Discussions

Freedom of expression in Canada is not actually absolute. There are limits. That aside (because it's not actually relevant here), this is a privately operated forum and the ultimate decision of what does and does not go on here rests solely with the proprietor. No one's freedom of expression rights would be violated if this thread did happen to vanish.  
 
But, as hot-button issues like these generate site activity, and site activity is good for Adam, I don't imagine this'll be going away all that quickly.

It is a woman's choice in this country! Trying to persuade woman that it isn't ok is completely unacceptable!

Oh, I'm pretty biased. But I'm not wrong.  
 
If I encountered an individual that supports this movie who does -not- fall into one or more of the categories I named them likely to belong to, I imagine I'd probably drop dead from the shock of it.  
 
To speak out in defense of this tripe is to indeed invite my condemnation and criticism. I will not shy away from confronting this sort of radical extremism where I can.

Great response. Managed to call me young and stupid, while also claiming the Bible tells history. Absolutely crushed it.

Just because labels that exist today did not exist then does not mean those things did not exist before prior to their labeling.  
 
Human rights are not a grey issue, and this is the fundamental matter here. You are championing the curtailing of the reproductive rights of women. You are arguing in favor of wanting to deprive a woman of her right to make this decision on her own. This is very much a black and white issue.  
 
Moreover, you are using your own religious beliefs as the basis to justify your position.  
 
I have nothing against religion, and have plenty of devout Christian friends and family. It comes with the territory. But their covenant and relationship with God is their own business. Just as my own relationship with God is my own. It is when religion is wielded it as a weapon, to foist one's own beliefs on wider society to force the world to conform to their personal view that there is a problem.  
 
As for Trump-loving transphobes, I admit I'm a bit of a gambler and I'm just playing the odds. Trump and extremist western religious beliefs kind of go hand-in-hand.

I was pro choice, and a high functioning member in the catholic church when I watched "If These Walls Could Talk". That film really callenged my views on abortion.  
 
The thing is, if you make something illegal, people will find ways to do it. And making abortion illegal has many many negative affects.

Herein lies to fundamental issue, and the reason this discussion will never end with one side changing it's mind. One side calls abortion murder, the other does not (scientifically, it is not, by the way) and neither side is going to change easily. When you keep using the term child murder I cannot have a legitimate debate with you when there are actual children suffering and dying in the world.

Murder: the crime of intentionally killing a person (from the English Cambridge Dictionary)

Murder : the deliberate killing of a person (Collins English Dictionary)

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

I totally agree.  
 
Most abortions in Canada are done at a point before there is any detectable neural activity, let alone any higher brain function. A barely organized group of cells is not a "baby".  
 
Truth be told, most (over 50%) fertilized eggs end in miscarriage according to recent studies. Mother nature is the biggest "abortion provider".

go thru their pregnancy and regret their choice and their child ends up paying for that decision the rest of their lives unfortunately Some women should not become mothers, we've had a few in our family.  
What child wants a mean resentful mother?

There is a perfect example of what is wrong with today's society. Someone, in this case the OP, voices their opinion on a valid topic and a bunch of people who don't happen to agree with the OP's point of view demand that the post be removed. The post contains no vulgar language, it contains no hatred toward any race or religion nor does it incite violence against any group, but none the less these people want it removed. Why? Because it doesn't fit a certain agenda, an agenda that wants all forms of dissent silenced. I don't neccessarilly agree with the OP and I haven't seen and probably won't see the movie, but I'm glad it's here. Why? Simply because both sides should be able to have their point of view heard. I am sick and tired of how one side of the political spectrum is always trying to silence the other side. Everyone has the right to speak their mind and everyone else has the right to choose not to listen. That is called free speech. The post should stay up.

Just to be clear.  
 
The OP has every right to post about the movie, the same as I have every right to state that said movie is a waste of time, resources, and photons.  
 
The Charter isn't just for opinions one agrees with.  
 
Edited by PuddleJumper, 2019-07-14 00:03:19

Someone that gets it.  
 
Well said Trixie. It's no one's decision but hers. I can't even believe this discussion still exists. A woman has 100% say in what she does with her body. No book or person should ever tell her how it is.

This thread was posted by someone who appears to honestly [b]believe[/b] that fetus = baby, praising a movie that depicts abortion about as accurately as the movie Braveheart depicts Scottish independence. It's likewise filled with echo-chamber responses of similar [b]belief[/b].  
 
There are individuals here trying to support and reinforce the idea that curtailing the rights and well-being of other actual human beings is a good idea. They are trying to foster this same [b]belief[/b] in others.  
 
"Oh, it's for the children. It's for the unborn," they claim. But it isn't. It's about their [b]belief[/b]. This amorphous notion of 'the children' is just a convenient means of justifying their position. It's effective.  
 
I did not post my dissent in anticipation of reasonable discussion. You cannot have reasonable discussion whenever [b]belief[/b] is involved because it is a complicated, deeply personal thing, and oftentimes it can be pretty irrational.  
 
But when people, for better or for worse, try to meddle in the lives of others based solely off of what they [b]believe[/b], it becomes a very worrying societal problem.  
 
This film, Unplanned, is not really designed to sway anyone undecided. It's not like it's a documentary that was created in good faith. It's a vehicle made to reaffirm the [b]belief[/b] of those who already subscribe to the abhorrent idea that a woman does not have the right to make her own decisions. On a matter that concerns her more than anyone else.

Because a subject like this isn't like having a talk about who sucked last night on The Voice, or anything like that.  
 
Here, there are people supporting a propaganda film explicitly crafted with the end goal of pushing an agenda that tramples upon the rights of women. This is not okay.  
 
This deserves to be challenged, needs to be challenged at every turn, and I choose to be harsh in my condemnation.  
 
I absolutely agree about lifestyles and religions, and if a woman who subscribes to the belief that she herself must carry to term regardless of her circumstances, then all the more power to her. But that is about her alone, and ultimately for her to decide.

You say you are not "close-minded" (it's "closed" Teacherman) and then you proceed to rehash the same anticontextual rubbish that get thrown around everytime someone wqho has glanced at the book and has a grudge throw out.  
 
I am not religious, I am not Christian and I have little use for the Bible outside of it's literary value but I came to that conclusion after reading, studying, thinking and listening to others (both sides.) Your vitriol makes evident the fact that "due dilligence" does not extend to actually reading the material.  
 
Would that pass in your class?

No, you were patronizing, insulting, dismissive and superior. Errors were rife in both composition and thinking.

"I am biased but I am not wrong" - Ummm, wouldn't every single person on Earth make that same statement about their beliefs? Do you suppose flat-Earthers walk around saying, "I'm biased but of course what I'm saying is nuts and clearly wrong."  
 
Thinking about it, "I may be biased but I'm not wrong" is a near perfect slogan for bigotry.

am fascinated as well. this discussion has evolved without resulting in a blood bath of name calling. I have my opinions on the subject, and have found this discussion reasonably represents many points of view. discussions like this should continue, and thanx to adam for that.

Okay Teacherman, teach me. When does science say life begins? Please cite the papers and research that definitively show exactly when life, consciousness and sentience manifest.  
 
I'm not going to bother waiting because you can't because it hasn't been done because science doesn't know.  
 
In fact, brain function was recently restored in pig brains after hours of "death." It was not fully sentient function but sufficient to maintain basic functions.  
 
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4  
 
We don't have a satisfactory explanation of what life actually is let alone when it begins or finally ends. We simply do not know these things regardless how many rooftops you shout "certainty" from.  
 
So teach me Teacherman

Thank you for bringing up the flat-Earthers. I had considered using them as an example of irrational belief in the face of the obvious yesterday. (See also, anti-vaxxers.)  
 
So, sure, every single person would make that same statement about their beliefs.  
 
But the thing is, the world is actually round. The Earth does not require belief to make it round. The Earth will not become flat through the power of belief.  
 
People choose to delude themselves into thinking it's flat, and this is the strength of belief. No amount of facts can be presented that will change their mind. There's no reasonable discussion to be had about this subject with these people.  
 
The difference between flat-Earthers and pro-lifers is that the former are not trying to use their beliefs to deny anyone rights, whereas the latter are actively working to spread a much more harmful agenda. One that, at its core, is intent on stripping rights away from women.  
 
Edited by Hashidoi, 2019-07-14 12:00:13

I loooove how you tried so hard to be nice about this topic. I WILL NOT watch a movie based on lies. Pro-choice! Not my body: not my opinion. Please remove this post!

While I'm sure this will not satisfy you, or most people, I have no intention on re-reading and posting a pile of articles that people can find on their own.  
 
Essentially, if a baby is not viable to live on it's own without it's host mother then it's part of said mother, giving her, and only her, the right to decide what happens to it. This is generally stated as being around 20 weeks, which is when abortion is no longer an option.

While I respect the anti-aborionists’ right to their views, please remember I have a view that is vastly different from yours, not wrong just different. Not one person has mentioned what happens to these children that a woman does not wish to carry to term. Yes, perhaps the child can be placed for adoption (and that comes with its own set of problems). However, if the woman doesn’t want the child and abuses her body with alcohol or drugs that poor baby is born with more problems than anyone will admit. Or what if social workers convince her to keep the baby and raise it and (please forbid) he/she becomes another statistic of abused children in this country. While many people are wanting abortion banned, how many of you are willing to march right right down to CFS and foster/adopt one of the many children no one wants? Nobody cares what happens to the child after it is born as long as your anti-abortion agena is upheld. Then you go to sleep at night feeling all warm and fuzzy that you did the right thing—hypocritical.  
 
Edited by shopper1, 2019-07-14 16:44:25

I am terribly, terribly sorry that you should have experienced such a loss.  
 
That said, I have to go back to the way I am, and I'm going to distill from your response that you're in some way antivaxx as you expressly claim vaccination as a factor in your experiences. I briefly referenced this in my last post, about the strength of belief, and how difficult a hurdle this is to overcome.  
 
But correlation is not causation.

It has everything do to with abortion.  
 
It comes back to belief.  
 
It's funny to call these sorts people "pro-life" because they aren't. Once a child is introduced to this world, this is a non-issue for them. The baby was born. Not the pro-lifer problem anymore. Their job here is done. Damn the circumstances. There's a baby now. A life. And it's her fault for having it, regardless of how it came to be.  
 
But the pro-lifers can't be bothered to deal with the consequences of their actions. They've got to go on, and crusade further for the lives of others-that-may-yet-to-be.  
 
Might as well throw the most recent baby into the trash, and move on to forcing some other woman to have a child against her will. Pro-life in a nutshell.  
 
This is why it's selfish. It's about about belief. Not about children.

Gotta fight fire with fire, baby.  
 
If people were championing a restriction or limitation to your rights, I should hope that you would not go quietly either.

Because they -are- bad people moral-wise. What sort of awful person forces another to endure the birthing of a child against her will?  
 
That's what the cause of pro-life professes. Force.  
 
In this day and age, it absolutely is wholly selfish for one portion of society to dictate terms to another portion of society while they themselves remain consequence-free.