Jump to content

Abortion Debate


Nuclear

Recommended Posts

I wasn't trying to save money here RB, my intent was to say that in order to stem abortions you have to think of the undesired economic and lifestlye changes that happen to teens if they do not have an abortion. One of the ways to negate this is to fire money at them. For the reasons you have shown it is possibly a losing proposition. Would the pro life crowd be willing to try and solve the problems you brought forth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

well, i don't want to seem only of a capitalistic mind or that i am not pro-life.

i have much experience as single parent but “I CHOOSE”.

heck, when I found out I was pregnant, I got kick out of the house the next day. talk about critical moments and predicaments made very real and hurtful. to borrow from murphy I remembered thinking it seems that each individual rises to their own level of powerlessness, and then seemingly remains there.

but i am glad was given an opportunity to think…. about all “if conditions”, the pre, the interim, the post, challenges of raising the child and decided to keep the baby.

i guarantee it is indescribably tough, we don’t need rehash stories you have heard thereof. unplanned pregnancies are much too serious in my mind, and an insult is added when we associated it with carelessness.

well we keep thinking about what we fail to do: the contraceptives, the unwarranted behavior, the motives and want to solicit moral correction of punishment like forced swayed decisions to pro-life. force decisions on others for compliance they will rebel.

i am incline towards a “right decision” based on preference to plan, and a constraint in the ability for workable solutions.

it all connotes tough decision even when there is a lucky break.

you give those the choices and all the alternatives available and they take charge of their decision, responsibilities and bear the consequences of their decisions without a societal judgements.

The result an appeal to some intelligence.... maybe you can be looking at a higher percentage of pro-life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in ontario, canada since equal health care is accessible to all, we can only deduce that the removal of public funds for abortion would also suggest removal of public funds for child birth and associated post op.

Why can we deduce that? Because one has to pay for elective cosmetic surgery, do you think that there is a serious danger that burn victims will be left hideously scarred because the surgical techniques that would help them are "cosmetic"? Rubbish.

a solution is to allow people to choose when it is right for themselves.

I agree. That's why contraception is legal and made as widely available as humanly possible. Once you are pregnant, the choice has already been made.

the cost for abortion is approx. 485$ over the cost of an uncomplicated child birth $1,370

You are misunderstanding what Krusty and myself are saying. We do not want to outlaw abortion to save money. We want to outlaw abortion because it is wrong and we feel that the giving or withholding of money can be used to further that cause.

RB, I genuinely do not wish to be insulting but your use of language is greatly obscuring the underlying points you are trying to make, at least to me. This is why I have not really replied to your latest post, and for that I apologise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RB, I genuinely do not wish to be insulting but your use of language is greatly obscuring the underlying points you are trying to make, at least to me. This is why I have not really replied to your latest post, and for that I apologise.

Hugo

i support women in their ability to make decisions about their body.

- to abort

- not to abort

i don't condone any of the those actions women intend to or actually participate in and i won't try to sway their psyche on what is right and wrong, or lie for themselves - i am not the person who will bear a consequence.

however, i feel it is unjustify when you want to take away what i consider a right for women to control her body and a right to make up her own mind, because you have now decided

and indeed when you can make some viable argument of controlling women body i guess we certainly have reconsider and make sure the loops are closed for a continuance of choices to exists for all women instead this one and only way you propose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

however, i feel it is unjustify when you want to take away what i consider a right for women to control her body and a right to make up her own mind, because you have now decided

I am not saying that somebody's fetus is a human as I am not saying that it is not. I know I would consider mine a human but I am not you or anybody else. I also think that it is wrong to take away a right from a woman.

That all said, a fence sitter I am not. We all know that there is nothing right about abortion. Anybody that says there is I would consider insane. My dream solution is not to take away a right to have abortion or to outlaw it, but rather take away the need for it. In order to do this there is a lot of fronts that have to be attacked; economic, morality, education, support.

Abortion I think, is not a problem within society but rather a symtom of a larger one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i support women in their ability to make decisions about their body.

Consider the following:

1) Abortion ensures that, worldwide, 23 million women annually are denied the right to make decisions about their bodies

2) Nobody has complete freedom to do as they will with their bodies. You can't expose yourself, urinate or masturbate in public. You can't legally prostitute yourself or abuse controlled substances. Do you also oppose all laws that prohibit these actions?

3) If the unborn is a unique, human individual (as science unanimously affirms that it is) it does not comprise part of her mother's body anyway.

Do you have valid responses to any of these points? I don't think you do, because you keep blindly repeating pro-abort mantras even though I have repeatedly proven them false to you. But by all means, if I have made a mistake and you have given this issue more than the most cursory of examinations, post your rebuttal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do agree that abortion is wrong, KrustyKidd brings up a valid point. Abortion is the product of a bigger problem. Abortion, actually, is the attempt to remove responsibility for ones actions. Freedom is one thing, but with freedom always comes responsibility. People have the freedom to choose their lifestyle yes. When they do so, they are bringing on consequences. I find abortion irresponsible, among other things. We have laws that enforce responsibility. Why should this be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Abortion ensures that, worldwide, 23 million women annually are denied the right to make decisions about their bodies

I can't believe you're speaking for the world. Most of the world could care less about human rights!

3) If the unborn is a unique, human individual (as science unanimously affirms that it is) it does not comprise part of her mother's body anyway.

Except that it does. It is connected physically to the mother's body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe you're speaking for the world. Most of the world could care less about human rights!

Does that mean that the world should care less about human rights?

Except that it does. It is connected physically to the mother's body.

Leeches connect physically to your body, as do all sorts of other parasites and interlopers. Does that make them part of your body? This is a stupid argument, and one that has absolutely no grounding in science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider the following:

1) Abortion ensures that, worldwide, 23 million women annually are denied the right to make decisions about their bodies

2) Nobody has complete freedom to do as they will with their bodies. You can't expose yourself, urinate or masturbate in public. You can't legally prostitute yourself or abuse controlled substances. Do you also oppose all laws that prohibit these actions?

23 million - this is far too disgraceful and tragic. but I like that you have turn around a reasoning of choice to some muted proposition. usage of words such as “denied the right” is in itself a discrimination.

In Canada:

equality rights guaranteed under Charter would certainly be breeched – thank heavens we are very liberal with abortion

in a cc law context goverment or state interference with bodily integrity constitute a breach of security of a person

what i meant is that under CC section 251 clearly telling a women you cannot abort interferes with a woman's physical and bodily integrity. The basic tenets of our legal systems hinges around the principles of liberty. you infringe on a right to liberty of a person you must comport with what is fundamental justice

the right to "liberty" contained in ccs. 7 guarantee to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life.

liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve such decisions but it does require the state to respect them

a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy falls within this class of protected decisions

only the woman making the decision understands what profound impact it has on her. the economic consequence and her social consequences and now maybe her lobbyist consequence.

but really it is a decision that deeply rooted and reflects the way the woman thinks about herself . and the decision is not just a medical decision but also social and ethical

situation respecting a woman's right to control her own person becomes more complex when she becomes pregnant, but also infer inequalities as to which point to discriminate against the women is so ghastly unreal that it is frightening to reconsider

apply what is law to what is real – it is not as simple to say wrong we do not like it this way and therefore we do not accept it but must ensure it changes.

it is my believe that if we encourage women greater freedom to make their own choices, encourage them to question discrimination, equality [really what is unfair practices], and give them opportunity to learn about solutions, about their rights, and entitlement about what is basically available they are more likely to make informed decisions.

my sincerest wish is for all people to understand women in their new roles of expanding choices.

control is a thing of the past, and for men and women to participate in responsible sexual behaviors but also to promote whatever alternatives at various stages of a consequence that even allow for substitution and not confiscate a liberty and freedom

International Treaties Framework that should be capitalized for those 23 million women include:

-Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (the Women's Convention)

- affirms the reproductive rights of women,

- right of women to family planning- Article 14(2)

- right to sexual non-discrimination- Articles 1-2

- right to non-discrimination in the provision of health care and in the family-Articles 12(1), 16(1)

