ABORTION: The Moral Dilemma
Jack Plant
>Here we see right wing mischief in full flight. Instead of working toward
>a better understanding in society to reduce the incidence of abortion in
>the population (there are no women who are happy about having abortions)
>you right wing yahoos persist in picking at this scab. There are some
>difficult legal, medical and moral issues as there are with old people
>dying at the end of life.
>
>The last place that any god damn politician from the right wing has, is
>any "moral advice" to offer to lawyers, judges, doctors, women, or members
>of society in general. You are moral cripples without a functioning
>compass. How on earth do you propose to criticize your brother for having
>a speck in his eye, when you have a log in your own???
>
Hmm??? You're nuts too, aren't you Joe???
Just like Carrick!
Jack Plant
Jack Plant
The Moral Dilemma:
Freedom of Choice in Abortion
The decision faced by a woman considering the abortion option is
fundamentally distinct from the decisions made by governments that
legislate on abortion; whereas the woman's choice is a moral one, the
government's choices are always political.
True freedom of choice in abortion, as in all aspects of choice,
entails the personal acceptance and legal enforcement of
responsibility for one's choices. For that reason, we don't believe
that it's the government's job to make getting an abortion easy any
more than we believe it's the government's job to prohibit abortions.
Unfortunately, certain lobby groups within society have created a
political issue of the moral debate, and their conflict has produced a
situation where each side in the debate has been compromised into
supporting the other. Though neither the prohibition nor subsidization
of abortion will ever be able to resolve the issue, Ontarians have
been forced to endure both.
The prohibition takes the form of regulatory and controlling review
boards that have been granted the authority to make a woman's choice
for her. And of course, the government has maintained an outright
prohibition on the establishment of private abortion clinics, which
would compete with its own monopoly on the practice. But here's the
real clincher: at the same time the government prohibits and regulates
abortions, it forces the taxpayer to pay for them!
We think this contradiction is intolerable. It's time to stop
pretending that there's a political solution to the abortion
dilemma, because there simply isn't. We recognize that for many, this
is a difficult conclusion to have to accept, but there's no way of
avoiding it. Laws and regulations are created by politicians who
represent their constituents, voters whose disagreement on the issue
is so widespread, extreme, and fundamental that many regard abortion
as a form of "legalized murder" while an equally significant number
regard it as a "social right."
Thus, with the public as deeply and morally divided on the issue as it
is, it should come as no surprise that our democratically
representative government has once again attempted to do the
impossible: to "balance" the conflicting wishes of its citizens by
resorting to regulation, control, and the subsidization of abortion
--- a process that inevitably violates everyone's rights under the
illusionary pretense that a suitable "compromise" has been
reached on the issue. In this way, the government has effectively
played each side in the debate against the other, with the only winner
being the government itself, because it gets to make the choices it
denies to others.
The result? Those who are morally and ethically opposed to abortion
find themselves forced to pay for the abortions of others, while those
seeking an abortion are forced to bear the consequences of decisions
made by others. Thus, each side in the issue has become even more
intensely polarized and as usual, a political solution to a moral
dilemma has proven not only futile, but self-defeating as well.
Freedom Party believes that the purpose of government is to protect
your freedom of choice, not to restrict it.
Freedom Party believes that choice in abortion belongs to the
individual who must bear the consequences of that choice, whether
those consequences are personal, moral, psychological, physical, or
economic. Those who opt in favour of abortion must expect to bear
these responsibilities while the "public", as such, should not be
involved in the personal decisions of individuals and their doctors.
Similarly, those who are opposed to abortion should not be
expected to pay for the abortions of others through their taxes or
O.H.I.P. premiums, or to subsidize the maintenance of the government's
current monopoly on the practice.
As long as each side in the debate continues to insist upon the
coerced agreement and support of the other (and of the general
public), the abortion debate will be a perpetual political battle with
losers on every side. The numbers of abortions will unnecessarily
increase (since individuals have no incentive to assume responsibility
for their own actions), while the public will have to bear a
corresponding increase in costs and decrease in personal liberty and
choice.
Our solution?
Freedom of choice with responsibility!
Jack Plant
Freedom Party
Andrew P. Boulton
>
> A Freedom Party Issue Paper
>
> The Moral Dilemma:
>
> Freedom of Choice in Abortion
>
I could not agree more with the argument set forth in this paper.
Thank you, Jack!
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca
a better understanding in society to reduce the incidence of abortion in
the population (there are no women who are happy about having abortions)
you right wing yahoos persist in picking at this scab. There are some
difficult legal, medical and moral issues as there are with old people
dying at the end of life.
The last place that any god damn politician from the right wing has, is
any "moral advice" to offer to lawyers, judges, doctors, women, or members
of society in general. You are moral cripples without a functioning
compass. How on earth do you propose to criticize your brother for having
a speck in his eye, when you have a log in your own???
Joe Green
John Ross
>
> The last place that any god damn politician from the right wing has, is
> any "moral advice" to offer to lawyers, judges, doctors, women, or members
> of society in general. You are moral cripples without a functioning
> compass. How on earth do you propose to criticize your brother for having
> a speck in his eye, when you have a log in your own???
>
In other words you are claiming to have a speck in your eye and are able to
see the log in everyone else's?
"Pride comes before a fall."
Todder
> Here we see right wing mischief in full flight. Instead of working toward
> a better understanding in society to reduce the incidence of abortion in
> the population (there are no women who are happy about having abortions)
> you right wing yahoos persist in picking at this scab. There are some
> difficult legal, medical and moral issues as there are with old people
> dying at the end of life.
Views on abortion are not left vs right .
I am from the right but I am not against abortion. I don't like abortions and
I wish people took more precautions to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I also
wish that more people chose adoption over abortion.
I don't however believe my feelings should override the freedom of choice that
women now have.
Todd
Chris Delanoy
news:8l03e9$65$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Anything less and one will start to think you're just
> another cluster of oppressive males making their
> generations-old revival of restricting female freedoms.
Really? Let's see who here defends the freedom of women, and who wants to
restrict them, shall we Karen? Here are a few starters:
Do you support a woman's right to choose how every penny she earns ought to
be spent? Or should the government restrict her freedom by taking half of
it through taxation and thus deciding for her?
Do you support a woman's right to choose to carry a belt-fed machine gun
down the street? Or should the government restrict her freedom to defend
herself in this manner? How do you feel about her right to choose to keep
grenades in her home?
Do you support a woman's right to choose to build a parking lot overtop of a
"wetland" on a piece of property she owns? Or should the government
restrict her freedom to use her own land as she sees fit?
Do you support a woman's right to choose whatever education she wants for
her children? Or should the government restrict her freedom and require her
child to their schools and then pay for them against her will?
You see, Karen, you are the last person here who defends the freedom of
women to make conscious decisions and choices on their own behalf. You are
not pro-choice, and you are not for female freedom - because you are not for
human freedom of any kind.
Chris Delanoy
---
"The State indeed performs many important and necessary functions. But this
in no way demonstrates that only the State can perform such functions, or,
indeed, that it performs them even passably well."
- Murray N. Rothbard
(780) 421-1018
http://www.propertyrights.net
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cdelanoy/
Alan Baker
bigk...@scowling.net (Jim Cowling) wrote:
>In article <8l0f5q$cko$1...@pulp.srv.ualberta.ca>, "Chris Delanoy"
><cdel...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>
>>women to make conscious decisions and choices on their own behalf. You
>>are
>>not pro-choice, and you are not for female freedom - because you are not
>>for
>>human freedom of any kind.
>
>Eventually, people like you will be bred out of the species. I, for one,
>can hardly wait.
Please note right off the top: I'm am not in favour of the government
inserting itself into women's decisions about whether or not to have
abortions. I firmly believe that those choices must be left to the
individual as they are the best judges of whether or not they should
bear children.
That having been said, why is it that so many on the left who are
adamant in supporting the rights of women to abort children they don't
want -- and at government expense -- why is it that they aren't nearly
so support -- in fact are dead set against letting parents choose how
they should educate those children after they are born?
I mean, if you believe that the choice of whether or not to bear child
-- to let it have life -- should be left in the hands of the parents
(ideally; in practice it's left in the hands of the mother), then how
can you possibly be against letting parents choose which school system
should educate them.
Why is it alright to demand that if they choose something other than the
private system that they should bear the cost, when if they were to
choose abortion the state should pay?
Seems more than a little inconsistent for those who put such store in "a
woman's right to choose".
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
Chris Delanoy
news:hvPc5.9571$Cm.2...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
> >women to make conscious decisions and choices on their own behalf. You
are
> >not pro-choice, and you are not for female freedom - because you are not
for
> >human freedom of any kind.
> Eventually, people like you will be bred out of the species. I, for one,
> can hardly wait.
More than 70% of people under 30 don't vote now - so it seems to be the
number of people who tolerate the maddening, all-encompassing state that is
diminishing, not the other way around.
Still, it's nice to know that I could so easily get under your skin and
reveal your alleged "pro choice" stance as the fraud that it is.
Chris Delanoy
> >Still, it's nice to know that I could so easily get under your skin and
> >reveal your alleged "pro choice" stance as the fraud that it is.
> I'm very pro-choice;
Then you support a woman's right to choose to carry a large gun and spend
every penny she earns as she sees fit?
> you have the choice whether to go on breathing my air, or
> to quietly hang yourself. I'm hoping you'll make the right
> choice.
Always the humanitarian, I see.
Jim Cowling
>not pro-choice, and you are not for female freedom - because you are not for
>human freedom of any kind.
Eventually, people like you will be bred out of the species. I, for one,
can hardly wait.
-------
Jim Cowling -- Writer/Atheist/Geek -- a.a. # 647
www.scowling.net bigk...@scowling.net
-------
Jim Cowling
>
>That having been said, why is it that so many on the left who are
>adamant in supporting the rights of women to abort children they don't
>want -- and at government expense -- why is it that they aren't nearly
>so support -- in fact are dead set against letting parents choose how
>they should educate those children after they are born?
I don't know. Why are they?
>Why is it alright to demand that if they choose something other than the
>private system that they should bear the cost, when if they were to
>choose abortion the state should pay?
A few reasons:
1. In order to keep budgets down, students may normally only attend public
schoos near where they live; they have to jump through hoops in order to
attend a different public school. With an unpredictable allocation of
students to a variety of public and private schools, public funding of both
would likely require a 50% provincial budget increase to education. In BC,
that'd be about $2 billion.
2. We don't fund churches; we therefore shouln't fund religious schools.
(Oh, I should mention that I don't believe that extracurricular activities
should be publicly funded, either. I shouldn't be paying for high school kids
to play intramural soccer; that should be paid for by user fees -- families
who can't afford it should send their kid out to sell chocolate bars).
3. Education is a basic human right; being sent to St. Andrew's is not.
4. The cost of an abortion is tiny compared to sending a kid through 13 years
of public school. The cost of an abortion every two months for 13 years is
tiny compared to the cost of sending a kid through 13 years of public school.
5. If my girlfriend had had her kid when I was 16, instead of getting an
abortion, that kid would be living in poverty and I'd probably be dead. That
tells me that the cost is worth it.
>Seems more than a little inconsistent for those who put such store in "a
>woman's right to choose".
Not even a little.
Jack Plant
wrote:
>In article <8l0f5q$cko$1...@pulp.srv.ualberta.ca>, "Chris Delanoy" <cdel...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>
>>women to make conscious decisions and choices on their own behalf. You are
>>not pro-choice, and you are not for female freedom - because you are not for
>>human freedom of any kind.
>
>Eventually, people like you will be bred out of the species. I, for one,
>can hardly wait.
>
Don't like freedom eh? Hmm?
Jim Cowling
>
>Still, it's nice to know that I could so easily get under your skin and
>reveal your alleged "pro choice" stance as the fraud that it is.
I'm very pro-choice; you have the choice whether to go on breathing my air, or
to quietly hang yourself. I'm hoping you'll make the right choice.
-------
Jim Cowling
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:43:25 GMT, bigk...@scowling.net (Jim Cowling)
>wrote:
>>can hardly wait.
>
>Don't like freedom eh? Hmm?
Love it. Maybe you can explain what freedom has to do with the fact that
people like him will eventually be bred out of the species?
We shouldn't be arguing; the Freedom Party's Statement of Principle implies
that women should have freedom of choice.
Jack Plant
wrote:
>In article <3973dba7...@news.webgate.net>, Jack Plant wrote:
>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:43:25 GMT, bigk...@scowling.net (Jim Cowling)
>>wrote:
>>>Eventually, people like you will be bred out of the species. I, for one,
>>>can hardly wait.
>>
>>Don't like freedom eh? Hmm?
>
>Love it. Maybe you can explain what freedom has to do with the fact that
>people like him will eventually be bred out of the species?
>
>We shouldn't be arguing; the Freedom Party's Statement of Principle implies
>that women should have freedom of choice.
>
>-------
OK
Chris Delanoy
> > Really? Let's see who here defends the freedom of women, and who wants
to
> > restrict them, shall we Karen? Here are a few starters:
> (K): I'm going to try and address your convoluted questions - which have
> little or nothing to do with abortion -
The questions themselves had nothing at all to do with abortion. They had
to do with women's freedom, and with the fact that you're overwhelmingly
against it.
> > Do you support a woman's right to choose how every penny she earns ought
to
> > be spent? Or should the government restrict her freedom by taking half
of
> > it through taxation and thus deciding for her?
I was asking whether a woman (or anybody) ought to pay taxes at all. Does
she have a right to choose how to spend her own money in every respect, or
are you against choice?
> > Do you support a woman's right to choose to carry a belt-fed machine gun
> > down the street? Or should the government restrict her freedom to
defend
> > herself in this manner? How do you feel about her right to choose to
keep
> > grenades in her home?
> (K): If a woman in this country had to carry a "belt-fed machine gun" for
> self-protection just to be able to walk down the street,
The essential point is: does she have a choice to do so, for whatever
reason she pleases? Or are you against choice here, too?
> (K): Ummm....hate to break this to you, but NO ONE 'owns' land in Canada.
> All land - even if you hold title to it - is SUBJECT TO THE CROWN.
So you're against women's choice with respect to their own property.
> > Do you support a woman's right to choose whatever education she wants
for
> > her children? Or should the government restrict her freedom and require
her
> > child to their schools and then pay for them against her will?
> (K): I support a standardized, publicly-funded school system that teaches
> subjects which will prepare our children for a life in Canada as
productive
> citizens.
So you're against their freedom of choice here.
> There should be no private schools in Canada funded by the public purse.
Certainly - since there should be no schools at all funded by taxation.
> > You see, Karen, you are the last person here who defends the freedom of
> > women to make conscious decisions and choices on their own behalf. You
are
> > not pro-choice, and you are not for female freedom - because you are not
for
> > human freedom of any kind.
> (K): I thought that I was being very magnanimous in my defence
> of all sorts of idiots that we women put up with every day of our
> lives.
I'm pro-choice - on EVERYTHING. You're the only one in this conversation
who believes that women's choices and women's freedom ought to be dictated
and limited by the state.
Peter Taylor
news:8l0phc$a3o$1...@pulp.srv.ualberta.ca...
> "Jim Cowling" <bigk...@scowling.net> wrote in message
> news:gdRc5.9578$Cm.2...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
>
> > >reveal your alleged "pro choice" stance as the fraud that it is.
>
> > I'm very pro-choice;
>
> every penny she earns as she sees fit?
>
> > to quietly hang yourself. I'm hoping you'll make the right
> > choice.
>
Hey, you're dealing with "Scowling" Jim Cowling here. Check out his
website - "All evil, all the time." I suspect that "Scowling" is a
role-playing fantasy gamer with little grounding in this place we call "the
real world". What is it, "Scowling" Jim, Vampires? "Scowling" Jim sure talks
tough for a guy with questionable hygiene habits, a long greasy ponytail,
and an ugly black trenchcoat.
--
Peter Taylor.
"Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered!" - Tom Paine
Rick Jones
<cdel...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
>More than 70% of people under 30 don't vote now - so it seems to be the
>number of people who tolerate the maddening, all-encompassing state that is
>diminishing, not the other way around.
How, exactly, does your second sentence follow from the first?
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> "Chris Delanoy" (cdel...@ualberta.ca) writes:
> > Do you support a woman's right to choose how every penny she earns ought to
> > be spent? Or should the government restrict her freedom by taking half of
> > it through taxation and thus deciding for her?
>
> (K): I would prefer that males who impregnate females carry their financial
> responsibilty for the raising of that child - without having to be forced
> by the courts and costly legal process. I suspect that this little change
> in male responsibility would remove hundreds of thousands of women and
> children from the welfare system, thereby reducing our taxes.
(Ken) I would prefer that a women not involved in a long term relationship who
becomes pregnant unintentionally take responsibility for her unilateral decision
to continue the pregnancy. The rallying cry "her body = her decision"
unfortunately doesn't seem to include taking responsibility for her decisions
(unless some hapless man can be forced to pay for them). If women were truly equal
to men the rallying cry would be "my body = my decision = my responsibility"
...Ken
Chris Delanoy
news:3974e7dd.396775@news...
> >More than 70% of people under 30 don't vote now - so it seems to be the
> >number of people who tolerate the maddening, all-encompassing state that
is
> >diminishing, not the other way around.
> How, exactly, does your second sentence follow from the first?
It doesn't. But it is the most conceivable generalization of the trend.
This sort of massive disinterest certainly doesn't reveal any sort of
enthusiasm for our welfare/police state, in my estimation. The attitude is
largely: "Don't vote, it only encourages them."
This encouraging trend is also just one of several which can give us
increasing confidence that we are indeed in the twilight of the state.
Jim Cowling
>
>Hey, you're dealing with "Scowling" Jim Cowling here. Check out his
>website - "All evil, all the time." I suspect that "Scowling" is a
>role-playing fantasy gamer with little grounding in this place we call "the
>real world". What is it, "Scowling" Jim, Vampires? "Scowling" Jim sure talks
>tough for a guy with questionable hygiene habits, a long greasy ponytail,
>and an ugly black trenchcoat.
Gee, there's enough information about me available on the Net (including my
home address, phone number, photographs, writings, and so forth) that one
would think you'd get even one bit of data accurate.
No such luck.
(Aside: Vampires? Please. Goths are only one or two levels higher on the
food chain than religious fundies; avoid both like the plague.)
Peter Taylor
> In article <x8%c5.31119$8u4.3...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>, "Peter Taylor"
<secto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Hey, you're dealing with "Scowling" Jim Cowling here. Check out his
> >website - "All evil, all the time." I suspect that "Scowling" is a
> >role-playing fantasy gamer with little grounding in this place we call
"the
> >real world". What is it, "Scowling" Jim, Vampires? "Scowling" Jim sure
talks
> >tough for a guy with questionable hygiene habits, a long greasy ponytail,
> >and an ugly black trenchcoat.
>
> Gee, there's enough information about me available on the Net (including
my
> home address, phone number, photographs, writings, and so forth) that one
> would think you'd get even one bit of data accurate.
Wow, a real internet celebrity. I know I'm impressed.
> No such luck.
Yeah, I agree. Darn. I was so far off.
> (Aside: Vampires? Please. Goths are only one or two levels higher on the
> food chain than religious fundies; avoid both like the plague.)
Okay, if you say so "Scowling". I'll take your word for it.
Jim Cowling
>> Gee, there's enough information about me available on the Net (including
>my
>> home address, phone number, photographs, writings, and so forth) that one
>> would think you'd get even one bit of data accurate.
>
>Wow, a real internet celebrity. I know I'm impressed.
As you should.
Ken
out and tell us EXACTLY what they intend to do should Stockwell Day become
Prime Minister? What, SPECIFICALLY, do they propose re acts of Parliament
and so on. The "debate" has long been OVER. The vast majority of Canadians
support the current pro-choice interpretation of rights by the courts (ditto
in the U.S. Britain, Europe, etc.) So let`s hear, just to satisfy our
legitimate curiosity as voters, what proposals the right wingers and/or
pro-life groupswill be putting to Parliament. Until these gutless wonders
do that it`s stupid to talk about "debates" and so on.
hifl...@ecn.ab.ca wrote in message <3973...@ecn.ab.ca>...
>Here we see right wing mischief in full flight. Instead of working toward
>a better understanding in society to reduce the incidence of abortion in
>the population (there are no women who are happy about having abortions)
>you right wing yahoos persist in picking at this scab. There are some
>difficult legal, medical and moral issues as there are with old people
>dying at the end of life.
>
>any "moral advice" to offer to lawyers, judges, doctors, women, or members
>of society in general. You are moral cripples without a functioning
>compass. How on earth do you propose to criticize your brother for having
>a speck in his eye, when you have a log in your own???
>
Steven C. Britton
> If the right wingers are still uptight about abortion, why don`t they come
> out and tell us EXACTLY what they intend to do should Stockwell Day become
> Prime Minister?
Been there, done that.
Quickly:
Legislation will be enacted to allow the public at large to petition
Parliament to trigger a referendum on any question it chooses. A certain
number of signatures (or more) will be required to be achieved within a
certain amount of time.
--
The political spectrum isn't Right/Left: it's Right/Wrong.
Steven C. Britton
Calgary
Heidi Graw
<s...@scb-group.com> wrote:
(snip)
>Steven wrote:
>Legislation will be enacted to allow the public at large to petition
>Parliament to trigger a referendum on any question it chooses. A certain
>number of signatures (or more) will be required to be achieved within a
>certain amount of time.
>
Steven, can you not get it into your head that a referendum on
abortion would not accomplish anything at all? It would be a complete
waste of tax-payer's dollars. An opinion poll is much cheaper. But,
over and over again, Pro-Lifers refuse to accept the results. So, now
you guys want to change the charter of rights. Well, that too has
already been tested! It won't wash! You cannot strip live born women
of their rights in favor of _potential_ future people.
Don't you understand that any promises made by Pro-Life politicians
about referendums and constitutional changes are only feel-good
measures that are directed at Pro-Life advocacy groups so they will
vote and toss money at these candidate? Don't you realize this kind
of political rhetoric is only a vote-getting measure? You're being
suckered right into their political game.
Now, if you prefer conservative economics over liberal ones, then
fine. You might get some results in those areas. But don't expect any
conservative politician to make changes to the abortion issue. That
won't happen. So, don't bother voting for Day if abortion is the only
issue you're concerned about. He won't get you that anti-abortion
legislation. I'm willing to bet he knows it, too.
I also find it tragic that you would want to throw money away on court
cases that cannot and will not extend "personhood" to unborn life.
The millions of dollars that have been squandered on this useless
effort is absolutely appalling. All that money could have gone to
assist already born kids and their families in need.
Your Pro-Life advocacy robs children of school supplies, hot-lunches,
warm coats and boots and much-needed medical care. The money that
Pro-Choicers have to waste in defending themselves from Pro-lifer
assaults on abortion rights is also robbing kids of valuable support.
Why don't you just back right off and get on with taking care of live
born people? You're wasting so much damn money on a lost cause I
consider it criminal! Your own crisis pregnancy centres don't even
have the necessary resources to function adequately. Just where are
your priorities? Do you even care about children? Your actions
certainly belie your words!
Heidi
Take care,
Heidi
Wildhippychik
<hg...@uniserve.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:14:05 -0600, "Steven C. Britton"
> <s...@scb-group.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >Steven wrote:
> >Legislation will be enacted to allow the public at large to petition
> >Parliament to trigger a referendum on any question it chooses. A certain
> >number of signatures (or more) will be required to be achieved within a
> >certain amount of time.
> >
Right on Heidi, great post! I completely agree...except on one point,
we have remain vigilant or things we even take for granted could be
rolled back even if it doesn't seem remotely possible now. And I think
the economic policies are basically anti children too..
---
http://www.geocities.com/wildhippychik/whp.htm
Heidi Graw
<wildhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Wildhippychik wrote:
>Right on Heidi, great post! I completely agree...except on one point,
LOL, of course.... I would be very surprised to find anyone agree on
_all_ things. :-)
>we have remain vigilant or things we even take for granted could be
>rolled back even if it doesn't seem remotely possible now.
I agree. However, it doesn't cost much to remain aware of what's
going on. It's the costs of all the legal battles - the action - that
is such a waste.
>And I think
>the economic policies are basically anti children too..
True. We only have to look at all those tax-reductions that are
proposed that will remove money from the system to support education,
health, and welfare to children. However, that is not to say some
economic efficiencies couldn't be found in existing programs. I can
also think of a number of areas where money could be transferred from
one program and applied to another. But, it is public money and the
public has a say on these matters. :-)
It's just that I see Pro-Life advocacy as _one_ area where there is a
significant and very tangible waste of huge sums of money that could
have gone elsewhere. Here is how I see Pro_Life fundraising:
PL'ers raise funds for emotionally charged propaganda and useless
legislative efforts that is directed to saving embryos. They do this
by using gross misrepresentations, vilifying and harrassing women and
their doctors. The result of their efforts kill doctors. Hence,
PL'ers are raising funds to kill doctors. Hmmm.....
Take care,
Heidi
genrl_m...@my-deja.com
hg...@uniserve.com (Heidi Graw) wrote:
> PL'ers raise funds for emotionally charged propaganda and useless
> legislative efforts that is directed to saving embryos. They do this
> by using gross misrepresentations, vilifying and harrassing women and
> their doctors. The result of their efforts kill doctors. Hence,
> PL'ers are raising funds to kill doctors. Hmmm.....
>
mean to tell me that pro-abortionists are not guilty of gross
misrepresentations and vilifying?
Let's look at your post as an example:
"The result of their efforts kill doctors." Name one doctor in Canada
who has been killed in the last 5 years. Show any link between the Pro-
Life folks and any killers.
Canada is the only country in the world without an abortion law.
Abortions are performed beyond the point in a pregnancy when the baby
could survive outside the womb. There is an interesting
contradiction. If you had an abortion at this stage of a pregnancy,
you would argue that it was not a fetus that went down the toilet. If
you wanted the child it was lost as the result of an action by some
other individual, you would want them charged. The physical damage
would be exactly the same. How can two identical acts with identical
consequences be both legal and illegal at the same time?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
Wildhippychik <wildhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <39781154...@news.uniserve.com>, Heidi Graw
> <hg...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:14:05 -0600, "Steven C. Britton"
> > <s...@scb-group.com> wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > >Steven wrote:
> > >Legislation will be enacted to allow the public at large to
petition
> > >Parliament to trigger a referendum on any question it chooses. A
certain
> > >number of signatures (or more) will be required to be achieved
within a
> > >certain amount of time.
> > >
>
> the economic policies are basically anti children too..
Nonono you assholes: The CA EAT children.
And in the past 40 years what was the 'old' morality (that thing which
build society and provided the platform for human hating collectivists
like you two smotes) has been squished. And guess what goofy girls?
Things will swing back. Guaranteed. Always does. Human nature runs the
same way that the earth has hot and cold spells and economies rise and
fall. To stay in one 'position' is static and one step on the path to
dying.
And the last little brain fart from hippydip: 'basically anti children
too..' is too much. You are about average when it comes to collective
cluelesness but above average for ignorant smugness. Here it is:
abortion is anti-human and anti-family. Ya wanna know why: because it
kill fetuses. Which grow into humans. And if you could think rationally
you would understand that it is collectivists that have done more to
kill and enslave humans than any other political system. Ever heard of
China and the USSR?
Your days are done. Get used to it.
sunnyj...@my-deja.com
> <wildhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Wildhippychik wrote:
>
> _all_ things. :-)
>
> >rolled back even if it doesn't seem remotely possible now.
>
> going on. It's the costs of all the legal battles - the action - that
> is such a waste.
>
> >the economic policies are basically anti children too..
>
> proposed that will remove money from the system to support education,
> health, and welfare to children. However, that is not to say some
> economic efficiencies couldn't be found in existing programs. I can
> also think of a number of areas where money could be transferred from
> one program and applied to another. But, it is public money and the
> public has a say on these matters. :-)
>
> It's just that I see Pro-Life advocacy as _one_ area where there is a
> significant and very tangible waste of huge sums of money that could
> have gone elsewhere. Here is how I see Pro_Life fundraising:
>
> legislative efforts that is directed to saving embryos. They do this
> by using gross misrepresentations, vilifying and harrassing women and
> their doctors. The result of their efforts kill doctors. Hence,
> PL'ers are raising funds to kill doctors. Hmmm.....
Hidey, read what you have written before you post. Then you will
realize what anti-human BS you spew out.
You just hate people and are willing to do anything to get rid of us.
You are hateful and clueless. Par for the course for a garden variety
collectivist/feminista bonehead.
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>general wrote:
> How can two identical acts with identical
>consequences be both legal and illegal at the same time?
General, it is the same as if you were to choose to demolish your car
on your own, or if someone else were to demolish it without your
permission. The foetus is not a person. However, it can be legally
treated as anything someone owns. It's legal for your to demolish
your own car if you want to. However, as soon as someone else without
your permission does so, you can seek compensation and the other
person can be penalized.
Take care,
Heidi
Rick Jones
<s...@scb-group.com> wrote:
>Ken wrote:
>
>> If the right wingers are still uptight about abortion, why don`t they come
>> out and tell us EXACTLY what they intend to do should Stockwell Day become
>> Prime Minister?
>
>Been there, done that.
>
>Quickly:
>
>Legislation will be enacted to allow the public at large to petition
>Parliament to trigger a referendum on any question it chooses.
So what? Ar referendum is just a formal opinion poll.
Does the government *have* to draft legislation? How will the
legislation match the wording of the referendum? What if the
referendum demands something that's unconstitutional?
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>
>general wrote:
>You just hate people and are willing to do anything to get rid of us.
LOL. Why do you think that just because there is no law against
abortion that women will choose not to have children? By the time
women are 45 years old, over 40% would have had an abortion, yet by
that age a great majority of women are mothers who are doing a great
job raising their kids within a loving family environment.
Most women know that embryos are not children. Most women who choose
abortions usually see the sonogram of their embryo _prior_ to having
an abortion. Some women, during the later stage of pregnancy will
even keep pictures of their aborted fetus. They sometimes hold it and
look at it before it is taken away from them. Yet, they still do it!
Why? Because they know the difference between an actual child and a
potential child. And in some very tragic cases, they also know that
the foetus will not survive a future birth. It might even have
already died in the womb.
Anyway, you become a person when you are born alive and are human.
Heidi
Steven C. Britton
> >
> >Legislation will be enacted to allow the public at large to petition
> >Parliament to trigger a referendum on any question it chooses.
>
> So what? Ar referendum is just a formal opinion poll.
>
> Does the government *have* to draft legislation? How will the
> legislation match the wording of the referendum? What if the
> referendum demands something that's unconstitutional?
The way I understand it, a referendum must not demand legislation which is
unconstitutional (however there's nothing to stop the public from demanding
a referendum to change the constitution). What happens is the organizers of
the referendum, in conjunction with politicians who are on-side. Then, the
referendum is held (if enough signatures are obtained within the time limit)
on the draft legislation.
Chris Delanoy
> >It doesn't. But it is the most conceivable generalization of the trend.
> >This sort of massive disinterest certainly doesn't reveal any sort of
> >enthusiasm for our welfare/police state, in my estimation. The attitude
is
> >largely: "Don't vote, it only encourages them."
> I could as easily say that is shows massive disinterest in corporate
> welfare
Yes, that's just what I said - they distrust the massive welfare/police
state.
> Young people tend to be *more* predisposed to welfare
> programs than the electorate as a whole.
Correction: the young people that the media tells you are interested in
politics tend to be more predisposed to welfare programs than the electorate
as a whole. Here's some advice: commentators on the state broadcaster's
"CounterSpin" and MuchMusic VJs are not typical. Most of the rest of us are
making a living and starting families and just want to be left the hell
alone. It's becoming less and less convincing when we're told - with a gun
to our heads - that our lives would be in a state of unmanageable chaos if
not for an institution which can't even do something as simple as delivering
mail cheaply or on time.
Our grandparents were convincingly duped into believing that the evil crimes
of governments in the early 20th century were really "failures of freedom" -
but the number of such fools is dwindling every day. They won't be missed.
> You are an exception, Chris, not typical of the whole.
Certainly, but the trend is going my way. I'd challenge you to find a
single person my age (outside the political arena) who believes its right
for the government the take 11% of our income for the Canada Pension Plan,
for instance.
> >This encouraging trend is also just one of several which can give us
> >increasing confidence that we are indeed in the twilight of the state.
> I remember when you said on CANACHAT that "all of Canada's problems
> will immediately be solved" if Preston Manning were elected Prime
> Minister.
I've grown a great deal intellectually since those days. I'm no longer
innocent enough to believe there is a "right way" to operate the thieving,
murdering beast which is the state. The trampling of freedom and the
resultant chaos which is the necessary result of every act of any government
has no justification whatsoever.
Chris
Rick Jones
<cdel...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
>"Rick Jones" <sgi...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3974e7dd.396775@news...
>
>> >More than 70% of people under 30 don't vote now - so it seems to be the
>> >number of people who tolerate the maddening, all-encompassing state that
>is
>> >diminishing, not the other way around.
>
>> How, exactly, does your second sentence follow from the first?
>
>It doesn't. But it is the most conceivable generalization of the trend.
>This sort of massive disinterest certainly doesn't reveal any sort of
>enthusiasm for our welfare/police state, in my estimation. The attitude is
>largely: "Don't vote, it only encourages them."
I could as easily say that is shows massive disinterest in corporate
welfare or the retooling of the YOA. Young people tend to be *more*
predisposed to welfare programs than the electorate as a whole. You
are an exception, Chris, not typical of the whole.
>This encouraging trend is also just one of several which can give us
>increasing confidence that we are indeed in the twilight of the state.
I remember when you said on CANACHAT that "all of Canada's problems
will immediately be solved" if Preston Manning were elected Prime
Minister. You still seem enamored with absurdly simplistic solutions.
tg...@home.com
A4 Kelowna Capital News Friday, July 21, 2000
Bubble zone need questioned
A group which defends women's right to abortion has come on the side of
local pro-life activists. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association opposes the
government's plan to declare a so-called bubble zone around KGH.
By Andre Hanon EDITOR
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association says the provincial government's
attempt to have an abortion "bubble zone" established around Kelowna
General Hospital has crossed the line of unfairly muzzling free expression.
Murray Mollard, policy director of the association, is concerned that the
Ministry of Health's application for a protected area around the hospital is
both misguided and premature.
Bubble zones keep antiabortion protesters a set distance from facilities
which provide abortions. The intent was to keep clinic patients and staff free
from harassment and intimidation by overzealous pro-lifers. The ministry
applied for a bubble zone around KGH, which plans to open its long-awaited
abortion clinic next month, in the wake of last week's knife attack on Van
couver gynecologist and abortionist Garson Romalis.
This is the second attempt on his life in the past five years.
Previously he nearly bled to death after a sniper shot him in the leg while
the doctor was sitting at his breakfast table.
Ministry officials have said they want to ensure abortion providers and their
patients will be safe when the Kelowna clinic opens, and have applied for a
bubble zone as a precautionary measure.
And that's where the civil liberties association takes issue with the
government.
"We think the bubble zone shouldn't be established in advance of the clinic
opening or in advance of sufficiently problematic behavior," explained
Mollard.
The association takes exception to curtailing pro-lifers' freedom of
expression simply because there might be problems.
Mollard also questioned the effectiveness of bubble zones in protecting
incidents such as the Romahis stabbing. The doctor was nowhere near an
abortion clinic when he was attacked. "A bubble zone will not do anything to
prevent such incidents," Mollard added.
The question of bubble-zone legislation, Mollard said, has been the source
of vigorous debate among the civil liberties association's members.
The association, which fights to protect individual rights and freedoms, often
defends members of causes the association disagrees with solely on the
principle that these people should have the right to express their points of
view.
Such is the case with bubble zones. Mollard said it's a prime example of
colliding freedoms-pitting the patients' right to privacy against the pro-
lifers' right to express their opinions.
"We fully support the legislation's general objective: protecting the privacy
of
individuals' Mollard said. "But in the case of Kelowna, we're very
concerned about the application of the act."
The association supports bubble zones around freestanding abortion clinics,
such as the Every Woman's Health Clinic in Vancouver, because it's clear
that all patients heading through the door are consulting about abortions,
and-there have been incidents of harassment.
However, the association opposed a bubble zone around Vancouver General
Hospital because only a fraction of the women coming and going are there
on matters related to abortion.
That gives them a guarantee of a certain measure of anonymity that the
association considers satisfactory.
will...@my-deja.com
sunnyj...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <210720001149410808%wildhi...@yahoo.com>,
> Wildhippychik <wildhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <39781154...@news.uniserve.com>, Heidi Graw
> > <hg...@uniserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >Steven wrote:
> > > >Legislation will be enacted to allow the public at large to
> petition
> certain
> > > >number of signatures (or more) will be required to be achieved
> within a
> > > >certain amount of time.
> > > >
> >
point,
think
> > the economic policies are basically anti children too..
>
>
> And in the past 40 years what was the 'old' morality (that thing which
> build society and provided the platform for human hating collectivists
> like you two smotes) has been squished. And guess what goofy girls?
> Things will swing back. Guaranteed. Always does. Human nature runs the
> same way that the earth has hot and cold spells and economies rise and
> fall. To stay in one 'position' is static and one step on the path to
> dying.
>
> And the last little brain fart from hippydip: 'basically anti children
> too..' is too much. You are about average when it comes to collective
> cluelesness but above average for ignorant smugness. Here it is:
> abortion is anti-human and anti-family. Ya wanna know why: because it
> kill fetuses. Which grow into humans. And if you could think
rationally
> you would understand that it is collectivists that have done more to
> kill and enslave humans than any other political system. Ever heard of
> China and the USSR?
Good work, Jim. But don't spend all your time worrying about the
Sino-Soviet menace. Right here in BC we not only have the abortion
happy NDP, we even have pro-abortion "Liberals" like Ted Nebbeling
trying to exclude people like Jon Hof from the Liberal Party as long as
two years ago. Long before Smallwood said anyting about Hof.
Don't believe me? Get a load of this:
The following letter, in which Jon Hof is named four times, was written
by West Vancouver-Garibaldi Liberal MLA Ted Nebbeling:
July 13, 1998
All BC Liberal Caucus Members
Dear Colleagues
I don't feel very good composing this letter, trying to somehow share my
feelings and regretfully, fears about where we are going as a Caucus and
more important, where we are going as a Liberal party.
It cannot be a surprise for many that I have struggled over the last few
months to find comfort with the shift to the right that we are
experiencing. A shift that has led me to question what the real agenda
is that we are pursuing.
I am motivated by a goal that reflects a return to a free enterprise
driven economy and a reduction of the role that government plays in
controlling, through over-regulation and taxation, creating prosperity
for British Columbians and a social safety net for those who need the
assistance of society to achieve a quality of life that would otherwise
not be there for them.
I should say, at the surface it seems that indeed this is our Caucus
position. But the undercurrent of a more right-wing agenda is beginning
to pull us away from those goals.
I am very much alarmed by the enclosed interviews in the Georgia
Straight and BC Report given by the President of the Campaign Life
Coalition, Mr. John Hof. I urge you to read these articles as they will
explain how the Campaign Life Coalition intends to infiltrate the BC
Liberal Party in order to see the agenda of this anti-abortion movement
introduced into our policies.
In the end, I do not believe that the membership of this Party will
allow the shift to the right of right to happen. But, that may well be a
mute [sic] point as the internal fight that this new direction will
cause will wound us and will considerably reduce the chance of winning
the next election. British Columbians will never endorse a Wilf Hanna
[sic] Agenda. The policies of the pro-life coalition are very much, if
not identical, to that agenda.
I point to some of the suggestions made by Mr. John Hof to our Leader
during a meeting in February this year which was organized by our Whip,
Rich Coleman, who is a close friend of Mr. Hof. The most troublesome
one being the "Conscience-Clause Bill" allowing health care providers to
deny care on moral or religious grounds. Soon after that meeting, Rich
Coleman wanted to introduce a Private Members Bill entitled, "Health
Care Workers Conscience Protection Act". This Bill provides that a
health care professional can refuse to participate in any activity which
is contrary to their religious or moral convictions. So, publicly we
present ourselves as a center right party, espousing a Free
Enterprise-Entrepreneurial vision, with a strong social conscience for
British Columbia and behind the scene, we see activities by a number of
members in Caucus, "13 according to Mr. Hof", promoting an agenda that
is closer to the values of the Campaign Life Coalition.
A further indication for me to be concerned are some other incidents,
such as a statement in the press made by a staff member close to the
Leader about BC Liberal support for the Federal Reform Party in an
upcoming election and the premature (not Caucus endorsed) meeting
between Rich Coleman and Bill Vander Zalm. The only free votes we have
considered so far are driven by yet another policy issue presented by
the Campaign Life Coalition "Traditional Family" definition "excluding
Gays and Lesbians".
It was my intention to keep my feelings on this matter to myself until
we can discuss it during our Retreat, but my discomfort and anger,
fuelled by repeated questioning by supporters who recognize this shift
towards the right wing agenda, has prompted this note now. An agenda
that is considered to be right of the right by most and cannot, in a
reasonable way, be considered Liberal.
I cannot sit back and let this happen without speaking up as I doubt
that this shift is the winning strategy for us in the next election.
Yours truly,
Ted Nebbeling, MLA
West Vancouver-Garibaldi
will...@my-deja.com
tg...@home.com wrote:
>
>
> A4 Kelowna Capital News Friday, July 21, 2000
>
> Bubble zone need questioned
An excellent post, Ted. I fully sympathize with your feelings. The NDP
has a known record in this area, but I thought there was more hope with
the Liberals, until I read the following letter, in which Jon Hof is
named four times. It was written by West Vancouver-Garibaldi Liberal
MLA Ted Nebbeling, who, need I remind you, is openly gay:
July 13, 1998
Dear Colleagues
Yours truly,
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> "Rick Jones" <sgi...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3978faf2.6690825@news...
>
> > Young people tend to be *more* predisposed to welfare
> > programs than the electorate as a whole.
>
> Correction: the young people that the media tells you are interested in
> politics tend to be more predisposed to welfare programs than the electorate
> as a whole. Here's some advice: commentators on the state broadcaster's
> "CounterSpin" and MuchMusic VJs are not typical. Most of the rest of us are
> making a living and starting families and just want to be left the hell
> alone. It's becoming less and less convincing when we're told - with a gun
> to our heads - that our lives would be in a state of unmanageable chaos if
> not for an institution which can't even do something as simple as delivering
> mail cheaply or on time.
Well then stop using "Someday Courier" or "Fedex" or the like and send it via
Canada Post, it'll get there quicker and cost less too...
> I've grown a great deal intellectually since those days. I'm no longer
> innocent enough to believe there is a "right way" to operate the thieving,
> murdering beast which is the state. The trampling of freedom and the
> resultant chaos which is the necessary result of every act of any government
> has no justification whatsoever.
Your ridiculous alternative which is essentially the law of the jungle will
be better ?
...Ken
tg...@home.com
>
>Steven, can you not get it into your head that a referendum on
>abortion would not accomplish anything at all? It would be a complete
>waste of tax-payer's dollars. An opinion poll is much cheaper. But,
>over and over again, Pro-Lifers refuse to accept the results. So, now
>you guys want to change the charter of rights. Well, that too has
>already been tested! It won't wash! You cannot strip live born women
>of their rights in favor of _potential_ future people.
So Heidi. Sask. voters a few years ago voted over 60% to stop funding
abortions. Would you accept this vote as the "will of the people"?
I might add that the NDP government refused to listen to the results of the
vote. Naturally.
Ted
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>So Heidi. Sask. voters a few years ago voted over 60% to stop funding
>abortions. Would you accept this vote as the "will of the people"?
No, because abortions are a "medical" procedure. They impact on a
woman's health. Would you want the public to take a vote about
removing your kidney stones? Some may argue they are a natural
occurance - a will of God - and one must suffer the consequences of an
indulgent life.
>
>I might add that the NDP government refused to listen to the results of the
>vote. Naturally.
Of course they rejected it. They made the correct decision because
the issue of abortion is a health concern which must be kept within
the doctor/patient relationship.
Now, if you want private health insurance as opposed to publicly
funded care, we can certainly talk about that one. If the public
chooses to vote to change back to private care, then fine, it's the
public's collective funds which are at stake here. And certainly
private insurers would find it financially beneficial to cover the
costs of abortions because that is considerably cheaper than paying
the costs as related to births.
Take care,
Heidi
Andrew Golebiowski
hg...@uniserve.com (Heidi Graw) wrote:
> >On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 17:43:26 GMT, tg...@home.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >So Heidi. Sask. voters a few years ago voted over 60% to stop
> >funding abortions.
> >Would you accept this vote as the "will of the people"?
>
> No, because abortions are a "medical" procedure.
Yeah... As much as liposuction, breast enhancement or transfere of skin
from your butt to your face.
And, by the way, why do you put the word medical in quotes? Is it
because you want to emphacise the irony of your statement.
> They impact on a
> woman's health.
Yeah... Pregnancy is a disease. Abortion cures it. Did I undertand
correctly.?
You sound like someone whose education never went beyond colouring
books.
> Would you want the public to take a vote about
> removing your kidney stones? Some may argue they are a natural
> occurance - a will of God - and one must suffer the consequences of an
> indulgent life.
Few days ago one Jim compared removal of fetus to cutting nails. How one
Heidi compares abortion to removal of kidney stones. I am truly stunned
with the intelectual depth of these arguments.
No wonder you are scared to death when someone mentions abortion and
referendum in the same sentence.
Andrew
tg...@home.com
>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 17:43:26 GMT, tg...@home.com wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>>So Heidi. Sask. voters a few years ago voted over 60% to stop funding
>>abortions. Would you accept this vote as the "will of the people"?
>
>No, because abortions are a "medical" procedure. They impact on a
>woman's health. Would you want the public to take a vote about
>removing your kidney stones? Some may argue they are a natural
>occurance - a will of God - and one must suffer the consequences of an
>indulgent life.
So you don't support democracy? Very interesting. The will of the
people...so much for "choice" in the prochoice movement.
BTW, abortion is not like removing kidney stones. In case you did not notice,
it is taking the life of an unborn human being.
Once again the pro-choice movement expresses utter contempt for the will of
the people.
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>tgerk wrote:
>Once again the pro-choice movement expresses utter contempt for the will of
>the people.
Yes, you're absolutely right. The will of the people stops at the
outer boundaries my body. What happens inside my body is not the
people's affair. Got it?
Heidi
genrl_m...@my-deja.com
Essentially black slaves weren't people by legal definition. It was OK
to hang your own slave but not to hang not to hang another owner's
slave. Are you saying that these two circumstances are the same?
genrl_m...@my-deja.com
hg...@uniserve.com (Heidi Graw) wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:29:20 GMT, sunnyj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >
> >general wrote:
> >You just hate people and are willing to do anything to get rid of us.
>
Please watch your transcriptions as I did not post the above.
> LOL. Why do you think that just because there is no law against
> abortion that women will choose not to have children? By the time
The point is that they have chosen not to have those children.
> women are 45 years old, over 40% would have had an abortion, yet by
> that age a great majority of women are mothers who are doing a great
> job raising their kids within a loving family environment.
>
Perhaps. Many have been unable to have children as a result.
> Most women know that embryos are not children. Most women who choose
Please support a reference for the "most women" claim. I think that
there is a big difference between an embryo, a foetus and an unborn
child. I doubt that most women who are in labour would think that they
have anything but children in their wombs.
> abortions usually see the sonogram of their embryo _prior_ to having
> an abortion. Some women, during the later stage of pregnancy will
> even keep pictures of their aborted fetus. They sometimes hold it and
> look at it before it is taken away from them. Yet, they still do it!
> Why? Because they know the difference between an actual child and a
> potential child. And in some very tragic cases, they also know that
> the foetus will not survive a future birth. It might even have
> already died in the womb.
>
This behaviour sounds sociopathic and I rather doubt it is common.
> Anyway, you become a person when you are born alive and are human.
>
Well that's your definition. In the Confederate States you would add
that you are white. In Nazi Germany add Aryan. In many societies you
would have added that you were male including our own. In our society
there was also a time when a child wasn't consider human until 5.
Interestingly, feminist Susan Faludi had to break down and admit that
the foetus/embryo/non-person that she was carrying was in fact a baby.
John Carrick
>> I could as easily say that is shows massive disinterest in corporate
>> welfare
>
>state.
You appear to be a cynical, jaded malcontent.
That might be understandable. if you were in your seventies and had
met with many disappointments in life, but in a young man it is
alarming.
>> Young people tend to be *more* predisposed to welfare
>> programs than the electorate as a whole.
>
>Correction: the young people that the media tells you are interested in
>politics tend to be more predisposed to welfare programs than the electorate
>as a whole.
You are quite simply *INCORRECT*, when you reject figures put out by
Canadian polling firms and reported in the press. These firms are
successful, because the figures that they report are highly reliable.
It is childish to reject poll results, simply because you would like
them to be different. People who do that have a great deal of growing
up to do.
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> In article <3978d7f3...@news.uniserve.com>,
> hg...@uniserve.com (Heidi Graw) wrote:
> > >On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:06:38 GMT, genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > >general wrote:
> > > How can two identical acts with identical
> > >consequences be both legal and illegal at the same time?
> >
> > General, it is the same as if you were to choose to demolish your car
> > on your own, or if someone else were to demolish it without your
> > permission. The foetus is not a person. However, it can be legally
> > treated as anything someone owns. It's legal for your to demolish
> > your own car if you want to. However, as soon as someone else without
> > your permission does so, you can seek compensation and the other
> > person can be penalized.
> >
> Interesting. This is the same legal approach used by the Confederacy.
> Essentially black slaves weren't people by legal definition. It was OK
> to hang your own slave but not to hang not to hang another owner's
> slave. Are you saying that these two circumstances are the same?
Different situation. First, the slave was an actual, fully developed,
self aware human being whether or not that was recognized in law, the fetus
is, at most, a "potential" human being. Further, the slave owner wasn't
being directly physically impacted by the slave since he/she wasn't carrying
the slave around inside his/her body.
The fact is that, regardless of the status of the fetus, the woman still
comes out on top in the balance of "rights" since there is no other
situation where we would allow one person to impose themselves so directly
upon another person as does a (unwanted) fetus upon the woman. From this
perspective alone the woman has the right of security of her own person
regardless of the legal status of the fetus. At worst/best (depending upon
your perspective) the most that could be expected is an attempted, non-fatal
termination of the pregnancy which doesn't outright kill the fetus so it
may continue development either inside a more receptive woman's womb or in
an artificial womb.
...Ken
Chris Delanoy
news:397CE4A2...@istar.ca...
> > Interesting. This is the same legal approach used by the Confederacy.
> > Essentially black slaves weren't people by legal definition. It was OK
> > to hang your own slave but not to hang not to hang another owner's
> > slave. Are you saying that these two circumstances are the same?
> Different situation. First, the slave was an actual, fully developed,
> self aware human being whether or not that was recognized in law,
Ken, you deny the existence of natural, inalienable rights - so you have
little credibility in attempting to use them to defend any of your
positions. According to you, rights are "social constructs" which are
granted by "society" - so the notion that a fetus has rights, or that a
slave does not, is perfectly consistent with your principles, so long as
this is what "society" (read: the self-professed spokesmen of "society" in
government) says is proper.
> The fact is that, regardless of the status of the fetus, the woman still
> comes out on top in the balance of "rights" since there is no other
> situation where we would allow one person to impose themselves so directly
> upon another person as does a (unwanted) fetus upon the woman. From this
> perspective alone the woman has the right of security of her own person
> regardless of the legal status of the fetus.
But your position - repeated again and again in virtually every other thread
you join in - is that the only "real" rights are those recognized in law, so
it's perfectly consistent with your view of rights for "society" to deny any
or all of a woman's rights.
Chris Delanoy
---
"It is obvious that the only tangible government we have is made up of
professed agents or representatives of a secret band of robbers and
murderers, who, to cover up, or gloss over, their robberies and murders,
have taken to themselves the title of "the people"; and who, on the pretense
of being "the people," assert their right to subject to their dominion, and
to control and dispose of at their pleasure, all property and persons."
- Lysander Spooner
Heidi Graw
>>Heidi wrote:
>> General, it is the same as if you were to choose to demolish your car
>> on your own, or if someone else were to demolish it without your
>> permission. The foetus is not a person. However, it can be legally
>> treated as anything someone owns. It's legal for your to demolish
>> your own car if you want to. However, as soon as someone else without
>> your permission does so, you can seek compensation and the other
>> person can be penalized.
>General wrote:
>Interesting. This is the same legal approach used by the Confederacy.
>Essentially black slaves weren't people by legal definition. It was OK
>to hang your own slave but not to hang not to hang another owner's
>slave. Are you saying that these two circumstances are the same?
Slaves did not live insider their master's bodies. Slaves also had
feelings, a functioning brain, and had relationships.
Over 85% of abortions are done before 12-weeks of gestation. The
embryo/early foetus at that stage does not have feelings, a
functioning brain, nor can it relate to its environment or the people
on the "outside." It, very literally, is just a blob of tissue not
even 3" long, but it has the potential to become a conscious,
feeling and social baby - and eventual human being much later on.
Take care,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>> >
>> >general wrote:
>> >You just hate people and are willing to do anything to get rid of us.
>>
>Heidi,
>
>Please watch your transcriptions as I did not post the above.
Sorry, general, I realized it only _after_ I had sent off the post.
(snip)
>Perhaps. Many have been unable to have children as a result.
..and, yet, more women have far more difficulties conceiving after
they've had their first child. Also, the maternal mortality rate is
ten times higher with birth than with abortions. Be glad women are
choosing to risk their lives when they do choose to carry a child to
term.
>
>> Most women know that embryos are not children. Most women who choose
>
>Please support a reference for the "most women" claim. I think that
>there is a big difference between an embryo, a foetus and an unborn
>child. I doubt that most women who are in labour would think that they
>have anything but children in their wombs.
General, I'm glad you notice the difference between embryos, foetii
and "just-about-to-be born" or "viable" (around 23-26 weeks gestation)
foetii. Not many Pro-Lifers do. I don't think you will find any
doctors who would willfully abort a foetus that is 36 weeks old,
unless there are compelling reasons, ie. it died. Once the foetus is
viable, _births_ can be induced if the mother's life is threatened.
In my own case, I aborted two pregnancies which resulted in two
live-born sons. :-)
>
>> abortions usually see the sonogram of their embryo _prior_ to having
>> an abortion. Some women, during the later stage of pregnancy will
>> even keep pictures of their aborted fetus. They sometimes hold it and
>> look at it before it is taken away from them. Yet, they still do it!
>> Why? Because they know the difference between an actual child and a
>> potential child. And in some very tragic cases, they also know that
>> the foetus will not survive a future birth. It might even have
>> already died in the womb.
>>
>This behaviour sounds sociopathic and I rather doubt it is common.
General, before the physician can perform an abortion, he/she has to
verify the foetal age so he/she knows which technique is safest to use
on the mother. She is there and can actually see the picture of
that tiny little embryo (usually less than 12-weeks from her last
period). Yet, she still chooses to go ahead with the abortion. It's
quite obvious they know enough about embryo and foetal development to
know that there are no moral or emotional consequences to aborting
such a blob of tissue - the size which fits in a table-spoon! It is
not a full-size near-term foetus which trashes around kicking her from
the inside out.
As for second or third trimester abortion, they are indeed rare and
are done for very compelling and serious medical reasons.
These ones make for good Pro-Life propaganda. However, this is
extremely misleading on the PL side.
(snip)
>Interestingly, feminist Susan Faludi had to break down and admit that
>the foetus/embryo/non-person that she was carrying was in fact a baby.
In my case, I had all sorts of different endearing nick-names for
mine. :-)
Take care,
Heidi
genrl_m...@my-deja.com
hg...@uniserve.com (Heidi Graw) wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:43:24 GMT, genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> Most women know that embryos are not children. Most women who
choose
> >
> >Please support a reference for the "most women" claim. I think that
> >there is a big difference between an embryo, a foetus and an unborn
> >child. I doubt that most women who are in labour would think that
they
> >have anything but children in their wombs.
>
> General, I'm glad you notice the difference between embryos, foetii
> and "just-about-to-be born" or "viable" (around 23-26 weeks gestation)
> foetii. Not many Pro-Lifers do. I don't think you will find any
> doctors who would willfully abort a foetus that is 36 weeks old,
> unless there are compelling reasons, ie. it died. Once the foetus is
> viable, _births_ can be induced if the mother's life is threatened.
> In my own case, I aborted two pregnancies which resulted in two
> live-born sons. :-)
>
any will means that there needs to be a law in place. Few people in
comparison with the entire population will steal, commit robbery, rape
or murder. The fact that some do means that we have to have laws in
place. At the very least, the laws should protect the foetus from the
point of viability on.
I am confused about your two aborted pregnancies. Were these
intentional abortions? What did you do with them after they were born?
<snip>
> As for second or third trimester abortion, they are indeed rare and
> are done for very compelling and serious medical reasons.
> These ones make for good Pro-Life propaganda. However, this is
> extremely misleading on the PL side.
>
How rare are they? What statistics do you provide to support the claim
that they are done for medical reasons? If there is one abortion
performed for non-medical reasons, then that shows that the laws are
inadequate.
> (snip)
>
> >Interestingly, feminist Susan Faludi had to break down and admit that
> >the foetus/embryo/non-person that she was carrying was in fact a
baby.
>
> In my case, I had all sorts of different endearing nick-names for
> mine. :-)
>
You didn't address the point that I tried to make earlier that your
definition of when life begins is arbitrary and based on convenience.
Any definitions based on personal convenience, especially the
convenience of those who have the power, are inevitably dangerous.
genrl_m...@my-deja.com
Ken & Laura Chaddock <chad...@istar.ca> wrote:
> genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Interesting. This is the same legal approach used by the
Confederacy.
> > Essentially black slaves weren't people by legal definition. It
was OK
> > to hang your own slave but not to hang not to hang another owner's
> > slave. Are you saying that these two circumstances are the same?
>
developed,
Interesting that you snipped out my reference to 5 year olds not being
recognized as people.
fetus
> is, at most, a "potential" human being. Further, the slave owner
wasn't
> being directly physically impacted by the slave since he/she wasn't
carrying
> the slave around inside his/her body.
He's carrying the slave on his property. Maybe the slave is causing
him trouble.
> The fact is that, regardless of the status of the fetus, the woman
still
> comes out on top in the balance of "rights" since there is no other
> situation where we would allow one person to impose themselves so
directly
> upon another person as does a (unwanted) fetus upon the woman. From
Interesting. It's then the baby's fault that it's in mum's womb. As a
local family therapist was quoted as saying, "Who fucked?"
Society recognizes in law the importance of providing care to
children. Failing to provide care is a violation of the law. The
parents brought them into this world and can look after them until they
no longer need it or they find somebody else to do it? Why do you
arbitrarily define this responsibility at birth?
this
> perspective alone the woman has the right of security of her own
person
> regardless of the legal status of the fetus. At worst/best (depending
upon
> your perspective) the most that could be expected is an attempted,
non-fatal
> termination of the pregnancy which doesn't outright kill the fetus
so it
> may continue development either inside a more receptive woman's womb
or in
> an artificial womb.
>
Let me state for the record that in cases where there are serious
medical concerns, the mother's life takes primacy. Assuming that this
is not the case, we should not be allowing girls/women to terminate
pregnancies in which the foetus is viable. They have had lots of time
to make there decision and have chosen to bring the baby to sentience.
