440 replies to this topic

[Renegade]

I agree with limitations but not prosecution for those who abort after the "abortion expiry date". It's just not feasible.

I am not sure "what to do" with those who abort later... at least if there were limitations perhaps fewer late term abortions would occur.

Then I would say it is not a "limitation" at all. It's more like a suggested "best before" date.

[Drea]

So if there are no limitations in place... why did my doctor suggest I go to Seattle? Why not Vancouver?

I think there are limitations and it's the very rare abortion that occurs late term. I think anti-choice folks are using scare tactics..."OMG!! women are aborting babies that could survive outside the womb... millions upon millions of 'em!!"

Perhaps next time I see my family doctor I will ask.

[Renegade]

So if there are no limitations in place... why did my doctor suggest I go to Seattle? Why not Vancouver?

I don't really know. I suppose it depends when your consultation was. There were limitations in place prior to them being struck down by the SCC.

I think there are limitations and it's the very rare abortion that occurs late term. I think anti-choice folks are using scare tactics..."OMG!! women are aborting babies that could survive outside the womb... millions upon millions of 'em!!"

I know of no limitations except ones which are adopted as ethical guidlines by medical associations. If you know legal limitaitons, I'd be intereted in knowing more.

[Mr.Canada]

The Catholic Church is still pushing the doctrine that contraception is a violation of Natural Law; but in the West, at least 90% of their parishoners ignore these rules anyway.

Uhm, This is completely false. Was a survey conducted of the 1.1+ Billion Catholics around the world?

[Shakeyhands]

Uhm, This is completely false. Was a survey conducted of the 1.1+ Billion Catholics around the world?

re-read what was said.

[WIP]

I picked 3 months as an example. We can debate what constitutes a reasonable period. You must misunderstand what I mean by implied consent. I do not believe that having sex, whether unprotected or protected is enough to imply consent. Given that preganancy is only one possible outcome of sex, it seems reasonable that you cannot infer intent to consent to pregnancy from simply participation in sex. The only ones who maintain that participation in sex is enough to imply consent are zealots such as Mr Canada and they do it without any support of legal precedence.

The only way to settle this issue, and other bordering issues such as embryonic stem cell research, is to define more clearly when human life begins. If it's considered a human life, then its right to live can outweigh other considerations, such as the privacy rights of the pregnant woman who is hosting a growing embryo or fetus.

Even if you assume participation in sex implies consent, there is no reason why such consent is irrevokable. So the question is what would a reasonable person interpret as a woman's consent to carry a pregnancy to term? IMV, a clear set of rules that define that the lack of abortion after a specfic period, constitutes irrevokable consent to carry the pregnancy to term.

And the only reasonable reasons to set a "specific period" is because it has become a determining factor for considering it to be a human life with guarantees of rights and protection from harm.

Yes I agree with this, however there is a margin of error. Some of of the earliest babies which have survived have been less than 22 weeks.

Yes, and that's because not every baby developes at the same rate. This is why using a set number of weeks is not as good a guideline as using fetal viability as the standard. A fetus can be as old as 28 weeks and still not be ready to survive outside of the mother's womb. http://en.wikipedia....ation_in_growth

Because one of the principles we hold to in society, and I agree with is the notiion of one's right to oneself.

And, you are certainly not yourself after you're dead and buried.

In death that determination of what to do with one's body falls to the person one designates (ie one's family). The state should not have the right to intefere in removing choice in what to do with oneself regardless if one is dead or alive.

What if it's in the interests of society as a whole (especially one with a desperate shortage of available organs) to have all available organs for donation? What is the interests of the family who want to deny any option to use one of the deceased's organs to save another life?

[Mr.Canada]

Here is a good question for Mr Canada. What if a new test could determine wether a fetus was genetically predisposed to homosexuality? If you knew your potential son was likely to be a homosexual would you have a different opinion? Oh oh what if that test was 100% accurate after say 4 months? What would you do then MrCatholic? Would you allow the birth and love your gay son? Would you disown the son and put him up for adoption? Would you disown the wife for giving birth to a baby who was gay? Or would you walk your new gay son down the aisle of the church that he chooses to marry his gay immigrant man-bride in; giving up all your homophobia and thanking God for sending the gift of such a wonderful son who taught you not to be a bigoted a-hole?

Well first you'd have o prove to me that homosexuality is genetic, which it isn't. It's a choice but lets just say it's genetic so I can answer you. Next no abortion at all ever, we're Catholic. Additionally, I have strong male hetro genes and no child of mine will be gay but lets play along and say it was true. He would be taught that homosexual acts are a sin and he's not to give in to these feelings or he'll land his eternal soul into the fires of hell for all eternity being ripped apart over and over again. He would join the seminary if he is admitted and become celibate and become a priest if he got the call from the Bishop. He would have no choice as I, his father calls the shots not him. I'm the boss of my children not the other way around like so many seculars.

[Mr.Canada]

The Catholic Church is still pushing the doctrine that contraception is a violation of Natural Law; but in the West, at least 90% of their parishoners ignore these rules anyway.

Uhm, This is completely false. Was a survey conducted of the millions of Catholics in the western world?

[madmax]

Uhm, This is completely false. Was a survey conducted of the millions of Catholics in the western world?

Only by condom companies test marketing in Latin America.

[blueblood]

Well first you'd have o prove to me that homosexuality is genetic, which it isn't. It's a choice but lets just say it's genetic so I can answer you. Next no abortion at all ever, we're Catholic. Additionally, I have strong male hetro genes and no child of mine will be gay but lets play along and say it was true. He would be taught that homosexual acts are a sin and he's not to give in to these feelings or he'll land his eternal soul into the fires of hell for all eternity being ripped apart over and over again. He would join the seminary if he is admitted and become celibate and become a priest if he got the call from the Bishop. He would have no choice as I, his father calls the shots not him. I'm the boss of my children not the other way around like so many seculars.

And you have walked into a trap...

Forcing repressed homosexuals into the clergy is poison. Why should some alter boy pay for your headcaseness?

[Smallc]

Mr. Canada, if you really believe those things....

[Mr.Canada]

And you have walked into a trap...

Forcing repressed homosexuals into the clergy is poison. Why should some alter boy pay for your headcaseness?

No I haven't walked into any trap I knew this was coming as I was counting on it and here's my reply.

So all homosexuals are pedophiles is what you're saying. I think homosexuals would disagree with you as would every socialist on this board.

Edited by Mr.Canada, 08 January 2009 - 02:11 PM.

[WIP]

Just because I am willing to admit that speaking of such a balance has merit doesn't mean that I would endorse balance of competing interests as a basis for writing up new law to limit access to abortion. I categorically do not.

I categorically do not believe that any such law is either necessary nor even vaguely desireable at this time.

Here's another interest to consider in the battle of competing interests -- the welfare of society as a whole. You see, I've mentioned once before that abortion for reason of selecting male offspring is common in China and India, and it also questions whether in vitro sex selection should be allowed. The reasons for refusing to allow abortion and in vitro fertilization methods of sex selection are because this, otherwise private issue, can impact on the rest of society.

[blueblood]

No I haven't walked into any trap I knew this was coming as I was counting on it and here's my reply.

So all homosexuals are pedophiles is what you're saying. I think homosexuals would disagree with you as would every socialist on this board.

Forcing a homosexual against his will into the clergy. You do know that means no sex right. By forcing somebody to take that oath, you are asking for somebody to snap. And it has many many times in the clergy.

[WIP]

Uhm, This is completely false. Was a survey conducted of the 1.1+ Billion Catholics around the world?

Does the West mean the whole world? For what it's worth, here's a U.S. survey that shows almost 80% of American Catholics ignore the birth control restrictions.....and we often hear how much more conservative Americans are on social issues than other Western nations, so I expect those numbers are higher in Canada and Europe.