Abortion -The poll is not based upon Religious belief - It is based ethics
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
That's not what he's saying, but you go ahead and twist it if it makes you feel better.
Rachel Maddow showing her ignorance, along with the ajazeera reporter.
A Dude Trying To Ban Abortions Is Asked A Question He Never Considered. It's So Obvious It Hurts.
Oh yes, and upworthy showing their ignorance and bias loud and clear, as usual.
What does it really matter what excuse the woman gives for wanting to kill her child? Does it really matter why olson did what he did?
Sorry, never considered the killing of a child to be a "little thing", and that is what this thread is about.
nice edit by the way
I'm not saying anything other than what is given as justifications for abortion by women which includes not even being capable of doing what is instinctual.
Why do you have such a hard on about this?
Why are you so eager to have them weigh in on something that they can't do anything about?
JT has already weighed into this one and has basically said that a woman can go right ahead and have that baby removed and trashed.
Gerry, you really should preface all your comments with "what is in my opinion...." IE: 'What is in my opinion the killing of a child'. If you did you might get better response and not have people instantly upset, defensive and angry. The laws and prevalent public opinion in this country is that abortion is not murder and that a fetus is not a person. Until these laws and general opinions change you only offer your personal opinion which is the antithesis of the law and popular opinion. Just offering friendly advice.
I don't give a rats a$$ if people get "angry" for me stating the obvious and the truth.
Of course not, it's a worm. :roll:
can't be a dog, cat, or horse, THEY have more rights than a baby.
Well, no. He refused to discuss it.
Again, who cares? Why should the government have opinions on things they can't do anything about?
No he didn't refuse to discuss. He made it the womans decision, which means he has no problem with it.
Are you drunk?
He didn't make anything anything. The government isn't involved in that now, and he said he wouldn't have the government intervene either.
What exactly would you want the government to do? A lie detector test to determine the true reason they want an abortion?
You'll do time, hefty fines and public humiliation if you drop a sack of kittens down a well but killing humans is an alleged right. Strange world we live in.
Like Mulcair, Trudeau, or Harper (Genuflect here for a partial indulgence of three days), I do not favour reopening an extremely divisve debate on abortion. All three major parties agree. However, partisans will use every issue to white hat-black hat friends and foes.
As for late-term abortions, no legislation is required as medical codes of ethics have answered the critics. Why draught laws when none is needed. For instance, is a law needed to prohibit inter-species sex between conservatives and bonobos? I know people are whispering, but do we realy need such a law?
As for late-term abortions, no legislation is required as medical codes of ethics have answered the critics. Why draught laws when none is needed. For instance, is a law needed to prohibit inter-species sex between conservatives and bonobos? I know people are whispering, but do we realy need such a law?
In Canada the majority favor some limits on abortion. Yet we cannot have a reasoned debate not only in Canada but in some cases on this very thread. If abortion of late term viable healthy children does not occur then what is the issue with enacting this as law.
If it did ocurr the majority would be disgusted.And the possibility will always exist that it will occur.
And please do not give me the slippery slope argument.
Ethics do change.