bush_cheney2004 Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 It's pretty safe to say everyone that gets an abortion does so because they ended up pregnant when they didn't want... This is patently false. A minority of abortions are elective based on a variety of post pregnancy reasons, including gender selection. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 Hitler did not stop with the Jews. We're thrown back farther than the 60's or the 50's! We're really back to Nazi Germany! You're going by the same path of Hitler's delusional "reality." will you be reopening... the debate... with this? Reads like a winner - I trust it will be well received, hey? Quote
cybercoma Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 Sovereignty right over woman's body does not exists.Does that mean it's ok to rape women or force them to undergo medical experimentations against their will? Quote
BubberMiley Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 Does that mean it's ok to rape women or force them to undergo medical experimentations against their will? If I understand the convoluted argument, if we give people control over their own bodies, we will be Hitler. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 If I understand the convoluted argument, if we give people control over their own bodies, we will be Hitler. No, but you would run afoul of existing legal theory that aims to prevent suicide, private organ donation, incest, and that which provides for quarantine/isolation in the interest of public health. You could add codified reporting and sexual behaviour restrictions for AIDS/HIV. Turns out that your right to control your own body ain't what you think. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bleeding heart Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 No, but you would run afoul of existing legal theory that aims to prevent suicide, private organ donation, incest, and that which provides for quarantine/isolation in the interest of public health. You could add codified reporting and sexual behaviour restrictions for AIDS/HIV. Turns out that your right to control your own body ain't what you think. Fair points, but...better some than none. Or, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 3, 2012 Report Posted June 3, 2012 Fair points, but...better some than none. I'm sure there are others. That's the best I could do in between laundry loads. Or, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 'Tis neither perfect or good. Anybody who wishes an abortion is free to try it on their own. But if they want medically "safe" and/or state financed abortions, then there will be strings attached. Reproductive health care services are not and have never been a "right", not even in Canada, Land of the Magic Vagina. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bleeding heart Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 'Tis neither perfect or good. Perfect, no; good...why yes! Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
guyser Posted June 4, 2012 Report Posted June 4, 2012 American WomanTry engaging in an honest discussion. Pretty hard for betsy to do if she is of the opinion that.... What right? Sovereignty of her body? There is no such right. Hey betsy, if you want a debate , learn some facts first. A woman has soveriegnty over her body. Its not an opinion, not a feeling, doesnt refute for religious peeps....but it is the law in this country. "There is no such right" is such a facepalm quote it renders any and all impartiality of yours out the window. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 Sovereignty right over woman's body does not exists. No such right. Otherwise they'd be allowed to shoot up ....or commit suicide if they choose to do so. Suicide isn't against the law in Canada - and people are allowed to shoot up at safe injection sites. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 Suicide isn't against the law in Canada - and people are allowed to shoot up at safe injection sites. The suicide law was repealed even earlier than the abortion law. Quote
dre Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 Considering that at some point the fetus does experience pain.....wouldn't you guys want to err on the side of caution? To feel compassion and be humane about this? Absolutely! Id like to have little or no abortions at all. And WE COULD DO THAT, if we put these type of arguments behind us and actually tackle the reasons why women have abortions. Better education, more support for mothers, more access to birth control, better daycare, better education system. We can do these things! And we should! But youre not helping. Why... arent you... helping? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
betsy Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) Absolutely! Id like to have little or no abortions at all. And WE COULD DO THAT, if we put these type of arguments behind us and actually tackle the reasons why women have abortions. Although perhaps our educational system needs to be examined and re-organized - that it doesn't compete with and not try to usurp the role of a "parent," and let parents be the ones teaching values to their children? Better education, more support for mothers, more access to birth control, better daycare, better education system..... But all the rest, we've provided. What more can you do? Everyone gets the same PS3? Prada handbags? Hot-pink condoms for the teeners? That the problem still exists, and worse.....with the rising stat of repeat-abortion, obviously this needs to be re-examined too. Perhaps the fault is more so on the mindset of society that helps create a disensitized, narcissistic future generation so self-absorbed with ENTITLEMENT? We can do these things! And we should! But youre not helping. Why... arent you... helping? We gotta fix what's broke. And really....time to remove those tinted glasses. A narcissistic, disensitized (un-caring) and relativist society spells big-time disaster for everyone. Relativism messed up our kids. Edited June 5, 2012 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 Absolutely! Id like to have little or no abortions at all. And WE COULD DO THAT, if we put these type of arguments behind us and actually tackle the reasons why women have abortions. Better education, more support for mothers, more access to birth control, better daycare, better education system. We can do these things! And we should! But youre not helping. Why... arent you... helping? Anyway, what does this have to do with being humane? We can be humane now to cats and dogs.....what's stopping us from being humane to our own flesh and blood? Care to explain your point? Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) We gotta fix what's broke. And really....time to remove those tinted glasses. A narcissistic, disensitized (un-caring) and relativist society spells big-time disaster for everyone. Relativism messed up our kids. When, exactly was our society not "narcissistic, desensitized, uncaring, and relativist"? It's an honest question. Edited June 5, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
cybercoma Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 Anyway, what does this have to do with being humane? We can be humane now to cats and dogs.....what's stopping us from being humane to our own flesh and blood? Care to explain your point? Yet we euthanize cats and dogs. Are you sure you want to go there? Quote
betsy Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) Suicide isn't against the law in Canada - and people are allowed to shoot up at safe injection sites. Suicide is not a crime in Canada. But that does mean it is a right? Of course not. Big difference there. Section 14 of the Criminal Code on Euthanasia provides that: No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given. In the medical context, a doctor who, at a patient’s request, gives the patient a lethal injection would be criminally liable. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/919-e.htm#2thecriminal You don't even have that entitlement - let alone the right - to give consent, to have someone assist you! As for safe injection site(s), it seems there's only one which the government had tried to shut down! Again, just because it remains open does not mean shooting up heroin had become a right? Of course not. "Sovereignty over one's body" was never the factor why the court granted it to remain open. That's what I mean. See? Everything suddenly becomes a right! Edited June 5, 2012 by betsy Quote
BubberMiley Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 Im confused. Now the 12-year-old rape victim who would be stupid to not go get "cleaned up" shouldn't have the right to be "cleaned up" in the first place? Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
bleeding heart Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 Im confused. That's because you're trying to follow the "argument" as posted. Understandable. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
betsy Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 When, exactly was our society not "narcissistic, desensitized, uncaring, and relativist"? It's an honest question. When? What do you want to determine? When society was relatively absolutist or when it became absolutely relativist? I think it was June 27, 1984...exactly! It may be an honest question (IYO) but surely it's not a serious one. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 Suicide is not a crime in Canada. But that does mean it is a right? Of course not. Big difference there. Let me remind you exactly what you said, which is what I replied to: Sovereignty right over woman's body does not exists. No such right. Otherwise they'd be allowed to shoot up ....or commit suicide if they choose to do so. As I pointed out, it isn't against the law to commit suicide - which means one IS ALLOWED to commit suicide. Are you going to argue otherwise? Seriously? Furthermore, as I said, people ARE ALLOWED to shoot up at safe injection sites. Your basis for saying that sovereignty over one's body doesn't exist or else they would be allowed to commit suicide and/or shoot up - and they ARE ALLOWED to commit suicide and shoot up at safe injection sites. That basically voids your argument, based on your claim that 'women are not allowed' to do these things. You don't even have that entitlement - let alone the right - to give consent, to have someone assist you! One is allowed to commit suicide, but having someone assist is a different matter - doing something to yourself and someone else doing it are two very different things. As for safe injection site(s), it seems there's only one which the government had tried to shut down! Again, just because it remains open does not mean shooting up heroin had become a right? Of course not. "Sovereignty over one's body" was never the factor why the court granted it to remain open. They are still "allowed" to do it - per Supreme Court ruling, which overruled "the government." Remember. "Allowed" is your word; you said if it's a right, then one is "allowed" to do it. That's what I mean. See? Everything suddenly becomes a right! If it's declared legal to do it, then one has the right to do it. Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 5, 2012 Report Posted June 5, 2012 When? What do you want to determine? When society was relatively absolutist or when it became absolutely relativist? I think it was June 27, 1984...exactly! It may be an honest question (IYO) but surely it's not a serious one. Yes, it was a very serious question. In my opinion, society has always been "narcissistic, desensitized, uncaring, and relativist"....plainly you disagree, so I'd be interested in hearing when such qualities were not omnipresent. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
betsy Posted June 6, 2012 Report Posted June 6, 2012 (edited) Let me remind you exactly what you said, which is what I replied to: "Sovereignty right over woman's body does not exists. No such right. Otherwise they'd be allowed to shoot up ....or commit suicide if they choose to do so. As I pointed out, it isn't against the law to commit suicide - which means one IS ALLOWED to commit suicide. Are you going to argue otherwise? Seriously? Furthermore, as I said, people ARE ALLOWED to shoot up at safe injection sites. Your basis for saying that sovereignty over one's body doesn't exist or else they would be allowed to commit suicide and/or shoot up - and they ARE ALLOWED to commit suicide and shoot up at safe injection sites. That basically voids your argument, based on your claim that 'women are not allowed' to do these things. Check out my boldened statement. I am saying that sovereignty over a woman's body is not a right. As for the way I made my statement with the usage of the word "allowed," I stand corrected. I should've been more precise. However, though my statement was poorly articulated, it still doesn't alter the fact that there is no such right. One is allowed to commit suicide, but having someone assist is a different matter - doing something to yourself and someone else doing it are two very different things. They are still "allowed" to do it - per Supreme Court ruling, which overruled "the government." Remember. "Allowed" is your word; you said if it's a right, then one is "allowed" to do it. If it's declared legal to do it, then one has the right to do it. With the safe injection site that was allowed to continue, the reason why it was allowed to continue was not due to "having the sovereignty right to your own body." Let's not forget the reason we're talking about suicide: SOVEREIGNTY OVER WOMAN'S BODY. If you've got the right to do anything to your own body, I'm sure you'd be entitled to give your consent to a doctor to assist you, should you want to terminate it. But, apparently not. Edited June 6, 2012 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted June 6, 2012 Report Posted June 6, 2012 Yes, it was a very serious question. In my opinion, society has always been "narcissistic, desensitized, uncaring, and relativist"....plainly you disagree, so I'd be interested in hearing when such qualities were not omnipresent. It is irrelevant when exactly it changed. What's relevant is the way it is now vis-a-vis the discussion. The fact is it doesn't matter how long or how consistently that society had existed. The fact that it exists now is the problem. I guess I'm just shocked by some of the responses here that practically says, "yes I know it's human, but so what?" Quote
kimmy Posted June 6, 2012 Report Posted June 6, 2012 If "moral relativism" is such a bad thing, how come we no longer haul disrespectful youths to the town square and stone them to death as the ancient laws command? -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
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.