[hwacker]

Dayseed Dayseed:

hwacker hwacker:

Dayseed Dayseed:

Murder is the killing of a person. A fetus isn't a person. Ipso ergo, it isn't murder. And piss off if you're going to call a fetus an "unborn child". Two things. Firstly, if you have to preface "child" with "unborn", you're acknowledging its not a child. Secondly, "unborn" is a meaningless word. A typewriter is also "unborn". Call it what it is: a fetus.

You'll sleep easier, plus you won't have to drink as much Hwacky.

So you won't mind me kicking your pregnant wife in the gut, if she aborts I only get charged with assault. Even at 8.5 months.

If you kicked my wife period, there wouldn't be anything left of you for the Crown to prosecute. But, I'm sure the forum appreciates your casual use of violence against women to poorly illustrate a point you didn't end up making.

No I was making a point and it hit home I see.

When the baby is unwanted it's fine to murder it, but when it's yours then it's a huge problem.

A little hypocritical don't you think?

[DerbyX]

http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Columnist/article/454118

$1:

Column: Morgentaler is worthy of the Order
RICHARD LAM/THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA–In a previous life 20 or so years ago, I had personal and professional cause to cross paths with Dr. Henry Morgentaler. For a brief season, we both visited the Toronto Central YMCA at the same time. While waiting for my sons' swimming classes to finish, I would eavesdrop on other mothers as they came up to him to commend his crusade.

By then Morgentaler had become the bread and butter of my reporting life as a Toronto-based correspondent for Radio-Canada. For while the first chapter of his battle took place in Quebec in the '70s, it was in Ontario a decade later that the definitive one got its start with the opening of the Harbord St. clinic and the beginning of a legal trek that would end with a landmark Supreme Court ruling.

I literally tagged along with the story. The 1988 decision that removed abortion from the Criminal Code was delivered on the day I moved to Ottawa to take a permanent posting on Parliament Hill. Not for the first time, my partner was left to unpack the myriad of boxes of a family of four.

For those of us who covered the abortion debate, there is some irony to the fact that Morgentaler will receive his Order of Canada at the same time former prime minister Kim Campbell is honoured. A substantial part of her legacy as minister of justice is a failed bill designed to fill the legal void created by the Morgentaler ruling.

These days, the fact that neither the Supreme Court nor Morgentaler himself is ultimately responsible for Canada's wide-open abortion regimen often gets lost in the rhetorical shuffle.

While the court did find that the existing Criminal Code dispositions on the issue were unconstitutional, it actually left the door open for the federal government to address abortion in a Charter-respectful manner.

Campbell's bill was the last serious government effort to do that. Under the guise of recriminalizing abortion, it allowed the procedure on a broad-based basis. While it satisfied neither side, it reflected enough of a consensus to narrowly pass the test of the House of Commons and likely went as far as the Charter would allow.

The bill died in the Senate at the hands of an unlikely pro-choice/anti-abortion alliance. Not wanting to settle for anything less than an outright (and unconstitutional) ban on the procedure except in life and death cases, the anti-abortion lobby instructed its Senate supporters to oppose it. Since then, there has been no public momentum for a return to the legislative drawing board.

For the many pro-choice Canadians who cheered Morgentaler on, a life of activism is more than reason enough to give him the Order of Canada. For the many others who are more ambivalent about abortion but who prize the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, his contribution to turning it into a living document should warrant the honour.

To this day, it is hard to think of a Charter ruling that is as prominent in the annals of Canadian women's rights as the Morgentaler decision. He should no more be consigned to the closets of history than the activists who forcefully broke new constitutional ground to champion same-sex, minority language or native rights.

As for the vocal opponents of abortion, they could reflect on the fact that if the Order of Canada committee had really wanted to celebrate our unrestricted abortion regimen, it is the anti-abortion lobby and its all-or-nothing approach to the issue that it should have elected to honour.

[herbie]

It isn't a baby, stupid. That's why you can't see the ignorance of your argument.
The woman carrying gets to decide. Not you.

[romanP]

Chumley Chumley:

As I said, I don't consider stress from negligence qualifies, especially in such a serious matter.

How do you know the reason is negligence?

$1:

I don't have any "stats" on how often it happens but doing it because you "have to" is also subject. What is your reason for having to? Drink too much last night?

The reason is none of your business, unless you are directly involved.

[romanP]

hwacker hwacker:

When the baby is unwanted it's fine to murder it, but when it's yours then it's a huge problem.

A little hypocritical don't you think?

Not at all, you just made a poor choice of words. What you should have said is, "When the baby is unwanted it's fine to kill it, but when it's wanted it's a huge problem."

[Chumley]

romanP romanP:

Chumley Chumley:

As I said, I don't consider stress from negligence qualifies, especially in such a serious matter.

How do you know the reason is negligence?

$1:

I don't have any "stats" on how often it happens but doing it because you "have to" is also subject. What is your reason for having to? Drink too much last night?

The reason is none of your business, unless you are directly involved.

Because the example I had given, the one you quoted, is indicative of negligence.

And there are many serious issues which are the business of society, not just the individual.

[Benoit]

A society is making itself ridiculous by allowing a man to bring about new rights by removing fetus from women's bellies. For a society not to make itself ridiculous, it has to provide a sense of continuity to its individual members.

[Wally_Sconce]

Brenda Brenda:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Brenda Brenda:

An unwanted child will not have it easy. Forcing women to carry their child to term, deliver it, keep it, or give it up for adoption is not realy fair, right?

An unwanted child does not have it easy. Forcing Men to pay support, pay more support, and they are not even allowed to give the child up for adoption is not really fair, right?

Could have been prevented with abortion, right?

in case you haven't noticed, I've posted several comments in theme of 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander'

interesting how no one wants to even try and address them. its better is ignore than to try and find an answer, eh?

[Brenda]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

in case you haven't noticed, I've posted several comments in theme of 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander'

interesting how no one wants to even try and address them. its better is ignore than to try and find an answer, eh?

I did notice them
And it is not your business how I solve my problems

It is bs too. Not everybody can do the same things, or thinks the same way (duuuh!)
so what is good for the goose is not really good for the gander, is it?

[Benoit]

Morgentaler deserves a prize but only for showing us what remains to be done for our society to be something else than a mass of individuals obsessed with sex.

[romanP]

Chumley Chumley:

romanP romanP:

Chumley Chumley:

As I said, I don't consider stress from negligence qualifies, especially in such a serious matter.

How do you know the reason is negligence?

$1:

I don't have any "stats" on how often it happens but doing it because you "have to" is also subject. What is your reason for having to? Drink too much last night?

The reason is none of your business, unless you are directly involved.

Because the example I had given, the one you quoted, is indicative of negligence.

Who cares about the example. Is it always negligence? No.

$1:

And there are many serious issues which are the business of society, not just the individual.

This is not one of them.

[Wally_Sconce]

Brenda Brenda:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

in case you haven't noticed, I've posted several comments in theme of 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander'

interesting how no one wants to even try and address them. its better is ignore than to try and find an answer, eh?

I did notice them
And it is not your business how I solve my problems

It is bs too. Not everybody can do the same things, or thinks the same way (duuuh!)
so what is good for the goose is not really good for the gander, is it?

damn, you are good at not addressing a comment that you don't want to address. Which is unusual for you. I normal think of you as someone that can state their opinion without any dodgng.

[Wally_Sconce]

BTW, for the record, I consider myself a 'reluctant pro-choicer'

- that means that I believe that abortion does have its place and should not be banned or made illegal.
- it also means that I think the death of a baby is an extreme action that I think society need to keep reduced to a minimum.

Some of you may get the impression that I'm a pro-life. But, I'm not. It is just my belief that this is one part of the debate that needs to be listened to, and considered over and over again.

when people talk about abortion being the choice of a woman. I believe that this choice should not be taken lightly. Things like accountability and responsibility should temper the woman's decision, and it should temper the mood of debate when ever we talk about abortion.

[Brenda]

You know what? We think the same.

[Brenda]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Brenda Brenda:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

in case you haven't noticed, I've posted several comments in theme of 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander'

interesting how no one wants to even try and address them. its better is ignore than to try and find an answer, eh?

I did notice them
And it is not your business how I solve my problems

It is bs too. Not everybody can do the same things, or thinks the same way (duuuh!)
so what is good for the goose is not really good for the gander, is it?

damn, you are good at not addressing a comment that you don't want to address. Which is unusual for you. I normal think of you as someone that can state their opinion without any dodgng.

I think over the pages of this thread, and others about this particular topic, I made my thoughts and opinion more than clear.

The only thing you have done is try to side track, and when I don't fall for that bs, you call it dodging.

And in the end, it turns out we think alike...