[lordmandeep]

why do you take my neutrality to this topic and then portray me as a fundamentalist???


I never said their should be any sort of law or policy, I just find it wrong. Trust me I am not one of those guys who want to imposes their morality on others.

When speaking of abortion, we are talking about the right of people to control what is happening to their bodies. How exactly do you have a right to control what happens to their body? I'd like to see you rationalize that perceived right in hard terms rather than invoking how you merely feel about something, or trying to control the sexual activity of other people.

When you speak of morality, on what rationale would you force all pregnant women to give birth? It Strikes me as immoral to essentially force someone to live to your standards - particularly since you won't be getting pregnant.

So you find it right for a women who is perfectly capable of having a child, aborting it because she wants to remain being a yuppie??

That is what I find wrong.

LETS MAKE MY POINT CLEAR!

I FIND IT WRONG, but who I am to impose my will on others?
That does not mean I cannot find offense to it.

 

[kEiThZ]

Often ignored in debates is a point brought up by many doctors: why is it legal to abort a baby in Canada right up to the day it is born, when that baby if born is entitled the full protection of the law? It is amazing the breadth of protection that comes into play in that moment when the baby is born. This level of protection is unprecedented in the western world.

In general I am not opposed to a woman's right to choose what happens to the life inside her. However, IMHO it should not take her 9 months to decide either. Canada has the most lax control on abortions in the world. That should be remedied. I would like to see some limits on the practice, at least more in line with global standards (restricted to first or second trimester perhaps).

Incidentally, it is becoming harder and harder to find an abortionist in Canada. I read an article recently that said the wait times for abortions in some areas was over 6 weeks. Fewer and fewer doctors are making careers out of terminating unwanted pregnancies. I strongly suspect some of that has to do with the lack of abortion laws in Canada.

Either way, discussing this issue with reason is impossible. If you say you want some limits on the practice, everyone automatically assumes that you are absolutely against abortion. And sadly, there are merits to the slippery slope argument because there are always social conservatives lurking in the background who want to move the ball up field an inch at a time.....

 

[afransen]

Keith: Because legally a person becomes a person when they are born. Any other definition is a slippery slope up to conception, at which point birth control pills would constitute murder on a vast scale (since a decent percentage of the time, conception occurs but not implantation).

 

[kEiThZ]

Keith: Because legally a person becomes a person when they are born. Any other definition is a slippery slope up to conception, at which point birth control pills would constitute murder on a vast scale (since a decent percentage of the time, conception occurs but not implantation).

Well the Europeans, don't seem to have problems with the slippery slope and their nations all have some limits on abortions. They seem to have no problem protecting a third trimester fetus while providing the option for abortions earlier on. The legal definition of a person is set by the society. There is no reason we can't follow the European model is define a third trimester fetus as having legal status.

The BC pills argument is BS. They are used before conception or in emergency cases immediately after. They can barely be viewed as clinical abortions. To argue that tightening up abortion laws would lead to BC pills being viewed as murder is a rather flaming straw man.

Either way, if the current status quo prevails, the lack of abortionists will in and of itself reduce abortions in Canada. As long as we stick to laws that allow abortions till the day a baby is born, it is unlikely many medical practitioners will not find the trade to be their practice of choice. Who would want to be the poor sod who gets to abort an 8-month old fetus? That partial birth stuff looks like nasty business. I am sure more doctors would work in this field if some of these practices were actually outlawed.

 

[Hydrogen]

why do you take my neutrality to this topic and then portray me as a fundamentalist???

Your statement is hardly neutral.

So you find it right for a women who is perfectly capable of having a child, aborting it because she wants to remain being a yuppie??

How do you know who is capable of having a child? Do you have knowledge concerning every woman who has had an abortion? Again, your morality, wishes and demands mean nothing to that person. As for your idiotic characterization that the only rationale for abortion is to remain a yuppie, that's a rather sexist attitude.

That is what I find wrong.

LETS MAKE MY POINT CLEAR!

Well YOU FAIL AT BEING CLEAR. You aren't the person having or ever requiring an abortion, and your mickey-mouse characterizations concerning the people who are having abortions suggests a rather low level of understanding. Your attitude comes off as rather one-dimensional.

 

[Hydrogen]

Incidentally, it is becoming harder and harder to find an abortionist in Canada. I read an article recently that said the wait times for abortions in some areas was over 6 weeks. Fewer and fewer doctors are making careers out of terminating unwanted pregnancies. I strongly suspect some of that has to do with the lack of abortion laws in Canada.

Or it has to do with the threats that some doctors receive from anti-abortion activists.

Well the Europeans, don't seem to have problems with the slippery slope and their nations all have some limits on abortions. They seem to have no problem protecting a third trimester fetus while providing the option for abortions earlier on. The legal definition of a person is set by the society. There is no reason we can't follow the European model is define a third trimester fetus as having legal status.

The Europeans have a whole bunch of differing laws on the issue.

Setting restrictions on the third trimester is no less problematic if that period starts on a Tuesday and a person can only get an abortion on a Wednesday. Now that fetus is suddenly a person and has a right that takes precedence over the person who's womb it occupies.

It's safe to say that a majority of abortions are not carried out in the third trimester. It's also safe to say that many woman have to wait far too long to get an abortion because of the lack of services.

 

[kEiThZ]

Come now Hydrogen, that's rather harsh talk towards Mandeep. He is not advocating for laws to that effect. He is merely offering a critique of a certain subset of society that abuses therapeutic abortion as a form of birth control. Stats do bear it out. There's quite a large segment of women who abort more than once. This is not the scared teenager we are talking about. Stats are showing a large portion of women in their 20s committing to multiple abortions in their lifetimes. That's moving out of the realm of the one-off pregnancy scare and into the realm of irresponsible behaviour at the expense of the taxpayer. That's not healthy for society or the individual. There is something to be said for discouraging that kind of behaviour.

 

[kEiThZ]

Or it has to do with the threats that some doctors receive from anti-abortion activists.

I highly doubt that's the reason there has been a wholesale decline in medical residents seeking careers as abortionists. There certainly have not been similar declines in abortionist training in the US where they are far more likely to be targeted by anti-abortion activists.

The Europeans have a whole bunch of differing laws on the issue.

Setting restrictions on the third trimester is no less problematic if that period starts on a Tuesday and a person can only get an abortion on a Wednesday. Now that fetus is suddenly a person and has a right that takes precedence over the person who's womb it occupies.

That will always be the challenge with any abortion law. And we have to draw the line somewhere. That's the nature of any absolute legal constraint. I find the current line unacceptable. But I would be far more understanding of an end of second trimester limit. And really, how many women would actually undertake a third trimester abortion? I think it's the potential of having to perform one that might keep many potential abortionists away.....

 

[afransen]

Well the Europeans, don't seem to have problems with the slippery slope and their nations all have some limits on abortions. They seem to have no problem protecting a third trimester fetus while providing the option for abortions earlier on. The legal definition of a person is set by the society. There is no reason we can't follow the European model is define a third trimester fetus as having legal status.

The BC pills argument is BS. They are used before conception or in emergency cases immediately after. They can barely be viewed as clinical abortions. To argue that tightening up abortion laws would lead to BC pills being viewed as murder is a rather flaming straw man.

Either way, if the current status quo prevails, the lack of abortionists will in and of itself reduce abortions in Canada. As long as we stick to laws that allow abortions till the day a baby is born, it is unlikely many medical practitioners will not find the trade to be their practice of choice. Who would want to be the poor sod who gets to abort an 8-month old fetus? That partial birth stuff looks like nasty business. I am sure more doctors would work in this field if some of these practices were actually outlawed.

Is there any evidence that this is a problem? It smacks of the hysteria the Conservatives were whipping up over making harming unborn fetuses illegal in cases of assault or murder of the mother. There is no evidence that this is a problem. Indeed, many cases have been shown to take the fetus into account in the decision.

 

[afransen]

Why not give practitioners the right to decline performing third trimester abortions?

 

[kEiThZ]

Is there any evidence that this is a problem? It smacks of the hysteria the Conservatives were whipping up over making harming unborn fetuses illegal in cases of assault or murder of the mother. There is no evidence that this is a problem. Indeed, many cases have been shown to take the fetus into account in the decision.

The recent attempts at forcing Ontario doctors to assist with the counseling of medical services against their conscience certainly shows there is a danger that the left can be equally aggressive in attempting to impose its morality on others.

I agree that there is no line-ups of heavily pregnant women seeking abortions. However, with no laws on the issue, it is quite likely that any patient could compel a doctor to perform late term procedures or threaten legal or disciplinary action. That's what a limit would avoid.

As for the Conservative act to protect the unborn, I am all for this one. Why should it be left up to the courts to enforce vague social norms? Should the views of Canadian society not be legally codified on this issue? I think most Canadians would agree that there should be some penalty for someone who harms a fetus while attacking the mother. I see nothing wrong with codifying that in law. And I see no reason that it should be a slippery slope. I would not support any law that extended beyond that.....

 

[kEiThZ]

Why not give practitioners the right to decline performing third trimester abortions?

Because it's quite likely that the vast majority of abortionist would decline performing third trimester abortions resulting in a de facto ban. As it stands right now, the desperate could seek legal sanction to compel a doctor to perform that procedure. But I'd agree that allowing doctors to decide is probably more appropriate than an outright ban per se.

 

[Whoaccio]

I am disturbingly close to GWB in that third one... don't really know why. The more I take these quizes, the more I just end up confusing myself

I just created the "Republic of Don Mills on nationstate.com (a jazzed up political quiz) and my country is a "corporate bordello."

"The Republic of Don Mills is a tiny, economically powerful nation, notable for its absence of drug laws. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 5 million are effectively ruled by a group of massive corporations, who run for political office and provide their well-off citizens with world-class goods and services. Their poorer citizens, however, are mostly starving to death while being urged to go out and get real jobs. The populace has reasonably extensive civil rights, although these are mostly aimed at allowing them to buy whatever they like.
The minute, corrupt government, or what there is of one, juggles the competing demands of Education, Social Welfare, and Healthcare. Income tax is unheard of. A healthy private sector is led by the Furniture Restoration industry, followed by Gambling and Uranium Mining.
Crime is a serious problem, and the police force struggles against a lack of funding and a high mortality rate. Don Mills's national animal is the polar bear, which teeters on the brink of extinction due to widespread deforestation, and its currency is the dollar."

Thats not what I imagined!

 

[afransen]

I'm sure they would continue to perform those that were medically necessary.

"As for the Conservative act to protect the unborn, I am all for this one. Why should it be left up to the courts to enforce vague social norms?"

It is seen as the opening move in a new battle on abortion, with it being used as the basis for new court challenges. There is a reason Harper shelved the proposed law prior to the election.

It's a matter of letting sleeping dogs lie. This law is an attempt to kick up the battle again. There is no basis in reality for this law, as is. The Conservatives failed to supply any evidence that such a law was necessary.

 

[lordmandeep]

This is not the scared teenager we are talking about. Stats are showing a large portion of women in their 20s committing to multiple abortions in their lifetimes. That's moving out of the realm of the one-off pregnancy scare and into the realm of irresponsible behaviour at the expense of the taxpayer. That's not healthy for society or the individual. There is something to be said for discouraging that kind of behaviour.

That is what I mean by "abortions of convenience"

Hydrogen, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! You are pretending to ignore the fact that some women have more then one abortion and I saw a lady on TV who had a 8. Not because she is poor, not because her birth control failed, not because the baby was disabled or sick. She was like I do not want a child. That's good, but you had an abortion 8 times!! That's sickening.


That imo is wrong and really is abusing your right of choice. We all have rights but what those types of women are doing are abusing their rights.

I am not saying lets limit abortions and such but imo some people are acting irresponsible.

Like I have the right to drink tell my hearts desire, but its wrong if I drank so much that I drive my family away. Its not illegal to do that but it is wrong.

Well YOU FAIL AT BEING CLEAR. You aren't the person having or ever requiring an abortion, and your mickey-mouse characterizations concerning the people who are having abortions suggests a rather low level of understanding. Your attitude comes off as rather one-dimensional.

First of all I acknowledge a great and large of majority of abortions are justifiable. There is a group of women who are taking it to far.

Also, just because I am a man, I cannot have an opinion on a issue?
With that view, white people should not have an opinion on the rights of visible minorities then!

There is something to be said for discouraging that kind of behaviour.

I think there should be a limit to two-three abortions per women, really.