They created the situation. They have the responsibility to see it
through. With rights come responsibilities.
genrl_m...@my-deja.com
hg...@uniserve.com (Heidi Graw) wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:25:58 GMT, genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >>Heidi wrote:
> >> General, it is the same as if you were to choose to demolish your
car
> >> on your own, or if someone else were to demolish it without your
> >> permission. The foetus is not a person. However, it can be
legally
> >> treated as anything someone owns. It's legal for your to demolish
> >> your own car if you want to. However, as soon as someone else
without
> >> your permission does so, you can seek compensation and the other
> >> person can be penalized.
>
> >Interesting. This is the same legal approach used by the
Confederacy.
> >Essentially black slaves weren't people by legal definition. It was
OK
> >to hang your own slave but not to hang not to hang another owner's
> >slave. Are you saying that these two circumstances are the same?
>
> feelings, a functioning brain, and had relationships.
>
who through accident or birth are in comas, have no feelings and brain
or body functions and are incapable of relationships.
> Over 85% of abortions are done before 12-weeks of gestation. The
> embryo/early foetus at that stage does not have feelings, a
> functioning brain, nor can it relate to its environment or the people
> on the "outside." It, very literally, is just a blob of tissue not
> even 3" long, but it has the potential to become a conscious,
> feeling and social baby - and eventual human being much later on.
>
Well, if we go based on your numbers then we still have a 15% problem
to deal with. That's over 15,000 abortions a year. We have a multi-
billion dollar gun law to deal with a problem that results in fewer
than 100 deaths annually. Yet we have no law that deals with
termination of 15,000 viable humans. At later stages, the baby that is
developing does have a brain, is learning, does feel pain and has one
very key relationship.
Mike Warren
> We also keep people alive who through accident or birth are in comas,
> have no feelings and brain or body functions and are incapable of
> relationships.
Completely at the whim of relatives.
> Well, if we go based on your numbers then we still have a 15% problem
> to deal with. That's over 15,000 abortions a year. We have a multi-
> billion dollar gun law to deal with a problem that results in fewer
> than 100 deaths annually. Yet we have no law that deals with
> termination of 15,000 viable humans. At later stages, the baby that
> is developing does have a brain, is learning, does feel pain and has
> one very key relationship.
It is still a parasite.
PS: Great work bringing gun control into an abortion discussion!
--
Mike Warren <mike at mike dash warren dot com>
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
M-x yow, ``Hey, waiter! I want a NEW SHIRT and a PONY TAIL with lemon sauce!''
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>>
>General wrote:
>Perhaps few doctors will perform abortions at 36 weeks. The fact that
>any will means that there needs to be a law in place.
There is. Physicians are guided by their health practises act and/or
policies as established by their various professional organizations.
>Few people in
>comparison with the entire population will steal, commit robbery, rape
>or murder. The fact that some do means that we have to have laws in
>place. At the very least, the laws should protect the foetus from the
>point of viability on.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that. However, the need for
such protection just hasn't been there because doctors do not
routinely abort viable foetii.
>
>I am confused about your two aborted pregnancies. Were these
>intentional abortions? What did you do with them after they were born?
Abortions are pregnancy terminations. One son was two weeks overdue
and had to be removed via C-Section. This C-section terminated my
pregnancy. The second pregnancy was terminated one week prior to the
due date. In both cases the result was two live-born children. And,
just like most live-born children, they are raised by their parents.
These boys are now 13 and 14 years old. :-)
>
><snip>
>
>> As for second or third trimester abortion, they are indeed rare and
>> are done for very compelling and serious medical reasons.
>> These ones make for good Pro-Life propaganda. However, this is
>> extremely misleading on the PL side.
>>
>How rare are they? What statistics do you provide to support the claim
>that they are done for medical reasons? If there is one abortion
>performed for non-medical reasons, then that shows that the laws are
>inadequate.
I suggest you visit the following web-site. It is filled with all
kinds of information about abortions, statistics, arguments, etc.
http://prochoice.about.com/newsissues/prochoice/mbody.htm
>general wrote:
>You didn't address the point that I tried to make earlier that your
>definition of when life begins is arbitrary and based on convenience.
>Any definitions based on personal convenience, especially the
>convenience of those who have the power, are inevitably dangerous.
Pro-Lifers very arbitrarily claim life begins at conception when sperm
and ovum meet. Some claim life begins at implantation when the
fertilized ovum implants into the uterus. We know that is not true.
Life began millions of years ago.
Take care,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>They did live on their masters' plantations. We also keep people alive
>who through accident or birth are in comas, have no feelings and brain
>or body functions and are incapable of relationships.
...and as had been pointed out to you, they are kept artificially
alive due to the whims of the remaining relatives.
>
>> Over 85% of abortions are done before 12-weeks of gestation. The
>> embryo/early foetus at that stage does not have feelings, a
>> functioning brain, nor can it relate to its environment or the people
>> on the "outside." It, very literally, is just a blob of tissue not
>> even 3" long, but it has the potential to become a conscious,
>> feeling and social baby - and eventual human being much later on.
>>
>Well, if we go based on your numbers then we still have a 15% problem
>to deal with. That's over 15,000 abortions a year.
...and the majority of those are still aborted _prior_ to viability.
Most of the post 12-week abortions are done because of the delay to
access. I've already given you a web-site which you can peruse for
yourself to get further information. Here it is again:
http://prochoice.about.com/newsissues/prochoice/mbody.htm
> At later stages, the baby that is
>developing does have a brain, is learning, does feel pain and has one
>very key relationship.
British studies have determined that the possibility of foetal pain
exists at about 26 weeks of gestation and onward. AFAIK, no Canadian
hospital or clinic will abort a foetus that is older than 16 weeks,
unless there are severe foetal anomalies which indicate the foetus
will not survive.
Take care,
Heidi
>
Liz McLean
<genrl_m...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8li68r$5og$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Interestingly, feminist Susan Faludi had to break down and admit that
> the foetus/embryo/non-person that she was carrying was in fact a baby.
Conrad Black's wife Barbara Amiel *always* refers to her abortion as murder,
"Otherwise" she chortles "What would have been the point?"
Liz McLean
"Heidi Graw" <hg...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:397d606e...@news.uniserve.com...
> General, I'm glad you notice the difference between embryos, foetii
> and "just-about-to-be born" or "viable" (around 23-26 weeks gestation)
> foetii. Not many Pro-Lifers do. I don't think you will find any
> doctors who would willfully abort a foetus that is 36 weeks old,
> unless there are compelling reasons, ie. it died. Once the foetus is
> viable, _births_ can be induced if the mother's life is threatened.
> In my own case, I aborted two pregnancies which resulted in two
> live-born sons. :-)
Induced labours and c-sections are NOT abortions. Abortions interrupt a
pregnancy to prevent a live birth. Inductions and c-surgery complete a
pregnancy by artificial means
> General, before the physician can perform an abortion, he/she has to
> verify the foetal age so he/she knows which technique is safest to use
> on the mother. She is there and can actually see the picture of
> that tiny little embryo
This may happen, but is not considered a "best practice" to let anyone other
than medical staff see the monitor during an ultrasound.
genrl_m...@my-deja.com
hg...@uniserve.com (Heidi Graw) wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:34:47 GMT, genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
> >>
> >General wrote:
> >Perhaps few doctors will perform abortions at 36 weeks. The fact
that
> >any will means that there needs to be a law in place.
>
> There is. Physicians are guided by their health practises act and/or
> policies as established by their various professional organizations.
>
no laws governing automobile manufacturing. The SAE, SME and ASQ would
set the standards. Would you like to see this?
> >Few people in
> >comparison with the entire population will steal, commit robbery,
rape
> >or murder. The fact that some do means that we have to have laws in
> >place. At the very least, the laws should protect the foetus from
the
> >point of viability on.
>
> I don't think anyone would disagree with that. However, the need for
> such protection just hasn't been there because doctors do not
> routinely abort viable foetii.
>
Doctors don't routinely sexually abuse patients or botch cosmetic
surgery but both instances have had recent media attention. You and I
both know that there is no law because the politicians are scared to
death of radical pro-abortion, excuse me pro- choice, advocates.
> >
> >I am confused about your two aborted pregnancies. Were these
> >intentional abortions? What did you do with them after they were
born?
>
> Abortions are pregnancy terminations. One son was two weeks overdue
> and had to be removed via C-Section. This C-section terminated my
> pregnancy. The second pregnancy was terminated one week prior to the
> due date. In both cases the result was two live-born children. And,
> just like most live-born children, they are raised by their parents.
> These boys are now 13 and 14 years old. :-)
> >
I have never heard of a birth being referred to as an abortion. By
your definition all births are abortions as they are the termination of
pregnancies. Abortion is a standard medical term for a miscarriage and
many women find this upsetting. However, a delivery is not an abortion.
> ><snip>
> >
> >> As for second or third trimester abortion, they are indeed rare and
> >> are done for very compelling and serious medical reasons.
> >> These ones make for good Pro-Life propaganda. However, this is
> >> extremely misleading on the PL side.
> >>
> >How rare are they? What statistics do you provide to support the
claim
> >that they are done for medical reasons? If there is one abortion
> >performed for non-medical reasons, then that shows that the laws are
> >inadequate.
>
> I suggest you visit the following web-site. It is filled with all
> kinds of information about abortions, statistics, arguments, etc.
>
> http://prochoice.about.com/newsissues/prochoice/mbody.htm
>
So I should do the research to support your arguments when you haven't?
> >general wrote:
> >You didn't address the point that I tried to make earlier that your
> >definition of when life begins is arbitrary and based on convenience.
> >Any definitions based on personal convenience, especially the
> >convenience of those who have the power, are inevitably dangerous.
>
> Pro-Lifers very arbitrarily claim life begins at conception when sperm
> and ovum meet. Some claim life begins at implantation when the
> fertilized ovum implants into the uterus. We know that is not true.
> Life began millions of years ago.
>
Billions actually. OK, then how about human life?
genrl_m...@my-deja.com
hg...@uniserve.com (Heidi Graw) wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:53:06 GMT, genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >They did live on their masters' plantations. We also keep people
alive
> >who through accident or birth are in comas, have no feelings and
brain
> >or body functions and are incapable of relationships.
>
> ...and as had been pointed out to you, they are kept artificially
> alive due to the whims of the remaining relatives.
>
I find it's interesting that you haven't addressed the other points
that I have raised all along. That's not a bad way to argue. If you
are faced with 5 examples, pick the 1 that you can dispute and ignore
the rest.
> >
> >> Over 85% of abortions are done before 12-weeks of gestation. The
> >> embryo/early foetus at that stage does not have feelings, a
> >> functioning brain, nor can it relate to its environment or the
people
> >> on the "outside." It, very literally, is just a blob of tissue not
> >> even 3" long, but it has the potential to become a conscious,
> >> feeling and social baby - and eventual human being much later on.
> >>
> >Well, if we go based on your numbers then we still have a 15% problem
> >to deal with. That's over 15,000 abortions a year.
>
> ...and the majority of those are still aborted _prior_ to viability.
> Most of the post 12-week abortions are done because of the delay to
> access. I've already given you a web-site which you can peruse for
> yourself to get further information. Here it is again:
>
> http://prochoice.about.com/newsissues/prochoice/mbody.htm
>
I think that the key point in this website is that it has the
letters "prochoice" in it twice. Why should I believe what they post
anymore than what the pro-life counterparts state?
> > At later stages, the baby that is
> >developing does have a brain, is learning, does feel pain and has one
> >very key relationship.
>
> British studies have determined that the possibility of foetal pain
> exists at about 26 weeks of gestation and onward. AFAIK, no Canadian
> hospital or clinic will abort a foetus that is older than 16 weeks,
> unless there are severe foetal anomalies which indicate the foetus
> will not survive.
>
Then you should have no objection to limiting non-therapeutic abortions
to 26 weeks gestation in law. In fact, why not lower it to 16 weeks to
coincide with current medical practice? Such a law would provide legal
protection to babies at viability and take a huge chunk of the wind out
of the pro-lifers' sails. Why should Canada be the only country in the
western world without a law to prevent excesses when such excesses are
only prevented at present by the morality of the doctors in question
and their patients?
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> "Ken & Laura Chaddock" <chad...@istar.ca> wrote in message
> news:397CE4A2...@istar.ca...
>
> > Different situation. First, the slave was an actual, fully developed,
> > self aware human being whether or not that was recognized in law,
>
> Ken, you deny the existence of natural, inalienable rights - so you have
> little credibility in attempting to use them to defend any of your
> positions.
I am suprised Chris, that such an otherwise intelligent person as you appear
has so completely misunderstood my previous arguments...at least I *hope* it's
misunderstanding rather than a misrepresentation.
> According to you, rights are "social constructs" which are
> granted by "society"
Come on Chris, it's a lot more complex than that. Humans don't have "inherent
natural rights", as I asked (and you declined comment) before, has the hungry
Grizzly who kills and eats you "violated" your "inherent" right to life ? or was
your "inherent right to life" *irrevelant* ? Can an animal "violate" your rights
? and if the answer is no, then how can there exist any "inherent" rights ?
The fact is that there *is* no inherent right to life (or any other
"inherent" right). There *is* an inherent ability to take action (and to defend
your life against this bear...good luck) but if you are unsuccessful the bear
hasn't "violated" any inherent *human right*.
The term "human rights" is often misunderstood and/or misrepresented to mean
an inherent right which exist *because* you are a human rather than what it
*really* means which is a freedom or ability to take action extended by
consensus of the adjacent human society.
If you recall I used the analogy of the philosophical question "If a tree
falls in the forest when there is no one around to hear it does it still make an
noise", the answer to which is "No, it does not make a noise". The rationale
behind this (suprising) answer is: "noise" is defined as the recognition of the
impingement of atmospheric vibrations within a certain frequency range upon the
auditory sense organs of a sentient being; consequently when there is no being
around to "hear" that vibration there can be no noise even though the vibration
exists.
The analogy here is that the ability to take action, which is equivalent to
the vibration, exists whether or not there is anyone around to notice it. While
the recognition of and agreement of a freedom to take action is equivalent to
"rights", in other words, with no human around to "recognize and agree with your
freedom of action, the whole concept of a "right" is irrelevant ...even though
the ability still exists (if it ever did).
> > The fact is that, regardless of the status of the fetus, the woman still
> > comes out on top in the balance of "rights" since there is no other
> > situation where we would allow one person to impose themselves so directly
> > upon another person as does a (unwanted) fetus upon the woman. From this
> > perspective alone the woman has the right of security of her own person
> > regardless of the legal status of the fetus.
>
> But your position - repeated again and again in virtually every other thread
> you join in - is that the only "real" rights are those recognized in law, so
> it's perfectly consistent with your view of rights for "society" to deny any
> or all of a woman's rights.
This is exactly correct however we are discussing these issues in the context
of current human society which *HAS*, by international and national consensus,
conferred certain "inherent" rights upon all humans. These "rights" are
maintained by the actions of people who insist upon them. Ethan Allan said it
quite eloquently several hundred years ago "The tree of liberty must, from time
to time, be fertilized with the blood of patriots".
