Abortion questions...?

But how can you force your moral compass on all via law? Who is the person that is pregnant? Why should you, or anyone else, get to decide for her what her moral compass should be? The point remains that it is the woman carrying this fetus who is ultimately responsible for the well being of this set of cells, at least until the time comes that said set of cells can survive without it's host. Sure, you can encourage a certain set of moral standards: for those who are willing to listen, not the rest of society. THAT is why it is called PRO-CHOICE and not pro-abortion.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Can you provide any evidence for any of this?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Any evidence for this anecdote?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Do you have any evidence for any of your anecdotes?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hi Buz, we've had this discussion before. Absolutely, completely false. The primary function is mutually enjoying sex with a loved mate, as responsible adults. This includes using birth control for those that do not want to have children as a result.If this were not the case then the market for birth control would be very insignificant: it isn't. I do not know anyone who has not employed birth control. But without an understanding of that term, the we are talking at cross purposes.If it is not a human life, then it is not murder.If it is not a person, then it is not murder.This is the heart of the debate, yes?So let's start with the lesser criteria: when does life qualify as being human life?First, we can look at the legal definition of when human life ceases - we already have a culturally accepted legal definition of human death, where it is legally permissible to discontinue life support of a person in a coma and declining health - from Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion Message 1: The people involved in the decision to terminate life support for people where this applies are the immediate family in consultation with the doctors, once the doctors have determined that the legal conditions apply.From this we can determine a definition of human life as the point where the conditions for human death do not apply. Again, from Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion Message 1: Once the stage has been reached where there is a functioning heart and circulatory system, a functioning brain, and functioning lungs - or at least the point where these systems would operate autonomously if life support were removed - we have human life, according to the culturally acceptable conditions used to determine human death.I think everyone would agree that this stage is not reached until late, in the third trimester, of pregnancy. Why not decide each and every pregnancy on a case by case basis?Obviously if the immediate family wants to have a child it is nobody's business to interfere with that decision.If the immediate family has reasons for wanting to terminate a pregnancy then, just as they have the right to decide to terminate life support for a terminally dying child, just as they each have the right to decide to remove a tumor to save the life of the other, they should have the right to decide to terminate life support for a group of cells that have not reached the stage of qualifying as human life as long as the legal conditions were met.Use this method to determine your "case by case basis" and then make it the rule rather than the exception.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Every human pulsion has to be positively directed, just because these are sexual pulsions doesn't give them the green light. you haven't really read what I wrote in this thread, did you ? My christian community (less than a thousand people) had already invested over 1 million dollars in haiti well before the earthquake, in a span of ten years. We built a medical center over there, and are still working on multiple projects. I myself put all my money into it when I was 16, went there and helped the project. We sustain financially an orphanage, amongst other things.I care about human lives, don't try to apply your own selfishness on me. I have the same selfish human pulsions, but I subdue them for what I find to be the morally right thing to do.

This is the article who caused the stir:Rue FrontenacThis is the political party asking for a pro-choice certification:Rue FrontenacIt's all in french

Rue FrontenacDoes not seem to say what you claim. They are calling for certification of all groups that provide pregnancy support. There does not seem to be a call that they all be certified "pro-choice". There is an attempt to get them certified so that they do not spread pro-life lies. The headline is misleading I think. I am going to do more research on this and contact the Party qubcois to get a clarification. I will also send these articles to some french speakers to get clearer translations than I can get with web tools.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The province of Quebec is very biased towards pro-choice.One of my childhood friend got pregnant, and the option of keeping the baby was never mentioned by here counselor at a governmental institution. In fact, when she mentioned she might want to keep it, she advised against it, giving reasons why she should not keep it.What they wanted, was that a pregnancy support center not be pro-life, in the sense that they could not give reasons not to abort. The article of course doesn'ta whole lot of detail, but it was talked a bit in the news for about two weeks and that was what it was about essentially.

But as you can see by the evidence, "directing" your sexual pulsions is not something the majority of humans can do.Behavior -vs- genetics: genetics always wins. Fair enough, I'll take your word for it, but this is not the norm. The norm is to allow Haiti to become what Haiti was and is currently today. Along with Haiti, many other countries suffer the same conditions, and very little concern is ever given. Because, we just can't. There is a reality that somethings are just not do-able.Given these conditions throughout the world, why bring unwanted children, or children that can't be taken care of, financially or otherwise, to this planet? We are all selfish, some just pretend not to be to please the sky daddy. But I wonder if you didn't believe he was up there, would you still behave the same?- Oni

I don't know... Western society, by its actions, says that they are ok.Your contributions in Haiti are admirable, but fall pathetically short of what you would do for your immediate loved ones should they find themselves in that situation. You will only do so much to inconvenience yourself. As do we all, so I am not accusing you nor condemning/belittling your actions in anyway.What you really need to ask yourself is why are you against abortion? It is simply because you are following orders. You feel that it comes from "you shall not kill", and therefore you must follow that instruction. It is not from any concern over the unborn "child"...Let us say that the foetus is a human with a soul. If it is aborted, then from a basic evangelical Christian theology, the human child either has its name written in the book of life, or it does not. If it doesn't and is consigned to hell (fiery pit, whatever, etc), then you are worshipping a monster and the rest of us can laugh about it. If it does, then it has already achieved the goal of its human life anyway, and will only ever experience the bliss of heaven (new earth, whatever, etc). If it is born, then on simplistic probablity, the chances are it will not receive Jesus as its saviour, will die still in sin, and will end up in hell (fiery pit, whatever, etc.)So from what exactly are you saving this unborn "child"? Why is it such a tragedy that it is not born? Is there anything beyond your attempts to follow your own interpretation of "you shall not kill"?

Good. Denying people a choice is very bad. And without you giving out more information on the situation, that could've been very sound advice. This cannot be concluded from the information you gave. All we know is that a woman went to this centre and was adivsed to have the baby aborted. Further, this is anecdotal, and therefore not very compelling evidence.

Look up the medical definition of pulsions. I would say that pregnancies are a pretty good indication that pulsions do get directed.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Still waiting for support for these anecdotes. Or is this just pro-life propaganda?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The article also destroys your argument that pro-choice=pro-abortion.Pro-choice would prefer there is a way to bring the baby to term, but they also acknowledge and understand that the "choice" of what to do is the woman's.
To the pro-life crowd the woman does not have any choices. She must bring the baby to term no matter what the circumstances.Also to destroy your argument. I am pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion. Personally, I feel abortion is a last resort option. Then again I have never had and never will have an unplanned pregnancy. How about you?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts