Skip to comments.
Canadian Medical Association: babies not human until after birth
Life Site News ^
| August 16, 2012
| PETER BAKLINSKI
Posted on 08/16/2012 1:46:29 PM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: NYer
babies not human until after birth And for a few years between 13 and 17 or so.
21
posted on
08/16/2012 2:25:39 PM PDT
by
P.O.E.
(Pray for America)
To: mtg
So I wonder, what is the difference between killing a pre-born baby and killing a premature baby?Was immediately my thought, too. My youngest was born at 28 weeks and less than two pounds. He was completely dependent upon his incubator to keep him alive. What is the difference between the artificial and natural incubators?
22
posted on
08/16/2012 2:27:10 PM PDT
by
tnlibertarian
(Government's solution to everything: Less freedom.)
To: dsrtsage
Sweet, Im gonna go out and smash some eagle and tortoise eggsI like your out-of-the-box thinking. This argument might resonate with some people that don't even value the blood of their own kind.
23
posted on
08/16/2012 2:30:05 PM PDT
by
Rinnwald
To: MrB
24
posted on
08/16/2012 2:32:13 PM PDT
by
shankbear
(If this mandate can stand, what will be next? Forced to buy certain cars, clothes, food?)
To: sassy steel magnolia
“... we haven’t even held her yet”.
You held her in your heart... congratulations!
To: NYer
As a former Canukistani, this is what they taught us in school..
Americans are idiots, we are different than Americans, and abortion is acceptable.
26
posted on
08/16/2012 2:36:40 PM PDT
by
max americana
(Make the world a better place by punching a liberal in the face)
To: MrB
So... what are they, if not human?
Left alone, there's a 50/50 chance it'll come out a fruit bat.
27
posted on
08/16/2012 2:42:31 PM PDT
by
Rastus
To: NYer
Hmmm.... Are Canadians actually human ?
28
posted on
08/16/2012 2:45:40 PM PDT
by
UCANSEE2
(Does anybody really know what time it is ?)
To: NYer
If babies are not human until after birth, then liberals are not human either, even after birth.
29
posted on
08/16/2012 2:47:50 PM PDT
by
OB1kNOb
(Vote for Paul Ryan 2012...... oh, and that other guy running on his ticket that's not Obama.)
To: NYer
“The biological fact is what counts here, which is when the ovum and the sperm unite, a single-celled human organism is formed. Period. This organism is a human being, a person at the single-cell stage. From that point in time he or she has rights. Anybody who denies that fact is denying biological reality; they are lying.
This is scientifically the only possible, logical and consistent description possible. The debate needs to focus on the value of human life. If we can terminate a fetus for being “inconvenient”, why not a troublesome child or unproductive elder? That said, the uniquely close relationship between mother and child must consider the ethics of a situation where the mother will die if she continues her pregnancy or where the child will not survive regardless of treatment. Personally, I would allow the mother her decision but would permit an abortion. Such situations are quite rare.
30
posted on
08/16/2012 2:51:00 PM PDT
by
JimSEA
To: BenLurkin
When do we cease being human?
Don’t worry about it. We’ll let you know.
The Canuck Medical Ass’n
31
posted on
08/16/2012 2:57:23 PM PDT
by
tumblindice
(Sic Semper Tyrannis)
To: NYer
No one who was ever pregnant would think this. When I was with child, (oh, here goes Sportutegirl on one of her tangents again) I would bawl my eyes out at Savage Garden on the radio, “I knew I loved you before I met you”. I would sing it nonstop to my baby. She probably learned the words in utero.
32
posted on
08/16/2012 3:01:00 PM PDT
by
sportutegrl
(Of course, when I was pregnant, I would cry if the toast got burnt.)
To: maryz
The “Western” left is a product of prosperity, freedom and security.
They take it all for granted and have a twisted world view.
33
posted on
08/16/2012 3:09:43 PM PDT
by
Red6
To: NYer
God Almighty : Canadian Medical Association condemned to hell.
