Abortion revisited

[betsy]

For many religious people, they are tantamount to the same thing. I mean, what's the difference between aborting a seven week old fetus and destroying a fertilized egg that would become a fetus in seven weeks? If the fetus is deserving of the exact same rights as a person, isn't a potential fetus worthy of the same consideration?

Sure, celibacy is effective when it's practiced, but there's the rub (as it were). What's your point?

Because many religious groups are.

yada-yada-yada. There you go chasing your tail again.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

An Ontario MP, former lawyer, wants to have a debate on when is a embryo defined as human being.

Edited June 1, 2012 by betsy

[Wilber]

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that everyone was a fetus at one point and that it has absolutely zero bearing on this debate, such as it is.

Many would like that to be so but in fact, it is the only reason there is a debate at all.

[waldo]

What's the difference between her and a drunk-driver who knowingly drives the car and killing someone in the process?

That's for the law to decide.

Bingo!

That's what re-opening the debate is all about.

perfect bingo! For what any single poll/survey is worth, an extended series of them gives some 'barometer' of public view... at best, you're speaking for ~30% who register a positive want to 'reopen the debate'. You could suggest the majority of that number might prefer varying degrees of regulation... from outright banning to graduated allowance based on fetus development. Alternatively, some % of that ~30% would like a debate if for no other reason than to push back on those they consider 'fringe elements' advocating for abortion banning/regulation.

if you'd indulge, a few questions:

- the little I've read back in this thread, I expect your posts reflect your desire for an outright ban on abortion - yes?

- would you accept a law change that only applied a law targeted towards 'late-term' abortion? If yes, would you still continue 'the debate' advocating for a complete banning on abortion?

- given your zeal, I expect this subject to be paramount in your political leanings and allegiance, most certainly suggesting you support Harper Conservatives as the only party that might presume to take up your 'cause/open debate' - yes? If yes, why do you view Harper Conservatives, Harper in particular, as being unwilling to 'open (your) debate'?

[betsy]

[/indent]

perfect bingo! For what any single poll/survey is worth, an extended series of them gives some 'barometer' of public view... at best, you're speaking for ~30% who register a positive want to 'reopen the debate'. You could suggest the majority of that number might prefer varying degrees of regulation... from outright banning to graduated allowance based on fetus development. Alternatively, some % of that ~30% would like a debate if for no other reason than to push back on those they consider 'fringe elements' advocating for abortion banning/regulation.

if you'd indulge, a few questions:

- the little I've read back in this thread, I expect your posts reflect your desire for an outright ban on abortion - yes?

- would you accept a law change that only applied a law targeted towards 'late-term' abortion? If yes, would you still continue 'the debate' advocating for a complete banning on abortion?

- given your zeal, I expect this subject to be paramount in your political leanings and allegiance, most certainly suggesting you support Harper Conservatives as the only party that might presume to take up your 'cause/open debate' - yes? If yes, why do you view Harper Conservatives, Harper in particular, as being unwilling to 'open (your) debate'?

First I'd like the re-opening of the debate - this time with the help of science - to determine when life as a human begins.

And as I've said before, what I believe as a Christian shouldn't concern non-believers. I don't think the courts will listen based on faith alone either. Partisanships shouldn't matter either. After all aren't Conservatives and Liberals/NDP aghast at animal cruelty?

We all should uphold human rights. All humans deserving the same rights. That's what we all should ensure.

Edited June 1, 2012 by betsy

[waldo]

First I'd like the re-opening of the debate - this time with the help of science - to determine when life as a human begins.

And as I've said before, what I believe as a Christian shouldn't concern non-believers. I don't think the courts will listen based on faith alone either. Partisanships shouldn't matter either. After all aren't Conservatives and Liberals/NDP aghast at animal cruelty?

We all should uphold human rights. All humans deserving the same rights. That's what we all should ensure.

you emphasize science... and human... I interpret your presumption on science aiding your want to, 'open the debate' - that you interpret present day science to align with your desired debate outcome. What current science are you relying upon?

again... if you'd indulge:

if you'd indulge, a few questions:

- the little I've read back in this thread, I expect your posts reflect your desire for an outright ban on abortion - yes?

