It is hard to put any kind of restrictions on abortion. There are no reasonable arguments for it, only the religious arguments. The only reason to ban or restrict abortion is because it is against somebody's religious beliefs.
Canada Stands Alone On Anti-abortion
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
It is hard to put any kind of restrictions on abortion. There are no reasonable arguments for it, only the religious arguments. The only reason to ban or restrict abortion is because it is against somebody's religious beliefs.
Indeed, that is why I said, I don't understand the title of the thread. I think he just wants to discus abortion.
You are right about throwing a bone to religious conservatives about gay marriage. Harper lost one election to Martin and gay marriage played an important part in it. Harper wants to win above everything else. So in the next campaign he promised that he won’t use the NW Clause to stop gay marriage.
But he had to throw a bone to his base, the religious conservatives. So he agreed to revisit the issue. After he became the PM, he did the minimum possible to fulfill the promise, but no more.
He did not introduce legislation in the House of Commons outlawing gay marriage. He introduced resolution in the Commons asking the MPs whether he should bring a legislation to ban gay marriage.
He gave his MPs a big enough loophole to drive a truck through it. Conservative MPs could claim that while they are against gay marriage, it is not really in the interest of the country to dig up the settled issue. They were not voting for gay marriage, they were simply voting against digging up the issue. Many more Conservative MPs voted not to dig up the issue than originally did to legalize gay marriage.
So Harper fulfilled his promise to his base (barely) and he washed his hands of the whole thing.
Last edited:
Agreed....I would add a few however.
If the baby is deemed to be morbidly handicapped I would support abortion.
I find it funny how cons wouldn't allow abortion and at the same time call for cuts to social spending that helps single Moms cope with raising a child alone when the Dad has frigged off. Having said that we also have to do a better job of collecting from dead beat Dads especially if you are forcing women to have babies they did not want....and of course in rare occurrences you have to go after dead beat Moms as well.
True. It's just that the idea of abortion is somthing like deliberately killing a living being, which is basically almost like murder. It's morally incorrect.
BS, it's actually a life.
It matters not whether some God says it is or isn't.
The minute the cell splits, it's life. I respect all life.
That said, I still respect the fact that I as a man, should not have a say over another persons body.
But I just felt compelled to address the absurdity of your parroted doctrine. Can we expect something new anytime soon? Or is this all you have?
I personally feel the term "Family Planning" refers to any planning and/or decisions made towards having or not having a family. It's planning for your future in regards to a family.... ie: do you want one or not?
It doesn't necessarily mean when someone is going through "Family Planning" that they're trying to avoid a family, that to me just doesn't make sense.
That is subjective and dependent on each individual situation. A particular pregnancy could cause serious enough complications that it could drastically affect your reproductive health (ie: ability to have children in the future)
Just because something "Can" do something doesn't mean it "Will" do something for all situations in relation to that "Can."
And it goes beyond just reproductive health, but that individual's health overall, as if the woman isn't of an adequate weight and health to carry a child full term, it may be in her best interest to have an abortion and perhaps try again to have a kid in the future when she's more healthier.... rather then risk both her and the fetus, thus ending up with two potential deaths.
She does and has expressed this respect, where she clearly said she can not speak for Canadians nor dictate to our officials what we should be doing.
You seemed to have missed this quote of hers:
"I'm not going to speak for what Canada decides," Clinton said as she sat beside Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon."
As well as:
"I do not think government should be involved in these decisions," Clinton said, adding that in her opinion "it is perfectly legitimate for people to hold their own personal views based on conscience, religion or any other basis."
Seems reasonable to me, and certainly not a loose cannon as you put it.
It's funny how many finger point at the Democrats for being soft and passive, yet once they speak their voice and stand by their views, suddenly people start shouting for them to be put on the back burner.
That doesn't make them right, nor does that mean everybody who voted for them approved those views.
For the record I didn't vote for them.
If the Conservative views were that popular in Canada, they would have won an overwhelming majority.... but considering the greater majority of Canadians voted for parties other then the Conservatives, I don't consider that much of an argument.
Now that's quite the ignorant argument, moving on....
Like I said, Tay-Sachs, anencephaly, etc. where the baby will only suffer for its short life. What would YOU do in cases like that?
I'll give you something.
Once the cell splits, you consider it a life?
Ok.... a very primitive form of live, but I'll give you that.
Now.... where does it state that "Life" is equatable to the life of a living, breathing "Human Being" who is fully developed and its body can function independently from any host mother to award it the same equal human rights?
A worm has many more cells then that newly split cell, it's considered alive, thus should it be given the exact same rights?
Even if you could submit some sort of logical argument on giving a split cell the same rights as you and I.... our own charter of rights in this country dictate that a woman shall not have her rights to decide what happens to her body dictated/infringed by someone else, including a fetus/zygote/two celled organism that is 100% dependent on her body and resources.... thus giving any form of rights to an unborn human fetus would be irrelevant because the rights of the mother to determine what happens to her own body trump the rights of an unborn fetus that doesn't even have a designated gender, let alone any proof of consciousness. And before someone brings up the electrical signals in the brain that can be tracked, all of that can be explained away as developmental progression, muscle stimuli to develop muscles, etc.... not enough evidence to warrant any means of revoking a woman her own rights over her own body.
It is her body, this fetus is more or less, half of her body as well, and on top of all that, she was here first. Whether or not she decides to keep the fetus or not is her decision alone, not your's, not mine and not the governments'.
If you choose not to have an abortion due to religious reasons that state it is wrong, fine..... you still made the choice for yourself. Allow others the same respect.
Which means those people who didn't vote, are irrelevant to the equation at this time, since their views are currently unknown.
Some can't do that well into their 20s, yet others survive independently from before a full term pregnancy and a few can do it from the "test tube".
Do humans give birth to worms?
For the most part, you are correct. But,
Brain-Mind.com - environment, Neuroplasticty, neuroscience, child, development, memory, emotion, paranormal, health
Yup.
The fact still remains that saying "the greater majority of Canadians voted for parties other than the Conservatives" is misleading and inaccurate. But, it's not a big deal.
That's just it though, like I said before, I don't think I'll ever be completely against abortion because there are so many other possibilities that abortion might be a choice one would have to make.
Does pooping out tape worms count? :lol:
There's been a number of times I claimed to give birth to something or other in the bathroom.
On a serious note.... if it all was summed up by giving birth to something, then what happens when you have a still born who's supposed to have "Rights"
Does the mother get charged for the child not surviving for whatever reason?
The problem is that giving rights to a fetus opens up a bigger can of..... er.... worms, legally speaking.
Regardless, none of the that disqualifies any of my other points.