Anti Abortion Not Dead in Canada

[Peter F]

A human is no longer disposable once they are born...less'n of course you happen to be standing by a suspected terrorist when a drone is on its way. You're completely disposable then too

[guyser]

I don't listen to or respect the religious and legal mumbo-jumbo. No matter how vigorously some may try to rationalize otherwise, the fact is, at the moment of conception there is human life , a living human life.

So you dont listen or respect legal decisions.

Ok ,makes sense since they would be opposite to what you wrote.

Whatever yuou think, or want to ignore is fine by me, but the only fact to consider is it is a womans right to do as she pleases with her body.Thats the only fact in this equation

[Sandy MacNab]

So you dont listen or respect legal decisions. A

Ok ,makes sense since they would be opposite to what you wrote. B

Whatever yuou think, or want to ignore is fine by me, but the only fact to consider is it is a womans right to do as she pleases with her body.Thats the only fact in this equation C

A - The courts have been making a lot of goofy decisions in a wide range of topics.

B- True, they are generally spear carriers for the politically correct and rather than interpret the law (their real job) they try to make the law.

C- No, the real issue is - does one ever have the right to kill another human being in a peaceful, non-threatening situation. When the woman in question kills the kid because it is an "inconvenience" that is not a case of justifiable homicide.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Sandy MacNab

[Jeff M]

A fetus isn't a human being until it becomes a human being and is born. Otherwise, where's the problem in killing it? The rabid right would have people facing the death penalty for spilling the seed if we let them get away with it!

It is absolutely essential to kill an unwanted fetus before it's born, otherwise that's bad.

There's the point at which the debate should begin!

[cybercoma]

I hate it when pro choice says a fetus is not a human. Of course it's a human. Abortion is also a difficult and deeply personal decision, which is why the state shouldn't force a woman to have an animal growing inside her guts when she doesn't want it there.

[bush_cheney2004]

Millions of organisms necessarily live and grow inside our guts, and the state has nothing to do with it.

When it comes to fetuses, so called pro-choice abortion supporters must dehumanize the unborn until birth or face an erosion of "abortion rights" beyond fetal viability.

Edited June 13, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

Millions of organisms necessarily live and grow inside our guts, and the state has nothing to do with it.

You're conveniently ignoring some really important distinctions, even substituting my use of the word "animal" for the word "organism". But then this is what you do most of the time isn't it? Trolling with strawmen, semantics, and pedantry.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're conveniently ignoring some really important distinctions, even substituting my use of the word "animal" for the word "organism". But then this is what you do most of the time isn't it? Trolling with strawmen, semantics, and pedantry.

You choose your words.....and I choose mine. Here is an interesting (faked ?) photo to help clarify what I mean about "fetuses" vs. "animals" or "organisms":

Edited June 13, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

When it comes to fetuses, so called pro-choice abortion supporters must dehumanize the unborn until birth or face an erosion of "abortion rights" beyond fetal viability.

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/346Notes3_files/teratogen%20chart.jpg

if your intended point was to speak to, as you say, "fetal viability", what's the point of your image that specifically addresses the affects of alcohol on a fetus (i.e., fetal alcohol syndrome)? Perhaps you should provide something useful to discuss... like legal based viability, or medical based viability, or scientific based viability, etc..

[Black Dog]

No, the real issue is - does one ever have the right to kill another human being in a peaceful, non-threatening situation. When the woman in question kills the kid because it is an "inconvenience" that is not a case of justifiable homicide.

Sure it is. In this case, the thinking, walking around, fully sentient human being trumps the other thing.

[bush_cheney2004]

if your intended point was to speak to, as you say, "fetal viability", what's the point of your image that specifically addresses the affects of alcohol on a fetus (i.e., fetal alcohol syndrome)? Perhaps you should provide something useful to discuss... like legal based viability, or medical based viability, or scientific based viability, etc..

Oh, that's easy...I just wanted a quick and dirty graphic of fetal development regardless of birth defects or syndrome. Actually, now that you've taken the usual time to protest, I like the idea even more as those types of "unborn children" are subject to even more abortions. Thanks !

Edited June 13, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Oh, that's easy...I just wanted a quick and dirty graphic of fetal development regardless of birth defects or syndrome. Actually, now that you've taken the usual time to protest, I like the idea even more as those types of "unborn children" are subject to even more abortions. Thanks !

a 'quick & dirty graphic'??? Really? If you discount your bumbling attachment to fetal alcohol syndrome, what does your image speak to about your emphasis on, as you say, "fetal viability"? And what definition of viability are you using/referencing again, hey?

[Jeff M]

I hate it when pro choice says a fetus is not a human. Of course it's a human. Abortion is also a difficult and deeply personal decision, which is why the state shouldn't force a woman to have an animal growing inside her guts when she doesn't want it there.

It's a fetus, not an animal in the sense you use the term. But in any case, it's not even an animal until it's born and women have the right to snuff it out before that. Try to keep religious bias out of it. The life of the woman and her wellbeing trumps that medieval crap.

[bush_cheney2004]

a 'quick & dirty graphic'??? Really? If you discount your bumbling attachment to fetal alcohol syndrome, what does your image speak to about your emphasis on, as you say, "fetal viability"? And what definition of viability are you using/referencing again, hey?

You are over-thinking this again (as usual) ...it was a hasty graphic posted to demonstrate fetal development by number of weeks. "Viability" was intended to refer to survival sans four star accommodations inside the mother's/surrogate's uterus. Other nations are beginning to reign in "abortion rights" unless the life of the mother is at stake based on such concepts, but you already knew that.

