Tory G8 abortion stance

[Kreskin]

Whew!! I was starting to get dizzy watching that merry-go-round:lol:

STICK TO THE TOPIC!!! :smile:

....
The Thread Fuzz

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'd asked you before when human life begins and you've never been able to give a clear answer, only vagueness. If you can't tell precisely when life begins, then how can you know when it doesn't begin?

Simple point here: Once it has the capacity to become a full grown human without further intervention, then it is human. Looking at it that way, life begins at conception.

Hey, SJP, so if I believed that life began only 1 year after birth, then it would be fine to put a bullet through its head because I don't believe it's alive?

Again, I hardly think this is the proper place to discuss it. Post a separate thread and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

 

[Andem]

If the present Canadian Government helps other countries on disasters like the 2010 Haiti earthquake and other places where disaster has struck, Abortion in undeveloped countries kills 70.000 women every year, they are humans too. But the G8 have realised the hypocrisy of the Canadian Government. For votes we help on a subject we are deep inside against.

Sure they're humans, but the planet is already facing overpopulation. I'm surprised it wasn't Canada's idea to invite them all to Canada to have babies there, and further dilute Canadian 'culture'.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Pardon the interruption, but can you two get back ON TOPIC??

This is one of those rare instances where I agree with you YJ. Look Machjo, I will be happy to discuss this with you, but please post a separate topic.

Sure they're humans, but the planet is already facing overpopulation. I'm surprised it wasn't Canada's idea to invite them all to Canada to have babies there, and further dilute Canadian 'culture'.

You have a point there. If Harper is against abortion in third world countries, I would think it is only fair that he invite those women to Canada to have their babies.

 

[Kreskin]

This will appease some of the conservative donating diehards without affecting Canadians. Good political strategy.

 

[JLM]

Again, I hardly think this is the proper place to discuss it. Post a separate thread and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

This is exactly the proper place to discuss it and besides why clutter up the forum with still another thread on the same subject? But I guess when one is on the losing side of an argument, anything to confuse the issue...............:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[AnnaG]

I never said I was completely against abortion, just not used as a form of birth control. If the baby is healthy, doesn't threaten the life of the mother or was forcefully conceived I support the choice of the woman to abort.

Which, I've stated quite frequently, is basically my position also.

I never said that all women who get abortions are promiscuous...YJ did. Notice how Mr. Fair and Balanced never puts the onus on the male.:roll:

I know. Somehow the quote part got messed up. I was replying to YJ. Sorry.

It is wrong only if one believes that abortion kills human life.

For the 1000th time, it is scientifically proven that life begins at cellular division. Babies are viable at around 26 to 30 weeks and are therefore human. Besides that, if a human mother did the horizontal mambo with a human father, the result wouldn''t be anything else BUT human.
Your sticking to the political/legal description of human life in Canada, and declaring it to be scientific is asinine.

Since I don't, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Exactly. So you are basically saying you are confused and haven't a clue.

Now, one could argue that abortion is not a preferred method of birth control, simply because it is too messy and too cumbersome. Practicing birth control before conception is just that much easier and simpler than after conception. However, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Ya think?

It needs the woman's biological resources to develop. The question becomes, who is in charge of the biological domain? She or it?

That is easy: is the mother responsible for the child's environment, or is the child? The child is just the tenant up until birth, the mother is the landowner. So to speak.

Hey, fine. So did she not think that she jut might get pregnant by sleeping with someone?

Did he think she wouldn't get preggers?

Did she not learn sex ed in school?

Didn't he?

A dick's not the same as a cucumber. It can actually get you pregnant.

.... and then deny having anything to do with it. In the meantime, the mother is preggers and has to deal with the entire issue, sometimes without any help from the Dick who used his dick in a dickheaded manner without concern for the consequences.

 

[Kreskin]

That is easy: is the mother responsible for the child's environment, or is the child? The child is just the tenant up until birth, the mother is the landowner. So to speak.

The landowner has served an eviction notice.

 

[AnnaG]

Unless the woman is a complete idiot or the victim of a criminal act, the decision to start the process in the first place should have been hers. :smile:

Yeah. Put the entire onus on the female. Great.

Sure they're humans, but the planet is already facing overpopulation. I'm surprised it wasn't Canada's idea to invite them all to Canada to have babies there, and further dilute Canadian 'culture'.

Is it easier to say, "No we won't fund your abortions." or "take it off the tab you owe us", or "yes, we will rearrange our immigration laws just for you to come and have your babies"?

This is one of those rare instances where I agree with you YJ. Look Machjo, I will be happy to discuss this with you, but please post a separate topic.

You'd lose again.

You have a point there. If Harper is against abortion in third world countries, I would think it is only fair that he invite those women to Canada to have their babies.

And say, "to hell with the immigration requirements". Brilliant. :roll:

 

[Avro]

It is wrong only if one believes that abortion kills human life. Since I don't, I don't see anything wrong with it. Now, one could argue that abortion is not a preferred method of birth control, simply because it is too messy and too cumbersome. Practicing birth control before conception is just that much easier and simpler than after conception. However, I don't see anything wrong with it.

So if a fetus isn't a life is it okay to smoke a drink during preganancy?

It's easier for the left to dismiss a fetus as life than to tackle what abortion really is.

Murder.

 

[JLM]

So if a fetus isn't a life is it okay to smoke a drink during preganancy?

It's easier for the left to dismiss a fetus as life than to tackle what abortion really is.

Murder.

Are you waiting for an answer????? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So if a fetus isn't a life is it okay to smoke a drink during preganancy?

It's easier for the left to dismiss a fetus as life than to tackle what abortion really is.

Murder.

If you are waiting for an answer you will have a long wait. As I said, post a separate topic on abortion and I will be happy to discuss it with you. Here we are discussing Harper's policy towards abortion, and not abortion itself.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Sure they're humans, but the planet is already facing overpopulation. I'm surprised it wasn't Canada's idea to invite them all to Canada to have babies there, and further dilute Canadian 'culture'.

Andem I am not in any way suggesting to dilute the Canadian culture anymore then it already is, although in the next 50 years that will be hard to avoid as Governments open the immigration gates to bring in uneducated voters as to the Canadian way of life. But hitting the nail on the head would be to accept reality as it is, Harper here at home accepts the present abortions laws due to their vote base, as you know if he was to say here at home I will scrap any law that allows abortion he will be committing political; suicide. On the world stage he can afford to say I am not interested to help abortion because I do not believe in it. This Summer having the G8 get-together and supporting pregnant Women and children from African nations by donating a financial help why exclude the women who were raped and it would be unfair to subject a rape victim to carry a fides and after a baby that she never wanted in the first place. Big Hypocrisy

 

[Avro]

If you are waiting for an answer you will have a long wait. As I said, post a separate topic on abortion and I will be happy to discuss it with you. Here we are discussing Harper's policy towards abortion, and not abortion itself.

Your previous post suggests you do want to discuss it here unless of course you can't answer the simple questions I just posed to you.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Your previous post suggests you do want to discuss it here unless of course you can't answer the simple questions I just posed to you.

And where did I say I want to discuss it here? I only want to discuss Harper's doctrinaire, ideological response to the issue of international aid here (as it pertains to abortion). Abortion itself is a topic for separate discussion (and indeed, it is such a big topic that it will easily overwhelm this thread, people have strong views on the subject and they will come out of woodworks if we start the discussion here).

 

[Trotz]

I doubt its just a Tory thing as I've read that Liberals aren't too keen on international abortions (no doubt conflicts with their rainbow-tainted view of the world).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I doubt its just a Tory thing as I've read that Liberals aren't too keen on international abortions (no doubt conflicts with their rainbow-tainted view of the world).

When liberals were in power they supported the long standing policy on international abortions. They had no problem with it. Only Harper seems to have problem with it, I assume to placate the religious right in his party.

 

[JLM]

I doubt its just a Tory thing as I've read that Liberals aren't too keen on international abortions (no doubt conflicts with their rainbow-tainted view of the world).

Abortions have absolutely nothing to do with political orietation. Killers are of all poltical stripes. :smile::smile:

 

[AnnaG]

Andem I am not in any way suggesting to dilute the Canadian culture anymore then it already is, although in the next 50 years that will be hard to avoid as Governments open the immigration gates to bring in uneducated voters as to the Canadian way of life. But hitting the nail on the head would be to accept reality as it is, Harper here at home accepts the present abortions laws due to their vote base, as you know if he was to say here at home I will scrap any law that allows abortion he will be committing political; suicide. On the world stage he can afford to say I am not interested to help abortion because I do not believe in it. This Summer having the G8 get-together and supporting pregnant Women and children from African nations by donating a financial help why exclude the women who were raped and it would be unfair to subject a rape victim to carry a fides and after a baby that she never wanted in the first place. Big Hypocrisy

Crap. You have no idea what hypocrisy means and when you say something is hypocritical, you've treated it with your own spin.
According to Merriam-Webster hypocrisy is: "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion" If Harper promoted abortion and then withheld it he'd be hypocritical. Or if he was against it but implemented it, he'd be hypocritical. But if he's against it and doesn't want to fund it for some foreign country, that isn't hypocrisy. I think it's over your head. Better read a dictionary for a while.

I doubt its just a Tory thing as I've read that Liberals aren't too keen on international abortions (no doubt conflicts with their rainbow-tainted view of the world).

I can't think of any country that wants to blow money taking care of another country's problems when it is running its own deficit and debt.

When liberals were in power they supported the long standing policy on international abortions. They had no problem with it. Only Harper seems to have problem with it, I assume to placate the religious right in his party.

Your deep in debt and running a deficit. The guy down the road has a habit of mismanaging his household and stuff and doesn't have enough money for food. You going to forego your own food and mortgage payments to make sure he is eating?
You could show him how to grow his own food, though.

 

[Avro]

And where did I say I want to discuss it here? I only want to discuss Harper's doctrinaire, ideological response to the issue of international aid here (as it pertains to abortion). Abortion itself is a topic for separate discussion (and indeed, it is such a big topic that it will easily overwhelm this thread, people have strong views on the subject and they will come out of woodworks if we start the discussion here).

You responded to my post, see how that works, I write something then you respond that is the early stage of a discussion.

I understand though, you can't answer the simple question I posed.:roll:

Typical.