blackbird Posted March 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) Removed that comment. Edited March 9, 2017 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 12 minutes ago, BillyBeaver said: @dia Exactly my point, if a women wanted to protect herself from pregnancy, she can take appropriate measures as well. Once the union is made and a zygote is produced, I submit that that unique entity has a right to grow as the joint act of coitus is designed to produce it. If not, then parents should have the right to jointly choose to terminate their children at any time. It's time to decide whether children are the genetic property of their parents or whether they are individual entities with individual rights. Our current system wants the best of both but the consequences of neither. having the womb-holder with 50% of the spawn's genetic property having 100% of the reproductive rights is unjust and shows a distinct gender bias based off of unchangeable biology I think that since the woman is the only one taking on the physical aspects of said pregnancy, including any short-term or long-term health risks, then her preference should hold sway. If a man uses a condom, then he significantly lowers the risk of impregnating a woman who may have made an honest mistake in terms of her birth control, or who may have unilaterally decided that it was time he became a father, whether he wishes it or not. If men want to control their biological destiny, they have choices to make before they insert penis into vagina. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 10 minutes ago, BillyBeaver said: The problem is that natural selection isn't as prevalent as it was even as recently as 100 years ago due to medical advancements and abundance of food. Pakistanis are still marrying their first cousins and north africans/middle east have the lowest average IQs in the world. I don't want a bunch of knuckle draggers anchoring our social safety nets. I want healthy intelligent innovators with fresh ideas and perspectives and something to contribute to the prosperity of Canada. Hey, I just read very similar stuff on that alt-right Radix Journal site! Imagine - you and they saying almost exactly the same kind of thing! I'm gobsmacked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBeaver Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 Lol, no, you are taking men's choices away by giving all of the reproductive rights to the female who contibutes an equal share of genetic material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBeaver Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 1 minute ago, dialamah said: Hey, I just read very similar stuff on that alt-right Radix Journal site! Imagine - you and they saying almost exactly the same kind of thing! I'm gobsmacked! Marrying your first cousin because of cultural tradition is extremely short-sighted and ignorant. it also creates cripples that can't function in society. sue me for being pragmatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altai Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 Abortion is murder. Noone has right to put an end to an innocent life. This just confuses me when the baby has a potential of mental or physical disabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 The only genetic property right we have is our own, and that right begins at birth. Participating in consensual sexual intercourse however obligates us to care for any resulting offspring until they have gained independence (yes hard to define). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altai Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: The only genetic property right we have is our own, and that right begins at birth. Participating in consensual sexual intercourse however obligates us to care for any resulting offspring until they have gained independence (yes hard to define). Your rights begins with the beginning of your life. Does not matter whether or not you are aware of your rights. Your rights are always exist. You have your rights even while you are a vitamin in an orange, maybe not as a human but as an orange tree, as a living thing. Edited March 9, 2017 by Altai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 10 hours ago, blackbird said: Well, there are a certain number of Conservatives who are pro life. I don't know the number. I think the NDP is universally pro abortion or pro choice as they prefer to be called. But with Trudeau's policy, almost every Liberal MP must be pro abortion. Trudeau demonstrates his fanatical pro abortion views by making it a requirement for any Liberal member to be pro abortion. There is no tolerance for an opposing view on this issue in Trudeau's worldview. I am not sure where is he is coming from on this or why. I don't agree with Trudeau's approach, but it's his party. It's his prerogative to decide what policies his wants his MPs to support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 9 hours ago, blackbird said: If you asked the unborn child whether he or she wishes to be aborted, what do you think the answer would be? It's a fetus, so I highly doubt it'd respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 2 hours ago, ?Impact said: The only genetic property right we have is our own, and that right begins at birth. Participating in consensual sexual intercourse however obligates us to care for any resulting offspring until they have gained independence (yes hard to define). So anyone who has consenting sex should have to deliver the baby? It doesn't matter if they took steps not to get pregnant and still did? Government should play a role in making sure people have safe sex and understand steps to take so they don't get pregnant by accident. As well, as making sure people have access to birth control and what not. They should also make sure that people understand that there are other options besides abortion. Nobody *wants* to get an abortion, nor do they want to see others get one. However, women should still have the right to decide if it's the best option for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 8 hours ago, BillyBeaver said: Lol, no, you are taking men's choices away by giving all of the reproductive rights to the female who contibutes an equal share of genetic material. LOL, why am I not surprised that you think a man shouldn't take responsibility for his own semen? Don't have sex, or use a condom, and men do not have to face the lack of choice inherent in foolishly giving away their 'property'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannuck Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 As usual, the dogmatic politically opposed poles simply dig into their trenches and mindless spew pure BS on this topic. To anyone with any kind of biological education (or an ounce of common sense), it is obviously that "life" does not begin at "birth". Similarly, while the fusion of sperm and egg do indeed form a genetically unique, living creature, the concept that this is full blown "human" life is quite a stretch. What is still missing from the issues around both the beginning of "life" and the END of "life" is a very clear definition. Do that and "choice" becomes very easy to define for everyone involved. Since the largest problem the planet has is the 700% increase in population over the last century, killing off or preventing birth of the totally unsustainable numbers of homo sapiens might seem like not such a bad idea. Personally, though, I would prefer to see that accomplished by preventing birth, not terminating what is as yet well defined as a viable life. In the meantime, I have no problem with LNG-EC being used within the time of efficacy. At the other end of "life", more than half of one's lifetime medical costs usually occur during the last few months in the event of illness. Getting a humane and realistic grasp on this problem could restore some dignity and sanity to the whole business (and that's what it is all about - making $$$$ from what will do little but delay the inevitable). Sadly, I have to remark that the old school eugeneticists had some pretty good points. Our increase in general wellness and economic success means that people who would have been hard pressed to enter into reproductive union or survive to that point in their life. Worse yet, global economic conditions now mean that cultures that still practice as much reproduction as possible are now encouraged by the promise of foreign aid to continue to reproduce in economic, climatic and political situations that would otherwise limit population growth. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannuck Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, cannuck said: You haven't had much experience with this topic, I can tell. ANY parent can tell you that a fetus responds very clearly to all kinds of stimuli from the mother and their environment. You could ask the same question 6 months after birth, and you would still not get a vocalized response, so what is your point??? Does life not begin until the child can quote from Shakespear? Edited March 9, 2017 by cannuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 10 hours ago, blackbird said: We live in a parliamentary democracy where laws are enacted and courts rule on such issues... The highest court has ruled that it is a Constitutional right. Clearly, you don't really care what courts say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Newfoundlander said: So anyone who has consenting sex should have to deliver the baby? It doesn't matter if they took steps not to get pregnant and still did? Go back and read what I wrote. How you deduce that from what I wrote is a complete mystery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 2 hours ago, The_Squid said: The highest court has ruled that it is a Constitutional right. Clearly, you don't really care what courts say. Yes, the Supremes have spoken. Deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 14 hours ago, blackbird said: Feminism describes itself as being the champion of women's rights, which to many if not all feminists, means abortion on demand. Those who believe in the sanctity of life are rejected by the majority of parliamentarians. The PM has even gone so far as to ban any pro life person from becoming a Liberal candidate or MP. To him there is no place in our Canadian parliament for anyone who opposes abortion. Baloney. You're spouting the common vacuous and unimaginative nonsense that prolifers rep[eat endlessly. In fact, feminists as a group support the right of women to choose to get an abortion, or not to get an abortion. Abortions are not mandatory. Fortunately, paying any attention to the misrepresentation of prolifers is not only not mandatory, it is not required at all in Canada today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 The question I would like to ask the pro-lifers is that as they obviously would ban abortion if it were up to them how would they deal with women who have travelled abroad to get an abortion? In Europe there are three countries where abortion is either totally banned or very restricted: Ireland, Malta and Poland. The Polish women travel to Germany to get an abortion, the Maltese women travel to Italy and the Irish travel to Britain. I read somewhere that as recently as the 70's the Irish women who returned to Ireland after having an abortion in Britain could face very serious legal consequences. That's why many of them didn't return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted March 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 3 hours ago, The_Squid said: The highest court has ruled that it is a Constitutional right. Clearly, you don't really care what courts say. I have to admit I believe a court's rulings are not unlimited. It stems from the fact that as a christian I believe what the Bible says about the sanctity of life and God's law is a higher law than men. In the same way a tyrannical dictator such as Hitler would not have to be obeyed and his court ordering death to Jews could have been ignored. A court cannot rule for example, that everyone over a certain age can be euthanized. The Supreme Court does have God ordained powers but those powers are limited by a higher law. In other words Supreme Court rulings are made by mortal men who can be in error and often are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 1 hour ago, blackbird said: I have to admit I believe a court's rulings are not unlimited. It stems from the fact that as a christian I believe what the Bible says about the sanctity of life and God's law is a higher law than men. In the same way a tyrannical dictator such as Hitler would not have to be obeyed and his court ordering death to Jews could have been ignored. A court cannot rule for example, that everyone over a certain age can be euthanized. The Supreme Court does have God ordained powers but those powers are limited by a higher law. In other words Supreme Court rulings are made by mortal men who can be in error and often are. First off: LOL Second: How about non-Christians, is it okay for them to get abortions then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 4 hours ago, ?Impact said: Go back and read what I wrote. How you deduce that from what I wrote is a complete mystery. Oh, you're talking about after someone gives birth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 1 hour ago, blackbird said: It stems from the fact that as a christian I believe what the Bible says about the sanctity of life and God's law is a higher law than men. Which is exactly why we need to take the supremacy of God out of the Constitution. To stop fanatical Christians and Muslims (and others) from dictating the laws of society based on scriptures written thousands of years ago by men. 6 minutes ago, Newfoundlander said: Oh, you're talking about after someone gives birth? I was trying to be very clear - nobody owns anybody else, there are no genetic property rights. There are however obligations placed upon us due to biology. Examples relating to boys: You get a girl pregnant then if a chid is born you have an obligation (as equally does the girl) to take care of that child until it is able to take care of itself. You get a girl pregnant, you do not get to demand she either abort or give birth to a child. Examples related to girls: You bear a child then you have an obligation (as equally does the boy) to take are of that child until it is able to take care of itself. Those are the black and white areas, now comes all the grey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted March 9, 2017 Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 I think you Canadians should leave this fanatical rage about abortions to the Americans; They are much better at it and have more experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted March 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2017 3 hours ago, overthere said: Baloney. You're spouting the common vacuous and unimaginative nonsense that prolifers rep[eat endlessly. In fact, feminists as a group support the right of women to choose to get an abortion, or not to get an abortion. Abortions are not mandatory. Fortunately, paying any attention to the misrepresentation of prolifers is not only not mandatory, it is not required at all in Canada today. Nobody said abortions are mandatory. Paying for them through taxes for the public health care system is mandatory for all taxpayers. 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.