Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Well, I guess this tread got a little off course. It is such an emotional issue that it is not hard to do.

With the birth rate in America being below 2/family, limiting it to 2 sounds redundant. If we are already relying on immigration to take up the slack, the whole proposal seems ridiculous. The population explosion is happening in the third world.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Or maybe a better analogy is NaCl, neither one of them is anything like salt.

"I would swear back at you but I read the Canadian Content rules and it forbids me from doing so I will tone it down go Bleep Yourself"

I don't think that will work, Liberalman as I doubt if that particular entity can understand FIVE letter words.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
SJP I am not AnnaG

Sorry Francis, my mistake.

That is exactly what I meant by exemption by Law ..

There can be special provisions that exempt certain situations. Not everything is as cut and dry and all Laws have exemptions.


It doesn’t work that way, Francis. Either they are human beings or they aren’t. If they are human beings, they cannot be treated as second class citizens, by making ‘exemptions’ for them, they have the same rights and guarantees as everybody else, guaranteed by the Charter.

You can’t have it both ways. If they are declared human beings for the purpose of banning abortion, then they cannot be said not to be human beings and then given ‘exemption’, meaning denied rights available to other human beings, Charter won’t permit that.
Jeeeeez, Sir Joe, they can't speak for themselves. There are already allowances for someone to speak for others in medical situations (if a person's on a coma or something).and in legal situations (power of attorney). There are amendments to the Charter, amendments to the Constitution. Your argument is very fragile.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
Well, I guess this tread got a little off course. It is such an emotional issue that it is not hard to do.

With the birth rate in America being below 2/family, limiting it to 2 sounds redundant. If we are already relying on immigration to take up the slack, the whole proposal seems ridiculous. The population explosion is happening in the third world.

It's in fact much less than that. In many first world countries the birthrate in now at 1.3 or less. That means every person is producing 2/3 offspring. That means we will be losing 1/3 of our population every 30 years. It means economic collapse, invasion, societal disassembly. Immigration will not pick up the slack, there will be nothing worthwhile to attract them to deserted cities (Detroit is already there), and rampant poverty and disease.

The last time this happened, except for transient and localized wars, plagues, famines was at the end of Roman Empire, about 400 A.D. which brought on a Dark Age of economic, technological and social recession that lasted for centuries, until finally progressive, humane, civilized society re-emerged about the year 1000.

Essentially Abortion is the crux of a civilization that has lost all sense of reverence for life, of which its future is composed. It is racked with confusion and pessimism and is in spasms of complete disorganization. That is the fate of a society that murders its young, for the idol of 'freedom'.


John Holdren, with his regime of forced sterilization and abortion, represents an encroaching tyranny that has been embraced by the Obama administration, one that goes to the core of its ethos and supercedes all of his apparent moderation and 'dialogue'. It is radical and authoritarian. It essentially has given up on the human race, or atleast Western Christian Civilization, and now wants only to manage the first world's disintegration in a way that maintains its economic control of the Globe. That is impossible.
 
Last edited:

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I agree but but switching tracks when you can't win in the science discussion to claim victory in the legal end is dodgy, IMO.

I thought I won the discussion Anna, I have demonstrated how difficult it is to establish the humanity of fetus in the womb, how reasonable people can disagree about it (and how anybody who definitely states that he ‘knows’ when fetus becomes a human being is simply stating his religious beliefs).
Your reaching, Sir Joe. Your initial premise was that no-one could say for sure if life existed before birth. "That is only your opinion, that abortion involves taking of life. There is no scientific evidence for, it at least scientists do not tell us so." is what you said. A few of us managed to point out that you were wrong there so you moved on. The next attempt was that it was a mushroom, not a human. Or a limb but not a human. Or a heartbeat, but not a human. But you were shown to be wrong again after it was pointed out to you that if it had a human sperm donor and a human egg donor, it sure would be any other kind of lifeform and that it was a developing human. You switched to the legal end of it. But people speak for others in different circumstances so they could just as easily speak for a human inside the womb. If it is a developing human inside the womb is it not also a human being? I don't know why you can't seem to grasp the reality, my friend. You keep nitpicking at small details in the exploded diagram and can't see the assembled view, or something. What you've been basically saying is that someone isn't human until they pop out of the mother and POOF! we have instant human.

Anyway, all they have to do legally is make a provision for people still inside the womb; such as, people on the outside are required to have names, SINs, etc. and people inside aren't required. BTW, speaking of names, I can't think of anyone who doesn't come up with at least one name for a child before it is born.
It doesn’t work that way Anna. All the things I mentioned in my previous post (and several more besides) will have to be carried out. Charter won’t let you discriminate against the unborn, if they are considered to be human beings.
The Charter makes allowances for the law doesn't it? People don't like the idea of 6 year olds voting, yet the Charter says that everyone has the right to vote. So then we should give the unborn the right to vote.
I as a mother could proxy vote and therefore I would essentially have two votes. Damn, I like that idea. lol
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
OK, then why were you arguing that exemption should be made with regard to SIN, taking miscarried fetuses to funeral home, giving a welfare mother welfare for two person form the moment of conception etc.?
Because it can and has been done in other circumstances.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Annag.... maybe point out to mr knowitall, that SIN numbers are ot required untill a child goes to work. None ofmy kids(7 of em) needed a SIN untill they started working when they were in their teens. So the SIN argument is a red herring.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
More like 88 or 89, Anna. I think that is when Supreme Court overturned the then existing abortion law, and there hasn’t been one even since.
Sorry, there was a bill introduced by PET that was passed in 1969 allowing abortions for medical reasons. Abortion regulations were lifted entirely in 1988. So I guess we are both right in a sense.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Slippery slope:

Today: kill it in the womb, it is not human.
Few years from now: kill it at two years of age, it can't read, it's not human.
Few more years: Just a stupid cripple, kill it.
Few more years (or perhaps months after that): Hetero?? Kill it!
Few more weeks after that: Old and useless, kill it!

Abortion prompters can not see the forest for the trees. Here is hoping that they will be the first victims of their blindness.
 
Last edited:

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
It's in fact much less than that. In many first world countries the birthrate in now at 1.3 or less. That mean every person is producing 2/3 offspring. That means we will be losing 1/3 of our population every 30 years. It means economic collapse, invasion, social disassembly. Immigration will not pick up the slack, there will be nothing worthwhile to attract them to deserted cities (Detroit is already there), and rampant poverty and disease.

The last time this happened, except for transient wars, plagues, famines was at the end of Roman Empire, about 400 A.D. which brought on a Dark Age of economic, technological and social recession that lasted for centuries, until it finally emerged about the year 1000.

Essentially Abortion is the crux of a civilization that has lost all sense of reverence for life, of which its future is composed. It is racked with confusion and pessimism and is in spasms of complete disorganization. That is the fate of a society that murders its young, for the idol of 'freedom'.


John Holdren, with his regime of forced sterilization and abortion, represents an encroaching tyranny that has been embraced by the Obama administration, one that goes to the core of its ethos and supercedes all of his apparent moderation and 'dialogue'. It is radical and authoritarian. It essentially has given up on the human race, or atleast Western Christian Civilization, and now wants only to manage the first world's disintegration in a way that maintains its economic control of the Globe. That is impossible.
These are the signs of a declining empire. All empires degenerate to collapse. It is the nature of things. Do we morn the passing of this disfigured monster, or do we envision a newer improved model for human occupation of this planet. As long as there is a ruling class the cycle of empires will continue with boom and bust. Time for humanity to take responsibility for it's own future and to stop looking to leaders to lead them astray.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Heartbeat does not define humanity. Remember Terri Schivo? She had a heart beat, yet there were serious differences of opinion as to whether there was a human being in that shell of a body.
She sure as hell wasn't a mushroom. You should have paid more attention in science classes if you can't tell if a being is human or not. lol (Just kidding )
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
All Empires of the past died from within, not from outside threat or destruction.

Present "empires" are no exception. This time around, the greatest cause of destruction is, indeed, from within, insidious as can be: killing your own even before they had a chance to become your saviour.

So, go ahead, abort and abort and abort to your heart's content. Comfort and convenience are paramount. Morality and responsibility is for conservative fools.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Precisely the point I have made in this thread, Cliffy. If people hold fetus in such reverence, why does the same reverence not extend to sperm and egg?
Your point keeps morphing.
Because both die anyway if they are not joined. Should we hunt down every single sperm and every single egg and introduce them all to each other? By the time we do that new ones are generated. Know how many sperm are created in a day by one man? Between 80 and 100 million. Eggs by a woman? Between 1 and 2 million at birth. by the time puberty comes along there are about 300,000.
Alone, neither of them can produce a child. Together, they make babies.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Annag.... maybe point out to mr knowitall, that SIN numbers are ot required untill a child goes to work. None ofmy kids(7 of em) needed a SIN untill they started working when they were in their teens. So the SIN argument is a red herring.
Yup. And so is the Charter right to vote. It's moot until the right age.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
These are the signs of a declining empire. All empires degenerate to collapse. It is the nature of things. Do we morn the passing of this disfigured monster, or do we envision a newer improved model for human occupation of this planet. As long as there is a ruling class the cycle of empires will continue with boom and bust. Time for humanity to take responsibility for it's own future and to stop looking to leaders to lead them astray.

Again you philosophical consistency impresses me, Cliffy. It is the Deteriorata manifest and its mantra.

GIVE UP! :roll:
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
These are the signs of a declining empire. All empires degenerate to collapse. It is the nature of things. Do we morn the passing of this disfigured monster, or do we envision a newer improved model for human occupation of this planet. As long as there is a ruling class the cycle of empires will continue with boom and bust. Time for humanity to take responsibility for it's own future and to stop looking to leaders to lead them astray.
Quite right, Cliffy. Governments have to create more money enabling more and more people to earn it. Government also has to spend more on servicing the population as it grows. Less and less fresh water for more and more people. Same goes for food. It's a nonsensical circle developed by people who simply want to exploit it and get rich. In the meantime, the rest can go suck an egg for all they care.
But anyway, that's another thread topic. This is about women and abortion.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Jeeeeez, Sir Joe, they can't speak for themselves. There are already allowances for someone to speak for others in medical situations (if a person's on a coma or something).and in legal situations (power of attorney). There are amendments to the Charter, amendments to the Constitution. Your argument is very fragile.

Anna, amendments to the Charter? Are you serious? When has Charter ever been amended? There are no amendments to the Charter.

In order to amend the Charter, the amendment has to be approved by the Parliament and by each and every province, an almost impossible task. Nobody has even tried to amend the Charter, and I don’t see Charter ever being amended (short of something drastic, like Supreme Court declaring that ban on pedophilia violates the Charter).
 
Last edited: