The problem I have with the notion of making abortion illegal or imposing restrictions is that most people are as pro-life as their situation allows and no more. It wasn't until I worked in health care that I saw it for myself. About half of people say they are pro-life. Yet, somewhere around 90% of people will choose abortion rather than give birth to a baby with Down's syndrome. That leads me to believe that even pro-life people will make exceptions when it affects them directly. So, I don't see how they can expect others to not have that same luxury.
Famous Abortionist given Order of Canada!
- Thread starter dancing-loon
- Start date
Fair enough I shall explain a little better. No, I was no implying yourself with the above comment you quoted, I was implying the common religious mainstream that existed before his time and after his time and how more extreme people were before the 80's (When I feel it dropped a bit) when there were family forced marriages when a couple became pregnant (Which existed since half my family formed in that fashion and religious views were the main reasons for the forcing.)
In fact, beyond forced marriages, there were many other factors of life which were impacted directly from religious views where they shouldn't have held any authority, and where laws eventually changed those perceptions.
The extreme religious I speak of are those who will fire bomb, beat up, kill, oppress, force out of the community, etc.. those people they felt were sinners and people who would corrupt their ways of life. If you don't do any of these things, then my statement doesn't apply to you.
No.... those who are willing to force their views onto others to the point in which they may cause harm or interference in someone else's life in a negative manner that is not wanted are what I call a super religious person.... Muslims who suicide bomb people for their own objectives fall under this category..... christians who murder or attempt to remove the freedoms and rights of someone else to suit their own needs fall under this category.
I was not implying you.... but a general statement to the concept of forcing a view or way of life onto another person where it is unwarrented. So long as you practice and live your life the way you see fit (By following a set religion) makes no difference to you, and you have every right to do so, but you or anybody else has no right to dictate to me how to live my life, just as I have no right to tell you what to believe in..... that is all I am saying.
Fair enough, but in my belief, which is somewhat similar to your own, I don't believe the soul enters the fetus until the fetus is born as explained previously..... so there is a debatable difference in our beliefs..... and where there is a debate, there is no absolute answer for all.
It was, but the chances of getting that safe environment were a heck of a lot harder to obtain then it is today and that is why he made the changes he made for all women living in Canada.
But don't forget, it wasn't all done just by him, as others had to agree with him in order to change the laws, so there was other people involved who saw things his way and thus, church and state were seperated more so to where it should be.
Once again, one has to prove there is life within the fetus, besides the mother's own blood and energy being sent to it for development, in order for a fetus to be called alive.
We are.... the question that remains is how are we all connected and at what point in our development are we connected. You believe it's at the moment of conception..... I believe it is when you take your first breath.
And since there are various beliefs we all hold and we all determine what life is for ourselves, so too should those decisions be left up to the individual, rather then one set rule.
What your religion tells you of abortions may contradict another religious belief, and so on and so forth...... and regardless if all religions met eye to eye on abortions as being something immoral, religions do not rule whole, and not everybody follows religions..... nor should everybody be forced to follow any or all religions in the first place, so therefore it still remains up to the individual.
If abortions are a sin, the leave that sin to those people who the decision affects.... if they make the wrong decision, then God will deal with them in the end and other humans should just stay out of it.
Sorry to be cold about it, but them's the breaks. Just because they look human or could have been human, doesn't make them alive.
Fair enough.
That sounds about right.... think of it this way:
During pregnancy, go into the womb and surgically cut the umbilical cord and see how long that little fetus' heart will live before it dies without any blood or energy coming from the mother.
To debate.
I still want to come back to your last answer, Praxi. I was emotionally drained for a couple of days. It is good to let the emotional flare die down a bit. But just now I found a short statement at the side of CTV news. Apparently another Order of Canada medal was returned.
Group returns Order of Canada
An Ontario Catholic organization has returned the Order of Canada medal given to its founder to protest awarding abortionist Dr. Henry Morgentaler with the same distinction.
Group returns Order of Canada
An Ontario Catholic organization has returned the Order of Canada medal given to its founder to protest awarding abortionist Dr. Henry Morgentaler with the same distinction.
When you find out how well respected he was as a life saver and an option to women, you will hopefully understand. But I doubt it L.R.!
I do not understand the concept that a fetus is not a living human being - " a lump of flesh" - this is crap and only said by people who delude themselves that a fetus suddenly and miraculously becomes a person when they exit the mother.
It is a legal nicety and not what the Supreme court said and I quote "The value to be placed on the foetus as potential life is directly related to the stage of its development during gestation. The undeveloped foetus starts out as a newly fertilized ovum; the fully developed foetus emerges ultimately as an infant. A developmental progression takes place between these two extremes and it has a direct bearing on the value of the foetus as potential life. Accordingly, the foetus should be viewed in differential and developmental terms. This view of the foetus supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages where the woman's autonomy would be absolute and a restrictive approach in the later stages where the states's interest in protecting the foetus would justify its prescribing conditions. The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state's interest in its protection becomes 'compelling' should be left to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive submissions on the subject from all the relevant disciplines."
Look at enough sonars like I do and you know exactly what they look like - you watch them breath, suck, swallow and pee and their heart beat before they are born and you know that at 18 weeks they are anatomically well enough developed enough to diagnose congenital abnormalities.
The problem arises when the best interests of the mother/family conflicts with the best interests of the unborn child and the decision has to be made as to whose life has more value. But do not delude yourself that it is not killing a living human being.
I would never want to deprive a woman of the choice of abortion on demand, I am sad that these women do not have better alternatives (other than abortion). As for Morgenthaler - it would have been better if somebody less divisive had been chosen.
It is a legal nicety and not what the Supreme court said and I quote "The value to be placed on the foetus as potential life is directly related to the stage of its development during gestation. The undeveloped foetus starts out as a newly fertilized ovum; the fully developed foetus emerges ultimately as an infant. A developmental progression takes place between these two extremes and it has a direct bearing on the value of the foetus as potential life. Accordingly, the foetus should be viewed in differential and developmental terms. This view of the foetus supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages where the woman's autonomy would be absolute and a restrictive approach in the later stages where the states's interest in protecting the foetus would justify its prescribing conditions. The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state's interest in its protection becomes 'compelling' should be left to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive submissions on the subject from all the relevant disciplines."
Look at enough sonars like I do and you know exactly what they look like - you watch them breath, suck, swallow and pee and their heart beat before they are born and you know that at 18 weeks they are anatomically well enough developed enough to diagnose congenital abnormalities.
The problem arises when the best interests of the mother/family conflicts with the best interests of the unborn child and the decision has to be made as to whose life has more value. But do not delude yourself that it is not killing a living human being.
I would never want to deprive a woman of the choice of abortion on demand, I am sad that these women do not have better alternatives (other than abortion). As for Morgenthaler - it would have been better if somebody less divisive had been chosen.
Ach, scratch, what do you know?? How often have you been pregnant and given birth or aborted, J.W.:?:
You men are so very different than women! And of course, who gets a woman pregnant? The likes of you!!;-):lol:
It's all men who attack me for my stand against abortion!
Mr. Morgentaler can be the sweetest old man there is, but I do not admire him for what he stands for. I may be crazy... so be it!
P.S.
I'm not a teenager anymore, although I've been advised to grow up, my understanding of life and death is different from that of the young and breastless!!
Hi, amagqira;
I very much appreciate and support your post. You seem to be a professional in that field. I'm glad you spelled out the life of the foetus in scientific terms... that should enlighten some of the men here.
While I was reading your post, another scientific study came to mind... the foetus responds to music and other stimuli. If there was no life, no soul, no nothing, then such could not be observed. It has been a long time since I read about this, and can only vaguely remember in general.
This debate is not so much about abortion anymore, but more about the Right of the individual. The Right to the freedom to chose is what Mr. Morgentaler achieved. With that he also has opened the door for abortion to become a method of birth control. To abort is no big deal, it is now a right, and this right is used liberally without much soul searching, without considering at least adoption.
I very much appreciate and support your post. You seem to be a professional in that field. I'm glad you spelled out the life of the foetus in scientific terms... that should enlighten some of the men here.
While I was reading your post, another scientific study came to mind... the foetus responds to music and other stimuli. If there was no life, no soul, no nothing, then such could not be observed. It has been a long time since I read about this, and can only vaguely remember in general.
This debate is not so much about abortion anymore, but more about the Right of the individual. The Right to the freedom to chose is what Mr. Morgentaler achieved. With that he also has opened the door for abortion to become a method of birth control. To abort is no big deal, it is now a right, and this right is used liberally without much soul searching, without considering at least adoption.
I would have to dig further to find out what the rate was in pre-Morgentaler times.
Something else to keep in mind that this quack helped open the door for....In Canada today, there are NO abortions laws whatsoever. This means a women may kill her baby right upto the day before birth. No more 20 week cut off. In 2003 alone there were 725 late term abortions preformed in this country.
Amagqira brings up the essence of the debate. Of course life starts at conception but there is one body with sometimes two competing interests. Who has ultimate authority over that domain is the heart of the issue. As much as I dislike abortion I find it more intolerable to deny the right to one.
As far as I'm concerned...the women gives up that right when she becomes pregnant. For the majority, she had a choice in whether or not she got pregnant.
Do you know the history of those 725 late term abortions, or have a link to that information? Statistics don't really mean much without context.
Will you give up your right to masturbate if I deem that it constitues the killing of human life?
No problem.... but then...that's not a big deal for me like it seems to be for others. My "swimmers" though can not create life all by their lonesome....need an egg. Just like a womans egg can't create life without sperm...put the 2 together...and that's a different story entirely.
No problem? You support the government's ability to put you on trial for it?
What about the hundreds of thousands of embryos that are cryopreserved that will be discarded. Should they be forced back into women so it won't be murder? They're human lives aren't they?