Inconvenience? Do you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about?
No, no you don't. You're simply another blathering mouth, ready to spout some idiotic opinion simply based on what someone told you to believe.
The Proudest Hour of the Prolife Movement.
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Inconvenience? Do you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about?
No, no you don't. You're simply another blathering mouth, ready to spout some idiotic opinion simply based on what someone told you to believe.
What's more abortion utterly abrogates the responsibility of a society to protect the most vulnerable and defenseless of it naissant citizens. It devolves the rationale of 'freedom' into an absurd concept individualism as a solitude, with responsibility only to its own gratification and without the same to others.. the governing directive is that of solitary indulgence.
This is not a steady state condition for any culture or nation, it is a dynamic that will spread into every nook and cranny of its social cohesion and tear it apart. Just like those infants who are being sacrificed for the sake of this 'freedom'. The repercusssions to all members of the society are profound. This is not limited to an individual 'choice' and an insentient conglomeration of cellular material. It is between life and death, for the child, and for the society.
This is not a steady state condition for any culture or nation, it is a dynamic that will spread into every nook and cranny of its social cohesion and tear it apart. Just like those infants who are being sacrificed for the sake of this 'freedom'. The repercusssions to all members of the society are profound. This is not limited to an individual 'choice' and an insentient conglomeration of cellular material. It is between life and death, for the child, and for the society.
Last edited:
:angry3:"""Then all of a sudden, she stopped coming for the picket duty. Nobody in the prolife movement saw her for a long time. When they enquired about her, they found out that her daughter was raped, conceived as a result, and the woman decided that abortion was the best alternative for her daughter. But then, in good conscience, she could not picket the abortion clinic.
At least that woman was honest. Most women would get an abortion and continue picketing"""
Well, at least we know your thoughts on women,rotest: artist.
Says more about you than all the condescending drivel you post.
You and China related ??
Drivel is in the eye of the beholder, Nuggler.
Coldstream, you argument would make perfect sense (indeed, that is what I always tell prolifers) if one agrees with the premise that abortion kills babies.
But that is where the problem comes. We, who support choice, do not believe that abortion kills babies. So none of the arguments that prolifers make really make any sense. Since a baby is not involved, a woman may do as she chooses.
Convince me that abortion kills babies and I will stand right besides you opposing abortion.
I can understand why abortion creeps you out so much. If a woman kills say, a week old baby (where a live baby is indeed involved, there is no argument about that), I would feel creeped out too. But you think that abortion is the same as killing a one week old baby, I see the two things as being totally different.
My, My! Aren't we just a ray of sun shine?
I am reminded of Nun's Island in the St. Laurence just off Montreal. Some developers bought it in '68 from the Sisters of perpetual poverty (or something like that). The developer wanted to use the convent as an office space while building condos. The crew that was sent under the building to check the foundation found hundreds of baby skeletons buried under the house. That night the story echoed around the world.
The next day a retraction was posted to say that a mistake had been made and that the skeletons were those of dogs and cats. A friend of mine who was on that crew was told in no uncertain terms that if he said another word, he would never work again in his entire life, anywhere in the world. Another friend and I decided to go and get some evidence that night. We ran into an 8 foot electrified fence with armed guards and Rottwielers on the inside. So all I can say to self righteous catholics is: clean up your own house before you go judging others.
Cliffy, Quebec in those days was heavily, devoutly Catholic. Catholic Church ruled with an iron fist. Wasn’t it Quebec which imprisoned Dr. Morgantaler for performing abortions?
But today’s Québec is totally different. If it happened today you can be sure the story would receive maximum coverage.
But today’s Québec is totally different. If it happened today you can be sure the story would receive maximum coverage.
Ahhhh.....Mortengaler admitted commiting abortions, but entered a plea of not guilty....the jury found him not guilty.....Quebec convicted Mortengaler after the judge over-ruled the decision of the Jury..........a decision which was, in its turn, over-ruled by the Supreme Court.
This is important because it proves the obvious....juries DO NOT have to follow the law, they can over-rule the law, a concept known as jury nullification.....and the very essense of the purpose of juries....to see justice done, as opposed to simple law........
This being Canada, however, the Supreme Court had to suppress its own finding for freedom.....anyone who TELLS a jury they can ignore not only the judge's instruction, but the law itself....is guilty of contempt.8O
BTW, this means, of course, SJP was wrong yet again.....Quebec broke the hold of the Church in the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s.........
Acquiring trichinosis is a natural side effect of eating pork without the proper precautions. In some cases the natural, beneficient organisms living symbiotically with us can become malignant. Every organism has the right (but maybe not the power) to choose to not be some other organism's life support system.
After birth it is called adoption or abandonment and is routinely practiced in the animal and human kingdom. Before birth, abandoned organisms would die because they cannot take care of themself and nobody else can and we call it abortion.
If the groups don't like abortions their scientists should figure out how to transplant these fetuses and keep them and the person bearing them alive.
After birth it is called adoption or abandonment and is routinely practiced in the animal and human kingdom. Before birth, abandoned organisms would die because they cannot take care of themself and nobody else can and we call it abortion.
