Ban intra-cardiac potassium chloride injections on singletons in Canada.

I can certainly understand why many women would feel that they should have total control over their own bodies but at this time Canada has absolutely no legislation regarding the treatment of the unborn so doctors are free to take the life of a late term fetus who could possibly survive the attempted abortion.

Their lives are ended by an injection of potassium chloride directly into their heart that incidentally are beating at 120 - 160 beats per minute even before they sense danger.
"The fetal heart rate is faster that the normal heart rate of an adult. The younger the fetus the faster the rate. In middle and late pregnancy the fetal heart beat can be heard almost anywhere over the uterus depending on the position of the fetus. In the first trimester of pregnancy the fetal heart may be detected with an ultrasound machine. The sound is asynchronous and different from the maternal pulse that may be detected and heard in the nearby arteries (uterine arteries), called uterine souffle.

The normal fetal heart rate ranges from 120 to 160 beats per minute."

I am promoting a bill to “ban intra-cardiac potassium chloride injections on singletons.”

What do you mean by singletons?

I thought the topic was about euthanizing older single men::eek:

Though killing babies that survive abortions is equally as horrific.:mad::mad::mad:

Singleton means that the woman is carrying only one baby, not two or more.

Sick idea. Killing one baby (sigleton) would be illegal but killing two or more (twins, triplets) would be just fine. :mad:

The word “singletons” in the bill is critical because in this age of fertility clinics a woman often ends up with two or three or even seven or eight fertilized eggs growing in her uterus. If the word singletons was not in the bill the medical community would vehemently oppose the bill and it would go nowhere!

In other words this bill would not stop a physician from reducing the number of foetus in the womb of a mother down to one!

My apologies on the misunderstanding regarding older single guys!!!

Corki, you may ultimately be correct but if a Christian wants to be taken seriously in the political realm we have zero choice but to think long and hard about these words of King Solomon:

Ecclesiastes 7:16

Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?

I personally have attempted to observe the Jewish weekly Sabbath since the 1970’s. In the early 1990’s I read the Catholic Bible and some passages in the Book of Machabees changed my life.

Mark 3:4

And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

I may be wrong and if so I will answer to this to my Creator when I die but this verse seems to be explained by the situation faced by the Machabee Jewish community as they were attacked on the weekly Sabbath by Greco-Syrian armies.

So they gave them battle on the sabbath: and they were slain with their wives, and their children, and their cattle, to the number of a thousand persons. [39] And Mathathias and his friends heard of it, and they mourned for them exceedingly. [40] And every man said to his neighbour: If we shall all do as our brethren have done, and not fight against the heathens for our lives, and our justifications: they will now quickly root us out of the earth.

[41] And they determined in that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up against us to fight on the sabbath day, we will fight against him: and we will not all die, as our brethren that were slain in the secret places.

In other words the entire situation must be taken into consideration by a political leader before a truly ethical decision or judgment can be made on specifically how to handle a specific difficult and unusual set of circumstances.

In our time period, as a Christian if I were too good, too wise, or too fearful of the judgment of God to leave the word singletons in this proposed bill then I may as well stay home and stay entirely out of the political arena!

Thank you Tabycat! You are exactly correct!

You obviously have taken the admonition to ask God for wisdom seriously and I will sure appreciate your prayers regarding this proposed bill being promoted. Our Prime Minister Stephen Harper has many good points. Although I am a member of another political party I admire what in many ways reminds me of Mr. Oskar Schindler in some of his actions.

P. M. Harper himself will come out very noisy and say how he does not want the issue of abortion discussed but then he may forward the exact wording of this bill to M. P. Rod Bruinooge who is a truly courageous man and M. P. Bruinooge may well put forth this exact bill himself and P. M. Harper may act like he cannot stop M. P. Bruinooge partly because he represents the Metis and First Nations communities of Canada.

After he excommunicated M. P. Bill Casey from his Conservative Party I went through years of being overly angry with P. M. Harper but these days I tend to admire him as an astonishingly competent political leader!!!

Like all of us he has serious flaws…but the man is brilliant and certainly seems to be sincerely attempting to honour God!

Have you ever read about what he did in 2011 at the G-8 conference? He came through for the nation of Israel in a big big way and by so doing I believe that he may have saved the lives of hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians!!!

When political leaders come out too forceful for the Palestinians…their far too militant leaders get all the more vehement…the young people hit the street…and Palestinians get themselves killed for little or no intelligent reason.

P. M. Stephen Harper, in spite of his flaws, behaves in such a way that the militant leadership of the Palestinian people tend to be calmed down!!! For this he deserves credit as being highly competent as a political leader!

Is there anybody here who would not want your comments quoted?

When we post in a public discussion forum in a sense we are saying that we don’t mind being quoted in full…but you may feel differently. Please let me know because these questions are exceptional and truly helpful to the discussion that I have going over on my official Facebook Forum.

