Abortion demonstration just doesn't sound right.

[mentalfloss]

But your wife is not a selfish bitch in forcing others to live life according to her standards? It is a 2 way street, you want to outlaw abortion for selfish reasons, no matter how much you want to think its about babies, it is your personal belief and you want to impose that on others against their will and that is selfish.

Exactly.

And by the same token, imposing your belief on a potential human being is actually less selfish than imposing it upon a developed human being.

 

[PoliticalNick]

That's just all fine and dandy BUT the object of that choice doesn't get a say. Maybe when somebody makes the decision you are a nobody and decides to drop you in the sewer you might have a change of heart!

So you believe that taking away a womans right to choice lives up to this standard. There is a choice being restricted or eliminated either way. Kind of hypocritical don't you think?

 

[petros]

It wasn't all that long ago that parents dropped like flies and kids had to raise themselves or raised by older siblings, extended family.

People just don't have the courage to endure and persevere like they used to.

 

[JLM]

So you believe that taking away a womans right to choice lives up to this standard. There is a choice being restricted or eliminated either way. Kind of hypocritical don't you think?

Nothing hypocritical about it.............I just happen to believe that the life of a fetus (of course all the experts say a fetus is not a living organism) trumps someone's inconvenience! :smile:

 

[PoliticalNick]

What I see is a very uncaring and selfish decision. Since you don't want or can't keep the baby, then nobody can have it. I see it as not being about the baby, but being all about you. The justification you are using is no different than the nutcase mothers/fathers that decide that it is better to kill their "born" children because they "can't" take care of them. It's murder then, just as it's murder in what you are advocating.

We all make decisions everyday that are selfish, it is human nature. Your view is a selfish view becuase it is about what YOU believe. You can go on about how it is murder for years but it is not, proven by the lack of prosecutions for it. Our society has made a decision and it has been ruled on by the SCC, abortion is not murder in the eyes of the law. You calling it such is simply an inflamatory attempt to garner support for your selfish opinion.

 

[CDNBear]

A fetus that has barely developed its spinal cord or nervous system wouldn't endure anything. It would be like cracking open a couple of fresh eggs and tossing them on the skillet.

It's still life, full stop.

Are you killing a chicken when you make an omelet?

Yes, because that is what would have been the end result of that egg.

So sorry, I didn't realize you were an expert on the emotional trauma surrounding adoption and abortion and how the trauma is exactly the same.

That's exactly why I said 'subjective'. You aren't an expert, and sans stats, your opinion is subjective at best.

Try to get a grip and not just argue everything for once.

You should try some of your own advice.

They are 2 different situations and carry extremely different emotional trauma and baggage. Just the fact they are different situations is enough to objectively call the resulting emotional damage different. But hey, your some big f*cking expert on it so please tell me how they are identical.

I didn't make any claims, you did, but feel free to try and turn it on me, instead of backing up your claims. It's funny to read.

Forced to participate in counselling (like prospective adopters already are) about how selfish the choice to only consider an infant. Not forced to adopt someone they don't want. Almost everybody who wants to adopt wants an infant, that is why there is a list of thousands waiting for years while thousands of kids who need a home will wait forever living in foster care or orphanages. Sorry if the truth bothers you but those who only want an infant are right from the start showing disregard for children IMHO and should be disqualified just on that.

Ya, I already said I understood what you were saying. If they don't do what you want, they're disqualified. Coercion and force.

Status is one reason, vanity is another, thinking they can take a baby with someone else's genes and mold it into little versions of themselves is another. There is nothing subjective about saying someone who claims to want to adopt only an infant is in it for entirely selfish reasons. They don't care about the child as much as they care about getting what they want. Like I said, if they care about children who need a home there are more kids than people to adopt them so nobody has to wait, but that is if they are in it for the child.

Still subjective. Unless you can produce some papers, proving you're a psychologist.

Anyway, this is a topic for discussion in another thread, this one is about abortion and I would say we actually agree completely and have the same position. Personally anti-abortion but pro-choice.

As a viable alternative, adoption is part of the conversation.

it is your personal belief and you want to impose that on others against their will and that is selfish.

You mean like trying to force people that want to adopt an infant, to adopt a child, or get nothing at all?

And by the same token, imposing your belief on a potential human being is actually less selfish than imposing it upon a developed human being.

They're both life. Ending a life because it doesn't suit your lifestyle, is the most ignorant form of selfishness there is. IMHO.

 

[JLM]

Is the subject worth making enemies over?

 

[PoliticalNick]

Nothing hypocritical about it.............I just happen to believe that the life of a fetus (of course all the experts say a fetus is not a living organism) trumps someone's inconvenience! :smile:

You obviously missed all the times I have said I am against abortion for contraception purposes. Where I make a stand is that I don't want you or anybody else making that decision for me so I will not try to make that decision for anyone else. That is the big difference between pro-life and pro-choice, under pro-choice the option to choose NOT to have an abortion is still there and valid.

Is the subject worth making enemies over?

Of course not, and I don't consider you, or anyone else here, an enemy.

 

[petros]

If we decide how someone's life turns out before they are born why not just get rid of all those whose lives aren't up to the current TV standard?

Has this ever been tried before? What lead to it?

 

[CDNBear]

You obviously missed all the times I have said I am against abortion for contraception purposes. Where I make a stand is that I don't want you or anybody else making that decision for me so I will not try to make that decision for anyone else. That is the big difference between pro-life and pro-choice, under pro-choice the option to choose NOT to have an abortion is still there and valid.

How does this differ from you wanting to stifle peoples free speech?

I'm pro choice, for the same reason I'm pro free speech, because I believe in freedom.

Your belief in freedom, seems to be very flexible.

Of course not, and I don't consider you, or anyone else here, an enemy.

How about the ones you threaten with physical violence? lol.

 

[PoliticalNick]

How does this differ from you wanting to stifle peoples free speech?

I'm pro choice, for the same reason I'm pro free speech, because I believe in freedom.

Your belief in freedom, seems to be very flexible.

Not really, all are free to make ecisions for themselves and be responsible for the results and consequences. It's called personal responsibility and it comes with having that freedom.

How about the ones you threaten with physical violence? lol.

You mean Gerry? That would be like spanking a bad child. Consider it tough love! LOL

 

[CDNBear]

Not really, all are free to make ecisions for themselves and be responsible for the results and consequences. It's called personal responsibility and it comes with having that freedom.

But you were informed that he broke no laws, and yet you still wanted to attack his rights.

In this case we're talking about the ending of a life, something far more insidious than burning a Quran.

I'm not trying to belittle you, I'm just trying to understand how you formulate your beliefs, specifically about freedoms.

You mean Gerry? That would be like spanking a bad child. Consider it tough love! LOL

Riiight.

 

[mentalfloss]

In this case we're talking about the ending of a life, something far more insidious than burning a Quran.

I don't believe ending a life is inherently insidious. Is this something that you relegate to humans only, or do you extend this to all animals, plants, microbes, etc.. ??

 

[DaSleeper]

Comparing a human life to an animal's and then to an egg....is an epic failed argument period.

 

[CDNBear]

I don't believe ending a life is inherently insidious.

I do, without life in the balance.

Is this something that you relegate to humans only, or do you extend this to all animals, plants, microbes, etc.. ??

To all, to the best of my abilities and unless the necessities come into affect. If you read the rest of the thread, you would already know that. I love the fact that you equated a human fetus to a random microbe.

 

[PoliticalNick]

But you were informed that he broke no laws, and yet you still wanted to attack his rights.

In this case we're talking about the ending of a life, something far more insidious than burning a Quran.

I'm not trying to belittle you, I'm just trying to understand how you formulate your beliefs, specifically about freedoms.

The guy was an idiot, he knew the inflamatory nature of his actions and that there could be various responses to them including violence. He should have to bear his portion of the responsibility for the results of his actions as do we all. Hiding behind free speech was simply him, and his supporters, trying to escape responsibility. So was he free to do it...sure, but he should also be held responsible for the results. As long as someone is willing to accept that responsibility for their actions and the results of it they can do as they please.

 

[CDNBear]

The guy was an idiot, he knew the inflamatory nature of his actions and that there could be various responses to them including violence.

You have evidence of his intent? Are you now saying that Muslims are prone to violent reactions?

He should have to bear his portion of the responsibility for the results of his actions as do we all. Hiding behind free speech was simply him, and his supporters, trying to escape responsibility. So was he free to do it...sure, but he should also be held responsible for the results.

So then he wasn't free to do it then. The Westborough Baptists asshats were successfully sued. The suit was over turned in the higher court, as it should have been. It was a punitive attack on free speech.

Your argument fails on precedent.

As long as someone is willing to accept that responsibility for their actions and the results of it they can do as they please.

Cool, so if you have sex, and end up pregnant, you believe the woman should have to be responsible, and carry to term. Right?

 

[PoliticalNick]

Comparing a human life to an animal's and then to an egg....is an epic failed argument period.

Not from the animal's perspective. I'm sure the cow would rather live than be a steak on your BBQ. Saying we as humans have superior rights to be alive on this planet is epic arrogance.

I do, without life in the balance.
To all, to the best of my abilities and unless the necessities come into affect. If you read the rest of the thread, you would already know that. I love the fact that you equated a human fetus to a random microbe.

I see the codifier of neccessity as a cop out. It is only your neccessity and not a neccessity of the cow or the chicken or the cabbage for that matter. Therefore it is selective neccessity and a matter of self-interest, as long as it is another species you are ok with killing and even killing fetuses in the case of eggs.

 

[CDNBear]

I see the codifier of neccessity as a cop out.

Of course you do, it interferes with your position.

But since there isn't a reasonable necessity to have an abortion, your argument falls short.

It is only your neccessity and not a neccessity of the cow or the chicken or the cabbage for that matter.

It is not just my necessity, it is a necessity of life, it's called the food chain. Look it up.

Therefore it is selective neccessity and a matter of self-interest, as long as it is another species you are ok with killing and even killing fetuses in the case of eggs.

Can you show me where the human fetus falls into the food chain please?

Did you miss post #397?

 

[DaSleeper]

Not from the animal's perspective. I'm sure the cow would rather live than be a steak on your BBQ. Saying we as humans have superior rights to be alive on this planet is epic arroganc

And of course you're a dedicated true vegetarian who never eats meat.........
If not you're a hypocrite...