If the groups don't like abortions their scientists should figure out how to transplant these fetuses and keep them and the person bearing them alive.
Wow what a twisted path this discussion has gone down...
a) I'm pro-choice. I don't like abortion but I think its more of a crime for the society to inflict its laws on a woman's body than for her to end a pregnancy, no matter what her reasons.
b) Murdering a doctor who performs abortions is still murder. We are a society of laws (be it the US or Canada). Where was this man's due process? When was his trial? Who gave his killer the authority to execute his "sentence"? If people want to change the law, they are welcome to attempt to do so through legitimate means but vigilantism is criminal too, regardless of what it is in response to.
a) I'm pro-choice. I don't like abortion but I think its more of a crime for the society to inflict its laws on a woman's body than for her to end a pregnancy, no matter what her reasons.
b) Murdering a doctor who performs abortions is still murder. We are a society of laws (be it the US or Canada). Where was this man's due process? When was his trial? Who gave his killer the authority to execute his "sentence"? If people want to change the law, they are welcome to attempt to do so through legitimate means but vigilantism is criminal too, regardless of what it is in response to.
Niflmir, do you remember the Chantal Daigle case in the 80s? I do (I am an old man). Chantal was 5 or six months pregnant and was contemplating an abortion. Her boy friend filed a lawsuit in the courts demanding that courts prevent her from having an abortion.
Incredibly, a Quebec Court agreed with him (that was the last gasp of the Catholic Church in Quebec). She appealed and the case was before Appeals Court.
At that time he made the same argument. He said that he wanted the baby, Chantal didn’t. So he suggested that doctors take it out of the womb and keep it alive artificially. Total nonsense of course, we didn’t have the technology in those days (I don’t think we have it today). But that didn’t stop him from making the argument.
Incidentally, while the case was pending before the Appeals Court, she went to Massachusetts (she was too far gone to get an abortion in Canada) and got an abortion. The case ended right there.
Again, opinion only? Anyone can claim anything but if they don't back up what they claim, it's only
their own brand of bullshyte. I haven't read much of anything about what cases this guy worked on. Have you? I didn't think so, yet you seem to feel justified in trivializing his work (cleft palates? Were you reading the guy's patient files to be able to make that judgement?). And you tell me what I said is BS? You are funny.
AbortionInCanada.ca .:. Reasons Women Terminated Pregnancy
Coldstream won't back up his statement that 99% of abortions are elective. I know why, he's wrong. It's closer to 90%. Way too high, IMO, but then this thread is about Tiller and his reasons, not the general early term reasons. I bet coldstream won't back up his commetn about those abortions performed by Tiller because he knows he's wrong.
Either way, killing Tiller is just as wrong as killing fetuses. Defending the person who killed Tiller is just as morally bankrupt.
Coldstream won't back up his statement that 99% of abortions are elective. I know why, he's wrong. It's closer to 90%. Way too high, IMO, but then this thread is about Tiller and his reasons, not the general early term reasons. I bet coldstream won't back up his commetn about those abortions performed by Tiller because he knows he's wrong.
Either way, killing Tiller is just as wrong as killing fetuses. Defending the person who killed Tiller is just as morally bankrupt.
False. Common abortion is not the abandonment of an organism before birth, allowing it to die. It is the killing THEN removing of that organism. In Canada, that can legally happen even once the fetus is viable to be removed and abandoned to live on its own as well as any dumpster baby.
No abortion clinic I've ever heard of removes live 'organisms' from a womb, at least not on purpose.
Drivel is racist and/or sexist comments. That's the eye of this beholder Nugg. Just so you know. ;-)
Religious fanatics will be the destruction of society if left to fester. Some how they manage to twist one of their commandments to say it is alright to kill a living , breathing person but not to remove something from a persons body that is not even alive and is really little more than a parasite. Life begins at birth, not when some (male) religious fanatic decides it does.
Not necessarily, karrie. Drivel can be about any subject, not only race or sex. One can talk drivel about just about every subject (as no doubt some think that I do).
In Canada, that can legally happen even once the fetus is viable to be removed and abandoned to live on its own as well as any dumpster baby.
It can karrie, but it doesn’t. As far as I know, no doctor in Canada will perform an abortion after 24 weeks (unless mother’s life is in danger or serious, permanent damage to her health may result). In the Chantal Daigle case I mentioned above, she could not find any doctor in Ontario or Quebec to give her an abortion, she was too far gone. She had to go to Massachusetts to get it done.
Personally I won’t mind some restrictions on late term abortions. But currently there is no abuse of the system; doctors do a good job of policing themselves. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
It can karrie, but it doesn’t. As far as I know, no doctor in Canada will perform an abortion after 24 weeks (unless mother’s life is in danger or serious, permanent damage to her health may result). In the Chantal Daigle case I mentioned above, she could not find any doctor in Ontario or Quebec to give her an abortion, she was too far gone. She had to go to Massachusetts to get it done.
Personally I won’t mind some restrictions on late term abortions. But currently there is no abuse of the system; doctors do a good job of policing themselves. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.