Abortion

tibear

Electoral Member
Jan 25, 2005
854
0
16
Pea,

Tibear, I will try to be civilized. But I must tell you when someone tries to pretend "dumb" with me, I don't like it. You are very well aware of the tatics that are imployed, you are part of this movement.

I've never said that I'm "part" of the movement. I'm pro-life, I've given money to pro-life causes such as unwed-mothers homes and Coalition Life which does education on the abortion issue.

I'm certainly NOT a board member and as stated before don't speak on behalf of all pro-life organizations.

I speak from my heart about what pro-life means to me and many others.

As stated many times before, yes their are extremists in the pro-life movement who believe they are doing God's work. However, I've shown that there are just as many if not more extremists in the animal rights movement who use tactics that are just as bad.

We don't have to compare which is worse, it doesn't matter. Let's just say that there are problem people in both groups and leave it at that.

However, I will say that you seem to paint all pro-life people with the extremists label which is very unfair.

BTW, as stated in an earlier post, there are situations where most pro-life people believe that abortion is warranted. So please stop calling them anti-abortion because they simply aren't in all cases. :)
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
Re: RE: Abortion

tibear said:
no1important,

I think a person would have to be deaf, blind and stupid not to know about safe-sex. Its everywhere from the TV to radio to large billboards on the side of the road. Sure there are some families that don't let their children know about the "birds and the bees".

You would be suprised how many do not. Especially among very religious people. Especially in the southern area of Jesusland. Like they teach Abstinance and lie about the truth about sex and birth control.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Well I wonder about that tibear. I suggest that your anti-choice group find a way to disconnect from these people. NO one is interested in hearing the ideas of people who can only use the most unethical tools available to them. It hypocrisy to the highest level. A truth does not need munipulation, lies, harnessment, fear. It stands alone by itself.

No I do not suppose you would like me to list all the underhanded methods used by anti-choice. Fine, and you would hard pressed to show me one tactic used by pro-choice that would even come close to the decepition that anti-choice people make.

Are you aware of this?
"Although many anti-choice groups publicly condemn the violence against clinics and abortion providers, they don’t do nearly enough to distance themselves from it, or prevent it from happening in the first place. In an article by Vancouver pro-choice activist Will Offley, published in the March issue of Body Politic, a US pro-choice magazine, Offley points out that if the anti-choice really want to offload responsibility for the violence, they must stop their use of violent language.

"As long as they keep using this inflammatory rhetoric, they have to bear the responsibility for those that listen to their words, believe their words, and then act on them," said Offley. In his article, he shows that a number of mainstream "pro-life" leaders, such as former abortion doctor Bernard Nathanson, either espouse violence openly, or show ambivalence by criticizing the violence while asserting that doctors are murdering babies and should be stopped, using lethal force if necessary.

I won't even bother posting the "genocide" crap they now use.
I will leave you with one more example of some of the kinds of people that are in the anti-choice movement.


Anti-Choice Left with Egg on Their Faces

On March 9, a U.S. Congressional committee hearing took place to investigate claims that aborted fetal tissue was being sold illegally for a profit. The hearing was supposed to be a triumph for anti-choice Republicans, but it turned into a debacle when their star witness, Lawrence Dean Alberty, admitted he had lied about his knowledge of illegal activity. He also confessed to being a paid spy for Life Dynamics Inc., a Texas anti-abortion group.

Last year, Alberty (using the pseudonym "Kelly") had alleged in a videotape that he had "first-hand knowledge of the illegal, for-profit sale of fetal tissue" and had witnessed nearly 40 late-term abortions. He had claimed that viable babies were sometimes aborted alive, then killed to harvest their organs.

Alberty is a former employee of tissue donation companies Anatomic Gift Foundation, and Opening Lines, which collect tissue from hospitals and clinics and distribute it to researchers. He began to suspect that Opening Lines was selling the fetal tissue at a profit. (Under U.S. law, fetal tissue can be donated but not sold. Reasonable costs can be recovered for staff, facility, and transportation costs.) Alberty says he contacted the FBI to investigate, but he received "no help." Then he contacted the Texas anti-abortion group Life Dynamics Inc., to help publicize his story. In a videotape produced by the group, Alberty was disguised as a woman and made claims that he witnessed profiteering from fetal tissue sales.


The National Abortion Federation (NAF) in Washington DC, played a pivotal role in exposing the information produced by Life Dynamics and Dean Alberty as nothing more than inflammatory anti-choice propaganda. Working over several months with pro bono counsel Fay Clayton, NAF discovered the identity of "Kelly." Alberty had infiltrated NAF after becoming a paid spy for Life Dynamics, and was even paid to attend NAF meetings and turn over all documents from the meetings to Life Dynamics. NAF worked with Fay Clayton to subpoena all documentation relating to Alberty's employment with Life Dynamics. This turned out to include confidential patient records (stolen from clinics where Alberty had worked), tapes of NAF meetings, and receipts of 23 payments from Life Dynamics to Alberty totalling more than $20,000. According to his Congressional testimony, Alberty had also given documents to Life Dynamics that he stole from his employer, Opening Lines, describing procedures used in removing fetal organs, types of organs ordered, and names of researchers.

After establishing "Kelly's" identity and procuring this evidence against Alberty, NAF obtained a sworn affidavit from Alberty in which he recanted most of the charges he made on the Life Dynamics videotape. NAF produced the affidavit at the Congressional hearing as evidence. In the affidavit, Alberty stated that he had "no personal knowledge of any instances in which an employer of mine charged any fees or received any compensation for retrieving fetal tissue in violation of any of these laws." He added, "I am not a physician and am not qualified to make medical judgements about fetal viability." Alberty also stated in his affidavit that Life Dynamics may have changed some of his answers and even substituted someone else for some of the footage without his knowledge.

Questioned about the discrepancies, Alberty testified, "I would go by the affidavit. When I was under oath, I told the truth. Anything I said on a videotape not under oath is a different story." However, Alberty did continue to assert that some abortion providers "would use lengthier procedures when performing abortions if it meant keeping a fetus intact."

The day before the hearing, on March 8, the investigative news show 20/20 had broadcast a program about the fetal tissue controversy. The show featured both Alberty and a pathologist from Opening Lines, Dr. Miles Jones, who was recorded by a hidden camera. Jones discussed making thousands of dollars a week selling fetal parts, and made other comments that seemed to imply the existence of a profitable trade in fetal tissue, such as that "market forces" drive the cost of fetal body parts.

Jones was subpoenaed to testify at the hearing but did not appear and was held in contempt of Congress. A week later, Jones wrote letters to Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh denying that he trafficked in fetal tissue, saying that his secretly-recorded comments had been shown out of context and that "nothing could be further from the truth." Jones asked that Alberty be investigated for "corporate espionage" and called for the investigation of Life Dynamics as well. In a separate statement to the press, Jones implied that the allegations against him were racially motivated. Jones, who is black, said, "Oh to be in Salem or under the spreading Southern oak tree," apparently referring to witch hunts and lynchings. It is worth noting that 20/20 presented no actual evidence to prove that any of Dr. Jones' comments were accurate, such as real customers, for example.

However, Planned Parenthood Federation of American President Gloria Feldt called Jones' actions "inappropriate." She said, "Where there is wrongdoing, it should be prosecuted. People who are doing that kind of thing should be ... brought to justice." In a letter sent to 20/20, Feldt wrote, "Planned Parenthood supports research using fetal tissue in accordance with legal and ethical guidelines and are deeply concerned about the attempt by some to profit from the humanitarian contributions of courageous women."

We agree with Feldt, but must emphasize that no-one has been found guilty of anything yet, and that these allegations involve only a single individual, Dr. Miles Jones, at a single company, Opening Lines. This is hardly the "thriving industry" the anti-choice claims exists. Meanwhile, not a shred of evidence exists that any abortion doctor or clinic is knowingly involved in illegal profiteering from fetal tissue."

