Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Well Andy, yo ucould start by providing some links to back up your assertion that slavery and abortion aren't the same thing.

   

Heh, Dayseed should come up with links proving they are. He started it

   

Nope, it is our duty as CKA members to make life difficult for Andy in every thread he chooses to take part in.

   

I knew it! It's a cornspiracy.

   

oops! Did I say that out loud?

   

Well you did fail to answer. You erroneously believed that abortion consists of killing the fetus rather than aborting the pregnancy itself. I provided you a solution to your thorny situation of aborting an 8 month old fetus; you flat out ran away.

Secondly, you didn't make fun of anything. If you did, show me your joke and I'll show you a humour-abortion.

Thirdly, the salient point, which you failed to grasp, was that you equated not revisiting the abortion argument not with progressivism, but as being cowardly. I then juxtapositioned your "point" (which if you had one, neither you nor I could find it) with other triumphs of progressive thinking, such as abolition, universal suffrage and secular government.

What thudded off your forehead was that these items are no longer revisited because the issue is settled, not because we're cowards, but because to undo them would be abhorrent to our society.

The rebuttal you had to make (and failed to make) was to show why failure to revisit abortion was cowardly but failure to revisit slavery wasn't.

So, you can continue to run away, but the irony of your cowardice is becoming deafening.

   

Brenda, I think you should re-read what I wrote. Andy is distorting it to avoid answering.

   

I did respond to your argument for an 8 month old fetus. You'd have pass laws if you want to force women to give birth rather than abort at 8 months. And as Brenda points out, the point of viability is more like 6 months. Otherwise there is nothing in law to stop women from aborting fetuses of any age. Since you're recommending something other than freedom to abort right until birth, you'd have to have a debate about that too. Might as well open the slavery debate at the same time, huh?

How can you juxtapose a point if neither you nor I can find it? That's pretty magical. So we're really the only progressive country out there, huh, since no other country has absolutely no law on abortion. Maybe sometimes progress can take us too far.

Every politician is afraid to open the debate because it's a third rail for them. It's a third rail because of extremists on both sides. By your response it sounds like you are an extremist, since you equate people who want to have a reasonable compromise enacted in law with somebody wanting to open a debate about slavery. And that they blame and want to punish women for having sex. Crazy.

We actually have found a good point in Canada, AFAIK. We don't do late term abortions willy nilly, because the CMA, I believe, prohibits it. If that is the case, the current practice should be made law. And that's not enslaving anybody, nor is it blaming women for having sex. You cast some pretty broad aspersions on anybody who's not for complete de-regulation.

   

Andy, your critics may be correct; you do have a hard time understanding things. Go back and say where I "forced" a woman to give birth. It's her election to abort her pregnancy; after a certain period of fetal development a caesarian section is more appropriate. It's your inability to distinguish between killing the fetus and aborting the pregnancy that thwarts you. Nowhere have I said a woman can't choose what to do at all.



Say what?



Actually, politicians do open the debate Andy, go read the Subject line of this thread if you're having trouble with that.

No, there's no "extremism" on the pro-choice side. A woman's right to choose is inviolate, the same way that abolotionists weren't "extremists" unable to compromise on another person's freedom.

And knock off this abortion/slavery equation thing you dolt. You said politicians don't examine it out of fear, I said it was because it was settled. I asked you if those other things weren't re-examined out of fear. You stupided up and missed that.



Which I believe forms a part of the overall abortion rhetoric, yes.



Why should it be made law? What is your reasoning for criminalizing it if the CMA, according to you, won't do it?

   

Then it's totally meaningless to bring it up in the context of regulating abortion. If it's a woman's choice whether to abort or deliver an 8 month old, then she's likely to choose abortion over the struggle of labor. It's not a solution to killing very well developed fetuses to say women have a choice not to do it.






Yes, one private members bill, because no party wants to go there. And the issue is far from settled, neither on this forum, nor in Canada:



We're certainly all entitled to our beliefs. So everyone on this forum who supports some limits on abortion wants to punish women for having sex? Including Brenda?





So that they won't change their minds at some later point. And so that a backyard butcher would be prosecuted for doing it as well.

We need better access for abortion for women in Canada, but it should be under a legally regulated regime.

   

Because the CMA is basically a governing body. That doesn't guarantee an individual won't go against the strictures outlined in CMA policy if they're the sort of person that can smell a quick buck.
It's also against CMA policy to charge a fee just to be someone's doctor, but some doctors have done just that.

   

Jesus Mitt Romney Iowa Caucus Leader Christ, why do you have such difficulties distinguishing between aborting a pregnancy and killing a fetus? It's almost like you can't continue your point without the two being synonymous.

They're not. Deal with it.



So who won't change their minds and why would anybody changing their mind need criminal consequences with respect to a woman's personal choice over her own body? Is prison the right place for a woman who would terminate her pregnancy at 7 months in your mind Andy?

By the way, "backalley" not "backyard".

   

What? You can't be serious. Have you got a link for that?

Read what PA said - just because the CMA is against late term abortions (and I admit I'm not sure what their actual position is, have just read that doctors in Canada won't do them unless absolutely necessary for the life of the mother) doesn't mean that somebody won't do it. Even you seem squeamish about aborting an 8 mo fetus for birth control - so what's wrong with enacting that? Or actually 6 months would be my position.

   

Nope, not every piece of knowledge in the world is on the magical interwebs for your perusal. Get a subscription to Medline.



And again, you dodge the salient point of the last paragraph: Is prison the best place for a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy at 8 months?

Also, you keep equating terminating a pregnancy with killing the fetus. I don't think an 8 month old fetus should be killed, but I don't think a woman should be forced to carry it to term either. A mother can elect a premature caesarian section, something you seem bound and determined to ignore.

What's wrong with enacting criminal laws is that the Supreme Court has already determined that limiting abortions violates S.7 of the Charter of Rights. So firstly, it's pointless. Secondly, it's not up to parliamentarians to decide a medical choice for a woman; it's a gross violation of her bodily integrity and no place for government. Thirdly, you must believe that prison is an appropriate place for a woman who makes a choice concerning her own body.

Anything else? Should I continue to point out what you've dodged, abandoned and otherwise failed to answer?

   

Why is that?

   

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  Next