Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Hawn continues "Canadians ought to be able to have rational, respectful discussions on difficult issues . . . we've got lots of difficult issues that we're afraid to discuss in Canada and I think that's unfortunate."
What a great idea. Too bad us pro-choicers are such cowards, we're so afraid to discuss it.
Here's the level that such a discussion would rapidly reach, Laurie old chum -- the priest who authored this piece wants "to expose evil and to call on public servants to know the difference between serving the public and killing the public." And it would be pretty difficult to discuss anything with someone like this commenter who believes that pro-choicers are history's greatest monsters:
How can anyone with even a shred of decency support this brutal and evil act of barbarism. We will all stand before The Lord Jesus one day, and will have to explain our actions. We must somehow stop this unthinkable atrocity from continuing to butcher children. God have mercy on us all.Yes, a rational, respectful discussion? Not gonna happen ...
Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers | 6 comments
And yet when a rational discussion is attempted you still won't talk. I'm not toeing the Catholic church's line but I'd certainly like to see some restrictions on late term abortions. When a premature baby is born we do everything to keep it alive but we will happily abort a fetus at the same time of gestation. The difference is a word and a few inches. If that doesn't disturb you just a little bit then you are as much a zealot as the priest.
Could we hear just what a "late term abortion" means? Do you think any Canadian hospital performs abortions on viable fetuses except in extrordinary and tragic situations?
like saving the mothers life or anacelaphous?
Hell I welcome their discussion, rational, respectful or otherwise. I hope the HoC holds a vote every week on abortion because then we can chart the failure of their arguments over time and provide quantitative proof that their ravings are electoral suicide.
"Do you think any Canadian hospital performs abortions on viable fetuses except in extrordinary and tragic situations?"
Actually, I don't know. I know some groups tried to ask for that information but were told that it is too sensitive for us Canadians. Apparently scientific inquiry using statistics and such just doesn't apply to this debate. Still, if you are correct and it just doesn't happen why not release that data? Or why not support a law that bans abortions after X weeks except in cases of serious risks to the mother or serious birth defects?
I doubt you would. Progressives love to support Down Syndrome children after their born, and support aborting them before. Irony is lost on you guys.
I believe women have a right to control of their own bodies and to make decisions for their own health care. The supreme court and the CMA have affirmed these rights.
Any law restricting abortion would entail an inevitable and insoluble conflict beween a womans rights and the proposed rights of a fetus. If a fetus has rights at say, 20 weeks then by what logic can we say they have no rights at 19.5 weeks, or 10 weeks or conception? This of course leads to the hard-line anti-abortion position which, at least is logically consistent. The instant of conception a fetus has human rights and the woman has something less than full human rights. This is why the 20 weeks/viability/whatever argument is a dodge. Logically and morally you cant have it both ways so take your pick, the living breathing woman or the zygote. I pick the woman.
Thanks, Ken, I agree.
Basically, it comes down to this -- abortion is a personal decision, not a political one.
I support the right of any woman who thinks abortion is wrong not to have one.