Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
Morality would seem to be most in play from the perspective of the mother and her essential sovereignty over her body and her intent.


Her "sovereignty" and "intent" should be exercised in the bedroom not the operating room.
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Her "sovereignty" and "intent" should be exercised in the bedroom not the operating room.
I'm pretty comfortable will it being exercised pretty much everywhere before birth. I'd prefer in a safe and legal clinic, though. In any case, many anti-abortionists are against the "morning-after pill" too, even though it prevents implantation and is not an abortion pill.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
I'm pretty comfortable will it being exercised pretty much everywhere before birth.


Right. Because the magical journey down the vagina transforms the entity into a human being :roll:
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In 2005, Pendergraft’s abortion clinic employees refused to heed the pleading of a young mother to call 9-1-1, who wanted help to save her born-alive child, who survived an abortion. Instead, still attached to the umbilical cord, the child died in the arms of his distraught young mother, who rocked and cooed him for the duration of his 11 minutes of life amid the squalor of the clinic’s restroom.


http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06081705.html

Quote:
Women Paid to Carry Baby to 12 Weeks before “Harvesting” for Beauty Treatments

Concerned Women for America says that poor women are being paid up to $200 dollars to have their unborn children killed between 8 and 12 weeks gestation when the foetuses are “harvested” for their stem cells, which are then sold to exclusive cosmetic clinics.


- Perfectly legal because she is exercising her "sovereignty" right?

Quote:
"Since a few days ago," she said, "a substitute doctor has been coming in. He's younger and has a different technique. He doesn't scrape the uterus, he just uses the vacuum. Last Sunday, he couldn't take it any more because we did some rather large terminations — around four months. He used a technique I hadn't seen. He divided the ultrasound screen in two parts and used an apparatus during the entire procedure. Usually, what you see with the ultrasound is the child sucking his finger, or playing, but on this occasion when the doctor began vacuuming, you could see the baby was moving as if he hurt because it was pulling him or tearing something off. It was horrible, horrible.


Murder
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Right. Because the magical journey down the vagina transforms the entity into a human being
I don't believe in magical journeys or any real transformation of entities. Life is a continuous process. Birth physically separates the baby from the mother and makes it independent to the degree that we can take it away if the mother is neglectful. It has a certain "social viability" at that state. Before that the only way to make it socially viable prior to this point is to somehow separate the premature baby from the mother or coerce the mother into carrying it to term. This is unacceptable to me.

Potentially distasteful episodes of abortion doesn't seem like a reason to regulate things at any high level, and seem mostly to be connected to beliefs that the interruption of something at a particular point in a potential cycle is the equivalent of destroying it at a later point, which is wholly false. If we do try to impute some values for beings capable of distress, again like Singer would insist, then animals certainly deserve much more consideration than they currently receive. I actually do buy Singer's argument at some level, when combined with general concerns about the meat industry, and have accordingly tried to alter my diet. But as for embryos and the unborn, concerns about them seem to be dominated by the conscious living. So I had eggs for dinner. That opinion may change, though.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
It has a certain "social viability" at that state. Before that the only way to make it socially viable prior to this point is to somehow separate the premature baby from the mother or coerce the mother into carrying it to term. This is unacceptable to me.


If a women arrives at an abortion clinic with a baby at term do we really need to "coerce" her to "seperate the premature baby from the mother"? Seems to me she has decided to do it herself. I would argue at that point that the baby should be delivered rather than aborted. Given that I've largely met your objections in this scenario I would guess you would have to agree with me?

Quote:
Potentially distasteful episodes of abortion


Distasteful?!? <<trying to remain calm>> I wouldn't want to offend your sensibilities by describing the routine killing of unborn babies. And if you are suggesting that social policy shouldn't take into account pain and suffering then I guess we can throw out the welfare state upon which stories of suffering were built.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have we thought of what might happen if we were to make abortion illegal? or prohibitively expensive?

Backalley abortions... As if they don't already happen.

Do you honestly believe people won't be having sex as much?
And do you think a mother terrified of having a baby(parents reaction, monetary reasons etc..) won't seek out the help of a non-licensed "professional"?

suddenly "homicide" turns into double homicide (potentially).


I would accept a position of;

charging for abortion based on number of instances;

1st - small fee (allow for a mistake)
2nd. 50% of the "cost" of the procedure
3rd + - 100% of "cost" of the procedure

again, I don't buy the life argument...
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
If a women arrives at an abortion clinic with a baby at term do we really need to "coerce" her to "seperate the premature baby from the mother"? Seems to me she has decided to do it herself. I would argue at that point that the baby should be delivered rather than aborted. Given that I've largely met your objections in this scenario I would guess you would have to agree with me?
The number of abortions where a woman "arrives" at an abortion clinic where birth is imminent is approaching zero. I suspect the number of times it is performed in such a situation without extreme extenuating circumstances is also approaching zero. Actually, the number of abortions in the final trimester is generally very low as well. Most clinics and hospitals generally refuse to do final trimester abortions, and they are usually only done in an emergency and with doctor recommendation. In any case, yes, in a precise sense you would still need to coerce the mother to go along with the birth, although I think in such a situation (especially one where social supports are optimal) then giving birth would probably be the correct medical and personal choice. But because the same basic principles come into play, I don't think that there should be any positive legal intervention in these choices.
Quote:
Distasteful?!? <<trying to remain calm>> I wouldn't want to offend your sensibilities by describing the routine killing of unborn babies.
I am aware of how they do it. It almost makes think - just maybe - that women have thought this through and are exercising a choice they think is balanced. It is a choice I think that many feel overly burdened by, when they shouldn't be.


Quote:
And if you are suggesting that social policy shouldn't take into account pain and suffering then I guess we can throw out the welfare state upon which stories of suffering were built.
The welfare state exists for many reasons. One important reason is that the system depends on structural unemployment to help undermine the power of workers. Another, as you suggest, is pulling at the heart strings of liberal reformers. Personally, I believe that production is a collective enterprise that involves people at many different moments of personal development. A "good society" is one that integrates such moments and potential deviations into its consumption decisions to maintain accesss to needs and social inclusion.
Christian Conservative





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 86
Reputation: 50.8
votes: 2
Location: Southwestern ON

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Sorry but if a person does not have control of their own reproductive organs, than they are not free. Abortion is a simple, safe, common medical procedure that is nobody's business but the woman having the procedure done.
Yea, simple, safe, common medical procedure, MY FOOT. In reality, it's a barbaric, murderous, and reprehensible act, if you ask me. Let me describe... either common method involves the dismembering, or ripping appart, if you will, a living organism... a human being, if you please.

It's disgusting that we have so many advocates who will stand up and protest about the seal hunt, or the "slaughter" of innocent chickens for crying out loud, when they won't lift a finger for the murder of a living, though undeveolped, human being.

Yea, I'm all for women's rights... since a fetus starts out as a female, I'm primarily concerned with THEIR right to live... to be FREE. This argument is not about "control of your reproductive organs", it's about the life of a child!!!
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

this from a man who uses the picture of a man who eats babies as his avatar ;)

(this was a joke - just to clarify)
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me ask a question though-

Do you agree with "dying with dignity"?

For me:

In principle; yes..

but in reality, I feel it would undermine our laws...
sometimes you give people a foot and they run a mile..
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
they won't lift a finger for the murder of a living, though undeveolped, human being.
Sometimes a foetus is just a foetus.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First, I would object to any restrictions placed upon abortion purely for religous reasons. There is freedom of religion in this country and we are not a religous state (like say Iran). Our laws should not be made to coincide with the will of one religion. Just as people are free to not have abortions for their own religious reasons, non-religious people should be free to have them if they choose.

Second, just because 60% of a population wants more control on abortions, this does not mean that 60% of the people want abortions made illegal. I think what most people would call for is severe limitations in the 3rd trimester and minor limitations in the second trimester, but this is just my supposition.

Third, following my first point, if there were to be a debate about abortion, I believe it must be done outside of religion, lest we be a religious state. This debate has happened before and the women's autonomy to her reproductive organs seemed to win out in US and Canadian courts. I've heard both side of the argument and I agree that women must have autonomy to her reproductive organs for all of us to be free. I also believe in a physicians right to not preform operations that go against their personal morals.

Thus, I feel the situation in Canada is almost perfect. Having no laws on abortion create a perfect balance. Physicians are not forced to do abortions, nor are they forced to do any abortion if they have done ones before (what I mean here is that they can discriminate as to what abortions they do; ie do a 1st trimester one day and refuse a 3rd trimester the second day). As what was said above, my research has shown to be true that the number of 3rd trimester abortions is very near zero if not zero each year.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter. I'm more for the liberties of the woman who clearly is a person than the fetus who may or may not be a person in my view of the world.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
The number of abortions where a woman "arrives" at an abortion clinic where birth is imminent is approaching zero.


Where did I say "imminent"??? The baby is viable on its own after 23 weeks. The number of women arriving at an abortion clinic with a baby over 23 weeks does not come anywhere near close to zero.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
Quote:
they won't lift a finger for the murder of a living, though undeveolped, human being.
Sometimes a foetus is just a foetus.


That moves, has feeling, a heartbeat, brain activity, responds to stimuli - yeah "just a foetus".
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Will abortion ever be illegal in Canada again?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB