Science > Abortion > Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2006 08:03:16 PM |
| Object: |
Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709046/posts
Mother of Seven Arrested Without Warning for Showing Abortion Image
LifeSiteNews ^ | 27 September 2006
Posted on 09/26/2006 10:54:14 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
FREDERICTON, New Brunswick, Sept. 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A
pro-life woman was arrested Tuesday for holding an image of an aborted
child outside an abortion facility in Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Suzie Ryan, mother of seven, was silently holding the image outside the
Morgentaler centre as abortions were being performed inside. Mrs. Ryan
was charged with violating s.163 of the Criminal Code. S.163 is about
the display of obscene material. She was released after being held in a
jail cell for several hours. She must face the charges in court in
November.
Prior to her arrest Mrs. Ryan was not warned in any way that she was
committing an illegal act. Six to eight police officers arrived and
forcibly put her in a paddy wagon, while confiscating her sign and
umbrella.
Police Staff Sergeant Kelly later explained to Mrs. Ryan's husband,
Campaign Life Coalition New Brunswick (CLCNB) president Peter Ryan,
that the police were acting following instructions from the Crown
Prosecutor office and some 35 complaints about the display of abortion
images. Mr. Ryan believes the abortuary staff must have put in one or
more complaints this morning.
CLCNB is not aware of any other case in Canada where a pro-life citizen
was arrested without prior warning for simply displaying an abortion
image in a public place. Such images have been repeatedly displayed by
such groups as Show the Truth which has won precedent-setting cases in
which it also was charged for showing graphic abortion pictures. That
group visited Fredericton twice this past summer. At the time
Fredericton Mayor Brad Woodside expressed displeasure with the group's
tactics, but said there was nothing the city could legally do to
prevent such displays.
The Morgentaler abortion facility has no legal restrictions against
protest in the surrounding public area. Pro-life supporters regularly
are present on Tuesday mornings when abortions usually take place.
Mrs. Ryan says she is quite shaken by the incident.
Peter Ryan says it is incredible when someone can be accused of a crime
for peacefully protesting the murder of innocent children. "Here's the
analogy," he said. "The Nazi death camps are exterminating Jews.
Outside someone protests with an image of the Holocaust. The camp staff
complains to police. The person is arrested as a criminal. The
slaughter goes on. That's where we now are in this country.
.
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
04 Oct 2006 07:56:26 PM |
|
|
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in news:aVWUg.426$cz.5054@ursa-
nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
BOB wrote:
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in news:JeOUg.83$cz.1690@ursa-
nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
BOB wrote:
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:_OEUg.87199$1T2.69652@pd7urf2no:
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:8VvUg.1661$0F6.801@newsfe16.lga...
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
Abortion is not "legal" in the sense that it is allowed.
However,
it isn't "illegal" in the sense that it is forbidden. There is
no
law governing abortion. An abortionc an be performed up until
the
child is viable by itself. Conceivably a day or even a minute
before birth a mother can request an aobrtion and if a doctor is
willing to perform it, it won't break any laws. That, I think,
is
not a good thing.
but the problem there is what would be the appropriate cut-off
dat
e
(no pun intended)
I have no idea. You tell me. Your'e the one advocating for
abortion
.
It seems to me that you should have thought it through
sufficiently
enough to have some sense of where you're willign to draw the
line.
I
always ask the pro-abortion advocate to tell me if the day before
birth is OK. I never get a straight answer. Usually all I get is
chatter about how a zygote or a fetus isn't a "person". Of course
that would be the answer to, "Is a zygote or a fetus a 'person'?"
not, "Do you think that it's OK to abort a baby the day before a
normal delivery?"
i do have a problem with zealots being involved in what is in my
opinion between a woman and her doctor.
There are some very valid reasons for abortion in some cases yet
the
anti abortion crowd won't have any of that. they say "all" abortion
is
wrong. I happen to disagree with that. Does that make me completely
pro abortion. in a word NO.
There are no "pro-abortion" advocates here. We are pro-choice
advocates...a big difference.
What's the difference, other than semantics?
Carter
pro-choice (pr½-chois“) adj.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose
whe
ther
or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Can you find anything (or anyone) advocating "abortion" here? If so,
s
how
your evidence.
Of course I can.
No, you can't.
The phrase '...to choose whether or not to
continue a pregnancy to term...' The choice to not do so is the
choice to abort. The choice to continue is the choice not to abort.
Favoring a woman's legal right to choose to have an abortion is not
advocating_abortion. It is advocating_choice_.
The term pro-choice is nothing more than semantics developed by
pro-abortionists in an attempt to make their stance more
palatable to the naive.
Again, there are no "pro-abortionists" posting here. I already provided
you with the definition of pro-choicea and that definition is still
posted above. That you anti-choice loons choose to ignore the facts is
your problem, not mine.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
05 Oct 2006 08:53:14 AM |
|
|
BOB wrote:
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in news:aVWUg.426$cz.5054@ursa-
nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
=20
BOB wrote:
pro-choice (pr=BD-chois=93) adj.=20
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose=20
whe
ther=20
or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Can you find anything (or anyone) advocating "abortion" here? If so,=
=20
s
how=20
your evidence.
=20
Of course I can. =20
=20
No, you can't.
Yes, I can. Look directly below.
=20
The phrase '...to choose whether or not to=20
continue a pregnancy to term...' The choice to not do so is the=20
choice to abort. The choice to continue is the choice not to abort.
Favoring a woman's legal right to choose to have an abortion is not=20
advocating_abortion.
