Jump to content


Photo

Abortion revisited


404 replies to this topic

#31 Guest_American Woman_*

Guest_American Woman_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 April 2012 - 11:24 AM

Can't fix it that way. A woman's decision is between her and her doctor and it's nobody else's business.

I actually think it's the "business" of the father of the child. That's not to say he gets to make the final decision, but to say it's none of his business is a bit harsh. Some men couldn't care less about the children they father, and other men care very much. I feel for these men, even as I recognize that the final decision is the woman's.

In particular, men don't have a say in this. And it's always men who bring it up and think it's their business and it's NOT. Once the sperm leaves their body, their choice has been made.

Its' not always men who bring it up; far from it. Many women have very strong feelings about it and don't believe it's a choice that should be available.

And certainly the state has no business in the wombs of the nation.

It does in so far that it pays for the procedure, does it not? Certainly the state has a right to govern and protect the rights of a would-be child. A woman who gives birth and leaves the baby to die is prosecuted, so do you think it would make it all right if she aborted that same viable fetus before it left the womb? What about when a woman goes into labor - is it still ok to abort? These, I believe, are issues that are the state's business.

#32 dre

dre

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,181 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 02:44 PM

I'm not really against this...

Canada has no abortion laws.

It's not that it is illegal.
It's not that it is legal.

It's just not legislated. It's a grey area without any limits.


Many civilized nations won't give abortions when the baby could survive outside of the womb (24 weeks).

In Canada, you could abort the baby the day before it is born...


Personally, if people want to abort, I say sure. I mean, it's really just darwin at work, limiting those genes from the gene pool.

But, maybe we should have some ethical/sensible limits on it.



But, maybe we should have some ethical/sensible limits on it.


If a need for them arises then sure. But so far our system is to train ethical doctors and handle those as decisions between the doctor and the parent. And from what I can tell these super late term abortions rarely even happen.

Why on earth would you even wanna pay a bunch of politicians to have this discussion? We have lots of real pressing problems for them to work on...

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer that a stranger
 


#33 fellowtraveller

fellowtraveller

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,830 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 03:24 PM

Certainly the state has a right to govern and protect the rights of a would-be child. A woman who gives birth and leaves the baby to die is prosecuted, so do you think it would make it all right if she aborted that same viable fetus before it left the womb? What about when a woman goes into labor - is it still ok to abort? These, I believe, are issues that are the state's business.

You are speaking from the American perspective, which is a legal viewpoint. The Candian view is that it is a medical procedure, period. We don't get involved as leguislators in medical procedures. It drives the prolife crew here completely bananas, they just cannot get any legal traction at all.
Would- be -children are what, exactly?
What is a viable fetus? One minute? One day? a sperm? an egg? any piece of human DNAS that could be cloned?

Our local abortion clinic(who do all routine abortions, the hospitals don't do any) does not do late term abortions for-wait for it- medical reasons, they are not set up for serious surgery like that.
And hospitals very rarely do them, generally only in cases where there is real risk to the mother.
The government should do something.

#34 Guest_American Woman_*

Guest_American Woman_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 April 2012 - 04:43 PM

You are speaking from the American perspective, which is a legal viewpoint.

I'm speaking from my perspective, which is my viewpoint.

The Candian view is that it is a medical procedure, period. We don't get involved as leguislators in medical procedures.


By "the Canadian viewpoint," are you saying that this is what all Canadians believe? That the government is all in agreement? - at every level? - in every province? What/who, exactly, defines the Canadian view?

It drives the prolife crew here completely bananas, they just cannot get any legal traction at all.
Would- be -children are what, exactly?
What is a viable fetus? One minute? One day? a sperm? an egg? any piece of human DNAS that could be cloned?

All of your questions just confirm that there should be some legal stipulations.

Our local abortion clinic(who do all routine abortions, the hospitals don't do any) does not do late term abortions for-wait for it- medical reasons, they are not set up for serious surgery like that.
And hospitals very rarely do them, generally only in cases where there is real risk to the mother.

Why aren't hospitals set up for serious surgery like that? Surely they are set up for other serious surgeries. Does the state require that access to other serious surgeries be provided? - are there any guidelines regarding the availability of medical procedures?

#35 dre

dre

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,181 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 05:01 PM

All of your questions just confirm that there should be some legal stipulations.


No they dont. Politicians have nothing usefull to bring to that discussion. No expertise, no relevant skills etc.

These decisions should be made by medical professionals, and their patients... And that seems to work quite well, and late term abortions are extremely rare.

Theres some things the government should stay out of. Trying to legislation one groups opinion about this on everyone else would be a huge mistake, and it would just fan the flames of the culture war and make politics even more divisive. It would hurt our political system, and medical system at the same time.

The best possible people to make these decisions are already making them.


Why aren't hospitals set up for serious surgery like that?


Nobody said that.

Edited by dre, 27 April 2012 - 05:02 PM.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer that a stranger
 


#36 Savant

Savant

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 40 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 27 April 2012 - 11:01 PM

Canada has no abortion laws. It's not that it is illegal. It's not that it is legal. ... Many civilized nations won't give abortions when the baby could survive outside of the womb (24 weeks). In Canada, you could abort the baby the day before it is born...

That's the bottom line here.

Some people suugest there should be no restrictions on abortion, but there already ARE restrictions on abortion. As you noted, there isn't a doctor in the civilized world that would 'abort' (kill) an unborn child in the 9th month of pregnancy. The child would be deleivered prematurely.

Could a woman go into an abortion clinic a few days before delivery and get an abortion? No. So in reality there already are defacto 'prohibitions' regarding abortion in Canada.

The problem is that there are no rules. If there isn't a single doctor in Canada that would perform an abortion at XX weeks, then would a law that restricts abortion to that point impact a "woman's right to choose"...? (For XX you can insert whatever number that doctors agree on that they would never perform an abortion at that point or later. I left the number out on purpose so that we wouldn't get off track debating a number.)

There is a black hole in the law books right now, this is something that should be rectified.

#37 dre

dre

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,181 posts

Posted 28 April 2012 - 01:47 AM

That's the bottom line here.

Some people suugest there should be no restrictions on abortion, but there already ARE restrictions on abortion. As you noted, there isn't a doctor in the civilized world that would 'abort' (kill) an unborn child in the 9th month of pregnancy. The child would be deleivered prematurely.

Could a woman go into an abortion clinic a few days before delivery and get an abortion? No. So in reality there already are defacto 'prohibitions' regarding abortion in Canada.

The problem is that there are no rules. If there isn't a single doctor in Canada that would perform an abortion at XX weeks, then would a law that restricts abortion to that point impact a "woman's right to choose"...? (For XX you can insert whatever number that doctors agree on that they would never perform an abortion at that point or later. I left the number out on purpose so that we wouldn't get off track debating a number.)

There is a black hole in the law books right now, this is something that should be rectified.


The problem is that there are no rules.


I dont see why thats a problem if this isnt happening anyways.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer that a stranger
 


#38 Savant

Savant

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 40 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 28 April 2012 - 07:55 AM

The problem is that there are no rules.

I dont see why thats a problem if (very late term abortion) isnt happening anyways.

That cuts both ways now doesn't it? One could also say 'why is there a problem with discussing new laws' when such a proposed law would not actually ban abortion completely.

Laws are there for a reason. While no ethical doctor in Canada would extract a person's kidney and sell it, we still have laws against that. There are many more examples I could use...

In the end I really don't see why we can't have a rational discussion about the issue.

#39 The_Squid

The_Squid

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver Island

Posted 28 April 2012 - 11:12 AM

I encourage the Conservatives to open up this debate and introduce legislation on how they want the laws to be around abortion. Then let's see what happens in the next election.

#40 fellowtraveller

fellowtraveller

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,830 posts

Posted 28 April 2012 - 12:28 PM

By "the Canadian viewpoint," are you saying that this is what all Canadians believe? That the government is all in agreement? - at every level? - in every province? What/who, exactly, defines the Canadian view?

