The Nature of Evil

Jack Weber · February 19, 2011

Correct. bush/cheney has identified the only private hospital in Canada and that is in British Columbia.

Actually,the Shouldice Clinic is a privat hospital in Toronto,used even by Jack Layton!!

It does however work within the public system we have....

Jonsa · February 19, 2011

But obviously our society saw differently, otherwise there wouldn't be any need for the declaration of the legal status of a foetus.

Ah, my response was about the religious perspective of when a fetus becomes a person. And of course there is a need for a declaration from a legal perspective, don't be ridiculous.

It is your own way of coping with it....to make it okay. There was a time when it was considered that 3 months and below was the gestational stage(?) when a fetus is not yet a human
But over the years, even that became compromised....because of the Feminist Movement. The samples of late-term abortions done in the USA attest to that. Our own Criminal Code depicts that.

there was a time when people thought the earth was flat. Late term abortions amount to less than 1% of all abortions. And that isn't about birth control, its about health.

his is the latest justification...or rather, "battlecry."
When a woman says, "It's my body." That ought to make everybody shut up.

That's the "good" that you see that makes baby-killing acceptable.

Society probably suffers from guilt over how women were mistreated in the past....so everything to "empower" women is unquestionably championed.

I don't think baby killing is acceptable. I think terminating a pregnancy is acceptable in a whole variety of situations.

Its not about "empowering" a women. Its far more fundamental than that. It goes to the nature of being human. Our bodies are our sole domain and what occurs within them is competely our business. Period.

The fetus had to be deemed inhuman....so these women can freely pursue their aspirations without any 9-month interruptions. The woman must not be inconvenienced by an innocent baby. Even though society had given all possible support to prevent any pregnancies....the woman must never be made to take responsibility and must never be made to do the right thing for the baby.
Even though it is her body....(boy, since no one believes in virgin births these days, it is a wonder how nobody questions how that baby got there in the first place)....still, the woman must have her life un-interrupted. 9 months is too much. Much more easier to kill the child. Life of a baby has no value at all. The aspirations of the woman will always come first.

Again, its ain't none of your business what decision another women makes about her own pregnancy. You may sneer at her reasoning, her "selfishness" etc., but you have no right to interfere.

The baby has to be deemed inhuman so he can be stripped off his rights.

A fetus isn't a baby. It merely has the potential to be a human. That ain't inhuman. It isn't viable until at least 6 months, closer to 7 months.

C'mon Jonsa....believing that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Saying that doesn't make baby-killing less evil. Washing hands and looking the other way does not make it okay.

The fact that I don't appprove of abortion as merely a method of birth control, is a personal opinion. I don't approve of a lot of behaviours but my disapproval doesn't automatically deem them to be evil or morally or legally wrong.

That's what slavers said about the blacks....that they were not really human. That's the justification....the "good" that slavers saw behind that atrocious trade.

Now really. That kind of spurious analogy does nothing to advance the discussion.

pinko · February 19, 2011

..and still laughing about your lack of knowledge on this. Why didn't you just ask your son before embarrassing yourself like that?

Don't let some smart ass American make a fool out of you again!

You certainly don't qualify as a smart American. Where I live in Manitoba there are no private hospitals. The distinctions made by others aren't material to our discussion.

bush_cheney2004 · February 19, 2011

You certainly don't qualify as a smart American. Where I live in Manitoba there are no private hospitals. The distinctions made by others aren't material to our discussion.

That's because they don't care where you live either. In Manitoba, a lot of things are missing!

betsy · February 19, 2011

there was a time when people thought the earth was flat. Late term abortions amount to less than 1% of all abortions. And that isn't about birth control, its about health.

Where do you get your figures? Link please.

Abortions by Gestational Age

Of 96,815 abortions performed on Canadian women in Canada in 2005, detailed records on gestational age exist for only 35,190. The age of the fetus at the time of abortion is not known for the remaining 61,625 abortions. Most of the abortions with detailed records were performed in hospitals.

Of those 35,190 abortions with gestational age recorded, 543 took place when the unborn baby was more than 20 weeks gestation, able to feel pain and survive outside the womb. Nine were perfomed at more than 28 weeks gestation. Some of those nine babies were aborted at more than 33 weeks, when the baby is nearly full term. Statistics Canada would not specify the exact number.

By trimester: 30,207 were performed in the first three months, 4,944 during the second trimester and 39 in the third trimester of pregnancy.

http://www.abortionincanada.ca/stats/abortion_gestational_age.html

Its not about "empowering" a women.

Of course it is! It's a feminist issue!

Its far more fundamental than that. It goes to the nature of being human.

Even animals protect their young!

Our bodies are our sole domain and what occurs within them is competely our business. Period.

Women. I've yet to see a pregnant man lining up at a clinic.

Again, its ain't none of your business what decision another women makes about her own pregnancy. You may sneer at her reasoning, her "selfishness" etc., but you have no right to interfere.

You're right. That's why the fetus was legally declared not human. Because as long as the fetus is considered human, he has the right to be protected.

It's not you or me or regular Joe who petitioned the government to declare that baby inhuman. It's the powerful Feminist lobby group!

Now really. That kind of spurious analogy does nothing to advance the discussion.

I know...it is difficult and painful to reconcile with, but nevertheless, whether we like it or not, the parallel is there.

Edited February 19, 2011 by betsy

pinko · February 19, 2011

That's because they don't care where you live either. In Manitoba, a lot of things are missing!

I am sure the trailer park you live in is well stocked with the beer and dope you and the other losers residing there consume while others do an honest days work.

cybercoma · February 19, 2011

betsy, you were making a legal argument, but I see you've conveniently skipped over my post that gives a general overview of the history of abortion as a legal issue. I even took the time to bold the parts pertinent to your assertions that it is illegal.

betsy · February 19, 2011

betsy, you were making a legal argument, but I see you've conveniently skipped over my post that gives a general overview of the history of abortion as a legal issue. I even took the time to bold the parts pertinent to your assertions that it is illegal.

Well I see you skipped my post #211! And I even took the time to bolden the part. I already posted something similar to yours. For the record, I posted it first. Oh boy.... :rolleyes:

Edited February 19, 2011 by betsy

Bryan · February 20, 2011

You certainly don't qualify as a smart American. Where I live in Manitoba there are no private hospitals. The distinctions made by others aren't material to our discussion.

There most certainly are privately owned hospitals in Manitoba.

cybercoma · February 20, 2011

Well I see you skipped my post #211! And I even took the time to bolden the part. I already posted something similar to yours. For the record, I posted it first. Oh boy....

Oh boy... :rolleyes: indeed. I assumed that you understand how the Canadian justice system works. I'll just let you know, the government doesn't get to write whatever law that it wants all willy-nilly. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees that the government cannot create laws that interfere with particular fundamental principles. In this particular case, the SCC determined, by a vote of 5-2, that the abortion amendment that the Liberals put into place contravened section 7 of the Charter. The catching point is that the 5 that agreed had differing opinions about why it contravened the Charter, so the government did not have to follow it. Since 4 different juries had acquitted Dr. Morgentaler, the people had also decided that doctors performing abortions for women was not an convictable offense (In 1983, a Gallup Poll showed that 72% of Canadians believed that the decision to have an abortion was solely up to the woman).

Here's a timeline for you:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/01/13/f-abortion-timeline.html

Ultimately, the decision to have an abortion is the no one else's but the woman that is pregnant. The government has no place interfering with a person's decision about her body. When life begins is a philosophical question that the government ought not to be legislating at the stroke of a pen. It has, as you point out, been avoided by the courts and the government because there is no clear answer. While you believe it begins at conception, others may argue that it does not begin until the child is physically born. There is a range of opinions everywhere between. Again, the decision to abort a pregnancy is up to the mother and the mother alone. The only other option is to either make abortion entirely illegal or setup boards to determine when an abortion is necessary. In either case, the federal government legislates against the life, liberty and security of the mother, a clear violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms as entrenched in the Constitution. Any law that denies a woman the right to choose for herself what to do with her body is illegal. I've clearly shown to you that abortion is not illegal in Canada and until you can articulate an argument where the government may legislate against abortion legally, your rantings are nothing more than religious zealotry.

betsy · February 20, 2011

Oh boy... indeed. I assumed that you understand how the Canadian justice system works. I'll just let you know, the government doesn't get to write whatever law that it wants all willy-nilly. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees that the government cannot create laws that interfere with particular fundamental principles. In this particular case, the SCC determined, by a vote of 5-2, that the abortion amendment that the Liberals put into place contravened section 7 of the Charter. The catching point is that the 5 that agreed had differing opinions about why it contravened the Charter, so the government did not have to follow it. Since 4 different juries had acquitted Dr. Morgentaler, the people had also decided that doctors performing abortions for women was not an convictable offense (In 1983, a Gallup Poll showed that 72% of Canadians believed that the decision to have an abortion was solely up to the woman).

Here's a timeline for you:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/01/13/f-abortion-timeline.html

Ultimately, the decision to have an abortion is the no one else's but the woman that is pregnant. The government has no place interfering with a person's decision about her body. When life begins is a philosophical question that the government ought not to be legislating at the stroke of a pen. It has, as you point out, been avoided by the courts and the government because there is no clear answer. While you believe it begins at conception, others may argue that it does not begin until the child is physically born. There is a range of opinions everywhere between. Again, the decision to abort a pregnancy is up to the mother and the mother alone. The only other option is to either make abortion entirely illegal or setup boards to determine when an abortion is necessary. In either case, the federal government legislates against the life, liberty and security of the mother, a clear violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms as entrenched in the Constitution. Any law that denies a woman the right to choose for herself what to do with her body is illegal. I've clearly shown to you that abortion is not illegal in Canada and until you can articulate an argument where the government may legislate against abortion legally, your rantings are nothing more than religious zealotry.

Who sez baby killing is illegal in Canada?? :rolleyes:

You and Pinko seem to be on the same page though. Discuss with each other.

Edited February 20, 2011 by betsy

BubberMiley · February 20, 2011

Are you married, Betsy?

Do you have any children, Betsy?

Married, no children. Used to run a daycare but went off the deep end so she had to quit.

pinko · February 20, 2011

Married, no children. Used to run a daycare but went off the deep end so she had to quit.

Thanks for the information. I am not surprised as she demonstrates some fairly disturbing traits. I certainly wouldn't want her around any of my grandchildren.

cybercoma · February 20, 2011

betsy, out of curiosity, would you be ok with the government setting up a panel to decide whether or not someone is eligible to have children? Say you wanted to have kids, but before you could conceive you would have to face a panel of doctors. Perhaps these doctors are nowhere near you and you have to travel at your own expense a considerable distance to the hospital for this "assessment". Imagine then that you had to be put on a waiting list for a different fertility doctor that was not a member of the assessment team. Would this be a good thing in your eyes, that is for the government to ensure that only the most fit parents are procreating?

You know, the government did something similar, but much more disturbing, in Alberta at the Michener Centre. They sterilized people that they determined to be "mentally defective". An intelligent and articulate woman named Leilani Muir sued them and was compensated because the government legislated away from her the ability to bear children.

I'm curious if you agree with these things or if you think that maybe people should be able to make decisions about their own bodies and their own reproductive lives without it being legislated for them by the government.

bloodyminded · February 20, 2011

betsy, out of curiosity, would you be ok with the government setting up a panel to decide whether or not someone is eligible to have children? Say you wanted to have kids, but before you could conceive you would have to face a panel of doctors. Perhaps these doctors are nowhere near you and you have to travel at your own expense a considerable distance to the hospital for this "assessment". Imagine then that you had to be put on a waiting list for a different fertility doctor that was not a member of the assessment team. Would this be a good thing in your eyes, that is for the government to ensure that only the most fit parents are procreating?

You know, the government did something similar, but much more disturbing, in Alberta at the Michener Centre. They sterilized people that they determined to be "mentally defective". An intelligent and articulate woman named Leilani Muir sued them and was compensated because the government legislated away from her the ability to bear children.

I'm curious if you agree with these things or if you think that maybe people should be able to make decisions about their own bodies and their own reproductive lives without it being legislated for them by the government.

A zinger, and a thoughtful one! Excellent point.

It's not strictly about abortion; it's about reproductive rights, and the inviolate right of a person to have say over what happens to her body.

pinko · February 20, 2011

" zinger, and a thoughtful one! Excellent point."

Yes

betsy · February 20, 2011

betsy, out of curiosity, would you be ok with the government setting up a panel to decide whether or not someone is eligible to have children? Say you wanted to have kids, but before you could conceive you would have to face a panel of doctors. Perhaps these doctors are nowhere near you and you have to travel at your own expense a considerable distance to the hospital for this "assessment". Imagine then that you had to be put on a waiting list for a different fertility doctor that was not a member of the assessment team. Would this be a good thing in your eyes, that is for the government to ensure that only the most fit parents are procreating?

You know, the government did something similar, but much more disturbing, in Alberta at the Michener Centre. They sterilized people that they determined to be "mentally defective". An intelligent and articulate woman named Leilani Muir sued them and was compensated because the government legislated away from her the ability to bear children.

I'm curious if you agree with these things or if you think that maybe people should be able to make decisions about their own bodies and their own reproductive lives without it being legislated for them by the government.

You're comparing a panel of judges telling you whether you can have children or not.... to pregnant women who want to kill their babies?

Just as a reminder, the point is based on the premise of the philosophy about evil. That no movement came out to say, "we're going to do something evil." That evil is always justified by something "good."

There is justification for the tortures and killings.

The parallel of evil between Hitler's 3rd Reich and Feminist's Abortion is given to prove that point.

Your post though could make for a good discussion as a separate topic.

Edited February 20, 2011 by betsy

pinko · February 20, 2011

You failed to answer the question posed as follows:

"would you be ok with the government setting up a panel to decide whether or not someone is eligible to have children?"

cybercoma · February 20, 2011

You're comparing a panel of judges telling you whether you can have children or not.... to pregnant women who want to kill their babies?

Just as a reminder, the point is based on the premise of the philosophy about evil. That no movement came out to say, "we're going to do something evil." That evil is always justified by something "good."

There is justification for the tortures and killings.

The parallel of evil between Hitler's 3rd Reich and Feminist's Abortion is given to prove that point.

Your post though could make for a good discussion as a separate topic.

betsy, simple question... who should decide your reproductive life? you or someone else?

betsy · February 20, 2011

You failed to answer the question posed as follows:

"would you be ok with the government setting up a panel to decide whether or not someone is eligible to have children?"

Bush_Cheney said it to you a while back. I'll repeat the same.

Go ask your son what my post meant.

Edited February 20, 2011 by betsy

pinko · February 20, 2011

Bush_Cheney said it to you a while back. I'll repeat the same.

Go ask your son what my post meant.

He is currently in Maui with his family and unavailable. He and I have already had a discussion about eugenics.

bloodyminded · February 20, 2011

Bush_Cheney said it to you a while back. I'll repeat the same.

Go ask your son what my post meant.

When you start quoting Bush_Cheney--who claims that morality is irrelevant (unless one says something bad about "the troops," after which he'll throw a pretty little tantrum)--you're sinking fast.

Edited February 20, 2011 by bloodyminded

bush_cheney2004 · February 20, 2011

....I'm curious if you agree with these things or if you think that maybe people should be able to make decisions about their own bodies and their own reproductive lives without it being legislated for them by the government.

Logically then, you are also against any government regulation of consenting inter-familial sexual relationships and reproduction? If not, why not?

cybercoma · February 20, 2011

It's also illegal to have sex with children and animals, or to force yourself on any other unwilling participant. We're talking about different things.

You're free to say that the unborn child requires protection. However, there is much debate about where life begins (ie: if and when a fetus becomes a child). This is a personal decision for an individual to make using whatever philosophical and ethical tools they hold. By forcing the mother to carry a child against her will, you are subjecting her to undue psychological harm. In other words, you're calling for the rights of an unborn fetus to supersede those of the mother. Again, this is not a decision for anyone to make but the mother herself, using all of the resources available to her. In the other circumstances, including which you brought up, the protection and security of vulnerable persons is paramount to the sexual desires of any given individual. There is a distinct difference between the two.