NationStates Jolt Archive

link (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080702/national/order_of_cda_morgentaler)

He went to the Supreme Court to champion the right of Canadian women to have legal and safe access to abortions. He was threatened, attacked, and even had one of his clinics blown up. Now he's being awarded the highest honour our country has to give to its outstanding citizens.

Of course, conservative politicians are pissed (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08070202.html). Many want abortion made illegal so women are forced to get back-alley procedures again.

Let me congratulate and thank Dr. Morgentaler for his tireless activism and thank the Governor General of Canada for making this decision. At the bottom of that last link, by the way is the contact information for the Gov' General's office...rather than simply having a bunch of reactionary conservatives screaming 'baby killer' at her, it'd be nice if my fellow canuks could send a positive message.

And now...rant on.

I don't know if supportive messages from Americans are any use, but I might send one anyway. :)

Once again we USians are reminded how backwards we are by are northern neighbor. Canada, I salute thee.

I don't know if supportive messages from Americans are any use, but I might send one anyway. :)

I think it'd be great:)

yes...well...good for him.

yes...well...good for him.

If you can't be applauding wildly and praising him, or shrieking loudly about what an evil has been committed in such an appointment, I'm not sure you have a place on this forum.

Once again we Americans are reminded how backwards(in some areas) we are by are northern neighbor. Canada, I salute thee.

Fixed.

And good for Dr. Morgentaler.

link (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080702/national/order_of_cda_morgentaler)

He went to the Supreme Court to champion the right of Canadian women to have legal and safe access to abortions. He was threatened, attacked, and even had one of his clinics blown up. Now he's being awarded the highest honour our country has to give to its outstanding citizens.

Of course, conservative politicians are pissed (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08070202.html). Many want abortion made illegal so women are forced to get back-alley procedures again.

Let me congratulate and thank Dr. Morgentaler for his tireless activism and thank the Governor General of Canada for making this decision. At the bottom of that last link, by the way is the contact information for the Gov' General's office...rather than simply having a bunch of reactionary conservatives screaming 'baby killer' at her, it'd be nice if my fellow canuks could send a positive message.

And now...rant on.

I couldn't agree with you more.

It's about damn time Dr Morgentaler got acknowledged for his contribution to civil liberties. To put up with all that bullshit over the years to come out victorious takes a person with a strong will.

He deserves all the credit he had coming to him for everything he's done for the pro-choice cause. He really did go above and beyond. If it wasn't for the anti-choice lobby he would have been made a member of The Order of Canada a long time ago and rightfully so.

As for the conservatives being pissed; you know the MP (Ebb?) that introduced the bill to protect "unborn children of women in vicious attacks"; Bill C-484? You know that bill doesn't actually curb domestic violence; if it did, it wouldn't be about the "unborn child"; it would be about the woman (or man if that is the case) in any situation. (Go here (http://whining.weaselhut.net/2008/06/26/thank-you-mr-layton/) and scroll down to the part that is indented; it contains valuable information about the bill and how the bill actually is a disservice to women).

As for the conservatives being pissed; you know the MP (Ebb?) that introduced the bill to protect "unborn children of women in vicious attacks"; Bill C-484? You know that bill doesn't actually curb domestic violence; if it did, it wouldn't be about the "unborn child"; it would be about the woman (or man if that is the case) in any situation. (Go here (http://whining.weaselhut.net/2008/06/26/thank-you-mr-layton/) and scroll down to the part that is indented; it contains valuable information about the bill and how the bill actually is a disservice to women).

It's a backdoor attempt to attack abortion rights and prosecute mothers.

The conservative MPs who whine about this can shut the hell up. They're the ones who are trying to be divisive about an issue that is almost universally accepted as good and done away with by the overwhelming majority of Canadians, including a majority of the people who actually vote conservatives into office.

There is no room in this country for people who want to enslave women by forcing them to have their bodies used as incubators against their will.

And Dr. Morgentaler definitely deserves a medal for all the shit stupid people like these put him through in his quest to help women gain the freedom to do what they want with their own body.

the Conservative Mps Who Whine About This Can Shut The Hell Up. They're The Ones Who Are Trying To Be Divisive About An Issue That Is Almost Universally Accepted As Good And Done Away With By The Overwhelming Majority Of Canadians, Including A Majority Of The People Who Actually Vote Conservatives Into Office.

There Is No Room In This Country For People Who Want To Enslave Women By Forcing Them To Have Their Bodies Used As Incubators Against Their Will.

And Dr. Morgentaler Definitely Deserves A Medal For All The Shit Stupid People Like These Put Him Through In His Quest To Help Women Gain The Freedom To Do What They Want With Their Own Body.

Qft!

Why did you think it necessary to capitalise all his words?

It's a backdoor attempt to attack abortion rights and prosecute mothers.

Very much so.

It's good to see that despite that attempt, people like Morgentaler are being acknowledged for their efforts to advance women's reproductive rights.

See...most Canuks, as has been pointed out, think of abortion as a mostly settled issue, so won't bitch too much...and the yanks don't care enough about Canada to bitch for us, making for a conflict-free thread, and thus, a sad Neesika.

Well, you know, the Americans who are assholes don't really believe in Canadian people. They think you're all just penguins in plaid jackets who drink Molsen's. The sane Americans obviously agree with their Canadian neighbors on the matter of abortion, so we'd have nothing confrontational to say. And anyway, we're so depressed now we can hardly talk, as we imagine what would happen in this open-air nuthouse we call a country if someone like Dr. Morgentaler were nominated for some Congressional honor in the US.

Well, you know, the Americans who are assholes don't really believe in Canadian people. They think you're all just penguins in plaid jackets who drink Molsen's.

Are you saying they're not all plaid-jacketed penguins?

This is so disappointing! :(

Are you saying they're not all plaid-jacketed penguins?

This is so disappointing! :(

Well of course not!

Some of them wear moose-fur jackets.

I wish the US was more like canada.... (liberal, accepting of abortions, not run by Dubya...)

Well deserved honor.

-- I'm not sure you have a place on this forum.

What's wrong with blissful indifference? :confused:

Can't say I'm personally caring a whole lot about this, either. So, uh... Good for him?

What's wrong with blissful indifference? :confused:
'Twas a joke on the state of debate on NS:G, methinks.

Let me congratulate and thank Dr. Morgentaler for his tireless activism and thank the Governor General of Canada for making this decision. At the bottom of that last link, by the way is the contact information for the Gov' General's office...rather than simply having a bunch of reactionary conservatives screaming 'baby killer' at her, it'd be nice if my fellow canuks could send a positive message.



Huzzah!

His mother must be proud, to think that she'd meant to get rid of him but the back-alley doctor was arrested before her appointment.

True story.

Hurrah etc.

'Twas a joke on the state of debate on NS:G, methinks.

Hey, I just need ten posts so I don't pay attention to these "jokes"! Oh hey, I'm done! :p

Clearly the Canadian government is run by liberal commie Muslim atheist Jew black socialist feminist baby-eating anarchist mutant man-hating godless unAmerican ... Masonic satanic cannibalistic ... Illuminati-worshipping alien reptilian ... telekinetic Martian demonic homosexual ... crippled Catholic pedophiles.

Clearly the Canadian government is run by liberal commie Muslim atheist Jew black socialist feminist baby-eating anarchist mutant man-hating godless unAmerican ... Masonic satanic cannibalistic ... Illuminati-worshipping alien reptilian ... telekinetic Martian demonic homosexual ... crippled Catholic pedophiles.

I don't think Neesika runs the country quite yet - give her time.

Clearly the Canadian government is run by liberal commie Muslim atheist Jew black socialist feminist baby-eating anarchist mutant man-hating godless unAmerican ... Masonic satanic cannibalistic ... Illuminati-worshipping alien reptilian ... telekinetic Martian demonic homosexual ... crippled Catholic pedophiles.

...with cooties.

...with cooties.

They're also vegans.

It's a backdoor attempt to attack abortion rights and prosecute mothers.

rofl

Backdoor. I bet it's a real bugger up the arse...

I hope that the terrorists who attacked this guy are put on trial. Its a sad thing when people cant peacefully say their opposition to another's views

What it really proves is whom is the most morally right in the matter and whom is no better then Osama Bin Ladin

I'm a bit ambivalent about this one.

For one thing, he did bring abortion rights into focus and advanced the cause of women's right by leaps and bounds. And that's a good thing.

But on the other hand, we are talking about a convicted criminal who ignored the law despite the fact that the debate was occuring and decided that his opinion mattered more than the people we elect to decide those things.

In the end, his view was the correct one, sure. But who's to say we wouldn't have come to the same conclusion on our own, without resorting to illegal abortion clinics and thumbing our nose at the law.

His he a hero to be acclaimed? I'm not sure. I am certainly not sure about the government honouring someone whom they jailed several times. We don't go around giving medals to draft dodgers so why Dr. Morgenthaler deserve a medal for disbeying the law is something I wonder about.

Hail Canadia! *salutes*

I hope we (residents of the States) can learn something from our northern friends someday. :)

link (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080702/national/order_of_cda_morgentaler)
Let me congratulate and thank Dr. Morgentaler for his tireless activism and thank the Governor General of Canada for making this decision.

It looks like Dr. Morgentaler truly deserves this honour. Some of the members of this forum probably sympathize more with the terrorists that bombed one of his clinics, but that just shows how morally depraved they are.

I hope we (residents of the States) can learn something from our northern friends someday. :)

Like how to make a decent cup of coffee?

Semi on-topic: In the Globe and Mail today, all the people who complained about Morgentaler were men, all the ones supporting him were women.

I'm a bit ambivalent about this one.

For one thing, he did bring abortion rights into focus and advanced the cause of women's right by leaps and bounds. And that's a good thing.

But on the other hand, we are talking about a convicted criminal who ignored the law despite the fact that the debate was occuring and decided that his opinion mattered more than the people we elect to decide those things.

In the end, his view was the correct one, sure. But who's to say we wouldn't have come to the same conclusion on our own, without resorting to illegal abortion clinics and thumbing our nose at the law.

His he a hero to be acclaimed? I'm not sure. I am certainly not sure about the government honouring someone whom they jailed several times. We don't go around giving medals to draft dodgers so why Dr. Morgenthaler deserve a medal for disbeying the law is something I wonder about.

I can see where you're coming from on this, but my thoughts are that if the laws is unjust, a lawbreaker is a hero.
Nelson Mandela was imprisoned, Ghandi was imprisoned ... ok, in both cases their government was arguably not elected by them. But if I remember correctly, Martin Luther King was imprisoned, and so where resistance fighters in Nazi Germany (an elected government, despite everything).
Yes, I think laws ought to be upheld and need to apply to all, but they need to be just laws. If they are not, they need to be disobeyed and opposed.

Fine line, though, and individual's opinions will vary on what is just and what isn't...

I can see where you're coming from on this, but my thoughts are that if the laws is unjust, a lawbreaker is a hero.
Nelson Mandela was imprisoned, Ghandi was imprisoned ... ok, in both cases their government was arguably not elected by them. But if I remember correctly, Martin Luther King was imprisoned, and so where resistance fighters in Nazi Germany (an elected government, despite everything).
Yes, I think laws ought to be upheld and need to apply to all, but they need to be just laws. If they are not, they need to be disobeyed and opposed.

Fine line, though, and individual's opinions will vary on what is just and what isn't...

I understand and I thought about this. But I don't think the Canadian government was that bad. I would prefered if he had campaigned on the issue: raising awareness, petition the government, that kind of thing.

At the least, I would understand defying the law and being arrested, once. Doing it repeatedly doesn't sit well with me. I'm just not sure he deserve the highest honour a civilian can get for defying the law.

I just think he could have opposed the law differently and still come out on top. I know I would have more respect for him.

I understand and I thought about this. But I don't think the Canadian government was that bad. I would prefered if he had campaigned on the issue: raising awareness, petition the government, that kind of thing.

At the least, I would understand defying the law and being arrested, once. Doing it repeatedly doesn't sit well with me. I'm just not sure he deserve the highest honour a civilian can get for defying the law.

I just think he could have opposed the law differently and still come out on top. I know I would have more respect for him.

That's how judicial review works in Canada, though. In order for the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of a law, they need a test case. Somebody has to be arrested and appeal his/her way up. I agree that civil disobedience is a difficult tactic to sanction universally; for every unjust law justly opposed there's a handful of jackasses that will claim robbing banks makes them freedom fighters*. Such a method can only be justified in retrospect, but in Morgentaler's case I think it has been.

*yes, this was chosen to be deliberately absurd.

I understand and I thought about this. But I don't think the Canadian government was that bad. I would prefered if he had campaigned on the issue: raising awareness, petition the government, that kind of thing.

At the least, I would understand defying the law and being arrested, once. Doing it repeatedly doesn't sit well with me. I'm just not sure he deserve the highest honour a civilian can get for defying the law.

I just think he could have opposed the law differently and still come out on top. I know I would have more respect for him.
I come from a different position, since I believe that unjust laws should be broken. Repeatedly. And challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court, as was done in this case. Sometimes our elected officials get it wrong, and I for one am very glad that we have the judiciary to act as a counter-balance.

One thing I like about this is that it sends a clear message about what Canadians feel about abortion, and the timing is exceptionally good with all the debate surrounding the bill mentioned upthread (or in the other Canada thread, perhaps).

Let us be clear as a nation that we fully support a woman's right to control her own life.

I come from a different position, since I believe that unjust laws should be broken. Repeatedly.

I disagree, once should be enough.

And challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court, as was done in this case. Sometimes our elected officials get it wrong, and I for one am very glad that we have the judiciary to act as a counter-balance.

Agreed. And I'm glad it was challenged. But I'm not glad he decided to go the "breaking it repeatedly" way.

One thing I like about this is that it sends a clear message about what Canadians feel about abortion, and the timing is exceptionally good with all the debate surrounding the bill mentioned upthread (or in the other Canada thread, perhaps).

Let us be clear as a nation that we fully support a woman's right to control her own life.

The nice thing is, even the media is pointing out that only two Orders of Canada have ever been revoked and that it's highly unlikely this will be.

Harper said he would have preferred this to be a person who united Canada...I say, he really does represent the majority opinion, despite what the Catholic church et al. claim.

I disagree, once should be enough. It wasn't just one woman who needed access to a safe abortion.


Agreed. And I'm glad it was challenged. But I'm not glad he decided to go the "breaking it repeatedly" way.

Aboriginal peoples have repeatedly 'broken the law' when it came to hunting...out of necessity, because this was how we were feeding ourselves. It wasn't just a case of 'oh, let's break the law for kicks, over and over again'. Eventually, test cases reversed the barriers to aboriginal hunting and made clear more fair limits.

I believe this is analogous to what Morgentaler did. Back-door abortions were going on all over the place, and he knew he could provide a safer procedure to women in need.

The nice thing is, even the media is pointing out that only two Orders of Canada have ever been revoked and that it's highly unlikely this will be.

Hell, his name was up for the medal quite a few times. I doubt this is nothing more from Harper than pandering to his base.


Harper said he would have preferred this to be a person who united Canada...I say, he really does represent the majority opinion, despite what the Catholic church et al. claim.

Well, the catholic church HAS to come out against it. I'd be surprised if they didn't. I'm just glad they lost their stranglehold on the electorate.

It wasn't just one woman who needed access to a safe abortion.

Haven't thought about that...



Aboriginal peoples have repeatedly 'broken the law' when it came to hunting...out of necessity, because this was how we were feeding ourselves. It wasn't just a case of 'oh, let's break the law for kicks, over and over again'. Eventually, test cases reversed the barriers to aboriginal hunting and made clear more fair limits.

I believe this is analogous to what Morgentaler did. Back-door abortions were going on all over the place, and he knew he could provide a safer procedure to women in need.

But we won't be giving a medal to the aboriginals for doing what's right for them. I'm just not sure he deserves a medal for illegal behaviour. There was tons of ways to push for abortion: inside the system in hospitals, by providing a safe place but not making publicity for it (although, once you get arrested, that ship has sailed), rallies, petitions, etc.

Once again we USians are reminded how backwards we are by are northern neighbor. Canada, I salute thee.

Once again I'm reminded how much I dislike the term 'USian.'

Also, I read the link, and I don't see how he has done anything that deserves a kind word, much less a medal.

Once again I'm reminded how much I dislike the term 'USian.'

Also, I read the link, and I don't see how he has done anything that deserves a kind word, much less a medal.

He risked his life, and his freedom in order to give Canadian women the safe, legal option of abortion.

The only way you can't see how he hasn't done something deserving of reward would be if you are a pro-life idiot.

The only way you can't see how he hasn't done something deserving of reward would be if you are a pro-life idiot.

Be fair. It's entirely possible he just hates women.

Haven't thought about that...


But we won't be giving a medal to the aboriginals for doing what's right for them.

Uh....he wasn't given the award for 'fighting for abortion rights', it was for 'health care (http://www.gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=e&DocID=5447)'. Many aboriginal people have received the order of Canada for their fight for aboriginal rights, but it's never listed under that heading...it's usually education, health care, social service etc. :D


I'm just not sure he deserves a medal for illegal behaviour. There was tons of ways to push for abortion: inside the system in hospitals, by providing a safe place but not making publicity for it (although, once you get arrested, that ship has sailed), rallies, petitions, etc.

He's not getting the medal for illegal behaviour. He's getting the medal for providing outstanding health care to women. Part of that was how he fought to have the law changed.

Be fair. It's entirely possible he just hates women.

I'm sorry, that made me snicker.

He risked his life, and his freedom in order to give Canadian women the safe, legal option of abortion.
The only way you can't see how he hasn't done something deserving of reward would be if you are a pro-life idiot.

I'm pretty sure I'm not an idiot. Just to be sure though, I checked my shirt front and it's dribble free, and I'm not wearing flip-flops, so I'm going to go with my original assertion of not being an idiot. I do however embrace the possibly provincial and backwards notion that it is not generally a good idea to slaughter children.

But you know, that's just me, I'm funny like that.

I'm pretty sure I'm not an idiot. Just to be sure though, I checked my shirt front and it's dribble free, and I'm not wearing flip-flops, so I going to go with my original assertion of notbeing an idiot. I do however embrace the possibly provincial and backwards notion that it is not generally a good idea to slaughter children.

But you know, that's just me, I'm funny like that.

I enjoyed the first part of your post immensely actually:D

I embrace the better notion that we shouldn't make women slaves to their fetuses, and that allowing legal abortions forces no one to take any action. However, making abortions illegal deprives women of choice, and frankly, I don't see how you could support that no matter your ideological stance.

I am also very content with the Canadian position that you do not become a person until you are born.

I can't believe that no one has pointed out that Morgentaler is a Jew, and an evil zionist who uses the blood of the babies he murders to bake his passover bread. I mean, come on now people!

I enjoyed the first part of your post immensely actually:D

'A soft answer turneth away wrath' you know. Besides, I find it's easier and generally better to be funny than offensive, although sometimes (through not fault of my own whatsoever, of course) I manage both at the same time ;)

I embrace the better notion that we shouldn't make women slaves to their fetuses, and that allowing legal abortions forces no one to take any action. However, making abortions illegal deprives women of choice, and frankly, I don't see how you could support that no matter your ideological stance.

Making any choice closes off certain other choices, though. If you make the choice to have unprotected or unprepared sex, then you make the choice to deal with the consequences, be they disease, or children, or merely a desire for a cigarette and a fleeting sense of contentment and well-being.

I am also very content with the Canadian position that you do not become a person until you are born.

The thing with that though, is that sets a precedent for not being considered a person after you're born.

'A soft answer turneth away wrath' you know. Besides, I find it's easier and generally better to be funny than offensive, although sometimes (through not fault of my own whatsoever, of course) I manage both at the same time ;)
Personally, I didn't see anything funny in your first post.

Making any choice closes off certain other choices, though. If you make the choice to have unprotected or unprepared sex, then you make the choice to deal with the consequences, be they disease, or children, or merely a desire for a cigarette and a fleeting sense of contentment and well-being.



The thing with that though, is that sets a precedent for not being considered a person after you're born.
Oh, but NOW I see the jokes.

The thing with that though, is that sets a precedent for not being considered a person after you're born.

Canada is almost unique inthat it has absolutely no laws protecting a fetus. None at all. Legally, a fetus at any stage of development has no legal status.

Consequently, you could decide to have an abortion the day before your due date. How many women do you think have done that in Canada? How many Canadian women do you think have had abortions after the first trimester for nonmedical reasons?

In all my years of following this debate, I have yet to hear of one. Rest assured that if we leave the decision making in the hands of individual women, the sanctity of life shall be protected.

Personally, I didn't see anything funny in your first post.

When she said she enjoyed the response, I'm pretty sure she meant how I determined that I wasn't an idiot, that was what was supposed to be funny.

Consequently, you could decide to have an abortion the day before your due date. How many women do you think have done that in Canada? How many Canadian women do you think have had abortions after the first trimester for nonmedical reasons?

In all my years of following this debate, I have yet to hear of one. Rest assured that if we leave the decision making in the hands of individual women, the sanctity of life shall be protected.

The morality of the procedure aside(an argument that in all likelihood neither the OP nor I will ever concede)a legal ruling stating that someone is not a person before they are born sets a precedent for legal rulings that could determine that someone is not a person if they don't achieve a certain IQ standard, or a certain ability standard, or when they reach a caertain age. Why start down the slippery slope when you don't have to?

Hell, his name was up for the medal quite a few times. I doubt this is nothing more from Harper than pandering to his base.

The award has nothing to do with Harper. He has publically said, that it is (I believe) the govenor-general's decision who is nominated, not his own. To avoid offending anyone, he isn't touching the issue with 30 foot pole.

Beyond that... I don't think he repeatedly broke the law for shits and giggles, especially since in doing so he was also threatened with violence. I don't really think that a one time arrest and then sitting back and waiting to see what happens would have brought the necessary changes as quickly as it did. Would the laws have been changed eventually? It's possible, yes, but how many women benifitted from his fight who otherwise would not have had he bowed out after the first major blow?

The thing with that though, is that sets a precedent for not being considered a person after you're born.

Not even remotely. The line is very clear. You pop out of mom, alive, and you become a person.

No slippery slope possible.

Personally, I didn't see anything funny in your first post.
No, it was the second post, and the idiot-checking. Pssh, Murv, regardless of what followed, can't you crack a little smile?

The morality of the procedure aside(an argument that in all likelihood neither the OP nor I will ever concede)a legal ruling stating that someone is not a person before they are born sets a precedent for legal rulings that could determine that someone is not a person if they don't achieve a certain IQ standard, or a certain ability standard, or when they reach a caertain age. Why start down the slippery slope when you don't have to?

Yeah...no.

Sorry. The above simply doesn't hold water.

It's a bright line rule and not a single one of the arguments you have advanced has even come close to succeeding in our courts. Even someone completely lacking in capacity due to advanced dementia remains 'a person'. Their legal rights are affected by that capacity issue, never ever by an issue of 'personhood'.

The last debate we had on 'personhood' was during the suffragette movement.

Not even remotely. The line is very clear. You pop out of mom, alive, and you become a person. No slippery slope possible.

But physically, mentally, or emotionally, the baby is no different right before birth then it is right after it. What is it about passing through the birth canal that grants the child 'person' status? What about a baby that dies right after birth? Are they a person, or no? To me, your line does not appear 'very clear', but rather somewhat muddled and ambigous.

As for the slippery slope, with all due respect, you may missing the forest for the trees. It's not about the specific example, but rather the establishment of precedent and the ways that that precedent may be applied.

It's a bright line rule and not a single one of the arguments you have advanced has even come close to succeeding in our courts.

Yet.

Even someone completely lacking in capacity due to advanced dementia remains 'a person'. Their legal rights are affected by that capacity issue, never ever by an issue of 'personhood'.

For now.

See, that's the tricky thing about precedent, just because no-one is doing it/thinking about it/countenancing it now does not mean they won't five, ten, fifteen, however many, years from now. I may not be getting mugged right now, but I'm still going to carry a gun, just in case, see?

The last debate we had on 'personhood' was during the suffragette movement.

If 'we' means 'Canadians', then I acede to the person(;))on the spot, as it were, my grasp of Canadian history being regrettably limited. If by 'we' you mean 'worldwide' I fear I have to disagree, as there is ample evidence for that debate continuing in aggressive and pointed fashion.

Not even remotely. The line is very clear. You pop out of mom, alive, and you become a person.

No slippery slope possible.

Hell, you can declare the embryo/fetus a person and you'd still have to have legal abortion.

When she said she enjoyed the response, I'm pretty sure she meant how I determined that I wasn't an idiot, that was what was supposed to be funny.
Oh?

The morality of the procedure aside(an argument that in all likelihood neither the OP nor I will ever concede)a legal ruling stating that someone is not a person before they are born sets a precedent for legal rulings that could determine that someone is not a person if they don't achieve a certain IQ standard, or a certain ability standard, or when they reach a caertain age. Why start down the slippery slope when you don't have to?
No, it doesn't.

It doesn't for the exact same reason that a legal ruling that it's okay to sell furniture does not set a legal precedent for establishing slavery and the buying and selling of persons. Also for the exact same reason that a legal ruling as to what constitutes a scientifically acceptable method for determining death does not set a precedent for permitting murder.

Why is that? Because embryos and non-viable fetuses are not persons in the exact same way that corpses and inanimate objects are not persons, and the laws that apply to them do not apply to persons and cannot be made to apply to persons, in any practical terms.

Step A does not lead to Step Z because they are about completely different things. If the steps do not connect, then there is no slippery slope.

Hell, you can declare the embryo/fetus a person and you'd still have to have legal abortion.

I agree.

See, that's the tricky thing about precedent, just because no-one is doing it/thinking about it/countenancing it now does not mean they won't five, ten, fifteen, however many, years from now. I may not be getting mugged right now, but I'm still going to carry a gun, just in case, see? Do you seriously want to get into a legal discussion with me about precedent? Because your assertions so far have been really, really piss poor and completely ungrounded in case law or constitutional analysis.

But physically, mentally, or emotionally, the baby is no different right before birth then it is right after it. What is it about passing through the birth canal that grants the child 'person' status? What about a baby that dies right after birth? Are they a person, or no? To me, your line does not appear 'very clear', but rather somewhat muddled and ambigous.

As for the slippery slope, with all due respect, you may missing the forest for the trees. It's not about the specific example, but rather the establishment of precedent and the ways that that precedent may be applied.

<snip>
And here we have another favorite straw-bogeyman of the anti-choice side of the issue: The abortion of a healthy baby mere minutes before natural birth.

Fact: There is no such thing. No one chooses to abort a perfectly good baby in the ninth month. All such late term abortions are because of extreme medical necessity, and they are very, very, very rare. In the majority of countries elective abortion -- i.e. not medically necessary -- is already illegal long before the end of pregnancy, usually before the end of the first trimester, which is well before the fetus could be in any way even potentially viable.

And has already been pointed out to you -- but which you have ignored so far -- even in Canada, where there are no specifically stated restrictions on late abortion, there have been NO such late term elective abortions. Ever.

So that's another threat that does not exist, alongside your slippery slope.

There are two different sides on abortion. The one that believes that a fetus is nothing but a bunch of cells and the other one that believes that the fetus is alive.

This is a debate that has been on Nationstates before. Should the side that believes the fetus is alive be able to control the bodies of those who dont for the sake of the fetus.

I am personally in favour of abortion as I dont see the connection between a fetus in early development and a baby. Others think differently

However no one should excuse the actions of the cowards who decided to bomb the office of thoes who disagree. Whatever your stance on abortion is that kind of action should be condemned outright and claimed to be what it is. Its terrorism. By using violence one group is trying to silence another’s opinion.

If this happened the other way round I would still claim it is terrorism but to me this forum is more about the actions of those who disagreed. Both sides of the abortion debate should condemn these actions outright.

Yeah right Murv, you prolly have 9-month abortions every year just for kicks.

There are two different sides on abortion. The one that believes that a fetus is nothing but a bunch of cells and the other one that believes that the fetus is alive.

This is a debate that has been on Nationstates before. Should the side that believes the fetus is alive be able to control the bodies of those who dont for the sake of the fetus.
As a point of information and for the sake of clarity, I would like to correct just two details:

1) The disagreement is not between "its a bunch of cells" and "it's alive." Everyone, both pro- and anti-choice, knows the cells are alive. The disagreement is actually three-pronged and runs as follows: "it's a bunch of cells" versus "it's a person with legal rights" versus "it doesn't matter whether it's a person or not; even if it had rights, they would not trump the woman's rights."

2) This debate is on NSG at least twice a month or more.

I am personally in favour of abortion as I dont see the connection between a fetus in early development and a baby. Others think differently

However no one should excuse the actions of the cowards who decided to bomb the office of thoes who disagree. Whatever your stance on abortion is that kind of action should be condemned outright and claimed to be what it is. Its terrorism. By using violence one group is trying to silence another’s opinion.

If this happened the other way round I would still claim it is terrorism but to me this forum is more about the actions of those who disagreed. Both sides of the abortion debate should condemn these actions outright.
I agree. Bombers are terrorists, no matter what they claim their cause to be. They cannot be tolerated.

Yeah right Murv, you prolly have 9-month abortions every year just for kicks.

I keep getting these freshly smoked fetuses from Canada, via mail order. Good eats...

Yeah right Murv, you prolly have 9-month abortions every year just for kicks.

Yeah, but not my own. ;) (And I do it for the tasty sandwiches.)

Yeah, but not my own. ;) (And I do it for the tasty sandwiches.)

You're a jew aren't you.

You're a jew aren't you.

Nah, just a heathen. I like to render out the fat first and use it for...um...let's call them ointments.

But physically, mentally, or emotionally, the baby is no different right before birth then it is right after it. What is it about passing through the birth canal that grants the child 'person' status? What about a baby that dies right after birth? Are they a person, or no? To me, your line does not appear 'very clear', but rather somewhat muddled and ambigous.

Bullshit. For one its very clear ie. before it takes a breath its not alive. Second practically no one has late term abortions. They do in china sure but not in Canada.


As for the slippery slope, with all due respect, you may missing the forest for the trees. It's not about the specific example, but rather the establishment of precedent and the ways that that precedent may be applied.


k so because a fetus is not a person someday a women will not be a person? I think you may have this the wrong way round. If you wanna talk about slippery slopes lets talk about taking rights AWAY from women. I'm sorry your argument just doesn't fly



Yet.

yes and it may happen far far in the future. That being said humans may mutate into tiny pixies with large wings and small tempers. prolly wont happen . . .but it could! buy anti pixiefication meds now just in case! (9.99 a bottle sold only by and in the ASD)


For now.

See, that's the tricky thing about precedent, just because no-one is doing it/thinking about it/countenancing it now does not mean they won't five, ten, fifteen, however many, years from now. I may not be getting mugged right now, but I'm still going to carry a gun, just in case, see?

no I don;t see. For one that analogy makes no sense and for another there are plenty of things we describe as "not people", apes for one. In no way does that set a precedent for anything else to be called not human. Its just apes man. Fetus are fetus not people this does not mean that someday people will not be people. that argument just makes absolutely no sense.



If 'we' means 'Canadians', then I acede to the person(;))on the spot, as it were, my grasp of Canadian history being regrettably limited. If by 'we' you mean 'worldwide' I fear I have to disagree, as there is ample evidence for that debate continuing in aggressive and pointed fashion.
ya that was Canadians. And yes worldwide debate is still going on but guess where there are the most cases of non-people? The middle east. Now guess where abortion is outlawed. O you got it the middle east!!!! (sorry vast generalization there but I think everyone here is bright enough to grasp what I'm getting at) therefore abortion=/= lack of rights.

Yeah, but not my own. ;) (And I do it for the tasty sandwiches.)

? (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/10/17/)

? (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/10/17/)
Yep. ;)

I for one don't agree that abortion unless for medical consequences, or for children resulting from rape, is acceptable.

As Heinleinites put it slightly earlier, a pregnancy occurs as a result of sex. If you're going to enjoy it, then you better be ready to bear the consequences of it.

And before anyone shoots and says that it's not a fair deal for women that guys can enjoy sex without consequences, let me reverse it to be that it's society's problem that we don't as a whole hold men more accountable for where they "sow their wild oats", as it were.

As it is, the whole debate is actually moving away from the real problem, and by ending the lives of unborn fetuses we're really only making the problem worse.

Although I'll agree, any idiot who resorts to violence to prove his/her point when there are better options available doesn't deserve to be heard.

Now go ahead, flame me all you want....:gundge:

I for one don't agree that abortion unless for medical consequences, or for children resulting from rape, is acceptable.

As Heinleinites put it slightly earlier, a pregnancy occurs as a result of sex. If you're going to enjoy it, then you better be ready to bear the consequences of it.

And before anyone shoots and says that it's not a fair deal for women that guys can enjoy sex without consequences, let me reverse it to be that it's society's problem that we don't as a whole hold men more accountable for where they "sow their wild oats", as it were.

As it is, the whole debate is actually moving away from the real problem, and by ending the lives of unborn fetuses we're really only making the problem worse.

Although I'll agree, any idiot who resorts to violence to prove his/her point when there are better options available doesn't deserve to be heard.

Now go ahead, flame me all you want....:gundge:
*FLAMED* . . . *WITH FIRE* (did i get it right?)

I don't understand though. . . what's "the problem" that you refer too?

I for one don't agree that abortion unless for medical consequences, or for children resulting from rape, is acceptable.

As Heinleinites put it slightly earlier, a pregnancy occurs as a result of sex. If you're going to enjoy it, then you better be ready to bear the consequences of it.

And before anyone shoots and says that it's not a fair deal for women that guys can enjoy sex without consequences, let me reverse it to be that it's society's problem that we don't as a whole hold men more accountable for where they "sow their wild oats", as it were.

As it is, the whole debate is actually moving away from the real problem, and by ending the lives of unborn fetuses we're really only making the problem worse.

Although I'll agree, any idiot who resorts to violence to prove his/her point when there are better options available doesn't deserve to be heard.

Now go ahead, flame me all you want....:gundge:

There is no reason whatsoever why a fetus should be entitled to using a woman's womb, ombilical cord and organs as an incubateor against her will, even if it needs it to grow, survive and live.

Say person X has a very severe and rare medical condition. To survive, X absolutely needs blood, bone marrow, or a kidney, pick whichever you like, from person Y, who is the only compatible donor.

Is person X entitled to forcibly taking what s/he needs from person Y? Fuck no.

Fetuses are not magically different in a way that should allow them to trump a woman's right to decide what happens with her body, organs, and fluids.

Anti-choice positions fail.

Yay Canada. The incredibly small demographic of your southern neighbor that I represent congratulate you. Maple syrup all around, eh?

There is no reason whatsoever why a fetus should be entitled to using a woman's womb, ombilical cord and organs as an incubateor against her will, even if it needs it to grow, survive and live.

Say person X has a very severe and rare medical condition. To survive, X absolutely needs blood, bone marrow, or a kidney, pick whichever you like, from person Y, who is the only compatible donor.

Is person X entitled to forcibly taking what s/he needs from person Y? Fuck no.

Fetuses are not magically different in a way that should allow them to trump a woman's right to decide what happens with her body, organs, and fluids.

Anti-choice positions fail.

YOU fail.

Think about it. YOU had sex. YOU get pregnant. How is that the fetus' fault that it ended up with someone who wants to abort it?

Your example doesn't work cause person Y has no reason to give whatever person X needs. HOWEVER, if person Y is the reason why person X has this problem in the first place, then its outright irresponsible not to at least do what is possible to help out.

Also, the minute you start going down the "it infringes my right to live life to the fullest" route, then I'll assume that you support the idea of sending your parents to old folks' homes, social welfare is stupid, and that euthanasia for vegetables should be legal?

Truth is, once you can start down this path, by logical extension the rest doesn't seem so wrong anymore.

YOU fail.

Think about it. YOU had sex. YOU get pregnant. How is that the fetus' fault that it ended up with someone who wants to abort it?

Your example doesn't work cause person Y has no reason to give whatever person X needs. HOWEVER, if person Y is the reason why person X has this problem in the first place, then its outright irresponsible not to at least do what is possible to help out.

The Fetus isn't a separate organism from it's mother; it's not at fault but that doesn't give it any rights.

YOU fail.

Think about it. YOU had sex. YOU get pregnant. How is that the fetus' fault that it ended up with someone who wants to abort it?

Your example doesn't work cause person Y has no reason to give whatever person X needs. HOWEVER, if person Y is the reason why person X has this problem in the first place, then its outright irresponsible not to at least do what is possible to help out.

Also, the minute you start going down the "it infringes my right to live life to the fullest" route, then I'll assume that you support the idea of sending your parents to old folks' homes, social welfare is stupid, and that euthanasia for vegetables should be legal?

Truth is, once you can start down this path, by logical extension the rest doesn't seem so wrong anymore.

Really? So if person Y caused an accident that results in blood loss and kidney damage of person X, person Y ought to be forced undergo surgery and have his kidney removed so person X can have it?

Also, this is not about the "right to live life to the fullest". It's about the basic human right to decide who does and who doesn't get to profit from your body.
And as you like fallacies and slippery slopes so much : if you deny a woman the right to decide about her own body, what's to stop society from forcing women to endure rape in order to get pregnant, should population numbers decrease? Or, on the other hand, what would stop society to force women to be sterilised, should the population grow too much?

Really? So if person Y caused an accident that results in blood loss and kidney damage of person X, person Y ought to be forced undergo surgery and have his kidney removed so person X can have it?

Also, this is not about the "right to live life to the fullest". It's about the basic human right to decide who does and who doesn't get to profit from your body.
And as you like fallacies and slippery slopes so much : if you deny a woman the right to decide about her own body, what's to stop society from forcing women to endure rape in order to get pregnant, should population numbers decrease? Or, on the other hand, what would stop society to force women to be sterilised, should the population grow too much?

Since when did I say so, exactly? The choice was always the woman's. Have sex or not? I also put it up there in my first reply that if you got raped and was pregnant because of it, then at least for me, you have the right to abort the child.

Living with the consequences of what we've done in the past is a fact of life, in this case pregnancy occurs as a result of sex. To put it better, if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex during your fertile period. And please read both my posts so far on this matter before you shoot off your opinion at me again.

Finally, about the situation with X and Y, if you were X and I was Y, and you are going to die because I was selfish after it's clearly proven that I'm the one who caused the whole mess, AND I don't bother about your pleas for a kidney donation, how is that in the end fair or decent of me? Just because it's my right, does it absolve me of responsibility?
Yes, you and your family can sue me for billions, but it's not going to bring you back.
Yes I may go to jail, SO? You're still dead. I'm not suggesting we pass legislation stating that people who cause injuries MUST give whatever they can to ensure the well-being of the injured party, but just because it's your right doesn't make it the correct choice.

YOU fail.

Think about it. YOU had sex. YOU get pregnant. How is that the fetus' fault that it ended up with someone who wants to abort it?
Who said anything about "fault"?

Your example doesn't work cause person Y has no reason to give whatever person X needs. HOWEVER, if person Y is the reason why person X has this problem in the first place, then its outright irresponsible not to at least do what is possible to help out.
So then you DO believe that one person should be granted the right to use another person's body for their own uses, against the will of the other person?

Also, the minute you start going down the "it infringes my right to live life to the fullest" route,
And he whips out the strawman! Who said anything about "living life to the fullest"?

then I'll assume that you support the idea of sending your parents to old folks' homes, social welfare is stupid, and that euthanasia for vegetables should be legal?
And another strawman piggy-backed onto the first. You can assume anything you like, but I see no reason why Skaladora or anyone else should waste time answering for an argument they never made -- especially such a nonsensical one.

Truth is, once you can start down this path, by logical extension the rest doesn't seem so wrong anymore.
Truth is, I see no "logical extensions" in your argument at all. All I see is a bunch of prejudicial assumptions and logical fallacies.

Really? So if person Y caused an accident that results in blood loss and kidney damage of person X, person Y ought to be forced undergo surgery and have his kidney removed so person X can have it?

^
|
|

This.

Whose fault it is about person or fetus X needing body fluids or organs of person Y is irrelevant. In the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of morality, nothing can ever be construed as justification for trumping the self-ownership of a person.

Stop trying to punish women for having sex. Women have the right to have sex whenever they damn please, without idiots threatening them with having to put up with an unwanted pregnancy because "The dirty whore had sex, therefore the dirty whore should accept the consequences".

Dealing with the "consequences" of sex is exactly what an abortion is all about. And I know of no woman who likes to forego condoms or contraceptive pills just to go have mass abortions at the local clinic. Women in general use abortion as a last resort, and the choice of this particular medical procedure is handled very responsibly by them.

Here's what I don't get...

For all their hissy and conniption fits, has it ever occurred to the anti-choicers that abortion is 100% optional and that if they don't want it that they don't have to get one...ever? So, why is it their business if someone else needs one for certain undisclosed reasons? Seriously, how does this woman's choice to have an abortion affect someone who is "pro-life"/anti-choice?

Here's what I don't get...

For all their hissy and conniption fits, has it ever occurred to the anti-choicers that abortion is 100% optional and that if they don't want it that they don't have to get one...ever? So, why is it their business if someone else needs one for certain undisclosed reasons? Seriously, how does this woman's choice to have an abortion affect someone who is "pro-life"/anti-choice?

Because of control.

Here's what I don't get...

For all their hissy and conniption fits, has it ever occurred to the anti-choicers that abortion is 100% optional and that if they don't want it that they don't have to get one...ever? So, why is it their business if someone else needs one for certain undisclosed reasons? Seriously, how does this woman's choice to have an abortion affect someone who is "pro-life"/anti-choice?

For the same reason they want to ban murder: both is killing a human life. A human life is important enough to fight for it. 'cause (to go with my murder exemple) y'know murder is entirely optionnal. I wouldn't kill anyone myself, but I don't want to remove the possibility for others.

Yes, I know that murder and abortion is not the same thing. But if you look at parent's responsibility before the law and the fact that abortion kills the fetus, their view that the parent is responsible for the wellbeing of his fetus (a human being) and damn it if it cause incomfort to the mother is valid.

But instead they argue that "sex has consequences", so I don't know their view.

For the same reason they want to ban murder: both is killing a human life. A human life is important enough to fight for it. 'cause (to go with my murder exemple) y'know murder is entirely optionnal. I wouldn't kill anyone myself, but I don't want to remove the possibility for others.

Yes, I know that murder and abortion is not the same thing.
Talking can stop after this point, because this admission invalidates this entire argument.

But if you look at parent's responsibility before the law and the fact that abortion kills the fetus, their view that the parent is responsible for the wellbeing of his fetus (a human being) and damn it if it cause incomfort to the mother is valid.
A parent's responsibility is to a child. Embryos and fetuses are not children. A parent is responsible to an existing child. No person is obligated to become a parent, however. Therefore, abortion has absolutely nothing to do with parental responsibility, and parental responsibility has nothing to do with embryos or fetuses.

In addition, murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Fetuses and embryos are not persons. Therefore, killing them cannot in any way be analogous to murder, unless you decide to claim that the killing of any living thing is murder. If so, then I hope they are also vegans and members of PETA, because if just any killing is murder, then MacDonald's is a holocaust.

But instead they argue that "sex has consequences", so I don't know their view.
Frankly, having argued with them for several years now, I don't think they know their view, either.

For the same reason they want to ban murder: both is killing a human life. A human life is important enough to fight for it. 'cause (to go with my murder exemple) y'know murder is entirely optionnal. I wouldn't kill anyone myself, but I don't want to remove the possibility for others.

Yes, I know that murder and abortion is not the same thing. But if you look at parent's responsibility before the law and the fact that abortion kills the fetus, their view that the parent is responsible for the wellbeing of his fetus (a human being) and damn it if it cause incomfort to the mother is valid.

But instead they argue that "sex has consequences", so I don't know their view.

Probably because the "human life" argument is very shaky indeed, and they know it.
We don't prosecute a pregnant woman who falls down the stairs and subsequently has a miscarriage. We don't prosecute a couple who "try to get pregnant" knowing full well that a certain percentage of their efforts will result in spontaneous abortion (in most cases totally unnoticed by the woman anyway). We don't prosecute mothers smoking and drinking heavily throughtout pregnancy, although it is well known that it will harm the foetus. So the argument that the foetus ought to enjoy the same legal protection as a baby is rather pointless.

Do you seriously want to get into a legal discussion with me about precedent? Because your assertions so far have been really, really piss poor and completely ungrounded in case law or constitutional analysis.

I was thinking more of the 'principle' of precedent, really, the thing as a concept, than as a concrete thing. I may have been unclear. And as 'piss poor' and 'unfounded' as my grasp of case law or constitutional analysis may be, it may not hurt to keep in mind the differences in the Canadian legal and judicial systems(where I think you are, no?)and the American legal and judicial systems (where I am).

But, no, I'm not really looking for a serious discussion, because it's become clear that neither one of us will budge from our ideological stances and it would only end with one of us becoming pissed off, which I don't see as a productive use of my time. Even if I am stuck at work on the 4th of July.

For all their hissy and conniption fits, has it ever occurred to the anti-choicers that abortion is 100% optional and that if they don't want it that they don't have to get one...ever? So, why is it their business if someone else needs one for certain undisclosed reasons?

I'm personally not given to hissy fits or conniptions, although I've been known to participate in a donnybrook or two, and once I went to a hootenanny.

As for the rest of your question, I would imagine it's for much the same reason that people feel it's their business what kind of or even if I keep guns in my house, whether or not I smoke in a bar, and whether or not I should be 'allowed' to have a Lynyrd Skynyrd Confederate flag painting on the back window of my truck.

A parent's responsibility is to a child. Embryos and fetuses are not children. A parent is responsible to an existing child. No person is obligated to become a parent, however. Therefore, abortion has absolutely nothing to do with parental responsibility, and parental responsibility has nothing to do with embryos or fetuses.

In addition, murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Fetuses and embryos are not persons. Therefore, killing them cannot in any way be analogous to murder, unless you decide to claim that the killing of any living thing is murder. If so, then I hope they are also vegans and members of PETA, because if just any killing is murder, then MacDonald's is a holocaust.

In Canada, yes. But we've drawn a line and defined when personhood starts. If you go with the view that the embryo / fetus is a person as soon as conception, then all my points become valid. Pro-lifers usually hold that view.

EDIT: besides, you asked the mentality behind the pro-life stance. I'm giving the answer I think is the most plausible. I don't really care if the view is right or wrong.

Here's what I don't get...

For all their hissy and conniption fits, has it ever occurred to the anti-choicers that abortion is 100% optional and that if they don't want it that they don't have to get one...ever? So, why is it their business if someone else needs one for certain undisclosed reasons? Seriously, how does this woman's choice to have an abortion affect someone who is "pro-life"/anti-choice?
All we have to do is examine the general line of anti-choice arguments closely -- the characterization of pregnancy as a "consequence" for choices they don't approve of; the arbitrary rule that women must not be allowed to avoid some consequences by some means (avoid pregnancy by abortion) but are allowed to avoid them or others by other means (avoid pregnancy or STDs by condoms); the fetus as "innocent" in the situation, as if the woman is guilty of something; the arbitrary exceptions to the "innocent fetus has a right to life" rule, such as allowing a woman to abort if she was raped; as well as their demonizing strawmen that paint women as murderous, unfeeling, irresponsible whores.

All of this shows pretty clearly I think that the main focus of many anti-choicers is in controlling women and punishing women who do not conform to their moralistic rules. They clearly are not interested in "saving innocent babies" since most of them are willing to let those "innocent babies" be aborted if the woman was raped, i.e. did not behave in a manner they consider immoral.

This aspect of the anti-choice position is possibly the one that infuriates me most -- using the image of babies as a smokescreen to hide their hostility towards women, when in fact, they couldn't give less of a shit about babies.

In Canada, yes. But we've drawn a line and defined when personhood starts. If you go with the view that the embryo / fetus is a person as soon as conception, then all my points become valid. Pro-lifers usually hold that view.

EDIT: besides, you asked the mentality behind the pro-life stance. I'm giving the answer I think is the most plausible. I don't really care if the view is right or wrong.
No, they don't. Not really. See my post to Farflorin about their most common arbitrary exception to their view of fetal personhood -- the infamous and indefensible rape exception. In the view of most anti-choicers, fetuses are only persons with an inalienable right to life as long as the circumstances of their conception fit into the anti-choicers moralistic agenda. Otherwise, we can abort away.

Edit re your edit: I understand that you are attempting to explain their argument, not your own.

<snip>

I'm personally not given to hissy fits or conniptions, although I've been known to participate in a donnybrook or two, and once I went to a hootenanny.

As for the rest of your question, I would imagine it's for much the same reason that people feel it's their business what kind of or even if I keep guns in my house, whether or not I smoke in a bar, and whether or not I should be 'allowed' to have a Lynyrd Skynyrd Confederate flag painting on the back window of my truck.
In other words, unjustifiable nosiness and intrusion on other people's private concerns, since none of those things is anyone else's business.

Nah, just a heathen. I like to render out the fat first and use it for...um...let's call them ointments.

Well that's one way to escape rising jet fuel prices!

In Canada, yes. But we've drawn a line and defined when personhood starts. If you go with the view that the embryo / fetus is a person as soon as conception, then all my points become valid. Pro-lifers usually hold that view.

No, because abortion is as much murder as refusing to give your blood or kidney to someone who needs them; it's not. It's a simple refusal to let another being have access to your body fluids and organs.

The day when technology allows us to remove an embryo from the womb and keep it alive and growing it into a vat, to be then born and sent for adoption by parents who wants a child, I'll be all for outlawing abortion and replacing it with this procedure.

But at the moment, that's not possible. Hence a woman's refusal to let another being profit from her body and metabolism end up in the destruction of the embryo.

This aspect of the anti-choice position is possibly the one that infuriates me most -- using the image of babies as a smokescreen to hide their hostility towards women, when in fact, they couldn't give less of a shit about babies.

Quote for truth, because, frankly; how many of them anti-choicers actually go out and adopt a parent-less child they so strongly feel about?

One would think if they cared so much about them, they'd be lining up to take care of the poor children.

Get rid of abortions, and watch them not-care about what happens to the thousands of children who'll get stacked into state orphanages for lack of parents willing to adopt them.

Here's what I don't get...

For all their hissy and conniption fits, has it ever occurred to the anti-choicers that abortion is 100% optional and that if they don't want it that they don't have to get one...ever? So, why is it their business if someone else needs one for certain undisclosed reasons? Seriously, how does this woman's choice to have an abortion affect someone who is "pro-life"/anti-choice?

This is why I don't believe the two sides can ever be equal. People like Morgentaler are simply ensuring there is an option out there. If you don't believe in abortion...don't get one.

Forcing other people to adhere to your beliefs on something like this by making it illegal is entirely repugnant. Morgentaler is forcing no one.

I loved the backlash over the following story (http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=a8d5e1d0-2e70-4dad-9099-c4c3374d68c8).

Father Lucien Larre of Coquitlam, who founded the Bosco Centres for emotionally disturbed and addicted adolescents, said he'd rather return the honour than be associated with Morgentaler.

Larre said Wednesday he felt "compelled in conscience to return my Order of Canada to Ottawa," according to a news release.

Okay, fine, priest who got the order of canada doesn't want it anymore because he doesn't want to be associated with baby-killers. Wow, what a man of conscience.

Except the media also dug into his past, and last night we heard more about this priest :D

Larre is not immune to controversy.

In 1992, a Saskatchewan jury convicted him on two counts of physically abusing children in his care at Bosco Homes and acquitted him on nine other charges.

In 1998, Larre registered as a psychologist in B.C.

His work, however, has prompted a number of complaints to the B.C. College of Psychologists in recent years, court documents show.

Last November, the college held an extraordinary hearing and suspended his registration pending a disciplinary hearing because it felt he posed "an immediate risk to the public."

If this is all the opposition can bring forth, I think Morgentaler is fine;)

I was thinking more of the 'principle' of precedent, really, the thing as a concept, than as a concrete thing. I may have been unclear. And as 'piss poor' and 'unfounded' as my grasp of case law or constitutional analysis may be, it may not hurt to keep in mind the differences in the Canadian legal and judicial systems(where I think you are, no?)and the American legal and judicial systems (where I am).

There is no point in keeping in mind the differences in the Canadian and US legal system if you have no understanding of the concrete principle of precedent. Coming from common-law legal training, I can effectively argue issues of 'precedent' whether we're talking about Canada, the US, New Zealand, Australia, or the UK.

Point being, don't talk smack when you can't back it up.

A 'bright line rule' is exactly that. There is no hemming or hawing about 'well, okay so we said you aren't a person until you're born, maybe you can be born and stop being a person too if you're really ugly?'

No. It simply doesn't work that way. Explaining to you exactly why it doesn't work that way would involve much more of my time, and give you entirely too much free legal training:p

All we have to do is examine the general line of anti-choice arguments closely -- the characterization of pregnancy as a "consequence" for choices they don't approve of; the arbitrary rule that women must not be allowed to avoid some consequences by some means (avoid pregnancy by abortion) but are allowed to avoid them or others by other means (avoid pregnancy or STDs by condoms); the fetus as "innocent" in the situation, as if the woman is guilty of something; the arbitrary exceptions to the "innocent fetus has a right to life" rule, such as allowing a woman to abort if she was raped; as well as their demonizing strawmen that paint women as murderous, unfeeling, irresponsible whores.

All of this shows pretty clearly I think that the main focus of many anti-choicers is in controlling women and punishing women who do not conform to their moralistic rules. They clearly are not interested in "saving innocent babies" since most of them are willing to let those "innocent babies" be aborted if the woman was raped, i.e. did not behave in a manner they consider immoral.

This aspect of the anti-choice position is possibly the one that infuriates me most -- using the image of babies as a smokescreen to hide their hostility towards women, when in fact, they couldn't give less of a shit about babies.


Unsurprisingly, I have to agree in full, and also thank you...because while I've always been disgusted with the majority of 'pro-life' arguments put forth, I mostly just dismissed them and didn't really delve into what exactly was pissing me off. You've stated it very well. 'Babies as punishment' never made sense to me, but you push a little, and almost every single time, this is the sort of shit that pops out.

Okay, fine, priest who got the order of canada doesn't want it anymore because he doesn't want to be associated with baby-killers. Wow, what a man of conscience.



Yeah, I renounced mine when I found out Conrad Black had one, too.

We'll just have to chalk it up to "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet." then

I love Kipling's poetry. Is there anything he's written that's not useful? It's almost as good as the Bible.

We'll just have to chalk it up to "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet." then

I love Kipling's poetry. Is there anything he's written that's not useful? It's almost as good as the Bible.

If you're stating, "we're never going to agree" then I accept. If you're stating, "we're both right", I don't. Sorry.

If you're stating, "we're never going to agree" then I accept. If you're stating, "we're both right", I don't. Sorry.

It was "we're never going to agree." Which really doesn't bother me nearly as much as it used to when I was younger. As for the other, I don't think the phrase 'we're both right' has ever crossed my lips, now that I think of it.

Punishing women for killing their children is not equal to making them crudely kill their children. Conditioning by violence and payment forms society; when folks are hurt for doing something they do it less hence if women are hurt for killing their children they won't stubbornly seek out abortions -however risky- they'll not get abortions. Canada awards a man for getting women to kill their kids; America steals from people to cover the costs of abortion; anyone from another country have an example of how their gov. lavishes blessing on baby-killing or prevents it?

Punishing women for killing their children is not equal to making them crudely kill their children. Conditioning by violence and payment forms society; when folks are hurt for doing something they do it less hence if women are hurt for killing their children they won't stubbornly seek out abortions -however risky- they'll not get abortions. Canada awards a man for getting women to kill their kids; America steals from people to cover the costs of abortion; anyone from another country have an example of how their gov. lavishes blessing on baby-killing or prevents it?

I believe Quebec actually paid women to kill fetuses (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060818.wabortion0818/BNStory/National/home)at one point.

Evil people such as I applauded the decision.

Punishing women for killing their children is not equal to making them crudely kill their children. Conditioning by violence and payment forms society; when folks are hurt for doing something they do it less hence if women are hurt for killing their children they won't stubbornly seek out abortions -however risky- they'll not get abortions. Canada awards a man for getting women to kill their kids; America steals from people to cover the costs of abortion; anyone from another country have an example of how their gov. lavishes blessing on baby-killing or prevents it?

Women do not kill children, nor do they kill babies.

They exercise their right to dispose of their own body as they see fit. And you have nothing to say on the matter.

Blah blah blah, random generalization about 'society', crazy rambling, loaded question.

Don't poke the bears. It profits you nothing, makes you look like an ass, and annoys the bears.

I believe Quebec actually paid women to kill fetuses (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060818.wabortion0818/BNStory/National/home)at one point.

Evil people such as I applauded the decision.

Even phrasing it in such terms, no one wants to bite?

I'm disappointed. All this July 4thing is interfering with my daily dose of vitriol!

Even phrasing it in such terms, no one wants to bite?

I'm disappointed. All this July 4thing is interfering with my daily dose of vitriol!

No one wants to bite a fetus.

The poutine we made from them was awful, anyways.

Oh my imaginary-martyr-on-a-stick I forgot about poutine...like REAL poutine, not the gross fries slathered in gravy from a package with velveeta poured over it as you'll find here in Alberta...

Sorry, right, we were discussing the consumption of fetuses. I get so distracted.

...is interfering with my daily dose of vitriol!

You know, these are my exact words whenever Jolt goes down. :p

I think that, as was already pointed out, that with all the editorial protests in the Mail being male... the anti-choicers should put their efforts into genetic research to combine genes of human men with seahorses, thus allowing them to carry any unwanted embryo to term. *nods* Everyone wins!

Punishing women for killing their children is not equal to making them crudely kill their children. Conditioning by violence and payment forms society; when folks are hurt for doing something they do it less hence if women are hurt for killing their children they won't stubbornly seek out abortions -however risky- they'll not get abortions. Canada awards a man for getting women to kill their kids; America steals from people to cover the costs of abortion; anyone from another country have an example of how their gov. lavishes blessing on baby-killing or prevents it?

You know what else we can do? Punish the men for putting a baby where it wasn't wanted to begin with and causing her to make the horrible decision to end the baby's life. If we can seek to punish men for giving their partners unwanted AIDS, why can't we seek to punish men for giving their partners unwanted babies?

You know what else we can do? Punish the men for putting a baby where it wasn't wanted to begin with and causing her to make the horrible decision to end the baby's life. If we can seek to punish men for giving their partners unwanted AIDS, why can't we seek to punish men for giving their partners unwanted babies?

Until the paternity test results are back, I guess the old saying stands: mother's baby, father's maybe. This is why men don't get any form of punish. They can just deny its theirs.

Until the paternity test results are back, I guess the old saying stands: mother's baby, father's maybe. This is why men don't get any form of punish. They can just deny its theirs.

Well, of course there has to be proof. We can't go about punishing every man the woman has been with. That would just be silly. :p

Well, of course there has to be proof. We can't go about punishing every man the woman has been with. That would just be silly. :p

Well... it would be a good deterrent. By killing women during the Witch Trials we showed the rest whose boss. Why do you think there are no more witches? *nods* (ok, that was completely off topic).

Of course not But still, both should be held responsible.

No one wants to bite a fetus.

The poutine we made from them was awful, anyways.

Meat does not belong in poutine. Only fries, sauce, and deliciously squeaky cheese are allowed into poutine.

High honors should not be given out to such controversial people. They should be given to people who have clearly contributed to our country. Abortion is still hotly debated about. (Personally, I don't mind them, what irks me is that my tax money is paying for it)

Well... it would be a good deterrent. By killing women during the Witch Trials we showed the rest whose boss. Why do you think there are no more witches? *nods* (ok, that was completely off topic).

Of course not But still, both should be held responsible.

You mean the woman who sold me the love potions was lying to me?! :eek:

High honors should not be given out to such controversial people.

There is nothing controversial about the accomplishments of this man.


Abortion is still hotly debated about.
No, it's not.

There is nothing controversial about the accomplishments of this man.

If his "accomplishments" involve giving women access to baby killing, then they are VERY controversial, as should be anything that increases female suffrage.

I take it back. It shouldn't be controversial; it should be predetermined and a foregone conclusion, without discourse or appeal, that women should not kill their babies. Unless a man says so.


No, it's not.

Yes, it is hotly debated. The other day, some chick was debating with me about abortion, and I couldn't even concentrate on what she was saying because she was so hot.

She was blathering on about some kind of autonomy, self-determination, blah blah, I couldn't really follow because she had a rack barely contained by a ribbed grey turtleneck, and a great pair of legs in a narrow wool skirt.

She thought because she had a Juris Doctorate and was widely published and recognized in the field of gender rights that she could waste my time with a bunch of horseshit about bio-ethics, I didn't bother refuting her because I think she was a dyke anyway.

Anyway, you're wrong.

Punishing women for killing their children is not equal to making them crudely kill their children. Conditioning by violence and payment forms society; when folks are hurt for doing something they do it less hence if women are hurt for killing their children they won't stubbornly seek out abortions -however risky- they'll not get abortions. Canada awards a man for getting women to kill their kids; America steals from people to cover the costs of abortion; anyone from another country have an example of how their gov. lavishes blessing on baby-killing or prevents it?

Well... Ireland is trying to keep the Catholics happy by keeping abortion outlawed.
Britiain is a maximum of 30mins flight away, though, and provides the services lacking in Ireland, for several thousand women a year. And with RyanAir providing cheap flights, it's really just a matter of saving face for Ireland these days. They might as well legalise it at home, it wouldn't change a thing.

You mean the woman who sold me the love potions was lying to me?! :eek:

Yep; it's just snake oil, hun.

[Women] exercise their right to dispose of their own body as they see fit. And you have nothing to say on the matter.

What you've to write is it's women's right to dispose of their bodies, as is fitting. I don't have a part in the matter; I won't stop you from 'disposing of your body'.

Iniika,

Babies are not given, like a disease, from man to woman. They are made by men and women fucking. A woman is not forced by pregnancy to want her baby dead. Because she is equally culpable, a mother who says gaining a baby damaged her and the culprit should be punished and is heeded would be punished w/her husband -unless the law didn't treat men and women as equals.

Cabra West,
Thanks for telling me about that. :)

The comments on the site are hilarious.

Morgentaler was a "victim" and survivor of Dachau. A great number of survivors of such abuse have been dehumanized. They then replicate the very type of behavior to which they were subjected. Morgentaler saw the innocent jews butchered and so likewise became a butcher of innocent little ones. I do not claim to understand the full details of the Psycho-dynamics of this syndrome, but it exists and manifests itself every day by many people. They abuse others and/or themselves. He is a BUTCHER!

Morgentaler was a "victim" and survivor of Dachau.

..."victim"...Dachau.

No, it's not.

I could start a thread on it right now and it would be at least 10 pages long before it would surely be locked by a mod.

I believe abortions should be legal, but we shouldn't have to pay for them. You knew the consequences of what might happen if you get yourself fucked, now you have to pay for it if you want out of the problem.

Anyway, I am sure there are several other people who could have been awarded it without so much controversy.

Alright, let me say before I begin that I haven't read the whole thread yet, so if what I say here has been said, I apologize.

I think the title of "pro-life" is ironic, considering the disability-curing properties of the stem-cells obtained from aborted fetuses and the occasional life saving abortion (when a mother's life is endangered by childbirth).

What's to say outlawing abortion will save lives (unborn and born)? Back in "the good ole days", everything from coat hangers to sulfuric acid was used to terminate pregnancies, often/sometimes resulting in the death of the mother. With the incubator dead, the fetus dies. There's less loss of life with safe, legal abortions.

Soooo... That's why I think the title of "pro-life" is ironic. And that's all I can offer right now.

Thanks for listening.

- SNIP -

When you do read the thread, you'll notice that those of us who ID ourselves as being pro-choice have a fitting name for the opposition - anti-choice.

What you've to write is it's women's right to dispose of their bodies, as is fitting. I don't have a part in the matter; I won't stop you from 'disposing of your body'.

I'm a man.


Babies are not given, like a disease, from man to woman. They are made by men and women fucking. A woman is not forced by pregnancy to want her baby dead. Because she is equally culpable, a mother who says gaining a baby damaged her and the culprit should be punished and is heeded would be punished w/her husband -unless the law didn't treat men and women as equals.

Fucking is not a crime. There is no culpability.

Women have the right to fuck. Stop trying to control women, you sick man. And stop trying to punish women who don't submit to your control by trying to destroy their life by making them have to bring to term a fetus they never wanted.

Repeat after me: women have the right to fuck.


I could start a thread on it right now and it would be at least 10 pages long before it would surely be locked by a mod.

I believe abortions should be legal, but we shouldn't have to pay for them. You knew the consequences of what might happen if you get yourself fucked, now you have to pay for it if you want out of the problem.

Anyway, I am sure there are several other people who could have been awarded it without so much controversy.
We don't care that it might be hotly contested in the US, on NS general, or in Iran.

This is a Canadian award. The legality of abortion is neither hotly debated nor controversial in Canada. A pathetic handful of men trying to control women's sexuality are trying to make it appear as if the overwhelming majority of Canadians (80+%) did not approve of the legality of abortion and consider this debate done and over with.

Abortion was an issue settle several decades ago.

When you do read the thread, you'll notice that those of us who ID ourselves as being pro-choice have a fitting name for the opposition - anti-choice.

Ah, thanks for the heads-up. I should start reading it instead of hoping I said something original and profound.

(Not sarcasm)

I'm a centrist on the issue, but this to me seems a bit...like offering an award to a mad scientist or a mass murderer, not that I see fetuses as equal to humans, I just don't think abortions are right. First trimester is fine, second only in case of rape or emergency, third only in case of threat to woman's life. I don't really care what people do with their fetuses as long as it isn't smashing or butal or that type of thing. Just disturbs me a bit. It's not really goo anymore in the third trimester. Yeah...

I'm a man.


Fucking is not a crime. There is no culpability.

Women have the right to fuck. Stop trying to control women, you sick man. And stop trying to punish women who don't submit to your control by trying to destroy their life by making them have to bring to term a fetus they never wanted.

Repeat after me: women have the right to fuck.



We don't care that it might be hotly contested in the US, on NS general, or in Iran.

This is a Canadian award. The legality of abortion is neither hotly debated nor controversial in Canada. A pathetic handful of men trying to control women's sexuality are trying to make it appear as if the overwhelming majority of Canadians (80+%) did not approve of the legality of abortion and consider this debate done and over with.

Abortion was an issue settle several decades ago.

The ruling was Murder is OK. Whether killing jews and gypsies was OK was settled 2 decades before that in Germany! Want to stick to that ruling, idiot? Why don't they kill it when it's 3? Should your mother have the right to kill you now? It's utterly ridiculous to say abortion is protected by right to privacy without saying a Siamese twin killing the other one is. There's no difference. One person killing another because they don't want to spend their life with them! Should a husband be able to kill his wife then? Do you consider Blue Beard a hero for standing up for a man's right to privacy? The reason women (if they can still be called human with no morals) went to back alley places was too lenient punishments! Give it the same as killing a grown man and just see what happens!

Ah, thanks for the heads-up. I should start reading it instead of hoping I said something original and profound.

(Not sarcasm)

It may seem tedious but it's often a good idea.

That's why I avoid really long threads unless I'm following it or I made some smarmy comment earlier in it and incurred someone's wrath. Oh who me? I'd never do ANYTHING like that... ;)

We don't care that it might be hotly contested in the US, on NS general, or in Iran.

This is a Canadian award. The legality of abortion is neither hotly debated nor controversial in Canada. A pathetic handful of men trying to control women's sexuality are trying to make it appear as if the overwhelming majority of Canadians (80+%) did not approve of the legality of abortion and consider this debate done and over with.

Abortion was an issue settle several decades ago.

I live in Canada, and it IS still hotly debated about. And unless you can prove that statistic, I will deem your entire post as complete BS.

The comments on the site are hilarious.
Morgentaler was a "victim" and survivor of Dachau. A great number of survivors of such abuse have been dehumanized. They then replicate the very type of behavior to which they were subjected. Morgentaler saw the innocent jews butchered and so likewise became a butcher of innocent little ones. I do not claim to understand the full details of the Psycho-dynamics of this syndrome, but it exists and manifests itself every day by many people. They abuse others and/or themselves. He is a BUTCHER!
Quote:
Morgentaler was a "victim" and survivor of Dachau.
Quote:
..."victim"...Dachau.
Well, that's a new low. He kills babies because he survived the Holocaust. I wonder if this might evolve into another form of Godwin -- "the Nazis made him do it."

Frigging idiots.

What you've to write is it's women's right to dispose of their bodies, as is fitting. I don't have a part in the matter; I won't stop you from 'disposing of your body'.

Iniika,

Babies are not given, like a disease, from man to woman. They are made by men and women fucking. A woman is not forced by pregnancy to want her baby dead. Because she is equally culpable, a mother who says gaining a baby damaged her and the culprit should be punished and is heeded would be punished w/her husband -unless the law didn't treat men and women as equals.

Cabra West,
Thanks for telling me about that. :)
As you have been told, consensual fucking is not a crime, so there is no culpability, and no culprits, and no punishment. Women abort pregnancies for many reasons but not to avoid punishment because there is no punishement involved in doing something that isn't wrong.

Also, men and women are being treated as equals by the law because both are allowed to determine how their bodies will be used and to make their own medical decisions.

What you've to write is it's women's right to dispose of their bodies, as is fitting. I don't have a part in the matter; I won't stop you from 'disposing of your body'.

Iniika,

Babies are not given, like a disease, from man to woman. They are made by men and women fucking. A woman is not forced by pregnancy to want her baby dead. Because she is equally culpable, a mother who says gaining a baby damaged her and the culprit should be punished and is heeded would be punished w/her husband -unless the law didn't treat men and women as equals.

Cabra West,
Thanks for telling me about that. :)

Aww! You missed the sarcasm. :( You see, I was responding to a stupid post with an equally stupid answer and... well... nvm. Better luck next time ;)

Also, the issue isn't mothers killing babies. Though it undoubtedly does happen.

I live in Canada, and it IS still hotly debated about. And unless you can prove that statistic, I will deem your entire post as complete BS.

As of 2007:

79% of Canadians support abortion being financed by tax dollars, either all the time or in cases or medical emergency. I would dare say 80% support is neither controversial nor hotly debated.

Source : Environics Research Group poll.

Taken from an anti-choice website. http://www.lifecanada.org/html/resources/polling/Environics%20Poll%202007.html

Go learn to use google and read statistics reports.

Well, that's a new low. He kills babies because he survived the Holocaust. I wonder if this might evolve into another form of Godwin -- "the Nazis made him do it."

Frigging idiots.

Oh, he's not a victim, he's a "victim". Or something.

The ruling was Murder is OK. Whether killing jews and gypsies was OK was settled 2 decades before that in Germany! Want to stick to that ruling, idiot? Why don't they kill it when it's 3? Should your mother have the right to kill you now? It's utterly ridiculous to say abortion is protected by right to privacy without saying a Siamese twin killing the other one is. There's no difference. One person killing another because they don't want to spend their life with them! Should a husband be able to kill his wife then? Do you consider Blue Beard a hero for standing up for a man's right to privacy? The reason women (if they can still be called human with no morals) went to back alley places was too lenient punishments! Give it the same as killing a grown man and just see what happens!
You go back and talk to me after you read the damn thread, more particularly the parts where I point out the difference between killing someone and refusing to let another being take advantage of your blood, organs, and fluids against your will.

Take your pathetic Holocaust emotional appeals elsewhere. This has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Meat does not belong in poutine. Only fries, sauce, and deliciously squeaky cheese are allowed into poutine.

We rendered down the fat to make the sauce. You know how babies are all chubby? Sweetest gravy this side of Trois-Rivieres.

The ruling was Murder is OK. ... Give it the same as killing a grown man and just see what happens!

Ha ha! You're funny. But let's address your strawman as if it were a real argument...

The issue is not the right to privacy. It is the right to self-determination. A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body, including removing parasitic growths inside her. You may disagree with my definition of a fetus as a parasitic growth. That doesn't matter either. If it was proven that the fetus was in fact a sentient, super intelligent, philosopher-warrior who would solve all the world's problems, the woman would still have the right to tax-funded medical procedures in order to remove the illustrious fetus.

It is this right to self-determination that Dr. Morgentaler fought for. Not the right to kill babies, which is what you apparently want to argue.

I live in Canada, and it IS still hotly debated about. And unless you can prove that statistic, I will deem your entire post as complete BS.

I also live in Canada. This hasn't been a debate for twenty-five years.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abopollca.htm

That site shows two different polls that reflect the Canadian view on abortion. One discusses access to abortion (78% of Canadians support it), while the other asks at what age the fetus should have legal protection. Only 31% of respondents replied that the fetus should be protected at conception.

When one considers how quickly feminist and prochoice groups responded to the introduction of Bill C484, and the reaction by the parties in the legislature, we can infer one thing easily: The debate is over in Canada. We prochoicers have won. And we're going to defend our gains.

Hammurab,
You're funny. :p

Scabiesdora,
Men have the right to fuck. Women have the right to fuck. Yet you proposed men be punished for impregnating women.

Cholestera,
Irrationality pisses you off, huh?

Muravyets,
Your observations fail to distinguish important details. In my reply to Scabiesdora I was applying a premise of his to a conclusion he'd dislike to persuade him of its' faultiness.
Abortion is not medical. A pill that kills a baby is poison; not medicine. Referring to an abortion as a medical treatment uses terminology that wrongly defines pregnancy as an illness. A woman decides how to use her body when she fucks a guy (accepting the risk of pregnancy). When a woman pays for a hit :sniper: on her baby she's disregarding the baby's right to his own body.

Gift-of-God,
Statements are not arguments. To make a good argument you have to add true premises into a true conclusion.

When I drive a car I accept the risk of getting in an accident. I guess I should just be left to bleed in the ditch.

<snip>

Muravyets,
Your observations fail to distinguish important details. In my reply to Scabiesdora I was applying a premise of his to a conclusion he'd dislike to persuade him of its' faultiness.
I'm sorry, did you say something? I couldn't quite make it out through the combined noise of your horrible grammar and your childish mockery of another poster. If you can't mock a person intelligently, you really shouldn't try. It only makes you look even worse.

Now, from what little I can decipher in the above-quoted prattle, you seem to be claiming that you attempted to show up someone else's argument as faulty. However, having read the whole thread, I can assure you that you have not done that with anyone's argument so far. So if that was what you attempted, you failed.

Abortion is not medical.
Yes it is. It is a medical procedure. Go look it up.

A pill that kills a baby is poison; not medicine.
A) Abortion is a surgical procedure.

B) All medicines are poison. All medicines are designed to kill something. The control of the dosage is what determines what they kill -- the microbe or the patient. I refer you to the legendary Paracelsus who put it best when he said: "Everything is a poison, and there is nothing in this world that is without poison. Only the dose determines if a thing is not a poison." If you don't believe me, go look up some information on safe or unsafe dosages of any OTC or prescription medication. So your complaint about pills that kill things not being medicine is bunk.

Referring to an abortion as a medical treatment uses terminology that wrongly defines pregnancy as an illness.
A) Take it up with doctors then, because they are the ones who think abortion is a medical procedure.

B) And take your second complaint up with the health insurance industry, because they are the only ones who treat pregnancy as an illness or disability.

A woman decides how to use her body when she fucks a guy (accepting the risk of pregnancy).
She also decides how to use her body when she decides whether to carry a pregnancy to term or abort it.

When a woman pays for a hit :sniper: on her baby she's disregarding the baby's right to his own body.
There is no hit. There is an abortion of an unwanted pregnancy.

There is no hitman. There are a woman and a doctor.

There is no baby. There is an embryo that cannot possibly continue to exist unless it is leeching life off of the woman's body.

There is no right for anyone -- born or unborn, person or not-person, real or imaginary -- to use her body to support their body against her will. Period.

And please do not continue to waste my time with your propagandistic bullshit. Your melodramatic appeals to emotion do not move me.

Gift-of-God,
Statements are not arguments. To make a good argument you have to add true premises into a true conclusion.
You should try doing that yourself sometime.

This pleases me.

This pleases me.

Your name, for whatever reason, amuses me greatly. I'll have a catastrophe burger with a side of doom fries and a horrible misunderstanding smoothie, please.

Your name, for whatever reason, amuses me greatly. I'll have a catastrophe burger with a side of doom fries and a horrible misunderstanding smoothie, please.

Maybe you are subconciously a Belle and Sebastian fan. Did you really enjoy the soundtrack to Juno?

There is no right for anyone -- born or unborn, person or not-person, real or imaginary -- to use her body to support their body against her will. Period.

Why do the anti-choicers keep trying to pretend fetuses should be magically entitled to siphon blood and use organs from women despite the fact that no full-grown human being with full legal rights coverage can do as much? What makes the fetus any different from that poor 5 year-old child with leukemia who needs a bone marrow transplant? Or from that poor car wreck victim? Or that poor old lady who needs a kidney? Why should women have their physical integrity utterly trampled on by the legal system, but only for the fetuses?

Why are the anti-choicers trying so damn hard to control women's sexuality by threatening of punishing them with unwanted children they have to carry to term? Why are they arguing women need to take responsibility for fucking, while it's perfectly okay for men to just walk away?

Those are the questions I'd really, really like to have an answer to by our anti-choice friends in this thread.

Why do the anti-choicers keep trying to pretend fetuses should be magically entitled to siphon blood and use organs from women despite the fact that no full-grown human being with full legal rights coverage can do as much? What makes the fetus any different from that poor 5 year-old child with leukemia who needs a bone marrow transplant? Or from that poor car wreck victim? Or that poor old lady who needs a kidney? Why should women have their physical integrity utterly trampled on by the legal system, but only for the fetuses?

Why are the anti-choicers trying so damn hard to control women's sexuality by threatening of punishing them with unwanted children they have to carry to term? Why are they arguing women need to take responsibility for fucking, while it's perfectly okay for men to just walk away?

Those are the questions I'd really, really like to have an answer to by our anti-choice friends in this thread.

Its quite simple.

Its not that anyone is acknowledging the rights of a child to access another's body, we're simply saying women don't have the right to their own body.

Even if a woman isn't pregnant, her body is basically the property of her husband, or if she's unmarried, her father.

In the old days, abortion was prohibited because the child might be male, and thus have rights. When advances in imaging technology allowed for the determination of the child's gender earlier, there was some discussion that perhaps abortion should be allowed for female fetuses.

But then we realized, that female fetus might eventually give birth to a male, and the rights of a potential male have to be protected over the rights of a living female.

This is just how life works, a priori.

Its quite simple.

Its not that anyone is acknowledging the rights of a child to access another's body, we're simply saying women don't have the right to their own body.

Even if a woman isn't pregnant, her body is basically the property of her husband, or if she's unmarried, her father.

In the old days, abortion was prohibited because the child might be male, and thus have rights. When advances in imaging technology allowed for the determination of the child's gender earlier, there was some discussion that perhaps abortion should be allowed for female fetuses.

But then we realized, that female fetus might eventually give birth to a male, and the rights of a potential male have to be protected over the rights of a living female.

This is just how life works, a priori.
Oh, I'm glad you cleared that up. I was pretty sure that's what the anti-choicers were getting at, but you know how it's easy to misunderstand or interpret incorrectly over the internet.

It makes it much clearer to me now why the overwhelming majority of people opposed to letting women choose whether to get an abortion or not are males, as well.

It makes it much clearer to me now why the overwhelming majority of people opposed to letting women choose whether to get an abortion or not are males, as well.

I'd say that probably isn't true, actually.

Its quite simple.

Its not that anyone is acknowledging the rights of a child to access another's body, we're simply saying women don't have the right to their own body.

Even if a woman isn't pregnant, her body is basically the property of her husband, or if she's unmarried, her father.

In the old days, abortion was prohibited because the child might be male, and thus have rights. When advances in imaging technology allowed for the determination of the child's gender earlier, there was some discussion that perhaps abortion should be allowed for female fetuses.

But then we realized, that female fetus might eventually give birth to a male, and the rights of a potential male have to be protected over the rights of a living female.

This is just how life works, a priori.

Women, let alone people, are NOT commodities, and are the property of NO ONE. It's people like you who reinforce my belief in the Marxist theory that the personal family model is based on the preservation of private property and capitalism.

I'd say that probably isn't true, actually.

Out of all the people opposed to abortion on this thread, how many were women?

Come to think of it, I've never seen actual statistics on this matter, but I sure as hell would be interested in getting my hands on some.

At any rate, maybe it would be more accurate to say that those who are the most vocal about their opposition and the most dead-bent on getting it outlawed are men. That I am certain of.

Some to think of it, I've never seen actual statistics on this matter, but I sure as hell would be interested in getting my hands on some.

So would I, but all you need to do is walk past a pro-life protest to see how many women oppose abortion as well.

Oh, I'm glad you cleared that up. I was pretty sure that's what the anti-choicers were getting at, but you know how it's easy to misunderstand or interpret incorrectly over the internet.

Oh, Christ with a dead hooker in his trunk, you got that right. Check moderation if you want to see some of that.


It makes it much clearer to me now why the overwhelming majority of people opposed to letting women choose whether to get an abortion or not are males, as well.

Well of course. Lawmakers are overwhelmingly male, and we are the naturally mandated spiritual leaders of the household and political leaders of the nation.

You split tails need to quit thinking so much about how "Oh, its my body, oh, its my life, oh, as the one actually in the situation, my deliberations should not be usurped by other people's beliefs, especially when they don't do shit to help those same children once their born" and start getting some victory in christ.

Women, let alone people, are NOT commodities, and are the property of NO ONE. It's people like you who reinforce my belief in the Marxist theory that the personal family model is based on the preservation of private property and capitalism.

Well of course it is, its supposed to be.

That's why we call it the "nuclear family", because we're going to use it to destroy communism, just like the ICBM.

So would I, but all you need to do is walk past a pro-life protest to see how many women oppose abortion as well.
Go ahead and try to find find one in Canada.

Hint: you won't.

You split tails need to quit thinking so much about how "Oh, its my body, oh, its my life, oh, as the one actually in the situation, my deliberations should not be usurped by other people's beliefs, especially when they don't do shit to help those same children once their born" and start getting some victory in christ.
You seem to work under the assumption that I'm somehow female.

Hint: I'm not.

Go ahead and try to find find one in Canada.

Hint: you won't.

Just a few years ago there was a pro-life march in my little hick-town (of 72000 people). At least half the protestors were women.

Go ahead and try to find find one in Canada.

Hint: you won't.

That's because Canada is overrun with Jews. Think about it.

William Shatner, Jew. Rudolph Marcus, Jew. Sidney Altman, Jew. Kyle's brother, Jew. Canadian Rabbis, Jews.

What do you get with jews? Immorality, like abortion, women drivers, and males using hair product.

I really wish you Canadians would get it through your skulls, Canada is part of America in all practical ways. That's why its called North America.

Like Saint Curie once said, you Canadians are the greatest threat to human life to ever exist, what with your reasonable public discourse, broadly available healthcare, expansive natural preserves and peaceable foreign policy. We should have kicked you out of the Union years ago.

Like Saint Curie once said, you Canadians are the greatest threat to human life to ever exist, what with your reasonable public discourse, broadly available healthcare, expansive natural preserves and peaceable foreign policy. We should have kicked you out of the Union years ago.

You just try it. We've been voted "sexiest state" 18 years in a row.

You just try it. We've been voted "sexiest state" 18 years in a row.

Pffft, whoopie. Sean Connery was voted sexiest man alive when his man boobs had enough grey hair on them that they looked like two dead ferrets on his chest, with nipples instead of noses.

I find it worrisome that somebody earlier suggested that awards shouldn't go to controversial people (no disrespect to Skaladora's response that its not that controversial in Canada, he/she might be right).

I think civil rights awards should mostly go to controversial people.

I think civil rights awards should mostly go to controversial people.

Are you suggesting that social innovation doesn't come from quietly going along with the majority, and doesn't come from the figures who no-one knows well enough to dislike? You… you non-Canadian!

What do you get with jews? Immorality, like abortion, women drivers, and males using hair product.

And let's not forget about gay jewish transexual drivers who use hair products.

Oh, where has the world gone? :rolleyes:

I love your satire, by the way. Keep up the good work.

Pffft, whoopie. Sean Connery was voted sexiest man alive when his man boobs had enough grey hair on them that they looked like two dead ferrets on his chest, with nipples instead of noses.
Now this is a very disturbing mental image I could have done without.

And let's not forget about gay jewish transexual drivers who use hair products.

Oh, where has the world gone? :rolleyes:

I love your satire, by the way. Keep up the good work.

Now this is a very disturbing mental image I could have done without.

See, this is where I'm kind of conflicted. Should I hate a gay transexual? I mean, a Jewish one, of course, that's a no-brainer.

But suppose there was a white christian gay transexual...hear me out.

If you're gay, but ALSO a transexual, you're still fucking the people you're supposed to be fucking.

Like, a gay dude who becomes a woman but still fucks dudes...he's now a woman who fucks dudes. That's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

So, I'm going to tell my girlfriend (she's a member of the Phelps family) that I can't go to that funeral protest.

Pffft, whoopie. Sean Connery was voted sexiest man alive when his man boobs had enough grey hair on them that they looked like two dead ferrets on his chest, with nipples instead of noses.

I find it worrisome that somebody earlier suggested that awards shouldn't go to controversial people (no disrespect to Skaladora's response that its not that controversial in Canada, he/she might be right).

I think civil rights awards should mostly go to controversial people.
Those weren't noses?

As of 2007:

79% of Canadians support abortion being financed by tax dollars, either all the time or in cases or medical emergency. I would dare say 80% support is neither controversial nor hotly debated.

Source : Environics Research Group poll.

Taken from an anti-choice website. http://www.lifecanada.org/html/resources/polling/Environics%20Poll%202007.html

Go learn to use google and read statistics reports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada#Opinion_polls

Never use statistics if you don't have to. Especially if you're going to be selective of where you get them from. I posted this to show that.

Statistics are lies and damned lies. And don't start calling me 'anti-choice' or whatever. Read my posts first, moron.

When I drive a car I accept the risk of getting in an accident. I guess I should just be left to bleed in the ditch.

There's a difference. Cars weren't designed to crash like sex was to make babies.

The conservative MPs who whine about this can shut the hell up. They're the ones who are trying to be divisive about an issue that is almost universally accepted as good and done away with by the overwhelming majority of Canadians, including a majority of the people who actually vote conservatives into office.

There is no room in this country for people who want to enslave women by forcing them to have their bodies used as incubators against their will.

And Dr. Morgentaler definitely deserves a medal for all the shit stupid people like these put him through in his quest to help women gain the freedom to do what they want with their own body.
Actually.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada#Opinion_polls)

In related news.. Half of all Canadians have no place in Canada!

There's a difference. Cars weren't designed to crash like sex was to make babies.

Sex wasn't designed for anything.
Sexual reproduction evolved along with sexual pleasure, but the two are only remotely connected.
Much like cars can crash sometimes, but not always do.

British Columbia and Quebec have the highest percentage who are pro-choice, and the Prairies have the highest percentage who are pro-life.

* In a June 2008 Angus Reid Strategies poll, almost half of respondents (46%) believe abortion should be permitted in all cases. Roughly two-in-five Canadians (19%) would subject abortion to greater restrictions than now, 22 per cent would allow the procedure only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life, and seven per cent would only permit abortion to save the woman's life.

In addition, half of Canadians (49%) believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances. Conversely, 42 per cent of respondents want the procedure to be legal only under certain circumstances, while five per cent would outlaw abortion altogether. Younger, wealthier and university-educated respondents are more likely to uphold the legality of abortion.

Thank you for supporting my point.


Never use statistics if you don't have to. Especially if you're going to be selective of where you get them from. I posted this to show that.

You're the one who asked for stats.

I took my sources on a website with a definite anti-choice bias to make sure nobody could disprove my sources as "pro-choice biased".


Statistics are lies and damned lies.

Hahaha, that's a good one. Go take a university statistics class and then we'll talk.

(In case you're wondering, yes, I have had advanced statistics)


And don't start calling me 'anti-choice' or whatever. Read my posts first, moron.
Where did I call you an anti-choice or anti-choicer? Please quote it.

Statistics are lies and damned lies. And don't start calling me 'anti-choice' or whatever. Read my posts first, moron.

Reading comprehension goes a long way here. He didn't call you anti-choice, he identified the site from which he got the statistics as being anti-choice. How you construe that is up to you.

Also, calling someone a moron detracts from your overall ability to mount a credible argument.

Furthermore, it is only "hotly" debated in Canada because a few anti-choicers are having a blood conniption fit over the fact that they can't get their way; ie: they can't control women's sexual reproductive health and their ability to make choices that best suit their current situation.

There's a difference. Cars weren't designed to crash like sex was to make babies.

First, sex wasn't designed. It evolved.

Two, the main use of sex in the human specie and many more of the evolved mammals is not to create babies.

Three, since you can perfectly have sex without having a baby, consenting to sex does by no stretch of fancy imply that you consent to have a baby.

Consenting to sex implies consenting to sex. Consenting to have a baby means consenting to have a baby. Each is a very distinct occurrence.

CthulhuFhtagn,
A woman does not die if left pregnant.

Muravyets,
Abortions can be instigated by pills.
Using surgical tools does not make an act surgery. Whether something relates to surgery or not is defined by the act, not the tools used. A scalpel could be used to cut a steak; this method would not make the meal surgical. Likewise, forceps can be used to kill a baby; they do not make murder surgical. When a bullet needs picked out someone can improvise w/a pocket knife (a tool not manufactured specifically for surgery) yet this act's surgical.
Strawman-burner, I never stated that the toxicity of a pill isn't relative to what ingests it, the dosage, etc. I wrote "A pill that kills a baby is poison; not medicine." The pill is poisonous b/c it kills the baby. I'm defining it as poison in relation to the baby. B/c the baby's human and so're we the pill can be referred to as poison in general: ourselves (humans) being a sensible default reference.
I take up abortions-as-medicine w/you b/c you've wrote "[abortion] is a medical procedure". You're accountable for your words; do not defer to someone who agrees w/your statements as accountable for your beliefs.
I've appealed to your reason, trying to find it, not your emotion. What're you feeling that you're uncomfortable?
Bullshitter, do you think women should be absolved of taxes? I anticipate you accept taxation of women as just and if not you're sexist. To tax is to "use her body to support his body against her will." I corrected your grammar for you, since 'anyone' refers to one person and 'their' refers to people.

Scabiesdora,
Let a man be held responsible for what he makes. Such a state doesn't bother me. Regarding your designation 'anti-choicers', a law does not choose for people. A congressman writing what he wants, President approving, and cop throwing you in jail doesn't eliminate your ability to decide between options.
A cousin of mine worked at a pregnancy care center. She and her coworkers were women (I don't remember mention of a guy though there might've been some there). Most women are tearful when they come to get an abortion and often they're pressured into it by an unwilling father or their parents. The guys I know who're for abortion wear this position like a badge saying "I honor women". But women aren't raised up by abortion, they're hurt. Most women regret their abortions and are saddened by them. My knowledge comes not from a sample-survey but the reports of folks who've worked at pregnancy care centers and abortion sites.

Andares,
Which came first the family or the state?

Madmen,
In writing sex and reproduction are separate :fluffle: you say reproduction isn't sexual.

CthulhuFhtagn,
A woman does not die if left pregnant.


Except, you know, for all the times when she does. And it's pretty significant, even with highly advanced medical care.

There's a difference. Cars weren't designed to crash like sex was to make babies.

Cars are designed to crash. That's why people actually manage to survive crashes nowadays. And sex wasn't designed. It evolved. And, through observation of humans and their closest living relatives, it can be easily surmised that the primary purpose of sex in humans is to facilitate interpersonal relationships and relieve stress. Reproduction is a distant third.

To tax is to "use her body to support his body against her will."

So you support the idea of a kidney tax?

No, your present claim is ridiculous. Taxation involves taking effort out of a person, not his/her organs or fluids. No accurate comparison can be drawn.

If you argue that abortion should be illegal on the premise that a fetus is entitled to use a woman's body to grow and survive, even if she wills it otherwise, then you have to go ahead and flat out say you consider justified a law stating that I can have the state strap you on the surgery table and draw your blood or kidney if I need them to survive.

CthulhuFhtagn,
A woman does not die if left pregnant.
Cthulhu answers for me:
Except, you know, for all the times when she does. And it's pretty significant, even with highly advanced medical care.
Pregnancy is a high-risk condition that carries a significant risk of death and an even higher risk of permanent injury and/or disability.

Muravyets,
Abortions can be instigated by pills.
Using surgical tools does not make an act surgery. Whether something relates to surgery or not is defined by the act, not the tools used. A scalpel could be used to cut a steak; this method would not make the meal surgical. Likewise, forceps can be used to kill a baby; they do not make murder surgical. When a bullet needs picked out someone can improvise w/a pocket knife (a tool not manufactured specifically for surgery) yet this act's surgical.
How fascinating. To make it even remotely relevant to anything, kindly show me where I made any claims about surgical equipment.

You make my point for me -- the intent of the action is what makes it surgery, not the equipment. And the intent of surgical abortion makes it a surgical procedure.

Strawman-burner, I never stated that the toxicity of a pill isn't relative to what ingests it, the dosage, etc. I wrote "A pill that kills a baby is poison; not medicine." The pill is poisonous b/c it kills the baby.
So, in your opinion, is chemotherapy poison because it kills stuff? Chemo is basically carefully measured doses of poisons that are planned to kill the cancer cells before they kill the patient. But they are still bad for the patient. That's why patients on chemo get so sick. How about the medicines used to get rid of parasitic infections, like tapeworms? Those are poisons, but they are in doses strong enough to kill the parasites but, hopefully, not strong enough to kill the human. So, are they medicine or are they poison? I guess it depends on whether you're the human or the tapeworm, eh?

So, tell me then, is the morning-after pill medicine or poison? I guess it depends on whether you're the woman or the fertilized egg that is prevented from implanting on the uterine wall.
I'm defining it as poison in relation to the baby.
You really should define what "pills" you're talking about because the "morning-after" pill does nothing to babies. It prevents a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall. There is no baby. Just a fertilized egg. Period. Are there other pills that you know of that the rest of us don't?

B/c the baby's human and so're we the pill can be referred to as poison in general: ourselves (humans) being a sensible default reference.
Cancerous tumors are human, too. They are undifferentiated human cells, just like the first cells of a conceptus. Is chemo a poison, then, because it kills something just as human as what is eliminated by the morning-after pill?

I take up abortions-as-medicine w/you b/c you've wrote "[abortion] is a medical procedure". You're accountable for your words; do not defer to someone who agrees w/your statements as accountable for your beliefs.
What are you talking about? When did I defer to anyone? I stand by my statement. Abortion is a medical procedure. If it is chemically induced, it is a medical procedure. If it is performed by surgery, it is a medical procedure. Both medicine and surgery fall under the heading of medical procedures.

I've appealed to your reason, trying to find it, not your emotion. What're you feeling that you're uncomfortable?
If you want to appeal to my reason, you should try making an argument that is based on fact.

Bullshitter,
Nice appeal to my reason there. I don't call people bullshitters unless I am dismissing their reasoning ability, not appealing to it.

do you think women should be absolved of taxes? I anticipate you accept taxation of women as just and if not you're sexist. To tax is to "use her body to support his body against her will.
That is not what "to tax" means. Another way to appeal to a person's reason is to use terms correctly.

I corrected your grammar for you, since 'anyone' refers to one person and 'their' refers to people.
You are obviously unaware that a currently fashionable way to avoid gender specificity in generic statements is to use "they/them/their" in place of "he or she/him or her/his or hers." Mostly this is because the plural pronoun is shorter to type. Most of the people who use it are aware that it is not grammatical, but it hardly destroys the sense of the writers' statements.

Oh, wait... perhaps you were just trying to find a cheap way to cop a superior attitude? Sorry. I guess it didn't work, because it wasn't immediately apparent.

Scabiesdora,
And really, I do wish you'd grow up. This is a stupid joke.

And maybe learn how to use the multiple quote function while you're at it.

As for the conservatives being pissed; you know the MP (Ebb?) that introduced the bill to protect "unborn children of women in vicious attacks"; Bill C-484? You know that bill doesn't actually curb domestic violence; if it did, it wouldn't be about the "unborn child"; it would be about the woman (or man if that is the case) in any situation. (Go here (http://whining.weaselhut.net/2008/06/26/thank-you-mr-layton/) and scroll down to the part that is indented; it contains valuable information about the bill and how the bill actually is a disservice to women).
I'm not sure how much of an effect these sorts of things have, but I found an online petition against the bill: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/oppose-bill-c-484.html

So would I, but all you need to do is walk past a pro-life protest to see how many women oppose abortion as well.
Because when men protest abortion they're quickly asked where their uterus is, so they trot out the poor women they've deluded into thinking that they're nothing but a walking incubator.

I'm not sure how much of an effect these sorts of things have, but I found an online petition against the bill: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/oppose-bill-c-484.html

Actually, writing an e-mail to each of the party leaders, as well as the Minister of Health and the Minster of Justice, is somewhat more effective:

Layton: Layton.J@parl.gc.ca
Harper: pm@pm.gc.ca
Duceppe: Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca
Dion: Dion.S@parl.gc.ca
Justice Minister: webadmin@justice.gc.ca

You can contact the Health Minister here:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/home-accueil/contact/minist-eng.php

My letter basically stated that I would vote for whatever party voted against the bill. I got an awesome reply from the NDP.

Actually, writing an e-mail to each of the party leaders, as well as the Minister of Health and the Minster of Justice, is somewhat more effective:

Layton: Layton.J@parl.gc.ca
Harper: pm@pm.gc.ca
Duceppe: Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca
Dion: Dion.S@parl.gc.ca
Justice Minister: webadmin@justice.gc.ca

You can contact the Health Minister here:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/home-accueil/contact/minist-eng.php

My letter basically stated that I would vote for whatever party voted against the bill. I got an awesome reply from the NDP.
Writing to your own MP would probably be even more effective. Especially if you can get others in your riding to do the same.

Writing to your own MP would probably be even more effective. Especially if you can get others in your riding to do the same.

Here's a website where you can enter your postal code and it will provide you with a link to your MP's e-mail address.

Writing to your own MP would probably be even more effective. Especially if you can get others in your riding to do the same.

The exception is Layton, and I know because I sent an email to the NDP via their webpage and I got a reply back from him (I checked the email address and it's the same as the one shown here).

Here's a website where you can enter your postal code and it will provide you with a link to your MP's e-mail address.
Link plz.

The exception is Layton, and I know because I sent an email to the NDP via their webpage and I got a reply back from him (I checked the email address and it's the same as the one shown here).

That's because Jack Layton is made of pure win and awesome.

The exception is Layton, and I know because I sent an email to the NDP via their webpage and I got a reply back from him (I checked the email address and it's the same as the one shown here).
Yes, but the most Layton can do is get all the NDP MP's to vote the same way as he does (i.e. all 16 [or something close to this number] of them) if he can even do that. Writing your own MP, regardless of their political party lets them know that people in their riding care about the issue and want them to vote in a certain way and although this may only have a small effect on their decision, it might still have an effect.

For instance, my riding was won by a Liberal, telling the NDP what I like (even if I voted for them) doesn't do anything to change how I'm represented. Telling my MP what I like could potentially do so, especially if I can get my friends to write in as well.

Link plz.

Oops...

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC

Yes, but the most Layton can do is get all the NDP MP's to vote the same way as he does (i.e. all 16 [or something close to this number] of them) if he can even do that. Writing your own MP, regardless of their political party lets them know that people in their riding care about the issue and want them to vote in a certain way and although this may only have a small effect on their decision, it might still have an effect.

For instance, my riding was won by a Liberal, telling the NDP what I like (even if I voted for them) doesn't do anything to change how I'm represented. Telling my MP what I like could potentially do so, especially if I can get my friends to write in as well.

There's 30 NDP MPs at the moment. And yes, they are being told to vote against C-484, although Peter Stoffer defied that instruction at second reading.

That said, writing your local MP is more effective, and particularly if they are Liberals. The Bloc and the NDP are united in their opposition, and the Conservatives are a lost cause. Although Dion has (finally) committed to stopping this bill, it's not at all clear that his "commitment" actually extends to whipping his caucus into voting it down, or merely whether he and his front bench will get tummy aches before the vote again.

It's also worth noting that Parliament is out of session until September and MPs will be in and around their ridings for the summer. You're better off contacting constituency offices than Parliament itself. You may even be able to get some face time to discuss your views, which is much more effective than an e-mail.

Cool Lou,
A cesarean section is the procedure for saving a woman's life if delivering the baby regularly would kill her. Abortions damage women until they're sterile.

Scabiesdora,
What is your effort made w/?

Muravyets:gundge:
http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/medical-ab.htm
Don't presume other forum-members don't know the same things you don't know.
Muravyets, a baby is not a tumor or some similar affliction to be removed. If the start of human life (sperm hits egg) isn't worth enough to avenge the murder of but an adult humans is than you must have a scale of human worth. You personally could say two 7yr. olds are worth one adult, 2 adult non-Dr.s one Dr., etc. but what measure do you have that's worthy?

Cool Lou,
A cesarean section is the procedure for saving a woman's life if delivering the baby regularly would kill her. Abortions damage women until they're sterile.


Bullshit. Source. Now.

Cool Lou,
A cesarean section is the procedure for saving a woman's life if delivering the baby regularly would kill her. Abortions damage women until they're sterile.
Absolute bullshit.

Muravyets:gundge:
http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/medical-ab.htm
Don't presume other forum-members don't know the same things you don't know.
Oh, I'll bet you don't know lots more things than I don't know. Like I'll bet you don't actually know what that site says. (Hint: I read it and it doesn't say anything that disagrees with what I said.)

Muravyets, a baby is not a tumor or some similar affliction to be removed.
Reading is fundamental. Go read my posts and show us where I said a baby is a tumor.

What I did say is that a tumor is human, which is true. It is living human tissue. I mentioned it to show that merely being human does not give a thing rights, so your casual reference to babies as being human gets you nowhere.

If the start of human life (sperm hits egg) isn't worth enough to avenge the murder of but an adult humans is than you must have a scale of human worth. You personally could say two 7yr. olds are worth one adult, 2 adult non-Dr.s one Dr., etc. but what measure do you have that's worthy?
What are you talking about? "Avenge"? "Murder"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? And just what "vengeance" do you propose to take for abortion, eh? I've asked you to stop wasting my time with your hystrionics. Please start that stopping now. Your nonsense is just a conversation killer.

I don't play vengeance games. Vengeance is of interest only to savages, in my opinion. Now if you want to ask what I consider a human being possessed of rights worth protecting, that I will answer.

My measure of human worth is very simple and very clear, a nice bright line about a mile wide that only a fool could miss. It's this:

The human has to be a living being.

"Living being" means it has to have a brain that functions enough to keep its organs functioning independently. If it doesn't have that, then it is brain dead. Brain dead = dead. Dead = not a living being. If the brain stops working, then there is no living being. If the brain has not started working, then there is no living being. Things that are not living beings don't have rights.

Since elective abortion is done before brain function begins, there are no living beings affected by it, so your entire argument is based on a fallacy. No living being is in there, so there are no "murders" for you to "avenge." (Ye gods, who do you think you are, some bass-ackwards version of The Punisher?)

And here's another bone for you to choke on:

Once the brain powers up and a living being manifests, that living being is endowed with rights that are NOT superior to any other living being's rights. That means that the mere fact of his/her existence does not give your precious little unborn rotter any more right to control my body than you would have.

Since elective abortion is done before brain function begins, there are no living beings affected by it, so your entire argument is based on a fallacy. No living being is in there, so there are no "murders" for you to "avenge." (Ye gods, who do you think you are, some bass-ackwards version of The Punisher?)

Didn't you know Mur? On the internet, everbody's a cowboy.

good for canada, i wish the government in the UK was as pro-abortion as yours.

Cool Lou,
Scabiesdora,
What is your effort made w/?

Not blood and organs, that's for sure.

I'll go so far as to say you're pretty insane if you want to equate material possessions and body parts. Ever wonder why there are laws against buying organs with money? Because body parts do not have a price, that's why.

Taxation is appropriation of a part of one's possessions, not a part of one's body. Otherwise you'd have compulsory blood "tax" or "kidney tax".

Also note that I take offense at your childish, contemptuous play-on-word on my name. Disrespect me so again and I will report you to moderation and put you on my ignore list. Doing so speaks a lot more about yourself than it does tell about me.

Oh, I'll bet you don't know lots more things than I don't know....

To be honest, i don't read the abortion debates anymore on the basis that I'll be swayed from my 'extreme' stance. Now I just read them for awesome zingers like this one. Murayvets is always a sure thing for a classy rejoinder, and Bottle also likes to wade in with a couple well placed verbal blows.

Thanks, ladies! You make me want to dance in your revolution!

Well, you know, the Americans who are assholes don't really believe in Canadian people. They think you're all just penguins in plaid jackets who drink Molsen's. The sane Americans obviously agree with their Canadian neighbors on the matter of abortion, so we'd have nothing confrontational to say. And anyway, we're so depressed now we can hardly talk, as we imagine what would happen in this open-air nuthouse we call a country if someone like Dr. Morgentaler were nominated for some Congressional honor in the US.

Well, in our defense, they are.

I tried to find a pack of Molsen's for two weeks once. Every time I asked the store owner they gave me this look that said, "Molsen's? Really? You're actively trying to find Molsen's?" It's discrimination, I tell ya.

Well, in our defense, they are.

I tried to find a pack of Molsen's for two weeks once. Every time I asked the store owner they gave me this look that said, "Molsen's? Really? You're actively trying to find Molsen's?" It's discrimination, I tell ya.

Real Canadians drink Moosehead, anyway.

Well, in our defense, they are.

I tried to find a pack of Molsen's for two weeks once. Every time I asked the store owner they gave me this look that said, "Molsen's? Really? You're actively trying to find Molsen's?" It's discrimination, I tell ya.

You would have better luck looking for Molson's. Touristes étatsunisiennes, tabarnac...

You would have better luck looking for Molson's. Touristes étatsunisiennes, tabarnac...

Tabarnac... Why, isn't that a popular brand of very tasty instant Kosher soups? One of my favorites! :p


PS: Sorry I misspelled Molson's, but I only drink real beer -- you know, German or Czech, the people who invented beer worth drinking. I know how to spell the ones I like. ;)

See...most sane Canuks, as has been pointed out, think of abortion as a mostly settled issue, so won't bitch too much...and the yanks don't care enough about Canada to bitch for us, making for a conflict-free thread, and thus, a sad Neesika.

fixed :)

As a canadian myself, I support this in every way possible. Nothign else to say really.

good for canada, i wish the government in the UK was as pro-abortion as yours.
Nah, we're pro-choice. China is pro-abortion.

You would have better luck looking for Molson's. Touristes étatsunisiennes, tabarnac...

Oh, crisse, someone else's typo swayed my usually steady hand. :p

Well, if you're going to give your country's highest honor to someone who advanced a specific position on a very controversial topic (especially in a country with as many practicing Christians as Canada), there will be heavy backlash. I wonder exactly how much of an influence the partisan politics of such an appointment played.

Just sayin'. :D

i think he is truly a great man and truly deserving of this; though acording to the beaver he is the third worst canadian of all time >.>

Cthulu,
You know what a cesarean section is, yes? Use your own judgement, you don't need someone else to say "yes it's true" or "no it's a lie" to know, if a baby can be cut out of a woman alive it does not need killed to be removed does it? If a baby is in a woman's fallopian tube it needs removed so it doesn't hurt her. Why would it have to be killed before/during/after removal? It's the presence of the baby growing bigger in a part he's liable to puncture that risks the mother's health not the baby's life.

Muravyets cocktail,
Living does not contain brain in its' definition. To write a tumor and zygote aren't differentiated b/c they're both human cells=equating them. I shouldn't have to explain the meaning of what you've written to you for you to understand it. You should know the meaning of what you author.
No one contends that cells being human means human rights are extended to them. That position is a strawman abortion-advocates burn instead of acknowledging pro-lifers actual argument that an egg, once fertilized, is more like a brain than skin cells b/c a human body continues if it goes on and ends if killed.
I anticipate you want to define a human body by tissue to exclude the first splitting cells from being defined as a human body. But surely you don't require each type of tissue be present in a human, even brain matter to a degree. If a man was brain damaged so he lost some brain matter I doubt you'd regard him as less human / deserving justice. Those first cells are just an earlier form of the human body, less developed than a baby, child, man, paraplegic, or wrinkly old person.

To write a tumor and zygote aren't differentiated b/c they're both human cells=equating them.

This is an idiotic statement. Showing that two things share a property does not automatically mean equating them. Saying that cotton and snow are both white, for instance, doesn't mean that cotton and snow are in any way equivalent to one another.

So Canada honors a murder good for them.

Cthulu,
You know what a cesarean section is, yes? Use your own judgement, you don't need someone else to say "yes it's true" or "no it's a lie" to know, if a baby can be cut out of a woman alive it does not need killed to be removed does it? If a baby is in a woman's fallopian tube it needs removed so it doesn't hurt her. Why would it have to be killed before/during/after removal? It's the presence of the baby growing bigger in a part he's liable to puncture that risks the mother's health not the baby's life.

Yes, I know what a cesarean section is. You, on the other hand, clearly do not.
A cesarean section is a form of surgery done when vaginal birth is not possible, whether due to the size of the infant or for some other reason. It is only done during labor.

So Canada honors a murder good for them.

I like how that reads without the commas.

Clearly the Canadian government is run by liberal commie Muslim atheist Jew black socialist feminist baby-eating anarchist mutant man-hating godless unAmerican ... Masonic satanic cannibalistic ... Illuminati-worshipping alien reptilian ... telekinetic Martian demonic homosexual ... crippled Catholic pedophiles.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/tuebor/communistnazi1tj.gif

Muravyets cocktail,
I'm not offended by this because the Molotov cocktail happens to be my favorite explosive device, but really, this habit of yours is just annoying.

Living does not contain brain in its' definition.
Try reading ALL the words in the sentence. "Living being" is what I described, not just "living." Then go look up "brain death." Here, I'll make it easy for you to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

And if we follow your standard that there doesn't have to be a working brain for a human to be worthy of rights that need protection, then a tumor could be granted rights, since it's alive and biologically human, even though it doesn't and never will have a brain. Good going there. You've just invalidated your own argument through carelessness.

To write a tumor and zygote aren't differentiated b/c they're both human cells=equating them.
Good thing I didn't write that, then, eh?

And another poster has already explained why your statement is ridiculous on its face.

I shouldn't have to explain the meaning of what you've written to you for you to understand it. You should know the meaning of what you author.
I do understand it perfectly well, and so do other readers. But it is amusing to watch you flail about with it.

No one contends that cells being human means human rights are extended to them.
You're not saying that the fact that the cells are human is what grants them the right to gestate in my body without my permission? Then what, in your opinion, does give them that right, since you are arguing that they have it?

That position is a strawman abortion-advocates burn instead of acknowledging pro-lifers actual argument that an egg, once fertilized, is more like a brain than skin cells b/c a human body continues if it goes on and ends if killed.
I am not failing to acknowledge the existence of your "actual argument." What I am doing is refusing to pretend it is anything other than nonsense.

Let's parse out what you claim your "actual argument" is:

1) "[A]n egg, once fertilized, is more like a brain than skill cells" -- What the hell are you talking about? Are you not aware that the fertilized egg, if it develops normally and to full term, will differentiate into BOTH brain and skill cells? How exactly, at the point of fertilization, is this undifferentiated cell more like a brain than skin? What kind of half-assed distinction are you trying to invent here? Also, who gives a shit what it may or may not be more like at the point of fertilization? What does that have to do with whether a woman wants to be pregnant or not?

2) "b/c a human body continues if it goes on and ends if killed." -- No shit, Sherlock. So do lots of other kinds of bodies, and other objects, and, frankly, the entire universe. It starts, and then it stops when something stops it. What exactly does that have to do with whatever distinction you were trying to draw between brain and skin? And also, what does it have to do with whether a woman wants to be pregnant or not?

I anticipate you want to define a human body by tissue to exclude the first splitting cells from being defined as a human body.
You can anticipate whatever you like, but you'll be wrong.

But surely you don't require each type of tissue be present in a human, even brain matter to a degree. If a man was brain damaged so he lost some brain matter I doubt you'd regard him as less human / deserving justice.
Ah, but I'm not talking about brain damage. I'm talking about brain death or lack of a brain at all. Not the same thing.

Those first cells are just an earlier form of the human body, less developed than a baby, child, man, paraplegic, or wrinkly old person.
Ah, the argument of potential, with the "fertilized cells are just disabled by their lack of functioning organs, brains and central nervous systems, that's all" line tacked on for frills.

A) I don't care what the clump of cells might be someday. At the moment of fertilization, it is not those things, so references to them are irrelevant. Also this argument fails every time because, as others often like to point out, if you take the potential argument to its logical conclusion, then if a fertilized egg should be treated as a living human being now because it might become one in the future, then we should remember that it will certainly die someday in the future too, and if tomorrow's results count today, then we may as well call it dead and flush it now, right?

B) The "baby, child, man, paraplegic, or wrinkly old person" do not have any right to use my body for their purposes against my will, so that doesn't really help little Mr. F. Eggman, does it? I am not their slave after they are born, and I will not be their slave before they are born, either.

Deus Malum,
The trait of human cells was identified to define a tumor and zygote as the same in regards to human rights. If you said "snow is white and cotton is white therefore they both must make a lot of money" you would be equating snow w/cotton in terms of money-making.

Muravyets,
Living being as opposed to living _____? My contradiction of your definition of human doesn't mean I assume the opposite argument (that all human cells have human rights). I gave my standard earlier. "an egg, once fertilized, is more like a brain than skin cells b/c a human body continues if it goes on and ends if killed." It's asinine that you remove the point of reference from a sentence (under 1) and then ask for it.
How much a woman wants to be pregnant has no relation to the justness of killing her offspring; don't confuse motivation w/justification.
Herein are some implications made explicit for your enlightenment. I wrote "an egg, once fertilized, is more like a brain than skin cells b/c a human body continues if it goes on and ends if killed." How is a fertilized egg more like a brain than skin? In regard to a human body's continuity. This statement asserts a human brain is necessary to the continuance of a human body but skin cells are not. Zygotes are then being equated w/brains in the function of a human body's continuance. If someone's brain is removed does the body go on? Cell groups might continue or be machine fed but the animus has left. A zygote turns into a fetus, baby, and keeps developing. A zygote is the human body in an earlier form so where a body w/skin can afford to lose some skin cells and a man can even survive lost brain cells, dashing the zygote destroys the whole human. The words zygote and body are interchangeable in this regard.
Why do you equate pregnancy w/enslavement?


Scabiesdora,
Prices are relative and can be assigned to anything (including organs). Guy 1 says , "I'll pay you 15 ruples for a kidney" Guy 2 says, "ok" Guy 2's kidney was priced at 15 ruples. You can't work w/out your blood and organs. Even typing a response your blood's running and your organs are working; don't deny what you know for the sake of argument. To lay claim to a man's work is to lay claim to his body because it is w/his body he produces. It is indirect; the gov. is not drawing blood from us (as you've pointed out) yet the labor is an extension of the laborer. To lay claim to labor, regardless of type, means the claim is not made on the basis of labor but on the laborer himself.

Muravyets,
Living being as opposed to living _____?
Are you asking me to fill in the blank? If so, then the answer is "non-being." Or is it your contention that a tumor is a being endowed with rights? Or perhaps it is your contention that tumor is not living, even though the cells within it are, in fact, alive?

My contradiction of your definition of human doesn't mean I assume the opposite argument (that all human cells have human rights).
Yeah, I got that. Apparently you think some cells are more equal than others. What I don't understand is what part of the ether you plucked this nonsense out of.

I gave my standard earlier. "an egg, once fertilized, is more like a brain than skin cells b/c a human body continues if it goes on and ends if killed." It's asinine that you remove the point of reference from a sentence (under 1) and then ask for it.
You're so funny. Again, try reading ALL the words in the thread you are responding to. You will see that, although I pointed out flaws in each half of your sentence, I ended up attacking it in its entirety. Go figure that out and get back to me.

How much a woman wants to be pregnant has no relation to the justness of killing her offspring; don't confuse motivation w/justification.
More histrionic bullshit. She is not "killing her offspring" because before a brain develops, there is no offspring. Period. Either wrap your brain around it or come up with a real argument that proves me wrong, because just constantly repeating the words is not going to make them true by itself.

Oh, and since she is not killing offspring, she doesn't need a justification for her action.

Herein are some implications made explicit for your enlightenment. I wrote "an egg, once fertilized, is more like a brain than skin cells b/c a human body continues if it goes on and ends if killed." How is a fertilized egg more like a brain than skin? In regard to a human body's continuity. This statement asserts a human brain is necessary to the continuance of a human body but skin cells are not.
Again, what are you talking about? Are you under the impression that brain cells do not die and get replaced constantly throughout your life, the same way skin cells do? Newsflash: ALL cells are constantly dying and being replaced throughout your life. At the cellular level, we all get a whole new body every several years.

Or perhaps you are under the impression that a human body could continue without skin? I have news for you there, too. It can't.

So, no matter how you cut it, your brain/skin comparison doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

Zygotes are then being equated w/brains in the function of a human body's continuance. If someone's brain is removed does the body go on?
It doesn't go on for very long without the skin, either.

Cell groups might continue or be machine fed but the animus has left. A zygote turns into a fetus, baby, and keeps developing.
Non sequitur. The stages of development have nothing to do with the relative necessity of a brain to the continuance of a human body.

Unless you count the period before the embryo develops a brain as proof that a human can continue for a few weeks without one -- as long as it gets one eventually.

A zygote is the human body in an earlier form so where a body w/skin can afford to lose some skin cells and a man can even survive lost brain cells, dashing the zygote destroys the whole human. The words zygote and body are interchangeable in this regard.
No, they are not because, as mentioned above, your argument is a non sequitur. The parts of it do not follow each other.

Why do you equate pregnancy w/enslavement?
I don't equate pregnancy with enslavement.

I equate being forced to carry a pregnancy against my will with enslavement.

I have no problem with pregnancy whatsoever. My problem is with people who would claim a right to use my body against my will.

Tumors be.
http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a25c3921546372601154899b20f00d0

http://onelook.com/?w=offspring&ls=a
Notice brain isn't there. B/c you use a brain as a prerequisite to human rights then it must be an ability like reason that you define humanity by. This belief doesn't only distinguish a zygote from an adult but older from younger, retarded from regular, economist from liberal, and mathematician from model. What rights would you deny a one of these? How do you measure intelligence and how much brain use/presence is worth a right?


"non sequitur"
Recognition of zygotes as bodies at an earlier stage of development is pertinent to the subjects of abortion, what is human, ect. Brains importance is a smaller consideration w/in what is human not the overall category our statements relate to.

By default a pregnancy continues. A pregnant woman can kill her baby herself. Having a guy kill him for you isn't a right. How, if no one would help you kill your baby, would you be enslaved?



They're having a war
:sniper::mp::gas::gundge::mp5: :hail::mp::salute:

Tumors be.
http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a25c3921546372601154899b20f00d0

http://onelook.com/?w=offspring&ls=a
Notice brain isn't there. B/c you use a brain as a prerequisite to human rights then it must be an ability like reason that you define humanity by. This belief doesn't only distinguish a zygote from an adult but older from younger, retarded from regular, economist from liberal, and mathematician from model. What rights would you deny a one of these? How do you measure intelligence and how much brain use/presence is worth a right?


"non sequitur"
Recognition of zygotes as bodies at an earlier stage of development is pertinent to the subjects of abortion, what is human, ect. Brains importance is a smaller consideration w/in what is human not the overall category our statements relate to.

By default a pregnancy continues. A pregnant woman can kill her baby herself. Having a guy kill him for you isn't a right. How, if no one would help you kill your baby, would you be enslaved?



They're having a war
:sniper::mp::gas::gundge::mp5: :hail::mp::salute:

Okay, this is really starting to piss me off:

'Because' is not spelled b/c
'With' is not spelled w/t
'within' is not spelled w/in

Start spelling out your goddamn words or Get The Fuck Out. Leet and short hand is only acceptable in online video games where you have to talk quickly before you get shot, and even there it should only be used sparingly.

Tumors be.
http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a25c3921546372601154899b20f00d0

http://onelook.com/?w=offspring&ls=a
Notice brain isn't there. B/c you use a brain as a prerequisite to human rights then it must be an ability like reason that you define humanity by.
Wrong. I told you what my criteria are. You have no counter argument, apparently, so you merely try to make my argument be something other than what it actually is. I suppose you do this in some desperate hope that you'll be able to make up an argument that you can defeat, but so far, you're not doing very well at that.

This belief doesn't only distinguish a zygote from an adult but older from younger, retarded from regular, economist from liberal, and mathematician from model. What rights would you deny a one of these? How do you measure intelligence and how much brain use/presence is worth a right?
This is your second attempt to declare that I am prejudiced against disabled people or other born people. You failed the first time. You fail this time as well. Your claim that a zygote is the same as a born person is just plain factually wrong, and so is the argument you base on it.

"non sequitur"
Recognition of zygotes as bodies at an earlier stage of development is pertinent to the subjects of abortion, what is human, ect. Brains importance is a smaller consideration w/in what is human not the overall category our statements relate to.
As your argument gets weaker, your grammar gets worse. The above sentence makes no sense. Please rewrite it if you want a response.

By default a pregnancy continues.
Except when it doesn't. I have heard numbers to the effect that up to a fourth of all pregnancies spontaneously abort before the woman even realizes that she is pregnant. That doesn't sound like much of a default continuation to me.

And then there are the various naturally occurring, potential complications of pregnancy, any one of which can lead to the premature end of the pregnancy. Some references for you:

http://www.chw.org/display/PPF/DocID/23807/router.asp
http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/index.htm

Your suggestion that abortion is the only thing stopping pregnancies from carrying on in perfect order is simply idiotic.

A pregnant woman can kill her baby herself. Having a guy kill him for you isn't a right.
If you don't have a real argument to make, I would appreciate it if you went off somewhere and composed one, rather than continue to clutter up this debate with your hysterical and prejudicial propaganda-speak. You can ignore this point every time I make if you like, but I am not going to stop making it:

-- There is no baby.

-- There is no "guy kill[ing]...for [the woman]".

Every time you attempt to equate elective abortion with contract murder, you are telling a big, fat, obvious lie. And everybody knows it. You are fooling no one.

How, if no one would help you kill your baby, would you be enslaved?
I am going to ignore the grossly prejudicial and hostile tone of your question -- and I have already pointed out its utter lack of factuality of any kind. My answer is a rephrasing of what I already said to you:

Enslavement happens when the state, using the law, forces me to submit to having my body used by someone else against my will. In this case, the "someone else" is the state, claiming to be acting on behalf of a person who does not actually exist.


<snip>
Also, this is an adult topic. Please don't leave your toys lying all over it.

Enslavement happens when the state, using the law, forces me to submit to having my body used by someone else against my will. In this case, the "someone else" is the state, claiming to be acting on behalf of a person who does not actually exist.


If the person does not exist then no one is using your body. If no one is using your body the state is not making you let someone else use your body.

W/my psychic powers I foresee your response,
"No you're wrong. I never said a person doesn't exist during pregnancy. Make a real argument and I'll make one too instead of denying w/sentences like 'Wrong.' I want a mature argument not contradictions w/out evaluation that reduce our correspondence to childish 'yes!' 'NO' who-can-answer-last contests."

If the person does not exist then no one is using your body. If no one is using your body the state is not making you let someone else use your body.

So you'd be alright with it if I covered your body with leeches? K.

W/my psychic powers I foresee your response

Don't quit your day job.

If the person does not exist then no one is using your body. If no one is using your body the state is not making you let someone else use your body.
AS. I. TOLD. YOU. The state is the "other person." If you try to make me repeat it again, I will ignore you.

W/my psychic powers I foresee your response,
"No you're wrong.
Your psychic powers got this part right, but then you really didn't need to be psychic to guess you'd be wrong.

I never said a person doesn't exist during pregnancy. Make a real argument and I'll make one too instead of denying w/sentences like 'Wrong.' I want a mature argument not contradictions w/out evaluation that reduce our correspondence to childish 'yes!' 'NO' who-can-answer-last contests."
And now you're wrong again. I gave you my answer above, first paragraph.

If the person does not exist then no one is using your body. If no one is using your body the state is not making you let someone else use your body.

W/my psychic powers I foresee your response,
"No you're wrong. I never said a person doesn't exist during pregnancy. Make a real argument and I'll make one too instead of denying w/sentences like 'Wrong.' I want a mature argument not contradictions w/out evaluation that reduce our correspondence to childish 'yes!' 'NO' who-can-answer-last contests."
I like this guy. Very entertaining. I miss n00bs like this.