- would you accept a law change that only applied a law targeted towards 'late-term' abortion? If yes, would you still continue 'the debate' advocating for a complete banning on abortion?

- given your zeal, I expect this subject to be paramount in your political leanings and allegiance, most certainly suggesting you support Harper Conservatives as the only party that might presume to take up your 'cause/open debate' - yes? If yes, why do you view Harper Conservatives, Harper in particular, as being unwilling to 'open (your) debate'?

[betsy]

you emphasize science... and human... I interpret your presumption on science aiding your want to, 'open the debate' - that you interpret present day science to align with your desired debate outcome. What current science are you relying upon?

again... if you'd indulge:

I don't know what current science will be called upon to help in this matter. But that's the understanding I got from the news clips I've watched about the desire to re-open the debate. They want to involve science.

The invention of ultrasound - which was quite a while ago - had actually got one of the founding fathers of abortion to reject abortion and become an activist for pro-life. He went further to produce a documentary called The Silent Scream.

Ultrasound showed the fetus feeling pain, and trying to evade the instrument that was tearing it up into pieces.

Edited June 1, 2012 by betsy

[Black Dog]

I don't know what current science will be called upon to help in this matter. But that's the understanding I got from the news clips I've watched about the desire to re-open the debate. They want to involve science.

The invention of ultrasound - which was quite a while ago - had actually got one of the founding fathers of abortion to reject abortion and become an activist for pro-life. He went further to produce a documentary called The Silent Scream.

Ultrasound showed the fetus feeling pain, and trying to evade the instrument that was tearing it up into pieces.

That old chestnut?

[guyser]

I am glad Betsy supports abortion in some form.

The morning after pill will take a fertilized egg/fetus that has embedded in the uterus and flush it out.

Never fails when one comes from a religious viewpoint , they in the end get confused and contradictory.

[betsy]

That old chestnut?

Who?

[waldo]

I don't know what current science will be called upon to help in this matter. But that's the understanding I got from the news clips I've watched about the desire to re-open the debate. They want to involve science.

your posts suggest an authoritative foundation behind them - wanting to rely on science while not knowing what science... or whether science will support you... calls to question your (authoritative) foundation.

The invention of ultrasound - which was quite a while ago - had actually got one of the founding fathers of abortion to reject abortion and become an activist for pro-life. He went further to produce a documentary called The Silent Scream.

Ultrasound showed the fetus feeling pain, and trying to evade the instrument that was tearing it up into pieces.

that 'documentary' 1985 film is hardly current science... and is questionable science, if science at all. Clearly, you should realize your opponents would have ready-reach countering information to that film's questionable science (premise):

Planned Parenthood - The Facts Speak Louder than “The Silent Scream”

[betsy]

I am glad Betsy supports abortion in some form.

The morning after pill will take a fertilized egg/fetus that has embedded in the uterus and flush it out.

Never fails when one comes from a religious viewpoint , they in the end get confused and contradictory.

Well, go back and read again. Carefully. And understand what's being said.

And don't skip postings. You gotta read all the exchanges between me and American Woman when she dared raise the pregnancy-by-rape card! Hah!

[guyser]

Well, go back and read again. Carefully. And understand what's being said.

Ok

....it will truly be a dim-witted woman who will refuse to run to the nearest clinic after getting raped! Taking that pill before 72 hours surely sounds more convenient than having to go through all the pains of abortion!

You support it !

Edited June 1, 2012 by guyser

[BubberMiley]

Well, go back and read again. Carefully. And understand what's being said.

Why don't you just answer the question? Do you or do you not believe the morning-after pill would be appropriate for a 12-year-old victim of incest? You implied that you did, but I suspect you can feel the fires of hell heating up your eternal soul after you made that comment.

[betsy]

your posts suggest an authoritative foundation behind them - wanting to rely on science while not knowing what science... or whether science will support you... calls to question your (authoritative) foundation.

that 'documentary' 1985 film is hardly current science... and is questionable science, if science at all. Clearly, you should realize your opponents would have ready-reach countering information to that film's questionable science (premise):

Planned Parenthood - The Facts Speak Louder than “The Silent Scream”

Is that the best you can do?

