MPs to consider debate on when human life begins
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Yeah...I was responding to you just then...taxslave said life begins at birth. I responded to that when I quoted him.
Well the answer to the question i posed to W is???? I just want to clarify so I know exactly where you stand. Feel free to reply using the question I posed to W.
I told you I disagree...did you think it matters if it was my kid, or some other man's? It doesn't.
Once they reach a date isn't that the one that should appear on the Birth Certificate?
Nor is telling a woman who lost a fetus through an unwanted miscarriage that the fetus was not alive. Dads think the climax is their biggest donation to the issue then it's back to the sports (or whatever the old hunting instinct is these days)
When they make that decision are they supporting the State or the FreePerson? In general terms every person who gets a birth certificate should have the same rights a corporation has. Pretty much mean lots of new deductions at tax time or you never pay the same taxes in the first place. One way gives the Government a little money to play with, in real term it would cost a voting taxpayer about 3 or 6% of their earnings before deductions or after, the number ends up as a zero every year.
The Courts would look quite different. (I've never seen a court where a person wore a cap)
freeman in court - judge bows to Sovereign - Canada - YouTube
Nor is telling a woman who lost a fetus through an unwanted miscarriage that the fetus was not alive. Dads think the climax is their biggest donation to the issue then it's back to the sports (or whatever the old hunting instinct is these days)
When they make that decision are they supporting the State or the FreePerson? In general terms every person who gets a birth certificate should have the same rights a corporation has. Pretty much mean lots of new deductions at tax time or you never pay the same taxes in the first place. One way gives the Government a little money to play with, in real term it would cost a voting taxpayer about 3 or 6% of their earnings before deductions or after, the number ends up as a zero every year.
The Courts would look quite different. (I've never seen a court where a person wore a cap)
freeman in court - judge bows to Sovereign - Canada - YouTube
The motion calls into question the assumption that it becomes a person, when it leaves the womb. In other words, if a woman wanted to abort at 9 months, because she wanted to get back at her ex-boyfriend, there is nothing to prevent her. While it extremely rare to have third-trimester abortions, they do happen (usually for medical reasons). However, rather than just keeping them legal for any time, it would be easy to write legislation making exemptions for medical reasons.
What irks me the most about this argument, is because the pro-life side have things the way they want it, they assume there is no need for discussion. They seem to assume that because we have moved in the direction they like, the conversation is ended. Well, what if we took that same position towards gay marriage, legalization of prostitution.marijuana, capital punishment etc.
There is something very disconcerting about the notion that we can no longer even discuss a change in legislation.
It is a clear violation of the principles of free speech.
What irks me the most about this argument, is because the pro-life side have things the way they want it, they assume there is no need for discussion. They seem to assume that because we have moved in the direction they like, the conversation is ended. Well, what if we took that same position towards gay marriage, legalization of prostitution.marijuana, capital punishment etc.
There is something very disconcerting about the notion that we can no longer even discuss a change in legislation.
It is a clear violation of the principles of free speech.
Let alone a conflict of that 1867 thingy, perhaps now we are finding out it had as much validity than any of the various Treaties drawn up ever did, non, but only for one side ant that went whichever way was in their best interest. That is still running at 100% efficiency
The right gets reproductive laws so same sex selection is okay because it uses tech. While the left gets abortion and a freer lifestyle. The modern world permits them both and nothing will stop it.
We are at the stage where the work load at any job can be done by a man or a woman, the tools used are just different. Matching profession with aptitude would bring improvements rather than one family endlessly being the boss no matter how bad they are at it. That is just asking for trouble.
One of us has smoked too much weed tonight because I, for the life of me, can't decipher how what you just said fits into abortion debate.
I agree with you, although I think you made a mistake in who has it the way they want it.
It is not democratic to squash discussion or dissension. I think it's pretty safe to assume that given popular views on a woman's rights to timely medical care, that the abortion issue won't go anywhere. But to tell people that they're not allowed to try, that they're not allowed to raise the argument, have the debate... that's a bit scary.
A stagnant society or one in decline or one in danger of overcrowding will promote abortion, a country recovering from a major disaster (war included) will promote families being large.
Sorry the connection wasn't clearer.
It is always so much fun being in a place where looking at something from more than one view is something that is related 'to being on drugs', perhaps it is the accuser who is on drugs or she (or he) should be.
Sorry the connection wasn't clearer.
It is always so much fun being in a place where looking at something from more than one view is something that is related 'to being on drugs', perhaps it is the accuser who is on drugs or she (or he) should be.
I've not heard in my lifetime that this country has ever promoted abortion, but I certainly have learned about
birth control, and with each generation becoming of age, they learn as well, but a country promoting abortion
is news to me, abortion is a personal decision for an individual, not something to do because your MP
urged you to.
Having a law that gives a woman the right to choose for herself is not promoting abortion, it is just
allowing a person to make that choice for themselves, or not.
This particular backbencher knows that his statement won't go anywhere, he just wanted to get a
discussion going, that will go nowhere.
I'm sure they have other things to do in parliament that 'will' go somewhere, and should concentrate on
those matters, but on the other hand, any time I have stopped channel hopping and stopped on the
channel which shows our parliament at work, it doesn't sound much different than the school yard
across the street.
Well, if we are going to go all the way back to conception to define human life, how about sperm? It is a living thing. It has a purpose and without it there would be no human life, so, by this reckoning all sperm cast upon the ground or into toilet bowls is killed, it's purpose aborted. What should we do with the perpetrators of this terrible crime?
Every Sperm is Sacred {Monty Python's Meaning of Life} - YouTube
Every Sperm is Sacred {Monty Python's Meaning of Life} - YouTube
Isn't it time that the Conservatives stopped meddling in affairs of pregnant women?
Right now it's legal to be a prostitute. In Ontario it's even legal to operate a brothel. But a woman anywhere in Canada can't charge a fee to be a gestational surrogate mother. Yes it's against the law for an infertile woman to pay a surrogate to help her create a family. In fact justthe act of offering to pay a surrogate is subject to a maximum fine of $500,000 and a prison term of 10 years.
It's crazy. People need to wake up and see through the political shenanigans.
Right now it's legal to be a prostitute. In Ontario it's even legal to operate a brothel. But a woman anywhere in Canada can't charge a fee to be a gestational surrogate mother. Yes it's against the law for an infertile woman to pay a surrogate to help her create a family. In fact justthe act of offering to pay a surrogate is subject to a maximum fine of $500,000 and a prison term of 10 years.
It's crazy. People need to wake up and see through the political shenanigans.
Crazy! You can say that again. I wasn't aware of that bit of nonsense.
Maybe off topic but, could someone explain to me why human life is so much more important than any other life form?
Every case is unique. The medical community should continue to to be allowed to use judgement.and common sense without political interference.
Sperm and ova are alive. So is blood and stuff you pull out of your nose. A mosquito is more sentient than an embryoblast. (the state at which an embryo is harvested for stem cells).
As the embryo/fetus develops, its level of protection should increase. Most people in the medical field already recognize this concept.
I am against giving a fertilized egg full human rights. I am against giving a near full term baby no rights.
Sperm and ova are alive. So is blood and stuff you pull out of your nose. A mosquito is more sentient than an embryoblast. (the state at which an embryo is harvested for stem cells).
As the embryo/fetus develops, its level of protection should increase. Most people in the medical field already recognize this concept.
I am against giving a fertilized egg full human rights. I am against giving a near full term baby no rights.
That doesn't make sense. You telling me some creative lawyer can't com up with a joint-custody when the father is the husband of the barren woman.
I would hesitate to suggest a flat-fee but doing it should require the woman do the things the barren wife would do, mostly not do.
That would certainly help those in a same sex marriage but I would have it that both of those parents donate what is needed to have a two child family where both children are very close to being the same age and heritages are written in stone, 50/50 no less no more.
I hate to thing a woman with wide boned hips would choose that as a profession and it could be so modest in monetary gains that becoming an industry would not work but kept to a 3 person deal it would be financially sound.
Not insisting on this but the donor should be given a date-rape drug if the interchange is flesh against flesh. Having the best orgasm of their lives would complicate things when separation for life at birth was part of the job.
Now that the early stage is being set how about we cover the other end, when does an old fart/any other person get to decide the race is over?
The State already has the only say in this part, the people aren't even offered a referendum on it.
Is that from caring about quality of life or is keeping the old (and non productive) alive a business that makes lots of money for just a few.
The State already has the only say in this part, the people aren't even offered a referendum on it.
Is that from caring about quality of life or is keeping the old (and non productive) alive a business that makes lots of money for just a few.
Yeah, it's ridiculous that Canada has laws preventing the underpriviliged from being harvested for the upper levels of society. Bring back paid medical testing and start up calving programs.
The fact that women don't want to put their bodies and minds through the physical and emotional traumas of surrogacy without being paid to do so, is exactly why they shouldn't be paid to do so. That is not a life choice that should be coerced out of a woman due to difficult life circumstance, no matter how much it can help a family looking to have a child.
I'm sorry but I still can't read that post and get that from it. And yes, I cracked a late night joke about one of us being high.... oh sue me.
That being said, in response to your post that does make sense, I have to echo what talloola said... having granted women the right to make their own medical decisions is not the same thing as 'promoting abortion'. That's like saying that allowing men to get vasectomies is encouraging sterilization of the population.