Abortion demonstration just doesn't sound right.

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Well what's in a title anyway? Here we go!

Thousands of anti-abortion protesters thronged Parliament Hill and marched through the downtown on Thursday in what has become an annual rite.

It was the 14th year for the demonstration, which organizers call the “national march for life.”

The crowd mustered on the broad lawn in front of the Peace Tower, listening to speeches, then moved off for a parade through city streets.

Some demonstrators waved placards urging the adoption of a new abortion law. Others carried religious icons and flags.

Some stood silently before gruesome photos of aborted fetuses.

The protest is held each May 12 to mark the 1969 passage of legislation that legalized abortion in Canada under certain conditions.

Those in attendance included high-school students, activists and senior clerics, including Terrence Prendergast, Roman Catholic archbishop of Ottawa.

But unlike past years, a sizable gathering of about 200 counter-protesters gathered near the anti-abortion group before they were escorted off the Hill by police following argumentative confrontations.

Although Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives won a majority government in last week's federal election, few of the anti-abortion protesters thought that will make a difference for their cause.

Mr. Harper was adamant during last month's election campaign that there will be no change in Canada's abortion law under his watch.

“As long as I am Prime Minister we are not opening the abortion debate,” Mr. Harper said. “The government will not bring forward any such legislation and any such legislation that is brought forward will be defeated as long as I am prime minister.”

Jen Bradley of Milton, Ont., a teacher who brought some of her teenage students to the capital for the march, wasn't investing much in Mr. Harper. She's betting on changing opinions through rallies like Thursday's.

“I do think that a march like this, a doubling of numbers and spreading the word, such as it is, is a step in the right direction,” she said.

Father Tom Lynch, a Roman Catholic priest, was another who thought the Conservatives aren't going to help the cause.

“I think Stephen Harper has made it very clear that he and other political leaders don't want to re-open, as he puts it, the issue of abortion or other pro-life issues,” Father Lynch said.

“But the reality is that with every new Parliament, with every new government, we have a moral duty and we have a civic right to be able to express our opinion to be able to achieve changes in public policy.”

Pat O'Brien, a former Liberal MP who sat as an Independent after falling out with his party over abortion, said “the debate is on” and politicians will have to catch up with the public.

And Georges Buscemi, president of Campagne Quebec-Vie, said abortion services can be scaled back without a new law making the procedure illegal.

For instance, federal funding to family-planning organizations “can be diverted to other groups that are more open to life.”

“There could be some behind-the-scenes work done,” Mr. Buscemi said at news conference.

“Different things, subsidies to different organizations, policies on health, policies on education. There are a lot of things that can be done behind the scenes to prepare for the future.”

March organizer Matthew Wojciechowski said there are now between 60 and 65 MPs out of 308 elected to Parliament who are in favour of new abortion laws.
 

CUBert

Time Out
Aug 15, 2010
1,259
2
38
Canada
Good for them! Abortion is murder. Period.

Just as assisted-suicide should be allowed for terminally ill and suffering patients who have had enough of life, abortion should also be allowed for a mother who isn't able to provide an adequate life for a child.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,893
11,177
113
Low Earth Orbit
Ahhhhh so that is what was set up at the Legislature...

Until today I'd never heard of something "Anti-Gentile".
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
Life begins at conception!

"When the baby is born" is already a good middle ground for everyone.
Its actually closer to extreme pro-life then it is to absolute pro-choice. (the right to kill her/his own child)





See Taking choice out completely, will only cause dangerous situation,
where some mothers kill the baby outside of law, and without help of a doctor.

Standing for the principal of it, is not always a good intelligent reason to stand for something.
Consider the consequence of Policy, not just the Principal.

Give everyone a chance to chose, just like you have chosen pro-life for yourself.
Live that choice try to convince others of that choice but don't impose that choice.

Thats why "At birth" is and will continue to be a good intelligent policy to balance the needs of all.

Life begins once you kick your kids out of your house. Until then they live under your rule. =)
Ok i'm joking hehe

I say Birth
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
First off let me state quite clearly that I am not a proponent of abortion except for legitimate medical reasons.

Now to the issue at hand. This is a moral issue and for those who are pro-life and want laws you first have to consider that if you go down this road of legislating your morality upon somebody else you had better be prepared for others to legislate their morality upon you. How about some mandatory sex-ed in the schools, right now parents have a choice but we can just make it law. How about we ban the protestant church, its catholic or nothing and thats the law. Would you all like to have vaccines mandatory under the law? Circumcision?

