The death industry for the disabled, mentally ill, and poor is ramping up in Canada

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

Well, we’re the same…. I just can understand why a woman would want an abortion for many reasons beyond rape.  And I don’t judge her. 
 

But, for the rape exception, does someone have to be found guilty first?

Stop.  Unwanted sex is unwanted sex.  Unwanted pregnancy is unwanted pregnancy.  The limits discussed on here relate to time frame.  In an ideal world people have the self-control and judgment such that there are no unwanted pregnancies, but most people make bad choices and have weaknesses.  

[Army Guy]

27 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

And if there is a lack of evidence of rape, but someone still did the raping, you would force a woman to carry a fetus.  Do you think there should even be an exception for rape?

In todays world, really no evidence, no DNA... I'm pretty sure a medical professional would be able to tell if a women had violet sex or not. And the police would have a report on file.  Not reporting it as a rape would be the tricky part.

Yes i do believe there should be exceptions, Rape being one of them , of if the girl is way to young 16 or younger...but everyone else yes i think there should be a very good reason other than Opps sorry i did not have one of the millions of preventive aids with me...or to lazy to get one, or could not afford one...and using abortion as a fail safe to having irresponsible sex. 

[TreeBeard]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Stop.  Unwanted sex is unwanted sex.  Unwanted pregnancy is unwanted pregnancy.  The limits discussed on here relate to time frame.  In an ideal world people have the self-control and judgment such that there are no unwanted pregnancies, but most people make bad choices and have weaknesses.  

Answer the question….  Does a rapist need to be found guilty before an exception can be made and the woman can abort?

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

In todays world, really no evidence, no DNA... I'm pretty sure a medical professional would be able to tell if a women had violet sex or not. And the police would have a report on file.  Not reporting it as a rape would be the tricky part.

So a doctor and/or police, as long as the woman tells them she was raped would be enough for her to get an abortion?

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Yes i do believe there should be exceptions,

Do you give the woman a lie detector test?  
 

Your moral viewpoint equates to: murdering babies is ok sometimes.  
 

Murdering babies just because a woman is raped…. How do you people live with yourselves?  That’s no excuse to murder babies!  Next you’ll be allowing abortions on demand!  It’s a slippery slope, y’know…. 

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

So a doctor and/or police, as long as the woman tells them she was raped would be enough for her to get an abortion?

Do you give the woman a lie detector test?  
 

Your moral viewpoint equates to: murdering babies is ok sometimes.  
 

Murdering babies just because a woman is raped…. How do you people live with yourselves?  That’s no excuse to murder babies!  Next you’ll be allowing abortions on demand!  It’s a slippery slope, y’know…. 

Nope.  It’s never fine.  It’s an understandable choice people make when in distress and after being violated.  You won’t even draw a line of a time limit on the development of a fetus into a viable baby.  I definitely consider your position to be in support of murder. 

[Zeitgeist]

7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Answer the question….  Does a rapist need to be found guilty before an exception can be made and the woman can abort?

Stupid question.  A woman knows when she’s been violated.  I don’t rely on courts to define that for a woman.  You’re the guy who lets government define morality for you.  

[TreeBeard]

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Nope.  It’s never fine.  It’s an understandable choice people make when in distress and after being violated.  You won’t even draw a line of a time limit on the development of a fetus into a viable baby.  I definitely consider your position to be in support of murder. 

I don’t care…. It’s between a woman and her doctor.  There are plenty of medical “restrictions “ already in place in Canada on when and how to perform abortions.  I certainly have nothing of value to add to a medical procedure any more than my opinion on when to amputate a leg.  
 

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Stupid question.  A woman knows when she’s been violated.  I don’t rely on courts to define that for a woman.   

Then rapes will go up 4000%.  Do you give them lie detector tests? 
 

It’s like you give zero thought to how any of this would work in the real world. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by TreeBeard

[blackbird]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Stupid question.  A woman knows when she’s been violated.  I don’t rely on courts to define that for a woman.  You’re the guy who lets government define morality for you.  

If it is rape, the law should force the guy to pay all expenses to raise the child until it reaches 21 years of age or be sent to the gulag for 21 years of labour.  The money from forced labour could be used to pay the expenses. But no abortions.  It is time the law toughened up in these cases.

[Army Guy]

27 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

So a doctor and/or police, as long as the woman tells them she was raped would be enough for her to get an abortion?

Do you give the woman a lie detector test?  
 

Your moral viewpoint equates to: murdering babies is ok sometimes.  
 

Murdering babies just because a woman is raped…. How do you people live with yourselves?  That’s no excuse to murder babies!  Next you’ll be allowing abortions on demand!  It’s a slippery slope, y’know…. 

You said in other posts that the law will protect you, I'm sure after an investigation, has proven it was a rape, then yes an abortion could be approved...

No my moral view point is this, Abortions should not be preformed because most cases women failed to or were to lazy about taking precaution's , why should a fetus be punished with death becasue a couple were careless or stupid. 

Like i said there is exceptions to every rule, Rape or being to young then yes, then termination is acceptable. I'm sure the women does not want to be reminded everyday of her rapist. what is no excuse is the amount of abortions every year in this country becasue it is convenient. 

 

[TreeBeard]

11 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I'm sure after an investigation, has proven it was a rape, then yes an abortion could be approved...

