Abortion rights are justified. Here's why.

Then explain the bolded above.

 

When you are laying on your death bed, considering your life, I hope you consider the effort and dedication you put into advocating for the death of unborn children.

Of all the causes to get behind. This is what you choose.

 

Would you let a Lion eat your children or would you protect them, possibly taking a life to do it?

 

Not a erply.

I take it then that you don't really think all life is sacred if and when YOU decide it isn't...

 

Canada

 

Just because you don't understand the reply does not mean it is no reply.

 

I take it then that you don't really think all life is sacred if and when YOU decide it isn't...

 

What is the moral justification for killing babies? Is it to protect your family from death? Is it to feed your family? Really, you should think about recycling if you are going to go down that road since you seem to be able to rationalize anything.

 

There is none in my opinion..........but that has nothing to do with abortion.


Maybe , if you want to see moral justification for killing babies, you could read the bible, they slaughtered babies left and right in there...by god's orders...

 

So you are using the Bible to justify slaughtering babies? Interesting.

 

No, I don't believe in the bible....or any god....but many Anti-Choicers do....


There is no moral justification for killing babies in my opinion.

No "babies" are killed in abortion so we really are off topic.


I take it then that you don't really think all life is sacred if and when YOU decide it isn't...

 

No of course not and this just proves the point I was making, that ALL life only has as much value as another places upon it and that includes you.

The value of the lion's life is less to you than the value of your children's lives, hence you would kill the lion, who you value less, in order to save your children, who you value more.

Here is a thought experiment for you to even further prove the point.

you are in a room with your wife, your children, your mother, your brother, your neighbour and a stranger. In order to leave that room one person has to die, you have to choose who dies so the rest can leave. If you do not choose then the choice is randomly made.

Which do you choose and why?

- - - Updated - - -

just as I hope pro-lifers do the same for all the effort they put into controlling others.

- - - Updated - - -

by "babies" I am assuming you mean fetuses, as there are no babies involved in abortion .. making that assumption that you mean fetuses your answer is self-defence.

 

I am not surprised you miss the point entirely.

 

What was your point?

 

no I 100% get your point, and it shows without a shadow of doubt that you as well as all people adhere to the fact that life has only as much value as another places upon it.

Your point is that sometimes it is necessary to take life in order to save life .. however .. to do this you must place a value on the lives involved, you must decide which of the lives are of more value. To adhere to your statement of "You either value life or you don't." then you must allow the lion to live and your children to die as you must value the life of the lion equally to that of your children ergo you let nature or God decide - depending on whether you believe in God or not, as soon as you interfere in anyway you are following the fact that life only has as much value as another places upon it.

The value of life is a scale from no value at all to value above all else.

It is noticed that you avoided answering the question.

 

Wrong again. You don't take the Lion's life for no reason so situation has everything to do with it. In your world of assigned value, the Lion's life never has any value, in mine the Lion's life is sacred. In your world you 'classify' by assigned value; thus, reclassifying a baby as a fetus so it can have a low assigned value. In your world, extrapolated in such a matter, only certain people would have high value and others low. Not much different than when people held slaves.

Your world would be the more dangerous to live in as it is you and others that would decide what value to place on such classifications depending on the whim of the people. No moral compass is needed, and in fact would be a hindrance to such value assignment.

 

Neither is the fetuses life taken for no reason, they are reasons you just don't agree with, and despite your reason for taking the lions life you are assigning a value to it . .you can do nothing else

That is pure poppycock, the lions life has as much value as I or any other person places upon it, if it were not attacking my children its value is greater than when it is attacking my children, simple because, just like you, I value the life of my children more than I value the life of the lion.

Again pure BS, the is is no "reclassifying" a baby as a fetus, it is a fetus plain and simple, it is not and nor has it ever been a baby until birth .. if anything you are th e one doing the reclassifying purely to bolster your failed position with emotional hyperbole.

In my world the value of life is directly associated with the circumstances, and it is so hypocritical that you cite slavery when you advocate placing the unborn at a higher level of value than the female, to such an extent you want the state to force a woman into becoming nothing more than a breeding chamber based on your desires.

Yet more unsubstantiated rubbish.

 

Many pro-choice advocates oppose these restrictions where they exist and want them to be overturned.

 

Ya, so?

 

Do you agree or disagree with them about elective late term (post-viability) abortions that don't involve medical complications?

AIUI, Roe v Wade acknowledged states have the right to restrict third trimester abortions, but it didn't say they had to.

 

Yes, I believe that after 23 weeks abortion should be allowed only for medical reasons.

It's fine with me because women don't go through 7-8-9 months of pregnancy to abort. If one should decide to have an abortion at 8 months she probably would have mental issues.




In Canada there are no abortion laws and women don't have late term abortions ....(unless for medical reasons)

 

I oppose govt banning it at any stage, and there are no restrictions in my country. It is for doctors to practice medicine, not the govt.

 

Some fetuses have survived at 23 weeks. It's uncommon for them to be born that premature, but if they are they have a 20-30% chance of survival. Would you take that chance away from them?

 

Ah, OK. Our views on the legality of it aren't that different then. We'd both likely be lumped in with the "anti-choicers" by those who believe elective abortion should be a legal option all way up to birth.

How would they even know that? Are both public and private health care providers in Canada required to report all medical procedures performed and the reasons for them?

 

I've read several cases where women have got late-term abortions, for less than noble reasons.

Dr. Gosnell had several patients coming in to see him during the 6th and even 7nth month of pregnancy. They were not done for medical reasons.