Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion

[Cannuck]

You accept that Hitler was right unto himself but you reject his actions as being "right".

I don't believe in the concept of right and wrong but in the sense you mean....yes.

But if he had won the war, the prevailing attitude would be that he was right.

So? The prevailing attitude does not determine what is right or wrong.

In the end, the west was just as guilty for refusing the ship of fools to land on their soil and sent them back to Hitler to be carted of to the concentration camps. A condemnation of Hitler would then entail a condemnation of the Allies.

Yes, if you wanted to ignore reason behind action and only looked at the final result. That is like saying there is no difference between Robert Latimer's actions and OJ Simpson' actions since both resulted in a dead person. That is true if you ignore motivation or intent.

 

[Cliffy]

I don't believe in the concept of right and wrong but in the sense you mean....yes.



So? The prevailing attitude does not determine what is right or wrong.



Yes, if you wanted to ignore reason behind action and only looked at the final result. That is like saying there is no difference between Robert Latimer's actions and OJ Simpson' actions since both resulted in a dead person. That is true if you ignore motivation or intent.

Maybe you could clarify for me what was the intent or motivation for refusing Jewish immigrants from landing on our soil. Or American or British or anybody else that was asked to take them.

 

[Cannuck]

Maybe you could clarify for me what was the intent or motivation for refusing Jewish immigrants from landing on our soil. Or American or British or anybody else that was asked to take them.

That would be your job as you brought it up.

 

[Cliffy]

That would be your job as you brought it up.

The reason I asked you to clarify because I don't understand your assertions because of the way you worded it. Are you saying that we are exempt from guilt because our motivations for refusing the Jews is different from Hitler's for sending them to us?

 

[Cannuck]

The reason I asked you to clarify because I don't understand your assertions because of the way you worded it. Are you saying that we are exempt from guilt because our motivations for refusing the Jews is different from Hitler's for sending them to us?

I don't know the motivations for either action however, returning Jews because we don't want them is different than returning them because we want them murdered.

If we knew they will be killed if sent back then we would be guilty (your word) but I don't believe in guilt.

 

[Kreskin]

It's promoting a choice of one sort to avoid a choice of another sort. One can accept or refuse something, which is a choice. The subject of the sentence in consideration of the thread topic urges women to refuse abortion. So it's a choice concerning a choice.

That's right. I assume they can refuse to refuse.

 

[AnnaG]

Or we can choose to choose. lol Good assumption.

 

[JLM]

I have also changed my opinion on the death penalty, abortion, political parties and many other topics. It's called being open minded. That is the part that Joey doesn't understand. If he can give me a credible argument in support of his position, I'm more than willing to take it into consideration. He is confusing his inability to do so with other people not being open minded. It reminds me of the 9/11 conspiracy folks....everybody else just doesn't get it. That's easier for them to accept than the reality that their position doesn't make sense.

Can't argue with that, after 50 years or so of stubborness, I've found that those who can adjust their thinking do the best and are generally happier people. You don't have to change your "line in the sand" about personal moral issues, just be ready to accept there are times when the other person's position is correct or at least deserves consideration.

 

[ironsides]

So where is the problem, Anna? Surely there is big difference between a human being and a dead human being?

One is dead and one is alive, but they are both human.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Can't argue with that, after 50 years or so of stubborness, I've found that those who can adjust their thinking do the best and are generally happier people. You don't have to change your "line in the sand" about personal moral issues, just be ready to accept there are times when the other person's position is correct or at least deserves consideration.

Sorry JLM, but I don’t think the position that human life begins at conception, that abortion is murder, it should be banned in all circumstances, and doctors and women who participate in abortions should be imprisoned, that is not the position that one can compromise with or even try to understand. To me, it is an extreme, religious, fanatic position.

There can be no compromise with such a position. After all, what would be the compromise with such a position? Put the doctor (and the woman) in prison for only five years, not ten years?

There can be no compromise.

 

[Liberalman]

sjp killing a human is a religous act wow is that what you really believe?

 

[AnnaG]

lol Thanks, Liberalman. I needed that little bit of humor. So a person is a Buddhist if he kills someone in the process of mugging them. A home invader is a Jainist if they kill someone in the process of raiding a home. Abank robber is a Christian if he kills someone in the process of robbing a bank. A mass murderer is a Hindu if they kill someone for fun. Hilarious.

 

[AnnaG]

Anyway, I did more digging. I couldn't find ONE scientist in the broad field of biology, especially one in embryology, genetics, or any other field specialising in human life development, that says life in humans begins after birth. ALL the ones I found say it begins MUCH before that.

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

The Case Against Abortion: Medical Testimony

The New Atlantis » The First Fourteen Days of Human Life

ZENIT - The Facts of When Human Life Begins

"Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development.
This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set
of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific
knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed
that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins
at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process
called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being,
from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing. "
Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke.

http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

So the only other issue of ANY importance is the legal one. And the legal people hinge scientific matters upon scientific expertise.
So Joey, you are dead wrong. Life in humans begins before birth, and that is the consensus you demanded.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

sjp killing a human is a religous act wow is that what you really believe?

Killing a human has been a religious act for a long time now, Liberalman. Both Christians and Muslims have killed (and tortured) millions in the name of Jesus and Allah.

