63 replies to this topic

[cybercoma]

I think you mean: an abortion is not carried out in the same manner as a premature delivery; the baby is killed, despite the possibility that it could survive outside the womb. Correct? If so, then, that doesn't seem right at all.

I would like to see any proof whatsoever that this actually happens. To my understanding, less than 1% of abortion happen after 20 weeks. Survival rate at 24 weeks is still only 50/50. I just can't see many, if any, doctors carrying out abortions on foetuses that could otherwise survive.

[g_bambino]

I would like to see any proof whatsoever that this actually happens. To my understanding, less than 1% of abortion happen after 20 weeks. Survival rate at 24 weeks is still only 50/50. I just can't see many, if any, doctors carrying out abortions on foetuses that could otherwise survive.

I don't know about rates nor all the medical facts. But, in the absence of law, the decision on the part of the doctor is entirely a personal and moral one; if a doctor decides otherwise, is he held accountable in any way other than being scowled at by those who disagree with his choice? In other words, is there any law that bars the killing of a foetus removed by a medical professional from the womb before the natural birth process kicks in and which would otherwise survive?

S.242 and 243 of the Criminal Code make it a crime to kill a baby and dispose of the body after natural birth. S.287 disallows abortions carried out specifically to terminate the development of a female foetus. What else is there?

[cybercoma]

I don't know about rates nor all the medical facts. But, in the absence of law, the decision on the part of the doctor is entirely a personal and moral one; if a doctor decides otherwise, is he held accountable in any way other than being scowled at by those who disagree with his choice? In other words, is there any law that bars the killing of a foetus removed by a medical professional from the womb before the natural birth process kicks in and which would otherwise survive?

S.242 and 243 of the Criminal Code make it a crime to kill a baby and dispose of the body after natural birth. S.287 disallows abortions carried out specifically to terminate the development of a female foetus. What else is there?

I'm not really sure. Of course, as extremely pro-choice as I am, I'm not at all opposed to having a debate and finally legislating abortion. The reason I want the debate is that I think we need to protect what women have now by encoding it.

In my opinion, at any point a woman does not want to be pregnant, she ought to be able to have an abortion. However, if that fetus would survive outside of the womb, I believe she should sign the child over to adoption services, but they should still remove the child immediately from her body. At no point must we allow the law to demand that people be medically tied to another individual against their will. This opens the door for things like requiring someone to donate a kidney against their will. If you would survive without a kidney, but refuse to give one to someone that would die. The pro-life argument holds that you're murdering the kidney recipient. I don't think this should ever be the case.

[g_bambino]

{I]f [a] fetus would survive outside of the womb, I believe [the mother] should sign the child over to adoption services, but they should still remove the child immediately from her body. At no point must we allow the law to demand that people be medically tied to another individual against their will.

I was thinking something along the same lines. However, it should only happen where a medical professional has determined that there's a good chance the foetus will survive and the medical equiment necessary is available. Plus, the process of giving over the child should be no easier than it is now for any mother who wants to do so after she's naturally given birth.
[ed.: +]

Edited by g_bambino, 01 May 2012 - 08:47 AM.