Anyone following this ?

[Sheepwheat]

Just wondering how posters (mainly rural men) on here feel they know what's right for women, regarding pro choice here in Canada. They come across as being devoted Christians and put themselves on sort of moral high ground which they feel gives them the right to pass judgement on women.

You don't know the facts of each and every women making the decision regarding an abortion. There are many different situations, some dealing with medical issues, ****, incest, the list goes on and on. Yet you post on Agriville calling these women murders.

With posts like that coming from a few on here just keep in mind when you make comments about women having an abortion:

"Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. — Matthew 7:1-2"

Not a man of faith myself, but it's not hard to find a Bible verse on Google which you men of faith should keep in mind, as may reduce your chance of getting into the Holy land one day!

Do you really think men are alone? Every single woman I know personally, is on my side on this. What to say to them?

[tweety]

Do you really think men are alone? Every single woman I know personally, is on my side on this. What to say to them?

Why have christians like yourself failed to enable fetal rights?

[Sheepwheat]

Why have christians like yourself failed to enable fetal rights?

Because it is not our “core principle”.

[Sheepwheat]

Because it is not our “core principle”.

But seriously, why do pro death people act like it is only men who are against killing the little ones? I always wondered about that?

[burnt]

I was having a recent discussion with some Kiwi pals and it turned towards their PM who recently revealed she was pregnant. The conversation revolved around it being bad timing and how women in office have said that their respective countries/offices are priorities so they shouldn't be having children during that time. A bunch of garbage in and of itself but it leading from this enlightening tidbit....

What is the alternative for women in positions of power (or other areas so deemed as to be too important to divide attention between work and a child).

- Should they all be post menopausal and past child bearing years.
- Should they swear to abstain from sexual relations while in that office.
- Should they commit to a monitored regime of some form of birth control during their term.
- If birth control should fail, as it can and does, are they then forced to get an abortion.

After these completely irrational options are considered, at what point do we decide that it's none of our business how to run a woman's life and make choices for her. Only one person has that right, and that is the woman herself.


Again, does anyone who is opposing pro choice do it with absolutely no link to religion? As I've yet to talk to anyone who is pro life and not backing it up with religious reasoning.

For instance, when is life there. When blood flows? When a heart beats? When a brain is alive? In modern medicine bodies can live without hearts on bypass. They can also live without brain activity. Can't last long without blood flow though so I guess that must be the definition of life. But consciousness and the idea of souls is not linked to flowing blood, it's linked to the mind and heart... And if you remove the human conscious and the concept of souls from the equation (which is pretty much what religion stands on), then you don't have anything that's any different from aborting cattle or sheep.

Religion places humans above all other animals, but biology places us as equals. You're only being hypocritical if you're applying standards of morality to people but not animals. Why are some moralities, like abuse and cruelty, applicable to animals but not others, like abortion. Take religion out of the equation and there is no logical reason.

Rather than addressing this post point by point, merely reading it earns it the distinction of being one of the most irrational offerings ever on the topic, not the least of which is the conflating of human and animal values, sensibilities and sensitivities.

Do you endorse bestiality as well? After all,only one moral standard for all species! And as for biology showing that all life is equal - well that most be some wonderful new science that's not too widely known yet!! Could you please provide the studies? Curious minds are waiting!

Did I bring religion into the discussion? Nope, you and the other pro-abortionists did.

When pro-abortionists and the general Liberal cohort resort to dealing out the labels "angry" or "judgmental" it's clear that their arsenal is exhausted.

The confusion around the value of a human life begins when nihilists wrestle the good of humanity down into shifting legalities. After that, it becomes entirely subjective and the strongest beast carries the day.

You can know this though - when push comes to shove, you know you can trust your life with someone who knows the value of human life. Who would that be, among those in this greater discussion?

[Blaithin]

You can know this though - when push comes to shove, you know you can trust your life with someone who knows the value of human life. Who would that be, among those in this greater discussion?

Well considering the pro lifers here have stated I'm a murderous person with no morality whom apparently now endorses bestiality (because all animals screw indiscriminately outside of their species? Not really sure how you jumped to that conclusion from my prior post.) But based on these assumptions and generalized judgments on my character listed on this thread, it's not the pro lifers who would be jumping in to save my life in any situation LOL

[furrowtickler]

I wonder if that check box was attached to the $5 billion that Trudeau gave away in his first 100 days in office ??
Just curious .....
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/keith-beardsley/trudeau-deficit_b_9226722.html

[tweety]

Because it is not our “core principle”.

Of course, why should you take anything seriously since it is obviously just a big joke to you.

When you mean our, is that yourself and your 11 wives?

[GDR]

I was having a recent discussion with some Kiwi pals and it turned towards their PM who recently revealed she was pregnant. The conversation revolved around it being bad timing and how women in office have said that their respective countries/offices are priorities so they shouldn't be having children during that time. A bunch of garbage in and of itself but it leading from this enlightening tidbit....

What is the alternative for women in positions of power (or other areas so deemed as to be too important to divide attention between work and a child).

- Should they all be post menopausal and past child bearing years.
- Should they swear to abstain from sexual relations while in that office.
- Should they commit to a monitored regime of some form of birth control during their term.
- If birth control should fail, as it can and does, are they then forced to get an abortion.

After these completely irrational options are considered, at what point do we decide that it's none of our business how to run a woman's life and make choices for her. Only one person has that right, and that is the woman herself.


Again, does anyone who is opposing pro choice do it with absolutely no link to religion? As I've yet to talk to anyone who is pro life and not backing it up with religious reasoning.

For instance, when is life there. When blood flows? When a heart beats? When a brain is alive? In modern medicine bodies can live without hearts on bypass. They can also live without brain activity. Can't last long without blood flow though so I guess that must be the definition of life. But consciousness and the idea of souls is not linked to flowing blood, it's linked to the mind and heart... And if you remove the human conscious and the concept of souls from the equation (which is pretty much what religion stands on), then you don't have anything that's any different from aborting cattle or sheep.

Religion places humans above all other animals, but biology places us as equals. You're only being hypocritical if you're applying standards of morality to people but not animals. Why are some moralities, like abuse and cruelty, applicable to animals but not others, like abortion. Take religion out of the equation and there is no logical reason.

Interesting thing about the Kiwi PM, not exactly something you can take mat leave from, don't know what the right answer to your questions is about that situation.

Just so you know, I would be in the anti abortion camp with absolutely non religious reasons. (Other than medical issue type circumstances) Not hard core pro-lifer but still think it's wrong.

Don't think it is a fair comparison from humans to animals. That's apples and oranges. However I do feel guilty when I ship a bred cull cow or abort a heifer.

And for Foragefarmer, I don't think most pro lifers are projecting on women what's best for them as you suggest. The argument is more about what's best for the baby and I think that's where some confusion comes in. My argument there would be the woman (for the most part) chose to have sex and pregnancy is an unintended consequence. Vs the baby that had no choice to be there.

Lastly my mother manages a walk in clinic, she says abortion requests are almost daily occurrences. What she finds frustrating is its often the same women coming back over and over instead of using birth control.

[Sheepwheat]

Of course, why should you take anything seriously since it is obviously just a big joke to you.

When you mean our, is that yourself and your 11 wives?

I actually thought we were having good dialogue. You recognized the tick the box as being wrong. Me and my 11 wives? Lol 😂 see, I can chuckle here n there. It’s called, personality.