MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Pro-choice groups will try again in 2019 to legalize abortion in Argentina
Supporters of the voluntary interruption of pregnancy (IVE) bill have announced they will make yet another try in March 2019 to get the Argentine Congress to allow women to legally seek an abortion if they so desire, it was reported. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesA baby is not the sole affair of a woman. A child is the equal responsibility of the male. Males too should not only be accountable, but should have the right to keep a child if that is what they want. Tough luck girls, women have been having it too easy, and need to become more accountable and responsible for children, not more frivolous! That means opting out of the marriage for selfish reasons, after they brought a baby to the world not just for her, but for the father as well, is should not be as easy as flicking a switch. Baby's are not stowaway incidents later relegated to the woman's will alone !
Dec 26th, 2018 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Countries as diverse as Australia, Canada, Guyana, Uruguay, Cuba, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Kosovo, Montenegro, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Republic of Macedonia, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, Republic of Ireland, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Georgia, Turkey, Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, China, North Korea, Mongolia, South Africa, Tunisia and Mozambique have legalized abortion on request.
Dec 26th, 2018 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Looks like a trend to me.
Patrick Edgar
Dec 26th, 2018 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +1A very good observation. “Pro-Choice” should be properly labeled “Pro-Murder”
The truly heinous crime however is when the late term abortion is preformed by dismembering the child during the procedure.
And yes, men absolutely equally bear the responsibility.
PT
Dec 26th, 2018 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“Males ...should have the right to keep a child if that is what they want.”
Have you been living under a rock or something? In Canada the supreme court ruled anti-abortion laws as unconstitutional after the anti-abortionists had pursued a campaign against the abortionist doctor Henry Morgentaler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler
Then a man in Quebec, through civil law tried to prevent a woman from having an abortion. It was rejected by courts. The current legal view, is it is a woman's free choice to have, or not have a child. I believe it is the correct decision, since I have no wish to impose my views on others, nor have theirs imposed on me.
Chicureo aka “the prize troll“
“And yes, men absolutely...” No they they shouldn't have any say you dinosaur. You just take care of fostering that close relationship with your mother, instead of attempting to project those feelings onto others.
”Psychological projection is a defence mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.
A moral argument is that “the unborn is in fact a human being, we cannot choose one person's convenience over another person's life. The inherent right to not be killed always ranks higher than the alleged right to be free from hardship or inconvenience.” You may disguise the crime by calling it “pro-choice”, but in many societies still consider it murder, especially during a late term pregnancy.
Dec 26th, 2018 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Chicureo aka “the prize troll“
Dec 26th, 2018 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“the unborn is in fact a human being” May well be considered a moral argument, but every supreme court ruling that has considered such a view has rejected it. On the grounds, that since a fetus cannot independently survive outside of the mother, it is not therefore legally a human being.
“but in many societies still consider it murder” The indoctrinated ignorant may well, they of course may conduct their own life along such lines, but they have absolutely no right to impose their narrow view on others.
“especially during a late term pregnancy.” That is myth, all legal systems prohibit late trimester abortions.
@ TH Mengele
Dec 27th, 2018 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse +1“Legally”, it isn't a human being. But, it is a human being.
Aren't you lucky your mama didn't consider you tissue to be thrown away.
The argument, “It's only 'pre-human'” is for genocidal animals. Sounds like something Josef Mengele would say.
All the unborn are human beings, not just late-term ones.
TH is a liberal. Liberals are big on compassion. There are adults who call for compassion and love for innocent unborn babies. TH now says that kind of compassion is for indoctrinated ignorants.
That unborn child does not have, “absolutely no right”. That innocent child has an absolute right to live, just like everyone else. No one should be able to impose a view that deprives that human being's right to live.
TH, you're a butcher.
“...That is myth, all legal systems prohibit late trimester abortions.”
Dec 27th, 2018 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse +1For once, I would hope that something he posts is truthful, but unfortunately it instead is completely false. 8th month abortions are conducted in several countries using an injection to the child, murdering it and then the cadaver is dismembered to remove it in parts. It's a brutal uncivilized murder.
There are moral arguable, perhaps even justifiable, reasons for early pregnancy termination instances, but late term is extremely difficult to defend. A high court decision in one country, does not overrule the decisions of another nation.
@PE and Chicureo
Dec 27th, 2018 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0As long as you're willing to gestate the fetus in your own body, then feel free to take equal responsibility. Until then, no. There's a world of difference between a single cell at conception and a fully formed baby at the end of pregnancy.
If there was a fire in a fertility clinic, would you save one baby or 100 frozen embryos? I know I'd take the baby out, no thought required.
bushpilot
Dec 27th, 2018 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse -3“Legally”, it isn't a human being.” That is what the courts have professed and they are far more likely to have the expertise for such opinion than your unqualified one.
“Sounds like something...” Aha the Godwin's law, which is the old Hitler argument.
“TH now says..” I agree completely with the courts rational, and disagree with your childish emotional trivialisations. The current legal views have taken into consideration all the arguments that have been professed here. In countless jurisdictions, at the end the day your simplifications of the issue have been rejected.
Chicureo
“8th month abortions are conducted in several countries using an injection to the child,” If this is true it behoves you to provide such evidence, otherwise it can be dismissed as nonsense.
Huh...so what you are saying Terry is the future of the human race is technically at the whim of women only...?
Dec 27th, 2018 - 02:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, if for arguments sake, they all decide to stop having children you are ok with that...?
Your argument means that only women have power over life...and men have no say...
Old men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.... LOL
Dec 27th, 2018 - 07:35 am - Link - Report abuse -2Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Dec 27th, 2018 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse -3so what you are saying...at the whim of women” Exactly Pontiac. Where have you been hiding all your life, to not have grasped that fundamental concept? Don't worry you'll catch up eventually.
@Chicureo
Dec 27th, 2018 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0AFAIK late term abortions are only legal when there is something seriously wrong with the baby, certainly not for convenience.
@Voice
So what are you proposing as an alternative in your absurd little hypothetical? Men should rape women and force them to have children?
DemonTree
Dec 27th, 2018 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is an effective method of population control and certainly it's an easy solution to an inconvenience, but ethically it still is the murder of a human being.
From a simple Google search: “Today, the United States [depending by state] is one of only seven countries in the world that allow pre-born children to be killed for virtually any reason up through the ninth month.” (Yes, it's a low percentage of all abortions, but they do exist.). And then there are the illegal late term abortion clinics that operate in the shadows, one of the infamous: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell
Chicureo
Dec 27th, 2018 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“be killed for virtually any reason up through the ninth month.” Is patently untrue.
”Generally, in the US, abortion is an option from very early pregnancy (somewhere between 4-6 weeks, depending on where you go) until about 24 weeks. Abortions are available later than 24 weeks only in rare cases for medical reasons.”
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/teens/ask-experts/how-far-along-can-you-be-to-get-an-abortion
Are there illegal abortionists, occasionally, but fortunately they are the exception. That is not a sufficiency to outlaw abortions. Any more than it is to outlaw parenthood because some parents murder their children.
@Chicureo
Dec 27th, 2018 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I disagree. A fetus that can't think or feel yet isn't the same as a fully developed human being. If you go back far enough it doesn't even have a heart or a brain.
And I'll need a cite that any US state allows abortions for any reason in the 9th month. They only do it in a few for serious medical problems.
As for the illegal clinics, if the more backwards states didn't make it nearly impossible to get an abortion legally, women wouldn't be desperate enough to turn to such terrible means.
DemonTree
Dec 27th, 2018 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +1With sincere respect and with no malice, I'm simply stating that an abortion of a fetus-unborn child is murder. It is commonly labeled “pro-choice” and there are a multitude of perfectly rational reasons to “ terminate” the pregnancy, including the mother's health, birth defects, rape, incest...
There are in civilized societies specific descriptions of various types of murder: involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter, 2nd degree murder, 1st degree murder an so on... ...the civilized argument might be made to compromise by making abortions illegal after the healthy fetus reaches a certain length of age, such as “24 weeks”...
The moral dilemma unfortunately is where do you draw the line regarding murder?
By the way, I'd be careful quoting the infamous “Planned Parenthood” in your arguments, as I would also avoid using the evil argument of Eugenics.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/23/margaret-sanger-founded-planned-parenthood-on-raci/
Chicureo
Dec 27th, 2018 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.”
https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
“Medically, abortion means loss of the fetus, for any reason, before it is able to survive outside the womb. ... This definition implies a legal perception of the age at which a fetus can survive out of the womb.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_abortion
“an abortion of a fetus-unborn child is murder.” It is not, you may prove or find it personally repugnant.
What your not entitled to do is deliberately misstate its legal definition. In an effort superimpose your minority value system over the majority of people who do not share your view.
”I'd be careful quoting the infamous “Planned Parenthood” Not at all as I'm not dissuaded by the opinion of a rabid anti-abortionist Rebecca Hagelin.
You're entitled to your opinion, but there's just no way I can think of killing an embryo as murder. It can't feel fear or pain, it has less consciousness than an animal, and we kill those all the time. And it's already illegal to abort a healthy fetus after 24 weeks (I think they may have recently reduced it to 22?) Unless the mother's health is in danger, but in practice in that circumstance they try to induce the birth and then do their best to save the baby.
Dec 27th, 2018 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I didn't quote Planned Parenthood, but there's no reason not to. They don't support eugenics now, as I'm sure you know. But you shouldn't believe any old pro-life website. There's hundreds of different groups and some of them are happy to lie to further their agenda.
Chicureo
Dec 27th, 2018 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Like I suspected rabid anti-abortionist Rebecca Hagelin's view of Sanger is untrue, and does not comport with the known facts.
“However, Sanger drew a sharp distinction between birth control and abortion and was opposed to abortion through the bulk of her career. Sanger remains an admired figure in the American reproductive rights movement
Sanger's view of eugenics was influenced by Havelock Ellis and other British eugenicists, who held that environmentally acquired traits were inherited by one's progeny. Consequently, she rejected race and ethnicity as determining factors. Instead, she stressed limiting the number of births to live within one's economic ability to raise and support healthy children. This would lead to a betterment of society and the human race. Sanger's view put her at odds with leading American eugenicists, such as Charles Davenport, who took a racist view of inherited traits. She continually rejected their approach.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
DemonTree
Dec 27th, 2018 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Terrence is the defender of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, and unwittingly the “science” of Eugenics. I'd have better results arguing with a member of The Flat Earth Society than him.
The intellectual enthusiasm about eliminating unwanted children is historically a part of enlightened progressive societies... “A Modest Proposal” written by Jonathan Swift might well best sum up their morality... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Chicureo
Dec 27th, 2018 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I am reliant on either the initiator or the association only to the extent they both are used as illustration, to refute any claims you have attempted, or any support you have claimed is totally bogus.
So you want to try moving some other goal-posts? I see you've already done that with Jonathan Swifts proposal, which is another attempt by you bury the fact that:
1. Your claim that in the US abortion is allowed in the third trimester. “To be killed for virtually any reason up through the ninth month,” which is a lie.
2. Your reliance on a fraudulent assessment of Margret Sanger by Rebecca Hagelin.
According to the NY Times there are nine states with no restriction regarding the age of the unborn child. Three states allow up until 28 weeks. Over half the states allow an abortion up to 22 to 26 states.
Dec 27th, 2018 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +1https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?module=inline
That of course is only the United States, a simple Google search lists countries that have no restriction in law to include China, North Korea, Singapore and Vietnam.
Anyway, like I said, it's a question of morality. That's where the “ goalpost” has been moved to.
Chicureo
Dec 27th, 2018 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -3So Margaret Sanger was apposed to abortions, she advocated for the right for women to have access to birth control.
Then the claim that she said. “We should require mandatory sterilizations of those less desirable and promote easy access to abortion” is an absolute lie. What was that piffle you were claiming about, oh yes “a question of morality.” That is clearly devoid of truth.
Ahem...
Dec 27th, 2018 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“...there are nine states with no restriction regarding the age of the unborn child...”
In the Argentine media, they are discussing 24 to 32 weeks...
...Sanger was officially opposed to abortion because it was ILLEGAL during her lifetime. She was famous for promoting birth control, but also a fanatic of Eugenics, especially regarding “inferior undesirable women.”
Like I said, it's like you belong to The Flat Earth Society.
Chicureo
Dec 27th, 2018 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“also a fanatic of Eugenics, especially regarding “inferior undesirable women.” Since you don't provide a citation I take its not a primary source, therefore its inadmissible 'hearsay'.
“Sanger's view of eugenics was influenced by Havelock Ellis and other British eugenicists, who held that environmentally acquired traits were inherited by one's progeny. Consequently, she rejected race and ethnicity as determining factors”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
“Like I said..” many unproven claims, opining doesn't mean diddly-squat.
@Chicureo
Dec 28th, 2018 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0The bill in Argentina was for abortion up to 14 weeks, which is nowhere close to the 24 allowed in the UK.
In those nine US states, what are the reasons for getting a late term abortion? No one just changes their mind at that late stage.
And China is a very different case as they force women to get abortions to comply with the one child policy. Infanticide isn't unknown there either.
“Sanger was officially opposed to abortion because it was ILLEGAL during her lifetime.”
That's silly, if people based their support on legality they'd never campaign to change the laws, like they are for example in the case we're discussing now.
Speaking of absurd little hypotheticals....
Dec 28th, 2018 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse -1“If there was a fire in a fertility clinic, would you save one baby or 100 frozen embryos? I know I'd take the baby out, no thought required.”
Are you seriously comparing a baby to an unfertilised embryo...?
Abortion is not to an unfertilised embryo...
When did the baby that you saved change from a fertilised embryo...?
When it was born...or when in your mind...one week, 4 weeks, 8 weeks before it was born..?
You decide God...and tell me...?
It is always easy to tell folk...without children...eh DemonTree...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Dec 28th, 2018 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse -3Obviously your not a science major as there is no such development as “an unfertilised embryo” as an embryo is:
1 an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, in particular a human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization (after which it is usually termed a fetus)
Chicureo
“Sanger was officially opposed to abortion because it was ILLEGAL during her lifetime” Rubbish, so was birth control.
“it's like you belong to The Flat Earth Society.” Not at all, it's apparently full of dinosaurs like you.
@Voice
Dec 28th, 2018 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0An embryo is by definition fertilised. They freeze them a few days after fertilisation and store them in fertility clinics until needed - and since they are not inside the mother's body, under UK law the father is also allowed to block going ahead with a pregnancy and have them destroyed. Does that make you happier?
And there's no moment when a single cell becomes a baby, it's a gradual process that takes 9 months, which is why I favour increasing restrictions on abortion as the pregnancy progresses, as most countries do.
FYI, over half the women in the US who have abortions are already mothers. Are you going to tell them they don't know what they're talking about, too?
DemonTree
Dec 28th, 2018 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I did a Google search (in Spanish) regarding some of the Argentine “pro-aborton” law discussions and indeed many are discussing 24 to 32 weeks.
Also, if you read the Argentine forums you'll discover both mifepristone and misoprostol abortion drugs are readily available on the black market. (Yes, available on the black market here as well.)
“In those nine US states, what are the reasons for getting a late term abortion? No one just changes their mind at that late stage.” Oh I agree, but the NY Times article data was in answer to Terry denying full term abortions are allowable in some of the US states.
Actually China abandoned its one child policy in 2013. Infanticide however has/is unfortunately common (illegally) in several countries, especially infant girls.
I'm not against birth control, but there is a very dark history about Sanger that “pro- abortionist” advocates have whitewashed her legacy. (She belongs to the beloved historical figures who did some truly terrible things category.)
@Chicureo
Dec 28th, 2018 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The law that the Argentine congress voted on was for 14 weeks. What some unknown people were saying on the internet doesn't tell us much... can you link to one of these 'discussions' please?
”Also, if you read the Argentine forums you'll discover both mifepristone and misoprostol abortion drugs are readily available on the black market. (Yes, available on the black market here as well.)“
The free market to the rescue? What's the point of banning it if the drugs are easily available?
”China abandoned its one child policy in 2013.”
They relaxed it for certain cases in 2013, and switched to a two child policy in 2016. But China is just as anti-choice as Latin America. Forcing abortions is even worse than banning them.
DemonTree
Dec 28th, 2018 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1With respect, in the end, it's just a question of morality. Each time I read what's being discussed on the internet regarding abortion, it profoundly depresses my spirt.
The world's a depressing place, Chicureo. Children die every day from lack of food, lack of clean water, lack of medicine. But didn't you say you were religious? Aren't they supposed to go to heaven or something?
Dec 28th, 2018 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Funny how those professing to protect life worry have little concern about the suffering, often death, of women resorting to clandestine abortions.
Dec 28th, 2018 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -4I Think Skip summarized well the heart of the matter in his post above:
“Old men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies...”
Right on.
DemonTree
Dec 28th, 2018 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Reminds me of the quote...
Friedrich Nietzsche: God is dead.
God: Friedrich Nietzsche is dead.
...Abortion is murder...
The vegans say meat is murder...
Dec 28th, 2018 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -1If your god is real then he created smallpox and aids, malaria and the bubonic plague. What would you call a person who did such a thing?
Chicureo
Dec 28th, 2018 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“but there is a very dark history about Sanger” You're the only one who presented her name and then and maligned her, while refusing to provide any primary sources for your grievances against her. The presumption due to this failure, is it's fake news from the alt.R again.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
Ah...Chicureo the white knight has engaged in a campaign to protect little embryos' sacred life. An unknown side of Chicureo, usually an energetic campaigner against those he disagrees with.
Dec 28th, 2018 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Does Chicureo consistently protect all forms of human life?
Doubtful. Like those who support capital punishment, Chicureo has consistently declared support for dictator Augusto Pinochet, while declaring to be “saddened” by the “extent” of human rights abuses under the bloody regime.
”I believe (Pinochet) saved our country,“ Chicureo noted. ”Under Allende, we were destined for being another Cuba.“
I believe the life of the men and women terrorized, kidnapped, tortured and summarily executed by the Pinochet regime were no doubt something more than an ”extent” of human rights violations under Pinochet.
“Old men telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies...”
Dec 29th, 2018 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse +1There are plenty of women, and mothers, who want to prohibit abortion also.
Read this carefully, I'll spell it slowly so maybe you'll grasp it;
It - is - a - baby's - body - also, - not - only - the - woman's.
If no one should be telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body, why are some types of abortions banned?
TH was fetal tissue that got to live.
DT was fetal tissue that got to live.
EM was fetal tissue that got to live.
A bunch of men, who got to live, arguing that now that they were allowed to live, it is now OK for others to die.
We've all held brand new babies. We've all had fun with little children. No one wants them to be harmed. That “fetal tissue” is a child.
BP
Dec 29th, 2018 - 02:25 am - Link - Report abuse -3“arguing that now that they were allowed to live ...”
I'm saying that the courts got it right, that females have the right to have children or not. That all individuals have this inalienable right to be free from others that wish to suppress this right and impose their own will on others. No problem, if your a complete and utter facist of course.
“That “fetal tissue” is a child.” Not according to wisdom of innumerable courts by those individuals trained to make such judgements. So you enjoy being out of step with this educated opinion. You're free to live your life according to your own tenets. As long as you allow others the same right.
It's interesting that in 2018, despite compelling medical, legal, philosophical and spiritual evidence and argume
Dec 29th, 2018 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0nt, no universal definition of what constitutes 'human life' exists. That seems entirely appropriate to me. It's a subject we should always be willing to grapple with.
I don't believe there are many who have the patience to acknowledge how truly complex the subject of abortion is and I believe no serious discussion can take place without considering how an unwanted pregnancy comes into being in the first place, and how our various cultures treat the subject of sexuality.
Some things worth considering I believe: if someone wishes to argue that life only exists if connected to consciousness, I have no disagreement, but does that mean an 'emerging' or 'potential' life has that much less value?
It's a common assertion that the individual carrying the embryo should be the only who gets to decide whether it is aborted or not, and there are good arguments to support this, however, this assumes that the possible birth of a child is only valuable to THAT individual and ignores how important new life is to the entire community. It is a powerful consideration IMHO.
Even if it gets contentious it's good that this subject is so vigorously debated...the alternative would be depressing indeed.
@Bushpilot
Dec 29th, 2018 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0If we were never born it would make no difference, you'd just be arguing with some other people who had the same views.
@HBC
Yes, it's complicated. Every cell in your body is human and alive, but they're not a human life. Having unique DNA doesn't mean anything, as twins share DNA but are separate people. And an embryo can split into two or even fuse with another to create a single individual.
There's a world of difference between a fertilised ovum and a baby, but there's no sudden moment when one becomes the other.
“this assumes that the possible birth of a child is only valuable to THAT individual and ignores how important new life is to the entire community.”
No, it doesn't assume that. The woman makes the decision because it's her body doing the life support, same as we don't force people to donate organs or bone marrow, even if someone will die if they don't. Even after you're dead you can refuse to donate your organs to save a life.
But you don't know how odd it sounds, saying new life is important to the whole community. That is absolutely not the message that society sends. People are always saying we should not have children if we can't afford them, that we should be responsible and wait until we have a stable partnership and home (harder than ever to achieve). The parents are solely responsible, and if you can't cope there is no help coming. Maternity services are underfunded and 33% of children live in poverty, while our government plans to cut benefits to families who have more than two kids. That tells us just how much they value them.
