Oda not welcome at provincial meeting on women's issues

[madmax]

No I won't vote for the CHP simply based on their position on abortion.

For these positions?

ABORTION

We favor the elimination of all public funding of organizations that advocate or perform abortion. Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, and therefore is a crime against God, the pre-born child, the mother and father, and society. It should be treated as such by the Government and must not be permitted or supported. The pre-born child has the right to life, liberty and security of the person from the moment of conception. These rights of the pre-born must be protected in Canada's laws through appropriate amendments to our Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Once this protection is in force, any person who performs or assists in an abortion, or arranges for a woman to have an abortion, should be charged with a criminal offense. Any medical practitioner convicted of performing an abortion, or assisting in an abortion, or arranging for a woman to have an abortion should have his or her license suspended. Any individual or corporation that manufactures, distributes, sells, or administers any drug or device for the purpose of procuring an abortion should be charged with a criminal offense. The Government has a moral responsibility to provide financial assistance to social, community, and volunteer agencies which provide care and support for women during and after crisis pregnancies. Medical treatment which is necessary to prevent the deaths of either the mother or the pre-born child, or both, but which results in the unintended death of either or both, should not be considered a criminal offense. Every effort should be made to save both lives

Back to you

I have concern's about other issues as well, and the CHP doesn't address how they would actually cut down on abortion since it would only go underground unless the government offered something to expectant mother's to carry their baby right to pregnancy.

Expectant mothers already know there is a social safety net there for them! It is these same mothers whom I hear ostricised in every Tim Hortons in Canada. The CHP Candidate offered $10,000 to the expecting mother.

However here is their Family Platform

MOTHERS AND HOMEMAKERS

We affirm that a vital role in society which mothers can perform is that of homemaker and rearer of children; further, that failure in this role imperils the rising generation and the future of society and the state. We, therefore, assert that government efforts should be directed primarily towards so ordering the economy that mothers will not find it necessary to supplement family income by work outside the home. Homemakers must receive equal recognition under the law, and should be able to submit joint tax returns with their income-earning spouse. We believe that parents who choose to be homemakers should have the option of contributing to the Canada Pension Plan and that their contributions should be deductible from the spouse's taxable income.

8. CHILD CARE

We affirm that it is the responsibility of the parents--and not of the state--to raise and educate their children. The benefits of a responsible home environment is the most desirable form of child rearing. We therefore support the concept of in-home child care facilities and do not favor institutional child care. The rearing of children should take place in the home and it is the responsibility of government to encourage this. However, where this is not possible, we wish to see a viable family-oriented alternative provided.

9. PRIMACY OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY

The responsibility of the parents for the education and development of their children must indeed be recognized by government. We affirm that parents have the primary responsibility of educating their children at home, or delegating this task to the schools of their choice. Regardless of the choice of school, the right of parents to be informed about the content of their children's education must also be protected

Actually, having heard the CHP platform, it was the only party to address your concerns above, at an all Candidates meeting. The Conservative Candidate was driven out into the open, to actually come out and say he personally wouldn't change anything. It was a shock since a large anti abortion lobby was present and were brought there by the former Canadian Alliance Candidate, whom he defeated for the nomination.

The CHP have a very concise policy platform, Here is there policies.

http://www.chp.ca/partyPolicy/

1. No

2. No

3. Depends on what the individual MP's support and how they vote.

Yup, even I can't bang off a proper true/false question.

Well it also add's a moral question as to what extent government should be involved in that morality of individual people. I think to a certain extent government has to protect life, and see it as a basic human right. This can be seen as a "human rights" issue by both sides which makes it that much more complicated.

Sure sounds like CHP to me.

It's also a question whether we want to continue to spend more time on the subject.

Economic Conservatives hoped for a Harper-led majority government, because they feel Canada needs to get back on track. They are bothered about corruption, the economy, taxes and crime. These unchurched and more well-to-do Canadians are generally in favour of the current abortion law, but many would like to see same-sex civil unions rather than marriage for gay couples. More likely to be male, rural, in Alberta, United Church and/or not attending, middle- to upper-middle-class, less well educated, unlikely to be an immigrant. -AG

Everyone has an analysis.

[madmax]

The reality of the situation is Canada does not have an abortion law (in the U.S., abortion is constitutionally recognized after 1973's Roe v. Wade decision), whereas in Canada since the Morgantaler decision in 1988 and after Mulroney's two failed attempts to pass an abortion law we do not have an abortion law in this country.

IN ROEVWADE the women had the baby to win the case. Kinda ironic. Mulroney had two MAJORITY governments. Strange he couldn't get it to pass? The Supreme court Rulings are clear, and available at wikipedia.

The Libs refused to commit themselves one way or the other for years because they realized it would split them as a party and the Libs don't have a backbone.

So they would have had the trouble that the Majority Mulroney Parliments would have had?

Another reality is there is no reason for someone to get an abortion.

Well, there you have it. That's quite a reality.

The Christian Heritage Party does not have a monopoly on pro-life issues in this country.

Yes they do. They are open and honest about their position. The Conservatives are not. They just want anti abortionists to vote for them. Harper clearly said he wasn't going to change abortion laws. What other political party has an anti abortion policy.

Other religions have pro-life movements within their respective establishments. Practicing Christians have been typecast by the left as being the only ones who are still pro-life and this is simply not true. This is a moral issue for all those who care about the sanctity and decency of life out there.

Christian Heritage Party is a political party. Other Religions have no political party that supports their pro-life movements, but can choose CHP to represent these values if they wish.

Or you can choose this slider.

MONTREAL, March 18, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, in is address before thousands of delegates at the Conservative Convention Friday touched on issues of concern to social conservatives.

On abortion, Harper said, "as prime minister, I will not bring forth legislation on the issue of abortion."

[madmax]

So the majority of people believe life should at the very least be protected after 3 month's???

This poll is really playing with numbers. Rather than explain the progressive nature of it, here is another polling question. Nothing has happened in 2 years to create radical change of opinion.

In a Gallup Canada poll taken April 2005, 52% of respondents say they would like to see Canadian abortion laws "remain the same," 20% say they would like the laws to be "less strict," while 24% say they would like the laws to be "more strict."

Here is another question

In a poll conducted by the National Post in November 2002, 78% of respondents answered "yes" to the question: "Should women have complete freedom on their decision to have an abortion?".

Here is another question

In a Léger poll taken January 2002, 47% of respondents said abortion was "not immoral," while 41.8% said it was

None of these polls are going to change any anti abortion of pro choice views.

Neither is trying to spin the numbers.

[tml12]

The reality of the situation is Canada does not have an abortion law (in the U.S., abortion is constitutionally recognized after 1973's Roe v. Wade decision), whereas in Canada since the Morgantaler decision in 1988 and after Mulroney's two failed attempts to pass an abortion law we do not have an abortion law in this country.

IN ROEVWADE the women had the baby to win the case. Kinda ironic. Mulroney had two MAJORITY governments. Strange he couldn't get it to pass? The Supreme court Rulings are clear, and available at wikipedia.

The Libs refused to commit themselves one way or the other for years because they realized it would split them as a party and the Libs don't have a backbone.

So they would have had the trouble that the Majority Mulroney Parliments would have had?

Another reality is there is no reason for someone to get an abortion.

Well, there you have it. That's quite a reality.

The Christian Heritage Party does not have a monopoly on pro-life issues in this country.

Yes they do. They are open and honest about their position. The Conservatives are not. They just want anti abortionists to vote for them. Harper clearly said he wasn't going to change abortion laws. What other political party has an anti abortion policy.

Other religions have pro-life movements within their respective establishments. Practicing Christians have been typecast by the left as being the only ones who are still pro-life and this is simply not true. This is a moral issue for all those who care about the sanctity and decency of life out there.

Christian Heritage Party is a political party. Other Religions have no political party that supports their pro-life movements, but can choose CHP to represent these values if they wish.

Or you can choose this slider.

