U of C Abortion protests

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Well I dont think Greenf a child in the womb as a concious being, which it isn't in the early stages.

Concious? Oh, so for being killed to be wrong, you have to be aware you're losing your life?

Excuse me while I go unplug as many people on life support and terminate people with severe mental disabilities as I can.

It's fine, because they won't know what's happening.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

Belief in a woman`s right to choose is directly correlated with intelligence (speak up if you doubt this, I have nothing to back it up).

This constitutes a prima facie case for being pro-choice.

Never seen an anti-abortion demonstration in my five years at UVic. People would just laugh at them. Just did a google search, and the pro-life group at UVic can`t even get funding LOL.

http://martlet.ca/article/5646-still...g-for-pro-life

You're a science guy. You should know better.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by evman150

Belief in a woman`s right to choose is directly correlated with intelligence (speak up if you doubt this, I have nothing to back it up).

I'm glad to hear you're pro-life then! You must be, by your logic!

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do I support state-condoned suicide? Not sure on that one, yet. Still have to work it through in my mind. I do know there is evidence to suggest that many people who request euthanasia are suffering from clinical depression.

Someone that is determined to be of a fit state of mind that has a terminal illness and requests it from a quality of life and dignity perspective (e.g. motor neurone disease).

[NSFL]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

I don't know if they still do this, but when I was at the U of C two years ago, the display was set up by the Rock by the Library where three different walkways meet and like 50 feet away from the display in each direction there were advisory signs put out on sawhorses so you knew to walk another way if you didn't want to see it. So they give you fair warning to avoid it. I would just turn up the headphones and walk by as fast as I could.

Originally Posted by icarus

Back in my days at U of C they set up shop on the pedestrian bridge to the C-Train station. Pretty hard to avoid it if you take the LRT. Maybe they were forced to relocate just for that reason.

I was at the U of C for both eras. I'm pretty sure they started with the warning signs after there was hoopla about the display at the LRT location. I also seem to remember they had it facing out toward the street too. From then on it was in the courtyard. Here's the sign outside the demonstration for this year:

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Someone that is determined to be of a fit state of mind that has a terminal illness and requests it from a quality of life and dignity perspective (e.g. motor neurone disease).

I don't think it really applies to this discussion, as I said I am still working it out in my mind.

[evman150]

There are innumerable criteria by which you can judge when life becomes human life.

I just find it amusing that so called pro-lifers find it morally repugnant to even consider killing a fetus while they have no problem killing off full grown human beings who have lost their way in life. Many of these same people are also against gun control and support our government sending our kids overseas to kill people and get killed themselves.

It`s shocking, disgusting and hypocritical.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by evman150

Belief in a woman`s right to choose is directly correlated with intelligence (speak up if you doubt this, I have nothing to back it up).

This constitutes a prima facie case for being pro-choice.

Never seen an anti-abortion demonstration in my five years at UVic. People would just laugh at them. Just did a google search, and the pro-life group at UVic can`t even get funding LOL.

http://martlet.ca/article/5646-still...g-for-pro-life

What's the point in mentioning the bolded part? To imply UVic students are more intelligent than UofC students?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't think it really applies to this discussion, as I said I am still working it out in my mind.

Yes it does. This discussion is about life and death. The only difference is x number of years

If you believe that an unborn child has "the right to determine their own life path" then it's only fair that this belief should apply throughout the full life cycle of a being.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

What's the point in mentioning the bolded part? To imply UVic students are more intelligent than UofC students?

evman doesn't know what he is doing or implying.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by evman150

I just find it amusing that so called pro-lifers find it morally repugnant to even consider killing a fetus while they have no problem killing off full grown human beings who have lost their way in life. Many of these same people are also against gun control and support our government sending our kids overseas to kill people and get killed themselves.

It`s shocking, disgusting and hypocritical.

1. I am for gun-control
2. Ever heard of peacekeeping?
3. In war, there are two opposing sides. In abortion, the child can't oppose it being killed.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Yes it does. This discussion is about life and death.

If you believe that an unborn child has "the right to determine their own life path" then it's only fair to assume that this belief applies to the full life cycle.

Well, okay. I think right now that at the end of a person's life cycle it is natural to want to die with friends and family nearby. I think that if certain committments are met, then individuals will not request assisted suicide. However, if they do eventually request it when criteria are met, ie. psychiatric evaluation, then in an ideal world, I have no real issue with it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

1. I am for gun-control
2. Ever heard of peacekeeping?
3. In war, there are two opposing sides. In abortion, the child can't oppose it being killed.

Not too mention that in most cases, Western armies are filled with volunteers, not conscripts.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

You're a science guy. You should know better.

1. Religious people are on average less intelligent than atheists.
2. Most pro-lifers are pro-life because of religious motivations.
3. Pro-life people are more likely to be religious than a random population.
4. Atheists tend to be pro-choice.
5. Atheists are this way because they lack religious motivation.
______

6. Pro-life people are on average less intelligent than pro-choice people.

Find the hole in the argument. I`m not saying this stuff categorically; if anyone has something to critique or whatever I`d love to listen and respond.

[Cheese]

Pro Choice all the way here...

Who needs Government telling anyone what they can or cannot do? Why should we trust them? Simply have a safe place to get it done properly. If they are illegal we see the back alley stuff jump up again, just as it did in the past.

Men just love telling women what they can and cant do with their bodies! Women cannot be truly free unless they are able to make their own reproductive decisions. Is it wrong for men to get Vasectomy's?

Sometimes complications with pregnancy are life-threatening. If abortions are not safe and legal, pregnancy will be a death sentence for some women.

I also wonder...what do Pro-Lifers think about the death penalty and an aggressive military? Are these mutually exclusive?

and lastly...this is religion mixing with politics and they should be kept as far away from each other as possible! The moment abortion is criminalized, the religious right will attack contraception, on the rationale that easy access to contraception encourages “promiscuity.” Contraception has only been freely available to all women since the early 1970s. The real reason the religious right embraces the anti-choice stance is because they believe women should be submissive to men. But, saying that straight up would be political poison, so they talk about a “culture of life.”

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by evman150

I just find it amusing that so called pro-lifers find it morally repugnant to even consider killing a fetus while they have no problem killing off full grown human beings who have lost their way in life.

This argument works both ways: why is it acceptable to kill a fetus who hasn't had a chance yet and unacceptable to kill someone who has brought only death and destruction into the world?

As someone who is on the same side of the argument as you, I find you to be doing it a disservice in this thread.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

When fertilization occurs and the male and female combine genetic material, they create something with an entirely unique genetic map for life. Something which has never been seen in human existence and something that will be seen again. Sure, they will share traits with their kin etc...

By this standard a woman's body itself is the biggest killer of all time. As much as a third of all pregnancies abort themselves for all kinds of different reasons.

Also by this standard any kind of artificial insemination is abhorrent as well since many more than a single egg is fertilized, and most will be wasted since they usually have to do it many times to get one implanted. So by this standard anyone who's had an artificially inseminated child has killed dozens if not hundreds of humans.

but they still retain their own individuality, including the right to determine their own life path.

I guess it would seem they don't since even without abortion millions die each year.

Why would you want to take that away from someone, especially when you have been able to partake of all the joys of life?

This is just an appeal to emotions.. you can't take something away from someone who doesn't exist yet. Otherwise you would also have to argue against contraception since a condom takes away the chance for a life to begin.

To me the whole Pro-life / Pro-choice thing is a bit silly. It's framed as opposite ends of the same spectrum when they aren't. It's like saying pro-green vs. pro-butterscotch.

If anything it's pro-choice vs. pro-no-choice. Which is a valid debate, to determine when abortions and when they aren't is a very valid discussion.

But when someone who is pro-life frames their "opponent" as someone who is anti-life, it indicates that the pro-lifer isn't really interested in anything other than protesting and enforcing their standards on others (not implying that of anyone in this thread!).

[evman150]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

What's the point in mentioning the bolded part? To imply UVic students are more intelligent than UofC students?

On average, I`d say yes that is true, but that wasn`t the point.

False cause though. Victoria being a better school than Calgary is the real cause of why the student population is more intelligent.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Are these protestors students?

Anyways, I am pro-abortion................there are so many kids out there right now that dont get the care they need and we dont need anymore. Unless the pro-lifers want to take care of the kids??

That would be my point. I understand the point of view that people want everybody to have a chance at life. But personally I'm of the opinion that many current parents aren't qualified enough to have kids, and that if someone doesn't want a child or isn't at a stage in their life where that's appropriate (15 years old for example) and made a mistake, then its not fair to a potential child to bring them into the world with nobody that wants to care for and look after them. I think the pro-life camp relies a bit too heavily on the idea of adoption. How many hardcore pro-lifers have adopted a baby that might have otherwise been aborted? I bet that'd be a telling number. Sure bring it into the world, but its not my problem when its born...

I think for pro-lifers to convince anyone that making abortions illegal is a good idea they need to come up with a better option for unwanted babies than adoption.

Put your actions where your mouth is and adopt some of these unwanted kids if you think they should be brought into the world when their parent(s) don't want them or aren't capable of providing and caring for them. Or set up a commune of pro-lifers that jointly cares for and raises a bunch of potential adoptions.

I think the pro-life stance is one that in theory I think most people would agree with. Where I think the pro-choice and pro-life stances have a difference (ignoring the religious aspect completely) is that the pro-choice is thinking more about practical matters ie who's going to care for the kid, is it going to be this 15 year old? this rape victim? someone who's contraception broke and isn't ready to support a dependant? I agree with the pro-life stance in theory but in practice somebody needs to CARE FOR and look after these kids (aka not orphanages) and I don't see pro-lifers stepping up to plate necessarily.

Would anyone as a pro-lifer decide to not have their own children and instead adopt unwanted children that might have been otherwise aborted in order that they have the best chance at a good life? That would be practicing what your preach as some on that side might like to say. If not then I'd say your stance is an unfair one. You want the children to live but are prepared to condemn them to unfortunate circumstances such as parents who don't want them, a parent who can't afford to provide decently, a crappy foster home that would be a total crapshoot (could be abusive people), orphanage, etc. There's a lot of difference in how people turn out from a loving home where people want them and some of the aforementioned situations.

That's my 2 cents.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

1. Religious people are on average less intelligent than atheists.
2. Most pro-lifers are pro-life because of religious motivations.
3. Pro-life people are more likely to be religious than a random population.
4. Atheists tend to be pro-choice.
5. Atheists are this way because they lack religious motivation.
______

6. Pro-life people are on average less intelligent than pro-choice people.

Find the hole in the argument. I`m not saying this stuff categorically; if anyone has something to critique or whatever I`d love to listen and respond.

Your logic is based upon a set of assumptions which have no hope of being quantifiable. How about this... I am an agnostic. I think religion should be left to the individual. My motivating philosophy is liberalism or libertarianism. I believe in the primacy of the individual and the right of self-determination. Abortion violates this in the most fundamental way.

If human life is the most important aspect of our society, then I support the full use and funding of contraception and sexual education. I am also against the death penalty as I do not believe the State has any right to decide when an individual should die. I do not support wars that do not pass muster in a democratic body and if the army is not composed of willing and paid volunteers.

Life is so much more than your false duality of religious and atheist.