@DT
Dec 29th, 2018 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“There's a world of difference between a fertilised ovum and a baby...”. That's one way of putting it, I believe it's (ideally) a nine month process. “...but there's no sudden moment when one becomes the other.” Precisely.
I don't object to a woman having the final say on whether or not to keep her child, within the legal system of her country, unless it can be established she is not competent to do so. However making that decision without the consideration of those for whom that birth is also of paramount importance is just...wrong. And I stand by my statement to that effect.
Your last para confirms my belief that you can't have a conversation about this subject without discussing sexuality. What comes before conception has to be part of the debate in order to truly understand what happens after it. “People are always saying we should not have children if we can't afford them...” is just common sense, the evidence for the community's regard for new life is every single society I can think of has made adoption a valid option. It's a win/win situation for someone who doesn't want to bring a child to full term-they don't have to deal with the intense grief that many who abort their child suffer from, they can bring great joy to many childless couples and save some a great deal of expense from IVF treatments, as well as providing society with a unique individual who may be highly productive.
Ref, your last statement, depending on the state for help is pointless, the real mark of a solid community is how much effort it is willing to invest in helping raise a child, in other words if your going to have children make sure you have all the necessary support available BEFORE you make the decision.
HBC
Dec 29th, 2018 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -3If there is any untoward features in the present abortion laws, it is solely result of the undue interference in the right of women's right of reproductive. http://en.mercopress.com/2018/12/26/pro-choice-groups-will-try-again-in-2019-to-legalize-abortion-in-argentina/comments#comment496141
Within the same jurisdiction, even though anti-abortion legislation had been ruled unconstitutional. The anti-abortionists got themselves elected to publicly funded hospital boards and banned abortion procedures. Until the courts prevented such illegal behavior. If matters are less than satisfactory, the anti-abortionists have only themselves to blame for their illegal encroachment in other's lives.
It does not matter if you're a Socialist, Fascist, atheist or devout religious believer, no matter how intellectually enlightened the debate can try to justify the evil; the undeniable fact is that abortion is murder.
Dec 29th, 2018 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The sad truth is that in many cases, we're not just talking about a “clump of cells” inside a woman's womb, but instead an unborn child with a heartbeat. The reality “pro-choice” fanatics conveniently ignore is that babies bodies are routinely ripped apart, their bones crushed, their flesh chemically burned, and their brains sucked out in abortion clinics.
@HBC
Dec 29th, 2018 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“in other words if your going to have children make sure you have all the necessary support available BEFORE you make the decision”
Yes, that's the message I've heard all my life. So when a woman does get pregnant, and looks around and sees she doesn't have that support, what is the natural - the 'responsible' - thing to do? From what I have seen the prospective father is far more likely to push for an abortion than the reverse in those circumstances.
Adoption of newborns is extremely uncommon in the UK, I doubt many women even consider it as an option. After bad experiences in the past, government policy is to keep families together as much as possible, and if a mother really can't care for her baby, they'll try and find a family member to take it. But very few women are willing to give up their newborn if there is any alternative.
“Your last para confirms my belief that you can't have a conversation about this subject without discussing sexuality.”
I don't know what to make of this, since I didn't bring it up, and you haven't addressed it either as far as I can see. Could you elaborate?
Chicureo
Dec 29th, 2018 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“It does not matter, the undeniable fact is that abortion is murder.”
The fact that umpteen supreme court judges from numerous supreme courts say it is not. Belies the truth of that statement, so according to your self serving nonsense, these same judges are accessories to murder. Give your head a shake.
Numerous other high courts have clearly defined abortion is murder. Most certainly when the child reaches the gestation of 20 weeks.
Dec 29th, 2018 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +2https://lozierinstitute.org/the-reality-of-late-term-abortion-procedures/
“A recent study by the Lozier Institute examined gestational limits in 198 countries where abortion is legal; of those countries, only seven, including the United States, permit elective abortion after 20 weeks.”
”Abortions performed after 20 weeks gestation, when not done by induction of labor (which leads to fetal death due to prematurity), are most commonly performed by dilation and evacuation (D & E) procedures. These particularly gruesome surgical techniques involve crushing, dismemberment and removal of a fetal body from a woman’s uterus, mere weeks before, or even after, the fetus reaches a developmental age of potential viability outside the mother. In some cases, especially when the fetus is past the stage of viability, the abortion may involve administration of a lethal injection into the fetal heart in utero to ensure that the fetus is not pulled out alive or with the ability to survive.”
Chicureo
Dec 29th, 2018 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“...The goal of the Charlotte Lozier Institute is to promote deeper public understanding of the value of human life, motherhood,” An anti-abortionist propaganda site. The issue has been adjudged in the only permitted forum, a properly adjudicated court. Thus, it is barred from being legally challenged further.
”Res judicata (RJ) or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for “a matter [already] judged”, and refers to either of two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata
Moreover, whatever they allege they can provide no proof of, due to the inviolate confidentiality of the doctor patient relationship.
So the anti abortionists have had their opportunity, the issue is over they blew it, its closed to perpetuity.
Here's the highly sanitized media-acceptable version of how to murder an infant child from the malevolent Orwellian named “Planned Parenthood” website.
Dec 29th, 2018 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +1https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures/what-happens-during-an-in-clinic-abortion
”...For later second-trimester abortions, you may also need a shot through your abdomen (belly) before the procedure starts...“ [Late second trimester is roughly five to six months]
”...During a D&E* abortion, the doctor or nurse will:
examine your uterus
put a speculum in to see into your vagina
inject a numbing medication into or near your cervix
stretch the opening of your cervix with a series of dilating rods
insert a thin tube through your cervix into your uterus
use a combination of medical tools and a suction device to gently take the pregnancy tissue out of your uterus...“
*The American Medical Association definition: ”D & E involves crushing, dismemberment and removal of a fetal body from a woman’s uterus.”
...Abortion is murder...
Chicureo
Dec 29th, 2018 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“Abortion is murder...” “Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.” Franklin D. Roosevelt
The issue has been adjudged in the only permitted forums, in properly adjudicated courts as a legal bona fide medical procedure. Thus, it is barred from being legally challenged further.
”Res judicata (RJ) or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for “a matter [already] judged”, and refers to either of two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata
So the anti-abortionists have had their opportunity, the issue is over they lost, its finished legally for perpetuity.
@DT
Dec 29th, 2018 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +1To the example you've provided I'd say that nine months is a suitable interval to contemplate having chosen the wrong person to father your child. I don't say that to be flippant or mean so much as illustrate what it takes to bring a child into the world the right way. That's how serious a responsibility it is.
Adoption is in the same state in my country as yours. That does not make it any less a valid option though. All it takes is a certain amount of courage and the willingness to create something positive out of what might seem a disastrous situation.
The birth control pill has had the most significant influence on human ( not just female ) sexuality since the existence of humanity and we still don't truly understand it's ramifications. Sex ought to be fun, but it's also dangerous, which, of course, is part of why it's fun. Part of the way the dangerous aspects ( chiefly unwanted or unplanned pregnancy's ) was regulated was through marriage. One of the consequences of the pill and the subsequent sexual revolution is that the institution of marriage ( both it's positive and negative aspects ) has taken a beating. So...how do we deal with the dangerous aspects of sexuality without regressing to the more regressive mores of our antecedents? Well, we don't know because so few influential figures are willing to discuss it. Why? because there is no subject which makes people more uncomfortable, sensitive and defensive.
Terry I forgot you and Enrique both live in Canada... Perhaps you'll consider the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) credible. (You can easily find it at cma.ca)
Dec 29th, 2018 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0According to their website: ”The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is a national, voluntary association of physicians that advocates on national health matters. Its new strategic plan identifies its primary mandate: driving positive change in health care by advocating on key health issues facing doctors and their patients.“
Couple of interesting highlights:
Regarding pregnancy QUOTE ”...Today, parents can see the development of their children with their own eyes. The obstetric ultra-sound done typically at 20 weeks gestation provides not only pictures but a real-time video of the active life of the child in the womb: clasping his hands, sucking his thumb, yawning, stretching, getting the hiccups, covering his ears to a loud sound nearby even smiling...“
Then if you explore the highly progressive, forward thinking, and humanistic website for additional links regarding the politically language correct term ”reproductive rights“ you'll discover this little gem of reality by an OBGYN that has preformed over 1,200 D&E procedures describing the ”elimination of an unwanted fetus.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k (Again, the highly informative video refers to cases of twenty weeks.)
Chicureo
Dec 29th, 2018 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“I forgot you ... live in” You have absolutely no idea where I live? But, isn't in Canada.
“Perhaps you'll consider ...” What does that do with the legal status of abortion? Psst it's legal, so its status is protected by the courts, end of issue. As the abortion issue is now legally unassailable.
@HBC
Dec 29th, 2018 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah, so a pregnant woman should NOT consider the opinion of her partner unless it agrees with yours. Or do you not think the birth is of paramount importance to the father of the child? It strikes me that your adoption plan is just perfect - for men. No guilt, no pain, no risk, no responsibility. No annoying child support payments. Very easy for you to favour.
As for marriage, before the pill was invented divorce was already becoming more common, and that has done more to damage the institution IMO. Getting married is no guarantee against being left in poverty as a single parent. Would you also advise a woman, or indeed a man, in that situation to give up their baby to adoption? How about a pregnant young widow left with no income?
I assume the invention of the pill had an influence on people getting married later (or not at all), but I think other changes in society are also a factor. For most people it takes much longer to get set up in your own household than it did in the past. People who used to leave school at 16 and get a paying job now go to university until they are 22 or older, and often live with their parents into their late 20s. To most people some sort of financial stability and being able to afford a home together is a prerequisite for getting married. If we could somehow change the way society is set up to make this happen sooner, we might see marriage happening at a younger age again. Additionally, I'd say that in some ways expectations on parents have been increasing over time, not just in material things but the amount of time and attention expected to be given to children. Didn't kids used to walk to school by themselves from a young age? And were sent out to play with minimal supervision, expected to amuse themselves while both mum and dad were able to get on with other things? I can't help thinking that if expectations weren't so high, then more people would feel capable of becoming parents, even in less than perfect circumstances.
...Laws can change...
Dec 29th, 2018 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Terry, if you claim you're not residing in Canada, I can only assume you're one of those argumentative Québécois, but still I would point out to you that Quebec actually is a province of Canada. (Enrique Massot can better explain that to you.) Est-ce que tu comprends?
Anyway, it's a historical precedent that there have been significant changes in both civil law and common law. Today, the law in the USA clearly allows for the termination of unborn children.