MONTREAL, March 18, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, in is address before thousands of delegates at the Conservative Convention Friday touched on issues of concern to social conservatives.

On abortion, Harper said, "as prime minister, I will not bring forth legislation on the issue of abortion."

The Conservatives clearly have the most anti-abortion MPs and I do believe eventually we will see a free vote in Parliament on this issue. That being said, you are correct in stating that the Christian Heritage Party is the only one that has been clearly against abortion.

As for Mulroney's government, the attempts the man made were noble considering how the issue is divisive for both the Conservatives and the Liberals. It does not matter whether you have a majority government on an issue like abortion, because it is not so easily defined on the left-right political scale. If you have a libertarian conservative, they would probably support abortion. If you have a communitarian socialist, they might be pro-life. The ultimate reality is that Canada SHOULD and hopefully will have some abortion law soon.

[jdobbin]

The Conservatives clearly have the most anti-abortion MPs and I do believe eventually we will see a free vote in Parliament on this issue. That being said, you are correct in stating that the Christian Heritage Party is the only one that has been clearly against abortion.

I don't think you will see abortion brought to any sort of vote as long as Harper is prime minister.

[Saturn]

The Conservatives clearly have the most anti-abortion MPs and I do believe eventually we will see a free vote in Parliament on this issue. That being said, you are correct in stating that the Christian Heritage Party is the only one that has been clearly against abortion.

I don't think you will see abortion brought to any sort of vote as long as Harper is prime minister.

Harper would never even dream of bringing abortion to a vote. If he does, his government and his party are finished.

[Catchme]

Yes it does, because lets say this,

If we were to say no abortion's should be performed after three month's then the 31% would probably support it, as well as the 23%. It's not that far fetched.

The 31% stands alone. End of story. Anti-choice is Anti-Choice, you cannot compare apples and oranges nor add them together to make a sum that you want. That is what double speak is actually.

Logic says, that they would be willing to support the 23% who want abortion to be limited within three month's, since that it more according to what they believe and reduce abortion rates.

Yes it can, it's called compromise, obviously a term you have never heard of before.

LOL, no sorry there is NO "let's say this", there was no strongy opposed questions or somewhat opposed questions in that poll! That is a hypothetical poll, you are creating and slotting answers to completely different questions into it. It is strawman propaganda.

Again:

The poll states there was 23% of Canadians saying they believe in access to abortions up to 3 months, they do want any change because that is what it is.

It states 10% believe believe in abortions up to 6 months

It states 30% believe in abortions up to the point of birth.

It states 31% do not believe in abortions for any reason

Logic does not say they would support the 23% who agree with the current 3 month limit because they already do not.

Again:

40% of Canadians want the abortion access laws increased beyond the current 3 month limit.

23% of Canadians want abortion access to remain the same

31% want NO access to abortions

6% do not care

As you should be able to see, compromise has nothing to do with it, because the 31% already do not agree with the 23% who want it to stay at the current 3 month access limit.

There are NO abortions in Canada over the 3 month limit. The 23 % cannot desire it to be changed to 3 months access limit because it ALREADY is 3 months.

One would even be safe to say that the 6% would be added to the pro-choice 63%, for a total of 69% of Canadians are pro-choice, because if the 6% were against current access they would say so, it is most likely they feel, and correctly so, it is NONE of their business, so they give NO response.

[geoffrey]

Something that doesn't make sense to me.

How can someone justify killing a fetus/child at 91 days versus 89 days. What fundamentally changes in all developing fetuses/children during those 24 hours?

Or is it one of those things that lets people sleep at night?

[Catchme]

Something that doesn't make sense to me.

How can someone justify killing a fetus...at 91 days versus 89 days. What fundamentally changes in all developing fetuses...during those 24 hours?

There is no killing of anything as there is NO life at that point, and nothing fundamentally changes other than cell division until the 1st spark of brain activity happens around 5-6 months.

It is not about justification, there is nothing to justify. If they thought about long and hard they would most likely decide that it was none of their business. Also, I would suspect that they said 3 months, as that is what it currently is, and human nature means comfort zones. Most likely, if the 23% were educated to the fact that there is no brain activity until 5 months they would move their choice access limits up to 5-6ths, or as I said most likely realize it is none of their business.

[geoffrey]

There is no killing of anything as there is NO life at that point, and nothing fundamentally changes other than cell division until the 1st spark of brain activity happens around 5-6 months.

It is not about justification, there is nothing to justify. If they thought about long and hard they would most likely decide that it was none of their business. Also, I would suspect that they said 3 months, as that is what it currently is, and human nature means comfort zones. Most likely, if the 23% were educated to the fact that there is no brain activity until 5 months they would move their choice access limits up to 5-6ths, or as I said most likely realize it is none of their business.

Ok then, we are more in agreement then you might believe. I'm having trouble with those that draw the line at 3 months, the same as you do. I don't get why they believe htat.

Do you base your line on brain activity then?

Catchme, you've got to see it from the other side for a second to see how it becomes one's business. If someone believes that life begins at conception, and there is some logic to it whether you subscribe to that point of view or not, then it's obviously society's business to protect humans from murder. If you don't think they are alive then great, you can justify that to yourself and it's no one's business.

For the sake of debate, let's look at drawing the line at brain activity, whether or not that's your line the thoughts apply to wherever you place it.

1) If someone was to assault a woman and kill her fetus at 3 months, that person should only be charged with assault causing bodily harm, correct? The baby wasn't alive afterall, just some tissue that was damaged. Until the baby has brain activity, it can be killed/destroyed by anyone and it's only a simple assault on the woman. Are you ok with that? Or does the unborn child/fetus/scrap of tissue have further value than say, an arm bone?

2) If someone is involved in an accident and has a severe brain injury that destroys most brain function, should they be euthanized even if they expressedly asked to be kept alive previously? If some crazy hooligan was stumbling around a hospital and killed someone that was in a vegetative state, they should really not be charged with anything right?

I'm arguing these from a rather unique outlook on abortion. Personally, I'm a believer in life at conception as I can't logically justify an arbitrary line. I also cannot answer question #1. That being said, I understand that someone is going to get an abortion regardless if it's legal or not. So it might as well be in a controlled environment as not to add to the harm and to the bodycount.

All this whining about a women's right to her body and all that is rather ridiculous though. That's not what the debate is about, it's just an emotional spin argument used to make the pro-lifers look bad. The debate is about the rights of a unborn child/fetus/scrap of tissue. If it's alive, a woman has absolutely no right to kill it. If it's not alive than a woman can do whatever she likes with it.

For someone to argue that a woman can get an abortion whether or not a fetus is alive is borderline sociopathic IMO.

[Catchme]

There is no killing of anything as there is NO life at that point, and nothing fundamentally changes other than cell division until the 1st spark of brain activity happens around 5-6 months.

It is not about justification, there is nothing to justify. If they thought about long and hard they would most likely decide that it was none of their business.

Ok then, we are more in agreement then you might believe.

Catchme, you've got to see it from the other side for a second to see how it becomes one's business. If someone believes that life begins at conception,

No, we are not in agreement in anyway.

No, I do not have to see it from the other side, there is no other side.

No actually, I know life commences at birth. Prior to that everything is potential to be, but is not being there are too many variables for life to commence prior to birth.

1) If someone was to assault a woman and kill her fetus at 3 months, that person should only be charged with assault causing bodily harm, correct?

Yes, she would be assaulted only, there is no killing of a fetus at 3 months gestation, the variables around why the fetus became unviable are many. But you are making a strawman argument trying to present an emotional juxposition to bias perception away from the real laws, logic and facts.

All this whining about a women's right to her body and all that is rather ridiculous though. That's not what the debate is about, it's just an emotional spin argument used to make the pro-lifers look bad. The debate is about the rights of a ...fetus/scrap of tissue. If it's alive, a woman has absolutely no right to kill it. If it's not alive than a woman can do whatever she likes with it.

You have absolutely no idea how offensive your comment above is. It is about a womans right to self determine, to call the insistence on having no discussions on equality rights whining is reprehensible. It is not about a fetus's rights, it has none, nor should it until it is born. Something that has NO life, cannot override the rights of one who is alive. The law states life begins at birth and logic upholds this fact as being correct.

You need to get over yourself, I can tell you in this regard NO feminists gives any thought to making anti-choice look bad. We simply do not care enough what you look like. It is NOT about you. It is about individual rights.

Euthanasia, is not a cross discussion with individual choice rights.

For someone to argue that a woman can get an abortion whether or not a fetus is alive is borderline sociopathic IMO.

That is your opinion based upon your emotional and personal "belief" structures. Your emotional beliefs do not trump my legal right to self determine.

Plus, making such a strongly irrational and biased comment, after you pretend to give consideration and you implore me to look at the other side, makes you look bad.

Women's right to self sdetermine are not up for discussion and 69% of Canadians appear to agree.

[blueblood]

No, I do not have to see it from the other side, there is no other side.

No actually, I know life commences at birth. Prior to that everything is potential to be, but is not being there are too many variables for life to commence prior to birth.

Umm according to your numbers 31% constitutes the other side. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you show disrespect to the other side of the spectrum, it makes for much weaker debating. The other point is a matter of opinion, theres no right answer in this game.

You have absolutely no idea how offensive your comment above is. It is about a womans right to self determine, to call the insistence on having no discussions on equality rights whining is reprehensible. It is not about a fetus's rights, it has none, nor should it until it is born. Something that has NO life, cannot override the rights of one who is alive. The law states life begins at birth and logic upholds this fact as being correct.

You need to get over yourself, I can tell you in this regard NO feminists gives any thought to making anti-choice look bad. We simply do not care enough what you look like. It is NOT about you. It is about individual rights.

Euthanasia, is not a cross discussion with individual choice rights.

You have no idea how offesive your commets are to religious pro-life supporters, are they not people too? do they not have a right to express an opinion? You keep saying individual rights and all that, lots of people believe an unborn child is an individual and should be given rights how about that. How about the 31% of peoples rights to an opinion, according to you they don't deserve one. On top of that you want the 31% to help foot the bill for abortions, what's next we have to foot the bill for facelifts and boob jobs? Making people pay for something that you want is proposterous. In my opinion an abortion is a want.

Women's right to self sdetermine are not up for discussion and 69% of Canadians appear to agree.

So are pro-life supporters right to express an opinion, lots are women themselves. You get the right to self determine and pro-life supporters get the right to bitch. You can't pick and choose rights to what best suits you.

[Borg]

There is no killing of anything as there is NO life at that point, and nothing fundamentally changes other than cell division until the 1st spark of brain activity happens around 5-6 months.

It is not about justification, there is nothing to justify. If they thought about long and hard they would most likely decide that it was none of their business. Also, I would suspect that they said 3 months, as that is what it currently is, and human nature means comfort zones. Most likely, if the 23% were educated to the fact that there is no brain activity until 5 months they would move their choice access limits up to 5-6ths, or as I said most likely realize it is none of their business.

Ok then, we are more in agreement then you might believe. I'm having trouble with those that draw the line at 3 months, the same as you do. I don't get why they believe htat.

Do you base your line on brain activity then?

Catchme, you've got to see it from the other side for a second to see how it becomes one's business. If someone believes that life begins at conception, and there is some logic to it whether you subscribe to that point of view or not, then it's obviously society's business to protect humans from murder. If you don't think they are alive then great, you can justify that to yourself and it's no one's business.

For the sake of debate, let's look at drawing the line at brain activity, whether or not that's your line the thoughts apply to wherever you place it.

1) If someone was to assault a woman and kill her fetus at 3 months, that person should only be charged with assault causing bodily harm, correct? The baby wasn't alive afterall, just some tissue that was damaged. Until the baby has brain activity, it can be killed/destroyed by anyone and it's only a simple assault on the woman. Are you ok with that? Or does the unborn child/fetus/scrap of tissue have further value than say, an arm bone?

2) If someone is involved in an accident and has a severe brain injury that destroys most brain function, should they be euthanized even if they expressedly asked to be kept alive previously? If some crazy hooligan was stumbling around a hospital and killed someone that was in a vegetative state, they should really not be charged with anything right?

I'm arguing these from a rather unique outlook on abortion. Personally, I'm a believer in life at conception as I can't logically justify an arbitrary line. I also cannot answer question #1. That being said, I understand that someone is going to get an abortion regardless if it's legal or not. So it might as well be in a controlled environment as not to add to the harm and to the bodycount.

All this whining about a women's right to her body and all that is rather ridiculous though. That's not what the debate is about, it's just an emotional spin argument used to make the pro-lifers look bad. The debate is about the rights of a unborn child/fetus/scrap of tissue. If it's alive, a woman has absolutely no right to kill it. If it's not alive than a woman can do whatever she likes with it.

For someone to argue that a woman can get an abortion whether or not a fetus is alive is borderline sociopathic IMO.

Geoffrey - forget it. You can never win this argument with this type of person.

You are a man and therefore have no rights and no say.

You are a man and are immdiately suspect in all manner.

And remember:

Women's right to self sdetermine are not up for discussion and 69% of Canadians appear to agree.

You are wasting your time in even attempting to be resonable. In fact you are attempting a discussion with someone who is completely close minded to your opinion - in ALL respects.

Have a good one,

Borg

[Catchme]

It is not about "winning" an argument, it is not even about an argument, it is about legal and medical facts, rights of equality, and a right to equal access of universal health care.

People have a right of course to their "religious" beliefs, they even have a right to express those beliefs.

However, their personal "beliefs" do not have factual premise, nor do people's personal beliefs make a right to set aside, legal and medical facts, nor others peoples rights. That is why there can be no discussion on equal rights, they just are.

Most certainly, there can be discussion as to why 31% hold personal beliefs, that are not based upon facts and legalities, that would cause them to want to strip strip others of their rights. But why bother? The fact that they think their personal beliefs shoud trump others peoples actual legal rights say enough.

Thank goodness 69% of Canadians understand that rights of; privacy, universal access to medicare, and equality, are a truth that need no addressing.

[Canadian Blue]

No, I do not have to see it from the other side, there is no other side.

Yeah that 31% figure is all just a figment of you're imagination.

That is your opinion based upon your emotional and personal "belief" structures. Your emotional beliefs do not trump my legal right to self determine.

If I'm about to jump off a bridge should anybody stop me, after all it's my body.

There is no killing of anything as there is NO life at that point, and nothing fundamentally changes other than cell division until the 1st spark of brain activity happens around 5-6 months.

It is not about justification, there is nothing to justify. If they thought about long and hard they would most likely decide that it was none of their business. Also, I would suspect that they said 3 months, as that is what it currently is, and human nature means comfort zones. Most likely, if the 23% were educated to the fact that there is no brain activity until 5 months they would move their choice access limits up to 5-6ths, or as I said most likely realize it is none of their business.

So the majority would probably agree with restricting abortion's to three month's or LESS, but since they are uneducated that is why they are against it. Maybe they just think otherwise.

Catchme is a very close minded person, that's about all I can say about that.

Most certainly, there can be discussion as to why 31% hold personal beliefs, that are not based upon facts and legalities, that would cause them to want to strip strip others of their rights. But why bother? The fact that they think their personal beliefs shoud trump others peoples actual legal rights say enough.

Unless they believe that life start's at conception, then it would be considered a matter of the right to human life. It's a divisive issue for a reason Catchme, and you're attempt's to make it black and white aren't working. Some people believe that a fetus which has a heartbeat 22 days after conception show's that its a human being.

Equal rights for every human being, unless that human being is living off a placenta!!!

[Drea]

What the hell is "closed minded" about CHOICE?

Sheesh....

No one on the pro CHOICE side is advocating that we force anyone to abort.

The same cannot be said about the anti CHOICE side -- they advocate that no one should have access to abortion.

