Kelowna city hall is considering flying a pro-life flag next month

[Grace]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/08/16/bc-pro-life-flag-city-hall.html

Figured some of you might be interested in reading this. Personally, I'm highly offended that they'd even think of doing such a thing; whether they claim involvement with the organization or not, it's basically discounting all pro-choice citizens, as well as taking a huge blow at women's rights.

Thoughts?

[weremagnus]

I'll summarize my thoughts on this decision as: Wow, dick move.

[Silvermink]

"I think 'pro-life' is a very — I mean, it maybe has some history to it, for sure, but if you break it down, it's just we're for human life. There's nothing controversial there's nothing particularly political or religious about that statement," Bartram said.

Seriously?

[Snoww]

I'm pro-choice... despite being a dude... but regardless; who doesn't like choice?

[Grace]

I've misplaced the link, but, apparently, once they noticed the shitstorm that started brewing once the announcement was made, city hall turned around and decided to only fly municipal, provincial, and Canadian flags. Good call, but it's one that they shouldn't have even had to consider. This was one of the dumbest things they've done as of late.

[ravewoif]

If they are reacting like that when the information went public it is obvious that they didn't ask the public. The town hall represents the municipality which represents the people and to make a choice like that on such a controversial topic is like a huge fuck you to the opinions of the citizens. 

[Nibi]

Why the heck hadn't I heard of this till now...

Here's the link I think Grace was talking about: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/no-flags-for-kelowna-after-pro-life-controversy-1.923398

[Fazar]

Growing up as a kid I was oblivious to things like Politics, and Religion, and differeing opinions.  Not saying Pro-life is right, but man are there just giant torandos of conflict that rise from this.  Especially of people in power.

[Lt ReiStark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

If a religion condemns an act you can't just make it illegal for that reason. I believe that abortions should only be used in certain situations like sexual assault or if the mother is at risk if she gives birth, but that's a religious belief and not one that a government can make accurate calls based on.
Just because SOME Christians believe that something is wrong, doesn't mean Christians should force everyone else to do what we/they think is right.
lots of Christians are against my sexuality, but I'm allowed to get married to who I love, because the government protects my right to.

Thats my basis on it. I'm half and half on it, but I have come to understand that you can't run a government based on a majority oppressing the minorities.

[einsman]

I find it bullshit that murder is illegal, yet abortion is still legal. Either legalize both or ban them both.

[Grace]

I find it bullshit that murder is illegal, yet abortion is still legal. Either legalize both or ban them both.

I, uh, think you're making this a little too black and white. With homocide, it's very obvious that you're taking a life because the person is there, fully formed, and, well, dead. Abortion is difficult because it's a very fuzzy grey area when it comes to when life is formed.

For the first three months or so after conception, the foetus resembles nothing of a human -- it's just a cluster of cells and then a lump of matter and doesn't develop circulation, a pulse, brain, heart, organs, etc. until later on. People who are pro-choice, myself included, believe that, at least until the foetus develops human -- or even living -- characteristics, that it can't really be considered alive and, therefore, can be aborted without "killing" anything since it wasn't really alive yet. Most abortion clinics won't perform abortions on women after their first trimester because that's when the foetus starts to develop into a human.

Something else to consider is that pro-choice is not anti-life. It simply gives women the option of having an abortion performed safely if they find themselves in a situation where it would be a better option for them, as it is the woman's life and body and should, therefore, be her choice in the matter (this isn't to say that it should be considered a form of birth control, however, as proper contraceptions should always be used, in my opinion). It's also important to note that many pro-choice women wouldn't have an abortion themselves, but believe that all women should have the option should they need it. Plus, abortions were performed long before they were legal, which was a huge health risk for the woman and could lead to infections or even death, depending on the procedure, cleanliness of the make-shift "operating room" (hotel room, bathroom, back alley...). Here's an article/story that perfectly sums up why it's important to allow women a safe place to go if they need an abortion performed, as well as the feelings that many women experience following an abortion.

Unfortunately, pro-life all too often means anti-choice. The problem with many pro-life people is that they only care about getting the baby out no matter .what -- they don't care what happens to the mother at all, nor do they care what will happen to the child after-the-fact. They expect a woman to carry the baby to term and then, if she can't care for it, put it up for adoption. Fair enough -- it doesn't sound too bad. Except that that woman's life is on hold until the child is born and I have never seen a pro-life picketer with an adopted child, probably because they're too busy having their own kids. There are already so many children in the system, it's hard to see how this is a good option. Even if the mother chooses to keep the child, she may have to drop out of school, take a job with "better" hours that likely pays less, etc. in order to raise it (remember, women who have abortions are generally not ready, either emotionally or financially). Not only is she losing out on opportunities that could lead to a better life in the future for her, but her child will also lose out on having the life those opportunities could provide. Giving her the option to wait until she's settled and ready to have children increases the quality of life of both her and her children.

Don't get me started on the legal hypocrisy, either. Not only are there pro-life parents all over the place who think it's okay to take their daughters in for abortions because "she didn't know any better" or "she doesn't sleep around like other people who get abortions," but now they're trying to find loopholes to making abortion illegal without outright stating it -- but, of course, everyone knows exactly what they're doing. For example, Arizona, I believe, just passed a bill stating that life begins two weeks before conception. As in, you're considered pregnant with a fully-formed child two weeks before you've had the sex resulting in said child.

Sorry, this started out as an explanation about why abortion =/= murder and turned into a rant about why I dislike anti-choice politics. :/

[einsman]

At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period] the fetus gains a heartbeat, and by 21 days it is pumping through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother.

So at that point it DOES become murder. Period.

[Nibi]

At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period] the fetus gains a heartbeat, and by 21 days it is pumping through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother.

So at that point it DOES become murder. Period.

Thanks Grace, I did write a big post about it but I decided to delete it since I had a feeling it wouldn't lead anywhere. But it's really awesome you wrote that.

Also, I have a question that is sort of related einsman. Do you eat meat at all by any chance? Because being "pro-life" would make you a hypocrite would it not? Or maybe a human supremacist? :< I dunno, it's just a different way of looking at things. Do you believe human life is more important then an animals or that all life deserves not to be killed or cut short? Just my two cents.

[einsman]

I have actually been cutting WAY back on meat, and I am looking at going vegetarian.

[Sevrin]

ok coming in a bit late here, but this isn't a board I normally check, it just happened to be the latest post.

einsman, I've only met you once, and that wasn't really enough to really gain respect for you or anything, but I respected you as a person, like I respect all people... that being said, I just lost a lot of respect for you. It's so easy for you to say things like that since you don't have to worry about pregnancy yourself, but try to put yourself in the shoes of a woman who had an accidental pregnancy, or was, idk, RAPED or something, now in your world, because of abortion being illegal, they suddenly have to spend the next 9 months partially incapacitated (some people have actually been fired for getting pregnant, though there are laws against that) and then all of the sudden they have this baby that they have to take care of, regardless of whether they are ready for it or not, this can RUIN SOMEONES LIFE, all their plans for the future? gone, they have a baby now and have to take care of it, what if they aren't capable of taking care of it? what if the father abandons the mother? or the father is unknown? what kind of life would that child have to lead? it would live in poverty and it would have a mother that wasn't able to raise it properly (attention from the parents is one of the most important things in brain development for a child).

ok now I want you to think back to when you were 21 days old in the womb, what? you can't remember that? huh. what makes a person a person is the collection of their experiences and memories, and the people who love and care for them. there are artificial hearts grown from stem cells in laboratories, those have heartbeats, if the scientist that was using that for an experiment throws it away cause they don't need it anymore, is that murder? the heart was most certainly alive, the cells in it were alive and they were human cells, it had a heartbeat, by your definition its murder, you should get that shit outlawed man? a heartbeat doesn't mean anything, now if you were making the brain wave argument I might understand that, but even that argument is bullshit too, because no matter how you look at it, the fetus isn't a person, it hasn't grown a fully functional brain, it hasn't had any kind of experiences, it has no memories, it's just an amalgamation of cells in a pool of fluid, it has more in common with a tapeworm than a person...

OUTLAW THE MURDER OF TAPEWORMS!