Lies! munipulations! scare tactics!
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Geez that sounds an aweful lot like the Bush administration Are you sure were talking about abortion here .My two cents worth is NO MAN SHOULD BE TELLING WOMEN WHAT THEY CAN DO OR NOT DO WITH THERE BODYS PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
tibear ...I suspect that Vanni might not appreciate statements I've made being attributed to him.

My point is ;
How can you be for sending a 18 year old kid off to war and be against terminating a pregnancy that may provide undo hardship on the parents?
 

tibear

Electoral Member
Jan 25, 2005
854
0
16
Zen,

As stated earlier, the pro-life movement is against all forms of killing, war included. However, there are certain situations where people are going to die, such as in certain pregnancies and sometimes in wars. In the instance of the pregnancy, perhaps abortion is a viable option if the mother is definitely going to die if the child is carried to term.

Likewise if an aggressor is attacking and killing people then their is a moral obligation to stop the aggressor from needlessly killing innocent lives.

There is a big difference between pro-life and a pacifist. A pacifist by definition would never use deadly force, however someone who is pro-life wants to save lives and sometimes to save a live another person must lose theirs. For example, say a crazed individual is holding someone hostage and the hostage taker has already shown they are more than willing to kill. The police have an obligation to try everything they can to free the hostage without killing the agressor, however, if they need to kill the aggressor to save the hostage from sure death then they should have that option.

I don't see this as any problem with the logic of pro-life. Sometimes, lifes are lost in order to save others.

The difference between war and crime victims and abortion is that in the first two the victims were willing participants and knew what they were getting into and there was a choice that had to be made between their lives and others. However, in abortion, no one's life is at risk when the child is killed and the child certainly doesn't have any say into their situation.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
Thanks Vanni, :oops: your making me blush. What a nice thing to say.

Tibear,
I know you don't speak for prolife. I am basing my argument on statements you have made on this board.

"Sometimes, lifes are lost in order to save others. " tibear

Doesn't that defeat your argument? The "prolife" ( you can call it what ever you want, it stil does not mean it isn't misnamed.)movement, is claiming life begins at conception, therefore your argument becomes incongruent.

Military personal can be drafted. This means it is not their choice. Yet, your willing to sacrafice their lives for a standard quality of life. However if a pregnant woman or couple decides it could adversely affect their quality of life, and the decision to abort is made, somehow it is morally wrong. Can't you see how that contridicts itself?

You are also still skirting around the affects of psychological or physical damage caused after a birth. For arguments sake, lets say if she gave birth she would never be able to walk again. Lets say she has multiple personality disorder. This is what I mean by affecting quality of life ( I knew you were going to question that). The physical would cause a great deal of hardship on the Mother in numerous ways. The psychological could have grave affects on the childs upbringing.

You have already admitted there are instances when taking a life is necessary. You've also admitted there are times when the fetuses must be sacraficed. This is why choice is best alternative at this point in time. No one knows entirely what medical breakthroughs are coming.In twenty years these could all be a mere glitch in the human condition.
 

tibear

Electoral Member
Jan 25, 2005
854
0
16
Zen,

Military personal can be drafted. This means it is not their choice. Yet, your willing to sacrafice their lives for a standard quality of life. However if a pregnant woman or couple decides it could adversely affect their quality of life, and the decision to abort is made, somehow it is morally wrong. Can't you see how that contridicts itself?

NO, NO, NO. Your not understanding the situations in which the pro-life movement would support war. Prolife doesn't mean it is all right to sacrafice lives for a standard of living. What I said was that sometimes you have to have wars to protect innocent lives where an agressor is killing people. Land and resources, etc are not valid reasons to kill someone, only when someone has shown the ability to kill others and the willingness to continue to do the same would a truly pro-life person believe that deadly force is acceptable.

You are also still skirting around the affects of psychological or physical damage caused after a birth. For arguments sake, lets say if she gave birth she would never be able to walk again. Lets say she has multiple personality disorder. This is what I mean by affecting quality of life ( I knew you were going to question that). The physical would cause a great deal of hardship on the Mother in numerous ways. The psychological could have grave affects on the childs upbringing.

So if a child was going to cause physchological or physical problems to the parents it is justified to kill them?? Would you say the same thing if a child developed a disease at say age three?? Say a child was found to have Muscular Dystrophy at 6 months, could the parents then have the baby killed because it would be a huge financial and emotional burden??? Of course not. You are refusing to accept the concept that a pro-life person see the life of a fetus and that of a 3 year old as exactly equal in "right to life".

You have already admitted there are instances when taking a life is necessary. You've also admitted there are times when the fetuses must be sacraficed. This is why choice is best alternative at this point in time. No one knows entirely what medical breakthroughs are coming.In twenty years these could all be a mere glitch in the human condition.

Your right, perhaps in twenty years there would be no medical situation where the mothers life would be in jeopardy from a pregnancy and thus there would be absolutely no reason for abortion.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
For the sake of ease ...My statements are in Red, yours are in Black tibear...

NO, NO, NO. Your not understanding the situations in which the pro-life movement would support war. Prolife doesn't mean it is all right to sacrafice lives for a standard of living. What I said was that sometimes you have to have wars to protect innocent lives where an agressor is killing people. Land and resources, etc are not valid reasons to kill someone, only when someone has shown the ability to kill others and the willingness to continue to do the same would a truly pro-life person believe that deadly force is acceptable.


This what i said.... Tibear,
I know you don't speak for prolife. I am basing my argument on statements you have made on this board. I contiinued with
You are also still skirting around the affects of psychological or physical damage caused after a birth. For arguments sake, lets say if she gave birth she would never be able to walk again. Lets say she has multiple personality disorder. This is what I mean by affecting quality of life ( I knew you were going to question that). The physical would cause a great deal of hardship on the Mother in numerous ways. The psychological could have grave affects on the childs upbringing. To which you replied...



So if a child was going to cause physchological or physical problems to the parents it is justified to kill them?? Would you say the same thing if a child developed a disease at say age three?? Say a child was found to have Muscular Dystrophy at 6 months, could the parents then have the baby killed because it would be a huge financial and emotional burden??? Of course not. You are refusing to accept the concept that a pro-life person see the life of a fetus and that of a 3 year old as exactly equal in "right to life".

You really avoided answering the question here.First its not a child its a fetus. Hence, the term fetus and the term child. You really don't see the life of the fetus the same as anyone living. Otherwise the life of the mother (if it came to a choice)would be sacraficed to bring the fetus into the world. You can't have it both ways there.

Second you have stated that it would be okay to abort the child if it was likely the Mother would perish. Yet you are willing to let a Mother suffer through the rest of her life with a physical condition that affects her quality of life and most likely will affect the child too.

Even worse, if the Mother has grave psychological problems, you are suggesting she bring this child into the world and inflict those problems on the child. Now, I don't presuppose that the "prolife " movement likes to see children suffer...yet the fact remains a lot of children are born into conditions that gives them less than a prime chance of survivng in today's world. The "prolife movement" does however advocate bringing every pregnancy to term that would not harm the mother. Despite whatever Socio-economic conditions surround the family. Despite the fact that it could prove to be harmful to the child in the long run. Despite the fact that their may not be anyone their to adopt them. Despite the fact the child may not be wanted by the birth parent(s). I just don't see bringing every possible conception into this world as a viable nor the humane alternative. What happens when their is no one to raise these children ? ...it falls back on the responsibility of the state to raise them. Is that really in the best interest of a child?

You keep playing " The but your killing a child card". Is it really more humane to force a child into this world that will have only the slightest chance of finding any of the joys in life? Is it really in the best interest of the child to move him from foster home to foster home only to kick him out into society when he has reached the age of majority? This is why society has left this choice up to the Mother/Father and the doctors. They are more adept at determining what is best for all parties involved.
 

tibear

Electoral Member
Jan 25, 2005
854
0
16
Zen,

Yes, the prolife movement does see the "fetus" exactly as a "child". Different term yet both have life and thus should be protected.

HOWEVER, there are even situations in life where one person could be sacraficed to save another. For example, conjoined twins where both will die unless they are separated and then only one will survive. I would think that the pro-life movement would say that this is a pro-life operation because even though one life is being sacraficed another is given the chance at life where before it didn't.

As for the "nobody there to adopt", that is simply not the case. Every child in the world would be adopted into a loving and caring home, if politics were removed and countries allowed easy adoptions. Everyone has the duty to ensure that all citizens of this planet have a save and healthy life. Instead of killing the child why don't we put our efforts into creating a world where everyone has plenty of food, a chance for education and a good life.

As for your "child's life without joy?" Should we kill all of the accident victims where people have lost a limb or suffer mild brain damage?? Who's definition do we use when defining whether a child would have a "good" life?? What if the parents are suffering depression at the time of the pregnancy and kill a child which would have had a very good life??? In many cases the mother has too many things going on in her life to make a rational decision but simply wants the problem to "disappear". This is the best situation to put a defenceless child in???

I've always been intrigued when people say that the decision is best left to the woman and doctor. Why should the doctor have any say into the decision??? Unless, the mother has a chance of physical death because of the pregnancy, why would a doctor who sees a patient for the first time ever have the right to decide something like this???
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
Re: RE: Abortion

tibear said:
Zen,

Yes, the prolife movement does see the "fetus" exactly as a "child". Different term yet both have life and thus should be protected.

Tibear

Your argument is going round and round. We will never agree on this topic. This statement means that the individual sperm and the individual egg must be protected too.They are living cells. Yet nature doen't even do that

Everytime I make a point you extrapolate it into some grand murderous killing spree or you take it off on some other tangent and avoid answering the question. It is about choice. Choice is the fairest way we can handle this issue in our current world.

If their are so many indivduals and couples out there that want to adopt...why are there so many children in placement facilities? I've shown you American and Canadian stats.

So you know ...a doctor is consulted any time an operation is perfomed. A specialist rarely has the person they operate on as a regular patient. For example heart surgery, brain surgery...They are consulted so the patient can make an informed decision as to whether to proceed with the operation/treatment.

And I quote... "Everyone has the duty to ensure that all citizens of this planet have a save and healthy life." It is a very idealistic statement...looking at the world however, we know this is not true. This is the last time I will ask this question... What of the potenetial Mother who would never walk again if she gives birth to the fetus? Shouldn't she have the right to abort? It would take away something we all take for granted. It would decrease the things and places mother and child could go together. It would increase the difficulty in raising that child.

Why I like your idea of creating a world where everything is perfect...I find that it might be a little unrealistic. Our population has already reached the point where it is seriously affecting the qulaity of life for all of us. We are dwindling our resources at rate, that will impose hardships on the children we do decide to bring into this world.

Tibear, I'm tired of going round and round on this. I've made my points. You have not been able to prove I'm wrong in my belief. In fact have only made me feel my feelings on this matter are just. This issue remains to be about freedom and choice.
 

tibear

Electoral Member
Jan 25, 2005
854
0
16
Zen,

This statement means that the individual sperm and the individual egg must be protected too.They are living cells. Yet nature doen't even do that

The egg and sperm together make live, individually they don't have the potential to ever give life.

If their are so many indivduals and couples out there that want to adopt...why are there so many children in placement facilities? I've shown you American and Canadian stats.

I think that the vast majority of children that are available for adoption are older children that have severe emotional problems. If those parents had given up their children for adoption when they were born, I would be willing to bet that most if not all of those children would be adopted. The older children do not have any bearing on the abortion issue because it was a decision made by the parents when the child was born. The mother had already decided not to abort but also keep the child. How would this change anything????

What of the potential Mother who would never walk again if she gives birth to the fetus?
Would a parent put themselves in harm to save their 5 year old?? Exact same situation. Should the mother, who sees her 5 year old running through traffic, simply stand on the side of the road and let the child be hit or would she run after the child and try to protect it, even though it may cause harm to herself?? You continually forget that the pro-life movement sees a fetus in the same light as any living human being.

