[Athens]

Hollywood Movie....

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The overwhelming majority of the "religious" in America are Chreasters. Your citation is correlative, not causal.

You've used this argument before on other topics but in this instance I think we all know that religion is a massive factor in this debate. Yes, there are people who not religious and disagree with abortion and vice-versa, but the majority of the most vocal pro-lifers are religious, and there are a great many people with no knowledge of the scientific or even ethical details who are against it simply because their religion tells them they must be.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With due respect, this is a bizarre argument. Any legislation that curbs activity that doesn't directly affect me is illegitimate?

Its only bizarre if you believe that a foetus is the equal of a fully birthed human being. A newborn baby is effectively useless by itself. You can argue its more than a dumb animal but really its just something with the potential to be more than a dumb animal (Lets face it, plenty of us never reach that status if we live to be 100).
I personally believe bringing an unwanted child into the world where it might be neglected or mistreated for 10 or 15 years is a worse crime than stopping it before its even taken a breath.
Once you are ok with the concept that a collection of cells is not the same as a baby, a big chunk of this issue becomes an argument over a woman's right to have dominion over her own body. Clearly as far as you are concerned (and this will be true of others) I am debating the wrong part of the issue, and thats fair enough.

I haven't stated my own opinion on viability in terms of weeks and I don't intend to. My background is in the physical sciences, not biological. I'll leave that to the experts.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The Constitution did not opine on this matter and neither has science. The choice is just as easily taking the life of another as it is a woman's right over her own body. The only arguments that muddy these waters are rape, incest, and health of mother.

There you go expecting science to make absolute declarations on everything. Science opines on everything but it certainly isn't going to make all of anyone's decisions for them.
Pregnancy starts with a fertilised cell and ends up with a human baby. Before its a fertilised cell, its two cells which, like everything else in the universe are collections of chemicals. More complex than sand, but chemicals nonetheless.
So we are going from protons, neutrons and electrons to a screaming child on our scale.
Sperm cells and ova clearly do not think for themselves. Neither do fertilised ova. Clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere along this scale but it should be obvious that with or without scientific input, its not obvious to anyone let alone everyone where that line should be drawn. Unless you choose to let an old book make the decision for you, which is far easier than having to think about it right?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Another bizarre argument.

Not really. Many people have mentioned adoption as an alternative to abortion. It is an alternative but to expect any and every woman to be able to hand over her baby easily is foolish and this is all I wished to point out. I'd bet a fair few babies that would have been aborted but were kept with a view to adoption ended up staying with their biological mother. Regardless of her ability to care or provide for the child. Just pointing out that its often easier to get rid of something you were never really attached to in the first place than something you've been carrying around and most likely talking to and thinking about for nine months. Even when you face a lifetime of financial, legal and emotional responsibility for it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*As an aside: crime reduction is not a suitable cause for genocide.

And yet prevention of genocide is not a good enough reason to restrict ownership of firearms.
Also the old testament was pretty big on genocide wasn't it? Genocide for not believing in the right God. Genocide for being a first born son in the wrong place at the wrong time. Genocide for indulging in sexual practices that God doesn't like. I'm sure there were others.

Oh wait, but those were all metaphors right?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We'll have to find another way.

Waiting for suggestions... Please don't say abstinence.

On the other hand, thanks for actually reading and addressing some of my points. I was beginning to think everyone was ignoring me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I've met many "Chreasters" who are just as eager to enforce religious-inspired laws as other, more regular-attending Christians are. I'm not sure why you think how often a person goes to church is relevant to this discussion.

My point is that if you're gauging the source of law on the philosophical component of its supporters, Roe V Wade is atheist-inspired. This angle is generally used as an intellectual copout to avoid the crux of the debate.

By your logic, seatbelt laws are religious-based.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You've used this argument before on other topics but in this instance I think we all know that religion is a massive factor in this debate. Yes, there are people who not religious and disagree with abortion and vice-versa, but the majority of the most vocal pro-lifers are religious, and there are a great many people with no knowledge of the scientific or even ethical details who are against it simply because their religion tells them they must be.

If religion is a massive factor in the debate, and the overwhelming majority of Americans self-identify as Christians; how is Roe V Wade the law of the land? If religious practice and adherence has been at a substantial decline in the US over the past 30 years, how is it opposition to the abortion procedure is on the incline? I submit the issue has ultimately zero to do with religion. The truth is folks are just acting out their religio-ignorance when you disagree with them and sound logic and reason when you agree with them; an intellectual copout.

Its only bizarre if you believe that a foetus is the equal of a fully birthed human being. A newborn baby is effectively useless by itself. You can argue its more than a dumb animal but really its just something with the potential to be more than a dumb animal (Lets face it, plenty of us never reach that status if we live to be 100).

While I'm inclined to agree with you, I don't think the sentence should be death because of course, if it were there would be a great deal of justifiable homicide going on.

I personally believe bringing an unwanted child into the world where it might be neglected or mistreated for 10 or 15 years is a worse crime than stopping it before its even taken a breath.

And yet cases of child abuse and neglect are on the rise. Abortion does not create wanted babies and there is no evidence it is screening unwanted babies. Most women are bowing to the pressures of their friends, boyfriends, and parents and so with no knowledge of the scientific or even ethical details do it simply because someone else tells them they should. I don't see how one is any more intellectually reprehensible than the other.

I haven't stated my own opinion on viability in terms of weeks and I don't intend to. My background is in the physical sciences, not biological. I'll leave that to the experts.

Because of course it would be your own opinion and an arbitrary figure.

There you go expecting science to make absolute declarations on everything. Science opines on everything but it certainly isn't going to make all of anyone's decisions for them.
Pregnancy starts with a fertilised cell and ends up with a human baby. Before its a fertilised cell, its two cells which, like everything else in the universe are collections of chemicals. More complex than sand, but chemicals nonetheless.
So we are going from protons, neutrons and electrons to a screaming child on our scale.
Sperm cells and ova clearly do not think for themselves. Neither do fertilised ova. Clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere along this scale but it should be obvious that with or without scientific input, its not obvious to anyone let alone everyone where that line should be drawn. Unless you choose to let an old book make the decision for you, which is far easier than having to think about it right?

Most aren't any more familiar with old books than new and there is nothing to suggest you are in the abortion situation because of a great deal of forethought. I can appreciate why men would seek to protect their sexual freedoms, but it is coming at a great cost to women and it is perpetuating a societal ill that returns them to the clinic for another.

Not really. Many people have mentioned adoption as an alternative to abortion. It is an alternative but to expect any and every woman to be able to hand over her baby easily is foolish and this is all I wished to point out.

They have counseling for adoption just as they do for abortion, because you're right; it is not easy to give up a baby. I thought it was foolish to argue this angle in light of the debate.

I'd bet a fair few babies that would have been aborted but were kept with a view to adoption ended up staying with their biological mother. Regardless of her ability to care or provide for the child.

This does not spell doom for the mother or her child. I submit that with a little more forethought, there's no reason to place yourself in the position of having to decide between taking a life or paying for its care.

Just pointing out that its often easier to get rid of something you were never really attached to in the first place than something you've been carrying around and most likely talking to and thinking about for nine months. Even when you face a lifetime of financial, legal and emotional responsibility for it.

I'm sure it'd be much easier to simply get rid of a great many things, but in this I think it is important to employ some thought as opposed to just doing what others want you to do. After all, if it's legal it must be okay right?

And yet prevention of genocide is not a good enough reason to restrict ownership of firearms.

Firearms ownership is unrestricted?

Also the old testament was pretty big on genocide wasn't it? Genocide for not believing in the right God. Genocide for being a first born son in the wrong place at the wrong time. Genocide for indulging in sexual practices that God doesn't like. I'm sure there were others.

This doesn't really illustrate how your position is any less religious-based than you claim of abortion opponents. It is clear based on the above that you are making value judgements on the Judeo-Christian text; not out of your own knowledge of it, but what others have told you of it. It would make more sense for me to educate your source on why their interpretations are woefully mistaken. They can PM me.

Waiting for suggestions... Please don't say abstinence.

A good start would be to buy a reputable brand condom from the grocery store instead of the Sugar-wraps they're passing out at PP. I get the business model of course, but I think there are less reprehensible means of reducing abortion than abstinence.

On the other hand, thanks for actually reading and addressing some of my points. I was beginning to think everyone was ignoring me.

There's still time.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If religion is a massive factor in the debate, and the overwhelming majority of Americans self-identify as Christians; how is Roe V Wade the law of the land?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I don't think you can screen for ALS. According to Wikipedia, only 5% of ALS patients have familial ALS, and of those, only 20% have a known genetic link. Hence, the only possible genetic screening would catch only 1% of potential ALS sufferers.

The screening would have noticed that he was in a wheelchair and used a computer to speak

[Athens]

Laws should be based on preventing harm to others not self harm. Since a baby is not a person until birth that does allow for abortions under the system.

[Waragainstsleep]

Let me clarify, I suspect religion is a massive factor on one side of the debate. It will most likely have very little influence on the other side whatsoever.

Playing the 'what if' game with aborted babies is something that has already been answered. There is no guarantee they will suffer from a poor upbringing or that they will all go on to become criminals. Yes there is a chance that they will be fine and happy and healthy. This is a numbers game. A child whose mother or parents don't really want it is much more likely to have a lower quality of life. Its more likely to become a criminal. The reduced crime rate correlating with legalisation is incredibly strong evidence of this statistical tendency.

Are women asked if they have been coerced when they visit an abortion clinic?

Maybe forced sterilisation is the way to go. We could sterilise all criminals, homeless people, drug addicts and people on welfare. Maybe everyone who lives in trailer parks? Maybe just the criminals could be irreversibly sterilised. The rest could have a reversible operation so that if they ever got their lives together and earned some money they could afford to have their tubes untied again or whatever.

In all seriousness a cheap, reliable, reversible method of sterilisation could be of real benefit to any society. Probably won't help the STD infection rates though.

[Athens]

I say forced sterilisation for the genetically screwed people those with genetic diseases, and a birthing license for those that want to have kids. They have to meet requirements like income levels, education levels and so forth. Pregnancies in unlicensed woman get terminated. No more issues of poor environment for children to grow up in. No more abandoned children. Genetic defects start to die out. Less money and resources spent taking care of defective people. Maybe even ban inter racial children. If a inter racial couple wants a kid the mother must get donated sperm that matches her ethnicity.

[Chongo]

All joking aside, are you guys channeling Margaret Sanger?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Maybe even ban inter racial children.

I hope it's just my sarcasm meter which is broken and not your brain.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I say forced sterilisation for the genetically screwed people those with genetic diseases, and a birthing license for those that want to have kids. They have to meet requirements like income levels, education levels and so forth. Pregnancies in unlicensed woman get terminated. No more issues of poor environment for children to grow up in. No more abandoned children. Genetic defects start to die out. Less money and resources spent taking care of defective people. Maybe even ban inter racial children. If a inter racial couple wants a kid the mother must get donated sperm that matches her ethnicity.

I got no problem with mixing races. Its good for the gene pool and helps to open the odd mind or two.
You forgot religious people though.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I hope it's just my sarcasm meter which is broken and not your brain.

No, not really. In context with the rest of the post I made it makes sense if you impose rules for birthing children for genetic purity discarding babies with defects, you might as well ban inter racial babies as well. Me personally I love half white half Japanese guys but if genetics becomes the factor in making babies might as well keep everything pure. Its not really possible any more any ways in western countries due to the inter racial mixing that already occurred. Most of us are mutts of some kind. But in places like Korea, Japan, Iran, Kenya the nations general populations are still pretty pure. Slowly isolated populations with unique characteristics are changing into the mutt mix.

Look I know your going to next say im being racist and im not. Let me defend it now since it will come up. What's racist is telling a white woman to have a white baby because the white race is superior to all others. That's racist and that's not what im talking about. Lots of populations around this planet have unique characteristics like taller woman then other populations or longer noses or really dark skin. I think its important to retain culture uniqueness and ethnic uniqueness. Its the diversity that makes things different. If every one becomes mutts and every one absorbs the American culture our planet will get pretty bland. Its not about one race or sub racial cultural group being better then another. My thinking is preserving what makes different groups unique. That's all so please don't call me racist.

I really do think in my life time we will see designer babies with traits like addiction and compulsiveness being genetically removed like in the movie Gattaca.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I got no problem with mixing races. Its good for the gene pool and helps to open the odd mind or two.
You forgot religious people though.

I don't ether but our current system isn't exactly doing anything to expand humans via the best genes either. Once we stopped following evolutions system with medical intervention a lot of people got born and lived that under natural natures way wouldn't have. Now for hundreds maybe thousands of years we have done a lot of damage to the gene pool. If we attempted to fix that with medically determined viability abortions I can see it being beneficial taking it a step further and keeping things to the same race and cultural groups to for preservation.

Designer babies isnt something talked about much because we are not yet there in doing it. But its something that will come up as a mahor thing one day.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Look I know your going to next say im being racist and im not. Let me defend it now since it will come up. What's racist is telling a white woman to have a white baby because the white race is superior to all others. That's racist and that's not what im talking about. Lots of populations around this planet have unique characteristics like taller woman then other populations or longer noses or really dark skin. I think its important to retain culture uniqueness and ethnic uniqueness. Its the diversity that makes things different. If every one becomes mutts and every one absorbs the American culture our planet will get pretty bland. Its not about one race or sub racial cultural group being better then another. My thinking is preserving what makes different groups unique. That's all so please don't call me racist.

I'm not going to call you anything, but I have to say, it sounds like you are interested in influencing people's impressions of you in a particular way, and if so it would be much easier to give you the benefit of the doubt with some decent spelling and grammar. IIRC you mentioned having dyslexia, but for the life of me I don't understand how it is that you can come up with coherent ideas in such volume and length yet you can't get some simple gramatical things right. When I see stuff like "your" when you mean "you're" I really have to work hard to put the brakes on my "this guy is a dumbass" assumptions (which is not far away from "this guy is a racist"), because frankly these kinds can be quite distracting, and I know you're not a dumbass.

Just trying to help you accomplish what it seems like you are setting out to accomplish.

[Athens]

Because when I look at "your" which is supposed to be "you're" I see it as "you're" not as your so it will get totally missed. Most of the time I only catch them much later after reading my own post again. You can point it out as often as you want but nothing will change this problem. your, you're, there, their are some of the worst ones for me. I have been taken more care in actual spelling though...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Because when I look at "your" which is supposed to be "you're" I see it as "you're" not as your so it will get totally missed. Most of the time I only catch them much later after reading my own post again. You can point it out as often as you want but nothing will change this problem. your, you're, there, their are some of the worst ones for me. I have been taken more care in actual spelling though...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Look I know your going to next say im being racist and im not. Let me defend it now since it will come up. What's racist is telling a white woman to have a white baby because the white race is superior to all others.

Calling multi-racial people inferior to mono-racial people is just as racist as calling people of one race inferior to those of another race

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Calling interracial people inferior to single-racial people is just as racist as calling people of one race inferior to those of another race

Well its a good thing no one ever said inter-racial people are inferior.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Show me that option for iOS, and Chrome for Windows please.

[Athens]

ok im switching to Safari on Windows for posting to see if this helps....

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

ok im switching to Safari on Windows for posting to see if this helps....

You're using Windows? Sorry. Now we have to sterilise you too.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Well its a good thing no one ever said inter-racial people are inferior.

You said you want to ban them from being born. You denied being facetious about it. No back-pedal is big enough to save you now.

[Athens]

And I gave the reason to, which was not because of racial superiority or inferiority, why don't you read the entire post. You're grasping at straws attempting to make it into something else.

Lots of populations around this planet have unique characteristics like taller woman then other populations or longer noses or really dark skin. I think its important to retain culture uniqueness and ethnic uniqueness.

Case in point look at the Canadian Native population. It is estimated that in 50 to 100 years there will be no more status natives due to mix race breeding. I dunno about you but I think it is terrible that the racial and cultural uniqueness is disappearing.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You're using Windows? Sorry. Now we have to sterilize you too.

I use Windows, OS X, iOS and Linux through out the day. Windows at work, mix of the rest at home or when out and about.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I hope it's just my sarcasm meter which is broken and not your brain.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Laws should be based on preventing harm to others not self harm. Since a baby is not a person until birth that does allow for abortions under the system.

Where does the Constitution state this? You know, babies and abortions existed back at the time of our founders. If they wished for the regulation of abortion and definition of who was a "person" to be defined by federal mandate, they would have done it themselves. This isn't all that complicated, really.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Where does the Constitution state this? You know, babies and abortions existed back at the time of our founders. If they wished for the regulation of abortion and definition of who was a "person" to be defined by federal mandate, they would have done it themselves. This isn't all that complicated, really.

Is where I'm from

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."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Is where I'm from

I'm pretty sure you guys do a lot of things differently.

I started the thread in regards to the United States, and how a few corrupt court justices took power not given to them, in order to legislate laws that are neither supported by the majority of the people of the United States or our founding fathers, who put strict limits on what the justices could and could not do.

[Athens]

Funny, I thought the constitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority with unpopular stuff. If thats still the case even if the majority does not support it, the rights of the minority should be protected.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm pretty sure you guys do a lot of things differently.

I started the thread in regards to the United States, and how a few corrupt court justices took power not given to them, in order to legislate laws that are neither supported by the majority of the people of the United States or our founding fathers, who put strict limits on what the justices could and could not do.

You lot afford way too much reverence to your constitution and particularly your founding fathers. They were just men. They did the best they could at the time with the information they had and they did a pretty decent job of it but they couldn't see the future any more than we can with regards to public opinions or advances in scientific knowledge. Its not productive or healthy to keep prattling on about what they would or wouldn't have wanted or done. Nobody alive today knows that after all.

This kind of unquestioning worship is how religions get started. At least the constitution can be amended.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You lot afford way too much reverence to your constitution and particularly your founding fathers. They were just men. They did the best they could at the time with the information they had and they did a pretty decent job of it but they couldn't see the future any more than we can with regards to public opinions or advances in scientific knowledge. Its not productive or healthy to keep prattling on about what they would or wouldn't have wanted or done. Nobody alive today knows that after all.

This kind of unquestioning worship is how religions get started. At least the constitution can be amended.

The Constitution Manifesto is the main religion of the US and A.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The Constitution Manifesto is the main religion of the US and A.

Gene Roddenberry saw it in the '60s.
The Omega Glory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Funny, I thought the constitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority with unpopular stuff.

It was. The founders specifically pointed out the stuff that the Government could not do to the minority even if it wanted to, in order to protect them. They never claimed a right by our creator for killing their unborn offspring however.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You lot afford way too much reverence to your constitution and particularly your founding fathers. They were just men.

True, but they were men who lead a movement through leadership and shared ideals. They'd lived through oppression and fought from a sense that certain freedoms should be protected.

They spent much time, effort and energy figuring out a government solution that the people of this new world could support and stand behind. The people agreed on the founding principles and grew a country based on them. However, they also put into place mechanisms which would allow for flexibility if big enough chunk of the populace decided that change was necessary. That mechanism wasn't for the courts to decide on their own to change the law, or add new laws. That takes the power out of the hands of the people, which was a defining principle used in creation of this country.

I'd say until there's a better standard we can all agree on - if it's ain't "broke."

They did the best they could at the time with the information they had and they did a pretty decent job of it but they couldn't see the future any more than we can with regards to public opinions or advances in scientific knowledge. Its not productive or healthy to keep prattling on about what they would or wouldn't have wanted or done. Nobody alive today knows that after all.

It's totally productive because that's the standard they devised to keep the government in check and not acting without representation of the people. Again, they provided mechanisms to allow for "advances." We've had many amendments to the Constitution and when there is not an agreement individual states can enact the will of the people when it does not violate the basic principles our founders intended on. In R V. W, the justices ignored all that and invented a solution of their own which had little to do with the will of the majority, or anything that our founders put into place.

This kind of unquestioning worship is how religions get started. At least the constitution can be amended.

Exactly!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The Constitution Manifesto is the main religion of the US and A.

In part I wish this were true. In reality it's que sera sera evidenced by the failure to live up to the lofty goals of any governance or faith.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You lot afford way too much reverence to your constitution and particularly your founding fathers. They were just men. They did the best they could at the time with the information they had and they did a pretty decent job of it but they couldn't see the future any more than we can with regards to public opinions or advances in scientific knowledge. Its not productive or healthy to keep prattling on about what they would or wouldn't have wanted or done. Nobody alive today knows that after all.

Not this nonsense again. This isn't Darwin opining on a cell-blob of matter. The advancement of science has no impact whatsoever on a governing philosophy that was to have granted very select powers to one entity and the rest to the other. The problem is societal changes and ills that make the abandonment of the principle more or less tempting, but the philosophy remains as solid in principle as it was the day it was conceived. Our failures in practice are not indicative of the flaws of the principle. You can cite no singular change that should impact the principle.

This kind of unquestioning worship is how religions get started. At least the constitution can be amended.

I see no indication of progress or omniscience among those who wholesale abandon principles upon the hint of a challenge to them either. Fudging only begets more fudging.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not this nonsense again. This isn't Darwin opining on a cell-blob of matter. The advancement of science has no impact whatsoever on a governing philosophy that was to have granted very select powers to one entity and the rest to the other. The problem is societal changes and ills that make the abandonment of the principle more or less tempting, but the philosophy remains as solid in principle as it was the day it was conceived. Our failures in practice are not indicative of the flaws of the principle. You can cite no singular change that should impact the principle.

My point here has little to do with science.
I'm not knocking the founding fathers or the constitution, just trying to point out that societies change and no amount of planning can legislate for that indefinitely. The arena changes, the players change, sooner or later you have to be prepared to change the rules too.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I see no indication of progress or omniscience among those who wholesale abandon principles upon the hint of a challenge to them either. Fudging only begets more fudging.

Again, not suggesting complete abandonment. Just a regular (if not continual) re-evaluation to see if anything needs changing. I'm not even suggesting that anything needs changing, just that the idea should not be abhorrent to anyone. I guess this does describe the fundamental difference between science and religion though.

Stupendous' point of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is fine for some things but not for others. If my bucket holds water and has a handle so I can carry it, then it ain't broke and I don't need to fix it. On the other hand my MBP is a 2008 model. It works fine but Apple are selling different ones now. The have in fact 'fixed it' several times in the last 30 months.

The 'ain't broke, don't fix' rule really only applies to simple, unchanging systems that are well understood.

[lpkmckenna]

Salon: Abortion saved my life - I almost died in an emergency room because the doctor on call refused to perform a necessary procedure.

Is there a pro-lifer in here who would defend this evil doctor?

[Athens]

Lets look at the 2 options.

Ban It or Allow it.

Under the Ban It scenario you will still have an underground abortion market. But instead of it being performed by reputable doctors in a clean safe environment it will be performed in less then ideal conditions out of sight and out of mind. Results will be brutal abortions for the fetus with no regard to age of fetus and extreme health risks to the mothers some times killing them. Pro Life people will be happy because they will think no more babies are being killed and will ignore the fact that lots are and now its just not being tracked. So we wont know the real numbers. We will only know the deaths of the mother.

Allow it, most woman will choose to do it the medical way, with very few seeking the underground abortion or trying to abort the babies on their own. We are able to maintain stats on why and how many are performed. Mothers are in a safer environment and less of them will die or suffer major medical complications. With the exception of extreme medical needs most will be aborted before being developed enough to feel pain or awareness. And if there is no age limit for that at least it's a quick death vs what unground abortions can do. Mothers receive counseling and are more likely to be talked out of it when in a professional clinic vs some back ally doctor looking to make a buck. Pro lifers hate this because they feel they are responsible for the deaths for allowing it.

Any sane person can clearly see that the second option is better. Its better for mothers, its better for the fetus, its better for society. The only reason to be opposed to it is ideological reasons.

I'll give you a clear example of how ideological reasons interfere greatly. One of the problems with the abortion debate is we just don't know when the fetus feels pain and when its aware. Evidence is pretty good it's not until much later in the term for pain. So lets look at drug use which has more definitive answers with how ideological reasons are bad reasons.

In Vancouver we have a safe injection clinic. It's the first of its kind anywhere in North America. Its called in-site and its has operating for years now. It opened up with a lot of controversy because of what it stood for which was government sanctioned drug use. It was part of the idea of harm reduction given addicts a safe place to inject drugs under medical supervision. The idea was to limit the amount of deaths from overdoses. To reduce the demands on the medical system with infections and diseases like HIV. It also allowed addicts to be in close contact with medical professionals which made it easier to get into substance abuse programs when the addict was ready. And last it moved a lot of the drug use from the open streets off the streets. Not all but most.

ITs has been running for years now and it has the data to back it up, Its reduced deaths greatly. In fact not one person has died there. IT has moved a lot, not all of the drug use from the streets to the facility. It has helped many people quit the addiction by steering people into rehab systems. It has helped in the HIV infection rate. Overall it is absolutely nothing but positive.

The federal government currently in power which has religious ideologies as part of its party doctrine has been attempting to shut down the facility for a couple years now. When it comes to drugs thats federal jurisdiction here. The previous party allowed the exemption for the site to operate. BC Courts have argued because it's a medical facility it falls under provincial jurisdiction. Either way my point if your still reading this is. The medical establishment says it's a good thing and support it. The care workers and non profit groups including churches are in favor of the facility and the science has been proven that it works. Despite all this including support from the City, the Population, medical experts and the provincial government and courts the Federal government is still trying to shut it down because they don't think the government should be allowing drug use. Thats it. Toss out all the science and facts because of ideological reasons that government shouldn't be in the business of helping drug addicts use drugs.

The federal government has lost the battle in 2 court cases and is now taking the issue up with the supreme court of Canada. BC tax payers money is being wasted fighting the Federal governments desire to shut this place down which is using federal tax dollars to do it. This is where ideologies become dangerous in politics.

So in my opinion religion and other ideologies have no place in policy. Should be the medical professionals, scientist and engineers making the decisions clear of interference. What is best based on the hard proof and science of things. And in the case of abortion having it legal is clearly the better and safer option over driving it underground.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The federal government currently in power which has religious ideologies as part of its party doctrine has been attempting to shut down the facility for a couple years now.

False. This has nothing to do with religion. I agree with you that InSite is a wonderful thing and the Conservatives are wrong to oppose it. But unlike you, I won't lie about their motivations.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

False. This has nothing to do with religion. I agree with you that InSite is a wonderful thing and the Conservatives are wrong to oppose it. But unlike you, I won't lie about their motivations.

Im not going to derail the thread with Canadian Politics but I have only one question for you that is semi on topic. What is behind the decision then if it's not religion. I think it's a fair question and still relates to the Abortion stuff because I see both of them to be religious reasons behind the ideology of banning them both.

[lpkmckenna]

That's wonderful. Instead of proving your assertion with a quote or a link, you demand I disprove it. So here, I'll do you job for it if it will make you shut up...

Insite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has voiced opposition to the injection site in the past, saying that "We as a government will not use taxpayers' money to fund drug use."

canada.com - "Allowing and or encouraging people to inject heroin into their veins is not harm reduction," said Clement. "It is a form of harm addition."

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Salon: Abortion saved my life - I almost died in an emergency room because the doctor on call refused to perform a necessary procedure.

Is there a pro-lifer in here who would defend this evil doctor?

Different version
Abortion Saved My Life � Esoterica


I'm no bioethicist, but it sounds like the double effect principle would apply. The blog doesn't say how far past the 10 weeks she mentions, Was she in the middle of another miscarriage?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's wonderful. Instead of proving your assertion with a quote or a link, you demand I disprove it. So here, I'll do you job for it if it will make you shut up...

Insite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has voiced opposition to the injection site in the past, saying that "We as a government will not use taxpayers' money to fund drug use."

canada.com - "Allowing and or encouraging people to inject heroin into their veins is not harm reduction," said Clement. "It is a form of harm addition."

No I asked why you think it's not religious reasons for the current government to oppose insite. I didn't ask you to disprove anything. I believe both subjects have religion at the heart of the ideology. For example your quote from Clement. What is the bases for his assertion that it is harm addition when all the proof in the world says its harm reduction. What is feeding him to say its harm addition. Proof, science or religious belief.... You avoided the question and you tried to link to proof that does not actually explain why they ignore the hard science and fact. Fail.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Different version
Abortion Saved My Life � Esoterica


I'm no bioethicist, but it sounds like the double effect principle would apply. The blog doesn't say how far past the 10 weeks she mentions, was she in the middle of another miscarriage?

The sentence that go me the most in that article was this one

My two kids at home were going to lose their mother because someone decided that my life was worth less than that of a fetus that wasn’t going to survive any way. Mind you, my husband told them exactly what my regular doctor had said, and the ER doctor had already warned us what would need to happen. But, none of that mattered in the face of this idea that no one needs an abortion.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Athens 

What is the bases for his assertion that it is harm addition when all the proof in the world says its harm reduction. What is feeding him to say its harm addition.

Stupidity. BTW, is your "?" key broken or something?

[ebuddy]

DailyLocal.com: State agency failed at ending horrors at a filthy Philadelphia abortion clinic run by Dr. Kermit Gosnell

Blood-stained blankets and fetal body parts in milk jugs were found in the inappropriately named Women's Medical Society. Gosnell killed a patient with an anesthesia overdose and took babies born alive in the sixth, seventh and eight months of pregnancy and murdered them by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.

PRO-CHOICERS, DEFEND YOUR MONSTER!

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

DailyLocal.com: State agency failed at ending horrors at a filthy Philadelphia abortion clinic run by Dr. Kermit Gosnell



PRO-CHOICERS, DEFEND YOUR MONSTER!

Fail. The point is there would be more of these around if there were a blanket ban on abortion. By your "logic" that crazy woman who decapitated her baby and ate bits of its brain is a good enough reason to ban christianity.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Fail. The point is there would be more of these around if there were a blanket ban on abortion. By your "logic" that crazy woman who decapitated her baby and ate bits of its brain is a good enough reason to ban christianity.

Whooosh! The point was to illustrate how silly it is to cite atrocity and hold others' ideology to account for the moronic abuses of others. And in fact there are more of these around because of legalized abortion.

Of course this wasn't my logic at all Waragainstsleep because if it were I would've cited the fact that "Dr." Kermit Gosnell is an atheist and a good enough reason for a ban on godlessness. Try again.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Stupidity. BTW, is your "?" key broken or something?

Ah, thats the best you can do, excellent. I win.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

DailyLocal.com: State agency failed at ending horrors at a filthy Philadelphia abortion clinic run by Dr. Kermit Gosnell



PRO-CHOICERS, DEFEND YOUR MONSTER!

"Gosnell, a family practice physician, had no obstetric or gynecological training and no right to perform any abortion"

Think that sums it up. If anything this should be a wake up call for Pro-Lifers as this kind of practice would be the norm in a world which bans abortion.

[andi*pandi]

There was a whole thread on that monster and we all agreed he was abhorrent. Ebuddy, are you saying that his existence cancels out the doctor who refuses to help miscarrying women? If so, I don't think so.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Ebuddy, are you saying that his existence cancels out the doctor who refuses to help miscarrying women? If so, I don't think so.

Yes because even prior to Roe V Wade, it was and will always be customary in the medical profession to save the mother in such instances. The doctor in lpk's anecdote was simply a moron. That's what I think.