U of C Abortion protests

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by enthused

You can think whatever you want, but I am not a bad person, and you wont be able to make me feel like one.

I wouldn't get an abortion out of laziness, because trust me, I work hard to prevent it in the first place. I'd rather not find myself in the situation where I would need an abortion, trust me. But I would never bring an unwanted child into this world.

And not to go all "feminist" here, but as a man you don't have to worry about becoming pregnant, and you never will. You'll never have to experience an unwanted pregnancy, or deal with the reprecussions. Maybe if you put youself in someone else's shoes (a woman's) you'd see things from a different light. Just a thought...

This is precisely why abortion is not a public domain issue. Too many people think they are stakeholders with the right to decide for others.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Only a man says this.

I'm sorry Kipper Is King, and I think I met you in real life so I can say that you are in fact a dude... but only a man thinks this way. Don't attack someone's free will and right to chose what happens to themselves because you go to church on Sundays. Don't try to say you know what it would be like for a woman having a baby she did not want (imagine if she was raped!). I still think a moderate viewpoint would be seriously considered by those on the pro-life side.

I have to stop reading this thread. Before I say something that the God-lovers are going to hate.

I was with you until this. Don't bring religion into it because you are frustrated; Kipper Is King hasn't. Maybe there are some "God-lovers" who are on your side of the fence on this issue.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

I consider myself a feminist of sorts.

I can't speak for women, but that seems like a slap in the face.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

This is precisely why abortion is not a public domain issue. Too many people think they are stakeholders with the right to decide for others.

That's why I think the whole thing shouldn't be framed as pro-life vs pro-choice. It's pro-choice vs. pro-no-choice.

[Kipper is King]

OK, well, I'm off to class now.

It was an interesting debate, 99.9% respectful. I like CP for that. Most people on here can keep their cool and hear out other's opinions without pointless insults.

[enthused]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

I have a great deal of empathy for women. I consider myself a feminist of sorts.

Also, I can't fathom how difficult giving birth to a child is, or being raped. I don't try to discount that.

Exactly how do you consider yourself a feminist?

Apparently you dont believe that women have a right to choose whether or not they can get an abortion. What other things do you believe women do not have the right to make their own decisions about?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cheese

In a perfect world you may be the most correct. Who makes the choice in the bolded section? Certianly the religious right dont buy into the scientific notion of when life begins. So who?

I think the fairest way to determine when life begins is when the fetus has evolved to the point where it could be supported on it own. So, roughly 5-6 months. Of course, others may disagree.

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by enthused

Exactly how do you consider yourself a feminist?

Apparently you dont believe that women have a right to choose whether or not they can get an abortion. What other things do you believe women do not have the right to make their own decisions about?

Other than abortion? Anything else.

I understand that women have a higher stake in this debate. But it's not just a female issue. It's a human issue.

There are female pro-lifers too.

EDIT: Oops, I made it sound like women don't have the right to choose about any other issue. I meant that they do.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by photon

That's why I think the whole thing shouldn't be framed as pro-life vs pro-choice. It's pro-choice vs. pro-no-choice.

Yeah, pro-life is a biased statement. Life for whom? The fetus? Possibly, but what if the lack of safe abortion leads to suicide or Dr. Quack's backalley Abortion Clinic?

I want to reiterate that I don't think adoption is as simple a catch-all as some thing. There are already way more orphaned children out there than loving homes to take them in.

[photon]

Originally Posted by enthused

Apparently you dont believe that women have a right to choose whether or not they can get an abortion. What other things do you believe women do not have the right to make their own decisions about?

I don't think that's particularity fair.

A person's rights are limited all the time by society. A woman doesn't have the right to choose to shout fire in a crowded theatre, do we say we're limiting their free speech? Of course not.

It all revolves around when the fetus is viewed as human. The further along in the pregnancy it goes, the more people you would get that would agree terminating the pregnancy would be socially harmful and the right should be limited, to the point that once the baby is born 99.9999% of people would agree.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I think the fairest way to determine when life begins is when the fetus has evolved to the point where it could be supported on it own. So, roughly 5-6 months. Of course, others may disagree.

Heh, isn't that more like 5-6 years? How do you define supported on its own? (Father of a 4.5 year old who can't support himself).

[enthused]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

Other than abortion? Anything else.

I understand that women have a higher stake in this debate. But it's not just a female issue. It's a human issue.

There are female pro-lifers too.

I'm sure there are many pro-lifers that are female. And I have no problem with them being that way. The thing that bothers me is when people believe that I don't have the right to be pro-choice.

I'm certainly not going to tell someone that they must have an abortion. So I expect that in return they aren't going to tell me that I can't have one. It really is each individual's choice. What is better for one person might not be for another. All I'm saying is that women should have the right to make that decision for themselves.

[flylock shox]

Both the pro-life and pro-choice viewpoints can be supported rationally.

The debate is valuable because it demonstrates a conflict of fundamental values, as well as the very nature of what it means to be human.

But the debate cannot result in a perfect resolution, and the best anyone can hope for is that somehow it allows us to choose the resolution which is the least inconsistent with the values we consider important.

Assertions that one position is "right" and another is "wrong" is nothing more than an expression of different values combined with the abandonment of rational thought in favour of an emotional response. There is no black and white to this debate, and there is no position you can take that leaves you with clean hands.

[enthused]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think that's particularity fair.

A person's rights are limited all the time by society. A woman doesn't have the right to choose to shout fire in a crowded theatre, do we say we're limiting their free speech? Of course not.

It all revolves around when the fetus is viewed as human. The further along in the pregnancy it goes, the more people you would get that would agree terminating the pregnancy would be socially harmful and the right should be limited, to the point that once the baby is born 99.9999% of people would agree.

I suppose I was being a bit extreme asking Kipper is King what other things he didn't believe women should have the choice in.

I do agree with you that the further along a pregnancy is the more "human" a fetus really is. I do think that there should be a reasonable limit as to when a fetus can and can't be aborted. The only thing that really bothers me is that some people believe that there shouldn't even be a choice in the first place.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by photon

Heh, isn't that more like 5-6 years? How do you define supported on its own? (Father of a 4.5 year old who can't support himself).

Picking at semantics, hey?

Hah, okay, what I meant was, we can typically keep a premature baby alive once its about 5-6 months/24+ weeks old. It is no longer wholly dependant on its mother to stay alive. Before that, its simply not autonomous or viable.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by Cheese

For several years the University of Calgary has attempted to find a reasonable compromise with Campus Pro-Life (CPL) that would give members of the University community the choice to view or not view the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) display.
These efforts, including requests that CPL turn its display signs inward, have been unsuccessful.
CPL’s statements and actions made it clear that it is not interested in a discussion or debate. Rather, it is seeking publicity and using the media to advance its objectives. The University will not engage with CPL on this basis.

So I guess in the end the CPL is Pro-Choice. Choosing not to come to a compromise with the UofC.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by icarus

I was with you until this. Don't bring religion into it because you are frustrated; Kipper Is King hasn't. Maybe there are some "God-lovers" who are on your side of the fence on this issue.

Fair enough, sorry to do that. Still think that religion should not be an argument for what everyone else should do, and if that's where people get their motivations from, I require a little more justification other than "it's just right because God said so."

I didn't really mean to be so crass about religion. I think most people are very moderate in this, and other, issues, and that is the best policy. Regardless of religion, this is a very hot issue!

[evman150]

Along those lines, I have plenty of time for pro-lifers who have thought about it independently of religion and come to the answer that life is sacred etc.

I have zero time for people who believe it's wrong on religious grounds.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Honestly, my libertarian streak says perhaps.

With mentally handicapped, it gets murkier, but if someone was to abort a child after finding through amniocentesis or other testing that it has severe mental/physical disabilities, is that wrong? Don't be so quick to say yes. That child will not have a full life, it may only live for a short painful time, that child will be totally dependent on its parents (until they die) and then society. That is a tremendous undertaking that a lot of people are simply not capable of. That doesn't make them evil people either.

As for chronically/terminally ill people, who are we to say they must stay alive until even the most modern technologies can no longer sustain them. Some American states are starting to recognize this.

When it comes to abortion, I'm somewhere in the middle, but I lean towards pro-choice. Abortion is rather ugly, but so is the consequence of bearing an unloved child, or a child of rape, or a child to unfit and unready parents. Women have a right to control their bodies... however, to me, once the baby gets to the point where it can sustain itself, the right to abort ends. Until it can sustain itself, it is not independent, it is part of the host.

Really, who are we to decide personal private acts like that. Unless the question is "Should Public dollars be used to pay for abortions?", or something like that, the public has no place in the disussion. SSM is a different societal debate because it asks for public recognition and to be attached to a preexisting social institution. The right to be homosexual is untouchable to me, they have every right to exist and thrive, largely because this is a personal private act.

Abortion is not public domain.

Dude, your libertarian streak should be screaming bloody murder. Life is important, no matter who it is. People with Down Syndrome or Autism are just as much a part of the human experience as people without these disorders.

As for the SSM vs Abortion debate, I don't think they are part of the same suite of issues. I have no problem with homosexuality and I have no problem with homosexual couples who wish to have the same taxation and legal rights extended to them. That is a private and individual right.

Abortion to me is different. I really hesitate at calling it a private issue. While some women may say, "it's my body" and somehow insinuate that the fetus is an appendage or growth of their body, it's the same to me as the slaveowner saying "that man is my property." Some decisions aren't ours to make.

Now of course, abortion does boil down to a choice that women will make. We should be careful to present a full range of options to pregnant women that include a lot of other things besides an abortion. We have a choice to do everything, doesn't mean we should do them.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Picking at semantics, hey?

Not really, just thought it was funny (hence the smily).

Some animals are pretty much viable the moment they are born, whereas it seemed to me that human babies could do with another 3-4 months in the womb at least (though of course then they couldn't be delivered).

I agree with your assessment though, that could be a logical choice to draw the line at.

At conception doesn't make any sense to me, it's a cell with no self awareness or nervous system, it can't suffer. I don't see any moral issue with a morning after pill.

Once that point has been crossed, it becomes a discussion about where doing harm starts.