Canadians in the dark about Abortion laws: Poll

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

how can you morally justify forcing a woman to bring a child into this world (if you had your way and abortion was abolished) that she does not want, when our resources are already strained and millions of children die of starvation every year?

You sir are out of line, Peter already established the morality of the world in this thread:

Originally Posted by peter12

Most women who abort are either naive of morality, looking out for themselves or are entirely bereft of what we might call social capital or in a more philosophical sense, proper friendship.

Women who abort are either:
a) Naive of morality;
b) looking out for themselves; or
c) bereft of proper friendship

Steer clear of these awful people, they are immoral, only look out for themselves and regardless of what they tell you are bereft of proper friendship therefore are not your friend.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by alltherage

And an unborn child is guilty of.....???

original sin?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

You sir are out of line, Peter already established the morality of the world in this thread:



Women who abort are either:
a) Naive of morality;
b) looking out for themselves; or
c) bereft of proper friendship

Steer clear of these awful people, they are immoral, only look out for themselves and regardless of what they tell you are bereft of proper friendship therefore are not your friend.

If you can figure out any of those points, I'll give you some credit.

We lack proper humanism, we are atomized individuals, and we do not know how to love other people without thinking for ourselves.

These are all important to the workings of a healthy society. Choices are not created in isolation, they are the result of each person's subjective reality; the paradox between their own private thoughts/longings and how society reacts/judges/contradicts those thoughts.

Think about the society that we live in. The fact that most people in this thread in favour of unlimited abortion are basically incapable of examining the impact of abortion on the fetus let alone the father of the child, women who want to have children, the women's family etc... show that they do not understand the morality of abortion.

I'm not saying that abortion should be a legal issue. I already addressed that.

Proper friendship is more complicated. I'll address it if it comes up again.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Azure

It was in fact well-deserved.

Especially to someone who wants to do population control through abortion.

Given your stance on the issue, it's only natural you'd think that way. Given my stance, it's only natural that I disagree with you on every facet of your stance. But I won't stoop to attacking your character. I may not agree with your opinion, but this is a country that prides itself on free speech and you have every right to voice your opinion, and I would never forbid you from doing so. It goes against my peronal views on censorship. But there's a difference between asking a question, and making a damning statement.

You want it to be well deserved? Ask the question "Can you morally apply that stance to people you don't know?" Don't make the statement with an implied affirmative response.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Given your stance on the issue, it's only natural you'd think that way. Given my stance, it's only natural that I disagree with you on every facet of your stance. But I won't stoop to attacking your character. I may not agree with your opinion, but this is a country that prides itself on free speech and you have every right to voice your opinion, and I would never forbid you from doing so. It goes against my peronal views on censorship. But there's a difference between asking a question, and making a damning statement.

You want it to be well deserved? Ask the question "Can you morally apply that stance to people you don't know?" Don't make the statement with an implied affirmative response.

Facts do not exist without values. Your opinion is your character and statements that challenge that character are not exempt from debate.

So I'll ask a question... what do you think of euthanasia?

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

original sin?

Actually no, an uncognitive child doesnt have the capacity to sin... much less in the womb hahaha.

Also going back to your other point about "forcing the woman to give birth to an unwanted child":

Not facilitating something does not mean you facilitate the other. It just means explore your other options.

[Hemi-Cuda]

so tell me this. God gives man free will. a woman may use that free will to abort having a child. so how can God say after the fact "Not fair!" and bitch about it? i think you could state that God is as pro-choice as you could possibly get

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

so tell me this. God gives man free will. a woman may use that free will may use that free will to abort having a child. so how can God say after the fact "Not fair!" and bitch about it? i think you could state that God is as pro-choice as you could possibly get

I'm not religious.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by peter12

Facts do not exist without values. Your opinion is your character and statements that challenge that character are not exempt from debate.

So I'll ask a question... what do you think of euthanasia?

Completely support euthanasia and feel that it should be legalized. What I do with my body is of no concern to anyone else and to tie it in with your other point above, I do not really care about the impact it has on my friends, family, people who want others to live, etc.

Those that do not support euthanasia are simply cold hearted, immoral people incapable of understanding or even comtemplating the pain of other human beings.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

so tell me this. God gives man free will. a woman may use that free will to abort having a child. so how can God say after the fact "Not fair!" and bitch about it? i think you could state that God is as pro-choice as you could possibly get

I'll take this one. First, I was not and would still prefer not to argue from a religious standpoint... But if I was going to, I would say:

God gave us free will, not a free pass. Just because you can sin doesnt mean you should.

*takes religious hat off*

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Actually no, an uncognitive child doesnt have the capacity to sin... much less in the womb hahaha.

That would have to be because they are not a human being, because in the Church's eyes, original sin is readily apparent from the moment one becomes a human being.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

This is a valid question because it is just that, a question.

Originally Posted by alltherage

You lost me on this one.

Questioning a person about what moral and ethical beliefs they hold is a lot different than making a blanket statement about them and calling it fact.

Nobody stated that any assumptions were fact there.

You're not. Peter12 is.

Originally Posted by peter12

Completely called for. Statements like that assume certain moral and political tenets.

Originally Posted by peter12

Facts do not exist without values. Your opinion is your character and statements that challenge that character are not exempt from debate.

So I'll ask a question... what do you think of euthanasia?

Euthanasia has a time and place for propriety. My answer would depend wholeheartedly on the scenario at hand. To give you a direct answer, it is cause-dependant. I can be either for or against it.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

That would have to be because they are not a human being, because in the Church's eyes, original sin is readily apparent from the moment one becomes a human being.

First, someone who isnt cognitive is not capable of sin, period. You can be afflicted with original sin, but that doesnt make you guilty of it.

Who the hell said anything about the church or religion anyways? Why are pro-choicers bringing up religion? Is this the only argument you have?

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Questioning a person about what moral and ethical beliefs they hold is a lot different than making a blanket statement about them and calling it fact.

Again, I took that as a challenge for moral consistency, not an accusational typecast of his morality. Although, I can see why it may have come across that way... so ya. All good.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Given your stance on the issue, it's only natural you'd think that way. Given my stance, it's only natural that I disagree with you on every facet of your stance. But I won't stoop to attacking your character. I may not agree with your opinion, but this is a country that prides itself on free speech and you have every right to voice your opinion, and I would never forbid you from doing so. It goes against my peronal views on censorship. But there's a difference between asking a question, and making a damning statement.

You want it to be well deserved? Ask the question "Can you morally apply that stance to people you don't know?" Don't make the statement with an implied affirmative response.

My stance on the issue is that personally I would never agree to an abortion. But I would also never force that viewpoint on anyone else, so I'm probably pro-choice as well.

If you want to DEFINE it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

so tell me this. God gives man free will. a woman may use that free will to abort having a child. so how can God say after the fact "Not fair!" and bitch about it? i think you could state that God is as pro-choice as you could possibly get

I'm still wondering how many people who require medical assistance should be killed.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Questioning a person about what moral and ethical beliefs they hold is a lot different than making a blanket statement about them and calling it fact.




You're not. Peter12 is.

We've already uncovered that my assumptions were correct.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by alltherage

First, someone who isnt cognitive is not capable of sin, period. You can be afflicted with original sin, but that doesnt make you guilty of it.

Who the hell said anything about the church or religion anyways? Why are pro-choicers bringing up religion? Is this the only argument you have?

give me a valid argument that all human life is sacred and must be protected at all cost without reverting to religion

ignoring the God aspect then, i simply believe that we should spend more time and effort into ensuring the quality of life for the people that are already here, and not on "potential" humans whose parents wouldn't be ready to care for them properly. i recommend you look at the documentary Aftermath: Population Overload on the National Geographic Channel, to see what will happen if the human population keeps expanding beyond what our planet can support

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm still wondering how many people who require medical assistance should be killed.

Well thats an actuarial sum divided by a PR problem, how much taxes the public will tolerate versus how many dead due to low medical resources.

You can save way more lives if you want to spend the money.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Azure

My stance on the issue is that personally I would never agree to an abortion. But I would also never force that viewpoint on anyone else, so I'm probably pro-choice as well.

If you want to DEFINE it.

Well said. My stance is exactly the same.