And that is wrong -- ramming your belief down someone's throat is wrong. The anti CHOICE side is wrong. Period.

And of course, my mind is CLOSED to any other interpretation. I believe in one thing -- CHOICE. It is MY decision to carry a fetus or abort it -- no one can FORCE me to do either.

[Canadian Blue]

What the hell is "closed minded" about CHOICE?

Sheesh....

No one on the pro CHOICE side is advocating that we force anyone to abort.

The same cannot be said about the anti CHOICE side -- they advocate that no one should have access to abortion.

And that is wrong -- ramming your belief down someone's throat is wrong. The anti CHOICE side is wrong. Period.

And of course, my mind is CLOSED to any other interpretation. I believe in one thing -- CHOICE. It is MY decision to carry a fetus or abort it -- no one can FORCE me to do either.

It's not that simple, as the pro-life side believes that a fetus is a human life, and that life starts at conception. So it's not being close minded, it is about listening to the otherside of the debate and realizing they have valid concern's as well.

[Catchme]

What the hell is "closed minded" about CHOICE?

Sheesh....

No one on the pro CHOICE side is advocating that we force anyone to abort.

The same cannot be said about the anti CHOICE side -- they advocate that no one should have access to abortion.

And that is wrong -- ramming your belief down someone's throat is wrong. The anti CHOICE side is wrong. Period.

And of course, my mind is CLOSED to any other interpretation. I believe in one thing -- CHOICE. It is MY decision to carry a fetus or abort it -- no one can FORCE me to do either.

It's not that simple, as the pro-life side believes that a fetus is a human life, and that life starts at conception. So it's not being close minded, it is about listening to the otherside of the debate and realizing they have valid concern's as well.

Of course, it is as simple as that, beliefs, based upon personal philosophy, do not trump Rights.

They have no valid concerns, validity denotes something that is based upon scientific fact and legal definition. Anti-Choice has concerns based upon their own mythology as opposed to facts.

No one has to listen to someone else's beliefs, particularily when that someone else wants their unsubstantiated beliefs to trump several of those they insist must listen Rights.

How about those who have beliefs that are not based upon fact listen to those who knowledge and facts backing them up?

How about those who think their unfounded beliefs should trump Rights, listen, and respect, the Rights of others?

[geoffrey]

It's unfortunate how close minded and backwoods ignorant the 'progressives' in our society are.

If you believe there shouldn't be discussion, I suggest you take your hardline attitudes elsewhere. This is a political forum where ethics, morals and law are to be discussed.

The first refuge of someone making a weak argument is to attempt to make the issue taboo IMO.

[Catchme]

It's unfortunate how close minded and backwoods ignorant the 'progressives' in our society are.

If you believe there shouldn't be discussion, I suggest you take your hardline attitudes elsewhere. This is a political forum where ethics, morals and law are to be discussed.

The first refuge of someone making a weak argument is to attempt to make the issue taboo IMO.

How am I closed minded geoffery?

Have we been discussing this, not just here but on several threads, geoffery?

The subject is not being made tabooo, Geoffery, in fact what is being said is that it cannot be discussed. Two different things geoffery.

Once you start entertaining the notion; that peoples personal beliefs should trump other peoples Rights, or even entertain the notion that there should be formal discussion on the notion, that some peoples beliefs should trump others peoples Rights, then you leave ALL peoples Rights being able to be discussed for trumping by other peoples personal beliefs. You see that is how it works in a democracy and equality rights geoffery.

It is Rights geoffery, one cannot discuss the taking of one selects groups Rights away based upon beliefs, with out discussing ALL Rights being taken away based upon others beliefs. It is that slippery slope geoffery!

It is a shame that some people take the RIGHTS of others so fllppantly because of their unsupported personal belief structures.

I for one take our Rights and freedoms very seriously, and understand how important they are to society. Just where would we be without them?

[jefferiah]

Who is taking away your rights Catch Me? Abortion is legal.

[Canadian Blue]

How am I closed minded geoffery?

Have we been discussing this, not just here but on several threads, geoffery?

The subject is not being made tabooo, Geoffery, in fact what is being said is that it cannot be discussed. Two different things geoffery.

Once you start entertaining the notion; that peoples personal beliefs should trump other peoples Rights, or even entertain the notion that there should be formal discussion on the notion, that some peoples beliefs should trump others peoples Rights, then you leave ALL peoples Rights being able to be discussed for trumping by other peoples personal beliefs. You see that is how it works in a democracy and equality rights geoffery.

It is Rights geoffery, one cannot discuss the taking of one selects groups Rights away based upon beliefs, with out discussing ALL Rights being taken away based upon others beliefs. It is that slippery slope geoffery!

It is a shame that some people take the RIGHTS of others so fllppantly because of their unsupported personal belief structures.

I for one take our Rights and freedoms very seriously, and understand how important they are to society. Just where would we be without them?

You must have really hated the early feminist's who fought for you're right to vote then, because most of them disagreed with abortion.

As well I was able to give an example of why I believe that a fetus isn't simply "tissue" as you put it.

If the issue is that black and white, then I wonder why it's been one of the most divisive issues of the 20th century, and even of today.

Abortion's been around since Ancient Greece, it's because their are always two sides, and nothing is black and white.

Over the course of the history of abortion, induced abortion has been the source of considerable debate, controversy, and activism. An individual's position on the complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issues is often related to his or her value system. Opinions of abortion may be best described as being a combination of beliefs on its morality, and beliefs on the responsibility, ethical scope, and proper extent of governmental authorities in public policy. Religious ethics also has an influence upon both personal opinion and the greater debate over abortion (see religion and abortion).

In North America, a December 2001 poll surveyed Canadian opinion on abortion, asking Canadians in what circumstances they believe abortion should be permitted; 32% responded that they believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, 52% that it should be legal in certain circumstances, and 14% that it should be legal in no circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AbortionLawsMap.png

So apparently quite a few western countries disagree so they must all be about degrading the right's of other's. Especially Ireland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/95-10_Initiative

[Catchme]

I see you did not address any of the Rights issues. That is telling.

Then you made a red herring comment about I must really be "hating" feminists who came before me because they did not believe in abortions. What feminists were in the past has NO bearing on today's, other than they were the foundation where equality rights have sprung and are appreciated and honoured as such.

Moreover, you have provided NO proof that they didn't, you stated that they didn't. 2 different things, and in fact it is a blanket red herring even. Feminists today do not agree on everything that is people for ya! However, freedom of Choice and Rights are things we do agree on.

I see you completely abandoned your recent poll of Canadians and went with an old one. Do you believe it may support your premise better? Respectfully, it doesn't. It shows that flat out 84% of Canadians are pro-choice and 14% are absolutely anti-choice.

So, now we can see that 17% of the 31% from your other poll do believe in abortions for certain reasons. This leaves ONLY 14% of Canadians that are anti-Choice under alll circumstances.

Other countries and what they do, are NOT part of any discussion regarding Canadian Laws and rights.

[geoffrey]

I see you did not address any of the Rights issues. That is telling.

I've addressed rights issues in the other thread on the topic and I'd perfer if we keep our discussion to the one thread to avoid confusion and just littering the board with our debate on the topic (I don't know if you've realised, but we do both come to the same conclusion).

[Catchme]

I see you did not address any of the Rights issues. That is telling.

I've addressed rights issues in the other thread on the topic and I'd perfer if we keep our discussion to the one thread to avoid confusion and just littering the board with our debate on the topic (I don't know if you've realised, but we do both come to the same conclusion).

geoffery, I was making those comments to canadian blue, not you.

I would have preferred to keep it all on one thread, however, if you follow the track of the thread, it was not I who started the discussion on other threads too, I am merely addressing them as they come. As it seems some want to manage the message they want to get across and give it up on one thread and take it to another if thyey do not like the way the flow is going elsewhere. And I know it's a pain.

And no, we did not come to the same conclusions.

I am morally and ethically, on board for woman's Rights without reservation.