34
posted on
08/16/2012 3:47:37 PM PDT
by
JohnBrowdie
(http://forum.stink-eye.net)
To: MrB
Its kinda fun, until they hit you... :) I usually have these arguments with my sis, the social worker.
She wouldn't dare hit me.
At least, she hasn't yet...
35
posted on
08/16/2012 4:02:32 PM PDT
by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
To: OB1kNOb
We may not be human in your world but at least we did not elect an asshat like Obama to run our country like you geniuses did. By the way who is really responsible for Roe vs Wade...some dumb Canuck I suppose.
To: tumblindice
When do we cease being human?You have begun to look into the future. Here we have human life proclaimed by committee...not science...not theological,....not philosophical. If they had to arrive at this decision by science they would fail. Likewise if they tried to arive at dehumanization by theology, or philosophy they would fail. But they define the parameters and they are guided by physicalism and metaphysical naturalism. It is a very tiny step for that same committtee to remove the status of human life from teenagers, 20 year olds, 30 year olds, etc. Your worthiness will be determined by a self affirming committee who find the voiceless of no more worth than a dog. In fact those same committeemen would kill a human before killing a dog. The next thing they will proclaim is a more specific list of critera of 'values' which configure to define hamanness. This is eugenics-in-evolution. We have seen it before. People need to learn a little about how to argue for their very lives. Hell awaits their decisions.
To: mtg
If it’s not human, then we should not charge people for two homicides for killing a pregnant woman either. There is no way to reconcile a pro-abortion position with reality and any form of morality without throwing logical consistency out the window. It is always an emotional choice to make that decision, and then they try to reverse engineer a justification for their position through rationalizations instead of reason.
To: Rastus
That’s a great example of an argument through ridicule.
“So, since you deny that the ‘fetus’ is a human, are you trying to tell me that, if left alone, you believe it just MIGHT become something else, say, a fruit bat?”
39
posted on
08/17/2012 5:16:53 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working fors)
To: NYer
Canadian Medical Association: babies not human until after birth
Blatantly political and having nothing to do with biology. From the moment of conception, there is a genetically unique individual that will, unless otherwise interfered with by disease, trauma, or design, proceed through a series of definable stages that end in senescence and death. Regardless of whatever happens to it along the way (even becoming liberal), that being is continuously of a single nature. The CMA is trying to treat fundamental being as a stage of development or circumstance of being. This is simply insane and is designed for the purpose of allowing people a justification for killing their unborn without feeling guilty. That is, they have to find ways of making the act seem other than it actually is.
The various ways of making it seem other than or not as bad as it is are to redefine, reinterpret, redirect, and refuse.
Redefine. Call it something else. Use other words that are foreign or neutral or technical. Lets not refer to it as an unborn baby, lets refer to it as a fetus (meaning baby in Latin) or a product of conception or a mass of tissue like a tumor or just ignore it completely and just focus on the process, the pregnancy. So youre not killing your unborn baby, but removing the products of conception or terminating the pregnancy or just doing some body sculpting.
Reinterpret. And since some people who believe killing a newborn is murder could be persuaded that a matter of weeks on the other side of the birth canal doesnt make much difference, its helpful to reinterpret things so that the murder label doesnt even make sense any more. If a being isnt a person, killing it isnt murder. The object, then, is to think of all the ways it could be considered something other than human. Some of the following appear more lame than others. But that depends on the degree to which they seem to fail to overcome your objection to calling it other than human:
- Its not finished yet, so just as a vehicle on the assembly line isnt really a car until it can actually be driven and used as a car, so the developing products of conception arent yet a human person.
- During fetal development the products of conception are recapitulating the evolutionary history from single-celled organism, through fish, and so forth, and so isnt yet a person any more than a tadpole is a person or a human.
- Its not human because its totally dependent on the mother in the womb and is unviable.
- Its not human because it doesnt even look human in the early stages.
- Its not yet human because it doesnt have the ability to think and reason and contribute to society (though, if its female, killing it is denying it its future constitutionally protected right to choose).
