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 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 11 of 13
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
amodray





Joined: 03 Dec 2008
Posts: 104
Reputation: 7.7Reputation: 7.7Reputation: 7.7Reputation: 7.7Reputation: 7.7Reputation: 7.7Reputation: 7.7

PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
amodray wrote:
Quote:
Life begins when that sperm penetrates the egg then cell multiplication occurs. That I am not debating. The woman holding that 'life' should have the choice to abort it at any given time, within the law.


why?


Because women should have the 'choice' to get an abortion. I have drawn the line in the sand by saying that at the 6 month point the baby should now be largely the state's responsibility
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An embryo is part of a woman's body until it is born. Until that point the woman has the choice to do with her body as she wishes. Nothing is worse than watching a 12 year old give birth, I know, I have watched it. Those 12 and 13 and 14, etc year olds should have had abortions. Unless you are all ready to take the child and care for it for the rest of your lives, there is no discussion.
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eveable wrote:
An embryo is part of a woman's body until it is born.


Factually incorrect. If you are going to make definitive statements at least do some research first. It is only an "embryo" for the first eight weeks after which it is a fetus.

Quote:
Nothing is worse than watching a 12 year old give birth, I know, I have watched it. Those 12 and 13 and 14, etc year olds should have had abortions.


Right - because that happens everyday. Let's make a law because it sucks that 0.0000001% of abortions are for 12 year old children.

Quote:
Unless you are all ready to take the child and care for it for the rest of your lives, there is no discussion.


I am prepared to devote the portion of my taxes that goes to the CBC to fund orphanages - so I guess there is a discussion.
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, let's put it another way. While the fetus is attached to the woman's body, it is part of her body. During that time, the woman has a right to do with her body as she wishes.
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alright, declaring I am pro-choice! I think this is a divided issue in society. On the basis of that division is why I am pro-choice. The key word is "choice", a pregnant woman can choose whether to have an abortion or not. So, if they are pro-life they can choose not to have one. If they want an abortion they can have one. We should not force rules on others when we do not have to and they can decide for themselves.

Also, for an interesting read have a look at Freak Economics by Steven Levitt. He displays that the decrease in the crime rate in New York is related to the legalization of abortion, very interesting.

Lastly, the pro-life fraction is very often linked to the religious right. Here in Calgary for example, pro-lifers were protesting outside the Calgary Court Centre the other day. They had a sign with a dead fetus and a picture of a bunch of dead jews from the Holocaust underneath it. The sign said "abortion, Canada's Holocaust". Then they had a sign with a biblical reference that said "repent".

First, comparing abortion to the Holocaust is not tasteful in my opinion. Further, basing a argument against abortion on biblical principles and asking for state intervention on that basis is also not compelling. It mixes church and state, which most Canadians are fully against. That said, the first poster did not do this and gave some good facts. I however just disagree with him.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Further, basing a argument against abortion on biblical principles and asking for state intervention on that basis is also not compelling. It mixes church and state, which most Canadians are fully against.


You don't have a clue what "mixing church and state" is about.

It's about protecting religion from the interference of government not the other way around.

I just love listening to idiots spout off about Church and State. Not a clue.

Canada does not need protection from religious people. A little religion would do this country some good.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
Alright, declaring I am pro-choice! I think this is a divided issue in society. On the basis of that division is why I am pro-choice. The key word is "choice", a pregnant woman can choose whether to have an abortion or not. So, if they are pro-life they can choose not to have one. If they want an abortion they can have one. We should not force rules on others when we do not have to and they can decide for themselves.

Also, for an interesting read have a look at Freak Economics by Steven Levitt. He displays that the decrease in the crime rate in New York is related to the legalization of abortion, very interesting.

Lastly, the pro-life fraction is very often linked to the religious right. Here in Calgary for example, pro-lifers were protesting outside the Calgary Court Centre the other day. They had a sign with a dead fetus and a picture of a bunch of dead jews from the Holocaust underneath it. The sign said "abortion, Canada's Holocaust". Then they had a sign with a biblical reference that said "repent".

First, comparing abortion to the Holocaust is not tasteful in my opinion. Further, basing a argument against abortion on biblical principles and asking for state intervention on that basis is also not compelling. It mixes church and state, which most Canadians are fully against. That said, the first poster did not do this and gave some good facts. I however just disagree with him.


So if I have made the choice to murder someone, the state and society would not have the right to arrest me for those crimes, because it was my choice.

If I decided to try and kill myself in front of police officers, what would the officers do? They would try and talk me down from doing it, or shoot me in a strategic part of my body so I would not harm myself.

Pro-life supports are part of the religious right, but that only makes up a fraction of the pro-life side (I guess you can consider me part of the religious right, because I am religious, and I am right).

We need to do some looking at the radical groups behind the pro-abortion side of the debate, radical feminists, unions, left-wing organizations, student unions and that is just to name a few. You will find the political fringes more on the pro-abortion side then you would in the pro-life camp. As a mater of fact, the Nazis and the Communists were proponents of abortions.
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2009 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smartcon,

Politics is divisive. Democracy is divisive. There is a difference between a divisive political issue and a divided society. That pre-sumes society is defined by politics, and not the achievments and contributions of individuals. If one can't separate society and politics, one has been in partisan politics too long.

I'm not religious, and consider myself mostly libertarian. Liberty for all is why I am against abortion. Abortion is about as anti-liberty as you can get. Abortion is a collective right granted by the state to women to kill their own offspring.
The conservative movement is about believing that individuals (as opposed to groups) have inalieble rights, that every human is unique and knowing that individuals are capable of overcoming adversity.

That book "Freak Economics" hypothesis relating abortion/crime is just that a hypothesis. Even if it is correct, doesn't justify abortion from the point of view of liberty. Where is the liberty of the aborted babies that would have grown up and worked hard to rise above their poverty, to do something great? Once again the message behind abortion is that the individual is insignificant to the collective. The individual is expendable for the "greater good".

SmartCon wrote:
Alright, declaring I am pro-choice! I think this is a divided issue in society. On the basis of that division is why I am pro-choice. The key word is "choice", a pregnant woman can choose whether to have an abortion or not. So, if they are pro-life they can choose not to have one. If they want an abortion they can have one. We should not force rules on others when we do not have to and they can decide for themselves.

Also, for an interesting read have a look at Freak Economics by Steven Levitt. He displays that the decrease in the crime rate in New York is related to the legalization of abortion, very interesting.

Lastly, the pro-life fraction is very often linked to the religious right. Here in Calgary for example, pro-lifers were protesting outside the Calgary Court Centre the other day. They had a sign with a dead fetus and a picture of a bunch of dead jews from the Holocaust underneath it. The sign said "abortion, Canada's Holocaust". Then they had a sign with a biblical reference that said "repent".

First, comparing abortion to the Holocaust is not tasteful in my opinion. Further, basing a argument against abortion on biblical principles and asking for state intervention on that basis is also not compelling. It mixes church and state, which most Canadians are fully against. That said, the first poster did not do this and gave some good facts. I however just disagree with him.
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisreid wrote:
Smartcon,

Politics is divisive. Democracy is divisive. There is a difference between a divisive political issue and a divided society. That pre-sumes society is defined by politics, and not the achievments and contributions of individuals. If one can't separate society and politics, one has been in partisan politics too long.

I'm not religious, and consider myself mostly libertarian. Liberty for all is why I am against abortion. Abortion is about as anti-liberty as you can get. Abortion is a collective right granted by the state to women to kill their own offspring.
The conservative movement is about believing that individuals (as opposed to groups) have inalieble rights, that every human is unique and knowing that individuals are capable of overcoming adversity.

That book "Freak Economics" hypothesis relating abortion/crime is just that a hypothesis. Even if it is correct, doesn't justify abortion from the point of view of liberty. Where is the liberty of the aborted babies that would have grown up and worked hard to rise above their poverty, to do something great? Once again the message behind abortion is that the individual is insignificant to the collective. The individual is expendable for the "greater good".


I guess the main issue in abortion is: when does life start? When life starts is a matter of opinion as no one can really pin point it. Anti-Abortionist believe that life starts at conception. The Pro-Choice differ. Given that this is more of a philosophical issue than a rights one, its better to allow a "choice" in the matter.

I think life begins when a being becomes self-aware of their existence, IMO. At mere conception the egg and sperm mix have no idea they exist. I base this on the phrase "I think, therefore I am".

Further, I think the issue of abortion in Canada is a dead one. The right to have a abortion has become apart of the constitution. You would need the Supreme Court to overturn its prior decisions on the matter, which will not happen. Failing that you would need a constitutional amendment, which is also possible.

I think the abortion issue needs to just fade away. It cost the CPC swing votes as some CPC MP's are known to be anti-abortion and the swing voters are pro-choice.
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:

I guess the main issue in abortion is: when does life start? When life starts is a matter of opinion as no one can really pin point it. Anti-Abortionist believe that life starts at conception. The Pro-Choice differ. Given that this is more of a philosophical issue than a rights one, its better to allow a "choice" in the matter.

I think life begins when a being becomes self-aware of their existence, IMO. At mere conception the egg and sperm mix have no idea they exist. I base this on the phrase "I think, therefore I am".

Further, I think the issue of abortion in Canada is a dead one. The right to have a abortion has become apart of the constitution. You would need the Supreme Court to overturn its prior decisions on the matter, which will not happen. Failing that you would need a constitutional amendment, which is also possible.

I think the abortion issue needs to just fade away. It cost the CPC swing votes as some CPC MP's are known to be anti-abortion and the swing voters are pro-choice.


SmartCon, do you agree with the following 6 principles?

1. Belief in natural law
2. Belief in established institutions
3. Preference for liberty over equality
4. Suspicion of power—and of human nature
5. Belief in exceptionalism
6. Belief in the individual

If you do, then you are a conservative, and it's very hard to claim to be a "smartcon" if you don't. Belief in natural law, is about believing in a higher order of justice, no matter if governments write down something in law or not. Why do you think even women who have had abortion are ashamed to talk about it no matter how empowering left-wing feminists try to make it sound. Because people intrinsically know they have killed a life. You don't need a government law to tell us that.

Abortion is not in the constitution "smarcon". Where the heck is it stated "woman shall have the right to kill their baby before the baby is born". The Charter of Rights and freedoms guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Notice that life is the first word in that list.

Governments in a liberal democracy are supposed to be guarantors of freedoms, which means equal freedoms to everyone - not giving women special powers over anyone else, over a weaker human being that can't even defend themselves.

Abortion is a significant issue, that won't be dead, because people know that its intrinsically wrong - having nothing to do with simply being a "personal choice" like choosing what colour of shirt to buy. The message that abortion sends is that individuals are expendable when they become an inconvenience. It's really incompatible with being conservative, no matter whether you think supporting it or not is "winnable". I don't want a conservative party that "wins" by saying its okay to destroy human offspring. There are already 3 other parties that will happily take up that cause.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eveable wrote:
An embryo is part of a woman's body until it is born. Until that point the woman has the choice to do with her body as she wishes. Nothing is worse than watching a 12 year old give birth, I know, I have watched it. Those 12 and 13 and 14, etc year olds should have had abortions. Unless you are all ready to take the child and care for it for the rest of your lives, there is no discussion.


Eve I guess there is a discussion to be had here. There are literally tens upon tens of thousands of folks registered that would be delighted to adopt these children, no questions asked. Imagine what that number would be if folks actually thought they had a chance to adopt? Imagine how many of these would adopt multiple children if they could. Presently only the ultra rich or ultra lucky have any hope of adopting period.

So what if a 12 year has the emotional scars of giving birth to a child? Yes it is unfortunate but even more unfortunate is that 12 year old turns 15 to 20 and has to live with the realization of a decision that was taken out of fear, my parents will kill me, convenience, and incomplete, insincere counseling from a group that has an agenda like planned parenthood or an abortion clinic. have you seen those girls?

In my years in the protection industry they are a sorry load on society that goes ignored. A reality, collateral damage if you will to the feminist "life need not have consequences or responsibilities, I'm a perpetual victim me" agenda.
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisreid wrote:

SmartCon, do you agree with the following 6 principles?

1. Belief in natural law
2. Belief in established institutions
3. Preference for liberty over equality
4. Suspicion of power—and of human nature
5. Belief in exceptionalism
6. Belief in the individual

If you do, then you are a conservative, and it's very hard to claim to be a "smartcon" if you don't. Belief in natural law, is about believing in a higher order of justice, no matter if governments write down something in law or not. Why do you think even women who have had abortion are ashamed to talk about it no matter how empowering left-wing feminists try to make it sound. Because people intrinsically know they have killed a life. You don't need a government law to tell us that.


I believe in those six principles. But my view on natural law, the only principle you have seem to bring in to question regarding my beliefs, is different than yours. You are essentially saying that if you are pro-choice you do not believe in natural law. This view of natural law is incorrect. Your view is one line of thinking in natural law that you are pushing, I would align it with Christian natural law from Christian philosophers like Augustine and Aquinas. Being pro-choice does not however go against natural law in the general sense.

chrisreid wrote:
Abortion is not in the constitution "smarcon". Where the heck is it stated "woman shall have the right to kill their baby before the baby is born". The Charter of Rights and freedoms guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Notice that life is the first word in that list.


No, the Constitution does not say that. But in the case of R v. Morgentaler the Supreme Court held that to not allow a woman to have an abortion would violate her right to "security of a person" in section 7 and the anti-abortion section in the Criminal Code was struck down. This decision was in 1988, so it has been law now as 21 years. Regarding term "life", it's beginning is debatable. In the case Tremblay v Daigle the Supreme Court held that a fetus has no legal status as a person.

Further, the Charter only has effect between the state and the people. Not people to other people. Even if a fetus were a person, the Charter would not apply to the relationship between the mother and the fetus.

I'll respond to your other stuff later, need to run to the store.

Cheers
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisreid wrote:
I don't want a conservative party that "wins" by saying its okay to destroy human offspring. There are already 3 other parties that will happily take up that cause.


It's only an offspring if a fetus is considered an offspring. I don't think it is, nor do most of the youth in this country. Why I bring up the youth is because they will inherit conservatism in the 21st century. Anti-Choice advocates are going to dwindle out of politics over the next few years, due to a simple lack of support.

The reason why moderate swing voters find them self voting for the Liberals a lot of the time is because of the underlying support in the party against such things as pro-choice and even homosexual civil unions. These are policies that the party just needs to leave alone. If the party is anti-abortion and anti-homosexual civil unions, they should openly run as just that. I can assure you though if they did, we would lose the government pretty quickly. In my personal opinion, social conservatism is dying out in Canada and on social issues most Canadians are libertarians. As long as your not hurting another person (note fetuses have been held not to be a person) you should be able to do what you please. The state should only intervene when need be.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smart Con wrote:
Quote:
In my personal opinion, social conservatism is dying out in Canada and on social issues most Canadians are libertarians.


Very good observation. I agree.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Sun May 03, 2009 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
chrisreid wrote:

SmartCon, do you agree with the following 6 principles?

1. Belief in natural law
2. Belief in established institutions
3. Preference for liberty over equality
4. Suspicion of power—and of human nature
5. Belief in exceptionalism
6. Belief in the individual

If you do, then you are a conservative, and it's very hard to claim to be a "smartcon" if you don't. Belief in natural law, is about believing in a higher order of justice, no matter if governments write down something in law or not. Why do you think even women who have had abortion are ashamed to talk about it no matter how empowering left-wing feminists try to make it sound. Because people intrinsically know they have killed a life. You don't need a government law to tell us that.


I believe in those six principles. But my view on natural law, the only principle you have seem to bring in to question regarding my beliefs, is different than yours. You are essentially saying that if you are pro-choice you do not believe in natural law. This view of natural law is incorrect. Your view is one line of thinking in natural law that you are pushing, I would align it with Christian natural law from Christian philosophers like Augustine and Aquinas. Being pro-choice does not however go against natural law in the general sense.

chrisreid wrote:
Abortion is not in the constitution "smarcon". Where the heck is it stated "woman shall have the right to kill their baby before the baby is born". The Charter of Rights and freedoms guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Notice that life is the first word in that list.


No, the Constitution does not say that. But in the case of R v. Morgentaler the Supreme Court held that to not allow a woman to have an abortion would violate her right to "security of a person" in section 7 and the anti-abortion section in the Criminal Code was struck down. This decision was in 1988, so it has been law now as 21 years. Regarding term "life", it's beginning is debatable. In the case Tremblay v Daigle the Supreme Court held that a fetus has no legal status as a person.

Further, the Charter only has effect between the state and the people. Not people to other people. Even if a fetus were a person, the Charter would not apply to the relationship between the mother and the fetus.

I'll respond to your other stuff later, need to run to the store.

Cheers


The Supreme Court struck down Section 251 of the Criminal Code; however they did not give women the right to have an abortion like the U.S. Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade. The Canadian Supreme Court they sent it back to parliament to enact regulations on abortion, which it has not done.

As for social conservatism dying out, people have been saying that for over 120 years, and yet it is still here.

Abortion has always been a decisive issue in human history, and it is not just Christianity v. everyone else on this issue. Most people of religious faith, with the exception of the United Church and the liberal sect of the Anglican Church are pro-life, including Sheiks, Hindus, Muslims, Judaism and even Buddhists.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 11 of 13

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13  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 can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Abortion

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB