betsy Posted July 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 (edited) I am doing no such thing. You are, not me. It is you who wishes the pregnant to have no other alternative but murder, not I. Not at all! A pregnant woman could very well choose to continue bearing the child and giving birth. I do not advocate removing that option nor even inhibiting that option in any way at all. I wonder where the hell you got the idea that I wish to eliminate her other choices? If you are Pro-Choice, you do promote the murder of the child. You promote that there is no other alternative other than to murder the infant. If you think there is a better alternative other than murder.....you wouldn't be for Pro-Choice! To say that pro-choice is for choice.....is ludicrous anyway. The person who's getting murdered is never given any choice in the matter at all! His own mother had made the choice to take the risk of getting pregnant by having sex! Your position is that Abortion should be a criminal act and the pregnant must remain so no matter what. So what need of counselling ? In your world: none, or maybe the counsel of a lawyer. A distraught and confused woman who's thinking of murder.....is in need of counselling! Of course, if abortion is a criminal act........there wouldn't be abortion on-demand! Edited July 23, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 If you are Pro-Choice, you do promote the murder of the child. You promote that there is no other alternative other than to murder the infant. But it isn't murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 A distraught and confused woman who's thinking of murder.....is in need of counselling! Of course, if abortion is a criminal act........there wouldn't be abortion on-demand! Abortion isn't a criminal act so stop talking as if it is. Abortion is a legitimate healthcare need for women who are not distraught or confused. They are very much in control of their bodies and their lives. They are making a grown up decision and don't need the likes of people like you casting your judgement calls of murderers. Enough already. Get a grip Betsy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 But it isn't murder.And you're not promoting it either, as you've said numerous times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 Abortion isn't a criminal act so stop talking as if it is. Abortion is a legitimate healthcare need for women who are not distraught or confused.Abortion is a moral question to goes to core of how someone sees the meaning or purpose of life. It is not a 'healthcare need' any more than 'assisted suicide' is a healthcare need. The word murder has a moral sense in addition to legal sense. It is reasonable for people to use either as the basis for their claim. For example, when a cop kills a suspect many call it murder even if the law says otherwise. Do you argue that such people are wrong too? My personal opinion is the government has no business getting involved on moral questions and should leave the decision to the individuals affected. But that does not change my view that there is no *right side* in this debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) But it isn't murder. It isn't recognized as murder right now. Abortion is legalized. That's what pro-life is fighting to change. Don't ever think the fight is over. Edited July 24, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 The "fight" is over.... The religious are becoming fewer and fewer... BC is now 44% Christian and 44% non-religious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 It isn't recognized as murder right now. Abortion is legalized. That's what pro-life is fighting to change. Don't ever think the fight is over. The fight is over because, as you point out, abortion is legalized and not murder. So, y'see, Pro choice is in fact rational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpwozney Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 ... abortion is legalized ... What law made abortion legal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 Don't ever think the fight is over.Do you think that everyone has to be Christian? Is not why not? If I am correct I am assuming that you can accept that not everyone needs believe in your religion then why should everyone believe in your view of when life starts? Allowing individuals to make the choice that is right for them is the only reasonable government response on abortion given how these views are simply an extension of one religious beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) What law made abortion legal?What law makes getting a tooth filling legal?Another thing I can't believe that needs to be explained.... If there is no law prohibiting something, then it is legal to do. Edited July 24, 2016 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpwozney Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 If there is no law prohibiting something, then it is legal to do. Killing a child, before the child is born, is contrary to New Testament Christian law. Romans 13:9 states "Thou shalt not kill". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 Killing a child, before the child is born, is contrary to New Testament Christian law. Romans 13:9 states "Thou shalt not kill". So what? Canada doesn't use the bible as the criminal code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpwozney Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 So what? "For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment." James 2:11-13 (KJV) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 "For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment." James 2:11-13 (KJV) Still don't care.... The bible has no weight with respect to Canadian law. Quoting scripture is not making your argument any stronger, in fact, it's making your argument much weaker if all you can do is quote scripture to support your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) "For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment." James 2:11-13 (KJV) Sure, but we should no more be basing our lives on what that book said than we should be thinking the meaning of it all is 42, just because the HHGTTG said so. “The Answer to the Great Question... Of Life, the Universe and Everything... Is... Forty-two,' said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.” Edited July 24, 2016 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 "For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment." James 2:11-13 (KJV) All religious texts have sanctions against murder. Humans of any culture or religion have always had rules regarding who could or could not be *legally* killed, and they are all roughly similar: "Do not kill people of your own tribe, or you will suffer serious consequences." That the Bible also contains sanctions is against murders is no proof that our particular legal system is based in any way on the Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpwozney Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 Quoting scripture is not making your argument any stronger, in fact, it's making your argument much weaker if all you can do is quote scripture to support your argument. In this topic thread, I have not yet made an argument. Instead, so far in this topic thread, I have asked a question, made a couple of correct statements about scripture, and have quoted scripture. The question which I asked, which so far lacks a satisfactory answer in this topic thread, is: "What law made abortion legal?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 In this topic thread, I have not yet made an argument. Instead, so far in this topic thread, I have asked a question, made a couple of correct statements about scripture, and have quoted scripture. The question which I asked, which so far lacks a satisfactory answer in this topic thread, is: "What law made abortion legal?" There is no law that makes eating boiled eggs legal, so far as I know. But I just ate two. With toast, no less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpwozney Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 There is no law that makes eating boiled eggs legal, so far as I know. But I just ate two. With toast, no less. In this topic thread, it was claimed that "... abortion is legalized ...". So my question, in reaction to the above claim, is: "What law made abortion legal?". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 In this topic thread, it was claimed that "... abortion is legalized ...". So my question, in reaction to the above claim, is: "What law made abortion legal?". Generally speaking, something is legal if it is not illegal. Abortion is not illegal, therefore it is legal, yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 "What law made abortion legal?". no law made abortion legal. A series of laws that made abortion a criminal act were struck down. The laws that made abortions illegal were removed from the books. Thus abortions were no longer illegal. Just for fun - Lifesite summarizes the position nicely: Morgentaler was charged in 1983 with performing ‘illegal abortions’ after opening English Canada’s first abortion clinic in Toronto. His case reached the Supreme Court of Canada in 1986. In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled in Morgentaler’s favor, striking down the existing abortion law for procedural reasons on the grounds that such law threatened a women’s “security of person,” which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. although I think their 'procedural reasons' claim is bogus since the learned judges held that 'security of person' in the charter made the laws against abortion invalid. That 'procedural reasons' claim is an attempt to make the courts decision sound like some sort of oversight that needs to be fixed. But the apparently confusing concept of something that was illegal now no longer being illegal and no law being passed to make it so is concisely summed up in the quote. http://https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/morgentaler-decision-turns-25-a-day-of-shame-for-canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted July 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) The fight is over because, as you point out, abortion is legalized and not murder. So, y'see, Pro choice is in fact rational. If we can change laws (as what we've seen done to the unborn)....you bet, that can be changed too! It's not an easy battle. There's one thing that could be on the pro-life advantage: religion. Don't think that it's only Christians who are against abortion. If all religious groups (and secularist pro-lifers), come together to push for this, I don't know what opportunistic politician wouldn't suddenly become pro-life! The only reason why abortion is legal is due to liberal-leaning judges! Edited July 24, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 If we can change laws (as what we've seen done to the unborn)....you bet, that can be changed too!I could be, but it won't be because lawmakers are rational. Just like how gay marriage never led to people marrying their dogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.