How long do you think it takes for charges to be pressed and these trials take?  Months at a minimum?  Years?  So you want to wait years before a woman can abort?  As I said earlier….  You’re missing any sense of how this could ever apply to the real world.

Edited September 3, 2022 by TreeBeard

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’re the guy who lets government define morality for you.  

Says the totalitarian who wants the government to enforce a morality he happens to subscribe to.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Answer the question….  Does a rapist need to be found guilty before an exception can be made and the woman can abort?

A person who rapes someone has raped someone, whether or not found guilty in court.  It’s an impertinent question.  Rape is wrong.  A woman who is raped has the right under the law to an abortion (whether or not rape is established by the court) and that isn’t what’s being debated here.  You don’t think there should be any limits on abortion no matter how far along a pregnancy is.  I disagree strongly with that.  My position is clear.  Abortion is wrong because it falls short of ideal morality, but I can understand how in exceptional circumstances women would seek an abortion and I don’t judge the woman who makes that decision.  The discussion was around the question of limits, both on the timing of an abortion and on the question of whether active euthanasia is acceptable, including for people with mental health problems.  You have avoided defending your carte blanche position on these issues by talking about exceptional situations like rape.  I’m not fooled for a second.  

Edited September 3, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Says the totalitarian who wants the government to enforce a morality he happens to subscribe to.

What is moral to you and what is the basis of your morality?   The courts?  Trudeau?   Lol

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

I don’t care…. It’s between a woman and her doctor.  There are plenty of medical “restrictions “ already in place in Canada on when and how to perform abortions.  I certainly have nothing of value to add to a medical procedure any more than my opinion on when to amputate a leg.  
 

Then rapes will go up 4000%.  Do you give them lie detector tests? 
 

It’s like you give zero thought to how any of this would work in the real world. 

Nope.  You have a foolish trust of government and court decisions.  Government policies and laws don’t define morality.  So if a woman is raped and the court doesn’t convict and decide it’s rape, then a rape never happened?   There’s legal authority and moral authority.   

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

What is moral to you and what is the basis of your morality?

Calling out totalitarians.

[Zeitgeist]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Calling out totalitarians.

So glad you’re looking in the mirror and reflecting on this.  Admitting you have a problem is half the battle.  

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

You have a foolish trust of government and court decisions.  Government policies and laws don’t define morality.  So if a woman is raped and the court doesn’t convict and decide it’s rape, then a rape never happened?   There’s legal authority and moral authority.   

No, I would leave it between the woman and her doctor.  No need for any government intervention whatsoever.  

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

No, I would leave it between the woman and her doctor.  No need for any government intervention whatsoever.  

Yet you trust human authorities to discern when it’s fine to kill a person (MAID) and place zero limits on when a doctor can perform abortion, including up to the day of the expected delivery date (full term 9 months).  You give outsized rights to a pregnant mother and zero rights to the unborn.  You trust that legislation that allows the mentally ill to be put down won’t be abused or lapse into the unethical, even though there are already cases of this and the more lenient euthanasia legislation hasn’t gone into effect yet.

Just remember that you support these positions.

I know that we’re on the wrong track with these policies because the opportunity for abuse is too great and the protections for the vulnerable are too weak.

You’re very trusting of doctors with this power to kill, a recent phenomenon in medicine that contradicts the Hippocratic Oath to help prevent illness.

I understand that government, courts, and doctors lack moral authority and we’re in the realm of the less than ideal, but don’t pretend that it is ideal and that these authorities possess great virtue.

This is why many people didn’t trust the judgment of the authorities to discern public health policy that imposed extreme restrictions and mandates during the pandemic, and it’s why constitutional rights matter. All individual rights matter, not just the rights of your preferred groups.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

So glad you’re looking in the mirror and reflecting on this.  Admitting you have a problem is half the battle.

I'd only be totalitarian towards governments and you know that but you just can't acknowledge that can you?

[Zeitgeist]

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'd only be totalitarian towards governments and you know that but you just can't acknowledge that can you?

Maybe.  Not sure about you, Eyeball.  

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Maybe.  Not sure about you, Eyeball.  

It's strictly your own mind tricking you. You're like yzermandious where totalitarianism is always the end result no matter what.

It reminds me of the dilemma some physicists are faced with when their equations keep yielding the answer infinity.  They need to face the reality that it's not their answer that's wrong it's the questions they're asking and calculating that are wrong.    

 

[Zeitgeist]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's strictly your own mind tricking you. You're like yzermandious where totalitarianism is always the end result no matter what.

It reminds me of the dilemma some physicists are faced with when their equations keep yielding the answer infinity.  They need to face the reality that it's not their answer that's wrong it's the questions they're asking and calculating that are wrong.    

 

No I think you’re a one trick pony with the ban on in camera lobbying and your pass for all other bad policy.  

[eyeball]

35 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

No I think you’re a one trick pony with the ban on in camera lobbying and your pass for all other bad policy.  

What pass for all other bad policy are you talking about? Which policies specifically?

[RedDog]

I note we’ve certainly steered away from getting rid of the poor and disabled agenda in Canada, the pretend country.

Save Alberta.

[dialamah]

17 hours ago, Army Guy said:

preformed because most cases women failed to or were to lazy about taking precaution's ... Murdering babies just because a woman is raped….

 You must hate women; they're stupid, lazy and will randomly murder for any reason.