Why stop at birth, why not extend that to a year after, or 5 years after.
That would be because at birth it becomes a human being according to the SCC and at that point has exactly the same right to life as you and me, but you know this don't you?
Why stop at birth, why not extend that to a year after, or 5 years after.
Just a quick question...My main concern is not about the killing, but rather the pain and suffering of the death.
I have no question allowing an early stage abortion (earlier than 20 weeks). If I could be assured that a late stage abortion was not painful to the child or mother; or cause much in the way of some significant injury in the future - I would be more inclined to support late stage abortions as well.
Irrelevant. The vehicular homicide, is furtherance of a crime. Intent need not be established. Like the get away driver, in a botched robbery, where a store clerk is murdered. He didn't pull the trigger, but he was involved, and thus equally guilty of murder.One major difference there Bear (which I thought an astute feller like yourself would pick up on) The D.D. didn't intend to kill his victims...........the A$$holes did intend to skin the cat. One was mean the other was stupid.
Sure. Now you're getting into bioethics and euthanasia.
It depends on a number of factors, but I would definitely support voluntary euthanasia and non-voluntary euthanasia in the case that it could be feasibly shown that it would be better for the suffering party to end their life.
Just a quick question...
How do you balance your opinions on abortion, with your opinions on war?
NO no no, you're advocating the killing of a perfectly healthy baby before it's born. The same would apply after. Maybe the "Mother and Father" after a year decided that a kid just wasn't for them. Just knock the kid off using very late term abortion.
NO no no, you're advocating the killing of a perfectly healthy baby before it's born. The same would apply after. Maybe the "Mother and Father" after a year decided that a kid just wasn't for them. Just knock the kid off using very late term abortion.
Sure. Now you're getting into bioethics and euthanasia.
It depends on a number of factors, but I would definitely support voluntary euthanasia and non-voluntary euthanasia in the case that it could be feasibly shown that it would be better for the suffering party to end their life.
Whle I support the right to end one's own life and agree with assisted suicide in certain instances (IE Sue Rodrigez) I 'm not going to go as far as non-voluntary. I have already made provisions to 'pull the plug' in a living will and if I were to suffer from ALS or some other terminal disease I would want to go on my terms but that is a decision I made for myself and would not want somebody else to make it for me.
Whle I support the right to end one's own life and agree with assisted suicide in certain instances (IE Sue Rodrigez) I 'm not going to go as far as non-voluntary. I have already made provisions to 'pull the plug' in a living will and if I were to suffer from ALS or some other terminal disease I would want to go on my terms but that is a decision I made for myself and would not want somebody else to make it for me.[/QUOTE]
And quite often the propensity for others to make the decision is directly proportional to the size of your bank account! :lol:
And quite often the propensity for others to make the decision is directly proportional to the size of your bank account! :lol:
Sounds about right, people who harm others for their own convenience often don't know where to draw the line. :smile:
Sure. One could even argue that a child is not truly autonomous until later than that period as well. But I would say, after 1 year, it would be a waste of time and money for the parents. If you've given in to raising it until that point, you might as well just continue on or give them up for adoption - but that's my opinion. I'm sure there is a philosophical argument out there that could show infanticide of an innocent and healthy child at the age of 1 is perfectly acceptable.
My main concern is not about the killing, but rather the pain and suffering of the death.
I have no question allowing an early stage abortion (earlier than 20 weeks). If I could be assured that a late stage abortion was not painful to the child or mother; or cause much in the way of some significant injury in the future - I would be more inclined to support late stage abortions as well.
Calling him/her a child a slip?....most pro abortion are carefull to dance around that term.....or you could be trolling;-)
The fact is, since the abortionist are so big on "facts", the SCC struck down Canada's abortion laws. So, at this time there are NO laws restricting abortion in any way. This means it is possible for a woman to LEGALLY abort right up to the birth. You can all thank Morgantaler, the serial killer, for that.
You mean 'HE' ;-)Thank you morgantaler, for sticking up for peoples right and freedom to decide whats right for them.
She is my hero. For ever will we be in your dept.
Now back off gerryh cause she could be going after you next.
You over grown fetus
Heck no.That's not true. Organic farming is more sustainable than industrial farming.
It may be more expensive for consumers, but the actual farms themselves are a sustainable biodiversity.
Murder to me too. I do believe that even if we are to be pro-choice there should be some reasonable limits. I'm not the expert to say how many weeks that is but I would say nothing past half-term and definitely nothing in the 3rd trimester. With this topic I know even this will be hotly debated. Just my opinion.
Heck no.
Do you think todays' farm looks anything like this?
Why stop at birth, why not extend that to a year after, or 5 years after.
Thank you morgantaler, for sticking up for peoples right and freedom to decide whats right for them.
She is my hero. For ever will we be in your dept.
Now back off gerryh cause she could be going after you next.
You over grown fetus