Makes sense to me. Some like to overwork the function of "science" in this debate. I prefer common sense to science. :smile:
Canada Stands Alone On Anti-abortion
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
Makes sense to me. Some like to overwork the function of "science" in this debate. I prefer common sense to science. :smile:
I hear you man.
How about we meet half way on a case by case basis and send all abortion patients to undergo first a mental competency test, then send them to court with judge and jury and let the people decide whether it justifys for each individual case, instead of just opening up free abortion rights to anyone.
Would this not satisfy everyone?
No, I got your post, but it's understandable you wish to avoid my question.
I don't go out to purposely kill things either, nor do I stomp on ant nests just for the fun of it.
But at the same time I also know some deaths are necessary, and only in those cases, do I find it justified.
And I have my own personal reasons for that point of view from a few situations in my own life. And no, for the record, it had nothing to do with abortion.
Regardless of how you view life and death, or even how I view it, it is not for us to dictate to others on how to view things and they should have the right to determine for themselves what they view or believe.
Of course you don't want to debate it, even though it is directly, in every way, related to this topic (Politics and Law towards Abortion).... you know you don't have a legitimate argument to counter.
But moving on.
.... 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.
Just adding info.
No worries.
For me, there's "Human" everything. Human sperm, egg, toe, liver, heart, eye, hair..... but when it comes down to rights under the law, it should be one "Human" which is "Human Being"
I agree with Section 233 as you stated it. Be it legally or spiritually, I don't believe one gains consciousness until they begin to breath on their own and separated from it's host..... perhaps when the soul enters the body if one wishes to look at it that way.
And regardless of arguments of coma patients and such, they already took their breaths, started their lives, proof something existed in that brain of theirs at one time, thus warrants various forms of protection.
But that's just how I see it, nor do I expect others to adopt my point of view.
Just adding info, as you said
Unfortunately just because you say it is, doesn't make it so.
And the law, based on how it defines it, and how it protects it, would beg to differ.
And you're talking about a woman being raped by some idiot and telling them to carry this damn thing full term, lose out on their job for a couple of months, have their entire lives screwed up, and then give birth and give it up for adoption so that in 18-20 years down the road, have this child come knocking at her door bringing it all back up again and never leaving her life......
why?
To satisfy your own moral issues?
Me thinks not.
That would be on par with the days when every divorce in Canada had to be debated in the House of Commons. A public 'trial' to permit a woman to have an abortion is a bit on the extreme side.
As far as I'm concerned, if my neighbor wants to have an abortion, it's none of my business.
Wow... Archie Bunker.... now there's someone you want to take quotes and advice from :lol:
That's nature for you.
No matter someone's morals and beliefs that the human species is some omnipotent being, we are animals a part of the same nature that surrounds us, which kills, eats and destroys other living creatures with various degrees of necessity.
Plants, animals, sea creatures, insects, viruses, clowns..... they're all killed by one thing or another, regardless of your respect for life. Sometimes things are killed because they crossed into someone/thing's territory, are a pest, for food, in self defense, just because.... take your pick, there's plenty to choose from.
I believe self preservation is also one of them, and if one "life" so to speak, was to threaten the other's, they they have every right to protect themselves.
And those reasons, be it health, financial, physical or mental self preservation, is subjective to the life in question and is up for them to decide.
And when it comes to the fetus and it's "Decision" it doesn't have one, because there is absolutely no way whatsoever to ask and expect any legit response.
You obviously didn't. And what question would that be? Do you mean that supercilious statement you made and put a question mark on the end of?
Ya, I've said that a few times. Are you being purposely ignorant or do actually have a reading comprehension issue?
That's awesome. I think we all, well most of anyway, grow from life's experiences, whatever they may be.
Wow, I'm pretty sure I've said that to, in a few threads ranging from free speech to abortion topics. See my second response, again.
Counter what? The fact that you have merely parroted my own sentiments but appear to be stupid to grasp that?
Yes, please do.
What Ten Penny said.
"And when it comes to the fetus and it's "Decision" it doesn't have one, because there is absolutely no way whatsoever to ask and expect any legit response."
Of course there is a "legit response"- it will continue to grow and develop, not to mention a spoken response may come years later.
Of course there is a "legit response"- it will continue to grow and develop, not to mention a spoken response may come years later.
No offense, I just thought killing is on the extreme side too. So now we're even. ;-)
Unfortunately, they matter very little. They're of course entitled to their own opinion, but the final say is always whoever is carrying the fetus, thus whom holds the most risk. Since one can not force one person to be subjected to someone else's views on what should happen to their own body, by law, the final say would always end up being the woman's.
Hey I don't know about you, but it does sound very appealing to have a 10 pound baby coming out of my pee hole.
Sure it might be one way to get a penis enlargement, but I heard kidney stones were bad enough.
While it sorta makes sense, I can't agree on it since it is still placing the decision of what happens to the woman's body, out of her own hands, and is reliant on what others dictate.
Besides that, you can have a judge, lawyer or someone from a jury stalling the verdict/answer for months through one legal delay or another until it's too late to have an abortion in the first place and she has no choice either way.
There is no guarantee it will continue to grow and develop in every & all situations and can still end up stillborn, especially if there are already known medical complications that warrant a possible abortion if a host wishes to choose one.
Regardless of all that, they're still the potential parent, thus still has the final say on what operations, etc. can and will be done until they reach adulthood.
In a recent case, towards that infant who was considered brain dead but born, the hospital continually suggested and pressured the parents in taking the child off life support and let die. The parents decided not to, it was their decision, but eventually they did take the child off life support and continued to live after that..... regardless of the outcome, the final say was by the parents. The infant, even after being born and protected by the same rights as you and I.... still had no say and its life was in other's hands.... those who held legal responsibility over it.
So where do some get off saying parents get the final say in matters that keep someone alive, but don't when it's to end misery/suffering leading to death?
Seems a tad conditional and contradictory if you ask me.
And even in the above situation, others decided to take it upon themselves to dictate to them who lives and dies..... even if it's based on scientific reasoning, medical reasoning, or spiritual reasoning, it should still be left up to those directly responsible and hold the direct rights on the decision making.
As I see it.
Waiting 3 or 4 years after the fact when some fetus is born to ask if them if they want the pregnancy aborted is kinda silly and not really an argument.... unless you got a time machine you're not telling us about.
Of all of the people here with opinions on the matter, I wonder how many have ever been in the position to make such a decision.
Geez, tossing out the personal insults already too.
Speaking of grasping things.... get a grip, it's just a forum.