About Planned Parenthood

Are you ready to hear the truth?

Planned Parenthood works hard to position itself as a health care provider helping women and couples to plan their families. Behind that facade is the real Planned Parenthood, whose true mission is to prevent the births of children, especially "certain" children, holding true to the model of founder Margaret Sanger, a racist and eugenicist.

In fact, Planned Parenthood is the biggest abortion provider in the nation, accounting for more than a quarter of all U.S. abortions and a third of abortions performed in Minnesota. This is true despite its false claim that only 3% of its services are abortion related (see the video below). The truth is that Planned Parenthood means abortion. And by the way, it doesn't offer mammograms, either, despite touting itself as a leading resource for breast cancer prevention and diagnosis.

In addition to targeting racial minorities, Planned Parenthood targets teens. It strives to replace parents as the expert on sexuality. The organization counsels teens to reject their parents' views about sexuality and encourages teens to adopt a more modern view. Why? Because when their substandard contraceptives fail, teens return to Planned Parenthood for abortions—the most profitable part of the business.

Planned Parenthood places teens at risk by covering up cases of rape, incest and even forced teen prostitution. These are a few of the reasons why people believe that Planned Parenthood is undeserving of public funding. Taxpayers currently provide hundreds of millions of dollars annually to fund its exploitative operations, and state after state is defunding them.

http://www.mccl.org/page.aspx?pid=835

Some quotes from the founder:

Margaret Sanger

Founder of Planned Parenthood

In Her Own Words

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race

(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Copyright © 2001 Diane S. Dew www.dianedew.com

Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:

Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:

Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

More....

So Nazi-like, isn't it?

Edited June 1, 2012 by betsy

[waldo]

Is that the best you can do?

oh... my! I clearly labeled Planned Parenthood as 'your opponent'. I also chose not to pull out easy cut&paste segments that most clearly would take us down the more technical/'science' path... the path you openly advocate for... yet openly acknowledge you know diddly squat about.

would you like to head down that technical/'science' path? Well... would you?

[Black Dog]

Is that the best you can do?

Some quotes from the founder:

So Nazi-like, isn't it?

Instead of attacking the source, why don't you look at the actual meat of the matter? To wit:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement on Pain of the Fetus:

We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy.

[betsy]

your posts suggest an authoritative foundation behind them - wanting to rely on science while not knowing what science... or whether science will support you... calls to question your (authoritative) foundation.

Perhaps the reason my posts suggest an authoritative foundation behind them is simply the fact that most of my claims have an authoritative back-up?

I was not simply spouting off uninformed opinion....not plucking them from trees or out of thin air either.

And going back to your comment here....

your posts suggest an authoritative foundation behind them - wanting to rely on science while not knowing what science... or whether science will support you... calls to question your (authoritative) foundation.

Just what do you think a debate is? If I know that science will support us, and how it will support us....don't you think I wouldn't have smugly posted it here on the board in details and gloated about it?

At least give me credit for being open-minded enough to want to go to the process of having a debate about it. Stepping out of the box to know....isn't that pro-active?

Open-minded? Reasoned?

Gee, the way you guys are clinging so tightly to your walls one would think it's you who are

so-called religious. just so strange....

What exactly are you so afraid of?

Edited June 1, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Instead of attacking the source, why don't you look at the actual meat of the matter? To wit:

Well, the source is very, very ,very questionable, don't you think so?

When the founder starts spouting of something like superior race.....boy, Hitler's Nazi all-over again! To boot, Mengele resurrected!

Okay fair nuf. give the link on your source and I'll read it.

[Black Dog]

Just what do you think a debate is? If I know that science will support us, and how it will support us....don't you think I wouldn't have smugly posted it here on the board in details and gloated about it?

At least give me credit for being open-minded enough to want to go to the process of having a debate about it. Stepping out of the box to know....isn't that pro-active?

Open-minded? Reasoned?

Gee, the way you guys are clinging so tightly to your walls one would think it's you who are

so-called religious. just so strange....

What exactly are you so afraid of?

Your history here has shown you to be totally uninterested in debate or an exchange of ideas. that's why we all see your calls for debate on this issue to be the sham that it is. It's about getting your foot in the door of the issue in hopes of pushing it open wider to let in your fellow anti-choicers. If there was an actual debate using science (and the scientific debate doesn't stop just because the legislative debate has gone silent), you'd do what you always do: ignore the stuff that contradicts your established beliefs and push any dubious garbage that supports it.

[betsy]

oh... my! I clearly labeled Planned Parenthood as 'your opponent'. I also chose not to pull out easy cut&paste segments that most clearly would take us down the more technical/'science' path... the path you openly advocate for... yet openly acknowledge you know diddly squat about.

would you like to head down that technical/'science' path? Well... would you?

What's wrong with cut-and-paste? Unless you can't defend it.

Was it Planned Parenthood? Perhaps that's why Harper Government refused to fund it? Wasn't there a story like that in the news? I'm not sure....

[Black Dog]

Well, the source is very, very ,very questionable, don't you think so?

When the founder starts spouting of something like superior race.....boy, Hitler's Nazi all-over again! To boot, Mengele resurrected!

Okay fair nuf. give the link on your source and I'll read it.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are Nazis?

Margaret Sanger has been dead for decades and has nothing to do with the science. Another distraction.

[waldo]

Perhaps the reason my posts suggest an authoritative foundation behind them is simply the fact that most of my claims have an authoritative back-up?

I was not simply spouting off uninformed opinion....not plucking them from trees or out of thin air either.

you have opinions, you presume on the informed nature of them... which allows you to posture authoritatively. Extending beyond the reach of your (presumed informed) opinion, into the technical/'science' you forcefully advocated for, you openly acknowledge your authority is lacking/wanting.

is this an example of your (presumed informed) authoritatively founded opinion?

Is that the best you can do?

So Nazi-like, isn't it?

when all you have is your opinion, chastising others while doing an end-around reach for self-declared 'open-mindedness and reason' belies your self-declaration!

can I try one last time... as you said, "what are you afraid of" in answering the following:

if you'd indulge, a few questions:

- the little I've read back in this thread, I expect your posts reflect your desire for an outright ban on abortion - yes?

- would you accept a law change that only applied a law targeted towards 'late-term' abortion? If yes, would you still continue 'the debate' advocating for a complete banning on abortion?

- given your zeal, I expect this subject to be paramount in your political leanings and allegiance, most certainly suggesting you support Harper Conservatives as the only party that might presume to take up your 'cause/open debate' - yes? If yes, why do you view Harper Conservatives, Harper in particular, as being unwilling to 'open (your) debate'?

[betsy]

Your history here has shown you to be totally uninterested in debate or an exchange of ideas. that's why we all see your calls for debate on this issue to be the sham that it is. It's about getting your foot in the door of the issue in hopes of pushing it open wider to let in your fellow anti-choicers. If there was an actual debate using science (and the scientific debate doesn't stop just because the legislative debate has gone silent), you'd do what you always do: ignore the stuff that contradicts your established beliefs and push any dubious garbage that supports it.

Quit hyperventilating and rewind back a bit. Can you explain how my history here on this forum has anything to do with the real issue of re-opening the debate?

[betsy]

you have opinions, you presume on the informed nature of them... which allows you to posture authoritatively. Extending beyond the reach of your (presumed informed) opinion, into the technical/'science' you forcefully advocated for, you openly acknowledge your authority is lacking/wanting.

Then refute! What's stopping you from refuting? Why would you let my so-called, "authoritative posture" as you called it, somehow, by the sound of it, intimidate you? That's not my problem, is it?

That's what a discussion or a debate is all about! Argue. Rebutt. Defend. Refute.

is this an example of your (presumed informed) authoritatively founded opinion?

Well it does sounds similar. Go the the thread NATURE OF EVIL by Jonsa.

when all you have is your opinion, chastising others while doing an end-around reach for self-declared 'open-mindedness and reason' belies your self-declaration!

Now we descend to adhominem.

can I try one last time... as you said, "what are you afraid of" in answering the following:

And I gave you my answer to that. I take it you didn't like it.

Edited June 1, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are Nazis?

Margaret Sanger has been dead for decades and has nothing to do with the science. Another distraction.

The link?