Your view is that it belongs in the courts, that has not applied here. Your viewpoint may be personal, but it is also the American approach to abortion: litigate. It is the viewpoint of the CDN Supreme Court from 1988 onward, and in the non-action by the federal govt since. Like that. Your collective love of litigation just does not carry here.

All of your questions just confirm that there should be some legal stipulations.

No, it just confirms what I saidf above about litigation. You can bet your ass and mine that prolifers in Canada would love getting anything to do with abortion into the court system. Good luck with that here sister.

Why aren't hospitals set up for serious surgery like that? Surely they are set up for other serious surgeries. Does the state require that access to other serious surgeries be provided? - are there any guidelines regarding the availability of medical procedures?

Your response does not in any way match what I stated. Please try again.
The government should do something.

#41 fellowtraveller

fellowtraveller

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,830 posts

Posted 28 April 2012 - 12:29 PM

I encourage the Conservatives to open up this debate and introduce legislation on how they want the laws to be around abortion. Then let's see what happens in the next election.

Yeah, you wish! Never happen. Nobody since the 80s has been dumb enough to go anywhere near it.
The government should do something.

#42 dre

dre

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,181 posts

Posted 28 April 2012 - 05:45 PM

That cuts both ways now doesn't it? One could also say 'why is there a problem with discussing new laws' when such a proposed law would not actually ban abortion completely.

Laws are there for a reason. While no ethical doctor in Canada would extract a person's kidney and sell it, we still have laws against that. There are many more examples I could use...

In the end I really don't see why we can't have a rational discussion about the issue.



Laws against selling kidneys address an actual problem. Theres a black market for human organs around the world.

Legislators shouldnt sit around thinking up laws about hypotheticals and what might happen. They should address actual problems.

I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer that a stranger
 


#43 bush_cheney2004

bush_cheney2004

    Senior Mocker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA! USA! USA!

Posted 28 April 2012 - 06:49 PM

Laws against selling kidneys address an actual problem. Theres a black market for human organs around the world.



Wait a minute...what happened to having total control over one's body...a la abortion on demand?

Economics trumps Virtue.
 
....Canadians rank last among top Western nations in getting to first base in the health-care system --

Even medically uninsured Americans fare better.


#44 Guest_American Woman_*

Guest_American Woman_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2012 - 03:50 AM

Your view is that it belongs in the courts, that has not applied here. Your viewpoint may be personal, but it is also the American approach to abortion: litigate. It is the viewpoint of the CDN Supreme Court from 1988 onward, and in the non-action by the federal govt since. Like that. Your collective love of litigation just does not carry here.

Oh, Canada has a real love of litigation. :lol: It's just avoiding the abortion issue by sending women to the States. Let it be our problem, eh?

No, it just confirms what I saidf above about litigation. You can bet your ass and mine that prolifers in Canada would love getting anything to do with abortion into the court system. Good luck with that here sister.

The fact that it's "not in the courts" actually means very little - other than allowing people to bury their heads in the sand. Canada doesn't even require that the weeks of gestation be recorded when an abortion is performed, yet we have Canadians saying "that just doesn't happen here!" There's absolutely no way of knowing. Ignorance is, indeed, bliss. But if you're ok with a woman being allowed to abort at any time, for any reason, that's you're prerogative - and basically, that's what Canada is allowing. And yes, I do believe that should be legislated - just as the issue of abandoning a baby at birth to die has been taken up in the courts. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if Canada doesn't ever address it. I'm beginning to see a pattern in Canada along those lines.

Your response does not in any way match what I stated. Please try again.

My response "matched" exactly what you said. It just doesn't support it. Big difference. ;)

#45 Argus

Argus

    Has more eyes than you

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yes
  • Interests:Peace, Order and Good Government

Posted 29 April 2012 - 08:37 AM

Maybe it becomes illegal after the ultrasound that determines sex?


For some reason, I don't think women will support killing future women...


They do it thousands of times a day in places like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and China.
“Public opinion, I am sorry to say, will bear a great deal of nonsense. There is scarcely any absurdity so gross, whether in religion, politics, science or manners, which it will not bear.” Ralph Waldo Emerson



Reply to this topic