-Article 18 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

-International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

-European Convention on Human Rights

-American Convention on Human Rights

-African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

you are right I don’t defy but mostly comply with the law of the land, in the US

a right was bestowed with Roe v. Wade…

-a landmark, and

- decision recognizing a woman's constitutional right to choose

- was right decided

- woman has a constitutional right to privacy when making decisions concerning her personal reproductive choices.

i am sure there is a lot on this throughout the discussion . but importantly that the decision is a precedent...hello..it was carefully crafted to be balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women paramount in reproductive decisions.

informed reproductive choices it what the mantra, includes planning (this means when the time is right)

it is time to nail the institution responsible for non compliance and to hold accountable for the protection human rights, women rights and you need to do a good job of reporting violations to the courts and international monitoring bodies if in breech

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what i meant is that under CC section 251 clearly telling a women you cannot abort interferes with a woman's physical and bodily integrity.

As 50% of aborted children are female, I would like to ask you how you can dissolve a woman in saline solution, tear her limb from limb with forceps or stab her in the back of the skull and suction out her brain without "interfering with her physical and bodily integrity", please.

Each person should have the right to personal autonomy as far as possible, however, the right to life is a more important right since without it, there can be no other rights. In our society, we only grant rights so long as they do not impinge upon the rights of others. For example, you have the right to drive a car if you hold a valid license, however, if you deliberately run down pedestrians you will be stripped of your right to drive, because the right of pedestrians to live overrides your right to drive.

Abortion is a clear case of the right of one individual to personal autonomy (the mother) being pitched against the more fundamental right to life of another (the child). In all other cases, we would rule in favour of the individual whose life is being endangered by the exercise of another individual's so-called rights - but not in abortion.

In the case of abortion, the convenience of one individual is held to be more precious than the very life of another, as it was in the Holocaust, as it was with slavery. If this is just, then that means that the Holocaust and slavery were also just and right since they, too, valued the convenience of one group of individuals (Nazis, slaveowners, mothers) more highly than the lives of another group of individuals (Jews, Negroes, unborn children).

Furthermore, since you bring up the justice of Canadian law, can you explain to me why it is that according to Canadian law, the unborn can own and inherit property and be a plaintiff in a civil suit, but cannot be protected from murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Quoted"

The Supreme Court of Canada is firm on the issue as to the rights of the unborn child is not one of biological, spiritual or any status other than legal status. In deciding the issue then, the court's task is a legal one. It is for the Legislature to decide it on any other basis. see the decision of McLachlin, J. speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, in Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area) v. G.(D.F.)(1997), 152 D.L.R. (4th) 193, particularly at pps. 201 to 203.

the common law does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights generally, or under family, succession or tort law. any legal rights which may exist in relation to the unborn child accrue only at birth. however in a civil suit there are no proceeding with a criminal intend... then the law i hesitate to argue that perhaps the unborn is included in the terminology “everyone” but does not become a person until it is born, i am not an expert in civil cases - but is this a particular case you are questioning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already gave the cases to which I refer earlier in this thread. I will here cut and paste what I wrote already for you.

According to Canadian law as it currently stands, at conception you are entitled to own property, to be a plaintiff in a civil suit, or to inherit property. This was established in Giddings vs. Canadian Northern Railway, In Re Charlton Estate, Montreal Tramways vs. Leveille, Watt vs. Rama, and Duval et al. vs. Seguin et al. It has been upheld in courts of law even after the 1969 decision to legalise therapeutic abortion in Canada.

Basically, Canadian law since the 18th Century has upheld the right of the unborn to own property, to inherit property, and to be considered a person for the purposes of damages or injury. However, Canadian law does not recognise the right of the unborn to live.

For example, a woman whose husband was killed in a work-related accident successfully sued his employer and was awarded damages both for herself and specifically and separately for their unborn child.

