Racist Pro-Life Billboard

Post Reply New Topic

Inuyasha, I believe you are hearing what you want to hear when you watch those videos. Sen. Santorum is acting like a bully, and I have no doubt that Sen. Boxer is correct when she stated that he took another's comments and twisted them.

This discussion centers around the ideal of a "partial birth".

For those of you who may wonder what this term is supposed to imply, I suggest you read the following:
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/2 ... ortion.PDF

Inuyasha, I would hope that you will take the time to read the document that I have noted above with a level head. But based on the fact that you have already decided that you are right, and no amount of logic, science, or law will convince you that the arguments of those that oppose your beliefs have any value, I doubt that you will.

She actually did not answer the question. You confuse calling someone on the fact they haven't answered the question and are trying to avoid answering with bullying.



You say I'm biased and you post up a paper of a place totally devoted to abortions and may even have a financial interest in people having more abortions and tell me I'm the biased one.

Does conflict of interest mean anything to you?



Well I noticed it brought up a US Supreme Court Case, which was in turn reversed in: Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart

By the Way Partial Birth Abortion is apparently illegal in the United States.

It is difficult to find a link defining "partial-birth abortions" from anything other than an anti-abortion site, so I tried to find a site that defines the term, and its origins, as impartially as possible. I'm sure you would agree that anti-abortion sites would provide a biased definition of the term (although it would be a definition that I'm sure you'd willingly endorse). It is not surprising that it is difficult to find definitions for this term outside of anti-abortion sites, considering it was a term coined specifically for the purposes of furthering the anti-abortion cause. It can be found in no medical dictionary.

Also, claiming that the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada would actually profit from people having more abortions shows just how delusional your arguments have become.

If you'd like to know what impact the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act can have, on a human level, I suggest you read the following article that was originally published in Boston Globe Magazine:
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/ ... =39&page=1

And with that, I am done arguing with you. I have already wasted far too much time responding to you. It is simply not worth the effort. Your arrogant belief that you know everything there is to know about moral right and wrong, and your ignorant blindness to the fact that good people are sometimes forced to make difficult decisions - these show your true colours.

And with that, good night to you.

Uh the reason pro-life sites use partial birth abortions as examples of abortions is because it is so graphic and disgusting that people are disgusted with the concept of abortion.



Okay so they aren't like Planned Parenthood then. Anyways looks like Canada has a history of discriminating against Pro-life groups which isn't surprising.

OTTAWA, Ontario — An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney representing members of a pro-life student group filed suit against Carleton University Friday for repeatedly blocking the group from expressing its views on campus while allowing other student groups to express themselves freely.

“Pro-life student groups shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French. “The university’s own rules, not to mention Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, prevent the university from crushing the free speech of pro-life students while allowing students concerned about other issues to express themselves in nearly identical ways.”
http://adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/?CID=23645



Yeah and like that article is remotely objective.



Excuse me, but the situation comes down to is the a human child a person or is a human child property. That's what it comes down to, and I will argue that the child in the womb is a person and is not owned by their mother nor are they owned by their father.

As soon as the child has a soul if we use a religious term, then it becomes an issue of right and wrong. You are arguing about a grey area that largely is nonexistent. It comes down to whether or not it is okay to commit infanticide.

A lot of us here wouldn't even be alive if Autism Speaks had its way, we'd all be victims of abortions, well it's kinda hypocritical to argue against Autism Speaks and Cure Autism Now's arguments of using abortion to "cure" Autism on one hand and say abortion is okay on the other.

As for arrogance, cave_canem I suggest you look in a mirror. Cause quite frankly I don't have to prove anything, what you have to prove is the child in the womb is not alive and does not have a soul until they are born, and you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, you can't in fact all we have is doctor's theorizing things. That doesn't mean they are right, so the burden of proof is on the pro-abortion faction (which is not pro-choice it is pro-abortion).

The state of Americare topic

Americarnage= Ignoring women's health/rights by not wanting to get involved.

I don't see how the billboard is racist. Planned Parenthood was actually formed among other things to reduce the birth rates of minorities. I think the count of aborted black babies is at about thirteen million since 1973. Margaret Sanger would be proud

I suppose it doesn't Have to be racist to have one your goals stated as aborting minority fetus, but what other reason is there?

Because, it could be argued it is an attempt at ethnic cleansing.

Also I stumbled across something of interest:

The electrophysiologic rhythm of the brain de¬
velops early. Detailed EEG tracings have been
taken directly from the headend of 16 mm ( crownrump)
human embryos at 40-odd days gestation, recovered from termination of pregnancies (Ja¬
pan)8 which revealed irregular slow waves, 0.2-2.0
per second at 10-90^ with superimposed fine
waves of 30-40 per second at 1-5/xv. Recordings from embryos of 45 to 120 days gestation through surface and depth electrodes have shown responses
to sedative and stimulant drugs, normal sleep spin¬
dles, and the effect of lack of oxygen by paroxys¬
mal high voltage slow waves and ultimate electrical
silence.7 The intra-uterine fetal brain responds to
biochemical changes associated with oxygen de¬
privation by abnormal EEG activity similar to that
produced in the adult brain.7 Thus at an early
prenatal stage of life, the EEG reflects a distinctly
individual pattern that soon becomes truly person¬
alized. This is not so the ECG in producing its
various types of records at all ages, many specimens
of each type being identical and lacking any indi¬
vidual quality
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/190/2/ ... l.pdf+html

The Journal of the American Medical Association all the way back in 1964, so they have known for over 40 years that an embryo has brainwave activity, that's write, a child's brain is active before they are even a fetus.

Inuyasha, you are a guy. You are not capable of getting pregnant. Why do you have such a strong investment in this argument?

Cause, everyone here was a baby once in the womb.

A newborn does not have enough brain mass nor enough neural interconnections to manifest intelligence and self-awareness. In short, a newborn human is not a person.

Wait 3-6 months and one gets a person. It takes time to grow one.

ruveyn

Ah... but you'll never be able to convince someone who doesn't have children that that is the case. They think they are like TV newborns, who smile and coo and try to grab toys. They don't realize that those babies are 4 months +.