I personally think that it is great to tackle the pro-life question indirectly by informing women about the risks associated with breast cancer. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/easy-ways-to-prevent-breast-cancer.500763/
Am I the one who is less willing to answer arguments....... and take a serious look at evidence that is not in agreement with the opinion that we already hold........ or are you? http://www.abortionfacts.com/books/why-cant-we-love-them-both
If you want any credibility at all, you will stop using lying anti choice sites. "Pregnancies that end as a spontaneous or induced abortion do not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. Collectively, the studies of breast cancer with retrospective recording of induced abortion yielded misleading results, possibly because women who had developed breast cancer were, on average, more likely than other women to disclose previous induced abortions. " https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/1129655
There is NO risk of breast cancer associated with abortion....that is CRAP that Pro-"Life" people keep putting out there when they have NOTHING else....it has been disproven.
HEY! Let's go back to the psychological effect of pregnancy, childbirth, and raising children has on women !!!!! HEY! Let's go back to the psychological effect of marriage to a sexist prat who thinks women are nothing but broodstock. Hey! Let's go back to the psychological effects of being poor and having kids to take care of ! EXCEPT it's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS......... Who do you think you are that you can choose what women do with their lives????? Let's take a look at what pregnancy and childbirth do to women emotionally and PHYSICALLY....but you won't....
I am not merely regurgitating it because although I had read much of that article several years ago..... I had never read all of it. Much of what I am quoting is at least somewhat new to me....... and that happens to be one of the best articles that deals with many aspects of the Pro-Life vs Pro- Choice question all in the same place....... In 2008 I voted for Green Party Leader Ms. Elizabeth May when she campaigned in my area. I was impressed by the fact that she personally was Pro - Life..... even though officially..... she is Pro-Choice for a different group of reasons. I have already campaigned for public office four times and may be doing so again in the future. These forums are one of the easiest ways to find out if there are serious errors in my thinking on a subject that I might attempt to address through a specific policy initiative. One of the possible problems in Canada that a Green Party Volunteerism Hour or Dollar...... or a Conservative Party Volunteerism Hour or Dollar.... could be directed toward addressing..... .would be to increase the range of Choice in front of women who are expecting a child. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...m-hour-or-dollar-alternative-currency.496787/ Proposed Green Party Volunteerism Hour or Dollar alternative currency.
From my five years or so of knowing her Ms. Denise Mountenay is a far more credible and less obviously biased witness than you are FoxHastings! Last summer I read a book by a near death experiencer, Ms. Ariela Solsol Pereira. She had had an abortion when she was younger. She met her deceased child during her NDE.... and neither her child nor the being of light condemned her for that decisions....... that wasn't the point....... and believe it or not....... that isn't exactly what I am attempting to get at either...... although you obviously think that you know why I am getting into this subject. If I remember correctly that was chapter 10 of her book.
ONE person's ALLEGED story has NOTHING to do with every woman having the right to her own body. ...and when you start on NDE you are OFF TOPIC, it has nothing to do with abortion or facts...and I tune it out.... Try addressing post #86, you keep running from it...
I have been attempting to find a group of people...... who for some reason or another will come together and collectively alter central banking policies in order to create a more just and equitable society. The Pro-Life question could be the issue that might motivate certain groups of people here in Canada...... and also in the USA. Here is my 2006 campaign: www.BankingSystemFlaws.BlogSpot.ca/ Here is an example of me attempting to get a group of people motivated...... to do something...... to agree on certain issues that could help them to unite around a common goal....... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...liberal-party-volunteerism-hour-could.428203/ In order to attempt to motivate members of Canada's Liberal Party..... I gave the example of homelessness as an issue that Alternative currencies could be used to attempt to alleviate........ The Pro-Life question..... could be the one that will grab the attention of the members of a different political party...... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ive-party-volunteerism-hour-or-dollar.475481/ Proposal for the creation of a Conservative Party Volunteerism Hour or Dollar.
Within a decade you will probably admit that you were wrong about this..... at least to yourself anyway. I don't yet know exactly how much of an increase an abortion vs going to term and delivering the baby and breast feeding is.... but I do believe that Ms. Denise Mountenay was correct to use the word "significant."
Blah, blah, blah you're campaigning...and using this forum to spam your campaign in. You:""who for some reason or another will come together and collectively alter central banking policies in order to create a more just and equitable society."" Ya, ya, and pregnant women will be just standing by waiting for this pie-in-the-sky crap to MAYBE SOMEDAY SOMEHOW takes place...(sarcasm warning)
How is the mythical Mountenay an authority on abortion and breast cancer???? AND what has that to do with the RIGHT of women to decide their own future? Since you won't answer, I will, NOTHING!
Actually young women..... even before they get pregnant.... should consider joining a political party. I was a member of Canada's Liberal Party for six years but left it in December of 2015 because after they had been given a majority government I really didn't expect them to be willing to tackle anything as potential controversial as the printing up of a Liberal Party Volunteerism Hour or Dollar. I am a member of Canada's Conservative Party at this time........ Conservatives do tend to be somewhat more interested in this Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice question. Millions, frankly billions of lives are depending on at least some of the political parties being more well informed on the probable long term results of climate change...... The title.... Pro-Life..... should automatically be expandable to concern for the environment as well....... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...erm-effects-of-climate-change-logical.454306/ Is this analysis of the probable long term effects of climate change logical?
This will help you to understand Ms. Mountenay better. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/denise-mountenays-personal-story.500818/ Denise Mountenay's Personal Story
Uh, NO, a personal story, whether real or not, has NOTHING to do with science or facts or the law........the law says women have equal rights despite whatever allegedly happened to your mythical "Denise".......you keep using her as some sort of "proof" of something and she's proof of nothing........... I dismissed her and anything she has to say, at best it's her only her opinion and at worst, it's an outright lie by an Anti-Choicer........
You inadvertantly stumbled on the answer to your own dilemma right there in that post. You, personally as an individual, can be "pro-life" but if you are going to run for elected office you must be pro-choice. The reason for the above is that you cannot force your personal opinion on the matter down the throats of pregnant women no matter what your personal beliefs. Women have individual reproductive rights and if you are going to advocate taking them away from them you are going to have to do way better than that debunked disinformation that you are currently regurgitating. The smart move for a wannabe elected official to take is to be an advocate for the avoidance of unwanted pregnancies that result in abortions. I highly recommend that you read up on the Colorado study that provided the highest at risk group for unwanted pregnancies with free effective long acting contraception.They reduced the incidence of abortion by 40%! A similar study in St Louis replicated the results. Those are real world results that actually work without taking away anyone's rights. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/...-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?_r=0 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000282/
I don't know who that twunt is, nor do I care. The people who count - the medical associations - say there is no increased risk. Even IF there were, it would be the woman's right to take that risk. SMOKING has a HUGE risk of lung cancer, yet the sale of tobacco products remains legal.
The conservative party is pro choice. They know that the public wants abortion to remain legal and that to tamper with that would be political suicide. Even Stephen Harper, who is personally anti abortion, voted no when some moron tried to introduce a motion to look into changing the definition of human being. He knew that was an attempt to screw with abortion rights.
There are pro lifers that do understand and acknowledge what pregnancy and childbirth do to women emotionally and physically. They also think the killing of the baby would only be legal in medical situations where the mothers life was gravely at risk. The argument you would have to start with is determining what you think of as a life. Pro lifers generally state that life begins at conception. Then you have to ask do you believe it is right to have the legal right to kill a life It's pretty simple there's the side that believes all abortions are the killing of an innocent baby (incidents medically mothers health gravely at risk not included) It all comes down to when is it a life and is it okay to kill that life
What sprang to my mind was when I was less than 6 years old, but past 6 age 5, I burned my hands seriously. Talk about crying. Over time, the hurt passed. But what a way to learn about hurt and burning. Wanted to see inside a 55 gallon drum my dad cut the top off where he burned trash. Well, I decided to reach up and peer inside. I hardly got my hands on the top when I was really in pain. Mom did something to help the injury. She may have put butter on. I think we know today not to put butter on any burn. But i never had that happen ever again. I mean once in a while I might slowly touch with a finger but I know to instantly chill it with a very cold surface and never have a problem or injury. I prefer to withdraw right now given I am seriously ill when people want abortions. To give you an idea, I have this image of some jerk using pliers and slowly taking a baby apart and tossing it piece by piece into trash.