Tibear, I'm tired of going round and round on this. I've made my points. You have not been able to prove I'm wrong in my belief. In fact have only made me feel my feelings on this matter are just. This issue remains to be about freedom and choice.

As I've said on many, many occasions. Until you can get over the fact that pro-life people see the fetus as a living human being we will never agree. By the way, I could also say that your arguements haven't swayed my beliefs and only reinforced them. It certainly reinforced my belief that the pro-abortion side, and I'm sure the pro-abortion side feels the same about the pro-life people, that their stuck in thier beliefs and are unwilling to view the situation from a different person's perspective.

If anything has happened during this debate, I hope you have learned the following:
- that the pro-life side doesn't see the abortion issue as black and white, and in fact, in certain situations the pro-life movement is in fact pro-abortion.
- the fetus is regarded as a human being and should have all the rights of any other human.
- the pro-life movement is more than just an abortion issue, it is about capital punishment, euthanasia, war, fetal tissue research.
- that the pro-life movement talks with its actions with regards to helping expectant mothers and families with children.
- that the pro-life movement has its extremists just as the animal rights people do and that the animal rights people in fact are probably even more extreme than the pro-life people. However, the extremists make up a very small percentage of either group.

I really appreciate the effort that you've put into the debate and kept it at a civilized level. Too often these debates degenerate into "screaming" and abusive situations. Thanks for that. :)
 
Should Abortions be illegal? well I'll ask you this, Is canada a "red State"? Is canada a fanatically religious counrty? Are we against Pro-choice?

Let me put the Abortion issue into perspective.

If you are Anti-abortion you are either, and will use these as an excuse:

1)Pro-Life
2)Christian
3)ignorant

Prolifers: I assume since you are prolife that you are against the killing of everything. You wish to strip a woman's right to chose from her and force a birth that she may not be able to finacially support or mentally support.

Religious Fanatics: I'm sorry this is not a excuse. The defence of GOD does not hold up in logical debate. Therefore you will only fidn the most ignorant red-neck from Alabama use this as his/her grandiose rebutal.

Ignorant: Well this is the common occurance amoungst anti pro-choice individuals. They dont compile the complete facts,use half truths and a somehow "superior" sense of morality to justify their beliefs.

The funny thing is if this was the states, this debate would be applicable substancially. Since this is Canada, the chances of abortion becomeing illegal would only be made possible by the conservatives and you all watched the convertion..come-on.

Abortion is a part of the womans right to choose. Plain and simple.
 

tibear

Electoral Member
Jan 25, 2005
854
0
16
Brad,

Your comment about pro-life people simply shows your ignorance with regards to their beliefs.
 

zenfisher

House Member
Sep 12, 2004
2,829
0
36
Seattle
Sorry tibear , I still see them as misguided fanatics.
one note if the sperm fertilizes an egg it has potential to give life. You say that I don't have the ability to see the other sides argument. I think it is the other way around.
 

tibear

Electoral Member
Jan 25, 2005
854
0
16
Zen,

It certainly reinforced my belief that the pro-abortion side, and I'm sure the pro-abortion side feels the same about the pro-life people, that they're stuck in thier beliefs and are unwilling to view the situation from a different person's perspective.

You say that I don't have the ability to see the other sides argument. I think it is the other way around.

I believe I did acknowledge that you would feel the same way.

one note if the sperm fertilizes an egg it has potential to give life.
You're right. Once the sperm fertilizes the egg than life exists but the pro-life side beliefs in protecting human life not the potential for human life. And as I said probably a hundred times by now, that is the difference between the pro-abortion and pro-life sides. When does life begin??? The pro-life side has consistently stated that human life begins at conception because the essential components required for the child are all there. However, the pro-abortion side refuses to specify when they believe human life begins. They want to say at birth but acknowledge, as the current case in California will support, that sometimes when a child is full term and is killed. The perpetrator can and should be tried for murder.