Years ago in Quebec, women were not allowed to vote or sign contracts, and children became adults only at age 21. These might seem ridiculous today, yet this is how it was.
The important thing to remember is that laws change over time and from place to place. This is how it should be. The world is constantly changing. Values, technology, society and the economy evolve over time, and the law must evolve with them.
Did you by chance to read about the Kavanaugh appointment as the newest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States? Do you know he represents a very conservative fifth swing vote of the nine justices? Do you by chance know that Ruth Ginsburg, one of the most liberal justices is 85 years old and has been recently experiencing severe health problems? Would you by chance know who will nominate her future replacement? Google the name “Amy Coney Barrett”and realize how Trump is packing the court with extremely conservative “pro-life” justices. (He now has plenty of Senate votes for an easy appointment.)
Sorry, but perhaps too many questions, but you should know why “pro-abortion” activists are all VERY UPSET right now. It has to do with Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision issued in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to abortions.
The US Supreme Court can indeed radically change the law. Don't fret, you are very safe with Justin Trudeau.
@DT
Dec 29th, 2018 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I'm genuinely baffled by your first paragraph. I honestly have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.
Divorce became more common from as early as the 1920's, but it was still extremely rare in my country, at least, until the mid '70's. The divorce rate exploded because the govt, inspired greatly by the changes in social attitudes from the previous decade,made divorce much easier to enact. Which reinforces my argument I believe.
The chances of being left in poverty - in my country at least - are negligible. Social security payments to single parents are generous. And that's before the raft of concessions - for power bills, water bills, rent assistance, prescriptions, school fees, bank account charges, public transport - that are also available.
I'm not in the advice giving business, but in the scenario you've provided I would certainly be willing to listen and offer suggestions. Adoption might well be amongst them. Who knows? There is so much missing information from that situation that would be required to make an informed judgement.
I agree with much of what you say in your last paragraph - it is definitely incumbent on govt's to make housing for young couples more affordable. However I believe the most powerful disincentive to enabling couples to marry when they are younger is the mixed messages young people, particularly women, are receiving. There is a lot pressure on girls and young women to establish a career, be independent, be adventurous etc..All of which is fine, even desirable. The problem with that, and which is rarely discussed, is that women have a severely truncated period, compared to men, in which to establish all of those things if they want to begin a family and have children. If they haven't planned to establish a family by their mid-30's the window of opportunity shrinks dramatically. They have to grow up fast, and it's not at all clear to me that that is occurring, or that the expectations placed on them are realistic or fair.
For me there are only two types of people...those that are capable of committing murder and those that aren't...
Dec 30th, 2018 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Those that are, will always rationalise and excuse their argument...those that aren't merely state that it's morally wrong and shouldn't happen...
You all know which one you are...it's just how it is...
...Laws can be changed, the impact of the Kavanaugh confirmation:
Dec 30th, 2018 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse +1The Supreme Court can overturn its own precedents. It’s usually hesitant to do so, ”but just this last term it threw out three decades-old rulings: 1977’s Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 1967’s National Bellas Hess v. Illinois, and 1992’s Quill Corp. v. North Dakota. There’s nothing stopping Roe and Casey (and, more recently, 2016’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt) from joining them” and Kavanaugh’s statements about his role on the DC Circuit tell us absolutely nothing about how he’d vote as a Supreme Court justice.
There are strong signals that Kavanaugh would personally vote to overturn Roe, or at least drastically weaken it. In a speech last year to the American Enterprise Institute, Kavanaugh praised then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent in Roe at length.
Trump's next anticipated appointment is Amy Coney Barrett (born 1972) a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Barrett is affiliated with Faculty for Life, a pro-life group at the University of Notre Dame. In 2015, Barrett signed a joint letter to Catholic bishops which affirmed the Church's teachings including “the value of human life from conception to natural death,” and that family and marriage are “founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman”
That will fortify the court with 6 of the 9 justices. And if 80 year old liberal Stephen Breyer might unexpectedly resign, Trump will then have another conservative appointment opportunity. (Justices serve for life if they wish.) That would solidify vote with 7 of the 9 justices. (Seven of the justices would be Catholic. (One of which is a liberal Catholic)
Trump's lifetime appointments (that were always expected to be nominated by Clinton) will leave a long ending impact on the future of current abortion law.
The liberal “pro-abortion” supporters for a very good reason are very panicked.
Chicureo
Dec 30th, 2018 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0All of what you claim is based on assumptions, you can only hope what might happen. But, here now on planet earth, the status of abortion? Psst it's legal, so its standing is protected by the courts, end of issue. As abortion is now legally unassailable.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
“For me there are only two types of people..” What self serving arrogant bullcrap. So by your declaration you are morally
superior to those justices that provide their scholarship in their decisions. The old I'm the King of the Castle and you're the dirty rascal, give yourself a shake.
“Psst, it's legal, end of issue”
Dec 30th, 2018 - 03:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Chicureo,
My english might not be that great either. Isn't this article saying in Argentina abortion is “not” legal? And that this “is” a very current and ongoing issue in Argentina?
I liked your last post.
bushpilot
Dec 30th, 2018 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Yes, from my limited English skills, that seems to be factual. Cheers!
Terrence Hill
You are very astute about what I wrote about in my past posts being based on assumptions.
You are also very correct that abortion is legal in many countries, and there are currently seven countries which allow (including your homeland Canada) elective abortion after 20 weeks.
In fact, there a few countries that allow no restriction regarding the age of the unborn child. (As I explained earlier, in the USA, there are nine states with no restriction regarding the age of the unborn child. Three states allow up until 28 weeks. Over half the states allow an abortion up to 22 to 26 states.)
There are however many countries where abortion remains illegal. Do you know which countries I'm referring to? Yes, that's right, one of them is Argentina. Psst, it's currently ILLEGAL there.
I also want to calmly assure you that President Donald Trump is not going to change the abortion laws of Canada, but he certainly is currently changing the US Supreme Court by appointing extreemly conservative “pro-life” justices that eventually will overturn the Roe v Wade precedent. Which indeed eventually will change the abortion laws in the United States.
Psst, it's completely legal for the Supreme Court to do that.
Now, I suspect you disregard the possibility of the abortion laws in the USA changing, due to your Wikipedia legal expertise, but I would suggest you do some research of what the “ pro-abortion” activists are currently franticly discussing on their forums . They are VERY WORRIED and really extremely upset because none of them ever imagined Donald Trump would win the election.
Again, I suggest you visit the video link of the Canadian Medical Association:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
The important thing to remember is that laws change over time. This is how it should be. Some of us in the world equate abortion as the murder of an unborn child.
@HBC
Dec 30th, 2018 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You said: “making that decision without the consideration of those for whom that birth is also of paramount importance is just...wrong.”
But then when I mentioned that in reality most men push for abortion, you implied the woman should ignore her partner's opinion in that case. And yes, you did sound flippant. Pregnancy is unpleasant, painful, dangerous and hard work at the best of times, and childbirth is the standard we compare other pain to. And I think it's appalling you would push women to give their babies away to strangers rather than give them some help to bring them up themselves.
I'm glad to hear poverty is so rare in Australia, here over 50% of single parent families live in poverty.
Re the 'sexual revolution', I suppose you old fogeys on here got to enjoy it and only later realised you didn't like all the results? Seems odd the pill would make such a difference when there were already various methods of contraception, but there were a lot of other changes in society at that time, what with social movements etc.
As for marriage, cheaper housing would help, but wouldn't address the other issues of prolonged education and employment instability. Basically, the educated, flexible, mobile workforce beloved by economists is very bad for families. And yes, it's a problem for women especially; with the average age at marriage now in the late 20s, it leaves a very short window of fertility. But most women are well aware of this. It's not typically women who are reluctant to commit to marriage and children; perhaps if men's fertility was similarly limited they would be willing to end the independent, adventurous period of their lives sooner?
@Chicureo
Yes, soon maybe a minority of religious fanatics will be able to force their views on all Americans, much like the Ayatollahs in Iran. I'm not surprised you'd celebrate that.
@Voice
I'm afraid the evidence of history is very strongly against you. But I won't go into it since it's not relevant to the issue.
DemonTree
Dec 30th, 2018 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +1This is an open forum where people can freely discuss relevant issues in the news. I find it interesting to contemplate positions presented like by Heisenbergcontext regarding debating the concept of when life actually occurs.
Terrence Hill has the assertive opinion that the act of abortion is legally unassailable and I've simply pointed out that not only are there countries where it still remains illegal. There is a very serious eventuality that abortion laws will, with a high probability, radically change in the USA, because of a presidential election.
Terry went as far as declaring that my point “a question of morality” as “piffle”, “clearly devoid of truth” and the right of abortion is a “final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal”...”closed to perpetuity.“
The uncomfortable aspect of the abortion debate however is when it occurs around twenty weeks of gestation, the unborn child can be observed by ultra-sound ”...clasping his hands, sucking his thumb, yawning, stretching, covering his ears to a loud sound nearby even smiling...“
You yourself noted “...there's no moment when a single cell becomes a baby, it's a gradual process that takes 9 months, which is why I favour increasing restrictions on abortion as the pregnancy progresses...”
There comes a realization to many people when the advanced stage of a healthy pregnancy reaches a point where what the termination may be described as murder. There are other people who insist that the termination may not be restricted due to the length of a healthy gestation.
So I completely understand why there is so much controversy and passionate disagreement over the issue, but making bitter accusations about a person's metaphysical beliefs only demeans your position.
Please try to understand why diverse individuals like bushpilot, Voice, Patrick and myself are not a “minority of religious fanatics” but instead people of thoughtful moral conscience, just as I think you are as well.
@DT
Dec 30th, 2018 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know whether you've wilfully misconstrued my post(s) or you genuinely believe what you say, but know I never implied what you claim because a) I don't believe it; b) I never intended to imply it; and c) I leave the trolling for the emotionally immature.
Yeah, lots of things in life are “...unpleasant, painful, dangerous and hard work at the best of times.” And pregnancy can also be a joyful, deeply satisfying experience as well.
...and what on earth makes you believe that I would push a woman to give away her child to a stranger when it was possible to give her the help she needed? I'm simply suggesting that if you can't or don't want to give birth to, or raise a child yourself, adoption is a valid alternative to abortion.
Ok, I will admit to a certain amount of creakiness, but I can see now how fortunate I was to have arrived at my age without being addressed as an 'old fogey'. For the record sexual maturity in my case coincided with the emergence of HIV ( a death sentence back then ), and, subsequently, incurable herpes epidemics. So no orgies, key parties or other reckless hedonism for yours truly. I don't feel the lack.
If you think I'm too hard on single parents, or abandoned, pregnant women, the context is simply that I understand how high the stakes are. It is the greatest responsibility the average human being will ever undertake. And I know what it's like to be raised in a single parent household, since that is precisely my own experience.
Chicureo
Dec 30th, 2018 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“but I would suggest you do some research of what the “ pro-abortion” activists”
Why would I do that when this is not my first encounter with this issue. I have seen the wilful misuse of the legal system by a religious minority, hijacking the system to persecute those that didn't share their dogma. Regardless of the criteria of separation of church and state. Freedom of expression was only impinged on when the indoctrinated decide what freedoms they will deprive others of.
“when the indoctrinated decide what freedoms they will deprive others of”.
Dec 30th, 2018 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Such as depriving an innocent child of their life.
BP
Dec 30th, 2018 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“depriving an innocent child..” That is an oxymoron as there is no such title reserved for the none-viable unborn.
What you mean is your right to impose your own will against others, against their expressed denial.
Terrence Hill
Dec 30th, 2018 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You were earlier saying that the act of abortion is legally unassailable, a final judgment has been made and is no longer subject to appeal as well as closed to perpetuity.
I also was just trying to be helpful by explaining to Canadians, like yourself, that your country's abortion law was safe from Donald Trump's US Supreme Court nominations. Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion. (It should be noted: Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces. Prior to 1969, all abortion was illegal in Canada.)
I thought that as you seem to be so passionate about the subject, you probably might find it of interest that many “pro-abortion” advocates like yourself are extremely angry, frustrated and greatly alarmed that the court will eventually overturn the Roe v Wade precedent, which will drastically affect current abortion laws in your neighboring country.
It sort of contradicts your earlier statement: “So the anti abortionists have had their opportunity, the issue is over they blew it, its closed to perpetuity.”
You then might correctly point out that the right of abortion in Europe remains certain and legally unassailable, but I might suggest you take a look at what's currently being proposed in Hungary, Poland, Italy and Austria where there are current important political parties with the active goal of reducing or eliminating abortion. (Seems to relate somehow to conservative political change.)
It's also interesting bushpilot's point regarding your comment: “when the indoctrinated decide what freedoms they will deprive others of”...“such as depriving an innocent child of their life.” You can't really deny the paradox! Don't you think?
Another question: Is a 20 week old fetus a “none-viable unborn”? When does an unborn fetus become “none-viable” Do you know what the province of Quebec uses as a determination?
Forgive me for being so curious and I understand if you prefer to remain silent.
TH
Dec 30th, 2018 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And who came up with this system of “title” bestowal? Noble, pure politicians? Noble, pure bureaucrats. The judges, right? Or is it you who have the final say on that score?
A fetus is a human being. You are correct, I think murder should be prohibited, regardless of another person's expressed wish to do so.
Also, as a socialist, you would not blink about imposing your own will against the expressed denial of others.
That is the very definition of socialism. It is funny you'd bring that up. Making everybody adhere to your religion and abolishing freedom of religion. Like China or Russia.
You appreciate the way those two countries deal with faith issues, don't you?
Chicureo
Dec 31st, 2018 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Prior to 1969, all abortion was illegal in Canada.” Thanks to the anti-abortionists illegal activities the SC ruled that anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional.
“Forgive me for being so curious
After a lengthy review process, in July 2015 the federal government allowed Canadian doctors to begin prescribing Mifegymiso – a drug regime more commonly known as the ”abortion pill.” However, Mifegymiso was not expected to become available in Canada until November, 2016. The two drugs that make up Mifegymiso allow women to end an early pregnancy (within 49 days of becoming pregnant) at home. Designed in part to improve access to abortion, the drugs act by inducing a miscarriage.“After a lengthy review process, in July 2015 the federal government allowed Canadian doctors to begin prescribing Mifegymiso – a drug regime more commonly known as the ”abortion pill.” However, Mifegymiso was not expected to become available in Canada until November, 2016. The two drugs that make up Mifegymiso allow women to end an early pregnancy (within 49 days of becoming pregnant) at home. Designed in part to improve access to abortion, the drugs act by inducing a miscarriage.“
BP
”Also, as a socialist,“ I'm decidedly liberal on the political spectrum.
”Or is it you who have the final say..” It is not me who is advocating infringements on peoples exercise of free will. I'm not stating that people should have abortions, I'm saying that should have free choice to elect what ever there preference is, for themselves. It's amazing you anti-abortionists believe you have God given right over other peoples decisions, which is how we arrived at this dichotomy.
Terrence Hill
Dec 31st, 2018 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse +1Thanks for the frank reply. You're correct that readily available abortion drugs are highly effective despite what the local jurisdiction laws may be. The complication is when women try in the second term of gestation.
What many people find reprehensible is the late term abortion of a healthy fetus.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
When someone terminates a pregnancy what are they terminating...?
Dec 31st, 2018 - 01:37 am - Link - Report abuse +1They are terminating what would become a human child, so they are surely terminating the life of that child.
I can't see it any other way, it must be a terrible decision to have to make and certainly a difficult situation to condone...
Because I can't see it any other way I have to assume that rational folk are playing devil's advocate for argument sake...
Relocated this morning to our family apartment in Viña del Mar for the festivities. Wishing everyone all the very best wishes for the coming year.
Dec 31st, 2018 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Abortion was the number one cause of death worldwide in 2018, with more than 41 million children killed before birth”
Interesting article: https://www.breitbart.com/health/2018/12/31/abortion-leading-cause-of-death-in-2018-with-41-million-killed/
Chicureo
Dec 31st, 2018 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Interesting article” only if you place your reliance on the single biggest purveyor of disinformation.
“Editor Admits Breitbart Publishes Fake News”
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/breitbart-fake-news-alex-marlow/
Terrence Hill
Dec 31st, 2018 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok, perhaps you'd prefer the raw data directly from the United Nations:
http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode%3A17
Anyway, I'm looking here in Viña del Mar overlooking the beautiful Pacífic and wishing you and everyone all the very best wishes for 2019!
Cherish life my friend. ¡Saludos!
Chicureo
Dec 31st, 2018 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“perhaps you'd prefer the raw data”
Your the person making the claim. Your last attempt is an incomplete subset, literally there is no data on scores of countries, nor any world totals. I prefer my data not to be incomplete. The source proffered before was a fake news source. Next.
Terrence Hill
Dec 31st, 2018 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok, as you seem to have difficulty using Google, so I chose to simply address your country using a decidedly very “pro-abortion” site, aptly named the: Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. (Yes, these people are absolutely on your side.)
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf
Statistics are complicated for your Commonwealth nation, especially because those argumentative Québécois, that I think you know (Est-ce que tu comprends?) don't share their information with the por-infanticide coalition for obvious reasons. (Too many sensitive Catholics there.)
In 2016, without Quebec, almost 23,000 abortions were committed, of which over 600 were at 21 weeks or older.
If you'll remember, I earlier posted information from the Canadian Medical Association with a link to “reproductive rights” video by an OBGYN that has preformed over 1,200 D&E procedures describing the “elimination of an unwanted fetus.” http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf
Take a look at what a “fetus” looks like at 20 weeks. That's why I respectfully think its the outright murder of a child. (You may argue what constitutes a child before 20 weeks, but reflect inward to your soul.) Abortion, especially late term, is murder.
In any case, I sincerely wish you all the best for the New Year. I'm currently with my iPad on my balcony overlooking the Pacific with a goblet of chilled Sauvignon blanc
on a beautiful day, waiting for the fireworks tonight. Cheers!
Chicureo
Dec 31st, 2018 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here is where you get probably the most reliable and clearest source of info. A source of the WHO.
”During 2010–2014, an estimated 56 million induced abortions occurred each year worldwide
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide
I'm well acquainted with with fetal development. Sounds like lovely evening, hope you enjoy your soiree. Just because other people act contrary
to the way I would, it doesn't put me under any obligation to defend or condemn them. What I defend is right to birth control, including abortion.
It is my personal belief, that we have arrived at this present divide, in large part, due the trespassing of anti-abortionists on other's legal
rights. The expansion of abortion rights in Canada is a case in point. When you try to take all the marbles, the courts could come up with a verdict you may not find agreeable. Which is what happened.
Terrence Hill
Dec 31st, 2018 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok, thanks for acknowledging the WHO statistics that “an estimated 56 million induced abortions occurred each year worldwide” ...that statistic is comparable to my “fake news site” report “Abortion was the number one cause of death worldwide in 2018, with more than 41 million children killed before birth”
...Your 56 million is actually a higher number than the 41 million from the Breightbart report... I'm encouraged that were talking about actual numbers and not fantasy.
I acknowledge you are well acquainted with with fetal development. You have your confirmed personal beliefs and I have mine. What disturbs many on my continent, is the expansion of abortion laws in our own countries that we. Latin Americans find contrary to our beliefs. We, like Canada, are ruled by elective democracies with distinct legal systems. As you say, “the courts could come up with a verdict you may not find agreeable” and that is what Chileans, Argentinians...and Americans may have to face in the future.
I too wish you a lovely evening and sincerely hope you enjoy your celebrations as well. ¡Feliz año nuevo!
Chicureo
Jan 01st, 2019 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Abortion was the number one cause of death..” Unfortunately for you the courts don't agree, all they view it as a legal medical procedure. They would know better than anyone else. “Latin Americans find contrary to our beliefs” Perhaps even a majority. Whats the problem you have a belief? So
you're not going to participate. What of those that don't share such view, why can't they act on their belief?
A person's freedom of religion, or beliefs, does not give them the freedom to deprive another human being of their life.
Jan 01st, 2019 - 01:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“They would know better than anyone else.”
In the U.S., when the courts uphold an individual's “right to bear arms”, TH wants to disagree but then concludes:
“They would know better than anyone else”.
He then considers his opinion inferior to theirs, and leaves it at that, now in agreement with “those that know better”.
Personally, although I am obliged to adhere to a judge's ruling, I don't think judges know better than anyone else. Everyone else has a brain too. No matter what those judges conclude, abortion is genocide.
I'm sure that what TH means here is that when a judge's ruling agrees with his liberal theology, then, “They would know better than anyone else”.
But when a judge's ruling is contrary to TH's liberal theology, then, “This is oppression by a religous, fanatical minority!!”
BP
Jan 01st, 2019 - 02:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0“No matter what those judges conclude, abortion is genocide.” Says another imposer of his views on others.
Abortion law
Three countries in Latin America (Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Nicaragua) and two in Europe (Malta and the Vatican City) ban the procedure entirely. 61 Countries, 39.22% of World’s Population have no restriction.
https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/AbortionMap_Factsheet_2013.pdf
“In the U.S., when the courts uphold an individual's “right to bear arms”, TH wants to disagree” You're a liar as I have never expressed such an opinion.
“TH's liberal..” You mean that terrible live and let live attitude? Heavens to Betsy.
“Live and let live”.
Jan 01st, 2019 - 02:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0bushpilot
Jan 01st, 2019 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Happy New Year!
Terrence Hill
I read you informative site because you didn't mention Chile or Argentina, where it is illegal. It confirmed that well over a hundred countries like my own that allow for the procedure when the woman's life is endangered.
That's the point, as the vast majority of the “pro-life” movement absolutely are for the protection of women's health and support certain exemptions as listed in the first and second categories on your site.
Wholesale murder is committed in countries where there are few or no restrictions. As you correctly point out, nearly 40% of the world allows for elective murder on an unborn child. I say this with no malace or bad will to you, but instead hoping that with maturity and life experience, you may eventually re-evaluate your beliefs to cherish the sanctity of life.
Chicureo
Jan 01st, 2019 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”you may eventually re-evaluate your beliefs to cherish the sanctity of life
Being a parent I always did. But by the same token it, is not my wish to impose parenthood on others against their wishes.
Terrence Hill
Jan 01st, 2019 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I appreciate you are a loving parent and wish you well.
________________________________________________
Regarding everyone else who may be following this thread:
Abortion was the number one cause of death worldwide in 2018, with an estimated 56 million* children killed before birth
The moral question for everyone to consciously ask: “Is a preborn child’s right to life only secure if that child’s parents want her? And if so, what makes that a scientific or medical basis for determining human rights?”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/leana-wen-opens-her-planned-parenthood-tenure-with-five-false-talking-points
Also note the part about “Planned Parenthood” citing the accomplishments of its malevolent founder Margaret Sanger: “The verdict on Sanger's incomplete and heavily airbrushed record is murky at best and horrifying at worst, especially given her asinine statements disparaging select demographics. Her comment that “the most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it” is particularly memorable.”
(*This statistic is from the WHO link earlier noted.)
Abortion is undeniable murder of unborn children!
Chicureo
Jan 01st, 2019 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Citing the accomplishments of its malevolent founder Margaret Sanger.” Naughty, naughty, grabbing an unsubstantiated quote from anti-abortionist site is at its best 'hearsay', at it's worst, absolutely false.
”Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies) it.
Terrence Hill
Jan 01st, 2019 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Let's just agree to disagree, I sincerely wish you absolutely no ill will, but I do hope to see the pro-abortion movement legally completely destroyed through democratic legal change. There is a strong possibility now that pro-life judicial challenges in the USA will prevail through the Supreme Court. (Not a complete certainty, but definitely acknowledged to be a very serious threat by your side.)
There are another couple of catchy Latin phrases: “Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo” and the ominous “Carthago delenda est” which reflect my views.
...speaking of Hell...
Remember how I was peacefully enjoying a goblet of white wine yesterday evening?
New Year's has become a violent revolution here in once peaceful Viña del mar...
Our neighbors apartment was leased to an unruly loud and rather rude group of rich spoiled delinquents that played rock music at full volume until well after 4:30AM this morning. ...At precisely 6:00AM my dearly beloved (and vengeful) life partner put on one of my children's CDs playing at full blast on our stereo “We're Not Gonna Take It” by Twisted Sister, on repeat until a very agitated Carabinero knocked at our door at 11:20AM responding to our neighbor's complaint about my wife rudely disturbing their sleep.
Meanwhile the speakers continued to blare out, over and over again:
“Oh we're not gonna take it
No, we ain't gonna take it
Oh we're not gonna take it anymore...”
The stereo now is playing soft classical music at a low volume.
I wisely stayed away from the debate, but I dearly wish I'd stayed in Chicureo...
...I must admit that the fireworks over the bay last night was spectacular...
Wishing everyone a peaceful 2019!
Chicureo
Jan 01st, 2019 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sanger also says “the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition.”
Given the appalling social conditions at that time. She is both proportional and rational, in the face of errant Christians who neglect to support Gods purpose on earth. In failing to provide a sufficiency that recompenses these virtuous Christians that have 'gone forth and multiplied'.
Terrence Hill
Jan 01st, 2019 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An abortionist in some cases commits a late term murder by injecting with a needle containing a fatal dose of potassium chloride into the heart of an unborn child. In other cases, during a partial birth abortion, the child's spinal cord is severed with scissors. There are many cases where the live fetus Is torn apart, including crushing the skull with forceps.*
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
I've already asked you if you support the termination of a 20+ week old healthy fetus and you've said that you do as that you do not consider a fetus as an unborn child. (Am I correct or did I misunderstand your belief?)
Our disagreement regards what I believe regards killing an “unwanted” innocent and helpless child. The best intentions and the most compelling circumstances cannot change an intrinsically evil act into one that is morally right.
There are people from the entire spectrum of metaphysical beliefs, including atheists, that do not agree with abortion, most especially late term. There is however no doubt the majority of pro-life supporters are religious.
Abortion, as we both have established, was the number one cause of death worldwide in 2018, with more than 56 million children killed before birth.
Human life, especially the innocent, should not be classified as unwanted fetal tissue.
(**The American Medical Association definition: “D & E involves crushing, dismemberment and removal of a fetal body from a woman’s uterus.”)
Chicureo
Jan 01st, 2019 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I've already asked you if you support the termination...”
Already asked and answered. http://en.mercopress.com/2018/12/26/pro-choice-groups-will-try-again-in-2019-to-legalize-abortion-in-argentina/comments#comment496159
I know exactly what your view is. But after living in a jurisdiction where people of your view have held sway over others. While appreciating the change in law, as a result of oppression by anti-abortionists. I have no desire to revert to the bad old days. Take care of your own life, it's not like pro-abortion legislation compels anyone to have an abortion against their will. But, interference into others free will is the hallmark of a facist.
No one's free will is absolute. Abortion interferes with the free will of a human that has committed no act of malice towards anyone.
Jan 01st, 2019 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is plenty of “free will” that is regulated and controlled by a people and their government. This is not labeled as fascism.
Liberals are the one's who want to control everybody and everything. They are fascists.
BP
Jan 01st, 2019 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“free will of a human that has...” Sorry your opinion has bee rejected by combined wisdom of many, many judges. So deliberately misstating what has legally been determined, makes you look like a berk. But, I'm sure your used to living with that. Why don't you get on your proverbial Christian bike and help those that need it, instead of trying to impede them.
“There is plenty of “free will..” Which is why one supreme court ruled anti-abortion legislation as unconstitutional, because of it's manifestly unfair application.
Giving people freedom of choice is the exact opposite of what you'd allow, so who is the would be controller again?
Terrence Hill
Jan 01st, 2019 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So in the end, let's just say that the pro-life movement is contrary to your pro-abortion beliefs. No one is physically threatening you or anyone else.
If I assaulted you physically, I'd be breaking the law and for that reason, civilized societies have judicial systems to protect its citizens. When laws become conflictive, there is an appeal process that can be decided by a higher court.
As I said earlier, I sincerely wish you no ill will, but I do hope to see liberal pro-abortion laws completely destroyed through a democratic* legal change. “Carthago delenda est”
Thankfully, abortion of a healthy unborn child remains illegal in most of Latin America and there is now a really strong possibility that pro-life judicial challenges in the USA will eventually prevail through the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
As I said, there are also serious efforts in a few European countries with similar goals using their democratic* judicial systems to change their laws. (Most are also very opposed to late term abortions.)
These pro-life movements are not Communist, Socialist or Fascist organizations, but instead people that believe the killing an “unwanted” innocent and helpless child is an intrinsically evil act.**
(*Democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or through freely elected representatives and their appointed justices.)
** https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
Chicureo
Jan 01st, 2019 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“pro-abortion laws completely destroyed through a democratic..” They cannot abridged by vox populi decisions. Most SC decisions were based on constitutional imperatives that had been abridged. Should any SC's selections become purely politicalised, and inductees act purely on their own personal beliefs. Then respect for the law will plummet, and we will have a situation similar to the 'underground-railway' and Prohibition eras; with a corresponding response.
@Chicureo.
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your 'dearly beloved' has a fine sense of humour. Thanks for making me laugh & may 2019 be everything you hope for:)
Heisenbergcontext
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse +1All the very best wishes for 2019!
Terrence Hill
Respectfully, I understand your frustration as radical change is happening throughout the world. Civilized societies are making hopefully positive changes that are beneficial to everyone and advancing democratic justice.
Let's all optimistically embrace 2019 and hope to see beneficial actions that the people desire through democracy, not instead by authoritative repressive corrupt enforcing their immoral ideology resulting in the murder of millions innocent unborn children.
Today we saw the beautiful example of a peaceful democratic change of presidential power in Brazil. Sometimes, when governments try to force unfair and subversive progressive unpopular mandates where there is no judicial recourse, people react in violent protest, as we've seen in France with the “des gilets jaunes” which no civilized society wants to happen like the 1789 French Revolution.
The majority will of the people needs to be respected. That's why Nationalists are becoming more popular as many of the people are now rejecting repressive secular humanist anti-societal policies.
Corrupt politicians and “social justice warriors” that pretend to benefit the people, but in fact actually harming the populace through theft or immoral crimes like abortion need to prosecuted. That's why thieves like Lula da Silva are in prison due to the Brazilian Supreme Court and eventually we'll eventually witness a multitude of abortionists being prosecuted in the immediate future through the higher courts.
Chicureo
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I understand your frustration” You're simply laughable with your constant histrionics and cheap emotional rantings. All clearly part of your own frustrated and irrational indoctrinated opining. “authoritative repressive corrupt enforcing their immoral ideology” Sounds awfully like a certain pedophilia driven religion.
“Hope to see beneficial actions that the people desire through democracy” Tommy rot, at every opportunity, anti-abortionists have conspiratorially had anti-abortion laws foisted on an unconsulted public. Which is why in many jurisdictions the courts put a stop to their shenanigans. So you would not win a plebiscite on the issue in many jurisdictions that already approve of abortion. ”In a March 2010 EKOS poll, a majority of Canadians (52%) describe themselves as pro-choice while just over one in four (27%) describe themselves as pro-life. You can't enact laws that impinge on constitutional prerogatives.
In Ireland by a huge majority they have voted to rescind the constitutional ban on abortion.
Wow. The electoral triumph of Jair Bolsonaro has Chicureo all worked out as he believes that not only abortions will be made illegal; the world is finally going all the way back to the Dark Ages.
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 05:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sure, there is a trend towards various sorts of rightist, conservative governments in the U.S. and in some Latin American countries. However, such governments pretty soon show whose interests they've come to support, and they are not the voters' majorities. They've also caught the public opinion by surprise by using little-known, sophisticated social media analysis tools. All of which may work for a while. However, the elitist vocation of those governments will lead to their downfall once the masks fall.
And then it will be the turn of the Chicureos of this world to shed tears.
Terrence Hill and Enrique Massot
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey, I was just trying to mention that there are positive things to look for this 2019!
Watching the beautiful example of a peaceful democratic change of presidential power in Brazil yesterday is always reassuring to anyone caring about fairness.
Your both should feel very assured, that your social justice warrior, Justin Trudeau will maintain Canadian abortion laws in place. Gosh, even in Quebec...
I would suggest you both calm down and just ignore the phenomena happening in the USA where Donald Trump has and will continue changing the political bias with conservative justices. It will take a lot of time for the Roe v. Wade ruling to be overturned. At least a couple of years at best... (I have nothing but tears of joy)
And what's happening in Austria, Hungary, Italy and Poland should not cause you loss of sleep. After all, didn't you Terry tell me that the issue was permanently decided? So both of you should just relax.
Hey, think positively... ...they might even release Lula from prison. Wouldn't that be great? Certainly your side does support free choice...
You both should be celebrating that civilized societies are making hopefully positive changes that are beneficial to everyone and advancing democratic justice.
I would never dream of thinking either of you could change your immoral ideology responsible for the murder of millions innocent unborn children. “You are what you are...” Everyone can see that.
Chicureo
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You both should be celebrating..” I certainly am, if you examine the underly causes it appears that people are diametrically apposed to the anti-abortionists. “Using their democratic* judicial systems to change their laws.” They certainly are, but not in the way you envisaged.
“In Canada, support for the right to abortion is growing. In 2012, an IPSOS poll found that 49% of Canadians thought abortion “should be permitted whenever a woman decides she wants one”, 45% said abortion should “be permitted in certain circumstances” and 6% said it “should not be permitted under any circumstances.”
http://www. arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/53-Abortion-Opinion-Polls.pdf
”In May 2018, after 35 years of harm and hypocrisy, the Irish people delivered an unequivocal mandate – 66% of voters said it was time to repeal the eighth amendment...exit polls show that 62% of people cited a woman’s right to choose as the motivation for their votes, and 55% cited women’s health. These were the electorate’s two main priorities. There is no ambiguity about what the people want.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/04/abortion-law-ireland-voted-dail-listen
“I would never dream of thinking you could change your immoral ideology responsible for the murder of millions innocent unborn children. “You are what you are...” Part of inflexible religious indoctrination that doesn't grasp the art of politics lies in compromise. You go for broke and lose, well .. ”Everyone can see that.”
Terrence Hill
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I never implied your SJW leader, Justin Trudeau would not keep Canadian abortion laws in place. ...relax... ...if you can live without a soul, that's your right...
I would like to add that Ireland's new abortion law is only permitted during “the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, and later in cases where the pregnant woman's life or health is at risk, or in the cases of a fatal fetal abnormality.” You see, the Irish are not complete immoral savages like in some countries... A healthy non-endangering mother's unborn child is forbidden after twelve weeks.
What really is completely reprehensible and barbarous when the criminal act occurs beyond 19 weeks. Even moderate voters that are ambivalent about the abortion issue are repulsed when learning about the brutality of late term abortions. That explains now why people in 2019 are now rejecting their repressive secular humanist anti-societal policies about the criminality of murdering an unborn child.
I've already exposed you as someone that condones the mass murder of millions of innocent unborn children. I'm not trying to change your immorality, you are indeed what you are. Secular humanism and inbred political correct socialist education causes your condition. (Sort of like a child of the Stalinist young pioneers or Nazi youth brigades.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
Chicureo
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You see, the Irish are not complete” morons “after 35 years of harm and hypocrisy, the Irish people delivered an unequivocal mandate.”
“I've already exposed you as someone that condones” self-determination, both for myself and for others.
I'm not the one who has tried force control over others because of my own personal hang-ups.
“Sort of like a child of the” Inquisition, imposing your will on others.
Terrence Hill
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Go ahead and boldly wave the banner like Stalinist young pioneers enthusiastically waved in the past. ...Sing to the top of your lungs L'Internationale...
I pointed out that the Irish are not complete immoral criminal savages like in some countries... A healthy non-endangering mother's unborn child is forbidden to MURDER there after twelve weeks.
People now are starting to question the immoral secular humanism and inbred political correct socialist education that blinded the inhumane practice of late term abortions.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
“Carthago delenda est”
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Go ahead and boldly wave the banner like..” Red baiting by a Nacistas.
”Red-baiting, also 'reductio ad Stalinum (/ˈstɑːlɪnəm/), is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of an opponent's logical argument by accusing, denouncing, attacking, or persecuting an individual or group as communist, socialist, Marxist, Stalinist or anarchist, or sympathetic towards these ...”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting
Terry, do you need to calm down...
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey, I was just trying to mention that there are positive things to look at.
You are safe with your social justice warrior, Justin Trudeau who will valiantly maintain Canadian abortion laws in place.
And what's happening in in the USA, Austria, Hungary, Italy and Poland should not cause you loss of sleep. After all, didn't you Terry tell me that the issue was permanently decided? So you should just relax.
We both should be celebrating that civilized societies are making hopefully positive changes that are beneficial to everyone and advancing democratic justice.
You have no problem murdering innocent unborn children. I understand.
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“That the Irish are not complete” You're darn tootin' they threw out the anti-abortion provisions of the Irish Constitution. “66% of voters said it was time to repeal the eighth amendment..”
“What's happening in the USA, Austria, Hungary, Italy and Poland ” is not going impact me in slightest.
Since you're the only one here who is concerned about how they run their lives.
“You have no problem” tending to my own business and letting other folks tend to theirs. 66% rejection, thats an awful lot of social justice in Ireland.
Terry
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again here's the highly sanitized media-acceptable version of how to murder an infant child from the malevolent Orwellian named “Planned Parenthood” website.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures/what-happens-during-an-in-clinic-abortion
”...For later second-trimester abortions, you may also need a shot through your abdomen (belly) before the procedure starts...“ [Late second trimester is roughly five to six months]
”...During a D&E* abortion, the doctor or nurse will:
examine your uterus
put a speculum in to see into your vagina
inject a numbing medication into or near your cervix
stretch the opening of your cervix with a series of dilating rods
insert a thin tube through your cervix into your uterus
use a combination of medical tools and a suction device to gently take the pregnancy tissue out of your uterus...“
*The American Medical Association definition: ”D & E involves crushing, dismemberment and removal of a fetal body from a woman’s uterus.”
...Abortion is murder...
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 02nd, 2019 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Abortion is murder...” So you keep parroting but it's not, it's a legal medical procedure where the law allows. Otherwise, by your 'absurdity' all judges in such jurisdictions are “accessories after the fact.” If you feel compelled to preach take to the pulpit.
“Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.” Franklin D. Roosevelt
As I said, pro-life movements are not Communist, Socialist or Fascist organizations, but instead people that believe the killing an “unwanted” innocent and helpless child is an intrinsically evil act.**
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“pro-life movements” are usually the domain of those same co-religionists that share the same quaint beliefs that pregnancy can be avoided by adhering to the discredited notion of the 'rhythm method'.
“but instead people that believe” that they have the intrinsic right to interfere in other folks personal lives.
Although you suspect you disregard the possibility of the abortion laws in the USA changing, due to your Wikipedia legal expertise, but I would suggest you do some research of what the “ pro-abortion” activists are currently franticly discussing on their forums . They are VERY WORRIED and really extremely upset because none of them ever imagined Donald Trump would win the election.
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Again, I suggest you visit the video link of the Canadian Medical Association:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
The important thing to remember is that laws change over time. This is how it should be. Some of us in the world equate abortion as the murder of an unborn child.
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Do some research of what the “ pro-abortion” activists” I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. As regards the potential of stacking the SC. While the GOP holds the narrowest of margins, it's an absolute core issue for most Democrats. So nothing is certain except it would be the biggest political scrap since McCarthyism.
Should Drumf succeed the core issue would be separation of church and state, and who should be 'recused'. The court would be absolutely pilloried. People are not in the mood for restrictive ideas that deprive someone of free will. Nor does the Constitution support such a position.
66% rejection, thats an awful lot of social justice in Ireland.
Terry
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0You need to take your meds...
You seem to be mixing Ireland and the USA...
You need to watch the video link of the Canadian Medical Association:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
The GOP Senate approves federal judge appointments and Trump nominates them. Trump has successfully nominating 2 extremely conservative Supreme Court Justices and now the court will have a 5 to 4 conservative vote.
I was looking at this quote from the very fist post of this thread.
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anybody want to dare and discuss this with their sweetheart tonight?
“Tough luck girls, women have been having it too easy, and need to become more accountable and responsible for children”
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Senate approves federal judge appointments” or not, it's not a forgone conclusion. The Democrats will use every political devise in their arsenal. I've already shown the very likely scenarios in my previous post.
“You seem to be.. ”Its you who has been parroting long hard that there is no popular support amongst Americans at large for continuing abortions. “As of 2018, public support for legal abortion remains as high as it has been in two decades of polling. Currently, 58% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases”
http://www.pewforum. org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
“Legal only under certain circumstances, mostly remained the majority opinion over the last 42 years
Illegal in all circumstances has mostly remained less than 20% over the same period.
https://news. gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
”In the meantime, how Trump’s nominee might vote on Roe v. Wade is likely to be a big issue in the Senate confirmation fight. It’s an especially potent issue because the right to abortion, at least under certain circumstances, gets broad support from the American public.
Polls by Kaiser, Pew, Reuters, Politico, and Gallup found that an overwhelming majority of Americans think that access to abortion — at the least under certain circumstances — should not be outlawed.
Two-thirds of the American public said they do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. That includes majorities of both men and women — 65 percent and 68 percent”
http://www.pew
Terrence Hill
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 02:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Go ahead, boldly wave the banner like Stalinist young pioneers enthusiastically do.
People now are starting to question the immoral secular humanism and inbred political evil correct socialist education that blinded the inhumane practice of late term abortions.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
“Carthago delenda est”
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 03:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Go ahead, boldly..”Red baiting by a Nacistas.
”Red-baiting, also 'reductio ad Stalinum (/ˈstɑːlɪnəm/), is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of an opponent's logical argument by accusing, denouncing, attacking, or persecuting an individual or group as communist, socialist, Marxist, Stalinist or anarchist, or sympathetic towards these ...”
https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting
”In the meantime, how Trump’s nominee might vote on Roe v. Wade is likely to be a big issue in the Senate confirmation fight. It’s an especially potent issue because the right to abortion, at least under certain circumstances, gets broad support from the American public. At the end of the day, though, what could matter most is what two senators think about the nominee’s position on Roe and abortion rights. Sens. Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) are part of the minority of Republicans who oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. But unlike most other supporters of abortion rights within their party, they could do something about it: With the Senate split between 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats, a defection could end a Supreme Court nominee’s chances. After Trump announces his choice, all eyes will be on them.”
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525410/polls-abortion-roe-v-wade-supreme-court
Using an outdated article that has no significance now for a couple of reasons:
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. Kavanaugh was approved with the necessary 51 votes and now is a SC Justice.
2. For 2019 they now have 23 Republican Senators to rely upon.
There are now five of the nine justices that are extremely conservative. (Trump has amazingly and successfully appointed two justices in two years.)
All is needed is for a lawsuit to rise above the appeal court process to finally to go up to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the oldest SC liberal justice is extremely frail and not well.
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Using an outdated article..” There is very little contemporary main stream commentary, the same dynamics still apply. We shall see, “it ain't over till the fat lady sings.”
Dec. 31 2018
Los Angeles Times on states passing anti-abortion laws:
It’s unconscionable that states continue to obstruct access to abortion, and it’s particularly galling when they cloak their laws in fake concerns about the health and safety of women. Abortion rights advocates must continue to challenge these laws in court, the judiciary must defend its critically important 50-year-old precedent and, ultimately, opponents must accept that abortion is a constitutional right that is not likely to go away.
Online: https://www.latimes.com/
Terry
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You've awoken to the current nightmare your pro-abortion friends are experiencing.
“...the judiciary must defend its critically important 50-year-old precedent...”
...yea, right and pigs must fly...
You're quoting an editorial of a liberal newspaper,,. the LA Times...
Abortionists in the USA are alarmed, very alarmed...
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You're quoting an editorial” of a major newspaper. As it is the only such publication since last October. Like I previously stated “There is very little contemporary main stream commentary”.
Terrence Hill
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://newrepublic.com/article/149802/supreme-court-kills-roe-v-wade
The New Republic is a respected liberal magazine. This article was published BEFORE Bret Kavanaugh was approved as a SC Justice...
...“to pour salt on the wound” is that the oldest liberal SC Justice is very frail and her health is in serious question.
Trump has already indicated he'll nominate an extremely pro-life woman to replace with. (Note my earlier post) She will be approved because the Senate has 53 republican members. (They only need 50 plus the vote of the VicePresident in case of a tie, so the approval is certain. (But remember, the conservatives already control now 5 of the 9 SC votes now)
If Roe v Wade is in the court, there will he'll to pay as mobs of pro-abortion activists will fill the streets with protesters just like during the Kavanaugh hearings. It will be a big enourmous reaction, but the Supreme Court is the highest rule of law. The ONLY way to overrule the SC would be with a constitutional amendment.
That's why your side in the USA is very very very worried.
...Canada however remains very safe...
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks, for the confirmation. That the LA Times opinion is the only such article since last October.
Terrence Hill
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's so very untrue. You can't be that ignorant.
Here is a link of an article today:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roe-wade-stake-116th-congress-convenes/story?id=60033788
By the way, did you know that M. Sanger was in favor of distributing used blankets of smallpox victims to undesirable indigenous peoples in the USA as an effective solution of population control?
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Here is a link of an article today” Which didn't appear in my search of Google news over three hours ago. Even though it has a time stamp of 4.03 EST
By the way, did you know that you provide no proof of M. Sanger
By the way, did you know that 'smallpox blankets debunked' https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=smallpox+blankets+debunked&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi84dT7jdLfAhXpz4MKHdf9CsEQ1QIoAHoECAQQAQ
By the way, did you know that you engage in the most common underhanded tactics used in debates, the fallacy of the red herring.
So it doesn't matter a jot what dishonest tactics you use at the end of the day.
”Polls by Kaiser, Pew, Reuters, Politico, and Gallup found that an overwhelming majority of Americans think that access to abortion — at the least under certain circumstances — should not be outlawed. Two-thirds of the American public said they do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. That includes majorities of both men and women — 65 percent and 68 percent”
It's all right you can do a few laps around the 'worry-beads' and all is forgiven.
Terry
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You really are the gift that keeps on giving...
...you obviously don't know how to use a search engine...
...Sanger was truly an evil b*tch...
Abortion is unconscionable murder.
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You obviously don't know how to meet your burden of proof.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies) it.
Abortion where sanctioned is a legal medical procedure. ”Two-thirds of the American public said they do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. That includes majorities of both men and women — 65 percent and 68 percent”
Terry
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps somehow in your twisted imagination “Two-thirds of the American public said they do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. That includes majorities of both men and women — 65 percent and 68 percent”
But it only takes five of the nine Supreme Court Justices to legally overturn Roe v. Wade. That's a fact Terry, you can Google it if you're able.
”Carthago delenda est”
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Perhaps somehow in your twisted imagination” Not at all its merely a cited fact https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525410/polls-abortion-roe-v-wade-supreme-court
Don't have any stake in it, I just enjoy showing how your very claim blows up in your face “That civilized societies are making hopefully positive changes that are beneficial to everyone and advancing democratic justice.” Apparently they're not in agreement with your hope ”that an overwhelming majority of Americans think that access to abortion — at the least under certain circumstances — should not be outlawed. Two-thirds of the American public said they do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. That includes majorities of both men and women — 65 percent and 68 percent”
Terrence Hill
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An abortionist in some cases commits a late term murder by injecting with a needle containing a fatal dose of potassium chloride into the heart of an unborn child. In other cases, during a partial birth abortion, the child's spinal cord is severed with scissors. There are many cases where the live fetus Is torn apart, including crushing the skull with forceps.*
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=
Our disagreement regards what I believe regards killing an “unwanted” innocent and helpless child. The best intentions and the most compelling circumstances cannot change an intrinsically evil act into one that is morally right.
”Carthago delenda est”
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Our disagreement regards what I believe is your claim of a right to impose your belief on other people, when it is quite clear that within Canada, Ireland or the US your view is in the decided minority. Even though earlier on you laid claim to a belief that you were not. “Societies are making hopefully positive changes that are beneficial to everyone and advancing democratic justice.”
Nor does constantly repeating your inherently childish histrionics. “Change an ... act into one that is morally right.” Is just your personal belief, which as I have shown the majority of people clearly do not share.
Terrence Hill
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Murder is committed by abortionists injecting with a needle containing a fatal dose of potassium chloride into the heart of an unborn child. In other cases, during a partial birth abortion, the child's spinal cord is severed with scissors. There are many cases where the live fetus Is torn apart, including crushing the skull with forceps.
The best intentions and the most compelling circumstances cannot change an intrinsically evil act into one that is morally right.
”Carthago delenda est”
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 03rd, 2019 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“act into one that is morally right.” In your personal opinion, but the majority of people clearly do not share.
Today the USA Senate has 47 Democrats and 53 Republicans.
Jan 04th, 2019 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0The USA Supreme Court has 4 liberal and 5 conservative Justices.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
Abortion is murder.
The important thing to remember is that laws change over time. This is how it should be. Some of us in the world equate abortion as the murder of an unborn child.
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 04th, 2019 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Some of us in the world equate abortion as the murder” Well excuse me all to blazes I never knew that.
Some of us in the world couldn't care a less, what you equate. You can inflict your views on yourself, but have no business intruding on the majority who do not agree.
If the majority are doing something, and that majority has no problem with it, they should not be intruded upon.
Jan 04th, 2019 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0They do not agree with the opinion of the minority.
...and what does the majority think...
Jan 04th, 2019 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Gallup found in their May 2018 poll that only 29 percent of Americans want abortion to remain “legal under any circumstances,” compared to 18 percent who want it wholly outlawed and 2 percent with no opinion. The remaining 50 percent of Americans think “abortions should be legal only under certain circumstances.”
In the US it looks to me like it's the minority of 29% that don't think it's murder because all of the rest have either reservations concerning its implementation or are against it...
The majority of 68% have a problem with it...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jan 04th, 2019 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The majority of 68% have a problem with it..”
Not of a sufficiency to reverse the test case.
”Two-thirds of the American public said they do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. That includes majorities of both men and women — 65 percent and 68 percent”
Most voters throughout the world are opposed to LATE TERM abortions.
Jan 04th, 2019 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0USA Senate now has 47 Democrats and 53 Republicans. You need 50 Senate votes to confirm a SC Justice.
The USA Supreme Court currently has 5 conservative and only 4 liberal Justices. (You need 5 votes to reach a decision.)
The 85 year old SC Justice is in questionable longevity. (If she unfortunately dies, Trump has already confirmed he will replace her with a pro-life justice.)
Eventually Roe v. Wade will eventually be judicially litigated to the appeal process.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
The important thing to remember is that laws change over time. This is how it should be. Some of us in the world equate abortion as the murder of an unborn child.
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 04th, 2019 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The important thing to remember...” Do you have short term memory loss, or are you that lacking in originality as you've claimed the speculative scenario numerous times? “Laws change over time.” Usually progressively for the better, being more liberal and less restrictive. Rarely is the reverse true.
Most voters throughout the world are opposed to LATE TERM abortions. Thats probably true, but it is abundantly clear that in most instances, abortion is not something that that they are apposed to entirely.
TH,
Jan 04th, 2019 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is your position on late term abortions? Is “zero restrictions” your position?
BP
Jan 04th, 2019 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“What is your position on late term abortions” For myself it's not issue that I anyone close to me had to, or is going to face. In most instances you shouldn't have to face such option, but I can't contemplate every possible circumstance that women may be placed in. Which is what current criteria is, it is not something that is undertaken lightly, nor should it be.
Unlike Terry, most voters with a moral conscious throughout the world are opposed to LATE TERM healthy abortions.
Jan 04th, 2019 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0USA Senate now has 47 Democrats and 53 Republicans. You need 50 Senate votes to confirm a SC Justice.
The USA Supreme Court currently has 5 conservative and only 4 liberal Justices. (You need 5 votes to reach a decision.)
The 85 year old SC Justice is in questionable longevity. (If she unfortunately dies, Trump has already confirmed he will replace her with a pro-life justice.) That will increase the court balance with 6 conservative and only 3 liberal Justices.
Eventually Roe v. Wade will eventually be judicially litigated to the appeal process.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k
The important thing to remember is that laws change over time. This is how it should be. Some of us in the world equate abortion as the murder of an unborn child.
Chicureo the flamer
Jan 04th, 2019 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“laws change over time..”
repetita ad nauseam
Usually progressively for the better, being more liberal and less restrictive. Rarely is the reverse true.
“democratic justice”
”Two-thirds of the American public said they do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. That includes majorities of both men and women — 65 percent and 68 percent”
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!