Justin Trudeau says abortion rights trump MPs' freedom to vote their conscience
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
5 Myths about hunger in America
You mean to say all those starving people are NOT experiencing a food shortage. Come now, when a particular group of people starve, I would suggest it is because they are short of food particularly.
You are simply playing a word game. if the egg is living tissue and sperm is also living tissue, what changes when they join? Single or joined they are living tissue, with all the possibilities of becoming human, Are you prejudiced against, single eggs and single sperms?? Why are you favoring the singles over the joined?? Carrying such an example to it's conclusion is rather silly, isn't it??
Do you think single persons should be treated differently from married one???
Now. as to the relationship between abortions and firearms and my wish to not influence another's decision. How does one have a choice if the law says no abortions?? I support the ability of a woman to choose, without the law allowing abortion there is no choice.
Now with decent firearm laws, Canada has not taken away the choice to own a gun, it simply demands obedience to rules and regulations to ensure others are not shot and killed needlessly. Even so people still die by gunshot Now when was the last time a individual person (remember a zygote, fetus, or embryo does not yet have human status) died because a woman choose to have an early term abortion in this day and age, Read how it used to be.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-grimes/the-bad-old-days-abortion_b_6324610.html
Last edited:
The fundamental error in this entire thread is the laughable presumption that MPs have consciences.
Quite often those who are against abortion are actually against women. They say their stance is pro-life, but do they support life outside of the womb? As you say, they snicker at the poor, they mock parents and throw hatred at single mothers struggling to raise their families, they sneer at the thought of people looking for assistance, they favour war, they favour death, they blame victims for the crimes committed against them. In their minds, have they managed to separate the idea of their compassion towards the unborn and their hatred and disdain for everyone else? What's their real motivation then if abortion is the only issue in which they give a damn about the well-being and lives of another human being? It's because they don't actually care about fetuses. They just want to kick women down.
None of that applies to me. How ever, some of the opposite applies to those that support "pro-choice". They rage against war and the killing of innocent children. They rage against "animal abuse" but have no problem killing the most vulnerable. They have no problem differentiating by calling the unborn child "tissue", "a clump of cells", "a parasite". They "dehumanize" the child to justify their position.
What Petros os getting at, which you seem to be a little slow picking up, is that there is no shortage of food in the world. We produce more than enough to feed everyone.
You are the one playing the word games. Until the egg and the sperm join, they are just 2 cells with only have the required DNA to make a human.
No, why would I? Why would you even think I would?
Of course there's a choice. You just don't like the choice.
I've never opposed our present gun laws. I didn't agree with the long gun registry, but licensing and permitting have never been a problem for me.
That's right, in the eyes of the law, they do not. Scientifically, they do. That's why the law needs to be changed. It is wrong.
I know how it used to be. More evidence of women doing atrocious things instead of taking responsibility for their actions.
Looking at the motivations of the people I described and the people you described. We can draw a few conclusions.
The central issue is the humanity or personhood of the unborn. If you are pro-choice, rhetorically you should be arguing that an unborn child is not a person. It's possible that these people actually believe that an unborn child is not a person and so their "dehumanization" is sincere. They are not in contradiction in their own minds when they come out against war but in favour of abortion. Presumably there could be some people who believe fetuses are people but don't care and so dehumanize hypocritically.
However, in the cases of pro-lifers who are also pro-war, anti-welfare, etc., in order for them to reconcile their contradiction they either have to believe that only the unborn are human persons and to hell with everyone else, or they are cynically lying about their concern for the unborn. The former seems unlikely, and as I said, their real concern is their hatred of female sexuality and body autonomy.
The central issue is the humanity or personhood of the unborn. If you are pro-choice, rhetorically you should be arguing that an unborn child is not a person. It's possible that these people actually believe that an unborn child is not a person and so their "dehumanization" is sincere. They are not in contradiction in their own minds when they come out against war but in favour of abortion. Presumably there could be some people who believe fetuses are people but don't care and so dehumanize hypocritically.
However, in the cases of pro-lifers who are also pro-war, anti-welfare, etc., in order for them to reconcile their contradiction they either have to believe that only the unborn are human persons and to hell with everyone else, or they are cynically lying about their concern for the unborn. The former seems unlikely, and as I said, their real concern is their hatred of female sexuality and body autonomy.
You're kidding, right? This is the guy that we should take the ultimate reasoning from?
Did you even read the fu cking article?
Control your primitive emotions.
I got to the end before I had to go so yes, I recognise it wasn't a supportive piece but I didn't have time to change it.
The idea of simply being called a human or not is irrelevant.
And if our existing laws were ever challenged such that we had to deem a fetus as a human just to appease prolifers, we would eventually get to this utilitarian conclusion and abortion would still be justified.
Abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide
Singer holds that the right to life is essentially tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is essentially tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure.
In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia.2C_and_infanticide
I got to the end before I had to go so yes, I recognise it wasn't a supportive piece but I didn't have time to change it.
The idea of simply being called a human or not is irrelevant.
And if our existing laws were ever challenged such that we had to deem a fetus as a human just to appease prolifers, we would eventually get to this utilitarian conclusion and abortion would still be justified.
Abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide
Singer holds that the right to life is essentially tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is essentially tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure.
In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia.2C_and_infanticide
Last edited:
and he says you can fu ck animals, kill dementia patients, and experiment on the mentally disabled. Forgive me if I assign him to the position of nutcase, and someone that society and the police should be keeping a very close eye on.
well ya......:roll:
Your're insane, no real; man could hate women.What the fuk do you think we're here for, agood time? Fuk off we're malinged every minutr of our miserable lives, we are characterized as sadiustic animules twenty-four seven, the cuddley fun males are marginalized, renedered non existant myth. But the babies keep arriving, esplain thjat would you?
In truth women rule, youmake the Ceasers thew Galigulas the Stalins from where did they spring but from your loins? You make the monsters and ther saints. Who should we blame? Mothers milk
You're advisary ia nature, good luck.
Your chance of victory. ZIP, SFA, NAC, you're stuck with us, , adapt, or be replaced with hardware.
Yes we can,
We will just cut you off.
Quote from:- How many people die from starvation in America?
"About 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. This is one person every four seconds, as you can see on this display. Sadly, it is children who die most often. Yet there is plenty of food in the world for everyone."
So, until no people die from malnutrition or starvation abortion should be not just decriminalized but free to any woman who wants one. No matter what you say, the people dying every day from starvation far and away outnumber the abortions done world wide in a year. So until, all people in the world get enough to eat and have the wherewithal to give a child a decent life ,,,,,abortions should be the decision of the woman as to whether or not she wishes to assume the responsibility.
And Gerryh You can imply all you like that it is the choice of the woman.....it takes two you know and the male part of the equation sometimes takes no responsibility. There are failures in birth control...rape and often promises made but not kept, I maintain, until a man can be implanted with that fertilized egg and is willing to take on the responsibility of bringing "it" to term, they should have no say in the matter,
Here in Quebec many men have vasectomies,,,,,,,,in the rest of Canada I doubt it is the same. Quebecers know about living on the edge and they do not like it, I have known families that number 20 and more children and many of those children have opted for none They know about hardship and have given the finger to the Church, Now of course they realize they are still getting screwed,,,,this time by the politicians who make it near impossible to learn English!
One other thing, humans are an animal species. You know a young cat, or pigs will very often eat their young?? Other animals simply walk away from their young. So, why do our young get so vilified, when they do what many other animal species do naturally when they feel unable to care for a young?? It is not better to have an abortion before it reaches full term?? Before it becomes aware and individualized?? By the way, that fetus I aborted spontaneously, in no way resembled a human baby, It resembled a very badly put together fish,
Last edited:
If there is a food shortage does it matter if it is a distribution problem, poverty, or simply unavailable?? The person either dies now of starvation or if extended in weeks, month, or years of malnutrition due to lack of food?? It is still starvation!!
Malnutrition: Latest MSF Updates
Critical Situation in Niger as Hunger Gap and Malaria Period Approach
Mauritania: Malian Refugees at Risk of Malnutrition Due to Canceled Food Aid
Pakistan: The Ravages of Malnutrition
Voices From the Field: Malnutrition in Pakistan
Eight children die every minute because their diet lacks essential nutrients. They will continue to do so unless food aid changes.
Why do you not inform yourself before making a reply.