Tory G8 abortion stance

[SirJosephPorter]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

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.

Perhaps. But that fact (that God is male) has been used through the ages to establish male superiority and to oppress women.

 

[karrie]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

Humanity ought to grant a fetus the rights of common sense.

Common sense would dictate to me that punching a woman's pregnancy to death means you've done something beyond just punch her, and you know it. It would dictate that you are, indeed, one of the mentally unbalanced, the cruel, the unusual, that we do not want walking amongst the general population, and ought to be sentenced in that light. I don't care how law classifies it.

Common sense.

 

[Machjo]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

Perhaps. But that fact (that God is male) has been used through the ages to establish male superiority and to oppress women.

Perhaps. And yes that can be a problem with artificial grammatical constructs in an ambiguous language such as English, whereby the common population fails to make the distinction between grammar and reality.This does not stop with God though, and can cause confusion with any number of homonyms (whereby people falsely conclude they must necessarily have some relationship in their meaning) and synonyms (whereby some people will insists there must be a difference in meaning since the words are different). But how would we avoid such confusion without completely rewriting the language?

In fact in the Esperanto community there is a group, known as riists, who want to introduce the animate gender-neutral pronoun 'ri' into the language to be used when the biological gender is undefined.

Perhaps. But that fact (that God is male) has been used through the ages to establish male superiority and to oppress women.

Just a correction on your use of the word 'male' here. Male is a biological distinction, and so for God that is not a fact. 'masculine' would be the correct term when referring to grammatical as opposed to biological gender.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

Perhaps. And yes that can be a problem with artificial grammatical constructs in an ambiguous language such as English, whereby the common population fails to make the distinction between grammar and reality.This does not stop with God though, and can cause confusion with any number of homonyms (whereby people falsely conclude they must necessarily have some relationship in their meaning) and synonyms (whereby some people will insists there must be a difference in meaning since the words are different). But how would we avoid such confusion without completely rewriting the language?

That is why we use gender neutral language these days, wherever possible. Fire fighter instead of fireman, police officer in place of policeman etc. Terms like fireman or policeman implies (perhaps wrongly) that it is only men who can enter these professions.

 

[captain morgan]

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.

There is nothing in your post that has any relation to the religious-right allegation that you highlighted earlier... That's what we were talking about.

Your's is nothing more than moaning about the practices of the Cons; identifying (relatively) small problems and questionable ethics while simultaneously (and conveniently) ignoring the identical practices by the other parties (past, present and future).

On the subject of relativity and your preference in analyzing only the government of the day - that analysis and judgment is entirely dependent on comparing it to past administrations.

 

[Machjo]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

That is why we use gender neutral language these days, wherever possible. Fire fighter instead of fireman, police officer in place of policeman etc. Terms like fireman or policeman implies (perhaps wrongly) that it is only men who can enter these professions.

The English language (at least as it presently stands) is deficient in its ability to express biological neutrality without default to a grammatical gender (which in English is traditionally masculine). The reason for this is that when we discuss an indefinite person, there is no animate gender-neutral singular pronoun to use. Of course we can use the plural equivalent, but then many will consider that to be grammatically incorrect when referring to one single person. Another option is to reword the complete sentence, often requiring more long-winded phrases that could otherwise have been dealt with with one simple pronoun. Alternatively, there is the esthetically ugly 's/he' and (s)he, he/she, she/he, etc.

Honestly, probably the most efficient solution would in fact be to adopt an an inanimate gender-neutral singular pronoun from another language.

Until then, I'd rather just go with the traditional use of the masculine as a default. But yes, those less familiar with the relationship between grammar and reality can confuse the two.

 

[TenPenny]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

A fetus should have no rights; rights can really only come with responsibilities.

Humans, however, have a responsibility to behave in a certain manner.

 

[JLM]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

A fetus should have no rights; rights can really only come with responsibilities.

Humans, however, have a responsibility to behave in a certain manner.

Absolutely, what responsibilites do you assign to a week old baby?

 

[talloola]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

Absolutely, what responsibilites do you assign to a week old baby?

sleep thru the night

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

I think that life can only truly be said to begin when a fœtus can be assessed to be viable. Through that point, it functions on the biological systems of the mother (and though it would continue to do so until birth, at the point of viability it would have the capacity to function biologically).

 

[AnnaG]

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.

It's kind of moot when the critter doesn't seem to give a pinch of gooseshyte what we do.

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.

lol How do we know the critter even has a biology?

 

[AnnaG]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

Perhaps. And yes that can be a problem with artificial grammatical constructs in an ambiguous language such as English, whereby the common population fails to make the distinction between grammar and reality.This does not stop with God though, and can cause confusion with any number of homonyms (whereby people falsely conclude they must necessarily have some relationship in their meaning) and synonyms (whereby some people will insists there must be a difference in meaning since the words are different). But how would we avoid such confusion without completely rewriting the language?

In fact in the Esperanto community there is a group, known as riists, who want to introduce the animate gender-neutral pronoun 'ri' into the language to be used when the biological gender is undefined.



Just a correction on your use of the word 'male' here. Male is a biological distinction, and so for God that is not a fact. 'masculine' would be the correct term when referring to grammatical as opposed to biological gender.

God created man in his own image. Woman came from man. At least according to the Bible. Personally, I go for the evolution idea, it's more provable. So it really doesn't matter what gods are.

A fetus should have no rights; rights can really only come with responsibilities.

Humans, however, have a responsibility to behave in a certain manner.

Right. :roll: There are people that refuse to take responsibilities decades after their birth.

I think that life can only truly be said to begin when a fœtus can be assessed to be viable. Through that point, it functions on the biological systems of the mother (and though it would continue to do so until birth, at the point of viability it would have the capacity to function biologically).

Viability is my view on when human being starts. Life begins before that unless you want to consider wiggly little cells as not being life.

 

[coldstream]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

So this god wasn't perfect in the first place, just as I thought. Or did you mean the literal definition of "image"? In which case, why am I visible, not bigger than the universe, etc.?So this god gives us imperfect tools, imperfect knowledge, imperfect wisdom, imperfect bodies, imperfect psychologies, imperfect character, etc. and expects us to figure out how to be perfect with only an imperfect book written by imperfect people with imperfect interpretations as a guide to be read by imperfect people with imperfect interpretations. Yup. That's definitely logical.:roll: If a god can be omniscient, then it knows that it is omnipotent and there is nothing it can create that it couldn't overcome with ease.

God gave us perfectable knowledge and perfectable intellects, but most importantly he gave us the ability to discern good from evil, and the Free Will to act upon it. It is in this we can perfect ourselves in His Image. It's seems God tried to provide a perfect material world in the Garden of Eden, but Man's ambition for experience and knowledge, led him away from it. God could certainly relieve Man of his Free Will, and all of the tools with which he can employ it, for better or worse, but then he would no longer be in God's image.

We are better off relying upon ourselves and ignoring the above mentioned critter. Viable fetuses should have the same rights as any other viable human.[/

All fetuses, from the moment of conception are human life. Any slicing and dicing (an appropriate aphorism of the actual mechanics of an abortion) of that will ultimately serve to reduce value of all human life, ultimately to fodder for the slaughter.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

God gave us perfectable knowledge and perfectable intellects, but most importantly he gave us the ability to discern good from evil, and the Free Will to act upon it.

It seems to me that the definition of evil has changed or progressed over the years. In the past we executed people for trivial matters, killed in the name of gods and committed all sorts of heinous acts which were not considered evil at the time.

So perhaps evil is relative to the age it was committed in?

 

[coldstream]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

It seems to me that the definition of evil has changed or progressed over the years. In the past we executed people for trivial matters, killed in the name of gods and committed all sorts of heinous acts which were not considered evil at the time.

So perhaps evil is relative to the age it was committed in?

Good and Evil are absolute not relative values. Only human responses to good and evil ascribe a transient and relative character to them.

In the present we execute the most innocent and vulnerable of all in the unborn, for the crime of being inconvenient. That will always be Evil.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

There is nothing in your post that has any relation to the religious-right allegation that you highlighted earlier... That's what we were talking about.

Your's is nothing more than moaning about the practices of the Cons; identifying (relatively) small problems and questionable ethics while simultaneously (and conveniently) ignoring the identical practices by the other parties (past, present and future).

On the subject of relativity and your preference in analyzing only the government of the day - that analysis and judgment is entirely dependent on comparing it to past administrations.

I am glad you think so, Abortion is directly connected to religion, Harper is a religious man and that is his right, but were hypocrisy invites her self in Harpers party is that for votes he plays friendly with abortion here in Canada, when in fact his religion is against abortion, and the problem begins were he refuses to help women who face serious abortion problems abroad and Harper is on record allocating money for Pregnant women for African nations but because of no votes abroad he has the balls to say I will not fund a cause I will not benefit from, and that my friend is HYPOCRISY OF THE Highest FORM, playing the voters and religion at the same time. There, that should help identify Harper.....and his motives...............

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

I think that life can only truly be said to begin when a fœtus can be assessed to be viable. Through that point, it functions on the biological systems of the mother (and though it would continue to do so until birth, at the point of viability it would have the capacity to function biologically).

I totally agree. When it comes to abortion, I draw the line at fetal viability (and evidently, so does Canadian Medical Association, in Canada it is almost impossible to get an abortion after fetal viability, except for serious risk to mother's health).

If a fetus can survive outside the womb, then it is human being by my definition. But as I said before, the whole thing is arbitrary anyway. Different people may have different definition as to when a fetus becomes human. The problem comes then they try to impose their views on the society by trying to make their belief into law.

All fetuses, from the moment of conception are human life. Any slicing and dicing (an appropriate aphorism of the actual mechanics of an abortion) of that will ultimately serve to reduce value of all human life, ultimately to fodder for the slaughter.

Sez you.

Good and Evil are absolute not relative values. Only human responses to good and evil ascribe a transient and relative character to them.

In the present we execute the most innocent and vulnerable of all in the unborn, for the crime of being inconvenient. That will always be Evil.

That is your opinion. I don't think we execute anybody during an abortion. Does abortion end life? It gets rid of the fetus and fetus is alive, so in that sense, yes. But does it kill a baby, as pro lifers like to claim? That is nonsense.

 

[gerryh]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

viability eh...... interesting..... especially interesting since viability has drastically changed over the years with the advancement of medicine. With that in mind, how exactley did that unborn baby change in the last 50 to 100 years for it to be considered human so much sooner now than back then. Using the murder supporters benchmark of viability of course.

 

[JLM]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

sleep thru the night

And not soiling the diaper no less. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[gerryh]

Re: What rights should a fetus have?

JLM, I see none of the abortionists have given you a serious answer.