[waldo]

You are over-thinking this again (as usual) ...it was a hasty graphic posted to demonstrate fetal development by number of weeks. "Viability" was intended to refer to survival sans four star accommodations inside the mother's/surrogate's uterus. Other nations are beginning to reign in "abortion rights" unless the life of the mother is at stake based on such concepts, but you already knew that.

no - I'm not over-thinking anything... I work with the feeble offerings you provide. Your definition of viability is meaningless; even less so when correlated with your stooopid image. When does your suggested viability, your "survival without/separate from the uterus", begin - exactly?

other nations? What nations - specifically?

[cybercoma]

It's a fetus, not an animal in the sense you use the term. But in any case, it's not even an animal until it's born and women have the right to snuff it out before that. Try to keep religious bias out of it. The life of the woman and her wellbeing trumps that medieval crap.

What religious bias? If the fetus isn't an anima, what is it then? A mineral? A vegetable? Of course it's an animal. It's a human being even. That's totally irrelevant to the debate though.

[bush_cheney2004]

no - I'm not over-thinking anything... I work with the feeble offerings you provide. Your definition of viability is meaningless; even less so when correlated with your stooopid image. When does your suggested viability, your "survival without/separate from the uterus", begin - exactly?

other nations? What nations - specifically?

The Vatican ?

[waldo]

The Vatican ?

excellent - always worth it to show you've got nuthin! But again: When does your suggested viability, your "survival without/separate from the uterus", begin - exactly?

[bush_cheney2004]

excellent - always worth it to show you've got nuthin! But again: When does your suggested viability, your "survival without/separate from the uterus", begin - exactly?

Are you really going to continue this silly tangent when it is obvious that several nations ban abortions outright (except in certain cases) and/or limit abortions beyond certain gestational periods? Legally, it begins whenever the law says so. Medically, it begins when the developing technology supports it. Being a cabbage patch 'preemie' myself at 30 weeks and just under 4 lbs (1.8 kg to you) nearly 60 years ago, I am a striking testament to the miracles of modern medicine, don'tcha think ?

Sorry, abortion was quite illegal then, even in Canada, so you are stuck with me !

[waldo]

Are you really going to continue this silly tangent when it is obvious that several nations ban abortions outright (except in certain cases) and/or limit abortions beyond certain gestational periods? Legally, it begins whenever the law says so. Medically, it begins when the developing technology supports it.

the silly tangent you describe begins with your nonsensical images. You said 'other nations are beginning'... again, which nations - and what relevance do they (whichever nations they are???) have on Canada, or your (claimed) country?

you seem to be going to great lengths to avoid actually declaring your personal view on the subject you initiated - fetal viability. Is there a problem?

[bush_cheney2004]

the silly tangent you describe begins with your nonsensical images. You said 'other nations are beginning'... again, which nations - and what relevance do they (whichever nations they are???) have on Canada, or your (claimed) country?

you seem to be going to great lengths to avoid actually declaring your personal view on the subject you initiated - fetal viability. Is there a problem?

No, there is no problem. My stance on abortion has been clearly stated here many times....my modest position is only that abortions be recognized for what it is....the sanctioned "killing" of a "human" life. Other nations and U.S. states have revisited abortion laws in view of fetal viability whether you wish to believe it or not (from the Land of the Magic Vagina).

Fetal viability as "personhood" criteria is not a new concept. Nevertheless, it represents a serious threat to pro-abortionists as a slippery slope to more "heinous" restrictions on the war against the unborn (love the rhetoric ).

Canada is probably the most "liberal" and binary jurisdiction when it comes to abortions, wherein a full term child must make it to the finish line for legal protection(s). No exceptions...not even the Infield Fly Rule.

[scribblet]

I think Canada is the only country to not have any abortion law at all. I don't see how anyone can object to limits on late term abortions.. e.g. 24 weeks..

[cybercoma]

I think Canada is the only country to not have any abortion law at all. I don't see how anyone can object to limits on late term abortions.. e.g. 24 weeks..

Because it creates needless complications and barriers to extremely personal and time-sensitive decisions. No one that has a late term abortion, which is practically no one anyway, makes that decision lightly.

Edited June 13, 2013 by cybercoma

[waldo]

No, there is no problem. My stance on abortion has been clearly stated here many times....my modest position is only that abortions be recognized for what it is....the sanctioned "killing" of a "human" life. Other nations and U.S. states have revisited abortion laws in view of fetal viability whether you wish to believe it or not (from the Land of the Magic Vagina).

you keep avoiding your own introduced concept - viability. Yes, you've finally acknowledged a couple of viability references... but continue to avoid answering the direct question put to you concerning your position on viability. Again, now for the 3rd time: When does your suggested viability, your "survival without/separate from the uterus", begin - exactly? And... what is it based upon?

Fetal viability as "personhood" criteria is not a new concept. Nevertheless, it represents a serious threat to pro-abortionists as a slippery slope to more "heinous" restrictions on the war against the unborn (love the rhetoric ).

huh! Now you're onto "personhood". By all means, that's a real winner position Republicans/Teabaggers are hot for - wanting to declare personhood at conception. You should really play that for all it's worth!

[cybercoma]

waldo, at what point do you say to yourself, "this person isn't interested in having an honest discussion" and let it go?