "evil" fundamentalist christian's, or are you just talking out of your ass again.

[takeanumber]

Please tell me the story of your encounter with the "evil" fundamentalist christian's, or are you just talking out of your ass again.

You can't make a single post without a personal attack, so I'm not going to reply until you address the issues instead of the person.

Regards,

Takeanumber.

[DAC]

If she chooses abortion, this is unfortunate. At the end of the day though, in spite of how you feel, it's her body, and it's her choice.

So, it's about choice, and with choice comes entropy.

That's the first time I've seen "entropy" used as a euphemism to gloss over the fact of killing an unborn child. Accurate? Yes. but it is definitely an attempt to make the unpalatable facts look better.

The problem is that the child in a woman's womb is not her body. in this day of growing understanding of genes, that should be clear. Every cell in your body except the ova or sperm carries same genes. The ova or sperm have genes entirely from your body, but only half the number. The cells of an unborn child have different genes. Any modern enlightened person who says the child is part of the woman's body is twisting facts he or she presumably knows. At least should know.

If a person wants to get rid of a tumour, fine. It's part of her body, to do with as she pleases. If she wants to get rid of her next door neighbour, it's a different story. When the next door neighbour is the child in her womb, it is complicated by the relationship and the cost to her of carrying the child, but the child is still a neighbour, nor part of the woman.

If you are "pro-choice", how about ensuring that the child gets a choice.

[DAC]

Last time I remember most fundamentalist christian church's were helping young women who had unwanted pregnancies.

Sure, so long as she confesses that she's a heather and his child is a bastard, and is otherwise 'preyed' upon by having their believes shoved on her.

Yes, it happens. Fundamentalist Christians are not free from sin. But far more often, women are helped with sympathy and love and generosity.

I've been involved in Christian pro-life groups. It was interesting to observe that there was always more interest in caring for women struggling with problem pregnancies and women struggling with the aftershock of abortion, than in picketing and trying to persuade the government to change the laws.

It's also interesting that those who engage in counselling women considering abortion report that more often than not, it is really the woman's boyfriend, husband or parents who want the abortion. She is under great pressure.