Abortion Debate Cancelled by York University Student Union

[didymus]

tinyurl.com/32y9z6

**Abortion Debate Cancelled by York University Student Union

**TORONTO, Ontario, March 3 /Standard Newswire/ – The York University Student Centre shut down an event entitled “Abortion Debate: A Woman’s Right or a Moral Wrong?” at York University only a couple of hours before it was scheduled to take place late Thursday afternoon.

Margaret Fung, President of Students for Bioethical Awareness (SBA), one of the hosting clubs, describes what happened: “I was told in a meeting by members of the York Federation of Students that debating abortion is comparable to debating whether a man should be allowed to beat his wife. They said that there is freedom of speech to a limit, and that abortion is not an issue to debate. They demanded that the event not take place and shut us down.” Present at this meeting in addition to Fung were Jeremy Salter, Executive Director of the York Federation of Students (YFS), Fuad Abdi, VP Operations of the YFS and also the Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Student Centre, and Amir Mohareb, President of the York Debating Society.

SBA, an official York University Student Club, worked with the York Debating Society to organize the debate. The debaters were Michael Payton from Freethinkers, Skeptics and Atheists at York for the pro-choice side and Jose Ruba from the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Awareness for the pro-life side. It was to be an organized debate moderated by the York Debating Society. Both sides were ready and willing to debate, but after it was demanded the event be shut down, dozens of students planning on attending the event were turned away at the door.

How long will there be any free speech left in Canada? There are way too many here in the US who want to follow the same path.
Thank God for the 1st Amendment – it’s battered but it’s still there and counts for something.

 

[mschrank]

They shut it down because they would lose. I know, without recourse to religious or spiritual sources, that if you legalize abortion you must also legalize infanticide, and infanticide is morally repugnant to most people. Therefore, they had to shut down the debate.

 

[Migueliones]

They shut it down because they would lose. I know, without recourse to religious or spiritual sources, that if you legalize abortion you must also legalize infanticide, and infanticide is morally repugnant to most people. Therefore, they had to shut down the debate.

Hardly

Seeing as the vast majority of those who support legalised abortion would consider that it is not a life, unlike a born child, it hardly follows that it is therefore legalising infanticide to those people.

 

[He_Man]

Hardly

Seeing as the vast majority of those who support legalised abortion would consider that it is not a life, unlike a born child, it hardly follows that it is therefore legalising infanticide to those people.

Unless they can definitively define when life begins with proof, then no, they don’t have an argument.

Since I could just as easily define life as beginning at 21 years of age, meaning we should be able to legally kill teens.

Their standard is capricious and arbitrary, and so full of holes even an amateur debater could puncture it.

 

[Migueliones]

Unless they can definitively define when life begins with proof, then no, they don’t have an argument.

Since I could just as easily define life as beginning at 21 years of age, meaning we should be able to legally kill teens.

Their standard is capricious and arbitrary, and so full of holes even an amateur debater could puncture it.

It’d be a bit silly to though, no? A few week old foetus is different to a teenager, I think everyone knows that.

Is there any definitive proof from the pro-life side that life begins at conception?

Trying to say that legalised abortion means that children can be yanked from nursery and slaughtered just detracts from the legitimacy of the pro-life argument. If only people could debate without resorting to emotion or exaggerating.

If it’s so easy to crush, there wouldn’t be so many people who support legalised abortion and there wouldn’t be so many prominent pro-choice doctors and scientists.

 

[He_Man]

It’d be a bit silly to though, no? A few week old foetus is different to a teenager, I think everyone knows that.

That won’t cut it in a debate. You are essentially saying “trust me, there is a difference.” I’ll need proof from science, since that is where they base their argument.

Is there any definitive proof from the pro-life side that life begins at conception?

Sure, but won’t acknowledge it, since it stems from religious sources. Since many people don’t believe in God, using Him as proof won’t carry any weight. But so what? Just because they refuse to believe the truth doesn’t make it any less true.

Trying to say that legalised abortion means that children can be yanked from nursery and slaughtered just detracts from the legitimacy of the pro-life argument. If only people could debate without resorting to emotion or exaggerating.

it is called making a point. If their only defense is “well, one is just disgusting!”, then they really have no argument at all, and can be highlighted as such.

If it’s so easy to crush, there wouldn’t be so many people who support legalised abortion and there wouldn’t be so many prominent pro-choice doctors and scientists.

Not true. Their biggest asset is that they are fueled by Satan, and have free will. He is a powerful ally, when freely chosen. This is what keeps them afloat. Not logic. Not science. Not truth.

 

[Dauphin]

I’m personally not too worried about this sort of thing. The Roman Empire threw Christians to the lions, but they were still unable to stop the spread of truth.

Universities can shut down debates about abortion, but they will never successfully prevent the recognition of fundamental human rights. The truth will win.

 

[hasikelee]

Maybe it’s just as well…that title seemed a bit funky.

Why couldn’t it have been an equal debate? “Abortion: A woman’s right to kill supported or condemned by a society?”

Or, “Abortion: a moral possibility or an inherent evil”

How come the side supporting a woman’s decision to kill another human was the legal, scientific side, and those who were going to debate not killing another human had to deal with “morals” (read: religion, philosphy, ethics)

Those are two very big, very separate circles encompassing enough information to debate for weeks on end.

If I were in a big abortion debate, I would prefer to debate against abortion on a purely secular and scientific level. Those who support abortion will actually be better off arguing from a philosphical, relativist, religious point of view. It would at least extend their arguments.

 

[mschrank]

It’d be a bit silly to though, no? A few week old foetus is different to a teenager, I think everyone knows that.

Is there any definitive proof from the pro-life side that life begins at conception?

Trying to say that legalised abortion means that children can be yanked from nursery and slaughtered just detracts from the legitimacy of the pro-life argument. If only people could debate without resorting to emotion or exaggerating.

If it’s so easy to crush, there wouldn’t be so many people who support legalised abortion and there wouldn’t be so many prominent pro-choice doctors and scientists.

“Baka”, it just rolls off the tongue doesn’t it?

People support legalized abortion because what it means in terms of power over nature and its ties to “Nietzsche in a Skirt” Feminism.

The thing is, people don’t just support aborting a zygote, most who want to keep it legal think it’d be okay to kill a 7 month old viable baby as well. Something that is obviously alive.

I know you’re on this whole “I’m an atheist now” convert’s zeal kick, but why not go to peterkreeft.com and go to his audio section, and listen to his reasoned argument against abortion.

Oh, no you won’t do that, because it’d threaten your identity.

 

[hasikelee]

It’d be a bit silly to though, no? A few week old foetus is different to a teenager, I think everyone knows that.

Is there any definitive proof from the pro-life side that life begins at conception?

Trying to say that legalised abortion means that children can be yanked from nursery and slaughtered just detracts from the legitimacy of the pro-life argument. If only people could debate without resorting to emotion or exaggerating.

If it’s so easy to crush, there wouldn’t be so many people who support legalised abortion and there wouldn’t be so many prominent pro-choice doctors and scientists.

Are you denying the multitude of people who already support killing infants after birth? And that these people remain politically, legally and medically well-informed so as to ensure their opinions on who is to be killed and why can be forced upon the rest of the populace?

That is a very strong refutation to attempt to take.

What is your opinion of the Dutch and their legalisation of killing infants who are either disabled or who show a future poor quality of life? Unlike Hitler, who required three doctors to sign off on the decision, the Dutch only require two doctors. This is also supposed to go up to 12 years of age.

Hmm…12 years…sounds awful close to those teen people you mention in your post…

 

[cathgal]

Is there any definitive proof from the pro-life side that life begins at conception?

You think pro-life only has morality and religion on their side.

Have you taken a course in embryology ??

That’s science for you.

Real hard facts if you care to acknowledge it

 

[Ender]

Is there any definitive proof from the pro-life side that life begins at conception?

Sure, but won’t acknowledge it, since it stems from religious sources. Since many people don’t believe in God, using Him as proof won’t carry any weight.

The proof that life begins at conception is scientific; in fact there is no scientific debate about that point, you will find it matter-of-factly stated in probably every textbook on embryology. The argument, rather, is when does “personhood” begin? When does a fetus become a human being rather than a mere living entity. There is neither moral nor scientific support for the claim that human life begins at birth rather than at conception.

Ender

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I was interested in their reason for shutting it down -

"I was told in a meeting by members of the York Federation of Students that debating abortion is comparable to debating whether a man should be allowed to beat his wife. They said that there is freedom of speech to a limit, and that abortion is not an issue to debate

Not a reason I had expected to encounter.

 

[He_Man]

The proof that life begins at conception is scientific; in fact there is no scientific debate about that point, you will find it matter-of-factly stated in probably every textbook on embryology. The argument, rather, is when does “personhood” begin? When does a fetus become a human being rather than a mere living entity. There is neither moral nor scientific support for the claim that human life begins at birth rather than at conception.

Ender

No, because secularists will simply (and do) change the definition of what constitutes “life”.

You can’t prove anything with 100% assuredness by definition anywa, and that is often what secularists rely on.

Try proving that water is wet to someone who doesn’t want to accept it. They’ll simply change the definition of wet.

 

[hasikelee]

The proof that life begins at conception is scientific; in fact there is no scientific debate about that point, you will find it matter-of-factly stated in probably every textbook on embryology. The argument, rather, is when does “personhood” begin? When does a fetus become a human being rather than a mere living entity. There is neither moral nor scientific support for the claim that human life begins at birth rather than at conception.

Ender

That is somewhat correct, ender. To say it has no medical or scientific aspect is not entirely accurate. One would have to prove that personhood cannot be observed at all in the physical world by science and that it has no bearing on medicine.

Now, in the context of a someone debating for abortion, the term personhood is typically surfaced in the debate as an attempt to restrict the effectiveness of science and medicine. In fact, historically we can see that those who use personhood in arguments pertaining to restricting or eliminating another human’s rights typically only argued from a philosphical, moral or religious point of view.

We see this quite clearly in the cases of slavery in America, where African slaves were designated as partial persons and in the cases of Nazi Germany, where Jews did not receive any of the rights or privileges of the designated Aryans.

This is also apparent in more modern cases, such as Peter Singer’s proposition of killing infants because they are not fully persons and the Dutch government legalising the killing of infants up to 12 year olds who either are disabled or are determined to have a future “poor quality of life.”

Of course, to have any sense of an actual debate with someone throwing around the mysterious term “personhood”, one would first have to define exactly what personhood means, as this is a fairly new term used almost primarily by one group of humans to restrict the rights and privileges of another group of humans.

The argument of personhood could labelled as a legal battle of when a government should designate a human certain privileges.

A couple of the more popular pathways of personhood debate include:

• A human can never be a non-person. Thus, every human should also be a person. This can be argued from a logical standpoint that personhood is a status conferred only to humans. It can also be argued from a historical standpoint, such as presenting examples of humans legally stripped of their personhood (e.g. Jews in the Holocaust.)
• Another debate is that of what privileges the status of personhood confers upon a human. By saying a pre-born human is a human being but not yet a person, therefore humans who are persons can kill that human, we are labelling “life” and “living” as a privilege given by society and the government. This has legal ramifications, at least for Americans, as their very own constitution refers to “life” as a right no government can take away.

 

[cathgal]

The argument, rather, is when does “personhood” begin? When does a fetus become a human being rather than a mere living entity. There is neither moral nor scientific support for the claim that human life begins at birth rather than at conception.

Ender

That’s a weak illogical argument.

Human life has a beginning. What beginning is that ??

If they say life begins at birth, would there be a life to be borned if that life is cut off right after conception ?

Call what they will, it’s still a life. It’s still a human. Period.

Only people who live in denial will use those illogical terms.

 

[Ender]

That’s a weak illogical argument.

Human life has a beginning. What beginning is that ??

If they say life begins at birth, would there be a life to be borned if that life is cut off right after conception ?

Call what they will, it’s still a life. It’s still a human. Period.

I didn’t mean to imply that this was my argument; I was pointing out that it is the only argument left given that the scientific community is unanimous is stating that life begins at conception.

Only people who live in denial will use those illogical terms.

I wish it was that simple to explain.

Ender

 

[cathgal]

I didn’t mean to imply that this was my argument; I was pointing out that it is the only argument left given that the scientific community is unanimous is stating that life begins at conception.
I wish it was that simple to explain.

Ender

I know it wasn’t your argument.

It **is **simple to explain. What is so hard to undestand.

They can’t argue out of this logic. They just don’t want to listen, that’s all.

Cuz once they do, it’ll be the end of the huge money making of the abortion industry, embryonic stem cell research, IVF, etc…

 

[nobeerinheaven]

Hardly

Seeing as the vast majority of those who support legalised abortion would consider that it is not a life, unlike a born child, it hardly follows that it is therefore legalising infanticide to those people.

Read Peter Singer - this is the exact argument he uses to endorse infanticide. Notice that it doesn’t matter what people actually think or support, what matters is the moral consistency of their position. The other side would lose, presumably, because the position that abortion is permissible and infanticide is not, is not itself a coherent position. It is a hodgepodge moral view, unprincipled and clearly false.

 

[tomarin]

It’d be a bit silly to though, no? A few week old foetus is different to a teenager, I think everyone knows that.

Is there any definitive proof from the pro-life side that life begins at conception?

Trying to say that legalised abortion means that children can be yanked from nursery and slaughtered just detracts from the legitimacy of the pro-life argument. If only people could debate without resorting to emotion or exaggerating.

If it’s so easy to crush, there wouldn’t be so many people who support legalised abortion and there wouldn’t be so many prominent pro-choice doctors and scientists.

how about this line of argument: a human life is a human life nomatter what stage of development it is in.