To this discussion however it makes no difference whether these are "natural"
or "conferred" rights, which ever way you look at it the woman has the superior
position, either via the "fully developed human versus the potential human"
argument or via the "one human being imposed upon by another human being against
her will" argument.
...Ken
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> In article <397CE4A2...@istar.ca>,
> Ken & Laura Chaddock <chad...@istar.ca> wrote:
> > genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > Interesting. This is the same legal approach used by the
> Confederacy.
> > > Essentially black slaves weren't people by legal definition. It was
> OK
> > > to hang your own slave but not to hang not to hang another owner's
> > > slave. Are you saying that these two circumstances are the same?
> >
> > Different situation. First, the slave was an actual, fully
> developed,
> > self aware human being whether or not that was recognized in law, the
>
> Interesting that you snipped out my reference to 5 year olds not being
> recognized as people.
Not at all, I was dealing with the "slavery" analogy.
> > fetus is, at most, a "potential" human being. Further, the slave owner
> wasn't
> > being directly physically impacted by the slave since he/she wasn't
> carrying
> > the slave around inside his/her body.
> He's carrying the slave on his property. Maybe the slave is causing
> him trouble.
He had several avenues for getting rid of the slave without killing
him, he could sell him or even simply set him free...the woman doesn't
have any other options.
>
> > The fact is that, regardless of the status of the fetus, the woman
> still
> > comes out on top in the balance of "rights" since there is no other
> > situation where we would allow one person to impose themselves so
> directly
> > upon another person as does a (unwanted) fetus upon the woman. From
> Interesting. It's then the baby's fault that it's in mum's womb. As a
> local family therapist was quoted as saying, "Who fucked?"
That's like saying that since you were driving the car when it was hit
by the drunk driver that you are responsible since you should have known
that there was a possibility of being hit by a drunk driver.
> Society recognizes in law the importance of providing care to
> children.
Which goes back to the argument of whether a fetus is a child or not. I
agree that the situation becomes blurry at the later stages of pregnancy.
If it is medically possible, my proposal to clear it up would be to
allow unrestricted abortion (basically what we have now) up to the point
where the fetus may possibly be viable. At that point, and where we have an
approved adoptive parent available, termination of the pregnancy would take
the form of "early birth" with every attempt (commensurate with the
mother's health and safety) being made to save the fetus. If the fetus is
*really* a viable human, it will survive and we will have an adoptive
parent ready to take full responsibility for the child.
> Failing to provide care is a violation of the law. The parents brought
> them into this world and can look after them until they no longer need it
> or they find somebody else to do it? Why do you
> arbitrarily define this responsibility at birth?
Because prior to that there is no child.
>
> > this perspective alone the woman has the right of security of her own
> person
> > regardless of the legal status of the fetus. At worst/best (depending
> upon
> > your perspective) the most that could be expected is an attempted,
> non-fatal
> > termination of the pregnancy which doesn't outright kill the fetus so
> it
> > may continue development either inside a more receptive woman's womb or
> in
> > an artificial womb.
> >
> Let me state for the record that in cases where there are serious
> medical concerns, the mother's life takes primacy.
This is a logical fallacy. If the fetus is a human being from the
moment of conception then it obviously has full human rights from the
moment of conception. There is absolutely no justification for why the life
of one human (the mother) should have a higher value than the life of
another (the fetus). The ramifications of your argument are truly
horrendous, if your argument were valid, then we could equally sacrifice
our teenage or adult children when their parent's life was in danger, we
could take their heart for transplant for example, does this sound
reasonable to you ?
> Assuming that this is not the case, we should not be allowing girls/women
> to terminate
> pregnancies in which the foetus is viable.
In this case the answer is to terminate the pregnancy not the fetus. If
the fetus is truly viable it will survive and the woman gets what she
wants, the termination of her parental rights and obligations. I would take
this one step further however and state that there must also be an
available, approved adoptive parent to take the child.
My suggestion is that pro-life should lobby for this option and should
apply as potential adoptive parents so they could be approved in advance so
that when the situation arises they will be immediately available to accept
full responsibilities and obligations for these "children".
...Ken
Chris Delanoy
news:3980691C...@istar.ca...
> > According to you, rights are "social constructs" which are
> > granted by "society"
> Come on Chris, it's a lot more complex than that. Humans don't have
"inherent
> natural rights", as I asked (and you declined comment) before, has the
hungry
> Grizzly who kills and eats you "violated" your "inherent" right to life ?
Your entire failed attempt at a refutation of natural rights is premised on
a false assumption: that the right to life is some grant of omnipotence,
which simply is not the case.
> Can an animal "violate" your rights
No - but not because rights don't exist, but because non-human animals do
not make conscious decisions. Only another human can choose to violate the
rights of another - and the fact that he CAN make such a choice does nothing
to prove or disprove their validity.
> To this discussion however it makes no difference whether these are
"natural"
> or "conferred" rights, which ever way you look at it the woman has the
superior
> position, either via the "fully developed human versus the potential
human"
> argument or via the "one human being imposed upon by another human being
against
> her will" argument.
Certainly a woman has a right to choose to have an abortion - just as she
has a right to keep every penny she earns, carry any weapon she chooses, and
use her own property in whatever manner she pleases. The point I was
making, though, is that you have no ground to stand on in trying to defend
these or any other rights, because you deny that they ever exist.
When one believes - as you do - that all it takes to eliminate a right is a
majority vote or some other kind of "societal consensus" (whatever that
mean), then it is intellectual hypocrisy and dishonesty to make any appeal
to any rights of any kind in an argument like this.
Chris Delanoy
news:oF7g5.14262$Cm.5...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
> >Certainly a woman has a right to choose to have an abortion - just as she
> >has a right to keep every penny she earns, carry any weapon she chooses,
and
> >use her own property in whatever manner she pleases.
> Not true; a women has a right to choose to have an abortion. Nobody in
Canada
> has the other three "rights" you've described.
The fact that our government ruthlessly assaults such fundamental rights is
not evidence of their non-existence.
Jim Cowling
>
>Certainly a woman has a right to choose to have an abortion - just as she
>has a right to keep every penny she earns, carry any weapon she chooses, and
>use her own property in whatever manner she pleases.
Not true; a women has a right to choose to have an abortion. Nobody in Canada
has the other three "rights" you've described. Thankfully.
-------
Jim Cowling -- Writer/Atheist/Geek -- a.a. # 647
www.scowling.net bigk...@scowling.net
-------
Jim Cowling
>"Jim Cowling" <bigk...@scowling.net> wrote in message
>news:oF7g5.14262$Cm.5...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
>
>> >has a right to keep every penny she earns, carry any weapon she chooses,
>and
>> >use her own property in whatever manner she pleases.
>
>> Not true; a women has a right to choose to have an abortion. Nobody in
>Canada
>> has the other three "rights" you've described.
>
>not evidence of their non-existence.
There are no fundamental rights, and none of those rights you mention are in
the Charter. Further, they're ridiculous "rights".
Keep every penny you make? Not if you want the privilege of using things that
have been pai for with tax money -- like hospitals, roads, your water supply,
and so on.
Carry any weapon you choose? This isn't the US, bucko. And considering how
few crimes are committed here with guns you should be *glad*.
Use your property in any manner you please? That's not only not a
"fundamental right", it's ridiculous. You can't legally use your car to run
down a pedestrian. You can't legally use the ten bucks in your pocket to buy
heroin for a grade five kid. You can't throw the wrapper of your Big Mac in
the ditch. That's such a preposterous concept I can't believe you'd even
consider it.
Mike Warren
> "Ken & Laura Chaddock" <chad...@istar.ca> wrote in message
> > Can an animal "violate" your rights
> No - but not because rights don't exist, but because non-human animals
> do not make conscious decisions.
Some do.
> Only another human can choose to violate the rights of another - and
> the fact that he CAN make such a choice does nothing to prove or
> disprove their validity.
So, Ken isn't right in calling rights ``rights'' only as long as most
other people recognize them as such?
> When one believes - as you do - that all it takes to eliminate a right
> is a majority vote or some other kind of "societal consensus"
> (whatever that mean), then it is intellectual hypocrisy and dishonesty
> to make any appeal to any rights of any kind in an argument like this.
Since those rights are granted by just such a ``societal consensus'',
then they can just as easily be un-granted.
--
Mike Warren <mike at mike dash warren dot com>
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
M-x yow, ``YOW!! What should the entire human race DO?? Consume a fifth
of CHIVAS REGAL, ski NUDE down MT. EVEREST, and have a wild
SEX WEEKEND!''
Mike Warren
> The fact that our government ruthlessly assaults such fundamental
> rights is not evidence of their non-existence.
Luckily, you're one of a very few who wants to grant such rights.
--
Mike Warren <mike at mike dash warren dot com>
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
M-x yow, ``Did I SELL OUT yet??''
Steven C. Britton
> > No - but not because rights don't exist, but because non-human animals
> > do not make conscious decisions.
>
> Some do.
Prove that.
Better yet, prove that you make conscious decisions as well. Since you're a
left winger, I wonder if you have full control over your thought processes
yet.
--
The political spectrum isn't Right/Left: it's Right/Wrong.
Steven C. Britton
Calgary
Chris J Delanoy
bigk...@scowling.net (Jim Cowling) wrote:
> In article <8lr4h6$ilg$1...@pulp.srv.ualberta.ca>, "Chris Delanoy" <cdel...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
> >"Jim Cowling" <bigk...@scowling.net> wrote in message
> >news:oF7g5.14262$Cm.5...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
> >
> >> >Certainly a woman has a right to choose to have an abortion - just as she
> >> >has a right to keep every penny she earns, carry any weapon she chooses,
> >and
> >> >use her own property in whatever manner she pleases.
> >
> >> Not true; a women has a right to choose to have an abortion. Nobody in
> >Canada
> >> has the other three "rights" you've described.
> >
> >not evidence of their non-existence.
> There are no fundamental rights, and none of those rights you mention are in
> the Charter. Further, they're ridiculous "rights".
> Keep every penny you make? Not if you want the privilege of using things that
> have been pai for with tax money -- like hospitals, roads, your water supply,
> and so on.
> Carry any weapon you choose? This isn't the US, bucko. And considering how
> few crimes are committed here with guns you should be *glad*.
> Use your property in any manner you please? That's not only not a
> "fundamental right", it's ridiculous. You can't legally use your car to run
> down a pedestrian. You can't legally use the ten bucks in your pocket to buy
> heroin for a grade five kid. You can't throw the wrapper of your Big Mac in
> the ditch. That's such a preposterous concept I can't believe you'd even
> consider it.
There's nothing at all preposterous about any of the above. Of course a
person has a right to every penny she earns; if she doesn't, then who does
have a right to it and why? (The "provision" of the services you list is
moot, given the fact that roads, hospitals, and drinking water should not be
supplied by governments at all.)
The right to bear arms is also quite fundamental, because it is what
guarantees that we have the power to overthrow a tyrannical government if and
when we choose. The infringement of this right over the past eighty years or
so is in fact the most ominous developments of the 20th century (including in
the United States, which has tens of thousands of laws and restrictions
against this right.) Today, we are so disarmed compared to our governments
that we are back in the state of humanity when the peasants armed only with
pitchforks had no choice but to bow on one knee when the lord's knight rode
through the village. This is the sort of "peace" we know enjoy - one where
no disarmed peasant dares rise from that knee when the masters ride past.
As for the rest, the use of one's property of one sees fit means that one
does not interfere with others (ie - because that would be outside the sphere
of the property.) Thus the examples you cite are largely invalid (except for
the wrapper in the ditch - which is certainly fine, if you own the ditch.)
Chris Delanoy
genrl_m...@my-deja.com
Ken & Laura Chaddock <chad...@istar.ca> wrote:
> genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <397CE4A2...@istar.ca>,
> > Ken & Laura Chaddock <chad...@istar.ca> wrote:
> > > genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > fetus is, at most, a "potential" human being. Further, the slave
owner
> > wasn't
> > > being directly physically impacted by the slave since he/she
wasn't
> > carrying
> > > the slave around inside his/her body.
>
> > He's carrying the slave on his property. Maybe the slave is causing
> > him trouble.
>
> He had several avenues for getting rid of the slave without
killing
> him, he could sell him or even simply set him free...the woman
doesn't
> have any other options.
>
She does. The woman can deliver the baby and give s/he up for
adoption. The analogy continues since selling a slave required some
effort on the part of the owner. The owner would have to find another
owner. In the meantime the slave owner has to deal with the
inconvenience or an errant slave.
>
> > Interesting. It's then the baby's fault that it's in mum's womb.
As a
> > local family therapist was quoted as saying, "Who fucked?"
>
> That's like saying that since you were driving the car when it was
hit
> by the drunk driver that you are responsible since you should have
known
> that there was a possibility of being hit by a drunk driver.
>
Actually, a better analogy is driving drunk and blaming the telephone
pole for being there when you hit it.
> > Society recognizes in law the importance of providing care to
> > children.
>
> Which goes back to the argument of whether a fetus is a child or
not. I
> agree that the situation becomes blurry at the later stages of
pregnancy.
> If it is medically possible, my proposal to clear it up would be to
> allow unrestricted abortion (basically what we have now) up to the
point
> where the fetus may possibly be viable. At that point, and where we
have an
> approved adoptive parent available, termination of the pregnancy
would take
> the form of "early birth" with every attempt (commensurate with the
> mother's health and safety) being made to save the fetus. If the
fetus is
> *really* a viable human, it will survive and we will have an adoptive
> parent ready to take full responsibility for the child.
>
I agree with your definition of when we should limit abortion.
However, extra measures that are required to preserve a premature
baby's life are a drain on our scarce medical resources. It is money
well spent when through no fault of the mother the baby arrives
prematurely. However, in the case where the mother has brought the
fetus to the point of viability she is responsible to continue the
pregancy until birth. If there is a legitimate medical reason to take
the baby early then that's fine but if the mother has carried the child
for 6 months during which she could have had an abortion, then she can
wait the additional 3 months before handing it over to parents who
would want it.
> > Failing to provide care is a violation of the law. The parents
brought
> > them into this world and can look after them until they no longer
need it
> > or they find somebody else to do it? Why do you
> > arbitrarily define this responsibility at birth?
>
> Because prior to that there is no child.
>
Well we both agree that that when the foetus becomes viable we would
like to see it protected. We just disagree in the method. Why would
you want to protect a viable foetus if it wasn't a child?
First, for the sake of pragmatism I am willing to conceed to abortions
prior to viability. Second, society has always made choices over who
would live and who would die when a choice was necessary. The most
obvious reason in the case of a mother is that if she dies the baby
will die too. Furthermore, there are good social reasons to make such
a decision. If a mother who has other children dies, those children
are jeopardized. If the mother has teenaged or adult children, then
those children can function and survive without their mother even
though the death might be very tragic.
> > Assuming that this is not the case, we should not be allowing
girls/women
> > to terminate
> > pregnancies in which the foetus is viable.
>
> In this case the answer is to terminate the pregnancy not the
fetus. If
> the fetus is truly viable it will survive and the woman gets what she
> wants, the termination of her parental rights and obligations. I
would take
> this one step further however and state that there must also be an
> available, approved adoptive parent to take the child.
The adoptive parents are no problem. The waiting list is several years
long. However, as I stated above I don't think society should incur
the costs of a mother's procrastination.
> My suggestion is that pro-life should lobby for this option and
should
> apply as potential adoptive parents so they could be approved in
advance so
> that when the situation arises they will be immediately available to
accept
> full responsibilities and obligations for these "children".
>
I don't see why anybody would be willing to support the increased costs
and increased risk to the child for an unnecessary intervention. The
mother can live with a little discomfort for 3 months and there are
lots of parents waiting to adopt.
Patrick Lepine
> owner
I'm really tired of this bs. It is not rational to claim it possible to be
a "potential" member of a particular species. Until you prove this point,
your crap about a foetus being anything other than a human being is just so
much rationalization of a killing. That you place any importance at all on
the size or development of the member of the species is belies your belief
that it's wrong to discriminate.
--
Patrick Lepine
KMFDM/APPLM/NPFTM
Le Quebec nous opprime
Vive le Montreal Libre
Votez Bloq Montreal
Save the mad cow--
but get her off our money.
Look what racial purity did--
for the chihuahua.
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> "Ken & Laura Chaddock" <chad...@istar.ca> wrote in message
> news:3980691C...@istar.ca...
>
> > > According to you, rights are "social constructs" which are
> > > granted by "society"
>
> > Come on Chris, it's a lot more complex than that. Humans don't have
> "inherent
> > natural rights", as I asked (and you declined comment) before, has the
> hungry
> > Grizzly who kills and eats you "violated" your "inherent" right to life ?
>
> Your entire failed attempt at a refutation of natural rights is premised on
> a false assumption: that the right to life is some grant of omnipotence,
> which simply is not the case.
I will agree that I have not been successful in convincing you but this is
due more to your quasi-religious belief in a some sort of inherent human rights
and not in the lack of veracity of my argument.
> > Can an animal "violate" your rights
>
> No - but not because rights don't exist, but because non-human animals do
> not make conscious decisions.
If you actually *believe* this you have no concept of how intelligent animals
are. Do you actually *believe* that the bear does not make a conscious decision
to attack you or desist from doing so ? In fact the animal *does* make a
conscious decision based upon it's requirements at the time of the encounter.
> Only another human can choose to violate the rights of another - and the fact
> that he CAN make such a choice does nothing to prove or disprove their
> validity.
I agree with this but not for the reason you suggest. The Grizzly simply
don't see you as anything other than another animal while the human,
(presumably) raised in a human society has been indoctrinated with the concept
that humans are "special" and have "rights" and that these "rights" must be
respected if the individual wishes to have *his own* rights respected. It's a
matter of self interest, if I can murder another with impunity, then someone
else can murder me (and probably will).
There is an interesting philosophical exercise here, lets assume that there
is a human, of average intelligence, who has been raised by wolves (yea yea I
know but bare with me). If this human kills you, has he, with no prior knowledge
of your "inherent" right to life, actually violated your rights ? He is after
all an intelligent human ? Or has his lack of prior contact with human society
rendered him immune to blame since he has not been indoctrinated in the "humans
are special" school of thought ?
> > To this discussion however it makes no difference whether these are
> "natural"
> > or "conferred" rights, which ever way you look at it the woman has the
> superior
> > position, either via the "fully developed human versus the potential human"
> > argument or via the "one human being imposed upon by another human being
> against
> > her will" argument.
>
> Certainly a woman has a right to choose to have an abortion - just as she
> has a right to keep every penny she earns, carry any weapon she chooses, and
> use her own property in whatever manner she pleases. The point I was
> making, though, is that you have no ground to stand on in trying to defend
> these or any other rights, because you deny that they ever exist.
Ah but they *DO* exist, there is an extremely broad based consensus amoung
the members of the human race concerning many "rights" which individual human
should enjoy within their respective human societies...and this is the only
place where it matters since the very *concept* of "human rights" is irrelevant
outside of human society.
> When one believes - as you do - that all it takes to eliminate a right is a
> majority vote or some other kind of "societal consensus" (whatever that mean),
> then it is intellectual hypocrisy and dishonesty to make any appeal to any
> rights of any kind in an argument like this.
Bullshit, someone like me is far more likely to *retain* his "rights" since,
unlike you, I recognize that I must be pro-active in ensuring that no one can
arbitrarily takes them away. Rather than whine about my "inherent" rights, I'm
willing to defend my socially conferred rights...hell I'll even defend *yours*
if need be...
...Ken
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> In article <39806F92...@istar.ca>,
> Ken & Laura Chaddock <chad...@istar.ca> wrote:
> > genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > He had several avenues for getting rid of the slave without killing
> > him, he could sell him or even simply set him free...the woman doesn't
> > have any other options.
> >
> She does. The woman can deliver the baby and give s/he up for
> adoption.
Only by continuing the situation she wishes to end, which is no choice at
all, this is as silly as telling someone they must continue to put up with
torture because it will be over soon.
> The analogy continues since selling a slave required some effort on the
> part of the owner. The owner would have to find another owner. In the
> meantime the slave owner has to deal with the
> inconvenience or an errant slave.
Not at all, selling a slave was remarkably easy since there were brokers
and auction houses who did it all, even came and took the slave away, the
owner didn't have to do anything other than let it be known that the slave
was for sale.
> > > Society recognizes in law the importance of providing care to
> > > children.
> >
> > Which goes back to the argument of whether a fetus is a child or not.
> I
> > agree that the situation becomes blurry at the later stages of
> pregnancy.
> > If it is medically possible, my proposal to clear it up would be to
> > allow unrestricted abortion (basically what we have now) up to the point
>
> > where the fetus may possibly be viable. At that point, and where we have
> an
> > approved adoptive parent available, termination of the pregnancy would
> take
> > the form of "early birth" with every attempt (commensurate with the
> > mother's health and safety) being made to save the fetus. If the fetus
> is
> > *really* a viable human, it will survive and we will have an adoptive
> > parent ready to take full responsibility for the child.
> >
> I agree with your definition of when we should limit abortion.
> However, extra measures that are required to preserve a premature
> baby's life are a drain on our scarce medical resources.
Ah, but that's where the adoptive parent comes in, once they step forward
they assume full financial responsibility for any and all medical costs
associated with the attempt to save the fetus, including any necessary care
for the mother.
> It is money well spent when through no fault of the mother the baby
> arrives
> prematurely. However, in the case where the mother has brought the
> fetus to the point of viability she is responsible to continue the
> pregancy until birth. If there is a legitimate medical reason to take
> the baby early then that's fine but if the mother has carried the child
> for 6 months during which she could have had an abortion, then she can
> wait the additional 3 months before handing it over to parents who
> would want it.
Nope, don't agree at all. It is the woman's body therefore she is the
only one with any say over whether she will carry to term or not. A decision
to terminate the pregnancy is always valid but in the case of a potentially
viable fetus with adoptive parents ready to take responsibility, a
termination decision would trigger a serious attempt to "save" the fetus.
> > > Failing to provide care is a violation of the law. The parents
> brought
> > > them into this world and can look after them until they no longer need
> it
> > > or they find somebody else to do it? Why do you arbitrarily define
> this responsibility at birth?
> >
> > Because prior to that there is no child.
> >
> Well we both agree that that when the foetus becomes viable we would
> like to see it protected. We just disagree in the method. Why would
> you want to protect a viable foetus if it wasn't a child?
I don't particularly want to protect a fetus however if there is a
possibility that the fetus is viable and if there are adoptive parents ready
to accept all responsibility then I would be willing to make an attempt to
save the fetus since to do so is not a violation of the woman's sovereignty
over her own body and life.
Ah...that's what the adoptive parents are for...they "step up to the
plate" so to speak, prior to the attempted "birth" and accept all legal and
financial responsibilities from the moment the decision to terminate is
taken.
> > My suggestion is that pro-life should lobby for this option and
> should
> > apply as potential adoptive parents so they could be approved in advance
> so
> > that when the situation arises they will be immediately available to
> accept
> > full responsibilities and obligations for these "children".
> >
> I don't see why anybody would be willing to support the increased costs
> and increased risk to the child for an unnecessary intervention.
Are you saying that pro-lifers are unwilling to accept the full
responsibilities of what they want to subject unwilling women to ? You know
talk is cheap, if you are *really* serious about saving a fetus, you will be
willing to "put your money where your mouth is"
> The mother can live with a little discomfort for 3 months and there are
> lots of parents waiting to adopt.
Absolutely NOT if it's against her will to do so.
...Ken
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> > > > > foetus is, at most, a "potential" human being. Further, the slave
> > owner
>
> I'm really tired of this bs. It is not rational to claim it possible to be
> a "potential" member of a particular species. Until you prove this point,
> your crap about a foetus being anything other than a human being is just so
> much rationalization of a killing.
You should go and get a good book on the development of a human fetus. The
first thing you will notice is that the fetus doesn't even remotely resemble a
human baby until *quite* late in the pregnancy. Do you *really* consider it to
be a human being when it looks like all the world like a tadpole ?
Your *next* big clue is that if you remove a fetus intact and uninjured from
it's mother's womb it will not survive. Unless damaged by injury or disease,
*humans* are able to survive outside their mother's womb.
> That you place any importance at all on the size or development of the member
> of the species is belies your belief that it's wrong to discriminate.
I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. Surely you can't be serious
in suggesting that an amorphous blob of human tissue, with nothing more than
the *potential* to develop into a human, be considered a human being ?
...Ken
Heidi Graw
wrote:
>Karen wrote:
> Shall we start picketing hospitals who 'harbor
>these tax-consuming criminals'?
LOL. You provided an excellent analogy. This brings us to an
interesting point to consider regarding our publicly funded
health-care insurance plan. Private insurers assess premiums
according to health and life-style risk factors. Our public system,
even though we still have to pay premiums on top of the taxes we
pay, could actually adopt a similar scheme. High health risk factors,
higher premiums. High accident rate, higher premiums. We have
similar schemes in place for ICBC and WCB. MSP could do the
same. So, as you said before, what's cheaper to fix - an unwanted
pregnancy for a woman, or fixing up a guy who's laid up in a body cast
for months on end due to his own foolishness? There could also be an
incentive plan put in place whereby you can get a break in the premium
rate for not smoking, drinking or being overweight. Maybe such an
incentive plan would put to rest all that squabbling about who is a
greater burden on the system?
Take care,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
wrote:
(snip)
Thanks, Karen, for providing Canadian stats. I've been reading too
much American stuff. :-)
>(K): Just to correct your numbers here, Heidi..... only 8% of all
>abortions were in the second trimester in 1993. These numbers have
>dropped even since then, as more clinics become available to women.
>The problem of late-term abortions drops with the availability of
>abortion facilities. And yet with the yammering of the anti-abortionists
>that they are 'morally wrong', their commitment is to eradicate abortion
>clinics and make it harder for women to get the quick help they need.
Karen, we have to remember that anti-abortionists don't want ANY
abortions to be performed. Unfortunately, they don't realize that the
additional barriers they put in place result in later abortions being
done instead. Another thing these statistics don't reveal is the
number of women who would have wanted an abortion, but couldn't get
one because they live in rural areas and had neither the money or the
means to travel the distance. I think every small community hospital
should make abortion services available. This is not happening,
though.
(snip)
>What about the Morality of Abortion?
>
> Some religions in Canada consider abortion to be a moral choice. Other
> religions teach that fetal life is sacred from the moment of
> conception and should never be deliberately ended, regardless of the
> circumstances. People have different personal moral views about
> abortion.
>
> Polls show that 79% of Canadians consider the abortion decision to be
> a private matter between a woman and her doctor.
Well, thank goodness there are enough people who realize that
something the size of a comma is not a human being.
I once asked a Pro-Lifer if she would agree to honesty in those
pictures that are usually posted. She said, "Sure." So, I asked her
how effective it would be if she just had a dot on her plackard? :-)
She admitted she had to resort to overblown exaggerations in order to
make her propaganda more effective.
Take care,
Heidi
genrl_m...@my-deja.com
Ken & Laura Chaddock <chad...@istar.ca> wrote:
> genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <39806F92...@istar.ca>,
> > Ken & Laura Chaddock <chad...@istar.ca> wrote:
> > > genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
foetus is viable outside of the womb>
> > > the woman doesn't
> > > have any other options.
> > >
> > She does. The woman can deliver the baby and give s/he up for
> > adoption.
>
> Only by continuing the situation she wishes to end, which is no
choice at
> all, this is as silly as telling someone they must continue to put up
with
> torture because it will be over soon.
>
about. Had the mother given birth in circumstances where only she
could provide adequate care then we would require her to do the same.
The torture analogy does not hold. Nobody would chose to be tortured.
The woman has chosen to bring the pregnancy to the point where she has
a viable human being inside her. She had several choices along the way
and now she has the responsibility to provide care for a human being
until somebody else can take over. A better analogy is being snowed in
a cabin with someone you have to look after. Once the snow clears,
then you can hand over your obligation to someone who is willing to
bear it long term.
>
> The analogy continues since selling a slave required some effort on
the
> > part of the owner. The owner would have to find another owner. In
the
> > meantime the slave owner has to deal with the
> > inconvenience or an errant slave.
>
> Not at all, selling a slave was remarkably easy since there were
brokers
> and auction houses who did it all, even came and took the slave away,
the
> owner didn't have to do anything other than let it be known that the
slave
> was for sale.
>
time.
> > >
> > I agree with your definition of when we should limit abortion.
[Which was when the foetus is viable]
> > However, extra measures that are required to preserve a premature
> > baby's life are a drain on our scarce medical resources.
>
> Ah, but that's where the adoptive parent comes in, once they step
forward
> they assume full financial responsibility for any and all medical
costs
> associated with the attempt to save the fetus, including any
necessary care
> for the mother.
>
But there is also the increased risk to the child's life from removing
it prematurely. Furthermore, there are many good and responsible
adoptive parents who don't have the money. Why should these people
have to look after the mother? After all, it's her decision to have a
premature baby that is causing the extra costs.
ISTM that if the mother chooses to bring a premature baby into the
world, then she should be liable for any damage to the baby that
results.
> > It is money well spent when through no fault of the mother the baby
> > arrives
> > prematurely. However, in the case where the mother has brought the
> > fetus to the point of viability she is responsible to continue the
> > pregancy until birth. If there is a legitimate medical reason to
take
> > the baby early then that's fine but if the mother has carried the
child
> > for 6 months during which she could have had an abortion, then she
can
> > wait the additional 3 months before handing it over to parents who
> > would want it.
>
> Nope, don't agree at all. It is the woman's body therefore she is
the
> only one with any say over whether she will carry to term or not. A
The woman's body issue is not a rational argument. First, a woman can
chose to either have an abortion or deliver without any say from the
father. So a father has no say in whether or not his child will be
born or not. OTOH if the woman delivers then he can be required to
make support payments until the child is an adult and perhaps beyond.
Second, if a woman gave birth in isolation (see snowed in above) and
found it necessary to breast feed the baby, she would be expected to do
so. Refusing to do so, i.e. provide the necessities of life, is a
crime. She would be expect to use her body to do so. Third, why
should a woman who is in no danger have receive any more medical
attention for her body than somebody who is in danger? If I have a
cancerous tumour detected in my body, it will probably take 3 months
before it can be removed. My life is in immediate danger and hers is
not. Yet you would give her more control over the medical resources
applied to her body than you would to mine. Similarly, if she wanted a
nose job or a boob job then she would have to wait 3 months and it's
still her body.
There are other arguments as well.
decision
> to terminate the pregnancy is always valid but in the case of a
potentially
> viable fetus with adoptive parents ready to take responsibility, a
> termination decision would trigger a serious attempt to "save" the
fetus.
>
Ken and/or Laura, we do have a fundamental disagreement about whether
the decision to terminate a pregnancy is always valid. I think we will
have to leave it as agreeing to disagree.
> > Well we both agree that that when the foetus becomes viable we would
> > like to see it protected. We just disagree in the method. Why
would
> > you want to protect a viable foetus if it wasn't a child?
>
> I don't particularly want to protect a fetus however if there is a
> possibility that the fetus is viable and if there are adoptive
parents ready
> to accept all responsibility then I would be willing to make an
attempt to
> save the fetus since to do so is not a violation of the woman's
sovereignty
> over her own body and life.
>
The problem that I have with this is that it is arbitrary and based on
personal convenience. The child is a fetus based on the mother's
definition. If she wants to abort it, it's not a child. If we attempt
to save it, it is a child. At the same stage of development, the child
is either a fetus that can be destroyed by the mother or a baby with
all the inalienable rights the rest of us humans have. However, which
it is, is based solely on the convenience of the mother.
With rights, come responsibilities. As adults we all have the right to
do whatever we want with our bodies. However, if in exercising those
rights, we endanger the lives of others then restrictions are placed on
us. E.g. we can't drink and drive. A woman has a right to use her
body in whatever way she sees fit. However, she has the responsibility
not endangers others' lives. If the child she is carrying is viable,
then it is her responsibility to see the pregnancy through. After all
it is not her baby who brought her to this situation but her own
actions.
> >
> > The adoptive parents are no problem. The waiting list is several
years
> > long. However, as I stated above I don't think society should incur
> > the costs of a mother's procrastination.
>
> Ah...that's what the adoptive parents are for...they "step up to
the
> plate" so to speak, prior to the attempted "birth" and accept all
legal and
> financial responsibilities from the moment the decision to terminate
is
> taken.
>
Some undoubtedly would although as I pointed out above not all could
afford it. Nor should they have to. Furthermore, given the increased
risk to the baby's life such an action constitutes reckless
endangerment of a human life. Would you rather see parent's spending
unnecessary money on preemy care and perhaps extensive therapy later on
or spend the money on a college/university education, music lessons and
travel?
I remember seeing a sign several times that read:
"Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my
part." In this context, since the "mother" did plan to avoid pregnancy
or terminate it when it required the least medical resources, then she
can wait for awhile.
> > > My suggestion is that pro-life should lobby for this option and
> > should
> > > apply as potential adoptive parents so they could be approved in
advance
> > so
> > > that when the situation arises they will be immediately available
to
> > accept
> > > full responsibilities and obligations for these "children".
> > >
> > I don't see why anybody would be willing to support the increased
costs
> > and increased risk to the child for an unnecessary intervention.
>
> Are you saying that pro-lifers are unwilling to accept the full
> responsibilities of what they want to subject unwilling women to ?
I am not subjecting anybody to anything. The hypothetical woman in
question has brought herself to this point on her own without me doing
a damn thing. She can accept her own responsibility.
You know
> talk is cheap, if you are *really* serious about saving a fetus, you
will be
> willing to "put your money where your mouth is"
>
As a taxpayer, I am already paying for "party on". IIRC last year
there were over 100,000 abortions in this country, non of which were
the result of my doing. So I am already forced to pay for this fiasco
even though medical resources are badly needed elsewhere. I would be
willing to see my tax dollars go to facilitate adoptions to married
couples who want children.
> > The mother can live with a little discomfort for 3 months and there
are
> > lots of parents waiting to adopt.
>
> Absolutely NOT if it's against her will to do so.
>
Why should she get any faster medical care than the rest of us? If she
wants cosmetic surgery, she would have to pay for it and wait. If she
wanted a mole removed it would be just as long and a late term abortion
requires much more in the way of resources than a mole.
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> In article <398396B5...@istar.ca>,
> Ken & Laura Chaddock <chad...@istar.ca> wrote:
> > genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Only by continuing the situation she wishes to end, which is no
> choice at
> > all, this is as silly as telling someone they must continue to put up
> with
> > torture because it will be over soon.
> >
> We have agreed that it is now a viable human being we are talking
> about.
That's not what I said. I said that if the *FETUS* was viable outside the
mother's body then a termination decision would not have to necessarily
result in the death of the fetus and, provided there are willing adoptive
parents available, that every reasonable effort, commensurate with the well
being of the mother, should be made to prevent the death of the fetus while
removing it from her body.
> She had several choices along the way and now she has the responsibility
> to provide care for a human being until somebody else can take over.
This is a red herring, it doesn't matter, it's her body, she can decide
to terminate the pregnancy AT ANY POINT*. All I'm saying is that if there is
a reasonable chance the the fetus is viable, and if there are adoptive
parents willing to take the financial and emotional rise, then a reasonable
effort should be made to prevent the death of the fetus due to the
termination of the pregnancy.
> > > I agree with your definition of when we should limit abortion.
> [Which was when the foetus is viable]
> > > However, extra measures that are required to preserve a premature
> > > baby's life are a drain on our scarce medical resources.
> >
> > Ah, but that's where the adoptive parent comes in, once they step
> forward
> > they assume full financial responsibility for any and all medical costs
> > associated with the attempt to save the fetus, including any necessary
> care
> > for the mother.
> >
> But there is also the increased risk to the child's life from removing it
> prematurely.
Your point would be ? The pregnancy is to be terminated, that is the
woman's decision alone, the *FETUS* (not yet a child) can be allowed to die
because of this or we can make an effort to save it, either way, the woman
has the absolutely sovereign right to decide on whether or not she will
continue the pregnancy.
Even with this said, the woman's absolute right to terminate the
pregnancy doesn't absolutely mean that the fetus must die. Reasonably, there
will be no sense in trying to save an early term fetus until our medical
technology is *much* further advanced but it may be reasonably possible to
"save" a late term fetus so that it may continue it's development outside
the womb.
> Furthermore, there are many good and responsible adoptive parents who
> don't have the money. Why should these people have to look after the
> mother?
Maybe pro-life organizations should start raising money now so that "good
adoptive (poor) parents" can also have a chance to "save" a fetus...
> After all, it's her decision to have a premature baby that is causing the
> extra costs.
No, it's her decision to terminate her pregnancy and even a late term
abortion is not a particularly expensive operation. It's the adoptive
parents decision to try to save it, which is the expensive part so of course
they should pay.
> ISTM that if the mother chooses to bring a premature baby into the world,
> then she should be liable for any damage to the baby that results.
Ah but she's not, she is terminating her pregnancy, it's the adoptive
parents who are liable for any damage to the fetus since the alternative is
to allow the fetus to die rather than to try to save it.
>
> > Nope, don't agree at all. It is the woman's body therefore she is the
>
> > only one with any say over whether she will carry to term or not. A
>
> The woman's body issue is not a rational argument.
Of course it is and believe it or not it's a "thin edge of the wedge"
issue. If a woman can be forced to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want I
shudder to think what other things many be forces upon us in the future...
> First, a woman can chose to either have an abortion or deliver without any
> say from the
> father. So a father has no say in whether or not his child will be born
> or not. OTOH if the woman delivers then he can be required to make
> support payments until the child is an adult and perhaps beyond.
This is a different issue altogether...I'm a strong supported of male
reproductive rights also
> <snip>
> There are other arguments as well.
I hope they are better than the ones I've snipped which were not very
strong.
> > A decision to terminate the pregnancy is always valid but in the case
> of a
> > potentially viable fetus with adoptive parents ready to take
> responsibility, a
> > termination decision would trigger a serious attempt to "save" the
> fetus.
> >
> Ken and/or Laura, we do have a fundamental disagreement about whether
> the decision to terminate a pregnancy is always valid. I think we will
> have to leave it as agreeing to disagree.
It's a matter of freedom, if you believe in personal freedom then you
cannot do other than support the woman's right, if you don't....
>
> > > Well we both agree that that when the foetus becomes viable we would
> > > like to see it protected. We just disagree in the method. Why would
> > > you want to protect a viable foetus if it wasn't a child?
> >
> > I don't particularly want to protect a fetus however if there is a
> > possibility that the fetus is viable and if there are adoptive parents
> ready
> > to accept all responsibility then I would be willing to make an attempt
> to
> > save the fetus since to do so is not a violation of the woman's
> sovereignty
> > over her own body and life.
> >
> The problem that I have with this is that it is arbitrary and based on
> personal convenience. The child is a fetus based on the mother's
> definition. If she wants to abort it, it's not a child.
You are missing the point completely. The woman's right to sovereignty of
person supersedes any "rights" you may attribute to a fetus to stay within
her body. The woman's right to sovereignty of person however doesn't
automatically mean that the fetus has necessarily to be killed, just that it
has to be removed from her body. If this can be done in a way which does not
kill the fetus (and there are adoptive parents willing to take
responsibility) then by all means make the attempt.
> If we attempt to save it, it is a child.
If it has been removed from the woman's body then it *is* a child since
it has been *born* Prior to that it has not been born
> At the same stage of development, the child is either a fetus that can be
> destroyed by the mother
No, you miss the point. A termination of pregnancy may not necessarily
have to end in the death of the fetus. Therefore, abortion may be carried
out with the result being a "live" birth of a premature baby whose
(adoptive) parents will make every effort to keep alive. The biological
mother is happy to be relieved of her burden and the adoptive parents are
happy with their new "baby". Everyone's happy...why aren't you ?
> or a baby with all the inalienable rights the rest of us humans have.
Only *AFTER* birth
> However, which it is, is based solely on the convenience of the mother.
That's what freedom is all about.
> With rights, come responsibilities. As adults we all have the right to
> do whatever we want with our bodies. However, if in exercising those
> rights, we endanger the lives of others then restrictions are placed on
> us. E.g. we can't drink and drive. A woman has a right to use her
> body in whatever way she sees fit. However, she has the responsibility
> not endangers others' lives. If the child she is carrying is viable,
> then it is her responsibility to see the pregnancy through. After all
> it is not her baby who brought her to this situation but her own
> actions.
These are completely irrelevant and repetitious arguments, as are those
which follow. I think we've gone over it quite sufficiently, neither is
going to change the other's mind.
...Ken
genrl_m...@my-deja.com
Ken & Laura Chaddock <chad...@istar.ca> wrote:
> genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <398396B5...@istar.ca>,
> > Ken & Laura Chaddock <chad...@istar.ca> wrote:
> > > genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > If we attempt to save it, it is a child.
>
> If it has been removed from the woman's body then it *is* a child
since
> it has been *born* Prior to that it has not been born
>
>
> > However, which it is, is based solely on the convenience of the
mother.
>
> That's what freedom is all about.
>
If you believe that freedom is just about establishing personal
convenience with no obligations or responsibilities attendant, then I
see that we will never have any common ground.
>
> These are completely irrelevant and repetitious arguments, as are
those
> which follow. I think we've gone over it quite sufficiently, neither
is
> going to change the other's mind.
>
Perhaps my arguments were repetitious but you made a point earlier of
snipping them without addressing them. OTOH I believe that I have
addressed your points and not snipped them out without adequate
discussion. As you stated, we have gone over it all sufficiently.
Ken & Laura Chaddock
> In article <39863918...@istar.ca>,
> Ken & Laura Chaddock <chad...@istar.ca> wrote:
> > genrl_m...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > If we attempt to save it, it is a child.
> >
> > If it has been removed from the woman's body then it *is* a child
> since
> > it has been *born* Prior to that it has not been born
> >
> A totally arbritrary decision. It is a slippery slope.
No, a completely logical and realistic one which recognizes the reality
that there is an enormous difference between a *fetus* which is still
within, and dependent upon it's mother's body and a baby which is outside
of it's mother's body. The difference is like night and day.
The fact that a late term fetus *may be* viable and that there are
willing adoptive parents should, to my mind, trigger an effort to
terminate the pregnancy in a way which doesn't kill the fetus. There is
*nothing* which should interfere with a woman's sovereignty of person.
Once the fetus *has been* removed from it's mother's body, if it is
alive, it is *NOW* a baby and should be afforded the same care and
attention as any other baby.
> That's what freedom is all about.
> If you believe that freedom is just about establishing personal
> convenience with no obligations or responsibilities attendant, then I
> see that we will never have any common ground.
It depends upon what you consider to be reasonable and appropriate
obligations and responsibilities. I believe that a woman who *intends* to
have a baby should, as a moral obligation, take every effort to safeguard
the fetus and to see that no hurt comes to it, OTOH I believe that all of
us (including a pregnant woman) *MUST HAVE* absolute sovereignty of
person.
...Ken
Todder
> No, a completely logical and realistic one which recognizes the reality
> that there is an enormous difference between a *fetus* which is still
> within, and dependent upon it's mother's body and a baby which is outside
> of it's mother's body. The difference is like night and day.
> The fact that a late term fetus *may be* viable and that there are
> willing adoptive parents should, to my mind, trigger an effort to
> terminate the pregnancy in a way which doesn't kill the fetus. There is
> *nothing* which should interfere with a woman's sovereignty of person.
> Once the fetus *has been* removed from it's mother's body, if it is
> alive, it is *NOW* a baby and should be afforded the same care and
> attention as any other baby.
You have mentioned this many times.
To remove a viable baby from a woman's body early, just because the woman
wants to end the pregnancy is wrong. This puts a great deal of stress on the
baby and can cause permanent damage to it. To ask a woman to put up with
another 3 months of pregnancy to ensure the baby is healthy is not
unreasonable.
Although I would never make the choice, I do believe that women should have
the choice to abort a baby they don't want (early in the pregancy, before the
fetus is viable outside her body) or because of complications in the
pregnancy.
Todd
Dick Freeman
"Ken & Laura Chaddock" <chad...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:39839A1D...@istar.ca...
> I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. Surely you can't be
serious
> in suggesting that an amorphous blob of human tissue, with nothing more
than
> the *potential* to develop into a human, be considered a human being ?
It doesn't matter what it is. If it is a human then killing it is murder.
If it isn't a human being, then it is owned jointly by the prospective
father who provided half the DNA.
Take your pick, but either way: Unilateral decisions to abort cannot be
justified.