You see it becomes quite obvious very quickly that individual morality has no place in the law. Wars have been fought over this legislation of morality. Pro-choice is the only answer if you want to keep all your rights to choose about anything, feel free to not participate in abortion but don't ever tell me I don't have a choice!
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
First off let me state quite clearly that I am not a proponent of abortion except for legitimate medical reasons.

Now to the issue at hand. This is a moral issue and for those who are pro-life and want laws you first have to consider that if you go down this road of legislating your morality upon somebody else you had better be prepared for others to legislate their morality upon you. How about some mandatory sex-ed in the schools, right now parents have a choice but we can just make it law. How about we ban the protestant church, its catholic or nothing and thats the law. Would you all like to have vaccines mandatory under the law? Circumcision?

You see it becomes quite obvious very quickly that individual morality has no place in the law. Wars have been fought over this legislation of morality. Pro-choice is the only answer if you want to keep all your rights to choose about anything, feel free to not participate in abortion but don't ever tell me I don't have a choice!

The whole law is based on morality. Heck, even universal compulsory public education is based on a moral belief that all must receive an education. To have no moral belief imposed in the law would mean no government either. Pure anarchy.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
The whole law is based on morality. Heck, even universal compulsory public education is based on a moral belief that all must receive an education. To have no moral belief imposed in the law would mean no government either. Pure anarchy.
Ya! That does not mean chaos, BTW. Read the Anarchist Manifesto written in the 1800s. Just means the community is the highest for of government and the federal level would be the lowest. Also see the original draft of the American constitution based on the Iroquois Confederacy constitution.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
The whole law is based on morality. Heck, even universal compulsory public education is based on a moral belief that all must receive an education. To have no moral belief imposed in the law would mean no government either. Pure anarchy.
Actually public education is not compulsory as you seem to believe, there are many private schools and a large number of people who home-school their children. Is there some level of morality in law, sure, but the type of morality that is legislated by abortion laws is equitable to legisalting religion on people. I don't want anyone telling me how to live so I will not tell them how to live, that is where the abortion issue crosses the line.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Life begins at conception!

Yawn.... just because you say so, doesn't make it correct.

This has been debated to death, yet it seems the Pro-Lifers seem to still want to bash this topic over the head because they're sore losers and don't like how laws were made up, nor do they like other people making decisions about their own lives that don't line up to their own decisions.

So they run around thumping their chests and holding up graphical images as if it'll sway anybody's opinion who looks at this topic in a logical and factual manner.

Life begins at conception?

Really?

A sperm is alive and the egg is also considered alive..... a carrot is alive, and so is fungus.

Shall we give basic human rights to a sperm?

How about the egg?

Shall we give basic human rights to a carrot simply because its alive?

There are specific attributes given within the definition of a Human Being that restrict who or what gets those basic human rights..... and a sperm, an egg, nor a fetus fits into those definitions of a Human Being and you're not considered a living, functional human being until you are born and take your first breath.

That's it.... end of discussion.

Why you pro-lifers keep thinking you have a valid argument is beyond me.... why you guys keep bringing up this topic almost every single day I simply don't get, other then because someone's a poor loser or because they think their God tells them to do all of this.

But regardless.... keep bringing up the topic and it will return back to the same old arguments and opinions that resolve nothing.... pro-lifers will rant their opinions and pro-choice supporters will fire back.

Added:

And I sure as hell would hate to be a female in a society that deems a two-celled organism's rights are more important then my own.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Just as assisted-suicide should be allowed for terminally ill and suffering patients who have had enough of life, abortion should also be allowed for a mother who isn't able to provide an adequate life for a child.

That's right.... kill em rather than put them up for adoption.

And I sure as hell would hate to be a female in a society that deems a two-celled organism's rights are more important then my own.


She had the right to choose before she spread her legs.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
Yawn.... just because you say so, doesn't make it correct.

This has been debated to death, yet it seems the Pro-Lifers seem to still want to bash this topic over the head because they're sore losers and don't like how laws were made up, nor do they like other people making decisions about their own lives that don't line up to their own decisions.

So they run around thumping their chests and holding up graphical images as if it'll sway anybody's opinion who looks at this topic in a logical and factual manner.

Life begins at conception?

Really?

A sperm is alive and the egg is also considered alive..... a carrot is alive, and so is fungus.

Shall we give basic human rights to a sperm?

How about the egg?

Shall we give basic human rights to a carrot simply because its alive?

There are specific attributes given within the definition of a Human Being that restrict who or what gets those basic human rights..... and a sperm, an egg, nor a fetus fits into those definitions of a Human Being and you're not considered a living, functional human being until you are born and take your first breath.

That's it.... end of discussion.

Why you pro-lifers keep thinking you have a valid argument is beyond me.... why you guys keep bringing up this topic almost every single day I simply don't get, other then because someone's a poor loser or because they think their God tells them to do all of this.

But regardless.... keep bringing up the topic and it will return back to the same old arguments and opinions that resolve nothing.... pro-lifers will rant their opinions and pro-choice supporters will fire back.

Added:

And I sure as hell would hate to be a female in a society that deems a two-celled organism's rights are more important then my own.

I'm in total ageement with your post, I have been down this road on this forum a couple of times,
so this time I will just agree and move on, you make good sense.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
So if a woman miscarries, do we slam her into one of Harper's spread around Gulags?


Really? Miscarriage is the same as purposely murdering your child? Were you born an idiot or did you have to work your way up to it?
 

CUBert

Time Out
Aug 15, 2010
1,259
2
38
Canada
really? Miscarriage is the same as purposely murdering your child? Were you born an idiot or did you have to work your way up to it?

pro choice you ****ing neanderthal, when you take away her right to choose to take away a little freedom.
And let's be honest, what the **** do you know about giving birth ??????????
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
pro choice you ****ing neanderthal, when you take away her right to choose to take away a little freedom.
And let's be honest, what the **** do you know about giving birth ??????????


Again, she had the choice of having or not having sex. Unless she's a complete moron, she knows that there is always a possibility of getting pregnant when having sex.


and you're right, after 7 kids, what could I possibly know about pregnancy or birth.
 

Omicron

Privy Council
Jul 28, 2010
1,694
3
38
Vancouver
I'm in total ageement with your post, I have been down this road on this forum a couple of times,
so this time I will just agree and move on, you make good sense.

What I don't get is that legal abortion is done before the brain starts to develop, which means the doctor and mother are dealing with tissue, therefore the pro-lifers are believing that a soul drops into that tissue at the instant of conception.

Is that right Colpy et al? Do you think souls get "added" to a tissue system at the moment of conception?

In so many ways and on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

Let's start with this:

Hey Colpy, ever notice how you got nipples?

I bet you think those are decorations for your pecs, but the fact of the matter is it's a real-world demonstration of the fact that there is one species called human with hormones causing it to develop in one direction or another, and powerful those hormones are... look at the difference it made in the size of your dick versus the size of a clit... which is why if you know what you're doing you know how to make a clit feel good.

Did the Colpys' of the planet in their wallowness of dumbness ever stop for one nanosecond to use one billionth of their brain to see that it means if one were to plant an embryo in a male body, then, in fact, because it's based on hormone signals sent from the embryo to the body's pituitary telling that body to innervate a blood-supply system to it, that if you plant an embryo in a male body, the male body's pituitary will respond with hormones causing growth of a blood-supply system around it, such that a male with an embryo planted in it *will* grow the blood-supply to host the growth of that embryo into a full-grown fetus.

He'll have problems. No hips means him and the fetus are both going to be tremendously uncomfortable. You hear women talk about backaches? Wait until you have no hips.

Second will be delivery. Obviously that means CC or death for both upon non-delivery.

So... next time a Colpy demands a woman he knocked up carry the kid to birth, we step in with modern science and tell him if he wants it to be born, he can carry it... we can do a transplant of the embryo into his body just as easy as an abort.
 
Last edited:

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
I see the baby killers still don't believe in one taking responsibility for ones actions.
 

Omicron

Privy Council
Jul 28, 2010
1,694
3
38
Vancouver
I see the baby killers still don't believe in one taking responsibility for ones actions.

What responsibility?

It's a woman's decision. If guys had to bear kids you bet they'd say it's their decision whether or not to carry it. If guys had to carry the fetus they'd say, "**** off, I'll deliver when I'm ready".

Women have been controlling their impregnation since the beginning of time... it's just that now we have the technology to keep it clean.

I met an old woman on a long bus ride one night and she told me in her day women after a whoopy night would stop pregnancy by drinking a pint or two of mineral oil.

She said it would make them sick, but that at least they knew they weren't going to be knocked up.

Piss off and **** off and leave it up to the person who's pregnant!

I know enough about hormones to crank a guy with hormones to make him grow tits and stop growing a beard while his nuts shrink. None of that has to do with the capacity of a human brain to think about what it's dealing with... unless... are you one of those morons thinking like ancient fag Greeks saying guys are smarter than women while women are the ones being fed with a home to raise kids?!?

If mothers and grandmothers and aunts and great-aunts want to go on about it I don't care, but boys able to squirt enough sperm to repopulate the entire population of England with one ejaculation need to keep their mouths shut and ponder.

What you have to think about is if she decideds to go to term, you are going to have to pitch in.
 
Last edited: