Canada Stands Alone On Anti-abortion

[CDNBear]

I'll give you something.

Once the cell splits, you consider it a life?

Ok.... a very primitive form of live, but I'll give you that.

Now.... where does it state that "Life" is equatable to the life of a living, breathing "Human Being" who is fully developed and its body can function independently from any host mother to award it the same equal human rights?

I think you missed the rest of my post, or wish to draw me into a debate I'm just not really interested in having.

A worm has many more cells then that newly split cell, it's considered alive, thus should it be given the exact same rights?

I afford all life the same respect, I kill it for the purposes of survival. I will not kill what i will not eat, I see it as disrespecting life, period.

Even if you could submit some sort of logical argument on giving a split cell the same rights as you and I.... our own charter of rights in this country dictate that a woman shall not have her rights to decide what happens to her body dictated/infringed by someone else, including a fetus/zygote/two celled organism that is 100% dependent on her body and resources.... thus giving any form of rights to an unborn human fetus would be irrelevant because the rights of the mother to determine what happens to her own body trump the rights of an unborn fetus that doesn't even have a designated gender, let alone any proof of consciousness. And before someone brings up the electrical signals in the brain that can be tracked, all of that can be explained away as developmental progression, muscle stimuli to develop muscles, etc.... not enough evidence to warrant any means of revoking a woman her own rights over her own body.

Again, beyond what I really find relevant, let alone care to debate.

It is her body, this fetus is more or less, half of her body as well, and on top of all that, she was here first. Whether or not she decides to keep the fetus or not is her decision alone, not your's, not mine and not the governments'.

Ya, I pretty much said that already.

If you choose not to have an abortion due to religious reasons that state it is wrong, fine..... you still made the choice for yourself. Allow others the same respect.

Umm, ya, I think I said that to, and feel the same. Hence why I told SJP he's full of shyte.

So in summary, you're barking up the wrong leg.

 

[AnnaG]

Well very well.... the greater majority of Canadians WHO VOTED.... :lol:

lol

Does pooping out tape worms count? :lol:

There's been a number of times I claimed to give birth to something or other in the bathroom.

roflmao Good point.

On a serious note.... if it all was summed up by giving birth to something, then what happens when you have a still born who's supposed to have "Rights"

Depends upon the "rights", I think. Personally, I'd simply afford the zygote, blastocyst, etc. one single right; the right to life, and hinge that right to life on as many circumstances as I could think of.

Does the mother get charged for the child not surviving for whatever reason?

The problem is that giving rights to a fetus opens up a bigger can of..... er.... worms, legally speaking.

Legal issues with matters often fly in the face of what's correct, right, or moral. It isn't an easy subject. Like I said earlier, Canada's legal view on it is ridiculous (section 233 of the Ciriminal Code) where a baby is only human life after it is independent of living off the mother in any way. Hence my comment about some 20+ year old kids, and "test tube" babies.

Regardless, none of the that disqualifies any of my other points.

Just adding info.

 

[AnnaG]

Um, I respect life, but some life I kill I am not particularly fond of invitng into my bod. Cold virii, for instance. *sniffle*

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Agreed....I would add a few however.

If the baby is deemed to be morbidly handicapped I would support abortion.

I find it funny how cons wouldn't allow abortion and at the same time call for cuts to social spending that helps single Moms cope with raising a child alone when the Dad has frigged off. Having said that we also have to do a better job of collecting from dead beat Dads especially if you are forcing women to have babies they did not want....and of course in rare occurrences you have to go after dead beat Moms as well.

Avro, don't you know the prolife, conservative slogan? Life begins at conception and ends at birth.

Oh, and here is another. Sex is dirty, so save it for someone you love.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Canada has a pretty enlightened approach to abortion. We certainly don't need some cow like Hillary Clinton to preach to us.

I wasn't aware that Hillary was preaching to us.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

True. It's just that the idea of abortion is somthing like deliberately killing a living being, which is basically almost like murder. It's morally incorrect.

That is a religious view, not a scientific view. As I said before, I prefer to believe the scientists, rather than believe the Pope, Pat Robertson or other Fundamentalist preachers.

 

[Risus]

Canada has a pretty enlightened approach to abortion. We certainly don't need some cow like Hillary Clinton to preach to us.

Yeah, the yanks like to do that.

As far as I am concerned, if a woman has intercourse and does not want a kid, protection should be used, otherwise don't do it.

There are also a lot of couples who cannot have children and turn to adoption for a family. If you must not have the child, (as in the case of rape) give it up for adoption.
Abortion is murder.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'll give you something.

Once the cell splits, you consider it a life?

Ok.... a very primitive form of live, but I'll give you that.

Now.... where does it state that "Life" is equatable to the life of a living, breathing "Human Being" who is fully developed and its body can function independently from any host mother to award it the same equal human rights?

A worm has many more cells then that newly split cell, it's considered alive, thus should it be given the exact same rights?

Quite so. The canard (or a religious belief, really) than life begins at conception is pure nonsense, there is no scientific validity to it. The egg and the sperm before conception can be considered to be alive, as much as the fetus after conception.

Indeed, the scientific view is that we don’t know when life begins. It is very difficult to define life. Any definition includes some inanimate objects and leaves out some live objects. Viruses are a particularly difficult case. Sometime they behave as if they are alive, sometimes they don’t.

If we cannot define life, how can we say with any certainty when it begins? Scientific view is that we don’t know when life begins; life is a continuum without a beginning or an end.

Thus sperm and egg are alive before conception. Even after out body dies, the cells in our body can be kept alive indefinitely, in a Petri dish.

I will believe that life begins at conception when I see a paper to that effect in Nature, The Lancet, Journal of American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine or something similar. I attach no importance to the words of Pope or Pat Robertson (or to the word of conservatives here).

 

[JLM]

That is the classical conservative position, JLM. I know you don’t like to be called a conservative, but it is not my fault that you take conservative positions on issue after issue.

Why is rape different from any other pregnancy? The woman must have the full freedom to decide whether any pregnancy will go to completion, whether as a result of rape or not.

You are just so ignorant, I have no more problem with being called a Conservative than I do being called a Liberal. So one week I'm a Conservative and the next week I'm a Liberal (just depends which party pisses me off more in any given week) but it doesn't matter which week it is my views on abortion are the same. There is a very fine line between it and murder. It's not a political issue it's an issue of morality and common sense.

 

[JLM]

I am against abortion even in the case of rape. A child can always be given over to adoption.
I am also against abortion as a convenience.
I am against abortion in cases of contraceptive failure. (Adoption is a better alternative).
I am for abortion if pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or if the child will only lead a life of misery such as in the case of anencephaly, Tay-Sachs, etc.
In the vast majority of cases there are viable and better alternatives to abortion.

You have the right idea, but try to get that past the few brain cells of the resident expert.

 

[AnnaG]

That is a religious view, not a scientific view. As I said before, I prefer to believe the scientists, rather than believe the Pope, Pat Robertson or other Fundamentalist preachers.

:roll::roll::roll::roll:

I guess these people aren't scientists:
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania,
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris,
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic,
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School,
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School,
Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers,
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist,
Dr. Landrum Shettles, attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York for 27 years,
Joseph D. Schulman, M.D.,founder of the Genetics & IVF Institute,
Paul L. Hayes, M.D., Board Certified Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians/Gynecologists,
Paddy Jim Baggot, M.D., Ob/Gyn, Fellow of the American College of Medical Genetics, etc. etc. etc.
and lawyers coming up with idiotic laws are the real scientists .

 

[AnnaG]

Quite so. The canard (or a religious belief, really) than life begins at conception is pure nonsense, there is no scientific validity to it. The egg and the sperm before conception can be considered to be alive, as much as the fetus after conception.

Indeed, the scientific view is that we don’t know when life begins. It is very difficult to define life. Any definition includes some inanimate objects and leaves out some live objects. Viruses are a particularly difficult case. Sometime they behave as if they are alive, sometimes they don’t.

If we cannot define life, how can we say with any certainty when it begins? Scientific view is that we don’t know when life begins; life is a continuum without a beginning or an end.

Thus sperm and egg are alive before conception. Even after out body dies, the cells in our body can be kept alive indefinitely, in a Petri dish.

I will believe that life begins at conception when I see a paper to that effect in Nature, The Lancet, Journal of American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine or something similar. I attach no importance to the words of Pope or Pat Robertson (or to the word of conservatives here).

"A bird that always flies in the fog is called a dingbat." - Archie Bunker

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You are just so ignorant, I have no more problem with being called a Conservative than I do being called a Liberal. So one week I'm a Conservative and the next week I'm a Liberal (just depends which party pisses me off more in any given week) but it doesn't matter which week it is my views on abortion are the same. There is a very fine line between it and murder. It's not a political issue it's an issue of morality and common sense.

Oh, I quite agree. It indeed is an issue of morality and common sense. If it was a political issue, it would be perfectly OK for politicians to ban it. The only problem is, what you may consider moral and common sense, someone else may not think so. Then we come to the question, should we regard your morality and your common sense as being absolutely true, should we expect everybody to behave according to your sense of morality and common sense?

Precisely because it is an issue of morality and common sense, it must be left to the woman to decide. Whether a woman gets an abortion or not is primarily between her and her doctor (and her husband/boyfriend, her Priest anybody she chooses to involve),

 

[eh1eh]

"As for me, I believe the rights of the mother come first, even if I find abortion to be something distasteful. Its not my body, or the government's to regulate/decide things for."
I think it's presumptuous to make decisions about the fetus, when the fetus doesn't get to have a say.

The sooner you learn that people create other people and god was just the guy who started it all then the sooner you will learn respect for the human individual. If we do not have our individuality and free will then we are only slaves to whatever religion you subscribe to. Because you know that is what you are doing. Imposing your narrow beliefs onto other individual human entities who were, indecently, created by god, and have free will, well unless you say they don't??????????

 

[AnnaG]

The sooner you learn that people create other people and god was just the guy who started it all then the sooner you will learn respect for the human individual. If we do not have our individuality and free will then we are only slaves to whatever religion you subscribe to. Because you know that is what you are doing. Imposing your narrow beliefs onto other individual human entities who were, indecently, created by god, and have free will, well unless you say they don't??????????

lol There are those of us humans who don't seem to have been invented by gods. They call themselves atheists. And folks like me who aren't sure but think their mothers and fathers invented them, and gods ignore.

 

[JLM]

Quite so. The canard (or a religious belief, really) than life begins at conception is pure nonsense, there is no scientific validity to it. The egg and the sperm before conception can be considered to be alive, as much as the fetus after conception.

Indeed, the scientific view is that we don’t know when life begins. It is very difficult to define life. Any definition includes some inanimate objects and leaves out some live objects. Viruses are a particularly difficult case. Sometime they behave as if they are alive, sometimes they don’t.

If we cannot define life, how can we say with any certainty when it begins? Scientific view is that we don’t know when life begins; life is a continuum without a beginning or an end.

Thus sperm and egg are alive before conception. Even after out body dies, the cells in our body can be kept alive indefinitely, in a Petri dish.

I will believe that life begins at conception when I see a paper to that effect in Nature, The Lancet, Journal of American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine or something similar. I attach no importance to the words of Pope or Pat Robertson (or to the word of conservatives here).

You are an entity, I am an entity a fetus is an entity, for one entity to take it upon him/herself to change the status of another entity is presumptuous to say the least. Some people have more respect for their dog than you do for a fetus.

 

[CDNBear]

You are an entity, I am an entity a fetus is an entity, for one entity to take it upon him/herself to change the status of another entity is presumptuous to say the least. Some people have more respect for their dog than you do for a fetus.

JLM, this is a futile conversation, with regards to SPA. He is firmly entrenched in his dogma. Never seeing for a second he emulates those he rails against the most.

His belief in "science", is merely an extension of the typical Liberal doctrine, that he himself is incapable of free thought and therefore must rely on others to do it for him. You know the Liberal philosophy I'm thinking of, the one where they know what's best for all of us.

 

[AnnaG]

JLM, this is a futile conversation, with regards to SPA. He is firmly entrenched in his dogma. Never seeing for a second he emulates those he rails against the most.

His belief in "science", is merely an extension of the typical Liberal doctrine, that he himself is incapable of free thought and therefore must rely on others to do it for him. You know the Liberal philosophy I'm thinking of, the one where they know what's best for all of us.

You forgot about having lost the capability of learning, too. But the activity is common among those who think they know everything.

 

[gerryh]

abortion is murder.

if you don't want to run the risk of getting pregnant, don't have sex. That would be the intelligent, and responsible thing to do.

Killing an innocent human for your own irresponsibility, again, is murder.

 

[DaSleeper]

And the liberal philosophy has been perverted into socialism....and the know-it-all doctrine....you can't have a dialogue with people like that...they look down at anyone that disagrees...