Christian fundamentalist lunatics in the conservative party equate Abo

guyser · February 15, 2013

That's not at all what I had posted.

The words are there and yours, it is what you said.

Putting limits on abortions isn't an attack, it's being reasonable and prudent. I say lets talk about it openly, candidly, responsibly and reasonably as adults.

Putting limits on is restricting a womans right to choose what is done with her body and against her wishes.Either a woman has right to her body or not.

Of course this late term abortion thing is pretty much a canard as it is so rarely done it renders it moot.

Edited February 15, 2013 by guyser

jbg · February 15, 2013

We're on the same page here for sure. Murder is definitely not the correct term but the pro life camp always uses it and it turns people off, including myself.

The Jewish version of the "murder" prohibition in the Ten Commandments is actually "thou shalt not murder" as opposed to "thou shalt not kill". This is primarily but not solely for the purpose of making military and self-defense killings non-sins.

I don't think it's only Christian fundamentalists but they are the loudest and arguably the most powerful opposition to abortion in North America. Reasonable limits should be set but I doubt any politician has any desire to even talk about this issue, certainly not the current government at any rate.

The pro choice camp sees any limits at all the same as an outright ban on abortion and I'm not sure why they do but that's what they scream any time someone tries to talk about it. I don't see how ending late term and live abortions is an attack on a woman's right to choose, I really don't. We have limits in place for all sorts of things, this shouldn't be any different. Surely 4-5 months is enough time for a woman to decide if she wants to bring the child to full term.

Want to read that back to yourself?

Try it this way...: I dont see how placing a limit on a womans right to choose is an attack on a womans right to choose."

Thats what you said. Now what?

People have a right to drive, but that right is conditioned on observance of speed limits, traffic control devices, etc. Even the U.S.'s "free speech" does not allow falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or publishing dates of military transport ship sailings. Many rights have limits, or consequences for exceeding obvious metes and bounds of those rights.

It is hard to conduct a rational discussion where parties are screaming and not listening.

guyser · February 15, 2013

People have a right to drive,

No they dont.

Many rights have limits, or consequences for exceeding obvious metes and bounds of those rights.
It is hard to conduct a rational discussion where parties are screaming and not listening.

No one is screaming so why post that?

Some rights have limits due to factors that can harm others. Consider it public safety.

A womans choice harms no person.

Michael Hardner · February 15, 2013

Of course this late term abortion thing is pretty much a canard as it is so rarely done it renders it moot.

That seems to be the last remaining argument. But, my question is - if that's the case then why not put a ban in place ? It would settle the political question - a classic compromise.

guyser · February 15, 2013

That seems to be the last remaining argument. But, my question is - if that's the case then why not put a ban in place ? It would settle the political question - a classic compromise.

Unless a woman finds out quite late that the fetus she carries is not right .

Then what? She is forced to carry. My opinion...?...not way.

Michael Hardner · February 15, 2013

Unless a woman finds out quite late that the fetus she carries is not right .

Then what? She is forced to carry. My opinion...?...not way.

What if she finds that out after the fetus is born ? She doesn't have the same options then as she does in the first trimester either.

There should be limits to these options, and they are put on by society not decided by the individual.

guyser · February 15, 2013

What if she finds that out after the fetus is born ? She doesn't have the same options then as she does in the first trimester either.

Nothing she can do without infringing on someone elses rights.

The baby now has full rights. Anything she does now will come with criminal consequences.

There should be limits to these options, and they are put on by society not decided by the individual.

Why should a woman, and only a woman, not have full rights to her body? A man has full rights and no restrictions. The law cannot force you to donate a kidney to your brother.

Michael Hardner · February 15, 2013

Why should a woman, and only a woman, not have full rights to her body? A man has full rights and no restrictions. The law cannot force you to donate a kidney to your brother.

You're keeping a dogmatic definition of what is a human. That makes everything very neat and tidy, legally, but human life doesn't work that way. I for one don't think that a human attached to another by an umbilical chord is not a human until it is cut.

cybercoma · February 15, 2013

You're keeping a dogmatic definition of what is a human. That makes everything very neat and tidy, legally, but human life doesn't work that way. I for one don't think that a human attached to another by an umbilical chord is not a human until it is cut.

By definition the zygote/embryo/fetus is human from the time of conception. It's also irrelevant.

Michael Hardner · February 15, 2013

By definition the zygote/embryo/fetus is human from the time of conception. It's also irrelevant.

Exactly. This is why the stepwise definition of life as such has no utility for society as a whole. Everybody can tell that a fertilized egg and a baby about to be born are not the same thing - so why do some pro-choice and pro-life people argue that very thing.

cybercoma · February 15, 2013

Because pro-choice people think it gives ammunition to pro-life people to recognize fetuses as humans. They're certainly not dogs. It's a moot point anyway.

bush_cheney2004 · February 15, 2013

Exactly. This is why the stepwise definition of life as such has no utility for society as a whole. Everybody can tell that a fertilized egg and a baby about to be born are not the same thing - so why do some pro-choice and pro-life people argue that very thing.

Because one group thinks it is perfectly OK to kill babies, and the other group doesn't.

scribblet · February 15, 2013

That seems to be the last remaining argument. But, my question is - if that's the case then why not put a ban in place ? It would settle the political question - a classic compromise.

I agree, it is a great compromise. The problem for the conservative gov't is one of perception. If they did enact legislation in line with other countries ( a ban at 20 - 24 weeks) it would give the left the 'secret agenda' ammunition and could undermine the rest of their successful path to economic prosperity.

Having said that, I think they will win the next election but it will be the last, because by then most voters want a change of gov't. I would use the next majority term to push through that legislation. It won't mean a thing because doctors won't perform them anyway (except for life or death ).

Michael Hardner · February 16, 2013

Because pro-choice people think it gives ammunition to pro-life people to recognize fetuses as humans. They're certainly not dogs. It's a moot point anyway.

That's a pretty cynical approach then. Politics is supposed to be about solving problems and compromising.

Michael Hardner · February 16, 2013

If they did enact legislation in line with other countries ( a ban at 20 - 24 weeks) it would give the left the 'secret agenda' ammunition and could undermine the rest of their successful path to economic prosperity.

And Cybercoma is saying that not resolving the problem with a compromise prevents the RIGHT from getting an advantage.

This is how we get gridlock - neither side wants to change because there is a risk of losing political ground. All of this overthinking and overstrategizing is a symptom of a system where the voters are seen as cannon fodder rather than intelligent sentient beings.

I suspect if the debate was whether or not voters should be aborted, right and left would agree to do it.

ironstone · February 16, 2013

Christian fundamentalist lunatics in the conservative party equate Abortion with Murder. Its sad the Cs would have to go to such a low denominator for political gain.

http://www.theglobea...article8095284/

I believe Muslims(plenty of them in Canada)strongly oppose abortion too.Do you consider them lunatics as well or do they get a pass?

scribblet · February 16, 2013

I believe Muslims(plenty of them in Canada)strongly oppose abortion too.Do you consider them lunatics as well or do they get a pass?

Not to mention that this issue is being used for political gain by the opposition.

roy baty · February 16, 2013

I for one don't think that a human attached to another by an umbilical chord is not a human until it is cut.

Anyone who disagrees with this really has to search their heart and decide what kind of human they really are. If they are human at all.

Bonam · February 16, 2013

I for one don't think that a human attached to another by an umbilical chord is not a human until it is cut.

Of course the entities on both sides of the umbilical cord are human. However, if one of them doesn't want to be attached to the other by the cord anymore, why should the government have the power to tell them they aren't allowed to cut it?

jbg · February 16, 2013

By definition the zygote/embryo/fetus is human from the time of conception. It's also irrelevant.

Because one group thinks it is perfectly OK to kill babies, and the other group doesn't.

Why must everything be all or nothing?

roy baty · February 16, 2013

Listen to "Emryonic Journey" by Jefferson Airplane sometime. Funny how the same generation that produced such a beautiful song so contradicts the general view the same generation and this generation accepts today. That journey has a lot of potential roadblocks nowadays doesn't it? There is a silent holocaust taking place in our society and a shrinking minority few give a crap about it... The Nazis believed the Jews were inconvenient just as much as many mothers believe that bearing an unwanted child is incovenient. What does that say about us as a society? You decide if that is the so-called progress you want from the left.

Yeah, yeah I am sure I will be chastized for paralleling the Jewish holocaust w/abortion... and frankly I don't care because there is a blatant basic connection outlned above between the two that is very apparent.

Edited February 16, 2013 by roy baty

WWWTT · February 16, 2013

It has little to do with Christian fundamentalists or so-called lunatics.

You said it,not me!

WWWTT

WWWTT · February 16, 2013

You're keeping a dogmatic definition of what is a human. That makes everything very neat and tidy, legally, but human life doesn't work that way. I for one don't think that a human attached to another by an umbilical chord is not a human until it is cut.

I think what you mean to say is that until the "chord is cut",the baby is not given the same rights as any other human???

If the baby is not human,then what kind of life form is it?

WWWTT

WWWTT · February 16, 2013

Because one group thinks it is perfectly OK to kill babies, and the other group doesn't.

A human that is two or three years old can be defined by some as a baby.

You are twisting the definitions of words to fit your right wing agenda.

Nice try,but once again,you've been called out!

Classic BC

WWWTT

Michael Hardner · February 16, 2013

I think what you mean to say is that until the "chord is cut",the baby is not given the same rights as any other human???

If the baby is not human,then what kind of life form is it?

WWWTT

Some believe that fewer rights should be given in that situation.