The horrors of abortion which our governments support

[User]

54 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

My argument is based on evidence. Yours is not.

Which part of mine demands evidence?

55 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Men can get their d***s wet and bail and evade child support.

So, you support killing 5-year-olds if men bail on child support for them?

What does this point of yours have to do with anything?

56 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Women should have a lawful exit ramp as well, should she choose to do so, lawfully.

Bailing on child support is not a "lawful" exit ramp. There is no "as well" here. Speaking of child support though, if men want nothing to do with the child, you cool with them not paying child support?

57 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You have failed to prove that women are better off, with their abortion rights removed. In fact, statistics prove they literally are not.

This was never a point of the discussion to prove. But, back to killing 5 year olds... if a woman is better off killing her 5 year old, are you cool with that?

What does this point of yours have to do with anything?

58 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You posting sensationalist arguments equating the life of an undeveloped fetus to a fully developed and born child, is purely emotional, to distract from the fact you have no legit argument. You wouldn't need to rely on histrionics if you did.

It is not sensationalist to point out the stupidity of your arguments, like those I just responded to above, if applied to a 5 year old are destroyed, as we are talking about killing a human life. 

59 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I think your lack of evidence to support your points speaks for itself.

Be specific. Which points?

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

You're failing to support your argument. Its purely emotional and opinion. 

How so? Be specific. Which argument?

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

You are a master at deflection. Yet to support any of your arguments.

You literally have nothing to bring tot he table, other than putting yourself on the shoulder, because your argument can't do it for you.

What did I deflect from? Be specific. What didn't I support, be specific. 

I pick apart every one of your lame responses.

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

You can deflect all you wish.

You missed all this, once again you ignore my posts because they destroy your silly comments:

"

A fetus the moment before birth doesn't feel any pain. You are not serious, you can't argue well, you can't defend the things you say, so you resort to this garbage. 

Seriously, you do not need a medical study to admit that one second before birth a fetus can feel pain just as it could one second after birth. 

This is basic logic man. "

[Guest]

Just now, User said:

So, you support killing 5-year-olds if men bail on child support for them?

Like I said. Your argument is disingenuous, because you have nothing to bring to the table.

10 minutes ago, User said:

It is not sensationalist

You're avoiding providing any cites for your stances. 

Its not only sensationalist,  but propagandist in nature. Your facts would otherwise speak for themselves, which is why you're conveniently omitting any and trying to deflect and conflate context to support your losing argument.

12 minutes ago, User said:

I pick apart every one of your lame responses.

You keep telling yourself this, but have zero evidence, other than you trying to force words into my mouth and deliberately playing with context to support your propaganda.

If your points were rock solid, you could stand on them as is, without deflecting or hiding them under layers of gaslighting, histrionics, and essentially telling me how you "picked me apart" while bringing nothing of such nature to the debate.

Self awareness isn't your strength.

15 minutes ago, User said:

You missed all this

My initial point was clearly siding with Canadian laws, which have specific time frames which I have cited as to acceptable means to terminate a pregnancy, where it is medically proven to feel no pain.

I made it clear, clarified and even posted cites. 

You pulling away from this, is you deliberately trying to murky waters.

[Guest]

On 8/4/2024 at 3:54 AM, Perspektiv said:

Human fetuses cannot feel pain at a certain level of its development. 

A Canadian abortion is considered legal, below that threshold.

Posting the initial post, for those who are color blind or took the short school bus.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, User said:

A fetus the moment before birth doesn't feel any pain.

So you're saying I have never been specific about the timing where they feel no pain?

This is how you're "destroying" my argument?

[User]

59 minutes ago, Boges said:

I'd have to concede, I'm not sure. I can see the case being made that a human is a human. But I think at early forms of development. Especially in the first 10 weeks, there's little difference between a fetus, embryo, sperm or egg. 

This is not complicated. You clearly do have a point where you believe life begins. As I asked you before, do you consider yourself to be a human life? I presume yes. So... trace that back to when you are not sure, then you have the moment where you are sure. 

But even then... if you are trying to say you are not sure when the unborn child is a human life, why wouldn't we error on the side of caution then? Protect human life. 

1 hour ago, Boges said:

No, but should it be banned when there could be plenty of reasons to end a fetus' life due to the health of the mother? 

I have said before here and will say in any discussion I am in, when two rights to life conflict, only one can win. Yes, if the life of the mother is at stake, then an abortion is her choice if she wants to risk her life or not. 

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Like many say, it should be the decision of the mother because it's 100% dependent on the mother for survival. No one can step in to help like if a newborn is abandoned. 

No one can step in to help if a newborn is abandoned in the woods, or a trash can, or anywhere else... if no one is there to help. 

Being dependent on the mother for survival doesn't change between an unborn or born child. That isn't an excuse to then kill the unborn for the mere convenience of it nor a reason to say the unborn is not a human life with any right to life. 

1 hour ago, Boges said:

But they are human. And member blackbird seems to include embryos in his definition of life. See how hard it is to get agreement on this? 

This is a circular argument... you are trying to use your own disagreement as justification for how hard this is. The fact that people on the Pro-Choice side are just fine with killing unborn children for the mere convenience of it and it is difficult to convince them otherwise is not a valid reason to then say this disagreement is justification for it. That is circular. 

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Here's a question for you. What's your line. Do you think contraception that prevents an embryo from being viable is also immoral? 

I think "contraception" that does something AFTER conception to kill the unborn is wrong. That is no longer "contraception" anymore. 

 

[User]

7 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

So you're saying I have never been specific about the timing where they feel no pain?

This is how you're "destroying" my argument?

I am saying you were not in the comment I initially responded to and I gave you a chance to be more clear. You chose to play these games instead. 

Your comment:

"You have yet to show evidence a fetus feels pain."

Part of my initial response:

"Do you really need me to show you evidence for that? Really? Or care to adjust your statement here?"

I was quite reasonable in my response to you. You chose to continue down this path of absurdity. 

[User]

28 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Like I said. Your argument is disingenuous, because you have nothing to bring to the table.

No, you bringing up child support is disingenuous. Which is why you refuse to answer the question. 

Child support means nothing in whether it should be OK or not to kill the unborn child. So, why bring it up?

29 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You're avoiding providing any cites for your stances. 

Which ones need them, be specific.

30 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

other than you trying to force words into my mouth and deliberately playing with context to support your propaganda.

Be specific. What words did I force into your mouth? What did I play with context on to support what propaganda?

You have almost nothing left but these vague assertions that are meaningless because you can't directly respond to me as I am picking your comments apart. 

31 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

where it is medically proven to feel no pain.

Here you go again. What does pain have to do with anything? What is the point of using that as some measurement for when it is OK to kill the unborn child?

Again, you can make a 5 year old feel no pain. Is it OK to kill them for the mere convenience of it as long as it is painless?

 

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, User said:

Again

[User]

3 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

...

LOL, I have reduced you to memes. You can't answer the questions or directly respond. 

[Guest]

Just now, User said:

LOL

My thoughts exactly.

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Only thing missing after that, is "alahu akbar" and "death to America".

If you self narrated that in an Arabic accent, you're not only out of touch, but inherently prejudiced, to boot.

You know quite well that my comment refers to killing pre-born babies.  Men or women do not have the right to kill pre-born babies.  There is no such thing as a woman's right over her body if what you really mean is a right to kill the baby in her womb.  You are playing with words loosely and crookedly. 

The Biblical teaching that pre-born babies are persons and the commandment "thou shalt not kill" has nothing to do with Islam.  Therefore the statement that women have no blanket right over their bodies to kill their babies is not Islamic.  It is a bare-faced lie to equate Biblical Christianity with Islam.

Edited August 9, 2024 by blackbird

[Guest]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Men or women do not have the right to kill pre-born babies.

Sure we do. Its even legal in Canada.

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

There is no such thing as a woman's right over her body if what you really mean is a right to kill the baby in her womb. 

She has rights over her reproductive health.

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

The Biblical teaching

I couldn't care less about the Bible  and hope any lawmakers deciding the future of women's reproductive health, don't either. The sole focus, should be based on data that is in the best interest of the woman.

The Bible isn't data.

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, User said:

Again, you can make a 5 year old feel no pain. 

Unless they are Benjamin Button, a 5 year old doesn't regress until they are a 24 week pregnancy.

[User]

9 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The sole focus, should be based on data that is in the best interest of the woman.

Is that where your sole focus was, where your wife's sole focus was, when you had your kids?

Were they just clumps of cells and meaningless to you guys until the moment of birth?

 

Just now, Perspektiv said:

Unless they are Benjamin Button, a 5 year old doesn't regress until they are a 24 week pregnancy.

Are you unaware of all the various painkillers and anesthetics we have?

The point continues to be, that your continued insistence on using pain as some kind of determining factor in what makes killing unborn children OK is meaningless. You can make anyone not feel pain and kill them. 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, User said:

The point continues to be

You saying that's the only threshold I presented, is you blatantly lying.

Trolling. Distracting.

You have no argument. 🤭

Thanks for coming out.

[Aristides]

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Sure we do. Its even legal in Canada.

We know that it is legal in Canada.  You are saying nothing new on this discussion.  The whole point of this topic is to point out the depravity of Canadian governments allowing abortion.

 

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

She has rights over her reproductive health.

Historically, what is right and wrong comes from the western world's Judeo-Christian heritage.  That is why we have laws against murder, and Charter Rights to protect basic freedoms of the individual.

So where did this so-called "rights over her reproductive health" come from?  Perhaps you could give the history of this claim.  I don't think there is historically any such thing as the right to kill one's baby before it's birth in Canada.   

I doubt if there is anything remotely related in the Charter of Rights. 

It sounds more like you are pulling something out of thin air. 

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I couldn't care less about the Bible 

Well that's your problem.  The Bible certainly has had a huge influence on western civilization the past several thousand years.  Many of our laws are based on the principles taught in the Bible.  The fact we have democracy and human rights is because of the influence of Judeo-Christian civilization.  The rights we have do not exist in much of the rest of the world which did not have a historical Judeo-Christian civilization. 

The fact you try to compare banning abortion with Islam shows you have no knowledge about the Bible or the difference between western biblical Christianity and eastern Islam..

 

Edited August 9, 2024 by blackbird

[herbie]

22 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The whole point of this topic is to point out the depravity of Canadian governments allowing abortion.

No, it's people like you deciding that ir is depraved. People flogging lies, exaggeration, myths and old wives tales repeatedly hoping they'll become truths.

I heard about this, so that happens all the time....

So now there's a candidate for President running solely on those truths they say...

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

She has rights over her reproductive health.

This CBC News item proves your claim that women have a "right" to abortion in Canada is complete and utter BS.

quote

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion suggesting that the justices might overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion case prompted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to assure Canadian women that their rights are well protected.

"Every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion," he tweeted Tuesday, a day after the document was first published by Politico.

And while there are no laws barring women in Canada from having an abortion, it's also not considered a constitutionally protected right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as it has been in the U.S. since their top court's 1973 ruling.  

"That's going too far," Bernard Dickens, a professor emeritus of health law and policy at the University of Toronto, said about Trudeau's use of the word "right."

American women can obtain abortions in Canada if Roe v. Wade falls, minister says

Analysis

How would abortion work in the U.S. post-Roe v. Wade? Just look at Texas

No constitutional right

That's because no Supreme Court in Canada has ever said in a majority decision that a woman has the constitutional right to an abortion, said Daphne Gilbert, a University of Ottawa law professor who specializes in criminal and constitutional law.

Scrapping Roe v. Wade would mean that, in regards to abortion, Canada and the U.S. would on the surface be similar — in that neither country would have a Supreme Court case enshrining the right to abortion.   unquote

Why Canada's Roe v. Wade didn't enshrine abortion as a right | CBC News

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned Roe versus Wade which means there is no such "right" in the U.S.   Neither Canada nor the U.S. Supreme Courts have recognized a woman's "right" to an abortion.

This means Trudeau was incorrect when he stated "every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion".  No such right exists in Canada.

In the U.S., as it stands now since Roe versus Wade was thrown out recently, every state has the power to legislate for or against abortion and some have passed laws on it.

All of this does not change the fact there is a higher law, which is God's law in his written revelation, the King James Bible, that should be followed but often isn't.  

Edited August 10, 2024 by blackbird

[herbie]

Oh. Trudeau said. That must mean you have the right to do anything you want provided there's no law against it. How awful! [/sarc]

Twisting that not ruling something illegal as supporting it is a function of your own distorted mind, not reality.
So do go to your local Tory constituency meeting and hand them that sword to die on, that'd make me happy.

[eyeball]

50 minutes ago, blackbird said:

All of this does not change the fact there is a higher law, which is God's law in his written revelation, the King James Bible, that should be followed but often isn't.  

How would you feel about a federal law that says you must follow the Bible or should that be a provincial jurisdiction?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

The whole point of this topic is to point out the depravity of Canadian governments allowing abortion.

Why is it depravity? Because you say so?

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Well that's your problem. 

Its actually the problem of those churches.

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

The Bible certainly has had a huge influence 

Things change. Especially if antiquated, and loses touch with the common folk. 

 

[blackbird]

"4  Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5  Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."  Proverbs 26:4, 5 KJV

[blackbird]

56 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh. Trudeau said. That must mean you have the right to do anything you want provided there's no law against it. How awful! [/sarc]

Twisting that not ruling something illegal as supporting it is a function of your own distorted mind, not reality.
So do go to your local Tory constituency meeting and hand them that sword to die on, that'd make me happy.

"3  A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back. "  Proverbs 26:3 KJV

[User]

5 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You saying that's the only threshold I presented, is you blatantly lying.

Except, I did not say that... funny how you accuse me of lying when it is you making up things I never said.