440 replies to this topic

[Mr.Canada]

Forcing a homosexual against his will into the clergy. You do know that means no sex right. By forcing somebody to take that oath, you are asking for somebody to snap. And it has many many times in the clergy.

I wouldn't force them I'd simply raise them into thinking there was no other choice.

[Smallc]

I wouldn't force them I'd simply raise them into thinking there was no other choice.

And, you know what would happen? They would tell you where to go. Your kids won't respect you if you don't respect them. They have to be able to live their own lives, and chances are, they will.

[blueblood]

I wouldn't force them I'd simply raise them into thinking there was no other choice.

In other words forcing them. There are many good priests that have decided on their own to go into that line of work. They make the commitment and know full well what they are getting into and flat out want to do that line of work. Suggesting to somebody who's heart isn't in it to take on that kind of an oath is a recipe for disaster. Somebody would snap and some poor alter boy would pay the price for having another ticking time bomb slipping through the cracks. Do you want that on your head?

[Shakeyhands]

Uhm, This is completely false. Was a survey conducted of the millions of Catholics in the western world?

better....

[Progressive Tory]

Well first you'd have o prove to me that homosexuality is genetic, which it isn't. It's a choice but lets just say it's genetic so I can answer you. Next no abortion at all ever, we're Catholic. Additionally, I have strong male hetro genes and no child of mine will be gay but lets play along and say it was true. He would be taught that homosexual acts are a sin and he's not to give in to these feelings or he'll land his eternal soul into the fires of hell for all eternity being ripped apart over and over again. He would join the seminary if he is admitted and become celibate and become a priest if he got the call from the Bishop. He would have no choice as I, his father calls the shots not him. I'm the boss of my children not the other way around like so many seculars.

This is so sad I can barely find the words. Your poor children. 'Strong hetro genes' What the hell are they? You said that homosexuality is not genetic, so how do you get 'strong hetro genes' and how do you know you have them? You can't walk by a Playboy magazine without picking it up? You drool when a woman enters the room? What? Is there a cure for strong hetro genes because they sound painful, since they cause your mind to narrow and could split your skull.

I love the whole delusional 'I, his father calls the shots...'

Your children, if you have any, will have nowhere to go when they get into trouble, because there are no grey areas with you. Very sad.

[Drea]

Well first you'd have o prove to me that homosexuality is genetic, which it isn't. It's a choice but lets just say it's genetic so I can answer you.

Are you genetirally predisposed to be attracted to women or do you CHOOSE to be attracted to them?

If you believe it's your genetics and not a choice for you, then how can you say that those attracted to their own sex are not genetically motivated?

He would be taught that homosexual acts are a sin and he's not to give in to these feelings or he'll land his eternal soul into the fires of hell for all eternity being ripped apart over and over again.

Sick bugger aintcha!?

[guyser]

Mr C is merely trolling to get a rise out of you. Dont take the bait.

If he truly beleives he can keep his kids in check like he says, all the power to him. That they will find their own desires far more appealing than daddies will shock him into reality.

It is a troll position, nothing more.

[Shady]

Only if he uses a coat hanger or bleach or some other dumb ass thing (which would be the only option if anti-choice folks get their way.

I could careless how a baby is killed at 9 months. Murder is murder.

"Woman's life -- fck her, she needs to pay for her "mistake".

So-called paying for mistakes has nothing to do with it. It's a human life.

Pro-control women who dare to have sex is more like it.

Again, so-called daring to have sex has nothing to do with it. It's a human life.

I agree with limitations but not prosecution for those who abort after the "abortion expiry date". It's just not feasible.

That's like trying to enforce a 60 km/h speed limit without any penalty for speeding. As I said, you don't prosecute the woman, you prosecute the doctor. Because any doctor who preforms an abortion in the 8th or 9th month, deserves to go to jail.

I know of no limitations except ones which are adopted as ethical guidlines by medical associations. If you know legal limitaitons, I'd be intereted in knowing more.

You're right, there are no limitations. In fact, Canada is the only developed country to have zero limitations on abortion, much to the dismay of third trimester unborn babies.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....You're right, there are no limitations. In fact, Canada is the only developed country to have zero limitations on abortion, much to the dismay of third trimester unborn babies.

Correct...in Quebec, doctors won't perform such abortions unless the health of the mother is at risk. So they send the others to the US for the procedure instead...how ironic.

