Abortion revisited

[bleeding heart]

It is irrelevant when exactly it changed. What's relevant is the way it is now vis-a-vis the discussion.

No, because your statement about the narcissism, the desensitization, and the moral relativism of society is based on the notion that at one time, things were not this way.

Further, you said that "relativism" is messing up "our kids." But if we had always been narcissistic and relativistic (which we have been), then we would all have been messed up, always. Which, for all I know, is indeed the case...but it's not something new, thanks to liberals, or secularists, or feminists, or unwed teens, or whatever other monstrous evil you're worried about.

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.

Your whole argument is about how our current state of affairs is a bad mistake--thanks to "relativism" and so on--which plainly implies that we need to go back to when we weren't like this.

Maybe, as Kimmy says, back to the days when ancient laws dictated all sorts of brutal behaviours; or maybe back to the halcyon days of the 1950s, which somehow has assumed an ehthereal, magical quality, when Dad worked, Mom baked cookies, kids played stickball with a sense of fair play....

You know, the "good society" that is a product of sheer fantasy.

I guess I'm just shocked by some of the responses here that practically says, "yes I know it's human, but so what?"

Not at all. But your argument here, and elsewhere, is always predicated on the idea that secularism, feminism, liberalism, and Planned Parenthood are what has damaged us; which means that things were better before these sinister forces came about.

So I'm asking you: prove it.

That's not an unreasonable request.

[Topaz]

Apparently from the following report Harper or PMO is telling MP's who want to open a discussion on abortion NOT to do it because it would appear to question Harper's leadership because of the campaign promise not to open the topic. Well, this should be interesting to watch. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/06/20120605-183408.html

[Guest American Woman]

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.

I repeat. Suicide and assisting in suicide are two different things. You have the right to put a bullet in your head, but someone else doesn't have the right to do it - even if you request it. Do you see how they are two different things?

[guyser]

I am saying that sovereignty over a woman's body is not a right.

Say it all you want, you will still be wrong.

Security of Person, Sec 7 , Cdn Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Dont understand how you can keep trotting out an obvious falsehood.....well I guess I can , but no need to trot out the why's is there?

[cybercoma]

I repeat. Suicide and assisting in suicide are two different things. You have the right to put a bullet in your head, but someone else doesn't have the right to do it - even if you request it. Do you see how they are two different things?

One is sovereignty over one's own body and the other is having sovereignty over someone else's body?