- Its not a human because it hasnt breathed and its when it breathes that the soul enters the body and it becomes a human being, so something without a soul isnt human.
- Its just tissue, you know, meat, and, if you kill it, it isnt murder.
But they forget that for many people in society, meat is murder. And the unborn child is at least meat, so isnt that murder? Well, no, they would argue, because we dont eat the products of human conception and, besides, it wasnt born yet. But dont animal rights people claim that killing the unborn calf for food (the true veal) is tantamount to murder and animal rights activists call it murder even though they dont want to eat it? So if its a moral outrage to kill an unborn calf as a food choice its not a moral outrage to kill an unborn human as a reproductive choice? This interface between reproductive rights and food rights is something that is not extensively discussed, probably because doing so would result in the exact opposite of what is desired: a way of redefining and reinterpreting the problem into something tolerable.
Redirect. Another way to soften the image of abortion is to refer to it as a medical procedure and a right of privacy and reproductive freedom. And they can go farther, not even referring to the pregnancy at all, but to their body as in our bodies, our selves and claim that no one has a right to tell them what they can do with their own bodies. This redirects attention from the one getting aborted right past the specifics of the particular abortion and onto external and generally revered societal themes such as science and medical technology, rights, and personal autonomy. Given the long-standing emphasis on the wonders of medical science in Western society, this practice can, at least, appropriate to itself a little of the mojo of medical science. Hey, its just a medical procedure that is done by doctors and doctors are like gods, so it cant really be that bad, right? Sure, just as long as you dont think of other doctors like Mengele in Nazi Germany carrying out all sorts of medical experiments they claimed necessary for the advancement of the master race on the bodies of those who were termed useless mouths, the dead weight of human debris. At least they were benefiting society, right, even though they dont deserve to live in it, being by their very nature dangerous to societys welfare and justly targeted for elimination. And given the emphasis in our society of rights and liberty and personal autonomy, the appeal to right of privacy and reproductive freedom helps to blunt others criticism of the act and redirects the attention away from the abortion and onto them, making them appear to be intrusive into something that is just the decision between a woman and her doctor or wanting her to be enslaved by her pregnancy by those who themselves are too selfish to step up to the plate to offer her any help. Never mind that a decision between a woman and her doctor to knock off an abusive husband wouldnt be called privacy but premeditated murder.
Refuse. Refuse to acknowledge that your chosen course of action could have any possible consequence other than the one you imagine for it. Since you are in complete control, because it is your choice alone, there is no one more able to determine what is better for you than you. You are the captain of your ship. You are the master of your fate. This, of course, has long been the method of the so-called eugenicists (another euphemism) who try to retrofit society into their idea of paradise by getting rid of what they term undesirable elements, dead human waste, useless mouths, mental, physical, psychological, and even political defectives. To do this they have proposed voluntary and involuntary sterilization, mechanical or chemical birth control, elective and forced abortion, infanticide, or when other methods are too slow or when the need is too urgent, even genocide. Keeping this in mind, youve got to wonder whats going on when the majority of abortions in the United States come from the two largest minority groups, black and Hispanic, and the majority of abortions are carried out by Planned Parenthood, founded by the eugenicist Margaret Sanger to help rid the country of undesirable races. To ensure the desired future, the ones in control, the ones who know better, have to make the hard choices for rest. Its a noble and lonely destiny and there are always those who will criticize them for making the tough choices that in the end will benefit everyone.
So when people try to sell you something that isnt to your benefit, they always try to describe it in terms that make it seem more desirable than it is. And when people try to do something they sense is wrong but still desire to do, they always try to describe it in terms that make it seem less morally repugnant than it is. Whether a mastermind trying to wholesale reinvent or fundamentally transform society or a woman trying to get out of what appears at the moment to be the threat of a fundamentally transformed life, the approach is the same: redefine, reinterpret, redirect, and finally refuse to accept any criticism. Why? Because the one who is in total control doesnt have to.
40
posted on
08/17/2012 5:49:30 AM PDT
by
aruanan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson