Canada Stands Alone On Anti-abortion

[JLM]

I can buy this in some cases but not all. This doesn't answer for victims of rape/incest: how is it a woman's fault if she is forced into sexual intercourse against her will? Is it your contention that if a woman is raped "she was asking for it"?

How is it just that she is now compelled to carry the result of a crime against her, to term? How can it be right that she is forced to acknowledge and relive the attack on her evertime she looks in a mirror or down at her belly?

YOu make good points Wulfie that can use a little fine tuning. Rape and incest are slightly different in that the act can produce different results, rape can produce a normal health child, whereas incest is liable to produce an idiot. I can't imagine the pain and suffering such an act would cause the mother, especially for the 9 months, she is carrying, but the baby could be adopted out (I understand all the arguments against it). It would require a woman of considerable character to arrive at the right decision.

 

[JLM]

another bullsh*t argument brought out to justify the slaughter. The percentage of abortions preformed because of rape or incest is minuscule, but it can be pulled out to score big points with those that are too lazy to take a good look at the reasons for abortion.

as for the poor woman argument....... what about the baby? Why should the baby be killed for the "sins of the father"? I thought we, as a society, had moved beyond having the progeny of a murderer/sinner/enemy killed as well.

You're making perfect sense this morning, Gerry...............................S.J. - are you paying attention?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Oh, I don't know, maybe because one has been born and the other hasn't yet.

Following your logic, shouldn't masturbation be illegal?

A normal dose of semen contains 200 or 300 million sperms. If fetus is a human being, so is the sperm. It is also alive. If abortion is murder then masturbation is the worst genocide ever imagined, far worse than anything committed by Hitler.

By that logic, anybody who masturbates must be regarded as a worse mass murderer than Hitler. But then anti-abortion position was never known for its logic. It is based upon religion.

 

[lone wolf]

Porter ... you remind me of a line up of idling trucks - all the potential for great energy yet babbling and making smoke.

 

[gerryh]

A normal dose of semen contains 200 or 300 million sperms. If fetus is a human being, so is the sperm. It is also alive. If abortion is murder then masturbation is the worst genocide ever imagined, far worse than anything committed by Hitler.

By that logic, anybody who masturbates must be regarded as a worse mass murderer than Hitler. But then anti-abortion position was never known for its logic. It is based upon religion.

again, neither the sperm OR the egg can develop into anything beyond a repository for half the DNA necessary for human life on their own.

The above comparison shows total ignorance of biology and the development of life.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'm not using the word human being, because that is a word which IS arbitrary. It's our species, and it is composed of living cells, tissues, organs...it's not a great leap to call it a living human.

But you want to make it about human beings. Why? Does it need to be a human being to be killed, or to be alive? Nope. It's a red herring. It's a living human. Just as a trout egg is a live trout.

You are splitting hair here Tonington. a living human, a human being, what is the difference? Anyway, let me ask you upfront, I don't think you answered this question. Do you think that abortion is same as baby killing? Do you think abortion is murder? If you don't, there is no point in discussing this any further. If you think that abortion indeed is murder, we will go on.

If you don't think that abortion is murder, then my dispute isn't with you. Then call the fetus what you will, doesn't matter to me. My dispute here is with prolifers, those who claim that product of conception is the same as a new born baby, and abortion is tantamount to baby killing. Do you agree with that view?

 

[DaSleeper]

Porter ... you remind me of a line up of idling trucks - all the potential for great energy yet babbling and making smoke.

Good one:lol:...gotta remamber that one, couldn't give you a greennie.....have to spread it around first:lol::lol:

 

[DaSleeper]

Moving the goal posts once more:roll:

 

[gerryh]

Good one:lol:...gotta remamber that one, couldn't give you a greennie.....have to spread it around first:lol::lol:

Did it for ya.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

According to SirJosephPorter and his ilk, it is OK to kill a five-year-old child, because it is not yet developed into a fifty-year-old adult.

That is your religious, extreme Catholic view, YJ. According to you, all Atheists are spawn of the Devil and therefore capable of anything.

And you (and indeed, many prolifers) really believe that Atheist kill their five year old children, that is the scary part of it. Is it any wonder that such rhetoric inspires some prolifers to kill abortion performing doctors (one was sentenced just yesterday).

So in you opinion, the killer of Dr. Tiller must have performed a public service, right?

 

[YukonJack]

In the face of your post, it takes the patience of Job to be tolerant, nice or understanding with you, SirJosephPorter.

Quote just ONE (1) conservative who EVER said that "all Atheists are the spawn of the Devil and therefore capable of anything".

My point was that if - according to you and your ilk - there is no difference between a human life in the womb and a human life a few months out of the womb, then there is no difference between a human life of five years and a human life of fifty years.

When did I or anyone who ever disagreed with you said that Atheists kill their five-year-old children? Or quote anyone who claimed that killing the baby-killer was a public service. I, myself said that while I do not weep for this so-called "doctor" violence is not the way to solve problems. After all neither myself nor any conservatives believe in the solutions offered by the racist left-wingers like Louis Farrakhan, Obama's soul-mates Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.

The only thing you are better at than putting words in someone else's mouth is putting your foot in your own.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In the face of your post, it takes the patience of Job to be tolerant, nice or understanding with you, SirJosephPorter.

Patient is the virtue you never have to worry about, YJ. You have never had it.

My point was that if - according to you and your ilk - there is no difference between a human life in the womb and a human life a few months out of the womb, then there is no difference between a human life of five years and a human life of fifty years.

That is so badly written it doesn't make any kind of sense. It is the prolifers who claim that there is no difference between the life in the womb and life outside the womb. Second, there indeed is no difference between a human five years old and fifty years old, both are human beings. What was the point you were trying to make here? The whole thing is garbled.

When did I or anyone who ever disagreed with you said that Atheists kill their five-year-old children?

That is exaclty what you implied in your last post.

Or quote anyone who claimed that killing the baby-killer was a public service.

Scott Roeder himself has claimed that. He has said that he received plenty of support from prolifers while in prison. He actually did what many prolifers wish they had the guts to do. He is very popular among the prolifers. He put an end to late term abortiosn in Kansas.

I, myself said that while I do not weep for this so-called "doctor" violence is not the way to solve problems.

Quite so. When you claim that death of a law abiding human being like Dr. Tiller is a good thing (you don't weep over him) that is part of the same offensive philosophy which killed Dr. Tiller.

When it comes to abortion, many conservatives are blinded by their strong religious beliefs.

 

[YukonJack]

"That is exaclty what you implied in your last post."

For someone with your self-acclaimed and self-aggrandized high education, and especially in view of the fact that you never fail to be patronizing and condescending, it is surprising that you are incapable of understanding the difference between "IMPLY" and "PROVE".


"Scott Roeder himself has claimed that. He has said that he received plenty of support from prolifers while in prison. He actually did what many prolifers wish they had the guts to do. He is very popular among the prolifers. He put an end to late term abortiosn in Kansas."

It is equally as surprising (or, knowing you and your ilk, NOT) that you are unable to distinguish between people who roundly condemned the killing of your favourite "doctor" and the "doctor" himself.

As I said elsewhere, you have an exquisite talent to put your foot in your mouth, surpased only by your ability to put words in someone else's mouth.

And since you are not capable to distinguish between 'imply' and 'prove', I do not expect to see you produce any evidence that I or anyone else ever claimed that killing Tiller was a public service.

I only said I shed no tears for his demise. I am sure you shed no tears when Pope John Paul II died. But you probably will when Castro or Chavez dies. Or would if Obama did.

 

[JLM]

A normal dose of semen contains 200 or 300 million sperms. If fetus is a human being, so is the sperm. It is also alive. If abortion is murder then masturbation is the worst genocide ever imagined, far worse than anything committed by Hitler.

By that logic, anybody who masturbates must be regarded as a worse mass murderer than Hitler. But then anti-abortion position was never known for its logic. It is based upon religion.

And what makes you think Hitler didn't masturbate? There's that tunnel thinking again.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"That is exaclty what you implied in your last post."

For someone with your self-acclaimed and self-aggrandized high education, and especially in view of the fact that you never fail to be patronizing and condescending, it is surprising that you are incapable of understanding the difference between "IMPLY" and "PROVE".

In your opinion, perhaps. What does 'imply' have to do with 'prove'?

"Scott Roeder himself has claimed that. He has said that he received plenty of support from prolifers while in prison. He actually did what many prolifers wish they had the guts to do. He is very popular among the prolifers. He put an end to late term abortiosn in Kansas."

It is equally as surprising (or, knowing you and your ilk, NOT) that you are unable to distinguish between people who roundly condemned the killing of your favourite "doctor" and the "doctor" himself.

Nobody 'roundkly' condemned the killing, as you put it. Most prolifers perfunctorily said that the killing was wrong, and then went on to celebrate, that late term abortions in Kansas came to an end with the murder of Dr. Tiller.

As I said elsewhere, you have an exquisite talent to put your foot in your mouth, surpased only by your ability to put words in someone else's mouth.

Your opinion only.

I only said I shed no tears for his demise. I am sure you shed no tears when Pope John Paul II died. But you probably will when Castro or Chavez dies. Or would if Obama did.

I don't think death of any human being is something to celebrate. Even the death of somebody like Olsen or Bernardo is tragic, if only for the wasted potential. That is one of the reasons why I am against death penalty.

But I wouldn't celebrate the death of any individual. It take a strong, unshakeble, extreme religious faith for that.

 

[AnnaG]

The fact is, we don't know what constitutes a human being, it is very difficult to define. We all agree that from the moment of birth on it is a human being. But when does it start being a human before birth? We just don't know.

The fact is that your fact isn't a fact. Most scientists agree that fetuses are human beings when they get to the point where they can survive outside the mother. That's about 28 weeks. Life begins well before that at a few hours after conception at cellular reproduction.

 

[AnnaG]

That is not my answer, you haven't been paying attention. My argument is that it is not human life. A clump of cells is obviously alive, it is some form of life (just as the sperm and the egg are alive). We just don't know when it becomes human.

AHAH! Progress. A while back you stated that life didn't begin at conception. So you finally clued in. YAY!!

 

[AnnaG]

why is a 28 week fetus not human and can be killed with impunity and a 3 month old baby IS human and one would be charged with murder if it was killed?

Basically, the answer is politics.

 

[AnnaG]

You are splitting hair here Tonington. a living human, a human being, what is the difference?

I doubt anyone could tell you what the difference is where it would sink in. Kind of like, I know you are a human being, but it appears that being human is alien to you.

Anyway, let me ask you upfront, I don't think you answered this question. Do you think that abortion is same as baby killing? Do you think abortion is murder? If you don't, there is no point in discussing this any further. If you think that abortion indeed is murder, we will go on.

It should be considered murder after 28 weeks. But that is a legal issue and has little to do with the biology of the matter.

If you don't think that abortion is murder, then my dispute isn't with you. Then call the fetus what you will, doesn't matter to me. My dispute here is with prolifers, those who claim that product of conception is the same as a new born baby, and abortion is tantamount to baby killing. Do you agree with that view?

Quit changing the goalposts. At first you said, life doesn't begin at conception and that prolifers claim that. Prolifers are correct. Cellular division is life and does begin around conception. Now you say that they claim human beings begin at conception. They are right again, because that life is not any other kind of life besides human.
Now you claim they say that the product of conception is the same as a newborn. You are dead wrong. They don't say that.

 

[JLM]

If it is not a human being, there is no reason not to kill it. We kill non humans every day in our life.

YOu're dumber than a sack of hammers. Let's just say it's someone's dog, so there is no reason not to kill it????????????????????????? You're about as "thick" as they come. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: