NDP'ers come flying out of the woodwork to "stomp" all over the pro-life views.
Again you are being obvious!
Again you are being obvious!
Abortion
- Thread starter Canadian Dragon
- Start date
Well if its your intent to change minds than I suggest you try a new a new approach. Since you cannot refute on logic and science, what tools will you be using?? never mind I can see what they are already.
Pea,
I've tried using logic and science. Remember, I asked for a numbers of weeks where you would classify the fetus as a child and what criteria you would be using for this determination?
I've made the contention that since the fertilized egg was going to be a child that I believed it was human. Unlike a cancerous growth which will never be a sanctioned lifeform. Similar to a child will grow to be an adult, a fetus grows into an infant.
Except for hardcore abortionists, everyone will agree that fetuses should be recognized as humans at some point. The discussion is when. At conception, when the brain has activity, when the heart beats, when the child can life with human intervention outside the mother, when the child can life without human intervention outside the mother, etc.
The problem is that the abortionists don't want a logical and scientific discussion becuase they like the law(or lack thereof) exactly the way it is. Prefer the "head-in-the-sand" approach. Problem doesn't exist if I ignore it.
I've tried using logic and science. Remember, I asked for a numbers of weeks where you would classify the fetus as a child and what criteria you would be using for this determination?
I've made the contention that since the fertilized egg was going to be a child that I believed it was human. Unlike a cancerous growth which will never be a sanctioned lifeform. Similar to a child will grow to be an adult, a fetus grows into an infant.
Except for hardcore abortionists, everyone will agree that fetuses should be recognized as humans at some point. The discussion is when. At conception, when the brain has activity, when the heart beats, when the child can life with human intervention outside the mother, when the child can life without human intervention outside the mother, etc.
The problem is that the abortionists don't want a logical and scientific discussion becuase they like the law(or lack thereof) exactly the way it is. Prefer the "head-in-the-sand" approach. Problem doesn't exist if I ignore it.
I love how the "pro-choicers" denigrate most anti-abortion arguments by calling them emotional and not fact-based, only to ask why a woman gang-raped and left pregnant should be forced to have her baby.
We've all heard the numbers and percentages with regards to abortion, so perhaps someone has access to the facts and figures of pregnancies due to gang-rapes. It's apparently a bigger problem than we know.....
We've all heard the numbers and percentages with regards to abortion, so perhaps someone has access to the facts and figures of pregnancies due to gang-rapes. It's apparently a bigger problem than we know.....
Do we have any stats on anti-abortionists required to have abortions every year?
That's what this argument comes down to in the end, C...a woman's control over her own body. Some would take that control away because of their religious or personal beliefs.
That's what this argument comes down to in the end, C...a woman's control over her own body. Some would take that control away because of their religious or personal beliefs.
RB,
Call up the Free Press and tell them your going to commit suicide at Portage and Main at noon tomorrow. Tell me whether you'll be able to without police intervention.
I'm sick and tired of this "we have complete control over our bodies". We don't.
The only difference between suicide and abortion is that in suicide the victim chooses to kill themselves, whereas in abortion the victim has no choice.
Pea,
I'm still waiting to have a fact and logic discussion. What is your definition of human life??
Call up the Free Press and tell them your going to commit suicide at Portage and Main at noon tomorrow. Tell me whether you'll be able to without police intervention.
I'm sick and tired of this "we have complete control over our bodies". We don't.
The only difference between suicide and abortion is that in suicide the victim chooses to kill themselves, whereas in abortion the victim has no choice.
Pea,
I'm still waiting to have a fact and logic discussion. What is your definition of human life??
That's completely illogical, tibear. You are grasping at straws...depending on emotion and the introduction of an unrelated to prove your point.
It doesn't work.
It doesn't work.
Grasping at straws is claiming that women shouldn't be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if they were gang-raped or the victims of incest, as if that applies to the majority of those seeking an abortion. I've seen this argument trotted out ad nauseum. I put it in the same category as the anti-abortion people who insist on displaying pictures of aborted fetuses.
They're both arguments that play to the emotions, rather than ones based on fact.
They're both arguments that play to the emotions, rather than ones based on fact.
It's also not an argument that I've made, Lady C. As long as women have control of their own bodies, abortions are available to those who have been gang-raped.
Re: RE: Abortion
and before the present legislation giving free riegn to any and all to abort for any and all reasons, abortion was available to those that had been raped, incest, and a host of other "medical" reasons. Bringing incest and rape into the mix is a non starter. The majority of abortions today are NOT for any of these reasons.
Reverend Blair said:
and before the present legislation giving free riegn to any and all to abort for any and all reasons, abortion was available to those that had been raped, incest, and a host of other "medical" reasons. Bringing incest and rape into the mix is a non starter. The majority of abortions today are NOT for any of these reasons.
I never said they were, Gerry. I also never used it for a justification. You have no business telling what a woman to do with her body. How she got pregnant is immaterial.
Re: RE: Abortion
it is immaterial, but HOW they got pregnant is used all the time justify abortion. I may have no buisness telling a woman what she can do with her body but someone has to stand up for the rights of the child that she is carrying IN her body. A child that only she could have prevented from the start.
Reverend Blair said:
it is immaterial, but HOW they got pregnant is used all the time justify abortion. I may have no buisness telling a woman what she can do with her body but someone has to stand up for the rights of the child that she is carrying IN her body. A child that only she could have prevented from the start.
That only works if we agree that it is a child before it is born. We don't. You are simply trying to appeal to emotion again.
Re: RE: Abortion
so much for that road...... I do have kids..... 7 of em.... and they were my kids from the moment we knew my wife was pregnant. I don't know of ANYONE with kids that has not thought the same way. I know MANY women that have lost babies well before term and mourned the loss of those baby's. IF it's not really a baby, then why do they ALL feel this way? If it is just a mass of cells no different than a tumor, why the excitement before the birth, and why the hearteache.......
because it IS a child, a human....
Reverend Blair said:
so much for that road...... I do have kids..... 7 of em.... and they were my kids from the moment we knew my wife was pregnant. I don't know of ANYONE with kids that has not thought the same way. I know MANY women that have lost babies well before term and mourned the loss of those baby's. IF it's not really a baby, then why do they ALL feel this way? If it is just a mass of cells no different than a tumor, why the excitement before the birth, and why the hearteache.......
because it IS a child, a human....
Not everybody shares that view though, Gerry. That's the thing. There are women who don't feel it's a child. It's really a personal view.
Nobody is forcing your wife to have an abortion. Why take the option away from others.
Nobody is forcing your wife to have an abortion. Why take the option away from others.
Re: RE: Abortion
Then why put the line at birth? many many moons ago a child was not considered "human" untill it was past it's first birthday.... Why not give women that option too? They can kill it upto it's first birthday. Why draw this arbitrary line at birth? I am saying we don't draw a line and we protect that child even if the woman who is carrying it is not willing to protect it.
Again....if they don't want to get pregnant, then abstain.
Reverend Blair said:
Then why put the line at birth? many many moons ago a child was not considered "human" untill it was past it's first birthday.... Why not give women that option too? They can kill it upto it's first birthday. Why draw this arbitrary line at birth? I am saying we don't draw a line and we protect that child even if the woman who is carrying it is not willing to protect it.
Again....if they don't want to get pregnant, then abstain.
It's a societal choice, gerry. Western society, as a whole, has decided that abortion should be legal and available. The laws very from country to country and in Canada we have no law at all, but that has been the overall decision.
If you are uncomfortable with it, that's fine...nobody is forcing you have an abortion.
If you are uncomfortable with it, that's fine...nobody is forcing you have an abortion.