Tory G8 abortion stance

[SirJosephPorter]

Here you go, SJP:

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/spirituality-philosophy/92798-what-rights-should-fetus-have.html

OK, you posted a separate thread, good for you. Also, thanks for pointing it out to me. I logged on just now and I probably wouldn't have checked the new threads on my own.

I see it has already generated a great deal of discussion. As I said, post a thread on abortion and they will come out of the woodworks.

 

[AnnaG]

Who cares?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

....and yet you didn't answer the question.:roll:

Is abortion an exceptable form of birth control?

Oh dear...Prax is gonna tell on me....whatever shall I do?:roll:

I will answer your question, Avro. Acceptable to whom, to you? Whether it is an acceptable form of birth control or not is up to the woman. Some women may decide yes, some may decide no. What is acceptable is purely a subjective criteria, and will vary from person to person.

In my opinion it is a messy and laborious form of birth control,besides being expensive (even if government pays for abortion, there are inevitably expenses associated with it to the woman).

So in my opinion, it doesn’t make sense to use abortion as a form of birth control. But if some woman wants to do that, that is her business and nobody else’s.

 

[AnnaG]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

I will answer your question, Avro. Acceptable to whom, to you? Whether it is an acceptable form of birth control or not is up to the woman. Some women may decide yes, some may decide no. What is acceptable is purely a subjective criteria, and will vary from person to person.

It is also up to the medical community and the gov't if it pays for the abortion.

In my opinion it is a messy and laborious form of birth control,besides being expensive (even if government pays for abortion, there are inevitably expenses associated with it to the woman).

That's the same argument I applied in an earlier thread. And one in which you argued against, I might add. So I guess that you've become better educated about the issue since. Good on ya!

So in my opinion, it doesn’t make sense to use abortion as a form of birth control. But if some woman wants to do that, that is her business and nobody else’s.

Again, It is also up to the medical community and the gov't if it pays for the abortion.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

I can't imagine they would want to if they even exist. How mundane a gods life would be if he was constantly worrying of the morality of his little stick men down on earth.

I think God would be more of an infrastructure builder, giving us the tools and means to do whatever the f&ck we want. Kinda like a game of the SIMS.

I remember reading an essay a few years back which made precisely the same point. He differentiated between the God of Man and the God of Universe.

God of Man looks after the interest of man. He has made flowers pretty, so man may enjoy them. He has made fruits great tasting, he created milk, honey etc. so that man may enjoy them. He creates life, creates newborn infants to make the mother and father happy.

God of Universe on the other hand, couldn’t care less about man, he has bigger things to worry about. He may create life but he also kills the newborn infant, or kills the mother during childbirth. He creates misery, famine, pestilence etc.

He did not make flowers pretty so that man may enjoy them. It is just that since he has made flowers pretty, man is able to enjoy them.

What he was getting at was that the God of Man is purely the invention of man. God of Universe, even if he existed, couldn’t are less about man.

 

[talloola]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

I am a pro choice person, as long as abortion is performed
within the first 3 months.

I don't think women ever use abortion as a form of birth
control, it is a very traumatic procedure for any woman,
and for anyone to think it is 'just' used willy nilly by
women like birth control is ludicrous.

Many women have abortions for many different reasons, and
in my opinion, (in the first 3 months) they don't have
to defend themselves to anyone, it is their choice, it is
their life, and whatever reason they have for being in that
position is also their business, and no religious fanatic
or do gooder, or just plain snoop should be judging them.

After three months it is a different arguement, again, in
my opinion.

 

[lone wolf]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

I will answer your question, Avro. Acceptable to whom, to you? Whether it is an acceptable form of birth control or not is up to the woman. Some women may decide yes, some may decide no. What is acceptable is purely a subjective criteria, and will vary from person to person.

In my opinion it is a messy and laborious form of birth control,besides being expensive (even if government pays for abortion, there are inevitably expenses associated with it to the woman).

So in my opinion, it doesn’t make sense to use abortion as a form of birth control. But if some woman wants to do that, that is her business and nobody else’s.

Gawd I hate it when I have to agree with Porter....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

I vaguely remember a case (though I can't remember if it was in the US or Canada, but it was some years ago) where one politician had proposed a law whereby if a fetus was aborted owing to the mother being physically assaulted, the perpetrator should be charged with murder.

Not surprisingly, the pro-choice movement vehemently opposed the law, likely because they could see the implications of it.

This though does lead to other questions. On the one hand, if a woman chooses to abort in Canada, that is her legal right at the moment. However, I'm not sure of the position if an abortion is caused by a physical assault on the mother.

This also leads to other questions. Let's say the mother consumes drugs and alcohol, even if it's of the legal kinds of drugs like nicotine though it could also include illegal drugs like opium, etc. Should the law have a right to protect the fetus from the mother by forcing her into rehabilitation, considering the risk he poses for the post-birth life of that child? Or are there cases where you'd propose that the government force the mother to have an abortion?

How much legal protection should a fetus have if any, especially when his post-birth life could be harmed?

That is the problem, isn’t it? Once you start with such laws, where do you stop? Suppose mother eats too many sugary foods during pregnancy, as a result has a heart attack and fetus is harmed. Should she be charged with assault?

What if she indulges herself and doesn’t have a heart attack? Should she still be charged for inappropriate behavior possibly leading to the harm of the fetus? After all, the fact that no harm to the fetus resulted is not really an excuse. If somebody is stopped for going through a red light, he cannot very well argue that since no harm was done by his passing through the red light, he is not guilty.

So, damage to fetus could be defined very broadly. Besides, can women be charged retroactively? Let us suppose that 10 years from now scientists discover coffee in even moderate amount has potential to harm the fetus. Should then all the women who ever drank coffee during the pregnancy be charged?

The logical ultimate end to his madness would be that government lock up every pregnant woman until childbirth and give her measured amount of everything. Measured amount of food, in proper proportion of nutrients, measured amount of entertainment (we don’t want to get her too excited, that may harm the fetus) and so on.

Fetus protection cause is really a pro life ruse to ban or restrict abortion by back door. They haven’t got anywhere by frontal assault, by trying to ban or restrict abortion. They think that if they promote the cause of fetal well being, that may well give them success in restricting or banning abortion. After all, once it is accepted that fetus is a human being, ban on abortion is but a step away.

I don’t see it happening, I don’t see Canada passing a fetus protection law. Anything is possible in USA.

I am a pro choice person, as long as abortion is performed
within the first 3 months.

I don't think women ever use abortion as a form of birth
control, it is a very traumatic procedure for any woman,
and for anyone to think it is 'just' used willy nilly by
women like birth control is ludicrous.

Quite so, abortion is a messy, complicated and expensive business. I really don't see any woman using it as birth control (not using any contraception and getting abortion when she becomes pregnant).

But that is a favorite pro life argument, one of the reasons they want to ban abortion is that women use it as birth control. To that my reply is, so what? Even if some woman is using it as birth control, whose business is it, except her own?

 

[JLM]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

Gawd I hate it when I have to agree with Porter....

That's when it's time for a third opinion, like maybe a psychiatrist...........:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[lone wolf]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

That's when it's time for a third opinion, like maybe a psychiatrist...........:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Ah.... For the occasional post, I'm not going to get into drastic measures. Abortion's not right by me - so I just won't have one. If the woman having one can live with her own conscience, then I suppose it was okay for her.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Really?.. Exactly what is the difference?



But it's OK for Trudeau and Chretin to be devout Catholics and not forward gay-rights legislation or make the stand on abortion, right?.. Just Harper.

I prefer to debate the Government of the day. The Government of the day, said we can clean Ottawa from the shady Liberal politics, and 4 years of dismal economic as well Governmental minority performance, the country is in the financial hole for the next 5 years in the tune of $100 billion onto the federal debt. I am not sure if you noticed that the Federal Finance minister flying first class in the tune of $3000 per flight instead of $750, today we have another Conservative MP who is telling people he is entitled to over spend on campaign literature more then Other Conservative MPS AND SATURATE BC with over the top abusive advertising,

that is called silent political manipulation, totally unfair to the opposition. So at a time where the country is in the red thanks to the Conservatives, you are going to compare Harper and Chrétien?. Hardly a fair comparison. Now Harper is passing legislation to prevent committee testimony by MPS. control AND MAYBE WE HIT A MAJORITY. Let me tell you, if the Conservatives ever get a majority Canada will get hurt.

In the parliamentary report on MPs' expenses for 2007-2008, Hiebert shows travel expenses of $8,178 out of his Member's Office Budget, with an additional $163,258 in travel paid for out of Goods and Services Provided by the House.

In 2008-2009, Hiebert spent $5,727 on travel from of his office budget, plus $214,360 from the House.

According to a CTV report, that put Hiebert over $200,000 above the national average for MPs' expenses.
CTV quoted Hiebert as saying:
"Because my wife and I made a commitment to keep our family together, that means my wife and kids come with me when the house is in session."

Realy? And make me pay for it? I am sure there is other MPS who would qualify for the job, thus saving for the tax payer $200.000 a year on a self Centered MP.


NO WANDER THEY ARE defiant IN SHOWING THEIR EXPENSE ACCOUNTS to the public and the watch dog Sheila Frazer….. The Campaigned on smaller Government and they have done the opposite, they stuffed the senate like a thanks giving turkey when in fact Harper in the beginning was talking about reforming the senate and did completely the opposite in order to secure his ass in the house.

 

[talloola]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

That is the problem, isn’t it? Once you start with such laws, where do you stop? Suppose mother eats too many sugary foods during pregnancy, as a result has a heart attack and fetus is harmed. Should she be charged with assault?

What if she indulges herself and doesn’t have a heart attack? Should she still be charged for inappropriate behavior possibly leading to the harm of the fetus? After all, the fact that no harm to the fetus resulted is not really an excuse. If somebody is stopped for going through a red light, he cannot very well argue that since no harm was done by his passing through the red light, he is not guilty.

So, damage to fetus could be defined very broadly. Besides, can women be charged retroactively? Let us suppose that 10 years from now scientists discover coffee in even moderate amount has potential to harm the fetus. Should then all the women who ever drank coffee during the pregnancy be charged?

The logical ultimate end to his madness would be that government lock up every pregnant woman until childbirth and give her measured amount of everything. Measured amount of food, in proper proportion of nutrients, measured amount of entertainment (we don’t want to get her too excited, that may harm the fetus) and so on.

Fetus protection cause is really a pro life ruse to ban or restrict abortion by back door. They haven’t got anywhere by frontal assault, by trying to ban or restrict abortion. They think that if they promote the cause of fetal well being, that may well give them success in restricting or banning abortion. After all, once it is accepted that fetus is a human being, ban on abortion is but a step away.

I don’t see it happening, I don’t see Canada passing a fetus protection law. Anything is possible in USA.



Quite so, abortion is a messy, complicated and expensive business. I really don't see any woman using it as birth control (not using any contraception and getting abortion when she becomes pregnant).

But that is a favorite pro life argument, one of the reasons they want to ban abortion is that women use it as birth control. To that my reply is, so what? Even if some woman is using it as birth control, whose business is it, except her own?

exactly

 

[AnnaG]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

That is the problem, isn’t it? Once you start with such laws, where do you stop? Suppose mother eats too many sugary foods during pregnancy, as a result has a heart attack and fetus is harmed. Should she be charged with assault?

What if she indulges herself and doesn’t have a heart attack? Should she still be charged for inappropriate behavior possibly leading to the harm of the fetus? After all, the fact that no harm to the fetus resulted is not really an excuse. If somebody is stopped for going through a red light, he cannot very well argue that since no harm was done by his passing through the red light, he is not guilty.

So, damage to fetus could be defined very broadly. Besides, can women be charged retroactively? Let us suppose that 10 years from now scientists discover coffee in even moderate amount has potential to harm the fetus. Should then all the women who ever drank coffee during the pregnancy be charged?

The logical ultimate end to his madness would be that government lock up every pregnant woman until childbirth and give her measured amount of everything. Measured amount of food, in proper proportion of nutrients, measured amount of entertainment (we don’t want to get her too excited, that may harm the fetus) and so on.

Fetus protection cause is really a pro life ruse to ban or restrict abortion by back door. They haven’t got anywhere by frontal assault, by trying to ban or restrict abortion. They think that if they promote the cause of fetal well being, that may well give them success in restricting or banning abortion. After all, once it is accepted that fetus is a human being, ban on abortion is but a step away.

I don’t see it happening, I don’t see Canada passing a fetus protection law. Anything is possible in USA.

Why not, oh thou with the vision of a bat? We already have a load of other laws that make considerations for special cases, such as homicide. We have attempted homicide, justifiable homicide, homicide with intent, homicide without intent, negligent homicide, etc.

 

[AnnaG]

I prefer to debate the Government of the day. The Government of the day, said we can clean Ottawa from the shady Liberal politics, and 4 years of dismal economic as well Governmental minority performance, the country is in the financial hole for the next 5 years in the tune of $100 billion onto the federal debt. I am not sure if you noticed that the Federal Finance minister flying first class in the tune of $3000 per flight instead of $750, today we have another Conservative MP who is telling people he is entitled to over spend on campaign literature more then Other Conservative MPS AND SATURATE BC with over the top abusive advertising,

that is called silent political manipulation, totally unfair to the opposition. So at a time where the country is in the red thanks to the Conservatives,

Oh yeah, there was no debt before Harper. :roll:

Canada's Debt History

you are going to compare Harper and Chrétien?. Hardly a fair comparison. Now Harper is passing legislation to prevent committee testimony by MPS. control AND MAYBE WE HIT A MAJORITY. Let me tell you, if the Conservatives ever get a majority Canada will get hurt.

Canada's been hurting since MacDonald.

In the parliamentary report on MPs' expenses for 2007-2008, Hiebert shows travel expenses of $8,178 out of his Member's Office Budget, with an additional $163,258 in travel paid for out of Goods and Services Provided by the House.

In 2008-2009, Hiebert spent $5,727 on travel from of his office budget, plus $214,360 from the House.

According to a CTV report, that put Hiebert over $200,000 above the national average for MPs' expenses.
CTV quoted Hiebert as saying:
"Because my wife and I made a commitment to keep our family together, that means my wife and kids come with me when the house is in session."

Realy? And make me pay for it? I am sure there is other MPS who would qualify for the job, thus saving for the tax payer $200.000 a year on a self Centered MP.


NO WANDER THEY ARE defiant IN SHOWING THEIR EXPENSE ACCOUNTS to the public and the watch dog Sheila Frazer….. The Campaigned on smaller Government and they have done the opposite, they stuffed the senate like a thanks giving turkey when in fact Harper in the beginning was talking about reforming the senate and did completely the opposite in order to secure his ass in the house.[/QUOTE]roflmao And the Hypogrits never snuck anything into their expense accounts. lmao

Same old partisan crap: "Ugh! We good, them bad"

 

[TenPenny]

NO WANDER THEY ARE defiant IN SHOWING THEIR EXPENSE ACCOUNTS to the public and the watch dog Sheila Frazer

Not so much any more, it's the Liberals and the NDP who are playing catchup with public image now.

 

[Liberalman]

The big question here is how much of the taxpayer money is being diverted to the Conservative re-election war chest those reciepts will never be shown to Sheila Frazer because of national security.

 

[Machjo]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

How do you know God is a he?

Gender seems kinda useless when you are a God and all. What use would a penis be to God?

In most if not all European languages, Arabic, and Chinese, he is, grammatically speaking. In Persian, he's neutral-gendered. It's a grammatical thing having nothing to do with his actual biological gender.

For all I know, he might even be grammatically feminine in some language I don't know.

 

[Kreskin]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

If your child needed a blood transfusion and you are the only available match for blood type, should you be forced to provide it?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

In most if not all European languages, Arabic, and Chinese, he is, grammatically speaking. In Persian, he's neutral-gendered. It's a grammatical thing having nothing to do with his actual biological gender.

For all I know, he might even be grammatically feminine in some language I don't know.

He is a 'she' even in some languages you know. Wiccan God is female for instance. Hinduism has several Goddesses, the most famous being Kali, the Goddess of war.

 

[Machjo]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

He is a 'she' even in some languages you know. Wiccan God is female for instance. Hinduism has several Goddesses, the most famous being Kali, the Goddess of war.

Yes. What I was referring to was the monotheistic God, the Creator. He is not normally thought of as being male as such; it is strictly a grammatical distinction that applies to certain languages. In Persian for instance, even in a Christian translation of the Holy Bible, or a Muslim translation of the Qur'an, you will never see either a masculine or feminine pronoun, simply because one does not exist. In Persian, the Abrahamic God is neutral. And again, for all I know in some language or other, he might even be feminine.

In the English language, unlike Persian, the Creator God of Deism, Abrahamic religions, and such, is always masculine as a grammatical convention. Only goddesses are feminine in English.

Another point to make is that whereas the monotheistic God is considered masculine in grammatical gender only and not biologically, goddesses are generally thought of as biologically feminine, and so it is not a simple grammatical distinction in their case.