Canadian law is very schizophrenic when it comes to the rights of the unborn. I would not look to it for any definitive answers on the abortion question if I were you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of abortion, the convenience of one individual is held to be more precious than the very life of another,

Hugo, this is an extremely valid point. However, only if one considers the fetus a human being. If one does not, for whatever reson or justification then it is nothing.

according to Canadian law, the unborn can own and inherit property and be a plaintiff in a civil suit

I am no legal expert however would imagine that for each of those to occur it would be based on the presumption that the woman was pregnant and that she fully intended to carry the baby to full term. If the woman carried out her legal right to terminate the fetus then of course the property would not be inherited. As for the second, hmmm, that is a good question.

Essentially though, the legal rights of the fetus are based on the assumption that the woman will not exercise her right to have an abortion and the fetus be carried to full term. Hence, becoming a validated human capable of being a plaintiff and inheriting estate.

As a thought provoking exercise for a counter point; scince we are in a court and allowed to assume things, why can we not asume that the fetus chooses not to prosecute or inherit the property? Where are it's rights in this case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why can we not asume that the fetus chooses not to prosecute or inherit the property?

the hypothetical thinking "fetus" would surely be sorryful crackhead to reject what is beneficial. usually the courts would act in the best interest of the fetus would award favorable decisions to the benefit of the unborn.

i maintain that a pregnant people owes no "general" duty to hypothetical people..meaning of course that the unborn and mother are one and from the law perspective the unborn is not a person until they are born

Russ v. British Columbia (Public Trustee), (1994-03-25) BCCA CA016474 Source: http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcca/1994/199...4bcca10157.html

from the unborn perspective if they were here today and of course wanted to be born...

the question arises as to whether this transaction is prudent from the unborn point of view.

or the unborn decides on some business sense:

- the saving of taxes

- all the good benefits goes to living relatives per today..that seems sensible

- or the good benefits to myself

the law is broad regarding the unborn and property, some of the cases i hurried though talked about the property inheritance of a child's unborn

but what remains significant:

- the foetus have no rights if stillborn

- only upon live birth can rights acquired during gestation be asserted.

- and that the foetus is regarded as a person at birth

in short, the law has set birth as the line of demarcation at which personhood is realized, at which full and independent legal rights attach, and until the childen ventre sa mere sees the light of day it does not have the rights of those already born.

the same principle applies with sharing of assets say for dogs; that is dogs conceived but unborn (in ventre sa mere) are family assets-- Sherliker v. Sherliker

furthermore, orders as to contingent rights of unborn persons does not come become entitled until the unborn comes into existent

Source: http://www.canlii.org/sk/sta/cssk/20030227...t-23/whole.html

Quoted

what then is the legal position of an unborn child?

is it regarded in the eyes of the law as a person in the full legal sense?

does it have the capacity in law to prosecute an action sounding in tort or to sue for injunctive relief?

The short answer to the latter questions is "No".

While there can be no doubt that the law has long recognized foetal life and has accorded the foetus various rights, those rights have always been held contingent upon a legal personality being acquired by the foetus upon its subsequent birth alive and, until then, a foetus is not recognized as included within the legal concept of "persons".

It is only persons recognized by law who are the subject of legal rights and duties.

"Persons are the subjects of rights and duties: and as the subject of a right, the person is the object of the correlative duty ... A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him.

The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes.

An individual human being, considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call anatural person": Pollock,First Book of Jurisprudence, p. 110. Unquoted

how do you plan to ban abortion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This an interesting abortion case that has come up in the UK. A female minister, who herself believes in early term abortion according to an interview I just heard, has lodged a complaint involving a late term abortion case, which a pregnant woman had done because her unborn baby was diagnosed with cleft palate, a defect that can be remedied after birth.

Late term abortion, done because of cleft palate condition, is challenged in the UK by female minister

Church curate Joanna Jepson today won permission to challenge the refusal of police to prosecute doctors who carried out a late abortion on a woman because she did not want a baby with a cleft lip and palate.

To quote Drudge, this case is "developing"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, only if one considers the fetus a human being. If one does not, for whatever reson or justification then it is nothing.

What grounds do you have for denying humanity to an unborn child? Whatever grounds you find can be applied to at least one group of people already born.

i maintain that a pregnant people owes no "general" duty to hypothetical people

If my wife and I are thinking of having another child, that is a hypothetical person. An unborn child is not a hypothetical person, it is an actual person. All that is required for personhood is membership in the human race, and unborn children have that.

An individual human being, considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call anatural person

So an unborn child is not an individual human being. What is it, then? A fish? A table?

Before you reply "a fetus", "a blastocyst" etc. you should note that these are all scientific terms used to denote any organism at different stages of development, much like "adolescent" or "toddler". You cannot have "a foetus", what you mean is "a human foetus", "a chimpanzee foetus" or whatever.

The quotes you gave are all wholly arbitrary, without justification. Try substituting "Jew" for "foetus" throughout that document.

what then is the legal position of a Jew?

is it regarded in the eyes of the law as a person in the full legal sense?

does it have the capacity in law to prosecute an action sounding in tort or to sue for injunctive relief?

The short answer to the latter questions is "No".

While there can be no doubt that the law has long recognized Jewry and has accorded the Jew various rights, those rights have always been held contingent upon a legal personality being acquired by the Jew and, until then, a Jew is not recognized as included within the legal concept of "persons".

It is only persons recognized by law who are the subject of legal rights and duties.

"Persons are the subjects of rights and duties: and as the subject of a right, the person is the object of the correlative duty ... A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him.

The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes.

An individual human being, considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call anatural person

What does that remind you of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE

What grounds do you have for denying humanity to an unborn child? Whatever grounds you find can be applied to at least one group of people already born.

You would have to ask those who think the fetus is not a child. The whole point of what I was telling you. The answer of course is in their belief. Your answer and disbelief that anybody can do this is in your belief that it is a child. Both are unwinnable arguments against the other.

However, only if one considers the fetus a human being. If one does not, for whatever reason or justification then it is nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not discount your scientific or other moral arguments on when we can say child, or person or when it comes into being

I said this before I support women in their right to choose and hence I support what are laws in this country. According to the law we can say it is a person when it is born - i approve of this law because it gives women their right to control their own body. But notwithstanding, there are no compromise when women rights of choices are taken.

mind you the law actually help spare the hypnotical.

what i also approve of:

- there nothing wrong trying to influence and persuade decisions to pro-life however you are doing it well except for killing off and trying to sue our doctors

- one of the prior post offer alternative solutions of attacking some fronts: eduation, economic, morality, support

women are thinking individuals and can decide for themselves if all the information and choices are available to them. appeal to the women folks in this way instead of an outrageous proposition of abolishing abortion.

for your information am more incline to pro-life (and I have had the opportunity to experience the counselling session and to walk the halls at the Mt. Sanai Hospital to abort or not to abort) and I can assure you the decisions that are made thereafter is not one of compliance. It is the ONE right decison for that individual.

and would like to see all those females come into existence but you have to come up with a better solutions to achieve a higher ratio life:abort instead of attacking "women and their right to choose"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I would like to see implemented would be the abolition of 3rd and possibly 2nd trimester abortions, and the scheme that KK first posited to have adoptive families pay a cash sum to a woman who bears a child that they adopt.

I would also like to see abstinence put forward more seriously in sex-ed classes and in popular culture. STDs and teen pregnancy are both on the rise, and I feel the problem is that pop culture tells kids to screw anything that moves, and the moral voices of our society are busy telling kids that it's all good and natural to be having sex with anything that moves, and that we should explore ourselves and our sexuality et cetera, et cetera.

After all, if it is considered irresponsible to promote drug abuse and violence in pop culture, why can't we decide it's irresponsible to promote teenage promiscuity? I think we are under the collective illusion that any sex is good and sex is the most important thing in human existence, and we need to dispel that.

I would anticipate that these measures would drastically reduce the number of abortions performed and move us away from a depraved culture that endorses killing children for the convenience of adults. Once that is done, it should be an easier matter to outlaw abortion altogether. I am adamant that any progress we make needs to be towards this eventual goal. Law reflects the goals of society. We would like everybody to be law-abiding, so laws reflect the ideals of how we would like to be. Since none of us want to be baby-killers, the law should, eventually, reflect that. It will not be an easy process as we have had over 30 years of brain-washing from the pro-abort advocates, but I am confident that we can get there.

I do, of course, support abortion only in the event that the pregnancy poses a genuine and serious threat to the mother's life, such as in the case of ectopic pregnancy. In this case, there is nothing to gain by refusing abortion anyhow since the death of the mother inevitably means the death of her unborn child as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugo is absolutely right. Abortion, whether it be right or wrong, is a side affect of the massively un-chaste atmosphere that society has been creating. Chastity is both moral and practical. If teenage pregnancy is cut, and more children are actually born inside families, Abortion itself will fall as well. Even if someone is "pro-choice," do they really want to abort if they can avoid the situation entirely. There is an easy way to do this. It's called abstinence. Teach teenagers to hold off on sex until they are ready and willing to be responsible and deal with the consequences thereof, until they are ready and willing to raise children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post Hugo!

I agree with you 95%.

My points to argue are;

I think we are under the collective illusion that any sex is good and sex is the most important thing in human existence

While not the most important thing in existence it sure is good, any sex is when I'm having it. LOL. What I mean is that you have to be realisitc, don't try to tell me that it is not good or feels 'cheap' or crap. People are a lot smarter than they used to be and want to make them run? Pull piousness out of the back pocket.

It will not be an easy process as we have had over 30 years of brain-washing from the pro-abort advocates, but I am confident that we can get there.

Hugo, I would say that the split between Pro Life and Choice is 40/60, just a guess as there is a big silent majority out there. You have activists on both sides.

I told you earlier on, we all know that abortion is not right. To say that somebody is "Pro Abortion" makes you look like a radical and you lose a group that may have not worked with you on banning abortions, but, may have worked with you on other fronts.

I know you are a rational person with a fine logical mind who rightfully believes in your argument. You must remember who you are aguing with though. Kids require a different approach than young adults. Young adults require a different approach than those in their thirties and those who are currently 'Pro Murder' LOL whom you would like to convert and pass on your idealology need yet another. A blanket speech doesn't serve any of them, that I think is one big failure of the Pro Life crowd.

I am glad you understood what I was trying to say about money being an issue. That is a big tool that can be utilised. You also corrected me on a couple of facts with adoption. I, along with everybody would like to see this as a thing of the past however, I believe in freedom strongly. An adult, however messed up, is still a proven being to me. A fetus is not. I'm pretty normal and many think like me. I figure that the best way to handle this for you and your cohorts is to remember that. Keep saying 'baby' instead of 'fetus' by all means but remember that to most, it is what I said.

I think that to persue a total ban on abortion is a realistic ideal. It, however is not a reality to attempt to enforce in order to make it a reality. (have another Krusty) What I'm trying to say is that working with a variety of tools other than name calling, shaming, shocking, blaming and guilt tripping the real tools that can be used are; money enticement, REAL support, education, community programs like pools, food banks, shelters, accoutable welfare, job placement and so on. Basicly the same ideals that all people want, they add up to responsible and a realisation of self worth. Both are valuable tools in battling sexual promiscuity.

The other things you hit on were second and third trimester abortions. Great, fight the battles you can win. Using all tools you might reach critical mass someday and make abortion a rarity, then it would be a social sin and less likely to occur. Still being available and legal it would pacify freedom lovers such as myself and you would find that the opposition would melt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean is that you have to be realisitc, don't try to tell me that it is not good or feels 'cheap' or crap.

If you ask most people who have been highly promiscuous they will usually tell you that they have regrets. Sleeping with a man because he bought you dinner just makes you a very cheap whore, and the feeling is similar in a lot of cases. I'm not saying that I want to preach fire and brimstone to young people, what I am saying is that it's foolish to believe that all sex is good, and that it never has any negative psychological side-effects. It frequently does, and we should be honest with people about that.

Keep saying 'baby' instead of 'fetus' by all means but remember that to most, it is what I said.

This argument is born from ignorance. People see a baby in an incubator born 15 weeks prematurely, and they know it is a tiny, helpless baby. Nobody crowds around the glass and says, "Well, it's just a clump of cells. Just a potential human. It isn't a person. I don't see why I should respect it's right to live." Yet there is no physical difference between that preemie and a fetus at 25 weeks gestation.

I invite you to actually study some photographs of the unborn in the womb and read actual medical facts about their development. That should be enough to dispel your illusions. For instance, by the time that over 90% of abortions are performed the fetus is capable of feeling pain.

Still being available and legal it would pacify freedom lovers such as myself and you would find that the opposition would melt.

No. The end goal has to be abolition of abortion, for the reasons I gave. Law reflects our ideal ethics and morality, and if our law permits us to kill the most vulnerable members of our society on a whim then, whatever the actual case, we cannot claim to have good ethics because we have stated that, in our ideal world, killing the innocent for convenience is acceptable. It is not in mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sex is cheap? I guess that it all, is in the eyes of the beholder. The only sex that I wish I had never had was with this physco chick a few years back. She stalked my ass for over a month. Had to have another girlfriend of mine threaten her with bodily harm if she didn't leave 'her husband' (me) alone LOL. Of course, I wasn't portrayed in any hit releases and later try to become Pastor of the Church or Governor of any state so wouldn't know of the downsides of feeling cheap.

This argument is born from ignorance. People see a baby in an incubator born 15 weeks prematurely, and they know it is a tiny, helpless baby. Nobody crowds around the glass and says, "Well, it's just a clump of cells. Just a potential human. It isn't a person. I don't see why I should respect it's right to live." Yet there is no physical difference between that preemie and a fetus at 25 weeks gestation.

Excellent point! Everyone knows that it is not right yet those who are going to have an abortion will gloss over all facts and reason because they have a glimmer of rationality and consensus for their desires. They amplify that in order to do their will.

I am sure that somebody will come up for a refutation of some kind for this incubator point and failing that just simply say that it is legal. Would this not fall under the second and third trimester ruling and thereby make the legal point that you have just made?

invite you to actually study some photographs of the unborn in the womb and read actual medical facts about their development. That should be enough to dispel your illusions. For instance, by the time that over 90% of abortions are performed the fetus is capable of feeling pain.

When does black turn to white if there is no such thing as gray? As a being grows it forms all sorts of things, a central nervous system included. Of course at some point it will feel pain much like a donkey fetus will feel it abut that stage but does not mean that it is a donkey. It is this gray area that is exploited by both sides.

The pro life people tell everybody that life begins at conception. A sperm and an egg. There is no central nervous system in place and it cannot feel pain so when can it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

read the statistics of abortion

http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml#Reported

Canadian women obtained 105,427 abortions in 2000, a slight decrease of 0.2% from 105,666 in 1999

From 1999 to 2000, induced abortion rates increased in all provinces except Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia

women in their twenties, accounted for 51% of all women who obtained an abortion in 2000, teens 20%

does this sound like a crises situation that we need to change the laws. i did not think so. there are other pressing issues that the public is concern with and is of greater importance now such as:

- gay rights

- debt

- high taxes

- securing a position at competition/gobalisation for trade

- jobs

- a stable dollar and a stable economy

- security

- and just a watchful weary eye to the government.

unless you have a judge that is much stronger in favor of life and sees a crisis situation you will meet much opposition to the "abolition of abortion" .. you are talking about taking away a constitutional right and freedom

I like you prior post Hugo offering some working solutions at the grassroots - getting started at education

I have my own puritan standards, but is hardly rational to expect to judge and impose upon others my standard.

what is ideal is different from what is real

how do you change a psyche overnight to realise some good morals, values and ethics and to achieve abstinence. maybe it starts right at home, then enforcement of those good system in the classroom

If only you can see that it takes two to tango, then you can address both sexes and society instead of pointing a figure of which of the sex is in the wrong all the time.

KK has some bang on ideas that can be mostly result oriented with the target groups:youths and women in their twenties

and some of the services are probably in place and readily avail only needs to be more visiable..there was mention of the morning after pills avail

unless your monetary reward system is closely monitored, it will bring out the capitalistic streak in others for big business .. money i find "walks and talks"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...