So why does that surprise you? Religion and killing go together many times.

But if you are talking of abortion in particular, I don’t think abortion involves killing a human being, so the point is irrelevant.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Anyway, I did more digging. I couldn't find ONE scientist in the broad field of biology, especially one in embryology, genetics, or any other field specialising in human life development, that says life in humans begins after birth. ALL the ones I found say it begins MUCH before that.

Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception

The Case Against Abortion: Medical Testimony

The New Atlantis » The First Fourteen Days of Human Life

ZENIT - The Facts of When Human Life Begins

"Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development.
This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set
of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific
knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed
that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins
at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process
called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being,
from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing. "
Why Can't We Love Them Both? On Line Book by Dr. and Mrs. Willke.

http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

So the only other issue of ANY importance is the legal one. And the legal people hinge scientific matters upon scientific expertise.
So Joey, you are dead wrong. Life in humans begins before birth, and that is the consensus you demanded.

Anna, you should know better than that. Most of these sources are committed, extreme right wing, anti-abortion sources, not unbiased medical sources.

Dr. Wilke has been the president of Right to Life (the biggest anti-abortion organization in USA) for many years now (or at least he was, he may have retired now). Just because Dr. Wilke or Dr. Dobson (Focus on the Family) have a ‘Dr.’ in front of them doesn’t make their opinion unbiased, expert opinion. They still are right wing extremists.


Westchester Institute is a well known right wing think tank. Their opinion isn’t worth the paper it is written on (Except to a right wing extremist).

Show me sources such as AMA, CMA, CMAJ, JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, Nature etc. Then we will talk.

 

[Kreskin]

The argument is one of law, not fact. Does it matter what someone considers the the physical makeup of human life at conception? If scientists didn't think they were studying a human life they wouldn't use it for research. Health Canada allows for the use of excess IVF-fertilized human embryos for research. The laws governing it were established after years of consultation with reproductive ethicists, scientists, medical associations, individuals, and societies. Are all of these people murderers? No, they have given these issues a helluva lot of thought. The steering committee for the Human Reproduction Act is heavily conservative-weighted and even they support the law. That's why I say that arguing whether or not it is human life has no bearing on the issue. It's all about legal status, and in the case of abortion who has legal authority over the woman's body. The courts aren't willing to hand her rights over to the embryo or fetus. That doesn't mean everyone who supports abortion rights is a fan of abortion. It means the alternative is even worse.

 

[AnnaG]

The argument that it is only anti-abortion people (even the pro-life experts) that say human life is prebirth is wrong.

THE PRO-CHOICE ACTION NETWORK

 

[AnnaG]

Anna, you should know better than that. Most of these sources are committed, extreme right wing, anti-abortion sources, not unbiased medical sources.

Dr. Wilke has been the president of Right to Life (the biggest anti-abortion organization in USA) for many years now (or at least he was, he may have retired now). Just because Dr. Wilke or Dr. Dobson (Focus on the Family) have a ‘Dr.’ in front of them doesn’t make their opinion unbiased, expert opinion. They still are right wing extremists.


Westchester Institute is a well known right wing think tank. Their opinion isn’t worth the paper it is written on (Except to a right wing extremist).

Show me sources such as AMA, CMA, CMAJ, JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, Nature etc. Then we will talk.

No, I won't show you any more research because you wouldn't admit to being wrong even on your deathbed, IMO.

 

[JLM]

Sorry JLM, but I don’t think the position that human life begins at conception, that abortion is murder, it should be banned in all circumstances, and doctors and women who participate in abortions should be imprisoned, that is not the position that one can compromise with or even try to understand. To me, it is an extreme, religious, fanatic position.

There can be no compromise with such a position. After all, what would be the compromise with such a position? Put the doctor (and the woman) in prison for only five years, not ten years?

There can be no compromise.

Yes there definitely can be compromise- if continuing the pregnancy is dangerous to the woman's health, I see no problem with abortion. I'm not so extreme I would call abortion murder under any circumstances. I think in the final analysis it is up to the woman to decide, but she has to live with the decision and to justify it by saying it's not alive or it's not human just doesn't fly........iN my humble opinion. There are all kinds of people who would love to adopt. Now having said that, that is only my opinion (which I believe is based on common sense), but I don't deny others their opinion.

 

[JLM]

Anna, you should know better than that. Most of these sources are committed, extreme right wing, anti-abortion sources, not unbiased medical sources.

Dr. Wilke has been the president of Right to Life (the biggest anti-abortion organization in USA) for many years now (or at least he was, he may have retired now). Just because Dr. Wilke or Dr. Dobson (Focus on the Family) have a ‘Dr.’ in front of them doesn’t make their opinion unbiased, expert opinion. They still are right wing extremists.


Westchester Institute is a well known right wing think tank. Their opinion isn’t worth the paper it is written on (Except to a right wing extremist).

Show me sources such as AMA, CMA, CMAJ, JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, Nature etc. Then we will talk.

While we are at it we should get one other thing straightened out. Where is it carved in stone that "right wing" people are any less sensible or knowledgable or wise than "left wing" people? Until someone shows me scientific proof of that we can not accept that premise.........ie, it's bullsh*t.