It certainly is.
It is advocating_choice_.
Yes, the choice to have an abortion.
=20
=20
The term pro-choice is nothing more than semantics developed by=20
pro-abortionists in an attempt to make their stance more=20
palatable to the naive.
Again, there are no "pro-abortionists" posting here. I already provide=
d=20
you with the definition of pro-choicea and that definition is still=20
posted above.=20
Yes and I told you what that definition is. Semantics used by=20
pro abortionists to make their stance more palatable.
That you anti-choice loons choose to ignore the facts is
your problem, not mine.
Discussions with pro abortionists usually end this way. They run=20
out of reasoned argument and resort to ad hominem. Both you and=20
Mantler have now successfully demonstrated this.
That's too bad.
Carder
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
05 Oct 2006 11:30:26 PM |
|
|
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
BOB wrote:
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in news:aVWUg.426$cz.5054@ursa-
The phrase '...to choose whether or not to
continue a pregnancy to term...' The choice to not do so is the
choice to abort. The choice to continue is the choice not to abort.
Favoring a woman's legal right to choose to have an abortion is not
advocating_abortion.
It certainly is.
It is advocating_choice_.
You must be remarkably stupid to refute yur claim just after making
it. You claim that pro-choice is advocating abortion and then
immediately change and say it is advocating choice.
Yes, the choice to have an abortion.
Or the choice to give birth, moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
05 Oct 2006 10:42:15 AM |
|
|
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in news:e78Vg.694$cz.9537@ursa-
nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
BOB wrote:
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in news:aVWUg.426$cz.5054@ursa-
nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:
BOB wrote:
pro-choice (pr½-chois“) adj.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose
whe
ther
or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
Can you find anything (or anyone) advocating "abortion" here? If so,
s
how
your evidence.
Of course I can.
No, you can't.
Yes, I can. Look directly below.
That's not evidence, that's your opinion and it's wrong.
The phrase '...to choose whether or not to
continue a pregnancy to term...' The choice to not do so is the
choice to abort. The choice to continue is the choice not to abort.
Favoring a woman's legal right to choose to have an abortion is not
advocating_abortion.
It certainly is.
It certainly isn't.
It is advocating_choice_.
Yes, the choice to have an abortion.
Then you admit that we are advocating "choice" and not "abortion".
The term pro-choice is nothing more than semantics developed by
pro-abortionists in an attempt to make their stance more
palatable to the naive.
Again, there are no "pro-abortionists" posting here. I already provide
d
you with the definition of pro-choicea and that definition is still
posted above.
Yes and I told you what that definition is. Semantics used by
pro abortionists to make their stance more palatable.
You will never learn to accept truth and facts, will you? And just above
you finally admitted that we advocate "choice" not "abortion". Not very
consistent in your anti-choice bs, are you?
That you anti-choice loons choose to ignore the facts is
your problem, not mine.
Discussions with pro abortionists usually end this way. They run
out of reasoned argument and resort to ad hominem. Both you and
Mantler have now successfully demonstrated this.
Truth hurt? You cannot deny that you are an anti-choice loon.
That's too bad.
Yes, you are.
Carder
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
04 Oct 2006 09:18:30 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9852B6781D69FSD@70.169.32.36>, BOB <sd@sd.net> wrote:
: Again, there are no "pro-abortionists" posting here.
I'd be pro-abortion if I had a time machine. Go back in time and nip a few pests
in the bud. ;)
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
04 Oct 2006 07:57:04 AM |
|
|
Jeff Stapleton wrote:
i do have a problem with zealots being involved in what is in my opinion
between a woman and her doctor.
So do I. I also have a problem with the fact of abortion on
demand or as a form of birth control.
There are some very valid reasons for abortion in some cases
I agree.
yet the
anti abortion crowd won't have any of that.
Then I think you misunderstand the position of the majority of
anti abortionists. The people who won't have any of that are the
zealots who blow up abortion clinics. They are the minority but
their actions get the most media attention.
they say "all" abortion is
wrong.
No, serious anti abortionists, like me, don't believe or say
that. We believe that there are sometimes good reason to abort.
We believe that the majority of abortions are performed without
solid medical or psychological reasons. IOW, on demand as a form
of birth control.
I happen to disagree with that. Does that make me completely pro
abortion. in a word NO.
So what is your anti abortion stance? When do you think abortion
is wrong?
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
07 Oct 2006 11:52:58 PM |
|
|
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:AcOUg.82$cz.1690@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Jeff Stapleton wrote:
i do have a problem with zealots being involved in what is in my opinion
between a woman and her doctor.
So do I. I also have a problem with the fact of abortion on demand or as
a form of birth control.
There are some very valid reasons for abortion in some cases
I agree.
yet the
anti abortion crowd won't have any of that.
Then I think you misunderstand the position of the majority of anti
abortionists. The people who won't have any of that are the zealots who
blow up abortion clinics. They are the minority but their actions get the
most media attention.
they say "all" abortion is
wrong.
No, serious anti abortionists, like me, don't believe or say that. We
believe that there are sometimes good reason to abort. We believe that the
majority of abortions are performed without solid medical or psychological
reasons. IOW, on demand as a form of birth control.
I happen to disagree with that. Does that make me completely pro
abortion. in a word NO.
So what is your anti abortion stance? When do you think abortion is
wrong?
When it's forced.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
02 Oct 2006 10:37:46 PM |
|
|
In article <WwkUg.5604$ar6.3649@newsfe21.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GLiUg.83957$1T2.57107@pd7urf2no...
"Brian Bagnall" <bbagnall@mts.net> wrote in message
A 7 month fetus is pretty much a human being and will even attempt to
defend itself from the surgical tools. You are killing life when you
perform an abortion, no matter how you want to phrase it.
well the courts have ruled that it is not murder. end of story until that
changes just get over it.
Actually the courts have not ruled any such thing. No, please search and
find the case and the court that ruled as you stated.
What the courts have stated is that the law(s) covering abortion needed to
be rewritten.
No, they haven't. That isn't their job and they don't say it.
They never were, and so a legal vacuum was created that
"allows" (by not being able to legally forbid) abortions up until the fetus
changes into a person. It's my understanding that the fetus legally becomes
a person when it ceases to depend on the mother for support and life, when
it is viable.
Wrong. Under the law, it is when it is "born alive."
That gets a bit hazy. What is the status of a premature baby
that is otherwise viable but needs life support? Can the parent (the legal
owner) request it be terminated? After all, it can't function on its own.
Anyway, I digress.
If it isn't "born alive," it isn't a person and is not protected by
laws that protect persons with a legal exception. i.e. - It can't
inherit, a pregnant mother can't drive in a two person car pool lane,
etc.
Abortion is not "legal" in the sense that it is allowed.
Abortion is legal because the law allows it.
However, it isn't
"illegal" in the sense that it is forbidden. Ther eis no law governing
abortion.
You must be on drugs. The U.S. Constitution, the law of the land,
guarantees a woman the right to an abortion.
An abortioncan be performed up until the child is vialbe by
itself.
Or afterwards.
COnceivably a day or even a minute before birth a mother can request
an aobrtion and if a doctor is willing to perforn it, it won't break any
laws. That, I think, iis not a good thing.
Then don't get one at that point.
As for your statement, "end of story until that changes just get over it."
I'd like to point out that refusing to hire homosexuals was legal (by the
absence of laws stating otherwise) once. Blacks not being allowed to vote
was legal once. Ownership of human beings was legal once. Trading in
children was legal once. Just because something is "legal" doesn't make it
"right".
Not the same thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Stapleton" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
02 Oct 2006 11:16:09 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:021020062037467888%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <WwkUg.5604$ar6.3649@newsfe21.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GLiUg.83957$1T2.57107@pd7urf2no...
"Brian Bagnall" <bbagnall@mts.net> wrote in message
A 7 month fetus is pretty much a human being and will even attempt to
defend itself from the surgical tools. You are killing life when you
perform an abortion, no matter how you want to phrase it.
well the courts have ruled that it is not murder. end of story until
that
changes just get over it.
Actually the courts have not ruled any such thing. No, please search and
find the case and the court that ruled as you stated.
What the courts have stated is that the law(s) covering abortion needed
to
be rewritten.
No, they haven't. That isn't their job and they don't say it.
They never were, and so a legal vacuum was created that
"allows" (by not being able to legally forbid) abortions up until the
fetus
changes into a person. It's my understanding that the fetus legally
becomes
a person when it ceases to depend on the mother for support and life,
when
it is viable.
Wrong. Under the law, it is when it is "born alive."
That gets a bit hazy. What is the status of a premature baby
that is otherwise viable but needs life support? Can the parent (the
legal
owner) request it be terminated? After all, it can't function on its own.
Anyway, I digress.
If it isn't "born alive," it isn't a person and is not protected by
laws that protect persons with a legal exception. i.e. - It can't
inherit, a pregnant mother can't drive in a two person car pool lane,
etc.
Abortion is not "legal" in the sense that it is allowed.
Abortion is legal because the law allows it.
However, it isn't
"illegal" in the sense that it is forbidden. Ther eis no law governing
abortion.
You must be on drugs. The U.S. Constitution, the law of the land,
guarantees a woman the right to an abortion.
actually the you are replying to a posting from canada so US law does not
apply. you might want to restate your case
An abortioncan be performed up until the child is vialbe by
itself.
Or afterwards.
COnceivably a day or even a minute before birth a mother can request
an aobrtion and if a doctor is willing to perforn it, it won't break any
laws. That, I think, iis not a good thing.
Then don't get one at that point.
As for your statement, "end of story until that changes just get over
it."
I'd like to point out that refusing to hire homosexuals was legal (by the
absence of laws stating otherwise) once. Blacks not being allowed to vote
was legal once. Ownership of human beings was legal once. Trading in
children was legal once. Just because something is "legal" doesn't make
it
"right".
Not the same thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 09:40:27 AM |
|
|
In article <dulUg.84872$5R2.31830@pd7urf3no>, Jeff Stapleton
<dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:021020062037467888%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <WwkUg.5604$ar6.3649@newsfe21.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GLiUg.83957$1T2.57107@pd7urf2no...
"Brian Bagnall" <bbagnall@mts.net> wrote in message
A 7 month fetus is pretty much a human being and will even attempt to
defend itself from the surgical tools. You are killing life when you
perform an abortion, no matter how you want to phrase it.
well the courts have ruled that it is not murder. end of story until
that
changes just get over it.
Actually the courts have not ruled any such thing. No, please search and
find the case and the court that ruled as you stated.
What the courts have stated is that the law(s) covering abortion needed
to
be rewritten.
No, they haven't. That isn't their job and they don't say it.
They never were, and so a legal vacuum was created that
"allows" (by not being able to legally forbid) abortions up until the
fetus
changes into a person. It's my understanding that the fetus legally
becomes
a person when it ceases to depend on the mother for support and life,
when
it is viable.
Wrong. Under the law, it is when it is "born alive."
That gets a bit hazy. What is the status of a premature baby
that is otherwise viable but needs life support? Can the parent (the
legal
owner) request it be terminated? After all, it can't function on its own.
Anyway, I digress.
If it isn't "born alive," it isn't a person and is not protected by
laws that protect persons with a legal exception. i.e. - It can't
inherit, a pregnant mother can't drive in a two person car pool lane,
etc.
Abortion is not "legal" in the sense that it is allowed.
Abortion is legal because the law allows it.
However, it isn't
"illegal" in the sense that it is forbidden. Ther eis no law governing
abortion.
You must be on drugs. The U.S. Constitution, the law of the land,
guarantees a woman the right to an abortion.
actually the you are replying to a posting from canada so US law does not
apply. you might want to restate your case
Why? It applies to me.
An abortioncan be performed up until the child is vialbe by
itself.
Or afterwards.
COnceivably a day or even a minute before birth a mother can request
an aobrtion and if a doctor is willing to perforn it, it won't break any
laws. That, I think, iis not a good thing.
Then don't get one at that point.
As for your statement, "end of story until that changes just get over
it."
I'd like to point out that refusing to hire homosexuals was legal (by the
absence of laws stating otherwise) once. Blacks not being allowed to vote
was legal once. Ownership of human beings was legal once. Trading in
children was legal once. Just because something is "legal" doesn't make
it
"right".
Not the same thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 11:30:21 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Jeff Stapleton> <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
You must be on drugs. The U.S. Constitution, the law of the land,
guarantees a woman the right to an abortion.
actually the you are replying to a posting from canada so US law does not
apply. you might want to restate your case
Why? It applies to me.
How wonderfully egocentric of you. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 09:08:09 PM |
|
|
In article <xewUg.76537$MQ5.56369@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Jeff Stapleton> <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
You must be on drugs. The U.S. Constitution, the law of the land,
guarantees a woman the right to an abortion.
actually the you are replying to a posting from canada so US law does not
apply. you might want to restate your case
Why? It applies to me.
How wonderfully egocentric of you. :-)
I guess I am an ugly American. I hate it when other Americans act as
though the US is the center of all that is important. Then I do it. I
apologize for not noticing you were from Canada.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
04 Oct 2006 08:00:27 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <xewUg.76537$MQ5.56369@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Jeff Stapleton> <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
You must be on drugs. The U.S. Constitution, the law of the land,
guarantees a woman the right to an abortion.
actually the you are replying to a posting from canada so US law does not
apply. you might want to restate your case
Why? It applies to me.
How wonderfully egocentric of you. :-)
I guess I am an ugly American. I hate it when other Americans act as
though the US is the center of all that is important. Then I do it. I
apologize for not noticing you were from Canada.
Thank you for that David.
Carter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 11:28:57 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:021020062037467888%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <WwkUg.5604$ar6.3649@newsfe21.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GLiUg.83957$1T2.57107@pd7urf2no...
"Brian Bagnall" <bbagnall@mts.net> wrote in message
A 7 month fetus is pretty much a human being and will even attempt to
defend itself from the surgical tools. You are killing life when you
perform an abortion, no matter how you want to phrase it.
well the courts have ruled that it is not murder. end of story until
that
changes just get over it.
Actually the courts have not ruled any such thing. No, please search and
find the case and the court that ruled as you stated.
What the courts have stated is that the law(s) covering abortion needed
to
be rewritten.
No, they haven't. That isn't their job and they don't say it.
Actually, they have. And it is. And they have. Courts do not write law but
they do nullify it or suggest the legistlators re-write it.
In 1969, Section 287 of the Criminal Code of Canada made it a criminal
offence to "procure a miscarriage." and exempted doctors from criminal
liability if a hospital abortion committee was prepared to sign a statement
to the effect that the "continuation of the pregnancy of the female person
would or would likely to endanger (the pregnant woman's) life or health."
In 1982, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 7 stated that
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the
right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice."
Dr. Henry Morgentaler successfully challenged Section 287 of the Code using
Section 7 of the Charter. In 1988 the Supreme Court (not "court") of Canada
ruled that Section 287 offended Section 7 of the Charter and thus was of no
force or effect, nullifying the law. Here's a quote from Chief Justice Brian
Dickson: "Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus
to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities
and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a
violation of her security of the person."
Note that the Supreme Court did not state that "abortion is not murder" (as
claimed), but only that Seciton 287 offended Section 7. The Justices
recommended that Partliament re-write the law. It was never done. That
leaves the issue in a legal vacuum. Prime Minister Kim Campbell tabled a
bill that would create some control over abortion but it never made it
through the Senate. Nothing has been done since. That is why we have a legal
vacuum today.
However, it isn't "illegal" in the sense that it is forbidden.
Thereis no law governing abortion.
You must be on drugs.
Not I. You might be. I'm writing about Canada and you keep referencing the
US.
The U.S.Constitution, the law of the land, guarantees a woman the right to
an abortion.
Conceivably a day or even a minute before birth a mother can request
an abortion and if a doctor is willing to perforn it, it won't break any
laws. That, I think, iis not a good thing.
Then don't get one at that point.
Are you saying you think it both legal and moral to abort a minute before
normal delivery would occur? An hour? A day?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 09:08:09 PM |
|
|
In article <adwUg.76536$MQ5.6855@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:021020062037467888%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <WwkUg.5604$ar6.3649@newsfe21.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GLiUg.83957$1T2.57107@pd7urf2no...
"Brian Bagnall" <bbagnall@mts.net> wrote in message
A 7 month fetus is pretty much a human being and will even attempt to
defend itself from the surgical tools. You are killing life when you
perform an abortion, no matter how you want to phrase it.
well the courts have ruled that it is not murder. end of story until
that
changes just get over it.
Actually the courts have not ruled any such thing. No, please search and
find the case and the court that ruled as you stated.
What the courts have stated is that the law(s) covering abortion needed
to
be rewritten.
No, they haven't. That isn't their job and they don't say it.
Actually, they have. And it is. And they have. Courts do not write law but
they do nullify it or suggest the legistlators re-write it.
Not in the U.S. As for Canada, perhaps.
In 1969, Section 287 of the Criminal Code of Canada made it a criminal
offence to "procure a miscarriage." and exempted doctors from criminal
liability if a hospital abortion committee was prepared to sign a statement
to the effect that the "continuation of the pregnancy of the female person
would or would likely to endanger (the pregnant woman's) life or health."
In 1982, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 7 stated that
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the
right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice."
Dr. Henry Morgentaler successfully challenged Section 287 of the Code using
Section 7 of the Charter. In 1988 the Supreme Court (not "court") of Canada
ruled that Section 287 offended Section 7 of the Charter and thus was of no
force or effect, nullifying the law. Here's a quote from Chief Justice Brian
Dickson: "Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus
to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities
and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a
violation of her security of the person."
Note that the Supreme Court did not state that "abortion is not murder" (as
claimed), but only that Seciton 287 offended Section 7. The Justices
recommended that Partliament re-write the law. It was never done. That
leaves the issue in a legal vacuum. Prime Minister Kim Campbell tabled a
bill that would create some control over abortion but it never made it
through the Senate. Nothing has been done since. That is why we have a legal
vacuum today.
However, it isn't "illegal" in the sense that it is forbidden.
Thereis no law governing abortion.
You must be on drugs.
Not I. You might be. I'm writing about Canada and you keep referencing the
US.
OK, my mistake. In the U.S. what I said was true, in Canada, I am
unsure.
The U.S.Constitution, the law of the land, guarantees a woman the right to
an abortion.
Conceivably a day or even a minute before birth a mother can request
an abortion and if a doctor is willing to perforn it, it won't break any
laws. That, I think, iis not a good thing.
Then don't get one at that point.
Are you saying you think it both legal and moral to abort a minute before
normal delivery would occur? An hour? A day?
Yep. What is the alternative? Are you really an adult an hour after
you turn 18 but not before? You are trying to slippery slope.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
04 Oct 2006 12:25:02 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:031020061908094971%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <adwUg.76536$MQ5.6855@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:021020062037467888%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <WwkUg.5604$ar6.3649@newsfe21.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GLiUg.83957$1T2.57107@pd7urf2no...
"Brian Bagnall" <bbagnall@mts.net> wrote in message
A 7 month fetus is pretty much a human being and will even attempt
to
defend itself from the surgical tools. You are killing life when
you
perform an abortion, no matter how you want to phrase it.
well the courts have ruled that it is not murder. end of story until
that
changes just get over it.
Actually the courts have not ruled any such thing. No, please search
and
find the case and the court that ruled as you stated.
What the courts have stated is that the law(s) covering abortion
needed
to
be rewritten.
No, they haven't. That isn't their job and they don't say it.
Actually, they have. And it is. And they have. Courts do not write law
but
they do nullify it or suggest the legistlators re-write it.
Not in the U.S.
Actually US Courts do both nullify (by refusing to uphold what they consider
to be an unjust or un-Constitutional law) or suggest legistlators rewrite.
For example, in Roe v Wade, the USSC specifically changed the law, rejecting
the current abortion law and forcing a "rewrite".
As for Canada, perhaps.
No "perhaps". Actually. As has been demonstrated. See below.
In 1969, Section 287 of the Criminal Code of Canada made it a criminal
offence to "procure a miscarriage." and exempted doctors from criminal
liability if a hospital abortion committee was prepared to sign a
statement
to the effect that the "continuation of the pregnancy of the female
person
would or would likely to endanger (the pregnant woman's) life or health."
In 1982, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 7 stated
that
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and
the
right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles
of
fundamental justice."
Dr. Henry Morgentaler successfully challenged Section 287 of the Code
using
Section 7 of the Charter. In 1988 the Supreme Court (not "court") of
Canada
ruled that Section 287 offended Section 7 of the Charter and thus was of
no
force or effect, nullifying the law. Here's a quote from Chief Justice
Brian
Dickson: "Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a
foetus
to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities
and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this
a
violation of her security of the person."
Note that the Supreme Court did not state that "abortion is not murder"
(as
claimed), but only that Seciton 287 offended Section 7. The Justices
recommended that Partliament re-write the law. It was never done. That
leaves the issue in a legal vacuum. Prime Minister Kim Campbell tabled a
bill that would create some control over abortion but it never made it
through the Senate. Nothing has been done since. That is why we have a
legal
vacuum today.
Are you saying you think it both legal and moral to abort a minute before
normal delivery would occur? An hour? A day?
Yep. What is the alternative? Are you really an adult an hour after
you turn 18 but not before? You are trying to slippery slope.
No. I'm calling you to task and to be logical in your viewpoint. Thank you
for your honesty. At least you are consistent in that you think it both
legal and moral to abort onew minute prior to a nomral delivery. I think you
are wrong, but I appluad your consistency.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
04 Oct 2006 07:38:22 PM |
|
|
In article <L7SUg.77032$MQ5.31933@newsfe15.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
: Actually US Courts do both nullify (by refusing to uphold what they consider
: to be an unjust or un-Constitutional law) or suggest legistlators rewrite.
: For example, in Roe v Wade, the USSC specifically changed the law, rejecting
: the current abortion law and forcing a "rewrite".
IIRC, the more precise ruling of Roe v Wade is that states (and the feds) do not
have the right to ban abortion outright, as they reasoned the laws violated the
14th amendment. Basically they said that the proscribing of abortion was not a
matter of state or fed interest.
This was weakened somewhat (perhaps fully, depending on how backhanded you
manage to write laws) by the Planned Parenthood v Casey, which did allow the
government to apply some restrictions to abortion. Such restrictions have
included measures like informed consent, parental notification for minors, and
so forth. These restrictions have served to effectively (but not outright)
remove the option of abortion for a fairly broad range of women, especially
those who are young or poor.
So at least in the case of the US, it's not so much "rewrite the law" but
"rewrite the constitution" if you want to ban abortion overtly. The other
options would be to ban abortion indirectly by making it effectively but not
completely impossible to obtain, or by repeatedly passing overt bans until one
manages to stick through a supreme court challenge.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
04 Oct 2006 10:48:40 PM |
|
|
In article <L7SUg.77032$MQ5.31933@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:031020061908094971%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <adwUg.76536$MQ5.6855@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:021020062037467888%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <WwkUg.5604$ar6.3649@newsfe21.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GLiUg.83957$1T2.57107@pd7urf2no...
"Brian Bagnall" <bbagnall@mts.net> wrote in message
A 7 month fetus is pretty much a human being and will even attempt
to
defend itself from the surgical tools. You are killing life when
you
perform an abortion, no matter how you want to phrase it.
well the courts have ruled that it is not murder. end of story until
that
changes just get over it.
Actually the courts have not ruled any such thing. No, please search
and
find the case and the court that ruled as you stated.
What the courts have stated is that the law(s) covering abortion
needed
to
be rewritten.
No, they haven't. That isn't their job and they don't say it.
Actually, they have. And it is. And they have. Courts do not write law
but
they do nullify it or suggest the legistlators re-write it.
Not in the U.S.
Actually US Courts do both nullify (by refusing to uphold what they consider
to be an unjust or un-Constitutional law) or suggest legistlators rewrite.
Not so. Juries occasionally nulify.
For example, in Roe v Wade, the USSC specifically changed the law, rejecting
the current abortion law and forcing a "rewrite".
Not at all. In Roe the United States Supreme Court did what is does.
It interpreted the U.S. Constitution based on case law.
As for Canada, perhaps.
No "perhaps". Actually. As has been demonstrated. See below.
In 1969, Section 287 of the Criminal Code of Canada made it a criminal
offence to "procure a miscarriage." and exempted doctors from criminal
liability if a hospital abortion committee was prepared to sign a
statement
to the effect that the "continuation of the pregnancy of the female
person
would or would likely to endanger (the pregnant woman's) life or health."
In 1982, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 7 stated
that
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and
the
right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles
of
fundamental justice."
Dr. Henry Morgentaler successfully challenged Section 287 of the Code
using
Section 7 of the Charter. In 1988 the Supreme Court (not "court") of
Canada
ruled that Section 287 offended Section 7 of the Charter and thus was of
no
force or effect, nullifying the law. Here's a quote from Chief Justice
Brian
Dickson: "Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a
foetus
to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities
and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this
a
violation of her security of the person."
Note that the Supreme Court did not state that "abortion is not murder"
(as
claimed), but only that Seciton 287 offended Section 7. The Justices
recommended that Partliament re-write the law. It was never done. That
leaves the issue in a legal vacuum. Prime Minister Kim Campbell tabled a
bill that would create some control over abortion but it never made it
through the Senate. Nothing has been done since. That is why we have a
legal
vacuum today.
Are you saying you think it both legal and moral to abort a minute before
normal delivery would occur? An hour? A day?
Yep. What is the alternative? Are you really an adult an hour after
you turn 18 but not before? You are trying to slippery slope.
No. I'm calling you to task and to be logical in your viewpoint.
I am.
Thank you
for your honesty. At least you are consistent in that you think it both
legal and moral to abort onew minute prior to a nomral delivery. I think you
are wrong, but I appluad your consistency.
I do think it legally. As for "morally" that doesn't matter because I
feel I have no right to try to impose my "morality" on others.
And as I say, I have no problem whatsoever with society saying a woman
can have an abortion whenever she feels it is justified. I hope they
use that right wisely. But who am I to say what is wise for others?
How many children have you adopted?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
04 Oct 2006 08:12:12 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <adwUg.76536$MQ5.6855@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
Are you saying you think it both legal and moral to abort a minute before
normal delivery would occur? An hour? A day?
Yep. What is the alternative? Are you really an adult an hour after
you turn 18 but not before? You are trying to slippery slope.
The issue is a slippery slope. The big problem is that, like it
or not, it is a moral issue. The pro abortionists or pro choice
people, whatever they call themselves today, fully understand
that and attempt to detract from the moral aspects by making it a
rights issue.
Abortion is not a rights issue. If it is anything but a moral
issue it is a responsibility issue. Abortion on demand is
nothing more than an attempt by irresponsible people to escape
responsibility for what they conceive when they copulate.
Therapeutic abortion is a whole different issue.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
04 Oct 2006 01:04:51 PM |
|
|
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <adwUg.76536$MQ5.6855@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
Are you saying you think it both legal and moral to abort a minute before
normal delivery would occur? An hour? A day?
Yep. What is the alternative? Are you really an adult an hour after
you turn 18 but not before? You are trying to slippery slope.
The issue is a slippery slope. The big problem is that, like it
or not, it is a moral issue.
Without exception, "moral" means "what I think that you should do."
The pro abortionists or pro choice
people, whatever they call themselves today, fully understand
that and attempt to detract from the moral aspects by making it a
rights issue.
What "moral" aspects? I do see any morality from the pro-liar. All I
see is hatred and a wish to make women suffer.
Abortion is not a rights issue. If it is anything but a moral
issue it is a responsibility issue.
"Responsibility" as in "She should be punished for the crime of
getting pregnant".
Abortion on demand is
nothing more than an attempt by irresponsible people to escape
responsibility for what they conceive when they copulate.
Anti-sex pervert.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
04 Oct 2006 08:40:21 AM |
|
|
In article <MqOUg.92$cz.1788@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Abortion on demand is
: nothing more than an attempt by irresponsible people to escape
: responsibility for what they conceive when they copulate.
I think that's excessively over-simplified, and fails to cover a lot of
situations. A lot can happen in 9 months; the guy you thought would stick around
might be gone in a flash, the job you thought you'd still have could boot you
out on your *****, the family you thought would support you could disown you.
Abortion is never a decision made lightly. Even for the most uncaring person it
always involves a lot of doubt, soul searching, and pain.
I think some anti-abortion activists have this picture in their head of a
vending machine in the ladies room that spits out abortion coupons for $1.50,
right next to the condom machine or something. It's a strawman, it's a slippery
slope, whatever it is it's a completely irrational fear.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
04 Oct 2006 09:58:29 AM |
|
|
In article <nicoya-7AC329.08402004102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>,
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote:
In article <MqOUg.92$cz.1788@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Abortion on demand is
: nothing more than an attempt by irresponsible people to escape
: responsibility for what they conceive when they copulate.
I think that's excessively over-simplified, and fails to cover a lot of
situations. A lot can happen in 9 months; the guy you thought would stick
around
might be gone in a flash, the job you thought you'd still have could boot you
out on your *****, the family you thought would support you could disown you.
Abortion is never a decision made lightly. Even for the most uncaring person
it
always involves a lot of doubt, soul searching, and pain.
I think some anti-abortion activists have this picture in their head of a
vending machine in the ladies room that spits out abortion coupons for $1.50,
right next to the condom machine or something. It's a strawman, it's a
slippery
slope, whatever it is it's a completely irrational fear.
Agreed. The idea that women have abortions without thinking things
through is a joke.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
04 Oct 2006 09:58:28 AM |
|
|
In article <MqOUg.92$cz.1788@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <adwUg.76536$MQ5.6855@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
Are you saying you think it both legal and moral to abort a minute before
normal delivery would occur? An hour? A day?
Yep. What is the alternative? Are you really an adult an hour after
you turn 18 but not before? You are trying to slippery slope.
The issue is a slippery slope. The big problem is that, like it
or not, it is a moral issue. The pro abortionists or pro choice
people, whatever they call themselves today, fully understand
that and attempt to detract from the moral aspects by making it a
rights issue.
Abortion is not a rights issue. If it is anything but a moral
issue it is a responsibility issue. Abortion on demand is
nothing more than an attempt by irresponsible people to escape
responsibility for what they conceive when they copulate.
Therapeutic abortion is a whole different issue.
Contrary to the position of so many "pro-life" out here, I have never
stated whether I "support abortion." I do, however, support the choice
being left in the hands of the woman. Hopefully they act wisely, but
either way, it is their choice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
04 Oct 2006 06:02:27 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <MqOUg.92$cz.1788@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
Abortion is not a rights issue. If it is anything but a moral
issue it is a responsibility issue. Abortion on demand is
nothing more than an attempt by irresponsible people to escape
responsibility for what they conceive when they copulate.
Therapeutic abortion is a whole different issue.
Contrary to the position of so many "pro-life" out here, I have never
stated whether I "support abortion."
Do you or don't you?
I do, however, support the choice
being left in the hands of the woman. Hopefully they act wisely, but
either way, it is their choice.
I agree, but only when there is a valid reason to abort and that
reason is confirmed by competent medical authority.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 12:01:54 AM |
|
|
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:74XUg.441$cz.5153@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <MqOUg.92$cz.1788@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
Abortion is not a rights issue. If it is anything but a moral issue it
is a responsibility issue. Abortion on demand is nothing more than an
attempt by irresponsible people to escape responsibility for what they
conceive when they copulate.
Therapeutic abortion is a whole different issue.
Contrary to the position of so many "pro-life" out here, I have never
stated whether I "support abortion."
Do you or don't you?
I do, however, support the choice
being left in the hands of the woman. Hopefully they act wisely, but
either way, it is their choice.
I agree, but only when there is a valid reason to abort and that reason is
confirmed by competent medical authority.
What's so special about you that you should demand 'a valid reason' for a
woman to abort? What does it have to do with you?
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 12:16:32 AM |
|
|
In article <odGdnbYiGLXXG7XYRVnytg@bt.com>, junegill
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:
Abortion is not a rights issue. If it is anything but a moral issue it
is a responsibility issue. Abortion on demand is nothing more than an
attempt by irresponsible people to escape responsibility for what they
conceive when they copulate.
Therapeutic abortion is a whole different issue.
Contrary to the position of so many "pro-life" out here, I have never
stated whether I "support abortion."
Do you or don't you?
I do, however, support the choice
being left in the hands of the woman. Hopefully they act wisely, but
either way, it is their choice.
I agree, but only when there is a valid reason to abort and that reason is
confirmed by competent medical authority.
What's so special about you that you should demand 'a valid reason' for a
woman to abort? What does it have to do with you?
And it assumes that these women don't have a good reason. It is like
when they claim there should be a "waiting period." After all, these
women are spontaneous. Being women, they just go crazy and do things
without thinking. They are sitting around one day, watching Oprah, and
suddenly jump up and say, "I think I'll get an abortion! Where are the
car keys!" Now men, they think things through. LOL!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
08 Oct 2006 08:05:42 AM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
I agree, but only when there is a valid reason to abort and that reason is
confirmed by competent medical authority.
What's so special about you that you should demand 'a valid reason' for a
woman to abort? What does it have to do with you?
I belong to a society which was founded on certain values and
morals and I do not want to see those values and morals eroded in
the name of self appeasement. For the very reason that you had
to ask the question I don't expect you to understand that answer.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 11:09:46 AM |
|
|
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:GI6Wg.2044$cz.32005@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
I agree, but only when there is a valid reason to abort and that reason
is confirmed by competent medical authority.
What's so special about you that you should demand 'a valid reason' for a
woman to abort? What does it have to do with you?
I belong to a society which was founded on certain values and morals and I
do not want to see those values and morals eroded in the name of self
appeasement. For the very reason that you had to ask the question I don't
expect you to understand that answer.
When your society was founded, abortion was not illegal, therefore obviously
it wasn't considered to be immoral. Who eroded that? It's very telling
that you, who is smug in the knowledge that you will never have to endure
the agony of childbirth, refers to the avoidance of such pain as
self-appeasement. I understand your answer all right - women are not, as
you appear to think, airheads who need men to do their thinking for them.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
08 Oct 2006 02:02:02 PM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:GI6Wg.2044$cz.32005@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
I agree, but only when there is a valid reason to abort and that reason
is confirmed by competent medical authority.
What's so special about you that you should demand 'a valid reason' for a
woman to abort? What does it have to do with you?
I belong to a society which was founded on certain values and morals and I
do not want to see those values and morals eroded in the name of self
appeasement. For the very reason that you had to ask the question I don't
expect you to understand that answer.
When your society was founded, abortion was not illegal, therefore obviously
it wasn't considered to be immoral.
In Canadian society abortion was always considered immoral
because it involved the killing of human life. It wasn't until
the pro abortion movement saw fit to make abortion a 'rights'
issue, which it is not, that the issue was tested and the supreme
court declared that specific abortion legislation ought to be
produced. So far our legislators haven't seen fit to tackle the
issue.
Who eroded that? It's very telling
that you, who is smug in the knowledge that you will never have to endure
the agony of childbirth, refers to the avoidance of such pain as
self-appeasement.
Oh, I see, women now want abortions because they don't want the
pain of childbirth?
I understand your answer all right - women are not, as
you appear to think, airheads who need men to do their thinking for them.
No, you obviously don't understand my answer.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 10:40:24 AM |
|
|
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:KWbWg.2224$cz.34014@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:GI6Wg.2044$cz.32005@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
I agree, but only when there is a valid reason to abort and that
reason is confirmed by competent medical authority.
What's so special about you that you should demand 'a valid reason' for
a woman to abort? What does it have to do with you?
I belong to a society which was founded on certain values and morals and
I do not want to see those values and morals eroded in the name of self
appeasement. For the very reason that you had to ask the question I
don't expect you to understand that answer.
When your society was founded, abortion was not illegal, therefore
obviously it wasn't considered to be immoral.
In Canadian society abortion was always considered immoral
Really? But there were no laws against it? Strange - I'm sure theft was
considered immoral, and I'll bet there were laws against that.
because it involved the killing of human life. It wasn't until the pro
abortion movement saw fit to make abortion a 'rights' issue, which it is
not,
.... in your opinion. In my opinion it's very much a 'rights' issue.
that the issue was tested and the supreme
court declared that specific abortion legislation ought to be produced.
So far our legislators haven't seen fit to tackle the issue.
Who eroded that? It's very telling
that you, who is smug in the knowledge that you will never have to endure
the agony of childbirth, refers to the avoidance of such pain as
self-appeasement.
Oh, I see, women now want abortions because they don't want the pain of
childbirth?
It's one reason - and a damn good one at that. Nobody should have to go
through the agony of childbirth against their will (Hell's teeth! They
shouldn't have to go through that even if they do want a child, but there's
no other way yet, apart from Caesarean section.)
I understand your answer all right - women are not, as
you appear to think, airheads who need men to do their thinking for them.
No, you obviously don't understand my answer.
You reckon? Then perhaps you'd better explain your statement better. Taken
literally, you apparently want the morals and values of 1867, when your
country became the Dominion of Canada. For the most part laws were based on
English law, when there were Poor Laws and workhouses, no votes for women
(and many men were also disenfranchised); racism was almost de rigeur;
homosexual behaviour was illegal ... the list goes on. I suspect that this
wasn't what you meant, but you did say it, so perhaps you should elucidate
further.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
