…can be found here. Or see below. That’s quite a list of pro-choicers who are unwilling to defend their views in public. To me, this marks the beginning of the end of the pro-choice movement. For to keep the movement alive you need to be willing to defend your values, even on hostile terrain, ie. outside the safe confines of the university womyn’s centre. Here’s why the pro-choice movement is at the beginning of the end–it has become lazy. Everyone agrees with us! We are the mainstream! There is a consensus! They are growing complacent just as pro-lifers are picking up steam, mobilizing for action and making strides in public opinion.
The other more troubling concern I have is that extreme forces (those who don’t believe abortion is debatable) will push their views on less excessive pro-choicers. What this amounts to is quashing democracy. Almost all things are up for debate in a democracy and certainly, abortion falls very much within the debatable. Saying abortion is not debatable is a complete and total cop-out.
i. Dr. Henry Morgentaler (declined to debate)
ii. Heather Mallick (“pro-choice” columnist for the Toronto Star) (no reply to invitation)
xi. Action Canada for Population Development (no reply to invitation)
xii. Hon. Dr. Keith Martin (MP) (No reply to invitation)
xiii. Planned Parenthood Ottawa (Heather Holland – Executive Director- Declined to debate)
xiv. Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (no reply to invitation)
xv. Professor Sanda Rodgers (University of Ottawa) (declined to debate)
xvi. Professor Wayne Sumner (University of Toronto) (declined to debate)
by 
Reproductive rights are human rights. Human rights are not debatable. QED.
Uhm… A Bachelor of Art in political science, certificate in bioethics and a rented mailbox do not necessarily make her qualified to debate someone that holds a medical degree. Also, I would refuse to debate anyone who celebrates her “conception day.”
I’ve seen her at debates before and she doesn’t do your side any favours.
Fern: I’ve been reading a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer lately (Very vocal against the Nazis, killed by them in 1944) and there were always times in history, as today, when human rights were on the line, and they were/are debatable. Perhaps I would challenge your side to stand up and defend your vision of human rights, since for our side, it is exactly the same issue–human rights–that we are defending.
Christine: it’s disingenuous to state that your side won’t debate Stephanie if she doesn’t do us any favours. If she is so incompetent, it would be all the easier for you to put her in her place and win it. This is what I mean about the pro-choice side getting lazy. People learn their views… they aren’t born pro-choice or pro-life.
Well, you’ve proven my point. Nazis think human rights are debatable. Sane, normal people don’t.
My point that you were so quick to wantonly misconstrue is that Bonhoeffer fought the good fight against the Nazis. So let’s say then, that you believe I am on par with the Nazis, as I can only assume you do, based on your last comment. It is incumbent on you to fight the Nazis–who came near winning because too many Germans/Europeans/North Americans were silent for too long.
Right now, again, in your allegory, not mine, you are the Germans sitting back and letting the Holocaust unfold. Not exactly a great position to be in.
fern: nice strawman argument. If that’s the best you can do, then you have already lost the debate.
Christine: if you had a rational argument to support your position, you wouldn’t have to resort to ad hominem as you have done here.
Pro-aborts do not want to have a debate because they know they will lose it.
Fern
Certainly all people are entitled to human rights, dignity and protection by the state, including those not yet born; that is, regardless of size (3 cm to 2.5 m), level of development (zygote, foetus, baby, child, adult, etc), environment (in womb or out) and dependencies (IV, under medical care, needing wet mother or in mother’s tummy). QED.
Medical science says a human gives birth to a human. Since one’s species doesn’t change at birth, it is human before birth.
At one time, the Catholic church provided “infallibility” to the Pope. Are you ascribing “infallibility” to Ms. McLachlin and her Supreme Court justices?
How are human rights not up for discussion IF ‘we don’t know at what point human life has value?’ (a pro-choice premise).
How can you say that any women is for certain a person and therefore fully deserving of human rights including reproductive ones, when you also say that personhood is an individual, personal choice to see a human being in that way?
Who is to say that a 16th century person is wrong when he thinks that BORN women aren’t people either? -_-
If he is wrong then aren’t you assuming that therefore a women’s personhood is not what is culturally fashionable or expedient or legal at the time but inherent in her biology?
A biology that naturally her offspring (unborn) fully shares.
Why Radical Pro-Lifers Are Wasting Their Time. And why the debate is unnecessary.
@fern: I’m not sure why you think that article is significant, or how you think it explains “why the debate is unnecessary”. The pro-life movement is much bigger than the Catholic Church. Stating that the debate is unnecessary is the last hope of those who can’t bring a rational argument to the debate.
You can add Justin Trudeau to this list as of October 2014.