Originally Posted by Lois

In Canadian law, under section 223 of the Criminal Code of Canada, a fetus is a "human being ... when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not it has completely breathed, it has an independent circulation or the navel string is severed."

Abortion isn't murder by the criminal code as fetuses are terminated in utero. So yes, legally fetuses and living children are different things.

Morally, you can believe that life starts whenever you wish. However, these beliefs are not universal truths that can be forced upon other people who do disagree with when life begins.

This law is the reason for this entire debate. Laws are man made and do not have to hold universal truth. This is exactly the reason people are arguing and holding protests, because they do not believe it to be true. Societies laws are essentially based upon peoples morals. We have collectively come together to set these laws based on morals to prevent society from descending to chaos.

Originally Posted by Lois

Morally, you can believe that life starts whenever you wish. However, these beliefs are not universal truths that can be forced upon other people who do disagree with when life begins.

I can believe life starts whenever I wish? I choose the age of one. Therefore I can kill my 5 month old son. There is a universal truth whether we know it or not. I understand that Canadian law clearly states that the fetus is not a living human, but as we know from history, the government isn't always right. You like to say things like, "believe what you like, but don't force your views on others", but we do it all the time with things like rape, murder, theft, etc.. In some countries it is legal to rape your wife, if that was the case in Canada I would hope that we wouldn't just ignore it because the government says one thing.

Laws are man made and do not have to hold universal truth.

Neither do words in an old book. Laws are also here to protect us from religious zealots trying to impose their beliefs on non-believers.

I can believe life starts whenever I wish? I choose the age of one. Therefore I can kill my 5 month old son.

Sure, you can technically could kill your 5 month old child. Legally, you would be charged with murder as it has exited the womb.

Neither do words in an old book. Laws are also here to protect us from religious zealots trying to impose their beliefs on non-believers.


OK, at no point in this entire conversation did I quote the bible or any other religious scripture. Also, not all people who are against abortion are religious.

Originally Posted by *spark*

Neither do words in an old book. Laws are also here to protect us from religious zealots trying to impose their beliefs on non-believers.


OK, at no point in this entire conversation did I quote the bible or any other religious scripture. Also, not all people who are against abortion are religious.

Your right they are not all religious people are. They are just living in a bubble.

if pro lifer like life a lot, then join me as we protest cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Lets not waste life.


Save cancer cells! After all chemotherapy is a euphemism for killing innocent cancer cells.

Sure, you can technically could kill your 5 month old child. Legally, you would be charged with murder as it has exited the womb.

Save cancer cells! After all chemotherapy is a euphemism for killing innocent cancer cells.

“. . . the discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! ... We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Jew.”
Yes, Hitler compared a people to a virus, and everyone believed him. Were the Jews people? Is that not up to Hitler to decide? Legally the killing of Jews was okay. And before you lose your heads about me making a Hitler comparison, this is just to make a point.

And Lois, I understand the law just fine, the point is that life does start at a specific point, and if we've been aborting babies after that point we have been murdering them.

I am completely fine with people arguing over whether or not the fetus is alive yet, that is where the debate should be. If you believe that the fetus isn't alive then I'm sure you regard it as simply as killing a cancer, and you should. But you shouldn't just believe that because it is convenient. It is much easier to believe that we've just been killing parasites then people, it makes our lives easier, and it means that we haven't allowed millions to be murdered. But then again the best lies are the comforting ones, go ahead and refer to religion.

However, there are those that believe the fetus is alive, and don't care.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_w...n_e nds_life/
There are those that believe the baby isn't alive, and those that don't care, I think there is a huge different between the two types of pro-choicers.

If the baby isn't alive, then by all means, get as many abortions as you'd like, as late as you'd like, and as often as you'd like. And I mean that, it really doesn't matter if the fetuses aren't alive, it could be used just like birth control for all I care.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8GLaJz7wbl...1600/agree.jpg

Originally Posted by ofomkcidtae

Your right they are not all religious people are. They are just living in a bubble.

if pro lifer like life a lot, then join me as we protest cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Lets not waste life.


Save cancer cells! After all chemotherapy is a euphemism for killing innocent cancer cells.

Once again, the term pro-life is in context of human abortion. It's not about loving all living creatures and wanting to save every living creature under the sun. This is about the belief that abortion is murder of human life and that it should be illegal.

Why not discuss the issue at hand instead of trying to avoid it by bringing up typical stereotypes and making hasty generalizations. "Pro-Lifers" isn't a term for some kind of mass cult trying to save all living creatures or people who only care about the unborn and disregard all other issues. Sure there are other issues in society and I bet some of these "pro-lifers" are also involved with other issues. Abortion is one of the issues that needs to be discussed regardless.

Originally Posted by Animosity

“. . . the discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! ... We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Jew.”
Yes, Hitler compared a people to a virus, and everyone believed him. Were the Jews people? Is that not up to Hitler to decide? Legally the killing of Jews was okay. And before you lose your heads about me making a Hitler comparison, this is just to make a point.

Guys. GUYS. DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.

Originally Posted by Animosity

“. . . the discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! ... We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Jew.”
Yes, Hitler compared a people to a virus, and everyone believed him. Were the Jews people? Is that not up to Hitler to decide? Legally the killing of Jews was okay. And before you lose your heads about me making a Hitler comparison, this is just to make a point.

And Lois, I understand the law just fine, the point is that life does start at a specific point, and if we've been aborting babies after that point we have been murdering them.

I am completely fine with people arguing over whether or not the fetus is alive yet, that is where the debate should be. If you believe that the fetus isn't alive then I'm sure you regard it as simply as killing a cancer, and you should. But you shouldn't just believe that because it is convenient. It is much easier to believe that we've just been killing parasites then people, it makes our lives easier, and it means that we haven't allowed millions to be murdered. But then again the best lies are the comforting ones, go ahead and refer to religion.

However, there are those that believe the fetus is alive, and don't care.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_w...n_e nds_life/
There are those that believe the baby isn't alive, and those that don't care, I think there is a huge different between the two types of pro-choicers.

If the baby isn't alive, then by all means, get as many abortions as you'd like, as late as you'd like, and as often as you'd like. And I mean that, it really doesn't matter if the fetuses aren't alive, it could be used just like birth control for all I care.

Godwin's Law Strikes again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Originally Posted by *spark*

Once again, the term pro-life is in context of human abortion. It's not about loving all living creatures and wanting to save every living creature under the sun. This is about the belief that abortion is murder of human life and that it should be illegal.

Why not discuss the issue at hand instead of trying to avoid it by bringing up typical stereotypes and making hasty generalizations. "Pro-Lifers" isn't a term for some kind of mass cult trying to save all living creatures or people who only care about the unborn and disregard all other issues. Sure there are other issues in society and I bet some of these "pro-lifers" are also involved with other issues. Abortion is one of the issues that needs to be discussed regardless.

Again abortion is a pointless issue, should be left between a women and her doctor.

The broad sweeping generalization is to establish that people who care about abortion have alternative agenda. They are more concerned about the fetus then the actual babies being born. People who are against abortion are generally more concerned about the fetus than the living breathing babies, and that why it is an issue.

If a mother decides to terminate her pregnancy, its her choice she has to live with it. I doubt many people casually go out to get an abortion (i.e Wife to Husband: "Fine day for an abortion, my dear").

Final note, before I lose interest. Abortion is a first world issue, and has a simple fix. But since most people are worried about fetus, as oppose to actual human being we waste our time on this bull shit. Rather than intelligently discussing solution to other problems like education and healthcare, we waste time on this useless issue, trying to deprive women of their reproductive rights.

I term "simple fix" might offend people, but again consider this: If a women is considering abortion, she probably not a fit parent to begin with. Why should we force her to have a child, and mess up his life as well?

You could make her have the baby, but would be willing to take care of it?

Originally Posted by *spark*

Once again, the term pro-life is in context of human abortion. It's not about loving all living creatures and wanting to save every living creature under the sun. This is about the belief that abortion is murder of human life and that it should be illegal.

Why not discuss the issue at hand instead of trying to avoid it by bringing up typical stereotypes and making hasty generalizations. "Pro-Lifers" isn't a term for some kind of mass cult trying to save all living creatures or people who only care about the unborn and disregard all other issues. Sure there are other issues in society and I bet some of these "pro-lifers" are also involved with other issues. Abortion is one of the issues that needs to be discussed regardless.

The comparison of a fetus to a parasite may well be a terrible argument for abortion, but comparing abortion to murder as a reason why abortion should be illegal is just as bad an argument. Abortion should be legal or illegal based on facts around abortion, just because it's similar to murder, doesn't make it murder.

As an example, Im pretty sure you're against someone murdering their neighbour... but you probably wouldn't argue to convict a soilder for killing someone in war (although maybe you would, Im just assuming). Yet they're very similar actions. Trying to compare the two and making a sweeping judgement wouldn't make for a very good argument.

Same thing goes for abortion and murdering someone, they're different. That doesn't mean you can't be against abortion, but the comparison to a murder isn't a very good argument... just saying.

Just out of curiosity, why establish conception as the start of "life" (I use quotations because I mean life in the legal context, not a scientific one, because laws are not based on science persay)... why does the sanctity of life not extend beyond conception to the egg and sperm, both of which are living, but we don't consider them "living" (again the legal definition of "life").

PS Im not sharing my opinon, and I'm not attempting to debate your opinons, I think it's useless in an argument like this for both sides... but no one asked that question above, but I kinda wanna know...

murder is a natural part of humanity. if a mother murders her child it's her conscience that pays the price.

the issue isn't whether it's right or wrong because that's subjective, it's whether she should be legally accountable. for now society has deemed it acceptable for her to abort. big brother doesn't seem to care much about this issue.

the same applies to euthanizing vegetables. i wonder if the pro life supporters consider them as parasites too since they can't live off their own means.

tl;dr abortion is legal. if you qualms about it, gather a majority and convince your bureaucrats otherwise.

>Do you think a woman should have the right to abort or do you think it should be illegal?

A man and a woman have sex. The woman gets pregnant.

If a man doesn't want the kid, the woman can veto his choice and have the baby anyway. He is forced to care for the child.

If the man does want the kid, the woman can still veto his choice and get rid of a baby thus relinquishing all responsibility.

In my opinion, men should be able to force women to get abortions to prevent this inequality. This also prevents "My body, my choice, your money" from happening.

Again with the "pro-lifers care only care about the unborn and not the born" argument... The issue of abortion is a issue that we have in society. It's clearly an issue or people wouldn't be debating about it so much. It's the only issue of the "unborn". The issues of the "born" pretty much includes every single issue we could have in society. People are also working to solve these issues. The existence of other issues doesn't cancel out the issue of abortion...

The main problem with abortion is where we define "life" to begin. Clearly there is a fetus that is alive in the womb but it's about whether or not people decide to regard it as the "beginning of life". This is still up for debate and is continuously being debated world-wide.

Personally, I don't think that simply making abortion illegal will necessarily solve the problem. People who want to have an abortion will still have one. Maybe the numbers will decrease but at the same time it would be harder to get the exact numbers since it would be an illegal act.

One thing I wanted to add was the issue of partial birth abortion. While there are many people who support pro-choice, the numbers are much less for the people who support partial birth abortion. Technically, according to the law on abortion posted above, the procedure can be done while the naval string is intact by inducing the woman into labor and before fully 'giving birth' the doctor cuts the back of the neck and suctions out the brain. Why are so many more people against partial birth abortion? Is it simply because it appears to be such a gruesome procedure? Effectively it's doing the same thing but at a later stage of the pregnancy. Where do you draw the line?