[Melanie_]

'Strong hetro genes' What the hell are they? You said that homosexuality is not genetic, so how do you get 'strong hetro genes' and how do you know you have them?

I know that you don't read long posts, Mr. C., so I just want to call your attention to PT's question in case you missed it.

[WIP]

So-called paying for mistakes has nothing to do with it. It's a human life.

Prove it!

Because any doctor who preforms an abortion in the 8th or 9th month, deserves to go to jail.

And if he's performing the abortion because of birth defects or health risks to the mother, it's the zealots with their upside down morality that deserve to go to jail!

You're right, there are no limitations. In fact, Canada is the only developed country to have zero limitations on abortion, much to the dismay of third trimester unborn babies.

And with no laws, there must be a lot of those third trimester unborn babies.................

The number of Canadian medical schools that give instruction in abortion procedures is decreasing, which could potentially create a shortfall in medical personnel skilled in this area.
Third-trimester abortions are not generally available. For instance, in Quebec, there is currently no doctor who will perform a third-term abortion unless the health of the woman is in great peril or there is a genetic disorder. Currently the province sends women who seek to have third-term abortions performed to the United States. Quebec is currently actively looking to hire a doctor to do third-term abortions, but has not been successful as of October 2004.
http://en.wikipedia....rtion_in_Canada

[WIP]

Mr C is merely trolling to get a rise out of you. Dont take the bait.

If he truly beleives he can keep his kids in check like he says, all the power to him. That they will find their own desires far more appealing than daddies will shock him into reality.

It is a troll position, nothing more.

Maybe, but trolls usually remain emotionally detached from the debate.

Regardless, I've known a number of people who think they can brainwash their kids into believing all of the same crap that they do, and force them into following the family religion. It only works if they have dull, dimwitted children. The children who refuse to follow the program often take their rebellion to the extreme, turning totally nihilistic until they grow a little older and realize they have to put a life together for themselves that's based on more than rebellion against their parents and their religion.......been there, done that.

[Molly]

Renegade... with regard to the case you cited: I know mental health issues played a role because her actions say so. Her's was not the act of someone with all their marbles in the ring. She was either seriously mentally deficient, or or seriously unbalanced. As such, it does not meet your criteria of 'normal, healthy pregnancy'. (Her actions say she would have qualified for a hospital abortion even in the days of panels of doctors, and 'life and health' justifications.)

So, no. You have not shown us that 'it happens in Canada'.

WIP... do you have any evidence that gender selection plays a role in late-term abortions? If not, then it's a bit of a red herring, don't you think? I agree that it's a hateful reason for abortion, but unless we are going to delve into folks reasons in stages earlier than 20 weeks, it's moot.

Sooo... I chased around to try to find some stats and reasons. I stopped at two sources, since they were politically polar opposites. One says that in 2004, 5 abortions were performed in Canada at 33 weeks+; 12 @ 29-32 weeks; 18 @25-28 weeks--- that's a total of 35 third trimester abortions-- and 366 more @21-24 weeks. No reasons provided.

The other proposed reasons, but was less specific with the numbers, saying that in 2003, 320 abortions occurred post 20-weeks, 'almost all' of which occurred between 20 and 22 weeks, 'a small number for compelling social reasons- eg., teenagers who were indenial of their pregnancy, women in abusive relationships, etc.- but most were done for serious maternal health reasons or fetal anomalies.

It goes on to say ' The number of abortions done after 24 weeks in Canada is very small, although we don't have exact figures. Without exception, all are done in cases of lethal fetal abnormality, where the fetus cannot survive after birth.'

As opposed as these two sources are, they do agree on this: That the number performed after 20 weeks is very small, and after 24 weeks, miniscule. I would go so far as to say that the number range they agree on is far smaller than I would expect the number of lethal fetal anomalies to be.

So Renegade, Drea has it precisely right... I'm willing to pay a price in failing to punish the (incredibly rare, if existing at all) guilty in order to avoid routinely punishing the already beleaguered innocent. If not wanting to write law that is guaranteed to cause grotesquely more hardship than it could concieveable prevent is unreasonable, then you have a different definition of the word than I do.

I know it has not crossed your mind (it doesn't normally occur to people) but I can see the primary effect of a time limit (then jump through chilling hoops) law being to force traumatized women to carry dead and dying fetuses to normal delivery. I know you don't think so, because you are operating from the premise that law performs perfectly, and only touches that at which it is directly aimed, but in the real world, it's a little more like a runaway lawn-mower than a surgeons scalpel.

[Renegade]

The only way to settle this issue, and other bordering issues such as embryonic stem cell research, is to define more clearly when human life begins. If it's considered a human life, then its right to live can outweigh other considerations, such as the privacy rights of the pregnant woman who is hosting a growing embryo or fetus.

I agree 100%. There is a void in law because today in law the only time an individual is considered to have rights is after birth. Politicians in general do not have the courage to venture into this area because of the difficult issues whch are affected.

And the only reasonable reasons to set a "specific period" is because it has become a determining factor for considering it to be a human life with guarantees of rights and protection from harm.

Agreed. If the fetus didnt develop into a living being in the womb then there would be no need to set any limitation and the woman can abort at any time.

Yes, and that's because not every baby developes at the same rate. This is why using a set number of weeks is not as good a guideline as using fetal viability as the standard. A fetus can be as old as 28 weeks and still not be ready to survive outside of the mother's womb. http://en.wikipedia....ation_in_growth

If there was a definitave and measurable way to measuring the development of a fetus, I would be all for it as a measure. However even if there was, the mother would need to constantly assess the development of the fetus to make sure she did not broach any limit on when abortion could take place based upon fetal development. IMV this is too onerous and a time period is a much clearer way to put limits around the abortion decision.

BTW, we should distinguish between fetal viability and at what point the fetus is considered an individual with rights. If significant milestones of human life are achieved, then IMV, the rights of the fetus must be considered even before fetal viablity.

And, you are certainly not yourself after you're dead and buried.

Oh but I am, and I (or my designate) have a right to my body and possetions after I'm dead.

What if it's in the interests of society as a whole (especially one with a desperate shortage of available organs) to have all available organs for donation? What is the interests of the family who want to deny any option to use one of the deceased's organs to save another life?

IMV, the interest of society do not overrule individual rights. IMV, The family (or whomever the person's beneficiary is) has the absolute right to do whatever they want with the body. If we allow the state to decide that its interest override individual rights, where does that end? Can the state take the persons financial assets because it is running a budget deficit because the state's need is greater? If the state has a great need for organs, IMV they should put the right incentives in place for the individual or the famly to voluntary transfer the organs.

[Renegade]

Renegade... with regard to the case you cited: I know mental health issues played a role because her actions say so. Her's was not the act of someone with all their marbles in the ring. She was either seriously mentally deficient, or or seriously unbalanced. As such, it does not meet your criteria of 'normal, healthy pregnancy'. (Her actions say she would have qualified for a hospital abortion even in the days of panels of doctors, and 'life and health' justifications.)

So, no. You have not shown us that 'it happens in Canada'.

Then there is no way you will ever believe that such an action is possible because whenever it occurs you will always dismiss it as a mental health issue or the act of a seriously unblanced person. You must also believe that we don't need laws against peadophlia either in Canada since no normal person would commit peadophlia and if they do, they must have a mental health issue or (as demonstrated by their action) are unbalanced. By that standard I can't prove that peadopheila occurs in Canada either.

So Renegade, Drea has it precisely right... I'm willing to pay a price in failing to punish the (incredibly rare, if existing at all) guilty in order to avoid routinely punishing the already beleaguered innocent. If not wanting to write law that is guaranteed to cause grotesquely more hardship than it could concieveable prevent is unreasonable, then you have a different definition of the word than I do.

Personally I'm not willing to pay that price, and I believe there are many who agree. You believe that the law will cause "grotesquely more hardship than it could concieveable prevent". Personally I don't agree that that would be the outcome. Virtually all developed countries outside Canada have laws which restrict abortion. Do you have any evidience from any of these other countries whcih both permit abortion access, yet set limits on late term abortions, that "grotesquely more hardship than it could concieveable prevent" has resulted? I'd like to be convinced but currently I'm not.

I know it has not crossed your mind (it doesn't normally occur to people) but I can see the primary effect of a time limit (then jump through chilling hoops) law being to force traumatized women to carry dead and dying fetuses to normal delivery. I know you don't think so, because you are operating from the premise that law performs perfectly, and only touches that at which it is directly aimed, but in the real world, it's a little more like a runaway lawn-mower than a surgeons scalpel.

There are a number or areas in which I woudl see exceptions to a law which restricts late-term abortions. Certainly fetus which have significant birth defects, and dead and dying babies are others. Many laws provide for exceptiona circumstances, and there is no reason why an abortion law couldn't accomodate exceptional cases.