To be perfectly blunt, your asking these questions can liven up the discussion, make the original thread more interesting and ultimately lead to this bill being coopted perhaps by M.P. Bruinooge or somebldy like him and the lives of several dozen babies in Canada might just be saved…More than that there are other related initiatives to save the unborn that might also be initiated…

One of them is that I personally want to see documentary, reality and semi-reality film projects begun where actual people play the role of themselves and the range of choice to expectant mothers is expanded.

For example I wish to see gay couples, volunteer to become actors playing the role of themselves…and I want to see an alliance between the gay community with the pro-life community over this issue of making adoption easier and easier for mothers to choose!

Here is a thread on the official Richard Dawkins Facebook forum where I explained this idea:
Gay marriage and the church

Dennis Tate:

I am a theist who strongly suspects that the Creator is a scientist/inventor/philosopher/educator composed of fundamental energy who has worked for essentially infinite time to come up with all the levels and varieties of life that exist in the many dimensions of space-time. If human life took essentially infinite time to be invented then it might have phenomenal value to the inventor thereof!

I believe that the pro-life community could cooperate with the gay community to save a number of lives of unborn babies if we pro-lifers could get our heads around what was shown to Christian Andreason during his NDE. Many expecting mothers might well choose to give their child to a gay couple to adopt if they became convinced that they might actually have a right to visit their child later on. A young woman might accurately suspect that a gay couple might be more inclined to not view her as being a competitor than a heterosexual couple would perhaps tend to?!

"What about sexually diverse people?

If this world was to ever find out just a small amount of what sexually diverse (gay) people are here to do on this planet, there would never be one single wisecrack or hurtful remark made ever again. Instead there would be great respect! People who speak disrespectful things about people of this orientation … enact judgment, and do so from a place of unenlightenment, insecurity, ego and socially induced prejudice. Some may use mistranslated scriptures taught to them, not by the Holy Spirit … but by fear-filled human beings. Many will choose to sustain a Divinely unsupported satanic hate-based rage against these children of God, rather than using Love to bring understanding and healing between both peoples. Christ said, THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT IS THAT WE ARE TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER! When people sling condemnation, judgment and bitterness at others, they are not practicing the great commandment. They are allowing their Souls to fall into darkness." (Christian Andreason)

I just read an amazing quotation on this topic over on One Body of Christ Experiment Facebook group:

"On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis
at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional
Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie
Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested
to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator
Nancy Jacobs said: “Mr. Raskin, my Bible says
marriage is only between a man and a woman.
What do you have to say about that?”
Raskin replied: “Senator, when you took your
oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible
and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did
not place your hand on the Constitution and
swear to uphold the Bible.”

The room erupted into applause."

I’m still a little confused with your bill.

Are you saying you want to ban the injection method? So women with just one foetus could still seek other abortion methods? Because beleive you me, if a woman and her doctor were hell bent on killing a foetus, no matter how late term, they’d come up with a way to do it.

Usually these methods, ie. injection into the heart, is so baby comes out intact, and mum can hold baby and tell baby she’s sorry for murdering them. You knwo, try and make her feel better about being a murderer. Or more likely, so the abortionist can “donate” the foetus’ organs intact to a lab, who in turn, will “donate” money back to the clinic. Wink wink, nudge nudge, leave the sack with the dollar sign behind the tree in the park, sort of thing.

How about a bill that would simply give the unborn more rights? Banning abortions after a certain amount of time would be a start for Canada.

And just so you know, there’s no such thing as a “fertilized egg” its a zygote. Fertilized egg is one of those pro-abortion terms they’ve managed to slip into the lexicon to dehumanise the child further.

Actually, this bill would not affect roughly 99% of abortions in Canada. This bill would perhaps save the lives of several dozen babies each year. This is an anti-feticide bill not really an anti-abortion bill. The Canadian Parliament might actually pass an anti-feticide bill but they are not ready yet to pass an anti-abortion bill or for that matter even discuss the subject of when life begins.

Harper pressures MPs to vote against motion on when life begins

Vera Dicere, do you know of any articles that you could give me a link for that would verify this aspect of the subject?

This is indeed one thoroughly messed up planet that we live on isn’t it???

On the other hand I can see God moving into more lives at this time than in any other previous era!

[quote=Corki]Sick idea. Killing one baby (sigleton) would be illegal but killing two or more (twins, triplets) would be just fine. :mad:

Most people don’t realize that Canada is a nation that has absolutely no abortion laws and a “conservative” Prime Minister who has vowed to defeat any and all legislation that would restrict abortion for the next 3 years.

I believe that willfully allowing any abortion to continue is a sick idea, but weak pro-life legislation is far better then no pro-life legislation especially when you’re in a political climate where “strong” pro-life legislation will get invariably shot down.

Dennis, if this legislation can help to save even 1 baby each year then, in the absence of more comprehensive pro-life legislation, it has my full support! :slight_smile:

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit